NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Ted Weissman is a wind developer for NextEra (formerly Florida Power & Light) who has been inquiring about putting up a met tower in the Town of Spring Valley (Rock County).

Better Plan has been told he is the same developer that signed up a number of landowners for the Glacier Hills project currently under construction in Columbia County and now owned by WeEnergies.

For those in the Spring Valley community who are interested in what kinds of terms might be in a wind lease from Ted Weissman on behalf of NextEra, a preview may be had by looking over the leases Weissman reportedly used to sign up Columbia county landowners. Download a copy of the wind lease by clicking here, or visit the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, and search docket #6630-CE-302

In upcoming days Better Plan will be taking a closer look at the wind lease that at least a few landowners in Columbia county now openly regret signing, why they regret signing it and where things stand with the project today.

Senate Bill 98, Changing Setback Limits and other Regulations Applicable to Wind Energy Systems. 

This bill imposes additional requirements on the PSC's rules governing local regulation of wind turbines.

The bill requires the restrictions under the rules to provide reasonable protection from any health effects associated with wind energy systems, including health effects from noise and shadow flicker.

The bill eliminates the requirement for the PSC to promulgate rules regarding setback requirements, and requires instead that the owners of certain wind energy systems comply with distance requirements specified in the bill.

The bill's requirements apply to the owner of a "large wind energy system," which the bill defines as a wind energy system that has a total installed nameplate capacity of more than 300 kilowatts and that consists of individual wind turbines that have an installed nameplate capacity of more than 100 kilowatts. 

Under the bill, the owner of a large wind energy system must design and construct the system so that the straight line distance from the vertical center line of any wind turbine tower of the system to the nearest point on the property line of the property on which the wind turbine tower is located is at least one-half mile. 

The bill allows a lesser distance if there is a written agreement between the owner of the large wind energy system and the owners of all property within one-half mile of the property on which the system is located.

The bill also requires that the straight line distance from the vertical center line of any wind turbine tower of the system to the nearest point on the permanent foundation of any building must be at least 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height of the wind turbine tower, unless the owners of the system and the building agree in writing to a lesser distance. 

In addition, the bill requires that the straight line distance from the vertical center line of any wind turbine tower of the system to the nearest point on any public road right-of-way or overhead communication or electric transmission or distribution line must be at least 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height of the wind turbine tower.  By Sen. Lasee (R-De Pere) Comment on this bill. 

FROM WASHINGTON DC

HOUSE REPUBLICANS PRESS FOR FASTER ACTION ON RENEWABLE ENERGY

READ THE ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com

June 1, 2011

By Jim Snyder,

Susan Reilly, chief executive officer of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., of Broomfield, Colorado, said Interior Department protection from wind turbines for golden eagles will “make financing projects more difficult.”

U.S. House Republicans, who have sought to expedite offshore oil- and gas-drilling permits, pressed the Obama administration to act faster on renewable energy projects.

Federal hurdles are slowing growth of solar and wind companies, industry executives said today at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing in Washington. The witnesses also advocated tax incentives and production mandates criticized by Republicans, who control the House.

“Bureaucratic delays, unnecessary lawsuits and burdensome environmental regulations” are hampering expansion of renewable energy, as they have for oil and gas producers, said Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, a Republican from Washington state.

Hastings’s panel has already passed legislation designed to expand oil and gas production offshore, including an accelerated approval process for drilling permits. The bills passed the House before being blocked in the Senate, where Democrats hold a majority.

Susan Reilly, chief executive officer of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., of Broomfield, Colorado, said Interior Department protection from wind turbines for golden eagles will “make financing projects more difficult.”

The Obama administration proposed guidelines in February to help wind-energy developers identify sites that pose the least risks to birds and wildlife.

Collisions with wind turbines are a “major source of mortality” for golden eagles in regions of the U.S. West, according to a department fact sheet.
Developing Public Lands

Hastings asked witnesses if the Interior Department had an efficient and effective process for reviewing permits for developing public lands.

While most responded no, executives also praised the Obama administration for improving the procedures and focusing more attention on renewable energy.

They commended policies like a Treasury Department grant program for renewable developers set to expire later this year and an Obama plan to generate 80 percent of U.S. electricity from low-polluting sources by 2035.

The Interior Department is “picking up the pace” on offshore wind, said Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition.

Reilly said clean-energy mandates and a predictable tax policy would promote investment.

From Ontario

HOME VALUES VS. WIND TURBINES

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca

June 1, 2011

by Travis Pedwell

McMurray tells Bayshore Broadcasting News it’s hard to put a value on house depreciation but says it can bring down a home’s value by 25 to 40 per cent.

He says the depreciation stays at 25 to 40 per cent as far as two miles away from the house.

McMurray adds if a home is in an area where people are looking for recreational or desirable residential property the house may not have any market value.

Wind Turbines are having a serious effect on house values in Grey County and would do the same in Huron County.

This from Grey County realtor Mike McMurray at the Community Forum on Wind Development in Goderich held on Monday.

