Better Plan, Wisconsin

From Canada:

ONTARIO WIND POWER BRINGING DOWN PROPERTY VALUES

By John Nicol and Dave Seglins,

SOURCE: CBC News, www.cbc.ca

October 1, 2011

The government and the wind energy industry have long maintained turbines have no adverse effects on property values, health or the environment.

The CBC has documented scores of families who’ve discovered their property values are not only going downward, but also some who are unable to sell and have even abandoned their homes because of concerns nearby turbines are affecting their health.

Ontario’s rapid expansion in wind power projects has provoked a backlash from rural residents living near industrial wind turbines who say their property values are plummeting and they are unable to sell their homes, a CBC News investigation has found.

The government and the wind energy industry have long maintained turbines have no adverse effects on property values, health or the environment.

The CBC has documented scores of families who’ve discovered their property values are not only going downward, but also some who are unable to sell and have even abandoned their homes because of concerns nearby turbines are affecting their health.

“I have to tell you not a soul has come to look at it,” says Stephana Johnston, 81, of Clear Creek, a hamlet on the north shore of Lake Erie about 60 kilometres southeast of London.

Johnston, a retired Toronto teacher, moved here six years ago to build what she thought would be her dream home. But in 2008, 18 industrial wind turbines sprung up near her property and she put the one-floor, wheelchair-accessible home up for sale.

“My hunch is that people look at them and say: ‘As nice as the property is going south, looking at the lake, we don’t want to be surrounded by those turbines.’ Can’t say that I blame them.”

Johnston says she has suffered so many ill health effects, including an inability to sleep — which she believes stem from the noise and vibration of the turbines— that she now sleeps on a couch in her son’s trailer, 12 kilometres away, and only returns to her house to eat breakfast and dinner and use the internet.

Industry rejects claims of lower land values

Meanwhile, the industry rejects claims of lower land values.

“Multiple studies, and particularly some very comprehensive ones from the United States have consistently shown the presence of wind turbines does not have any statistically significant impact on property values,” says Robert Hornung of the Ottawa-based Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA).

While acknowledging a lack of peer-reviewed studies in Ontario, Hornung says CANWEA commissioned a study of the Chatham-Kent area, where new wind turbines are appearing, and found no evidence of any impact on property values.

“In fact,” says Hornung, “we’ve recently seen evidence coming from Re/Max indicating that we’re seeing farm values throughout Ontario, including the Chatham-Kent area, increasing significantly this year as wind energy is being developed in the area at the same time.”

However, Ron VandenBussche, a Re/Max agent along the Lake Erie shore, said the reality is that the wind turbines reduce the pool of interested buyers, and ultimately the price of properties.

“It’s going to make my life more difficult,” says VandenBussche, who has been a realtor for 38 years. “There’s going to be people that would love to buy this particular place, but because the turbines are there, it’s going to make it more difficult, no doubt.”

Kay Armstrong is one example. She put her two-acre, waterfront property up for sale before the turbines appeared in Clear Creek, for what three agents said was a reasonable price of $270,000.

Two years after the turbines appeared, she took $175,000, and she felt lucky to do that — the property went to someone who only wanted to grow marijuana there for legal uses.

“I had to get out,” said Armstrong. “It was getting so, so bad. And I had to disclose the health issues I had. I was told by two prominent lawyers that I would be sued if the ensuing purchasers were to develop health problems.”

Realtor association finds 20 to 40 per cent drops in value

Armstrong’s experience is backed up in a study by Brampton-based realtor Chris Luxemburger. The president of the Brampton Real Estate Board examined real estate listings and sales figures for the Melancthon-Amaranth area, home to 133 turbines in what is Ontario’s first and largest industrial wind farm.

“Homes inside the windmill zones were selling for less and taking longer to sell than the homes outside the windmill zones,” said Luxemburger.

On average, from 2007 to 2010, he says properties adjacent to turbines sold for between 20 and 40 per cent less than comparable properties that were out of sight from the windmills.

Power company sells at a loss

Land registry documents obtained by CBC News show that some property owners who complained about noise and health issues and threatened legal action did well if they convinced the turbine companies to buy them out.

Canadian Hydro Developers bought out four different owners for $500,000, $350,000, $305,000 and $302,670. The company then resold each property, respectively, for $288,400, $175,000, $278,000 and $215,000.

In total, Canadian Hydro absorbed just over half a million dollars in losses on those four properties.

The new buyers were required to sign agreements acknowledging that the wind turbine facilities may affect the buyer’s “living environment” and that the power company will not be responsible for or liable from any of the buyer’s “complaints, claims, demands, suits, actions or causes of action of every kind known or unknown which may arise directly or indirectly from the Transferee’s wind turbine facilities.”

The energy company admits the impacts may include “heat, sound, vibration, shadow flickering of light, noise (including grey noise) or any other adverse effect or combination thereof resulting directly or indirectly from the operation.”

TransAlta, the company that took over for Canadian Hydro, refused to discuss the specific properties it bought and then resold at a loss in Melancthon. But in an email to CBC, spokesman Glen Whelan cited the recession and other “business considerations” that “influence the cost at which we buy or sell properties, and to attribute purchase or sale prices to any one factor would be impossible.”

Province says no change to tax base

Ontario’s ministers of Energy, Municipal Affairs and Finance, all in the midst of an election campaign, declined requests for an interview.

A spokesperson for Municipal Affairs says his ministry has no studies or information about the potential impact wind turbines are having on rural property values.

However, last February, before an environmental review tribunal in Chatham, Environment Ministry lawyer Frederika Rotter said: “We will see in the course of this hearing that lots of people are worried about windmills. They may not like the noise, they may think the noise makes them sick, but really what makes them sick is just the windmills being on the land because it does impact their property values.

“That’s what makes them sick is that, you know, they’ll get less money for their properties, and that’s what’s causing all this annoyance and frustration and all of that.”

When Energy Minister Brad Duguid declined comment, his staff referred CBC News to the Ministry of Finance, which oversees MPAC (the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation), which sets values on land for taxation purposes. They indicated that MPAC has no evidence wind turbines are driving down assessed values.

