NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: This story could have been written about any Wisconsin community targeted by wind developers: Sneak into a community and offer the big landowners big money to agree to host turbines and most importantly keep their mouths shut about the plan. These moves are straight from the wind developers playbook.

PUTTING THE WIND UP THEM

SOURCE: Goulburn Post, www.goulburnpost.com.au

March 30, 2011

by Alby Schultz

There was a public meeting in the small town of Boorowa in my federal electorate of Hume a short while ago.

A good percentage of the population packed the ex-services club to hear first-hand about the rumours swirling through the community that this area was to be the site of a massive wind generation project.

There were audible gasps from the audience as it was revealed that the project was indeed real, that it would span some 35 kilometres and involve the construction of more than 100 turbines.

There were more gasps when it became apparent that the wind energy developer had actually been in negotiations with some of their neighbours for many months.

The meeting heard that the farmers who had been quietly persuaded to host the turbines would reap tens of thousands of dollars in rental a year.

They heard about pilots who wouldn’t fight fires or dust crops if they had to fly in the vicinity of the giant swirling blades.

They heard about possible health effects for those on neighbouring land ranging from heart palpitations to migraine headaches.

But this is not an argument against wind power. It is also not a criticism of farmers who have struggled through a decade of drought and see the way clear to make some alternative income.

There may indeed be areas where wind turbines can be built and where the impact is minimal. But there are many areas where they should not be constructed. As things stand though I truly fear our rural social capital – as fragile as our topsoils – is in places being chopped to pieces by turbine blades.

We need to start by calling a spade a spade. These turbines are not ‘farming’. That is Orwellian nonsense. This is industrial scale power production in green clothing. These are major commercial developments and should be considered in the same way as any major development.

A decade ago wind turbines were almost human in scale. But the turbines which some of the Boorowa farmers will have built near their homes (the closest will be just over a 1000 metres away) are truly gargantuan. If one of these turbines was standing on Sydney Harbour, its blades would be well clear of the top of the Harbour Bridge.

I warrant that should a neighbour decide to build a two storey extension overlooking the backyard of one of these Sydney bureaucrats there would be an immediate cry of “you can’t destroy my amenity and land value like that!”

And yet when a farming community raises concerns about mega turbines they are labelled ‘nimbys’ (not in my backyard).

Local decision making must be put back into prime place. At present it is hopelessly biased towards the developer. The state government boasts that large wind developments are considered ‘critical infrastructure’ and given the red carpet treatment with a guaranteed four month approval processes.

Communities are provided just 30 days to digest and provide comment before the Minister gives the project a tick. Better still the states should all revisit the National Wind Code which the Howard Government proposed in 2006 and which they rejected.

The code would have seen legislation eventually produced right around the country better protecting local community rights.

Wherever large wind generation projects arrive the plot is predictable. A wind company identifies an area with good wind resources and reasonably close to the national grid. They begin quiet negotiations with landowners.

In my view, these power companies preying on landholders who in most case have had no cash-flow as a result of nine years of heartbreaking drought. Well down the track others in the community find out.

Those who have done the deals face bitterness and anger. Those who missed out feel betrayed and angry. Sydney based bureaucrats need to understand the impact this has in small rural communities.

There is precious little interaction when you live on a property an hour or more from your rural centre – perhaps just at special events or football or cricket matches. Wind turbine money in my electorate has poisoned those relationships.

Families stop talking to each other. Animosity and bitterness run deep. Whole rural farming communities are fractured and it lasts for years. The NSW Industry Department’s website says that whilst planned or operating wind power installations in NSW will deliver 960 megawatts at present there is potential to grow that to 3000 megawatts (a 300 per cent increase)!

The implication of that for rural communities in Hume, and elsewhere, are truly frightening unless we give local communities far more say over whether or not they want wind turbines of this scale in their area.



Is there something we should tell the Emperor of Invenergy about his clothes? Nah. He knows.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: What are the real reasons Invenergy pulled out of the wind project proposed for Brown County?

Chicago-based wind developer, Invenergy, told the Public Service Commission they stopped the project because of the uncertain regulatory climate in Wisconsin. In the same letter to the PSC they contradict this statement by making it clear they will develop other projects in Wisconsin.

Another problem with this claim is that the Brown County project would not be impacted by the recently suspended wind rules. The size of the project meant the Public Service Commission -which has never said no to a proposed wind project- would be the sole regulatory authority for the project. 

Invenergy claims that strong community opposition to the project had no impact on the decision, but this is in keeping with an unwritten code of the wind industry: Never admit that community opposition has any impact. If you do, it will encourage other communities to fight back.

