Entries in wind farm setbacks (66)

1/18/11 Hot off the Press! Walker's Bill AND But they said it would be only as loud as a refrigerator AND Wind developers: Do they have what it takes to take what you have? Unless Walker's bill passes, the answer is yes AND from our "What the ---" department: Anti-local government wind lobbyist spins Walker bill as anti-local government 

HOT OFF THE PRESS!!!

CLICK HERE to download Governor Walker's bill which includes a proposal to increase setbacks between wind turbines and property lines.

Click on the images above to hear the sound of wind turbines in DeKalb County, IL. The top video was recorded yesterday.

Who is losing sleep because of wind turbine noise? The video above was shot from the home of this family.

This is the family, these are the children now living with the noise from poorly sited industrial turbines. You can read about what has happened to their lives since the turbines went on line by CLICKING HERE to visit their website

 

Note from the BPWI research nerd: While the 1800 foot setback from property lines proposed in Governor Walker's bill will not solve the the problem of wind turbine noise or shadow flicker it will provide much more protection for Wisconsin residents than the PSC's recent adoption of wind-developer-friendly rules, and make it more difficult for developers to site projects without the consent of the people who will be living with the turbines.

This is why wind developers and national and local lobbyists are pushing hard to make sure this bill does not pass.

WHAT YOU CAN DO RIGHT NOW TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE BADGER STATE

Please support Governor Walker's effort to increase industrial wind turbine setbacks to 1800 feet from from property lines. This setback will protect your right to build and plant trees on your land.

Current PSC rules allow turbines to be as close as 410 feet from your property line. They also prohibit you from building anything within 1250 feet of a wind turbine located on your neighbor's property. This turns portions of your land into a no-build and no-tree zone even though the turbine is not on your property. Some have long argued that this constitutes a 'taking' of your property.

Without the wind company's permission, one family in the We Energies Blue Sky Green Field wind project in Fond du Lac County can't build a long-planned attached garage onto their home because of wind turbines on their neighbor's farmland. Families who intended to build on their own land or add onto their homes are not be able to do so because of turbines located just 400 feet from their property lines. 

A wind developer prospecting in Rock County expressed his feelings about impact to non participating property owners this way: "There are always winners and losers in any project."

 Better Plan encourages you to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for including a more protective setback in this proposed bill than that created by the Public Service Commission. We also urge you to contact your senator and representative right away to ask them to support this important bill.

 CONTACT Governor Scott Walker govgeneral@wisconsin.gov
115 East Capitol
Madison WI 53702
(608) 266-1212 

CONTACT Legislators  

Who Are My Legislators?  To find out, CLICK HERE

Senate | Members | E-Mail Directory

Assembly | Members | E-Mail Directory

From our "What the ---? department:
 

“This unreasonable proposal is a steamroller driven by anti-wind special interests, like realtors, bent on denying local governments the ability to decide what’s in their best interests,” said Vickerman.-

SOURCE: Alternative Energy Press Releases

Michael Vickerman worked hard to help pass a bill which stipped all local government in our state of the power to enact ordinances regulating wind siting in their communities and also overturned local wind ordinances. He is a PSC appointed member of Wisconsin's Wind Siting Council and in 2010 was a registered and paid lobbyist for RENEW Wisconsin whose clients include Alliant Energy, ATC, We Energies, MG&E, North American Hydro, WPPI, and major wind developers  such as Invenergy, EnXco, Horizon Wind, Emerging Energies and other wind developers with projects pending in our state. [SOURCE]-

UPDATE: Although registered as a lobbyist in the past, Mr. Vickerman's name does not appear on the most recent list of 2011 lobbyists for RENEW Wisconsin. CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE

 Here's the most recent press release written by Michael Vickerman

RENEW Wisconsin: Walker’s wind siting proposal strips local control

1/18/2011

More information
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Mandating by statute an extreme setback distance for commercial wind turbines, Governor Scott Walker’s wind siting proposal would strip local governments of their ability to negotiate lesser setback distances with wind developers, according to RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide renewable energy advocacy group.

Walker’s proposal would require a setback distance between a turbine and neighboring property line of 1,800 feet, which can be shortened only by an agreement between the project owner and owners of adjoining properties, entirely bypassing towns and counties.

Walker’s proposal would eliminate the ability of local governments to attract wind developments that would generate revenues in lieu of taxes to help buffer the expected cuts to local governments in the upcoming state budget.

A story in the Fond du Lac Reporter on January 12 quoted town and county officials as saying the wind project revenue helped save on property taxes by filling the gap between rising municipal expenses and declining state-paid shared revenue dollars.

“We’ve seen five towns in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties enter into joint development agreements specifying reasonable setback distances because town officials wanted to capture the economic benefits of hosting wind projects larger than 50 megawatts,” Vickerman said.

The statewide siting rule, approved by the Public Service Commission (PSC) and set to take effect March 1, preserved local government authority to specify less restrictive conditions. “This unreasonable proposal is a steamroller driven by anti-wind special interests, like realtors, bent on denying local governments the ability to decide what’s in their best interests,” said Vickerman.

SOURCE: http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=223600

How big are those blades again? CLICK ON the image below to see turbine blades being transported by train.

EXTRA CREDIT READING:

Where is Ex-Governor Doyle working now?

CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT

AND.... Extra credit question: WHY ARE GOLDWIND EMPLOYEES DANCING IN A CHINESE WIND FARM?  COULD IT BE THE U.S.  STIMULUS DOLLARS? To read more about it, CLICK HERE

1/16/11 Wind Farm Strong Arm Now Includes Shoving and Stealing AND For some Wisconsin reporters the rule is: if a wind lobbyist says it's so, no fact checking required! And if "wind energy insiders" say it, PRINT IT! And please do not mention that landowners can sign off on the proposed setbacks and have turbines much closer if they wish. That's too much (accurate) information.  

WHY ARE GOLDWIND EMPLOYEES DANCING IN A CHINESE WIND FARM?  COULD IT BE THE U.S.  STIMULUS DOLLARS?. To read more about it, CLICK HERE

CLICK ON THE IMAGE ABOVE TO WATCH A TV NEWS REPORT ON NEW WIND SETBACK PROPOSED FOR WISCONSIN

FIRST FEATURE:

MAN PUSHES---LITERALLY--- FOR WIND TURBINES IN SOUTHERN BROWN COUNTY

Source: Green Bay Press Gazette

January 16, 2011

By Charles Davis

Some residents have reported shoving and stealing as the community debates possible wind turbines in southern Brown County.

Additional information
(Links will open in a new window)
More on the wind-farm controversy

A woman who opposes wind turbines allegedly was pushed twice by a man who supports them on Tuesday following a town of Morrison meeting, according to a Brown County Sheriff's Department report. The suspect was allegedly picking up chairs when the incident occurred. The woman said the man bumped into her husband in a similar incident last year.

Chicago-based company Invenergy wants to build a 100-turbine wind farm in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore, Wrightstown and Holland. Progress has been slowed due to updated wind turbine rules.

An anti-wind turbine yard sign was stolen Wednesday from the 5700 block of Big Apple Road in Glenmore, a sheriff's report said. The sign alleged turbines were unhealthy. Similar incidents have been reported across Brown County.

The Morrison Planning Commission is holding a public meeting to update residents on changing wind turbine rules at 7 p.m. Tuesday at the Town Hall, 3792 Park Road.

***NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT WISCONSIN WIND THUGS IN ACTION***

 

"It's a death sentence.

This has everything to do with eliminating wind power. That's why the proposal is so high.

It's a hit job."

- Michael Vickerman, who was a registered lobbyist for RENEW Wisconsin whose clients include Alliant Energy, ATC, We Energies, MG&E, North American Hydro, WPPI, and many wind developers with projects pending in our state. [SOURCE]

REFORM BILL POSES THREAT TO WIND FARMS IN OUR STATE

SOURCE: Wisconsin State Journal

January 15, 2011

By CLAY BARBOUR

Buried in a regulatory reform bill proposed by Gov. Scott Walker earlier this week lies a provision that wind energy insiders say could shut down 12 wind farm projects, cost investors billions and essentially kill the industry in the state.

In the bill announced Tuesday, Walker seeks to quadruple the distance between wind turbines and neighboring property.

The governor said the provision was written to protect homeowners, many of whom have complained about the encroachment of wind turbines in the rural parts of the state. Opponents of wind farms have complained of diminished property values, occasional noise pollution, moving shadows cast by the giant machines and loss of sleep from vibrations.

But critics this week called the provision a job killer and said it would earn Wisconsin a reputation for being hostile to alternative energy sources, such as wind.

"It would in essence shut down wind energy in the state," said Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. "It is one of the most onerous regulations we have seen."

Bode said that, if passed, the measure would shut down 12 wind farm projects worth about $1.8 billion. Those projects, which are in various stages of planning, could produce about 950 full-time jobs for one year, she said.

"This is a shock to those of us in the wind industry," Bode said. "This will cause projects to go to other states."

Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie would not comment on specific criticisms of the bill, instead reiterating what has become the new Republican governor's mantra. "Governor Walker is focused on ensuring Wisconsin has a business climate that allows the private sector to create 250,000 jobs across all economic sectors," he said.

The proposal was met with applause from wind farm critics, like Elizabeth Ebertz. Ebertz, 67, lives in a little valley about a half-mile from a dozen 400-foot-tall wind turbines. The structures are part of the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in northeastern Fond du Lac County, one of the state's largest wind farms, capable of producing energy for about 36,000 homes.

But according to Ebert, the turbines also produce enough noise to chase her from the garden - and, on most nights, disturb her sleep.

"I think it's a terrific idea, and long overdue," she said. "I have a lot of them now and I'd like to get rid of them."

‘Death sentence'

Bode said the wind industry employs about 3,000 people in Wisconsin. The state spends about $1.5 billion on imported energy every year and ranks 16th in the country in available wind.

According to the AWEA, Wisconsin has the capacity to produce up to 449 megawatts of energy from its existing wind farms - enough to power about 110,000 homes. Yet it trails other Midwestern states in wind energy production. Minnesota wind farms produce 1,797 megawatts, Illinois produces 1,848 and Iowa generates 3,670.

Industry insiders hoped new rules approved by former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle would end years of localized fights - often spurred by well-funded anti-wind organizations - that killed at least 10 proposed wind farms in the past eight years and scared off several others.

Supporters hoped the new rules would help the state reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2015. Renewable sources account for 5 percent of the state's energy now.

But Walker's proposal has many wondering what the future holds for the industry. Currently the state requires turbines have a setback from the nearest property line of 1.1 times the height of the turbine, or roughly 450 feet. The turbines are also required to have a setback of 1,250 feet from a home.

