Residents in this Ontario Community had problems getting into a public meeting about a proposed wind farm in their community unless they agreed to give their names to wind developers who hired local police to help with enforcement.

Below, a news story on what happened once the meeting got started.

With new wind siting rules in the state of Wisconsin that will overturn local ordinances created to protect residents in rural communities, will scenes like these soon take place in our state?

SECOND FEATURE: WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS

FOR THOSE NEAR, THE MISERABLE HUM OF CLEAN ENERGY

SOURCE: The New York Times

October 5, 2010

By Tom Zeller, Jr

VINALHAVEN, Me. — Like nearly all of the residents on this island in Penobscot Bay, Art Lindgren and his wife, Cheryl, celebrated the arrival of three giant wind turbines late last year. That was before they were turned on.

“In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” Mr. Lindgren said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.”

Now, the Lindgrens, along with a dozen or so neighbors living less than a mile from the $15 million wind facility here, say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life in this otherwise tranquil corner of the island unbearable.

They are among a small but growing number of families and homeowners across the country who say they have learned the hard way that wind power — a clean alternative to electricity from fossil fuels — is not without emissions of its own.

Lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property value have cropped up in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, among other states. In one case in DeKalb County, Ill., at least 38 families have sued to have 100 turbines removed from a wind farm there. A judge rejected a motion to dismiss the case in June.

Like the Lindgrens, many of the people complaining the loudest are reluctant converts to the antiwind movement.

“The quality of life that we came here for was quiet,” Mrs. Lindgren said. “You don’t live in a place where you have to take an hour-and-15-minute ferry ride to live next to an industrial park. And that’s where we are right now.”

The wind industry has long been dogged by a vocal minority bearing all manner of complaints about turbines, from routine claims that they ruin the look of pastoral landscapes to more elaborate allegations that they have direct physiological impacts like rapid heart beat, nausea and blurred vision caused by the machines’ ultra-low-frequency sound and vibrations.

For the most extreme claims, there is little independent backing.

Last year, the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, along with its Canadian counterpart, assembled a panel of doctors and acoustical professionals to examine the potential health impacts of wind turbine noise. In a paper published in December, the panel concluded that “there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.”

A separate study financed by the Energy Department concluded late last year that, in aggregate, property values were unaffected by nearby wind turbines.

Numerous studies also suggest that not everyone will be bothered by turbine noise, and that much depends on the context into which the noise is introduced. A previously quiet setting like Vinalhaven is more likely to produce irritated neighbors than, say, a mixed-use suburban setting where ambient noise is already the norm.

Of the 250 new wind farms that have come online in the United States over the last two years, about dozen or so have generated significant noise complaints, according to Jim Cummings, the founder of the Acoustic Ecology Institute, an online clearinghouse for information on sound-related environmental issues.

In the Vinalhaven case, an audio consultant hired by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection determined last month that the 4.5-megawatt facility was, at least on one evening in mid-July when Mr. Lindgren collected sound data, in excess of the state’s nighttime sound limits. The developer of the project, Fox Island Wind, has contested that finding, and negotiations with state regulators are continuing.

In the moonlit woods behind a neighbor’s property on a recent evening, Mr. Lindgren, a retired software engineer, clenched a small flashlight between his teeth and wrestled with a tangle of cables and audio recording equipment he uses to collect sound samples for filing complaints.

At times, the rustle of leaves was all that could be heard. But when the surface wind settled, a throbbing, vaguely jetlike sound cut through the nighttime air. “Right there,” Mr. Lindgren declared. “That would probably be out of compliance.”

Maine, along with many other states, puts a general limit on nighttime noise at 45 decibels — roughly equivalent to the sound of a humming refrigerator. A normal conversation is in the range of 50 to 60 decibels.

In almost all cases, it is not mechanical noise arising from the central gear box or nacelle of a turbine that residents react to, but rather the sound of the blades, which in modern turbines are mammoth steel appendages well over 100 feet long, as they slice through the air.

Turbine noise can be controlled by reducing the rotational speed of the blades. But the turbines on Vinalhaven already operate that way after 7 p.m., and George Baker, the chief executive of Fox Island Wind — a for-profit arm of the island’s electricity co-operative — said that turning the turbines down came at an economic cost.

