Better Plan, Wisconsin

NELSONS GET PURCHASE OFFER AND LAWSUIT THREAT

by Chris Braithwaite,

SOURCE The Chronicle

October 12, 2011

LOWELL — If Don and Shirley Nelson are mules standing stubbornly in the way of its industrial wind project on Lowell Mountain, Green Mountain Power tried to move them Tuesday with both a carrot and a stick.

The carrot came by telephone Tuesday morning. The utility’s president, Mary Powell, called the Nelsons to say Green Mountain Power (GMP) would buy their 580-acre farm at the asking price of $1.25-million.

The stick arrived by courier Tuesday afternoon. It was a letter from GMP’s attorney threatening to sue the Nelsons if they persist in letting “guests” occupy a campsite too close to the top of the project site to permit blasting. The damages GMP would attempt to recover could easily exceed $1-million, the letter said, and punitive damages might also be sought.

“I can take one and a quarter million and run, or be fined a million bucks,” Mr. Nelson said Tuesday. “That’s a good way to handle a Vermont farmer on his retirement.”

As of late Tuesday afternoon Mr. Nelson said he and his wife had not decided what to do. GMP’s lawyer, Jeffrey Behm, had demanded an answer by noon Wednesday, October 12. Mr. Nelson said he had an appointment with his lawyer at 10 a.m. that morning.

The farm, which sits high on the eastern slope of Lowell Mountain above Albany Village, has been for sale for years. It was originally priced at $1.5- million, Mr. Nelson said. “But when they started putting up these damn wind farms, we had to knock the price down.”

His real estate agent, Dan Maclure, has brought the farm up at public meetings to demonstrate that industrial-scale wind projects lower area property values.

But if the farm is for sale, Mr. Nelson said Tuesday, “I sure as hell didn’t want to sell to them bastards.”

This is not GMP’s first attempt to move the couple — who have proved to be determined and eloquent opponents of the wind project — off their farm. Just over a year ago GMP was behind a complex deal that involved the Vermont Land Trust and the Nelsons’ neighbor and chief advocate for harnessing the mountain’s wind, Trip Wileman.

The land trust would buy the development rights to the farm using a contribution, expected to be $250,000, from Mr. Wileman which Mr. Wileman, in turn, would borrow from GMP. A young farm family from Brookfield would buy the farm and raise beef cattle there.

When first asked about the deal, GMP spokesman Dorothy Schnure denied that the utility would play any financial role — a claim she later corrected. Ms. Powell, the GMP president, was chairman of the Vermont Land Trust board when the idea of buying the farm was first proposed to its president, Gil Livingston.

The deal fell apart when the Nelsons learned of Mr. Wileman’s involvement, and his demand for a right-of-way across the farm.

At any rate, Mr. Maclure said at the time, the offer of $870,000 fell short of the Nelson’s asking price. This time, it seems, GMP is prepared to step into the open as the buyer, and pay the full asking price.

Mr. Nelson said he and his wife accepted an invitation to meet with Ms. Powell and another GMP executive, Robert Dostis, at a Stowe restaurant on Monday.

“They tried to get us to say we wanted them to buy us out,” Mr. Nelson said Tuesday. He said the utility executives brought up another couple who lived close to the project and had opposed it vigorously. They recently sold their home to GMP or an agent of the utility, and moved to a nearby town.

They brought up the woman’s name, Mr. Nelson said, and said she “came to us, and of course we were glad to buy her out.”

After an hour and a quarter of conversation, Mr. Nelson said, “I shook both their hands and got up and walked out.” When Ms. Powell called Tuesday morning with her offer, Mr. Nelson said, she said “you can live there if you want,” but urged him to respond quickly.

When Mr. Nelson reached Mr. Maclure at Century 21 Farm & Forest Realty, Inc., the agent said he’d already heard from GMP. “He said, ‘They want me to go to Colchester and get the money,’” Mr. Nelson reported.

A collection of six small tents and a rough field kitchen on the western edge of the Nelson farm is perhaps the opponents’ last hope of stalling — if not stopping — the project.

Mr. Nelson said last week he was asked if he would host the campsite, and quickly agreed. The idea was that blasting could not safely go on with people so close to the project.

In the letter he sent Tuesday, Mr. Behm, the GMP attorney, said the utility’s contractor plans to start blasting in the area on October 17 and to continue for two or three weeks.

If the Nelsons permitted their guests to remain within the 1,000-foot safety zone around the blast site, he wrote, that could amount to “intentional interference with a contract,” which he called “an actionable nuisance.”