Walker's provision would push the setback from the property line to 1,800 feet (almost six football fields), a distance that industry experts say is unheard of in other states.

"It's a death sentence," said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a Madison nonprofit that promotes clean energy. "This has everything to do with eliminating wind power. That's why the proposal is so high. It's a hit job."

Taking their business elsewhere

Vickerman said the new rules, if approved, would essentially end the industry's growth here. His sentiment is shared by many in the wind industry.

"This regulation goes far beyond what any other state has done," said Tim Polz, vice president of Midwest Wind Energy, a company currently planning a large wind farm in Calumet County. "This will kill our project."

The Chicago-based Midwest has developed seven wind farms in total and has 12 more in the planning stages. The company already built two wind farms in Wisconsin: the 36-turbine Butler Ridge Wind Energy Project in Dodge County and the 41-turbine Cedar Ridge Wind Farm in Fond du Lac County.

Polz said Midwest has already spent three years and about $1 million on the Calumet County project, which would employ between 150 and 200 construction workers for up to 18 months if it moved forward.

"This sends the message to us that Wisconsin does not want our business," he said.

Dean Baumgardner, executive vice president for the St. Louis-based Wind Capital Group, said Walker's proposal was disappointing, especially considering the governor's vow to create jobs.

Wind Capital, which has an office in Madison, has developed six farms and has 20 more in the planning stages - including a 40- to 60-turbine farm in Grant County. Baumgardner said Walker's proposal will likely kill the Grant County farm.

"But we will keep building wind farms," he said. "We will just do it elsewhere."

SECOND FEATURE:

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

The setbacks proposed in the Walker bill will not be the strictest in the nation as stated in the article below. The claim seems to be based on statements from Denise Bode, head of the Amercian Wind Energy Association which is the largest wind lobbying organization in the nation.

EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION: Who is Denise Bode? Scroll down past the RED HANDS to read more about the AWEA and Denise Bode.

PROPOSED WIND RESTRICTIONS WOULD BE STRICTEST IN NATION

 SOURCE Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com 

January 14, 2011

By Thomas Content

The head of a wind industry trade group and a lobbyist for the Wisconsin Realtors Association squared off over Gov. Scott Walker’s wind farm siting proposals.

Denise Bode, chief executive of the American Wind Energy Association weighed in Friday on Wisconsin’s proposed wind-siting rule, calling it “the biggest barrier” to wind development in the country.

“This will be the biggest regulatory barrier in terms of setbacks in the country,” said Denise Bode, chief executive of the AWEA, based in Washington, D.C., in an interview Friday afternoon. “You’re adding a new regulator barrier and putting a ‘closed for business’ sign on Wisconsin for wind development.”

A restrictive environment for wind development will create a chilling effect for companies that manufacture parts for wind turbines to want to open plants in the state, following the lead of firms like TowerTech in Manitowoc and Ingeteam, which is building a factory in the Menomonee River Valley.

Many states have no setback requirements, deferring to local units of government. Of those that do, none has a setback as far as Wisconsin’s proposal, Bode said.

But Tom Larson, chief lobbyist for the Wisconsin Realtors Association, said the proposal is a strong defense for property rights.

“We think that with this bill Wisconsin would be the only state in the country to have an adequate setback for property owners,” said Larson.

He called the rule adopted by the Public Service Commission “the poster child for Scott Walker’s regulatory reform on how administrative rules are made,” noting that the rule was enacted by an agency and not elected government officials.

Developing wind farms in Wisconsin has generated more controversy than in some other states in part because its areas most suitable for wind turbines are more densely populated than rural expanses of Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas that host wind projects.

Opposition to wind farms led some counties to enact wind power moratoriums and other restrictive rules. The patchwork of local rules stalled projects, prompting the state Legislature to pass legislation to set a statewide standard.

Bode said the industry wasn’t pleased with – but could live with – the standard that was adopted by the Public Service Commission last year, Bode said.

Dan Ebert, who chairs the state’s wind siting advisory council, said the end result wasn’t perfect, but it did a better job at balancing the competing interests with this issue.

“We shouldn’t have the Realtors Association dictating energy policy in this state,” he said.

The proposed rule is more aggressive than the PSC rule because it would cover large utility-scale wind farm as well as smaller wind farms, said Ebert, a senior vice president with WPPI Energy in Sun Prairie.

Better Plan encourages you to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for including these more protective setbacks 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 

CONTACT Legislators  

Who Are My Legislators?  To find out, CLICK HERE

Senate | Members | E-Mail Directory

Assembly | Members | E-Mail Directory

MORE ON WIND LOBBYISTS:

WANT BIG WIND? CHANGE THE LAW! ALL IT TAKES IS FIVE MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF LOBBYING MONEY

Industry blitzes hill on Schumer bill, renewable mandate

SOURCE: The New York Times, www.nytimes.com

By ANNE C. MULKERN of Greenwire, 

March 9, 2010

"The wind industry over the last year has made a major lobbying push. In 2009, the industry tripled spending on influence efforts from a year earlier. The American Wind Energy Association paid $5 million for lobbying in 2009, compared with $1.7 million the previous year, the highest amount ever for the association and a sixth of the $30.1 million spent by all renewable companies combined. It came in the same year that the wind industry saw its prospects lifted by legislation."

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

DOE E-Mails To Wind Energy Lobbyists Cast Cloud Over Green Jobs Proposals

The Energy Department worked closely with the wind industry lobby to discredit a Spanish report that criticized wind power as a job killer, internal DOE e-mails reveal.