Another reason for stopping the project may be Invenergy's lack of a power purchase agreement. If they don't have a utility willing to sign onto a multi-year agreement to buy the power from the project, the project will be nearly impossible to finance.

In wind industry-speak, a wind project in this situation is called a "naked wind farm".

Although Invenergy and wind lobbyists keep spinning the cancellation of the Brown County project as a result of regulatory uncertainty, in February, Invenergy pulled out of another 'naked wind farm' that also had significant community opposition. Once again, Invenergy denies that the community opposition had anything to do with their decision, but at least in this case they do admit to being naked.

Invenergy pulls out of Belwood

SOURCE: CENTREWEILLINGTON.COM

February 2, 2011

Wind turbine project rights sold to TransCanada

In a new development in the battle over wind in Belwood, Invenergy LLC has pulled out and sold their ownership stake in the project to TransCanada Energy Ltd.

Following up on a tip that Invenergy was selling off their rights to the project, the News Express contacted their head office in Chicago, Illinois last week seeking comment.

Invenergy spokesperson Alissa Krinsky issued a prepared statement, reading: "TransCanada Energy Ltd. has re-acquired 100 per cent of the interest in the Belwood Wind Energy Project from Invenergy Canada.

Currently, a power purchase agreement for this green energy project has not been secured. As a result, the time lines for the potential future development of this project are not known."

That same statement is repeated on the company's former project website for Belwood at www.belwoodwindfarm.info. The site was changed and became active with that message as of Monday, Jan. 31.

Tom Patterson, the manager for power renewables for TransCanada Energy, is listed as a contact on the site. Calls to Patterson by the News Express seeking comment on the deal were not returned as of press time.

The switch came as news to the project's biggest critics, Oppose Belwood Wind Farm. Spokeswoman Janet Vallery said the first she had heard of the change came when the News Express called seeking comment.

"We've been fighting wind farms for almost a year now," she said. "As of today, we're opposing three different companies - wpd Canada, IPC and now TransCanada. Most of the community is appalled with the risks posed by those industrial wind turbines. We're fighting these companies, and if TransCanada has the desire to move forward against the community's wishes then we'll continue to oppose them."

Next Story:

Residents of this Invenergy wind project in Fond du Lac county have similar complaintsWIND FARM INQUIRY IN BALLARAT: ANGER, TEARS AT HEARING

SOURCE: The Courier, www.thecourier.com.au

March 29, 2011

BY BRENDAN GULLIFER

Giving evidence, fuelled at times by anger, frustration and tears, nearly 30 local residents spoke of ill-health, property devaluation, environmental damage and communities split by wind farm developments.

The wind industry had a day of reckoning yesterday when the Senate inquiry into wind farms held its Ballarat hearing.

Giving evidence, fuelled at times by anger, frustration and tears, nearly 30 local residents spoke of ill-health, property devaluation, environmental damage and communities split by wind farm developments.

Megan Read of the Western Plains Landscape Guardians Association called for an immediate moratorium on all proposed and approved wind farms until an independent health study was undertaken.

Ms Read was also one of many who said a national approach to planning and policy guidelines should be implemented to make all states consistent with federal regulations.

“The rapid onslaught of wind farm proposals and developments has affected thousands of regional Australians and many groups,” Ms Read told the hearing.

“Local short-term economic benefits are massively overwhelmed by loss of property values, population decline, job losses and restriction of agricultural business operations.

“Wind farms are not viable without government mandated and public funded subsidies.”

Ms Read called the spread of wind farms a “complete social injustice”.

“Social impacts included negative health effects from turbine noise and infrasound, breakdown in community connectedness, and the overall feeling of helplessness,” she said.

The hearing began with formal testimony from former Waubra residents Carl and Sam Stepnell and Noel Dean. They spoke of the onset of severe health problems after turbines were turned on.

Waubra operator Acciona also came in for criticism from Pyrenees Shire Council for a range of operational matters.

Council officer Chris Hall said changes were made to turbine design and height, and lights were added to turbines after planning approval and under secondary consent from then Planning Minister Justin Madden.

Mr Hall said council had received around 32 formal complaints of noise and health related effects from Waubra residents.

It is believed senators toured both Waubra and Hepburn wind farms earlier in the day, but these visits were closed to media.

Next Story

Video: Why is this wind developer smiling?



Next story:

WIND FARM IS THEIR NEIGHBOR FROM HELL

SOURCE: Herald Scotland, www.heraldscotland.com

March 29 2011

by Harry Reid

Jim Guthrie looks out of his window, across the lovely wooded valley of the River Duisk.

Beneath his house a bridge crosses the river, carrying the A714 road from Girvan up to Barrhill.

