MEETING DEALING WITH WIND TURBINES ENDS BEFORE IT BEGINS

SOURCE: WTOL, www.wtol.com 

By Tim Miller

30 June 2011

“I have never seen a town so divided. Brother won’t talk to sister, sister won’t talk to brother. It’s terrible, really. I never seen a town divided so bad.”

RIGA TOWNSHIP — A special meeting to deal with wind turbines ended before it even began, the latest twist in an ongoing controversial project.

Township trustees were set to take some kind of action Thursday night on an ordinance to allow the turbines on farmers’ fields and the meeting drew so much interest that the fire chief limited attendance into the building to 200 people.

With about a hundred people stuck outside, the trustees decided to postpone the meeting to another date, at a larger venue.

Farmers who are poised to sign leases with wind turbine companies stand to make profits from the use of their land and turbines are widely seen as a new “crop” in Michigan. But the opponents come from Riga Township and surrounding communities. They say the wind turbines will destroy the peaceful country setting and lead to health hazards.

Trustee Paul Dusseau says he’s saddened by the situation. “I have never seen a town so divided. Brother won’t talk to sister, sister won’t talk to brother. It’s terrible, really. I never seen a town divided so bad.”

All sides did seem to agree that is was the right to reschedule the meeting.

Josh Nolan of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition said, “You can’t have a project like this that is going to affect not only the people of Riga Township, but those of Sylvania Township, Palmyra Township, Blissfield Township, Ogden Township, Whiteford Township. Everyone in the area is going to be affected by this. You can’t have some major project like that and then disallow people from participating in the process.”

Supervisor Jeff Simon says the trustees will listen to the public at the next meeting and will carefully review the ordinance before they make any decision. Residents are encouraged to visit the township’s website and local newspapers to see when the next special meeting will be held.

From Illinois

LAWSUIT FILED

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT SOURCE: Bureau County Republican, www.bcrnews.com

July 1, 2011

By Donna Barker,

“Fundamentally, this action is necessary to preserve the value of our homes and farms in the face of overwhelming evidence that the construction of so many turbine towers, so close to our property, will cause irreparable harm to the long-standing, pre-existing use and enjoyment of our property,” Hamrick said. “Our group is seeking only to prevent the wind turbine facility from being constructed and is not seeking any monetary recovery.”

PRINCETON – A group of Bureau County residents have filed a complaint against the county of Bureau, the Bureau County Board, each member of the Bureau County Board as individuals in their official capacities, and against Walnut Ridge Wind LLC.

The goal of the complaint is to stop the building of the proposed 150-turbine Walnut Ridge Wind wind farm in northwest Bureau County.

Filing the complaint are 37 Bureau County residents whose properties are situated around the proposed Walnut Ridge Wind site. Spokespersons for the group are Ron Amerein, Deanna Wilt and Steve Hamrick. Representing the group is Rockford attorney Rick Porter of Hinshaw and Culbertson.

In a press release issued Thursday, the spokespersons claim there were “significant procedural mistakes in the process and substantial flaws in the findings” of the county board.

Filed Wednesday at the Bureau County Courthouse, the 450-page, 117-count complaint claims the county board did not have the authority or jurisdiction to grant the original conditional use permits to Walnut Ridge Wind LLC in August 2008, nor the authority to approve the permit extension requests granted by the county board in April 2011.

According to the complaint, there was improper public notice of the zoning application and the request to extend those applications; that the permits lapsed because the turbine company did not act on those permits for three years; and that the original permits are void because Bureau County had no jurisdiction to issue them. In addition, the complaint describes why the court should conclude, as did the Bureau County Zoning Board of Appeals, that granting an extension of those Walnut Ridge permits was not supported by facts of law. (On March 31, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended, on a 3-2 vote, to deny extensions to the Walnut Ridge conditional use permits.)

The complaint also asks the court to find the county board’s action is “arbitrary and capricious.” According to the plaintiffs, the county board’s decision failed to consider the negative impact of the proposed turbines, including, among other things, annoying and incessant noise, visual disturbances from flashing lights, turning blades and massive unsightly towers, shadow flicker, negative health affects, including sleep deprivation, and the impact to pets, livestock, birds and wildlife.

In their press release, the spokespersons described the plaintiffs as a very diverse group, representing individuals owning homes in close proximity to one or more of the proposed Walnut Ridge turbine towers, as well as farmers and landowners who expect their operations to be significantly harmed if the turbine towers are allowed to be built.

Each of the plaintiffs has made a financial commitment to support the cost of bringing this complaint to the courts, the spokespersons stated. For some of these property owners, the affected property represents their principal financial asset, and thus a lifetime of savings, the spokespersons claimed.

In some additional comments, spokesperson Steve Hamrick reiterated why this group of Bureau County residents has taken this legal action and what they want to accomplish.

“Fundamentally, this action is necessary to preserve the value of our homes and farms in the face of overwhelming evidence that the construction of so many turbine towers, so close to our property, will cause irreparable harm to the long-standing, pre-existing use and enjoyment of our property,” Hamrick said. “Our group is seeking only to prevent the wind turbine facility from being constructed and is not seeking any monetary recovery.”

On Thursday, Bureau County State’s Attorney Pat Herrmann, who will represent the defendants in the complaint, said defendants have 30 days to reply after a subpoena is served.

From Ontario

SHUT DOWN TURBINES IF THEY INTERFERE WITH FARMER'S GPS SYSTEMS

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT THE SOURCE: The Wellington Advertiser, www.wellingtonadvertiser.com

By David Meyer

Downey suggested the words be changed so the clause reads, “turned off until the problem is solved.” He said without a required shutdown, the company could simply say it tried and was unable to prevent interference.

