Better Plan, Wisconsin

BROWN COUNTY WIND FARM SHELVED

Third story:

TURBINE DAMAGES RAIL TRACK, THEN LEAVES

A couple of men got out, one looked under the turbine, one man hydraulically raised the load; then they got back into the truck and drove off the tracks. They then stopped for a few more minutes before driving away.

One of those eyewitnesses, concerned that approximately four feet of the rail showed a marked twist, called in to 911 to alert authorities of the possible danger.

SOURCE: Lincoln Daily News, www.lincolndailynews.com

Union Pacific and city crews responded to a report of rail damage at the Keokuk Street railroad crossing at 1 p.m. on Thursday. What they found when they got there concerned the officials.

According to witnesses, an eastbound double trailer carrying a wind turbine base supported between two flatbeds did not clear the tracks. When reaching the slight incline of the tracks, the leading flange from the turbine base scrapped the asphalt approaching the tracks and then, catching one of the rails, came to a jarring halt, bending and twisting the rail.

The eyewitnesses stated that the convoy of two lead trucks, the trailer and rear vehicles all stopped. A couple of men got out, one looked under the turbine, one man hydraulically raised the load; then they got back into the truck and drove off the tracks. They then stopped for a few more minutes before driving away.

One of those eyewitnesses, concerned that approximately four feet of the rail showed a marked twist, called in to 911 to alert authorities of the possible danger.

Tracy Jackson, streets and alleys superintendent, and Mark Mathon, city engineer, were at the crossing all afternoon.

According to the officials, a Union Pacific crew on hand at the crossing was waiting for a northbound evening passenger train to pass through Lincoln before attempting any repairs. All trains were being walked through the damaged area at 3 mph until the repairs could be made.

Jackson said the crew hoped to be able to reset the rail into the ground without having to replace it. He added that if the rail needs to be replaced, that will take some time as the special truck that carries such rails would have to be brought in from either St. Louis or Chicago.

Ironically, the crossing is scheduled to be completely reworked in the next few months.

The 5:30 p.m. northbound passenger train came through the crossing at only 3 mph as Union Pacific crewmen kept on eye on the train and the track. Fortunately the train was able to get through the crossing with no problems, and the repair crew began working on the rail.

By the time the 8:30 p.m. southbound Amtrak came through, the crew had finished. This morning there are no flagmen on the scene.

THE COST OF GREEN: HUGE EASTERN OREGON WIND FARM RAISES BIG QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATE, FEDERAL SUBSIDIES

Source: The Oregonian, www.oregonlive.com

12 March 2011

By Ted Sickinger,

The gravel haulers start rolling down Oregon 74 before dawn, their air brakes bellowing under the heavy loads they ferry into the neighboring hills.

Just over the rimrock of Willow Creek Valley, hard-hatted contractors scramble to pour the base pads and lay electrical cable for 338 wind turbines that will soon spin over 30 square miles of sagebrush in Gilliam and Morrow counties. When completed in 2012, Shepherds Flat is expected to be the largest wind farm in the world.

The project is a poster child for the nation’s love affair with renewable energy. From President Barack Obama to former Gov. Ted Kulongoski, from the Oregon Legislature to rural county courthouses, politicians have embraced renewable energy as an economic and environmental cure-all, a means to create jobs, reduce dependence on fossil fuels and combat global warming.

They have backed that pitch with public dollars. And no state has jumped on the bandwagon more enthusiastically than Oregon, which has given or promised more than $1 billion in tax breaks to green energy projects.

Shepherds Flat is a prime example of that spending, too.

Clyde Smith talks about his decision to leave the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm area Clyde Smith talks about his decision to leave the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm area Clyde Smith says he was offered about $15,000 by Caithness Energy to sign a concession to a 51-decibel level for the wind turbines at Shepherd Flats Wind Farm, near his property. Smith refused and gave them three choices. Of the three, they chose to buy his property rather than build an underground house for him.

[video available HERE]

Indeed, Shepherds Flat demonstrates how Oregon provides millions of dollars to projects that would probably go forward without state subsidies. It illustrates how Oregon taxpayers subsidize California’s renewable energy demand. It shows how developers have used the program’s loose administrative rules to qualify for multiple tax credits for the same project. And it reveals how a program that was originally intended to promote conservation and clean energy morphed into an extravagantly expensive green jobs program.

Stacking federal, state and county subsidies is perfectly legal. But the result is that taxpayers who subsidize a project may bear a greater burden for development than the company that profits from it.

For Shepherds Flat, for instance, federal, state and local subsidies total more than $1.2 billion, about 65 percent of its $1.9 billion cost, according to a White House memo.

Caithness Energy, the New York-based developer of Shepherds Flat, did not respond to numerous phone calls from The Oregonian or detailed questions e-mailed to the company concerning the White House analysis and the company’s state tax breaks.

Clyde Smith, a retired truck driver who recently sold his property to Caithness rather than live in the wake of the project’s noise, says he’s been treated well by the company, including a purchase price well above the value of his property.

But as a taxpayer, he’s outraged.

“This is taking money out of your pocket, my pocket, everybody’s pocket,” he said. “This is a boondoggle of boondoggles. It’s a huge waste of our state and federal money.”

