Is Governor Scott Walker picking a fight with the state’s wind energy industry? It may be shaping up that way. The governor wants a second look at the process for placing wind turbines in Wisconsin, citing the concerns of adjoining property owners and businesses. Walker said this week that such concerns “had not been addressed.” The current Public Service Commission rules were finalized in September of 2010, after a nearly year long public process that began with the passage of enabling legislation which drew bipartisan support. “We thought it was more important to address that through the legislative and executive branches,” Walker said.
“The legislature was engaged in this issue for more than two years,” said Keith Reopelle with Wisconsin Environment. “They passed a bill, which like most complex pieces of legislation left the details up to a state agency which actually has expertise in that area.” Reopelle noted that the Public Service Commission held a lengthy series of public hearings in order to develop the rules.
Walker, who emphasized jobs creation during the campaign for governor, and who has called a special legislative session on jobs and the economy, said the intent in changing the setback rules for wind turbines is not to cost the state more jobs. “Certainly, we don’t want to do things that have an economic impact. By the same token, I think for adjoining property owners there’s some serious concerns out there, and we’re trying to balance the two,” the governor said.
Wisconsin Environment’s Reopelle said that changing those rules would “bring to a screeching halt” up to ten projects around the state. And he noted, there jobs at stake, as manufacturers in communities around the state are now producing components for wind turbines.
Under current law, (ACT 40) the Public Service Commission (PSC), with the advice of the wind siting council, must promulgate rules specifying the restrictions that a city, village, town, or county may impose on the installation or use of a “wind energy system,” which is defined as equipment and associated facilities that convert andthen store or transfer wind energy into usable forms of energy.
The restrictions must satisfy certain conditions, including preserving or protecting the public health or safety and not significantly increasing the cost of a wind energy system or significantly decreasing its efficiency.
In addition, the subject matter of the rules must include setback requirements and decommissioning, and may include any of the following:
visual appearance
lighting
electrical connections to the power grid
maximum audible sound levels
shadow flicker
proper means of measuring noise
interference with radio, telephone, or television signals
or other matters.
Current law prohibits a city, village, town, or county from placing a restriction on the installation or use of a wind energy system that is more restrictive than the PSC’s rules.
This bill imposes additional requirements on the PSC’s rules.
The bill requires that, if a PSC rule involves a person who is affected by a wind energy system, including a rule that requires written notice, the rule must ensure that such a person includes an “affected owner,” which the bill defines as the owner of property located within one−half mile of property on which a wind energy system is installed or proposed to be installed.
In addition, the rules must allow an affected owner who has entered into an agreement with an owner or operator of a wind energy system regarding the installation or use of the wind energy system to terminate the agreement upon giving written notice of the termination no later than 10 working days after entering into the agreement.
Also, the rules must requireany individual who negotiates an agreement with an affected owner on behalf of an owner or operator regarding an interest in real estate related to the installation or use of a wind energy system to make a written disclosure that the individual is licensed as a real estate broker or is exempt from such licensure.
The rules must also require inclusion of the written disclosure as an addendum to such an agreement.
Additionally, the rules must require an owner or operator to provide a copy of a brochure prepared by the PSC to an affected owner prior to entering into an agreement with the affected owner regarding the installation or use of the wind energy system.
The brochure must describe wind energy systems, requirements under state law applicable to wind energy systems, including any provisions of the PSC’s rules that allow for waiver of any such requirements, and the possible impacts of wind energy systems on property owners, including affected owners.
In addition, the bill eliminates the requirement for the PSC to promulgate rules regarding setback requirements, and requires instead that the owners of certain wind energy systems comply with setback requirements specified in the bill.
The bill’s setback requirements apply to the owner of a “large wind energy system,” which the bill defines as a wind energy system that has a total installed nameplate capacity of more than 300 kilowatts and that consists of individual wind turbines that have an installed nameplate capacity of more than 100 kilowatts.
The bill defines the owner of a large wind energy system as any of the following:
1) a person with a direct ownership interest in such a system, regardless of whether the person was involved in acquiring the necessary rights, permits, and approvals or otherwise planning for the construction and operation of the system; or
2) a person acting as a developer of a large wind energy system by acquiring the necessary rights, permits, and approvals for or by planning for the construction and operation of the system, regardless of whether the person will own or operate the system.
The foregoing definition is similar to a definition in rules promulgated by the PSC.
Under the bill, the owner of a large wind energy system must design and construct the Under the bill, the owner of a large wind energy system must design and construct the system so that the setback distance is at least 1,800 feet.