McMurray tells Bayshore Broadcasting News it’s hard to put a value on house depreciation but says it can bring down a home’s value by 25 to 40 per cent.

He says the depreciation stays at 25 to 40 per cent as far as two miles away from the house.

McMurray adds if a home is in an area where people are looking for recreational or desirable residential property the house may not have any market value.

McMurray notes he sympathizes with those who have built homes and have had turbines placed in their backyards.

He tells us most people he deals with wish they had never got involved with turbines.

McMurray tells us there have been several cases when someone from Toronto wants to relocate and must look elsewhere because of potential wind development.

He says his experience shows wind development pits neighbour against neighbour.

McMurray notes among other things – the biggest concern he hears from potential buyers are the health effects.

He says nobody wants to look out at the turbines all day and have flashing lights come through the windows at night.

McMurray adds many potential buyers will stay away from areas of wind development.

He says he has encountered residents who don’t mind turbines but adds only farmers on marginal properties see them as a way of survival.

From Ontario

LIKE LIVING IN A MICROWAVE OVEN

READ THE WHOLE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Orangeville Citizen, www.citizen.on.ca

June 2, 2011

By WES KELLER

If the independent findings and conclusions of an electrical engineer are correct, Theresa Kidd and her family were living “inside a microwave oven environment” near the TransAlta transformer substation in Amaranth until forced out by ill health.

Because they had lived on their horse farm across from the Hydro One grid near 15 Sideroad and the 10th Line of Amaranth for more than a half dozen years with no adverse health effects prior to the installation of transformers but have experienced severe ill health since then, the Kidds blame the substation – and the electrical study would appear to confirm that as the cause.

However, the Ministry of Recreational Environment (MoE) hasn’t indicated an interest in anything other than noise-level compliance at the site, and Theresa says TransAlta has never www. sent its own electrical engineers to investigate the source of her family’s complaints.

Her electrical engineer is David Copping of Ripley, who says some industry and MoE officials have agreed with his findings – but only “off the record.”

Mr. Copping, who lives in the area of the Suncor wind farm, said in a telephone interview that the proximity of the turbines to his home has nothing to do with his opposition to the transmission of wind power.

In fact, the Ryerson-trained electrician at first poohpoohed the idea that electric contamination from wind farms could affect human health. He did, however, have an interest in examining the effects on dairy herds.

Someone talked him into examining a home near Ripley where the occupants had become ill. Since then, he says, he has examined more

200 homes of which there are now five vacant at Ripley, the two at the local substation, and one more near Kincardine, where Enbridge has a wind farm.

Mr. Copping’s reports are technical, and appear to be at least partially based on analyses of power quality and frequency, using specialized equipment.

His “microwave” conclusion is from a measurement of a 10 kiloHertz (Kz) frequency of electricity on a wire connected between the kitchen sink and an EKG patch on the floor of the Kidd home when the main power line to the house had been shut off.

That frequency is otherwise expressed as 10,000 cycles per second, but the frequency of “clean” electrical transmission would be 60 cycles per second, he says.

Where is the energy coming from when the power line to the house has been shut off? Mr. Colling said it could be “coming through the walls.”

“You have 10 kHz micro surges being introduced into your home, therefore it compares to living inside microwave oven environment. I hope this helps in understanding what has happened to your health,” he says in concluding note to the Kidds.

Ms. Kidd said she met TransAlta representative Jason Edworthy at Amaranth Council in January 2010 when the council urged him to speak with the affected residents (Kidds and Whitworths).

Then, in March, she described symptoms of headaches, vomiting and sleep deprivation among other things to Mr. Edworthy, as happening since February 2009 – forcing the family to vacate in April of that year.

“For the record, this was the second time we spoke with TransAlta – and the last,” she said.

“TransAlta has done absolutely nothing to investigate our concerns; they are fully aware of the health issues we have incurred due to their substation.”

She notes that acoustical barriers and landscaping around the substation were completed before TransAlta purchased Canadian Hydro in a hostile takeover, and those were done “to bring the noise levels into compliance.”

“Neither the Kidd nor Whitworth family health has been made a priority by TransAlta. This company’s response in addressing our concerns due to their electrical transformer substation was to give us three options: sell and move; stay and adapt; or take action against the company.

“These options were given to us in March 2010,” she said.

In addition to their physical health problems, the Kidds generally have lost their horse-training business as they have been forced to dispose of their herd, evidently because they can’t live there but also because of the electromagnetic effects on the animals.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW astonishing video of what is being called "the drunken windmill". What happens when a blade falls off an industrial scale wind turbine but it keeps on turning?

To get an idea of the scale of this turbine, note the height of the tree line.

Below:

Video from a public meeting in the rural Ontario towns of Fergus and Belwood where residents confront wind developers and hired PR people about a proposed project.

In the past, developers held open public meetings where they addressed the public directly. Now the approach is to hold an 'open house' --- no direct statements to the residents, but rather developers and hired PR people answer questions from residents one on one.