Suddenly there’s a great roaring din. A huge 12-wheeled truck is having trouble crossing the narrow bridge, and then negotiating the sharp bend at the far side. Jim sighs and says: “At least that one didn’t smash the bridge. It’s been damaged so often, the council doesn’t bother to do the repairs any more”.

The A714 is a narrow, steep road but its A-road status makes it in theory suitable for all types of traffic. These days many very long trucks are using it because of windfarm developments in the area. Land needs to be cleared, and this often requires the felling of timber. Scarring new tracks are built across virgin country, and there is much disruptive construction work. Big loads – including the colossal turbines themselves – are transported up totally unsuitable roads.

Jim Guthrie is a retired Church of Scotland minister. Like so many Scots, he is all in favour of renewable energy. But local, harrowing experience has made him deeply sceptical about windfarms.

Through the recent severe winter, when there was a big demand for electricity, Jim monitored the turbines in his immediate area. He counted 73 days when there was little or no turbine activity. “The turbines don’t operate if there’s a hard frost, or if the wind speed is less than 15mph or more than 45 mph. So they simply don’t work for long periods,” he says. “Are they worth all the bother they cause? I don’t think so”.

With Jim is Claire Perrie, secretary of the local community council. She tells me: “I don’t think that people in Glasgow or Edinburgh understand what it’s like living near these things. And I don’t think some politicians understand what they’ve agreed to. The landowners and the contactors make a lot of money, the rest of us just suffer.”

She adds: “We’re going to have to consider direct action – and I never thought I’d say that – if the Breaker Hill windfarm goes ahead”.

There are already three large scale windfarms in this beautiful part of South Carrick. The proposed Breaker Hill development would add another 15 turbines to the 144 that have already been erected in a very compact geographical area. Scottish National Heritage insists that several windfarms should not be built close to each other, but developers have other ideas.

The vast Hadyard Hill windfarm, just three miles inland from Girvan, has 56 turbines built across gently undulating moorland. In the valley below live three generations of the Baldwin family.

Robert Baldwin shows me a video he has made of the creepy “shadow flicker” which blights his home. “This is bad enough, but what’s worse is the noise, when the turbines are operating at full tilt. They stop you sleeping, and we’re double-glazed. It’s like having a loud tumble drier on, a constant, grating, whooshing noise,” he says.

There is a proposal for a further windfarm to be built immediately behind his house. Soon he and his family could be literally surrounded by huge turbines.

Jim Guthrie says: “I worked in the shipyards before I became a minister, and then I had a rural parish at the time of foot and mouth ten years ago. But I’ve never felt as helpless as I do now. The most worrying thing of all for the folk around here is that their houses are losing value, fast. They reckon they won’t be able to sell them if they feel they have to get out.”

Some community projects have benefited from investment by windfarm developers. But in South Carrick tourism is a crucial industry, and this, obviously enough, is being adversely affected.

I would not say, as some do, that windfarms are just a scam. But they produce electricity only intermittently, they disrupt communities and rupture the environment. Surely wave and tidal power would provide far more power at far less social cost?

Note from the BPWI research nerd: In wind-industry speak, a wind project that does not have a power purchase agreement with a utility is known as a "Naked Wind Farm"

 Use of term “Naked wind farm”:

"NextEra Energy Inc., the largest U.S. generator of wind power, said it hasn't been able to obtain multiyear contracts for about $1 billion in turbines capable of generating 612 megawatts of electricity. These so-called naked wind farms increased as cheaper natural gas and the lack of a federal clean-energy mandate reduced pressure on utilities to buy renewable power.

SOURCE: Stamford Advocate"

Without a utility committing to a long term power purchase agreement, financing for a large wind project becomes very difficult. Was this the real reason Invenergy pulled out of the Brown County wind project?

Although Invenergy claims it's Wisconsin's regulatory environment that caused them to cancel the project, in the same letter to the PSC they make it clear they will continue development of other wind projects in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Invenergy and wind lobbyists push a media spin on the story that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Examples of spin on Invenergy’s cancellation of wind project

Now Wisconsin Loses a Wind Farm – CleanTechnica: Cleantech ... <http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/26/now-wisconsin-loses-a-wind-farm/>

Large Wisconsin Wind Farm Killed By Politics | EarthTechling <http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/03/large-wisconsin-wind-farm-killed-by-politics/>

Wind Power Wilts in Wisconsin, Surges in North Dakota <http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/27/wind-power-wilts-in-wisconsin-surges-in-north-dakota/>

Developer Pulls Plug on Wisconsin Wind Farm Over Policy .. <http://solveclimate.com/news/20110323/wisconsin-wind-energy-renewable-portfolio-standard>