However, the bill allows for a setback distance of less than 1,800 feet if the owners of all of the following agree in writing:
1) properties adjoining the property on which the large wind energy system is located; and
2) properties separated only by a right−of−way from the property on which the large wind energy system is located.
The bill also specifies that setback distance must be measured as a straight line from the vertical center line of the wind turbine tower of the large wind energy system to the nearest point on the property line of the property on which the large wind energy system is located.
This requirement is similar to a requirement in rules promulgated by the PSC.
Current law requires the wind siting council to submit a report to the legislature every five years that describes the following:
1) peer−reviewed scientific research regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems; and
2) state and national regulatory developments regarding the siting of wind energy systems. The report must also include any recommendations for legislation.
The bill requires the wind siting council to study the impacts of wind energy systems on property values and to include the results of its study in the report.
SUPPORT SENATE BILL 9: WALKER'S WIND SITING REFORM
Better Plan encourages you to take a moment right now to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for including these more protective requirements in this bill and to also contact your senator and representative to encourage them to support it.
CONTACT Governor Scott Walker govgeneral@wisconsin.gov 115 East Capitol Madison WI 53702 (608) 266-1212
SAMPLE LETTER TO A SENATOR FROM A RESIDENT OF ROCK COUNTY
Dear Senator Cullen,
I’m writing to ask you to support Senate Bill 9, concerning wind siting issues in our state.
Five Towns in Rock County lawfully passed wind siting ordinances which were overturned by Act 40 — legislation which stripped local government of the power to regulate wind energy systems in their communities.
Other towns in your district were also considering wind ordinances before Act 40 took away that right.
Rock County Towns with lawfully adopted ordinances include
Town of Janesville,
Town of Center, Town of Spring Valley
Town of Magnolia
Town of Union
The ordinances were a product of over a years worth of work and expense. All four towns would like to see their ordinances restored, all of them call for a health and safety setback of 2640 feet from homes unless a homeowner agrees to have a turbine closer and also a more protective turbine noise limit than that provided by the state.
Although Governor Walker’s bill doesn’t address these health and safety issues directly, his bill does help to protect property rights and certainly provides greater setback protection than the PSC’s wind-developer-friendly guidelines.
This bill is also clear about allowing individual homeowners the choice to have turbines closer to their property line if they wish to enter into an agreement with the developer.
The jobs that wind farms will bring to Wisconsin are for the most part short-term construction jobs which are frequently done by construction workers called in from out of state. After the turbines are up, the jobs that remain are few.
Many Wisconsin residents now living in wind projects desperately want to move away because of turbines sited too close to their residences, but cannot sell their homes because few buyers want to live so close to turbines that are 40 to 50 stories tall.
Current PSC setbacks are just too close to homes. Wind project residents sleep is disrupted because of nighttime turbine noise. TV, radio and cell phone reception has been disrupted by the turbines as well.
Although not perfect, Governor Walker’s bill is an important step toward protecting Wisconsin residents by requiring more responsible siting guidelines. I urge you to support it.
To see how close the turbines are to homes in PSC approved wind projects in Wisconsin, please watch this very short video. It contains photos of Wisconsin homes in wind projects.
This one, shot in Fond du Lac County by a wind project resident clearly shows why living with wind turbine shadow flicker is such a nightmare for so many families.
Last February, some residents in the area of the proposed industrial wind facility in southern Brown County began posting signs expressing concerns for the potential impacts the project would have on their health, environment and property rights and values.
Individuals displaying signs have conformed to town ordinances. Now, signs in the towns of Holland, Morrison and Glenmore are being vandalized, raising objection to a more serious level.
Someone in the community is willing to violate private property laws to intimidate neighbors and limit their freedom of speech.
Did the signers of turbine contracts have any concern for what effects their actions would potentially have on the lives of their neighbors?
Do they now feel any responsibility for the backlash of community reaction?
At a Holland town meeting last summer, a contract signer who demanded removal of signs with “contentious messages,” sadly put the issue into perspective declaring, “Last year those people were my friends.”
Of the many messages expressed on the placards posted by Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, one prophetically states, “Wind energy projects destroy communities.” The acts of vandalism are ample proof of that.
The wind setback issue is no longer part of Governor Walkers bill.
Following a five to three party-line vote to remove this provision from the bill, the Assembly Rules Committee approved the calendar for Thursday's floor session, which includes special session bills on tort reform, a tax credit for health savings accounts, increased economic development tax credits and a tax credit for businesses relocating to Wisconsin.