However, CBC found one household in Melancthon was awarded a 50-per-cent reduction in property tax because the house sat next to a transformer station for the turbines.

Losing the rural life

Almost all the people interviewed by the CBC rue the division between neighbours for and against the turbines, and said what they have lost is a sense of home and the idyllic life of living in the countryside.

Tracy Whitworth, who has a historic home in Clear Creek, refuses to sell it and instead has become a nomad, renting from place to place with her son, to avoid the ill effects of the turbines.

“My house sits empty — it’s been vandalized,” says Whitworth, a Clear Creek resident who teaches high school in Delhi. “I’ve had a couple of ‘Stop the wind turbine’ signs knocked down, mailbox broken off.

“I lived out there for a reason. It was out in the country. School’s very busy. When I come home, I like peace and quiet. Now, we have the turbines and the noise. Absolutely no wildlife. I used to go out in the morning, tend to my dogs, let my dogs run, and I’d hear the geese go over.

“And ugh! Now there’s no deer, no geese, no wild turkeys. Nothing.”

For the octogenarian Johnston, the fight is all more than she bargained for. She sank all her life savings, about $500,000, into the house, and she says she does not have the money to be able to hire a lawyer to fight for a buyout. But she is coming to the conclusion she must get a mortgage to try the legal route.

“I love being near the water and I thought, what a way to spend the rest of my days — every view is precious,” she said, as tears filled her eyes. “And I would not have that any more.

“And that is hard to reconcile and accept.”

Getting a mortgage on her house might not be that easy. CBC News has learned that already one bank in the Melancthon area is not allowing lines of credit to be secured by houses situated near wind turbines. In a letter to one family situated close to the turbines, the bank wrote, “we find your property a high risk and its future marketability may be jeopardized.”

From Canada 

WIND FARM HEALTH RISKS DOWNPLAYED: DOCUMENTS

By Dave Seglins and John Nicol,

SOURCE CBC News, www.cbc.ca

September 22 2011 

“It was terrible—we’d go nights in a row with no sleep,” said Ashbee. “It was a combination of the loud noise—the decibel, audible noise—and also this vibration that was in the house that would go up and it would go down.”

Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment is logging hundreds of health complaints over the province’s 900 wind turbines but has downplayed the problem, according to internal ministry documents obtained by CBC News.

According to 1,000 pages of internal government emails, reports and memos released under Ontario’s Freedom of Information Act, the government scrambled to figure out how to monitor and control noise pollution.

The documents were released after a lengthy and costly battle waged by Barb Ashbee. Ashbee and her husband Dennis Lormand say they suffered a series of ailments after wind turbines began operating near their home in Amaranth, near Shelburne, northwest of Toronto. The area is now home to 133 wind turbines — the largest industrial wind farm in the province.

After being told theirs was the only complaint in the area, Ashbee and Lormond learned that MOE officials at the Guelph District Office had been tracking more than 200 complaints dating back to 2006 when the wind farm first started operating.

Their home was bought out by Canadian Hydro Developers (now Transalta) in June 2009, one of six homeowners who sold their houses to the utility company.

Each seller had to sign confidentiality agreements. But the Lormands have risked legal repercussions by breaking their silence and speaking exclusively to CBC News this week. They said they want to warn the public about what they claim are the dangers of living near wind turbines and the supposed breakdowns in government monitoring.

“We were silent. I wouldn’t say boo to anybody. But the longer this goes on, nobody’s doing anything! And now we have an (Ontario) election two weeks away. Nobody understands what’s going on out here.”

Sleepless nights sparked activism

“It was terrible—we’d go nights in a row with no sleep,” said Ashbee. “It was a combination of the loud noise—the decibel, audible noise—and also this vibration that was in the house that would go up and it would go down.”

The couple moved into their home in December 2008 just as the wind farm became operational. But they said they immediately noted a loud swooshing noise from nearby turbines and a persistent, unexplained hum resonating in their home.

Ashbee said she called the power company and the environment ministry night after night and was initially told by government enforcement officers that hers was the only complaint in the area.

“We were told [the wind company] was running in compliance, that there were no problems.

“We’d just have to get used to it.”

But she said the Ministry of Environment (MOE) was misleading her, and that there had been hundreds of complaints.

Ashbee launched a lengthy battle using Ontario’s Freedom of Information Act and eventually received more than 1,000 pages of internal MOE correspondence.

Acccording to the documents, government staff downplayed the problem while scrambling to understand and control wind turbine noise pollution.

MOE officers warn supervisor

According to the documents, MOE field officer Garry Tomlinson was slow to process Ashbee’s noise complaints. But he began trying to conduct his own noise monitoring tests when confronted with many more complaints and consultants reports by Canadian Hydro Developers that revealed noise violations.

Tomlinson consulted acoustics specialists at Ryerson University and within the MOE. He concluded and warned his supervisors that the ministry “currently has no approved methodology for field measurement of the noise emissions from multiple [turbines]. As such there is no way for MOE Field staff (and I would submit anyone else) to confirm compliance or lack thereof.”

Tomlinson also gave a tour to two assistant deputy ministers Paul Evans and Paul French on May 1, 2009, advising them of the problems they were encountering.

Ministry officials at the Guelph office, including manager Jane Glassco, attended community meetings in Melancthon and Amaranth townships in the summer of 2009, where Glassco acknowledged people were “suffering” and that many were claiming to have been forced out of their homes due to noise pollution.

By 2010, other staff at the Guelph office were warning officials at the ministry headquarters in Toronto that the computer modelling used to establish Ontario’s wind turbine noise limits and safe “set back distances” for wind turbines was flawed and inadequate.

Cameron Hall a fellow field officer at the MOE in Guelph wrote to his managers warning that the province was failing to properly account for the “swooshing sounds.”

CBC News presented some of the ministry documents to Ramani Ramakrishnan, a Ryerson University professor and acoustics specialist who has written several reports and conducts noise pollution training for MOE staff.

