Better Plan, Wisconsin

WINDS OF CHANGE: WIND LEASE CONSIDERATIONS

Via RJL, attorneys-at-law

Author(s): Robert S. "Sam" Arthur, Jr., Justin H. Boyd
Published: 12/22/2011

Beware of a wind developer who attempts to include unnecessarily long evaluation periods or free extensions, as such lessee may be attempt­ing to stockpile potential wind sites, without any intent to develop and with the hope of assigning the leases to larger wind developers.

Colorado has become a leader in the wind energy industry. According to the American Wind Energy Association, our state is the third-highest wind energy generator in the United States. Farm­ers, ranchers, and other landowners should consider if their property is suitable for wind energy develop­ment and how such devel­opment could be integrated into the current uses of their land. Some major factors that impact the decision to enter into a wind lease are discussed in this article.

Power in Numbers

Owners of land in areas that are advanta­geous for wind farm development should consider joining forces. Increasing the acreage available for wind farm development will increase the land­owners' leverage when negotiating with a wind developer. Landowners in high wind-speed areas may wish to collectively engage an environmental consultant to determine the suitability of their land for wind development.

Factors that may increase the value of the lease opportunities include proximity to transmis­sion lines, local and state economic incentives, and the approval process of the local regulatory authority. Factors sometimes found in Colorado, which may decrease the suitability for wind devel­opment, include rocky or mountainous terrain and close proximity to federally protected lands. If neighbors join forces, in addition to enhancing their bargaining power, the evaluation costs can be spread among the collective group.

The Four Stages of Wind Development That Must Be Addressed in the Lease

Evaluation Stage – During this period, the wind developer studies the feasibility of the site for constructing wind turbines, evaluates environ­mental issues, determines the permitting process, and obtains the necessary financing. While the duration of this stage will vary, the landowner should attempt to limit this stage to a period that lasts no longer than three years. In addition, during this time the wind developer should be paying a guaranteed monthly or annual rent pay­ment. Beware of a wind developer who attempts to include unnecessarily long evaluation periods or free extensions, as such lessee may be attempt­ing to stockpile potential wind sites, without any intent to develop and with the hope of assigning the leases to larger wind developers.

Construction Stage – Assuming that the wind developer desires to proceed from the evaluation stage, the construction of the wind turbines will begin. The landowner should negotiate for a con­struction bonus that reflects the value of the site and also may be based on the number of turbines constructed. The wind developer should continue to pay the monthly or annual rent during this stage.

Operational Stage – Once the equipment has been installed, wind energy is produced and sold for profit to available markets. Generally, the landowner will receive a royalty or percentage of gross revenues received from the production of the wind energy. The landowner should negotiate the percentage of gross revenues that it receives to be increased every five or so years of the lease. While the percentage will vary from location to location, the landowner should be suspicious of any pro­posed royalty of 3 percent or less of gross revenues during the beginning period of the operational stage. Operations of the wind turbines can last anywhere from fifteen to fifty years.

Termination Stage – If the wind developer terminates the lease prior to even reaching the construction stage, the landowner should negoti­ate for a termination fee. Otherwise, the wind developer will have encumbered the landowner's property for the relatively low price of the monthly or annual rent, when the landowner could have been negotiating with another wind developer with the means to actually construct and operate the wind turbines. Assuming that the wind devel­oper does complete the operation stage, the lease will provide for the wind developer to "decommis­sion" the wind turbines. The landowner should receive some type of security, in the form of a bond or cash security deposit, to assure that the wind developer has an economic incentive to properly remove its equipment. The landowner should ensure that the wind developer removes its wind turbines and other equipment in an efficient manner, and leaves the land in a condition no worse than when the wind developer commenced construction.

Beware of the Landowners' Indemnifications

As with many legal agreements, parties often agree to mutually indemnify the other for any damage caused by their own acts or negligence. For example, if the wind developer breaks the farmer's fence or irrigation structures when install­ing its large equipment, the wind developer will fix and replace the damage; such repair or replace­ment costs could run into thousands of dollars. Conversely, imagine if the farmer's tractor runs into the wind turbine, which costs millions of dollars to replace. Such type of damage could force many farmers into bankruptcy. As a result, the landowner may wish to negotiate a maximum limit to its indemnification obligations, to account for the parties' potential economic risks.

Location of Wind Development, Reserved Uses, and Prohibited Uses

The landowner should expressly require the wind developer to refrain from development on or use of specific portions of the land if the cir­cumstances dictate. For example, the landowner may prohibit the wind developer from operating within 500 feet of a residence or within 25 feet of either side of a river or a creek that runs through the property. Most importantly, the lease should expressly reserve to the landowner the right to use his or her property for other uses, such as grazing, hunting, fishing, mineral exploration, or solar energy. In addition, the landowner may desire to reasonably restrict the access rights of the wind developer so as not to disrupt the landowner's peaceful enjoyment.

