Better Plan, Wisconsin

From Ontario

A Summary of new evidence:

Adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines

DOWNLOAD ENTIRE DOCUMENT BY CLICKING HERE: Summary of New Evidence on Adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines - August 2011  

by Carmen M.E. Krogh, BScPharm and Brett S. Horner, BA, CMA

Any errors or omissions contained within this document are unintentional.

August 2011

To whom it may concern

In previous communications, evidence has been provided regarding the risk of adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines (IWTs). Up to now, the siting of IWTs in Ontario is based on predictive computer modelling.

While there is ample evidence regarding adverse health effects, the conduct of human health studies to determine regulations for setbacks and noise levels that protect health is still lacking.

The purpose of this document is to inform authorities and decision makers of new evidence, including articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals which advance knowledge on the topic of adverse health effects of IWTs.

Based on the evidence compiled in this document, no further IWT projects should be approved in proximity to humans until human health studies are conducted to determine setbacks and noise levels that will ensure the health and welfare of all exposed individuals.

Furthermore where there are reports of adverse health and/or noise complaints IWTs should be decommissioned until the human health studies have been conducted to determine regulations for setbacks and noise levels that protect health.

This summary may be used and submitted by other individuals.

No financial compensation has been requested nor received for this summary.

Denial of adverse health effects

For years now, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) has denied that wind turbines can cause adverse health effects. However, based on previously known and recent information, this denial is incorrect.

A 2008 CanWEA media release informs the world “Scientists conclude that there is no evidence that wind turbines have an adverse impact on human health.”

1. None of references included in this CanWEA media release state “there is no evidence that windturbines have an adverse impact on human health.”

An April 2009 CanWEA fact sheet states “Findings clearly show that there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicating that wind turbines have an adverse impact on human health.”

2. The fact sheet contains eight references, none of which state “there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicating that wind turbines have an adverse impact on human health.”

A 2009 CanWEA convened literature review concludes “Sound from wind turbines does not pose a risk of hearing loss or any other adverse health effect in humans.”

3. However, the contents of the literature review contradict this conclusion by acknowledging IWT noise may cause annoyance, stress and sleep disturbance and as a result people may experience adverse physiological and psychological symptoms.

The literature review acknowledges possible symptoms include distraction, dizziness, eye strain, fatigue, feeling vibration, headache, insomnia, muscle spasm, nausea, nose bleeds, palpitations, pressure in the ears or head, skin burns, stress, and tension.

The above CanWEA sponsored statements which deny risk of adverse health effects are scientifically incorrect.

Assertions that IWTs do not pose a risk to human health only serve to confuse authorities and the public on the issue wind turbines and health effects. For example, Ontario Minister of Health Matthews reportedly stated “There is no evidence, whatsoever, that there is an issue related to turbines,”

4. This statement is scientifically incorrect. July 2011 Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) Decision, Ontario
As noted above, the CanWEA sponsored Colby et al. (2009) literature review stated “Sound from wind turbines does not pose a risk of hearing loss or any other adverse health effect in humans.”

5. Three of the co-authors of this statement, Drs. Colby, Leventhall, and McCunney testified on behalf of the Respondents (Ministry of Environment, Suncor Energy Services Inc.) during an Ontarian Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT). Evidence provided at the ERT demonstrated the above statement authored by the
CanWEA sponsored panel experts is incorrect.

The July 2011 ERT decision for an IWT project in Ontario 6 confirmed IWTs can harm humans:

“While the Appellants were not successful in their appeals, the Tribunal notes that their involvement and that of the Respondents, has served to advance the state of the debate about wind turbines and human health.

This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.” (p. 207)

Evidence and testimony provided to the ERT by witnesses called by the Appellants served to advance understanding of IWT induced health impacts.

It is now acknowledged that IWTs do pose a risk of adverse health effect in humans if they are improperly sited.

All ten of the witnesses called upon by the Appellants were qualified as expert witnesses. The expert witnesses called upon by the Appellants have been involved in original research on the health effects of IWTs and/or have had related articles accepted in peer reviewed scientific journals.

During the ERT expert witnesses for both the Respondents and the Appellants provided evidence and/or testimony which acknowledged IWTs sound is perceived to be more annoying than transportation noise or industrial noise at comparable sound pressure levels.

Peer reviewed articles and other references acknowledge annoyance to be an adverse health effect. (Pedersen & Persson Waye, 2007 7; Michaud et al. 2005 8; Health Canada, 2005 9; Suter, 1991 10)

During the ERT expert witnesses for both the Respondents [11, 12 , 13 , 14] and the Appellants provided evidence and/or testimony which acknowledge annoyance to be a health effect.

Research confirms for chronically strong annoyance a causal chain exists between the three steps health–strong annoyance–increased morbidity [15] and must be classified as a serious health risk. [16]

During the ERT expert witnesses for both the Respondents and the Appellants provided evidence and/or testimony which acknowledged IWTs “will” cause annoyance, which can result in stress related health impacts including sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering when awake or asleep, and depression.

During the ERT witnesses for both the Respondents and/or the Appellants provided evidence and/or testimony which indicate plausible causes of these health effects include: IWT amplitude modulation, audible low frequency sound, infrasound, tonality, lack of nighttime abatement, shadow flicker, visual impact, economic impacts or a combination thereof.

It is acknowledged Ontario regulations and/or noise guidelines will not protect all individuals from these health impacts.

A 2010 final draft report prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) states: “The audible sound from wind turbines, at the levels experienced at typical receptor distances in Ontario, is nonetheless expected to result in a non-trivial percentage of persons being highly annoyed.

As with sounds from many sources, research has shown that annoyance associated with sound from wind turbines can be expected to contribute to stress related health impacts in some persons.” [17]

MOE documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request confirm current Ontario IWT guidelines will cause adverse effects. One 2010 MOE internal memorandum states:

“It appears compliance with the minimum setbacks and the noise study approach currently being used to approve the siting of WTGs will result or likely result in adverse effects contrary to subsection 14(1) of the EPA” [18]

Another MOE reference documents Ontario families that have abandoned their homes due to sleep disturbance caused by exposure to wind farms. [19] Sleep disturbance is an adverse health effect.

MOE correspondence also documents families that have moved out of their homes and have made financial settlements with the respective IWT developer. [20]

Based on original research in Ontario, and elsewhere, a peer reviewed article states: “It is acknowledged that IWTs, if not sited properly, can adversely affect the health of exposed individuals. In addition to physiological and psychological symptoms there are individuals reporting adverse impacts, including reduced well-being, degraded living conditions, and adverse societal and economic impacts. These adverse impacts culminate in expressions of a loss of fairness and social justice.

The above impacts represent a serious degradation of health in accordance with commonly accepted definitions of health as defined by the WHO and the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion.” [21]

August 2011 peer reviewed articles published in a scientific journal

Subsequent to the July Ontario ERT decision nine peer reviewed articles have been published in a special August, 2011 edition of the scientific journal, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society (BSTS). These articles explore health and social impacts of IWT installations. [22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30]

The Special Edition is entitled Windfarms, Communities and Ecosystems. Included in the special edition, is a commentary by the editor, Willem H. Vanderburg. [31]

The SAGE website states: “The goal of the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society is to provide a means
of communication within as wide of a spectrum of the STS community as possible. This includes faculty and students from sciences, engineering, the humanities, and social science in the newly emerging groups on university and college campuses, and in the high school systems, all of which teach integrative STS subject matters. It also includes professionals in government, industry and universities, ranging from philosophers and historians of science to social scientists concerned with the effects of science and technology, scientists and engineers involved with the study and policy-making of their own craft, and the concerned general leader. A third category of readers represents "society": all journalists dealing with the impacts of science
and technology in their respected fields, the public interest groups and the attentive public.” [32]

One article presents the result of WindVOiCe, an Ontario self reporting health survey that follows the principles of Health Canada for vigilance monitoring of pharmaceuticals and other products. [33]

Another article documents social justice impacts when people cannot obtain mitigation or resolution and in some cases, have abandoned their homes due to IWT exposure. [34]

An article authored by Dr. Bob Thorne documents his research on IWT noise and correlates this with reported IWT adverse health impacts. Based this field work Dr. Thorne concludes a sound level of LAeq 32 dB outside the residence is required to avoid serious harm to human health. [35]

Ontario MOE documents obtained from a Freedom of Information request support a 32 dBA sound limit for IWTs. Based on real world field investigations MOE field officers advised the Ministry about IWT adverse effects and stated “… the setback distances should be calculated using a sound level limit of 30 to 32 dBA at the receptor, instead of the 40 dBA sound level limit.” [36]

Dr. Robert McMurtry, former Dean of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, and 2011 recipient of Member of Order of Canada, published a case definition to facilitate a clinical diagnosis regarding adverse health effects and IWTs. [37]

Other articles explore topics including how to properly interpret IWT epidemiological evidence, [38] the physics of IWT noise, [39] public health ethics, [40] potential IWT noise impacts on children, [41] and potential IWT infrasound sound impacts on the human ear. [42]

These articles are critical to anyone interested in the safe siting of IWTs. It is recommended that authorities and regulators obtain a copy of each of the nine articles.

Please use this link if you wish to access these articles http://bst.sagepub.com Downloads of these articles can be obtained with an individual subscription for $100. This will allow you to download these and other articles from the BSTS scientific journal.

