ALLIANT ENERGY WANTS 13% PRICE RATE HIKE IN IOWA

SOURCE: AP NEWS SERVICE-

DES MOINES, Iowa – Alliant Energy officials have testified at a four-day regulatory hearing this week as the Iowa Utilities Board delves into the utility’s request for a 13 percent electric rate hike worth nearly $150 million.

Alliant’s Interstate Power and Light subsidiary says it needs the increase mainly to cover rising transmission costs, new investments in wind energy and environmental controls at its Lansing power plant. The hearing started Monday and is expected to last through Thursday.

Interstate Power and Light president Tom Aller appeared before the board Monday, taking questions from representatives for the board and for the Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate.

Aller was asked why the utility allowed a wind turbine project to go over cost estimates.

“I felt we could justify spending the additional funds to complete the project, which meant a $100 million direct benefit for our customers,” Aller said.

Alliant’s latest rate increase request comes after Iowa state regulators finalized a 7 percent rate increase in January.

The utility has presented its own plan that it says will minimize the increase’s effect over the first few years. Alliant wants permission to use money from regulatory reserve accounts.

But Alliant faces opposition. 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 board isn’t expected to rule on the rate increase request until January.

 THIRD STORY:

PROPERTIES 'VIRTUALLY UNMARKETABLE'

SOURCE: Casper Journal, www.casperjournal.com

September 21 2010

by Greg Fladager,

A survey by a local realtor may have confirmed the worst suspicions of Stan Mundy, whose home is closest to Chevron’s wind farm northeast of Casper.

Glen Taylor, of Equity Brokers in Casper, did a real estate survey Sept. 10, 2010, and concluded properties directly adjacent to the Chevron Wind Towers are now “virtually unmarketable” at “any realistic price.”

In his report, Taylor said no residential properties have sold in his three-road survey area since October 2009, and 10 are presently on the market (five that were listed in the past two years didn’t sell).

Taylor wrote, “No reasonable buyer would choose a property close to the wind towers over a property that isn’t close to wind towers unless the price is so low that the investment would be a no brainer.”

Taylor said in his report that rural property close to town is usually in good demand, and noted he’s the agent for one parcel in the area. He has had over 50 inquiries on his listing in about two months, but 40 dropped interest after learning about the location.

“In follow-up with the inquiries, the number one reason for not having genuine interest in this property is because of the proximity of the wind towers,” Taylor wrote in his report.

Taylor did the survey at the request of Natrona County State Representative Mike Gilmore. Gilmore is a long-time friend of Mundy’s, and had asked Taylor for assistance after hearing about Mundy’s property situation.

“Some people are saying Stan’s just a nut, and he needs to get over it,” Gilmore said about Mundy’s dispute with the county. “But his issue had some merit, and I felt he might need a little ammunition … he’s not asking for money or anything from the company, he just didn’t want those towers, like 800 feet from his house. He has a legitimate complaint.”

Noting that the towers are on Chevron’s property, Gilmore said, “ … I’m a real private property rights advocate, so much so I fought against the Highway Department’s wanting to condemn land for snow fences. But the wind is different. It’s unique, it’s big, it’s this massive structure you’ve got to look through to see the mountain.”

Gilmore said wind energy needed to be developed in Wyoming, and that energy companies have jumped into it now because of generous tax breaks. He then added, “ … but the jobs really didn’t materialize, and the taxes aren’t coming along either … we’ve devalued our own property.

“It’s something in this next session that maybe we need to look into,” he said.

Mundy, meanwhile, said he’s looking into several options in his ongoing battle with the county.

He missed his property tax protest hearing before the County Board of Equalization (composed of three county commissioners) when they denied his request to change the date. Mundy told them he would be away attending his daughter’s graduation from Army boot camp in South Carolina.

The discussion by the commissioners on changing the hearing date included in Commissioner Barb Peryam calling Mundy a “son of a bitch” and threatening to “sic planning and zoning and code enforcement” on him. The commissioners turned down Mundy’s request to reschedule, noting the cost of paying for another official hearing reporter.

“She’s apologized to the other commissioners,” Mundy said of Peryam’s comments, “but she hasn’t apologized to me.

“I had called, before this all transpired, to the State Board of Equalization to see if they would hear my tax appeal because I didn’t think I could get a fair shake with our commission … because Rob Hendry is going to profit from wind industry, just like my property value is going to go down because of the wind industry,” Mundy said. “I was told the county would have to certify it, and I would have to go through the county to get to state level. I said to heck with it.”

After his hearing date change was denied, he wrote a letter to Gov. Dave Freudenthal protesting the situation. A few days ago he received a reply from an aide to the governor, who said they were aware of the events that had transpired, and again told him that legally his property tax protest must begin at the county level.

The letter also stated, however, that, “Your issue with siting was one of the primary drivers for establishing the minimum state setbacks that were passed during the 2010 Wyoming legislative session. The governor’s office is well aware that the legislation doesn’t help you. However, your advocacy has helped others in similar circumstances.”

Mundy says he’s not certain now whether he can, or will, request another hearing before the County Board of Equalization.

“I still don’t think I can get a fair hearing,” he said.



  HOW MANY RESIDENTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE NEW WIND SITING RULES?

The red squares in the yellow circles on the map above represent non-participating homes in the WeEnergies Glacier Hills wind project currently under construction in Columbia County.

The larger red dots are the turbine locations. [Scroll down to see more detailed maps.]

The new wind rules adopted by the Public Service Commission have the same setbacks from homes as were used for this project.

One difference is the PSC required WeEnergies to offer to buy two homes in the project because seven turbines were to be located within half a mile.

The new rules do not include this sort of protection. Chairman Eric Callisto said by law homeowners have the right to sue the wind developer/owner and he felt that was all the protection they needed.

