What should you know before you lease your land to a wind developer?

You should know you must consult an independent lawyer BEFORE YOU SIGN. You will need someone who can tell you how the contract says the lease holder can use your land before, during and after construction.

This picture shows the construction of a wind turbine project in Kansas.

Let's look closer..... 
You should know how much of your land will be used during the construction phase and for how long, if you have any say at all in where the turbines will be sited, where the cables will be laid, and where the access roads will go.  Only an independent lawyer can tell you what the contract says about this.
Look closer- 

You should know that contracts may give the lease holder the right to go over, under, upon, along, and across your land, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the next 20 to 30 years. You should know what your rights are if changes, disputes or problems arise, and by what means problems may be resolved. An independent lawyer can tell you this.

Look closer.. 

 You should know that most lease agreements will be legally binding not just to you, but to your kids, any heirs, any future buyers, successors, executors, or assignees of any kind. You should know that most lease agreements require that ANYONE who owns the land after you or wishes to buy the land from you, will be also legally bound by the terms of this contract. Only an independent lawyer can tell you exactly what this means to the future of your property.

(To see more of this series of construction photos taken in Kansas, click here.) 



NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: At a recent Wind Siting Council meeting Vinalhaven was touted as an example of a "community" wind project that was working.

Residents now trying to live with "community" turbine noise have a different view.

 

Noise controversy over Vinalhaven wind turbines heats up

SOURCE: The Free Press, freepressonline.com

 August 12, 2010

Vinalhaven sits 15 miles off the coast and just over an hour’s ferry ride from Rockland, but it has an old-fashioned sense of community rare on the mainland these days. Every driver waves as they pass and it’s common for an islander to leave the keys in the truck in case anyone needs to borrow it.

It was with that sense of community that the islanders welcomed the three wind turbines to Vinalhaven last year. Not only did the turbines promise reliable electrical service, which was something long-term residents did not take for granted, but wind power would lower electric rates for everyone.

Islanders turned out in strength last November to see the turbines started up, watch the 123-foot-long blades sweep the air and watch grade-school children do a windmill dance to the tune of “I’m a Little Tea-Pot.”

Even with some initial start-up glitches, rates have gone down when averaged across the year (the estimated average rate is now five to six cents per kilowatt hour, with variations from month to month, according to Fox Island Electric Cooperative; the national average rate was 11.36 cents per kilowatt hour in 2008).

Most of the 1,200 or so residents on Vinalhaven approve of the turbines. But within days of start-up a handful of Vinalhaven residents who lived within a mile of the wind turbines on the North Haven Road reported noise problems.

Nine months later, people have taken sides. Fingers are being pointed. Frustration levels are rising. There are rumblings about complainers and how they should move off the island if they don’t like it. There are accusations of misinformation and biased noise data collection.

Jeanne Bineau-Ames, whose house is near the swimming quarry in the middle of the island, summed it up.

“It’s an island. We are only as strong as the smallest link. We have to work as a community,” she said. Bineau-Ames lives far enough from the wind turbines not to hear them, has a relative on the board of the electric cooperative who strongly favors them, and sympathizes with those affected by the noise.

“I hate to see this go to mistrust and anxiety,” she said. “We have to work at this. We have to work this out.”

Sound Effects

Bothersome noise related to wind turbines is hardly new.

“Wind turbine noise is becoming a bigger issue in the U.S.,” said Patrick Moriarty, an aeronautical engineer for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado. NREL belongs to the U.S. Department of Energy and is the primary research and development site for energy efficiency and renewable energy, including wind power. Moriarty is a senior engineer at the lab.

“It’s been a big issue in Europe for a while because their wind farms have been up longer and they are in more densely populated areas,” Moriarty said.

In Maine, the Mars Hill wind farm in Aroostook County and the turbines in Freedom in Waldo County have elicited similar complaints by nearby residents who say the repetitive whump, whump, whump sound of the blades turning causes sleeplessness and anxiety. Some research suggests those symptoms could be related to low-frequency sound waves that impact people as a pressure wave.

Sound seems simple enough: you hear it or you don’t; it’s audible or it isn’t. It turns out that sound is far from simple: not only can a noise that is alarmingly loud to one person be a minor note to another, but some people appear to be affected by low-frequency sound-the bass notes-while others aren’t. And the really low frequency sounds (below 20 hertz), the inaudible sound waves, which elephants and whales use to communicate over long distances, can travel hundreds of miles without fading. It’s this silent sound that may make birds and beasts aware of earthquakes and tsunamis ahead of any apparent danger, and it may be the cause of a laundry list of human complaints that include sleeplessness, anxiety, exhaustion and depression.

Or it may not be. The jury is out.

Dora Anne Mills, the medical doctor for the state of Maine, reviewed the medical and acoustics research on wind turbine noise and issued a 2009 report stating that the current research on health effects was inconclusive. Mills concluded there was insufficient evidence to change state noise compliance standards.

But the thing to understand, said Moriarty, is that the sound coming from the wind turbines is broadband noise; that is, it has all frequencies mixed together. It appears not to be the volume of the turbines, but the rythmic nature of the noise, the whomp, whomp or whoosh, whoosh, whoosh-what Moriarity refers to as the modulation-that is problematic, but no one is really sure.

“Noise ordinances are now based on amplitude [volume],” said Moriarty. “Some people think modulation noise [repetitive, rhythmic noise] could be more annoying.”

“It’s an open question if noise regulations should be adjusted for modulation. It’s at the bleeding edge of research at the moment and it’s where technology and sociology overlap,” said Moriarty.

That’s cold comfort to some residents who live close to the wind turbines.

Britta Lindgren lives about a half mile down the Northhaven Road from the turbines.

