Entries in wind farm property values (118)

12/26/10 Wind developers in, Residents---(at least the lucky ones)--out AND They're from the government, they're here to help (wind developers)

WIND BARGAINING

SOURCE: East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com

December 26 2010

By Erin Mills

As the mammoth Shepherd’s Flat wind farm makes a growing commotion on the hills above the Willow Creek valley, several residents are packing up or already gone.

“I told them I wouldn’t sign any noise easement unless they bought me out,” said Richard Goodhead, who retired with his wife, Joanne, to a 106-acre farm in the valley in 1997.

At first, Goodhead said, Patricia Pilz a representative from Caithness Energy — the company building Shepherd’s Flat — refused his proposal. She hoped he would take a $5,000 check and sign a noise waiver like some of his neighbors.

“She said, ‘We’re not in the real estate business,’” Goodhead said. “I said, fine — I’m not in the windmill business.”

A month and several negotiations later, the company changed its tune. The Goodheads signed a final purchase agreement this week with the New York-based company, selling their land and home for $800,000.

The Goodheads made a killing, according to the Gilliam County assessor’s office. A clerk reported their manufactured home and farm has a real market value of $167,110.

No Caithness representative, including Pilz, responded to the East Oregonian’s repeated phone calls for this story. However, Pilz told a New York Times reporter last summer that Caithness does not change the “market price” for a noise waiver, because that would be unfair.

The Goodheads tell a different story; they say Caithness offered them several deals before it caved to their request for a buyout. One was $6,000 every year for about 20 years, another was the proceeds from one nearby turbine. All the offers required the Goodheads to sign a waiver allowing noise levels of up to 50 adjusted decibels at their residence.

Fifty adjusted decibels, or 50 dBA, is about the sound of a normal conversation in a room. Oregon’s industrial noise ordinance caps the allowable decibels for a wind farm at nearby residences at 36 dBa or 10 dBA above a measured ambient noise level.

The company that owns the wind farm to the south of Shepherd’s Flat, Invenergy, and its neighbors have fought over the noise rule for several months. The county planning commission heard hours of testimony and both parties appealed its decision to the county court twice. The issue still isn’t resolved; the next hearing will be sometime in January.

By buying noise easements, Caithness hopes to avoid a similar dispute. But the Goodheads are among those who don’t want to live next to a wind farm for any price. Joanne Goodhead pointed out that the jury is still out on the health effects of turbines. The Oregon Public Health Office recently held “listening sessions” around the state to hear residents’ concerns. The wind industry maintains that turbines are perfectly safe.

The Goodheads also wonder what will become of the valley’s wildlife. The area’s antelope population has noticeably declined since the Willow Creek wind farm came, they said. And a curlew nesting area will soon be surrounded by turbines.

“Everyone is rolling over and playing dead for (the wind companies), it’s amazing,” Joanne Goodhead said. “Anything that’s quoted as ‘green’ is OK, whether it is or not.”

The other side of the story, of course, is how profitable Shepherd’s Flat will be for landowners and the county. Now a growing network of roads and concrete slabs, Shepherd’s Flat is already providing much-needed employment for an area suffering from the recession. During the construction phase, it will employ an average of 500 people. Upon completion, 35 will work at the farm full-time.

Once its 338 turbines are up and running, Shepherd’s Flat will begin paying property taxes. According to its tax arrangement with counties, called a strategic investment plan, it will pay more than $5 million to Gilliam County and more than $2 million to Morrow County every year for the next 15 years.

Thanks to Shepherd’s Flat, a handful of landowners will retire in style. Industry insiders say they are paid up to $15,000 per turbine per year.

Other neighbors of Shepherd’s Flat who have sold their homes are Clyde and Alicia Smith and Arman and Sandra Kluehe. The Kluehes got less than they feel their home was worth, but they’re not complaining. They learned of Shepherd’s Flat shortly after relocating from the Willamette Valley and never relished the thought of living across a narrow valley from a forest of turbines. When Pilz offered them the $5,000, they turned her down.

The Kluehes put their house on the market, but after months of no bites, they grew resigned. They continued to upgrade their home, installing a pellet stove and a sprinkler system for their new trees. They painted the house’s trim. The painter was just finishing up one day when their real estate agent called. He said a buyer was ready to pay full price, cash, for the Kluehe’s house.

They wavered for a moment — they had just invested nearly $20,000 — but the agent said they could not back down or the buyer could sue.

“I just looked at my husband and said, ‘We don’t really have an option,’” Sandra Kluehe remembered. “We had five weeks, maybe six, to find a house and get out. It was very stressful.”

The buyer was a Portland-based lawyer. A quick dig on the Internet revealed the lawyer worked for Caithness. Sandra Kluehe found out later the purchaser was actually a local landowner involved in the wind farm.

The Kluehes now live in Redmond, near Smith Rock State Park, where no wind turbines are allowed.

“It feels like a burden has been lifted from our shoulders,” Arman Kluehe said. “There’s like an oppression in that valley.”

SECOND FEATURE---

Energy Dept. Approves $1.3 Billion Loan for World’s Largest Wind Farm
 

SOURCE: allgov.com

Sunday, December 26, 2010

By Noel Brinkerhoff

Energy Dept. Approves $1.3 Billion Loan for World’s Largest Wind Farm
GE Wind Turbines

Northern Oregon is set to host the world’s largest wind farm, now that the U.S. Department of Energy has decided to provide Caithness Energy’s Shepherds Flat project with a $1.3 billion loan guarantee. Once constructed near Arlington, Oregon, the farm will feature nearly 340 wind turbines that can generate 845 megawatts of power.
 
Currently, the largest wind farm is in Texas, where the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center puts out 735.5 megawatts.
 
Caithness Energy and GE Energy Financial Services, which are jointly behind the project, say it will employ 400 workers during construction and 35 workers during operation. The wind farm also will help prevent more 1.2 million tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere by fossil-fuel energy plants, according to the companies.
 
