Entries in wind farm noise (219)

8/11/10 DOUBLE FEATURE: Sleepless in Wisconsin: New rules bring joy to wind industry but won't protect residents from wind turbine noise, shadow flicker, or loss of property value AND Wisconsin looks in the mirror and sees Maine: How the governor and wind industry worked together to take away local control and change the law in both states.

WIND POWER COUNCIL SUBMITS RECOMMENDATIONS

SOURCE: WKOW.COM

By Bob Schaper 

MADISON (WKOW) - Hoping to build on Wisconsin's existing wind farms, a volunteer council appointed by the Public Service Commission proposed uniform regulations for new wind farms across the state.

"Businesses were looking upon Wisconsin as a difficult place to try to establish wind farms," Peter Taglia, staff scientist at Clean Wisconsin, said. "We had a patchwork of local regulations that had stopped many wind farms and also created a lot of division within communities."

The proposed rules would ban developers from putting a wind turbine within 1.1 times its height of the nearest property line. It also can't be louder than 45 decibels at night and 50 decibels during the day, as measured from the nearest property line. And for large wind farms, the total hours of "shadow flicker" cannot exceed 40 per year.

"We laid out a proposal for regulating the permitting of wind projects - large, medium, and small - and hopefully the commission will respect the incredible amount of work that the council put into this process," says Michael Vickerman, executive director of Renew Wisconsin, a member of the council.

The 15-member Wind Siting Council met 20 times beginning March 2010 and came to consensus on a number of issues, including signal interference, complaint resolution, decommissioning of wind farms and emergency procedures.

However, four members issued a minority report which differs on other areas, such as property line setbacks.

"Property values will be negatively impacted by 20 to 40 percent," Tom Meyer, a council member who works as a Middleton Realtor, said.

Meyer said Realtors recommend a minimum setback of at least 2,000 feet, but preferably a half-mile.

"That way you eliminate that intrusive shadow flicker and you eliminate that noise which is produced by a wind turbine," he said.

The recommendations now go to the PSC, which will publish its rules within 60 days. The PSC has held three public hearings on the matter throughout the state.

CLICK ON THE IMAGES BELOW TO WATCH SHORT CLIPS OF THE WIND SITING COUNCIL IN ACTION

SECOND FEATURE  

Wisconsin looks in the mirror and sees the state of Maine

The law “signals to the world that Wisconsin is in the wind business, and that we intend to be one of the leading states in production of wind energy.”

-Governor Jim Doyle

“It will be wave after wave of wind power projects coming to Maine because they will see what we can do and will come here because of it." 

-Governor John Baldacci

Task force had mandate to promote wind power, not study it

 

SOURCE: BANGOR DAILY NEWS

Senior Reporter
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting

 

AUGUSTA, Maine — Gov. John Baldacci established the Governor's Task Force on Wind Power Development by executive order on May 8, 2007 with the expectation it would make Maine a leader in the wind power industry.

Baldacci’s timing was perfect:

  • The day before, a CNN story had reported that the price of gas “has hit a new record high, averaging $3.07 for a gallon of self-serve regular in the United States.”
  • Climate change was in the news almost daily.
  • Developers and environmentalists had just fought a battle in western Maine over construction of a huge wind power project, ending in defeat for the project.

That battle demonstrated a significant failing in state law: Maine’s tangle of environmental regulations simply didn’t include tools or standards appropriate for considering the placement of 400-foot-plus turbines smack in the middle of some of the state’s wildest lands.

A look at Maine's wind act

This is part two on a three-part series looking at wind energy in Maine and the laws surrounding it.

There were different rules at different agencies for different parts of the state, projects took years to review, and the outcome of those reviews was far from predictable.

“Our energy system was broken,” said Pete Didisheim of the Natural Resources Council of Maine. “We felt the permitting process for wind power was also broken, it was unpredictable for all participants.”

Furthermore, wind power promoters believed Maine had an historic opportunity: to provide the renewable resource to help meet the substantial new regional mandates to reduce the use of energy sources that contributed to global warming. Those mandates, which one study estimated would require 11,000 megawatts of wind power (at the time the task force conducted its study, Maine was host to only 42 megawatts of wind power), created a major new market for renewable power, converged with government subsidies and market premiums to create an enticing economic development opportunity, they said — but needed to be capitalized on immediately.