“Initially, the animals went off their feed when the turbines started up. During the first few days after they started, I found an eider duck hiding in the corner of the porch, cowering. You never see eider ducks out of the cove. I’ve never seen that. During the first two or three weeks, it was really loud.”

“The animals don’t do that now. Truthfully, most of the time it’s not a problem,” said Lindgren, referring to the volume. “There are trees between us and the sound varies in intensity. It’s a whomp, whomp, whomp sound.”

They may not be so loud, but the sound pulses rythmically. Lindgren believes the repetitive noise is what is creating sleep problems in her family and, she says, it isn’t something that you just get used to, as some islanders have suggested.

“It feels like a constant wearing down,” she said. “It’s like when you have an itch. It’s nothing to scratch it, but then it keeps itching and you keep scratching and before you know it you have a hard, raw spot. It hurts. You’re always aware of it.”

A half mile in the other direction, Erin Creelman and her family are more acutely aware of the wind turbines. Their house sits on high ground across from them and all but one of the family members are having problems sleeping.

“We left our storm windows in this summer, and we have thermal panes,” said Creelman. “We didn’t put in the screens. We have a well-insulated house with wood panels and sheetrock. We have blown-in fiberglass. You can still hear them. You can feel them, really. It’s a pressure thing more than a noise. It’s like a whomp, whomp, whomp.”

Creelman said she supported construction of the windmills and doesn’t want them taken down; she wants the sound issues solved.

Lindgren agreed, but shook her head at the possibility of a solution.

“It’s gotten quite divisive,” said Lindgren. “How do you deal with that? I don’t know.”

Sally Wylie, another neighbor of the wind farm who lives less than a mile away from the turbines, didn’t parse her words. She was thoroughly frustrated.

“They said it would sound like the humming of a refrigerator. That didn’t seem so bad,” said Wylie.

But Wylie said it isn’t like a refrigerator.

“It sounds like a jetport,” said Wylie, referring to the noise in the windy winter months. “It’s unbelievable. It vibrates right through the house. It ricochets off the neighbors and comes back. It echoes.”

The Neighbors & The Man Behind the Machines

“There are about 15 to 20 year-round houses located within three quarters of a mile of the turbines,” said George Baker, who is the CEO of Fox Island Wind, a private enterprise that is a subsidiary of the Fox Island Electric Cooperative (FIEC) and that was formed to allow the wind turbines to be built.

Notably, the wind turbines have overwhelming support from Vinalhaven residents; only a handful of people are affected by the noise.

“I live with 4 a.m. lobster boats,” said Donna Payne, who owns the Payne Homestead bed-and-breakfast in town. “These are the sounds of people going to work. That’s what it takes to live on an island.”

The wind turbines can’t be heard in town.

“What noise?” said Pete Gasperini, when asked what he thought about the wind turbine noise. “We love them.”

Carla Harris, who sat next to Gasperini at a public forum, agreed.

“We’ve gone up close to hear them and we’ve gone further away,” said Harris. “This is not unbearable noise. It’s like ambient sound.”

Annette Philbrook also agreed.

“The old power plant made ten times more noise than these,” said Philbrook.

Nans Case, a 20-year resident of Vinalhaven who lives in town, said she’s a fan of the lower electric rates.

“My rates have gone down 25 to 30 percent,” said Case. “That’s something for someone on a fixed income.”

But those who are bothered are really bothered. Some of those who live close to the turbines sought legal advice, citing bad faith on the part of Fox Island Wind in adhering to a tolerable noise level and in not addressing their concerns as a serious community issue.

Wylie is one of the neighbors who became vocal about the need to address the noise problem.

“We were big supporters of the project, but we were told the ambient noise would mask the sound of the turbines, so when the turbines were turned on, I was completely in shock,” said Wylie. “I called George Baker and said, please, can you turn them down?”

“He said ‘I can’t do that. We have to study the sound

issue,’ ” said Wylie, who thought the impacts of the nearby neighbors were part of the equation for how the turbines should operate.

“We believed what they told us,” said Wylie.

Now she thinks Fox Island Wind considers the neighbors a nuisance.

“We were totally naive,” she said.

Wylie and others bothered by the turbine noise formed Fox Island Wind Neighbors (FIWN) and launched a website to share information.

“During the first two and a half months after the start-up, I spent hours every week talking to the neighbors,” said Baker, who in addition to being the face of Fox Island Wind is a professor at Harvard Business School who has been on an extended leave of absence so he could serve as the vice president of Community Wind at the Island Institute in Rockland.

“I gave them a whole bunch of detailed financial information and technical information,” said Baker. “Probably stuff I shouldn’t have given. I told them I wasn’t talking to my lawyers, because I knew if I did, my lawyers would say: ‘Don’t talk to them.’ I didn’t want it to be like that.”

“I did tell them if they retained a lawyer, I’d have to talk to my lawyers and I knew what they would say,” said Baker. Fox Island Wind’s lawyers said what Baker expected: stop talking to the neighbors who retained legal counsel.

“There is no lawsuit. I desperately hope there isn’t one. but we got into that lawyer thing and I hate it,” said Baker. “So, no, I won’t talk to them.”

Wylie sees it differently. She says there is no intention to sue, nor was there, ever.

“We needed legal advice. Our lawyer advised us to keep working with the DEP and the community,” she said. “To keep talking.”

“There’s an ethical question here,” said Wylie. “Do you sacrifice the small part of the population or just focus on what the majority wants? Why didn’t they just say, ‘Guess what? This isn’t really working. This is a lot louder than we thought and it’s not a good thing.’?”