 THIRD FEATURE:

LANDOWNERS: EDUCATION IS THE KEY TO WIND POWER BENEFITS

SOURCE: Kearney Hub, www.kearneyhub.com

November 13, 2010

By LORI POTTER

KEARNEY — There’s a steep learning curve for landowners interested in attracting wind power projects, landowner group leaders said at this week’s Nebraska Wind Power 2010 Conference in Kearney.

“You’re gonna have to have persistence to go on,” said David Vavra of the Saline County Wind Association.

Landowners from six Saline County precincts joined his group. Vavra said developers are interested in contiguous properties, so significant numbers of participants are need to support a project.

An early question for group members was: “Do we want to look at these windmills the rest of our lives and our children’s lives?”

“That can be seriously tying up your property for a long time,” Vavra said.

The most important missions are to protect landowners from unscrupulous developers and make sure that everyone understands that wind energy benefits come with issues such as construction of access roads and the work required to negotiate equitable land leases.

“You can have one developer come in and hit all the high spots. That’s checkerboarding,” Vavra explained. Or two each can tie up enough easements to prevent either from developing a project, leaving things at a standstill.

“So you go en masse, rather than getting picked off one at a time, even though that’s counterintuitive for developers,” he said, telling landowners not to believe developers who say they won’t talk to organizations.

Vavra emphasized the need to raise the money necessary to hire an attorney specializing in wind projects. “This is too important,” he said. “You’re dealing with multimillion dollar companies. They’re like a 747, and you’re like a mosquito.”

Groups should get their own wind quality data and not depend only on developers’ studies, he added.

Jim Young and other members of the Banner County Wind Energy Association organized with the knowledge of what has happed during the past 50 years of oil development in the southern Panhandle. “Some people got taken advantage of,” he said. “We wanted to form an association so we didn’t have problems like what Dave (Vavra) was talking about.”

The Banner County group has involved landowners, the county board and Panhandle Resource Conservation and Development. Leaders talked to landowners in areas where wind projects have been developed.

Initially, letters were sent to county residents and landowner meetings were scheduled at the school gym. Eventually, the Banner County group formed a limited liability corporation.

“As Sen. Nelson said, ‘You need to hit this like a full-court press,’” Young said, adding that nothing gets done if everyone is bickering. “You’ve gotta respect what everybody else is saying and work together.”

There can be hundreds of questions to answer just in the fine print of a wind contract. Vavra said the issues include insurance, liability, decommissionings or defaults, crop or other damage, payment allocations, taxes, effects on Conservation Reserve Program contracts, and audit rights.

“If you don’t know (the answers), you’re gonna get taken,” Young said.

Nebraska Farmers Union Public Affairs Director Graham Christensen said one of the first wind project contracts he saw when he started with NFU was for one payment of $1,000 for a 55-year-lease. “That is totally unacceptable,” he said.

Lincoln attorney Andy Pollock of the Nebraska Energy Export Association said, “There are different cultures in every county … so you really need to explore that as a local organization. What’s right for you?”

That means finding the right developer and determining the necessary lease terms. “You’re in the driver’s seat,” Pollock said. “You have options. …. Developers want to be here.”

It also means choosing a way to fund the local group.

Young said Banner County used $100 one-time dues. Vavra said Saline County started with a $50 minimum plus 50 cents per acre with a promise to pay back any contributor who never gets any money from a wind project or related development.

Pollock cautioned landowners that public power districts control the transportation and sale of wind energy in Nebraska.

“Don’t get any notion in your head that you can go and sell (electricity) to the ethanol plant down the road,” he said. “That’s public power’s job.”

Vavra said local leaders must put the group’s needs ahead of any personal interests. “If you’re looking at dollars, this is not a get-rich-quick scheme … this is long term,” he said.

Part 1: Wind proposal dividing communities, May 4, 2010

MORRISON – Imagine dozens of wind turbines, standing 400 feet tall, stretching across the farm fields of southern Brown County.

They’d be spinning, day and night, for at least the next 30 years.

Some believe it’s a picture of progress.

“Of course it is. Wind has been used since the beginning of time,” said Glen Martin, a landowner in the town of Morrison.

Others see it as a major misstep.

“What do you do when the wind don’t blow?” said Dick Koltz, a landowner in Wrightstown.

Nine commercial wind farms are already up and running in Wisconsin, but on the table is a proposal for the largest project yet: 100 wind turbines in southern Brown County. It’s known as the Ledge Wind Energy Project.

The project has been proposed by Invenergy, a private wind developer from Chicago.

“The beauty of wind, once it’s installed, it just runs and runs and runs without harmful commodities having to be used up,” said Kevin Parzyck, the project development manager for Invenergy.

“We’re not claiming this is the end all for all power needs. It’s one component of the mix,” said Parzyck.

Parzyck said the electricity generated by the wind turbines would be sold to utility companies in Wisconsin.

The current proposal places 54 turbines in the town of Morrison, 22 in Holland, 20 in Wrightstown and 4 in Glenmore.

One would be on Glen Martin’s farmland in the town of Morrison. He believes the wind turbines are a necessary step towards energy independence.