To be sure, Shepherds Flat is a boon for Gilliam and Morrow counties, which stand to collect more than $100 million in taxes and fees from the project over 15 years. Construction will create 400 temporary jobs. The project’s ongoing operation will bring 35 permanent jobs into a moribund employment market. And a few landowners will collect lucrative lease fees for the turbines on their property.

“It’s more jobs than that part of the state has seen in 20 years,” said Paul Woodin, a consultant who helped Gilliam and Morrow counties negotiate property tax breaks with Caithness. “It’s changing the economics of these counties.”

Yet by any standard, the cost per job is enormous: $34 million per permanent position when all federal and state subsidies are tallied. Moreover, it’s not clear that those jobs have any link to the $30 million in proposed tax credits from the state of Oregon.

“It just makes me sick,” said state Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, who attempted to reduce the tax credit for large wind farms during the 2009 Legislature but was forced to compromise after Kulongoski vetoed the bill.

“This really exemplifies the problem,” she said. “This is a windfall for a particular company, and that’s not what a taxpayer subsidy is supposed to do.”

Huge federal subsidies

In his most recent State of the Union address, Obama described the nation’s clean energy push as part of this generation’s “Sputnik moment.” He proposed a major increase in research subsidies and urged Congress to pass a national mandate that 80 percent of the nation’s electricity come from “clean” sources by 2035.

Yet Obama’s own advisers have been critical of some of the green subsidies he champions. Last October, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, energy czar Carol Browner, and Vice President Joe Biden’s chief of staff Ron Klain wrote a memo to the president outlining a number of problems with the federal government’s loan guarantee program for renewable energy.

They included the fact that taxpayers were subsidizing projects that would have gone ahead anyway.

Shepherds Flat was Exhibit A.

The memo said the project was “double-dipping,” gorging on a $1.2 billion smorgasbord of federal and state subsidies. The incentives — all within existing law — include a $500 million federal grant, $200 million in federal and state tax benefits from accelerated depreciation, $220 million in premium power prices attributed to state renewable energy mandates, and a $1.3 billion loan guarantee with a value of $300 million.

The memo concluded that the carbon reductions from Shepherds Flat would have to be valued at more than six times the going rate for the climate benefits to equal the subsidies.

Meanwhile, they said, Caithness has “little skin in the game” — about 10 percent of the project’s cost — but stands to earn a 30 percent return on its investment.

“This project would likely move without the loan guarantee,” the memo concluded. “The economics are favorable for wind investment given tax credits and state renewable energy standards.”

A profitable place to build

Wind farm developers have long insisted that Oregon’s business energy tax credit is essential to attract them here rather than to competing states. And there certainly has been an explosion of utility-scale wind farms built in Oregon since 2007.

That’s when the Legislature passed a law that said Oregon would pay 50 percent of the cost of a developer’s new facility, up to $20 million, or a $10 million credit per project.

The legislators who created and expanded the program “should be commended,” said a statement from the Renewable Northwest Project, an advocacy group whose members include project developers, environmental groups and ratepayer advocates. The credits “put Oregon on the map, and it is our hope that sustained support for the program and renewable energy expansion will continue our state’s leadership.”

As generous as Oregon’s tax credits are, many developers aren’t content with just one, and have subdivided their projects to qualify for multiple tax credits.

Shepherds Flat is no exception. In 2007, Caithness applied to Oregon’s Energy Facility Siting Council for a site certificate covering a single project. But by July 2008, when Caithness submitted applications for tax credits, the project had been divided into three legal entities, each applying for a separate $10 million tax credit.

A cover letter accompanying the applications explained that the company originally sought a single permit for “reasons of efficiency and economy,” and would amend its site certificate to reflect the new reality.

The letter went on to say that no financial commitment had been made to the project, and “making such financial commitments depends in significant part” on whether the tax credits were certified by the state.

Such arm-twisting has become a standard — and effective — part of the industry’s lobbying message in Salem. Kulongoski vetoed a bill in 2009 that would have slashed Oregon’s tax subsidies for large wind farms, insisting that it went too far and would jeopardize the growth of Oregon’s green economy.

Yet Oregon has all the essential ingredients for a profitable wind project already in place: a ready market, plenty of wind, and transmission to move the power.

Oregon, California and Washington have each established aggressive renewable energy standards, creating a big, guaranteed market. Utilities are effectively required to invest in windmills, and independent developers are assured of ready customers for their premium-priced power.

Industry officials insist that there are windier places to build than Oregon, notably Wyoming. But Oregon’s wind belt sits directly atop the existing high voltage transmission system built to ship electricity from nearby hydroelectric dams around the Northwest, and even more important, to California.

California already purchases more than half the wind power generated in the Northwest. And when Shepherds Flat is completed, all of its subsidized output is contracted to go to Southern California Edison.

Economical transmission is a make or break proposition for wind projects. Despite growing transmission congestion in the Northwest, Portland General Electric estimates that the cost of importing wind from Wyoming would be 66 percent higher than a local resource, mostly because of transmission costs.

