Better Plan, Wisconsin

Fond du Lac County home in Invenergy Forward wind project. Setbacks are 1000 feet, noise limits 50 dbA

Their Money or Your Life?  PSC Commissioners weigh wind developers financial needs against residents health and safety

Better Plan, Wisconsin

August 24, 2010

MADISON- Although Public Service Commissioner Lauren Azar made it clear she believes a small number of Wisconsin wind farm residents are suffering from turbine noise related sleep deprivation and associated health impacts, in the end she seemed to go along with Chairman Eric Callisto and Commissioner Mark Meyer in sticking to the same noise limits residents have been complaining about: 50 decibels during the day and 45 decibels during the night.

At the previous meeting on Thursday, Azar had suggested a setback of 2200 feet and a nighttime noise limit of 40 decibels, which she referenced as the World Health Organization's nighttime noise standard. [Note: The World Health Organization's nighttime noise standard was recently lowered to 35 decibels.]

Azar said the basis for the 2200 foot setback was information given to her by PSC staff regarding the setback distance required to reach 45 decibels. Her proposal was for developers to use a 2200 foot setback unless they could prove they could come closer and still meet noise and shadow flicker standards.

Chairman Callisto made it clear he would not go along with this. Commissioner Meyer also indicated he rejected this idea.

Callisto recommended a setback of 3.1 times the blade tip height or about 1250 feet for a 400 foot tall turbine, although his basis for choosing the 3.1 figure was not stated and is unknown.

Callisto also said that should problems come up for residents, they have recourse though the legal system and can sue the developer.

Azar pointed out that bringing a lawsuit against a wind company would put an unrealistic financial burden on nearly any family. She estimated the cost of such a lawsuit as being at least $200,000, and stressed that the commission had the opportunity to build protection for residents into the rules.

Throughout the discussion all three commissioners expressed clear concern for wind developers needs, and repeatedly indicated distrust of local government.

Only Commissionar Azar expressed concern for impacts on residents. She also indicated concern about impacts on wildlife and domestic animals.

Commissioners agreed that shadow flicker impacts to non participating homes should be 30 hours per year. The basis for this number was not stated.

They agreed that non-participating homes with more than 20 hours of flicker per year should be eligible for 'mitigation' from the wind company. Usually this means window blinds.

What happens when shadow flicker lasts over 30 hours created a sticking point in the discussion.

Azar felt going over the 30 hour limit would require curtailment of the turbine. The possibility of required curtailment of a turbine-- which can mean anything from feathering the blades to stopping the turbine completely-- is a sore subject for wind developers.

Commissioner Meyer seemed troubled by the possibility of required curtailment for violating shadow flicker standards and asked the commissioners to think of another option.

The next meeting is scheduled for 8:00AM, Wednesday, August 25th, at the Public Service Commission. 

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

SECOND FEATURE: FROM THE PSC DOCKET: 1-AC-231

Wisconsin residents contact PSC about discussions on windsiting rules.

Commissioner Meyers,

You made a comment at the end of your broadcast for us to call in our comments, well when I called the lady that answered said she thought you were joking.

... I did not think that was funny, so I emailed you a letter. I sure hope you read every one you get and share them with the other commissioners.

½ mile setbacks from nonparticipant'a property line and that’s not a joke. Take your time and think about what you’re doing and how many lives are depending on that all 3 of you to do the right thing for the state of Wisconsin.

Joanne Vercauteren
Greenleaf, WI

From: Mike Winkler
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 8:49 AM
To: Heilman, Alice - PSC
Subject: tower setback

Ma'am;

1000' is not enough setback from a home. My brother has a tower that was put (accidentally) 880' from his house. Although he is "gagged" from saying anything about it, I am not.

I can tell you that even at 1100' from the tower the noise is loud enough to be agitating during the day, and it downright impossible to sleep through it at night...

People's lives are being affected, and degraded in quality. Why don't the wind profiteers and the PSC care?

Isn't Wisconsin worthwhile enough to save these innocent people's way of life?

Mike Winkler
Fond du Lac

To the Public Service commission:

As a father of 2 boys, I am alarmed that instead of doing the necessary independent studies to determine the health risks of industrial wind turbines in close proximity to our homes, the suggestion was made to offer compensation to affected neighbors?

How could a parent take money when the health of their family is at risk?

How can the PSC even make this suggestion?

I commend Commissioner Azar for having the courage to recognize the need for "at least" a 2200 ft setback......Our families support for any industrial wind project that jeopardizes our health and safety is not dependent on any dollar amount.

It is time for the PSC to evaluate industrial wind projects based on the health and safety of our families, not political direction.
Respectfully,

Mark Deslauriers

Greenleaf, Wisconsin

 

Commissioners:

Thank you for this opportunity to share my concerns with the wind siting draft rules. I have been listening to every siting council meeting as well as the past two PSC meetings. I do have the following concerns.

1) 128.14 (4) Line 15-20. Compliance Page 18: I will feel better if noise testing is done by an independent 3rd party, NOT THE DEVELOPER/OWNER. What other industry is allowed to be its` own testing resource?

The draft also states that if the test shows compliance, another test can't be done for two years.

What if the test was not done on the night that the noise complaint was made or if the test was not accurate? A person should not have to continue to suffer for 2 more years.

The developer or owner should not be conducting the test. It should be a 3rd party. Otherwise who determines if the test was fair and accurate? The testing needs to be verified or done by more than one source to protect the landowner.

2)128.14 Noise Criteria. Page 16: I would like to ask if testing will be done at night and the specific night of the complaint?

I have serious concerns as to why low frequency noise and measurement has not been addressed. The 45dba limit will not cover this serious issue.