While other states in the region were also considering incentives to promote wind power development, Maine had an advantage over them: More developable wind resources than all the other New England states combined. And that wind was located in areas that didn’t have high populations, unlike many other states in the region.

Baldacci gave the task force its mandate:

  • To make Maine a leader in wind power development;
  • To protect Maine’s quality of place and natural resources; and
  • To maximize the tangible benefits Maine people receive from wind power development.

In other words, said Rep. Stacey Fitts, a Pittsfield Republican on the task force, their mandate was to “find areas that are appropriate and find ways that it can be done rather than ways to keep it from being done.”

There was never a mandate for the task force to examine the relative merits of wind power development in Maine. Instead, members started from the assumption that wind power should be developed in Maine, and the sooner, the better.

“We felt we were in somewhat of a race with other states and Canadian providers” to build wind energy generation, said Sen. Phil Bartlett, D-Gorham, a task force member and co-chairman of the Legislature’s Utilities and Energy Committee.

Connections: Wind industry and the wind act

The policy that eventually became the Maine Wind Energy Act of 2008 was the product of several public groups and included crucial input from public agencies. There were a number of cases where people from those groups and agencies were either connected to the wind industry or would soon be connected to the wind industry:

Gov. John Baldacci’s Wind Power Task Force

  • Dave Wilby: At the time he was on the task force, Wilby worked for the Independent Energy Producers of Maine. He subsequently went to work for wind power developer First Wind.
  • Juliet Browne: An attorney at Verrill Dana who heads the Portland law firm’s environmental practice, Browne has guided wind power developer First Wind and TransCanada through the state’s regulatory system. She is married to Rep. Jon Hinck, D-Portland, who at the time was co-chairman of the Legislature’s Utilities and Energy Committee, which unanimously approved the wind power legislation based on the task force’s report.
  • Milton McBreairty: He was business manager for the electrical workers’ union while on the task force. McBreairty subsequently went to work as director, renewable energies for electrical contractor Larkin Enterprises, which had the contract for electrical power and grounding installations at TransCanada’s Kibby wind farm.
  • Patrick McGowan: The Department of Conservation commissioner, who left that position to run for governor, had been at the center of a significant controversy over his advocacy for a wind power project while he was commissioner. That’s when he contacted Land Use Regulation Commission member Ed Laverty, in the middle of the commission’s deliberations over the controversial Redington-Black Nubble wind power project, to ask, as Laverty reported, “if I would poll the other commissioners to determine if there was a way to get the majority to vote for the proposed project. I told him as this was an ongoing regulatory process, I felt for me to do so might be improper.” While an investigation by the attorney general’s office determined McGowan’s intervention had not risen to the level of illegal “ex parte” communication, he was required to undergo training on proper procedure by staff in the attorney general’s office.

Legislature’s Utilities and Energy Committee

  • Jon Hinck: Co-chairman of the committee, the Portland Democrat is married to Juliet Browne, who was on the governor’s wind power task force and is the leading attorney for wind power interests in the state. Anti-wind-power activists charged that Hinck had a conflict of interest in considering legislation that his wife’s clients would benefit from, and that criticism eventually led him to request a ruling by the state Commission on Governmental Ethics whether he was prohibited by Maine law from participating in deliberations and votes on wind power legislation. The commission ruled he was not.

Public Utilities Commission

  • Kurt Adams: When the governor’s task force was doing its work, Adams was head of the state’s Public Utilities Commission, although he had already had communication with wind developer First Wind about possibly going to work for them. In their report, task force members wrote “PUC Chairman Kurt Adams and agency counsel Mitch Tannenbaum, and DEP Commissioner and Task Force member David Littell were particularly helpful to the Task Force in developing and presenting information regarding the regional energy system, electric transmission, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and other renewable energy policy issues as they relate to wind power.”

    Adams left the PUC to take a high-level position with First Wind in May, 2008; in April, he had received 1.2 million units of equity in First Wind — akin to stock options — while he was still at the PUC. An investigation by Attorney General Janet Mills determined Adams had done nothing wrong.
— BY NAOMI SCHALIT

Questionable goal

Baldacci’s executive order establishing the task force stated that, “Maine energy policy seeks to promote the development and use of renewable energy sources to help reduce Maine’s dependence on imported fossil fuels.”