Wyoming offers little in the way of incentives to wind farm developers. In fact, lawmakers there passed an excise tax last year on wind farm output. A study conducted for Wyoming by Energy and Environmental Economics Inc., or E3, found that Oregon’s wind farms could deliver electricity to the West Coast more cheaply than Wyoming’s — even if Oregon’s energy tax credits were eliminated.

Wind developers have told Oregon legislators that in the absence of the state tax credits, Washington is a better place to build because of lower property taxes.

But E3 found the opposite.

“Our analysis found that Washington has one of the least favorable tax codes for wind,” said Arne Olson, a partner with E3. Oregon’s tax structure is favorable to wind even without the tax breaks, he said. “It’s not even close.”

That conclusion didn’t factor in the property tax breaks Oregon counties are providing to wind farm developers. Gilliam and Morrow counties, for example, have agreed to cut Shepherds Flat’s property taxes by an estimated $34 million over the life of their 15-year agreements with Caithness.

Terry Tallman, the Morrow County judge who helped negotiate property tax breaks with Caithness, suspects the state tax break wasn’t necessary to attract the investment. Another wind company considering a large project in the county, Spain’s Gamesa, told Morrow County commissioners that the state credits won’t be a factor in its investment decision.

PGE and PacifiCorp say essentially the same thing.

In the end, E3′s Olson said, both states are seeing plenty of new wind farms, because “the gorge region has been ideal. It meets all the criteria, and that’s why you’ve seen the development.”

SHEPHERDS FLAT WIND FARM: WHAT'S THE COST TO TAX PAYERS?

The Business Energy Tax Credit started life in the 1970s as a conservation and clean energy incentive, but the chief rationale has become economic development — namely green jobs.

So just how much does a wind farm job cost taxpayers? The answer depends on the formula, and involves an implicit assumption that the jobs wouldn’t exist without the subsidy — questionable in the case of Oregon’s large wind farms.

Either way, the simplest formula is to divide all public subsidies for a project by the number of permanent jobs it creates. For Shepherds Flat, with $1.2 billion in subsidies for 35 permanent jobs, that equation delivers a cost per job of $34 million.

Oregon taxpayers pay a share of the federal subsidies, but for simplicity’s sake, consider the cost of the jobs based on the Oregon tax credits alone.

Shepherds Flat is pre-certified for $30 million in state tax credits. At that price, the cost per permanent position is $857,000.

Bob Repine, director of the Oregon Department of Energy, says it’s possible that Shepherds Flat might not get final approval for all three tax credits. One tax credit would cost $10 million, or $285,000 a job.

Critics of tax credits like to calculate how long it would take to repay the subsidies from personal income taxes generated by the resulting jobs.

Industry experts estimate that the 35 permanent jobs would pay an average of $50,000 a year in wages. Assume each employee gets an annual raise of 3 percent. On that basis, it would take about 46 years to generate $10 million in tax revenues from the jobs created directly by the project, and 77 years to generate $30 million.

At a minimum, that’s double the effective life of the wind turbines for the state subsidies alone.

Economic development officials say such analyses are too simplistic. When they analyze the potential return on an incentive, they factor in a multiplier effect that accounts for all the other jobs created indirectly as workers spend their wages and businesses buy local supplies.

That multiplier would be smaller for a wind farm than say, a manufacturer, as wind farms don’t buy as many supplies or raw materials, and the equipment installed is manufactured elsewhere. But in the interest of conservatism, assume that the multiplier effect quadruples the number of permanent jobs created by Shepherds Flat. Then assume that all of the resulting jobs pay $50,000 a year, with 3 percent annual raises, whether it’s a grocery store clerk, a truck driver or the manager of a hardware store.

It’s an economic development fantasy. But under that scenario, it would still take 19 years to repay $10 million in subsidies for Shepherd’s Flat, and 39 years to repay $30 million.

Glenmore residents' outcry sways wind project: fox11online.com

VIDEO SOURCE: FOX 11 GREENBAY

GLENMORE TOWN BOARD POSTPONES WIND TURBINE DECISION

SOURCE GREENBAY PRESS GAZETTE

March 8 2011

By Tony Walter

Residents reacted angrily, chanting, "No permits," then, "change your vote," prompting Kittell to call for police support.

"The people are trying to get out of hand," Kittell said on his cell phone. One Wisconsin State Patrol officer and two Brown County Sheriff's Department officers showed up 15 minutes later.

GLENMORE — The Glenmore Town Board voted Monday to wait 60 days before voting on a permit request to have seven wind turbines built in the town.

In an emotion-filled meeting that at one point had Town Chairman Don Kittell call in police officers when residents began chanting and shouting, the board reversed an earlier vote to approve the permits.

Mark Dick of Cenergy, a subsidiary of Pennsylvania-based CG Power Solutions that is seeking to erect the turbines, said the board's delay on a decision was based on emotion and opinion, not law.

"You're asking the Town Board to violate law," Dick told the more than 100 residents who crowded into the Glenmore Community Center. "You might as well as ask them to outlaw smoking."

The board voted quickly at the meeting's outset to approve the permits, with Kittell and Supervisor Kriss Schmidt supporting it and Supervisor Ron Nowak opposing it. Kittell argued that the board was simply following the law that required it to honor a conditional use permit that went into effect before the town changed its wind turbine ordinance last year.