Taxes and Utilities

Upon construction of the turbines, the value of the property will increase. As a result, the county assessor likely will increase the property taxes assessed to the property. In addition, the utility costs on the property to operate the turbines will rise dramatically. The landowner should ensure that these increased costs incurred by the wind developer are passed on to the wind developer.

Assignment

As mentioned previously, some wind devel­opers desire to obtain numerous wind leases without ever intending to construct or operate wind turbines. Instead, their hope is to assign these wind leases to larger wind developers. As advised above, landowners should work with their neighbors and join forces to cut out this type of middleman, and they should attempt to present their own attractive opportunity to a large wind developer. As another protection, the individual landowner also should restrict the ability to assign the lease. At a minimum, the landowner should have some type of "reasonableness" standard in being required to consent to such assignment to ensure that the assignee has the same economic capacity to both construct and operate the wind development.

The above are just some of the major factors that landowners should consider before entering into a lease with a wind developer. The wind lease may provide attractive economic security; how­ever, given the long duration of these agreements, the landowners must ensure that their interests are protected. If you have any questions regarding wind-lease issues, please do not hesitate to contact Sam Arthur or Justin Boyd.

From Illinois

NO WELCOMING COMMITTEE FOR WIND FARMS: HAMILTON TOWNSIP AMONG COMMUNITIES IN OPPOSITION

BY DAVID GIULIANI,

Via www.saukvalley.com 

December 23, 2011 

“They wanted us to sign a 70-year contract,” Gonigam said. “That would affect my kids, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

WALNUT – Stacy Gonigam’s family decided against having wind turbines on their farm in southwestern Lee County.

Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Power approached the family for its Green River wind farm, which is planned for Lee, Whiteside and Bureau counties.

Gonigam said she didn’t sign a contract with Mainstream because it would bind her family for a long time.

“They wanted us to sign a 70-year contract,” Gonigam said. “That would affect my kids, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

Gonigam also is the supervisor for Hamilton Township, population 236.

During the past summer, the township board voted unanimously for a comprehensive plan that recommended against the construction of wind turbines.

The township is not alone in its opposition. In the spring, the village board in Whiteside County’s Deer Grove, population 48, voted unanimously to regulate turbines within 1.5 miles of its boundaries. That was in response to news of Mainstream’s plans.

Now that Deer Grove has passed a zoning ordinance, the village has the right to ban wind farms in the areas near its borders, county officials say. Opposition to Mainstream’s proposal is strong in Deer Grove, so it’s doubtful the board will approve construction of turbines nearby.

While Hamilton Township’s comprehensive plan isn’t binding, it’s a statement against turbines, Gonigam said.

Sandy Cruse, a lifelong resident of Hamilton Township, said her survey found that 80 percent opposed wind turbines.

“Our area is recovered swampland,” said Cruse, whose family has a farm. “We’re 90 percent flood plain. It’s all supported by good drainage.

“We are stewards of the land, and we want to be good stewards. We’re all agricultural, and that’s what we would like to see.”

She feared that a wind farm would affect the drainage. She also said she and others don’t want the noise and shadow flicker associated with turbines.

Mainstream officials have pledged to be good neighbors, saying they want to reach out to residents.

Mainstream plans to put in 60 to 90 turbines in the first phase, the vast majority of which would be in Lee County. The second phase would include a similar number, officials say.

Last month, Whiteside County finished its review of its wind energy regulations. Officials decided against making changes.

Mainstream was expected to turn in its application to Whiteside County soon after that. But the company has yet to do so.

John Martin of Mainstream said his company is working on the application and expects to complete it soon.

The Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals has been meeting since the summer; it has recommended many changes to the existing ordinance.

On Thursday, the board will debate perhaps the biggest issue of all – the required distance between turbines and houses.

That should be the last major item of business.

The board’s recommendations will go to the full Lee County Board, which has the final say.

Video courtesy of The Forest Voice-- visit their website by clicking HERE

"At least eight families living in the Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore just south of Green Bay, are reporting health problems and quality of life issues since the Shirley Wind project went online in December of 2010. Six families have come forward, five of them testify on the video, and at this time two of them have vacated their homes. STAND UP to protect people, livestock, pets, and wildlife against negligent and irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines."

-The Forest Voice

Next Feature:

WIND FARM IDEA ZAPPED BACK TO LIFE

By Kevin Murphy,

Via New Richmond News, www.newrichmond-news.com 

December 22, 2011 

MADISON – The clock began ticking Friday on state regulators to review an application to construct a 102.5 mega-watt wind energy farm in the towns of Forest and Cylon.

By statute, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission has 30 days to determine if the application submitted by Highland Wind Farm LCC is complete, and if so, then six months to approve or deny it. If necessary, a circuit court can grant the PSC a six-month extension.

The HWF project has been a controversy in the Town of Forest since the town board approved a wind development agreement with the wind farm developer, Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, in 2008. That agreement was modified in 2010 but proved to be unpopular with residents who removed the board in a recall election in February.

