Better Plan, Wisconsin

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Stereotyping isn't new to those of us who have expressed concerns about the wind industry's impact on people, wildlife, property values and the environment. The terms used in the following article include the usual 'NIMBY' along with 'rabid', 'shrill,' 'emotional, and divisive.'

A wind lobbyist well known for his bizarre metaphors and dismissive attitude toward people he deems 'anti-wind' adds a few more choice phrases here, this time using the pronoun "we" instead of "I"--

Describing the JCRAR's recent suspension of the Public Service Commission's wind rules, he says,

"That was a political hit job. We refer to that committee as the firing squad"

and

"We're kind of enjoying this momentary lull because we've been in a shooting war, metaphorically, with Gov. Walker since January 3. So it's nice to be able to put down the metaphorical Kalashikov and talk about strategy."

Who is 'we' in this instance?  The 'business members' who pay this fellow include power giants Alliant Energy, American Transmission Company, We Energies, Madison Gas and Electric, along with big names in the wind business like Invenergy, enXco, and Horizon. Yet he's not identified as a lobbyist in this piece.  Did the reporter not know?

One thing that distinguishes this article is the reporter's rare inclusion of the voices of two Fond du Lac County wind project residents who have been experiencing trouble since the turbines went on line near their homes.

Read what they have to say about their experience and decide for yourself who sounds 'shrill, rabid, emotional and divisive' in this article.

EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION: Does 'full disclosure' apply to paid lobbyists making public statements? Should lobbyists identify themselves as such to a reporter? Or should it be up to the reporter to find out by doing their homework?

AND THE WIND CRIES....UNCLE

SOURCE:Scenenewspaper.com

Week of April 1, 2011

By Jim Lundstrom

Before the 1936 Rural Electrification Act brought electricity to the boonies, wind was the chief source of power for many country folk. Eventually, the windmills that once dotted the rural landscape were replaced by many forests’ worth of utility poles and probably millions of miles of cable.

It’s been lost to us how those farmers felt about their vistas being ruined and the rural nature of their property being destroyed by the ugly electrification program. Or was the prospect of entering the 20th century with the flick of a switch a salve to their bruised souls?

Wind energy never really went away, but it did go into deep hibernation for most of the rest of the 20th century, only roused from sleep by nervous consumers during the fossil fuel energy crises of the 1970s.

Ironically, the oily state of Texas is a leader in wind farms, with a generating capacity of 10,085 MW. Naturally, it boasts the world’s largest in the Roscoe Wind Farm, with 627 wind turbines covering 100,000 acres and capable of generating 781.5 megawatts, enough to power a quarter of a million homes.

Iowa has the second largest capacity with 3,675 MW, followed by California (3,177 MW), Minnesota (2,192 MW) and Washington (2,104 MW).  Wisconsin produces less than 500 MW with wind power.

For all the wind in Wisconsin – it ranks 16th in the nation for quality of wind – wind supplies only 1.7% of the state’s electricity, according to the Institute for Energy Research. Coal is tops for electricity generation, providing 62.5% of the state’s power. Nuclear energy from the state’s two nuke plants accounts for 20.7% Next is natural gas with a 9.1% share, followed by hydroelectric with 2.6%, and just below wind are wood/wood-derived products and petroleum, both supplying 1.2% each of the state’s power supply.

One of the best spots in the state to generate power from wind is on the high dolomite ledge on the eastern shore of Lake Winnebago. From County A in Neenah you can see the ghostly image of the northern Fond du Lac County wind turbines, close enough to Calumet County to put the wind up folks who don’t want wind turbines in their back yard.

Fond du Lac County is home to 166 wind turbines, including the 88 in the WE Energies Blue Sky Green Field Project, which has been the largest in the state since it went online in 2008. Those are the turbines you can see across Lake Winnebago.

Fond du Lac County reaped $625,000 in revenue from the various utilities who own the wind farms for 2010. We Energies gave landowners who host the turbines in the Blue Sky Green Fields project and the townships they are in a total of $440,000.