But residents reacted angrily, chanting, "No permits," then "change your vote," prompting Kittell to call for police support.

"The people are trying to get out of hand," Kittell said on his cell phone. One Wisconsin State Patrol officer and two Brown County Sheriff's Department officers showed up 15 minutes later.

Residents continued to protest, and Kittell ended the meeting. But the residents continued to argue that the recent decision by a legislative committee to suspend the Public Service Commission's wind-siting rules made it possible for the board to delay its vote.

"I don't understand what your rush is," Cliff Hammond said.

Resident Steve Deslauriers said wind turbine officials wanted the permits approved before the state had a chance to impose new siting rules.

After 90 minutes of debate, the board decided to reconvene the meeting and Schmidt made a motion to delay a decision until more information came from the state. This was approved unanimously but brought Cenergy officials to their feet to protest that the board voted illegally.

"You can't let the minority dissuade you from the law," Dick told board members, ignoring shouts from the residents.

But the board voted unanimously for the delay, bringing applause from the audience.

Glenmore initially had two wind turbines erected in 1997 and last year had seven more built in the Shirley Wind project.

SECOND FEATURE: Wind lobbyists re-writing the news: Chapter 4,567

Note from the BPWI research nerd:

The Green Bay Press Gazette article above has a headline which reads "GLENMORE TOWN BOARD POSTPONES WIND TURBINE DECISION"

RENEW Wisconsin, an organization that lobbys on behalf of the wind industry changes the headline to this on their website:

ANGRY ANTI-WIND CROWD INTIMIDATES TOWN BOARD TO CHANGE VOTE ON T[UR]BINE DECISION

A RESIDENT'S ACCOUNT OF THE MEETING..

LAST NIGHT IN THE TOWN OF GLENMORE.....

The meeting was attended by many residents and also State Representative Andre and John Vander Leest, a representative sent by State Senator Frank Lasee to read a statement from him.

The Glenmore Town Board was to decide on issuing building permits for seven proposed 500' wind turbines on an 80 acre parcel owned by Mike and Sandy  Zirbel, 6013 Morrison Road.

After a speech by Andre Jacques and John Vander Leest, as well as Rick Loppnow (Glenmore Town Supervisor candidate), requesting the Town Board to delay issuing the permits in light of the recent JCRAR suspension of the Wind Siting Rules, the Board made and passed a motion to  approve the building permits.

This action precipitated an immediate widespread expression of outrage by nearly all of the attendees, at which time Chairman Kittel called in the police.

Before the police arrived, the Town Board decided to adjourn the meeting, although most of the agenda items had not yet been covered. This was followed by about 45 minutes of passionate comments from many in attendance, as well as more statements from Representative Jacques and John Vander Leest. The police arrived in the midst of a peaceful open forum, and stayed until the meeting ended.

Following calls from the audience to reopen the meeting and reconsider the earlier motion to approve the building permits, the Board did just that.

The Town Board made a motion to amend their earlier motion and delay a decision on the building permits for 60 days while waiting to see what would happen at Madison.

This created great consternation with the wind developer representatives in attendance who then put tremendous pressure on the Town Board to not delay their decision.

Following consultation with the town attorney, the Board confirmed that they would proceed with the 60 day delay. This decision was met with a standing ovation and round of applause, much to the dismay and anger of the wind developer.
 
The balance of the agenda was dealt with and the  meeting was adjourned. Many congratulations, handshakes, and hugs were exchanged throughout the crowd.

 NEXT FEATURE:

Click on the image above to hear the Falmouth Turbine

Click here for SOURCE

The Falmouth Experience: Sick from the Noise

SOURCE Climatide, climatide.wgbh.org

March 8, 2011

By Jess Bidgood, Reported by Sean Corcoran,

FALMOUTH, Mass. — Last September, under the cover of darkness, Barry Funfar set out on an act of civil disobedience. His target was a wind turbine the town installed about 1,600 feet from his Falmouth home. Funfar used sticky-backed letters and a large poster-board to vandalize a welcome sign near the turbine’s base. When he was done, the new sign read, “The Noise from This Turbine is Killing Me.” And the word “killing” was in red, and he signed his name with a thick black marker.

“I had this huge foam board and covered the whole thing. I used gorilla tape to make it hard to take off. I figured the police would be up to my house the next morning or something. But I heard nothing,” Funfar said.

Dozens of people living near the 1.65-megawatt turbine have reported sleep interruptions, headaches and vertigo since it was turned on last April. Neighbors say it’s like sea sickness — some people feel it, others don’t. But the effects seem to be cumulative in that symptoms appear and increase the longer they’re near the turbine.

What’s not clear is why. A town-commissioned sound study concluded the turbine produces broad spectrum sound at levels within town and state guidelines. But residents say it’s not the volume as much as the type of sound that’s the problem.

“I’ve learned it’s just a different kind of noise. It’s like it gets inside of me and just causes so much stress and anxiety that even when it isn’t going I have this fear of when it is going to start up again,” Funfar said.

Residents primarily report three different types of turbine noise (all of which we were unable to record on our visits to the turbine). The first and most easily understood noise is a swooshing sound that’s made at regular intervals when the blades spin. Then, there’s another, more erratic sound, which some compare to a sneaker bouncing around in a drier.