“We need to make it work,” she said. “We’re a community. We have a problem, but we’re part of the community package. It’s not like you can throw us out with the laundry.”

Baker, whose unbounded enthusiasm for the Fox Island Wind project comes across without restraint, reined in when it came to talking about the noise controversy.

“I can’t tell you how frustrated I am. I have an enormous stake in this. I’m not making a dime on this project, I hope that is clear,” said Baker, who does not get a salary for being CEO of Fox Island Wind. Baker’s Harvard Business School scholarship recently focused on negotiating and contracts that are built on trust and secured by the reputation of those involved, not on legal enforcement.

“I care deeply about getting this issue resolved, with community involvement,” Baker said. “My reputation is at stake.”

Compliance with State Sound Standards

The state of Maine has noise compliance standards that are pretty straightforward for windmills. When it comes to frequencies and decibels, they take their measurements from the middle range, with attempts to correct for the low-frequency part of the range.

Under Maine state law (Title 38, Sec. 343), wind turbines sited in a quiet location like Vinalhaven cannot operate any higher than 45 decibels at the property line of abutting landowners. Communities like Vinalhaven can adopt more restrictive local ordinances. Vinalhaven had a more restrictive noise ordinance, but voted it out in favor of the state standards.

“Sound is measured between May 1 and August 31, during the inversion period,” said Becky Blais of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Blais monitors compliance for the Fox Island Wind site. Inversion is the term for when there is wind aloft and it is calm near the ground. The premise is that sound will carry farther during the summer inversion period; though, on the island, wind blows much harder in the winter.

“All we are measuring is state compliance,” said Blais. The DEP asks Fox Island Wind to collect data using a DEP- approved method. That raw data and initial analysis is sent to DEP for further checking of accuracy and analysis. Complaints from neighbors, with specific time frames attached to the complaints so they can be correlated to sound collection data, also go into the mix for analysis.

The state, in essence, is measuring volume using a standard approach used by federal agencies for measuring industrial noise. They are not measuring low frequencies, which tend to travel farther and in lots of directions. Higher frequencies, in contrast, tend to travel in one direction for much shorter distances.

Fox Island Wind Neighbors takes issue with the state compliance standards of 45 decibels at the property line of an abutting property. They think it should be lower. Even so, FIWN wanted to determine for themselves if the turbines complied with existing state sound standards, so they took the intiative to collect their own sound data from an abutting property, starting this past April. It’s a nonscientific study, but it does indicate that the turbines routinely exceed 45 decibels. FIWN shared their information with the Maine DEP in an effort to bolster their position that the turbines are louder than they should be.

Several sound studies have been done on Vinalhaven or are in the process of being conducted.

Study #1: Turning the Turbines Down

The Noise Reduction Operations (NRO) studies, which were undertaken at the request of Fox Island Wind last spring, included randomly turning down the turbines to see if there was any effect on nearby residents. Only nine participants submitted logbooks noting when they heard turbine noise and how they felt; but 200 responses came from those people.

Ben Hoen of the Berkeley Naitonal Laboratory at the Department of Energy was the principal researcher.

Hoen said the small sample size was, to some extent, offset by the number of responses received.

“There is no silver bullet when it comes to a solution here. It’s all shades of grey,” said Hoen. What the study did do was indicate that the complaints of sound effects, which were recorded with a date and a time, were correlated with wind speeds at the wind turbine site and at a buoy 10-15 miles away.

“The study method worked,” said Hoen. “We hope to come back a second time. Ideally, you want every single person to participate.”

Study #2: Cancelling Out the Noise

Conquest Innovations, an acoustics consulting firm based in Washington state, approached Baker of Fox Island Wind to see if they could set up an experimental study to attempt to fine-tune existing technology so it would work to cancel out the sound of the wind turbines.

Baker secured a $12,000 matching grant from the Maine Technology Institute to kick off the experiment to explore the use of noise-cancellation technology on wind turbine sound.

“We’ve been looking at the full sound spectrum, with the focus below 250 hertz,” said Steven Bradbury of Conquest Innovations. Active Noise Cancellation is based on recognized principles. Bose has used it in its noise-cancellation headphones and Honda has used it inside the cabin of some of its models to cancel out engine noise.

Bradbury explained how noise cancellation works.

“You ever been out on a boat? You know when two boat wakes come from two different directions… say, each wave is six inches high. When the crest of the two waves meet, they double and the peak is about 12 inches high. Now take the same two waves, but instead of the crest of one wave hitting the crest of an oncoming wave, it hits the trough.”

Anyone who has crossed to Vinalhaven has seen it. When the crest of one wave hits the trough of an oncoming wave, the water briefly flattens out. The waves essentially cancel each other out, creating a momentary calm.

Sound waves are not exactly like water waves.

“But this is a great way to visualize what we are trying to do,” said Bradbury.

Lower-frequency sound waves have crests that are farther apart than high-frequency waves; simply, they are less frequent. Think of the sound of the bass on the subwoofers coming out of a car passing on the road in the summer, with the music turned up high. The low-frequency sound comes right through the walls. It goes in all directions; the thumpa, thumpa, thumpa of the bass, until someone says out loud, “Jeez, can’t that kid turn that down?”

The crests of the low-frequency waves are farther apart, thus giving Active Noise Cancellation (ANC) technology room to emit a sound that will flatten the wave. To cancel out three windmills will take three carefully calibrated speakers that are programmed to respond. The result: no more thumpa, thumpa, thumpa. ANC doesn’t mask the sound wave; it meets it and gives the thumpa right back to it.

“We’re pretty excited about this,” said Bradbury. “The principles of active noise cancellation are proven. We know it works.”

According to Bradbury, the direction and speed of the wind shouldn’t make much difference in the effectiveness of noise cancellation.