Blue Sky Green Field is currently the largest wind farm project in the state, but owner WE Energies will surpass that next year when Glacial Hills Wind Farm goes online with 90 turbines.
The uncertainty about wind in Wisconsin and the absence of regulatory stability were cited by Invenergy on March 21 when it asked the Wisconsin Public Service Commission to terminate its application process for the proposed 150MW Ledge Wind Energy Center in southern Brown County.

With utilities required to generate 10% of their power with renewable energy by 2015, wind seems to be a good investment, just not in Wisconsin right now after the Republican-heavy Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules suspended the Public Service Commission’s wind siting rule on the eve it was to take effect. And not with the emotional and divisive opposition to wind from the likes of former Republican state senator Robert Welch

Welch now serves as a well-dressed hired gun for groups that oppose wind energy, including Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy, a group that formed when wind farms were being proposed for Brothertown and other areas in Calumet County. The group has since assisted in efforts to oppose wind development in other parts of the state.

Welch reportedly was a member of Scott Walker’s “kitchen cabinet” during his successful campaign for governor, which goes a long way in explaining why the long debated and analyzed Wisconsin Public Service Commission wind siting ruling – known as PSC 128 – was suspended by a Republican-dominated legislative committee the day before it was to go into effect on March 1.

“That was a political hit job. We refer to that committee as the firing squad,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of Renew Wisconsin and one of the 11 members of the PSC Wind Siting Council that crafted PSC 128.

“We are actually trying to implement the state’s own policies. The state actually prefers native renewable energy over importing coal. It’s in the statutes,” Vickerman said, but adds it has been a Sisyphean task given the rabid opposition to wind in Wisconsin. “We think we’re advancing the public interest of the state. To come across this opposition can be bewildering. Four years of policy work and lobbying and negotiating, and now we’re back to 2007.”

Appearing at a March 2 public hearing on Calumet County’s proposed wind siting ordinance, which essentially mirrored PSC 128 (by law, a local ordinance could not be more restrictive than the state rules), Welch said it was the 1,250-foot setback from a non-participating landowner’s residence that killed PSC 128. He and his paying constituents have long advocated an 1,800-foot setback from a non-participating property line rather than residence.

“The proposed 1,800-foot from property line setback, that is a very strategically designed number. It systematically destroys wind power in Wisconsin,” said Jeff Carlson, who does wind siting analysis and mapping for wind projects. He said with all the other buffer zones and inherent setbacks for public roads and power lines, the 1,800-foot rule makes it virtually impossible to put all the pieces of a wind farm puzzle together.

Welch told the assembled audience that the “wholesale change in the Legislature” means that all the “hoopla” surrounding green energy mandates and global warming has “sort of gone away.”

Not gone, Vickerman said, but in a temporary holding pattern.

“We’re kind of enjoying this momentary lull because we’ve been in a shooting war, metaphorically, with Gov. Walker since Jan. 3. So it’s nice to be able to put down the metaphorical Kalashnikov and talk about strategy,” he said. “What the legislative panel did was a suspension. If the legislature wants to repeal the siting rule, it would have to do so, it has to pass both houses. We have a shot, some chance; we might succeed in stopping such a bill from clearing the legislature. If we don’t the rule does go back under a new rulemaking procedure with more hoops, the biggest one being the governor has to sign off, which wasn’t the case before.”

What’s wrong with wind farms?

Opponents of wind energy have a long list of complaints that include public subsidies for wind, aesthetics, property rights of non-participants, drop in property values, noise levels, shadow flicker, bird and bat mortality around turbines, disruption of radio and TV signals, and a host of physical complaints that a minority of wind turbine neighbors have expressed. And, of course, there are the ever-present NIMBYs who might not actually oppose wind energy, but they don’t want to look at wind turbines from their property.

The most specious argument is public subsidies of wind. Yes, there is a 10-year federal tax credit that provides 2.1 cents per kilowatt hour produced (that credit includes solar, geothermal and “closed-loop” bioenergy systems), but wind advocates point out that all forms of energy are subsidized in some way by we the people, and some in far more shameful examples of public policy than a 10-year federal tax credit. Think of all the body bags and human misery that have subsidized fossil fuel and coal. Nuclear power, anyone?

