Wind turbines tower above a Wisconsin farm

EXPERT WARNS 'PROVINCE OUGHT NOT TO PROCEED' WITH INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES

SOURCE: The Windsor Star, www.windsorstar.com

February 17, 2011

By Gary Rennie,

CHATHAM-KENT, Ont. — In a case that’s put Ontario’s Green Energy Act on trial drawing expert witnesses from around the world, a prominent Canadian physician testified Wednesday that construction of new wind turbines should be put on hold until appropriate medical studies are done to ensure the safety of nearby residents.

“The province ought not to proceed with the development of industrial wind turbines any further,” said Dr. Robert McMurtry, a past dean of the medical school at the University of Western Ontario and a former assistant deputy minister of health for the federal government.

“There is a lot of suffering,” McMurtry said. “We need to understand why.”

McMurtry was a witness for Chatham-Kent residents trying to overturn ministry of environment approval for Suncor’s proposed Kent Breeze wind farm.

Using audio and video teleconferencing, expert witnesses from England, New Zealand and the U.S. have already weighed in on the complex science of industrial noise and how humans perceive and react to it.

Suncor and environment ministry lawyers have a long list of experts of their own to call in the weeks ahead. Final arguments to the two-member Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal panel aren’t expected to be made until April.

Considered the key witness for sceptics of the safety of turbines as currently regulated in Ontario, McMurtry spoke of his experiences talking to more than 40 people who have lived close to the 120-metre high towers and whirling blades. They complain of prolonged sleep deprivation, stress, headaches, extreme fatigue, and high blood pressure, he said.

Leaving their homes to stay with relatives or in motels provides relief from the symptoms, McMurtry said. “The only cure is to move.”

McMurtry was critical of both Ontario’s noise standard for wind turbines and the 550 metre setback from turbine locations to homes in the regulations to the 2009 Green Energy Act. “I do not have confidence in those guidelines.”

The setback is a key issue. If setbacks of 1,500 metres or more – which some experts call for – had been established, development of wind turbines in heavily populated Essex County and many other southern Ontario communities would have been impossible.

It’s not just a question of how loud wind turbines may be, it’s the repetitive, pulsating nature of the “whoosh, whoosh” sound that appears to annoy some people, McMurtry said.

An analogy used by other experts in the hearing is the drip of a leaky faucet, which while not loud, can be annoyingly disruptive to sleep.

Low frequency noise and inaudible, infrasound may also contribute to the distress of those living close to turbines, said McMurtry. He conceded a lack of research proving a definitive cause and effect, but at the same time, said no research proving the safety of turbines at typical setbacks exists either.

“More likely than not, people living near industrial wind turbines are suffering adverse health affects,” McMurtry said. Governments should act in precautionary way to protect the health of residents until peer-reviewed research provides greater certainty about the kinds of regulations needed for wind development, he said.

McMurtry got interested in wind turbines after buying a cottage in Prince Edward County in 2007 with enough land to potentially put up one of his own. But after researching the issue further, he became alarmed at the weak scientific basis for claims of the safety of wind turbines.

He tried unsuccessfully to raise his concerns with several Liberal cabinet ministers, getting no response.

Prince Edward County has also been a popular choice of location for several large wind projects although none have yet been built. McMurtry has been prominent in a local citizens’ group in his community questioning wind turbine development.

A past special advisor to a Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care, he has immersed himself in recent years on the scientific research around the world on the health issues raised by wind turbines.



THIS JUST IN: SCROLL DOWN TO READ NEW LEGISLATIVE ALERT FROM JOHN DROZ JR.

Click on the image above to watch ag land being torn up for a wind turbine

EUROPE'S ILL WIND: FILM REVEALS SAME TURBINE TROUBLE AS IN THE U.S.

Europe’s Ill Wind is a film about the views of people living near existing or planned wind farm developments. Their objections have been dismissed by the wind industry, government and pro-wind campaigners as selfish NIMBYism, leaving unanswered many questions about the reliability and environmental credentials of wind energy.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH

COUNTY BOARD RESTRICTS WIND FARM PROJECTS

There will be no large wind farms or towering energy turbines on the horizon for unincorporated Lake County, after the County Board voted Tuesday to bar such facilities from its development ordinance.