Ramakrishnan has recommended to the MOE that wind turbines in rural areas should have far stricter limits but says if the province enforced the regulations – it would have a major impact on wind farms around the province.

“First implication,” Ramakrishnan says, “is that the number of wind turbines in wind-farms would have to be reduced considerably and wind-farm developers would have to look for localities where they are not impacting the neighbourhood.

“A five-decibel reduction in acceptable noise is quite noticeable and perceptible” and the MOE field staff are recommending up to 10 decibel reductions in some cases.

Ashbee, who is returning to her old job as a real estate agent, said there are several people near turbines who won’t speak for fear that their land values will go down.

Her husband Dennis doesn’t blame the wind turbine company:

“It’s our government that backs it up. It’s the government that’s making people sick and forcing them out of their homes. And it’s all being suppressed.”

CBC News repeatedly requested an interview with Ontario’s Environment Minister John Wilkinson, who is also engaged in a provincial election campaign seeking re-election as MPP for the riding of Perth-Wellington. Those requests were denied.

Transalta, who took over the company that bought out the Ashbee-Lormand home, told CBC News in a statement that such confidentiality agreements are standard, designed to protect the privacy of both sides. Neither the company nor the couple would discuss the $300,000 price listed on local land registry records as being the amount for which the couple’s home was transferred to the power company.

Document highlights

Ashbee and Lormond learned that MOE officials at the Guelph District Office had been tracking more than 200 complaints dating back to 2006 when the wind farm first started operating.

MOE officials repeatedly told the couple in early 2009 that the power company (Canadian Hydro Developers) were in compliance with the law yet the company’s own consultants report sent to the MOE concluded noise pollution from the turbines was generally higher than Ontario’s limits.

MOE field officers in Guelph in 2009 scrambled to learn more about how to properly record and test audible noise levels and low frequency sound. They warned superiors that Ontario’s noise pollution models are filled with errors, that they lacked a proper methodology for monitoring (and thus enforcing) noise levels from turbines.

MOE field officers and the acoustics specialists they hired repeatedly warned the province in 2009 and 2010 that there needed to be stricter noise pollution limits in rural areas, and in wind turbine environments where there is cyclical or tonal “swooshing sounds.”

FAMILY SUES WIND FARM ALLEGING HEALTH DAMAGE, FALLING PROPERTY VALUES

By John Spears, Business Reporter,

SOURCE Toronto Star, www.thestar.com

September 21 2011 

A rural family near Chatham have launched a lawsuit against a nearby wind farm, claiming it has damaged their health and devalued their property.

Lisa and Michel Michaud, and their adult children, have launched the lawsuit against the Kent Breeze wind farm, which was developed by a unit of Suncor Energy Services.

They are seeking an injunction that would shut down the operation, as well as damages totaling $1.5 million plus other costs.

Their statements have not been tested in court; they could be challenged by the defendants, and amended or deleted.

The lawsuit follows a decision earlier this summer from Ontario’s environmental review tribunal, which allowed the wind farm to proceed.

But the tribunal said its decision was not the last word on the controversy over wind farms.

“The debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans,” the two-member panel wrote in its decision.

“The evidence presented to the tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents,” it said.

“The question that should be asked is: What protections, such as permissible noise levels or setback distances, are appropriate to protect human health?”

The Michauds live on a 12.5 acre property near Thamesville, with a house and barn they built themselves. Michel Michaud runs a home renovation company. The couple and their children, in their 20s, also raise goats, chickens, turkeys peacocks and ducks. They plan to start a bed and breakfast.

But they say the wind farm, which started up in May with eight large turbines, has changed their lives.

The closest turbine is 1.1 kilometre away, but the Michauds say a “tunnel effect” from the row of turbines stretching into the distance compounds the impact on their property.

Current Ontario regulations allow turbines within 550 metres of a dwelling.

The Michauds say the wind farm exposes them to “audible and inaudible noise, low frequency noise and light flicker that negatively affect their health, cause vertigo, annoyance, sleep disturbance, despair and exhaustion.”

Michel Michaud says the turbines also affect his ability to concentrate, causing him to make mistakes at work.

“We want our lives back,” Lisa Michaud said in an interview.

NEXT STORY

From England:

TURBINE NOISE DESTROYING OUR LIVES

SOURCE North Devon Journal, www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk

September 22, 2011 

“There is no option of keeping the window open any longer. It is just too noisy to sleep – we were told they would be silent.

People living near the new Fullabrook wind farm claim their lives are being “destroyed” by the noise generated from each of the 22 turbines.

The residents, some who live only 400m from the structures, say they can no longer sleep as a result of the intrusive sound.

But despite numerous registered complaints about the noise at Fullabrook, North Devon Council (NDC) is unable to act until the whole site is complete and commissioned, which may not be for another three weeks.

Once the site is commissioned officers from the council will visit Fullabrook to monitor the sound levels in order to ascertain whether they meet the requirements set out by the Secretary of State.

Jeremy Mann, head of environmental health and housing services at NDC said: “I can confirm that a number of the residents near to the wind farm have now expressed concern regarding the noise levels.

“The operator has strict noise limits imposed on their operation and is required to give evidence to the council of their compliance with these controls when the site is no longer working intermittently.”

In the meantime several residents feel they are trapped living with the noise because if they tried to move house few people would be interested in buying a property next to a wind turbine.

Nick Williams lives at Fullabrook itself with six of the turbines near his house. He claimed the wind farm had destroyed the area he lives in as well as his life.

He said: “It is like having tumble dryers in my bedroom and so I mostly have to sleep on the sofa in my front room – why should I be forced out of my bed?

“I can’t afford to double glaze the whole house – why can’t the people behind the turbines use this community fund to triple glaze all our houses? I have also had to buy a digital box for the television because the turbines interrupt the signal so badly it is impossible to watch.”

Another resident, who wanted to remain anonymous, has lived at Halsinger for over 23 years and can see three turbines from her kitchen window. She said: “I can feel the sensation from the blades turning through my pillow when I am trying to sleep at night.

