FROM WISCONSIN:

WE ENERGIES CANCELS RENEWABLE AID PROGRAM

READ ENTIRE STORY HERE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

May 13, 2011

By Thomas Content

We Energies is canceling a program that funded small-scale renewable energy development, including projects that resulted in solar power being generated at GE Healthcare and smaller projects at churches and nonprofits such as the Urban Ecology Center.

The utility announced on its website Friday that it has decided to terminate its Renewable Energy Development programs.

The utility had committed in 2002 to spending $6 million a year on renewable energy development initiatives but has decided to end that program, utility spokesman Brian Manthey said.

The company is no longer offering grants for nonprofits and will continue education and training programs “until committed funds are depleted,” the utility’s message said.

The announcement came weeks after the company reported record quarterly earnings and the same month that the utility plans to file a plan to increase rates for its electricity customers next year. The utility’s customers have seen bills rise by more than 5% this year, with a typical residential customer now paying $105 a month for electricity.

The power company said its decision is based on its increased investment in building renewable energy projects to meet the state’s 10% renewable energy target. Total spending in renewable energy, including two large wind farms and a portion of its investment in a $255 million biomass power plant in north-central Wisconsin, will exceed $800 million by the end of this year, Manthey said.

“There’s an awful lot going from customers to pay for renewable energy both for the projects as well as funds for the Focus on Energy program,” he said.

Focus on Energy is a statewide initiative funded by utility ratepayers that provides incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The utility’s $800 million estimate includes $120 million that would be spent this year on the biomass project the utility has proposed to build in north-central Wisconsin. As of Friday, however, the utility had not decided whether to build that project because it and Domtar Corp. were still reviewing whether they can accept conditions imposed by the state Public Service Commission that aim to bring down the overall cost of the project to customers.

A leading state renewable energy advocate said Friday that We Energies was backing away from a $60 million commitment with only about half of the money collected.

Renew Wisconsin, a group that worked with We Energies and other groups on a renewable energy collaborative, agreed not to object to the utility’s plan to build new coal and natural gas-fired power plants as part of that commitment, said Michael Vickerman, executive director.

“We looked at it as a commitment. They looked at it as a commitment, until a couple days ago,” Vickerman said of We Energies. “Now that the coal plant is up and running, it appears that the program has outlived its usefulness to We Energies.”

The 12.7% profit the utility earns on its investment in the $2.38 billion coal plant has been a key driver in record profits the utility reported in 2010. With the second unit of the coal plant completed in January, 2011 will be another record year for Wisconsin Energy Corp.

To Vickerman, the announcement is the latest in a string of setbacks for efforts to develop homegrown renewable energy and stem the flow of energy dollars out of the state. That includes Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to make it more difficult to build wind farms in the state and a GOP-sponsored bill to be considered in the Legislature next week that would allow utilities to import hydro power from large dams in Manitoba to meet the state’s renewable energy mandate.

Manthey, of We Energies, says circumstances have changed since its commitment, including the 2006 state law that requires 10% of Wisconsin’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2015.

The utility says its projects are a significant investment in the state’s economy. When completed later this year, the Glacier Hills Wind Park in Columbia County will be the state’s largest wind farm, and its Blue Sky Green Field project is the second biggest renewable project in the state, Manthey said.

A recipient of funding from We Energies was disappointed with the utility’s decision. We Energies provided $30,000 toward a $160,000 solar and energy efficiency project at the Unitarian Universalist church on Milwaukee’s east side, said Tom Brandstetter, who led the project.

Without the utility’s help, completing the project “would have made it much more difficult,” he said.

Plus, he said, the program helped the utility’s image that it was committed to green power at a time when it was building new coal plants. “We’re going in the exact opposite direction that we need to,” Brandstetter said.

Manthey said the utility’s shift on the renewable energy development program would have no impact on its Energy for Tomorrow initiative, a green-pricing program under which certain utility customers agree to pay more on their monthly electric bills to support renewable energy.

By the end of the month, the utility is expected to file a detailed plan with state regulators to raise bills in 2012 and again in 2013. The funding plan would pay for the wind farm now under construction northeast of Madison as well as environmental controls being installed at the original Oak Creek coal plant.