3) 128.14 (C) Compliance: Page 19 Pre and post construction testing must also be done by a 3rd party, not the developer or owner. This is to prevent any conflict or problems from happening in the first place to reduce the need for mitigation.

Basically any testing referenced in the draft should be done by a 3rd party, never the developer. Please keep in mind, they are not a utility and not regulated as the utility industry is.

4) Existing property uses: I feel strongly that vacant land zoned for residential building should be considered, not just those with building permits.

What if someone is planning to build a year or two down the road because they are just in the planning stages, which can take years? My husband and I worked on our home plans for 3-4 years after we purchased our property and then went for a building permit. Or if someone is planning a retirement home in 5 or 10 years?

Many, including my neighbor have every intention of building sometime in the near future. He specifically is waiting for his home to sell and will not get a permit until it does. We have friends that own land and will build when they are able to financially.

If a parcel is already zoned for building a home, accommodations should be made. Having setbacks from property lines rather than homes, would resolve this issue. This is what was done in Manitowoc County. Setbacks were made from property lines to prevent a "taking."

I agree with the fact that a developer should be required to purchase homes of non-participating landowners that are negatively affected. No one should have to be forced from their home and lose the value in their property.

If the developer feels the turbines do not affect property values, they can buy and sell the home. If a non-participant is going to be considered a participant for accepting a payment only a 1/3 of a participating landowner and not be able to have mitigation, no one will sign on for that.

Those fighting for their health and safety will not take money in lieu of their quality of life.

5) Residence: What about cottages/vacation homes. While they are not used year round, they are either used frequently and some people spend entire summers at these. Especially along the lakeshore area and Lake Winnebago, Door County etc.

I would like to suggest that "Occupied Community Building" include other things that are common in rural areas such as business`s, Sportsman's clubs, Town Halls, Golf Course Club Houses/Golf Course, some of these host weddings, Business's, i.e.: gas stations, restaurants, and other business's. All of these are located in rural areas and have people present at least as or more often than a church or place of worship.

This is also in Setback table, page 14. People that use these facilities, especially those that spend all day working at them, deserve the same protection as those that go to a church service.

6) Setback Table: What about "safety setbacks" to County, State, and Federal parks and campgrounds. People picnic and sleep in campgrounds which are located in many parks and there should be" safety setbacks" to those areas.

I feel safety setbacks should be to non participating property lines for noise and shadow flicker to prevent a takings.

I feel someone should be safe from harm anywhere on their property, not just in their home.

People in rural areas spend a lot of time outdoors. Vestas recommends a 1300ft safety setback in case of fire, but the siting council majority wants to stay with 1000ft. It what other industry do we disregard recommended safety protocol?

I agree with Commissioner Azar to set the 2200 ft setback for noise to help make sure the 45dba is met. If staff has found that is what is necessary, it will be a safety net and would be sensible to use that number for a noise setback.

We do not know how dependable the computer modeling is and if a developer can be trusted to be honest. I also feel any computer modeling should be verified by an independent 3rd party. If they can prove with verification that they can go less, then so be it.

The modeling used in Fond du lac County has proven to be completely inaccurate and that it can`t be depended on.

While I really feel a 5 over ambient is the fair way to go for a noise limit, because most rural areas where turbines will be located average 25-30 at night. If the World Health Organization recommends a general 40dba noise limit, why should there be a 45dba limit?

We listen to WHO for recommendations on other health recommendations ie:flu shots, so why are we not heading their recommendation here?

7) 128.16 line 18. Signal Interference: (b) Line 20-22, and line 2 of next page, line of sight. What width is the corridor? The following is from the Manitowoc County Ordinance: A large wind energy system or met tower may not be located within an emergency communication corridor, which is defined as the area within 500 feet of a line connecting a specified pair of communication towers. Each of the following pairs of communication towers, whose locations are described using Manitowoc County coordinates, delineate a protected emergency communication corridor. (3) A large wind energy system or met tower may not be located within one mile of any communication tower location identified in sub. (2).

The following is from the White Paper done for Manitowoc County, which was used to address the section in the ordinance. "I would not want a user to build a critical communications tower in a wind farm unless the windmills were at least ½ mile away--better yet a mile.

8) I feel that financial assurance should be provided at time of permit application, not when construction starts. You want to make sure a developer is financially capable upfront before agencies are required to do planning work at the taxpayer`s expense. If you are trying to take out a mortgage, the bank wants proof you can afford it before you move in not after. A credit check is done before anything else.

The developer should be required to give the municipalities at least 60 days notice prior to them selling or transferring a controlling interest to another entity. Municipalities should also be granted the authority to deny such a change in ownership if the developer is unable to provide proof of adequate financial resources in the new entity (e.g. for decommissioning). Developers can change ownerships to various LLCs, where they eventually are just shell corporations that have no assets, cannot be sued, and just fold.]

I agree with Commissioner Azar that decommissioning money should not be in the form of a letter of credit that can expire. If Navitas Energy, which was sold to Babcock and Brown would have built the wind farm in Manitowoc County, the county would now be up a creek because letters of credit must be renewed on a yearly basis, and Babcock and Brown went bankrupt.

I would also like the hosting landowner take some responsibility for what he is taking on. This is from the Manitowoc County ordinance: Statement signed by the landowner acknowledging that the landowner is financially responsible if the owner fails to reclaim the site as required by sec. 24.10(4) and that any removal and reclamation costs incurred by the county will become a lien on the property and may be collected from the landowner in the same manner as property taxes.

9) 128.13 (c) Siting Criteria Page 15: Who defines hardships?

10) Real Property Provisions, Page 9: I would like to suggest leaving this section in.