The 17-5 vote came after almost two years of county study on the issue and left some northern Lake County residents who had fought against allowing commercial wind farms overjoyed.

“It’s great,” Carol Sebesta of Old Mill Creek said after the board’s vote. “So many things have not been settled as far as their effects on children and the elderly.” READ ENTIRE STORY: Chicago Sun Times

WIND INDUSTRY GROUP OPPOSES FEDERAL GUIDELINES TO PROTECT BIRDS

The American Wind Energy Association Industry said it will oppose plans by a federal agency to adopt voluntary regulations on wind developers to protect birds and other wildlife.

AWEA said in a release that more than 34,000 MW of potential wind power development, $68 billion in investment and 27,000 jobs are at risk due to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policies on golden eagles.

Read entire article: www.pennenergy.com

EXCERPTS: NEW LEGISLATIVE ALERT FROM JOHN DROZ JR

As you know, probably never before has the US Congress been so focused on making budget cuts. There will be an important vote today in the House, but this process will go on for awhile, as there is no real resolution in sight.

[THANK YOU to all those who contacted their congressional representative yesterday.]

In my view, we MUST take advantage of this window of opportunity and do EVERYTHING possible to get wasteful renewable energy spending added to these cuts.

As has been discussed before, a superior energy target is "1603 Grants" — which amount to some $5 Billion. If these federal subsidies are removed, the whole wind industry in the US could collapse in one fell swoop!

There is NOTHING we can do that is simpler, faster, or less expensive, that will get this beneficial result.

If you want some information about 1603 Grants, see <<http://www.masterresource.org/2011/01/section-1603-windfall/ <http://www.masterresource.org/2011/01/section-1603-windfall/> >>.
------------

A good site that was sent to me seems to be the best place to go: <<http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/ <http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/> >>. This gives a complete list of the "Continuing Resolution" programs that Republicans are currently targeting to cut. So far the 1603 Grants are not on the list!

Note that their savings total is only $100 Billion (for 150 programs), so adding this one item for $5 Billion will get their attention.

At the bottom of that page, please click on the part that says Submit Your Idea.

The main argument that AWEA and the lobbyists are using to "justify" 1603 grants, is that it will produce jobs. Like almost everything they say, this is a ruse — and should be exposed as such. Here is what you might write (using your own words) at <<http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/YourIdea.htm <http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/YourIdea.htm> >:

"Please eliminate the 1603 Grant program as it is very wasteful spending. Independent studies have shown that this will result in a net jobs loss, that many of the jobs created will be outside the US, that the cost of jobs created is very high, that the benefits of these 'make work' jobs are very low, etc.  And why are we borrowing money from China to subsidize an industry that makes 25%± per year in profits???"

If you want some additional information on these types of jobs, here are some reports that have recently come out:
  1 - "Defining, Measuring & Predicting Green Jobs" <<http://tinyurl.com/626oa62 <http://tinyurl.com/626oa62> >>, and
        [Note that this study was sponsored by a major environmental group!]
  2 - "The Myth of Green Energy jobs — The European Experience" <<http://www.aei.org/outlook/101026 <http://www.aei.org/outlook/101026> >>.

PLEASE pass this on to all open-minded US citizens you know who are concerned about us sensibly reducing our debt.

THANK YOU!

john droz, jr.
physicist & environmental advocate

WindAction Editorial

Legislative Alert!

SOURCE: WINDACTION.ORG

Things are happening quickly in Congress right now.

  The Continuing Resolution (see explanation below) has been sent to the House floor. The rules governing amendments permit ANY representative, Republican or Democrat, to file an amendment. The only requirements for amendments are that they be germane to the subject (spending), that the cuts apply to discretionary spending (Section 1603 grants are discretionary) and they need to be filed by the end of business day TODAY.

Today is the last chance to contact your federal representative in the House with this message:

1) We support an amendment to the continuing resolution that cuts all funding to the Section 1603 grant program. (This program is part of the discretionary spending.)