“The more we do that, the higher goes the price of electricity on the island,” he said.

A common refrain among homeowners grappling with sound issues, however, is that they were not accurately informed about the noise ahead of time. “They told us we wouldn’t hear it, or that it would be masked by the sound of the wind blowing through the trees,” said Sally Wylie, a former schoolteacher down the road from the Lindgrens. “I feel duped.”

Similar conflicts are arising in Canada, Britain and other countries . An appeals court in Rennes, France, recently ordered an eight-turbine wind farm to shut down between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. so residents could get some sleep.

Richard R. James, an acoustic expert hired by residents of Vinalhaven to help them quantify the noise problem, said there was a simpler solution: do not put the turbines so close to where people live.

“It would seem to be time for the wind utility developers to rethink their plans for duplicating these errors and to focus on locating wind turbines in areas where there is a large buffer zone of about a mile and one-quarter between the turbines and people’s homes,” said Mr. James, the principal consultant with E-Coustic Solutions, based in Michigan.

Vinalhaven’s wind farm enjoys support among most residents, from ardent supporters of all clean energy to those who simply say the turbines have reduced their power bills. Deckhands running the ferry sport turbine pins on their hats, and bumper stickers seen on the island declare “Spin, Baby, Spin.”

“The majority of us like them,” said Jeannie Conway, who works at the island’s ferry office.

But that is cold comfort for Mrs. Lindgren and her neighbors, who say their corner of the island will never be the same.

“I remember the sound of silence so palpable, so merciless in its depths, that you could almost feel your heart stop in sympathy,” she said. “Now we are prisoners of sonic effluence. I grieve for the past.”

At 500 feet, the turbines going up in the Town of Glenmore in Brown County are the tallest in the state. Those in the wind industry continue to insist the presence of wind turbines has no effect on property values. 

ACCIONA ENDS PLANS FOR WIND FARM IN MAGNOLIA

SOURCE: Janesville Gazette

October 4, 2010

By Gina Duwe

MAGNOLIA TOWNSHIP — Plans that once called for up to 67 wind turbines dotting the countryside of Magnolia Township have ended.

An official with Acciona, a global energy company, confirmed that it has decided not to develop the EcoMagnolia project.

“That’s a case where I think … it was not an adequate wind resource for us to commit our full development for the project area,” said Chip Readling, lead developer for projects in several states, including Wisconsin.

Data gathered from a meteorological tower that stood for about three years at County B and Highway 213 showed “the project did not align well with our business goals,” he said.

“(It was) just a matter of wind,” he said.

Acciona still owns the project rights.

Plans are not as certain to the north.

The met tower that’s been up for nearly two years in Union Township will be taken down after the corn surrounding it is harvested.

The company’s meteorological team will analyze the data gathered from that tower—at County C and Highway 103—and decide whether to pursue a project, Readling said.

“We think it’s certainly a site we want to continue to watch,” he said.

If the company decides to move forward, the next step would be putting up a taller met tower—262 feet tall—to record wind speeds at the height of a turbine hub.

Readling said the company had no timeline and was not to the point of having landowners sign contracts.

He also said he could not release any of the wind speeds from either of the met towers.

In 2008, EcoEnergy said the average wind speed was 14.7 mph, measured at 197 feet on the Magnolia tower. The average was for a year starting in April 2007.

EcoEnergy first started the development of the Union project to include three turbines west of Evansville with Wisconsin Public Power buying the power produced for sale to Evansville Water and Light customers.

Acciona bought the rights for the Union and Magnolia projects from EcoEnergy in 2007.

Lost in the shuffle of the sale was the town permit for the Union met tower. The permit expired last fall, and Acciona failed to renew it. The town and company settled on a $6,000 fine for being out of compliance. Acciona officials are finalizing paperwork to make the payment, Readling said.

Reaction

Tom Drew, the landowner who hosted the met tower in Magnolia, said he hadn’t heard anything from the company since spring.

The plan to end the project was news to him.

He had not signed any contracts beyond the met tower, he said, and wasn’t really disappointed about the project not moving forward.