FROM AUSTRALIA:

WIND TURBINE SYNDROME

READ FULL STORY AT THE SOURCE: ABC1, hungrybeast.abc.net.au

May 11, 2011

Wind energy supplies approximately 2% of Australia’s overall electricity needs. The Waubra Wind Farm in rural Victoria is one of Australia’s largest wind farms and home to 128 wind turbines. As farmers Carl and Samantha Stepnell discovered, living near wind turbines can sometimes result in unexpected consequences.

To read more about Carl and Samantha’s story, a full transcript from the Ballarat Public Hearing of the Senate Inquiry into The Social and Economic of Rural Wind Farms can be read and downloaded here: “Health effects of living close to the Waubra wind turbines”.

FROM OKLAHOMA:

GOVERNOR SIGNS EMINENT DOMAIN LAW TO PROTECT LANDOWNERS FROM WIND FARM THREAT

READ FULL STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Oklahoman, www.newsok.com 14 May 2011

“The Southern Great Plains Property Rights Coalition supports any legislation which will help landowners protect their property now and for future generations,” the group said Friday. “We feel this is a step in the right direction since the use of eminent domain for profit is becoming a hot topic.”

Gov. Mary Fallin has signed into law an eminent domain measure that protects rural landowners from the threat of companies looking for locations to build wind turbines.

The bill’s author, Sen. Ron Justice, of Chickasha, said wind power provides a tremendous boost to the state’s economy, but he said it is important to protect landowners’ rights.

The law was heralded by a northwest Oklahoma property owners group.

“The Southern Great Plains Property Rights Coalition supports any legislation which will help landowners protect their property now and for future generations,” the group said Friday. “We feel this is a step in the right direction since the use of eminent domain for profit is becoming a hot topic.”

The law prohibits use of the power of eminent domain for the siting or erection of wind turbines on private land. It says landowners have the right to decide whether they want turbines on their land.

Justice said Senate Bill 124 was requested by landowners who were approached by wind industry representatives who mentioned the possible use of eminent domain.

Jaime McAlpine of Chermac Energy Corp. said wind developers and utility companies helped craft the bill’s language.

FROM ONTARIO:

ONTARIO GREEN ENERGY PROJECT COULD KILL, HARM AND HARASS ENDANGERED SPECIES

READ ENTIRE STORY AT SOURCE: National Post, nationalpost.com

May 13, 2011

By Sarah Boesveld

A Toronto-based wind energy company will have the legal right to “kill, harm and harass” two endangered species if Ontario approves their permit to build over the creatures’ habitat on the shores of Lake Ontario.

Gilead Power Corporation is proposing a green energy project in Prince Edward County, home of the Blanding’s turtle and the whippoorwill. The area where the endangered turtles rest is also considered an “important bird area.”

The project is a complicated one that carries a certain kind of irony for environmental activists who largely approve of green energy projects but have a mandate to protect wildlife in their natural habitats. Ontario Nature, an organization that “protects wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education and public engagement,” said sometimes good projects are proposed in areas that compromise the well being of animals. This is a clear example, said director of conservation and education Anne Bell, who stresses Ontario “absolutely needs wind” to help battle climate change.

“We’re totally supportive of wind, but at the same time, you can’t be putting up projects in the middle of areas where you know there’s going to be a significant ecological impact. It doesn’t make sense,” she said. “It’s not green. It’s green that’s not green.”

The organization has been speaking with interested parties about the project “for a long time,” their attention first drawn to it by the local conservation group Prince Edward County Field Naturalists.

The company’s plans are so far at a standstill, as it must first earn the permit from the province that clears the way for construction — construction that would involve clearing away grasslands and marshes in order to build the towers.

“For the most part, we can find ways to mitigate around endangered species reasonably, so that the species continues, and continues to thrive,” said Ontario Natural Resources minister Linda Jeffrey.

The whippoorwill, widely referenced in North American folk songs and literature, was listed as a threatened species by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada in 2009. Blanding’s turtle is protected under the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement of the Planning Act and is also protected federally.