“There is no option of keeping the window open any longer. It is just too noisy to sleep – we were told they would be silent.

“And I have some chickens, I can’t prove it is related, but they laid eggs everyday before July (when the turbines started to be tested) but since then we have had just two laid.”

Kim Parker owns a stables with 15 horses at Pippacott and she believes the noise is a problem because it is unpredictable.

She said: “Most of the horses have got used to it now but it is not a constant sound so often unnerves them. Then they are jumpy and constantly looking up to where the noise is coming from.”

A spokesman for ESB International, which owns the site, confirmed it was working closely with the district council and that remedial steps could be taken if, once tested, it was found noise levels exceeded the limit.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH A VIDEO OF THE MICHAUDS TELLING THEIR STORY

NEXT STORY

From Illinois

VIDEO SOURCE: WREX.COM

CHINA'S GOLDWIND PLANS $200 MILLION U.S. WIND FARM

SOURCE: The Wall Street Journal

By BRIAN SPEGELE

"If a Chinese wind developer sees an opportunity in Illinois, we're going to embrace them with open arms," Gov. Quinn, a Democrat, said in an interview on Monday.

BEIJING—Wind-turbine maker Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co. plans to build a $200 million wind farm in Illinois—the latest attempt at clean-energy collaboration between China and the U.S. even as disputes over renewable-energy technology continue.

"The United States is a key component of Goldwind's international growth," Xinjiang Goldwind Chairman and Chief Executive Wu Gang said in a prepared in a statement. "Goldwind has generated a competitive global footprint, and we are focused on continuing that momentum, continuing to demonstrate our technology advantages and continuing to build out our global supply chain."

The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama hopes it can reinvigorate the country's sluggish economy and spur job growth in part by bolstering the U.S. renewable-energy industry. But some people in the industry say Chinese companies undercut U.S. rivals on price because they get generous subsidies from the Chinese government. Under pressure from the Obama administration, China in June agreed to end many subsidies for its domestic wind-power-equipment manufacturers.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, on a trade mission to China, said criticisms of global expansion efforts by Chinese renewable companies were overstated. Just as the U.S. wants China to open its markets to foreign companies, Illinois shouldn't close its market to Chinese companies like Xinjiang Goldwind, he said.

"If a Chinese wind developer sees an opportunity in Illinois, we're going to embrace them with open arms," Gov. Quinn, a Democrat, said in an interview on Monday.

Xinjiang Goldwind spokesman Yao Yu said half of the parts and components for the Illinois wind farm would be supplied by U.S. manufacturers, such as Broadwind Energy Inc. of Naperville, Ill. The 109.5-megawatt wind farm will be located about 100 miles west of Chicago and is expected to be connected to the grid around June, Mr. Yao said.

The project will create a dozen permanent jobs and more than 100 construction jobs in the state, according to the governor's office.

Disputes over wind-power technology continue. U.S.-based American Superconductor Corp. said last week it filed suit against China's Sinovel Wind Group Co., the country's largest wind-turbine manufacturer. The suit relates to an American Semiconductor employee in Austria who is being held in that country and faces criminal charges that he stole American Semiconductor software that controls turbines and sold it to Sinovel. Sinovel has denied wrongdoing.

U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to participate Thursday in a Beijing round table on technology for capturing carbon dioxide.

From Illinois

WIND FARM BACKERS STILL NEGOTIATING ROAD DEALS

SOURCE: The News Gazette

September 11, 2011

By Nora Maberry

"Deanne Sims of Penfield expressed concern with the noise studies that were done to prove the project would follow county ordinances.

Sims also said she had contacted her insurance company and was told that any damage done to her home by the project, such as cracks in her basement walls, would not be covered by her homeowner's insurance. Her insurance agency instructed her to document the status of her home via video and purchase a sound meter.

Sims also expressed concern regarding the times of construction. Invenergy said that construction would take place mainly between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Sims said several people in the area work third shift and it would interfere with their sleep patterns.

Sims also asked the board who would be in charge of making sure the noise ordinances were followed. The board told her that, currently, there is no one specified to do that."

URBANA — The developers of a 134-turbine wind farm for Champaign and Vermilion counties are still discussing road agreements with Compromise and Ogden townships.

At Thursday's Champaign County Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, Greg Leuchtmann, business development manager for Invenergy LLC, said the county road agreement was almost complete.

The agreement will then be sent to the state's attorney's office for review.

Invenergy asked that it be allowed to negotiate road agreements beyond the time the case would be before the county zoning board of appeals. Leuchtmann said that the county road agreement must be approved by the Champaign County Board at its Oct. 20 meeting before the agreement is finalized.

Invenergy is asking the zoning board to move forward with approving the project if the road commissioner and the state's attorney both sign off on the agreement before the county board votes on it.

The project, which would include 30 turbines in Compromise and Ogden Townships, would be just north of Royal. The entire wind farm, known as the California Ridge project, includes 134 turbines, 104 of them in western Vermilion County.

It was also announced that the company has entered into a deal with a utility to buy the output of the project. Attorney Michael Blazer declined to name the company because negotiations are ongoing.

Darrell Cambron, who lives near Rankin and has opposed wind farms in Vermilion County, urged the zoning board to follow the ordinances already in place and not approve any waivers for the project.

"We have certain rules and regulations that should be followed," he said. "They should follow all rules as written."

Deanne Sims of Penfield expressed concern with the noise studies that were done to prove the project would follow county ordinances.

Sims also said she had contacted her insurance company and was told that any damage done to her home by the project, such as cracks in her basement walls, would not be covered by her homeowner's insurance. Her insurance agency instructed her to document the status of her home via video and purchase a sound meter.

Sims also expressed concern regarding the times of construction. Invenergy said that construction would take place mainly between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Sims said several people in the area work third shift and it would interfere with their sleep patterns.

Sims also asked the board who would be in charge of making sure the noise ordinances were followed. The board told her that, currently, there is no one specified to do that.