Rick Steinberger, elected in February, said that within a month the new board rescinded previously adopted wind development agreements and in August enacted a wind energy system licensing ordinance that Steinberger said better “protects the town than existing state regulations.”

“Realistically, we’re not protected by the state guidelines,” which is why the town adopted an ordinance with more restrictions than state regulations on turbine setbacks, noise levels and shadow flicker,” he said.

In response, HWF increased the size of the project from 97 to 102.5 megawatts, making it subject to state and not town regulation. How much involvement the town will have in the state’s approval process remains to be seen, said Steinberger.

“I’m just one vote on the board…and I haven’t read through the application yet and I don’t have a comment on it,” Steinberger said Monday.

Town Chairman Jamie Junker also said he would withhold any comment on the wind farm application and what response the town should take until he has reviewed it.

William Rakocy, a founding member of Emerging Energies, now EEW Services LCC, said the project was increased in size in response to an unresponsive town board.

“We would have been pleased to work with the town; we tried to in the past. The previous town board was reasonable to work with, but the new town board has not responded to any attempts to communicate with them so we’re going ahead,” Rakocy said.

Rakocy said the $250 million wind farm represents Wisconsin’s best option for renewable energy and should be approved.

“Every other energy source has a fuel requirement to bring it the state; there’s a fuel cost associated with bringing in coal, uranium for nuclear power and even natural gas. We don’t have any of those energy sources in Wisconsin but we do have wind,” he said.

Rakocy, of Hubertus, Wis., also said the project will need approval from several other state and federal agencies including the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Unlike public utilities, EEW Services LCC won’t have to prove there is a demand for the electricity produced by the project. Rakocy could sell the project once it’s approved but he disputed he was taking a route through the regulatory process that avoids having to prove demand.

“This doesn’t avoid anything. There’s been a clearly defined process in the state of Wisconsin for several years. There are questions to be answered by utilities and questions to be answered by independent power producers. We’ve answered the questions the application has required,” he said.

Rakocy said he hopes the economy recovers in the two to three years it takes to approve and construct the wind farm so there is more electrical demand. If the project is approved he will be look for an investor to fund and build it.

If the project goes according to plan, construction could start in early 2013 and be completed in about a year, Rakocy said.

The PSC retains siting jurisdiction over the HWF project. Although siting regulations approved by the PSC earlier this year have been suspended by the Legislature, the PSC will at least need to consider if the application is consistent with the suspended rules, according to statement the PSC issued Monday.

The PSC welcomes public comment on the project once it determines the application complete. The application has been posted to the PSC’s website: psc.wi.gov. The HWF docket number: 2535-CE-100.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: William Rackocy is the same developer who put together the Shirley Wind project, the subject of the video above. Read more about Mr. Rakocy HERE and HERE

Watch the trailer from the award-winning documentary "Windfall" which includes video from Wisconsin wind projects. "Windfall" will be released nationally in February of 2012

"Wind power... it's sustainable ... it burns no fossil fuels...it produces no air pollution. What's more, it cuts down dependency on foreign oil.

That's what the people of Meredith, NY first thought when a wind developer looked to supplement the rural farm town's failing economy with a farm of their own -- that of 40 industrial wind turbines. But when a group of townspeople discover the impacts that a 400-foot high windmill could bring to their community, Meredith's residents become deeply divided as they fight over the future of their community. With wind development in the United States growing annually at 39 percent, Windfall is an eye-opener for anyone concerned about the environment and the future of renewable energy."

Next Feature:

From Illinois

DISPUTE STILL STANDS AS WIND CAPITAL PAYS UP

by Andrew Gaug, St. Joseph News-Press,

via www.newspressnow.com

December 22, 2011 

What appeared to be an early Christmas present has turned into an unholy mess, as Wind Capital Group dropped off its property tax payment to DeKalb County on Thursday.

Receiving two checks totaling $1,967,572, delivered to the DeKalb County Courthouse by Stephen Bode, Wind Capital Group operations manager, county officials aren’t sure if they can distribute any of it.

Though the attitudes remain heated between the county and wind farm company, which runs the Lost Creek Wind Farm, over a property tax assessment, County Assessor Ruth Ross was originally pleased to see the company pay part of what she said it owes.

While awaiting judgment from the Missouri State Tax Commission concerning property tax assessment, more than $1 million of the paid taxes will be placed in an escrow account. Not disputing the remaining $951,021.62, the amount Wind Capital Group stated it feels is the correct total it should pay, it was expected to go immediately to DeKalb taxing entities such as schools and fire protection.

“I think this is a wonderful thing that Wind Capital is doing. They’re not disputing it all, and the taxing entities of Missouri will benefit greatly from that money … being dispersed before the first of the year,” she said.

That may not be the case, County Treasurer Jody Pearl stated, as she considered Ms. Ross’ information conflicting with what she was told — that all of the money, including the undisputed amount, would go into the escrow account.