Unlike real estate agents, wind developers are not regulated by anyone. They have been known to lie to landowners to get them to sign up. They recently told a landowner in Sheboygan that no one in Fond du Lac is having problems with noise, etc. We know that is not true.

While common sense would tell you that you should have an attorney look at anything before you sign, these landowners are quite often older people who are used to taking care of business with a hand shake.

There should be someone overseeing the people that are signing up landowners that are not being told the whole truth. Again, these developers are not regulated and basically have no one looking over their shoulders to make sure they are doing things legally and morally. The consumer/landowner deserves some sort of protection from the developers.

There has to be some legal recourse, especially if they are being lied to, to get them to sign on the dotted line of a document they have no way out of. These landowners are being told there are no issues with the turbines, but yet the leases have gag orders stating if they have problems with noise or shadow flicker, they can`t tell anyone or can`t seek mitigation. Now does that seem right? Please talk to some people that turned down developers or are trying to get out of leases.

11) 128.33 (1) (2) Political Subdivision: Page 45 Require a developer or owner to cooperate with any study coordinated by the commission or the DNR of the effects of wind energy systems on wildlife populations and natural resources. Is there going to be any study on the effects on people?

We already know there are problems with negative effects in the existing wind farms. I would like to ask you to slow this process down and take the time you need to think this out as it sure seems to be rushed. Once these are up, it is not like a car that can be recalled and fixed. They are up for the next 30 years.

The best mitigation is done in the rule planning stages. Please err on the side of caution. If engineers need to design a bridge to carry 2 tons, they spec it to carry 3 or 4 tons. It seems we are setting limits here at the bare minimum rather than taking necessary precautions and that is asking for trouble. Please visit the homes of those that are being affected and speak to them personally to make sure this is done responsibly. Rather than guess as to what should be done, study the existing wind farms before allowing more to be constructed.

Lynn Korinek
Mishicot, WI 54228

From: Diane Hoerth
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 7:35 AM
To: Heilman, Alice - PSC
Subject: Safe Setbacks

Please do not allow the construction of industrial wind turbines to be built any less than 2200 feet from homes, schools, business, churches or any building that people and also animals use. Even though it is far short of the recommended setbacks of; The United Kingdom Noise Association of 1 mile, France National Academy of Medicine for a minimum 1mile, Barbara J. Frey, BA, MA and Peter J. Hadden, BSc FRICS report, NOISE RADIATION FROM WIND TURBINES INSTALLED NEAR HOMES: EFFECTS ON HEALTH recommends setbacks of 1.25 miles, Dr. Amanda Harry a minimum of 1.5 miles, Dr. Nina Pierpont calls for a minimum of 1.5 miles.

At 2200 feet the problems that homes/families will experience with noise and vibration issues will still take place but not as frequently and hopefully not as strong or loud. That is why at one time, Renew Wisconsin stated, "Some individuals living within a one‐mile radius of large wind farms complain of headaches and sleeping problems, due to noise pollution. Wind turbines are mechanical devices that emit low‐frequency sound waves. Large wind farms should be appropriately sited for this reason."

The quiet country nights will still be affected at 2200 feet, a minimum distance of 2640 feet would maintain a safer environment of 40 dB, but the above paragraphs recommendations would allow families/residents, taxpayer of the State of Wisconsin to NOT lose their quality of life because it would reach the ambient levels closer to 35dB.

The PSC’s past decisions of setbacks of 1,000 and 1,200 feet from homes has caused problems
for families in our state. Your decision now will affect thousands more and if this decisions affects our health, our safety, our property value --we will not be silent.

Noise studies should NEVER be concluded by the wind industry or utilities. That is letting the fox guard the hen house. All noise studies MUST be done by an independent third parties. In the draft it states another test can‘t be done for two years, this must be removed. If there is a problem with noise a family should not have to wait two years for another test. Once again, using the setbacks in the first paragraph would decrease the problem of noise.

The PSC –THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISION must protect the public, the taxpayers of Wisconsin from any cost in decommissioning and not allow these massive machines to be abandoned.

Diane Hoerth
Chilton, WI

We are writing in regards to the proposed wind siting rules to be determined by the PSC. Our main concern is the noise issues that may be caused by industrial wind turbines when built in close proximity to residential homes and businesses.

Therefore, we ask that you adopt the 2200 setback recommended by Commissioner Azar, which was based on findings of PSC staff which indicated a 45dba noise standard would be met at this
distance.

Additionally, if you chose to allow the developer to be given the opportunity to prove that the noise standard could be met at a closer distance, then we ask that the modeling to prove this be done by an independent 3rd party, rather than the developer themselves, since this type of testing should always be conducted by a party that does not have a financial interest in the outcome of the testing.

We are also very concerned if the PSC only requires a 1000 ft. safety setback, when Vestas recommends a 1300 ft. safety setback for their workers in case of a fire. I would ask that the PSC also provide Wisconsin residents and businesses the same 1300 ft. minimum safety setback that Vestas recommends for their own workers.

We appreciate your careful consideration of our concerns with regards to the health and safety of Wisconsin residents when determining wind siting regulations.

Sincerely,
Gus & Nicole Garcia
Fond du Lac, WI 54935

From: Timothy J. Harmann
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:15 AM
To: Heilman, Alice - PSC
Subject: Draft Siting Rules - Comments

Hello Alice,

I testified in Fond Du Lac and now want to follow‐up and give input on yesterday's draft siting rules discussion:

I believe that yesterday there were some positive points being made in protection of the general public around the turbines. (It is refreshing compared to the heavily wind dominated 15 person panel. It was hard for me to watch this process because it directly impacted my family.)

I have 4 turbines planned around my home (within 1/2 mile) for the Ledge Wind Project by Invenergy.