IWT low frequency noise and infrasound

In the past some commentators have stated low frequency noise from IWTs is not an issue. Other references indicate most available evidence suggests that reported IWT health effects, such as sleeplessness and headache, are related to audible low frequency noise. [43]

A June 2011 Federal Australian Senate committee investigating IWT and adverse health effects report recommended: “… noise standards adopted by the states and territories for the planning and operation of rural wind farms should include appropriate measures to calculate the impact of low frequency noise and vibrations indoors at impacted dwellings.” [44]

A June 2011 peer reviewed article on IWT low frequency noise is available. [45]

The abstract states:
As wind turbines get larger, worries have emerged that the turbine noise would move down in frequency and that the low-frequency noise would cause annoyance for the neighbors. The noise emission from 48 wind turbines with nominal electric power up to 3.6 MW is analyzed and discussed. The relative amount of low-frequency noise is higher for large turbines (2.3–3.6 MW) than for small turbines ([1] 2 MW), and the
difference is statistically significant. The difference can also be expressed as a downward shift of the spectrum of approximately one-third of an octave. A further shift of similar size is suggested for future turbines in the 10-MW range.

Due to the air absorption, the higher low-frequency content becomes even more pronounced, when sound pressure levels in relevant neighbor distances are considered. Even when A-weighted levels are considered, a substantial part of the noise is at low frequencies, and for several of the investigated large turbines, the one-third-octave band with the highest level is at or below 250 Hz. It is thus beyond any doubt that the lowfrequency part of the spectrum plays an important role in the noise at the neighbors.”

Annoyance from audible low frequency noise is acknowledged to be more severe in general. Low frequency noise does not need to be considered loud for it to cause annoyance and irritation. [46] Low frequency noise causes immense suffering to those who are unfortunate to be sensitive to it [47] and chronic psychophysiological damage may result from long-term exposure to low-level low frequency noise. [48]

Some symptoms associated with exposure to low frequency noise include annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headaches, difficulty concentrating, irritability, fatigue, dizziness or vertigo, tinnitus, anxiety, heart ailments and palpitation. [49 , 50, 51]

Møller and Pedersen, (2011) indicate IWT low frequency noise is more of an issue for large turbines of 2.3 MW and up. [52] However low frequency noise from smaller turbines (ie 1.5MW) can also cause adverse health effects.

Freedom of Information documents obtained from the MOE document low frequency noise issues from smaller IWTs (i.e., 1.5 MW) at Ontario wind farms.

The MOE documents how IWT low frequency noise caused a home to be “uninhabitable” resulting in family members abandoning trying to sleep there. [53] For further discussion see Krogh (2011) [54] and Thorne (2011). [55]

Research on the potential impacts of IWT infrasound has been published in two peer-reviewed scientific journals (Salt and Hullar, 2010 56, Salt and Kaltenbach, 2011 57). These articles conclude that it is scientifically possible that infrasound from IWTs could affect people living nearby and more research is needed.

Wind Turbines Noise, Fourth International Meeting

During the Rome Conference Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome Italy 12-14 April 2011, there were a number of presentations documenting IWT noise issues.

The Wind Turbine Noise (2011) post-conference report states:

“The main effect of daytime wind turbine noise is annoyance. The night time effect is sleep disturbance. These may lead to stress related illness in some people. Work is required in understanding why low levels of wind turbine noise may produce affects which are greater than might be expected from their levels.” [58]

A number of conference papers addressed human health impacts of IWTs. For example one research team conducted a study which demonstrated those living in the immediate vicinity of IWTs scored worse than a matched control group in terms of physical and environmental health related quality of life (HRQOL). [59]

The Ontario ERT expert witnesses for both the Respondents and the Appellants provided evidence and/or testimony which acknowledged IWT amplitude modulation and/or audible low frequency noise are probable causes of IWT adverse health effects.

Research related to low frequency noise “…confirms the importance of fluctuations as a contributor to annoyance and the limitation of those assessment methods, which do not include fluctuations in the assessment.” [60]

In addition, the World Health Organization states: “Noise measures based solely on LAeq values do not adequately characterize most noise environments and do not adequately assess the health impacts of noise on human well-being.

It is also important to measure the maximum noise level and the number of noise events when deriving guideline values. If the noise includes a large proportion of low-frequency components, values even lower than the guideline values will be needed, because low-frequency components in noise may increase the adverse effects considerably. When prominent low-frequency components are present, measures based on A-weighting are inappropriate.” [61]

Consultants for the Ontario MOE, Aercoustics, submitted a paper at the Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise which states: “Sound emissions from operating wind farms frequently give rise to noise complaints. Most compliance-based noise audits measure hourly “A”-weighted Leq, thereby removing the low-frequency contents of the wind turbine sound.

The metric is also insensitive to amplitude modulation and is unsatisfactory when sensitive receptor are annoyed by the low frequency sound and amplitude modulation.”[62]

Current Ontario guidelines are based on the A-Weighted Leq metric and hence must be considered unsatisfactory to protect individuals from the health impacts of IWT amplitude modulation and/or low frequency noise.

The need for research

The authors of a Canadian Wind Energy Association sponsored report state they do not “advocate for funding further studies.” [63]

The April 2011 Wind Turbine Noise post–conference report states: “Work is required in understanding why low levels of wind turbine noise may produce affects which are greater than might be expected from their levels.” [64]

A June 2011 Australian Senate committee investigating IWT and adverse health effects report recommended:
“… the Commonwealth Government initiate as a matter of priority thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health. This research must engage across industry and community, and include an advisory process representing the range of interests and concerns.”[65]

The July 2011 Ontario ERT decision also acknowledged that more research is needed. [66] “Just because the Appellants have not succeeded in their appeals, that is no excuse to close the book on further research. On the contrary, further research should help resolve some of the significant questions that the Appellants have raised." (p. 207)

International experts who have conducted original research and/or published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals confirm that research is required.[67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ,73 , 74 , 75, 76]

Inappropriate use of literature reviews

Literature reviews can be useful tools for summarizing existing literature related to a particular topic. In order to be considered reliable a literature review must be complete, accurate, and objective.

In recent years a number of literature reviews have been produced which purport to explore the health effect of IWTs. Some literature reviews which have been relied upon to deny IWTs can adversely affect the health of humans.

These literature reviews include Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit. (2008), [77] Colby et al, (2009), [78] Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health, (2010), [79] and the National Health and Medical Research Council
(Australia) (2010). [80] None of these literature reviews have been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Reliance on these literature reviews is inappropriate as they contain errors of omission and/or commission and are neither convincing nor authoritative. Many of the conclusions are incomplete, inaccurate, lack objectivity and consequently only serve to confuse the issue of IWT health effects.

For example, these literature reviews limit their discussion to direct effects using qualifiers such as “direct physiopathological effects” or “direct causal links”.

Failure to carefully evaluate the indirect causal pathways and the psychological harm of IWT exposure represent errors of omission. Annoyance, sleep disturbance, cognitive and emotional response, and stress are health effects that occur through the indirect pathway. [81]

The health outcomes associated with the indirect pathway are significant: “Physiological experiments on humans have shown that noise of a moderate level acts via an indirect pathway and has health outcomes similar to those caused by high noise exposures on the direct pathway. The indirect pathway starts with noise-induced disturbances of activities such as communication or sleep.” [82]

The Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal expressed concern that the Director for the MOE relied on references which did not address the indirect pathway. [83]

As a consequence of their weaknesses some literature reviews have been criticized for their poor quality.

In March 2011, the Chief Executive Officer of National Health and Medical Research Council stated regarding their July 2010 literature review: “We regard this as a work in progress. We certainly do not believe that this question has been settled. That is why we are keeping it under constant review. That is why we said in our review that we believe authorities must take a precautionary approach to this.” [84]

Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit (2008), [85] Colby et al, December 2009, [86] Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health (2010), 87 share many of the same weaknesses as National Health and Medical Research Council (2010). [88]

These literature reviews cannot be relied for Renewable Energy Applications and/or Renewable Energy Approvals to support the contention there is no evidence that IWTs can cause adverse health effects. For detailed analysis of some of these literature reviews visit www.windvigilance.com

Conclusion

Based on the best available evidence the following conclusions can be made

1. The Canadian Wind Energy Association sponsored statements that IWTs do not pose a risk of adverse health effects in humans are scientifically incorrect.

2. Experts who have conducted original research and/or published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals confirm IWTs can harm human health if they not sited properly.

3. Acknowledged adverse health effects include: annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering when awake or asleep.

Other adverse impacts include reduced well-being, degraded living conditions, and adverse societal and economic impacts. These adverse impacts culminate in expressions of a loss of fairness and social justice.

4. The above impacts in conclusion 3 represent a serious degradation of health in accordance with commonly accepted definitions of health as defined by the WHO and the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion.

5. It is expected that at typical setbacks and with the noise study approach currently being used in Ontario to approve the siting of IWTs, a non trivial percentage of exposed individuals will experience serious degradation of health.

6. Harm to human health can be avoided with science based regulations based on research conducted on human response to IWT exposure.

7. Experts who have conducted original research and/or published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals confirm that research is required to establish scientifically based IWT regulations to protect human health.