Teamster Nation: Developer cancels plan for WI wind farm because of Walker  <http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2011/03/developer-cancels-plan-for-wi-wind-farm.html>

Regulatory Flux Blamed for Canceled Wisconsin Wisconsin Farm ... <http://midwest.construction.com/yb/mw/article.aspx?story_id=157119321>

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ruins everything, including wind power ... <http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-25-wisconsin-gov.-scott-walker-ruins-everything-including-wind-powe>

Better Plan noted that reporter Thomas Content did not mention Invenergy's plans to continue development of wind projects in our state when he first reported the story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal. We are glad to say he has included this critical piece of information in the following story:

RULES MAY CHANGE FOR WIND FARM SITES: LEGISLATURE LIKELY TO ASK PSC TO CREATE NEW SET OF GUIDELINES

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

March 27, 2011

By Thomas Content  

State energy regulators would be asked to go back to the drawing board to develop statewide rules governing wind power projects, under a bill to be considered this week.

The Legislature’s joint committee for review of administrative rules voted earlier this month to temporarily block a wind farm site rule developed by the state Public Service Commission.

But that action was only good for 30 days. To keep the rule from taking effect Friday, the committee will meet again Tuesday to consider a bill that would send the issue back to the PSC and direct the agency to develop revised guidelines within six months.

After the rule was suspended, Chicago wind energy developer Invenergy LLC dropped its plan to build a large wind farm near Green Bay.

Invenergy’s proposal would have included setbacks of 1,000 feet, which is less than the 1,250-foot minimum sought by the PSC in its rule. The PSC rule that’s been blocked from taking effect also would have provided specific noise and shadow flicker requirements for wind farm turbines.

A property rights bill introduced in January by Gov. Scott Walker and supported by wind farm opponents and the Wisconsin Realtors Association would restrict development unless a turbine is placed 1,800 feet from a neighbor’s property line.

That bill threatens to stall wind power development in the state but was welcomed by a citizens group that has fought the Invenergy proposal.

The Brown County Citizens for Responsible Energy said it was pleased that the Invenergy proposal was dropped. Group spokesman Steve Deslauriers said the 1,000-foot setbacks were “irresponsible” and would have harmed nearby homeowners.

The local group mobilized against the Invenergy Ledge Wind energy project, and residents near the Invenergy project were well represented at public hearings earlier this year on wind farm siting.

The property rights group is seeking an even stricter statewide standard than that sought by Walker – 2,640 feet, Deslauriers said.

“Our hope is that real world experience of existing wind project residents be heard and addressed in the new statewide wind siting rules,” he said.

Invenergy’s decision “will benefit the taxpayers and ratepayers of Wisconsin, as well as preserve the health, safety, and property values of those who would have been forced to live within the industrial turbine project,” the Brown County group said.

The organization said it “will continue to work vigilantly to prevent the irresponsible development of industrial wind projects.”

Supporters of wind energy development say the state of flux on wind rules will stall development, leading to a loss of jobs tied to wind turbine construction as well as revenue for host property owners and local governments.

The PSC rule would not have applied to large wind farms like Invenergy’s, although Walker’s bill would have. Utility observers expect the PSC to adopt consistent standards for all wind projects.

In its most recent wind farm decision, the PSC ruled that 1,250-foot setbacks be required for We Energies’ Glacier Hills Wind Park, now under construction in Columbia County.

Alissa Krinsky, Invenergy spokeswoman, declined to say whether the 1,250-foot setback imposed in the We Energies case would have been acceptable for the Brown County project.

Invenergy said last week it would increase its development efforts outside Wisconsin, in light of regulatory uncertainty here. At the same time, Invenergy said it planned to develop other in-state projects that “do not require as significant an investment during an unstable climate.”

Jeff Anthony, vice president of business development at the American Wind Energy Association, said he realized there was significant opposition to the Invenergy project, but he said the state’s regulatory climate likely proved to be “the last straw” for the Chicago firm.

“This is not rhetoric. This is real, in terms of lost opportunity for jobs and economic development in the state of Wisconsin,” he said.

Asked about the possibility of compromise, Anthony said wind developers already compromised during the drafting of the PSC rule. Along with the setbacks, the noise and shadow requirements set by the PSC “were going to be very tough rules to meet” but provided the industry a framework to proceed with projects, he said.

Next Story

HAWAII WIND DEVELOPER TIED TO LARGEST EVER ASSET SEIZURE BY ANTI-MAFIA POLICE

SOURCE: Hawaii Free Press

Monday March 28, 2011

by Andrew Walden

Paul Gaynor, CEO of First Wind stood comfortably with Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie, Rep Mazie Hirono, and HECO CEO Dick Rosenblum at the grand opening of the Kahuku Wind energy project on Oahu’s North Shore Thursday.   As he should. 