The energy produced by the wind farm will be purchased by Southern California Edison to provide power for about 235,000 homes for twenty years.

12/10/10 Watch the PSC weaken the wind siting rules by clicking on the image below AND a letter from Rep. Bies regarding news rules AND Madison Knows Best: PSC's new rules deliver a multi-million dollar candy-gram to wind developers and a stinging slap in the face to rural Badgers 

A letter from Representative Bies regarding the wind rules:

December 9, 2010

The Honorable Jeff Plale, Senate Chairperson
Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail
State Capitol, Room 313 South
Madison, WI 53702
 
The Honorable James Soletski, Assembly Chairperson
Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities
State Capitol, Room 21 North
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, WI 53708
 
Chairmen Plale and Soletski,
 
I am writing to you today to request that you formally object to Clearinghouse Rule 08-070.  I have reviewed the changes made by the Public Service Commission and it appears the changes that were made did nothing to address the serious concerns raised by many people including me about the effects of these rules.
 
Among these concerns are the potentially unconstitutional takings of land rights from property owners adjacent to wind projects who will be unable to use or develop significant portions of their property, the reduction of local home values, the possible detrimental health effects from noise and shadow flicker, and the removal of any substantive local control over these projects.  
 
For these and other reasons I am requesting that you object to the proposed rule prior to December 22, 2010 so that it may be taken up by the Joint Committee on Review of Administrative Rules.  

Thank you,
 
GAREY BIES
State Representative
1st Assembly District

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

The PSC delivered a multi-million dollar gift to wind developers by unanimously approving rules which made siting turbines even easier than they first proposed, shocking many rural Badgers whose lives will be directly affected once these rules are adopted.

Changes include decreasing setbacks from homes from 1500 feet to a setback distance that will be  3.1 the turbine height or 1250 feet which ever is the lesser. So a 500 foot tall turbine gets the same setback as a 400 foot turbine.

Chairman Callisto was convinced that a turbine that is 100 feet taller with a wider blade span than the current 400 foot turbines will somehow be quieter, thus eliminating the need for a longer setback.

What he based this assumption on is unknown. Better Plan believes it's based on the assurances from wind developers who need to place turbines that are 50 stories tall no more than 1250 feet from non-participating homes to insure a profitable project.

He did not address the issue of the how the new setbacks will increase hours of shadow flicker on a residence. Nor did he seem to care.

 The new rules also pamper wind developers by lowering payments to non-participating neighbors.

Sources tell Better Plan that the rules were immediately sent to the legislative committees who have ten business days to make a decision. If the committees do nothing, the rules will become automatically become law.

If the committee members object to the rules, they will be sent to a rules over-sight committee which could call for a hearing and then introduce a bill to stop the rules from being adopted.

According to our source, out-going Committee chairman Senator Jeff Plale (D), who heads the senate committee made it clear an objection of this sort unlikely.

However, we've also been told that committee member Senator Robert Cowles (R) has been frustrated with his interaction with the PSC regarding this matter. Sources say the PSC has been unresponsive to Senator Cowles concerns.

Senator Erpenbach (D) sent a detailed letter outlining the ways he'd like to see the rules strengthened to protect residents of wind projects in our state. This too was ignored by teh PSC.

The Wisconsin Towns Association also made it clear to the PSC that the original rules were not strong enough to protect rural residents and suggested changes.

Once again, ignored by the PSC.

The three Doyle-appointed members of the PSC not only paid no attention to these requests, they also ignored the hundreds of residents of our state who testified over the course of the rule-making process, and asked for more protection. The PSC also ignored local ordinances adopted by rural Towns which sought to protect its residents.

What the PSC did not ignore were wind developers wishes. By weakening the rules they have handed developers exactly what they wanted. The cost? No cost to the PSC but for rural Wisconsin residents the cost is health, safety and property values.

WHAT YOU CAN DO RIGHT NOW

You can call the committee members listed below and ask what their plans are regarding the new PSC rules.

Let them know the new rules are even less protective than the ones origially proposed and must be rejected because they will endanger the health, safety and property values of rural Wisconsin residents.

YOUR PHONE CALLS ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

Call early and call daily. Committee legislators need to hear from you, and you need to know what they intend to do about the new rules.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail:

Jeff Plale (D) Chair  608-266-7505   or 414-694-7379

Robert Wirch (D)  608-267-8979  or 262-694-7379

Jon Erpenbach (D) 608-266-6670  or 888-549-0027

Pat Kreitlow (D) 608-266-7511     

Robert Cowles (R) 608-266-0484 or 920-448-5092

Sheila Harsdorf (R) 608-266-7745                        

Neal Kedzie (R) 608-266-2635 or 262-742-2025

The Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities:

James Soletski  (D)  Chair  608-266-0485              

Josh Zepnick  (D)   608-266-1707  or 414-727-0841 

Anthony Staskunas  (D) 608-266-0620   414-541-9440

Jon Richards  (D)  608-266-0650    414-270-9898

John Steinbrink  (D) 608-266-0455     262-694-5863

Joe Parisi  (D) 608-266-5342                          

Ted Zigmunt (D) 608-266-9870                  

Michael Huebsch  (R) 608-266-0631                            

Phil Montgomery  (R) 608-266-5840  or 920-496-5953 

Mark Honadel  (R)  608-266-0610 or  414-764-9921 

Kevin Peterson (R)  608-266-3794                 

Rich Zipperer  (R)  608-266-5120                            

YOU CAN ALSO SEND AN EMAIL TO EACH OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

SENATE:

Sen.Plale@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Wirch@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Erpenbach@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Kreitlow@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Cowles@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Harsdorf@legiswisconsin.gov

Sen.Kedzie@legis.wisconsin.gov

ASSEMBLY

Rep.Zepnick@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Staskunas@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Richards@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Steinbrink@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Parisi@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Zigmunt@legis.wisconsin.gov,

Rep.Huebsch@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Montgomery@legis.wisconsin.gov,

Rep.Honadel@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Petersen@legis.wisconsin.gov,

Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov

12/6/10 Want to know what's going on with the Wind Siting Rules? So does Senator Erpenbach (D) who asks the PSC and gets a very vague reply AND Handcuffs for grandpa: What happened when a man in his 80s stood up to Big Wind AND New Jersey introduces bill that would require 2000 foot setback

LETTER FROM SENATOR JON ERPENBACH TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

REGARDING WIND SITING RULES

SOURCE: PSC DOCKET # 1-AC-231

November 30, 2010

Public Service Commission

Eric Callisto , Chairperson

Mark Meyer, Commissioner

Lauren Azar, Commissioner

PO Box 7854

Madison WI 53707-7854

Dear Commissioners Callisto, Meyer and Azar:

I am writing to today regarding Clearinghouse Rule # 10-057 – PSC Wind Siting Rules proposed Chapter 128.  Having voted for the rule’s return to the PSC with the majority of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail, I wanted to share some perspective as to why.

In the committee hearing that was held on October 13, 2010, we received a number of suggestions regarding the rules that resonated with committee members.  I am including copies of that testimony for your consideration and will summarily list them in outline fashion for your use.

  1. Wisconsin Towns Association Memo
    1. Setback of large wind turbines from nonparticipating residences – at a minimum having the setback from the property line of a nonparticipating property, not the residence.
    2. Decrease the maximum noise limits from 50 dBA during daytime and 45 dBA during nighttime hours.
    3. Eliminate the authority of PSC to approve lesser standards than the minimum standards to protect the public under PSC 128.02 (4) Individual Consideration
    4. Increase the 25% limit that a local government is allowed to require a large wind turbine  owner to compensate the owner of a nonparticipating residence.  PSC 128.33 (3) Monetary Compensation.
    5. Require the owner of the wind turbine to reimburse the emergency personnel who train them in safety and emergency procedures.  PSC 128.14 (4) (e) under Emergency Procedures
    6. Change of ownership should not be valid until the new owner has shown proof of compliance with all specific requirements of the original owner.
  1. Wisconsin Realtor Association
    1. Setback
    2. Attorney review of contracts
    3. Informational brochure for property owners
    4. Clarification that lease negotiators must have a WI Real Estate License
    5. Additional health impact research
    6. Time period for addressing complaints
    7. Define the term “affected” in “affected nonparticipating residence”
  1. DATCP 

     Incorporate the use of DATCP guidelines that intend to maintain the productivity of the farmland associated with wind energy projects.

  1. Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc.  & WI Potato & Vegetable Growers Assoc. Inc.

Address the concerns regarding aerial application of farmland and compensation for conflict that arises.

  1. The concerns raised by countless individuals that the health concerns or wind turbines are not being addressed adequately, that the setbacks need revision, that the “takings” issue needs to be addressed, that dBA levels need to be reduced both day and night, that shadow flicker must be addressed in the rule, that the health aspects of Wind Turbines have to be studied and taken into consideration.   I have not included the reams of paper that was shared with the committee by all of these individuals – I know much of it has already been shared with the PSC.

In closing, I think the above outline gives the Commission a number of particular issues to re-examine within the rule. 

I would be happy to discuss further the return of the rule by the Senate Committee with the Commission.

Sincerely,

JON ERPENBACH

State Senator

27th District

JE.tk

REPLY FROM ERIC CALLISTO, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

December 3, 2010

Dear Senator Erpenbach,

Thank you for sharing your concerns and comments regarding the wind siting rules. We appreciate the summary you provided us and will take all comments into consideration when deciding upon modifications that the Commission plans to take up at an open commission meeting soon.

Eric Callisto
Chairperson

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Why won't Public Service Commission Chairman Eric Callisto tell Senator Erpenbach exactly when the open meeting regarding the wind siting rules will take place?

Certainly Chairman Callisto knows exactly when this meeting will happen. Why give such a vague reply to a state senator?

For those of us watching this issue, it's important to note that Better Plan has been told that the calendar of events on the PSC website is not an official posting place for such meetings so the PSC website calendar is exempt from the 24 hour notice prior to a public meeting that is required by law.

Better Plan has been unable to find the official posting place for the meetings apart from the entry way of the PSC building in Madison.

For many of us, a daily drive to Madison to check the posting at the PSC isn't possible.

Better Plan is concerned that the PSC is purposefully being vague about the date and time of this meeting and urges you to call the PSC daily to find out when this meeting will take place and ask for an agenda.

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
610 North Whitney Way. P.O. Box 7854
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7854
Phone:(608)266-5481
General Toll Free:(888)816-3831
TTY:(608)267-1479
Fax:(608)266-3957
URL:http://psc.wi.gov/

SECOND FEATURE:

AN 82-YEAR-OLD GOT TIRED OF SPITTING INTO THE WIND, WENT OUT ON A LIMB

SOURCE: The Portland Press Herald, www.pressherald.com

December 6 2010

Donald Smith,

My name is Donald Smith. I am 82 years old and a native Mainer. I am a veteran and a grandfather. I was arrested and charged with criminal trespass at the Rollins Mountain wind project site in Lincoln on Nov. 8. Five of us formed a human barricade to the site.

Dozens of others braved the cold rainy November day to protest First Wind’s project.

Many people have asked me why I did this. Good question. I hope I give good answers.

The first reason is that nobody seems to be paying attention to the negative aspects of wind power — least of all the complacent and complicit media in Maine.

If we had just stood out there with signs, even the local reporter would likely have overlooked the event. putting myself on the line to dramatize why this project is so wrong, it caught the attention of media far and wide.

It seems that most people understand utility scale (or industrial) wind power superficially, accepting wind power as “green” and “clean” and the panacea for solving energy and climate challenges. It is the result of years of masterful propaganda by the wind industry.

ALL ABOUT SUBSIDIES

Some of us have actually done a lot of research into industrial wind and have found huge negatives. dramatically raising the visibility of the issue with the arrests, we are getting people to discover these negatives as the follow-up dialogue occurs.