“According to my attorney, (it will) not (be distributed) without an order from the State Tax Commission instructing me how to distribute it,” she said.

Citing Missouri State Statute 139.031, concerning disbursement of tax money during a dispute, Ms. Ross said the undisputed money should be ready to be sent out. In the meantime, she will be contacting her attorney to see what can be done.

Though Ms. Ross was smiling when talking about the schools, fire and police receiving money, she made it clear that issues with the company are anything but dashed.

In a release, Wind Capital stated its pride in paying what it felt was a fair share of the property tax and doing so in a timely manner. “Wind Capital Group believes very strongly in paying our fair share of property taxes in DeKalb County and has now done so,” Mr. Bode said. “For the Lost Creek Project, we have now paid more in property taxes than has ever been paid on a wind energy project in the state of Missouri.”

Considering the company’s statement a misnomer, Ms. Ross said the reason they’re paying more is because they have three times the wind turbines as any other wind farm in the state, and they’re still asking to pay less.

“I always take exception to the fact that they’re paying a lot more taxes to DeKalb County than they are to other counties,” she said. “That’s like you buying a new car and me buying three new cars and I’m expecting my taxes to be the same as yours.”

The company is disputing Ms. Ross’ assessed property tax value of about $297,000 per wind turbine, an amount she came to when using a formula created by former Wind Capital Group CEO Tom Carnahan. Assessors in several other counties in Northwest Missouri with wind farms have told the News-Press they used the same formula as Holt County, without conflict.

Protesting the proposed tax assessment, Wind Capital stated Ms. Ross’ formula is overblown and should be about $142,000. The case awaits a decision from the tax commission.

“We’re still a long ways from being settled, but I want to commend Wind Capital for letting us at least distribute that amount,” Ms. Ross said.

“It will be a huge benefit. Not as much as we would like, but it’s a step.”

WHY THE WIND INDUSTRY IS FULL OF HOT AIR AND COSTING YOU BIG BUCKS

By Robert Bryce,

Via www.foxnews.com 

December 20, 2011

A review of the $9.8 billion in cash grants provided under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the federal stimulus bill) for renewable energy projects shows that the wind energy sector has corralled over $7.6 billion of that money. And the biggest winners in the 1603 sweepstakes: the companies represented on AWEA’s board of directors.

The American Wind Energy Association has begun a major lobbying effort in Congress to extend some soon-to-expire renewable-energy tax credits. And to bolster that effort, the lobby group’s CEO, Denise Bode, is calling the wind industry “a tremendous American success story.”

But the wind lobby’s success has largely been the result of its ability to garner subsidies. And those subsidies are coming with a big price tag for American taxpayers. Since 2009, AWEA’s largest and most influential member companies have garnered billions of dollars in direct cash payments and loan guarantees from the US government. And while the lobby group claims to be promoting “clean” energy, AWEA’s biggest member companies are also among the world’s biggest users and/or producers of fossil fuels.

A review of the $9.8 billion in cash grants provided under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the federal stimulus bill) for renewable energy projects shows that the wind energy sector has corralled over $7.6 billion of that money. And the biggest winners in the 1603 sweepstakes: the companies represented on AWEA’s board of directors.

An analysis of the 4,256 projects that have won grants from the Treasury Department under section 1603 over the past two years shows that $3.37 billion in grants went to just nine companies — all of them are members of AWEA’s board. To put that $3.37 billion in perspective, consider that in 2010, according to the Energy Information Administration, the total of all “energy specific subsidies and support” provided to the oil and gas sector totaled $2.84 billion. And that $2.84 billion in oil and gas subsidies is being divided among thousands of entities. The Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates the US now has over 14,000 oil and gas companies.

The renewable energy lobby likes to portray itself as an upstart industry, one that is grappling with big business and the entrenched interests of the hydrocarbon sector. But billions of dollars in 1603 grants – all of it exempt from federal corporate income taxes – is being used to fatten the profits of some of the world’s biggest companies. Indeed, the combined market capitalization of the 11 biggest corporations on AWEA’s board – a group that includes General Electric and Siemens — is about $450 billion.

Nevertheless, the clock is ticking on renewable-energy subsidies. The 1603 grants end on December 31 and the renewable-energy production tax credit expires on January 1, 2013. On Monday, AWEA issued a report which predicted that some 37,000 wind-related jobs in the US could be lost by 2013 if the production tax credit is not extended.

But the subsidies are running out at the very same time that a cash-strapped Congress is turning a hard eye on the renewable sector. The collapse of federally backed companies like solar-panel-maker Solyndra and biofuel producer Range Fuels, are providing critics of renewable subsidies with plenty of ammunition. And if critics need more bullets, they need only look at AWEA’s board to see how big business is grabbing every available dollar from US taxpayers all in the name of “clean” energy. Indeed, AWEA represents a host of fossil-fuel companies who are eagerly taking advantage of the renewable-energy subsidies.