 Although Wisconsin wind farm residents who have been forced to try to sell their homes because of turbine noise and shadow flicker have found no buyers, local wind developers say 400 to 500 foot tall wind turbines located less than 1500 feet a home have no impact on property values.

[CLICK HERE to watch Wisconsin Eye video: During the panel discussion, WPPI vice president Dan Ebert  and WeEnergy's head of wind development Andy Hesselbach explain why turbines do not affect property value. ]

Or CLICK HERE to link directly to the Wisconsin Eye 'Newsmakers' feature "Future of Wind Energy"

 Developers also say Wind energy is the cheapest way to get renewable energy and cite surveys which indicate stong public support for wind power.

Wind siting council member and Wisconsin realtor Tom Meyer weighs in on the matter.

This is not a question of whether or not people like, or favor "wind" as the lobbyists try to argue. Everyone likes wind, sun, water, earth.

The issue is this: The total cost of generating energy by the use of 400 and 500 foot tall turbines in Wisconsin’s rural communities.

Developers admit that they cannot get investors, who are primarily foreign investors, to put their money up unless the costs of access to the land are depressed.  

To get the biggest area to install the highest number of 400 to 500 foot tall turbines, the developer needs to have the greatest access to the most land and compensate the fewest people with the least dollars.

 The developer does not need your land, he needs to get one foot [away] from your land.

 Every foot the developer is made to move away from a landowner whom he does not have to compensate, adds cost to the developer and reduces the bottom line to investors.

Every dollar spent to gain access to the right to disturbing the peace of a landowner reduces the bottom line.  

For wind turbines to be profitable, the industry could improve the technology or depress the cost of access to the land.

By their actions, they prove they believe depressing land costs is more favorable than investing in improving the technology.

Their answer to improved technology is taller and more intrusive. That's not a real solution. 

If the turbine can't produce energy without imposing on neighbors, there is no reason to spoil the earth, and threaten the water, and block the sun, to catch the wind.

-Tom Meyer

Wisconsin Wind Siting Council Member

NOTE: Tom Meyer was one of the authors of the minority report from the wind siting council. The report details why some council members strongly disagree with the recommendations sent forth to the Public Service Commission.

CLICK HERE to download pictures of homes in Wisconsin wind projects.

CLICK HERE to read about a Fond du Lac County wind project home (pictured above) that spent 740 days on the market and finally sold for half of its appraised value.

CLICK HERE to read about a Fond du Lac County home (pictured above) in the WeEnergies wind project that appraised for $320,000 just before the turbines went up. The owners were unable to sell the home and abandoned it because of turbine noise and vibration. It was auctioned at a sheriffs sale with an opening bid of $107,000. There were no takers. The home has been empty for nearly a year.

Below, detail maps of non-participating residences in WeEnergies Glacier Hills Project

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

The project mentioned below was sited with the same setbacks and noise limits used to site the We Energies Glacier Hills project. (Detail maps above)

NO EASY SOLUTION TO WIND TURBINE PROBLEM

Source: News at WLBZ2.com

The Associated Press

VINALHAVEN, Maine (AP) -- The CEO of the electric cooperative that installed wind turbines on Maine's Vinalhaven island says there's disagreement over data suggesting they're too noisy.

Fox Island Wind CEO George Baker says his experts dispute the findings of a Department of Environmental Protection consultant who says the turbines violate nighttime noise limits.

State law sets a 45-decibel limit. Baker says his experts believe it was ambient noise from wind rustling through trees that exceeded 45 decibels, not the turbines themselves.

Baker says it'll be a difficult issue to resolve. He told The Associated Press on Tuesday that slowing the turbine blades to lower the noise level by a couple of decibels may not make appease critics. And lowering it further could hurt the economic viability of the project.

Note from the BPWI research nerd: With millions of dollars on the line, it's no surprise that wind developers are turning to Public Relations firms for help with public acceptance.

Below, some examples of the kind of services a PR firm can provide.

 Debunking Myths of Cleantech PR

SOURCE: Renewable Energy World

 by David Andrew Goldman

Excerpt:

[....] Cleantech start-ups often find themselves in a Chicken/Egg situation where they want to wait until they get a big break before publicizing, but miss the opportunity to use PR and the media to make that big break happen.

For the most part, this is because they don't realize that there are several ways to garner coverage by the trade and business press without having a hard news angle.

Manufactured News

Our firm uses a strategy of creating and placing op-ed articles for our clients.

Working with the executives of these cleantech startups to draft opinion articles is a great way to circumvent the no news blues.

A strong opinion piece will always garner attention and the exposure keeps our clients’ websites from looking like stale brochure-ware.

The placement of these articles in reputable media outlets provides third-party validation for a company’s customers and investors.

Tailored Pitches

Expansion Media recently landed a client the holy grail of publicity: the front page of the New York Times Sunday Business section. How did we do it? R&D.

While our clients are busy in laboratories, we are closely monitoring and researching the media that cover their respective niches.

We handpicked the journalist we wanted to write the story based on their previous coverage of the industry and crafted a pitch the catered to his unique worldview.

The result in this case was an article that was not only read by millions of people, but was also 100% positive toward our client.

That kind of coverage isn’t the result of luck, but stems from careful research and knowledge of our clients’ industry and the journalists who cover it.

Survey Says!

Most start-ups don’t realize that they can sponsor third-party studies that validate their technology, promoting the results to the media.

When one of our clients told us that they had no news scheduled for several months, we designed a survey conducted by an independent research company and garnered significant coverage.

We announced the results of the survey in the form of a press release. A few days later, several media outlets ran articles featuring the results including this one from a leading green building news site.