FROM OREGON:

BPA SAYS IT WILL TAMP DOWN WIND FARMS WHEN TOO MUCH POWER FLOODS THE SYSTEM

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Oregonian, www.oregonlive.com

May 13, 2011

By Ted Sickinger,

The Bonneville Power Administration will rein in the wind, and is likely to reap the legal whirlwind.

In a decision that speaks to the region’s ability — or inability — to effectively manage all the simultaneous wind and water energy being generated in the Columbia Gorge, the Bonneville Power Administration said Friday it will pull the plug on wind farms at times when excess generation threatens to swamp the system’s ability to handle it.

That could come early next week, as spring runoff increases hydroelectric generation, the agency said.

BPA’s decision is almost certain to trigger litigation from wind farm operators, including independent producers and utilities — whose projects won’t generate expected financial returns. They depend on turbines running flat out when the wind blows to generate not only power, but the renewable energy and tax credits that make up a sizeable slice of their revenue stream.

Wind operators say BPA’s plan, which would unilaterally override their transmission contracts, is discriminatory and designed to protect the agency’s surplus power sales revenue. That revenue goes to lower the rates of the 140 public utilities who buy their power from the federal agency.

“This is a very loud and unmistakable signal to the wind industry that this might not be the place to do business,” said Robert Kahn, executive director of the Northwest & Intermountain Power Producers Coalition. “This was predictable and preventable. We should never be in a position of having too much of a good thing.”

BPA sells power from 31 hydroelectric dams in the region and operates much of its transmission network. The agency’s administrator, Steve Wright, has been pressured by members of Congress to back away from the plan. He acknowledged Friday that BPA could quickly face litigation, but said he had little choice.

“We wouldn’t do this if we didn’t have a good chance of winning, so we’re ready if folks choose to sue, he said. “What I regret is that we haven’t found a better solution.”

BPA finalized the policy to prepare for what could be the highest runoff in the Columbia Basin since 1999. That could boost power production from its own dams beyond limited spring electricity demands. The agency is also responsible for integrating generation from wind farms connected to its grid, toggling its own production up and down to match power demand and supply and keep the grid humming along in balance.

Under the terms of the plan, the agency will respond to overgeneration by first curtailing as much coal and natural gas generation as possible, then pull the plug on windfarms. BPA will substitute free hydropower to make up the energy deliveries that the wind farms are otherwise scheduled to make.

The agency contends it can’t turn off its own hydroelectric turbines and spill more water to accommodate wind because the resulting turbulence would violate limits on dissolved nitrogen in the water, harming fish. That leaves wind curtailment as the only choice.

BPA is aware that wind farms don’t want free hydropower because power buyers are also after renewable energy credits. Utilities use the RECs to comply with state renewable energy mandates, and they’re generated only when the turbine blades are spinning. RECs and federal production tax credits can make up 50 percent of the revenue stream for a wind farm.

“We feel there are other options,” said Roby Roberts, vice president at Horizon Wind Energy, which operates three wind farms in Oregon and one in Washington. “We’re going to push for a different resolution.”

BPA has worked on a variety if interim solutions to accommodate more wind, but crtitics say it’s been too little too late. Wright said Friday that most of those measures were stopgaps. What the region needs, he said, is more physical assets, either new transmission or storage of some form, both of which are expensive, longer-term solutions.

“We’ll have to explore all these things,” he said. “The other thing that’s clear is that there’s a lot of wind still coming on the system and the problem keeps getting bigger.”

NEXTERA SAYS BROKEN WIND TURBINE BLADE REMOVED

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: DAILY CHRONICLE. COM

May 6, 2011

By Caitlin Mullen

SHABBONA – Officials with NextEra Energy said a broken blade on a wind turbine has been removed and the cause of the shattered blade will be investigated. With weight limits on county and township roads this spring, NextEra spokesman Steve Stengel said Thursday that the company had to wait until those weight postings were removed before a large truck with a crane could drive on the roads to get to the blade, at Shabbona Road between Keslinger and Gurler roads.

The DeKalb County Highway Department removed its spring road posting signs for county roads April 8, which had restricted traffic weighing more than 33,000 pounds, County Engineer Bill Lorence said.