Consider NRG Energy, which has a seat on AWEA’s board. Last month, the New York Times reported that New Jersey-based NRG and its partners have secured $5.2 billion in federal loan guarantees to build solar-energy projects. NRG’s market capitalization: $4.3 billion.

But NRG is not a renewable energy company. The company currently has about 26,000 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity. Of that, 450 MW is wind capacity, another 65 MW is solar, and 1,175 MW comes from nuclear. So why is NRG expanding into renewables? The answer is simple: profits. Last month, David Crane, the CEO of NRG, told the Times that “I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects.”

Or look at E.On, the giant German electricity and natural gas company, which also has a seat on AWEA’s board of directors. In 2010, the company emitted 116 million metric tons of carbon dioxide an amount approximately equal to that of the Czech Republic, a country of 10.5 million people. And last year, the company – which has about 2,000 MW of wind-generation capacity in the US — produced about 14 times as much electricity by burning hydrocarbons as it did from wind.

Despite its role as a major fossil-fuel utility, E.On has been awarded $542.5 million in section 1603 cash so that it can build wind projects. And the company is getting that money even though it is the world’s largest investor-owned utility with a market capitalization of $45 billion.

Another foreign company with a seat on AWEA’s board: Spanish utility Iberdrola, the second-largest domestic wind operator. But in 2010, Iberdrola produced about 3 times as much electricity from hydrocarbons as it did from wind. Nevertheless, the company has collected $1 billion in section 1603 money. To put that $1 billion in context, consider that in 2010, Iberdrola’s net profit was about 2.8 billion Euros, or around $3.9 billion. Thus, US taxpayers have recently provided cash grants to Iberdrola that amount to about one-fourth of the company’s 2010 profits. And again, none of that grant money is subject to US corporate income taxes. Iberdrola currently sports a market cap of $39 billion.

Another big winner on AWEA’s board of directors: NextEra Energy (formerly Florida Power & Light) which has garnered some $610.6 million in 1603 grants for various wind projects. NextEra’s market capitalization is $23 billion. The subsidies being garnered by NextEra are helping the company drastically cut its taxes. A look at the company’s 2010 annual report shows that it cut its federal tax bill by more than $200 million last year thanks to various federal tax credits. And the company’s latest annual report shows that it has another $1.8 billion of “tax credit carryforwards” that will help it slash its taxes over the coming years.

The biggest fossil-fuel-focused company on AWEA’s board is General Electric, which had revenues last year of $150 billion. Of that sum, about 25 percent came from what the company calls “energy infrastructure.” While some of that revenue comes from GE’s wind business, the majority comes from building generators, jet engines, and other machinery that burn hydrocarbons. The company is also rapidly growing GE Oil & Gas, which had 2010 revenues of $7.2 billion. GE Oil & Gas has more than 20,000 employees and provides a myriad of products and services to the oil and gas industry.

GE has a starring role in one of the most egregious examples of renewable-energy corporate welfare: the Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon. The majority of the funding for the $1.9 billion, 845-megawatt project is coming from federal taxpayers. Not only is the Energy Department providing GE and its partners – who include Caithness Energy, Google, and Sumitomo — a $1.06 billion loan guarantee, as soon as GE’s 338 turbines start turning at Shepherds Flat, the Treasury Department will send the project developers a cash grant of $490 million.

On December 9, the American Council on Renewable Energy issued a press release urging Congress to quickly extend the 1603 program and the renewable-energy production tax credit, because they will “bolster renewable energy’s success and American competitiveness.”

But time is running short. Backers of the renewable-energy credits say that to assure continuity on various projects, a bill must be passed into law by March 2012. If that doesn’t happen, they are predicting domestic investment in renewable energy could fall by 50 percent. A bill now pending in the House would extend the production tax credit for four additional years, through 2017. The bill has 40 sponsors, 9 are Republicans. The bill is awaiting a hearing by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His latest book is Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.

From Massachusetts

MOVING TOWARD CONSENSUS ON TURBINES

By CHRISTOPHER KAZARIAN,

Source: Falmouth Enterprise,

December 20, 2011 

In the Weston & Sampson report the cost for decommissioning the turbines and taking them down is estimated to be $700,000, with on-site storage adding $30,000 to that figure. The monthly maintenance fee for the turbines would be $4,500 a month.

The town could, under the proposal, possibly realize as much as $600,000 for the two turbines, if it were to resell them. If a buyer cannot be found, salvage value of the machines would provide the town with much less revenue, an estimated $102,000.

Earlier this year Falmouth hired a consultant to determine if the town could reach consensus with residents on how to deal with the problems of the town-owned wind turbines at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. That consultant, Edith M. Netter of Waltham, concluded that, despite the acrimony over the turbines, a consensus was achievable.