The next hearing will be at 6 p.m. Sept. 29. The board changed the time from 7 p.m. due to the amount of testimony that has taken place at previous meetings.

The turbine project could go to the county board as soon as Oct. 20. In addition to the zoning board of appeals, the project would be reviewed by the county board at a committee of the whole meeting in October.

Construction could begin in early 2012 and be completed by December, according to Invenergy's special-use application.

Construction would take nine to 12 months with the peak period lasting four to six months, the company said.

During peak construction there would be 75 large truck trips per day and up to 200 small vehicle trips in the area. Of the 75 large truck trips, 20 would be wind turbine component deliveries.

The special-use permit application says that properly maintained wind turbines have a minimum life of 20 years, and can either be decommissioned and removed, or re-powered with new components.

From Minnesota:

GOODHUE COUNTY WILL ASK PUC TO RECONSIDER WIND PERMIT

By Regan Carstensen

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

September 10, 2011 ~~

By a 4-1 vote, Goodhue County commissioners decided Tuesday that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission should be asked to reconsider the wind permit it approved for AWA Goodhue Wind in June.

AWA Goodhue Wind received a certificate of need and site permit from the PUC for a 48-turbine wind farm that would be located near Goodhue and Zumbrota, but some citizens have fought the creation of the wind farm from the start.

The permitting process has been drawn out for more than a year and a half, while many wind farms are approved in six to 12 months in Minnesota.

While county commissioners contemplated at their meeting Tuesday the need for reconsideration, they wondered how much more cost this would incur for the county.

“Most of the efforts have already been invested in this. It is a long-term effort,” Goodhue County Attorney Stephen Betcher replied, adding that asking for reconsideration would require filing a document. The rest is in the hands of the PUC, including whether the county is granted another opportunity to present an oral argument.

But the county attorney won’t be alone in filing for reconsideration. Those who previously filed as interveners — the Coalition for Sensible Siting, Belle Creek Township and Goodhue Wind Truth — also have the opportunity to ask for reconsideration, and all three groups are taking advantage of it.

“We are filing a reconsideration with the PUC,” Belle Creek Township Board Chair Chad Ryan confirmed. “That is complete and it will be filed on Monday.”

Against the rest

Commissioner Dan Rechtzigel was the only one of five commissioners who preferred not to ask for reconsideration.

“I just see this as round two of a battle that’s not going to end and is going to get continually more expensive,” Rechtzigel said.

He also said that the county needs to recognize that the state legislators are the ones who put the requirement in place that says utility companies need to provide 25 percent of their total electrical generation from renewable sources by 2025.

“Maybe I don’t like the 55 mph speed limit either, but the fact is it’s there,” he explained. “Whether we like it or not, the state of Minnesota has been given the authority to regulate these. The state is going to do what they want to do.”

Although he voted in favor of reconsideration, Commissioner Richard Samuelson hesitated to continue the fight. He said he doesn’t think Betcher should go to the PUC with a long list of things to reconsider, but instead simply focus on the 10-rotor diameter setback that the county wants to enforce but which was decreased by the PUC to 6 RD.

Even with narrowing the field of reconsideration, Samuelson was skeptical of how much success the county will have this time around.

“I’m sure that you’re going to come back with some news that will require an appeal,” Samuelson told Betcher.

If the PUC rejects Betcher’s request for reconsideration, he said he will bring the issue back to the County Board and see if it would like to appeal, though that route could get lengthy and expensive.

“It would be a new process as opposed to a continuation of the existing process,” the county attorney noted.

Asking for an appeal would include filing a new court case with the Minnesota Appellate Court, providing every document that will be part of the record in that case and being at any hearings the appellate court wanted to have.

OIL COMPANIES PROSECUTED FOR AVIAN DEATHS BUT WIND COMPANIES KILL BIRDS WITH IMPUNITY

SOURCE: American Bird Conservancy, www.abcbirds.org  September 7, 2011

"Every year wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds, including eagles, hawks, and songbirds, but the operators are being allowed to get away with it. It looks like a double standard.”

The United States Attorney in North Dakota has charged seven oil companies in seven separate cases with violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the illegal killing of 28 migratory birds. Yet, American Bird Conservancy – the nation’s leading bird conservation organization – reports that the wind industry, despite killing more than 400,000 birds annually, has yet to face a single charge.

The oil-related bird deaths, which included members of twelve different species, occurred between May 4 and June 20, 2011. The statutory maximum sentence for violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is six months in federal prison and a $15,000 fine. The date for the initial appearances for the seven companies is set for September 22, 2011, in United States District Court, Bismarck, North Dakota.

“I commend the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Justice Department for enforcing the law in these cases. Oil pits are a known hazard to birds and the solutions to prevent these bird deaths are straightforward to implement,” said American Bird Conservancy President George Fenwick. “It is perplexing that similar prosecutions have yet to be brought against the operators of wind farms. Every year wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds, including eagles, hawks, and songbirds, but the operators are being allowed to get away with it. It looks like a double standard.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) estimated in 2009 that about 440,000 birds were being killed by wind turbines. With an anticipated twelve-fold wind energy build-out by the year 2030, bird mortality is expected to dramatically increase in the coming years, absent significant changes in the way wind farms are sited and operated. Based on studies, one wind farm in California is estimated to have killed more than 2,000 eagles, plus thousands of other birds, yet no prosecution has been initiated for violations of federal laws protecting birds. The FWS is presently contemplating enacting voluntary – not mandatory – guidelines for the siting and operation of wind farms.

According to the Associated Press (AP), the birds died after landing in oil waste pits associated with the companies’ oil and gas extraction facilities in North Dakota. The birds land in the pits believing they are ponds and become contaminated with the oil. Birds can become poisoned and drown as a result. Court records show that all seven companies have previously been charged with similar violations.

The birds killed in the oil pits were mostly waterfowl, including Mallards, Gadwall, Northern Pintails, a Northern Shoveler, Blue-winged Teal, Common Goldeneye, Redhead and a Ring-necked Duck, but also included a Solitary Sandpiper, and Says Phoebe.