The wind setback issue may be taken up as a separate issue later in the session.
LAWMAKERS TO TAKE UP REGULATORY REFORMS SEPARATELY
Madison — Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said Friday he wants to deal with all the issues Gov. Scott Walker has included in a regulatory reform bill, but not as one package.
That means the three issues in the package will be dealt with as separate legislation.
Walker's bill would change rules on siting wind turbines, make it easier to build on wetlands in Brown County and give the governor more power in writing administrative rules.
Fitzgerald said he supported all those ideas but thought they should be dealt with separately.
The wetlands language in Walker's bill would allow a retail development near Lambeau Field to proceed. Fitzgerald called the development a project "that clearly should be built in Green Bay."
"My concern about it is the Department of Natural Resources has absolutely messed this up from the beginning," Fitzgerald said.
The Legislature had the Public Service Commission develop rules on wind turbines, but lawmakers need to revisit the issue, Fitzgerald said. "I think that it is something that the Legislature should go back and look at again," he said.
He said he was sensitive to concerns raised both by property rights groups as well as the wind industry. They say the rules Walker is proposing would kill jobs.
The Legislature is controlled by Walker's fellow Republicans, and they have been broadly supportive of his efforts to boost the economy through tax cuts and regulatory reform. But lawmakers from both parties have raised concerns about ceding too much power to the executive branch on administrative rules.
Rules are written to implement new legislation, and lawmakers must sign off on any rules. Walker wants the rules to go through the governor's office as well.
Fitzgerald spoke to reporters after a committee of Senate leaders voted to take up a tort reform bill Tuesday on the Senate floor. Republicans say the measure will help business, while Democrats say it will make it harder for victims to find justice.
SECOND FEATURE:
TOWN OF MORRISON LOOKS AT CHANGING RULES FOR WIND TURBINES
Amid ongoing debate at the state Capitol, the Town of Morrison in Brown County continues discussion on expanding or creating another ordinance for wind turbines.
A group of residents opposes a proposed wind farm project in southern Brown County that would build 100 turbines.
Currently that project is on hold since its application to the state Public Service Commission is incomplete.
It’s a debate that has united and divided communities across southern Brown County.
Tuesday night, more than 60 town residents united in hopes of creating another ordinance restricting what wind companies can do — restricted themselves by the state Legislature.
“If you have an ordinance that doesn’t comply with state law, you’re illegal,” Town of Morrison consultant Glen Schwalbach said.
Soon-to-be enacted rules by the Public Service Commission change setback rules for neighboring properties and how much nearby residents can be paid.
But already Governor Walker has introduced legislation as part of the special session that would impose even tighter guidelines for wind companies.
“I think they are going to extend the setbacks, and they well should be. They should be much greater than originally planned,” Morrison resident Gerald Cornelissen said.
Yet others, like the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, say the proposal would lose the state nearly $2 billion in new wind power investments.
If no further legislative action is taken, the Public Service Commission says the new changes are expected to take effect March 1st.
For now the debate continues — from town halls to the state Capitol.
THIRD FEATURE
Pilot might not have seen met tower before fatal Delta crash
OAKLEY -- A crop duster pilot killed last week may not have seen the weather tower that his plane clipped, causing him to crash on a remote island in the Delta, according to a preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board.
Stephen Allen, 58, died in the crash reported about 11 a.m. Jan. 10 on Webb Tract Island, located about two miles north of Bethel Island. Allen was a resident of Courtland, a town about 20 miles south of Sacramento.
Allen was the only person on board the Rockwell International S-2R Thrush Commander crop duster, which according to Federal Aviation Administration records was built in 1975 and registered to Walnut Grove-based Alexander Ag Flying Service.
According to the NTSB, Allen was applying seed when he crashed. He appears to have struck a 200-foot meteorological tower -- constructed of galvanized tubing and designed to collect wind information -- that was installed on the island in 2009.
The NTSB wrote in its report that "the fact that these towers are narrow, unmarked and gray in color makes for a structure that is nearly invisible under some atmospheric conditions."
A final report about the crash is not expected to be completed for several months.
BETTER PLAN'S EXTRA CREDIT READING ASSIGNMENT:
What happens when wind developers come to town?
---KEEP WIND TURBINE DEBATE RESPECTFUL (WI)
"Obviously, the community has been torn apart because of this project," [Morrison Town Chairman] Christensen said.