8. Until scientifically based research has been conducted IWTs should not sited in proximity to human habitation.

Respectfully submitted,
Carmen Krogh, BScPharm
Ontario, Canada
krogh@email.toast.net

Brett Horner, BA, CMA
Ontario, Canada
brett_horner@toast.net

NOTE: Full list of numbered references are on the original document: DOWNLOAD IT BY CLICKING HERE: Summary of New Evidence on Adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines - August 2011 

From Ontario

MINISTRY MEMO SAYS NOISE LIMIT TOO HIGH FOR ONTARIO TURBINES

SOURCE: Postmedia News, www.windsorstar.com

August 15, 2011

By Don Butler,

OTTAWA — Ontario regulations permit wind turbines to produce too much noise, says an internal memo written by a provincial Ministry of the Environment official who recommended a sharp reduction in allowable levels.

The April 2010 memo, written by Cameron Hall, a senior environmental officer in the ministry’s Guelph district office, was obtained through Freedom of Information and released Monday by Wind Concerns Ontario, a coalition of 58 grassroots anti-wind groups in Ontario.

The memo concludes that the current limit of 40 decibels should be reduced to 30 to 32 decibels. In the opinion of ministry officers, that level of sound “would not cause or be likely to cause adverse effects” for residents living near turbines, it says.

Reducing noise standards to that level would require the province to significantly increase its current 550-metre minimum setback for turbines from surrounding buildings.

John Laforet, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, said Hall’s conclusions were “based on scientific analysis and fieldwork done by the ministry. This isn’t some wind opponent saying it.”

But Jonathan Rose, a spokesman for Environment Minister John Wilkinson, said the 40 decibel standard is what the World Health Organization suggests to protect human health.

“Our noise limit is tougher than California, Minnesota, New York, France, Denmark and Germany, just to name a few,” Rose said. “All this information was already examined by the Environmental Review Tribunal, an independent, quasi-judicial body which ruled that wind farm projects in Ontario are safe.”

Release of the memo marks the start of what Wind Concerns Ontario is dubbing its “WindyLeaks” campaign, a reference to WikiLeaks, the website that released hundreds of thousands of leaked government documents and e-mails earlier this year.

Laforet said FOI requests by his group have produced “1,200 pages of embarrassment” for the government of Premier Dalton McGuinty. Between now and the Oct. 6 provincial election, the coalition plans to release more damaging memos it has obtained, he said.

“We want Ontarians to know that this multi-billion-dollar program is based on absolute lies,” Laforet said, adding that some of the documents will be released in “vulnerable Liberal ridings” to encourage voters to punish incumbents.

Industrial wind turbines, which have proliferated in Ontario thanks to the government’s green energy agenda, have emerged as a wedge election issue in rural parts of the province. Some who live near wind farms say the turbines are affecting their health, their property values and their enjoyment of their surroundings.

In his memo, Hall says Ontario’s current minimum setback for turbines was based on the assumption that the “sound contamination” they emit does not have a “tonal quality or a cyclic variation quality.”

But that “is not supported by our field observations,” he writes. Ministry officers at the Melancthon Ecopower Centre wind plant have confirmed residents’ complaints that the turbines produce a “blade swoosh” sound.

According to a 2008 ministry guideline, such sounds should trigger a five-decibel “penalty,” the memo notes, reducing the allowable maximum to 35 decibels. To take account of measurement errors, that should be further reduced to between 30 and 32 decibels, it says.

But Rose said the ministry already regularly applies a five-decibel penalty for any project with a transformer.

Hall’s memo also says the sound level limits used to establish the 550-metre setback “fail to recognize the potential quietness of some rural areas. As a consequence, meeting the minimum sound level limits may still result in significant sound contamination levels intruding into the rural environment.”

SECOND STORY

From Pennsylvania

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The high number of turbine related bat kills in Pennsylvania continue to make headlines. But here's the real news: according to the most recent post-construction mortality studies, the number of bats being killed by turbines in our state is twice as high as the mortality rate in Pennslyvania. Wisconsin's wind turbine bat kill rate is the highest in North America, over ten times the national average. The numbers are not sustainable. So what is being done about it? As far as Better Plan can tell, the answer is nothing. Nothing at all. No environmental group has stepped in and the media seems to be disinterested.

WIND TURBINES COULD HAVE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES

SOURCE: The Daily American, www.dailyamerican.com

August 15, 2011

By JACK BUCHAN

In an article published Aug. 3, (The Wind industry is doing all it can to protect birds and bats), Stu Webster of wind turbine developer Iberdrola Renewables shamefully attempts to legitimize the wind industry’s blanket extermination of bat populations across Pennsylvania.

When built on our forested ridge tops, wind turbines attract and kill bats by the tens of thousands. The Pennsylvania Game Commission recently issued a report that found:

o Bats are killed by a condition called barotrauma. Lights on turbines attract insects, which in turn attract bats which fly close to the blades, where they experience a rapid drop in air pressure, causing their lungs to burst.

o 420 wind turbines in Pennsylvania killed more than 10,000 bats last year – an average of 25 bats per turbine. This number is low because only about 30 percent of the carcasses under a turbine are recovered for counting.

o Bats are an extremely important Keystone species, as they control bug populations. As bat populations go down, bug populations go up and farmers must apply more pesticides. One bat will consume as many as 500 insects in one hour, or nearly 3,000 insects in one night. A colony of just 100 bats may consume a quarter of a million mosquitoes and other small insects in a night. If one turbine kills 25 bats in a year, that means one turbine accounted for about 17 million uneaten bugs in 2010.

o If bat populations are reduced, additional chemical pesticides will be dumped into our environment.

These facts are undisputable, yet wind developers persist in trying to build turbines in the middle of prime bat habitat where entire populations will be destroyed. The short-sighted callous disregard and irresponsibility shown by the wind industry is appalling.

Iberdrola’s sidekick, Gamesa, continues with its efforts to build 30 turbines on Shaffer Mountain in the middle of a maternity colony of the critically endangered Indiana bat. This maternity colony will be wiped out should the turbines go in. To show you just how Gamesa is “doing all it can to protect birds and bats,” they have applied for a permit with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to allow them to kill this endangered animal that is protected by the Endangered Species Act.

They are “so concerned” about the Indiana bat that they continue with their attempts to circumvent the Endangered Species Act so they can build turbines that will exterminate this maternity colony of a critically endangered species.

Voluntarily working with state agencies to monitor and study bat mortality from turbines does absolutely nothing to save critically impacted bat populations from decimation. While the Pennsylvania Game Commission requires bat surveys before and after turbines are built and wildlife authorities require mitigation efforts – bats still die.

The typical pattern in Pennsylvania has been for the developer to promise all sorts of mitigation efforts before construction. The Department of Environmental Protection grants permits, the project is built and horrendous bat mortality occurs in spite of the best mitigation efforts of the developer.

Once turbines are built, nothing effective can be done to stop the killing.

The wind industry lives in a world of taxpayer subsidies, government mandates, tax credits and regulatory preferences. It does not have to make money to survive.

Wind turbines generate only about 25 percent of the electricity claimed by developers. As a result, turbines built on the Allegheny Plateau, where winds are light and variable, are not economically viable. Sixty-five percent of the cost of a $3 million wind turbine is eventually paid by taxpayers because wind turbines cannot generate enough electricity to pay for themselves.

In addition, school districts in some of the poorest locales in Pennsylvania are denied tax dollars because wind turbines are exempt from paying school taxes. That’s right, the most expensive real estate in the county pays zero school taxes, while the burden is shifted to individual property owners, many of which are retired or on fixed incomes.

In times like these when school funding is being cut, federal and state governments and school districts are broke, and people are finding it harder to make ends meet – our tax dollars are being wasted to support an industry that can’t make it on its own. And when there are no more tax dollars to hand out, our government borrows, plunging our country deeper into debt to subsidize an industry that may be the greatest scam of our age.

In the end, if wind development is allowed to continue on our forested ridge tops, wasted tax dollars and millions of dead bats will be the least of our worries. Our children and grandchildren will be left the legacy of higher cancer and birth defect rates caused by the dumping of millions of tons of additional chemical pesticides into their environment – pesticides that will be required to produce the food they eat when bat populations are decimated.

Recent sign posted in the Brown County Town of Glenmore

"You’re setting yourself up for trouble, okay?"

-March 7, 2011: Wind developer to Town Board of Glenmore after Board moves to delay permitting project for 60 days.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

One of the most eye-opening documents we've seen comes from a resident of the Town of Glenmore in Brown County who sent us a partial transcript of video and audio recording made during the March 2011 Town meeting regarding the granting of permits to a wind developer.

  The developer is running out of time. The production tax credit deal runs out at the end of 2012 and if they miss the deadline they'll lose millions. When the board decides to postpone permitting the developers become angry.

"We could have put court injunctions in place to force you, but we never did, okay?"-March 7, 2011: Wind developer to Town Board of Glenmore after Board moves to delay permitting project for 60 days.

We're presenting this transcript exactly as it came to us and we thank the resident who allowed Better Plan to post it.

Setting the scene: Watch clips from the meeting by clicking on the image below. The story makes the local news after town chairman calls the cops on protesting residents. Chairman Kittell is in the red shirt.

March 7, 2011 Glenmore Town Board Meeting: 

Building Permits for Prelude/CEnergy

Transcript demonstrates how board has handled the public in this matter, rejecting the pleas of state officials as well.  Please watch the video entirely and take note of developers private comments to the board on the audio tape which was recorded by Lana Ossmann, Glenmore Town Clerk. 

Andre Jaques, WI state assembly rep:  Gives update from Madison and addresses issue of conditional use permits/retroactivity of new wind ordinance. 