In Bismarck, United States Attorney Tim Purdon said, “These allegations of violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by companies operating in North Dakota’s oil patch should be troubling to those interested in preserving North Dakota’s rich heritage of hunting and fishing and to the many oil companies who work hard to follow the laws protecting our wildlife. At the North Dakota U.S. Attorney’s Office, we are committed to enforcing laws that protect North Dakota’s outdoors and to providing companies who follow the law with a level economic playing field.”

NEXT STORY

Does your Township need to enact wind energy systems moratorium while an ordinance is being created? Here's one to look at....

SOURCE: Town of Holland, Brown County, Wisconsin

DOWNLOAD ENTIRE MORATORIUM DOCUMENT BY CLICKING HERE

ORDINANCE NO. 3-1-2010-B

An Ordinance To Impose a Temporary Stay On Construction Of Large
Wind Energy Systems In The Town Of Holland.

Recitals:

1. A “wind energy system” is an electricity generating facility consisting of one or more wind turbines
under common ownership or operating control, and includes substations, MET Towers, cables/wires and
other buildings accessory to such facility, whose main purpose is to supply electricity to off-site
customer(s). A “wind turbine” is a wind energy conversion system which converts wind energy into
electricity through the use of a wind turbine generator. A “large wind energy system” is a wind energy
system with turbines exceeding 170 feet in height and 100 kilowatts in nameplate capacity.

2. There is an interest in establishing wind energy systems in the Town of Holland.

3. There exist potential health and safety issues related to the construction of large wind energy systems
including, but not limited to, electrical connections, electric and magnetic fields, tower failure (falling
turbines), tower climbing, falling ice, blade thrower, flicker or shadow flicker, and noise.

4. The Town currently has an Ordinance regarding wind energy systems but Town residents have
informed the Town Board at a public hearing that the current ordinance is inadequate to protect the public
health and safety of the Town residents and that particularly the present setback requirements are
insufficient to provide reasonable protection from health effects including health effects from noise and
shadow flicker associated with wind energy systems.

5. The Town Board has been authorized under Wis. Stat. 60.10(2) ( c ) to exercise powers conferred on
Village Boards, and also has the authority to adopt zoning regulations under Wis. Stat. 60.61 and 60.62
and 61.35.

6. The Town is beginning the process of reviewing its present ordinance and adopting an ordinance that
will provide a review and permitting process and ensure the health and safety standards for large wind
energy systems, and to adopt an ordinance that complies with Wis. Stat. 66.040( m ) ( a ) to ( c ) and
which complies with Wis. Stat. 196.378( 4g ).

7. On February 1, 2010, the Town Plan Commission conducted a public hearing preceded by publication
of a notice, regarding what process the Town should use to study and develop a large wind energy system
ordinance, and whether the Town should impose a temporary stay on the construction of large wind
energy systems while the Town is considering amendment and changes to its present ordinance. The
Town Plan Commission did recommend passing an amendment to its ordinance by creating a setback of
2,640 feet from inhabited structures for wind energy turbines and a moratorium on the construction of
said facilities be placed for one year so that the Town can study the health and safety issues associated
with wind energy systems.

8. That the Town Board on February 1, 2010 Board Meeting discussed the recommendations of the Town
Plan Commission. The Town Board proceeded to direct the attorney for the Town to draft an amendment
to the present ordinance regarding the setback from inhabited structures for wind energy turbines to be
2,640 feet from an inhabited structure and draft a moratorium for one year on the construction of said
wind energy systems, and to appoint a committee to study the wind energy ordinance and to make
suggested recommendations with regard to appropriate amendments. The Town Board has appointed a
committee to advice with regard to changes in its present ordinance regarding large wind energy facilities
to protect the health and safety of the residences of the Town and to gather information and
documentation with regard to the operation of the facilities.

9. That the State of Wisconsin has enacted 2009 Wisconsin Act 40 amending Wis. Stat. 66.0401(1m) and
other statutes regarding regulation of wind energy systems and granting rule making authority to the
Public Service Commission with advice of the wind siting council to promulgate rules that specify the
restrictions a political subdivision may impose on the installation or use of wind energy systems consistent
with the conditions specified in 66.0401(1m) (a) to ©. The subject matter of the rule shall include setback
requirements that provide reasonable protection from any health effects from noise and shadow flicker,
associated with energy systems. Such rules should also include decommissioning which may include
visual appearance, lighting, electrical connections to power grid, setback distance, maximum audio sound
levels, shadow flicker, proper means of measuring noise, interference with radio, telephone, television
signals, or other matters. A political subdivision may not place restrictions on installation or use of wind
energy systems that is more restrictive that these rules. To date, no such rules have been promulgated by
the commission therefore a stay or moratorium would protect the health and safety of the residents of the
Town until Town has amended its ordinance to adequately protect the health and safety of the Town
residents.

10. As the Public Service Commission has not yet promulgated rules that specify the restrictions that the
Town may impose on the installation or use of a wind energy system pursuant to S.S. 196.379( 4g ) of the
Wisconsin Statutes, created by Act 40, and as it is uncertain when the rules specifying such restrictions
will be promulgated by the Public Service Commission, a moratorium is necessary for the protection of the
health and safety of the residents of the Town until such rules are promulgated or until the Town has
amended its present ordinance in a manner sufficient to protect the health and safety of the public.

11. The Town Board agreed with the Town Plan Commission’s recommendation regarding the process
that should be followed to amend the present ordinance and determined that the adoption of a temporary
stay or moratorium will promote public health and safety of the people in the Town.
NOW THEREFORE, based on the above recitals and pursuant to Article XI, Section 1 of the Wisconsin
Constitution, Sections 60.22( 3 ), 61.34, 60.61 and 60.62 of the Wisconsin Statutes, and any and all other
sources of authority that authorize the adoption of this ordinance, the Town Board of Holland, Brown
County, Wisconsin, dose hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1. Temporary Wind Energy System Stay (Moratorium)
There is hereby established a temporary stay (moratorium) on the construction of large wind energy
systems in the Town. During the temporary stay provided by this ordinance it shall be unlawful to install
or construct any large wind energy system or part thereof, and the Town shall not accept or process any
applications relating to the proposed construction of any large wind energy system.