“There’s a shrill nature to the opposition to wind, whether it’s political or whatever,” said Jeff Carlson, the wind-siting analyst. “When you’re going to defend the oil supply as one of your energies, there are a whole lot of costs that are never discussed.”

More disturbing are the various problems experienced by some who live within a wind farm project.

“I can’t stand them,” said Jim Vollmer, who in November 2002 bought a home in a small valley in the Town of Marshfield in northern Fond du Lac County.

Vollmer, a mechanic by trade, also raises chickens for meat and show. Both he and his chickens have suffered medical problems he attributes to the arrival of a Blue Sky Green Field turbine 1,600 feet from his home. He says it is a combination of noise, shadow flicker and vibration that have caused him and his chickens a host of medical problems and chronic sleeplessness.

“I’ve got sound and vibration here. Headaches. Migraines. Earaches. Memory loss. Shadow. Sometimes it feels like your vision is all blurred, you can’t see straight sometimes,” he said. “My birds are the biggest thing I’m concerned with. I’ve been raising them for 22 years, showing at fairs and things. I was growing meat birds, all of a sudden the shadow started showing. With the shadow in the barn, the birds think it’s a hawk or something overhead and they’re scared to hell. They quit laying or start rampaging. They start eating eggs and then I have a hell of a time to get them to stop eating them. Low hatch rates. Ones that did hatch had all kinds of birth defects on them. I gave up on the meat birds. Tried to get compensation for the chickens, but nothing.”

In the mitigation process, WE Energies outfitted Vollmer and his neighbors with satellite TV and radio to overcome transmission problems caused by the turbines, and they installed double-thick blinds to stop the shadow flicker from entering his home. That stopped the inside flicker, but the blinds also make it dark as a tomb inside.

“It’s so dark you have to turn lights on,” he said. “I told them I had shadow in the barn, and they won’t do nothing about that. They were supposed to do shadow mitigation.”
Vollmer feels he has exhausted all his options in resolving the problems. He has been to town board meetings. He has complained to WE Energies, the PSC, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, various law firms, and to state Sen. Joe Liebham, one of the six Republicans on the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules.

“I haven’t gotten anywhere. They all dropped the ball,” he said.
He believes his only remaining option is to sell his home and move away, but after two years on the market, “I haven’t had anyone bite on the thing yet,” he said. “I’ve had a couple people, but that was almost two years ago when I first listed it. I called another realtor up this year. I’ve had it on the market with him since Feb. 2. I dropped the price by $40,000. What really angsts me, I dropped it that much with a new realtor and that guy says we haven’t had anyone call or want to come and look at it. He said that’s not normal.”

Vollmer suggested that WE Energies buy his home.

“I told them straight up, buy the place, turn around and sell it for as much as you can get. And let me move on,” he said.

Kathy Weber runs the Pipe Meat Market in beautiful downtown Pipe. Just down County W she built a home in 2006. In 2008 a Blue Sky Green Field wind turbine was erected 850 feet from her back door.

“They built the tower too close to my house. I informed them at the time that it was too close and they put it up anyway. They are disputing the fact, saying that they had a contract before my house went up,” she said. “I told them my son has juvenile myoclonic epilepsy. I’m not saying it’s going to affect him, but I don’t want to find out. I took them at their word. The project manager for the wind farm told me after I mentioned it was too close to my house, he told me we will check the survey and get back to me. Being the country bumpkin I am, I went along with him. I came home from work one day and it was three-quarters up.”

While wind turbines as epilepsy triggers is often used as a reason against wind farms, there is little evidence to support the claim that turbines cause epileptic fits in those susceptible to them. Weber’s son, however, did have trouble concentrating, and in December moved to Fond du Lac.

Weber said she has experienced sleeping and ear problems since the turbine arrived.

“I’m 62. I never had trouble in my life with my ears,” she said.

She also learned that shadow flicker is not just a daytime problem.

“You get moon shadowing at night,” she said. “Yup, the full moon. I went to bed and I thought, ‘Oh no, don’t tell me’.”

Weber said there are times when the turbine physically makes its presence known through sound and motion.

“You can feel the difference when you’re outside and they’re moving,” she said. “People in Marytown, which is five miles away, can hear them. It’s a constant whoosh, whoosh, whoosh. In the summertime when I’m outside a lot, this may sound weird, but I start rhyming words to them, stupid words .”