The e-mails obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request show how, starting last April, lobbyists at the American Wind Energy Association became alarmed that lawmakers were citing a study by Spain's King Juan Carlos University. The study found that Spain's massive investments in wind power cost 2.2 jobs for every "green" job created.

The study came out in early 2009 just as the wind lobby was building up its presence in Washington, hoping it could score big in an energy bill then being debated in Congress. Industry lobbyists feared the Spanish study would halt momentum for pro-wind legislation.

Study Fanned Wind's Fears

The e-mails show the wind lobbyists shared their concerns with DOE employees, who agreed the study needed to be refuted. In August, DOE produced a white paper specifically attacking the study.

For example, e-mails show the lobbyists requesting to know when the report would come out and DOE employees hustling to get it published because it was late.

"Is it okay if we send out our response (paper) to colleagues at AWEA and CAP? We promised it to them many weeks ago. It will soon be irrelevant," said energy analyst Suzanne Tegen, co-author of the DOE paper, in a July 29 e-mail to colleagues. CAP refers to the liberal Center for American Progress, which has pushed for renewable energy subsidies and has close ties to the Democratic Party.

CAP Senior Fellow Dan Weiss told IBD the center wasn't involved in drafting or editing the report, though it did promote it on its Web site.

The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute obtained the e-mails via a Freedom of Information Act request and shared them with IBD. Many of the messages were redacted.

The e-mails are mainly between employees at DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Conspiracy Or Cooperation?

Chris Horner, a senior fellow with CEI, is pushing further FOIA requests to get the remaining documents. He argues that the e-mail timeline indicates the Energy Department produced its study at the wind lobby's request.

"It doesn't seem to be the department's idea," Horner said. "That is clear."

AWEA CEO Denise Bode called charges it got DOE to produce the study "absolutely false." Yes, the association worked with the administration on the issue, she said, but argued it was just how business is done in Washington.

 

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: This sort of green manipulation makes for strange bi-partisan bedfellows.

Look a little closer at AWEA CEO Denise Bode, a conservative Republican with strong ties to the petroleum industry, and appointee to George W. Bush's Energy Transition Advisory Team.

CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE

Denise Bode (born 1954, Tulsa, Oklahoma) is a nationally recognized energy policy expert and a former Corporate Commissioner of that state.

In January 2005 she began her second and last six-year term in office, having won reelection by the most votes ever garnered by a Republican candidate for an Oklahoma.

Appointed by Governor Frank Keating, Bode took office on August 20, 1997 and was elected on November 3, 1998 with over 60% of the vote, a record for a Republican running statewide for the first time. She was reelected to her second full term in November, 2004.

Before joining the commission, Bode served for seven years as president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in Washington, D.C.

Bode was appointed to President George W. Bush’s Energy Transition Advisory Team[6] and has testified before Congress on numerous occasions, as well as lectured at the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.

She represented the United States in Oslo, Norway, at the International Union Conservative Women’s Conference.

She was elected by state regulators from the eight states that make up the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) region to serve as President of SPP’s Regional State Committee. The committee is charged with directing electric transmission expansion in Oklahoma and the other states in the SPP region.

 Now look at Bode's 'cleansed' bio from the AWEA site which makes no mention of her ties to big oil and her conservative, Republican roots. Why leave this out?

 DENISE BODE TO BECOME CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION   

SOURCE: AWEA

WASHINGTON, D.C. –   The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) today announced the appointment of Denise Bode as its new CEO, effective January 2, 2009.

Bode will succeed Randall S. Swisher, who is retiring after a 19-year stint with AWEA.

Bode, who is currently CEO of the American Clean Skies Foundation, is a nationally recognized energy policy expert and served for nine years on the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.  Her experience in the energy field is extensive and includes seven years as President of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and nine years on the staff of then–U.S. Senator David Boren (D-OK) as his legal counsel, focusing on the areas of energy and taxation.

“Denise Bode is an extremely dynamic and well-respected leader on energy issues in Washington, D.C.,” said Swisher, “and brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to AWEA.  We are very fortunate to have such a talented and able individual available to lead the Association at a time when renewable energy stands on the threshold of dramatically expanding its contribution to America’s energy supply.”

“We were very lucky to have Denise’s leadership to get ACSF established as a real player in the debate on energy and the environment,” said Aubrey K McClendon, Chairman and Founder of the American Clean Skies Foundation.

“I am thrilled by my new opportunity of working with the AWEA team to grow wind power in the U.S.,” Bode said. “I am particularly proud of the role I played as Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner to bring commercial wind power to Oklahoma.”

1/12/10 From Talking the Talk to Walking the Walk with Walker

WALKER'S BILL EYES BIG SETBACK FOR WIND PROJECTS

SOURCE Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

January 11 2011

By Thomas Content

A rules and regulatory reform bill proposed Tuesday by Gov. Scott Walker would require wind turbines to be set back at least 1,800 feet from nearby properties, unless those property owners consent in writing.

The bill also would require any agency’s proposed rule to go through the governor’s office before it can take effect, and expands the economic impact reporting requirements for proposed agency rules.

In a statement, Gov. Walker said, “We need to ensure that state agencies are focused on job creation. The proposed review process will make sure only the most necessary rules are implemented so businesses are no longer held back by the costs of overregulation.”