Stengel, who said broken blades occur occasionally, with one happening in May 2010, said the blade was removed in the last 1½ weeks. It shattered in mid-March. The company has operated 145 turbines in DeKalb and Lee counties since late 2009. A group of local residents called Citizens for Open Government is opposed to the wind farm and is suing to have it shut down

DOCTOR'S CALL: STOP WIND FARM CONSTRUCTION

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT SOURCE: Stock & Land, sl.farmonline.com.au

May 6, 2011

Alan Dick

A doctor campaigning on the claimed health impacts of wind farms has called for a halt to construction of wind turbines within 10 kilometres of housing until independent research is conducted.

She said research was needed, particularly on the impact of infrasound – sound below the level of normal human hearing.

Dr Sarah Laurie, medical director at the Waubra Foundation, made the call in her submission to the inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs Committee into the social and economic impact of rural wind farms.

(The Waubra Foundation was formed to generate independent research on the health effects of wind farms, in response to reported problems associated with the Waubra wind farm near Ballarat, Victoria.)

The inquiry has received almost 900 submissions and become a battleground of competing views on the value of and need for wind farms and on health impacts.

Many submissions from landholders speak of negative health effects.

But other landholders, wind farm developers and “green” organisations have talked up the need for wind farms as alternatives to burning of fossil fuels in electricity generation, and some landholders hosting wind turbines have emphasised their benign nature and the importance of the guaranteed income they provide.

Dr Laurie told the committee numerous doctors around the world who had conducted studies on their patient populations had reported health problems since wind farms started operating near their homes.

“There is absolutely no doubt these turbines, particularly at some developments, are making nearby residents very sick, and that their symptoms worsen over time.”

“This is resulting in people abandoning their homes and farms, if they can afford to.”

Dr Laurie said the “strong hypothesis” among concerned doctors, acousticians, physiologists, physicists, psychologists and others around the world was that one of the mechanisms causing ill health was low frequency sound and infrasound.

She said episodes of sleep disturbance and waking in a panicked state were being experienced by people living up to 10 kilometres from existing wind developments in South Australia and NSW.

She said research was needed to measure infrasound concurrent with indices such as sleep and blood pressure in affected residents when turbines were operating, and to compare results when the turbines were not operating.

However, wind farm companies and others, including the Australian Psychological Society, have dismissed suggestions of negative health effects from wind farms.

The latter in its submission said the Senate committee should take into consideration the “robust evidence base” which suggested wind farms did not present any major health risk,

The APS said local opposition to wind farms could be understood in terms of “place protective action”, and recommended use of “psychological principles” to explain and promote the benefits of wind farms.

The NSW Government in its submission said the World Health organisation had concluded there was no reliable evidence that sounds beneath the hearing threshold produced physiological or psychological effects.

Next story

KIRKCALDY TURBINES COULD FORCE CLUNY FALCONRY TO CLOSE ITS DOORS

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT THE SOURCE: The Courier, www.thecourier.co.uk

May 6, 2011

By Charlene Wilson,

A Fife falconry could be forced to close if plans for three wind turbines on the outskirts of Kirkcaldy take flight.

Robin Manson, who works at Elite Falconry, which has been based at Cluny since 1998, said the business would not survive if the plan goes ahead, as the area would no longer be safe for the facility’s 37 birds to take to the skies.

The proposals for three 300ft wind turbines at Begg Farm, on an area of land parallel to the A92, have yet to be submitted to Fife Council but were brought to the attention of Mr Manson and Elite Falconry owners Roxanne Peggie and Barry Blyther by concerned community council members.

Mr Manson said, “We feel quite let down because the company behind the proposal, I and H Brown Ltd, have not given us any information about it or made contact with us about these plans yet they are planning on doing something pretty much on our doorstep that they must realise will be at the detriment of our business.

“Here at our centre we train hawks, falcons, eagles, vultures and owls to fly and behave in a trained and controlled state while retaining their natural instincts and behaviour, however they will simply not be able to fly if there are wind turbines nearby — it would be too dangerous for them because when a bird flies into a turbine, it is sure to either die instantly or suffer a slow, agonising death.