Weber said WE Energies offered to lease the land from her house to the wind tower for $1,500 a year, “but I said no. I want it moved.”

But for all this, Weber is not against wind energy. She just doesn’t want a giant wind turbine literally in her back yard.

“They should not be near residential areas. They should be all together somewhere far away from residential,” she said.

“It’s not uncommon if people don’t get the resolution they expect or feel they deserve, they feel they’re not being listened to, but I can assure you we did extensive outreach efforts both prior to, during and even after in the community and with neighbors, to the extent of going door to door with participating landowners and non-participating landowners,” said Barry McNulty of WE Energies. “We’ve certainly done things to mitigate issues, too. You can’t satisfy everyone, but we’ve gone a long way to try to do so.”

“We’re not here to tell you that there are no impacts at all. There are,” said Michael Vickerman. “They tend to be localized. They don’t really have an affect on the state or the planetary environment. But when you look at the history of wind systems in this country, especially the older ones, they become accepted over time. It may take a couple of years. The howls of protest you hear now, they die off.”

Click on the image above to watch wind project residents in Australia describe life with turbines. Then click on the image below to hear what wind turbines sound like near a home in DeKalb Illinois. These are the same turbines mentioned in the following article. Read more about this wind project family's experience here: Our Life With DeKalb Wind Turbines

WIND TURBINES STILL CENTER OF DEBATE

SOURCE: Daily Chronicle, www.daily-chronicle.com

April 1, 2011

By Caitlin Mullen,

SHABBONA – Jim and Donna Nilles would like to sell their house on Leland Road.

But the Nilleses – who live within 1,800 feet of wind turbines that are part of the wind farm operated by NextEra Energy that went up in four townships in DeKalb County in late 2009 – don’t expect they’ll be able to sell their home anytime soon. Part of that is because of current economic conditions, they said, but they don’t think the wind turbines help, either.

“The main gripe we have right now is nobody listens to us,” Jim Nilles said. “Nobody comes out here.”

They are among a group of DeKalb County residents who have asked county officials – most recently at a county board meeting – to look into noise and multiple other issues related to the wind farm. One of the more recent complaints came two weeks ago when a wind turbine’s blade shattered.

But the company and the county’s planning and zoning director say NextEra has remained compliant with the terms of its permit conditions.

“We have met all of our permit conditions, and we are communicating regularly with the county as outlined in those conditions,” NextEra spokesman Steve Stengel said.

Opposing viewpoints

There has been strong opposition to the wind farm since it was first proposed.

The DeKalb County Board voted in June 2009 to grant NextEra permission to build and operate 119 wind turbines in Afton, Clinton, Milan and Shabbona townships. It’s part of a larger wind farm that included 145 total turbines in DeKalb and Lee counties. Before board approval, several hearings – including one that lasted 19 hours – were held on the proposal that brought out hundreds of people.

That opposition has continued since the farm became operational in late 2009. Mel Hass, spokesman for Citizens for Open Government – a group of local residents opposed to the wind farm and that is suing to have it shut down – said he has found many board members aren’t aware of problems with the turbines.

Residents say there are numerous issues with the turbines, including loudness, shadow flickers and interference with TV reception. Shadow flickers happen when sunlight catches the rotating blades at an angle that creates a moving shadow through windows.

Hass said many residents have called a NextEra hotline to complain about these and other issues, but he said any response from the company comes several days later, if at all.

“I don’t know what else we can do to prove our point,” Hass said. “What’s left for me and my neighbors but for us to try to resolve this on our own?”

The shattering of a turbine blade two weeks ago at Shabbona Road between Keslinger and Gurler roads is one of the recent concerns. Residents expressed concern that the shattered turbine blade and its debris could have hit a horse or a car driving near the turbine.

“Their good-neighbor policy went out the door the day the DeKalb County Board gave them those special-use permits, as far as we’re concerned,” said Beth Einsele, who claims NextEra has ignored repeated calls to respond to problems.

Stengel said the shattered blade is unusual and is under investigation. One of the wind turbines in the wind farm also experienced a broken blade in May.