"You have brothers not talking to brothers, fathers and sons not talking. It's sad. … Everybody has all the right to debate (an) opinion with fact, but do it with respect. That hasn't been happening."
HE'S BAA-ACK: PRO-WIND PLALE LANDS JOB IN WALKER ADMINISTRATION
Former Democratic Sen. Jeff Plale has joined the administration of Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
Plale sponsored and fought for the bill which stripped local governments of their power to regulate the siting of wind turbines in our state and gave this power to the appointed members of the Public Service Commission.
Plale wil earn $90,000 a year as the administrator of the Division of State Facilities, Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said.
In Wisconsin wind turbine noise limits are 50 dbA during the day and 45 dbA during the night. How does this compare with other states?
RESIDENTS RAISE NOISE ON WINDMILLS (NY)
" A 29-turbine commercial wind farm has been proposed for the town by New York City-based EverPower Renewables. EverPower officials have requested that the noise level emitted by the wind turbines be raised to 40 decibels. The current town law allows for the noise level to be raised 3 decibels above the ambient level of 25 decibels."
COUNTY TO DISCUSS HOW CLOSE WIND TURBINES SHOULD BE TO HOMES (MI)
Developers of wind farms say 1,000 foot setbacks are enough. They say problems with windmills are greatly exaggerated by people who want to ban them altogether.
Tonight planning commissioners in Mason County will review a proposal to require setbacks of 1.25 miles. Under the proposed rule windmills could be closer to a home if the homeowner was part of the project, meaning he or she makes a deal with the energy company.
Former Waubra resident Trish Godfrey yesterday told an Adelaide court how her dream home became “hell on earth” after wind farm turbines were turned on.
Ms Godfrey said she suffered sleep deprivation, headaches and nausea before moving out in April 2010 when Acciona purchased her property.
“It was like you had a hat on that’s too tight and you have a pain that just gets worse and worse, and you can’t take it off,” Ms Godfrey said. “There was pain most of the time.”
Ms Godfrey broke down in tears as she gave evidence at the Environment Resources and Development Court.
Dairy farmer Richard Paltridge is appealing a decision to grant Acciona approval to build a 46-turbine wind farm near his property, south of Mt Gambier.
Ms Godfrey said her symptoms began about a month after turbines were turned on, then got progressively worse.
“I said to my husband I’m not sick but I don’t feel well,” she said.
“It felt like I had a cold coming on all the time.
“My sleep patterns were changing. I was waking up two, three, four times a night. I couldn’t explain it. I couldn’t get my head around what was going on.
“You put it down to everything but what it is.”
Ms Godfrey said she and her husband Victor, a dental surgeon, went on holiday to Darwin and the symptoms stopped, then resumed when she returned home.
“You get back and it starts all over again,” she said. “It all came back with gusto.”
Under questioning by George Manos for Mr Paltridge, Ms Godfrey said the 10-acre property was her “dream” home, where she and her husband intended to retire.
She said she planted 750 to 1000 boundary trees, about 30 fruit trees and 17 vegetable beds in the 10 years they lived there.
Ms Godfrey said she had been led into a false sense of security in a meeting with David Shapiro of Wind Power, the company that set up the Waubra project and sold it to Acciona.
“He told us there would be a couple of turbines on Quoin Hill, a couple on Big Hill and a few behind us,” Ms Godfrey said.
“He said there would be no lights, no wires and no noise.”
Ms Godfrey said 63 turbines could be seen from her property and it became “hell” to live there.
She said the noise “pressed in” on their home. “It was anywhere from a low whooshing sound, a sweeping swoosh some days, and when the wind was coming from the north it was like a jumbo jet in the back paddock,” she said.
Former Waubra resident Carl Stepnell told the court yesterday he and his wife’s symptoms of chest pains, heart palpitations and sleep deprivation ceased after the couple moved away from the family farm to Ballarat in November.
“We feel as though we’ve got our health back,” Mr Stepnell said.
Mt Stepnell said his wife also suffered depression while living close to the turbines.
“Her whole appearance … it was scary to see how bad she was,” he said. “She was really down, depressed … shocking.”
Mr Stepnell said his five-year-old son attended Waubra Primary School until the family moved.
“I see a big difference in his behaviour,” he said.
“He is nowhere near as emotional … he was pale. (Now) he’s like a normal five-year-old.”
Wise people (and politicians) often say perception is more important than reality. Take the case of wind energy in Connecticut. What are the perceptions and what are the realities? With the proposed wind projects in Colebrook and Prospect currently being so hotly debated, perhaps it’s timely to consider a few points.