Heather Goldstone says both of those noises are called impulse sounds, which scientists know are harder to get used to than constant sounds. But for reasons scientists don’t understand, wind turbine noise seems to be more disturbing than other noises such as airports and highways.

“Many scientists and wind-energy advocates say that while people may become annoyed by turbine noise, annoyance is not considered a health impact from a clinical perspective. That said, chronic annoyance can build into stress, and stress could cause many of the symptoms people are complaining about,” Goldstone.

Goldstone cited the work of Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, a physician who has studied the impacts of two wind farms in Maine on nearby residents. “He told me he thinks there’s a more direct explanation: That sleep deprivation caused by turbine noise is taking a toll on people’s mental and physical health,” she said.

The residents who report being the most severely affected by Wind One blame low-frequency sound, often called infrasound, that is inaudible and controversial. They say it’s like a pulse that gets into their heads and makes their hearts race.

“People have different sensitivities to sound, particularly in the low-frequency range,” Goldstone says. “The question is whether sounds below a person’s hearing threshold can affect the ear in other ways and possibly lead to health impacts. Conventional wisdom says no, but a couple of recent studies say maybe. There’s just not enough science available to sort this out yet.”

Steven Clarke is the top wind expert in Governor Patrick’s administration. Clarke says he won’t downplay residents’ complaints. But it’s important to recognize that Falmouth is only one out of 26 turbines that have been installed in Massachusetts, including a half-dozen turbines similar in size and capacity to Wind One.

“Once you put that context around the Falmouth situation,” he says, “I think it becomes clear that we should look at this as a specific case and not generalize that wind energy in general is problematic.”

State leaders have heard complaints about the lack of science as town boards make decisions, and Clarke says the state is looking to partner with a scientific institution to further study turbine noise.

MORE ON THE FALMOUTH TURBINE:

THE FALMOUTH EXPERIENCE: LIFE UNDER THE BLADES

 SOURCE: Climatide, climatide.wgbh.org

 March 7, 2011

Reported by Sean Corcoran, By Jess Bidgood,

FALMOUTH, Mass. — Standing on his home’s porch, Neil Anderson points through the thicket of trees in his front yard and across Blacksmith Shop Road towards one of his closest neighbors: A wind turbine.

“Right now we are 1,320 feet, which is one-quarter mile south of Wind One, which is Falmouth’s first wind turbine. It’s been online since April. And we’ve been trying to get it stopped since April,” Anderson says.

Wind One, as the turbine is officially called, is owned by the town of Falmouth and is located at the town’s wastewater treatment plant, where it stands 262 feet tall to the turbine’s hub. That’s about 10 feet taller than the Pilgrim Monument in Provincetown. The blades extend just shy of 400 feet, which is about half the height of the John Hancock Building in Boston.

When it was installed last spring, Anderson didn’t think Wind One would cause a problem. For 35 years, he’s owned and operated a passive solar company on Cape Cod.

The energy conservationist in Anderson considered wind power a good principle. He wasn’t alone — before the turbine switched on, Falmouth residents almost universally welcomed Wind One as a symbol of renewable energy and a way to keep taxes down.

“I was proud looking at it from this viewpoint — until it started turning,” Anderson said.

But now, as many as 50 people are complaining about the turbine and the noise it makes at different speeds. A dozen families are retaining a lawyer for that reason.

“It is dangerous. Headaches. Loss of sleep. And the ringing in my ears never goes away. I could look at it all day, and it does not bother me. It’s quite majestic — but it’s way too close,” Anderson said.

Neighbors say this isn’t a debate about a turbine ruining their view, and their goal is not compensation. Some just want it turned off at night.

But Anderson can’t compromise. “This house has been my hobby, my investment, and we love it out here. We will move if we have to. Because we cannot live with (the turbine). No, we cannot,” Anderson said.

Wind One is expected to save the town about $375,000 a year in electricity. Heather Harper, Falmouth’s acting town manager, says Falmouth owes about $5 million on the 1.65-megawatt turbine.

Harper said one of the challenges of running the turbine is that the type of sound some neighbors complain about — that low-level pulse — isn’t regulated by the state. “The times I have been there I do not experience the impact of the effect that the neighbors have expressed that they’ve experienced. But I do believe that they are experiencing something that is very real to them,” Harper said.

David McGlinchey is with the non-partisan Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences in Plymouth, which provides science-based information to policy makers. McGlinchey says that while Wind One has generated complaints, other turbines of similar size, including a 1.8-megawatt turbine in Hull, have been mostly well-received.

“The existing peer-reviewed studies suggest that there are no health effects associated with the sound and noise from wind turbines,” McGlinchey said. “That being said, people clearly experience symptoms. People have headaches, people have their sleep disturbed, people are not living well next to them in some situations. In some situations they are. So, both sides are right.”

Wind advocates say Falmouth’s experience has made it nearly impossible to get other turbines approved on Cape Cod, and potentially across the state. Last week, Falmouth’s selectmen acknowledged the issue and agreed to turn off the turbine when wind speeds exceed 23 miles per hour.