1. My family needs protection from the very annoying turbine noise that would be keeping us awake at night. Our current ambient is 25 ‐ 30 dba at night. 40 dba is more than double the noise and anything higher should try to be avoided so we can have needed sleep in our own home. I cannot imagine living with an annoying noise that I cannot turn off for 30 years. 5 dba above ambient should be all that is asked of non‐participating homes and hopefully that will protect people against low frequency noise and infrasound too.

2. 2200 foot setback is the minimum that would protect us and most studies say 1/2 mile (2640 feet). We are very hilly in our beautiful setting so noise tends to travel farther and be louder especially at night when its calm at ground level and then wind cannot cover the turbine noise.

3. I am not looking to be compensated for living near a turbine. I wouldn't accept the money anyway because I know too many people that have to live in a wind project today. I interviewed 10 of them near Fond Du Lac in the Blue Sky Green Fields project and know 3 others personally. I need the ability to pursue the wind developer if they make my family's life miserable.

4. My home is a large part of my investment and life savings and I cannot afford to lose up to 40% or more and I don't really want my home bulldozed. Wind developers say turbines increase the property value and I'd like them to be held accountable with property value protection. They do not have eminent domain and they are affecting so many people with so many turbines. The playing field is not level and this is property value theft. Please consider property value protection based on similar homes at least 5 miles outside a wind project. Please consider using property lines so I can develop my own property as I see fit in the future instead of having this right taken from me.

5. Decommissioning needs to be guaranteed and money needs to be set aside upfront.

6. Some control needs to be available to the county and town boards who understand our local issues. Our well water is very vulnerable here and clean water is just as important as clean energy. Our town is actively pursuing alternate clean and renewable energy that re‐uses garbage and cow manure to help solve our unique problems. 81 miles of trenches will make the problem worse here. I already have occasional well problems.

Thank you for your time, efforts, and consideration!

Sincerely,
Timothy J. Harmann
Denmark, WI

From: Ron Heuer
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 4:38 PM
To: Heilman, Alice - PSC
Subject: PSC Wind Energy System Rules

Commissioner Meyer offered to listen to comments on the Rules Discussions that have been underway. I would like to address three issues:

Setbacks
o Safety Setback- current recommendation is 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height. This is not a safe distance when the a Vestas manufacturer manual calls for a setback for safety of 1,300 feet. This setback should be from the property lines.

o Non-participating Residence Setback - The recommendation of 3.1 times the maximum blade tip height will not meet the for Commissioner Azar was on the right track of 2,200 feet for minimum setback from a home.

In countries where they have had Wind Turbines for a number of years, they learned from their mistakes and moved the setbacks to, in some cases a mile from homes. Most have moved the allowable setback of 1/2 mile, again from property lines.

 Noise

o 50/45 (day/Night) will not work, you are putting individuals health at risk with this type of allowable noise. Once again, Commissioner Azar was on the right track with 50/40, closer to the
World Health Organizations rule. Your decision has to consider the residents of Wisconsin.

Why are you throwing this burden on them? They will be forced to sue these companies to get justice. We have experience here in Kewaunee County with the Lincoln Township fiasco.

We had people living within 1300 feet of these turbines and it ruined their lives. Having the Developer to measure these noise criteria is like having your 12 yr. old set their curfew times!

This testing has to be completed by a disinterested third party.

Decommissioning

o Per Commissioner Azar, a LOC cannot be set for a period of 30 years. Perhaps she is right. If that is indeed true, then what should happen is the developer of the wind farm should have to put up a cash deposit that is updated annually by the COLA percentage. That way the county or township has some guarantee the turbines will be removed when these companies go bust (without federal funding) and / or abandon a project. Recent costs associated with dismantling a 400ft turbine in Texas was at the $300K level.
--
Ron Heuer

From: Travis Van Zeeland
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 6:06 PM
To: Heilman, Alice - PSC
Subject: Windmills

Hello Ms. Heilman,
I am emailing you today about my concerns with the windmills to be cited in Southern Brown County. I believe that these windmills should be at least a 1/2 mile from any property dwelling and that there only be a 35-40 decible reading at night. Due to all the health risks that these windmills cause. It is our duty to protect the people that live in these areas.
Thank you for your time.

WADING INTO A WIND CONTRACT-- A resident lets the PSC know what is worrying him:

Source: Public Sevice Commission of Wisconsin, Docket 1-AC-231

Please consider the following Un-Ethical Practices by Wind Energy Cpmpanies.

This is a common thread throughout the industry and needs to be addressed in the new rules being proposed by the PSC.

[This is a] 

Summary of Element Power Contracts 

Element Power Worksheet

· Sidebar at the bottom of the page is a disclaimer that renders all of the terms "subject to change" at the sole discretion Element Power. Essentially, that statement makes the entire term sheet worthless.

· Uses vague terms such as "are deemed" for soil compaction (deemed by Element Power - are they soil compaction experts?) and "all necessary insurance" (necessary for what coverage and to protect whom?)

Element Power Agreement for Waiver of Setback Requirements

· 1. Waiver of Setback by Grantor - You are agreeing to ignore legal setback requirements!

· 3. Binding Effect - This section binds you into ignoring setback rules even when you are no longer under contract.

Element Power Renewable Energy Lease

1.3 Phase of Contract

- Phases shall be determined by [wind devloper/owner operator] in its reasonable discretion.

1.4 Development Period - Up to 10 years.

1.5 Operations Period - Up to 50 years - 30 years plus option of two 10-year extensions.

1.6 Commercial Operation Date - Don`t get paid until 95% of operation is installed and output is at 95% and reliable! That could be that 10 year development stage.