Wind power will lower the cost of electricity. The promoters of wind power frequently start their pitch by saying Connecticut has the highest rates for electricity within the continental United States. That is true, and the target audience often comes away with the impression more wind power will mean a decrease in electricity costs.
The reality is electricity generated from wind is much more expensive than that produced from traditional sources. It’s often stated wind-generated electricity costs 15 percent to 20 percent more than does that generated by coal, but the actual cost may be even more. It is difficult to calculate because of the variables involved. Only in rare cases is it lower than 15 percent more than coal-generated electricity. And with wind power, consumers not only pay higher prices for electricity, they are, as taxpayers, also paying for the generous subsidies this industry is receiving. Without subsidies there is simply no way wind power can compete economically.
Oil imports will be reduced. A misleading perception is that more wind turbines will reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) says, “Unlike the dirty energy from fossil fuels, wind energy does not cause … dependence on unfriendly foreign regimes.”
In reality, wind energy may not cause the dependence but does nothing to reduce it. The majority of the electricity produced in the United States is derived from domestic sources: coal, about 45 percent; natural gas, 25 percent; nuclear, 20 percent; and hydroelectric, 6 percent, not from burning fossil fuels imported from other nations.
The danger in promoting such claims is that it leads the public into thinking something positive is being done to curb oil imports and this very serious problem is being solved. People are then less apt to support the implementation of projects that could improve the environment and reduce imports of oil, such as increasing emphasis on efficiency and conservation.
Environmentalists support wind power. The promoters of wind power make every attempt to show “true environmentalists” support wind power while opponents are anti-green. The truth is growing numbers of hard-core environmentalists are becoming disillusioned with wind power.
In his book “The Wind Farm Scam,” Dr. John Etherington, a highly esteemed UK ecologist and beyond doubt an avid environmentalist, wrote: “The specter of climate change is being used as a scare tactic to get people to buy wind power. This is the old quack-doctor trick — scare them to death and they’ll buy anything. It (wind power) will certainly be seen by history as a swindle supported by untruths and half truths.”
Property values are unaffected by wind turbines. The wind industry has taken a hard-line approach to the property-value question. It often presents detailed reports by “experts” that indicate property values do not decrease in the vicinity of wind turbines. Most of these reports are written by wind advocates using flawed data and reaching invalid conclusions.
The answer to the property-value question is found in common-sense reasoning. Who, given a choice, would want to live near these devices? How many potential buyers would seek homes in the vicinity of a wind turbine? For that matter, how many executives of the wind industry live near turbines?
Numerous anecdotal stories tell of folks being unable to sell their homes and abandoning them because they could no longer tolerate the noise or other characteristics of turbines.
Wind power will replace dirty power plants. “U.S. winds contain enough energy to provide over 10 times our total electricity, and to fuel a large portion of our auto fleet with electricity as well,” says the AWEA, giving the perception we can eliminate existing conventionally powered plants.
Think of that! All we have to do is to cover our countrysides with wind turbines and the dirty old coal plants can be shut down, with enough electricity will be left over to fuel electric cars. The problem is the intermittent nature of wind means it must have backup. Wind turbines have never replaced a traditional power plant.
Wind power means jobs. Jobs are created by the wind industry, but that can be said of any industry. The perception the promoters try to depict is that wind power means a great many new jobs for local workers. However, most of the work is in the manufacture of the turbines, which is done far away from the site, perhaps even in a foreign land. And once they are in place, turbines require little manpower except for once a year or so routine maintenance.
Why does the wind industry work so hard hawking half truths and hyperbole to create false perceptions that wind power is so wonderful, even in relatively low-wind areas like Connecticut?
It’s because a bad idea is difficult to sell. The reality is that wind power is not about “going green.” It’s all about money.
Bill Gregware (gregwarebill@hotmail.com) of Goshen is a retired oil company geologist/exploration manager. He is also an avid environmentalist and freelance writer who specializes in writing about nature and energy. Further, he is a party to those fighting the proposal by Optiwind to build a turbine in Goshen.
Denise Bode, Head of AWEAAWEA has a tantrum -- again
(Posted January 16, 2011)
Wind energy is unreliable.
But there's one thing we can always count on -- AWEA tantrums, which are getting to be regular occurrences.