Such action could raise the cost of power, the lawyer wrote, and the utility “will vigorously pursue recovery of all monetary damages in order to protect its customers from a cost increase.”

“We’re trying to do what’s right for all the people who supported us,” Mr. Nelson said. “It’s a hard position to be in, I’m telling you.”

“GMP knows if they buy us out, they’ve got the green light — and they can use this land for mitigation purposes.”

Whatever the couple decides to do, Mr. Nelson made one thing clear Tuesday: “I don’t plan on living under a wind farm.”

AMERICA'S WORST WIND ENERGY PROJECT

By Robert Bryce,

SOURCE National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com

October 12, 2011

The more people know about the wind-energy business, the less they like it. And when it comes to lousy wind deals, General Electric’s Shepherds Flat project in northern Oregon is a real stinker.

I’ll come back to the GE project momentarily. Before getting to that, please ponder that first sentence. It sounds like a claim made by an anti-renewable-energy campaigner. It’s not. Instead, that rather astounding admission was made by a communications strategist during a March 23 webinar sponsored by the American Council on Renewable Energy called “Speaking Out on Renewable Energy: Communications Strategies for the Renewable Energy Industry.”

During the webinar, Justin Rolfe-Redding, a doctoral student from the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, discussed ways for wind-energy proponents to get their message out to the public. Rolfe-Redding said that polling data showed that “after reading arguments for and against wind, wind lost support.” He went on to say that concerns about wind energy’s cost and its effect on property values “crowded out climate change” among those surveyed.

The most astounding thing to come out of Rolfe-Redding’s mouth — and yes, I heard him say it myself — was this: “The things people are educated about are a real deficit for us.” After the briefings on the pros and cons of wind, said Rolfe-Redding, “enthusiasm decreased for wind. That’s a troubling finding.” The solution to these problems, said Rolfe-Redding, was to “weaken counterarguments” against wind as much as possible. He suggested using “inoculation theory” by telling people that “wind is a clean source, it provides jobs” and adding that “it’s an investment in the future.” He also said that proponents should weaken objections by “saying prices are coming down every day.”

It’s remarkable to see how similar the arguments being put forward by wind-energy proponents are to those that the Obama administration is using to justify its support of Solyndra, the now-bankrupt solar company that got a $529 million loan guarantee from the federal government. But in some ways, the government support for the Shepherds Flat deal is worse than what happened with Solyndra.

The majority of the funding for the $1.9 billion, 845-megawatt Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon is coming courtesy of federal taxpayers. And that largesse will provide a windfall for General Electric and its partners on the deal who include Google, Sumitomo, and Caithness Energy. Not only is the Energy Department giving GE and its partners a $1.06 billion loan guarantee, but 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.

The deal was so lucrative for the project developers that last October, some of Obama’s top advisers, including energy-policy czar Carol Browner and economic adviser Larry Summers, wrote a memo saying that the project’s backers had “little skin in the game” while the government would be providing “a significant subsidy (65+ percent).” The memo goes on to say that, while the project backers would only provide equity equal to about 11 percent of the total cost of the wind project, they would receive an “estimated return on equity of 30 percent.”

The memo continues, explaining that the carbon dioxide reductions associated with the project “would have to be valued at nearly $130 per ton for CO2 for the climate benefits to equal the subsidies.” The memo continues, saying that that per-ton cost is “more than 6 times the primary estimate used by the government in evaluating rules.”

The Obama administration’s loan guarantee for the now-bankrupt Solyndra has garnered lots of attention, but the Shepherds Flat deal is an even better example of corporate welfare. Several questions are immediately obvious:

First: Why, as Browner and Summers asked, is the federal government providing loan guarantees and subsidies for an energy project that could easily be financed by GE, which has a market capitalization of about $170 billion?

Second: Why is the Obama administration providing subsidies to GE, which paid little or no federal income taxes last year even though it generated some $5.1 billion in profits from its U.S. operations?

Third: How is it that GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, can be the head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness while his company is paying little or no federal income taxes? That question is particularly germane as the president never seems to tire of bashing the oil and gas industry for what he claims are the industry’s excessive tax breaks.

Over the past year, according to Yahoo! Finance, the average electric utility’s return on equity has been 7.1 percent. Thus, taxpayer money is helping GE and its partners earn more than four times the average return on equity in the electricity business.

A few months ago, I ran into Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy. I asked him why Duke — which has about 14,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity — was investing in wind-energy projects. The answer, said Rogers forthrightly, was simple: The subsidies available for wind projects allow Duke to earn returns on equity of 17 to 22 percent.