“We have to produce this electricity and power some place, just like we have to grow a crop some place, just like we have to mine coal some place. This all has been to be done some place and this is a good place to do it,” said Martin.

But it’s not just about going green. Landowners would be paid as much as $10,000 per year for each turbine on their property. That’s quite the bonus, especially for farmers who have seen their share of struggles.

“Let’s face it, it would be nicer and times are tough. I’m sure the last couple of years swayed some of them into doing it. It is attractive,” said Dick Koltz.

Koltz signed a contract to have one turbine on his farmland in the town of Wrightstown, but said he’s now having serious doubts. His opinion changed drastically after seeing the wind turbines up close on a trip to Fond du Lac County.

“It just sort of hit me that this should never be. Not this close and not the area. It just wasn’t a good feeling,” said Koltz.

The feeling was so bad, in fact, Koltz is trying to get out of his contract with Invenergy.

Many of his concerns are being voiced loudly by the group Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy. Spokesman Jon Morehouse says the group is made up of neighbors who think the turbines are unsightly and unsafe.

“It can have mental and physiological effects on your body. There is also the low frequency sound waves as well as the sounds waves that you can hear and those have negative effects from sleep depravation to increase blood pressure,” said Morehouse.

Invenergy denies those claims.

“There’s anecdotal evidence of certain people with problems but there are no scientific studies that there are problems with wind noise,” said Kevin Parzyck, the project development manager for Invenergy.

The opposition group’s more than 200 members still aren’t convinced. They continue to show up at town hall meetings to voice their concerns.

The group’s spokesman turned down an offer to have three turbines on his property. It could have made him nearly one million dollars.

“I would never do something on my land that would negatively affect somebody else in our community,” said Jon Morehouse.

Others say they just don’t care if their neighbors don’t like the project.

“If I decide to go ahead and put something up like that, that’s my right,” said Glen Martin.

Even though Invenergy has been signing up landowners to participate in the project, the company is still in the process of modifying its application with the state. That application will ultimately be reviewed and voted on by the Public Service Commission — a process we’re told is likely still several months away.

Part 2: Wind blowing up storm of opinions, May 5, 2010

MALONE – If you walked out of your home every morning and saw wind turbines in every which direction, is it a sight you would get used to?

“You don’t even notice them anymore. They’ve been here two years and it’s just a part of life now, I guess,” said Ken Krause, a farmer in the Fond du Lac County town of Marshfield.

Or, is it a site you would grow to hate?

“Not these big, industrial turbines. They just don’t belong here,” said Al Haas, a farmer in the Fond du Lac County town of Malone.

It’s something many neighbors in Fond du Lac County will never agree on. Opinions are even more polarized among those who live on the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm . With 88 wind turbines, it is currently the largest wind farm in the state.

Haas has three turbines spinning on his farmland. He makes about $15,000 a year just for having them there. That’s a nice side income with no extra work involved.

“We were told we would basically be able to farm right up to it. We were told there would be basically no land loss to speak of, it just sounded like a good deal,” said Haas.

That extra money? Haas now says it isn’t worth it. He blames the wind turbines for damaging his crops and interfering with his TV reception.

But his main complaint is the noise. He says it keeps him up at night and has led to stress.

“It can sound like a freight train going through the other end of town. The problem is that freight train don’t have a caboose. It don’t stop. It just keeps rolling and rumbling on and on and on, for hours and hours,” said Haas.

“There are probably 3 or 4 days out of the month where they are loud but I think it’s a small prices to pay,” said Ken Krause.

Krause stands on the other side of the wind debate. He even likes the look of the two turbines on his farmland.

“If each community in the country was doing what we are doing, we wouldn’t need foreign oil … Not as much anyway,” said Krause.

Krause points to the pain at the pump two summers ago.

“Some people are already forgetting the $4 (a gallon) gas we had a couple years back. This is helping,” said Krause.

So, are all the wind turbines worth it? That’s what people in Brown County want to know. Some have even contacted people on both sides of the issue in Fond du Lac County to hear first hand with it’s really like living inside a wind farm.

“Is there a place for wind? Maybe. But I don’t think it’s in Wisconsin,” said Jon Morehouse, the spokesman for Brown County Citizens for Responsible for Wind Energy .

The group represents more than 200 people who are opposed to large-scale wind development in Brown County. Many of those people say wind turbines blemish the landscape and pose health hazards.

“We need to slow down, we need to slow down until things get put into place to regulate these industrial monsters to a safe and healthy level,” said Morehouse. “People are going to have to put up with them for 30 years.”

100 turbines are proposed in southern Brown County, with 54 turbines going in the town of Morrison, 22 in Holland, 20 in Wrightstown and 4 in Glenmore. It would be the largest wind farm in the state.

The project is being developed by Invenergy, a private firm from Chicago . The company says the location is one of the best places to harness wind in Wisconsin.

“Wisconsin has very good places for good wind and good transmission capabilities near where the power is going to be used,” said Kevin Parzyck, the wind development manager for Invenergy.

Invenergy is still modifying its application for the project. It will ultimately go to the state Public Service Commission for a decision.