The dominant fuel used to generate electricity in Maine is an imported fossil fuel — natural gas from Canada. And wind power could make a small dent in how much natural gas Maine uses for electricity generation.

But Baldacci’s statement about dependence on imported fossil fuels — and many others he made both before and subsequently, including one reference to the “tyranny of foreign oil,” one reference to the need to “free ourselves from foreign oil” and two references to Maine’s “dependency on oil” in his final State of the State address — implicitly tied wind energy production to the goal of reducing the use of foreign oil, with its volatile prices as well as its documented contribution to climate change.

Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation.

“Maine uses very little oil to produce electricity,” said Mark Isaacson, a dam owner, a founding member of the industry group Independent Energy Producers of Maine and the developer of a relatively small commercial wind farm in Freedom, Maine.

John Kerry, the governor’s energy czar and a member of the task force, acknowledged that oil is used to fuel vehicles and to warm Maine buildings.

“Today we don’t use electricity to run our cars or heat our homes,” said Kerry in a recent interview.

And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, said Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating — if they did, we’d be in trouble.”

So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?

Kerry, the governor’s energy czar, defends his boss’s premise: “In the future, many people have proposed that we use our electricity to heat our homes and power our cars.”

There were other claims Baldacci made at the time about wind power’s advantages that, similarly, have been challenged.

In a critique published by the Maine Center for Economic Policy in late 2008, state Sen. Peter Mills, R-Cornville, argued that after the initial construction spending, the wind energy industry would not provide widespread economic benefit for the state or long-term job creation, as Baldacci asserted when he established the task force.

“Because it takes remarkably little effort to maintain a turbine, there are few permanent jobs created by a wind power project,” writes Mills. In a subsequent interview, Mills pointed to the relatively few jobs created by the Kibby Mountain wind power development. “There are 11 people in ongoing jobs,” he said, “not 111.”

Likewise, while taxes paid on wind power installations have been locally beneficial, they are not broadly shared across Maine.

“The tax benefit has not been available to Maine people generally,” said Mills in the interview. The duration of any tax benefit is also limited, said Mills, because the turbines have a 20-year life-span and depreciate in value over that period.

Furthermore, the unorganized territory, or UT, where many of the large installations have been built, “already has the lowest tax rates in Maine,” Mills wrote in his critique. “(A)nd wind power could reduce them by a third more.

“But the benefit will accrue primarily to those who own land in the UT, the large out-of-state owners like Irving, Wagner and Plum Creek who already benefit from the special ‘tree growth’ tax treatment … and who stand to gain substantially from leasing their ridge tops to the wind developers.”

 

Task force favored it

There were 16 members on the task force: several members of the Baldacci administration; a wind power attorney; two staff from state environmental groups (with a third acting as an alternate); Democratic and Republican lawmakers; a union member and a representative of the Independent Energy Producers of Maine. The chairman was Alec Giffen, director of the Maine Forest Service.

All members of the task force publicly favored wind power development, although the environmental groups had each opposed specific wind power projects in the past. The environmental groups’ battle against the Redington wind project in western Maine, close to the Appalachian Trail, had recently ended with Redington’s rejection by the Land Use Regulation Commission. While they won the fight to reject Redington, the groups were chastened by accusations of being insufficiently concerned with stemming global warming.

Did the criticism leveled at the environmental members of the task force make them more eager to demonstrate their support for wind power?

“I think we did start with an assumption that wind power development was going to take place in Maine,” said David Publicover, a forestry specialist with the Appalachian Mountain Club. “We never really engaged in an argument as to whether there should be wind power development in Maine.”

What changed

The task force proposed that the Legislature make significant changes to state law:

  • Eliminate certain scenic and zoning standards that were a barrier to placing wind turbines in the landscape;
  • Streamline and expedite consideration of construction proposals;
  • Eliminate a layer of legal appeal in wind power projects;
  • Set aggressive goals for wind power production over the next dozen years — 2,000 megawatts of wind power capacity by 2015 and at least 3,000 megawatts by 2020, of which 300 should be built offshore. (The state today has 111 turbines representing 265 megawatts of installed wind power, with 161 megawatts in line to begin production.)
  • Guide wind power development to all of the incorporated towns in the state as well as a significant portion of territory under the jurisdiction of the Land Use Regulation Commission, setting aside areas in the so-called “core” of LURC where development would not occur.