Driscoll said it was necessary for the township to insist upon that, rather than pitting “little Joe Farmer against NextEra. If they say ‘two weeks’ I don’t have two weeks.”

MAPLETON TWP. — When township council here considered what comments to make to the province about conditions for permitting an industrial wind farm near Arthur, councillor Neil Driscoll said turbines should be shut down immediately if they interfere with GPS users.

At a special meeting on June 21 to consider possible conditions, Driscoll told council the wind industry should not be permitted to interfere with modern farming practices.

Councillor Mike Downey supported Driscoll’s statement, and soon, so did all other councillors.

They were working their way through a commenting document to set conditions for the province, although Mapleton’s was so big there were dozens of extra pages beyond what the province offered. The township is facing a request for NextEra Energy Canada’s Conestogo Wind Energy Centre Project.

The extra comments and requests for conditions were compiled by Chief Administrative Officer Patty Sinnamon from a number of sources, many from the United States, which has far more stringent rules than Ontario.

One of the suggestions was, “If any television, cell phone, internet or broadcast radio frequency interference is shown to be created by the Wind Energy Centre, NextEra shall use commercially reasonable efforts to mitigate any problems on a case by case basis.”

Downey suggested the words be changed so the clause reads, “turned off until the problem is solved.” He said without a required shutdown, the company could simply say it tried and was unable to prevent interference.

Driscoll said it was necessary for the township to insist upon that, rather than pitting “little Joe Farmer against NextEra. If they say ‘two weeks’ I don’t have two weeks.”

Driscoll said in a later interview that GPS equipment “auto steers” farm machinery in fields. He said someone is in the tractor, but it is GPS satellite technology that runs it. It also determines the amounts of spraying a machine does.

If GPS is interfered with by a turbine, he said farmers are effectively forced to shut down their operation.

“It would lose track of where you were in the field,” he said. “It could throw the seeding off. You could lose combine rates of yield.”

The GPS works with satellite technology, and Driscoll said the technology on farms is similar to what people might have in their cars, but, “It’s just far more enhanced.”

He estimated over 75 per cent of farmers use “some type of GPS – in our spraying, in our tractors and combines. So what happens if my GPS does go down? It’s pretty hard to run without it now. We’ve become reliant on the system.”

Driscoll said satellites can give a reading of the strengths of a signal, and could tell if interference is coming from a wind turbine (that is something some wind energy companies acknowledge, and they have it included in contracts they sign with host farmers).

Driscoll also agreed with Mayor Bruce Whale, who noted all the land for the NextEra project is class one farmland.

“That’s the worst part,” Driscoll said. “This is class one farmland that can’t be replaced.”

In the past, the Ministry of Agriculture, through the provincial government, has tried to protect class one agricultural lands.

Sinnamon reminded council the county’s rural broadband project is due to come on line in September. She wondered how the township can determine if turbines are causing interference. Councillor Jim Curry said it is easy. “What was working is not.”

Sinnamon wondered about a shut down for cell phones.

Driscoll said, “If the cell phone is your lifeline … ”

Sinnamon asked how anyone can determine interference by a turbine.

Whale said, “Anyone who could do an analysis probably could … each provider has a way of measuring range.”

Driscoll said the satellite “can probably tell you what is interfering. TV providers can tell you if somebody is interfering.”

Curry said council should check other areas. “I’ve heard there have been problems.”

Whale said the township can determine what service is like before the arrival of turbines, and then afterwards.

Sinnamon said if the township insists there be no interference, it should set a deadline for how long the company will have to prove it does not interfere. She suggested five years.

Whale said council will have to set a length, and “We should know soon.”

Curry said residents hosting turbines “waive these issues.”

Other conditions

Council also went through numerous conditions to protect its roads from large and heavy machinery.

It insisted when NextEra has to dig under roads for electrical wires, it has to bore under paved roads, but it can dig up gravel roads. The elevations shall be approved by the township’s engineers.

As well, the township wants 18-inch culverts used where the road is dug for conduits.

Council wants also to be reimbursed for all inspection costs for the roads, prior to NextEra using them, and afterwards, with a limit of one year to determine settling. It wants the company to repair any damaged road base to a depth of 18 inches. Driscoll said there is a heritage road on part of the section NextEra will have to travel.

Public Works Director Larry Lynch said that road, Sideroad 17, will have to be brought back to original condition, including such things as tree canopy, and to its original narrow width.

Lynch said the township heritage committee probably won’t want it touched at all. “Once you affect the integrity, it isn’t a heritage road any more.”

Whale said the township will need a report on that issue.

“Let’s investigate. Confirm the identity – confirm what can and cannot happen.”

Driscoll said some road allowances are unopened in winter, and are used only by snowmobile clubs. He said he would be unwilling to allow the wind company to open those roads, and it could use access by snowmobile – if it has paid a trail fee.

Lynch said if the company, needs access, the township could always “open the road up – at a cost.”

Councillor Andy Knetsch wondered how the company could get emergency personnel to its turbines.

Whale said that will have to be part of its emergency plan.

Lynch said it is no different than Conestogo Lake, where people are responsible for their own access in winter.

Whale said to make sure that is in the agreement.

Council agreed there will likely be some disruption when the company brings in the turbine sections and the heavy cranes to build them. It insisted farmers know well in advance what days the company will be taking machinery on township roads.

Driscoll was unhappy about farmers being unable to use township roads for long periods. “If it still takes the whole day, it doesn’t help us,” he said.

