Better Plan, Wisconsin

Click on the image above to watch a video slide show of homes in the Fond du Lac County wind projects. The siting guidelines the Public Service Commission used in Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties are much like the siting rules that will take effect on March 1, 2011 unless the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) decides to suspend the rules and return them to the PSC.

At the hearing, the JCRAR showed themselves to be an unusually attentive group of legislators who appeared genuinely interested in what people at the hearing had to say. They gave particular attention to the stories from the people with homes in the wind projects who are clearly having trouble living with setbacks the PSC setbacks once assumed to be safe.

Click on the links below if you'd like to contact members of the joint committee to thank them for holding the hearing and to ask that they suspend the PSC's rules.

Senator Leah Vukmir (Chair) (R- Wauwatosa) 266-2512, Sen.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative Jim Ott (Chair) (R- Mequon) 266-0486, Rep.OttJ@legis.wisconsin.gov
Senator Joseph Leibham (R- Sheboygan) 266-2056, Sen.Leibham@legis.wisconsin.gov
Senator Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) 266-7513, Sen.Grothman@legis.wisconsin.gov
Senator Lena Tayor (D-Milwaukee) 266-5810, Sen.Taylor@legis.wisconsin.gov
Senator Fred Risser (D-Madison) 266-1627, Sen.Risser@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative Dan LeMahieu (R-Cascade) 266-9175, Rep.lemahieu@legis.wisconsin.gov  
Representative Gary Hebl (D-Sun Prairie) 266-7678,  Rep.hebl@legis.wisconsin.gov 
Representative Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) 266-5813, Rep.kessler@legis.wisconsin.gov  

Don't forget to include your name and address.

Click on the image below to see a video made by Larry Wunsch who served on the wind-siting council.

Mr. Wunsch testified to the committee on Wednesday about his first hand experience of living 1100 feet from a wind turbine being marginalized. He said the council wouldn't allow him to play a recording of the wind turbine noise he lives with.

Although Mr. Wunsh made copies of the video below available to council members, it was never discussed.

Posted on YouTube in August of 2008, Larry Wunsch's video has been viewed over 45,000 times.

HUNDREDS JAM HEARING ON WISCONSIN WIND ENERGY RULES

SOURCE: The Associated Press

February 10, 2011

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Hundreds have packed a legislative hearing on how far energy-generating wind turbines should be located from property lines.

Statewide construction standards for turbines are set to go into effect March 1. But Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans have raised concerns that the regulations would allow turbines to be built too close to a neighbor's property.

Walker proposed a bill with larger setbacks but lawmakers decided not to consider it after critics said the measure would hurt the wind industry. GOP lawmakers instead have chosen to approach the issue through the rule-making process.

Republicans on the rule committee told state regulators they're worried the rules allow turbines to be built so close to property lines neighbors could get hurt.

The committee wasn't expected to take any action on Wednesday.

Couldn't make the wind siting hearing at the capitol on Wednesday? Want to know what happened?

WATCH WISCONSIN EYE'S VIDEO OF WEDNESDAY'S WIND SITING HEARING AT THE CAPITOL BY CLICKING HERE

Want more?

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN to Wednesday's broadcast of Wisconsin Public Radio's Joy Cardin show:  Writer Lynda Barry discusses the hearing and the research she's done on  wind siting issues in our state.

TESTIMONY

To: Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR)

From: Douglas Zweizig, Ph.D., Vice Chair, Wind Siting Council

Re: Clearinghouse Rule #10-057; PSC Wind Siting Rules proposed Chapter 128

Date: February 9, 2011

My name is Douglas Zweizig.

I am a retired UW—Madison professor from the School of Library and Information Studies. I conducted national survey research studies, and I directed doctoral students in the conduct of original research.

I’m also a member of my Town's Plan Commission, and I serve as Vice-Chair of the PSC's Wind Siting Council.

I am here today to request the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules to set aside PSC 128 (CR 10-057).

I am one of the authors of the Wind Siting Council’s minority report to the Public Service Commission. (See Appendix E of http://psc.wi.gov/mediaRoom/documents/WSC%20Final%20Report%20and%20Cover%20Letter%208-9-2010.pdf)

That minority report details grave concerns about the basis for the wind siting rules that are before us today. I am here to request that the rules be suspended because they were produced without a thorough or responsible audit of the negative impacts of industrial-scale wind turbines.

The rules as written will not protect the health, safety and welfare of impacted Wisconsin residents and communities. As you may know, the majority of the Wind Siting Council members had a direct or indirect financial interest in pushing for rules that favored the wind industry.

The rules reflect this, resulting in setbacks that are too short, limits on noise and shadow flicker that are too lax, and nearly non-existent remedies for citizens with complaints.

In Act 40, the legislature required an independent and qualified researcher "with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems" to be a member of the Wind Siting Council.

 Instead, the Public Service Commission appointed a junior physician staff member of the state Division of Public Health who was just out of medical school. He openly and publicly admitted he had no expertise in the issue of health effects and wind turbines. He had collected no data and had made no observations himself on the health effects of wind energy systems.

His research consisted of reviewing existing literature using very narrow criteria. This resulted in a whitewashed report to the Council which ignored not only the first-hand experience of Wisconsin residents who are clearly having trouble living with wind turbines, but also disregarded even the most basic recommendations of the World Health Organization on nighttime noise limits necessary for healthful sleep. (www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf)

The most common health complaint from wind project residents is not mysterious: turbine vibration and noise interrupts their sleep. Health problems associated with chronic sleep deprivation from nighttime noise are well known. The PSC should be directed to carry out the quality of study called for in Act 40.

The main argument against more protective guidelines is an economic one. Wind energy proponents tell you the very setbacks that will protect the health of Wisconsin residents are “job killers.” You have been told over and over that wind energy systems will create jobs and provide a clean, effective source of energy with no negative consequences.

Of course, we are all interested in increased jobs for Wisconsin, but those who claim that short setbacks will not only do no harm but will also result in over 7,000 wind-related jobs in our state should be required to prove it, not just claim it.

The MacIver Institute recently attempted to document Wisconsin jobs related to wind energy and were able to identify only 31 jobs that were specifically tied to wind energy-related products. (http://maciverinstitute.com/2010/08/facts-about-green-job-creation-elusive-as-the-wind/) What’s the truth here? Shouldn’t we know?

In the name of questionable job creation, you are asked to accept siting rules that clearly disregard negative impacts to human health, wildlife, and property values in order to promote unsubstantiated claims of improved air quality and job growth.

If the PSC is to create wind siting rules for the entire state, then provisions for accountability must be part of those rules.

The rules must ensure the following things: that wind development does no harm to people, property values, wildlife, or habitat; that it provides an economical power source; and that it reduces output from coal-fired power plants in our state. 

As Vice-Chairman of the Wind Siting Council, I am here to say the rules as put forth by the PSC do not meet these requirements and to ask that you suspend them.