David Andrew Goldman is director of communications at Expansion Media, an integrated PR/SEO firm that focuses on clean technology clients including AeroFarms, Entech Solar, BioPetroClean, CASTion, Airdye Solutions, Advanced Telemetry, Variable Wind Solutions, GreenRay Inc. and FreeGreen.com.

SECOND FEATURE:  From the Way Back Machine

Building Renewable Energy Markets: A Public Education Stategy for State Clean Energy Funds

 SOURCE: CLEAN ENERGY FUNDS NETWORK: Investing in markets for Clean Energy

2002

By: Lyn Rosoff Chris Colbert, Second Wind Enterprises

with: Richard Earle Greenbranch Enterprises

Exerpt: page 9

Task 1. Craft Motivating Messages/Create a Common Language/Define the Renewable Energy Brand.

Craft messages that deliver sufficient pain/gain motivation and customer benefit to make renewable energy a compelling product to both business and consumer audiences.

Importantly, this should include addressing the impact of the attack of September 11, as well as the Enron collapse, on consumer attitudes and perceptions regarding renewable energy.

We need to find the right nomenclature and icons that reduces the confusion, skepticism and misunderstanding while creating sustained, meaningful visibility.

Excerpt Page 10:

Our view is that the success of such a joint marketing model will be predicated on the following specific steps:

1. Researching (and adjusting to) the new consumer/public attitudes towards energy following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the Enron collapse and bankruptcy;

2. Developing an effective message platform that will overcome purchase barriers and identify and test common nomenclature for renewable energy: is it green, clean, pollution-free?;

3. Creating a plan for a multi-state shared umbrella campaign employing this learning; and,

4. Implementing that multi-state campaign.

If there is an emerging theme in this effort, it is the idea of integration and building what has been called brand community

Briefly, the concept of a brand community is recognition that markets are made - and consumers are motivated by a combination of influences.

To change societal behavior, one must “infiltrate” social, business and community structures to affect influence, incentive, and impact.

By surrounding the consumer and business targets with integrated symbols, messages and reinforcement from familiar brands and relationships, we stand a chance of changing their views and actions.

To date, renewable energy public education efforts have been approached as a discrete, non-integrated task, dominated by traditional media outreach and public relations. And the results of that limited approach have been subsequently limited.

A successful strategy for marketing renewable energy will require creation of a brand community within which renewable energy will be the preferred (and socially reinforced) choice.

The only way we can effectively build such a brand community is for CEFN and its members to work together and to share their knowledge, their ideas and their resources.

Such a shared model should also extend to proposing different market structures that could be used to support customer choice.

This could involve variations on the default service offerings or other partnering options with green power
markets and utilities.

[...]

Each member will then need to integrate other educational tactics, e.g. grass roots outreach, direct mail, collateral, etc. and more specific messages that are relevant to their state’s stage of market readiness.

This tactical integration should then be augmented by each CEFN member leveraging the brand relationships that their target audiences already have: church, employer, and municipality, to add credibility and influence to the education effort.

It is our hope that the proposal that follows will clearly show how we can approach the task of marketing renewable energy together and convert a perplexing, reluctant market into a high growth market that offers significant rewards for consumers, businesses, suppliers, the country and the environment.

WINDFALL DOCUMENTARY EXPLORES THE PERILS OF WIND POWER

Click on the image above to watch the trailer from "Windfall"

SOURCE:Wall Street Journal 

September 9, 2010

By Anthony Kaufman

“Windfall,” a new documentary that premieres Friday at the Toronto International Film Festival, could take the sails out of wind power. The film observes the deeply divided residents of Meredith, New York — an Upstate farm community in decline — as they debate the pros and cons of allowing wind turbines on their land. Local proponents champion the promise of green energy and monetary compensation, while detractors question the efficiency of wind-generated energy and the drawbacks of living among 400-foot tall towers with gigantic rotating blades.

First-time director Laura Israel, who has a log cabin in Meredith, first became aware of the town’s wind energy debate when she read stories in the local newspaper about the potential dangers of turbines to the bird population (bats are also at risk). “I went through the same process myself as they did in the film,” says Israel. “First, I thought, maybe I’d like to get a wind turbine, but then I started going on the Internet and realized there was more to the story.”

Israel videotaped in Meredith for about a year, documenting contentious board meetings and interviewing residents, and also visiting other areas in New York, such as Lewis County, where wind turbines have already taken hold. The film offers few experts on either side of the debate; rather, it allows local townspeople to discuss their own research, experiences and fears, such as the wind turbine’s “flicker effect,” as the machines pass across the sun and cast immense shadows, as well as the dangers of their low frequency hum.

Robert Bryce, author of “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future,” and a frequent critic of the wind industry (in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal), says the “infrasound” issue is the most problematic for the wind industry. “They want to dismiss it out of hand, but the low frequency noise is very disturbing,” he explains. “I interviewed people all over, and they all complained with identical words and descriptions about the problems they were feeling from the noise.”

Because of wind energy’s massive expansion — the five-year average growth rate is up 39%, according to the American Wind Energy Association — Bryce suggests that the kinds of conflicts depicted in the film “are going to be much more common if it’s allowed to grow as fast as it could,” he says. “There’s a lot of pissed off people out there.”

Israel doesn’t want her film to be used as an advocacy prop for anti-wind advocates, however. She just wants people to be informed. “What I would want people to do is research it and look at it critically.” Invoking the words of Gordon Yancey, an outspoken wind critic from Tug Hill, NY who appears in the film, Israel advises, “Do your homework.”

Or as Bryce adds, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch and it’s the same with wind energy.”

WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS

Vestas Wind Tumbles After Reporting That Blade Broke on Turbine Prototype

SOURCE: BLOOMBERG.COM

By Alex Morales -  Sep 9, 2010

Vestas Wind Systems A/S fell to its lowest in almost two years in Copenhagen trading after the world’s largest wind turbine maker said a blade snapped on a prototype and Danske Bank A/S downgraded the stock.

A six- to seven-meter (20 to 23 feet) portion came off the blade of the test V112 wind turbine late yesterday in Lem, western Denmark, Michael Holm, a Vestas spokesman, said today from Randers, Denmark. “We’re looking into the root cause. We don’t see this as a design error.”

Continue reading...

THE POWER OF PICTURES TO FOOL PEOPLE

SOURCE: Jefferson's Leaning Left, www.jeffersonleaningleft.blogspot.com

September 9 2010

Over the weekend I put a post here where I mentioned I had just finished reviewing the current September 2010 edition of the leading wind industry business journal, “North American Wind Power.”

I warned that the editorial message of that journal, written for industry insiders, was to keep pushing for a national standard imposed from Washington requiring utilities to get a certain percentage of their power from wind — and to hell with all the adverse consequences of that, including your pocketbook.

CONTINUE READING...

Fond du Lac County home in Invenergy Forward wind project. Setbacks are 1000 feet, noise limits 50 dbA

Their Money or Your Life?  PSC Commissioners weigh wind developers financial needs against residents health and safety

Better Plan, Wisconsin

August 24, 2010

MADISON- Although Public Service Commissioner Lauren Azar made it clear she believes a small number of Wisconsin wind farm residents are suffering from turbine noise related sleep deprivation and associated health impacts, in the end she seemed to go along with Chairman Eric Callisto and Commissioner Mark Meyer in sticking to the same noise limits residents have been complaining about: 50 decibels during the day and 45 decibels during the night.

At the previous meeting on Thursday, Azar had suggested a setback of 2200 feet and a nighttime noise limit of 40 decibels, which she referenced as the World Health Organization's nighttime noise standard. [Note: The World Health Organization's nighttime noise standard was recently lowered to 35 decibels.]

Azar said the basis for the 2200 foot setback was information given to her by PSC staff regarding the setback distance required to reach 45 decibels. Her proposal was for developers to use a 2200 foot setback unless they could prove they could come closer and still meet noise and shadow flicker standards.

Chairman Callisto made it clear he would not go along with this. Commissioner Meyer also indicated he rejected this idea.

Callisto recommended a setback of 3.1 times the blade tip height or about 1250 feet for a 400 foot tall turbine, although his basis for choosing the 3.1 figure was not stated and is unknown.

Callisto also said that should problems come up for residents, they have recourse though the legal system and can sue the developer.

Azar pointed out that bringing a lawsuit against a wind company would put an unrealistic financial burden on nearly any family. She estimated the cost of such a lawsuit as being at least $200,000, and stressed that the commission had the opportunity to build protection for residents into the rules.

Throughout the discussion all three commissioners expressed clear concern for wind developers needs, and repeatedly indicated distrust of local government.

Only Commissionar Azar expressed concern for impacts on residents. She also indicated concern about impacts on wildlife and domestic animals.

Commissioners agreed that shadow flicker impacts to non participating homes should be 30 hours per year. The basis for this number was not stated.

They agreed that non-participating homes with more than 20 hours of flicker per year should be eligible for 'mitigation' from the wind company. Usually this means window blinds.

What happens when shadow flicker lasts over 30 hours created a sticking point in the discussion.

Azar felt going over the 30 hour limit would require curtailment of the turbine. The possibility of required curtailment of a turbine-- which can mean anything from feathering the blades to stopping the turbine completely-- is a sore subject for wind developers.

Commissioner Meyer seemed troubled by the possibility of required curtailment for violating shadow flicker standards and asked the commissioners to think of another option.

The next meeting is scheduled for 8:00AM, Wednesday, August 25th, at the Public Service Commission. 

Live audio of the meeting will be broadcast over the web. CLICK HERE to visit the PSC website, click on the button on the left that says "Live Broadcast" to listen. Sometimes the meetings don't begin right on time. The broadcasts begin when the meetings do so keep checking back if you don't hear anything at the appointed start time.

SECOND FEATURE: FROM THE PSC DOCKET: 1-AC-231

Wisconsin residents contact PSC about discussions on windsiting rules.

Commissioner Meyers,

You made a comment at the end of your broadcast for us to call in our comments, well when I called the lady that answered said she thought you were joking.

... I did not think that was funny, so I emailed you a letter. I sure hope you read every one you get and share them with the other commissioners.

½ mile setbacks from nonparticipant'a property line and that’s not a joke. Take your time and think about what you’re doing and how many lives are depending on that all 3 of you to do the right thing for the state of Wisconsin.

Joanne Vercauteren
Greenleaf, WI

From: Mike Winkler
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 8:49 AM
To: Heilman, Alice - PSC
Subject: tower setback

Ma'am;

1000' is not enough setback from a home. My brother has a tower that was put (accidentally) 880' from his house. Although he is "gagged" from saying anything about it, I am not.

I can tell you that even at 1100' from the tower the noise is loud enough to be agitating during the day, and it downright impossible to sleep through it at night...

People's lives are being affected, and degraded in quality. Why don't the wind profiteers and the PSC care?

Isn't Wisconsin worthwhile enough to save these innocent people's way of life?

Mike Winkler
Fond du Lac

To the Public Service commission:

As a father of 2 boys, I am alarmed that instead of doing the necessary independent studies to determine the health risks of industrial wind turbines in close proximity to our homes, the suggestion was made to offer compensation to affected neighbors?

How could a parent take money when the health of their family is at risk?

How can the PSC even make this suggestion?

I commend Commissioner Azar for having the courage to recognize the need for "at least" a 2200 ft setback......Our families support for any industrial wind project that jeopardizes our health and safety is not dependent on any dollar amount.