Lynch said there could be breakdowns, and wondered how the township could deny use of the road if moving turbines takes longer than expected. “We have to be careful and show due diligence and not make it too onerous,” Lynch said. “What happens if they’re a day late? Does that mean they can’t come in the next day?”

On the other hand, he understood Driscoll’s point about interrupting busy farmers if they get a good day to work.

“It’s shouldn’t be a hardship on the landowner. I think that’s what councillor Driscoll is saying,” Lynch concluded.

When it came to shadow flicker, the township noted trees can be planted as a block of the tower’s shadow.

Curry said trees must be evergreen types. In the United States, some companies planted trees that lost leaves and those were useless blocking shadow flicker. When it came to completing the project, council insisted the company remove much of the turbine’s concrete base. Council wants two metres of cement taken out, and that hole filled with topsoil so the land can be returned to farm.

The township is also going to be requiring letters of credit worth thousands of dollars to guarantee that all the liabilities of NextEra are covered.

That includes the scrap metal. It wants NextEra to bring a report to council on the value of scrap metal every three years. In many cases, the farmers can claim the scrap metal once the turbines have finished their contracts.

When it came to insurance for turbines in case of accident, Knetsch wanted to increase it from $500,000 per turbine to $1-million.

Driscoll said there could be “millions in environmental degradation. How far is that going to go? Suppose it blows up and spreads over two acres?”

Acting Building Inspector David Kopp said he wants the company to send the township proof of insurance every year it operates.

Whale said there should also be “spill insurance.” He said the problem is the township does not know what is in the landowner agreement.”

Sinnamon said that the U.S. agreements are becoming far more detailed as people there gain experience with turbines.

Knetsch said the township could use an actuary to determine what the costs might be down the road. He was concerned with “an environmental disaster. Who’s going to pay for that?”

Driscoll said council must be wary because the company is unlikely to pay for costs down the road it has not agreed in advance. “I don’t believe you’ll get it from them later.”

Council agreed it will ask for property values to be guaranteed within 5km of the turbines. Sinnamon said NextEra has stated there is no drop off in property values, but in the U.S. the company was asked to guarantee property values.

She said the company has entered into agreements on that in the U.S., “So they are [guaranteeing property values].”

Council’s debate on the issues lasted nearly four hours.

Afterwards, it also accepted a document from area residents who have listed their own concerns about the turbines.

The township has a deadline of July 9 to comment to the province, and if it meets that deadline, it can also comment further.

From Oregon State:

THE FUTURE OF WIND DEVLOPMENT

READ ENTIRE STORY AT SOURCE East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com 

July 1, 2011

By Samantha Tipler,

In the minutes after Umatilla County commissioners made their decision to approve tougher requirements for wind turbines, some people celebrated.

Others proclaimed it would be the end of the wind power business in Umatilla County.

Even the commissioners themselves were split, with Commissioner Bill Hansell voting against the two-mile setback requirement.

Exactly how these changes will affect wind power development has yet to be seen, but wind power advocates say it means the end to development in the county.

John Audley, deputy director from Renewable Northwest Project, a group advocating renewable energy, said he watched Umatilla County’s lawmaking process closely. He was disappointed in the result.

“I read this as the county saying go someplace else,” he said.

He was particularly taken by a map with two-mile setback circles around homes in a portion of Umatilla County. Those circles covered almost all the space on the map.

“There’s no opportunity for development,” Audley said. “My sense is that’s what the county wanted to say. They felt it was important to just say no.”

Elaine Albrich, with Stoel Rives of Portland, said likewise. She was personally at the meetings the county held, advocating for wind companies.

“While we understand the board had a difficult decision to make, we are disappointed in the outcomes and the process,” she said. “The impacts of the code amendment will vary from project to project but overall I can anticipate less economic development in the county from renewable energy development.”

Umatilla County Planning Director Tamra Mabbott said from her perspective, the changes to the laws will not close the door to wind development.

“We have clear objective standards designed to balance the interest of the developers and the interests of folks who will live near the development,” she said. “It’s not at all intended to foreclose development opportunities.”

In the past 15 years, Umatilla County has seen nine wind power operations sited in the county. That doesn’t necessarily mean they have been built, they’ve just passed the paperwork to be allowed to build.

There were three in 2009, two in 2002 and one each in 1997,2001, 2008 and 2011.

The 2011 wind farm — a roughly 100 megawatt project from a company called WKN Chopin LLC — started its paperwork in February, so it will not be subject to the new laws. It is still going through its permitting process, Mabbott said.

Any wind power companies applying after the commissioners made their decision Tuesday would have to go through the new process.

The biggest procedural change, she said, will be in the pre-application process. Rather than just consulting with other agencies, the county, the company and those agencies will have a meeting.

“With the pre-application meeting we get those comments right up front” Mabbott said. “That’s helpful for everybody involved, particularly with a real big project.”

The county regulations only apply to operations 105 megawatts and smaller. Larger operations are sited through the state.

Then it goes through the Energy Facility Siting Council.

Bryan Wolfe, of Hermiston, is chairman of that council, and he and his colleagues have been keeping an eye on the changes happening in Umatilla County.

“I know Umatilla County has done what they feel is necessary for them,” Wolfe said.

The siting council, too, has seen a need to revamp rules at the state level.

The council’s last two meetings bled with frustration over the inadequacy of the current rules.

The last two meetings have dealt with the Helix Wind Power Facility site amendment, doubling the size of the project. Though several members expressed dissatisfaction with that jump in size, the wind company met all the regulations, and the council approved it.

But even as the council members did so, they said things need to change. They’ve been waiting for the Legislature to wrap up before it begins that review.

Those state rules, set by the Legislature, haven’t changed in about a decade, Wolfe said.