I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Douglas Zweizig

Evansville, WI 

Town of Union (Rock County) Plan Commission

SECOND FEATURE: LET'S REVIEW:

LEADING EXPERTS POOL MOST RECENT UNDERSTANDING OF HARM OF INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES ON HUMAN HEALTH

SOURCE: Wellington Times, wellingtontimes.ca

Evidence was presented that people likely don’t “get used to” wind turbine noise. Even those who claim not to hear noise appear to endure physiological stress related to the pulsating low frequency noise.

Among the more worrisome bits of information gleaned from the weekend conference was that current assumptions of safe setbacks are likely wrong.

November 5 2010

by Rick Conroy,

Piece by piece, presentation by presentation, the foundation upon which industrial wind industry and much of Ontario’s Green Energy Act sits was taken apart and dismantled this past weekend.

The industrial wind turbine business was always on shaky ground. It has been promoted by governments eager to be seen to be doing something about the western world’s reliance on fossil fuels—oil, gas and coal. In many respects wind energy policy has been a public relations exercise fuelled by governments’ willingness to spill billions of taxpayer dollars into developer’s pockets.

They do so with a mix of wishful thinking and willful blindness in the expectation that technology leaps will fill in the significant operational gaps before most folks realize intermittent generating sources don’t work on a large scale.

None of these folks anticipated, however, that industrial wind turbines would actually make people sick. After the first international symposium in Picton on the weekend, there can be little doubt remaining.

Several analogies were made about how the fight against the harmful effects of smoking tobacco began with just a few voices in the medical and scientific community. It would take decades, however, before governments would listen and begin to take action. The esteemed participants of the Picton gathering fervently hope it doesn’t take as long for governments and the broader public to understand the harm caused by industrial wind turbines.

Dr. Bob McMurtry, a physician and former deputy minister of health in Ontario, gathered doctors, scientists and researchers from around the world to Picton in reveal their findings and share the latest information on the impact of industrial wind turbines in what he termed a “consilience” or unity of knowledge.

WHAT WE LEARNED

Several alarming messages emerged. Every animal with a functioning hearing organ, including humans, is at risk of being affected by the low-frequency pulsating sound emitted by industrial wind turbines.

Those most acutely affected tend to be disposed to motion sickness or car sickness— but even those without these symptoms may be responding to the noise, whether they are aware of it or not.

The low-frequency and subsonic (below the hearing range) noise from wind turbines has a demonstrable effect on the ear and hearing mechanisms. The most acute symptoms include nausea, dizziness and sleep disturbance. It is now becoming evident, however, that even those who don’t suffer these particular symptoms are likely realizing some harm.

These hearing mechanisms are closely related to language development, learning and cognitive organization— as the fine components of the ear become stressed, learning in children becomes impaired, concentration becomes harder for adults, and sleep is disrupted.

Evidence was presented that people likely don’t “get used to” wind turbine noise. Even those who claim not to hear noise appear to endure physiological stress related to the pulsating low frequency noise.

Among the more worrisome bits of information gleaned from the weekend conference was that current assumptions of safe setbacks are likely wrong.

Many opponents of large scale industrial wind factories have pressed for setbacks from homes of at least two kilometres. (Ontario’s Green Energy Act prescribes setbacks of just 550 metres.) But studies done by sound experts John Harrison and Richard James now show that in some conditions— over water and rocky terrain and beneath low cloud cover—the low-frequency noise can travel up to 15 kilometres.

Keynote speaker Dr. Nina Pierpont, the author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, explained that “our brains don’t function well” when subjected to long-term sustained low thumping noise from industrial wind turbines.

According to her research 90 per cent of those in her test sample exposed to the “pulsating tone” of the wind turbines suffered from cognitive performance deficit as compared to a control group. Generally they had more difficulty with reading, spelling, math, memorization and recalling the plots of television shows.

Pierpont’s findings extend beyond cognitive issues. She has also observed that stress to the hearing organ is linked to balance, which has a close relationship to emotions including panic and fear. These are the same triggers that cause in some a paralyzing fear of heights.

She observed that two-thirds of her test group—14 of 21—presented “disturbing symptoms” such as the need to flee, difficulty breathing, and panic.

Dr. Arlene Bronzaft recounted her groundbreaking studies on noise and learning done three decades ago in New York City. In her work she documented how children on one side of a school nearest a busy train line suffered from measurable learning impairment compared with students on the opposite side of the school.

Her work led to legislation and changes in the classroom to ensure students has a quiet place to learn, not just in New York, but across the U.S..

She urged the physicians and scientists in the room to continue to produce evidence of the harm of industrial wind turbines.

“You need the studies and the research,” said Dr. Bronzaft. “You need to teach. You need to be political. But I ask you not to give up if you are successful in one area—there are communities in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Maine and across North America with small groups who are fighting these developers. They will continue to need your help.”

Alec Salt heads the Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis. He illustrated that sound emitted from industrial turbines is many times greater than the audible hearing range—prompting him to work through the answer to his own question—does sound that you can’t hear hurt you?

Salt’s research has shown how low-frequency sound affects the transport mechanism of the ear and hearing structure.

“A big part of the sound created by an industrial wind turbine can’t be heard,” explained Salt. “That doesn’t mean it can’t hurt you. When these structures move frequently and dramatically it can have an effect on a range of symptoms.”

He asked the audience to consider this proposition against other human senses.

“Apply this notion to taste, smell, sight and touch,” said Salt. “Does anyone believe that you have to taste something in order for it to be harmful? We know that ultraviolet light (light we can’t see) can have a dramatic effect on skin and other organs. The notion that we can’t be harmed by sounds we can’t hear is nonsense. We need to stop ignoring the effects of infrasound on people.”

He is less clear about whether symptoms persist after exposure to industrial wind turbine infrasound is discontinued.

Sleep expert Dr. Chris Hanning travelled from the U.K. to explain the effect of industrial wind turbines on sleep. He observed that the need for sleep is universal among animals—that poor sleep leads to a range of disorders from obesity to heart disease.

“Disrupted sleep over time leads to heightened states of frustration, anger and feelings of loss of control,” said Hanning. “This noise is viewed as an invasion of the place in which we go to retreat from life, where we go to feel safe.”

He also observed that the pulsating tone when measured on a spectragraph appears very similar in pattern to a fire alarm: “the tone we use to arouse people from sleep and warn them of danger.”

He has found that the persistent low frequency throbbing of industrial wind turbines is more disruptive to sleep than traffic, aircraft and industrial noise. The only thing worse, according to Dr. Hanning, is the rhythmic bass pounding from a loud stereo or “boombox” nearby.

Like Dr. Bronzaft, Hanning urged his colleagues in the room to continue to produce research and studies. He said illconsidered government policies have created thousands of guinea pigs around the world.

“There are enough folks being affected right now that together we can do the work that government and industry should have done in advance,” said Hanning.

MARS HILL

After the physiological mechanics of the effect of industrial wind turbines had been described the conference turned to the victims. Dr. Michael Nissenbaum has conducted a controlled study of effects of industrial wind turbines on residents of Mars Hill in Maine.