The changes in the scenic and zoning standards, said David Publicover of the AMC, were significant but not hard to agree upon.

“The changes got rid of the requirement that it fit harmoniously into the natural landscape,” said Publicover. “If you used that, you couldn’t have wind power in undeveloped ridgelines, only in Wal-Mart parking lots.”

The changes also allowed wind power to be essentially an allowed use in much of LURC’s jurisdiction.

“Previously wind power had to go through rezoning” in LURC territory in order to be built, said Publicover. “And that had certain criteria, certain hurdles that had to be met that, if you interpreted them with a straight face, you could never allow it and essentially LURC was in the uncomfortable position of having to ignore the actual meaning of their regulations to allow wind power.”

The 2,000 and 3,000 megawatt goals for the state were also not controversial, nor was the substantial amount of wind turbine construction, largely along miles of Maine mountaintops, that would be necessary to reach that goal.

When asked if the task force had discussed the number of turbines that would have to be erected to meet that goal, chairman Giffen said, “Not that I recall.”

Other members of the task force could also not remember any discussion about the number of turbines, although one attendee at meetings, Steve Clark from the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, did present the task force with his estimate that it would take 1,000 to 2,000 turbines to meet the goal.

“There were one or two very brief questions and that was it, they didn’t explore that issue any further,” said Clark.

Next: A new law and its effects on wind power development

8/10/10 Ask for advice from people whose lives have been shattered by wind turbine noise and shadow flicker, and then if you're on the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council, just ignore what they have to say.

What's it like to live with turbines too close to your home?

Here are two recent entries from "Our Life with DeKalb Wind Turbines"

Monday, August 9, 2010

The sound continues

Saturday night and Sunday morning and afternoon were terrible for noise. Our property was filled with the chopping noise and low frequency drone. This past week we had some out of town visitors on two separate occasions who specifically came to our home to experience the turbines. They were in disbelief of how close and how noisy the turbines were. The nighttime red flashing lights were shocking to them as well. They were able to drive away. Obviously, we couldn't. Last night and this morning have been light and variable winds, so the turbines were mostly quiet and we enjoyed some relief. Currently the turbines are off.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Sound is bad all day

it's a beautiful day today. 82 degrees, winds SW at 12 mph. we are outside playing and the turbines are producing a lot of noise. it started around 5:30 a.m. and are presently spinning fast and blades are pitched into the wind. on days like today, we feel at a loss. we call the NextEra Resources hotline (which is just an answering service).

we sometimes get a call back, but they don't really do anything. if they could just turn the turbines off, we would have some relief. it's sad that we can't enjoy our property. the turbines today sound like sheet metal that is being shaken. the chopping sound and low drone are something that no one should have to endure and put up with.

we live in the country for peacefulness and that has been taken away from us, and it is affecting our lives. loss of sleep is a reoccurring pattern from the noise the turbines emit. here is a picture from our backyard we took this afternoon.

this is one of the turbines that is around 1400 feet from the foundation of our home. this is just proof that these turbines were poorly [s]ited. they are absolutely too close to our home. some people may say the turbines look nice when visiting them, but living with them is a different story. we are not visiting them. we experience their different sounds everyday and the intense shadow flicker is disturbing. hopefully there will be some justice done in the near future.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Distressing Noise

last night was bad for sound. the turbines created a turbulence-like sound on our property. it's a background noise that is distressing. tonight is 6mph winds and the turbines are lightly spinning. it's a good night. Last night the winds were about the same, but the blades were pitched into the wind and created a chopping/low frequency drone noise. for some reason, the blades aren't pitched into the wind tonight.

 

SOURCE: KHQA NEWS  CLICK HERE TO WATCH VIDEO

ADAMS COUNTY, ILL. -- "I'm against irresponsible wind energy, and that's what this is," says Dave Hulthen.

That is Dave and Stephanie Hulthen from DeKalb County Illinois.

They are in Quincy for a couple of days sharing their thoughts on wind farms.

The Hultens live on a wind farm in DeKalb county, and they don't like it.

There are no wind turbines on their property, so they are not compensated by the wind energy company.

However, they tell KHQA their quality of life has been blown apart since the turbines came online this past December.