“We should, in light of the knowledge we have, we should start updating things,” Wolfe said. “Yes, we are very aware of what the county is doing.”

When the state permits a wind farm application that would be placed in Umatilla County it considers local rules.

“When we site a project within a county,” Wolfe said, “the county has to sign off on their rules. And if the rules are more stringent than ours, then that will come into play in our decision for a state certificate.”

Wolfe was unsure if Umatilla County’s tougher standards, like the two-mile setback or the protection of the Walla Walla Watershed, would set a precedent in other counties.

Planing offices in Morrow, Union and Gilliam Counties said yes, they were aware of what Umatilla County was doing, but they did not know if it would affect them. Gilliam County — which, along with Morrow County, is where the largest wind farm in the world, Shepherds Flat, is planned — said it likely wouldn’t be affected because it is farther away from Umatilla County.

From Michigan

GROUP RECOMMENDS STRICTER NOISE LEVELS FOR MICHIGAN WIND FARMS

SOURCE: MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY NEWS

June 30, 2011

We believe wind turbines will benefit our state by offering a viable source of alternative energy, but the public must be protected from risks to safety and health."

Specifically, the new report calls for noise levels not to exceed 40 decibels, much lower than the 55 decibels the state recommends now in its 2008 guideline.

EAST LANSING, Mich. — As the call for alternative energy grows louder in Michigan and more communities consider wind farms, a group led by a pair of Michigan State University professors has issued a report calling for stricter regulations on noise levels and providing zoning guidelines for local municipalities.

MSU's Ken Rosenman and Jerry Punch, along with retired Consumers Energy engineer William MacMillan, tackle four main issues in their report on wind turbines: physical safety, shadow flicker (caused by shadows cast when sunlight hits a turbine's turning blades), conflict resolution and the most contentious issue related to turbines: noise levels.

"We strongly recommend the state of Michigan consider our recommendations in revising its 2008 guideline on the placement of onshore wind turbines," said Rosenman, the chief of MSU's Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in the College of Human Medicine.

"We believe wind turbines will benefit our state by offering a viable source of alternative energy, but the public must be protected from risks to safety and health."

Specifically, the new report calls for noise levels not to exceed 40 decibels, much lower than the 55 decibels the state recommends now in its 2008 guideline.

"A level of 55 decibels or higher presents unacceptable health risks," said Rosenman, citing research from the World Health Organization that found repeated exposures to a level of 40 decibels at night lead to long-term adverse health effects such as cardiovascular disease, while shorter-term exposures are associated with sleep disturbances.

While the report says published evidence directly linking noise from wind turbines to adverse health effects is based on studies of airport and road traffic noise, "there is no reason to suspect wind turbine noise will have less of a harmful effect than noise from road traffic or airplanes," Rosenman said.

The report also sets guidelines on how to best measure noise levels and includes information on zoning waivers for municipalities.

Additionally, the report calls for a minimum distance from each turbine to the nearest residence or residential property line to provide adequate safety in the event of falling towers, blade failure or ice throw.

"But it can't be assumed that distances that protect against physical safety are adequate to protect against annoyance and sleep disturbance from noise," said Punch, a retired professor of audiology in the MSU's Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders.

The report also sets out the process for municipalities to measure and predict shadow flicker, as well as ways to mitigate the problem.

Finally, Punch said, the report recommends several ways for municipalities to minimize complaints and disputes regarding wind turbines, including a mediation process as an alternative to litigation and "good-neighbor" payments to residents within pre-determined distances of wind turbines.

There currently are only a handful of wind farms operating in the state, but several municipalities are considering adding wind farms in the near future. Rosenman and Punch said they hope municipalities use the group's report as a guideline for zoning issues that arise when turbines are built. The report can be found at http://www.oem.msu.edu/userfiles/file/Resources/WindandHealthReport.pdf.

From Australia

HEALTH REVIEW PROMISED INTO WIND FARMS

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE www.abc.net.au

June 9 2011

By Sarina Locker

“I’m standing here because there is a problem,” Ms Bernie Janssen told the seminar. Ms Janssen says she didn’t object to the wind farm at Waubra, in Victoria in 2009, until she began feeling unwell.

“In May-June 2009 I woke in the night with rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath. I didn’t associate it then with wind turbines. In July, my GP noticed that my blood pressure was elevated.” She says she’s also felt body vibration, hypertension, tinitus, cognitive depression, sleep disruption, ear and head pressure.

She found out 37 people living up to 4km away from turbines began experiencing symptoms at about the same time.

The NHMRC’s hearing comes just one week before the Senate Inquiry in the impacts of windfarms is tabled in Parliament.

Many studies on so called wind turbine syndrome have been based on interviewing sufferers.But a Portugese environmental scientist is studying the physical effects of low frequency noise on the body. Dr Mariana Alves-Pereira of Lusofona University in Portugal has been studying vibroacoustics.

“We assess the effects of noise based on medical tests, so they’re objective medical tests. If we go in what we’ll do is get echo-cardiograms, we’ll do brain studies.”

Dr Alves Pereira has degrees in physics, biomedical engineering and a phD environmental science. She bases her research on her earlier work on aircraft workers, dating back to the 1980s who’ve been exposed to high levels of noise, up to 200Hz. “Noise in the aeronautical industry is very rich in low frequency components,” she says.

She found a specific set of symptoms associated with people exposed to low frequency noise, but says these levels are much lower than the levels of low frequency noise in houses near windfarms. She says they studied one family and their horses near a windfarm, and the biological response of their tissues which she says relates to exposure to low frequency noise.