The bill itself contains a series of changes to siting requirements for wind farms that would make building wind turbines much more difficult than a rule proposed last month by the state Public Service Commission. The PSC rules would require most turbines to be at least 1,250 feet from nearby homes.

The proposed legislation would require the PSC and its wind siting advisory council to conduct an inquiry into the impact of wind farms on property values.

Wind power developers on Thursday called the 1,800 foot setback proposal a jobs-killer because it would make new wind farm projects unviable and uneconomical.

Bill Rakocy, a partner in the development firm Emerging Energies of Wisocnsin, said his Brown County wind farm, the state’s newest wind development, would have only one turbine instead of eight if an 1,800-foot setback were imposed.

The Shirley Wind project opened in November in Glenmore.

“If the setbacks are expanded further than they already have been it would create a major obstacle to wind, and the construction jobs and manufacturing opportunites that could go with it. It would be an unfortunate turn of events,” he said.

An analysis of wind projects already developed in Wisconsin by the advocacy group Renew Wisconsin found that developers would have been allowed to build one-fourth of the turbines that were erected at several different projects in Fond du Lac County, and none of the turbines at the state’s oldest wind farm in Kewaunee County.

Tom Green, senior manager of development at Wind Capital Group in Madison, said an 1,800-foot seback would make project

s the firm is considering building in the state unviable, if not impossible, to build. It would drive up the cost of development and make the projects uneconomical, he said.

“We’re trying to create wind facilities that can compete with other forms of electrical generation, and provide clean renewable energy for the lowest price possible,” he said.

Better Plan encourages you to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for introducing 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

CONTACT Legislators  

Who Are My Legislators?  To find out, CLICK HERE

Senate | Members | E-Mail Directory

Assembly | Members | E-Mail Directory

  • Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 08:25AM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd in , | Comments Off

    1/7/11 Calling all wind project residents: Australia wants to hear from you AND Do you hear what I hear? Loud complaints about noise from people who live in wind projects and denials from the wind industry AND How much electricity does it take to run an industrial scale wind turbine? AND Tell it to the Judge: One man's worry becomes a wind developer's nightmare

    THIS JUST IN.....
     Important message on the Senate Inquiry in Australia

    The purpose of this message is to encourage the international community to actively participate in a full Federal Senate Inquiry into Windfarms. This is a Federal inquiry and it could have a significant impact globally. It includes the social and economic impacts of windfarms and will involve Senators representing all parties in the Australian Parliament.
     
    The Deadline is for submission is February 10, 2011

    Comments are welcome on the social and economic impacts of rural wind farms, and in particular:
        (a) Any adverse health effects for people living in close proximity to wind farms;
        (b) Concerns over the excessive noise and vibrations emitted by wind farms, which are in close proximity to people's homes;
        (c) The impact of rural wind farms on property values, employment opportunities and farm income;
        (d) The interface between Commonwealth, state and local planning laws as they pertain to wind farms; and
        (e) Any other relevant matters.
     
    Why should I make a submission?

    It is an unprecedented opportunity to provide evidence and comments to the Senate Inquiry and to support those in Australia , who are at risk from wind energy projects.
     
    International submissions, including submissions from researchers are most welcome.
     
    Submissions can be made on a confidential basis if you wish. Note that Australian citizens are protected Parliamentary Privilege. Senate extension of Parliamentary privilege (guaranteeing confidentiality for those who require it) only extends to residents currently in Australia . Therefore, it will not protect people who wish to give evidence from other countries who are bound by gag agreements.  
     
    Let’s support this inquiry and make our submissions. Post on a website or forward this email to others. See suggestions below this message.
     
    How to make a submission

    The link to the windfarm Senate Inquiry website is:

    http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/info.htm

    For information on how to make a submission, please see the following link:
     
    http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/info.htm
     
    Submissions are preferred in electronic form submitted online or by email to community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au  as an attached Adobe PDF or MS Word format document. The email must include full postal address and contact details.
     
    Alternatively, written submissions may be sent by mail to:
     
    Department of the Senate
    PO Box 6100
    Parliament House
    Canberra ACT 2600
    Australia
     
    For additional questions in relation to the inquiry, please do not hesitate to contact:
     
    David Lipshutz
    Senior Policy Advisor
    Office of the Leader of FAMILY FIRST
    Senator Steve Fielding
    www.stevefielding.com.au <http://www.stevefielding.com.au/>
     
    Ideas for submissions

    Topics could include risks to:
    • health
    • the environment
    • wildlife
    • animal life including farm animals and pets
    • birds and bird habitat
    • marine life
    • aquatic life
    • endangered species
    • economic impact
    • cost / benefit
    • reliability and viability
    • electrical pollution
    • social impacts to people and the community

    Who should submit:
    • researchers, academics in all topics
    • experts in all topics
    • victim impact statements from those who are suffering symptoms
    • concerned residents globally on all topics
    SECOND FEATURE
    WIND FARMS DRAWING NOISE COMPLAINTS, OPPOSITION
    January 6th, 2010
    By David Rosenfeld
    Mike Eaton and his wife live in northeastern Oregon for the peace and quiet. But ever since wind turbines arrived on the ridge above their home two years ago, the Eatons’ slice of heaven has been a nightmare.

    “It makes me seasick and nauseous,” said Eaton, who carries a cane. “I take medication for it, but it just keeps it slightly balanced so I’m not vomiting all the time, to be honest with you.”