4.4 Tenant`s Right to Terminate - which refers to section 16.2. Summary of both sections - they (Element Power) can terminate the operation contract at any time with 30 days written notice, take 1 ½ years to remove the tower where the landowner gets paid squat and if they don`t "get around to removing the tower" the landowner "may" remove it at the landowner`s expense (there goes all of the profit) and try to get reimbursed back from Element Power.This is called a one - way clause (going one way towards Element Power and one - way against the landowner).

5.1.5 Generate electromagnetic, audio, flicker, visual, view, light, noise,Vibration, air turbulence, wake, electrical, radio interference, shadow or other effects attributable to the Facilities or any other operational or development activities 
If these turbines don`t produce these concerns why list them as possible effects?

5.2 Solar Development - Element Power has the right to use your land for solar development without paying you until you have an alternative 3rd party to offer you remuneration. Element Power could then match your offer from 3rd party or decline. Of course, that is providing that landowner meets all notification deadlines in writing!

5.3 Substations and O&M Buildings - In this section, they are setting the price of your land and can force you to sell your land to them, either by taking their offer or by way of arbitration.

5.6 Right of Access - Roads can go anywhere they choose, even on land not under contract.

6.5 Taxes and Assessments - Landowner does not submit tax bill to Element Power within 10 days, Element Power does not have to pay it

7.1 & 7.2 Liens against property - restrictive language including landowners responsibility to post notices in court and notify tenant within 10 days of discharging lien and then seek reimbursement from Element Energy. No notice within 10 days, no reimbursement.

7.3 Maintenance of Premises - Element Energy will restore to their liking (commercially reasonable, i.e., they determine).

7.4 Tranmission and Collection Lines - Any lines buries will remain buried in perpetuity (forever)!

7.5 Erosion and Weed Control - Landowner notifies Element Energy in 10 days or may not get reimbursed for costs.

7.7 Crop/Lifestock Damage - Maximum of $30/acre.

7.9 Drainage Tiles - Who determines if drainage tiles are damaged?

9.1 Insurance - $5,000,000 of "the right to use a qualified program of self insurance"... What is Element Energy goes bankrupt?

12.3.3 Defualt - This section deals with Element Power being in default (bankrupt). And if they`re bankrupt, sole responsibility of restoration of land (that includes the astronomical costs of removing turbines falls squarely on the shoulder of the landowner).

14.7 and 14.8 Takes away any right for the landowner to sue them for punitive damages. If landowner gets sued for having turbines on their land for any reason, the landowner cannot take Element Energy to court for punitive damages (which is the majority of lawsuits).

14.9 Arbitration - Does any landowner want to negotiate with a third party as to what their land is worth and once the negotiation is finished, the landowner must sell their land to Element Energy at that "arbitrated price"?

16.2 Restoration of Premises - Refer to Section 4.4. Also, under no conceivable circumstances will the landowner ever get "re-imbursed" if Element Energy goes bankrupt.

16.3 Removal Security - This section essentially states that unless mandated by Government, Element Energy does not have to post any bond or assurance that they will take down the turbines when they are done with them or have filed bankruptcy. The Net Removal costs will be the whole cost of removal, unless the whole turbine with tower is sold as a working unit.

There is little, if any, real salvage value with the cut up materials. It also says that after fifteen years, they will determine, at their sole discretion, what the cost is to remove the turbines and all its parts, connections, concreate foundation, etc., and then what the salvage value is. The landowner gets stuck to pay the difference.

17.15 Setback Waive - Refer to Element Energy Set - back Agreement addressed in beginning. 



















Addendum to Element Power Contracts 
Tisch Mills project worksheet.

( If you based your decision to sign up on the preceding project worksheet. I would be very nervous about this statement at the bottom of that calculation!!)

1. 

The information contained herein is purely an estimation, based on several assumptions, all of which are believed to be reasonable as of the date hereof. When reviewing this information, please be reminded that it is preliminary and is subject to change based on any number of variables that may change or be introduced over time.

Such changes may be material and we cannot guarantee that the information contained herein will reflect the actual performance or financial terms of the project if and when it enters operation.

This is NOT an offer to purchase or a solicitation of an offer to purchase and any transaction will only be consummated upon execution of negotiated agreements between the parties. 

Agreement for waiver of setback requirements.

PAINTBALLS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS:

More patrols requested

Source: Police Beat, Fond du Lac County Reporter

August 24, 2010

The manager in charge of the WE Energies Wind Farm along County Trunk W in Malone is requesting extra patrols around the area after dark.

Arthur Ondrejka told the Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Department the wind farm at N8303 County W has become a gathering place for trespassers with paint balls, according to a sheriff's log.

 

WIND SITING TO BE DISCUSSED BY COMMISSIONERS AT TODAY'S OPEN MEETING AT THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN

Beginning at 11:30 Am

610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

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

At the last meeting Commissioner Lauren Azar recommended a setback of 2200 feet from homes unless a developer could prove that noise and shadow flicker standards could be met at a closer distance.

She also recommended a 40 decibel noise limit, in accordance with the World Health Organization's nighttime noise guidelines.

A call for a windpower moratorium

SOURCE: The Times Record

 August 20, 2010

By Karen Bessey Pease

This law fast-tracks industrial wind development in the high terrain regions of Maine — by eliminating citizens’ automatic right to a public hearing, by removing our ability to object to development based on scenic impact, and by allowing what I consider to be state-sanctioned bribery (couched as “tangible benefits” and “mitigation”) by industrial wind developers of individuals and entities who might be impacted by massive wind turbines on our iconic ridges. LD 2283 can be read in its entirety at:   http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_123rd/billtexts/SP090801.asp 

I live in Lexington Township, which stands to be greatly impacted by LD 2283. Former Gov. Angus King and Rob Gardiner of Brunswick’s Independence Wind have submitted a permit application — to be reviewed under this new law — for a 48-turbine development at the gateway to the Bigelow Preserve and the Appalachian Trail.