“What isn’t clear is whether the sound that is bothering people is just low frequency,” said Bradbury. Noise cancellation won’t work on high-frequency sound as effectively: the sound waves are too close together to flatten out across large areas. They are also directional and don’t go through house walls as effectively as low-frequency sound.

So, what happens if the bothersome noise is partially low-frequency and partially high-frequency sound waves? Or even a resonance effect created by extremely low frequency sounds essentially shaking the walls of a house and creating new sounds.

“It may not work,” said Bradbury. It won’t take much longer to find out. The sound data has been analyzed, a sound profile is being created, and Bradbury said a bench-top demo model will be ready in under two months.

Study #3: The Colorado Department of Energy Lab

On March 1 of this year, Baker requested that the National Research Energy Lab come out to Vinalhaven because he thought the lab could help FIW better understand the sound issues. NREL agreed and committed an initial $30,000 to pay for the studies.

Moriarty of the NREL/DOE lab in Colorado and Ben Hoen of the Berkeley DOE lab in California have been looking into the effects of the wind turbines and trying to tie them to specific sound signatures. The data from the Noise Reduction Operation are their starting points, but they got a more complete assessment of impacts than the survey done by Fox Island Wind, said Moriarty.

“The idea was to be independent from Fox Island Wind and to maintain objectivity, ” he said. “Of course, we wouldn’t identify the people who spoke to us.”

Moriarty stressed, again, that the turbines create broad- band noise across low to high frequencies.

“The noise is definitely related to speed. The dominant noise comes from the blades. The faster they spin, the louder they are, but the faster they spin, the more electricity they produce,” said Moriarty, noting there will be a trade-off between reduced noise and electricity generation.

What NREL is looking for is specific symptoms or noise irritation (sleeplessness, irritation from loudness, etc.) at specific times, so they can tie them to the sound data. The NREL team plans to correlate that social data with a variety of other factors, including wind speed, turbine volume, humidity, inversions, and modulation.

What they found in their initial data collection on Vinalhaven was that noise annoyance didn’t necessarily correlate with proximity to the turbines.

“There may be lots of sociological factors, from not wanting to be perceived as a bad guy in the community, to some people working away from home during the day while others are at home gardening. I think that was a big factor,” said Moriarty.

Some other research questions have come up. How does proximity to the ocean, where the atmosphere almost traps the noise, come into play? Another is the base rock the turbines are built on top of.

“One question that came up at Vinalhaven is that the turbines are connected to granite. That’s not very common anywhere in the world. It’s a solid connection and it may be a more efficient transmitter of noise. Here in Colorado, we have the exact same turbine that is on Vinalhaven. You can hardly hear it. But the soil is very different here.”

The next step will be to break down the sound signature and try to isolate the cause of the noise that annoys people at specific times.

“Is it the blades, the rotor? Is the reduced noise operation working the way it should? That’s what we’ll be looking at,” said Moriarty. “Then we’ll brainstorm mitigation potential, and costs and effectiveness. We may recommend reducing speed; even more expensive is a new blade design. They may be able to reduce the operation so much and pay so much more for electric. Then we present it back to the community: Here’s what we found. It’s your island. What would you like to do?”

But what about the sounds that are so low they can’t be heard? Called infrasound, the super low frequency sounds that register below 20 hertz.

Moriarty launched into a cautionary tale. A large experimental windmill was built in Boone, North Carolina, in the 1970s, with the wind at its back in order to maximize energy generation. But the low-frequency noise created pressure waves that were amplified by a number of factors.

“It created a pressure pulse low enough that you couldn’t hear it, but it was similar to the resonance frequency of houses and the sound wave shook the houses and increased the amplitude. Body cavities have a similar resonance frequency, too, so people were getting seasick and dishes were falling off the walls.”

“That’s the number-one reason wind turbines are now designed to work upwind. Infrasound is much less of an issue. Recent measurements on infrasound of GE turbines on Vinalhaven found there isn’t much infrasound coming from those turbines and they satisfy national standards,” he said.

Moriarty said that everything he has seen on infrasound seems to indicate that the noise-related problems are not due to infrasound.

But noise problems are real and the industry is paying attention.

“Sound is a focus across the wind industry,” said Melissa Rocker, the global communications manager for General Electric, who manufactured the wind turbines on Vinalhaven.

“We’ve been talking to Fox Island Wind since last November on how to reduce noise,” said Rocker.

“Every site is unique, with different geographic conditions, weather conditions and ambient sound levels,” she said. “GE is working on various technologies….When those technologies are ready, Fox Island would be a strong candidate for testing.”

The Sculptor at the End of the Lane: Kitty Wales

Fred Granger, who works at a small quarry cutting granite for countertops and benches using a diamond-bit granite saw, hasn’t been drawn into the conflict or paid much attention to the studies.

“I love them,” he said of the wind turbines. He works in the shadow of the windmill blades and the sound of his granite saw is loud enough to drown out any turbine noise.

“They’re beautiful machines that take air and make electricity,” he said. “But I don’t live on the island.”

And then he walked past the numbered blocks of fine-grained granite to the edge of the North Haven Road and pointed down a long lane bordered by hay-scented fern and bayberry bushes.

“There’s a sculptor lives down there,” he said. “Close enough, but a little further away than the rest. She might be one to talk to. I don’t know what she thinks of them. I don’t know that she’s been asked.”

I started walking down the sunny lane, breathing in the summer island scent of sweet fern, hay-scented fern and wild roses. Jim Cogswell was clearing brush on the side of the lane a quarter mile in and stopped for a chat. Cogswell lives on the Peaquot Road on the other side of the island.