Last month we were treated to a week of whining by the American Wind Energy Association after the Obama Administration and GOP leaders released the terms for extending the Bush-era tax cuts. The outburst was triggered after learning the tax agreement negotiated with the White House omitted any reference to extending the Section 1603 tax grant program (ITC), a program introduced in 2009 under ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) and due to sunset end of 2010. The costly stimulus program provides direct cash grants to wind developers in lieu of the production tax credit for up to 30% of their capital costs, no questions asked. Like a recording stuck on replay, AWEA's Denise Bode's shrill warnings about job loss and immediate harm to the industry repeated non-stop until lawmakers relented and sanctioned a 1-year extension.
Last week, AWEA was in a huff again. This time the target was the new governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker.
For more than five years, communities throughout Wisconsin worked within State law to establish local regulations that would protect homeowners and families from improperly sited wind energy projects. Projects under 100 megawatts were subject to these local standards which stood as models for other communities worldwide[1].
The wind industry complained bitterly to then governor Jim Doyle and the State legislature about the new local regulations. With setbacks ranging from 1800 feet to 1 mile, the industry insisted the laws were nothing more than "de facto moratoria" and should be overturned.
In September 2009 the State complied. Senate Bill 185 was signed into law placing all wind energy oversight in the hands of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission ("PSC"). Last year, the Commission voted on siting rules recommended by the advisory Wind Siting Council. The PSC's new siting standards became law on January 1.
Thousands of man-hours invested by communities in research, public hearings, and expert testimony were erased and replaced with some of the weakest standards Windaction.org has reviewed, especially for a State with a long history of turbine complaints filed by its residents. The most egregious of the rules involved setback distances (1250 feet as measured from to the outside wall of a residence or community building), noise limits (50 dBA during daytime hours and 45 dBA during nighttime hours) and shadow flicker (30 hours per year).
Last week, Wisconsin's new governor, Scott Walker entered the debate and like clockwork, AWEA had a fit.
In his proposed regulatory bill, Walker included a provision that increased turbine setbacks to 1800 feet from the property line.
"New regulation effectively bans wind energy projects in Wisconsin."
"One of the most onerous regulations we have seen."
"A shock to those of us in the wind industry."
"Wisconsin does not want our business."
You get the picture.
And there's no question the pitch will rise and the rhetoric will become even more extreme in the days ahead. We've seen it before from AWEA -- wild and unsubstantiated claims played over and over until the government blinks. And since the group has had some success with tantrums it's no surprise it doesn't bother to change tactics.
But Ms. Bode may want to check her facts on wind regulations. Setbacks of 1,800 feet are hardly the largest in the United States or worldwide. If projects in Wisconsin are unable to meet this limited standard then it could be the population density in the State is too high for safe wind development. But expecting AWEA to respond in a realistic and professional manner is probably asking too much.
Governor Walker has taken an important first step towards recognizing that the residents of Wisconsin deserve consideration. In an e-mail statement to media outlets in Wisconsin, Walker's spokesman Cullen Werwie said the proposal is aimed at "addressing concerns on wind energy policy that impact homeowners" and that "the proposed legislation, if enacted, will protect private property owners' rights."
Perhaps AWEA's members should remove their wind hats for a moment and at least try to imagine what it means to live in the shadows of the massive towers they're erecting. They might see that eighteen-hundred feet is still much too close.
[1] Larger projects, those greater than 100 megawatts, fell under the jurisdiction of the State's Public Service Commission.
Our wind industry video of the day ends with a question: What do these wind turbines sound like to you? Better Plan has listened and the narrator's suggestion of 'waves lapping against the shore' was not our first pick.
Click on the image below to watch a happy wind developer talk about his project. Note the lack of homes in this video. Also note the compression of the soil and other side effects of the heavy machinery required during turbine construction. Rock out to the guitars in the background.
OUR REALITY VIDEO OF THE DAY
Life with turbines: Click on the image below to hear the turbine noise from a wind project home in DeKalb, Illinois. Recorded December 17th, 2010
Safeguards needed to prevent population declines in the Whooping Crane and Greater Sage-Grouse, and reduce mass mortality among eagles and songbirds.
(LOS ANGELES) – Today, American Bird Conservancy announced that three iconic American bird species face especially severe threats from wind energy development.
“Golden Eagles, Whooping Cranes, and Greater Sage-Grouse are likely to be among the birds most affected by poorly planned and sited wind projects,” said Kelly Fuller, Wind Program Coordinator for American Bird Conservancy, the nation’s leading bird conservation organization.