“To me, it was just nice clean energy,” Drew said. “That part is what I looked at. I never thought it would be any big windfall for anybody.”

When the project first started, his wife, Laurie, worked part time for about 18 months for EcoEnergy, setting up the company booth at events. She said she did it “to get a pulse on the company.”

Spring Valley resident Lynda Kawula doesn’t find relief in Acciona’s plan for Magnolia. Kawula and her husband, Kevin, live on the township border and feared having to move if turbines went up too close to their house.

“I don’t think it’s over yet,” she said.

Her research about wind turbines led her to start a website, betterplan.squarespace .com, advocating against wind farms that are sited too close to residents.

“If they could get these things sited correctly, everybody would come out happy,” she said.

Since the development plans emerged, the Kawulas have become engrossed in local and state government, have followed and taped the meetings of the state wind siting council’s rule-making process and visited with residents living on wind farms.

She plans to write a book about the wind industry in Wisconsin.

She has spent 10 nights in three different locations among two wind projects in the state.

“The relief part is funny,” she said. “Because I’m so tied up with people who are living with the turbine (problems) now, even if it’s not coming here right now, I’m still concerned about them and the little help they’re getting.”

WIND FARMS CAN CHANGE THE WEATHER

SOURCE: USA TODAY

October 4, 2010

By Doyle Rice

Large wind farms can influence local air temperatures, according to a new study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The data was collected over seven weeks in the summer of 1989 at the San Gorgonio wind farm near Palm Springs, Calif.

The study revealed that the wind farm caused the local area to cool down during the day and warm up at night, according to authors Somnath Baidya Roy and Justin J. Traiteur of the University of Illinois.

For instance, on one day of the study, the temperature at 1:00 p.m. upwind of the wind farm was about 100 degrees, but was about 93 degrees downwind, due to the effects of the windfarm.

The authors theorize that the turbulence generated by the turbine rotors, which can enhance the vertical mixing of warm and cold air, led to the temperature changes.

"To the best of our knowledge, this is the only meteorological field campaign conducted in an operational wind farm," the authors write in the study. "The wind farm consisted of 23-meter-tall turbines with 8.5-meter-long rotor blades arranged in 41 rows that were spaced 120 m apart."

Because many wind farms are located on agricultural land, the scientists say, local weather changes can affect crop productivity.

And what can be done? "The impacts of wind farms on local weather can be minimized by changing rotor design or by siting wind farms in regions with high natural turbulence," the study found. "Using a 25-year-long climate dataset, we identified such regions in the world. Many of these regions, such as the Midwest and Great Plains in the United States, are also rich in wind resources, making them ideal candidates for low-impact wind farms."

The authors add that "wind power is on the verge of explosive growth, most of it being in the industrial sector consisting of large wind farms."

As USA TODAY reported last year, wind projects are being proposed near the Texas Gulf, the Atlantic Coast, the Great Plains and Upper Midwest.

President Obama said in April 2009 that he would allow turbines along the Atlantic as one way to help meet a goal by environmentalists and the industry of generating 20% of the nation's electricity through wind by 2030. Currently about 1% of U.S. power comes from wind, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

Click on the image above to hear Wind Siting Council members Tom Meyer and Doug Zweizig express concerns about wind developer licensing and accountability issues regarding contracts and leases, and why there should be more protection for Wisconsin landowners built into the rules.

On October 13th, there will be a full public hearing at the capitol because of questions raised regarding the    Public Service Commission's new wind siting rules for the state of Wisconsin.

Senate
PUBLIC HEARING
Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail

The Senate Committee on Utilities, Energy and Rail will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:00 AM, 411 South at the State Capitol in Madison relating to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 siting of wind energy systems.

Senator Jeffry Plale, Chair

CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD CLEARING HOUSE RULE 10-057



Senate
PUBLIC HEARING
Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail

The Senate Committee on Utilities, Energy and Rail will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:00 AM, 411 South at the State Capitol in Madison relating to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 siting of wind energy systems.

Senator Jeffry Plale, Chair

CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD CLEARING HOUSE RULE 10-057

Correction: The Butler Ridge wind project is in Dodge County, south of the Fond du Lac County line.