“What do I think of them? Anything to get us to use less oil from the Arabs, I’m for them,” said Cogswell. “It’s funny, though. You can hear them from farther away than you can when you are right up close to them.”

The sculptor at the end of the mile-long lane turned out to be Kitty Wales, who is on the island for five months. It’s where she gets her sculpting work done; the rest of the year she teaches in Boston.

No one had asked her what she thought.

“The sound varies wildly,” said Wales. “Some days I can’t hear it at all. Other days it’s this engine sound, whomp, whomp, and a rattling sound on a really bad day. Sometimes there is this low vibration. But I’m three quarters to a mile away and it’s only when we are in the lee of the wind that I hear it.”

“It’s basically too close to residential, too close to homes…and it’s done. For me, it’s tolerable. I don’t want it to affect my work, so I put it out of my mind as much as I can. I don’t think they will be able to make it quieter, but they seem to be trying.”

“Have you gone up the lane, with the pristine look of the bayberries and the hay-scented fern and there they are?” asked Wales. “Rising up in front of you? They are so beautiful. As a sculptor, I think they’re amazingly cool.”

Second Feature:

State probing officials at Cape: Misconduct alleged in wind development

 SOURCE Watertown Daily Times, www.watertowndailytimes.com

August 14, 2010

By Brian Kelly, Times Staff Writer,

CAPE VINCENT — The state attorney general’s office is investigating allegations of misconduct by “certain” town officials in connection with the development of wind farms.

John T. Milgrim, spokesman for the attorney general, confirmed that a letter was sent to the town and its attorney Friday afternoon informing them an investigation had been launched.

Mr. Milgrim also confirmed that two senior members of Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo’s staff, Deputy Chief of Staff John B. Howard and Henry M. Greenberg, executive division counsel, were in Cape Vincent about two weeks ago conducting interviews of “parties interested in wind power.”

Mr. Milgrim declined comment on details of the investigation, including what prompted it or which town officials may be its focus.

According to the letter, obtained by the Times, the attorney general has told the town it must preserve all town documents, including those of the Town Council and Planning Board, and the town is not to delete or purge any records until the investigation is complete.

The attorney general’s office is specifically requesting information about any present, past or future wind farm development or siting of the farms, as well as all information regarding wind turbines, wind power and related facilities or wind power projects.

The office wants all information about wind farm development compiled since Jan. 1, 2005, “whether considered, planned, attempted or completed, including, but not limited to permitting, licensing, construction and energy production.”

By Aug. 28, the attorney general’s office wants:

■ All documents relating to town action on wind farm development, including, but not limited to, board minutes, board packages, resolutions, voting records, communications, permits, applications and licenses.

■ All communications between or among town officials and any company engaged in wind farm development.

■ All documents concerning any financial relationship between a town official, or their relatives, and a company engaged in wind farm development, including, but not limited to, any financial disclosures filed with the town and any board minutes reflecting any such disclosures.

The attorney general’s office is asking that town Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey and Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall, as well as members of the Town Council and Planning Board, be made available for interviews. The office also wants to talk to anyone else who served on either board since Jan. 1, 2005.

Acciona Wind Energy USA has proposed a 51-turbine St. Lawrence Wind Farm for the town and BP Alternative Energy has an active application for the 62-turbine Cape Vincent Wind Farm. The proposed projects have caused controversies between pro- and anti-wind advocates, including allegations of conflicts of interest among town officials.

Third Feature:

Open Access to Paperless Records

SOURCE: The Times Record, www.timesrecord.com

August 13, 2010

Maine’s Freedom of Access Act is based on the principle that government best serves the public when it operates in the most open manner possible. Without open meetings and access to public records citizens won’t know what their government is up to — and democracy can’t function properly.

So it should be a matter of grave concern to all Maine citizens — not just the press — that the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting essentially had a roadblock thrown in its path this spring when it requested documents from the Maine Public Utilities Commission as part of its research into the 2008 law to fast-track wind turbine development in the state.

As reported by the center’s Naomi Schalit in the three-part series that ran this week in The Times Record and several other Maine newspapers, the Wind Energy Act of 2008 implements a set of recommendations made unanimously by a task force named by Gov. John Baldacci in 2007.

The resulting legislation wasn’t even debated when it was approved unanimously by the Maine House and Senate. As Schalit notes in her first article, it “was a special interest bill justified at the time in the name of jobs, energy independence and climate change.”

Not surprisingly, given the lack of debate and scrutiny as the bill flew through the Legislature in 2008, it took time for the public to grasp what the Wind Energy Act’s ambitious goals of constructing 1,000 to 2,000 turbines by 2020 actually means … and the impact that might have on Maine’s western mountains.

What Schalit has done is raise important questions about the process by which this major piece of legislation became law. Key among them is how the governor’s task force created a map showing where wind turbines could go to receive fast-track consideration. What she discovered is that it’s not clear from the official record, largely because summaries for the task force’s last two meetings don’t exist.

The lack of a paper trail is an obvious red flag, and dogged reporter that she is, Schalit used the obvious tool for any Maine citizen curious about how laws and policies come about: She filed an FOAA request with the Maine Public Utilities Commission, whose former chairman, Kurt Adams, had accepted a job with the wind power company First Wind in April 2008.

Schalit sought e-mails from 2005 to 2007 between Adams and First Wind, between Adams and Baldacci (for whom he had previously worked as legal counsel), and between Adams and several wind power attorneys employed by Verrill Dana. Given Adams’ role as PUC chairman, his close ties to Baldacci and subsequent employment with First Wind, the requested documents would seem germane to the public’s interest in the deliberations of the governor’s wind power task force.