I have gained insights from my research into industrial wind. The wind industry would not exist without massive government subsidies. For example, the US Energy Information Administration reports that in 2007, wind received $23.37 per megawatt hour in subsidies; the next highest subsidy was $1.59 for nuclear. Those are our tax dollars going into something that doesn’t work.

We are putting up wind turbines in places where there isn’t enough wind to generate electricity. Look at the NREL map of wind potential in Maine. The area around Lincoln Lakes is all white. Look at the color code and white means “poor.”

My guess is wind turbines are not about generating electricity, but about selling a carbon tax in the form of renewable energy certificates, raking in production tax credits, and having the taxpayers pay the cost of construction.

Another reason I got arrested is to protest the proliferation of these industrial wind projects. I retired to live a quiet life on Caribou Pond, with a view of Rollins Mountain. That ridge will have 15 turbines, each 389 feet high. The total number of turbines will be 40 on Rollins Mountain and the ridges of Rocky Dundee.

TOO DESTRUCTIVE TO BE GREEN

An acoustics expert stated that the noise from these turbines will negatively impact hundreds of people on the lakes and nearby country roads, the same well-documented noise problems that have been experienced at Mars Hill, Freedom and Vinalhaven.

I am not a NIMBY. I don’t believe these industrial machines belong anywhere in the rural landscape. Not in anyone’s yard — back, front or side.

The noise issue is just one of many. If you could see the destruction of Rollins Mountain taking place right now, you would never consider this a “green” project. The DEP would fine me if I moved a rock at my home, yet they approved ridges being blasted away and scalped. They will never be the same.

The Rollins project will blast away more than seven miles of ridges and clear-cut more than one thousand acres and install 20 miles of powerlines to tie into the grid.

That is for just one project. Without thinking through the ramifications, the Legislature in 2008 passed LD 2283, a horrible law to give favoritism to wind power. They chose an arbitrary figure of 2,700 megawatts of installed capacity by 2020, which at a generous actual output of 25 percent, ends up being just 675 megawatts of intermittent, unpredictable, unreliable power.

If Rollins is 60 megawatts, then it will mean 45 more projects like this to achieve the goal.

THE PRICE IS WAY TOO STEEP

Do the math. Based on the impact of Rollins, that means at least 315 miles of Maine ridges and mountains blasted away to install 1,800 turbines; 45,000 acres or more of carbon sequestrating forest permanently clear-cut; and 1,000 miles or more of new powerlines.

The price? Rollins’ price tag of $130 million times 45 is a staggering $5.85 billion.

Why did I get arrested? To help bring forth what a folly this is and how damaging it is to Maine’s environment. Wind power is bad economics and bad public policy. It is far from “green.” The negative impacts of these projects on the environment and our quality of place far outweigh the pittance of good they might do for the planet.

THIRD FEATURE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, SENATE, No. 2374, 214th LEGISLATURE

INTRODUCED NOVEMBER 8, 2010

Sponsored by:

Senator SEAN T. KEAN
District 11 (Monmouth)

Senator ANDREW R. CIESLA
District 10 (Monmouth and Ocean)

Co-Sponsored by:

Senator Gill

SYNOPSIS

Prohibits siting of industrial wind turbines within 2,000 feet of any residence or residentially zoned property.

AN ACT concerning wind energy and supplementing Titles 13 and 40 of the Revised Statutes.

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. a. The Legislature finds and declares that industrial-strength wind turbines can be over 400 feet tall and have blades that sweep up to 1.5 acres in area;

that, as a result of their size, these machines have the potential to obstruct scenic vistas, create large community eyesores, and reduce property values for nearby residents unless they are sited at appropriate distances from residential areas;

that recent developments in the area of wind power production have further indicated that the noise and vibration stemming from the operation of large-scale industrial wind turbines may cause nearby residents to suffer from a health condition known as “wind turbine syndrome,” which may result in sleep disturbance, headaches, ringing of the ears, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, racing heartbeat, irritability, problems with memory and concentration, and panic episodes accompanied by internal pulsation or quivering sensations; that people have moved away from their homes to avoid the ill effects associated with “wind turbine syndrome”;

and that medical, noise, and acoustics experts, as well as wind energy organizations, have indicated that incidents of “wind turbine syndrome” can be avoided if industrial-strength wind turbines are sited a considerable distance away from residential property.

b. The Legislature therefore finds that, in order to protect the public health and welfare, and in order to preserve the scenic vistas enjoyed by State residents and protect residents from unnecessary reductions in property value, it is both reasonable and necessary to prohibit the siting of industrial-strength wind turbines in or near residential areas.

2. a. No wind energy structure may be erected or installed in the State at a site that is closer than 2,000 feet from any residence or residentially zoned property.

b. No State entity may approve any plan, proposal, or permit application for a wind energy structure if that wind energy structure will be erected or installed at a site that is closer than 2,000 feet from any residence or residentially zoned property.

c. The provisions of this section shall apply only to wind energy structures erected or installed in the State subsequent to the effective date of this act.

d. As used in this section, “wind energy structure” means any on- or off-shore turbine, facility, farm, or other structure that is designed for the purpose of supplying electrical energy produced from wind technology, but shall not include a “small wind energy system,” as defined by section 1 of P.L.2009, c.244 (C.40:55D-66.12).

3. a. No municipal agency may approve any plan, proposal, or permit application for a wind energy structure if that wind energy structure will be erected or installed at a site that is closer than 2,000 feet from any residence or residentially zoned property.

b. The provisions of this section shall apply only to wind energy structures erected or installed in the State subsequent to the effective date of this act.

c. As used in this section, “wind energy structure” means any on- or off-shore turbine, facility, farm, or other structure that is designed for the purpose of supplying electrical energy produced from wind technology, but shall not include a “small wind energy system,” as defined by section 1 of P.L.2009, c.244 (C.40:55D-66.12).