Midwest must almost double wind power production to meet 2025 goal

SOURCE: Wisconsin State Journal:

By JUDY NEWMAN

September 30, 2010

Wisconsin and four other Upper Midwest states will need 15,000 megawatts of wind energy by 2025 — or about 8,600 megawatts more than already available — to fulfill their renewable energy goals, a study says.

In addition, it will cost an estimated $3 billion to build the transmission lines that will hook the wind power into the electric transmission grid.

The 15-page report, issued Thursday by a committee representing Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and North and South Dakota, identifies 20 renewable energy zones within the five states, windy enough to serve as a power resource.

It also suggests six transmission corridors “that would efficiently move energy from these wind zones to customers, and serve as a backbone for a variety of future development needs in the region, and potentially further east.”

Two of the possible corridors for the high-voltage transmission lines extend into Wisconsin, including one that would run from Iowa to Madison.

The committee, called the Upper Midwest Transmission Development Initiative, will continue to meet to talk about potential cost allocation and other factors. No specific routes for the new transmission lines have been proposed yet.

However, at least three transmission companies have outlined possible projects with similar goals.

WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS:

WYOMING WIND TASK FORCE FAVORS EMINENT DOMAIN LIMITS

Source: Bloomberg Business Week

September 30, 2010

By Bob Moen 

"If we can restrict eminent domain in any way I think our landowners support that because we believe these issues should be addressed through private negotiations and agreement, not through holding a gun to somebody's head and threatening eminent domain, which basically forces the landowner to take whatever the condemner is offering because they have the greater power,"

Private companies that want to string small power lines from wind turbines to the main power grid wouldn't be able to seize land from Wyoming landowners under a recommendation made by a task force Thursday.

The Wind Energy Task Force voted 5-4 to deny the power of eminent domain to private companies building so-called collector lines for wind projects in the state. Eminent domain is the forced acquisition of private property for public use and has been used to build railroads, pipelines and other projects.

At the same time, the panel recommends that regulated public utilities retain the power of eminent domain. Public utilities are subjected to more scrutiny from state Public Service Commission regulations and oversight.

Task force chairman Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, said the panel's eminent domain recommendation seeks fairness for landowners whose land is needed only for small collector lines.

"All he gets is one lump sum payment for the fair market value of what little property they need and he never sees another dime," Brown said.

Landowners with the wind turbines on their land pocket monthly checks from the wind producer, Brown said.

The task force's recommendations go the Legislature, which would have to approve any change in state eminent domain law.

Wyoming imposed a moratorium on the use of eminent domain for collector lines that went into effect in March and will last through June 30, 2011. It's meant to buy some time for Wyoming citizens and policymakers to examine the issue.

The Legislature last made changes to the state's eminent domain law in 2007 mainly because of complaints from landowners who felt run over by booming oil and gas development. The process proved contentious.

Brown still refers to the 2007 debate as the "eminent domain wars."

"They're just tough, tough issues every time they come up," he said.

Jill Morrison, an organizer with the Powder River Basin Resource Council, which advocates for private landowners, applauded the panel's decision.

"If we can restrict eminent domain in any way I think our landowners support that because we believe these issues should be addressed through private negotiations and agreement, not through holding a gun to somebody's head and threatening eminent domain, which basically forces the landowner to take whatever the condemner is offering because they have the greater power," Morrison said.

Cheryl Riley, executive director of the Wyoming Power Producers Coalition, declined immediate comment on the task force's action until she can study its recommendation.

Brown said he couldn't say how the task force's recommendations might affect the growing wind industry in Wyoming.

The dozens of wind farms that have been built or are being proposed in the state so far have hugged the main power transmission lines that cross the state. Building wind farms farther away from the grid will mean erecting many more of the collector lines.

Wyoming is one of the most reliably windy inland areas of the United States, and its wind energy potential has attracted wide interest in recent years.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:How loud is too loud? In the state of Oregon, turbine noise limited to 35 decibels is causing trouble for those who reside in the Invernergy project.

Because of the pulsing characater of wind turbine noise, studies show it to be more disruptive at lower noise levels than noise from road traffic, aircraft, or trains. Chronic sleep disruption due to nighttime turbine noise is the most common complaint from wind project residents Wisconsin.