Local residents have also heard of plans to continue the line of industrial wind down through Lexington to Brighton, Mayfield, and beyond. In order to meet Gov. John Baldacci’s goal of 2,700 megawatts of land-based wind power by 2020, another 300 miles of Maine’s mountains will be sacrificed, as well.

Maine citizens weren’t consulted before this misguided and biased law was enacted. As an “emergency measure” we didn’t have time to make our objections known before it was implemented. What is now apparent is that the wind industry hugely influenced the crafting of this law.

In a letter from Rob Gardiner to Alec Giffen, chairman of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power, Gardiner lists his recommendations for how to write a law which would give wind developers the advantage over Maine citizens, forestalling their objections to wind developments.  

Gardiner states: “In my opinion, the biggest sticking point is visual impact. Under the standard of ‘fitting harmoniously into the environment,’ wind is at a serious disadvantage. Because it involves 250-foot high structures that are usually on high ridges, the visual impacts are significant.” (Gardiner’s own permit application states that the turbines destined for Highland stand more than 400 feet tall, creating a more serious “disadvantage” — and those visual impacts will be far, far more significant.)

“An immediate executive order followed by legislation that specifically removes the presumption of negative visual impact from wind farms would go a long way toward setting the stage for balanced regulatory review.”

“A second element of such executive order and legislation should be to declare that reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions is a public benefit, and that wind farms can make a significant contribution toward a more sensible energy mix for Maine. Therefore, any regulatory agency should accept these positions and not waste time receiving further evidence and debating them. To the extent that regulators are charged with balancing the benefits of any project against the negative impacts, these beneficial aspects should be ‘a given’ for wind farms.”

Further directions given to Giffen: “…wind farms ought not to be expected to help purchase conservation lands or do other types of mitigation. Wind farms ARE mitigation for our energy consumption habits and for the impacts of fossil fuel consumption.”

“I understand that preserving Maine’s ‘quality of place’ is an important goal for your task force. I fully accept that having wind farms everywhere might ruin that quality.”

“I recognize that LURC feels overwhelmed … This may need attention, but it is a short-term phenomenon. Don’t change the rules, provide the necessary resources. The Governor can do that ... But creating a new agency or shifting responsibilities will, in actuality, make it harder for developers.” (Gardiner’s entire letter can be read at http://highlandmts.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/comments_rob_gardiner_120607.pdf)

Impartial experts are speaking out about the negligible ecological benefits of industrial wind. After two decades of experimentation around the globe, there’s been no significant reduction in carbon emissions. Electrical consumption is constant, but wind is undependable and intermittent; therefore, conventional electrical generators must be kept online to take up the slack when the wind doesn’t blow. Because of the extremely inefficient combustion from the modulating in-fill of natural gas backup for wind plants, it’s possible that we may actually be increasing overall fossil fuel use.

The wind industry has repeatedly told us that wind will get Maine off “foreign oil.” However, Maine does not use oil to generate electricity, but rather to heat our homes and power our automobiles — two applications that even John Kerry and Phil Bartlett acknowledge aren’t addressed by wind power.

To say that we’ll reduce our dependence on oil if we install wind turbines across Maine is misleading.

Ms. Schalit’s fact-based series is a wake-up call. In light of these revelations, Maine citizens whose lives have been turned upside down by this legislation are requesting an immediate moratorium on wind plant construction and a careful reexamination of LD 2283 by our Legislature.

Karen Bessey Pease lives in Lexington Township.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

CLICK HERE to watch a video showing what it's like to live in a wind project during the construction phase

Click on the image below to hear the noise from a wind turbine 1100 feet from a home in the Invenergy Forward wind project in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. Because of the noise, this home is now for sale.

Wind turbines bring a big change to small midwestern towns.NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Dr. Douglas Zweizig, who authored this letter to the Wisconsin State Journal is Professor Emeritus of Library Sciences and Information, University of Wisconsin. He also serves as Planning Commissioner for the Town of Union in Rock County and is on the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council which has spent several months reviewing data and creating wind siting rules for our state.

Journal, health agency wrong about turbines

Wisconsin State Journal, madison.com 21 August 2010

The State Journal’s editorial Wednesday, “Science says wind power safe,” provides false reassurance to its readers about the dangers of living in the vicinity of large wind turbines.

The “science” trumpeted in your editorial comes from an inadequate literature review conducted by under-qualified staff at the Wisconsin Division of Public Health — a staff that has not conducted a survey of the hundreds of people in Wisconsin now living in the vicinity of large wind turbines. They have not spent one overnight in a wind farm, the time when the most troublesome noise occurs.

Instead of caring for the difficulties of Wisconsin citizens and directly addressing the numerous complaints of sleeplessness and the ailments that result from disturbed sleep, the division has instead prepared a report from its undiscerning reading of the literature. It has told those suffering these effects that they have no complaint, and then the division has promoted this callous position to the press.

Wisconsin deserves better care from its Department of Health Services.

— Douglas Zweizig, Evansville



These photos show one of the two turbines at the 100.5 MW Grand Ridge Energy wind facility in La Salle County, Illinois, about 80 miles southwest of Chicago, which experienced blade failures on July 23-24, 2010.

Each blade is about 130 feet long-- the equivalent height of a thirteen story building.

A spokeswoman for Invenergy Wind said in the event of high winds the turbines are designed to come to rest with one blade pointing down and parallel to the base of the tower.

According to Invenergy, the winds came so quickly that the safety mechanism did not have time to engage. 