UK based noise and vibration consultant Dr Geoff Leventhall says the media has been running scare stories about infrasound since the 1970s. He cites NASA’s research with Apollo space program found no impact.“The sort of energy exposure from the NASA work over 24 years would take a few thousand years to get from wind farms at the low levels that they have.”

He rejects the theory of a direct physiological effect of infrasound, he says it’s an assumption. He says what annoys people is the audible swish of the blades not infrasound.

Renowned anti-smoking campaigner, public health Professor Dr Simon Chapman has entered the debate and says it’s a noisy minority who say they suffer from the noise. Dr Chapman argues compensation from wind turbines situated on your farm could be the antitode. “People who move to the country, often will feel don’t want their environment disturbed.. and they’re annoyed to see wind farms unless they’re benefitting economically from them.”

He doesn’t see the need for more research, because it might hold up development of wind power. Despite the scepticism, Australia’s peak body supporting health research the NHMRC will conduct another review of the evidence over the next 12 months.

From Massachusetts

TURBINE TALK: NEW STATE PANEL TO STUDY HEALTH EFFECTS

READ THE ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: FALMOUTH BULLETIN, www.wickedlocal.com

June 8 2011

By Craig Salters

Terri Drummey told the crowd that her son refuses to sleep in his bed because of the “thumping” and was having problems at school until the turbine was curtailed.

Falmouth selectmen organized a Monday night forum to discuss the issue of wind turbines and received a standing-room-only crowd of state and local officials, expert consultants and mostly angry residents.

Discussions of noise, low frequency noise, shadow flicker, proper setback distances and possible health effects from the turbines dominated during the more than three-hour meeting.

The final portion of the meeting was reserved for the comments of abutters to the town’s Wind 1 turbine at the Falmouth Wastewater Treatment Facility. Those residents shared stories of sleepless nights, headaches and other ill effects they say are brought on by the turbine.

Regardless of this or that study, they told the board, there is a problem with the nearly 400-foot, 1.65-megawatt turbine, which has been operational for more than a year but is now curtailed during strong winds in a nod to residents.

“Clearly there is a problem. We are not complaining just to complain,” Blacksmith Shop Road resident Dick Nugent told selectmen after pointing to the packed auditorium at the Morse Pond School. “We don’t expect you to have all the answers but we do expect you to take it and run with it.”

The entire auditorium received a bit of news early in the meeting when Steven Clarke, assistant secretary at the state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, announced that a panel will be formed this week to specifically study any health effects regarding the sounds from wind turbines. That panel will be comprised of representatives of the state’s Department of Environmental Protection and its Department of Public Health.

“Right now, the focus is on sound,” Clarke told the audience.

Regarding possible health effects, Gail Harkness, chairwoman of the Falmouth Board of Health, said that board has been meeting with concerned residents for the past year and now receives bi-weekly updates at its regular meetings She said reported health effects include sleep disturbances, fatigue, headaches and nausea. The board has created a database of information on the issue and has also developed a wind turbine complaint and/or comment form which will be available online.

Patricia Kerfoot, chairwoman of the planning board, lauded the town for its decision to have a one-year moratorium on new wind turbine projects while more information is collected and regulations are formulated. “First and foremost, the planning board is here to listen,” Kerfoot said.

Kerfoot and others had plenty to listen to. There was Chris Menge of Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, the project manager of a noise study on the Wind 1 turbine. He discussed the results of the analysis including additional clarifications requested by the state. According to Menge, Wind 1 did not exceed noise limits but there would be trouble between midnight and 4 a.m. after Wind 2 goes into service. He recommended shutting down one of those turbines at low wind speeds during those hours.

But there was also Todd Drummey, an abutter, who used data available from the studies to point to different conclusions. Drummey said Menge’s claim that the turbine is less intrusive at high wind speeds is contrary to the experience of residents.

“The wind turbine is annoying at low speeds,” Drummey said. “It’s intolerable at high speeds. It drives people out of their homes.”

Drummey was joined by Mike Bahtiarian of Noise Control Engineering, a consultant hired by the resident group. His major point was that amplitude modulation, or what he called “the swishing” of the turbines, needs to be considered.

Stephen Wiehe, a representative of Weston & Samson, discussed the financial aspects of the municipal turbines while Thomas Mills and Susan Innis, both of Vestas, discussed the mechanical details of the turbine itself.

Malcolm Donald, an abutter from Ambleside Drive, discussed the concerns of turbine malfunction and the potential of ice being thrown from the blades. However, probably his most compelling testimony concerned “shadow flicker,” which is the rhythmic flashing of sunlight and shadow caused by the spinning blades. He showed the audience a video shot from inside his house where, looking through the window, the shadow of the blades can be seen moving repeatedly across his lawn.

“The inside of the house looks like a disco in the morning,” he said.

Terri Drummey told the crowd that her son refuses to sleep in his bed because of the “thumping” and was having problems at school until the turbine was curtailed.

“He’s happily brought his C’s and D’s up to A’s and B’s within days,” said Drummey. “Let me repeat that: within days.”

Falmouth selectmen have scheduled a July 11 meeting to follow up on further discussion of the turbines.

Selectmen Chairwoman Mary Pat Flynn thanked everyone for attending the forum but singled out residents for sharing their experiences.

“Certainly they were very personal and right to the point,” she said.

READ MORE ON FALMOUTH TURBINES BY CLICKING HERE: falmouth.patch.com

"Terri Drummey referred to the turbine issues as “the so-called Falmouth Effect,” and described the difficulty sleeping and concentrating which she said had led to her 10-year-old son’s declining grades, as well as her daughter’s headaches, and the ringing in her husband’s ears.