The subjects in his study live within 1,100 metres of an industrial wind installation consisting of 28 1.5 MW wind turbines. His control group consisted of 27 adults living on average 5,000 metres from the wind turbines.

Eighty-two percent (18 of 22) of those closest to the turbine reported “a new onset or worsened sleep disturbance” since the turbines went online. Only one of the 27 of those five kilometers away reported a new or worsened sleep disturbance. One hundred per cent of those closest to the turbines had considered moving away.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Much of this evidence presented this weekend, will likely be used in January as Ian Hanna of Big Island takes on the Ontario Government in court. Hanna is arguing that the province failed to use the “precautionary principle” when it lowered and removed regulatory hurdles to developers of industrial wind energy through the Green Energy Act. The precautionary principle states that governments or organizations must ensure that its policies do not harm individuals or communities prior to enactment.

It seems clear from this weekend’s Picton conference that the province failed to meet this test.

There have been no offers on this home for sale in Invenergy Wind Project, Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County

BREAKING NEWS!

A Public Hearing regarding the PSC's wind siting rules has been scheduled for Wednesday, February 9, 10:00 AM, Room 412 East, Capitol building, Madison

A MESSAGE FROM REPRESENTATIVE AL OTT:

I am contacting you today to inform you of a Public Hearing that was just scheduled by the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR).

 The Committee is holding a Public Hearing on PSC 128 (CR 10-057) on Wednesday, February 9th at 10:00 a.m. in Room 412 East of the State Capitol.

This Public Hearing is the first step toward suspending the effective date of the wind turbine siting standards, which are set to go into effect on March 1, 2011.

 Last month, I made a formal request to the JCRAR Co-Chairs to use their Committee's authority to bring a halt to PSC 128.  I asked the Co-Chairs to conduct a thorough review of the impact of PSC 128 and to take the additional step of suspending the rules in order to provide the opportunity to go back to the drawing board with this flawed product.  [Click here to read the request]

As you know, Governor Walker introduced Special Session bills AB 9 and SB 9, which would have set - by statute - more stringent standards for the siting of wind turbines, both in terms of set-back distances and other provisions related to notification requirements, etc.  

While it would have been my intention to support AB 9 and SB 9, for the time being, it appears that those bills will not be moved forward.  

Given the March 1st effective date of PSC 128, addressing the issues created by that rule is more effectively done through action from JCRAR, rather than via legislation.  

By taking action to suspend the rules, the Legislature is provided with more time, and greater flexibility, to take a more thoughtful look at these standards and to find reasonable solutions.

If your schedule allows, you are welcome and encouraged to attend Wednesday's Public Hearing.

 If you are unable to attend, please feel free to submit written comments to the Committee.  

Representative Jim Ott (Co-Chair)

Representative Dan Meyer

Representative Daniel LeMahieu

Representative Gary Hebl

Representative Frederick Kessler

Senator Leah Vukmir (Co-Chair)

Senator Joseph Leibham

Senator Glenn Grothman

Senator Lena Taylor

Senator Fred Risser

You can find contact information for the Co-Chairs and members by clicking on the links above or you can go to the following web links:  http://legis.wisconsin.gov/W3ASP/CommPages/IndividualCommittee.aspx?committee=Administrative%20Rules&house=Joint <http://legis.wisconsin.gov/W3ASP/CommPages/IndividualCommittee.aspx?committee=Administrative%20Rules&house=Joint>

If you have any questions regarding Wednesday's hearing or the status of AB 9 and SB 9, please feel free to contact my office and ask to speak with Erin.

Sincerely,

Al Ott
State Representative
3rd Assembly District
1-888-534-0003 (toll-free)

CLICK ON THE IMAGE ABOVE TO HEAR WHY PSC COMMISSIONER LAUREN AZAR RECOMMENDED A 2,200 FOOT SETBACK.

IN THE NEWS:

LEGISLATURE WON'T TAKE UP WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

February 4, 2011

By Thomas Content

A bill to restrict development of wind power projects won’t be taken up in the Legislature’s special session, but a spokesman for Gov. Scott Walker expressed confidence that the governor’s concerns about the wind issue will be addressed in a different way.

The bill is the only Walker proposal in the jobs-focused special session that didn’t clear the state Assembly.

The Legislature's focus on the wind siting issue is to not take up the Walker bill but instead use its legislative review powers to consider whether to block a wind siting standard passed last year by the state Public Service Commission from taking effect.

A hearing has now been scheduled for next Wednesday on the PSC's wind siting rule. The hearing will take place before the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, which has the power to suspend the rule the PSC adopted.

During a bill signing in Madison Friday afternoon, Walker said he would continue to work on the issue, either by changing administrative rules or with a bill in the regular legislative session that is now under way.

“I want to see the wind industry like every other industry to be effective here in the state of Wisconsin,” Walker said. “I just want to find a way to balance that with … property rights.”

Just because Walker’s proposal won’t be voted on doesn’t mean the issue is dead, said Andrew Welhouse, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau).

“There are still members of our caucus who have an interest in making a change. The final discussions on what that change is and what route that change is going to take through the Legislature is not determined. It’s still a work in progress,” he said.

Discussions are ongoing as to what happens next, Welhouse said.

“The fact that there is a public hearing on Wednesday should show you that there are still conversations behind had between the people involved throughout Wisconsin and the Legislature who are here to represent them,” Welhouse said.

The PSC rule called for wind turbines to be set back at least 1,250 feet from nearby homes, and also included specific limits on decibel levels for wind turbines as well as shadow flicker.

Walker rejected that approach as hurting the property rights of nearby landowners, instead proposing a bill that would bar construction of wind turbines if they are within 1,800 feet of a property line.

Supporters of renewable energy said that the bill essentially would slam the door on wind power development in the state. The bill wouldn't have affected construction of the state's largest wind farm, a 90-turbine project northeast of Madison being built by We Energies. But if it were applied to this project, the utility would have needed to get waivers to build 86 of the 90 turbines, according to an analysis by the PSC.

Cullen Werwie, Walker’s spokesman, said the governor has had success with the vast majority of his legislative proposals and didn’t view the failure of the Legislature to move the wind siting bill as a setback.

“Not at all. I don’t think the policy is dead,” he said. “The Legislature is committed to advance debate on this issue, and the governor will be continuing to work with them as they do that.”

Werwie expressed confidence that property rights concerns would be taken into account as the Legislature decides how to proceed.

Backers of the PSC standard thought the issue was resolved when the commission wrapped up work on the wind siting issue at the end of 2010.

Possible outcomes now could include having no statewide standards at all, one year after the Legislature passed a law calling for uniformity in wind standards, said Mike Brown, spokesman for state Sen. Mark Miller (D-Monona).

“This appears to be a way to accomplish the same objective without subjecting themselves to a public vote on the floor of the Senate," Brown said.

The decision not to take up the bill during the special session was first reported by The Associated Press.