That process will likely take several more months which gives people in Brown County more time to research the issue.

“We want people to go. Go to a turbine, stand under a turbine, see what it’s like, the proof is in the pudding,” said Parzyck.

Though, there are many farmers in Fond du Lac County who say a few days in their shoes would turn most people against wind development.

Part 3: The fight over Wisconsin’s wind future, May 6, 2010

It’s free, it’s everywhere and some think it’s the answer to our ever-increasing energy needs.

“Wind is the most feasible resource for most states because of its ability to scale up,” said Michael Vickerman, the executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. The non-profit group has been advocating for nearly two decades for widespread wind development in the state.

Wind turbines also provide struggling farmers a financial lifeline of thousands of dollars each year.

“For me, it’s a good thing,” said Gary Koomen, a landowner in the town of Morrison.

But as the state Public Service Commission continues to green light large-scale wind developments throughout the state, more and more people are speaking out against the projects.

“We need to slow down until things get put into place to regulate these industrial monsters to a safe and healthy level,” said Jon Morehouse, the spokesman for Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy. The group represents more than 200 people who are against large scale wind development in southern Brown County.

Right now, 9 commercial wind farms are operating in the state, with a total of more than 300 wind turbines. Though, 18 more wind farms have been proposed, which could push the number of turbines in the state upwards of 1,000.

The largest proposal on the table is 100 turbines in southern Brown County. The project is being developed by a private company from Chicago called Invenergy.

“I’ve always been a supporter of alternate energy to start with so it kind of appealed to me a consumer,” said Gary Koomen.

Koomen signed up to have two turbines on his farmland. He stands to pocket roughly $10,000 per year for each turbine. That kind of money can make life a little easier.

“Fun money,” laughed Koomen. “I’ll probably take a vacation.”

The push for wind development in the state stems back to 1999 when Wisconsin set its first renewable energy goal. The idea is to find energy sources that are sustainable.

Currently, utility companies are required to be providing 10% of electricity from renewable sources by 2015. Experts say, right now, the utilities are only about half way there.

“Without the standards, they have no reason to add more renewable energy,” said Michael Vickerman, of RENEW Wisconsin.

Vickerman says wind is the best renewable resource Wisconsin has, which is why he predicts a flurry of development in years to come.

“Wind will be the workhorse of all the renewable energy family. That’s true elsewhere in the Midwest,” he added.

The issue of wind development has divided communities and pitted neighbors against each other. One of the biggest fights continues to be over how close the massive turbines should be to neighboring properties.

Currently, many of the wind turbines are setback about 1000 feet. There are many people, however, who think they should be significantly farther away.

“It can have mental and physiological effects on your body. There are also the low frequency sound waves as well as the sounds waves that you can hear and those have negative effects from sleep depravation to increase blood pressure,” said Jon Morehouse, the spokesman for a group opposed to the project.

Wind developer Invenergy denies those claims.

“There’s anecdotal evidence of certain people with problems but there are no scientific studies that there are problems with wind noise,” said Kevin Parzyck, the wind development manager for Invenergy.

Though, Gary Koomen spoke with his neighbors about their concerns before signing up for the project. He said he wouldn’t have done it if they didn’t want him to.

“Probably not. I value the relationships I have in the neighborhood,” said Koomen.

The state has decided it wants to study the impact of wind turbines a little bit more. A 15 member wind siting committee was recently formed to advise the Public Service Commission on issues like noise levels and setback distances.

“These are legitimate points of disagreement and the more we can come to terms on those two issues, the better off we will all be,” said Michael Vickerman.

Vickerman is on the PSC’s wind siting committee. The committee’s goal is to come up with standards and rules for permitting large scale wind projects in the state.

Vickerman says uniform requirements are important because many communities have passed their own wind-related laws — some of which are designed to try and slow wind developmental.

The local laws may not even matter, however, because approval of large scale projects ultimately falls in the hands of the PSC.

“We have to resolve this issue before the wind industry gives up on Wisconsin,” said Vickerman.

Some admit that’s what they want.

“Whatever happened to using less and using less to the point where we save and use what we have more effectively. The wind thing does nothing but produce more,” said Jon Morehouse.

Much like the wind itself, the debate over wind development looks to be unending.

The PSC wants to have standards in place for permitting wind projects in the state by as early as this summer.

Officials at Invenergy tell FOX 11 they hope to start construction on 100 turbines in Brown County by 2011.

The question is: can these proposals withstand mounting opposition from the people who actually have to live among the wind turbines? The answer is still blowing in the wind.

SECOND FEATURE: Dig the AWEA conference by clicking on the image belo

THIRD FEATURE

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: The Fond du Lac County home in the photo below appraised for $320,000 in 2007, the year before the Invenergy turbines went on line.

In 2009 the family abandoned the home because of turbine noise and vibration.

A few weeks ago it was sold at a sheriff's sale. The opening bid was $107,000. There were no takers.

A New York bank paid less than the opening bid and now owns the empty house.