“We take great pride in our work at the centre and when you have birds worth potentially around £6000 it’s simply not an option for them to fly near such a dangerous hazard.”

Mr Manson said although the safety of the birds is his main concern, he also thinks the turbines would be a blight on the town’s landscape.

He said, “I’ve seen a computer-generated image of what they are expected to look like and they completely dominate the skyline of Kirkcaldy and basically just look like an eyesore.

“I am actually a qualified architect and did some investigations into wind turbines as part of my studies and I know that to put three on the site in question would be of no benefit to the community, only the landowner.

‘Hard to recycle’

“I’ve done a lot of research on the issue and when wind turbines first came out 10-15 years ago in places like Germany they were very popular, however now the same people who put them up are taking them down as it has come to light that, ironically, they could be bad for the environment long-term due to the material they are made of being very hard to recycle.”

“Also they only last for around 20 years and are very expensive to manufacture so it takes a long time before any profit is made on each one, which, it could be argued, almost defeats the purpose.

“The bottom line is Elite Falconry has been here for 13 years and we have built up a good reputation in the area but if these turbines go up, we will be forced to close.”

As well as visiting schools and putting on displays, the centre has the responsibility of trying to breed golden eagles by mating its two resident birds — among only a handful in the UK able to breed naturally.

There are also other birds in breeding programmes, with the latest egg hatching being that of a tiny baby falcon, and eight great grey owl eggs due to hatch in a month.

A spokesman for I and H Brown Ltd said they welcomed public feedback regarding their plans and that ornithology would be one of a range of subjects covered and taken into account in their environmental impact assessment.

Next Story

LAWSUIT CONTENDS VESTAS MISLEAD IN FINANCIAL REPORTS

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Northern Colorado Business Report, www.ncbr.com

May 6, 2011

By Steve Porter

The lawsuit, filed March 18, alleges that four of Vestas’ top officers – Bent Erik Carlsen, chairman of the board; Ditlev Engel, president and CEO; Henrik Norremark, executive vice president and CFO; and Martha Wyrsch, president of Vestas Americas – deliberately made false and misleading statements in press releases and financial reports.

DENVER – Vestas Wind Systems, one of Northern Colorado’s biggest employers with manufacturing facilities in Windsor and Brighton and another in Pueblo, is facing a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver over accounting practices.

The suit alleges the company posted misleading information about its 2010 earnings that resulted in financial losses to pension fund investors and others who purchased Vestas stock based on the information.

The lawsuit was filed by the City of Sterling Heights (Mich.) General Employees’ Retirement System and accuses Vestas and some of its chief officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that, during the “class period” between Oct. 27, 2009, and Oct. 25, 2010, the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company’s financial revenues and earnings, as well as its fiscal year 2010 financial guidance.

As a result of those alleged actions, the lawsuit contends that Vestas’ American Depository Receipts and ordinary shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the time period.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages to be determined by the court. Attorneys for the plaintiffs are seeking other Vestas investors who purchased securities during the class period to join in the suit.

Those involved with filing the lawsuit, including Darren Robbins of San Diego-based Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, did not return telephone calls for this story. Walt Hessel, pension fund administrator for the City of Sterling Heights, about 20 miles northeast of Detroit, also declined to comment.
“We have ongoing litigation so it’s not appropriate for us to comment at all,” Hessel said, although he did acknowledge that about 500 active and retired employees are included in the pension fund.

Chief officers singled out

The lawsuit, filed March 18, alleges that four of Vestas’ top officers – Bent Erik Carlsen, chairman of the board; Ditlev Engel, president and CEO; Henrik Norremark, executive vice president and CFO; and Martha Wyrsch, president of Vestas Americas – deliberately made false and misleading statements in press releases and financial reports.

“These claims are asserted against Vestas and its officers and chairman of the board who disseminated materially false and misleading statements during the class period in the company’s financial reports, press releases and analyst conference calls,” the lawsuit states.