Fond du Lac County: The PSC approved setback in this project is 1000 feet from homes

WALKER ISN'T GIVING UP ON TOUGHER WIND TURBINE RULE

SOURCE:  www.greenbaypressgazette.com

February 4, 2011

By SCOTT BAUER 

MADISON — Wisconsin's Legislature will not take up Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to toughen wind turbine regulations during a special session the governor called to pass that bill and others, spokesman for legislative leaders told The Associated Press on Thursday.

However, the demise of the bill seeking a law change doesn't mean Walker is giving up on the issue. The governor's spokesman, Cullen Werwie, said Thursday that he instead will work with lawmakers to achieve the goals of the measure through a change to Public Service Commission rules instead of a new law.

A meeting of a legislative committee that could make the rule change was announced late Thursday afternoon for Wednesday morning.

"Clearly the Republicans' assault on wind energy is not dead," said Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller, D-Monona, in a statement. He accused Republicans of protecting themselves from voting on the bill by "manipulating the administrative rules process."

Currently, turbines must be built at least 1,250 feet from nearby homes. Walker wants to push that back to at least 1,800 feet away.

The bill was introduced at Walker's request as part of a special session call he made to pass 10 bills that he said will help spur job creation. The other nine have passed one or both houses of the Legislature and four have been signed into law. But the wind bill never was even scheduled for a public hearing.

Walker, a Republican, has worked incredibly closely and well with the Republican-controlled Legislature. But that strong relationship wasn't enough to rescue the wind bill, which drew vociferous opposition from those in the industry who said it would constitute the greatest regulatory barrier in the country.

The wind bill is dead for now, but might be revived later in the session, said Chris Reader, chief of staff for Sen. Rich Zipperer, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that had the bill.

"It's just an issue the Legislature wants to take a longer, more thoughtful look at," said Andrew Welhouse, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald. "We don't have any immediate plans to move the special session bill, but the issue certainly isn't going anywhere."

Welhouse said changing PSC rules to make the change was being considered, but there was no solid plan in place. The meeting next week was a public hearing on the issue, but no vote on any proposed rule change was planned.

Renew Wisconsin, which has tracked the growth of the state's renewable sector, had said as much as $1.8 billion in investment may be at stake if every state wind farm now in the planning stage is halted.

Chicago-based Invenergy wants to build a 100-turbine wind farm in the southern Brown County towns of Morrison, Glenmore, Wrightstown and Holland.

Invenergy's proposal called for the turbines to be set back 1,000 feet from homes or other structures such as schools and churches. A group of residents opposed to that project want the turbines set back 2,450 feet.

Denise Bode of the American Wind Energy Association said the requirement would have put a "closed for business" sign on Wisconsin for wind development.

Walker had argued his proposal would have benefited property owners. The idea had garnered support from the Wisconsin Realtors Association, which said it was needed to protect homeowners near wind turbines.

 SECOND FEATURE

Illinois property value expert says:

No permits should be issued on any wind generation project without a property value guarantee for residents in the turbine area of influence. The impact zone of a wind farm is two to five miles 20 to 40 percent value loss of homes, and the complete losses for people who are forced to walk away from their homes because of wind turbine impacts

TURBINE IMPACTS REVEALED AT COMMUNITY MEETING

SOURCE: The Alpine Sun, www.thealpinesun.com

January 27 2011

By Billie Jo Jannen,

BOULEVARD — A standing-room-only crowd got an earful on the property and health impacts of industrial wind turbines last Wednesday, when experts flew in from Illinois and Canada to speak at an informational meeting held at the Boulevard Fire Station.

Speakers included appraisal consultant Mike McCann, of Chicago, Ill., Carmen Krogh, of Ontario, Canada, Bill Powers, of Powers Engineering, Dave Elliott, of Boulevard, and Donna Tisdale, also of Boulevard.

McCann – whose resume includes real estate zoning evaluations, property value impact studies, analysis of wind turbine generating facilities and evaluation of eminent domain real estate acquisitions – advised residents bluntly that no permits should be issued on any wind generation project without a property value guarantee for residents in the turbine area of influence.

The impact zone of a wind farm is two to five miles, he said. In addition to 20 to 40 percent value loss of homes in that area, there are increased costs of health care, costs to try to retrofit homes to block noise or the strobe light affect of the turbine shadows, and the complete losses of people who are forced to walk away from their homes.

Krogh, a retired pharmacist who networks with health professionals worldwide to track and document wind turbine health affects, said the impacts of both audible and inaudible sound cannot be mitigated: “The only mitigation is to remove the people from the environment they are in,” she said.

Mental and physical afflictions include sleep deprivation, headaches, heart palpitations, vertigo, tinnitus, gastrointestinal problems, anxiety and cognitive impairments, she said.

Matching results are documented in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Japan, Canada and the United States – every country that has industrial turbines have health complaints.

Both McCann and Krogh said that a number of turbine neighbors had walked away from their homes, because they could not live with the impacts and no one would buy their homes. Others must find someplace away from the turbines to sleep and many have had to send their children to live with relatives to clear up various illnesses.

Adequate research on the long-term affects of turbine noise on growing children has not been done, Krogh said. However, according to Arline Bronzaft, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., who spoke at the Oct. 30 International Symposium on Adverse Health Effects from Wind Turbines, many other studies have demonstrated that intrusive noises, such as passing traffic or overhead aircraft, adversely affect children’s cardiovascular systems, memory, language development and ability to learn.

The title of Bronzaft’s presentation was “Children: The Canaries in the Coal Mine.”

In the Boulevard planning are alone, 392 turbines are wending their way through the permitting process, according to Tisdale. Hundreds more are planned in Ocotillo and Jacume, Mexico, immediately south of Jacumba. The current San Diego County wind ordinance makes no provision for property value guarantees.

“I’m calling for a moratorium pending studies of health impacts,” said Tisdale, who recently attended an international symposium of doctors, researchers and other health professionals who have documented wind turbine health effects worldwide.

She said she will be asking that the county permitting process make provision for property value guarantees, relocation of impacted residents, evidence-supported setbacks and protections in the noise ordinance to include low-frequency and infrasound effects. Neither is currently addressed in the county’s noise ordinance.

Krogh brought filmed interviews with wind turbine neighbors from Norway, Canada and Japan. The sound levels from their homes, in some cases, drowned out their voices and the nature of the sound was so distressing that audience members asked that it be turned down.

Krogh is a member of Society for Wind Vigilance, an international federation of physicians, acousticians and other professionals who seek to quantify heath risks and ensure that permitting authorities and wind turbine operators acknowledge and remedy those risks.

So far, she said, there has been great resistance from governments, who seek to provide “green” alternatives and who receive tax money from wind farm profits.

Asked what local clinics might do to mitigate health problems that could develop from proposed area wind farms, Krogh said there literally are none, though local health professionals help by gathering information: “A clinic can assist by documenting impacts to its patients.”

Industrial wind farm operators in the United States and Canada, most of whom receive taxpayer supported benefits and highly favorable permit conditions, resist revelations of adverse effects by requiring property owners from whom they lease lands to sign non-disclosure agreements, McCann said.