CLICK to read about the family who once lived in this home.

The former home of Ann and Jason Wirtz now sits abandoned near the Forward Energy Wind Center, which went online in 2008 in Brownsville. (Photo by Dave Wasinger)

 STATE PANEL DISMISSES WIND FAMILY'S WIND FARM COMPLAINT

Source: The Daily Reporter

By Paul Snyder

May 27, 2010

A family seeking payback for health, business and property losses allegedly caused by a wind farm suffered a setback Thursday when the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin rejected the complaint.

PSC Chairman Eric Callisto said the commission is not the proper forum for personal injury claims and said Ann and Jason Wirtz, who now live in Oakfield, should take their case to circuit court.

The Wirtzes in April filed their complaint arguing the Forward Wind Energy Center in Dodge County, which went online in 2008, caused sleep deprivation, headaches and stomach problems as well as the loss of an alpaca-breeding business and a decline in their property value. The Wirtzes moved from their home in Brownsville in September 2009 without selling it.

The family directed its complaint at wind farm developer Invenergy LLC, Chicago, though the Wirtzes have not specified how much money they want from Invenergy. The Wirtzes did not comment on the project prior to PSC approval in 2005.

Madison-based attorney Ed Marion, who represents the Wirtzes, said they chose to go to the PSC first instead of suing because the commission regulates energy companies and is charged with protecting the rights and interests of the public.

“We’re disappointed by the decision,” he said, “but not entirely surprised.”

Marion said he does not know what the family will do next. He said a lawsuit is the likely option, though the family could appeal the PSC decision.

The PSC’s decision Thursday was good news to wind developers. Joe Condo, Invenergy’s vice president and general counsel, said the PSC was right to stay out of a personal injury claim filed by a family.

“I’m not going to speculate on what they’re going to do or how we’re going to respond,” he said. “This is not a normal course of action for us.”

Jim Naleid, a managing partner for Holmen-based AgWind Energy Partners LLC, which was not involved in the Forward Wind Energy project, said allegations of health problems, such as those claimed by the Wirtzes, simply were not an issue in 2005 when the PSC approved the Forward project. He said he doubts such allegations will attract attention from state wind farm regulators.

“The claims of physical impacts are a recent phenomenon and something that comes from the anti-wind folks in particular,” he said. “If there was merit on a wide-scale basis, I don’t think the PSC would issue these permits.”

The Wirtzes’ complaints came too late to merit PSC consideration, said Commissioner Mark Meyer. The family, he said, has the right to make its statement for PSC consideration of an upcoming 100-turbine wind farm Invenergy proposes for Brown County, but he said the PSC’s review of Forward ended a long time ago.

“The commission,” he said, “is not in the business of handling private causes of action against utilities.”

Click on the image above to hear the noise from a wind turbine located 1100 feet from a home in Fond Du Lac County. Because of turbine noise and shadow flicker, this home along with others in the project is now up for sale. On May 17th, Dr. Jevon McFadden told the wind siting council that wind turbines presented no threat to human health and safety. The council will be advising the Public Service Commission in setting up uniform standards for siting wind turbines across the state of Wisconsin.

HEALTH RISK OF WIND TURBINES DEBATED

 Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

 May 24 2010

By Tony Walter,

Both sides in the wind farm debate say health and safety evidence is on their side.

A group of Brown County residents working to stop the wind farm proposed for the southern part of the county cites reports from the World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health that suggest wind turbines located too close to homes or schools cause negative health impacts.

“It is my opinion as a physician that the best evidence supports that building large wind energy turbines in close proximity to humans has a negative impact on the health,” wrote Dr. Herbert Coussons, a Wrightstown resident and Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy board member.

The wind farm proposal could cause sleep disorders, he said.

But the Chicago-based company seeking to build 100 wind turbines in four southern Brown County communities says that argument is wrong.

“Some opponents have made up scary names to create false fears about wind turbines and health, but there is no science to back up their scare campaign,” according to officials for Invenergy LLC.

The company’s proposed Ledge Wind project in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore, Rockland and Wrightstown awaits siting guidelines from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

“There are more than 20,000 wind turbines currently operational in the U.S., and there is prodigious evidence nationwide that wind turbines are safe and produce no negative health effects,” said Kevin Parzyck, project manager for the Ledge Wind project.

The Brown County Human Services Committee and Board of Health will hold a joint meeting at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to listen to health and safety arguments.

“That’s all we’ll cover, safety and health,” said Supervisor Patrick Evans, chairman of the Human Services Committee. “We’re not going to get off on tangents.”

Evans said he hopes the Board of Health will eventually make a recommendation on the issue.

In its presentation to the Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce’s policy committee last month, the citizens group quoted Dr. Christopher Hanning, a sleeping disorder physician in England who wrote: “In my expert opinion … I have no doubt that wind turbine noise emissions cause sleep disturbance and ill health.”

In January, the PSC approved the Glacier Hills wind farm project in Columbia County proposed by Wisconsin Electric Power Company. At that time, the board wrote: “The Commission also finds that, while members of the public are concerned about possible health effects associated with the project, there is not sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the project would cause adverse health effects.”