    The constant swoosh-swoosh of wind turbines cutting through a downwind gust can be excruciating for Eaton. For others, like Dan Williams, who live nearby just a few miles south of the Columbia River, the sound is more than just annoying — it keeps him up at night, which causes stress.

    “It’s like a train that’s neither coming or going, or a plane that’s constantly hovering, or an ocean that’s not breaking or receding,” said Williams, an otherwise healthy middle-aged man. “I will also sometimes get real tight in the chest and feel like I’m having a panic attack.”

    The pair recently told their stories at one of three public meetings the state Office of Public Health held in eastern Oregon to assess the possible health effects from wind turbine noise. How and at what distances sound from these giant turbines affects human beings has triggered a brush war in the search for renewable energy, a war that has seen battles from Denmark to New England to the U.S. Midwest — and Oregon.

    So far the issue hasn’t hobbled the nation’s push for wind energy, which currently generates about 2.4 percent of the electricity used in the United States. But the noise issue will likely become more salient as the search for available land brings wind turbines closer to tranquil backyards. The Acoustic Ecology Institute, for instance, describes turbine noise issues as “the exception rather than the rule” except in rural areas with neighbors within a half-mile or so.

    (Which is one reason some researchers have suggested placing turbines closer to already noisy roads.)

    Eastern Oregon’s high desert plains and notorious winds make it an ideal place for wind projects. And while overall turbine installations are down in 2010, Oregon led the nation in the third quarter, according to the American Wind Energy Association, and is fifth in the nation in its cumulative capacity from installed windmills.

    On the ranch land above the Eatons’, about 200 miles east of Portland, Caithness Energy is planning one of the largest wind farms in the world: 845-megawatt Shepherd’s Flat. The site is a giant plateau of dry grassland just beyond the Columbia River Gorge, which funnels wind gusts from the west.

    Towns, some with just a few hundred residents, are scattered miles apart, and counties are largely strapped. As ranching and farming get tougher each year, wind projects offer opportunities to both governments and individuals, but they also bring drawbacks.

    One of those is noise for people who have to live next to them.

    Growing Opposition
    Eaton, Williams and two other households along Highway 74 southeast of Arlington have hired lawyers. They want Chicago-based Invenergy LLC, which owns the Willow Creek wind project behind their homes, to compensate them for the noise, which they say exceeds limits set by law. They’re after far more than the typical payment of $3,500 or $5,000 that wind project developers typically pay neighbors that might be affected by noise. They want the company ultimately to buy their homes, which developers have done in some cases.

    In northeastern Oregon, where giant windmills marching across the prairie, conflicts such as these are sowing negative opinions about wind energy projects.

    In Union County, where Horizon Wind Energy is planning a 300-megawatt project, 52 percent of voters on Nov. 2 rejected the wind farm even though it would bring jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue. Opposition in Oregon and across the country is driven mostly by their appearance on the landscape, effects on wildlife — and fears over noise.

    The sound that comes off wind turbines can create a little-known side effect — dubbed wind turbine syndrome by researcher Nina Pierpont — that bothers some people up to a mile or more from the source. Pierpont was among the first to say low-frequency noise is the main culprit, although concerns about the noise are growing. Windfall, a documentary exploring the issue, debuted at several film festivals this year.

    The wind farm industry has largely denied any ill health effects from wind turbine noise; the British Wind Energy Association, for example, characterizes Pierpont’s research as “work [that] flies in the face of decades of established medical research. … Bad science is not just misleading; it can be damaging and disruptive.”

    A panel of experts hired by the U.S. and Canadian wind energy associations last year said the noise from wind turbines is no more harmful to human health than the average annoying sound. Setbacks less than a mile, they determined, are fine. Noise problems reported by neighbors, they said, are psychological.

    What exactly might be happening to people like Eaton and Williams raises questions about the way we hear. It also raises a compelling question about public policy and where to draw the line when it comes to noise.

    Sense of Perception
    Lawmakers have tried to set the bar on noise ever since the first person complained about a nearby train track or an airport flight path.

    Researchers, too, have a good sense of what noise does to people. Most people can handle nighttime noise at about 40 decibels, about the same as suburban background noise. At 55 decibels just outside the home, the World Health Organization estimates a “sizable proportion of the population” could experience sleep disruption or irritability, and there’s “evidence the risk of cardiovascular disease increases,” according to an August 2010 report.

    But wind turbine noise is somewhat different, with some research suggesting its palpitating swoosh is exceptionally more irritating than other sounds. One reason could be the low-frequency component. Nighttime tolerance levels for wind turbines, therefore, are generally set at 40 or 45 decibels — found at about 1,000 or 1,500 feet away from the average tower — compared to 65 decibels for airport traffic.

    Another study showed how attitudes toward wind turbines affected people’s perception of the sound. Researchers in The Netherlands surveyed 725 people living near turbines and found “annoyance was strongly correlated with a negative attitude toward the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape.

    “The study further demonstrates that people who benefit economically from wind turbines have a significantly decreased risk of annoyance, despite exposure to similar sound levels,” according to the paper published last year.

    Dennis Wade, another homeowner in Oregon with noise problems, didn’t need a scientific study to observe the obvious. “I don’t know how else to say this,” he told me at the public meeting in Pendleton. “If they’re on the moneymaking end of it, they don’t seem to hear it. They don’t seem to feel it.”

    In Arlington, where turbines flank the entire town, few people reported any problem with the noise. Mike Weedman, a Sherman County rancher with 36 turbines on his property, is decidedly on the “moneymaking end of it.” And he doubts people could feel as sick as they say they do from wind turbines.