The new wind siting rules put forth by the Public Service Commission set turbine noise limits in our state at 45 decibels at night and 50 during the day.

The World Health Organization recommends a nighttime noise limit of 40 decibels for healthy sleep. Why the Public Service Commission has chosen noise limits above World Health Organization guidelines is unknown.

WILLOW CREEK TOLD IT MUST QUIET DOWN

SOURCE: East Oregonian,

September 29 2010

By Erin Mills,

A reluctant Morrow County Planning Commission finally spelled it out for Invenergy, the developer of the Willow Creek Wind Project: not only is the project too loud for nearby homes, but Invenergy will be paying for another noise study once its six-month grace period is up.

The 72-megawatt project and four of its neighbors in the Willow Creek Valley north of Ione have been locked in a struggle over noise since before the turbines began turning in late 2008.

After many hours of testimony, the planning commission ruled in May that the project did break the state noise standard, and gave the Chicago-based company six months to comply.

Both parties appealed the decision to the Morrow County Court. The court agreed the planning commission’s decision lacked meat on its bones; it didn’t detail why, or say who was to determine that Willow Creek was in compliance.

At a meeting Tuesday night, commissioners found consensus on several important points. First, they said, the evidence presented by Invenergy’s — and the neighbors’ — noise experts indicated the project broke the state noise rule at nearby homes. The rule states that a wind facility must not increase the ambient background noise of 10 adjusted decibels, or 10 dBA. If a developer does not determine the ambient noise prior to building the facility, there is an assumed ambient of 26 dBA. That means a wind facility that chooses the assumed ambient can generate only 36 dBA at nearby homes.

The commission briefly discussed the percentage of time a facility should be allowed to break the rule, a major point of contention with the two acoustical experts who earlier testified. But Vice-Chair Jeff Wenholz put such quibbling to rest. The developer chose to take the assumed background level, he said, and the noise rule is the noise rule.

“It’s no different than if the speed limit is 65 (mph),” he said. “The cop can write you a ticket for 66.”

The commission next decided that granting Invenergy six months to fix the problem was reasonable, although Pam Docken initially disagreed, saying Willow Creek has already been operating — and breaking the rule — long enough.

“Do you think six months is just flat too long?” asked Chair David Sykes.

“Yes, but I think I’m a solo act here,” Docken replied.

She was right. Eventually she and the group decided Invenergy needs time to adjust. It can finish adjusting sooner than six months, they said, but it must be done when the time is up.

County Counsel Ryan Swinburnson questioned whether Willow Creek should be allowed to run during the six months. The commission agreed it could.

Unlike at previous meetings on the topic, only a handful of people attended, the six neighbors and two Invenergy representatives. Mike Collins, an Invenergy asset manager, said he could not immediately comment on the commission’s decision.

One of the neighbors, Mike Eaton, said he felt numb.

“It’s just a process that we’re in,” he said. “I think the planning commission had a really tough job on their hands.”

Dave Mingo, another neighbor, said Invenergy could fix the problem “in a day,” with an acceptable easement payment. Invenergy made offers to the neighbors shortly after they first complained. All four — two of the neighbors are couples — turned the company down, saying the amount was too small.

The planning commission’s decision vindicated the neighbors’ claims, doggedly expressed for almost two years. But the acknowledged fact — voiced even by commissioners — was that Invenergy would appeal their decision.

“We feel it’s going in the right direction,” Mingo said. “I don’t feel it’s over, by any means.” The planning commission will finalize its decision Oct. 26 at 7 p.m. at Heppner City Hall.

WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS

Panelists lambaste state about wind power studies

 SOURCE: Sun Journal, www.sunjournal.com

 September 30 2010

By Eileen M. Adams, Staff Writer,

RUMFORD — Panelists at a wind energy forum Wednesday night lambasted the state for not conducting more studies on the potential impact of wind farms and Dr. Dora Ann Mills, the state’s chief medical officer, for not pursuing possible health issues related to them.

The panelists warned that wind energy would be both more expensive and result in greater pollution.