Last night selectmen moved forward with that approach by accepting advice from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, which is recommending four firms to facilitate that next step. Those firms, which the state agency selected after issuing a Request for Qualifications, are CLF Ventures of Boston; the Consensus Building Institute of Cambridge; the Meister Consulting Group of Boston; and Raab Associates of Boston.

The Clean Energy Center has provided a review of the firms to selectmen, noting which were best suited for facilitating the process of building consensus on how to deal with the town’s two wind turbines. Selectmen will not make a decision on those firms until their next meeting on Monday, January 9.

Chairman of the Falmouth Board of Selectmen Mary (Pat) Flynn asked for public input on the four finalists to help in choosing the one that will be responsible for facilitating the process of how to select the mitigation option most suitable for the town. The options before selectmen are: to decommission the two turbines; to relocate the turbines elsewhere in town; to make specific changes to the operation of the turbines; or to mitigate the homes impacted by the machines. Weston & Sampson has concluded its analysis of these options, and that report will be posted on the town’s website, under the selectmen’s section, later today.

Residents can also find information related to the four firms the Clean Energy Center is recommending for facilitation here, as well. Nancy A. Hayward of Chase Road, West Falmouth, later asked that a copy of the report also be made available to residents in the Falmouth Public Library’s reference department. The board agreed to her request.

In the Weston & Sampson report the cost for decommissioning the turbines and taking them down is estimated to be $700,000, with on-site storage adding $30,000 to that figure. The monthly maintenance fee for the turbines would be $4,500 a month.

The town could, under the proposal, possibly realize as much as $600,000 for the two turbines, if it were to resell them. If a buyer cannot be found, salvage value of the machines would provide the town with much less revenue, an estimated $102,000.

In addition, Weston & Sampson predicted the town would be responsible for repaying the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust the roughly $1 million it received in Renewable Energy Credits for the energy produced by the turbines from 2015 to 2029.

Falmouth would have to cover its debt obligations for the pur- chase of the wind turbines. In the report the town would pay $6.88 million in debt for Wind 1. With relocation Weston & Sampson has estimated the town would require an additional $4.48 million investment. Of that amount roughly $1.5 million would go toward decommissioning of the turbines as well as permitting and site preparation. The remaining money would be needed to cover actual construction costs.

If the town elects to keep the turbines in their current location, it could elect to modify a handful of abutters’ homes. Weston & Sampson mentioned nine homes—four on Blacksmith Shop Road, four on Ambleside Drive and West Falmouth Highway—that were closest to Wind 1 and Wind 2 as ones that should be strongly considered, based upon inspection last month by Harris Miller Miller and Hanson. With proper sound insulation and, in six cases, installation of central air-conditioning, the town would pay roughly $360,000 to modify those nine homes. To extend that strategy to the 25 closest homes would cost Falmouth roughly $1 million.

Another option could be noise barriers, although Weston & Sampson noted that these are not only rare, but also expensive and would require the removal of a number of trees in the area.

As an example of the significant cost of the noise barriers Weston & Sampson estimated that to construct a 41-foot high one to protect the four closest homes to Wind 1 would cost anywhere between $1 million and $2 million. Some of the modfications to the turbine include making operational changes to limit shadow flicker, which is estimated to cost $15,000 per turbine.

Once a facilitator is selected by the board, Ms. Flynn said the neutral consultant would meet with groups of 20 to 40 citizens in confidential interviews or focus groups during the month of January. The purpose of those meetings, Ms. Flynn said, will be to clarify community views on the proposed options in the Weston & Sampson report.

And it would help determine what process, if any, would work to bring people together to discuss mitigation strategies for the wind turbine. If such a process is feasible, selectmen would be apprised of that in the beginning of February by whatever firm is selected to facilitate the consensus-building approach. Over the next two months the board would then work with the public before making a recommendation to Town Meeting in April about how to proceed with the town-owned wind turbines.

FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 19, 2011

[Download a copy of this document by clicking here]

Highland Wind Farm, LLC Files CPCN Application with Public Service Commission

Madison, WI—The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Commission) has received an application from Highland Wind Farm, LLC to build a 102.5 megawatt wind project located in the townships of Forest and Cylon, St. Croix County, Wisconsin.

When the application is deemed complete, the Commission will have up to 360 days to make a decision on the application.

An electric generation project of 100 megawatts (MW) or greater requires a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the Commission.

The Commission has siting jurisdiction over all wind energy systems 100 MW or larger and over utility-owned wind energy systems, regardless of size.

A political subdivision (city, town, village, or county) has siting jurisdiction over non-utility wind energy systems smaller than 100 megawatts.

2009 Wisconsin Act 40 made several changes to the state statutes regarding the siting of wind energy systems.

The law retained the jurisdictional split between the Commission and political subdivisions; directed the Commission to write wind siting rules; and stated that a political subdivision may not impose requirements that are more restrictive than those in the Commission’s wind siting rules.

In response, final Wind Siting Rules promulgated by the Commission (PSC 128) were published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register on February 28, 2011, to be effective March 1, 2011.