First Wind–formerly known as UPC Wind--got its start in wind energy by launching Italy’s IVPC--a company now subject to a record breaking asset seizure by Italian police.  The Financial Times September 14, 2010 explains:

Italian anti-mafia police have made their largest seizure of assets as part of an investigation into windfarm contracts in Sicily. Officers confiscated property and accounts valued at €1.5bn belonging to a businessman suspected of having links with the mafia.

Roberto Maroni, interior minister, on Tuesday accused the businessman – identified by police as Vito Nicastri and known as the island’s “lord of the winds” – of being close to a fugitive mafia boss, Matteo Messina Denaro.

General Antonio Mirone, of the anti-mafia police, said the seized assets included 43 companies – some with foreign participation and mostly in the solar and windpower sector – as well as about 100 plots of land, villas and warehouses, luxury cars and a catamaran. More than 60 bank accounts were frozen.

Until his arrest last November, Mr Nicastri, based in the inland hill town of Alcamo, was Sicily’s largest developer of windfarms, arranging purchases of land, financing and official permits. Some projects were sold through intermediaries to foreign renewable energy companies attracted to Italy by generous subsidy schemes….

The renewable energy sector is under scrutiny across much of southern Italy. Some windfarms, built with official subsidies, have never functioned….

Mr Nicastri sold most of his windfarm projects to IVPC, a company near Naples run by Oreste Vigorito, also president of Italy’s windpower association. Mr Vigorito was also arrested last November on suspicion of fraud and later released. He denied wrongdoing.

Of course the folks who started IVPC know nothing about any of this.  Reacting to an earlier round of arrests, First Wind founder Brian Caffyn told the November 15, 2009 Boston Herald: “I read about it in the papers, and I was very surprised.”

Will Hawaii’s windfarms actually work?  The “Clipper Liberty” wind turbines installed at Kahuku and on Maui are made by a company founded by a former Director of Enron Wind.  Clipper Liberty Vice President of Engineering is also an Enron Wind veteran.

Gaynor and Caffyn were once much more public about their corporate ties to Vigorito’s IVPC.  First Wind was originally known as UPC.  The UPC Solar website touts “Mr. Caffyn personally oversaw the establishment and construction of the largest wind energy company in Italy — Italian Vento Power Corporation.”

IVPC’s english-language website states:  “The Group came to light in 1993 from an idea of Oreste Vigorito who formed the company I.V.P.C. S.r.l. on behalf of UPC, an American company which operates in the wind sector in California.”  (Emphasis added.)

The UPC Solar website explains: “UPC’s earliest wind farm developments were built in 1995 in Italy. At the time UPC sold IVPC, its Italian wind business, in 2005, it had built approximately 650MW of capacity representing over 50% of the total installed Italian wind capacity.”

The Worcester Polytechnic Institute News Summer, 2005 reports on the activities of WPI alumnus Gaynor: 

"...As president and CEO of UPC Wind Management, located in Newton, Mass., Gaynor was tapped to bring the success of the parent company, UPC Group, to North America. In Europe and North Africa, UPC affiliates—including Italian Vento Power Corporation—have raised over $900 million in financing and installed some 900 utility-scale wind turbine generators (WTGs), with a total capacity of more than 635 megawatts. UPC subsidiary companies, positioned across the United States and in Toronto, are currently pursing some 2,000 megawatts in projects from Maine to Maui..."

In March, Gaynor secured financing for a $70 million project on the island of Maui. [The project is a joint venture with Makani Nui Associates, which owns 49 percent.] The 30-megawatt wind farm at Kaheawa Pastures will be Hawaii’s first utility-scale project to be put into service since the 1980s. Plans call for 20 towers, 180 feet tall, with 1.5-megawatt General Electric turbines. Construction is expected to begin this summer, and the project should be completed by the first quarter of 2006. When operational, the wind farm will supply up to 9 percent of demand to customers of Maui Electric Company.

The Kaheawa Pastures site is situated on state conservation land, between Ma’aleaea and Olowalu, at elevations ranging from 2,000 to 3,000 feet.

Makani Nui is also a partner in the Kahuku Wind project.

Business Week reports that Caffyn is a Director or Partner in dozens of Limited Liability Corporations tied to wind energy projects.  These include Hawaii’s Kaheawa Wind Power, LLC, Kaheawa Wind Power II, LLC, Hawaii Wind Construction, LLC, and UPC Hawaii Wind O&M. 