How germane? We might never know. That’s because Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting initially was told it would cost upwards of $10,000 for the PUC to search for the requested information on backup discs of its e-mail records.

The center asked for a waiver, as allowed in the FOAA. The state refused and amended its cost estimate to $36,239.52.

Clearly, that’s “access” in theory only.

If the state’s computer archiving system is so inefficient that it cannot retrieve requested electronic records easily or at minimal expense, the public loses its ability to keep track of what’s going on. Government becomes, then, less accountable.

It’s not likely that this is an isolated failure, given the push for “paperless” records at all levels of government.

Maine’s Freedom of Access Act needs to be brought into the 21st century, with provisions added that would prevent state, county and local governments from creating de facto barriers of difficulty and cost when the records being sought are only available in electronic form.



AUGUSTA — The Wind Energy Act of 2008, which gave developers fast-track approval for putting up wind turbines in some of the state's treasured high ground, was justified at the time in the name of jobs, energy independence and climate change.

“There is tremendous potential for Maine to become a leader in clean, renewable energy, including wind energy,” said Gov. John Baldacci, who appointed the task force whose report led to the bill. “This kind of investment would create jobs and help to expand Maine’s economy.”

But now, two years after the law was championed by Baldacci, some members of the task force are questioning whether the goals they set for wind power can, or even should be, achieved.

Critics and even some one-time supporters say the proponents of the law were swept up in a tidal wave of enthusiasm for a technology that turns out to require significant sacrifice from the state, but has little to offer Maine in return.

That issue was faced head-on recently when the state Land Use Regulation Commission was asked to rule on an extension of a TransCanada wind project in western Maine.

LURC Commissioner Ed Laverty summed up the problem with the bill: “Our job is to protect the resources in these high mountain areas ... given the fragile nature, and the rich nature of the resources in these areas, we have to ask ourselves, to what extent can these benefits really outweigh the long-term costs?

Chris O’Neil, a former state legislator who now works as a public affairs consultant to groups opposing wind power development in Maine’s mountains, said that the governor’s vision was fundamentally flawed.

“To fulfill the charge of making Maine a leader in wind power development and to simultaneously protect Maine’s quality of place is impossible,” O’Neil said.

The bill constituted one of the most significant changes in the state’s land use laws in a generation:

— It weakened longstanding rules that would have required wind turbines “to fit harmoniously into the landscape.” LURC Director Catherine Carroll said, “That’s a huge change.”

— The bill cut off a layer of appeal for those protesting state permits for wind power.

— It set ambitious goals for the development of wind power that could result in 1,000 to 2,000 turbines being constructed along hundreds of miles of Maine’s landscape, including the highly prized mountaintops where wind blows hard and consistently.

— It opened every acre of the state’s 400 municipalities to fast-track wind development.

Baldacci said all this could be done without hurting Maine’s landscape or the tourism industry.

The legislation was based on the report of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development, whose members all favored wind power development and who, likewise, asserted that their blueprint for wind power development would return substantial rewards and could be pursued without sacrifice.

“Maine can become a leader in wind power development, while protecting Maine’s quality of place and natural resources, and delivering meaningful benefits to our economy, environment, and Maine people,” task force members wrote.

Now, as wind turbines are sprouting on Maine’s mountains accompanied by heavy machinery, roads, transmission lines, substations, wells and concrete plants, that certainty is yielding to doubt for some.

“I think people didn’t have a good appreciation of this, including us, for what the whole thing entails,” said Maine Audubon’s Jody Jones, a biologist who served on the task force. “This process was another step to better environmental policy, but there were clearly flaws.”

And members of LURC have recently indicated they’ll turn down TransCanada’s wind power development in an ecologically sensitive, high-elevation region near the Canadian border. The move was widely seen as a rebuke to the idea that wind power should be developed at all costs and enraged the developer and wind power promoters.

That the unanimity behind the wind power law is breaking down does not surprise Jones.

Momentum slipping

“People live near them, projects have been built, we can touch and feel them in a way that’s not theoretical. ... There isn’t the momentum for wind power at all costs that there was when the task force did its work,” Jones said.

That momentum may have papered over some significant differences among task force members that are now becoming more obvious.

As they neared completion of their report on wind power development in December 2007, Baldacci made the unusual move of sending his senior policy adviser, Karin Tilberg, to press task force members to issue a unanimous set of recommendations.

They did as Baldacci asked, and that unanimity, from a group whose members represented prominent environmental groups as well as wind power developers, set the stage for the bill’s unanimous passage through a legislative committee.

Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion.

House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, said legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met. The number is likely to be at least 1,000 and perhaps as high as 2,000.

Instead, they got carried along in the wave of enthusiasm that emerged from the administration, the legislative committee, wind power developers and the governor’s task force.

“Wind power was exciting,” says Pingree. “I think legislators had a sense we wanted to be bold and have the state be a real leader in this area. They may not have known how many turbines, or the challenges of siting that many turbines.”

An investigation by the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting of the workings of the wind power task force through numerous interviews and a review of relevant documents reveals a number of problems with the law and its development:

— Appointing only wind power supporters to the task force and rushing the legislation through the Legislature failed to address public skepticism about the state’s wind power policy. Issues that might have been aired through a State House debate continue to be raised by a growing number of critics of wind power, who doubt the policy’s premises that wind power brings widespread economic benefits, moves Maine off fossil fuels or can be developed without compromising the quality of Maine’s landscape.

— Members of LURC, who review proposals for wind power development in unorganized territories, have expressed consternation about the contradictory and perhaps unachievable goals of the Wind Power Act: to promote wind power development, ensure communities get benefits from the development and protect the very parts of the Maine landscape where wind power turbines are likely to be built.