“We have not experienced that anywhere else in our fleet,” Stengel said. “The cause of that is under investigation.”

Stengel said the hotline is manned during normal business hours. An answering service picks up calls that come in at other times and forwards those to the site leader, Stengel said. If someone calls to report a problem, the company is obligated to investigate it.

Stengel said the vast majority of calls have come from people who are suing the company. He said he believes those who have problems with the wind farm are in the minority. He said the facility has performed exceptionally well; there have been no injuries at the site and equipment has been well-maintained.

“I think the things that we said, I think that those things have come to be true,” Stengel said. “There is a group of individuals that are not happy with the wind farm. Those are the same individuals that are suing us in court.”

And not all residents near the wind farm have issues with the turbines. Elizabeth Armenta said she moved to her home on McGirr Road last year and isn’t bothered by the wind turbines. She doesn’t live close enough to experience shadow flickers, and she said she can’t hear the turbines unless it’s very quiet.

Kit Tjelle, who lives on Lee Road, said she and her husband Kevin feared the worst before the turbines were installed, but she said they’ve been pleasantly surprised to find they appreciate their beauty and clean design. A few turbines stand just beyond their backyard.

“They don’t bug us at all. At all,” Tjelle said. “They’ve kind of become part of our landscape.”

Paul Miller, the county’s director of planning and zoning, said the county monitors and follows up on the 36 conditions that were part of the county’s approval of the wind farm, including things like setbacks from structures and property lines, and a property value guarantee.

“To date, we have not found them in violation of any of those conditions,” Miller said.

Lawsuit still pending

Citizens for Open Government filed a lawsuit in July 2009 that was dismissed later that year because it lacked factual evidence. The group filed an amended complaint in January 2010, asking that the wind farm be shut down and the turbines dismantled. In June 2010, a judge rejected NextEra’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The lawsuit names NextEra Energy, the county board and the nearly 100 landowners who allowed turbines to be installed on their property. The lawsuit alleges that the county board overstepped its zoning authority when it authorized the special-use zoning permits for agricultural land. County officials have said the project is allowed under a special-use clause that permits “essential service structures.”

John Farrell, who manages the civil division of the DeKalb County State’s Attorney’s Office, said the case has been pending for a while, but it’s too early to say where it’s going.

Next story

STATE SHUTES DOWN ON SHORE WIND TURBINE PROGRAM AFTER MAJOR MALFUNCTION

SOURCE: NJSPOTLIGHT

March 25, 2011

by Tom Johnson

The state has shut down its on-land wind turbine program for the time being after an incident earlier this month when three blades suddenly came off a turbine at a farm and residence in Forked River.

The incident, which is under investigation, led the state Office of Clean Energy, to halt temporarily accepting applications for its Renewable Energy Incentive Program (REIP) wind project until authorities can determine how the blades became disengaged, according to Greg Reinert, a spokesman for the Board of Public Utilities (BPU).

The problem occurred on March 2 when a still unexplained major malfunction on a recently installed wind turbine caused all three blades to break loose, Reinert said.

On March 8, the clean energy office staff directed the program coordinator to issue a notice to stakeholders advising that "Effective immediately, there is a temporary hold on all new REIP wind applications and wind rebate processing until further notice."

Ellen Carey, a spokeswoman with the American Wind Energy Association, said she had never heard of this type of accident. "I would say it is an abnormal occurrence," she said

Land and Sea

The state’s efforts to develop wind energy on land have been dwarfed by its goals to build a vibrant offshore wind industry, an ambition that aims to develop 3,000 megawatts of wind farms off the coast of New Jersey.

Four developers have announced plans to build offshore wind farms from 3 miles to about 16 miles out in the ocean.

In comparison, the onshore wind efforts are much less ambitious, in part, because the wind resources pale in comparison to what is available offshore. Still, the Office of Clean Energy had overseen the installation of 38 wind systems, eligible for up to $5 million in rebates and grants, according to Reinert. The total installed capacity is 8.0291 megawatts.