2) Please sponsor your own amendment to the continuing resolution or support an amendment offered by another representative.

3) The amendment needs to be filed by the end of business today in order to be considered.

Your representative will know what to do with this message.

I wanted to follow-up with an important clarification concerning the subject our our 'Call to Action' below.

We are targeting the Continuing Resolution that is now being marked up by the House Appropriations Committee.

You may recall in December how Harry Reid tried to push passage of a massive $1.2 trillion omnibus bill to cover the budget for 2011. The Senate was deadlocked and some members outraged.

Reid pulled the bill and they passed a 1-page continuing resolution which kept the government funded until March 4 2011. The appropriations committee is now working on the next continuing resolution that will fund the government until Sep 30, the end of the 2011 fiscal year.

That's what we are targeting. This bill will pass the House likely this week and then it goes to the Senate. If this bill is not signed by the president by March 4 2011, the government will be shutdown. It is this bill that the GOP has vowed to cut $100 billion, hopefully including cutting the $5 billion in Section 1603 cash grants.

This should not be confused with Obama's budget released today which is intended to cover fiscal year 2012 that spans from Oct 2011 to Sep 2012.

I would love to see the house switchboard overwhelmed with calls this week in addition to mailboxes filled with e-mails and faxes. It will take a lot to counter AWEA this week.

Thanks so much.

The House of Representatives is working to slash federal discretionary spending.

Tell Congress to cut the Section 1603 Cash Grant renewable energy bailout program!

BACKGROUND

THE ACTION

This is an important and unique opportunity we cannot afford to miss. OUR WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY IS NOW!

If you have any questions, or concerns, please email me at llinowes@windaction.org .

Thank you very much,
--Lisa Linowes
www.windaction.org



GOAL OF MANY MORE GREEN JOBS IS ELUSIVE

"We need to temper our expectations on wind energy," said David Swenson, an Iowa State University economist known for deflating the ethanol industry's job claims. Now, he says, the same "environment of hype" is developing around wind power."

"Another disappointment has been the pay for many of the wind industry jobs that do stay in the United States.

Wages around $16 an hour were expected by some when the Siemens plant opened in Hutchinson. But that was averaging the plant’s $11- to $20-an-hour wages, and Siemens won’t say how many of the jobs pay the $11 starting wage.

That wage would give a family of five an income at the federal poverty level, sparking comment on the Hutchinson News newspaper’s website." READ MORE: The Kansas City Star

WIND FARM FROZEN OUT OF COMMISSION

FREDERICTON – A $200-million wind farm in northern New Brunswick is frozen solid, cutting off a potential supply of renewable energy for NB Power.

The 25-kilometre stretch of wind turbines, located 70 kilometres northwest of Bathurst, has been completely shut down for several weeks due to heavy ice covering their blades.  READ MORE: businessjournal.canadaeast.com

IT'S NOT JUST A WISCONSIN PROBLEM, IT'S ON THE EAST COAST TOO:

DOCUMENTS SHOWING CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN WIND DEVELOPERS AND MEMBERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

Acciona ~ Financial Interests of Municipal Officers/Relatives Cape Vincent NY

Bp Financial Interests of Municipal Officers/Relatives ~ Cape Vincent Ny

Click on the image above to see what an industrial wind project looks like after the sun goes down. People are often surprised to find out that all of the lights blink in unison. Why? These are FAA lights and red lights blinking in unison are the best way to get a pilot's attention. Red lights in the entire wind project area, which is sometimes thousands of acres, flash on and off all night long to keep aircraft from colliding with turbine blades.

Click on the image above to hear noise from the closest turbine to the home of Larry Wunsch who lives in the Invenergy wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County.

This noise is the reason the Wunsch family decided to sell their home. However, after two years they've had no offers. Wunsch says that buyers who come to see the house don't even make it up the driveway. They turn around once they see the turbines surrounding his home.

This video was recorded from the front door of the Wunsch home with a video camera microphone not suited for noise such as this, nevertheless, the pulsing character of wind turbine noise is clear.