Rick Loppnow, Glenmore Resident, Farmer: opinion against wind turbines.  Infringing on property rights.  Moral question.  Asks turbine-opposing residents to stand up, then questions the board who they really represent

Don Kittell, Glenmore Town Chairman:  10:23:  had no choice in the matter, the attorneys for Prelude came in and said that the board had no choice but to put these up because of the state government they were working with.  (??)

 

11:03,  Lana Ossman, Glenmore Town Clerk:   The gentlemen who was just up here is John Vanderleest and he was asked by Senator Lasee to be here.

 

Don Kittell: I think we’re done

 

Resident:  Let him talk.

 

Don Kittell:  This is a meeting, not a public hearing.  

 

People get upset, Kittell gives in.

 

John Vanderleest, representing Senator Frank Lasee: Reiterates the suspension of PSC Ruling 128, on the basis of emergency for public health, safety, and welfare. John expresses Senator Lasee’s deep concern for the people of Glenmore and asks for the board to consider their new wind ordinance and the suspension of the PSC Ruling. 

 

Don Kittell:  rebuttles and disagrees with John.

 

16:45 Don Kittell:  makes a motion to accept CG power solutions who bought out Prelude.   Motion carried and accepted.   Issue is raised by the town attorney that there are a few more documents that need completion for the building permits to be approved. 

 

18:26 Don Kittell:  I make the motion, with the few changes that Bob stated, to go ahead with the building permit.   Motion made and seconded. 

 

Resident:  You’re going to do that to your citizens here? 

 

Don Kittell:  Well don’t holler at us, holler at da state. 

 

Residents:  This is ridiculous. 

 

18:53  Residents start protesting and chanting “No Permits, No Permits.”   

 

Don Kittell:  calls 911 on the people for getting out of hand. People continue to civilly protest.   

 

Don Kittell:  Motion is made and seconded that we grant the building permits. 

 

People start protesting again.   Ron Nowak votes ‘no’ against the permits. 

 

Don Kittell: Motion made and carried.  (Chris Schmidt, town supervisor, never had an audible vote, Kittell passes it anyhow and moves on with the meeting despite people protesting and chanting) .  

 

26:50 – good protests and pleading by the residents. Must listen.    “Why would you experiment with your own people when you know there are big questions..”  Kittell closes the meeting.  

 

Pat Kolarik, Glenmore Resident: talks about the three families who are already suffering and why would the board want to pull the trigger on others.    Talks about the state rebuking the wind turbine progress, so why would we not err on the side of waiting.  Begs to reconsider.. 

 

31:40 Don Kittell: Where I’m comin from, the state made a law 5, I don’t know how many years ago it was and we granted a CUP 4 years ago on that.  I don’t know what else we can do. 

 

John Vanderleest:  The state knows a lot more now than they did when this act 40 was created…. Obviously now the state is trying to go back and make it better for residents knowing that there are issues… They wanted to stop to make the rules even more difficult and you’re going below the state standard that was in place that the state is now going to amend and go higher, so I just don’t understand how that can make the residents safe in your area. 

 

Don Kittell:  where was da state? (On and on with the same argument about the state)..

 

John Vanderleest:  tries to tell Kittell the state’s view is different, again, given the evidence

 

Don Kittell: why didn’t the shut everything down then?  They didn’t.  (He’s missing the point and trying to avoid the issue that he has the chance to stop the building permits right now)

 

Around 35:00- Andre Jaques explains the actions at the state for the town board and answers question of the town board.

 

39:31 Elaine Kittell- so who is going to pay the lawsuit because we’re going to get sued because we’re not allowing them to follow the ordinance that was in place at the time they got their permits.  (how does she know this?)

 

Issues brought up regarding comments made by Rick Stadlman needing to follow the old ordinance that the Prelude turbines must go up.  Question brought to Andre Jaques who speaks on retroactive issues.   Don Kittell makes a few rebuttles and rouses the crowd and takes a few shots at the state and Andre to distract from having to rescind the motion.

 

43:10  Jon Morehouse, Morrison Resident-  the conditional use that was granted is right here. Number 16 says any significant change or substation of the wind energy facility as shown, that the application requires that a new conditional use permit be obtained.  Is there any question about that?  Here it is right on the book, in black and white. Why then are you giving them two permits based on a conditional use .. .. (interruption by Don Kittell) that did not contain significant piece of information correctly that was brought to you in December, the fact that gl-518 was supposed to have a turbine and was mislabeled. The fact that you have a legal name on a piece of land is very significant. That also would bring that conditional use permit back to six turbines, not seven, you’re going for seven.  It’s not on here, where is it. You can deny that permit based on the fact that this is not correct.  You can deny it.  Never mind the state, never mind anything else, you can deny it right here (applause).

 

This is your choice, this is not the state, you’re copin’ out.  This is your choice, your doing.  Live with that. 

 

Kittell:  I will

 

Rick Loppnow, Glenmore Resident:  You guys are saying you issued this conditional use permit four years ago and… if you listen to Mr. Vanderleest, Senator Lasee is trying to explain that since then the state, if the state itself, not the town of Glenmore, the state says that federal setbacks pose a potential health risk and undue hardships on residents.  On that case alone, I believe you could deny this because a public health emergency, that’s stated right in the (can’t make it out) and I ask again, who are you representing.  Are you representing the wind turbine developers or the towns people that elected you. 

 

45:40 Jim Vanden Boogart, Morrison Resident: You guys are talking about law suits and stuff and I kind of wonder if you’d rather spend the town’s money defending the town or fighting against your own people. .

 

Jon Morehouse, Morrison resident:  There is a legal term called the “Precautionary Principle”, that is recognized in courts, our lands, and others, the Precautionary Principle protects people from potential health and safety issues.  That’s exactly what these industrial wind turbines are doing with people.  You can hang your hat on that and it’s not a shameful thing for these turbine people to sue a town because they’re not getting their permits. Let em do it.  Let the people pay that lawsuit as opposed to having to pay against their own selves.

 

Don Kittell:  goes on about where is the town going to get the money for a lawsuit.

 

Rick Loppnow, Glenmore Resident:  Don, you’re going to have a lawsuit either way. 

 

Don Kittell:  Fine!

 

Rick Loppnow:  Then why would you choose to go with the wind turbine companies?   Would you rather be sued by the wind turbine company out of Chicago, or would you rather be sued by your neighbors and friends.

 

Nancy Peotter, Glenmore Resident:  You don’t have to ignore the science, the science is out there now. She goes on about scientific research as evidence and uses national examples to support her opinion.

 

50:00 Pat Kolarik, Glenmore Resident:  That’s all these people are saying Don….  The joint review committee for the state said this is an emergency.  Their decision is based on an emergency…. It says the Joint Committee suspended the public service commission rules, and I quote, Senator Lasee quote, ‘on the basis of testimony received at a Feb. 9, 2011 meeting, on the grounds that the content of PSC Chapter 128 create an emergency relating to public health, safety, and welfare, are arbitrary and capricious and impose an undue hardship on landowners and residents adjacent to wind turbine sites as stated in section 227.19.  So that was their decision, that’s what they came up with, that it is an emergency.  So you have a right.  And what the folks are saying at this point that if the wind turbine companies want to sue, let em sue because the flip side is, the people that are being harmed or if their land’s taken away, they’re going to sue, so the town board’s the first line of defense to protect it’s people.  You’re the first line of defense.  The state says, it creates an emergency.  Now I know what they said 4 years ago, 4 minutes ago. 

 

Don Kittell:  6 years ago!  And they didn’t care and they still don’t!!!  (He’s not listening to anything)

 

Protests from residents

 

Don Kittell:  they’re awfully slow learning 

 

Resident:  Yeah but, Donny, look how long it’s taking you to get it. 

 

Don Kittell:  I still didn’t!

 

52:49 Pat Kolarik, Glenmore Resident: It’s not anything to do with you guys, what decisions you made before. We have to look at today.  There’s more measurement out there, and if nothing else, and Lana, you got the list for God’s sakes, there’s three families on there that are suffering problems.  They’re our neighbors!  So we’ve got the measurement on 8 turbines that haven’t even been up 4 months.  That should be enough. 

 

Don Kittell:  Who’s ta list, why didn’t dey call me? 

 

Grumblings from residents

 

Resident:  My Father called you.

 

Don Kittell:  he called me and I told him to talk to the wind turbine company.  And if you remember, I asked him why he didn’t speak to the wind turbine people.  

 

Speaker who’s parents are residents:  (hard to make out) My mother suffered with pressure on the ears, headaches.  My father had issues with that – agitation,   (hard to make out, air conditioning noise)  … My parents may not be able to stay because of this,…. I just hope they can put off the vote for a few more months until more info is gathered and the state has more information… that is my concern.  (applause)

 

Jon Morehouse, Morrison Resident: Don, your town attorney is sitting right here, having had him witness what’s going on, maybe we could as what’s his take right now.. from the town’s aspect, not Don’s aspect. 

 

Attoney Gagon refuses to comment.

 

Attendants plead to open the meeting again.

 

Cliff Hammond, Morrison Resident: Your lawyer just made a comment that he works for the town board, who does the town board work for?     I thought you worked for the people that elected you to cover their butts?