About 50 people turned out for the decidedly one-sided presentation on potential wind farm development in Rumford and other locations in Western Maine.

The forum, sponsored by the River Valley Wind Education Committee, was held about a month before Rumford and Dixfield voters will decide whether to adopt wind energy ordinances.

Panelist J Dwight, an economist from Wilton and one of the four panelists, said using electricity generated from wind turbines would likely double utility bills by 2020.

“We have enough power already,” he said.

He said later during the forum that First Wind LLC of Boston, Mass., which proposes constructing about a dozen turbines on Black Mountain and an adjacent mountain, is financially bankrupt.

“This is a company that should be scrutinized,” he said.

Dr. Albert Aniel, a local doctor, said Mills has not had a study conducted on the effects of the Mars Hill wind farm on residents there.

“The Department of Health and Human Services is not interested,” he said.

Also speaking was Robert Rand, a sound engineer from Brunswick who displayed a series of graphs showing how sound levels from turbines could affect people living at various distances from a turbine. He also played a recording of two turbines he said was made one mile from the turbines. He was eventually asked to turn off the sound when Rumford wind ordinance committee member Len Greaney asked whether people in the Mountain Valley High School auditorium would have a problem with such noise.

Rand said he has conducted studies or found studies that show how people can become highly annoyed when sounds reach 45 decibels, which is the level sanctioned by the state for nighttime sounds. During the day, the permitted level rises to 55 decibels.

Rumford resident Dan Richard asked whether it was safe to say that the panel is against wind power in general.

“This panel is not in favor of wind,” Dwight said.

Richard said about 600,000 gallons of fuel oil are used each day at the Cousins Island electrical plant.

“And look how many trucks roll in there each day,” he said.

Another man asked whether Rand had measured the level of noise coming from the NewPage mill in Rumford.

Rand said that although he has not measured it, any noise coming from mills tends to be steady, and not variable as he said wind turbines produce.

Karen Pease, a Realtor from Highland Plantation, where another wind farm is proposed, also spoke as part of the panel.

She said turbine construction would decrease the value of homes sited within two miles.

She said a study conducted in Illinois suggested that wind farm developers should guarantee property values, and turbines should be shut down if the noise level goes beyond 10 decibels above ambient sound.

Both Dixfield and Rumford residents will vote on their respective proposed wind turbine ordinances on Nov. 2.

EDITORIAL: "13% ELECTRICITY HIKE TOO MUCH"

Source: globegazette.com

Sept 26, 2010

Hearings began last week on Alliant Energy’s request for a 13 percent electricity rate hike.

We know from past experience the final rate granted by the Iowa Utilities Board will not be 13 percent, but just the same today are urging the board to allow as little a rate increase as possible to cover expenses, as there are many individuals and companies who cannot afford any more.

The increase sought by Interstate Power & Light, a subsidiary of Alliant, would yield $149.9 million to the utility. It said it needs the money to offset additional transmission costs, recover the cost of building the $478 million Whispering Willows East wind farm south of Hampton, recover $3.4 million for past improvements to a generating station in Cedar Rapids, and for environmental controls at its Lansing power plant.

The increase would be on top of a 7 percent rate increase in January, mainly to pay for costs of recovering from record floods in June 2008 and ice storms in recent winters.

The increase sought by Alliant before the 7 percent was granted was 18 percent. So if a similar percentage is granted, customers can expect the current 13 percent increase will result in a 5 percent increase. That’s still pretty hefty for such a short time between increases.

We are pleased, though, with the utility’s investment in wind power in our region. The company has invested $478 million investment in the Whispering Willow-East Wind Farm in Franklin County. According to Alliant, the farm is powering nearly 50,000 Iowa homes with clean, renewable energy.

Green energy is not expensive, Alliant officials have said, nor is installation of pollution control equipment, such as the $188 million investment to reduce emissions from the Lansing power plant.

The consumer advocate office has asked the utilities board to deny the increase and instead order Alliant to reduce electric rates by $1.8 million.

The Mason City Chamber of Commerce has not officially taken a stance on the current rate hike request, but did so last year when the 18 percent request was in play.