“Unless the government acts now to require that the wind industry respect basic wildlife safeguards, these three species will be at ever greater risk.”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) currently estimates that more than 400,000 birds are already being killed each year after being struck by the fast-moving blades of wind turbines.
This figure is expected to rise significantly, and will likely eventually pass the million mark as wind power becomes increasingly ubiquitous under a Department of Energy plan to supply 20% of America’s power through wind by 2030.
Golden Eagles have already been one of the major victims of the largest wind farm in the United States at Altamont Pass in California. The Altamont wind farm was sited in an area that eagles and other raptors use to hunt ground squirrels and other small mammals.
Using the now-outdated towers as perches, thousands of raptors have been killed as they launch out through the spinning turbines towards their prey. While new tower designs have been developed, they don’t completely eliminate the risk.
Much of the additional wind build-out planned for the western U.S. is expected to occur in areas used by Golden Eagles.
A further threat to birds is expected to come from the major transmission line build-out required to service new wind farms. Large birds such as the endangered Whooping Crane can fail to see the wires in time and die after colliding with them. According to a recent FWS report, “The Great Plains states traversed by the Whooping Cranes during their fall and spring migrations are among the windiest states in the nation.
The best places for wind energy development in these states overlap to a large extent the Whooping Crane migration corridor, and many of these areas provide attractive stopover sites. Thus, the potential for impacts to Whooping Cranes from future wind energy development is high.”
The threat to yet more birds comes not from collisions, but from loss of their habitat due to wind farm construction. The Greater Sage-Grouse is already reduced to a tiny fraction of its former range and population size due to degradation of sagebrush habitat in the West.
The proliferation of giant turbines looming over the habitat can cause birds to abandon remaining traditional breeding grounds. The total habitat footprint from wind farms is predicted to exceed 20,000 square miles by 2030, much of it in states such as Wyoming, one of the last remaining sage-grouse strongholds.
While the threat from wind development stands out for these three iconic American birds, it is by no means limited to a small handful of species. More than ten billion birds are estimated to migrate across the country each spring and fall, many at night.
Wind turbines will be an unexpected obstacle to these migrations. Plans to build a wind farm at Canada’s Point Pelee—a migration hotspot on the Great Lakes—were recently shelved due to a public outcry over the expected impact on songbirds, but other wind developments are planned along the U.S. side of the lakes, and in other areas through which migrating birds funnel, with as-yet uncalculated bird impacts.
While Whooping Cranes are protected under the Endangered Species Act and Golden Eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, most migratory birds are only protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which has seldom been enforced to prevent such mortality as is predicted as a result of wind development.
The Greater Sage-Grouse, meanwhile, currently receives no federal legal protection, though several states have stepped up to protect remaining core breeding areas. In the face of increasing wind development, realizing the potential for state agencies to do yet more will be important for this species.
“Without strong standards designed to protect birds through smart siting, technology, and mitigation programs, wind power will soon affect millions of birds. Given the subsidies paid to the wind industry by the government, many of the negative impacts to birds will be unwittingly funded by the American taxpayer,” said Fuller. “We understand the problem and we know the solutions. American Bird Conservancy supports wind energy, and some operators are already working to protect birds, but we need to make all wind power bird smart now before major build out occurs.”
HAMMOND – Is the Hammond Wind Committee nailing the coffin on the town’s chances of hosting an Iberdrola-owned wind farm?
The committee voted 9 to 1 Tuesday evening – with committee member and leaseholder, Michele W. McQueer, casting the lone dissenting vote – to adopt the controversial Residential Property Value Guarantee (RPVG) as a suggestion to the town board.
In a recent letter from Iberdrola Renewables to the committee, Mark Epstein, Esq., senior counsel, wrote, “We believe that if the Committee chooses to pursue the RPVG, it will prevent any development of windpower facilities in Hammond.”
Iberdrola Communications Manager Paul Copleman e-mailed the following statement on Wednesday: “We are disappointed in the Committee’s decision to recommend the Residential Property Value Guarantee in its current form. While we appreciate and welcome the Committee taking a close look at the concerns expressed by some community members, we have explained the significant and potentially prohibitive burden such a RPVG would place on both members of the community and any company wishing to open a business in Hammond.
“We look forward to continuing to work with the Committee, but most likely won’t reach any decision about the project’s viability until Hammond adopts zoning laws governing wind energy.”