    “People can make themselves sick,” Weedman told me. “And that’s all it is. I’ve been living by them for almost six years, and I don’t even know they’re there except for the lights at night blinking.”

    Raising Ear Hairs
    A small group of researchers is looking into whether the symptoms of wind turbine noise could be more physical than mental. Leading this area is Alec Salt, who’s been experimenting with the hearing of guinea pigs for about 10 years. The journal Hearing Research in August published Salt’s paper showing that the human ear might have more acute sensitivities to low-frequency sound, like the kind produced by wind turbines, than previously understood.

    Salt’s findings could mean that even low-frequency sound, which people can’t hear, could affect them, though more research is needed to say for sure. It could also mean that low-frequency sound has a way of modulating the ear’s ability to hear higher-frequency sounds, which could be one reason wind turbines are more annoying.

    “Even when you can’t hear a sound, there are parts of your ear that are responding to it,” Salt said from Washington University in St. Louis. His research essentially found that the outer ear hairs responded to low-frequency sound while the inner hairs did not. “That means sound like wind turbines can affect people or wake them up from sleep or disturb the fluids of the ear, and the levels of sound that cause these things are totally unrelated to what you hear.”

    Most government agencies that oversee wind farms don’t consider low-frequency sound when measuring noise levels. But Salt said they most definitely should, adding that based on what he’s learned, it’s insane to site turbines less than 2 kilometers, or about 1.3 miles, from someone’s home.

    “The auditory science community has been asleep at the wheel,” he said.

    Dr. Robert Dobie, an ear, nose and throat physician and clinical professor at University of California, Davis, doesn’t see it that way. Dobie served on the industry panel that assessed health risks last year. He said the scientific literature is clear about sound’s effect on the ear, and wind turbine noise is no different.

    “What debate?” Dobie wrote in an e-mail. “I do not consider it to be a high priority and would not like to see my tax dollars spent on this when there are much more important issues in medical research.”

    Combination of Factors
    Many government agencies that oversee wind farms allow them up to 1,000 feet from homes. The World Health Organization advises 1,500 feet. But neither measure would do anything to prevent what happened to the Eatons, who live almost a mile from the nearest blades. The wind energy industry, meanwhile, rejects extending this setback to, say, a mile.

    If lawmakers imposed 1-mile setbacks in Ontario, Canada, or the U.S. Midwest, wind energy would be nearly impossible, said Erik Nordman, a Grand Valley University assistant professor of biology who led a health assessment by the West Michigan Wind Assessment Project.

    Nordman examined scientific studies on sound and human health, concluding that about 1,000 feet on average was sufficient setback for most wind turbines. He also argued that the health benefits from decreased air pollution that wind energy provides outweigh the potential health side effects of the noise.

    Geoff Leventhall is a noise and acoustics expert based in the United Kingdom who’s been working for about 40 years with people who complain about low-level noise. Leventhall served on the wind farm industry panel that concluded last year there were no health effects from turbine noise and has been pictured as a wind turbine syndrome denier by some.

    “What has been proven is that a person’s response to noise, especially low-level noise, is conditioned by their attitude to the noise source,” Leventhall said.

    As for Eaton, he said, “there are a very small number of people with extra sensitivities. He may be one of them. Also it could be what people are expecting to happen. One thing people have been told about wind turbine noise is that it can upset their vestibular systems, which leads to dizziness. Perhaps it’s susceptibility that’s been enhanced by expectation.”

    A similar response came from Dobie, who also served on the industry-backed panel.

    “At levels far too low to cause hearing loss, any audible sound can, under certain circumstances, be annoying,” Dobie wrote in an e-mail. “Imagine a dripping faucet. Annoyance can also be a stressor that can contribute to illness in vulnerable people, just as other stressors such as job and relationship stress can. If I paint my house bright purple, my neighbor might find that so upsetting that he eventually suffers migraines and high blood pressure. That does not mean that the color purple is toxic.”

    Whenever policymakers draw the line on noise, there are going to be a certain percentage of people who may still be harmed. The Federal Aviation Administration assumes 25 percent of people will still be annoyed at the sound of airplanes, despite property setbacks at airports. In the case of wind farms, it may be far fewer.

    Try telling that to Mike Eaton, for whom percentages mean nothing.

    “If this means we have to move, we have to move,” he said. “What do you do when you live someplace 21 years and you have to move?”

    THIRD FEATURE:

    NEW ENERGY ECONOMICS: HOW MUCH ENERGY DO WIND TOWERS USE?
    January 6, 2010
    By Cole Gustafson, Biofuels Economist, NDSU Extension Service
    I read a wide variety of publications. The editor of a recent mechanical engineering periodical lamented about all of the energy a wind tower consumes.
    He studied the inner workings of a modern wind tower and pondered whether any net energy is produced.

    Let's look at some of the devices inside a wind turbine that consume power.

    * Rechargeable batteries -- Large wind turbines contain a number of rechargeable batteries to power the electrical systems when the wind is not blowing. These systems include aircraft lights, brakes, blade control devices and weather instrumentation. If the wind doesn't blow for an extended period, these batteries must be recharged with power off the electrical grid.

    * Heaters -- Gearboxes in wind turbines contain fluids that must be kept warm in frigid climates. Turbine blades also have built-in heaters to prevent icing, which the author suggested could consume up to 20 percent of the electricity produced by the turbine.