Larry Wunsch is a fire fighter and served on the Wind Siting Council. He testified at the Capitol yesterday, asking for a suspension of the PSC wind siting rules because they are not protective enough. Wunsch testified that while on the Wind Siting Council, he wanted to play his recording of turbine noise to help council members understand the problem but he was not allowed to do so.

Below, video of shadow flicker in another Fond du Lac county home at 6:30 AM

 

Above, shadow flicker in homes located in the Invenergy Forward Energy project, filmed by resident Gerry Meyer who also testified at the Capitol hearing.

WIND SITING RULES GET CAPITOL HEARING

Source: Wisconsin Radio Network

February 10, 2010

By Bob Hague

Lawmakers weighed the balance of wind energy in Wisconsin at the Capitol on Wednesday, with developers of wind turbine farms pitted against property owners and local governments who argue the massive turbines decrease property values and cause health problems.

Governor Scott Walker had proposed a special session bill which would have increased the setback for wind turbines from 1250 feet from a property line, to 1850 feet. That bill failed to advance, so now the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules is taking second look at the Public Service Commission rules which are scheduled to go into effect next month.

As the day long hearing got underway, committee members commented on the lengthy process of public hearings held by the PSC as the rules were being developed.

“I know it was a difficult task,” said Representative Dan Meyer (R-Eagle River). “But I have a feeling a lot of these people feel this is just going to be rammed down their throat. They may not want windmills in their backyard, but there going to get them, because the state of Wisconsin says ‘you’re going to have them.’”

State Senator Lena Tayler (D-Milwaukee) responded to Meyer’s comment. “There isn’t ramming going on here . . . 2009 to now is not ramming.”

Larry Wunsch is a landowner near Brownsville in south Fond du Lac county. Wunsch told the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules that a wind

farm near his property – and a turbine 1250 feet from his home – have changed his life. “When you put a device so close to my land that it drives me out of my property, I do have a say on that,” Wunsch told committee members. “We should be protecting Wisconsinites here.

Wunsch, who served on the Public Service Commission’s Wind Siting Council and signed onto its Minority Report, said he’s been unable to sell his property. Wunsch testified against the rules with another member of the Wind Siting Council who signed the Minority Report, Doug Zweizig from the Town of Union in Rock County. “The rules as written will not protect the health safety and welfare of impacted Wisconsin residents and communities,” said Zweizig, who serves on the Union Town Board, which had written its own ordinance on wind siting. Those impacts include sleep deprivation for a significant percentage of people living near turbines, according to Green Bay physician, Dr. Herb Cousins. “We make outstanding guidelines and rules for peanut allergies in school, when less than one percent or so of the population is affected by that,” Cousins said. “In this circumstance, up to fifty percent or more at this 1200 foot range will be affected.”

But Jeff Anthony with the American Wind Energy Association said if lawmakers decide to suspend the PSC rules, they’ll throw wind development projects around the state into chaos – and cost Wisconsin jobs. “The $1.8 million of investment in future wind projects that are currently on the books and planned for Wisconsin, will not happen. Two million construction job hours to build those projects, will not happen in this state,” said Anthony. “Farther down the road, you could have an impact on the manufacturing sector.”

The rules were drafted as a response to an uncertain landscape for wind development in Wisconsin, as local governments such as Doug Zweizig’s town board drafted their own – sometimes restrictive – wind siting ordinances. But Bob Welch, a former state lawmaker who now lobbies on behalf of a coalition of opponents, said the PSC rules go too far. “What the PSC rules want to do is say ‘you don’t get to decide what goes in your community. You have nothing, absolutely nothing to say about it’ if these rules are in place. They’re going to decide what goes in your community, not you. I don’t think that’s the Wisconsin way.”

Landowners who have wind turbines sited within a half mile of their property lines are eligible for ‘good neighbor’ payments. But apparently not all are interested in getting the money. “I have two of them within that parameter, so I would make a thousand dollars a year,” Larry Wunsch told the committee. “Personally I think it’s dirty money, it’s bribe money and I’ve never taken it, I don’t plan to take it. If they want to make it right with me, buy my house. Let me get out of there.”