The few off-site residents that have received buy-out offers from wind companies are required to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of the buy-out.

McCann added that property value losses are not offset by local jobs or by lease payments to property owners. The leases are often predicated on the power the turbine produces and few of them actually work at maximum capacity. Hence, “They (landowners) aren’t getting what they were promised,” he said.

“Always have a lawyer look at the lease document before you sign it,” he advised.

Among the small print items to be aware of is what it going to happen to the turbine when it is taken out of service. The I-10 in Nevada is littered with the carcasses of turbines that are no longer useful, but they have never been removed, he said.

Large companies further “defuse their liability” by creating smaller limited liability companies to actually own and operate the wind farms, McCann said.

Elliott, a member of the Manzanita Band of Mission Indians, monitors, and tries to mitigate, the cultural impacts of the Sunrise Powerlink and the wind projects. He said that Indian burial sites and other cultural sites in both private and public lands are being destroyed by these projects, with very little effort to protect them.

“This project is all about big business … it’s about trillions of dollars,” Elliott said. “As Native Americans, we’re last on the totem pole.” Elliott said he has encountered hostility from homeowners, who may be mistaking his efforts to identify cultural sites as further intrusion by SDG&E.

“I support the landowners’ efforts to protect their lands,” he said. “I hope the landowners will support our efforts too.”

Several meeting attendees, one who lives as far as two miles from the existing wind farm on Campo Reservation, commented that they can hear the turbines clearly, even inside their homes. McCann said that wind turbine noise can travel up to nine miles in mountain terrain.

Property value impacts start to show up as soon as even the possibility of a project becomes known, according to McCann. The phenomenon even has a name among appraisal professionals: wind farm anticipation stigma.

In a comment paper on the Brucci MET tower on La Posta Road, he asserted that the construction of a meteorological testing tower “serves as constructive notice to existing neighboring property owners and any potential buyers” that wind turbines may come in later – and that is enough to drive homebuyers elsewhere.

According to nolo.com, a law information website, California sellers must disclose any and every natural and manmade hazard that might affect the value of the property. This includes everything from neighborhood nuisances, such as a dog that barks every night, to major hazards like floods, earthquakes, fires, environmental hazards, and other problems. Failure to make the required disclosures not only costs the seller in a lawsuit, but can also carry criminal penalties.

So what is a homeowner to do if his home is untenable and no one else wants it either? “It’s really sad to talk to these people who put their life savings into their homes and then have to walk away from them,” McCann said.

The mass erection of wind turbines near people’s homes is a form of taking from the property owner and giving to the wind developers, he added: “It’s not OK to rob from Peter to pay Paul.”

The county’s wind ordinance calls for permitting requirements to state noise limitations at the property line, but makes no provisions for property value protections or mitigation of health impacts, according to Planning Manager Joe Farace of San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use.

That’s a different realm from what we do,” Farace said. State and federal environmental and planning laws don’t require that these impacts be quantified or mitigated, though the county could, if it wished, explore going beyond those minimums.

“This is so new,” he said. “We’d have to work with county counsel to see what we could do.”

Farace said there are no plans, currently, to pursue such a discussion.

THIRD FEATURE:

WIND PROJECTS BACKED BY TAX CREDITS AND SUBSIDIES

 SOURCE: VPR News, /www.vpr.net

February 3, 2011

by John Dillon

(Last of Three Parts) Most people think of big wind projects as a way to harvest the breezes that blow freely across the earth.

But sophisticated investors look at big wind quite differently. That’s because besides generating electricity, the large-scale projects also involve sophisticated financial instruments that harvest a variety of tax benefits.

In the last of our series on big wind, VPR’s John Dillon has this look at how the projects are financed.

(Dillon) This is a story about finance, tax credits and energy subsidies. So point number one. Almost all energy production is subsidized.

Nuclear power, for example, is backed up by the federal government. If a reactor melts down, the feds are ready to underwrite the monumental insurance costs.

Some oil company subsidies date to the 1920s.

Tax incentives and subsidies for renewable resources are much more recent. Now, says energy developer John Warshow, the government assistance is seen as an essential part of the complex financing for these projects.

(Warshow) “Developing a project is like juggling with being blindfolded and having five balls you got to keep track of. You’ve got your debt financing, your equity financing, your power sales.”

(Dillon) In his younger, scruffier days, Warshow fought nuclear power. He later turned his activism into action. His office wall in Montpelier features pictures of some of the renewable enterprises he’s helped launch, including hydro projects in Vermont and wind in New York state.

Although wind is free, the projects are expensive to start with because of the cost of the turbines, the land and the permitting requirements.

Which leads us to point number two. Because of that expense, private financiers are needed along with the government support. Investors use the tax credits to offset their income.

(Warshow) “Generally there are investors, either individual or corporate investors, who put cash into the project.”

(Dillon) To raise all the money they need, the developers’ financing resembles a multi-layered birthday cake. The tax financing piece is one layer; power sale contracts are another. Loans are yet another piece of the overall package. Warshow outlines the three main incentives used by wind investors. There are direct payments allowed under the recent stimulus bill, tax credits for energy production, and tax credits for investment.

(Warshow) “You can’t do all three, you have to pick which one is most appropriate for you.”

(Dillon) The production tax credit basically cuts the cost of electricity that’s sold. That helps the power producer. The investment tax credit – as the name suggests – is more geared for the investor. Warshow does the math on a hypothetical project that costs $40 million dollars.

(Warshow) “Maybe half of that might be debt so that would be $20 million. And the equity investors would be entitled to 30 percent of that $40 million if they took the tax credit, so that would be $12 million they would get back pretty much instantly on their investment.”

(Downes) “These are tax shelters for the investors. Pure and simple. They are nothing more than that.”

(Dillon) William Downes is a financial analyst in Maine who has looked closely at wind financing. He says the tax credits have a market of their own. They can be bundled and re-sold to companies, hedge funds or individuals.

(Downes) “Whatever investor they bring in is obviously a big institution with a lot of taxable income they want to shelter.”

(Dillon) Downes says companies and investors also take advantage of accounting rules that allow for accelerated depreciation of turbines and other equipment. He says the investments can be lucrative.

(Downes) “So, in effect, the investor will get an after-tax return of 7-8 percent, maybe higher.’

(Dillon) Just as nuclear power wouldn’t be viable without the federal insurance guarantee, many wind projects wouldn’t be built without the various tax breaks.

Green Mountain Power has made this point before the state Public Service Board. The company says it has to have the Lowell Mountain project up and running before the end of December 2012, when the production tax credits expire.

(Dostis) “Without those we would probably shelve the project for a while until either the tax credits were available or economics changed.”

(Dillon) Robert Dostis is a GMP vice president. He says that because GMP’s rates and profits are set by regulators, customers reap the benefits of the tax credits.

(Dostis) “The production tax credit that expires in 2012 is important because it keeps the cost of the project down. And that savings go directly to what the customer pays.”