It is time for the PSC to evaluate industrial wind projects based on the health and safety of our families, not political direction.
Respectfully,

Mark Deslauriers

Greenleaf, Wisconsin

 

Commissioners:

Thank you for this opportunity to share my concerns with the wind siting draft rules. I have been listening to every siting council meeting as well as the past two PSC meetings. I do have the following concerns.

1) 128.14 (4) Line 15-20. Compliance Page 18: I will feel better if noise testing is done by an independent 3rd party, NOT THE DEVELOPER/OWNER. What other industry is allowed to be its` own testing resource?

The draft also states that if the test shows compliance, another test can't be done for two years.

What if the test was not done on the night that the noise complaint was made or if the test was not accurate? A person should not have to continue to suffer for 2 more years.

The developer or owner should not be conducting the test. It should be a 3rd party. Otherwise who determines if the test was fair and accurate? The testing needs to be verified or done by more than one source to protect the landowner.

2)128.14 Noise Criteria. Page 16: I would like to ask if testing will be done at night and the specific night of the complaint?

I have serious concerns as to why low frequency noise and measurement has not been addressed. The 45dba limit will not cover this serious issue.

3) 128.14 (C) Compliance: Page 19 Pre and post construction testing must also be done by a 3rd party, not the developer or owner. This is to prevent any conflict or problems from happening in the first place to reduce the need for mitigation.

Basically any testing referenced in the draft should be done by a 3rd party, never the developer. Please keep in mind, they are not a utility and not regulated as the utility industry is.

4) Existing property uses: I feel strongly that vacant land zoned for residential building should be considered, not just those with building permits.

What if someone is planning to build a year or two down the road because they are just in the planning stages, which can take years? My husband and I worked on our home plans for 3-4 years after we purchased our property and then went for a building permit. Or if someone is planning a retirement home in 5 or 10 years?

Many, including my neighbor have every intention of building sometime in the near future. He specifically is waiting for his home to sell and will not get a permit until it does. We have friends that own land and will build when they are able to financially.

If a parcel is already zoned for building a home, accommodations should be made. Having setbacks from property lines rather than homes, would resolve this issue. This is what was done in Manitowoc County. Setbacks were made from property lines to prevent a "taking."

I agree with the fact that a developer should be required to purchase homes of non-participating landowners that are negatively affected. No one should have to be forced from their home and lose the value in their property.

If the developer feels the turbines do not affect property values, they can buy and sell the home. If a non-participant is going to be considered a participant for accepting a payment only a 1/3 of a participating landowner and not be able to have mitigation, no one will sign on for that.

Those fighting for their health and safety will not take money in lieu of their quality of life.

5) Residence: What about cottages/vacation homes. While they are not used year round, they are either used frequently and some people spend entire summers at these. Especially along the lakeshore area and Lake Winnebago, Door County etc.

I would like to suggest that "Occupied Community Building" include other things that are common in rural areas such as business`s, Sportsman's clubs, Town Halls, Golf Course Club Houses/Golf Course, some of these host weddings, Business's, i.e.: gas stations, restaurants, and other business's. All of these are located in rural areas and have people present at least as or more often than a church or place of worship.

This is also in Setback table, page 14. People that use these facilities, especially those that spend all day working at them, deserve the same protection as those that go to a church service.

6) Setback Table: What about "safety setbacks" to County, State, and Federal parks and campgrounds. People picnic and sleep in campgrounds which are located in many parks and there should be" safety setbacks" to those areas.

I feel safety setbacks should be to non participating property lines for noise and shadow flicker to prevent a takings.

I feel someone should be safe from harm anywhere on their property, not just in their home.

People in rural areas spend a lot of time outdoors. Vestas recommends a 1300ft safety setback in case of fire, but the siting council majority wants to stay with 1000ft. It what other industry do we disregard recommended safety protocol?

I agree with Commissioner Azar to set the 2200 ft setback for noise to help make sure the 45dba is met. If staff has found that is what is necessary, it will be a safety net and would be sensible to use that number for a noise setback.

We do not know how dependable the computer modeling is and if a developer can be trusted to be honest. I also feel any computer modeling should be verified by an independent 3rd party. If they can prove with verification that they can go less, then so be it.

The modeling used in Fond du lac County has proven to be completely inaccurate and that it can`t be depended on.

While I really feel a 5 over ambient is the fair way to go for a noise limit, because most rural areas where turbines will be located average 25-30 at night. If the World Health Organization recommends a general 40dba noise limit, why should there be a 45dba limit?

We listen to WHO for recommendations on other health recommendations ie:flu shots, so why are we not heading their recommendation here?

7) 128.16 line 18. Signal Interference: (b) Line 20-22, and line 2 of next page, line of sight. What width is the corridor? The following is from the Manitowoc County Ordinance: A large wind energy system or met tower may not be located within an emergency communication corridor, which is defined as the area within 500 feet of a line connecting a specified pair of communication towers. Each of the following pairs of communication towers, whose locations are described using Manitowoc County coordinates, delineate a protected emergency communication corridor. (3) A large wind energy system or met tower may not be located within one mile of any communication tower location identified in sub. (2).

The following is from the White Paper done for Manitowoc County, which was used to address the section in the ordinance. "I would not want a user to build a critical communications tower in a wind farm unless the windmills were at least ½ mile away--better yet a mile.

8) I feel that financial assurance should be provided at time of permit application, not when construction starts. You want to make sure a developer is financially capable upfront before agencies are required to do planning work at the taxpayer`s expense. If you are trying to take out a mortgage, the bank wants proof you can afford it before you move in not after. A credit check is done before anything else.