4. This act shall take effect immediately.

STATEMENT

This bill would prohibit the siting of any industrial-strength wind energy production system within 2,000 feet of any residence or residentially zoned property. It would further prohibit any State entity or local government unit from approving a plan, proposal, or permit application for any industrial wind energy system that will be so sited.

The bill’s prohibitions are necessary in order to ensure that the increased use of wind energy in the State will not cause a significant obstruction of scenic views or reduction in home values for New Jersey residents, and, more importantly, will not cause New Jersey residents to suffer from the ill health effects associated with “wind turbine syndrome” – a condition that has been connected with the close placement of industrial-scale wind turbines to residential areas. Symptoms of “wind turbine syndrome” include sleep disturbance, headaches, ringing of the ears, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, racing heartbeat, irritability, problems with memory and concentration, and panic episodes accompanied by internal pulsation or quivering.

These symptoms, which are continuing in nature, often force people to move away from their homes. Experts on “wind turbine syndrome,” experts in noise and acoustics, and wind energy associations, however, have all indicated that instances of “wind turbine syndrome” can be avoided if industrial wind energy systems are sited a considerable distance away from residential housing.

Such distant siting would also alleviate potential problems associated with vista obstruction, and would ease the impact of industrial wind energy facilities on property values.

Consequently, in order to protect the public health and welfare, and preserve the State’s scenic vistas and residential property values, it is both reasonable and necessary to prohibit the erection of industrial wind energy facilities within 2,000 feet of any residential property.

It is important to note, however, that this bill would not apply to the siting of small wind energy systems that are used primarily for on-site consumption purposes. “Wind turbine syndrome” has been associated only with the residential placement of large-scale, industrial-strength wind turbines. Moreover, small, personal-use wind energy systems are not likely to cause significant vista obstruction or the reduction of surrounding property values, as is true of their larger, industrial counterparts.

Click here to download entire text of bill

11/12/10 From open arms to balled up fists: Getting to know the ways of Big Wind

Whitley County Residents Want Time To Debate Wind Farm
SOURCE:Indiana News Center

By Ryan Elijah

November 12, 2010

To St. Louis based Wind Capital Group, the farmland in Southern Whitley County symbolizes new energy opportunities. They have agreements in place with a number of landowners to construct 400-foot wind turbines on their property. The first phase of the plan would reportedly erect over 150 turbines, including 4 within 2500 feet of Jake Sherman's property.

"I'm not necessarily against this, I just want to make sure my family is safe, and that our property values don't go down", said Jake Sherman, Columbia City Resident.

We met with a dozen concerned residents, who didn't know about a public meeting last month. They just found out how the plans would impact their property.

They've organized a petition requesting a 6-month moratorium on plans, saying the community needs to be educated about possible problems including property values, noise and health concerns.

"They're doing a sales pitch and they're not going to tell you the negative. The side effects and health concerns are well documented We're not against the concept, all we want is more time to study it",
said Chad Shearer of Columbia City.

An official with Wind Capital Group told us much of the information on the internet is old. They say with new technology the turbines make very little noise and property values haven't been impacted in other areas. The company did confirm they've entered into agreements with a number of Whitley County landowners.

If approved, the wind farm would bring construction jobs and an estimated one million dollars per year to Whitley County. An owner with a unit on their property would also receive about 5-thousand dollars per year. We found members of a Wisconsin community who say they were misled by another company. Gerry Meyer's home has 4 turbines within 3300 feet and says the noise has changed his life.

A Chicago company called Invenergy owns the Wisconsin wind farm.
Meyer has kept a 2-year diary detailing sleepless nights, not to mention what's called a shadow flicker. The flicker is created at a certain time when the turbine's blades slice through the sunlight. He also took a cortisol test, which measures a stress hormone and the results came back a high level of 254, he was tested again after 21 days of the turbines being turned off and the result was a 35.

"it has completely taken away our quality of life and the life of others around us as well"

Meyer says he's embarrassed he trusted Wisconsin officials to do what was best for his community. Meyer also says a neighbors home took 13 months to sell recently and was sold for nearly $90,000 below its appraised value. He says he can hear a turbine from 3300 feet away, one reason he feels ordinances should require the setback from homes be much longer.

Like many counties, Whitley County doesn't have a wind ordinance and the Plan Commission has been crafting one for a number of months using 18 other community ordinances as a guide. The document is 18 pages and limits the turbines to 1200 feet from property lines and 50 decibels. Executive Director David Sewell says the commission is *not* approving the wind project, but putting regulations in place.
"They still will have to go through public hearings and rezoning.
They'll have an opportunity to present arguments", said Sewell.

If approved Wednesday night, the issue will move to the County Commissioners. Plan Commission member David Schilling is expected to abstain from the vote, since he reportedly has an agreement to place a wind turbine on his property.

Wind Capital says the process takes 3-4 years and the next step for them will be installing meteorological towers to test the wind in the area. It's expected they will receive federal tax dollars for the project.

Wind Capital says the industry setback standard is 1000 feet, that's what Wells County has approved, they hope to start construction of their wind farm in 2013.

SECOND FEATURE
THINGS AREN'T ALL THAT ROSY ON VINALHAVEN
SOURCE: The Portland Press Herald, www.pressherald.com
November 12 2010
Cheryl Lindgren

 

VINALHAVEN – A year ago, Fox Islands Wind began operating wind turbines on Vinalhaven Island. As a result, a community effort that began with eager anticipation is now tarnished.

As a neighbor of the wind turbine farm, this year has been a journey from hope to anger and disgust. Fox Islands Wind continues to misrepresent and mislead our community while using its authority to bully state regulators on the issue of violating noise standards.

Our experience has forced me to look into the deeper issues of industrial wind — the technology, the economics and the politics. It has been an uncomfortable journey that has changed my once honey-eyed vision of easy, green power to a view that industrial wind energy is, at present, bad science, bad economics and bad politics.

I add my voice to the growing number of Mainers who are demanding a moratorium on wind projects all over Maine.