(Dillon) But there’s still a third point to be made. Even with the tax advantages, wind projects are not guaranteed money-makers.

First Wind in Boston is an example. It’s developing a project in Sheffield in the Northeast Kingdom.

Late last year, the company was poised to sell stock to the public, so its financing is detailed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The documents show the company has high debt and negative cash flow. Spokesman John Lamontagne says tax credits help the company compete with other energy sources.

(Lamontagne) “The tax credits allow renewable energy projects to be operating on a level playing field with fossil fuels. Fossil fuels also receive significant levels of government assistance.”

(Dillon) But even with the help of the tax credits, First Wind also has about $528 million in long-term debt. The company told the SEC that if it can’t meet the loan terms it could be forced to declare bankruptcy.

It turned out investors weren’t willing to pay what First Wind wanted of them. So it canceled its stock offering. And added to its existing debt. To build the Sheffield project, it borrowed another $76 million.

For VPR News, I’m John Dillon in Montpelier.

WALKER'S WIND BILL DEAD

Source: The Daily Reporter

February 3, 2010

By 
SCOTT BAUER
Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to toughen wind turbine regulations will not be taken up by the Legislature in a special session the governor called to pass that bill and others, the Associated Press was told Thursday by spokesman for legislative leaders.

The demise of the bill mark’s Walker’s first legislative defeat in an incredibly successful first month in office.

The bill was introduced at Walker’s request as part of a special session call he made to pass 10 bills he said will help spur job creation. The other nine have passed one or both houses of the Legislature and four have been signed into law.

But the wind bill never was even scheduled for a public hearing.

The bill is dead for now, but might be revived later in the session, said Chris Reader, chief of staff for Sen. Rich Zipperer, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that had the bill.

GO TO THE DAILY REPORTER’S
WIND FARM PROJECT PROFILE PAGE

“It’s just an issue the Legislature wants to take a longer, more thoughtful look at,” said Andrew Welhouse, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald. “We don’t have any immediate plans to move the special session bill, but the issue certainly isn’t going anywhere.”

Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Leaders in the Assembly also did not immediately return calls, but the bill has not been scheduled for a hearing there.

Walker, a Republican, has worked incredibly closely and well with the Republican-controlled Legislature.

But that strong relationship wasn’t enough to rescue the wind bill, which drew vociferous opposition from those in the industry who said it would constitute the greatest regulatory barrier in the country.

Currently, turbines must be built at least 1,250 feet from nearby homes. But under Walker’s plan, they would have to be built at least 1,800 feet away.

Renew Wisconsin, which has tracked the growth of the state’s renewable sector, had said as much as $1.8 billion in investment may be at stake if every state wind farm now in the planning stage is halted.

Denise Bode, of the American Wind Energy Association, said the requirement would have put a “closed for business” sign on Wisconsin for wind development.

Walker had argued his proposal would have benefited property owners. The idea had garnered support from the Wisconsin Realtors Association, which said it was needed to protect homeowners near wind turbines.

SECOND FEATURE

BROWN COUNTY WIND PROJECT ISN'T DONE YET, BUT IT'S ALREADY FOR SALE:

SHIRLEY 'UN-WINDS' ---SHIRLEY WIND PROJECT FOR SALE, DEVELOPERS STILL KEEN ON ADDRESSING RESIDENTS CONCERNS.

SOURCE: The Denmark News, thedenmarknews.com

February 3, 2010

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (CHG&E) of Poughkieepsie, NY, which owns roughly ninety percent of the Shirley Wind Project, has begun the process of selling the 20 MW energy production facility.

The project has yet to even be completed and already the utility is courting buyers, although they say the move has more to do with a shift in corporate strategy versus the pros and cons of the Shirley installation itself.

John Maserjian, CHG&E spokesman for the Shirley WInd project confirms, "That is true. In October our Board of Directors announced a change in strategy for CH Energy Group and we're looking to refocus the company on our utility operations in New York and also our fuel distribution operations in the Mid-Atlantic area. So we're looking to 'unwind' our investments in renewable energies including the Shirley Wind investment. We're moving in that direction. We're not at the point where we can announce any prospects or interest, but we're taking the preliminary steps."

CHG&E also has minority investments of about $5 million in two other wind projects, a 7.5 MWt wind farm located in Atlantic City, NY and a 24 MW facility in Bear Creek, PA. Maserjian says CHG&E us 'unwinding' (a fancy term for selling) all of their investments in renewable, not just the Shirley project.

"There's a biomass plant in upstate New York that produces steam and electricity from wood products that located near a lumbering site that's for sale as well. We also have an interest in an ethanol plant in Nebraska that will be sold," he said.

In a press release dated October 28 2018, just under two weeks before the quiet ribbon cutting for the Shirley Wind facility, CHG&E Chairman of the Board, President and C.E.O. Steven V. Lant said "[W]e have concluded that we do not possess the same strong competencies  and competitive advantages in renewable energy.

These investments do not typically display the risk and return profiles that are consistent with our financial objectives, requiring higher levels of leverage and more volatility than we are comfortable with. As we announced last quarter, we have discontinued development efforts in this area, and we will no begin to unwind the existing investment portfolio in an orderly manner."

The unexpected news will probably excite wind farm critics, who in addition to any number of personal concerns, have called wind turbine development a costly mistake. Many critics of the subsidized fledgling wind industry claim the costs associated with wind energy raise the flag of increased electricity prices as well as irrecoverable tax moneys used to spur development.

Bill Rakocy, one of the founders of the project developer Emerging Energies LLP, declined to comment on the impending sale, but the move appears to be somewhat unexpected.

Maserjian continues, "It was not our intention to sell the project when we first made the investment, but over the course of the year we re-evaluated our strategy and our operations and decided that it would be in the best interest of our investors to sell, or 'unwind' our renewable energy investments.

Turbines being built in Wisconsin are ten stories taller this one in Fond du Lac County

THESE ARE NOT YOUR GRANDMA'S WINDMILLS

SOURCE: Janesville Gazette, gazettextra.com 

February 3, 2011

By DOUG ZWEIZIG,

Why does Gov. Scott Walker’s wind siting bill include a 1,800-foot setback between wind turbines and property lines? Because the newest industrial wind turbines in our state are 50 stories tall. It’s hard enough to imagine living next to a structure that big. Now add blades that weigh 18 tons with a span wider than a 747, a top speed of about 170 mph, spinning 24/7 just 1,250 feet from your door.

Imagine living with turbine noise that is twice as loud as the World Health Organization’s limit for healthful sleep. Imagine 700 feet of your land used by a wind company without your permission and without compensation. Imagine a loss of property value as high as 40 percent.

Unfortunately on March 1, unless Walker’s bill passes, this will become a reality. That’s when the new state Public Service Commission’s wind siting rules take effect.

I served as vice chairman of the PSC’s Wind Siting Council. The majority of the council had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the rules, resulting in guidelines that protect those interests instead of protecting Wisconsin residents. I helped author a minority report to the PSC, detailing how the majority’s guidelines fail to address the realities of the effects of large wind turbines on nearby populations.