AUDIO: Larry Wunsch, Doug Zweizig (7:00)

AUDIO: Jeff Anthony (6:00)

PSCs Final Wind Siting Council Report (PDF)

Click on the images below to watch short videos of the Wind Siting Council in action

WISCONSIN RULE ON TURBINE BUFFERS HIT CLOSE TO HOME FOR SOME

Source: The Badger Herald

February 10, 2011

By Andrew Averill

A legislative joint committee heard over nine hours of passionate testimony Wednesday from several hundred citizens and wind energy developers on a rule that would standardize the buffer distance between a wind turbine and surrounding structures across the state.

The Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules heard testimony on a wind siting rule proposed by the Public Services Commission. The rule specifies the restrictions a city, village, town or county could impose on wind energy systems. While wind developers mainly agreed with the PSC, a large portion of citizen testifiers opposed the rules, Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, said.

“The majority of [testifiers] I’d say were people who didn’t want the rules,” Risser said. “When you get down to it, they didn’t want windmills.”

The rule would require turbine setback distances for non-participatory properties to equal three times the maximum length of the turbine blade. Turbines only have to be one blade length away from the property hosting it. 

Most citizens testified the distances are not far enough away and have caused unwanted effects. 

Joan Lagerman from Malone, located on the east side of Lake Winnebago, told the committee she had stories that realized the fears other testifiers brought up. Her son, an otherwise healthy 17-year-old, recorded systolic blood pressure as high as 160, which she attributes to the turbine near her house, she said.

Another man with three turbines near his property recalled coming home to take care of his wife who was sick with the flu. He returned at night expecting his wife to be resting in bed, but saw her writhing on the floor in the middle of the hallway squeezing blankets and pillows against her ears trying to dampen the sound from the turbines.

Other opponents of the rule spoke of developer’s “time-share hustling” property owners with 28-page contracts, persistent radio interference, deteriorating health of farm animals due to stray voltage and constant low frequency humming.

Hearing loss can occur with noise levels over 85 decibels, according to a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health study. The PSC rule requires turbines to be no louder than 50 db, but one citizen in Fond du Lac County said he measured the turbine at a constant 63 db.

However direct the citizen testimony, Risser said the question the committee must ask in deciding whether to uphold, modify or suspend the PSC’s rule is what is best for the state, and there are people who feel very strongly the state should pursue wind energy and the jobs it would provide Wisconsin.

Chris Deschane, speaking on behalf of wind developer Michels Corporation located an hour northeast of Madison in Fond du Lac, said he supported the PSC rule and elaborated on the jobs that Michels could create if the committee voted in favor of the rule.

“For each 100 megawatts in Wisconsin, it will generate 125 immediate jobs that last for one or two years and several dozen recurring jobs,” Deschane said. “Each of these jobs are well compensated and we provide exceptional health benefits.”

Another developer, David Vander Leest of Prelude LLC Wind Farms, said if the rule is not passed and the setback distance between a wind turbine and the nearest structure is increased as a result, Wisconsin might as well give the wind industry of “time of death.”

Although Risser said both developers and citizens gave strong arguments, he suspects the committee would vote to suspend the rule sometime before March 1, when the rule would begin to take effect.



BIRD DEATHS FROM WIND FARMS TO CONTINUE UNDER NEW FEDERAL VOLUNTARY INDUSTRY GUIDELINES

SOURCE: American Bird Conservancy

February 10, 2011

By Robert Johns

(Washington, D.C.) Draft voluntary federal guidelines issued today by the Interior Department that focus on the wildlife impacts of wind energy will result in continued increases in bird deaths and habitat loss from wind farms across the country, says American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the nation’s leading bird conservation organization. Members of the public will have 90 days to provide comments on the proposed guidelines to the Secretary of the Interior prior to a final version being concluded.

“We had hoped that at the end of this multi-year, Interior Department process, we would see mandatory regulations that would provide a reasonable measure of restraint and control on a potentially very green energy source, but instead we get voluntary guidelines,” said ABC Vice-President Mike Parr.

“Bird deaths from wind power are the new inconvenient truth. The total number of birds killed and the amount of bird habitat lost will dramatically increase as wind power build-out continues across the country in a rush to meet federal renewable energy targets,” Parr said.