Jonathan Carter, once an advocate for wind power, travels statewide to expose the arrogant destruction of mountaintops. David P. Corrington, a registered Maine Master Guide, has a new website, realwindinfoforme.org, that provides information about grid-scale industrial wind power development nationwide and industrial wind in Maine.

And there are the many voices of the residents of Camden, Montville, Bucksfield, Thorndike, Jackson and Dixmont who have repelled the efforts to locate windmills in their towns.

These voices, and countless others, are shouting truth in response to the half-truths, misrepresentations and distortions of wind developers.

Wind energy proponents continue to demand that we provide them with unprecedented resources and that we waive basic, traditional rights to discussion and debate.

They undermine local autonomy, enjoyment of property, and health and safety. They thumb their noses at environmental compliance and demand that citizens forgo normal, time-honored mechanisms of due process.

So, we must ask a simple question: How many more years will citizens be expected to pay, and what rights will we have to surrender, to benefit an unproven technology and the smoke-and-mirror economics that seem to be the foundation of industrial wind?

George Baker, vice president for community wind at the Island Institute and CEO of Fox Islands Wind, must be held responsible for the damages inflicted on our community. His Island Institute website says, “We will demonstrate how wind projects in the coastal area can be sited without adverse environmental and aesthetic impacts, and provide long-term economic benefits for local residents.”

Their failure to demonstrate success has placed our quiet community on the front pages of the nation’s top newspapers, including The New York Times.

How can the institute’s formula of 70 percent acceptance be deemed a success? What happens to the other 30 percent of us? Dismissed? Excused? Collateral damage?

Where do our neighbors find the money that has been stolen from them in lowered property values that they will never be able to recover? What happens with the increasing medical bills that families must shoulder from the stress of living with days filled with tortuous light flicker and sleepless nights of low-frequency rumblings?

How can the Island Institute justify Fox Islands Wind’s preposterous use of the ridiculous efforts of the National Renewable Energy Laboratories, compiling data from summer residents with an experiment that started in October?

How can anyone call this past year a success when Fox Islands Wind refuses to share financial information to show exactly where the purported savings are coming from and what the projections for the next several years might be?

I know that the Baker/Island Institute strategy is to wear the neighbors down. That is not going to happen. It gives us strength to know that, while Baker, the Island Institute and their cronies congratulate themselves in their boardrooms, they should be aware the nation is watching them with a jaundiced eye.

After this long year I can only shake my head and say: Shame on the Island Institute, shame on Fox Islands Wind, shame on all the other wind projects that are changing the face of Maine for the profit of a few ex-governors, ex-public utility chairmen and ex-Harvard professors.

Cheryl Lindgren is a member of Fox Islands Wind Neighbors, a group of concerned residents working toward responsible renewable energy on Vinalhaven.

THIRD FEATURE:

WIND TURBINES FORCE GLENBRAE FAMILY OUT OF HOME

SOURCE:The Courier, www.thecourier.com.au
November 12 2010
BRENDAN GULLIFER

 

Glenbrae farming couple Carl and Sam Stepnell walked away from their nine-year-old home last week, claiming turbines near their property were making them sick.

Mr Stepnell, 39, said the family had bought a second home in Ballarat, and now return to the property during the day to run the family farm.

“Our parents are in their seventies and live at the other end of the place,” Mr Stepnell said yesterday.

“For Dad to pull over at the shed, come over here and have a cuppa… and his grand kids aren’t here.

“The heart and soul has gone out of our home, which was us and our kids.”

Mrs Stepnell, 37, said she began to suffer symptoms immediately after turbines were turned on near her house 14 months ago.

“I’ve never suffered anything like it before,” she said.

“Instant pressure in the ears and in the head, inability to sleep.

“The trouble is that it is not like a broken arm or leg. You can’t see it.

“Some nights the noise was unbearable. You cannot relax. You can’t get to sleep.”

Mr Stepnell said he suffered symptoms more slowly than his wife, but after eight months he was regularly experiencing heart palpitations, “weird sensations.

“It just didn’t feel right,” he said.

The couple built their home nine years ago on the family farm.

They said they conferred with their doctor but felt there was no other option but to move out.

Mr Stepnell said all symptoms had immediately abated since they stopped sleeping at their Lobbs Road home.

He said they had declined to have wind turbines on their property when the wind farm was being planned because they were aware of alleged health problems.

The Waubra Wind Farm comprises 128 wind turbines, about 35kms north west of Ballarat.

Earlier this year the federal government’s National Health and Medical Research Council found no published scientific evidence linking wind turbines with illness.

FOURTH  FEATURE:

GAGGED PROPERTY OWNERS URGED TO GIVE EVIDENCE

SOURCE The Courier, www.thecourier.com.au

November 12 2010 

BRENDAN GULLIFER,

Property owners gagged by wind turbine companies will be able to give evidence to a Federal Senate inquiry.

Family First Senator Steve Fielding was in Glenbrae yesterday to encourage locals to make submissions to the inquiry into the social and economic impact of wind farms in rural areas.

Standing against a backdrop of rotating Waubra wind turbines, Senator Fielding said it would be a “real concern” if anyone was gagged from coming forward on the issue.

“Clearly people in this region, in Waubra and beyond, haven’t been heard and this is your chance to have your say,” Senator Fielding told a group of about 20 residents.

“I don’t know of any other country at the federal level having an inquiry like this.

“If a confidential agreement has been made you have to honor that as well, but it would be a shame not to hear views in a way that doesn’t reveal details.”

Under Senate inquiry rules, a person is prohibited from inducing another person to refrain from giving evidence.

Senate inquiries also carry Parliamentary privilege and evidence may be given confidentially.

It is understood further advice is being sought in relation to confidentiality agreements signed with wind farm companies, and Senator Fielding said he will make further investigations into the matter.

The meeting was held at the former home of Carl and Sam Stepnell.

Mr and Mrs Stepnell and their three children relocated to Ballarat last week due to claimed adverse health effects from living in close proximity to turbines.