The developer should be required to give the municipalities at least 60 days notice prior to them selling or transferring a controlling interest to another entity. Municipalities should also be granted the authority to deny such a change in ownership if the developer is unable to provide proof of adequate financial resources in the new entity (e.g. for decommissioning). Developers can change ownerships to various LLCs, where they eventually are just shell corporations that have no assets, cannot be sued, and just fold.]

I agree with Commissioner Azar that decommissioning money should not be in the form of a letter of credit that can expire. If Navitas Energy, which was sold to Babcock and Brown would have built the wind farm in Manitowoc County, the county would now be up a creek because letters of credit must be renewed on a yearly basis, and Babcock and Brown went bankrupt.

I would also like the hosting landowner take some responsibility for what he is taking on. This is from the Manitowoc County ordinance: Statement signed by the landowner acknowledging that the landowner is financially responsible if the owner fails to reclaim the site as required by sec. 24.10(4) and that any removal and reclamation costs incurred by the county will become a lien on the property and may be collected from the landowner in the same manner as property taxes.

9) 128.13 (c) Siting Criteria Page 15: Who defines hardships?

10) Real Property Provisions, Page 9: I would like to suggest leaving this section in.

Unlike real estate agents, wind developers are not regulated by anyone. They have been known to lie to landowners to get them to sign up. They recently told a landowner in Sheboygan that no one in Fond du Lac is having problems with noise, etc. We know that is not true.

While common sense would tell you that you should have an attorney look at anything before you sign, these landowners are quite often older people who are used to taking care of business with a hand shake.

There should be someone overseeing the people that are signing up landowners that are not being told the whole truth. Again, these developers are not regulated and basically have no one looking over their shoulders to make sure they are doing things legally and morally. The consumer/landowner deserves some sort of protection from the developers.

There has to be some legal recourse, especially if they are being lied to, to get them to sign on the dotted line of a document they have no way out of. These landowners are being told there are no issues with the turbines, but yet the leases have gag orders stating if they have problems with noise or shadow flicker, they can`t tell anyone or can`t seek mitigation. Now does that seem right? Please talk to some people that turned down developers or are trying to get out of leases.

11) 128.33 (1) (2) Political Subdivision: Page 45 Require a developer or owner to cooperate with any study coordinated by the commission or the DNR of the effects of wind energy systems on wildlife populations and natural resources. Is there going to be any study on the effects on people?

We already know there are problems with negative effects in the existing wind farms. I would like to ask you to slow this process down and take the time you need to think this out as it sure seems to be rushed. Once these are up, it is not like a car that can be recalled and fixed. They are up for the next 30 years.

The best mitigation is done in the rule planning stages. Please err on the side of caution. If engineers need to design a bridge to carry 2 tons, they spec it to carry 3 or 4 tons. It seems we are setting limits here at the bare minimum rather than taking necessary precautions and that is asking for trouble. Please visit the homes of those that are being affected and speak to them personally to make sure this is done responsibly. Rather than guess as to what should be done, study the existing wind farms before allowing more to be constructed.

Lynn Korinek
Mishicot, WI 54228

From: Diane Hoerth
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 7:35 AM
To: Heilman, Alice - PSC
Subject: Safe Setbacks

Please do not allow the construction of industrial wind turbines to be built any less than 2200 feet from homes, schools, business, churches or any building that people and also animals use. Even though it is far short of the recommended setbacks of; The United Kingdom Noise Association of 1 mile, France National Academy of Medicine for a minimum 1mile, Barbara J. Frey, BA, MA and Peter J. Hadden, BSc FRICS report, NOISE RADIATION FROM WIND TURBINES INSTALLED NEAR HOMES: EFFECTS ON HEALTH recommends setbacks of 1.25 miles, Dr. Amanda Harry a minimum of 1.5 miles, Dr. Nina Pierpont calls for a minimum of 1.5 miles.

At 2200 feet the problems that homes/families will experience with noise and vibration issues will still take place but not as frequently and hopefully not as strong or loud. That is why at one time, Renew Wisconsin stated, "Some individuals living within a one‐mile radius of large wind farms complain of headaches and sleeping problems, due to noise pollution. Wind turbines are mechanical devices that emit low‐frequency sound waves. Large wind farms should be appropriately sited for this reason."

The quiet country nights will still be affected at 2200 feet, a minimum distance of 2640 feet would maintain a safer environment of 40 dB, but the above paragraphs recommendations would allow families/residents, taxpayer of the State of Wisconsin to NOT lose their quality of life because it would reach the ambient levels closer to 35dB.

The PSC’s past decisions of setbacks of 1,000 and 1,200 feet from homes has caused problems
for families in our state. Your decision now will affect thousands more and if this decisions affects our health, our safety, our property value --we will not be silent.

Noise studies should NEVER be concluded by the wind industry or utilities. That is letting the fox guard the hen house. All noise studies MUST be done by an independent third parties. In the draft it states another test can‘t be done for two years, this must be removed. If there is a problem with noise a family should not have to wait two years for another test. Once again, using the setbacks in the first paragraph would decrease the problem of noise.

The PSC –THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISION must protect the public, the taxpayers of Wisconsin from any cost in decommissioning and not allow these massive machines to be abandoned.

Diane Hoerth
Chilton, WI

We are writing in regards to the proposed wind siting rules to be determined by the PSC. Our main concern is the noise issues that may be caused by industrial wind turbines when built in close proximity to residential homes and businesses.

Therefore, we ask that you adopt the 2200 setback recommended by Commissioner Azar, which was based on findings of PSC staff which indicated a 45dba noise standard would be met at this
distance.

Additionally, if you chose to allow the developer to be given the opportunity to prove that the noise standard could be met at a closer distance, then we ask that the modeling to prove this be done by an independent 3rd party, rather than the developer themselves, since this type of testing should always be conducted by a party that does not have a financial interest in the outcome of the testing.