Caffyn is also listed as a Director or Partner of Italian Vento Power Corporation (IVPC), Srl, IVPC 4, Srl. (Italian Vento Power Corporation), IVPC 6, Srl, IVPC 2000, Srl., IVPC Energy B.V., IVPC Energy 3 B.V., IVPC Energy 4 B.V., IVPC Energy 5, B.V., IVPC Energy 6, B.V., IVPC Energy 7, B.V., IVPC Gestione, Srl, IVPC Management, Srl, IVPC Management 2, Srl and IVPC Marche, Srl. Mr. Caffyn served as Director or Partner of IVPC Marche 2, Srl., IVPC Puglia, Srl, IVPC Service, Srl, IVPC Service 2, Srl, IVPC Service 3, Srl, IVPC Service 4, Srl, IVPC Service 5, Srl, IVPC Service 6, Srl, IVPC Sicilia, Srl., IVPC Sicilia 2, Srl., IVPC Sicilia 3, Srl., IVPC Sicilia 4, Srl., IVPC Sicilia 5, Srl., IVPC Sicilia 6, Srl., IVPC Umbria, Srl., IVPC Wind, Srl.

The UK Independent September 16, 2010 reports:

After decades of drug-running, extortion and prostitution, the Mafia appears to have found a rather more ecological way of laundering their money: green power.

And if the assets of the Italian police's latest target are any indication, the Mafia is embracing the renewable energy business with an enthusiasm that would make Al Gore look like a dilettante. The surprising revelation of organised crime's new green streak came as Italian police said yesterday they had made the largest recorded seizure of mob assets – worth €1.5bn (£1.25bn) ($2.1bn US) – from the Mafia-linked Sicilian businessman Vito Nicastri, who had vast holdings in alternative energy concerns, including wind farms.

Organised crime in Italy has previously been notorious for trading in environmental destruction – principally earning billions of euros by illegally dumping toxic waste. But most of the newly seized assets are in the form of land, property and bank accounts in Sicily, the home of Cosa Nostra, and in the neighbouring region of Calabria, the base of the rival 'Ndrangheta crime syndicate.

So naturally, First Wind is very comfortable with Hawaii politicians and business leaders. 

THE FUTURE: Wind Energy's Ghosts

The list First Wind owned companies (some inactive) registered in Hawaii includes the following:

• FIRST WIND CONSTRUCTION, LLC 
• FIRST WIND ENERGY, LLC
• FIRST WIND ENERGY MARKETING, LLC
• FIRST WIND HAWAII
• FIRST WIND O&M BATTERY SERVICES, LLC
• FIRST WIND O&M FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC 
• FIRST WIND O&M FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLC
• FIRST WIND O & M, LLC
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER II, LLC 
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER II, LLC
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER, L.L.C.
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER, LLC
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER, LLC
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER, LLC 
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER, LLC
• KAHEAWA WIND POWER VENTURES, LLC
• KAHUKU WIND POWER II, LLC
• KAHUKU WIND POWER II, LLC
• KAHUKU WIND POWER, LLC
• HAWAII HOLDINGS, LLC DBA FIRST WIND HAWAII
• HAWAII HOLDINGS, LLC DBA HAWAII HOLDINGS, LLC (NV)
• UPC HAWAII HOLDINGS, LLC
• UPC HAWAII HOLDINGS, LLC
• UPC HAWAII WIND
• UPC HAWAII WIND CONSTRUCTION, LLC
• UPC HAWAII WIND O & M, LLC
• UPC HAWAII WIND PARTNERS II, L.L.C.
• UPC HAWAII WIND PARTNERS II, LLC
• UPC HAWAII WIND PARTNERS II, LLC
• UPC HAWAII WIND PARTNERS, L.L.C.
• UPC HAWAII WIND PARTNERS, LLC
• UPC KAHUKU WIND POWER, LLC
• UPC KAUAI WIND POWER, LLC
• UPC WIND MANAGEMENT, LLC

ND WIND TURBINE ACCIDENT PEGGED TO BOLT FAILURE

Source: CBS MONEY WATCH

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Bolt failures caused a wind turbine's rotor and blades to fall from a tower in north-central North Dakota, and six other turbines have been shut down while their bolts are replaced, a state regulator said Thursday.

Members of North Dakota's Public Service Commission, which oversaw the development of the 71-turbine wind farm, said Thursday they would seek more detailed information about how widespread the problems may be.

"That's a fair bit of equipment concern that I would have, quite frankly," Commissioner Kevin Cramer said.

The wind project, which was dedicated last October, is located near Rugby in Pierce County. It is capable of generating up to 149 megawatts of electricity.