In addition, there are another 37 wind projects approved as of March 18, with a total capacity of 4.64 megawatts and eligible for up to $3.5 million in state incentives..
It is uncertain when the office will begin accepting applications again. Like last year, the clean energy office has seen its funds diverted to help balance the state budget. Under Gov. Chris Christie’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year, $52.5 million from the Clean Energy Fund will be set aside.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: According to numbers in a previous bird and bat post construction mortality study paid for by Invenergy for the Forward Wind project located near the Horicon Marsh, the turbine related bat-kill numbers are staggering: it appears that well over 10,000 bats have been killed in just three years of the Forward project's operation.

The turbine related bat kill rate in Wisconsin is ten times higher than the national average and the second highest in North America. Yet nothing is being done about it. In fact, the Public Service Commission can't even get Invenergy to submit a long-past-due required mortality report.

Who ya' gonna call?

Better Plan has contacted the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, Bat Conservation International and a multitude of journalists with this information but so far no one has moved to look more closely into this story.

Meanwhile, bats are being slaughtered by the thousands in Wisconsin wind projects. Horton may hear a Who but at the moment environmentalists and media aren't taking any calls from Horton.

 Next Story

DEAR EMPEROR OF INVENERGY, STOP ME IF YOU'VE HEARD THIS ONE: THE PSC WANTS TO KNOW WHY YOU WON'T RELEASE YOUR LATEST POST CONSTRUCTION BIRD AND BAT MORTALITY STUDY

"Agency staff has repeatedly requested the required reports. To date, no satisfactory explanation has been received for their delay nor a firm date established for their submission. At minimum, submittal of the final report is required to comply with the requirements of the Commission’s Final Decision for this docket. Please submit the required reports."

-PSC's letter to Invenergy dated 3/25/2011

FROM: DAN SAGE at the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN

TO: MIKE COLLINS, INVENERGY LLC, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

DATE: MARCH 25th, 2011

Dear Mr. Collins:

In the Commission’s Final Decision on July 14, 2005, Forward Energy LLC (Forward) was required to conduct post-construction bird and bat studies in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

Data collected from these studies were to be submitted to agency staff on a quarterly basis. In addition, Forward was required to conduct a population viability analysis with associated sensitivity analyses for bat populations.

As a means of complying with the Commission’s Final Decision, three study plans were reviewed and approved by agency staff. These studies included a bird use, a bat use, and a bird/bat mortality study. Within each of these plans was an agreed-to timetable for field study and report submittal.

Forward initiated field studies in July 2008. The bat use and bird use studies ended in November 2009. Data collection for the mortality study ended in May 2010. The last report received from Forward summarized data collected through February 1, 2010. Forward has not submitted a report summarizing the data collected during the period of April through May of 2010.

Additionally, the final report has not been submitted. The final report is required to contain at a minimum the following items:

Summary of all field data collected during the years of 2008, 2009, and 2010;

Comparison of pre-construction and post-construction relative abundance and diversity of birds;

Impact gradient analysis of bird use and behavioral data relative to the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge;

Analysis of the changes in pre-construction versus post-construction avian habitat;

Analysis of the type and number of bats that use the Forward airspace compared to the bat fatality estimates resulting from the wind turbines;

Mortality estimates incorporating scavenger and searcher efficiency rates using the best available estimation formulas and reported as avian and bat fatalities per megawatt per year and per turbine per year;

Additional analyses including comparing the mortality at control sites to the mortality at turbine sites and correlation analyses between mortality and weather, turbine locations, turbine operating status, and bird and bat activity.

Agency staff has repeatedly requested the required reports.

To date, no satisfactory explanation has been received for their delay nor a firm date established for their submission. At minimum, submittal of the final report is required to comply with the requirements of the Commission’s Final Decision for this docket. Please submit the required reports.

If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact Marilyn M. Weiss by telephone at (608) 241-0084 or by e-mail at marilyn.weiss@wisconsin.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/ Dan Sage
Dan Sage
Assistant Administrator
Gas and Energy Division

NOTE: Click on the image below to watch a video about Invenergy's Forward Project wind turbines alongside Wisconsin's famed Horicon Marsh and near the Neda Mines, home to the largest bat population in the state.