Wisconsin residents have been living with turbines of the 400-foot to 500-foot variety for only a few years, but the problems with PSC setbacks once thought to be adequate have become very clear. Neighbors of wind projects traveled to Madison to give sworn testimony to the PSC and to our legislators, telling of turbine noise much louder than expected, of sleep deprivation and resulting deterioration of health, of headaches from shadow-flicker, loss of TV and radio reception, complaints to wind companies that are ignored, communities torn apart and homes that simply will not sell.

The PSC rules will allow wind companies to put a turbine 440 feet from your property line and claim about 700 feet of your land for use as their safety zone. It’s still your property, but you can’t build a structure or plant trees there without the wind company’s permission.

All of these problems can be avoided with greater setbacks.

Gov. Walker’s bill puts a setback of 1,800 feet between a turbine and your property line. If a company wants to put a turbine closer, it absolutely can. The difference is it will need your permission and might have to compensate you. The bill ensures that a wind company can’t take your property for its use unless you want it to.

Although the bill does not directly address the very real health concerns associated with living too close to wind turbines, it gives us increased protection from turbine noise and shadow flicker and protects our property. Most important, it gives us some choice.

I hope you’ll call your legislators and ask them to support Walker’s bill. If we put turbines where they do no harm, everyone will be happy.

Doug Zweizig of Evansville served as vice chairman of the state Public Service Commission’s Wind Siting Council.

CLICK HERE IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY CONTACTED YOUR LEGISLATORS TO ASK THEM TO SUPPORT GOVERNOR WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL

CLICK HERE TO READ THE WIND SITING COUNCIL'S MINORITY REPORT TO THE PSC: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE MINORITY REPORT BEGINS ON PAGE 45 OF THE DOCUMENT

Second Feature

TURBINES GET LOUDER AT NIGHT: ACOUSTICIAN

SOURCE: ifPress

February 3, 2010

By Ellwood Shreve

CHATHAM - Wind turbines make more noise at night, according to acoustics expert Rick James.

James provided testimony during the second day of an Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal, held in the council chamber of the Chatham-Kent Civic Centre. He testified on behalf of appellants Katie Erickson and Chatham-Kent Wind Action Inc., who are opposed to the approval of the Kent Breeze Wind Farm in Thamesville, owned by Suncor.

An appeal has been launched against the wind farm project, which is the first to be approved under the Ontario Green Energy Act, on the basis it will cause harm to human health such as sleep disturbances, stress or psychological stress, headaches and loss of enjoyment of life.

James said he has measured differences in sound levels at night and the daytime at other wind farms as well as examined other studies on how the wind speed affects turbine blades at different levels in the rotation.

"It's not that the wind speed changes, it's that the difference in the wind speed at different points in the blade's rotation may be great enough that it's not possible to set that blade at an angle that is optimal for energy extraction," James said.

He said in engineering terms, noise is wasted energy.

"When we get to where the blade is in those positions where it's not at the optimum angle to extract energy we get a little extra noise off of it," James said. "The more out of alignment the more noise we get."

He said in the daytime a blade being out of alignment only increases noise by one, two or three extra decibels.

At night, when there are less sounds from other sources to mask the noise, the difference in wind speeds hitting different points in the blade's rotation can create a thump or a deep whoosh sound, much more intense than what is experienced in the daytime. He noted this could be a 10-to 14-decibel increase.

James studied the Kent Breeze Wind Farm area and figures more than 100 homes in the area of where the eight turbines are to be located will be above the 40-decibel at nighttime, if the increased noise level is factored in.

Albert Engel, lawyer for Suncor, said if the company or another proponent finds that a turbine is exceeding an acceptable noise level, action can be taken to reduce the noise.

James said he is not aware of any mitigation efforts that have reduced the increase in nighttime noise caused by wind turbines.

Andrea Huckins, co-counsel for the Ministry of Environment, pointed out James doesn't have the medical qualifications to make any conclusions that human health will be affected by the Kent Breeze Wind Farm.

James said he doesn't need a medical designation to know people who have been put in a similar situation have made health complaints.

Both Engel and Huckins tried unsuccessfully to convince the tribunal to not allow James to stand as an expert witness, claiming his bias as a board of director of the Society for Wind Vigilance, and the fact he has testified on behalf of several clients opposing wind farms.

The tribunal resumes Feb. 9-11 in Toronto, returning to Chatham Feb. 15-16. Sessions will be held in Toronto March 2, 4,11, 25, then in Chatham March 22, 23, 29-31.

Some appelants' witnesses will testify in-camera.

Eric Gillespie, lawyer representing the appellants said some information that certain witnesses would like to present is part of a study recently completed in Maine, which looked at the relationship between the location of industrial turbines and health effects on residents.

Noting it is believed to be a first of its kind, Gillespie said the authors of the study want it to try to have it published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. He added if the information is publicly disseminated through a legal proceeding or other mechanism it could hinder having it published, because it becomes "yesterday's news."

WHAT'S AT ISSUE WITH GOVERNOR WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL:

 Pictured Above: Setbacks between 400 foot tall wind turbines and homes in a PSC-approved wind project Fond du Lac County Wisconsin. The yellow circles indicate the 1000 foot safety zone around each turbine.

Pictured Below: PSC approved Glacier Hills Wind Project under constrution in Columbia County. In this map from WeEnergies, red dots are turbine locations.  Each yellow circle containing a small red square is a non-participating home.

When they permitted the wind project, the PSC admitted that there were too many turbines around some homes but instead of asking for fewer turbines in those areas they asked the wind company to offer to purchase the homes. They did.

The PSC wind rules allow safety zones to cross property lines and allow a wind company to automatically use a neighbor's land as part of that safety zone. This creates a no-build and no tree planting zone on the property of a non-particpating land owner who must to get permission from the wind company to build a structure or plant a tree on his own land.

Senate Bill 9 helps to correct this problem.

The PSC statewide siting rules are to take effect on March 1st, 2011. They have setbacks of 1250 feet between homes and a 500 foot turbine. The rules allow a wind company to use a non participating landowner's property as a safety setback zone.

Senate Bill 9 increases the setback to 1800 feet between turbines and property lines. If a landowner wants a turbine closer he can enter into an agreement with the wind company. This bill gives some choice and a little more protection to the rural Wisconsin families who have no choice about living beneath the turbines.

PICTURED ABOVE: a map showing the noise level predicted for residents in Invenergy's proposed Ledge Wind Project in Brown County.  The yellow dots are homes. The black dots are wind turbine locations. The World Health Organization says nighttime noise should no louder than 35 dbA for healthful sleep. The deep blue areas indicate predicted turbine noise levels above 50 dbA. The purple areas indicate turbine noise levels of 50dbA.  

EXTRA CREDIT READING LIST

THE DIRTY COST OF CLEAN WIND

 Source: THE DAILY MAIL

CLICK HERE to read the whole story

"This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about."