This is video of the Hulthen's house. You can see the shadows of the big turbines as they rotate from the wind. They tell me this happens just about every morning during a large part of the year. This is a look from the inside of their home.

"We are exposed to shadow flicker as well. That's where the turbine comes between the sun and our residence. We have a flickering in the morning where it could go for 45 minutes," says Dave Hulthen.

Dave Hulthen says there are two turbines within 1400 feet of his home. There are 13 within a mile. And the problems are more than just shadow flicker.

"It's like a jet plane just sitting on the property. Not flying overhead and leaving, but always sitting out there spinning. It's a hum, hum, hum. a low frequency drum noise," says Stephanie Hulthen.

Take a listen to this video shot around midnight one night.

The Hulthens didn't really know what it would be like to live on a wind farm. They visited one before the one near their house was built. They heard some noises and thought they could live with it. It wasn't until they lived with it 24 hours a day before they realized they didn't like it.

"Now we're affected in one way. In two years, could something else happen. We don't know," says Dave Hulthen.

So the Hulthens are in Adams County to share their concerns with the residents here. They say they have nothing to gain, they were not paid a salary to come here, they just believe people need to do their research first to make sure everyone associated with a wind farm is happy in the end.

The Hulthens do have a daily blog about living on the wind farm.

They say not all days are bad, but a majority of them are.

They also blog about the good days too.

If you'd like to read their blog posts, you can click here. 

There is also a question and answer session with the Hulthen Tuesday at the Quincy Senior and Family Resource Center from 1:00 to 3:00 in the afternoon.

The Adams County Board is voting on its newly revised draft ordinance Tueaday night.

You'll remember an original ordinance was past earlier this year.

This new draft addresses some of the concerns of residents and a wind energy company.

KHQA spoke to County Board Chairman Mike McLaughlin, he says this new draft addresses the issue of shadow flicker.

"My board's biggest concern is to take care of the health and safety of the residence of Adams County. We don't want to bring in something that's going to harm anybody. That's obviously not our intent," says McLaughlin.

McLaughlin says Adams County is working with a different company than the one that operates the wind farm in DeKalb County.

He adds there could also be other issues, such as elevation, that affect properties differently.

As far as some benefits to a wind farm in Adams County, it could be a big boost on the economic front.

McLaughlin says a lot of the county's taxing districts, like schools and libraries, would benefit a lot from the development.

In the news:

ANOTHER CHAPTER FROM "WIND DEVELOPERS BEHAVING BADLY", CANADA,

"We will build resources, including capital and marketing materials, to challenge this bylaw and any similar bylaws passed in other municipalities including funds to support any legal challenge as a result of delayed issuance of building permits," [Wind developer] Edey said.

"That is not to be looked at as a threat, because it is not," Edey told council and about a dozen wind energy opponents at the meeting. "We don't believe going to court is a good use of resources, but if that's what it takes to move the project forward, well . . ."

From Wind turbines in the news: 10/10/10  "Gloves off in wind farm showdown"

8/9/10 Sow the wind, reap bad legislation: What Maine and Wisconsin have in common

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Momentum slipping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baldacci still a believer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8/5/10 How big are those turbines? This yellow airplane gives you some idea of the scale

Click on the image below to watch a crop duster fly through an industrial wind farm with the turbines turned off. Many aerial applicators have expressed concern about the safety of flying in wind projects.

8/4/10 DOUBLE FEATURE Wind developer to local government: Law is on my side. In fact, I'm writing the law AND The noise heard 'round the world: report finds negative health impacts from wind turbines

PERMITS EXTENDED ON WIND FARM

SOURCE Daily Register 

August 3, 2010

By Lyn Jerde

Another Columbia County wind farm - this one in the county's southern tier - is still up in the air.

The Columbia County Board's planning and zoning committee Tuesday extended, by one year, conditional use permits to two landowners, which would allow for another year of testing wind speeds, using two 197-foot test towers set up by the Madison-based Wind Capital Group. The towers have been in place for two years.

One of the towers is in the town of Arlington, on land owned by Sherri and Lloyd Manthe. The other is in the town of Leeds, where the landowner hosting it is Alan Kaltenberg, a town supervisor.

Planning and Zoning Director John Bluemke said the extension of the conditional use permit to Aug. 1, 2011, as approved by the committee, is contingent on approval from the Arlington and Leeds town boards.