It’s unclear how much relief this will bring or how long it will last, since selectmen said more permanent mitigation efforts still must be negotiated.

One looming concern of neighbors is a second turbine, one of the same size and make that has gone up not far from the first. Falmouth’s Wind Two is scheduled to be turned on sometime this spring.

MORE NEWS:

WYOMING LEGISLATURE FAILS TO SETTLE EMINENT DOMAIN ISSUE

SOURCE Associated Press, trib.com 8 March 2011

CHEYENNE — The state Legislature failed to settle the sensitive issue of whether wind farm developers can forcibly take land so they can stretch power lines to their turbines.

Instead, lawmakers who ended their 2011 session last week extended a moratorium banning private wind developers from using eminent domain for another two years, meaning the issue will be back again.

“I hope, in some form, somebody will come up with some idea that can satisfy all sides to the problem,” said Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

[rest of article available at source]

UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY: Note from the BPWI Research Nerd--

It's been three years since the 86 turbine Invenergy wind project went on line near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin.

Today, March 3, marks the third anniversary of the activation of Invenergy's 400 foot tall turbine #4.

The Public Service Commission allowed Invenergy to erect a turbine that is forty stories tall weighing more than 250 tons less than 1600 feet from a home belonging to the Meyer Family.

(Note: The PSC also permitted Invenergy to site these same turbines as close as 1000 feet from non-participating homes in this project)

Gerry Meyer began keeping a noise diary three years ago. Here's how it begins:

March 3, 2008
Turbine #4 turning slow for the first time. 10:00 pm I went out to check the fire and I looked up in the sky to try and see the jet flying over. It was not a jet, but the turbine.

March 6, 2008
Same sound as Wednesday the 3rd of March

March 7, 2008
Turbine sound. Our 13 year old son, complained of a headache. He had not been told headaches being one of the side effects of turbine noise. My wife and I were concerned about how the turbine noise would affect him. He has become our son via social services with many problems. His ears are like that of Radar on MASH. He hears sounds before we do, such as fire department sirens. 

Three Years have passed.

Here is a recent e-mail from Gerry Meyer

February 11 2011– 5:40AM. We went to bed last night at 10:20PM.

This was the worst night of sleep since the turbines went up almost 3 years ago.

I was woke up at 11:38. Even on bad nights I usually get 2 or 3 hours of sleep before being woke up. I was woke up every hour after that. I thought I would remember the other times but I can’t remember them this morning. At one of the wake ups I had a head ache--  At 5:38AM I was woke up to the thumping sound of the turbines and could no longer sleep. It is Sunday morning. It would be nice to sleep a little later, but it is not possible. I am so angry as I type this my fingers are shaking. 

Video below, filmed by Gerry Meyer: 

Turbine #4 is the closest one to the house but there are many others. Click on the video below to see them and hear what Gerry Meyer has to say about living in the wind project.

Better Plan posted the following in 2008: Excerpts from Gerry Meyer's turbine noise diary

   GOT TURBINE NOISE? 

Today we feature the first entries of a noise log kept by a Brownsville family who live 3/4 miles east of South Byron in Fond Du Lac County, Wisconsin.

The new wind turbines have just gone on line there. They aren't the only family we've heard are having turbine troubles. We've heard from several. Children seem to be especially affected by noise and headaches.

If you are having problems with turbines it's important you start a day to day diary right away so you will have a record of what is happening to you. And please let us know how you are doing!

The Diary Begins:

Our family lives on County Road Y in Brownsville, Wisconsin, which is about ¾ of mile east of South Byron. 

Turbine # 4 is 1560 feet behind my house.

Turbine # 3a is about 500 feet mostly east and a little north of turbine #4.

Turbine #6 is about ¾ of mile to the northwest of our home.

Across the road, mostly south and slightly west is turbine #73 at a distance of 2480 feet.

Down the hill to the west is turbine #74a which is about ¾ of a mile away.

We can hear all five of these turbines at various times.

The following is a log of our experiences with wind turbine noise

March 3, 2008
Turbine #4 turning slow for the first time. 10:00 pm I went out to check the fire and I looked up in the sky to try and see the jet flying over. It was not a jet, but the turbine.

March 6, 2008
Same sound as Wednesday the 3rd of March

March 7, 2008
Turbine sound. Our 13 year old son, complained of a headache. He had not been told headaches being one of the side effects of turbine noise. My wife and I were concerned about how the turbine noise would affect him. He has become our son via social services with many problems. His ears are like that of Radar on MASH. He hears sounds before we do, such as fire department sirens.

March 8, 2008
Saturday AM. Loudest so far. Like jet in sky with whoosh to it. I have not written every day. That does not mean the turbine sound is not there. I feel we may never have peace and quiet ever again. We can only hope there are days with no breeze.

March 10, 2008
5pm. Sounds like a high flying jet. 10pm Low flying jet. At 10pm loudest I have heard it. My son still has headache.

March 18, 2008
#4 not turning but could hear whose of #6. We could hear the turbines daily so if there is no record that does not mean there was no sound.