In other words, for all of the bragging by the wind-industry proponents about the rapid growth in wind-generation capacity, the main reason that capacity is growing is that companies such as GE and Duke are able to goose their profits by putting up turbines so they can collect subsidies from taxpayers.

There are other reasons to dislike the Shepherds Flat project: It’s being built in Oregon to supply electricity to customers in Southern California. That’s nothing new. According to the Energy Information Administration, “California imports more electricity from other states than any other state.” Heaven forbid that consumers in the Golden State would have to actually live near a power plant, refinery, or any other industrial facility. And by building the wind project in Oregon, electricity consumers in California are only adding to the electricity congestion problems that have been plaguing the region served by the Bonneville Power Authority. Earlier this year, the BPA was forced to curtail electricity generated by wind projects in the area because a near-record spring runoff had dramatically increased the amount of power generated by the BPA’s dams. In other words, Shepherds Flat is adding yet more wind turbines to a region that has been overwhelmed this year by excess electrical generation capacity from renewables. And that region will now have to spending huge sums of money building new transmission capacity to export its excess electricity.

Finally, there’s the question of the jobs being created by the new wind project. In 2009, when GE and Caithness announced the Shepherds Flat deal, CNN Money reported that the project would create 35 permanent jobs. And in an April 2011 press release issued by GE on the Shepherds Flat project, one of GE’s partners in the deal said they were pleased to be bringing “green energy jobs to our economy.”

How much will those “green energy” jobs cost? Well, if we ignore the value of the federal loan guarantee and only focus on the $490 million cash grant that will be given to GE and its partners when Shepherds Flat gets finished, the cost of those “green energy” jobs will be about $16.3 million each.

As Rolfe-Redding said, the more people know about the wind business, the less they like it.

From Illinois:

SCIENTIST SAYS WIND FARMS BAD FOR HEALTH

BY DAVID GIULIANI,

SOURCE: www.saukvalley.com 

October 7, 2011 

Anyone who argues that wind turbines don’t have bad health effects are either ignoring the evidence or “trying to mislead,”

DIXON – A scientist who has studied the effects of wind turbines argued Thursday that there was “overwhelming evidence” that they hurt people’s health.

A wind industry representative, however, said epidemiologist Carl V. Phillips didn’t answer many direct questions during an evening presentation.

Phillips, who lives in Pennsylvania, was allowed to present for up to an hour to the Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals, which is reviewing the county’s ordinance on wind turbines.

Then the public got to ask questions.

Phillips said that in his research, he has found that people who live up to 2 miles away from the turbines develop such things as sleep, stress and mood disorders once wind farms go up.

Wind turbines create noise, vibrations and shadow flicker, he said. But he acknowledged that scientists don’t know exactly how turbines cause the health problems.

That’s not unusual in science, he said, noting that experts have known for 60 years that smoking is linked to cardiovascular disease but don’t know exactly how.

Phillips said he didn’t know the exact percentage of residents within a mile or more of wind farms who suffer “substantial” health problems as the result of the turbines, but he said his best guess, based on research, was 5 percent.

Anyone who argues that wind turbines don’t have bad health effects are either ignoring the evidence or “trying to mislead,” Phillips said.

Victims of the health effects often move away and then see their health improve, he said.

“What had been their sanctuary is now a hostile environment,” he said. “People abandon their homes and sell at a loss.”

In questioning, Phillips acknowledged that he hadn’t compared people’s health both before and after wind turbines go up. But he said he would like such information.

Lee County now requires that the distance between turbines and homes be 1,400 feet – a little more than a quarter-mile. Phillips suggested that the setback should probably be somewhere between 1 and 2 miles, but he said there wasn’t enough evidence to determine what would be the best setback.

If the setback were at 1 or 2 miles, there may not be a feasible spot in the county for turbines, he said.

Near the end of the meeting, Susie Miller of Ashton questioned whether representatives of Ireland-based wind company, Mainstream Renewable Power, had anything to say.

Mainstream’s John Martin said the presentation was Phillips’ “philosophical” statements and “personal hypotheses.” He said Phillips essentially said that he wanted more studies.

Earlier in the meeting, Richard Boris, mayor of the village of Lee, said many landowners who allow turbines must sign confidentiality agreements with the wind energy companies. He suggested that such deals would prevent them from discussing health problems that they believed resulted from turbines.

At the end of the meeting, he asked Martin whether that were the case.