“We are the unwilling guinea pigs in your experiment with wind energy,” she said.

WIND GROUPS SPEND BIG ON LOBBYING

 READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Post-Bulletin, www.postbulletin.com

June 8, 2011

By Heather J. Carlson,

ST. PAUL — Two wind companies with plans to build wind farm projects in Goodhue County shelled out $480,000 in lobbying expenditures in 2010, according to a new report.

AWA Goodhue, which has proposed a 78-megawatt project, spent $380,000 on lobbying. That company ranked 17th highest when it came to lobbying expenditures in 2010, according to the report released by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. Geronimo Wind, which is also looking at installing turbines in Goodhue County, spent $100,000.

Zumbrota Township resident Kristi Rosenquist, who opposes the wind project, said she was “shocked” when she saw how much AWA Goodhue spent on lobbying.

Who spent what

AWA Goodhue, $380,000

Geronimo Wind, $100,000

EnXco, $40,000

Juhl Wind, $40,000

Minnesota Wind Coalition, $40,000

Lake Country Wind, $20,000

Renewable Energy Group, $20,000

Windustry, $8,500

Total: $648,500

Source: 2010 Lobbying Disbursement Summary, Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board

FROM ENGLAND:

OUR SLEEPLESS NIGHTS WITH THE WIND TURBINES

Read the entire story at the source: North Devon Gazzete, www.northdevongazette.co.uk

June 8, 2011

By Andy Keeble

“When they were first put up we had a long spell of really nice weather and they weren’t working at all. But since we’ve had the wind and the recent spell of bad weather the noise is unbearable of a night time.”

“It’s unbelievable the noise they make sometimes,” said Mr Paulton, 68.

A Torrington couple are selling their home and business following the erection of a wind farm in a field opposite their bungalow.

Patricia and Arthur Poulton say they are being kept awake at night by the noise from a trio of giant turbines less than 500 metres from their home at Higher Darracott.

The couple, who have operated their Deepmoor Metal Processors scrap metal business from the site for the last 21 years, said they now had no option but to sell up and move on.

“I can hear the turbines through my pillow at night,” said Mrs Paulton, 70.

“It’s a droning whooshing sound and as the blade passes the upright, the windier it gets, the noisier it gets. I have to close the window but you can still just about hear it through the double glazing.

“When they were first put up we had a long spell of really nice weather and they weren’t working at all. But since we’ve had the wind and the recent spell of bad weather the noise is unbearable of a night time.”

“It’s unbelievable the noise they make sometimes,” said Mr Paulton, 68.

“They are supposed to be no more than five decibels above background noise but when the wind blows across the bungalow it’s surprising how far it travels.”

The 240ft turbines were constructed by FIM Services Ltd in March and became operational in April. Planning consent was originally refused by Torridge District Council in May 2004 but later granted by a Government Inspector following a High Court appeal by land owners.

When the Gazette visited the couple on Wednesday, heavy blobs of white and grey cloud blotted out all but a few snatches of blue sky. On the hillside overlooking Torrington, two of the three turbines turned in a stiff breeze.

On the approaches to the town, the first of 22 ESB Wind Development UK turbines can be seen being built at Fullabrook Down on the other side of the Taw Estuary.

When the sun does shine here – especially towards the end of the day – the couple say the blades produce a “flicker shadow” over their bungalow.

“The sun goes down right behind the turbines and you get this strobe effect,” said Mrs Paulton, who suffers from Ménière’s disease – a disorder of the inner ear that can affect hearing and balance.

“They also produce a low frequency noise that you can’t hear but can cause dizziness, nausea and headaches. I’m not sure if it’s a coincidence but I’d not been ill for about five months but as soon as the turbines started I was sick for two weeks and have had to take the medication.

“We had a couple of break-ins at the yard last year and were thinking of selling up, but this has been the final straw.”

The couple have been in contact with Torridge District Council and have been asked to fill in forms to record their disturbance.

A spokesperson for the council said an official investigation had already started.

A statement from the council said: “The necessary forms have been sent to the complainants and our environmental protection team is awaiting the return of the paperwork with a diary of noise disturbances to see whether or not further investigation is required.”

Regarding shadow flicker, it said: “In the planning permission the inspector stipulated that a report should be submitted on shadow flicker which concluded that there would be very little chance of it happening. However, should it occur, effective steps should be taken to stop it.”

The couple were keen to point out that they were not concerned about the turbines’ impact on the landscape.

“We’re not bothered about how they look,” said Mrs Paulton.

The Gazette contacted FIM Service but a spokesperson was unavailable for comment.

Overcoming President Obama's Wind Power Addiction

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Forbes. com

June 7, 2011

 By Robert Bradley Jr.

An alternative form of energy with embarrassingly underwhelming returns.

Cumulative federal subsidies for wind are now well north of $100 billion. The very business running the Pennsylvania facility at which Obama made that bold prediction--Spanish wind company Iberdola--has received an astounding $1 billion in grants, tax credits and other incentives from the U.S. government (a.k.a., you and me).

This spring, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced federal approval for the construction of a huge new offshore wind farm in Massachusetts. The so-called Cape Wind project will include 130 turbines, each roughly 440 feet tall, and span 25 miles of ocean off the coast of Cape Cod. Construction is expected to commence this fall--assuming the troubling economics of the project can be resolved.

Getting Cape Wind approved was no easy task. The project had been stalled in controversy for nearly a decade. Even the late Sen. Ted Kennedy opposed the turbines for spoiling the tranquility of his seaside vacation home.