“Because of their positions with the company, and their access to material non-public information available to them but not to the public, the individual defendants knew that the adverse facts alleged herein had not been disclosed to, and were being concealed from, market participants and that the positive representations being made were then materially false and misleading,” the suit further states.

According to the suit, Vestas failed to implement a new accounting policy that was to go into effect no later than Jan. 1, 2010. It would no longer allow the company to recognize revenues from wind projects that were contracted or under construction but instead must be deferred until the installation was complete.

The new policy, known as IFRIC 15, was not implemented by Vestas until Nov. 22, the suit alleges.

The suit states that on Aug. 17, Vestas issued its second quarter 2010 results and “downwardly revised its 2010 financial outlook for revenue and earnings, admitting that hundreds of millions of Euros of wind systems contracts expected to be recognized in 2010 – particularly in the United States – must be deferred.”

“As such, the company decreased its 2010 revenue guidelines from $7 billion Euros to $6 billion” Euros because “revenue associated with firm and unconditional orders could not be recognized during fiscal 2010,” according to the suit. It also noted that market reaction to the Aug. 17 disclosure was “swift and punitive,” with the value of both its ADRs and ordinary shares dropping by 22.5 percent in one day.

Defendants benefitted?

The lawsuit further alleges Vestas admitted on Oct. 26 that it had failed to implement IFRIC 15 and that its 2010 financial statement would require corrective action.

The suit says that “after defendants’ fraud was revealed and absorbed by the market, investors sold their Vestas securities in mass, reducing the price of the company’s securities by 57 percent from their class period high.”

The lawsuit contends that the actions by Vestas’ officers “allowed the top officers and director of Vestas to obtain millions of Euros in salary and incentive-based compensation during the class period.”

Vestas spokesman Peter Kruse issued a statement saying the company would fight the lawsuit. “The company has reviewed the complaint with its legal and other advisers and believes that the complaint is without merit. The company and the individual defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously.”

When called for a follow-up comment, Kruse said he had “nothing to add to the statement of March 21.”

As of May 2, Vestas had not filed a reply to the lawsuit.

Vestas reported in February that it had received a total of 15 North American orders for wind turbines in 2010, a record for the company that employs about 1,600 people in Colorado.

PROPOSED WIND FARM REGULATIONS

SOURCE: WFRV GREEN BAY

BROWN COUNTY, Wis. (WFRV) -- A proposal from an area lawmaker will make it even harder for wind farmer developers to build in the state. This after two developers recently pulled the plug on projects in Northeast Wisconsin.

David Enz built his home for his family back in 1978. But last month he and his wife decided they could no longer stay.

"Started feeling pressure in my ears, feeling pressurized, started feeling unstable," Enz said.

Enz attributes the symptoms to the eight wind turbines that were built last fall about a half mile from his house.

"It gets to the point where your body just does not want to be here, it just can't be here," said Enz.

Today, State Senator Frank Lasee introduced legislation that would require developers to keep turbines at least 2,250 feet from a person's property unless there's permission to build closer.

Right now, they need to be at least 1,250 feet from homes. Earlier this year, Governor Scott Walker said he wanted to change the law to 1,800 feet.

Senator Lasee says that's not enough.

"Two thousand fifty feet is a reasonable distance that will help preserve their health and safety because of shadow, flicker, noise and I believe there is either magnetic or electric noise that causes health problems for people," Lasee said.

Last month, two wind farm developers pulled out of projects in both Brown and Calumet Counties, saying the current regulations already go too far.

According to Senator Lasee, the strict regulations aren't what's driving companies away from projects here in Wisconsin. He says it all comes down to money.

"Many utilities are no longer paying premiums which drive up our electric costs for wind energy so they're having trouble getting a contract that would pay," Lasee said. "I think they're using this as an excuse."

Enz hopes the Senator's proposal can prevent other families from going through what he has.

"We have a house that we can't live in," he said.

Enz and his wife have been staying with their children for the last few weeks. Senator Lasee is circulating the bill in the senate and assembly.