Thomas Green, senior manager for project development for Wind Capital Group, said results from the test towers (which don't have bladed turbines, as electricity-generating windmills do) have shown that southern Columbia County could have wind that is strong enough, and frequent enough, to make the area a viable location for a wind farm.

But discussion is still in the early stages, he said.

"Thus far, we feel pretty good about the wind capacity in the area," he said. "We know we have to have the data to take further steps."

Another year of testing the wind would provide additional information while the Wind Capital Group assesses other factors that might determine whether their wind farm might be in Columbia County's future.

In northeast Columbia County, construction has begun on the access roads and headquarters for the Glacier Hills Energy Park, being built by We Energies, in the towns of Scott and Randolph. The Glacier Hills turbines are scheduled to be built in the summer of 2011 - up to 90 of them, each about 400 feet from the base to the top of the highest blade tip.

If Wind Capital Group builds a wind farm, Green said, it would sell any power generated to an electric utility.

In speaking to the planning and zoning committee Tuesday, Green noted that there currently are state and federal initiatives to encourage the construction of facilities that generate electricity from renewable resources such as wind.

"For the foreseeable future," added committee member Fred Teitgen.

Green said he doesn't see the incentives going away any time soon, partly because Wisconsin has a law requiring utilities to generate a percentage of their electricity from renewable resources.

Committee member Harlan Baumgartner said he's not convinced that wind will be or should be a major factor in future energy generation.

"There might be other ways of producing energy that are more feasible than wind," he said.

Although officials of the towns of Leeds and Arlington must sign off on the extension of the test towers' conditional use permit, neither the towns nor the county can, legally, make their own regulations regarding the siting of wind turbines.

It's not that the town of Arlington hasn't tried. In the spring of 2009, the town board adopted an ordinance requiring that all wind turbines must be at least 2,640 feet, or half a mile, from buildings.

However, a new state law has directed the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, which regulates the state's utilities, to set parameters for wind turbine siting that would be applicable throughout the state - meaning that no county, town, village or city could make rules that are more restrictive.

Green said the PSC is in the process of drafting those rules, and they should be in place soon.

"We can't make a decision," he said, "until there are standards in place."

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

One thing this article does not mention is that Tom Green himself is writing the 'standards' that will allow him to site this project.

When the state legislature voted to strip local government its power to regulate wind projects, Tom Green of Wind Capitol Group was appointed to the 15 member Wind Siting Council which has just finished writing siting guidelines for the entire state.

Like Tom Green, the majority of the council has a direct or indirect financial interest in creating rules that favor wind development over protection of local residents and wildlife.

SECOND FEATURE

What's the "Dean Report" and why does it matter to wind project residents? Here's what windaction.org has to say about it

The Dean Report

(CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD)

Acciona Energy's Waubra wind farm, located in western Victoria, Australia is the largest operating wind facility in the southern hemisphere.

Excerpt from the Dean Report: 

Further research has shown that the acoustic energy from wind
turbines is capable of resonating houses, effectively turning them into
three-dimensional loud speakers in which the affected residents are now
expected to live.

The phenomenon of natural resonance combines to produce a cocktail of
annoying sounds which not only disturb the peace and tranquility
once-enjoyed by the residents, but also stimulate a number of disturbing
physiological effects which manifest in the physical symptoms described
above.

In the opinion of the author, backed up by residents' surveys and scientific
measurements and analysis of the noise of turbine can be a significant
detractor for those living within 10 kilometres of them.

More research is urgently needed to determine the extent of the nuisance
effects and what setbacks are required to minimise the negative effects on
resident communities.

The long term medical implications are considerable and need to be
researched before any further applications for wind farms are consented.

Failure to do this, in the opinion of the author, will significantly effect
the utilization of this technology and will produce long-term consequences
that will be to the detriment of the whole of society.

Notes:

[1] The Waubra wind energy facility is located near Ballarat, in western
Victoria, Australia. It is the largest operating wind facility in the
southern hemisphere consisting of 128-1.5 megawatt turbines for a total
installed capacity of 192 megawatts. The turbines were first turned on in
February 2009; the facility was fully operational by July 2009.
[2] Noel Dean and his family moved away from their farm in the spring of
2009 when the headaches and other symptoms worsened