Section 2. Duration
One year from the date hereof.

Section 3. Inconsistent Ordinance Voided
All ordinances or provisions of ordinances inconsistent with or contravening the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby temporarily voided and shall have no legal force or effect during the period that this
Ordinance is in effect.

Section 4. Scope
The temporary stay provided by this Ordinance shall apply throughout the Town.

Section 5. Severability
If any section or part of this Ordinance is adjudged to be unconstitutional, unlawful, or invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.

Section 6 Effective Date
This Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption and publication or posting, as provided by law.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Holland at a
meeting held on March 1, 2010 by a vote of 3 in favor, 0 opposed and 0 not voting.

From North Dakota

BIG UTILITES SEEK TAX CUTS FOR DEVELOPING WIND FARMS

BY BOB MERCER

SOURCE: American News Correspondent, www.aberdeennews.com

September 7, 2011

Company officials for Iberdrola Renewables asked for a complete repeal of state sales and use taxes and state contractor excise taxes instead.

PIERRE — Representatives from several large utility companies that run wind farms in South Dakota called for tax reductions Wednesday as one of the steps to encourage more wind-electricity projects in the state.

They made their suggestions to a special task force created by the Legislature to study South Dakota’s competitiveness in wind energy.

The panel plans to meet a final time Oct. 5 to develop recommendations that will be delivered to the governor and the Legislature.

“We will be here with our sleeves rolled up,” said Rep. Roger Solum, R-Watertown. He is the task force chairman.

South Dakota’s program that provides tax rebates for large construction projects expires Dec. 31, 2012.

Wind-energy projects have been some of the biggest recipients of the rebates.

The possible replacement is a discretionary grant program that takes effect in 2013 if voters statewide approve it the November 2012 general election.

Company officials for Iberdrola Renewables asked for a complete repeal of state sales and use taxes and state contractor excise taxes instead, noting there isn’t any guarantee under the grant approach.

Iberdrola’s Ben Hach said that without changes a 200-megawatt wind farm in South Dakota will face $25 million more in taxes over its lifetimethan it would in neighboring states.

One of the task force members is Pierre lawyer Brett Koenecke, whose clients include Iberdrola.

NextEra Energy Resources proposed a “back to the future” approach.

Jason Utton, a project director, suggested South Dakota restore the large-project rebate program and the tax incentives for wind projects that were in place before 2010.

He said NextEra has invested more in neighboring states than in South Dakota.

Accione Energy’s Rick Murphy highlighted some of the same points.

All three discussed transmission as a barrier too. The task force was assigned by the Legislature to look at tax policy.

Basin Electric’s Ron Rebenitsch listed taxes as No. 8 in his presentation, just ahead of regulatory environment.

His top seven were transmission, federal incentives, power markets, renewable mandates, ability to access the MISO transmission grid that serves the Midwest’s urban areas, environmental regulations and local ownership.

Much of rural South Dakota where wind farms can be located is served by the Western Area Power Administration’s grid rather than the MISO grid, and electricity producers must pay access fees twice to put their power on WAPA in order to get onto MISO to reach consumer centers such as Minneapolis-St. Paul.

“It’s transmission, transmission, transmission,” Rebenitsch said.

From California

BLM CLAMPS DOWN ON PUBLIC COMMENT AT RENEWABLE ENERGY MEETINGS

by Chris Clarke

SOURCE www.kcet.org

September 7, 2011

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has laid down the law. No Interior employee will act in opposition to public lands renewable energy development, even if opposing said development could be construed as within the person’s job description: a Park Service analyst objecting to development on the boundary of a National Park, for instance.

Faced with a storm of protest over the Interior Department’s push for renewable energy development on public land in California, the Bureau of Land Management has taken a novel approach to managing public comment on controversial projects: don’t allow any.

That was the conclusion of members of the public who attended a pair of public meetings in California in the last week. In Ocotillo on August 25, the project at issue was the Ocotillo Express wind project, which would site 155 wind turbines on 12,500 acres of mainly public land. The 465-megawatt project has stoked controversy in western Imperial County over its likely impact on bird and bat populations, as well as on the unparalleled viewscape of the Peninsular Ranges and the health of nearby residents.

But little of that controversy was expressed at the August 25 meeting. According to coverage in the Imperial Valley Press, locals in attendance found that their opportunity to comment on the project was severely limited. There was no public comment period scheduled. In order to comment on the project, attendees had to write their thoughts on a few lines on one side of a pre-printed letter-sized form, which would likely have allowed most people only about 75 words of comment. (The form did provide an email address for those who wished to make longer comments.)

Though the meeting largely proceeded as planned, there was disgruntlement among those in attendance over the apparent squelching of spoken public input. As local environmental activist Donna Tisdale told the Imperial Valley Press,

It’s like they’re trying to suppress public comment. People want to speak. They want to ask questions.

The scene replayed more fractiously a few days later on August 31, at the Primm Valley Golf Club in Ivanpah Valley, a few miles from the Nevada line and 300 miles north of Ocotillo. The occasion was a scoping meeting to gather public input on the First Solar Stateline Solar Farm, a 300-megawatt photovoltaic facility on about 2,000 acres of public land adjacent to the controversial Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Station. The Ivanpah Valley is remote from most places in California: aside from Las Vegas, the nearest town of any size, Barstow, is across 113 miles of desert. People traveled to the meeting from as far away as Long Beach, CA and Beatty, NV to offer their input at this meeting, but were told that as was the case in Ocotillo, there would be no opportunity for public comment at the meeting.

A scoping meeting is generally held as part of the scoping process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the federal law that regulates environmental review of potentially destructive projects. Under NEPA, the scoping process is intended to identify potential issues or alternative plans to be addressed in subsequent Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. The whole point of a scoping meeting is to assess the wide range of potential issues a project may involve. While there is no legal requirement that an agency include public-hearing-style comment periods in a scoping meeting, such open comment meetings are generally the most efficient way of gauging public opinion on an issue, especially when the issue is controversial.