    * Motors -- A common misconception is that the blades of a wind tower sit still when the wind is not blowing. In fact, a tower uses its generator in reverse as a motor to spin the blades slowly. The movement of the blades is almost imperceptible to the naked eye. The blades move to prevent brinelling (grooving) of the bearings on the main shaft. This occurs when bearing components rock back and forth without much movement. Consequently, electricity is taken either from the storage batteries or off the grid to power the blades during these periods.

    Wind turbine manufacture's don't report how much electricity is consumed internally or must be purchased externally. The amount is likely to be quite variable because system designs vary by manufacturer. Moreover, there likely are both good and bad economics of operation as turbine sizes increase.

    So, is this really an issue to be concerned about?

    The editor concluded his article by saying, "We've commissioned so many wind turbines that we will need to build new coal-fired power plants to run them."

    The question could be solved easily if tower net metering was available. Net metering monitors the quantity of electrical power flowing in both directions.
    Overall, the point is rather moot, though, because the editor failed to realize that wind turbine generators are rated on a net power-producing basis. In other words, each turbine has a nameplate with its power rating listed on it.

    What is a more important consideration is the power curve that describes the level of electricity produced at various levels of wind speed. Wind speed is highly variable in each geographic area, so that is a more important factor to consider.

     

    FOURTH FEATURE

    LEGAL CHALLENGE COULD STALL ONTARIO WIND PROJECTS

    SOURCE: Toronto Star, www.thestar.com

    January 5, 2011

    By John Spears, Business Reporter,

    One day in the summer of 2008, Ian Hanna went to an open house in Prince Edward County about the possible health effects on wind turbines on people who live near them.

    He came away worried.

    His worries grew to the point that later this month his lawyer will be in a Toronto courtroom, arguing a case that could put further wind power development in Ontario on hold.

    That could put a crimp in Ontario’s just-announced long term energy plan, which forsees a significant expansion of wind-generated electricity.

    Hanna is challenging to a provincial regulation that requires large wind turbines to be set back at least 550 metres from any residence.

    “There appears to be significant scientific uncertainty about the question of an appropriate setback distance between industrial wind turbines and peoples’ homes,” says Hanna’s lawyer, Eric Gillespie.

    That, he says runs against the “precautionary principle.”

    “The precautionary principle simply says: Until that uncertainty is resolved, we should not be proceeding with further development.”

    Wind opponents say the turbines can cause sleep disorders, hearing problems and a host of associated health effects.

    “The fact that the government is setting these things back already more than half a kilometers demonstrates that the government is aware there is a risk,” says Gillespie.

    Hanna moved to Prince Edward County from Richmond Hill in 2003 and runs a wine importing business from his home on Big Island, just off the shore.

    After he bought his property, a developer proposed a wind project on the island and Hanna started asking questions about the impact on local residents. (The project was ultimately withdrawn because of a nearby military airstrip.)

    “It became apparent to me there were a lot of unknowns, and that worried me very much,” he said in an interview.

    That Thanksgiving, he started circulating a petition. In his travels, he met Dr. Robert McMurtry, a former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, who also owns property in Prince Edward County.

    McMurtry shared Hanna’s concerns and had the professional heft to command attention. McMurtry has given expert evidence on the case, along with two other doctors.

    A spokeswoman for Ontario’s environment ministry said the ministry cannot comment on the case because of the imminent court date.

    But last May – months after Hanna had filed his challenge – Ontario’s chief medical officer of health Arlene King published a report on wind turbines.

    “The scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects,” the report says.

    Although the sound may be “annoying,” they are “well below the pressure sound levels at which known health effects occur.”

    Hanna is not persuaded. He says he has talked to many people whose health has been ruined by nearby turbines.

    “I’ve spent time with people who have suffered unbelievably from living too close to these things,” he said in an interview.

    “Their lives have become a living hell. I think maybe sleep deprivation does this to people. They’re in such terrible condition. I could never walk away from it now.”

    He figures he needs $250,000 to see the case through, and has about $200,000 now – partly his own money, partly donations. (None of the money, he says, comes from companies competing with wind power producers in the energy market.)

    In a written reply to questions, the Canadian Wind Energy Association says Ontario’s 550-metre setback is “clearly among the more stringent setback requirements for wind turbines in North America.”

    If Hanna’s action succeeds, it “would increase uncertainty in the wind energy project approval process and potentially have a significant negative impact on the workers and communities currently benefitting and poised to benefit from wind energy development in the province,” the association says.

    

    12/30/10 VIDEOS OF THE DAY: Rock out to wind turbine construction AND then try to live with turbine noise AND Who cares about birds getting killed by wind turbines when there is so much money to be made? AND You break it, you pay: Wind project residents mandate property value guarantee AND Like a bad neighbor... Acciona is there

    OUR WIND INDUSTRY VIDEO OF THE DAY:

    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

    WIND DEVELOPMENT THREATENS ICONIC AMERICAN BIRDS

    SOURCE www.salem-news.com

    December 29 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.”

    SECOND FEATURE:

    HAMMOND WIND PANEL ADOPTS HOME GUARANTEE

     SOURCE The Journal, www.ogd.com 

    December 30 2010

    By Matt McAllister,

    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.

    THIRD FEATURE

    WIND FARM PLAN CHALLANGED

    SOURCE The Border Watch, www.borderwatch.com.au

    December 30 2010

    Anelia Blackie,

    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.”