But Cape Wind survived its environmental review. And that's in no small part due to the Obama administration. Expanding wind power is core to the president's peculiar, ill-defined green energy agenda. At an April visit to a Pennsylvania turbine manufacturing facility, he went so far as to declare wind "the future of American energy."

That's quite a claim--and hardly true. Our country's history with wind power consists of grand promises from politicians, huge investments of taxpayer dollars, ratepayer sacrifice and embarrassingly underwhelming returns. More of the same can be expected.

Of the $10 billion invested by wind developers last year, $3.4 billion came in the form of federal grants. Thus taxpayers picked up a full one-third of the tab. And ratepayers have no choice but to pay the extra cost from wind power in states that mandate its use even after the tax subsidies.

Cumulative federal subsidies for wind are now well north of $100 billion. The very business running the Pennsylvania facility at which Obama made that bold prediction--Spanish wind company Iberdola--has received an astounding $1 billion in grants, tax credits and other incentives from the U.S. government (a.k.a., you and me).

AN OPEN LETTER FROM A WISCONSIN FARMER WHO REGRETS SIGNING A WIND CONTRACT

 "By signing that contract, I signed away the control of the family farm, and it's the biggest regret I have ever experienced and will ever experience."

-Gary Steinich, Cambria, Wisconsin. June 2011

     Sometime in late 2001 or early 2002, a wind developer working for Florida Power and Light showed up near the Wisconsin Town of Cambria looking to get in touch with someone at the Steinich family farm.

He wanted to talk to the landowner about leasing a bit of land for the installation of a met tower. He needed to measure the winds in the area for a possible windfarm and Walter Steinich's land looked like a good place to do it.

The wind developer seemed like a good guy to Mr. Steinich who was in his early 70's at the time. The money seemed good. A met tower didn't seem like a big deal. It was just a tall pole with some guy wires, and it was temporary. Mr. Steinich signed the contract.

That was nearly ten years ago. Mr. Steinich has since passed away and now his son, Gary, runs the farm. He's written an open letter to Wisconsin farmers about his experience with the wind company since then.

Photos below are of access roads and turbine foundations in various farm fields in the Glacier Hils project now under construction in Columbia County, Wisconsin

Turbine access road cutting diagonally across field in Glacier Hills project. May 2011

From One Wisconsin Farmer to Another:

This is an open letter to Wisconsin farmers who are considering signing a wind lease to host turbines on your land. Before you sign, I’d like to tell you about what happened to our family farm after we signed a contract with a wind developer.

In 2002, a wind developer approached my father about signing a lease agreement to place a MET tower on our land. My father was in his 70’s at the time. The developer did a good job of befriending him and gaining his trust.
 
He assured my father that the project wasn’t a done deal and was a long way off. They first had to put up the MET tower to measure the wind for awhile.

He told my father that if the project went forward there would be plenty of time to decide if we wanted to host turbines on our farm. There would be lots of details to work out and paperwork to sign well before the turbines would be built. The developer said my father could decide later on if he wanted to stay in the contract.
 
In 2003 the developer contacted us again. This time he wanted us to sign a contract to host turbines on our land. We were unsure about it, so we visited the closest wind project we knew of at the time. It was in Montfort, WI.
 
The Monfort project consists of 20 turbines that are about 300 feet tall and arranged in a straight line, taking up very little farmland with the turbine bases and access roads. The landowners seemed very satisfied with the turbines. But we were still unsure about making the commitment.

We were soon contacted again by the developer, and we told him we were undecided. Then he really started to put pressure on us to sign.

This was in March of 2004, a time of $1.60 corn and $1200 an acre land. It seemed worth it have to work around a couple of turbines for the extra cash. We were told the turbines would be in a straight line and only take up a little bit of land like the ones in Monfort.

And we were also told that we were the ones holding up the project. That all of our neighbors had signed, and we were the last hold-outs. It persuaded us.

What we didn’t know then was the developer was not being truthful. We were not the ‘last hold-out’ at all. In later discussions with our neighbors we found out that in fact we were the very first farmers to sign up. I have since found out this kind of falsehood is a common tactic of wind developers.
  
My father read through the contract. He said he thought it was ok. I briefly skimmed through it, found the language confusing, but trusted my father's judgment. We didn’t hire a lawyer to read it through with us. We didn’t feel the need to. The developer had explained what was in it.
 
The wind contract and easement on our farm was for 20 years. By then my dad was 75. He figured time was against him for dealing with this contract in the future so we agreed I should sign it. A few months later, my father died suddenly on Father's Day, June 20th, 2004
 
After that, we didn’t hear a whole lot about the wind farm for a couple years. There was talk that the project was dead. And then in 2007 we were told the developer sold the rights to the project. A Wisconsin utility bought it.
 
After that everything changed. The contract I signed had an option that allowed it to be extended for an additional 10 years. The utility used it.
 
The turbines planned for the project wouldn’t be like the ones in Monfort. They were going to be much larger, 400 feet tall. And there were going to be 90 of them.

They weren’t going to be in a straight row. They’d be sited in the spots the developer felt were best for his needs, including in middle of fields, with access roads sometimes cutting diagonally across good farm land. Landowners could have an opinion about turbine placement but they would not have final say as to where the turbines and access roads would be placed. It was all in the contract.

Nothing was the way we thought it was going to be. We didn't know how much land would be taken out of production by the access roads alone. And we didn't understand how much the wind company could do to our land because of what was in the contract..

In 2008 I had the first of many disputes with the utility, and soon realized that according to the contract I had little to no say about anything. This became painfully clear to me once the actual construction phase began in 2010 and the trucks and equipment came to our farm and started tearing up the field.