LASEE BILL WOULD CHANGE RULES FOR WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS

Sen. Frank Lasee is circulating for co-sponsorship a proposal revising PSC authority over wind energy system siting. Basically, the bill requires owners of a large wind energy system to design and construct the system so a straight line distance from the vertical center line of any turbine in the system to the nearest point on the property line be at least one-half mile. The distance could be shorter if the system owner and property owners agree to a lesser distance. The bill also changes the distance from the vertical center of any turbine to the permanent foundation of any building.
 
Link to PDF of the proposed bill:
http://thewheelerreport.com/releases/April11/0415/0415lrb1507.pdf
 



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?

ROTOR CRASHES AT IBERDROLA WIND FARM IN NORTH DAKOTA

SOURCE: North American Wind Power

March 16, 2011

NAW has learned that a rotor came crashing to the ground at the 149.1 MW Rugby Wind Power Project, located near Rugby, N.D. The wind farm, owned and operated by Iberdrola Renewables, consists of 71 2.1 MW wind turbines, which were manufactured by Suzlon Wind Energy Corp.

According to a local resident, the incident occurred around 2:30 p.m. local time on Monday. There were no reported injuries.

Dan Smith, a local commercial photographer who has photographed the wind project from its early stages, says the wind farm's technicians told him that the incident may have stemmed from a failed braking mechanism.

"It looks like the braking mechanism failed, and the rotor gained speed, flexed and hit the tower and sheared off the mounting plate at the hub where it connects with the nacelle," Smith explains.

He adds that the rotor appeared to scrape the tower on its way to the ground, which could require the tower to be replaced as well.

READ ENTIRE STORY AT NORTH AMERICAN WIND POWER WEBLINK

CLICK ON THE IMAGE BELOW TO WATCH A SIMILAR ROTOR COLLAPSE AFTER WIND TURBINE BRAKES FAIL

From Illinois

WIND FARM PLAN SHOCKS BOARD

Source www.saukvalley.com

16 March 2011

BY DAVID GIULIANI,

MORRISON – Some Whiteside County Board members are upset that they hadn’t been informed about the possibility of wind energy development in the county.

A couple of weeks ago, a county official told a board committee about a company’s plans for wind turbines north of the village of Deer Grove and extending west of state Route 40.

Deer Grove, 11 miles south of Rock Falls, has a population of about 50.

Apparently, some board members didn’t know of the proposed project until they read about it in the newspaper.

At the board’s monthly meeting Tuesday, member Bill Milby, whose district includes Deer Grove, said a number of people have contacted him expressing their concerns about the proposed wind farm.

Milby said he wished he would learn of such developments from the county, rather than the newspaper.

Stuart Richter, the county’s planning and zoning administrator, emphasized that the county hadn’t received an application from the company, Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Energy. He said he expected to receive the application in September.

“It’s not a big secret,” he said, adding that he hadn’t seen the layout of the proposed wind farm.

Board member Jim Duffy asked whether the wind farm would be rushed through the board at the last minute.

“I certainly hope not,” Richter responded. “This is all new to us, but we won’t be reinventing the wheel.”

Board member Jon Hinton suggested the county put a hold on all permits for a while, adding that he hadn’t known about the proposed wind farm until recently.

Members asked what would happen when companies abandoned their turbines.

Richter responded that the county would enter into separate agreements for such issues. He said some counties require companies to post money to be put in escrow to cover the costs of the eventual decommissioning of their turbines.

During the public comment portion of the meeting, Sterling resident Amanda Norris, head of the local Sauk Valley Tea Party, said she and her husband recently bought land near Prophetstown and planned it to use for recreational purposes.

“This leaves us very concerned about protecting our property rights,” she said. “Having a turbine only a few hundred feet from our property would make it worthless to us. How does Whiteside County intend to protect the rights of property owners such as me and my husband?”

Whiteside County doesn’t have any wind turbines, but Lee and Bureau counties have had them for years. Those counties have been embroiled in bitter debates because many residents find the turbines noisy and unsightly, and say they cause health issues.

Mainstream is planning 190 turbines for the local project, which would include Bureau, Lee and Whiteside counties. Most of the turbines would be in Lee County, but company representatives wouldn’t say how many would be in each county.

The representatives confirmed that they planned to apply for permits in the three counties in the coming months.