NEXT STORY

BATS WORTH BILLIONS TO AGRICULTURE:

PEST-CONTROL SERVICES AT RISK

SOURCE: PRNEWSWIRE

April 1, 2011

BOSTON, -- Thomas Kunz, Warren Distinguished Professor in Boston University's Department of Biology, has coauthored an analysis published this week in the journal Science that shows how declines of bat populations caused by a new wildlife disease and fatalities at industrial-scale wind turbines could lead to substantial economic losses on the farm.

Natural pest-control services provided by insect-eating bats in the United States likely save the U.S. agricultural industry at least $3 billion a year, and yet insectivorous bats are among the most overlooked economically important, non-domesticated animals in North America, noted the study's authors, scientists from the University of Pretoria (South Africa), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the University of Tennessee, and Boston University.

"People often ask why we should care about bats," said Paul Cryan, a USGS research scientist at the Fort Collins Science Center and one of the study's authors. "This analysis suggests that bats are saving us big bucks by gobbling up insects that eat or damage our crops. It is obviously beneficial that insectivorous bats are patrolling the skies at night above our fields and forests—these bats deserve help."

The value of the pest-control services to agriculture provided by bats in the U.S. alone range from a low of $3.7 billion to a high of $53 billion a year, the authors estimated. They also warned that noticeable economic losses to North American agriculture could well occur in the next 4 to 5 years because of the double-whammy effect of bat losses due to the emerging disease white-nose syndrome and fatalities of certain migratory bats at wind-energy facilities. In the Northeast, however, where white-nose syndrome has killed more than one million bats in the past few years, the effects could be evident sooner.

"Bats eat tremendous quantities of flying pest insects, so the loss of bats is likely to have long-term effects on agricultural and ecological systems," said Justin Boyles, a researcher with the University of Pretoria and the lead author of the study. "Consequently, not only is the conservation of bats important for the well-being of ecosystems, but it is also in the best interest of national and international economies."

A single little brown bat, which has a body no bigger than an adult human thumb, can eat 4 to 8 grams (the weight of about a grape or two) of insects each night, the authors note. Although this may not sound like much, it adds up—the loss of one million bats in the Northeast has probably resulted in between 660 and 1,320 metric tons of insects no longer being eaten each year by bats in the region.

"Additionally, because the agricultural value of bats in the Northeast is small compared with other parts of the country, such losses could be even more substantial in the extensive agricultural regions in the Midwest and the Great Plains, where wind-energy development is booming and the fungus responsible for white-nose syndrome was recently detected," said Kunz.

Although these estimates include the costs of pesticide applications that are not needed because of the pest-control services bats provide, Boyles and his colleagues said they did not account for the detrimental effects of pesticides on ecosystems or the economic benefits of bats suppressing pest insects in forests, both of which may be considerable.

The loss of bats to white-nose syndrome has largely occurred during the past 4 years, after the disease first appeared in upstate New York. Since then, the fungus thought to cause white-nose syndrome has spread southward and westward and has now been found in 15 states and in eastern Canada. Bat declines in the Northeast, the most severely affected region in the U.S. thus far, have exceeded 70 percent. Populations of at least one species, the little brown bat, have declined so precipitously that scientists expect the species to disappear from the region within the next 20 years.

The losses of bats at wind-power facilities, however, pose a different kind of problem, according to the authors. Although several species of migratory tree-dwelling bats are particularly susceptible to wind turbines, continental-scale monitoring programs are not in place and reasons for the particular susceptibility of some bat species to turbines remain a mystery, Cryan said.

By one estimate, published by Kunz and colleagues in 2007, about 33,000 to 111,000 bats will die each year by 2020 just in the mountainous region of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands from direct collisions with wind turbines as well from lung damage caused by pressure changes bats experience when flying near moving turbine blades. In addition, surprisingly large numbers of bats are dying at wind-energy facilities in other regions of North America.

"We hope that our analysis gets people thinking more about the value of bats and why their conservation is important," said Gary McCracken, a University of Tennessee professor and co-author of the analysis. "The bottom line is that the natural pest-control services provided by bats save farmers a lot of money."

The authors conclude that solutions to reduce the impacts of white-nose syndrome and fatalities from wind turbines may be possible in the coming years, but that such work is most likely to be driven by public support that will require a wider awareness of the benefits of insectivorous bats.