We are also very concerned if the PSC only requires a 1000 ft. safety setback, when Vestas recommends a 1300 ft. safety setback for their workers in case of a fire. I would ask that the PSC also provide Wisconsin residents and businesses the same 1300 ft. minimum safety setback that Vestas recommends for their own workers.

We appreciate your careful consideration of our concerns with regards to the health and safety of Wisconsin residents when determining wind siting regulations.

Sincerely,
Gus & Nicole Garcia
Fond du Lac, WI 54935

From: Timothy J. Harmann
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:15 AM
To: Heilman, Alice - PSC
Subject: Draft Siting Rules - Comments

Hello Alice,

I testified in Fond Du Lac and now want to follow‐up and give input on yesterday's draft siting rules discussion:

I believe that yesterday there were some positive points being made in protection of the general public around the turbines. (It is refreshing compared to the heavily wind dominated 15 person panel. It was hard for me to watch this process because it directly impacted my family.)

I have 4 turbines planned around my home (within 1/2 mile) for the Ledge Wind Project by Invenergy.

1. My family needs protection from the very annoying turbine noise that would be keeping us awake at night. Our current ambient is 25 ‐ 30 dba at night. 40 dba is more than double the noise and anything higher should try to be avoided so we can have needed sleep in our own home. I cannot imagine living with an annoying noise that I cannot turn off for 30 years. 5 dba above ambient should be all that is asked of non‐participating homes and hopefully that will protect people against low frequency noise and infrasound too.

2. 2200 foot setback is the minimum that would protect us and most studies say 1/2 mile (2640 feet). We are very hilly in our beautiful setting so noise tends to travel farther and be louder especially at night when its calm at ground level and then wind cannot cover the turbine noise.

3. I am not looking to be compensated for living near a turbine. I wouldn't accept the money anyway because I know too many people that have to live in a wind project today. I interviewed 10 of them near Fond Du Lac in the Blue Sky Green Fields project and know 3 others personally. I need the ability to pursue the wind developer if they make my family's life miserable.

4. My home is a large part of my investment and life savings and I cannot afford to lose up to 40% or more and I don't really want my home bulldozed. Wind developers say turbines increase the property value and I'd like them to be held accountable with property value protection. They do not have eminent domain and they are affecting so many people with so many turbines. The playing field is not level and this is property value theft. Please consider property value protection based on similar homes at least 5 miles outside a wind project. Please consider using property lines so I can develop my own property as I see fit in the future instead of having this right taken from me.

5. Decommissioning needs to be guaranteed and money needs to be set aside upfront.

6. Some control needs to be available to the county and town boards who understand our local issues. Our well water is very vulnerable here and clean water is just as important as clean energy. Our town is actively pursuing alternate clean and renewable energy that re‐uses garbage and cow manure to help solve our unique problems. 81 miles of trenches will make the problem worse here. I already have occasional well problems.

Thank you for your time, efforts, and consideration!

Sincerely,
Timothy J. Harmann
Denmark, WI

From: Ron Heuer
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 4:38 PM
To: Heilman, Alice - PSC
Subject: PSC Wind Energy System Rules

Commissioner Meyer offered to listen to comments on the Rules Discussions that have been underway. I would like to address three issues:

Setbacks
o Safety Setback- current recommendation is 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height. This is not a safe distance when the a Vestas manufacturer manual calls for a setback for safety of 1,300 feet. This setback should be from the property lines.

o Non-participating Residence Setback - The recommendation of 3.1 times the maximum blade tip height will not meet the for Commissioner Azar was on the right track of 2,200 feet for minimum setback from a home.

In countries where they have had Wind Turbines for a number of years, they learned from their mistakes and moved the setbacks to, in some cases a mile from homes. Most have moved the allowable setback of 1/2 mile, again from property lines.

 Noise

o 50/45 (day/Night) will not work, you are putting individuals health at risk with this type of allowable noise. Once again, Commissioner Azar was on the right track with 50/40, closer to the
World Health Organizations rule. Your decision has to consider the residents of Wisconsin.

Why are you throwing this burden on them? They will be forced to sue these companies to get justice. We have experience here in Kewaunee County with the Lincoln Township fiasco.

We had people living within 1300 feet of these turbines and it ruined their lives. Having the Developer to measure these noise criteria is like having your 12 yr. old set their curfew times!

This testing has to be completed by a disinterested third party.

Decommissioning

o Per Commissioner Azar, a LOC cannot be set for a period of 30 years. Perhaps she is right. If that is indeed true, then what should happen is the developer of the wind farm should have to put up a cash deposit that is updated annually by the COLA percentage. That way the county or township has some guarantee the turbines will be removed when these companies go bust (without federal funding) and / or abandon a project. Recent costs associated with dismantling a 400ft turbine in Texas was at the $300K level.
--
Ron Heuer

From: Travis Van Zeeland
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 6:06 PM
To: Heilman, Alice - PSC
Subject: Windmills

Hello Ms. Heilman,
I am emailing you today about my concerns with the windmills to be cited in Southern Brown County. I believe that these windmills should be at least a 1/2 mile from any property dwelling and that there only be a 35-40 decible reading at night. Due to all the health risks that these windmills cause. It is our duty to protect the people that live in these areas.
Thank you for your time.

WADING INTO A WIND CONTRACT-- A resident lets the PSC know what is worrying him:

Source: Public Sevice Commission of Wisconsin, Docket 1-AC-231

Please consider the following Un-Ethical Practices by Wind Energy Cpmpanies.

This is a common thread throughout the industry and needs to be addressed in the new rules being proposed by the PSC.