The American Wind Energy Association said evidence of negative health effects from wind turbines is lacking.

“We are not aware of any scientifically peer-reviewed information demonstrating a link between wind turbines and negative health effects,” according to the organization’s Web site. Thousands of people around the world live near wind turbines without ill consequences.”

 WIND TURBINES NOT SILENT

SOURCE Ottawa Sun, www.ottawasun.com

May 22 2010

By Justin Sadler,

Ka-thump. Ka-thump. Ka-thump.

That’s how it sounds in Ed and Gail Kenney’s home when the wind is blowing on Wolfe Island where they have 86 turbines as neighbours.

Completed last summer, the Wolfe Island EcoPower Centre can generate 198 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 75,000 homes per year.

The Kenneys know better than anyone how wind turbines can change a place. Their home sits 800 metres from a cluster of turbines — a setback they say isn’t enough.

They’re playing the cards North Gower’s Gary Chandler worries he’ll soon be dealt. His home is also about 800 metres from the closest turbine of a proposed 10-megawatt wind project in that town, about 30 minutes south of downtown Ottawa.

Chandler and members of the community’s wind action group are fighting the project and calling for a moratorium on wind development until an independent health study is conducted.

Had the province’s Green Energy Act, enacted in May 2009, been approved in the summer of 2008 when construction began on Wolfe Island, Gail Kenney says the setbacks would have likely been much further from many homes on the island.

Under the legislation, the 550-metre setback is for developments of five turbines. The greater number of installations, the further the setbacks are as noise effects become compounded.

The Kenneys have 26 turbines in view of their home.

“We take a guesstimate that the setback would have been 1.5 km,” says Gail Kenney, who is also a founding member of Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment — a group of concerned residents seeking more transparency in the development process.

The project generates about $645,000 annually for the municipality. Landowners, meanwhile, receive an estimated $7,000 to $10,000 for each turbine erected on their properties.

She says the turbines have created deep divisions between proponents who’ve agreed to have turbines erected on their properties and those opposed to the power project. In what was a very tight-knit community, many now can hardly look each other in the eye.

“It makes me angry and sad. It makes me concerned and worried. To be specific, it makes me angry how it has divided our community and created pain and anguish for a lot of families and friends,” Gail Kenney says.

Even more troubling, she adds, are the health issues many are suffering. The stress of not knowing whether the turbines are safe is taking its toll, she says.

Victoria Stewart, originally from Montreal, moved to the island about six years ago. Since the turbines went up, she hasn’t had a good night’s sleep and is constantly tense and anxious. Her house sits only 400 metres from the closest turbine.

“The silence at night was just out of this world. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I’d be waking up to the sound of a huge windmill behind me. Never.

“It just makes you terribly nervous,” she says of the noise. “You can’t sleep. I take a lot of sleeping pills from time to time only because my nerves can’t take it and I have to work.”

Depending on the direction and wind speed, the noise can be described as anything from rhythmic waves crashing on the beach or a jet engine. While they might appear to be rotating slowly from across the water in Kingston, Ed Kenney points out the tips speed of the turbines’ rotors reach more than 320 km/h on a windy day.

“It’s a disturbance of the atmosphere … a ka-thump, ka-thump, ka-thump,” Gail Kenney says.

On top of the noise, there are concerns here about property values, too.

The island’s story, she says, illustrates how a seemingly modest plan can easily grow in scale and forever change a community. The 198-megawatt Wolfe Island wind turbine project began with 24 turbines and grew to 86. It’s the second-largest wind energy installation in the country.

The lack of political action, she says, is disheartening.

“It certainly makes you feel that you’ve been bulldozed over.”

Soon, Wolfe Islanders might share their cherished St. Lawrence Seaway with 150 more turbines offshore — a first for the province. The project, proposed by Windstream Energy Inc. in Burlington, was also awarded a FIT contract for the 300-megwatt installation.

A longtime sailor, Ed Kenney says with the combined projects proposed for the eastern shores of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence in the U.S., wind installations will ruin the landscape he and Gail have enjoyed for so long.

“With the development on Wolfe Island, with the developments proposed for Cape Vincent down the river and on down behind Clayton and Horse Creek, at the Town of Lyme and Galoo Island, we figure by count if they all went the whole eastern estuary of Lake Ontario just east of Oswego all the way around would be 1,700 or 1,800 of them,” he says. “Is that really what the future of the beautiful 1,000 Islands holds?”

“I feel like we’re in the middle of an invasion,” Gail says. “What they have done is introduced into our home and into our area industrial noise.”

SECOND FEATURE

Cutthroat Competition at Heart of Ge-Mitsubishi Dispute

SOURCE: The New York Times

By JOEL KIRKLAND of ClimateWire

Industrial heavyweights General Electric Co. and Mitsubishi are raising the temperature of a 2-year-old dispute claiming patent infringements and monopolistic behavior in the U.S. wind turbine market.