— The designation of “expedited wind power zones” along some of the state’s wildest mountaintops has raised the value of that real estate, since it’s now a target for wind power development. That had the unintended effect of creating competition for conservationists who want to protect that land.

— The task force ignored the need for massive new transmission line construction to move wind energy from turbines to market, which could be costly to ratepayers, disrupt habitat and landscape and engender significant opposition from towns and conservation groups.

— At least one significant task force recommendation — to allow the DEP commissioner to modify permits if wind turbines made too much noise — was left out of the governor’s bill that became the wind power law.

— One of the most crucial discussions held by the task force — what lands to open to expedited wind power development — is not in the public record. There were no minutes taken or produced for those final two meetings of the task force.

Baldacci still a believer

Gov. Baldacci remains steadfast in his support of wind power. He and Tilberg refused to grant the Center an interview in person, but Baldacci responded to questions in writing:

“I believe that reducing reliance on fossil fuels for energy in Maine and the region will greatly increase Maine’s quality of place by reducing carbon emissions, slowing climate change from greenhouse gases (which affects our forests, watersheds, oceans and fisheries, agriculture, wildlife and other natural resources), pushing natural gas off the margins in the bid stack and thereby reducing electricity costs, promoting energy security and self-reliance, and keeping Maine citizens’ dollars circulating in Maine and not being sent to other jurisdictions.

“For many people, including myself, quality of place includes living in a manner that does not push environmental or safety risks to other places and people.”

Land-based wind power development is certainly not dead in Maine. But the wind power bandwagon that came roaring out of the State House in 2008 is encountering obstacles that are slowing it down.

“Call it the bloom off the rose, call it the emperor being exposed as having no clothes,” said O’Neil. “As the public learns the truth about the impacts and the benefits of this sort of development, the public is losing its interest in industrial scale wind.”

Combine those homegrown obstacles with an increasingly tight credit market and uncertainty over continued government subsidies for the industry, and wind power development these days in Maine looks like much less of a sure thing than Baldacci, the Legislature, some environmentalists and the wind industry hoped it would be just two years ago.

Naomi Schalit is executive director and senior reporter of the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, a nonprofit and nonpartisan journalism organization based in Hallowell. E-mail: mainecenter@gmail.com. On the Web at pinetreewatchdog.org.

WIND FARM DEBATE CONTINUES IN BROWN COUNTY

SOURCE WGBA NBC 26, www.nbc26.com 8 July 2010

Wind Turbines is again a controversial topic in the southern Brown County community of Hollandtown. At the core of the issue, plans to have turbines dotting farmland cross Brown County. Opponents like Carl Johnson say it’s bad for property values and even worse for your health. “Contracts get signed with people who will host turbines before other people in the community know what is happening and have any say in that.”

Invenergy hopes to build 100 industrial turbines in the county. The company says 120 landowners have already signed up. It already has wind farms up in Dodge and Fond du Lac counties. Invenergy’s senior development manager says those projects are safe and they bring in money paying landowners and taxes.

Johnson says not everyone is on board. “They see them as symbols of America’s progress toward energy independence, but beneath those turbines there are some serious problems regarding health and safety and water resources that really everyone in the state needs to be concerned about.”

SECOND STORY:

Click on the image below to hear Dick Koltz speak about why he wants out of his wind contract

“I just feel they could have been more on the up and up some of the people they sent around just outright lied to a lot of the people.”

-Dick Koltz

WIND TURBINE CONTRACT DISPUTE

SOURCE: WGBA NBC 26, www.nbc26.com

July 8 2010

As Dick Koltz takes a ride through his farmland he says he can’t imagine the sight of a wind turbine on his property.

“The more I dug the more I learned, there are many questions, health, safety.”

But before he did his research, Koltz signed a contract with Invenergy to put a wind turbine on a portion of his land. Invenergy management says the turbines are safe and create revenue for landowners and taxes for the county. But it’s a decision Koltz says he now regrets and is trying to reverse.

“I just feel they could have been more on the up and up some of the people they sent around just outright lied to a lot of the people.”

Koltz joined others at this meeting sponsored by Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, to hear more about the effects of wind turbines on the proposed wind farm Invenergy wants to build in southern Brown County.

“Beneath those turbines there are some serious problems regarding health and safety,” says Carl Johnson who is against the proposed wind farm.

Questions Koltz wishes he had asked before he signed a contract for a turbine on his farm.

“I’m not anti anything good, but I don’t think this is good, I just can’t see the benefit when the cost is so high.”

THIRD FEATURE

STUDY OUTLINES WIND TURBINE CONCERNS. DR. PIERPONT: 14% OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED

SOURCE:The Journal, www.ogd.com

July 9 2010

By Matt McAllister,

HAMMOND – The author of “Wind Turbine Syndrome: a Report on a Natural Experiment” told the Hammond Wind Committee on Monday that 14 percent of the town’s residential dwellings will be adversely affected if the entire wind overlay zone is filled with wind turbines.

Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, a Malone physician who received her master’s degree from John Hopkins University and a doctorate in population biology from Princeton University, told the committee, “I was specifically trained to do research on free-living, uncontrolled animal populations, including methods for structuring observations to turn the observations into quantitative and analyzable data.

“I used this research training in my study of wind turbine health effects to structure and analyze the information I gathered from affected people. I used my classical medical training from John Hopkins to actually gather the information.

“A good patient history, we were taught, and my experience has borne out, provides a doctor with about 80 percent of the information he needs to diagnose a problem. I conducted thorough, structural clinical interviews of all my study subjects, directly interviewing all adults and older teens, and interviewing the parents of all child subjects,” she said.