It is owned by Iberdrola Renewables Inc. of Portland, Ore., which is a unit of Iberdrola Renovables SA of Valencia, Spain. The turbines themselves were manufactured by Suzlon Wind Energy Corp., a unit of Suzlon Energy Ltd., based in India.

Spokeswomen for Iberdrola and Suzlon did not immediately reply to telephone and email requests for comment Thursday. Suzlon has previously described the accident as an isolated incident.

Jerry Lein, a commission utility analyst, said Iberdrola officials told him that bolts that attached the wind turbine's rotor and blades to a power shaft had failed. The shaft transfers the energy generated by the turning blades to an electric generator.

No one was injured when the rotor and blades toppled from the tower March 14 and crashed to the ground.

Lein said the wind farm was shut down and its turbines inspected. The turbines that did not need bolt replacement have been restarted, he said. The damaged material has been sent to a lab for analysis.

"They want to look further into the mechanism there that was failed before," he said. "They said that, specifically, they're replacing the bolts that hold it together."

The bolts are normally checked every six months, Lein said.

Commissioner Brian Kalk said the agency should seek to examine the wind farm's maintenance records. He wants to hear more information from the companies within two weeks, Kalk said.

"I'd like (the companies) to get back in front of us as quickly as possible ... and give us their best estimate of what is going on," Kalk said.

The commission's president, Tony Clark, said the agency should hold an informal hearing on the incident.

"Nobody has a greater incentive to find out what went wrong than the company does," Cramer said. "But, at the same time, the citizens of Pierce County, they're probably a little bit concerned too. ... You might not want to go hiking in the prairie for a while." 

LAWSUIT FILED BY RESIDENTS OF TOWN TARGETED BY WIND DEVELOPER

SOURCE: Forest Voice, March 24, 2011

A controversial western Wisconsin wind energy project has come under fire and may be stopped by a federal lawsuit which was filed by a citizens group on February 9, 2011, and by decisive action by a new town board that was elected through a successful recall election of the former town board members who had approved the proposed wind energy project last summer.

After taking office following a recall election on February 15, 2011, the newly elected town board members for the Town of Forest, in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, voted to rescind a controversial wind energy development agreement and other approvals that had been granted to a wind developer, in a decisive vote on March 17, 2011. As a result, the project, which was proposed by a private wind energy developer named Emerging Energies, LLC, is now under fire and may be stopped.

The federal lawsuit was filed on February 9, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, by a Western Wisconsin citizens group named Forest Voice, LLC, and several individual citizens, against the Town of Forest, its former town board members, and Emerging Energies, LLC.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by attorneys Glenn M. Stoddard and Patricia Keahna, of Stoddard Law Office. The suit alleges that the Town of Forest, its former board members, Roger Swanepoel, Carlton Cress and Douglas Karau, and Emerging Energies, LLC, acted in concert to intentionally violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law, by approving two different wind energy development agreements during 2008 and 2010.

According to Attorney Glenn Stoddard, “[t]he suit alleges that the former town board members had conflicts of interest and illegal and secretive dealings with Emerging Energies, LLC, in order to reach the agreements, which provide substantial financial benefits only to property owners who support the proposed wind energy project and who own residences within a half mile of the proposed wind turbines.” The lawsuit seeks to nullify the 2008 and 2010 agreements, halt the proposed wind energy project, and other relief.

Forest Voice, LLC is a citizens group comprised of individual landowners, and Town of Forest property owners, whose goal is to create community awareness about the realities of wind energy development.

The Town of Forest is located in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, approximately midway between Clear Lake and Glenwood City, Wisconsin. The group formed early in the fall of 2010 after its members learned that their 36-square mile community was targeted for a wind energy project consisting of 39, 500-foot tall wind towers.

According to Attorney Stoddard, most Town of Forest residents were completely unaware that the former the town board members, who lost a special recall election on February 15, 2011, had approved an agreement in 2008 and another one on August 12, 2010, to proceed with the proposed wind energy project. The landowners who signed contractual leases to allow wind turbines on their properties are prohibited contractually from talking about the leases and the proposed project, so the project was kept secret for some time.

That the first public notice of the controversial wind energy project to the broader community arrived in the form of a postcard which was mailed to each Town of Forest property owner with postage paid out of Town funds, announcing the project and a planned bus trip to Glenmore, Wisconsin, to view the “Shirley Project”–which was represented as having “the same wind turbines that are coming to Forest, WI.” No public hearing was ever held by the defendants during a three-year development period marked by secretive deliberations between the former town board members and Emerging Energies, LLC.