March 25, 2008
Could hear whoosh of #3a. #4 not turning at 4:45 PM. At 5:30PM #6 turning with jet sound of whoosh of turning blades.
Our son is a foster child we adopted. He has lots of issues which are mostly behavior but also include mental problems. If we just stopped by to talk and you interacted with him you would not know, but tick him off and you would see it. He is like Radar on MASH in that he usually hears sirens before we do. My wife was concerned about his health when talk began about turbines and then we received information about health issues. Our son does not know about the health issues from us or from anyone talking about them.
        Soon after #4 began turning he had a bad headache. It lasted about four days or he mentioned them for four days. At school there is a complicated way to help him try and behave and do his schoolwork. He does not focus and is angered easily. So there is a level system with level 4 being the best and in level 1 he is in solitary confinement and cannot go to his regular classes. Level 3 he is in the special ed. Room with other students. Level 2 he is in the special ed room but kept from other students. For about two weeks he did well and stayed at level 4. After the turbine began turning  and the headaches he has now gone to level 1. I should also say he can only go up or down one level in a day. Since Wednesday he has told teachers and the principal and us that his head is spinning and in some cases he tells us that his head is spinning 100 miles an hour. I would guess it has a connection to his behavior at school. Sometimes we can hear the turbine while in our house.

March 26, 2008
#4, #3a & #6 running. Can distinguish between #3a and #4 jet sound whoosh.

March 27, 2008
Fairly quiet

March 28, 2008
Not much wind. Slow turn. Not much noise.

March 29, 2008
Wind from SE. Jet sound with only slight Wind.

March 30, 2008
Turbines around us not running much.

March 31, 2008
6AM Jet sound. 10PM fog, drizzle. Woosh sound.

April 1, 2008
Wind NW 14 mph. 6:15AM #4 not running. I hear #6 with jet sound.
 2:30 PM tower #6 still very loud.

April 2, 2008
6AM. Wind from the SW. #4 jet sound. Now hearing #73 and #74a as the have come on line. In the afternoon #74 is louder than #73.

April 3, 2008
6AM Some sound from #4

April 4, 2008
6AM #4 turning slow, no wind. 11PM #4 and 73 loud and sound like jet going over

April 5, 2008
Our son could not sleep and was up at 1:30 AM. I sent him back to bed and went to our family room in the north end of the house. I could hear turbine #6 from inside the house. Remember that turbine is ¾ of a mile from our house. I turned on the TV (low sound) and could still hear the turbine.
7:30 AM Definitely that jet sound from #4.
Can also hear #’s 3a, 6 and 73. I had a brief unusual feeling in my head somewhat like when one gets off a roller coaster. This was around 11:00AM. This is the loudest the sound has been since March 5th. At 11pm still that jet sound.

April 6, 2008
6-6:15 AM. Wind from the South. Turbine #’s 4, 6, 73, 74a all turning. Jet sound as soon as I went out the house door. 9AM #’s 6 &73 loudest. 10PM #4 quite loud. Saturday has been the worst day so far.

April 7, 2008
5:30 AM Can hear the turbines easy.
10:00 PM Quietest in 3 days

April 8, 2008
Drizzle and not many turbines turning at 10PM. #4 some sound

April 9, 2008
My wife told me she had a headache Friday through Monday with turbines turning. She had no headache Tuesday. Turbine was not turning. This morning she told me she has a headache and asked me if the turbine is turning. Yes it is.

April 10, 2008
Fairly quiet today.

April 11, 2008
6AM Could hear the woosh but turbines were hidden in fog. 3:00 PM Loud, jet sound with strong south wind.

April 12, 2008
7:00 AM #4 Jet sound with whoosh sound. At breakfast I asked my son if he could hear the turbines in the house. “Yes, and I hear them in my room,” he said, “Some nights I can’t sleep” His room is upstairs in the SW corner of the house. As I sit below his room (inside the house) I can hear the turbine.

Here's Better Plan's post from last year at this time, when the Meyer's had been living with the turbines for two yearS.

What's it like to live in the 86 turbine Invenergy Forward Energy wind project?

Here are two recent notes to Better Plan from the Meyer Family. They are residents of the Invenergy Forward Energy wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac county. 

Since the turbines went online near their home two years ago, they have had trouble sleeping, increased blood pressure, ringing and crackling in the ears and headaches. Cheryl has been taking sleeping medication, something she never needed before the turbines started up.

The closest turbine to their home is less than 1600 feet.

From Cheryl Meyer

March 8, 2010

"The turbines are so loud that our dog, Trigger, goes to the backroom window and barks at them.

It sounds like a snowplow driving around the house full bore with its blade down.

I find it interesting the last few days that when I go out with the dog he goes so far down the sidewalk and then turns and looks north to the turbine. He stares at it a few seconds and then moves on.

 But they have been usually loud the last two days. Just thought I would let you know.  

 Cheryl

March 9, 2010

From Gerry Meyer:

Cheryl has a really bad headache.

 She has tried Imatrex or the shot three times in three days, so today went to the Doctor....

The message Cheryl wrote you was when I was in LA. I remember her telling me that the turbines sounded like snow plow coming through the house.

You could add that Trigger barked because that is what he does when a vehicle comes in the driveway. The turbine was so loud he thought a plow was in the driveway.