[This is a] 

Summary of Element Power Contracts 

Element Power Worksheet

· Sidebar at the bottom of the page is a disclaimer that renders all of the terms "subject to change" at the sole discretion Element Power. Essentially, that statement makes the entire term sheet worthless.

· Uses vague terms such as "are deemed" for soil compaction (deemed by Element Power - are they soil compaction experts?) and "all necessary insurance" (necessary for what coverage and to protect whom?)

Element Power Agreement for Waiver of Setback Requirements

· 1. Waiver of Setback by Grantor - You are agreeing to ignore legal setback requirements!

· 3. Binding Effect - This section binds you into ignoring setback rules even when you are no longer under contract.

Element Power Renewable Energy Lease

1.3 Phase of Contract

- Phases shall be determined by [wind devloper/owner operator] in its reasonable discretion.

1.4 Development Period - Up to 10 years.

1.5 Operations Period - Up to 50 years - 30 years plus option of two 10-year extensions.

1.6 Commercial Operation Date - Don`t get paid until 95% of operation is installed and output is at 95% and reliable! That could be that 10 year development stage.

4.4 Tenant`s Right to Terminate - which refers to section 16.2. Summary of both sections - they (Element Power) can terminate the operation contract at any time with 30 days written notice, take 1 ½ years to remove the tower where the landowner gets paid squat and if they don`t "get around to removing the tower" the landowner "may" remove it at the landowner`s expense (there goes all of the profit) and try to get reimbursed back from Element Power.This is called a one - way clause (going one way towards Element Power and one - way against the landowner).

5.1.5 Generate electromagnetic, audio, flicker, visual, view, light, noise,Vibration, air turbulence, wake, electrical, radio interference, shadow or other effects attributable to the Facilities or any other operational or development activities 
If these turbines don`t produce these concerns why list them as possible effects?

5.2 Solar Development - Element Power has the right to use your land for solar development without paying you until you have an alternative 3rd party to offer you remuneration. Element Power could then match your offer from 3rd party or decline. Of course, that is providing that landowner meets all notification deadlines in writing!

5.3 Substations and O&M Buildings - In this section, they are setting the price of your land and can force you to sell your land to them, either by taking their offer or by way of arbitration.

5.6 Right of Access - Roads can go anywhere they choose, even on land not under contract.

6.5 Taxes and Assessments - Landowner does not submit tax bill to Element Power within 10 days, Element Power does not have to pay it

7.1 & 7.2 Liens against property - restrictive language including landowners responsibility to post notices in court and notify tenant within 10 days of discharging lien and then seek reimbursement from Element Energy. No notice within 10 days, no reimbursement.

7.3 Maintenance of Premises - Element Energy will restore to their liking (commercially reasonable, i.e., they determine).

7.4 Tranmission and Collection Lines - Any lines buries will remain buried in perpetuity (forever)!

7.5 Erosion and Weed Control - Landowner notifies Element Energy in 10 days or may not get reimbursed for costs.

7.7 Crop/Lifestock Damage - Maximum of $30/acre.

7.9 Drainage Tiles - Who determines if drainage tiles are damaged?

9.1 Insurance - $5,000,000 of "the right to use a qualified program of self insurance"... What is Element Energy goes bankrupt?

12.3.3 Defualt - This section deals with Element Power being in default (bankrupt). And if they`re bankrupt, sole responsibility of restoration of land (that includes the astronomical costs of removing turbines falls squarely on the shoulder of the landowner).

14.7 and 14.8 Takes away any right for the landowner to sue them for punitive damages. If landowner gets sued for having turbines on their land for any reason, the landowner cannot take Element Energy to court for punitive damages (which is the majority of lawsuits).

14.9 Arbitration - Does any landowner want to negotiate with a third party as to what their land is worth and once the negotiation is finished, the landowner must sell their land to Element Energy at that "arbitrated price"?

16.2 Restoration of Premises - Refer to Section 4.4. Also, under no conceivable circumstances will the landowner ever get "re-imbursed" if Element Energy goes bankrupt.

16.3 Removal Security - This section essentially states that unless mandated by Government, Element Energy does not have to post any bond or assurance that they will take down the turbines when they are done with them or have filed bankruptcy. The Net Removal costs will be the whole cost of removal, unless the whole turbine with tower is sold as a working unit.

There is little, if any, real salvage value with the cut up materials. It also says that after fifteen years, they will determine, at their sole discretion, what the cost is to remove the turbines and all its parts, connections, concreate foundation, etc., and then what the salvage value is. The landowner gets stuck to pay the difference.

17.15 Setback Waive - Refer to Element Energy Set - back Agreement addressed in beginning. 



















Addendum to Element Power Contracts 
Tisch Mills project worksheet.

( If you based your decision to sign up on the preceding project worksheet. I would be very nervous about this statement at the bottom of that calculation!!)

1. 

The information contained herein is purely an estimation, based on several assumptions, all of which are believed to be reasonable as of the date hereof. When reviewing this information, please be reminded that it is preliminary and is subject to change based on any number of variables that may change or be introduced over time.

Such changes may be material and we cannot guarantee that the information contained herein will reflect the actual performance or financial terms of the project if and when it enters operation.

This is NOT an offer to purchase or a solicitation of an offer to purchase and any transaction will only be consummated upon execution of negotiated agreements between the parties. 

Agreement for waiver of setback requirements.

PAINTBALLS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS:

More patrols requested

Source: Police Beat, Fond du Lac County Reporter

August 24, 2010

The manager in charge of the WE Energies Wind Farm along County Trunk W in Malone is requesting extra patrols around the area after dark.

Arthur Ondrejka told the Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Department the wind farm at N8303 County W has become a gathering place for trespassers with paint balls, according to a sheriff's log.