Watch their back, not let em get sick, any kind of injuries or problem from the wind turbines?  You’re not doin’ that. Don, you said a few minutes ago that you were getting forced into doing this. Any force I see coming from you has been your own mind. Your townspeople don’t want you to do it. Nobody else wants you to do it.  The three or four representatives from the wind turbine people want you to do it. You want to do it because I think it’s your last act of defiance because you’re not running for town chairman again, is that what it is?  Or do you want to represent the people that put you in that office for 32 years?  I think you should reconvene this meeting, have a revote, and vote your conscience, not what you think you want to do as (hard to make out)

 

57: 35 Residents start asking for a revote, questioning by the attendant whose parents are going to have to leave their home.

 

Resident:  What is the reason you need to make a choice tonight? 

 

Don Kittell:  Four years. 

 

Rick Loppnow, Glenmore Resident:  I spoke with all three members of the town board this weekend and they all told me that the turbine company wanted this done before March 1^st because they needed it for their permits and I feel that’s why the town board is making a decision tonight, they’re not looking at all of the input from the state who told about all of the health emergencies and you’re not listening. And the only reason you’re passing them tonight instead of holding off for a month or two months to see what the state does is because these people here need em passed to get their turbines up so they can start making their money.

 

Cliff Hammond, Morrison Resident:  Why don’t you poll your towns people, not everyone here, and ask them if they’d like a re-vote and if you would like to do that for them?  I think that’s the least you could do.    With the evidence that was given tonight by the representatives and the state senate- why they shot down those PSC rules, is more than enough evidence and more than enough reason to reject that building permit.  You got it in writing from the state.  You keep saying the state hasn’t done anything, they just did 3 weeks ago.  Ask your townspeople. 

 

Jeff Jens, Glenmore Resident:  Brings to attention that the turbine people are not denying that a health emergency won’t happen. 

 

Steve Deslauries, Holland town Resident: If they (the developers) were a good neighbor, were a good corporation, were good people, they would voluntarily let the town board postpone this decision for a few months until the state works it out, but you know as well as I do that these people want these things in before a state decision is because they’re afraid of what might happen.   They’re afraid that the state might side with the people of Wisconsin for a change and these good neighbors that we see IN THE ROOM, they should voluntarily, if they are truly good neighbors and good people for this community, they would voluntarily say, ‘let’s put off this decision for a couple months, we’re not going to sue you in a couple months, lets do the right thing for people in this community.  You’re not a good neighbor if you don’t do that.  I ask you to please do that.  Why do you shake your head?  Explain that shake..  No, hold it. The gentleman here is shaking his head, I’d like to understand what the thinking is behind that shake.  These people are experiencing problems with the same set backs you are proposing.  Please talk to us.  Voluntarily do it, be a good neighbor.  Be what you say you are. 

 

Pat Kolarik, Glenmore Resident:  I know that Tom Mattson said that we are all beautiful people and he doesn’t want to hurt us.  That was quoted somewhere.  March 2007 meeting.  March 2007 Tom Mattson said you are all beautiful people and I would never do anything against you.

 

1:01:00 More asking for a revote, grumbling.  What is the rush. 

 

1:03:50 Steve Deslauries, Holland town Resident:  Since day one Don, the town has been able to regulate on health and safety, it  always been the case, that’s never changed, the town has always had the power to regulate on health and safety, that has never changed. The only thing that would have changed that was the state-wide rules that were just suspended on the day they were to go in effect.  So this whole time, from 2005 to 2000 to 1995, that’s been the same thing.  The town can regulate on health and safety. You have chosen not to do so, that is not the state’s fault, that is on you guys. Now you have the chance to do this right, post-pone it.  Say no. Say that you have not risen to the level of health and safety in your township.  This is your chance to do the right thing Don.  We beg you to do it.  We beg you.   Please

 

Don Kittell:  Who decides the health and safety (can someone shoot me?)

 

Crowd becomes aggravated again and brings up the families who are having problems with the turbines. . 

 

Resident:  Your making a health and safety decision right now.  You asked the question.  You’re putting your people at risk for not having given the proper audience to the problems that occur with wind turbine deals.  You are indeed trying to make a health decision on your people. 

 

Resident: Donny, can you table the approval with the next meeting being about the health and safety with information about health and safety. the issues that are going on, some of them that were mentioned in Madison

Some of them that are mention that are somewhat measurable or measurable.  Can you table it or postpone it or give that extra month or two months? …. 

 

Lori Morehouse, Morrison Resident:  Mr. Kittell, my husband and I asked to be on the agenda for January.  We went to the first international conference on the adverse health effects of wind turbines that was last October in Ontario, Canada.  And we presented our information to the Morrison town board, and we asked to be on the agenda for this town board for January and we were denyed that.  So we would be glad to share with you what we learned at that conference.  We had doctors from all around the world telling about the adverse health effects living next to wind turbines.  And what these people getting paid. So we’d be willing 18:10 to share this information with the town board so we can get that information to you.  Thank you. 

 

1:06:47 Cliff Hammond, Morrison Resident:  I would think just as a good civil servant, if you’ve got three families that are affected, Don, if you’re saying you haven’t talked to em yet?  How can you make the decision on what’s gonna affect how many other families in your township if you don’t (coughing on tape covering voice), if you can get all three of those families in and talk to em and find out what the problem is.  Don’t keep telling em to call the wind companies, you know what they’re gonna do.  They’re gonna say, well our wind turbines don’t create any health and safety issues at all. They’ve been sayin’ that for years.  How come everybody that lives around a wind turbine farm is havin’ the same problem? Find out from the people in your town next to the 8 turbines that have only been running for 4 months,  find out what’s going on with them.  Get to the bottom of it.  You’re their civil servant, you’re their protector, you gotta do it. 

 

Resident: Don, are you suggesting that those three people are just making those stories up.  Those three families?

 

Don Kittel:  Nope. 

 

Resident:  You don’t care about em?

 

1:07:56 Don Kittell: Yep, I talked to two of em, the third one I don’t know about (but Don, earlier in the meeting you said you didn’t know of the list) They are workin’ with the wind people and the wind people are working with them.

 

Residents pleading with the board to reconsider. 

 

Steve Deslauries, Holland town Resident: We’re beggin you Don, please open up the meeting again. 

 

1:09:00 People try to convince Don Kittell to reopen the meeting, remind the board why they were elected, reiterating that the state has declared an emergency situation to suspend the rules.   Doing this in a responsible manner. No shouting.  Appealing to the board in a calm MANNER.

 

1:14:30 – Don Kittell:  What do you guys want to do

 

Supervisor:  We need to talk to the lawyer on this.  Do we put it on hold?

 

Don Kittell:  Where do we put a hold on it til?  Lawyer Bob Gagnon talks to board.  Inaudible. 

 

1:18:16  Don Kittell:  Motion to go back into the regular meeting, the second motion I am going to make is to delay this for 60 days until we hear something from the state. 

 

(applause & cheering, Kittell tells the people to settle down or they would be removed)

 

1:18:40 Developers approach the board to talk to them in a very low tone.  Audio is broken. 

 

Developer one (to the board): We patiently sat  and you guys let us speak here before you go forward with the motion, this is not a court of opinion, it’s the court of law, the law rules. You could have passed this.

 

Resident:  We can’t hear!! (They are essentially having a closed session meeting up at the front)

 

Developer One:   If we could have passed.. We could have passed this with a hundred supporters, so that … hundred supporters versus the opponents.  You’ve gotta go by law.  

 

1:19:13 Developer two:  we gave you what you wanted

 

Developer one:  We gave you exactly what you wanted

 

Developer two:  It’s not… we don’t…. it’s not.  The vote is..

 

Developer one:  There are people in this town, okay… Not even 10% showed up. The minority has control.  They make a lot of noise. Absolutely, ok? Absolutely.  Are you going to vote on the minority? Or are you gonna, on the minority? The majority is obviously accepting the way that you are governing the town otherwise they would be here telling you otherwise.  And I understand their passion about what it means about the health risks, okay, but that’s unfair to the board, they’re, they’re pandering the board when they do that.   is the next thing gonna be  that they’re going to ask the board to outlaw smoking in the town of Glenmore because cigarettes kill?  You can’t fall for the passion.  You’ve gotta apply law.  Law.  In the court of law is what rules, not the court of appeal . okay? And, and if you.. nothing’s gonna  change.  Don, you’re, don’t… accept the legislator’s (??)  And it’s biased opinion.  We kill (really, this is what he said 1:20:44) uh..opponents, and we understand that, we knew that was going to happen, we’re not afraid of that.. 

 

Developer two:  Do they understand what the vote is for? We already have our information, we already have the CUP. 

 

Developer one:  The debate is over. The debate was over years ago.  It’s law.  We purchased it because it was done. All we’re asking for is to go get my permit.  I’m not asking whether or not.. I already have this..

 

Kittell:  Shhhh. 

 

Developer one:  I do not envy the position you’re in.  Absolutely not, okay? Absolutely not.  I know the pressures you’re under, but again, 90%, 94% of your population is not here.   And the bulk is they’re satisfied with the way you guys are governing this town, the, the minority, you’ve gotta, you can’t let the minority (screw?) you the law. Who knows what the state’s gonna do, yes the wind siting was the only bill that Walker brought to the floor was knocked down, because everybody said, ‘wait a minute.. okay? We don’t like that.’  That was a (??) tax bill. (muffled) job affected by it was health.  Walker was smart enough to pull it out.  This thing is going to get fought forever.   There’s no way in a month.  In 60 days, you’re not gonna have any more permission than you have now.  I have friends with turbines in their fricken back yards.. I know the industry, I understand the industry,  we’re not a big faceless corporation, we’re here, we’re here trying to be good corporate citizens to the town of Glenmore.  Don, you and I talked.. they talked to you about,  I mean.. you and I talked.. the debate in this town, as it pertains to law has been gone through.  They had their opportunity, like you said, over many months.  We have been patiently waiting for months, patiently waiting for months for the board to recognize that we’ve completed what was asked of us. Ok?  So if they were that passionate about it, they’ve had months and months and months to kill this. Okay? So.. 