Home in Invenergy windfarm, Fond du Lac County. PSC approved setbacks: 1000 feet from homes

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS TODAY?

Just a phone call is all it takes to do your part to help give rural Wisconsin an 1800' setback between industrial scale wind turbines and landowner's property lines.

SUPPORT (Special Session Assembly Bill 9)

Better Plan encourages you to take a moment right now to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for his wind siting bill, (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE BILL) which provides for a setback of 1800 feet between wind turbines and property lines. Let him know you support this bill.

AND! CALL THE LEGISLATORS ON THE COMMITTEES BELOW

AND! Then call your own legislators.

And then, please accept our thanks and the thanks of many in rural Wisconsin for your help.

 

Office of the Governor, (608) 266-1212, govgeneral@wisconsin.gov

Senator Scott Fitzgerald (Senate Majority Leader, Juneau), 266-5660, Sen.fitzgerald@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Jeff Fitzgerald (Assembly Speaker, Horicon), 266-3387, Rep.fitzgerald@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Suder (Assembly Majority Leader, Abbotsford), 266-2401, Rep.suder@legis.wisconsin.gov  

 Members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations.

-Chairman Senator Rich Zipperer (R) Sen.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-9174   Capitol 323 South

-Vice Chair Senator Neal Kedzie (R)  Sen.kedzie@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-2635   Capitol 313 South

-Senator Pam Galloway(R)

Sen.Galloway@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-2502   Capitol 409 South

Senator Fred Risser (D)  Sen.risser@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-1627   Capitol 130 South

Senator Jon Erpenbach (D)  Sen.erpenbach@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-6670   Capitol 106 South

PLEASE CONTACT ALL OF THESE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND UTILITIES Representative Mark Honadel (Chair)

Representative John Klenke (Vice-Chair)

Representative Kevin Petersen

Representative Gary Tauchen

Representative Thomas Larson

Representative Erik Severson

Representative Chad Weininger

Representative Josh Zepnick

Representative John Steinbrink

Representative Anthony Staskunas

Representative Brett Hulsey

CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS HOUSE IN THE THE INVENERGY WIND PROJECT IN FOND DU LAC COUNTY WHEN THE OWNERS TRIED TO SELL IT

Realtor: Assessor wrong on wind farms

SOURCE: Daily Gazette, Sterling, Ill. 

Jan 29, 2011

By David Giuliani,

FACTS ABOUT GREEN JOBS CREATION ELUSIVE AS THE WIND

Source: MacIver News Service

Although they are touted and promoted by policy makers and opinion leaders across the state, accurately defining and keeping track of ‘green jobs’ has proven nearly impossible in Wisconsin.

Take, for example, ‘green jobs’ associated with the wind industry.

“Clean energy technology and high-end manufacturing are Wisconsin’s future,” Governor Jim Doyle said in his final State of the State address.  “We have more than 300 companies and thousands of jobs in the wind industry.”

That statistic is impossible to verify.

The State of Wisconsin does not track those companies nor the jobs within the industry.  When contacted, the Office of Energy Independence (an agency created by Governor Doyle in 2007) directed MacIver News to Wisconsin Wind Works, a self-described “consortium of manufacturers representing the wind manufacturing supply chain within Wisconsin.”

The advocacy group maintains an online wind energy-related supply chain database, although a routine examination of the data proved just how unreliable the figures are.

When the online, searchable database was utilized earlier this summer, it listed 340 companies in Wisconsin connected to the wind industry, a fact which, without additional investigation would appear to be in line with the Governor’s statement.  However, further examination showed many of those companies were not currently serving the wind industry and were only listed because they someday could serve the wind industry.

For example, the database listed 38 manufacturers, but only 24 of them have anything to actually do with the wind energy sector presently.

Of those 24 Wisconsin manufacturers, only eight were categorized as primary suppliers.  Another four companies were listed as both primary and secondary suppliers.  A MacIver News Service reporter contacted all eight primary suppliers and the four companies listed as primary/secondary suppliers in our initial query and what we found further eroded the credibility of Governor Doyle’s claims.

When contacted, the companies listed as both primary and secondary suppliers all described themselves merely as secondary suppliers.  That means they produce products that are not exclusive to the wind energy.  For example, Bushman Equipment manufactures lifts that move heavy pieces of equipment, which, among many other uses, can be used to handle wind turbines.

Wisconsin Wind Works’ database is not only generous with the number of companies within their supply chain it associates as being primary suppliers, there are issues with the actual job numbers listed for each company as well. Many of the figures are either inflated,  the jobs are not located in Wisconsin, or they cannot be tied to wind energy.

For example, Rexnord Industries was one of the eight Wisconsin manufacturers listed in our query as directly serving the wind energy industry.  The database shows the company has 6,000 employees.  Yet a Rexnord official told the MacIver News Service that the company only has 1,500 employees in Wisconsin, and only five of those have jobs which are directly tied to the wind industry.

Wisconsin Wind Works’ database says Orchid International has 600 employees, but a company spokesperson told MacIver it only has 150.  Amsoil Inc. in Superior has 236 employees listed in the Wisconsin Wind Works database, but a company representative told the MacIver News Service that only 6 of them work on wind energy-related products.

In all, at the time of our search, the database claimed 7,632 jobs among the eight manufacturers that were current primary suppliers to the wind industry.  Yet, the MacIver News Service was only able to identify 31 jobs at those companies which were specifically tied to wind energy related products.

Manufacturers told MacIver News that other employees might work on wind-related products occasionally, but it does not represent the bulk of their workload.

Another 1,077 workers are listed among the secondary suppliers and we did not investigate that claim.

VAL-FAB, one of the companies listed as both a primary and secondary supplier, explained to MacIver News that it initially had high hopes for the wind energy industry that never materialized.  The company specializes in fabrication for the energy sector.

William Capelle, Director of Business Development at VAL-FAB, said “At first we thought we might be able to manufacture the actual towers, but it turns out 90 percent of those are imported from Spain.”

Since the MacIver News Service first examined the Wisconsin Wind Works database, the number of companies listed has increased to 360.  A reporter attempted to contact the organization for comment about the veracity of their data, but Wisconsin wind Works, which solicits members by selling itself as the  “preferred partner of wind energy professionals,” did not respond.

They are, however, holding a Wind Energy Symposium in Milwaukee on October 13th.

Meanwhile the Office of Energy Independence continues to pursue the Doyle Administration’s green energy policies.  As Doyle said during his final State of the State address, “anyone who says there aren’t jobs in the clean energy economy had better open their eyes.”

There is no doubt that some jobs in the wind industry exist in Wisconsin. The accurate number of these ‘green jobs’ is proving to be, at best, elusive

Representatives of Doyle’s office did not respond to repeated request for comments regarding the information contained within this article.

NOTE: THIS ARTICLE ORIGINALLY RAN IN SEPTEMBER OF 2010

By Bill Osmulski
MacIver News Service Investigative Reporter