 In October of 2010 a representative of the utility contacted me to ask if a pile of soil could be removed from my farm. It was near the base of one of the turbines they were putting on my land. I said no, that no soil is to be removed from my farm.

The rep said that the pile was actually my neighbor’s soil, that the company was storing it on my land with plans to move it to another property.

Shortly afterwards I noticed the pile of subsoil was gone.

 In November of 2011 I saw several trucks loading up a second pile of soil on my land and watched them exiting down the road. I followed them and then called the Columbia County Sheriff. Reps from the company were called out. I wanted my soil back.

 A few days later the rep admitted they couldn’t give it back to me because my soil was gone. It had been taken and already dispersed on someone else's land. I was offered 32 truck loads of soil from a stockpile they had. I was not guaranteed that the soil would be of the same quality and composition as the truck loads of soil they took from my farm.

I was informed by the lawyer for the utility that I had until April 30, 2011 to decide to take the soil. There would be no other offer. Take it or leave it.

I contacted the Public Service Commission for help. The PSC approved the terms of project and I believed the utility was violating those terms. The PSC responded by telling me they could do nothing because the issue involved a private contract between myself and the utility.

They told me my only option was to sue the utility.

My father and I both worked those fields. Watching the way they’ve been ripped apart would sicken any farmer. But what farmer has the time and money it would take to sue a Wisconsin utility?

By signing that contract I signed away the control of the family farm, and it’s the biggest regret I have ever experienced and will ever experience. I have only myself to blame for not paying close enough attention to what I was signing.

We had a peaceful community here before the developer showed up, but no more. Now it’s neighbor against neighbor, family members not speaking to one another and there is no ease in conversation like in the old days. Everyone is afraid to talk for fear the subject of the wind turbines will come up. The kind of life we enjoyed in our community is gone forever.

I spend a lot of sleepless nights wishing I could turn back the clock and apply what I've learned from this experience. Now corn and bean prices are up. The money from the turbines doesn't balance out our crop loss from land taken out of production. The kind of life we enjoyed on our family farm is gone forever too.

I would not sign that contract today.  As I write this, the utility is putting up the towers all around us. In a few months the turbines will be turned on and we'll have noise and shadow flicker to deal with. If I have trouble with these things, too bad. I've signed away my right to complain. These are some of the many problems I knew nothing about when I signed onto the project.

If you are considering signing a wind lease, take the contract to a lawyer. Go over every detail. Find out exactly what can happen to your fields, find out all the developer will be allowed to do to your land. Go through that contract completely, and think hard before make your decision.

I can tell you from first hand experience, once you sign that contract, you will not have a chance to turn back.

Gary Steinich
Steinich Farms, Inc.
Cambria, WI
June, 2011

UPDATE: JUNE 5, 2011 Gary Steinich contacted Better Plan to let us know he and the utility have reached an agreement on his soil restoration.

EXTRA CREDIT READING:

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT WIND LEASE CONTRACT  MUCH LIKE THE ONE THE STEINICH FAMILY SIGNED.

It can be found on the PSC Docket for the Glacier HIlls project. [ #6634 CE 302]

NEXT STORY: From Rock County, WI

SPRING VALLEY CONSIDERING BAN ON WIND TURBINES

SOURCE: The Janesville Gazette, gazettextra.com

June 4, 2011

By GINA DUWE

SPRING VALLEY TOWNSHIP — Town officials in Spring Valley are considering a new moratorium on wind turbines after the largest wind company in North America inquired about town wind ordinances.

The town board will discuss and likely vote on a moratorium at its Monday, June 13, meeting, Clerk Judy Albright said.

Spring Valley is among several area townships that wrote wind moratoriums while new rules to regulate wind projects less than 100-megawatts are decided at the state level.

Town officials discovered their previous moratorium expired Dec. 1 after Ted Weissman of NextEra Energy recently inquired about ordinances related to wind development and the process for placing a met tower.

A met tower gathers weather data to help wind developers determine if a site is good for development.

Weissman said he couldn’t comment but the company was looking at the area and hadn’t made any decisions. A company spokesman, however, said NextEra is not pursuing a met tower in Rock County.

Spokesman Steve Stengel said Weissman might have conducted some inquiries, but “we are not proposing it at this point,” he said. “What may or may not happen in the future (is) all speculation.”

NextEra owns and operates two wind farms in Wisconsin: 36 turbines at Butler Ridge Wind Energy Center in Dodge County and 20 turbines at Montfort Wind Energy Center in Iowa County.

Neighboring townships Magnolia and Union became possible sites for wind turbines a few years ago, and one met tower was placed in each town to gather data.

A spokeswoman for Acciona, the company that eyed those townships, said this week it is not pursuing “the early stage development project in Union and Magnolia. This enables (Acciona) to focus efforts and resources on other projects that are a better fit for their portfolio.”

Developers would be interested in hooking into the major transmission line that runs east-west through the northern part of Spring Valley, town officials said.

Smaller wind projects are permitted through local ordinances until lawmakers enact statewide rules.

Under state law, the Public Service Commission has to develop the rules, and a committee worked through most of last year to write the rules. When the rules were set to take effect in March, Republican lawmakers suspended them. It’s now up to legislators to approve new rules by May 2012 or the suspended rules would go into effect, a PSC spokesman said.

Republican Sen. Frank Lasee has proposed a bill that would add additional requirements to the PSC rules. The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy, Biotechnology and Consumer Protection, but no hearing is scheduled.

If you go

The town board will discuss and likely vote on a wind moratorium at its 7 p.m. meeting Monday, June 13, at the Orfordville Fire Department, 173 N. Wright St., Orfordville.