 

(Residents did show up at the meetings, brought concerns, and protested the turbines.  Please request audio tapes from Lana Ossman, town clerk, going back to mid-2006.  See attached information regarding minutes.

 

 Developer one:  If you give em the VOTE today, what’s it gonna be tomorrow? What’s it gonna be?  

 

Developer two:  well, not for you Don, you won’t be around after April.  (laughter at the table)

 

Developer Two:  We’ve already went on the record. You gave us what we want. (now it’s reversed or did they realize what they said earlier and are trying to back pedal)   

 

Developer One: Proceed with the rest of the meeting, the rest of the agenda.  It’s the law. Take the burden off, say listen, these people are coming into our town and they’re making decisions based on law.  And we’re governing based off law.  You can’t govern off of  opinion.  I don’t want any more. 

 

Developer Two: I just want what I.  I paid for it.  I paid all the fees and I just want what I came for.  

 

Developer One:  You know, I understand there’s people that hurt, playing their cards.  There’s significant scientific evidence that parts coming off brand-new cars that affects a certain percentage of the population, so what are we going to do, stop driving cars, go back to horse and carriage?  Scientific evidence that the rural farming community- the air is full of pesticides and the ground water and it’s significantly impacting.  What are we going to do?  Stop farming? Stop putting pesticides into the ground?  I’m not saying, it’s a.. purposely on somebody, but you can’t chase shadows forever.  Okay, you have to go by law.  You know, it’s not your out, but that’s your response to the people.   You hired us to govern and manage this town by the law and that’s what we’re doing.   OK? You’re charged with governing this town and protecting the public health, but the public health … you’ve gotta outlaw the legislative (???)  … toxic fumes that are coming off the fuel? Nobody in this town can smoke a cigarette within the town limits?  That’s the precedence they’re asking you to set here.  Where does it stop?  So, you’ve made your decision based on the laws.  Okay. And that’s where it’s gotta stop, right there.  Not in a court of opinion.  

 

Don Kittell: Okay, step back. 

 

Inaudible for several minutes

 

1:27:30 Motion to open up the town board meeting. 

 

1:27:44 Kriss Schmidt, Glenmore Supervisor:   I’m gonna make da motion that we delay for 60 days.  See what da state does. 

 

Ron Nowak, Glenmore Supervisor:  I’ll second that. 

 

Kittell:  Okay, motion made and seconded that we delay 60 days on this decision.  Da state hasn’t done anything, then they just start, right?

 

Lana Ossmann, Glenmore town clerk: The motion is to delay for 60 days until you hear from the state, did you want to change that to include something else or is that the end of the motion?  Delay for 60 days until you hear from the state?  Okay, reconsider..

 

Developer approaches the board: Voice one and two:  Excuse me, can I approach the board?  On what basis are you reconsidering?   For the record, I’d like to know why you’re reconsidering.  What are we missing in our documents that you’re reconsidering?  I want it on the record. 

 

Developer two: I want to know what law have we violated, what legislation have we violated,

 

Developer one: what documents are we missing?  Because you strictly (lowers voice) the board made a decision on the record, okay, and then the meeting was closed,

 

Resident:  Why don’t you have a speaker instead of being right down in front please?

 

Developer One: and based on public opinion…

 

Resident:  Don’t treat our town board like that. 

 

Developer One:  and based on public opinion you changed the rule.  You’re setting yourself up for trouble, okay? 

 

Resident: Back up so we can hear? 

 

Developer One: I don’t care if everybody heard, okay?  Listen, simply what we’re saying is.. If we were afraid of hearing what everybody said, if we were a nameless, faceless corporation, we wouldn’t come here, we’d send an attorney and say do our business for us, but that’s not what we’re about. OK?  We’re here because sincerely we want to be good corporate citizens, so most importantly, and what everybody has to understand,  I grew up in Canada, you want to see a background full of turbines, come to Ontario some time and drive down the road and just sit back and see the..

 

Short Protest by crowd. 

 

Developer One:  Just!!!!.... I quietly sat there and listened to everybody in the same respect, okay, and trust me, I’m not going to cuss at ya like some d id to me.  I’m not going to call some of the names that some did to me., okay, I’m gonna treat you with respect.  Very simply, there’s a court of opinion and a court of law. We came to the good state of Wisconsin and the town of Glenmore based on law.  Okay?  And what you’re asking the town board to do is violate law.  You voted each one of these individuals in here.   There is no law. Okay?  Their original decision was based on law, yes it was, okay? So you voted them in to represent you, okay, and not compromise the town in any way from a legal perspective, from anything else but a legal perspective and that’s what... 

 

1:30 48: Resident:  You can’t isolate  (grumbling from crowd)

 

Kittell:  HOLD IT EVERYBODY!  HOLD IT!!  QUIET, UDDERWISE I’LL HAVE THE POLICE OFFICER CLEAR DA ROOM.

 

Developer One: Okay?  And that’s what they did.  And then as far as the health concerns?  Basically what you’re asking them to do, okay, is if you get enough people in a room, if you get enough people in a room and say, you know what? The toxicity of, the toxicity related to filling your car up with gas, smoking a cigarette, I assume this room is full of non-smokers, right?  I assume? Okay? so if your asking him, if you’re asking the board to represent you from health purposes?  Then you might as well ask them to outlaw cigarettes in the town of Glenmore. 

 

Groan from the crowd

 

Developer One: You might as well ask them to outlaw filling up their cars with gasoline,  NO ! it’s the same thing!

 

Resident:  Our state ruled, they just ruled.

 

Developer One:  No, there’s no rule.  

 

Crowd rebu      ttles

 

Developer One:  IF there was legislation, if there was clearly legislation that would clearly give the board a direction, Chris told you tonight, he very clearly asked, their original decision was based on law, okay? And they very patiently allowed you people to keep talking, okay,  as neighbors and friends, okay? They basically wanted to give in to that, okay? You put em in a very difficult position. 

 

Crowd gets upset

 

Resident:  Are you sayin’ you won’t give em 60 days? 

 

Steve Deslauries: Yeah, as a good corporate citizen, why would you…

 

Developer One:  What we’re saying is, when a company comes in and makes decisions based off law, okay, it’s not a matter of whether we can or can’t, you make decisions, you operate a business based on law, so the fact of the matter is we say, okay, arbitrarily we’re gonna wait. So  Is the good town of Glenmore going to give us hundreds of thousands of dollars for the cost of money while we wait for the ultimate decision that we’re gonna get cause I can guarantee you the state’s not gonna…

 

Protests from crowd   

 

Developer One:  Listen, okay?  Listen… okay?  I’m not gonna get into a debate.  I sat there and listened and I’m telling you-   There’s a court of law and there’s a court of opinon, so if we brought in a hundred people or two hundred people in this room and they all out voted you, would you expect the board just to go along.. I just said they’re making a decision based off law. 

 

1:33:42 Steve Deslauries: Now it’s your opportunity.. the prudent thing  - The state ruled there an emergency based on, hold on, health, safety, and welfare, period.  So that’s the decision of the state right now. They’re saying in 6 months, there’s going to be new rules.  So what you’re actually after today will show to the town the type of corporate citizen and how much you care about Glenmore.  The town board is asking for a very reasonable thing- 60 days.  Your actions, after tonight’s meeting will prove to the township what type of corporate citizen you are.  And if you generally care about Glenmore, all we’re saying is, the state has questioned it, now lets go do due-diligence and make sure it’s right before you move forward. 

 

Developer One: But we’ve done that. 

 

Crowd rebuttles. 

 

Developer One: We submitted in September.

 

Pat Kolarik, head of Plan Commission: And the reason you didn’t get your permit is because your documents weren’t complete 

 

Developer One: And we’ve done that, we’ve completed the documents. 

 

Pat Kolarik:  In the mean time, our state of Wisconsin, not Canada, has suspended the rules and said, do I have to say it again, do I have to read it again? that it is an emergency! They said the word ‘emergency’!  Senators and representatives from our assembly said it is an emergency!

 

Resident:  Not corporate Chicago.

 

Developer One:  our documentation was completed prior to the suspension.

 

Resident:  Now we’re doing due diligence. And we’re saying, “we don’t agree with you, we have concerns.” 

 

Developer one: and we respect that.

 

Crowd argues back. 

 

Developer One:  Where were you three years ago when the issue..

 

Crowd goes into rage because the residents were there three years ago.

 

1:35:28 Developer:  (to Don Kittell) Don, This is going to go on forever.

 

Developer Two:  This is going to go on forever

 

Developer One:  It’s not going to end in 60 days, we gave you what you wanted.

 

Developer Two:  We gave you what you wanted.

 

(Jesus, are they clones?)

 

Developer One:  Don, you promised us this wouldn’t be a debate, okay?

 

Don Kittell:  I didn’t open it up as a public hearing.  The meeting is basically closed. 

 

Someone:  you voted to open the meeting again. 

 

Developer One: I know, Don, that’s what I’m saying.

 

Pat Kolarik:  Please respect our town board and step away from their face, that is rude. 