Currently the rules are not in effect due to legislative suspension.

The Commission and interested parties are currently working to resolve concerns regarding wind siting for non-utility projects under 100 MW.

Because Highland Wind Farm, LLC has planned a project surpassing the 100 MW threshold, the project application will be treated like any other CPCN application received by the Commission; however, the Commission is also statutorily required to “consider whether installation or use of the facility is consistent with the standards specified in the rules promulgated by the commission under Wis. Stats. §196.378 (4g) (b),” meaning the Commission will need to at least consider whether the application is consistent with
the standards in the promulgated, yet suspended, PSC 128 rules.

Once the Commission receives all pieces of an application, the Commission has 30 days to determine whether the application is complete. After a CPCN application is deemed complete, the Commission urges the public to take advantage of the many opportunities to weigh in.

The public is encouraged to read the Commission’s public notification letter, verify interested parties are included on the Commission mailing lists, review the application posted online, ask questions of the Commission staff, submit comments, and testify at hearings.

Information can be found at the Commission’s web site, http://psc.wi.gov, and at local libraries, government offices, clerks’ offices, and within the environmental review documents that will be prepared for the project.

Wis. Stats. § 196.491 describes the procedures related to the issuance of a CPCN. The general application requirements for the CPCN are described in Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 111.

An overview of a typical application review process can be found at: http://psc.wi.gov/thelibrary/publications/electric/electric03.pdf.

Documents associated with the Highland Wind Farm application can be viewed on the PSC’s Electronic Regulatory Filing System at http://psc.wi.gov/. Type case numbers 2535-CE-100 in the boxes provided on the PSC homepage, or click on the Electronic Regulatory Filing System button.

From Minnesota:

WIND COMPANY SUING BELLE CREEK TOWNSHIP

By Regan Carstensen

SOURCE: The Republican Eagle, www.republican-eagle.com

December 17 2011 

Belle Creek Town Board Chair Chad Ryan was served papers Thursday night, informing him that AWA Goodhue was suing Belle Creek Township for “declaratory judgment” and “injunctive relief.”

The Belle Creek Town Board adopted a one-year moratorium in June 2010 to prevent any development, siting or construction of a wind project within the township while the board completed various planning activities. The moratorium was extended in May 2011 to last 120 days later than the date AWA Goodhue completed the permitting process for its 78-megawatt wind farm in Goodhue County — much of which lies in Belle Creek Township.

According to state statute 216F.07, the site permit that was issued for AWA Goodhue by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in June was the only approval the wind company needed to obtain for the location of its project.

AWA Goodhue attorneys argued in the summons served to Ryan that AWA Goodhue is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the permit pre-empts and supersedes the township’s effort to regulate the project with a moratorium.

The summons also says that AWA Goodhue “will potentially suffer irreparable harm” if Belle Creek is allowed to interfere with its rights under the site permit to proceed with developing the project, and attorneys argue that the wind company is entitled to an injunction preventing the township from any such interference.

Belle Creek Town Board has 20 days from the date papers were served to provide a written response to the compliant. If no response is filed in that time, the board will not get to explain its case to the court.

Ryan had no comment on behalf of the Belle Creek Town Board.

A call for comment was not returned by AWA Goodhue representatives.

SECOND STORY: SAME WIND DEVELOPER....

WIND FARM TENSIONS FLARE UP OVER EAGLE STUDY

By  JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY ,

Source: Star Tribune, www.startribune.com

December 16, 2011 

A large number of eagles are active around the footprint of a controversial wind farm under development in Goodhue County, according to a wildlife survey the developer conducted this fall under orders from state regulators.

But AWA Goodhue Wind said in filings with the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that the count has been inflated by project opponents who are purposely attracting birds by dumping animal carcasses on the site as part of an eagle-baiting campaign.

The charges have not been verified by state investigators. But true or not, they represent yet another escalation in a fight between the developer and local residents that has split the community and which is occurring at other sites around the country as the wind industry evolves.

The 50-turbine wind farm, approved this year by the PUC, will be located on 12,000 acres that are home to both bald and golden eagles, as well as other protected birds and bats.

Officials from Goodhue Wind, who did not return phone calls Friday, have made changes in the project’s design in response to concerns from state and federal wildlife officials. But there is a growing realization nationally that the clean energy from wind is having an impact on wildlife.

The Goodhue County Board and other local governments and some residents have fought the project for more than two years over concerns about setbacks, noise and movement from the massive blades. The fight over birds and bats emerged when residents began documenting eagle nests in the spring and dozens of migrating eagles that hung around the area this fall. Both bald and golden eagles are protected by federal law.

To date, there are only five known instances in North America of bald eagles killed by wind turbines, said Rich Davis, a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who has been monitoring the project for two years. But the Goodhue project is the first to be constructed in an area widely used by both bald and golden eagles for nesting and migrating, he said.

“I’m confident that there are birds using the area whether there is baiting or not,” he said. “I would definitely say that there is risk at that site.”