“We couldn’t handle it any more,” Mr Stepnell said after the meeting. “All the symptoms…”

Mr Stepnell said the house had five turbines located within a kilometre.

Meanwhile, the Clean Energy Council was in Ballarat this week with a report confirming that noise from wind farms does not have any adverse health effects.

FIFTH FEATURE:

SYMPOSIUM DELIVERS FACTS ON WIND ENERGY

SOURCE: http://countylive.ca/blog/?p=7647

November 11, 2010

by Henri Garand,  Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC)

The First International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects, held this past weekend in Picton, brought together American, British and Canadian acousticians, physicists, physicians, and medical researchers. The audience came from across Ontario and the United States and from as far as Australia.

Our understanding of how wind turbines can affect human health is steadily increasing. Since the facts often contradict the Ontario government’s and wind industry’s claims, it may be useful to clarify the current state of knowledge.

1. Claim: Ontario’s regulations are the best in the world.

FACTS: Orville Walsh, CCSAGE chair and APPEC vice president, studied government regulations in every country hosting wind turbines. The standards differ widely and most are based on noise, not setback distances. Ontario’s noise level is 40 dbA, measured outside a home. Countries, like Germany, with lower levels cite either 35 dbA or +3 dbA above ambient sound. Night time ambient sound in a rural area is typically 30 dbA or less. (On the dbA scale, the ear can detect a difference of +/- 2-3 decibels and perceives 10 decibels as a doubling of sound.)

2. Claim: The sounds heard from wind turbines are no louder than whispers or a refrigerator.

FACTS: Dr. John Harrison, a physicist, explained that wind turbine sounds, especially the “swoosh,” are different because of their amplitude and can exceed the 40 dbA regulatory limit because turbine sitings are based on computer models, not live measurements. Moreover, turbine noise is not masked by natural sounds and can sometimes be perceived over great distances. Depending on weather conditions and cloud cover, a large installation of wind turbines, such as those planned for Lake Ontario, could emit over 40 dbA of noise as far as 9-15 km away.

3. Claim: Wind Turbines do not produce low-frequency sound.

FACTS: Acoustician Rick James exhibited spectrograms of the sound coming from land-based wind turbines in which the low-frequency component was substantial and could be measured more than 5 km away. He also compared the symptoms of people suffering from “Wind Turbine Syndrome” to the identical symptoms reported in the 1970’s and 80s by those working in so-called “sick buildings.” The latter problem was eventually identified as due to infra low-frequency sound (ILFN) transmitted through ducting.

4. Claim: People cannot detect infrasound.

FACTS: Dr. Alex Salt, a physiologist, described his recent research findings in which parts of the inner ear reacted visibly to infrasound. His research shows that the ear does respond to low-frequency sound even though we do not perceive it as sound. Further research will be required to understand how these impulses are transmitted to the brain, with possible disturbance and detrimental effects.

5. Claim: Complaints about wind turbine noise indicate annoyance, which is harmless.

FACTS: Dr. Arline Bronzaft, a noise researcher, explained how daytime transit noise near a New York City public school went well beyond annoyance and affected students’ academic achievement. The effects of noise disturbance are not restricted to nighttime, and the effects of noise on children can be profound, impacting development.

6. Claim: Wind turbine noise is harmless.

FACTS: Dr. Christopher Hanning, a specialist in Sleep Medicine, explained how noise can disrupt the sleep patterns necessary for health and how loss of sleep affects memory and thinking, and can lead in the long term to risks of diabetes and heart disease.

Dr. Nina Pierpont, a physician and researcher and author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, explained how auditory systems react to sound and the negative effects of wind turbine sound on the patients she has studied.

7. Claim: Wind turbine noise affects few people seriously.

FACTS: Dr. Michael Nissenbaum reported on his studies of people living near wind projects in Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, Maine. Both studies indicate that residents within 2 km and beyond, compared to a control group outside the project areas, suffered serious sleep disturbance and stress.

8. Claim: Wind turbines are safe because no peer-reviewed studies prove otherwise.

FACTS: Dr. Carl Phillips, an epidemiologist, explained that clinical reports around the world are sufficient evidence of adverse health effects and that wind industry denials reflect misunderstanding of the stages of scientific inquiry and the value of peer review.

9. Claim: Wind development serves the public good.

FACTS: Carmen Krogh, board member of the Society for Wind Vigilance, applied the concept of social justice to public health and presented testimonies from Ontario, Germany, and Japan of people suffering from wind projects. Ontario rural residents are dismayed, to put it mildly, that every government agency has ignored their plight.

10. Claim: Ontario’s Green Energy Act is unchallengeable.

FACTS: Lawyer Eric Gillespie outlined the legal actions Ontario residents can take against wind development, including the appeal process for the Ministry of Environment’s Renewable Energy Approval of projects. Appeals, however, must meet a high standard by proving that harm to health is serious or harm to the environment is both serious and irreversible. By contrast, the Ian Hanna case has only to prove scientific uncertainty about the harm to human health.

11. Claim: Wind development saves lives by closing coal-burning electricity plants.

FACTS: Economist Dr. Ross McKitrick reported that Ontario’s air pollution has declined steadily since the 1960s and that, according to data from government measuring stations, coal-related emissions are no more than one part per billion. Statistics of 250 to 9,000 Ontario deaths annually related to coal burning are based on dubious computer models from elsewhere; they are not founded on actual certificates of death. There is simply no problem on which wind energy development could have a positive effect.

12. Claim: Wind Energy Development is a solution to the Need for Electricity.

FACTS: Journalist Robert Bryce, author of Power Hungry: The Myths of Green Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, described society’s need for reliable electric power, not intermittent, variable wind energy. Since there is no technology for mass storage of electricity, the power produced from wind cannot contribute substantially to electricity supply, let alone replace base load.

Considering the adverse health effects and practical limitations of wind energy, how is it that wind development remains so popular? The answer lies in twenty years of social marketing, environmental fears, and the false economic hope of green jobs. The Symposium should make everyone question what the Ontario government and wind industry would like us to believe.
 