 

Residents and crowd get very upset that the developers are talking to the board with their backs toward the audience, public can not hear what is going on, essentially a closed session at the board table.  Much yelling from crowd to speak so everyone can hear.   

 

1:36:23  Developer One:  I’m serious guys, your violating.. we.. we.. okay… answer everything…. everything asked for and provided since the beginning of the year and we respected …  WORKED with you guys.. we could have put court injunctions in place to force you, but we never did, okay? So if you’re telling us we should have done that, then the big evil.. … (someone interrupts, asking them to back up) All we’re asking you is to rule for the court of law.  That’s all we’re asking. 

 

Developer Three?: This is the courts, your ordinance in processes, that this is pretty much everything has been submitted, everything’s been considered, these.. 

 

Unknown (presumably a developer) You gave us the rules, we followed em

 

Developer One: Yeah

 

Unknown (presumably a developer): Now you’re breakin’ the rules. 

 

Developer One:  Now your tellin’ those rules we asked you to follow- We don’t like those rules?

 

Protests and a reminder to the town who they need to represent. 

 

Whispering at the board table.  Inaudible. Mention of court. Board trying to figure out how to word the rescinding of the earlier motion. 

 

1:39:40  Motion to rescind the initial motion of the meeting to approve the building permits.   Motion to delay building permit for 60 days. 

 

Applause and cheers.   

 

Proceed with the remainder of the agenda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FROM NEW YORK STATE

PRO-WIND CAPE VINCENT COUNCILMEN ATTEMPT TO STOP SEASONALS FROM VOTING

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT SOURCE: watertowndailytimes.com

August 12, 2011

By JAEGUN LEE TIMES STAFF WRITER,

CAPE VINCENT — Three pro-wind town councilmen passed a resolution Wednesday night in an illegal attempt to prevent seasonal residents from voting in upcoming local elections.

The resolution, which passed 3-2 at the regular council meeting, requires voters to show their state driver’s licenses, with a Cape Vincent address, at the polls to vote in a town election.

The motion was made by Councilman Donald J. Mason, who said the resolution was in response to a petition submitted the same night and signed by more than 200 residents that argued that “unethical, if not illegal, voting methods were implemented to manipulate” the outcome of local elections in Cape Vincent.

Mr. Mason’s motion was seconded by Councilman Marty T. Mason, and Councilman Mickey W. Orvis cast the deciding vote, despite several attempts from fellow board members to persuade the three not to pass an illegal measure.

“I think this is just garbage,” said Councilman Brooks J. Bragdon, who voted “no” along with Supervisor Urban K. Hirschey. “This law here frivolously overrules an existing law that is run competently by the Board of Elections in Watertown and I don’t think we have, even remotely, the right to do that.”

Supervisor Hirschey strongly advised the three councilmen to seek legal consultation from town attorney Mark G. Gebo before taking a vote.

“Do you want to be putting yourselves in jeopardy by voting on something that’s illegal?” Mr. Hirschey asked. “It’s up to the voter to decide where he wants to vote.”

Mr. Bragdon pointed out that seasonal residents easily outnumbered year-round residents — with approximately 5,200 seasonal and 2,700 year-round residents in the town of Cape Vincent.

“I think the people who have come here and invested a substantial amount of capital or a high percentage of everything that they own have the right to express themselves on issues that exist in Cape Vincent,” Mr. Bragdon said. “The issue has become redolent of self-interest, redolent of wind, redolent of getting money directly for oneselves, and with all respect for my board members, they should not be running for office and they should not be proposing a vote to curtail (seasonal) votes, in their favor.”

Councilmen Marty and Donald Mason, who are seeking re-election this November, both have leases with wind farm developers.

The petition that sparked the debate was submitted by Harold L. Wiley, who started gathering signatures after learning that a recent voter registration drive resulted in more than 200 seasonal residents signing up to vote in the September Republican primary and November general election.

“In my opinion, it’s voter fraud,” Mr. Wiley said. “I used to know everybody in Cape Vincent. But among those 250 voters, I’d be surprised if I knew more than 10 people.”

Donald Mason said that the resolution “has nothing to do with wind” and that he didn’t “think anybody would be against stopping voter fraud.”

State election law states that a person can vote in a local election as long as he or she is a U.S. citizen who meets all the requirements to register to vote in the state and has “lived in the county, city or village for at least 30 days before the election.”

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will host a Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee meeting via teleconference and webcast on August 23. This meeting is open to the public, but registration is required. The meeting will take place on August 23, from 1 to 5 p.m. Eastern Time. If you are a member of the public wishing to participate in the meeting via telephone or webcast, you must register online by August 16, 2011.

SOURCE: http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/

Please visit www.fws.gov/windenergy <http://www.fws.gov/windenergy> to register.

For the full meeting announcement, please see the Federal Register notice: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-08/pdf/2011-19972. <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-08/pdf/2011-19972.pdf> pdf

'CLEAN' POWER, LIKE OIL, IS BIG BUSINESS- AND MUST OBEY THE SAME RULES

SOURCE: thedaily.com

August 8, 2011,

Trevor Butterworth,

Imagine the U.S. government had asked the oil industry to observe “voluntary” environmental guidelines to protect wildlife — and then imagine that the oil companies were so upset by how burdensome these “voluntary” guidelines were that they were allowed to substantially rewrite them. Of course, this is the kind of dystopian conspiracy that many people imagine already occurs when commercial interests collide with conservation and ecology. What’s remarkable though, is that this is precisely what the U.S. government is allowing to happen with the wind power industry, and not the oil companies — or any other fossil fuel utility.

Last week saw public comments close on the debate over the Department of the Interior and the “voluntary” regulation of Big Wind. Why does Big Wind need regulation? Because wind turbines are highly effective bird-killing machines: stick a 4,000-acre wind farm in the wrong spot and it’s an ecosystem-destroying splat fest.

If there is a capital of wind-turbine avicide, the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area in central California might well be it. Between 1998 and 2001, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory tried to quantify the impact of this vast wind farm, which extends over 50,000 acres, on bird life. It concluded that up to 4,300 birds were killed each year, including 27 to 34 golden eagles. A later, more extensive study of the farm, while noting the uncertainties in measuring bird kills, postulated even higher numbers.

The problem is not just collision — when you add in factors like habitat loss and fragmentation, barrier effects (such as a farm disrupting local or migratory flight paths) and noise, the annual tally of bird deaths caused by wind power is estimated at 440,000 a year, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

But while fossil fuel utility companies are subjected to mandatory conservation rules and are aggressively prosecuted for killing protected species, Big Wind just has to look like it’s trying to be bird-friendly. As the Wildlife Service notes, following the voluntary guidelines will be “taken as evidence of due care,” and even if legally protected species are killed, “caring” means the companies may still be able to dodge the massive fines that have been imposed on careless oil and coal companies.

As Robert Bryce, energy journalist and author of “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future,” told me, “Violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act — which, by the way, is one of the oldest wildlife protection laws in America – have long been prosecuted without regard for whether the bird kills in question were intentional or not. Imagine if the U.S. Justice Department suddenly decided that enforcement and compliance with federal laws on cocaine trafficking were now to be considered ‘voluntary.’”

Many bird conservation groups are, not surprisingly, furious over this regulatory farce: It’s not just that they believe Big Wind should be subjected to mandatory regulation like every other utility, it’s that Big Wind should not get to write its own regulations.

As Kelly Fuller, an American Bird Conservancy expert on wind power, explained, the first set of “voluntary guidelines” was gutted to take out many of the specific proposal that would actually protect birds. “It is of real concern to the American Bird Conservancy that the earlier draft, written by experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service, has had most of its content replaced with material that came from an industry-dominated panel,” she said. “No other energy sector is allowed to write its own regulations — at least not without people getting upset when they find out about it.”

Despite this, some on the left have tried to portray the outrage as a Republican plot against renewable energy. Media Matters recently claimed that while there have been “a number of wildlife deaths … wind turbines provide more benefit to the environment than they do harm to wildlife.”

When I asked Fuller whether the American Bird Conservancy considered itself part of a Republican smear operation, she stressed that the organization was nonpartisan, and that other conservation and scientific groups that favor mandatory standards for wind power, such as the American Birding Association and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, were hardly political fronts.

Of course, the threat to wildlife from wind power does overlap with intense criticism of wind as a massively inefficient energy source (because it needs to be backed by conventional power and so forth), so it’s hardly surprising that Republicans are quick to accuse wind power advocates of “do as I say, not as I do,” hypocrisy; but that shouldn’t blind the public to a rather more basic economic truth: Wind power is not about mom-and-pop-shop environmentalists sticking up a couple of turbines on a mountaintop, it’s about massive companies like BP Alternative Energy building vast wind farms. When it comes to environmental impact, why should BP’s alternative energy division be held to lesser standards than BP’s petroleum division?

What’s good for the goose is good for everyone; namely, that the law should be applied equally.

BATS AND BIRDS FACE SERIOUS THREATS FROM GROWTH OF WIND ENERGY

SOURCE: New York Times

August 8, 2009

By Umair Irfan

Spinning blades and fluttering wings are clashing more frequently as greater numbers of wind turbines are installed throughout the United States and the world. The generators can top 400 feet tall, have blades turning at 160 miles per hour and can number in the dozens over hundreds of acres. They are part of America’s expanding renewable energy portfolio.

But the same breezes that push the blades are the playground of hundreds of species of birds and bats, and to them, the turbines are giant horizontal blenders.