“We fast-tracked dams in the first half of the last century at the expense of America’s rivers. Now we’re having to tear many of them down. Let’s not fast track wind energy at the expense of America’s birds. Just a few small changes need to be made to make wind bird-smart, but without these, wind power simply can’t be considered a green technology” Parr said.

“This action did not have to result in voluntary guidelines. DOI has the authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to enact regulations protecting migratory birds. Further, it is troubling that this announcement was made without the final documents being available that would enable a review of exactly what is being proposed,” Parr said.

Some of the most iconic and vulnerable American birds are at risk from wind industry expansion unless this expansion is carefully planned and implemented. Onshore, these include Golden Eagles, Whooping Cranes, sage-grouse, prairie-chickens, and many migratory songbirds. Offshore, Brown Pelicans, Northern Gannets, sea ducks, loons, and terns are among the birds at risk.

“Federal government estimates indicate that 22,000 wind turbines in operation in 2009 were killing 440,000 birds per year. We are very concerned that with Federal plans to produce 20 percent of the nation’s electricity from wind by 2030, those numbers will mushroom. To meet the 2030 goal, the nation will need to produce about 12 times more wind energy than in 2009.” he added.

“The guidelines ask the wind industry to do the right things, but there is no reason to believe that any will happen with any consistency. The poster child for the wind industry’s environmental track record is the Altamont Pass Wind Farm in California. Despite years of concern voiced by many in the wildlife community about large numbers of eagles and other raptors being killed at Altamont, it took a lawsuit to get the industry to respond,” Parr said.

“Birds continue to be killed at Altamont and other wind farms in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,” he added.

American Bird Conservancy supports wind power when it is bird-smart, and believes that birds and wind power can co-exist if the industry is held to mandatory standards that protect birds. ABC has established a petition for concerned members of the public to lend their support to the campaign for bird-smart wind.

Onshore bird-smart wind power implements siting considerations, operational and construction mitigation, bird monitoring, and compensation, to redress unavoidable bird mortality and habitat loss. Although offshore wind power is not yet operational in the U.S., an analogous set of siting, operating, and compensatory measures needs to be developed to make it bird-smart.

All wind farms should have an Avian Protection Plan that includes ABC’s bird-smart principles and a means of implementing it and tracking and reporting on its implementation. Wind farms should also comply with relevant state and federal wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and National Environmental Policy Act.

NOTE: American Bird Conservancy conserves native birds and their habitats throughout the Americas by safeguarding the rarest species, protecting and restoring habitats, and reducing threats while building capacity of the bird conservation movement. For moreinformation, visit, www.abcbirds.org

WANT TO HELP?

PLEASE SIGN THE AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY PETITION TO PROTECT BIRDS FROM POORLY SITED WIND TURBINES BY CLICKING HERE

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

BREAKING NEWS!

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

A MESSAGE FROM REPRESENTATIVE AL OTT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representative Jim Ott (Co-Chair)

Representative Dan Meyer

Representative Daniel LeMahieu

Representative Gary Hebl

Representative Frederick Kessler

Senator Leah Vukmir (Co-Chair)

Senator Joseph Leibham

Senator Glenn Grothman

Senator Lena Taylor

Senator Fred Risser

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

IN THE NEWS:

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

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

February 4, 2011

By Thomas Content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WALKER ISN'T GIVING UP ON TOUGHER WIND TURBINE RULE

SOURCE:  www.greenbaypressgazette.com

February 4, 2011

By SCOTT BAUER 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 SECOND FEATURE

Illinois property value expert says:

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

TURBINE IMPACTS REVEALED AT COMMUNITY MEETING

SOURCE: The Alpine Sun, www.thealpinesun.com

January 27 2011

By Billie Jo Jannen,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THIRD FEATURE:

WIND PROJECTS BACKED BY TAX CREDITS AND SUBSIDIES

 SOURCE: VPR News, /www.vpr.net

February 3, 2011

by John Dillon

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

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

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

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

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

Some oil company subsidies date to the 1920s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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