11/11/10 What $18,000 a year will buy you: a family in turmoil and a community torn apart AND What part of Conflict of Interest don't you understand?

WIND FARM BACKERS FACE A LONG, COLD WINTER OF DISCONTENT

SOURCE: WBAY-TV, www.wbay.com

November 10, 2010 By Jeff Alexander,

It could be months before a decision is reached about a controversial plan to build what would be the state’s largest wind farm in southern Brown County.

Tensions are rising in the communities of Morrison, Hollandtown, and Wrightstown. The battle lines are drawn, and have been for a year now, throughout the farm lands.

“The fight is not over in my mind — or in reality. It’s not over,” Jon Morehouse said.

Morehouse leads a group of more than 200 residents opposing a plan by a Chicago-based company to erect 100 wind turbines.

The state’s Public Service Commission and lawmakers will have the final say, but Morehouse says he was told by several lawmakers Wednesday it could be spring before a decision is made.

But that’s not what Roland Klug is hearing. Klug says he’s already receiving money from a contract he signed to have two turbines on his property.

He says a project engineer told him construction will start soon.

“In the winter they’ll start getting the roads in and things, and I hope by next year this time they should be up,” Klug said.

Late Wednesday afternoon Action 2 News received word from the Public Service Commission that it’s still waiting for the wind farm developer, Invenergy, to complete its application for the project. The PSC says Invenergy withdrew its original application.

While Klug stands to make $18,000 a year for the use of his land, it’s coming at a cost. “My own kids don’t talk to me. It’s really hard.”

The wind turbine debate has become so heated and divisive here in southern Brown County, the principal of Morrison Zion Lutheran School says staff recently imposed a moratorium on students discussing the topic during school.

As residents wait for final word, opinions become stronger and wounds grow deeper.

“I think anything can be healed, but it has to be talked about,” Morehouse said.

But even that hasn’t helped so far.

SECOND FEATURE

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Below, another news story regarding the issue of conflict of interest between members of local government who have the power to push a wind project through and the wind developers who offer them lucrative contracts to help make this happen. This scenario is being played out in communities all over North America, including here in the Badger state.

While creating rules governing the siting of wind turbines, Wisconsin's  Public Service Commission had an opportunity to provide language which would protect communities from such conflicts of interest. The Public Service Commission declined to do so.

TEMPERS FLARE AT MEETING IN CAPE VINCENT: OPPONENT OF WIND CLAIMS BOARD ACTED ILLEGALLY

SOURCE: Watertown Daily Times, www.watertowndailytimes.com

November 11, 2010 

by Nancy Madsen, Times Staff Writer,

CAPE VINCENT — A Planning Board meeting devolved into physical confrontation between an opponent of industrial wind power projects in the town and Chairman Richard J. Edsall.

At the beginning of the meeting Wednesday night, Mr. Edsall asked for approval of the board’s minutes from a previous meeting.

Hester M. Chase, a community wind project supporter but opponent of the two industrial-scale projects, stood and said the board was not acting legally. The board’s bylaws say public comments “shall be received prior to the conduct of the regular business agenda.”

“We have the right to make comment,” she said. “We’re going to start getting our rights straight.”

The board members turned toward each other and spoke, apparently approving the minutes from Oct. 13. It is unclear whether they also approved minutes from an Oct. 27 meeting with Acciona Wind Energy USA, developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm. During the Oct. 27 meeting, the board accepted a list of what remained to be done for a complete site plan from the developer.

That meeting was stopped for an hour by wind power opponents protesting action by the board, which has three members who have conflicts of interest with Acciona or BP Alternative Energy, the other wind developer in the town.

Ms. Chase had a different version of the minutes that included the topic of the protest and said the board had proceeded with the meeting while the audience was unaware of its actions.

“They’re so fraudulent that I just felt they should be corrected,” she said after Wednesday’s meeting. “The bylaws permit the public to speak before regular business is conducted and I wanted to correct those minutes.”

Ms. Chase said frustration at having unanswered questions on setbacks on wind farms and what the board will allow the developers to do led to her actions. The Planning Board has decided on rules to govern the approval process that include allowing two public hearings with comments limited to people who live within one-half mile of the project, she said.

“I was just stunned at how cavalierly or arbitrarily they were making things up,” she said. “I had held onto the hope that they were truly going to do right by their community. I see that they seem to be fulfilling loyalty roles to BP and Acciona, I guess.”

On Wednesday night, Mr. Edsall opened a public hearing on a subdivision without addressing Ms. Chase’s concerns.

“Mr. Edsall, you are out of order,” Ms. Chase said.

The public hearing, he said, was for comments on the subdivision only.

“These people have the right to due process,” Mr. Edsall said.

“How can you make decision on anything if the board is corrupt?” asked Michael R. Bell, Cape Vincent.

Mr. Edsall responded, “These people have followed the rules.”

The board held public hearings and voted on two subdivisions. The three members, Mr. Edsall, Andrew R. Binsley and George A. Mingle, did not have maps available to act on a third subdivision.

Mr. Edsall then told wind opponents that if they wanted to talk about wind power development, the earliest the board would hold a meeting on it would be February.

He then asked to adjourn the meeting.

“You cannot do that,” Ms. Chase spoke up. “You are despicable. You approved the minutes, which are totally, totally false.”

She moved toward the dais and began passing papers to the board members.

Mr. Edsall said, “When we have a wind meeting, you can talk about wind.”

Mr. Bell said, “It’s about procedure — this is about procedure.”

Ms. Chase said, “You just lied to the whole community.”

As Mr. Edsall moved off the dais, she stood between the desk and a table. She appeared to bump into him. Mr. Edsall threatened to call the police if she touched him again.

She said he bumped into her.

“Will you get out of my way?” he asked.

She refused, but eventually let him pass. As the board members left, some members of the public berated them for passing the minutes. About a third of the audience consisted of wind power supporters. Some of them told the vocal opponents to back down.