Davis said he’s just as concerned with the number of bats that the survey turned up, including rare northern long-eared bats and little brown bats. The project, in short, is likely to be a large experiment in whether, and how, both species can accommodate turbines, he said.

Such concerns prompted the PUC to order Goodhue Wind to conduct a wildlife survey and develop a protection plan, which was filed on Thursday. The company has been working with both state and federal wildlife officials.

The document says collisions with eagles will be rare, but projections are uncertain because the surveys “have been seriously compromised by an active baiting program being conducted by project opponents.”

Two golden eagles, which are on the federal endangered species list, were spotted near the site of a future turbine, the report said. One was soaring, and the other was attracted to “an active baiting location.”

Opponents deny baiting

Opponents of the project said there is no baiting going on, and that the company is making the allegations to obscure the true number of eagles in the area.

“They think we are purposely taking dead animals and throwing them in our fields to feed the eagles,” said Ann Buck, who owns a nearby dairy farm.

Buck said an investigator from the State Board of Animal Health came by to check on a complaint from Goodhue Wind about a dead calf in her pasture. It had been stillborn by one of her cows, she said. If there are animal carcasses that have been dumped, she said, they are likely put out as coyote bait, not eagle bait.

That might be true, said Carl Denkinger, an agricultural consultant with the Board of Animal Health. He said he has received six complaints from the wind company about animal carcasses, but only two seemed suspicious. Piglet carcasses were dumped out in the field, he said.

“This was done for a purpose,” he said. “What that purpose is I’m not prepared to say.”

WIND TURBINE REGULATIONS STILL UP IN THE AIR

by CLAY BARBOUR,

SOURCE madison.com 

December 5, 2011

Officials with the Public Service Commission are still holding on to a set of wind siting rules that were supposed to go into effect almost nine months ago.

The rules were sent to PSC in March. Lawmakers hoped the agency could work out a compromise between the wind industry and its critics and have the new rules in place by now.

Kristin Ruesch, PSC spokeswoman, said the agency had little luck in bringing the two sides together. The issues separating them have not changed: setbacks, noise levels and the effects turbines have on neighboring property owners.

The PSC spent more than a year working out the original rules, with the help of Democrats and Republicans, the wind industry and its critics. Those rules were scheduled to go into effect in March. But after taking office in January, Republican Gov. Scott Walker introduced a bill to increase setbacks.

In the end, the legislative committee that reviews agency rules chose not to act on the governor’s bill and instead voted to send the original rules back to the PSC to see if an agreement could be ironed out.

If no changes are made by March, the original rules go into effect. However, two bills sit in Legislative committees designed to kill the original rules and force the state to start from scratch.

NEXT FEATURE:

West Virginia

YOU CAN'T ESCAPE THE WINING OF THE WINDMILLS

Cumberland Times-News, times-news.com 3 December 2011 ~~

The noise from these windmills on Green Mountain is so great that it is impossible to live near them.

When the wind is from the east there is a constant loud whining that can be heard from inside your home and if it is from the west it sounds like a train running.

The vibrations are so great from the windmills they rattle the windows in my and other neighbors’ homes. The only time there is no noise is when they are shut down.

The front picture window in my house frames three windmills perfectly. I can close the blinds to get away from seeing them, but I cannot get away from the noise.

Anyone who would like to experience this high noise level is welcome to come into my driveway and listen to it. I know this noise is so great that it can never be eliminated.

Neighbors have told me that they have spoken to our county commissioners about this, but they were told they could not do anything.

I believe all of our county commissioners were for the wind farm, These windmills have ruined the lives of both my family and my neighbors.

I want the public to know what these windmills will do to anyone’s life who lives close to them. I have never heard or read anywhere where the windmill advocates ever mentioned the noise level of the windmills.

Most of the time I can hear the windmills from in every room of my house. I have called almost everyone associated with the windmills that I could find a phone number for, but they quit answering or calling me back.

I even called Maria Litos in California who works for I believe Edison Mission Energy and she said they would shut them down at night until they found a solution to stop the noise, but this never happened.

This constant drone from the windmills even makes your head hurt. Something has to be done about this noise because the people around here cannot live with this.

Another problem we have is with the Tasker Road, which I live on, is the cap they put on our road.

This was nothing but a layer of gravel over our original hard surfaced road. This made our road very dangerous as cars would slide almost like on ice.

Most of the gravel has been thrown off of the road by the traffic within a few days. Even the residents on the Pinnacle Road told me they were not happy with the repairing of their road.

I can hear the windmills loud whining even as I write this letter.

Richard L Braithwaite

Keyser, W.Va.

The photos below were taken by Jim Bembinster. They were taken in Columbia County, Wisconsin during the construction phase of a WeEnergies wind project in 2011. One concern farmers have about leasing their land to wind developers is that their fields will be fragmented, making agricultural activities more difficult.

They are right to be concerned.