With wind being one of the fastest-growing energy sources in the world, turbines are generating electricity along with friction between different environmental interests as advocates seek a compromise between the demand for clean renewable energy and the safety of animals.

Wind provides 198 gigawatts of electricity worldwide, with 39 GW of new capacity added just last year, according to the Renewables 2011 Global Status Report (GSR) by REN21, an international renewable energy proponent. “Commercial wind power now operates in at least 83 countries, up from just a handful of countries in the 1990s,” said Janet Sawin, research director and lead author of the GSR, in an email.

The report notes that for the first time, wind power is growing more in developing countries than industrialized nations, led by emerging markets like China, which accounted for half of the global capacity increase last year. In addition, the European Wind Energy Association projects that wind energy employment will double by 2020 in the European Union.

However, the rapid growth and expansion of wind farms has had an increasingly significant effect on birds and bats, especially since, according to the GSR, the average wind turbine size has increased. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC), an avian conservation group, observes that upward of 14 birds per megawatt of wind energy are killed each year, numbering more than 440,000. The organization projects the number will rise substantially as wind energy production increases.

Killing mechanisms are different

Yet it’s hard to determine how bird populations will respond to turbines. “It’s very difficult to say what the impact on birds is … particularly migratory birds,” said David Cottingham, senior adviser to the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Thus, the economic and environmental fallout may not be seen right away, said Cottingham.

According to FWS, birds are killed when they collide directly with turbine blades. Statistics show more birds are killed by cats and windows, to the tune of hundreds of millions. But turbines pose a unique threat to all birds, including endangered species, like whooping cranes, and raptors, like eagles, hawks and falcons.

Electrical infrastructure around turbines, like power lines, also poses hazards to birds, said FWS in a report on bird mortality.

Bats, on the other hand, face different problems around wind farms. “Many more bats than birds are killed by wind turbines, and they are killed in two ways: simply by being hit by the blades, and some are killed by pressure changes due to the sweep of the blades without even being hit,” said John Whitaker Jr., a professor of biology and director of the Center for North American Bat Research and Conservation at Indiana State University, in an email.

Because bats use sound to navigate and can detect moving objects, like insects, exceptionally well, many are better able than birds to avoid striking the blades. However, they can’t detect the invisible swath of low pressure left behind turning blades. Bats then fly into this area, and their internal airways rapidly expand, causing internal bleeding.

This phenomenon, known as barotrauma, accounts for more than half of all turbine-related fatalities in bats, according to a 2008 paper in the journal Current Biology.

The die-off is troubling because bat populations are already under stress from white nose syndrome, a spreading epidemic fungal infection that kills more than a million bats annually. This is exacerbated by bats’ slow reproductive rate and decades-long life expectancy, meaning populations are slow to recover.

“The hibernating bats are being killed by white nose syndrome, whereas it is the migratory bats — red, hoary and silver-haired bats — that are being killed by wind farms,” said Whitaker. “The kill of these bats is going to be huge.”

Bat die-off costly to farmers

Bat deaths also carry substantial economic consequences. Because of their voracious appetite for insects, bats are excellent for natural pest control. A paper published in the journal Science in March said bats typically save farmers $74 per acre, and the study projects that bat deaths can cost $3.7 billion annually in crop losses.

The solutions, according to FWS, are planning, mitigation and offsets. “We’re trying to figure out how to work with industry so you can have both renewable energy and do it in a way to protect birds, particularly those birds that are endangered species,” said Jerome Ford, director for the migratory birds program at FWS.

Ford said substantial conflicts can be avoided if wind farms are placed away from flying animals by studying wind and migration patterns.

Active deterrence, using tools like radar, is also being studied, but it can create other potential issues. “You want the birds to avoid the area to avoid injury, but you don’t want them to avoid the areas if it leads to habitat fragmentation,” said Cottingham. The FWS is also investigating vertical axis turbines, which take up less airspace and are potentially less harmful to birds and bats.

Cottingham and Ford did acknowledge that despite their best efforts, wildlife will still be at risk, including endangered species. The FWS has allowed wind energy companies to “take” a certain number of endangered animals without fines or penalties, provided they offset the harm with habitat restoration. “Take” is defined as maiming or killing under the Endangered Species Act.

Feathers fly over new guidelines

Last month, FWS released another draft of its wind energy guidelines. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), a wind industry advocacy group, expressed approval for the new document. Tom Vinson, AWEA’s senior director of federal regulatory affairs, described it as an “extraordinary achievement.”

The ABC, on the other hand, was aghast. The revised guidelines removed much of the previous language about protecting birds as well as other suggested measures to protect wildlife, and what little remained is voluntary, said Bob Johns, director of public relations for the ABC.

“What’s difficult to overlook is the number of times the word ‘should’ is used,” said Johns. “There is no reference to ‘must’ and ‘shall.’”

However, the ABC is still in favor of wind power. “We are a supporter of wind,” said Johns. “We think it has the potential to be very green. All we’re saying is do it right. It’s not hard to do. There are a limited number of sites where [harm to wildlife] would be an issue.”

Through working with the government and industry groups, the ABC hopes it is not just tilting at windmills, but that eventually there will be binding regulations to protect bald eagles and little brown bats while reducing American dependence on fossil fuels.

Read more: http://greenanswers.com/news/255300/rising-bird-death-rates-wind-energy-really-sustainable#ixzz1UPUe5bh1

House near the Town of Bryron in Fond du Lac County, Invenergy wind project

FROM ILLINOIS

TURBINES, MONEY AND NEIGHBORS

SOURCE Bureau County Republican, www.bcrnews.com

August 5, 2011

By Barb Kromphardt,

WALNUT — Following a three-hour meeting before a standing room only audience, the Walnut Planning Commission decided to postpone any decision on wind turbines outside the village limits.

“We need to be educated ourselves,” said Commissioner Gary Sarver. “I would just like to have a little more information.”

Walnut thought it had the issue settled on July 5 when the board approved an ordinance that would have banned wind turbines within one mile beyond the corporate boundaries, and required special approval for any between 1 and 1.5 miles of the village.

However, the approval was voided because the ordinance first needed to go before the planning commission for a public hearing and consideration.

On Wednesday, about 60 people crammed into the meeting room for the hearing; wind turbine supporters clustered on one side of the room, and objectors gathered on the other.

Village Attorney Rob LeSage recapped recent events regarding the ordinance and told the commissioners their options. If they recommended approval of the ordinance, it would go back to the board for a simple majority vote. It they didn’t recommend approval, the board would need to approve it by a three-fourths majority, or six of the seven trustees.

Rick Porter, attorney for the 37 Bureau County residents who have filed suit against Walnut Ridge and the Bureau County Board, said he had reviewed the ordinance and had grave concerns. Porter said the ordinance had no provisions for property value protection, and no shadow flicker or noise studies.

Walnut resident Tom Broeren said he was not pro-wind, but pro-county. Although he didn’t like the looks of the turbines, he said the money they would bring in was important. If the turbines were banned within the 1.5 mile limit, it would take more than $136,638 away from the Bureau Valley School District every year.

Marcia Magnuson then spoke of the need to protect the village. She said the income from the 12 turbines wouldn’t be lost because the company would simply move them outside the 1.5 mile limit.

Magnuson said letting turbines in closer would take away any room for the village to develop.

“Who’s going to want to come to a town that’s surrounded by wind turbines?” she said.

Jeff Wagenknecht lives two miles from the Big Sky turbines, and said the noise was so loud they should be called wind factories instead of wind farms. Wagenknecht said he filed a complaint when Walnut Ridge was trying to get its conditional use permits extended, and the company was extremely helpful.

“Now, after the vote, I can’t get a phone call returned,” he said.

James Schoff said he would have no problem living around wind turbines. He said many businesses are noisy and said he’s adapted to the noise from the Sunset Ridge motorcycle track because it brings in revenue.

Steve Hardy, Walnut Township highway commissioner, also was thinking about money, and said the 12 turbines would provide $14,000 per year for the fire department and more for all of the other taxing bodies.

Hardy said he didn’t know if the wind turbines were the best solution.

“But they’re the only solution,” he said.

Ron Bohm said he’s enjoying raising his children in Walnut but is scared of the economic issues facing the village without the turbines.

“We’re hoping that our children have the opportunity to come back here,” he said. “I don’t think we’re selling ourselves to the devil.”

Marcia Thompson was concerned that the focus was on money.

“There are a lot of people who are suffering because of your want of money,” she told the supporters.

After two hours of statements and rebuttals, LeSage said it was obvious no one liked the ordinance. Supporters didn’t want the turbines banned, and those in opposition wanted a total ban.

But LeSage didn’t think a total ban was possible, despite what Porter said.

“Walnut can regulate wind farms,” he said. “But the power to regulate is not the power to prohibit.”

LeSage said he and the lawyers he works with reviewed the same legal cases as Porter but came to a different conclusion about the legality of a ban.

“Looking at me and shrugging isn’t going to change my mind,” LeSage said to one objector.

Sarver and several board members said they weren’t prepared to decide immediately.

“I don’t want to hurt the school, but I don’t want to hurt the town either,” Sarver said.

The commissioners asked for expert testimony on both sides of the issue. LeSage said he was sure the wind turbine company would be happy to send someone, but Porter warned expert testimony against the turbines would be expensive.

The commissioners agreed to table the issue and reconvene on Aug. 17.

“If we make a mistake, it’s a long-term mistake,” Commissioner Joanne Stiver said.