According to Wikipedia’s website, “Dr. Nina Pierpont, a New York pediatrician, has said that noise can be an important disadvantage of wind turbines, especially when building the wind turbines very close to urban environments. She says that wind turbines may produce sounds that affect the mood of people and may cause physiological problems such as insomnia, headaches, tinnitus, vertigo and nausea.”

Critics have suggested that Dr. Pierpont’s research, theories, and self-published book are unscientific and included only a handful of study subjects, while others agree that wind turbines actually do have adverse effects on the health of people living in proximity to them.

The predictions she made for the Hammond community, along with a map she constructed outlining 2010 residential dwellings within 1,500 meters of the wind overlay zone and recorded wind leases, contained some eye-openers.

* “You can estimate that 152 households in Hammond Township would be affected in the wind overlay zone and the 1,500 meter buffer, assuming the entire wind overlay zone had turbines in it.”

* “Using the number of 2 percent of households likely to have to move away from the turbines, you can estimate 21 out of the 152 affected households having to move, and estimate the monetary costs to these households and to your town. From your population number of 2635, all ages, you can estimate 316 are highly likely to be affected on the basis of 12 percent of Americans having migraine disorder.”

* “Children do not have to be excluded from this number because they, too, have inherited migraine tendencies. In my study, I found that the children of adults with migraine were affected like the adults with migraine in terms of their susceptibility to headaches around wind turbines.”

* “You can also see that you have a population of 766 over age 55, and a population of 146 age 5 and under, both groups likely to have higher numbers of affected people.”

Attempts to contact several members of the wind committee for comment or reaction to Dr. Pierpont’s presentation were unsuccessful.

The wind committee meets next on July 21 at 6:30 p.m. at Hammond Central School. David B. Duff, committee facilitator, says representatives from Iberdrola Renewables Inc. will be in attendance for a presentation.

Subjects to be discussed, according to Mr. Duff, include the development process, permitting, interconnection, engineering, potential sound issues, and issues related to real property taxes.

A “roundtable” discussion is to follow Iberdrola’s presentation, Mr. Duff said, with several local agencies and groups participating, including representatives from the St. Lawrence County Planning Office, St. Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency, St. Lawrence County Real Property Tax Office, Hammond Central School and Concerned Residents of Hammond, as well as from the Hammond town and planning boards.

“The intent of such a forum will be to develop a clear understanding of the developer’s plans, as well as to further determine the role and interaction of the town, county, and school district and/or others involved in this process,” Mr. Duff said.

SECOND FEATURE:

WHAT'S THE LATEST? 

IN THE NEWS:

-LANDOWNERS WISE-UP ABOUT THE WAYS OF WIND DEVELOPERS

-WHO PAYS FOR THE HIGH COST OF "FREE" WIND?

-WHO MAKES ALL THE MONEY FROM "FREE" WIND?

FROM THE WIND SITING DOCKET:

Click here to download testimony submitted to the PSC by Kevin Kawula regarding wind turbines effect on weather radar, birds and bats, CO2 emissons, and more. The PDF includes photos and graphs.

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC took public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules until the July 7th, 2010 deadline.

The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes, 500 feet from property lines.

CLICK HERE to go to the PSC website, then type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted.



Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com  June 20 2010

Wind farm development has been a hotly debated issue in Northeastern Wisconsin, and the Green Bay Press-Gazette has received numerous letters to the editor, for and against.

Drawing the most response from readers has been a proposal by Invenergy LLC, a Chicago-based company, to build wind turbines in the Brown County towns of Morrison, Wrightstown, Glenmore and Holland. The 100-turbine wind farm would be the first major commercial operation of its kind in Brown County and the largest in the state. It has signed contracts for about $8,000 a year with numerous property owners permitting 400-foot turbines on their properties.

Many property owners and residents in the southern Brown County communities have spoken out against the project, citing negative health effects and the potential loss in property values.

Just last week, the Brown County Board of Health recommended that no wind turbines be built in the area of the proposed wind farm in southern Brown County, citing a potential threat to the groundwater. The area has a history of well contamination because of the porous bedrock peculiar to that region.

Invenergy is awaiting siting rules from the Public Service Commission, which is taking public comments on the wind turbine issue until July 6.

Uncomfortable with proposed turbines

 DENMARK — In the Press-Gazette article, "Wind company tries to woo Brown County" (May 11), Kevin Parzyck, the project manager for the proposed 100-turbine Ledge Wind project in Brown County, is quoted as saying "(T)here is a high level of comfort … it's a benefit to the community." This is a misleading statement. 

WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE

Monday, June 21, 2010, beginning at 1:30 p.m.

Docket 1-AC-231

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Flambeau River Conference Room (3rd Floor)
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio or video of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 1:30.

CLICK HERE to visit the PSC website, click on the button on the left that says "Live Broadcast". Sometimes the meetings don't begin right on time. The broadcasts begin when the meetings do so keep checking back if you don't hear anything at the appointed start time.

Agenda

1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda

2) Review and adoption of meeting minutes of June 15, 2010

3) Background information on questions raised by Council regarding the draft rules

a. Statutory interpretation
b. Enforcement
c. Commission rulemaking authority
d. Notice requirements
e. Emergency services
f. Vestas manual reference
g. Decommissioning
h. Stray voltage
i. Complaint resolution
j. Commission noise measurement protocol

4) Discuss proposed amendments to straw proposal for Council’s recommendations to
Commission regarding draft rules

5) Next steps/Discussion of next meeting’s time, place and agenda

6) Adjourn

This meeting is open to the public.

If you have any questions or need special accommodations, please contact Deborah
Erwin at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin by telephone at (608) 266-3905 or
via e-mail at deborah.erwin@wisconsin.gov.