Martin said he couldn’t comment on the confidentiality agreements because they were “inherently confidential.”

Wind farm opponents laughed.

Another Mainstream representative, Keith Bolin, said no one would be barred from talking about their health. He said he was offended at the insinuation they couldn’t.

Mainstream is planning a wind farm in Lee, Bureau and Whiteside counties.

ONTARIO WIND POWER FACES TEST OVER PROPERTY VALUES

by Dave Seglins and John Nicol,

SOURCE CBC News, www.cbc.ca

October 4, 2011 

Ontario’s wind power strategy will go under the microscope Tuesday in Eastern Ontario in what could be a precedent-setting case over the impact wind farms have on local property values.

Edward and Gail Kenney, retired civil servants who’ve lived on Wolfe Island for 48 years, are appealing their property tax assessments, set at $357,000, arguing that the 86 wind turbines erected around their home have driven down their property values and should be acknowledged in their tax bills.

“We figure we’ve lost 40 to 50 per cent of the value of these places,” Edward Kenney told CBC News as he looked out at the stands of turbines installed several years ago, some within 400 metres of his home — a distance no longer allowed by the Ontario’s environmental regulations.

The municipality of Frontenac Islands is fiercely contesting the case, fearing that if the Kenneys are successful it could have far reaching effects on tax revenues for the small, largely rural, lakeside community of just 1,300 people.

Tax officials watching case closely

In fact, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), a Crown corporation in charge of assigning values to properties for tax purposes, has twice offered to settle the case.

And though the Kenneys would welcome the end of this costly 30-month battle in front of Ontario’s Assessment Review Board (ARB), MPAC and the municipality insist on making no reference to the wind turbines as a factor in offering the deal.

Because of that insistence, the Kenneys are prepared to stand up without legal representation against the lawyers for the other side, solely on principle of the public’s right to know.

“In this small community,” said Edward, 72, who built the house there in 1965, “we’ve had enough of the secrecy, and the divisions it has caused, and we won’t have any part of that.”

Added his wife Gail: “The people affected by these turbines have the right to know.”

The Kenneys argue that there have been virtually no real estate sales in the last three years near the turbines on Wolfe Island.

“And the three that have been sold,” said Edward, “had been advertised for long periods of time and they sold at sizeable losses.”

The debate comes down to competing experts.

“There is no negative impact on property value, by virtue of the proximity to wind turbines,” argues Tony Fleming, lawyer for Frontenac Islands, which commissioned a consultant’s report by a certified real estate appraiser, Rayner & Associates. It concludes that based on existing sales data and comparisons of various properties on the island “the wind farm has had no measurable impact on value…over the last four years.”

Edward Kenney said he doesn’t think much of the report. “What other issues do we have? The turbines are our issue.”

Rose McLean, director of legal and policy support for MPAC, acknowledges this case could prove to be an important precedent. Though MPAC is studying the issue, she says “there is no evidence across the province that wind turbines drive down local property values.”

McLean says there’ve simply been too few sales of properties adjacent to wind farm turbines for MPAC to change its policy. Currently assessors are directed to deny any appeals or ‘requests for reconsideration.’

“There are not a lot of sales across the province of properties right next to turbines,” says McLean, “Less than 20 in the whole province, if my memory serves. So there’s not a lot of evidence yet one way or another.

“We’d certainly welcome some guidance on this (from the ARB).”

Only one tax reduction so far

To date, only one property owner in Ontario has had their tax assessment reduced due to wind turbine issues. It was in Melancthon, northwest of Toronto, home to 133 turbines in Ontario’s first and largest scale industrial wind farm. In that case a property adjacent to a transformer suffered consistent noise problems.

The only property owners close to turbines routinely enjoying a property increase are those who’ve leased lands to host the turbines themselves. The revenue from those lease agreements have added value to those properties as the turbines provide an annual source of income.

Edward Kenney, though, rues the fact the turbines have created a divided countryside — those for the turbines, who benefit financially, and those who suffer the noise and other negative effects.

The Kenneys’ appeal — along with an appeal by a second property owner in Amaranth (close to the Melancthon wind farm) — could have far reaching implications for municipal tax coffers in communities hosting wind farms if landowners are granted cuts to their taxes.

NOTE: The World Health Organization has set 35 dbA as the decibel level for healthy sleep. Each increase of 10 decibels doubles the noise output.

From New York State

NOISE FROM HERKIMER CO. WIND TURBINES TO BE STUDIED AGAIN

By BRYON ACKERMAN,

Observer-Dispatch, www.uticaod.com

October 3, 2011

For the second time this year, a study will be conducted to address concerns about sound levels at the Hardscrabble Wind Farm.