In the video below, Wisconsin wind siting Council members Ryan Schryver and Jennifer Heinzen make it clear they do not believe safety setbacks from wind turbine are warranted, saying "Safety is a relative term"

SECOND FEATURE:

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: 

Like other local groups who are asking hard questions about wind siting in our state, Better Plan, Wisconsin is an all volunteer independent citizens group that accepts no funding from outside sources. Yet Wisconsin groups such as ours are frequently characterized as "well-funded anti-wind organizations."

In an recent Wisconsin State Journal article, reference was made to "well-funded anti-wind organizations" in our state, a statement which is frequently made in Wisconsin media without attribution or support.

Better Plan has been trying to source the statement. A google search of "well-funded anti-wind organization" pointed us to a number of PR and consulting firms often hired by wind developers to build community acceptance of a project.

Barnaby Dinges, who was quoted in the Wisconsin State Journal article but not identified as a public relations consultant, runs an Illinois PR Firm called "The Dinges Gang." Invenergy has hired Dinges to help bring in the Ledge Wind Project in Brown County.

(Scroll down to the end of the post to read more about the Dinges Gang)

PR firms such as the Dinges Gang work hard to discredit local residents who have concerns by categorizing them as "a small but vocal minority" and 'well-funded NIMBYS'. They also employ techniques to turn neighbor against neighbor. The article below, by an employee of a Public Relations firm called "The Saint Group" details how this is done.

Turning anti-wind sentiment into permits requires organization, strategy and plain ol’ grassroots politics.

By Ben Kelahan, North American Windpower, July 2009

Community relations may be the road to reputation, but understanding practical local politics paves the way to permits. Opposition groups are sophisticated, organized and well funded. They have borrowed the highest-priced tactics from corporate public relations and masterfully use the Web to circulate misinformation about the impacts of wind farms.

Understanding how the opposition plans to stop your wind farm may be the first step toward planning for its approval. The truth is that planned wind developments run into local trouble every day. Let’s begin by examining some customary tactics used by the opposition.

Opportunistic opposition

Energy developers, particularly wind developers, expect to face opposition from individual landowners and other residents based on the typical siting concerns, such as shadow flicker, noise impacts and property value arguments, that pop up across the country. However, in some cases the opposition takes on some special interest from known characters. Thus, it also takes special care in managing their impact.

Local politicians are accustomed to the usual suspects showing up at public hearings and in letters to the editor of weekly papers on controversial development projects.

Now, wind companies are beginning to notice a pattern to the cast of opponents appearing before zoning hearing boards, road commissioners and alderman, who oppose wind farms using the locality’s zoning codes and planning restrictions as tools to defeat developments town to town.

In Illinois alone, developers such as Horizon Wind Energy, NextEra Energy Resources and Iberdrola Renewables have been the targets of vociferous anti-wind sentiment.

Turning to the Web

Need talking points for the public hearing tonight? Look no further than the growing number of Web sites that circulate their own “myth versus fact” sheets about wind farms and their impact on local communities. Many of these sites have organized talking points by issue, including public safety concerns, such as wind turbine syndrome, or counter-arguments to wind energy’s effectiveness, such as like intermittency.

There are plenty of anti-wind Web sites online. These sites provide a quick primer should you be motivated to oppose the local wind farm proposed down the road. Further they provide best practices borrowed from wind energy site fights from around the globe, complete with per sonal testimonials of those that have opposed wind turbines and won.

The effectiveness of these online anti-wind sites is not necessarily their basis, because impactful opposition doesn’t necessarily need sound science or experience to be effective with local politicians. All it takes is an emotional trigger on a critical local issue to start the flames of opposition to motivate a vocal minority.

If the anti-wind sentiment goes unchecked by a majority of people in the project area who make known their support based on equally passionate arguments that activate locals to take political action on you behalf, you could be in trouble come the day of the permit vote.

Democracy in action

Wind developers are keen on establishing strong relationships within their communities. Community meetings are a popular method of introducing your project to the most people at one time.

An efficient and productive use of time and resources, community meetings provide an educational one-stop shop for answering questions and informing the public about your plans. Although these meetings can allay the concerns of locals, perceptions can change if you let the opposition speak at the gatherings.

So, that raises the question: Why have these meetings if they are not required? Some developers, mindful of being new to the community, do so as a courtesy. But is it helpful?

“It’s one thing if an agency requires a public session – you have to do those,” says Robert Kahn, a 25-year veteran public relations consultant working in wind power, “But it’s rarely a good idea to volunteer to host your own,” he says. “Too often, a public meeting simply provides opponents a chance to identify one another and get better organized. There are much better ways to get the word out.”

When the format for a community forum plays to the positions of opponents, beware.

Here’s how it typically occurs: In an effort to demonstrate transparency and a willingness to consider resident concerns about a wind development plan, the developer begins with a 10-minute presentation of the proposed plan, with specific sound bites reviewing the merits of constructing the wind farm in town. Some of the positives include green jobs, tax revenue, road improvements and donations to local schools. All of those benefits accruing to the community sound wonderful.

After your presentation, undecided residents are satisfied, even though they know it’s in your financial best interest to say so. So even after hearing the pitch, they may not trust you. Then, the outspoken opposition speaks about public safety and health issues. For those attending the hearing, it is a question of taking sides.

If you are fortunate, the undecided members will leave undecided. However, those who have decided may be recruited to speak against you at the next hearing on your special-use permit.

At some point in the approval process, holding an open house allows local residents to see visual simulations, maps and descriptions of construction plans and schedules, along with displays of planned environmental mitigations. An open house is far more relaxed than a community meeting.