In a complaint filed in a U.S. District Court in Arkansas yesterday, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries accused GE of scheming to control the nation's wind power market. Through a series of "baseless claims of patent infringement," Mitsubishi said in its complaint, GE has successfully scared off potential Mitsubishi customers and discouraged well-capitalized foreign competitors from setting up shop in the United States.

"GE is attempting to kill competition in the marketplace to the detriment of U.S. consumers," said Mitsubishi spokeswoman Sonia Williams. "We anticipate damages will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and may be over $1 billion."

In a separate suit filed in Florida yesterday, the Japanese turbine maker accused GE of infringing on a critical Mitsubishi patent.

The Mitsubishi complaint is the latest in a series of claims and counterclaims unfurled by the two companies, made as competition increases in the U.S. wind market and as both companies roll out their latest high-capacity wind turbines. GE, Japan's Mitsubishi, Denmark's Vestas Wind Systems, Germany's Siemens AG and a growing crop of global industrial conglomerates are racing to get a permanent foothold in North America, where wind projects are grabbing a bigger share of electricity generation.

This grudge match started in 2008, when GE filed complaints at the U.S. International Trade Commission alleging Mitsubishi had infringed on GE wind-turbine patents. The U.S. ITC ended its investigation in January after finding Mitsubishi had not violated the patents, but it left the door open for further action. In February, GE then filed a suit in a Texas court accusing Mitsubishi of breaching the GE patents.

Japanese turbine maker claims it's been shut out

The dispute at the ITC attracted the attention of influential members of Congress with GE factories or headquarters in their states. Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, which is where GE Energy is located, and Republicans from Southern states wrote letters to the ITC warning that job losses would result if GE lost the patent case.

The dispute also continues to play out amid heated discussion about U.S. leanings toward protectionist policies and the capacity of global wind and solar companies to reach American consumers without expanding their U.S. manufacturing base.

In the complaint yesterday, Mitsubishi said that GE has a 70 percent market share for variable-speed wind turbines. As Mitsubishi tells it, once it entered the market in 2006 and secured lucrative contracts, GE "embarked on an unlawful scheme" to drive it and others out of the U.S. market.

Variable-speed windmills are designed for significant utility-scale power generation. They operate on a wide range of wind speeds when connected to the transmission grid. Mitsubishi also claimed that GE obtained a handful of wind-turbine patents through improper means and failed to disclose sources of information to the U.S. patent office.

"GE's unlawful scheme has worked," says the complaint. "Prior to the initiation of GE's first lawsuit against Mitsubishi, Mitsubishi had sales of approximately $2 billion a year of variable speed wind turbines in the United States. Since GE's litigation campaign began over two years ago, Mitsubishi has not sold a single variable speed wind turbine in the United States."

GE calls claims 'outrageous'

When GE filed a new suit against Mitsubishi shortly after the ITC ruling, Mitsubishi explains, "This, GE hoped, would prolong the period of uncertainty over Mitsubishi turbines in the U.S. market for the pendency of the second suit."

GE spokesman Daniel Nelson in an e-mail called Mitsubishi's antitrust complaint "meritless and outrageous."

"GE stands strongly behind the merits of its patent infringement lawsuits against [Mitsubishi] and will fight to protect its intellectual property," Nelson said, adding that the company intends to "vigorously defend itself" against Mitsubishi's charge of patent infringement.

Matt Kaplan, a wind analyst at Emerging Energy Research, said wind purchasers have been scared off by the potential for legal problems if they purchase turbines from Mitsubishi instead of GE. The market-level impact is there, but he said the complex patent infringement claims made by the companies are hard to parse.

"It shows that the market is very competitive," he said, "and that Mitsubishi does feel a real threat from GE patent issues."

Tempest in once-tranquil market

GE controls about 44 percent of the North American market for wind turbines and components, and Mitsubishi comes in a distant fourth. Still, Kaplan said, the Japanese manufacturing giant isn't to be toyed with, and neither is the line-up of significant global power players that want a piece of the U.S. wind market.

"GE's dominant lead over the market has made it difficult for companies to enter and steal market share," Kaplan said. "But Mitsubishi, a heavy industrial company, does have the ability to threaten GE."

Kaplan said the ITC ruling and its ability to push back against GE litigation is critical for Mitsubishi. The company plans to begin construction this year on a $100 million plant in Fort Smith, Ark., to build wind-turbine engines for the U.S. market.

While Mitsubishi's Williams said the project is still a go and could employ nearly 400 people, she acknowledged the drop-off in Mitsubishi wind contracts since GE's claims raised concerns about building the plant. She warned that the plant could sit idle "if GE's unlawful conduct continues."

According to the American Wind Energy Association, 15 companies sold large-scale wind turbines to U.S. customers in 2009, up from five companies in 2005. "The wind industry is increasingly in the hands of major industrial players," Kaplan said. "This is a clear shift from what we've seen in the past."

Companies interested in installing wind-power capacity in the United States haven't shied away from the market, Kaplan said, but the GE-Mitsubishi disputes have caused those companies to pause for a second and walk gingerly as they chooses their suppliers.