After 37 turbines began operating on Jan. 31 in the Herkimer County towns of Fairfield and Norway, some residents started complaining about the turbines producing too much noise.

A study conducted earlier this year found that the noise level in some instances went above the 50-decibel level required in the permits for the turbines, Fairfield town Supervisor Richard Souza said.

Another, more extensive study will be conducted starting in late October or early November, Souza said.

“We’ll have a better idea of what the noise level is, and we’ll be able to sit down with the company and get it corrected,” he said.

The wind project developer Iberdrola Renewables paid for the first study to be conducted earlier this year at the request of town officials and landowners. The second study also will be paid for by the developer, town and company officials said.

A noise level of 50 decibels is often compared to the sound from a refrigerator motor running. The decibel level of a “normal conversation” is about 60 decibels, according to information provided by Iberdrola.

The first study showed noise levels reaching 60 to 65 decibels in some instances, and the permits restrict the decibel level from going above 50 – including the turbines and background noise combined, Souza said.

But the instances in the study when the noise levels were higher than 50 decibels were primarily when there were extreme wind speeds, Iberdrola spokesman Paul Copleman said. The sounds were largely due to other factors from the wind speed such as the rustling of leaves, he said.

“We didn’t consider that to be attributable to the wind farm,” he said.

That means the developers believe they’re not in violation of the wind ordinances, but the issue does warrant further studying, Copleman said.

Fairfield resident Jimmy Salamone, who lives near turbines on Davis Road in Fairfield, said the noise level has become an ongoing problem for many people in the area.

“The noise is really bad on Davis Road – very hard to live with,” Salamone said. “It’s way too loud, and it gets louder at night for some reason.”

But Salamone thinks that instead of conducting another study, something should be done to address the noise levels found in the other study earlier this year, he said.

Donald Dixon, 75, who has two wind turbines on his property at Route 170 in Fairfield, said he doesn’t believe a noise study is necessary.

“To be honest with you, I don’t even notice them,” Dixon said.

Dixon believes the people complaining about noise are the same people who complained before the turbines were put up and that they just want to continue with their complaints, he said.

Souza said he has dealt with “quite a few” complaints scattered throughout the town. It should take about three weeks to complete the study once it begins, he said. The angle and speed of the turbine blades could potentially be altered in response to the results if necessary, he said.

The first study looked at three sites in Fairfield and one in Norway, Souza said. The new study will review five sites in Fairfield and one in Norway, while also looking into more details about the time of the day and factors in the noise levels, he said.

SUSAN KING REACTS TO WIND TURBINE FIRE ON HER TAYLOR COUNTY RANCH

Credit:  By Cassandra Garcia

SOURCE: KTXS News, www.ktxs.com

October 3, 2011

“I’m watching a turbine on my land on fire, throwing fire balls on my property. I think it needs to be very clearly delineated: if you have property and machinery that is the source of a fire that damages someone land or uses someone’s resources who is responsible for the cost,” said King.

ABILENE, Texas — Texas State Representative Susan King is speaking out about the fire on her Taylor County ranch that was sparked by a wind turbine.

Just after 10 o’clock Sunday night, Buffalo Gap, View and Ecca Volunteer Fire Departments responded to a fire at the Taylor County ranch of Texas House Representative Susan King.

They used eight trucks to quickly contain the fire to about 2 acres.

Monday, King said it’s that timely response that has her looking at how their services can be repaid.

“They leave their families in the middle of the night. They’re willing to do it for zero. They do assist them from time to time but in no way is it enough. I think with the drought we need to take a hard look at how we pay these people, not with their salaries, but paying for fuel or access to water and equipment,” said King.

Now, she’s looking into how she can take last night’s scary experience and shed light on what she calls “silence” in a very young energy sector.

“I’m watching a turbine on my land on fire, throwing fire balls on my property. I think it needs to be very clearly delineated: if you have property and machinery that is the source of a fire that damages someone land or uses someone’s resources who is responsible for the cost,” said King.

Volunteer fire departments do not bill for the cost of these types of accidents but always urge companies to donate.

KTXS spoke to Next Era Energy Monday who told us in a statement “We have supported each of these volunteer fire departments in the past financially to help them purchase needed equipment because we recognize the important work that they do.”

We wanted to find out more, so we asked Ecca Volunteer Fire Department about those donations, they told us that they haven’t gotten help from Next Era in about 4 years.