Thinking like your opponents may mean acting like them. Several wind power developers have encouraged local citizens to organize support groups around which to rally environmental and property rights activists, business interests and other pro-wind constituencies. Think of these groups as an anti-not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) antidote.

“There’s no substitute for supporters standing up and speaking out on behalf of proposed projects,” Kahn says. “They can say things which a developer, who has one hand tied behind his back, can’t.’

What you can do

However, until such counter-NIMBY organizations expand, developers must n-lake a concerted effort to outnumber the vocal minority and special interest groups that desire a political victory for their own constituencies and members. It can be done, starting with the following basic steps:

Research. Understand the political climate surrounding your project before you go public with your proposal. First, make a list of likely supporters and opponents. Then, do some research. Has this site been the subject of previous controversies? Some sites are considered too troublesome and will never succeed in obtaining change-of-use permits. Knowing the history of the site could impact your decision making.

Time and target your outreach. Never let the news media be the first to describe the impact of your wind project nor be considered the best source of facts about your plans for the site. Inform the politicians and neighbors before they read it in the press.

Persuade. Go door to door informing landowners and residents. Explain the proposal, and attempt to determine who will support it, who will stay neutral and who will oppose. Shortcuts, such as hosting public meetings, will not do the trick in inoculating public opinion over a wind power project.

Get started by scheduling small meetings with key constituencies and community leaders. “These are the people who shape local opinion,” says Kahn. “Their support will be indispensable in countering the opposition.”

Political process. You need to attack this as if you were a local politician running for office, which means identifying, recruiting and organizing. Organize supporters, and then get them to attend meetings, sign petitions and write letters to the editor. Above all, you need to demonstrate public support equal to or greater than that of your opponents.

Negotiate when possible. In some cases, you can offer mitigation, or negotiate in some other way to get opponents to drop their positions. In other cases, the opponents or their backers have an economic interest in defeating your project that will never be overcome by an attempt at compromise.

In those cases, you must marshal sufficient political support to overcome the opposition and be prepared to educate your supporters in the community about what you know about your opposition – where they come from and why you feel they’re involved. Let them be the judge.

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president, energy, at Vienna, Va.-based Saint Consulting Group, a community outreach consultancy.

WHO ARE YOU, BARNABY DINGES?

Now don't us tell a FIB!

Dinges, who calls Wisconsin an "Energy Slacker"  lives in Illinois and is running for mayor of  Evanston, a city located just north of Chicago on Lake Michigan.

 He runs a Public Relations firm called "The Dinges Gang" and has been hired by wind developer giant, Invenergy, to smooth the way for the Ledge wind project in Brown County.

From "THE DINGES GANG" website:

"If your company, group or government agency is facing a challenging issue or project, call in The Dinges Gang."

Who else does the "Dinges Gang" represent?

• Abbott Laboratories
• Chicago Bears
• The Chicago Network
• CMGI
• Chicago Park District
• Draper and Kramer
• Illinois Department of Transportation
• Illinois Department of Public Aid
• Illinois Sports Facilities Authority
• Kraft Foods
• PLS Landscape Architects

Public Relations Team Projects for...

• ComEd
• DTE Energy
• Gateway 2000
• Ghirardelli Chocolate
• Illinois Casino Gaming Association
• Jim Beam
• Lernout & Hauspie Speech Recognition Products
• Monsanto
• Sears
• Starkist
• Trizec Hahn Properties

WHAT HAS THE DINGES GANG DONE FOR WISCONSIN?

From the DINGES GANG website:

ADVOCACY

Case Study: Forward Energy Windmill Farm

 

Generating Green Energy and Public Support

Invenergy developed plans to build Wisconsin’s largest wind farm, a 200-MW project within miles of the Horicon Marsh, a migratory destination for millions of birds and the area’s largest tourist attraction. The wind farm would provide enough power for 70,000 homes and help Wisconsin reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

The Challenge

In a classic case of NIMBY obstructionism, a local group used $50,000 in public funding to organize a group to oppose the project and encourage the Public Service Commission to vote against the project. The opposition group, Horicon Marsh System Advocates, created an opposition web site, and used its 300 members to write letters to regulators and media, and to attend public meetings to rail against the project. The opposition group claimed the wind farm would kill birds, destroy the area’s landscape, endanger local pilots, and harm local tourism.

The Plan

Partnering with local farmers who would host wind turbines on their land, The Dinges Gang educated the group to communicate with local officials and the media.

We placed “Wind Yes!” signs in front of their farmhouses. The group of supporters also included Wisconsin environmental groups and local labor and construction groups.

The Forward Energy team testified at public meetings and emailed letters of support to the Public Service Commission.

Supporters also wrote letters to and conducted interviews with media to underscore the broad benefits of the project (keeps farmers farming, provides $1-million annually in new local taxes for government, creates 250 construction jobs, etc.).

We also refuted each of the opposition’s arguments, showing them to be wild exaggerations and desperate attempts by a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) group to impede progress that will benefit the entire region.

Our Success
On July 8, 2005, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission voted to support the $250-million project, which will erect 133 wind turbines on the Niagara Escarpment, within two miles of the Horicon Marsh.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI NERD:

The "'NIMBY' advocacy group Dinges mentions here turned out to be right about wildlife impact.

Initial post construction mortality studies show the Forward project turbine related bat deaths are among the highest in north America at 41.5 bat kills per turbine per year, or over ten times the national average of 4 bat kills per turbine per year.

In a little more than two years, the Invenergy Forward project along side the Horicon Marsh is estimated to have killed over 7,000 bats. The bird kill rates for this project are also much higher than the national average

 The current setback from the Horicon Marsh is two miles. Invenergy is pushing to site turbines in Phase Two of this project a mile from the marsh.