Members have expressed concern the current proposal could make Mason City less competitive, said Robin Anderson, executive director of the chamber. She said the chamber helped organize a meeting in June between local members and Alliant officials. From a customer service standpoint, members are satisfied with Alliant, but are concerned their rates will not be competitive in the foreseeable future, she said.

Anderson pointed to a survey of chamber members in 2009. More than 100 members responded. An alarming rate, more than 15 percent, said the rate increases sought at that time would threaten their ability to continue operating in Mason City.

Also, 88 businesses responded to a question about whether utility rates would be considered in a decision to expand in the near future. Sixty-four said they would.

Asked which utility cost impacted their business the most, 69 percent said electricity, 29.9 percent natural gas and one percent water.

Obviously our region’s economic fortunes are closely linked to having competitive, reliable energy. We appreciate Alliant’s reliability and its overall fine standing as a corporate citizen, but ask that it — and mainly the Iowa Utilities Board — go as lightly as possible with this rate increase.

Board Votes not to accept money

SOURCE: TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF, www.telegram.com

September 30, 2010

By Kim Ring

BRIMFIELD — After hearing three hours of mostly opposing comments from residents, selectmen last night voted unanimously not to accept $30,000 from First Wind, the company hoping to build several turbines in town.

The funds would have been used to study the financial impact of a wind energy facility on West Mountain, near Steerage Rock.

About 160 people attended the public hearing at Brimfield Elementary School, most speaking in opposition to the project that would site eight to 10, 400-foot wind turbines on the ridge just north of Route 20, and expressing concern that taking the money would allow First Wind to move closer to its goal.

Board members said if they had decided to accept the money, the town would not have been bound to any future agreements, nor would it have been forced to allow the turbines to be constructed; rather, the money would have helped fund research about the project.

Health Board Chairman Richard Costa and other local officials visited a facility at Mars Hill, Maine, and said he now believes the project would be wrong for Brimfield.

He said residents in Maine told him stories of health issues, decreased property values, and turbine noise difficult to tolerate.

“I don’t really think that this project would be a good fit,” he said, to rousing applause.

Police Chief Charles T. Kuss also went to Maine and said the turbines there, not as tall as the ones planned for Brimfield, were visible from 40 miles away.

He said the folks he spoke with, most of whom favored the project, “did have some economic tie to the industry.”

But some residents of Mars Hill are suing First Wind over the project.

Dr. Elizabeth Smola said she is concerned because recent studies show serious health risks associated with living near wind turbines and being exposed to very low-frequency noise, which is inaudible.

The risks can cause thickening of the heart wall, balance disorders and memory loss, and most often affects fetuses, children and younger people, she said.

In Brimfield, some residents said they favor the turbines and a move toward green energy. One man who lives on St. George Road said he finds the turbines “elegant looking.”

A few residents said that, while they favor green energy, they oppose the turbines in Brimfield, where they would be within 2,000 feet of 79 homes.

“I’m a tree-hugging liberal,” said Anton Prenneis of Brookfield Road, adding that he was initially excited about wind power until he researched what was proposed for Brimfield.

He said as a bluegrass fan who knows the best songs are written about towns devastated by coal mines, “I don’t want to see that happen to the town.”

Dale LaBonte said she drives a Prius, lives in a passive solar home and has no dishwasher, but opposes the wind facility because it will affect the stillness she enjoys while walking her dog at night.

Many were concerned about the “flicker effect” which causes a strobe-like light at certain times of the day. Some, including Doris Carlson, who runs a riding stable on Brookfield Road, were concerned about having to deal with that at their homes.

Eric J. Jaeger, who called himself a “retired reformed opera singer,” said he would, if needed, “sing ‘The Impossible Dream,’ over and over to stop this” project from moving forward.

Clad in a shirt that read “Mafia Go Home,” John Mortarelli vocally opposed the project, saying he’s done research and questioned whether the company is viable and the source of its funds.

He said the town’s bylaws prohibit the towers and that should be enough to quash the project.

But there is concern over Gov. Deval Patrick’s support for a law that would allow the state to have oversight when it comes to siting wind turbines.

Some fear the proposed law would take away local control and make local bylaws that prohibit the towers moot.