Gerry

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

On February 18th, I spent another night in the Meyer home to get a better idea of what they are living with and was kept up well past three in the morning by a thumping from the turbines that seemed to come from all directions.

The only thing I can compare it to is the bass sound you hear coming from a car with powerful speakers. You feel the noise as well as hear it. It was impossible to sleep until it finally stopped.

The typical turbine jet sounds and whooshing were louder outdoors than indoors, but the low thumping was penetrating and much louder inside the home than outside the home. This was especially so on the second floor.

The Meyer family home is a typical wood framed old farm house found throughout rural Wisconsin. The Meyer's young son often goes to bed with two radios playing, one on either side of his head to counteract the turbine noise.

Is this St. Croix County's Future? Fond du Lac County home in the Invenergy wind projectLOCAL COMMUNITES COMING [TOGETHER] AGAINST WIND FARMS

SOURCE: New Richmond News, Pierce County Herald www.piercecountyherald.com

February 24, 2011 By: Chris Hamble - Hudson Star-Observer and Jeff Holmquist -

The question of wind turbine location has roiled communities in St. Croix County. The township board of Forest was recently recalled in the Feb. 15 election and the Town of Troy has passed a moratorium on wind farm development.

At its board meeting Thursday, Feb. 10, the town of Troy passed a resolution putting a temporary moratorium in place for the development of wind-energy turbines in and around the town.

A four-man committee was organized by town chair Ray Knapp to look into the “what and how” of possible turbine energy generators and to make an ordinance for the town regarding the building, regulation and usage of possible turbines in the future.

Currently, there is talk at the state capital that the new administration is looking to make strict regulations and standards regarding wind turbine usage, visibility and setbacks. According to Knapp, in a situation such as this, the town may not be “more strict” with its regulations than the state.

Since the state has yet to fully develop a plan, it was suggested that the town issue a moratorium on the building of wind turbines, even though there is currently no plan to build any. The board hopes to keep prospectors and developers from looking into the possibility of constructing turbines until the town can get a hard ordinance on the books. This move was also suggested by the Wisconsin Towns Association.

The moratorium unanimously passed, and is effective until Sept. 26.

“This temporary stay in wind permits will give us time to come up with something right for the town,” said Knapp.

In addition to the moratorium, Knapp also reported that under the current project timeline, the committee would like to draft a possible town ordinance by the regularly scheduled July board meeting, and also compile a list of possible sites for developers to inspect.

_________________________________________________________

The ongoing wind farm controversy has blown the sitting Town of Forest board out of office.

A recall election on Tuesday, Feb. 15, held in conjunction with the Wisconsin primary, went to the three challengers in the contest.

For the chairman position, Jamie Junker gathered 194 votes and incumbent Roger Swanepoel had 123 votes.

For the position of supervisor, challengers Rick Steinberger (207 votes) and Patrick Scepurek (185 votes) were elected. Incumbents Carlton Cress (123 votes) and Douglas Karau (113 votes) were voted out of office.

The recall election was the result of a group of Town of Forest residents who circulated a petition to remove the current board. The petition included the signatures of 93 town residents. A total of 50 signatures was required for a recall election to be conducted.

The group’s main issue with the current board was their approval of a wind project proposed by Emerging Energies LLC, which calls for some 39 turbines to be installed on parcels scattered throughout the township.

Opponents of the plan claim the proposal was approved without appropriate notice and participation from the public.

“The recall election pretty much speaks for itself,” said Junker following his successful run for the chairman post. “The Forest residents have concluded through simply reading a vast number of documents that a number of legal irregularities have taken place. These irregularities are easily understood by anyone that took the time to read the public documents to know what happened in Forest. With great confidence that they had the legal proof, the residents of Forest moved for the rare recall of its officials from office, and to nobody’s surprise they won.”

Junker said the town residents “were never told of the project details until the evening the agreement was actually approved, never knowing of the placement, size, or number at any point during what has repeatedly been said was a public process.”

The towns’ plan commission was also never publicly told of the details, Junker said, yet the formal agreement says the plan commission recommended the agreement.

“Clearly the residents of Forest feel that the previous town board, proven through the records, tried to pull the wool over the residents’ eyes and we’re finding out it didn’t work,” he said.

Junker pledged that the new town board will do “everything legally possible” to stop the wind turbine project now that they’re in office.

He said the chances of the project being stopped are good.

In a phone interview, Steinberger said he was pleased with the results of the recall.

“It was just what I had hoped for,” he said.

Steinberger said he is ready to take on the job of town supervisor and he promised to “represent the people.”

“I want to keep the process open and honest,” he said.

Scepurek was pleased with the outcome as well.

“The citizens of the township decided enough is enough,” he said.

He noted that almost all of the registered voters in the town cast a ballot in the recall, which was an encouraging sign.

“People are waking up and taking notice,” Scepurek said. “People have to start being informed and make sure that things don’t happen under the radar.”

Outgoing supervisor Cress said he didn’t have much to say in the wake of his recall, other than to say he was frustrated by the single-issue focus of the campaign to kick the board out.

“It was unfortunate that it came down to a wind turbine issue and not what it takes to run a township,” he said.

Swanepoel and Karau did not return phone calls to get their reaction to the results of the election.