And if First Solar Stateline is a controversial project, the BLM’s choice of meeting formats proved even more controversial at the Primm Golf Club. There was widespread grumbling among attendees before the meeting even started. One BLM staffer told me somewhat defensively that there was a range of formats allowable for scoping meetings. Attendees looked askance at the unusual police presence, with both BLM rangers and San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies thick on the ground, armed with sidearms and Tasers. After a short presentation by First Solar’s project lead Mike Argentine, Jeff Childers, a BLM staffer from the California Desert District office in Moreno Valley, confirmed to the roomful of people — many of whom were attempting to ask questions — that public comment would not be allowed other than in writing.

The room erupted despite the heavy police presence. Kevin Emmerich from the group Basin and Range Watch stood and announced his group’s alternative proposal, an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) for the Ivanpah Valley. Others loudly confronted Childers on the lack of clarity in BLM communications about the meeting, the inadequacy of avenues for public comment at the meeting, and the trouble and expense to which many attendees had gone in order to attend the meeting, only to find that the BLM didn’t want to hear more than about 75 words of their input, in writing.

Childers alleged that the BLM’s intent was to allow more accurate responses to the public’s input, but then abandoned that line of reasoning within a few sentences, suggesting that another meeting might be scheduled for verbal comments from the public. This didn’t go over well among those who had traveled long distances. The meeting eventually dissolved into a few knots of people having animated discussions.

Though I did attempt to talk to BLM staff to flesh out their reasons for the shift in meeting format, they did not return my phone calls by press time.

It should be said that the scoping process is not the only opportunity for members of the public to comment on projects proposed for public lands. The Environmental Assessment and EIS processes also afford venues for comment. Still, the scoping process is an important chance for public opinion to shape a project in its very early stages. Limiting public comment to a few handwritten sentences (or to potentially longer emailed comments) unnecessarily restricts the democratic rights of people whose disabilities may interfere with writing by hand or typing, people whose written English proficiency is inadequate but who could offer substantive comments in spoken form, and people without access to the internet. In the California Desert those last two groups are heavily Latino and Native, raising troubling implications of racial discrimination.

What’s more, though a public hearing style meeting is prone to people speaking long, grandstanding, and otherwise trying the patience of meeting facilitators, it’s an effective way for interested people to hear the range of opinion and sentiment among others in attendance. The result is a very efficient sharing of ideas — something made impossible if all comments are submitted in writing.

Over the last two years, desert protection activists have heard repeatedly from nervous National Park staff, BLM rangers, and other Interior Department agency staff that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has laid down the law. No Interior employee will act in opposition to public lands renewable energy development, even if opposing said development could be construed as within the person’s job description: a Park Service analyst objecting to development on the boundary of a National Park, for instance.

Attendees at a BLM meeting held to discuss First Solar Stateline earlier this year were informed by staff from the Needles BLM office that an urban rooftop solar alternative had been declared “off the table” by higher-ups in Washington, DC — an attempt, possibly illegal, to restrict the allowable content of public feedback. Clamping down on the age-old American tradition of speaking your piece at a public meeting seems cut from the same cloth as these previous initiatives.

Will this latest move to curtail public input on public lands projects become the California BLM’s new way of holding scoping meetings? It’s hard to say. It depends on how much push-back they get from members of the public, and perhaps from attorneys concerned over the racial or disability discrimination aspects of the new policy. In the meantime, scoping meetings have been scheduled in September for discussion of the McCoy Solar Energy Project in Riverside County, the Tylerhorse Wind Project in Kern County, and the management plan for the Amargosa River. You can exercise your rights as a US resident by attending to voice your concerns. Or trying to voice them, anyway.

Chris Clarke is an environmental writer of two decades standing. Author of Walking With Zeke, he writes regularly at his acclaimed blog Coyote Crossing and comments on desert issues here every Wednesday. He’s also a co-founder of Solar Done Right and thus doesn’t even try to pretend to be an impartial observer of solar development on California’s wildlands. He lives in Palm Springs.

From New York State

RESIDENTS IN WIND-TURBINE SHADOW SEEK NOISE, OTHER RELIEF

Source: LittleFallsTimes.com

September 7, 2011

By Linda Kellett

Fairfield, N.Y. —

“I don’t know how long my wife and I can stand it. It’s on and off. You can never get used to it.

NEXT STORY

From Michigan

RESIDENTS VOICE CONCERNS OVER WIND FARM NEWS

SOURCE:Connect Mid Michigan

September 7, 2011

SAGINAW COUNTY -- The Blumfield Township Planning voted Tuesday night to amend an ordinance banning a company from building a wind turbine within 500 ft. to 1400 ft. of a residential home.

Several wind turbines could be built in Blumfield Township. They are part of $250 million dollar project by NextEra Energy Resources that would span over Bay, Tuscola and Saginaw counties.

Several dozen residents turned out for a 7:00 p.m. meeting at the Blumfield Township Hall.

Many residents told NBC25 they attended the meeting in hopes of finding out more information on the project and to voice their concerns.

"I'm not against wind farm energy but I think the township should study alternatives before they make any decisions," said Emil Muellar, who owns property in Blumfield Township.

"I am concerned about the wind noise. We need to know how safe they are. How does it affect us and if it will affect our property values," said Roseanna DuRussel.

"There's a lot of questions. There's more questions thatn there are answers," said Blumfield Township resident Don Wendland.

Blumfield Township Planning Commission Board Chairman Bruce Landskroener said Tuesday's meeting was just to approve an ordinance amendment banning a company from building a wind turbine within 500 ft. to 1400 ft. of a residential home. They board voted to approve the change. Landskroener said the Planning Commission would recommend to the Blumfield Township board to bring in experts to answer any questions residents have.

"I think they need to do a little more research. I think everyone was disappointed they didn't have any answers, said DuRussel.