Because the Town of Forest is a densely populated rural area consisting of farms, hobby farms, and small acreage homesteads, many non-participating property owners believe the utility-scale wind turbine project is inappropriate for their township, because of unacceptable setback and noise allowances from non-participating residences in the two agreements. The plaintiffs in the case allege that the proposed wind energy project would destroy their quality of life and have adverse health and safety impacts on them. Moreover, the process that led to the two agreements, and the substance of the agreements, allegedly violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law.

Attorney Stoddard said, “[t]he plaintiffs are concerned that installation of the proposed project would unfairly stigmatize and devalue their properties and interfere with the quiet, rural quality of life they currently enjoy. Residents who had no knowledge of the size and scope of the project, and no input into the development are unwilling to be so adversely affected by the health and safety issues associated with the proposed project, which includes 39 massive wind turbines.”

Most disturbing to the plaintiffs and other non-participating residents were the contents of open records which laid out the secretive dealings between attorneys for the Town and the developer and the former town board members.

The agreement of August 12, 2010, superseded an earlier agreement of April 2008. Former Town Chairman, Roger Swanepoel, who allegedly contracted with Emerging Energies, LLC for two wind turbines on his property, signed the 2008 agreement. When conflicts of interest centering on financial gain became apparent between all members of the former Town board, a scheme was allegedly devised to circumvent and replace the 2008 agreement with a new agreement to allow development of the proposed wind energy project. Evidence of corruption and collusion and “creative” measures to remedy conflicts of interests surfaced in over 83 pages of documents obtained through public records requests by Town of Forest residents.

According to Attorney Stoddard, “Town of Forest meeting minutes revealed inconsistencies in communications between the former town board members and the town plan commission, and failure to follow agenda rules. Former Town Chairman Roger Swanepoel recused himself from voting on and signing the 2010 agreement, but it was approved and signed by former town supervisors Carlton Cress and Douglas Karau. Since both Cress and Karau stand to receive substantial financial gains under the 2010 agreement, they allegedly had serious and illegal conflicts of interest and should not have voted on or approved the agreement.”

Bill Rakocy of Emerging EnergiesIn October 2010, Forest Voice requested that the Town board rescind the allegedly illegal 2010 agreement, signed on August 12, 2010 with Emerging Energies, LLC and Bill Rakocy, the owner of Emerging Energies, of Hubertus, Wisconsin.

On December 2, 2010, recall petitions were served on the Town of Forest town clerk with petitions containing 93 signatures, above the 50 that was required of the electorate. The process culminated in the recall election held on February 15, 2011. All three town board members were recalled and a new town board was elected.

On March 17, 2011, the new Town board voted to rescind the August 12, 2010 wind energy development agreement and took other action to rescind and nullify other wind energy project approvals that had been made hastily by the former town board members at about the time of the recall election.

Attorney Stoddard said: “The recent actions by the new Town board are a welcome development but the federal lawsuit against the town, the former town board members and Emerging Energies, LLC is likely to be continued, since the company has apparently threatened the new Town board with legal action and has taken an aggressive stance. As a result, we are expecting the company to try to push ahead with the wind energy project despite the recall, the rescission and the federal lawsuit.”

Brenda Salseg, a property owner and managing member of the Forest Voice, LLC, said: “What has happened in our township is heartbreaking and has left many residents feeling betrayed. Those of us who researched industrial wind turbines found disturbing evidence of health, safety, and property devaluation issues associated with so-called wind farms when turbines are sited too close to homes. It’s all about what is profitable rather than responsible, which is what I thought green energy is supposed to be. We believe the people who have reported they are suffering from the effects of the Blue Sky/Green Field wind project in the Fond du Lac area of Wisconsin, as well as countless similar stories throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. Something must be done to make more people aware of the negative consequences of industrial wind energy to people, animals, and ecosystems. To force non-participating residents to live inside a wind factory on a scale unheard of in any other type of energy producing resource is a violation of our constitutional rights. And the funding to developers for these projects with taxpayer dollars for an inefficient and parasitic form of renewable energy is unacceptable. The statement we continually hear that ‘wind energy is green, clean, and renewable’ is nothing more than deception.”

SECOND TURBINE FALLS APART IN DEKALB ILLINOIS

SOURCE  Our Life with DeKalb Wind Turbines

Sunday, March 20, 2011

There was another turbine blade that shattered this morning in the Lee/Dekalb county windfarm project by Nextera Energy Resources (approximately 4 miles from our home … we can see the shattered turbine from our property). there was debris thrown from the blade.

In May of 2010 there was a blade that shattered in this project, and the NextEra spokesperson (Steve Stengel) said in the Dekalb County Chronicle: “that type of blade failure is unusual.”