The agreement, drafted by Richard K. Champney, committee member and real estate attorney, was reviewed over the past several weeks by all committee members, who offered their suggestions. Many members of the public were also considered, according to Mr. Champney, who said he had received a horde of phone calls and e-mails, none of which offered opposition to his proposal.
After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made by Merritt V. Young and seconded by Ronald R. Papke.
The revised document includes changes in Section 13, “Exclusive option of any residential property owner living within close proximity (two miles) to a wind turbine,” where a property owner has a once in a lifetime right to be reimbursed for his or her real property and five acres surrounding that residence at the then appraised value, if they follow the provisions listed in the document.
These provisions now include:
* Property owner must notify guarantor within 90 days of issuance of an industrial wind farm permit;
* Property owner must have been the legal owner of real property at the time permit was issued;
* Property owner and the guarantor will enter into a 30-day cooling off period where property owner discusses entering into a Good Neighbor Program and if it is not possible, they will continue to complete the agreement application;
* Guarantor will consider relocating wind turbine out of a two-mile radius of the property owner’s residence;
* If property owner and guarantor have not reached agreement within 60 days, the property owner orders a certified property appraisal that can be used as cost replacement value;
* If still no agreement, a second and/or even a third appraisal can be ordered which will then be averaged with the first to determine the final controlling value the property owner will receive as a buyout from the guarantor (wind company). This option cannot be used in conjunction with any future guarantee of the sale of a residence.
In further discussion before moving on to the next issue, there was mention made of a Good Neighbor Agreement that Iberdrola representative, Jenny Burke, had just made available to committee members which was apparently offered as an alternative to the RPVG.
Good Neighbor Agreements are made between non-participating land owners in the vicinity of wind turbines and the wind company, according to Ms. Burke, and can involve either monthly or annual payments in exchange for closer proximity. In response to a question from committee member, Frederick Proven, Ms. Burke said such agreements typically apply to anyone living within 3000 feet of a wind turbine but that it hadn’t been decided for this particular project because a turbine layout has not yet been established.
Mr. Champney said that a landowner could not apply for both agreements, as it would constitute “double dipping.” He said he would be willing to hold a complimentary workshop for landowners to help them understand the ramifications of a Good Neighbor Agreement.
Members discussed property management issues that included oversight of the wind project, decommissioning, and insurance and liability issues.
Board members also discussed the wind overlay district and attempted to clarify how it applies to the waterfront. Several committee members felt that rather than starting at Route 12, it should begin at the St. Lawrence River shoreline. This discussion will continue Tuesday at 7 p.m. in the Hammond Central School Library, with additional agenda items to include economics and tourism, setbacks and environmental issues.
An eight Mile Creek landowner is furious after learning his house would be within 750 metres of wind turbines if the proposed wind farm development goes ahead at Allendale East.
The Acciona Energy project has been temporarily stalled pending the outcome of a court decision after Allendale East dairy farmer Richard Paltridge opposed the development, standing alone in his battle against the company.
But in the past week, Paul Manning and his wife Kaeli have thrown their support behind Mr Paltridge — only to find out that up to 30 residents also share their objections, but chose to remain anonymous because they feared victimisation.
“We are a hard working young family — my partner has shed blood, sweat and tears to make that property what it is today,” Mr Manning told The Border Watch.
“She literally cried when she began to comprehend what the wind farm’s impact will have on our future plans, including the future development of our investment, our retirement, in terms of the potential for the property and the personal connection we have with it.”
According to Mr Manning, many of the landowners, including himself, do not live on their properties, but work interstate and were therefore ill-informed or excluded from a community consultation process about the $175m development.
He has joined the Concerned Residents Group fighting to have the consultation process re-opened.
“We are very disappointed and concerned at hearing about decisions and actions so detrimental to our family’s future,” Mr Manning said.
“The only previous communications we have received in regards to this very serious matter was a very simple and poorly copied generic pamphlet that was delivered nearly two years ago — we have received nothing since.”
“With gag orders on many of the neighbours and our current work interstate, we have heard little about the planning, design and impact of the wind farm.”
Mr Manning said the proposed wind farm added to other issues already looming over the community and causing them to lose confidence in Local Government.
“Through our recent investigations, one thing has become increasingly clear about the view the community has of the government at all levels,” he said.
“There is a real undercurrent of a no confidence vote brewing within the community due to the problems with the cray fishing season being shortened and all the forests and timber mills scheduled to be sold off to overseas interests — many jobs will be lost and the real talk is that the region will become a ghost town kept in a near death state by the humming and whirring of turbines — this has already been demonstrated at similar locations.”