The article, "Economic importance of bats in agriculture," appears in the April 1 edition of Science. Authors are J.G. Boyles, P. Cryan, G. McCracken and T. Kunz.

 NEXT STORY: WHERE ARE THE WIND DEVELOPERS PROSPECTING IN WISCONSIN?

Wisconsin wind project locations: proposed, existing and being built:

WIND DEVELOPERS HAVE BEEN SPOTTED IN:

ADAMS COUNTY

Town of Lincoln

ASHLAND COUNTY

Madeline Island

BAYFIELD COUNTY

Town of Bayfield

BROWN COUNTY

Towns Glenmore, Greenleaf, Holland, Morrison, Wrightstown

Invenergy's Ledge Wind project (currently on hold)

Emerging Energy's Shirley Wind project (Town of Glenmore. Now under construction)

For the latest information, visit the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Renewable Energy website (bccrwe.com)

BUFFALO COUNTY

CALUMET COUNTY

Towns of Brothertown, Charlesburg, Chilton, New Holstein, Rantoul, Stockbridge

COLUMBIA COUNTY

We Energies Glacier Hills project (under construction)

Towns of Arlington, Cambria, Leeds, Randolph and Scott.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD GLACIER HILLS  TURBINE LOCATION MAP

CRAWFORD COUNTY

Invenergy is prospecting south of Prairie Du Chien

DANE COUNTY

Town of Springfield

EcoEnergy developed the project, then sold it to WAVE WIND LLC 

According to news stories, Wave Wind was looking for a contract with WPPI to buy the power. The outcome of negotiations between these two parties is unknown as of September 2010

News stories:

Dane County's wind farm fate rests with WPPI

DODGE COUNTY
Towns of Herman and Rubicon

DOOR COUNTY
Town of Clay Banks

Download Clay Banks Wind ordinance

FOND DU LAC COUNTY

Towns of Ashford, Brownsville, Byron, Eden, Empire

GRANT COUNTY

Cuba City, Towns of Hazel Green, Paris, Plattville, Smelser, Patch Grove, Mt. Hope

GREEN LAKE COUNTY

Town of Green Lake

IOWA COUNTY

Town of Montfort

KEWAUNEE COUNTY
Town of Casco

LAFAYETTE COUNTY
Towns of Belmont and Seymour

MANITOWOC COUNTY
Towns of Mishicot, Two Creeks, Two Rivers

 Town of Centerville  Developer: Spanish company www.urielwind.com

For the latest information on Manitowoc County projects visit Windcows.com

MONROE COUNTY
Towns of Ridgeville and Wilton

OUTGAMIE COUNTY
Town of Kaukauna

OZAUKEE COUNTY
Town of Freedonia

ROCK COUNTY
Towns of Center, Janesville, Spring Valley, Magnolia, Union

Landowner contracts in the Towns of Magnolia and Union originally secured by EcoEnergy have been sold to Spanish wind giant Acciona . Acciona says it has suspended the project because of low wind resource. However, they still own the project and can sell it.

SHEBOYGAN COUNTY

Town of Rhine

ST CROIX COUNTY

Town of Forest

TREMPEALEAU COUNTY

Town of Arcadia

Town of Ettrick

Download Trempealeau County wind ordinance

VERNON COUNTY
Town of Westby

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Towns of Addison, Nabob, and West Bend

ENERGY SOLUTION OR LEGAL TROUBLE?

SOURCE: Hudson Star Observer

March 31 2011

"The controversial energy project in Forest has come under fire and may be stopped by a federal lawsuit which was filed by a citizens’ group in February."

A legal battle in northeastern St. Croix County highlights the difficult issues of wind-generated power. Talk to anyone and they will, in general terms, talk about wind power as a good, efficient and cheap energy source for the times — be it today or tomorrow.

Try finding a location to construct wind generators and suddenly you’ve got yourself a first-class controversy, complete with arguments among neighbors, recalls and lawsuits.

Such is the case in St. Croix County in the town of Forest.

The controversial energy project in Forest has come under fire and may be stopped by a federal lawsuit which was filed by a citizens’ group in February. That suit was also supported by action of a new town board that was elected through a successful recall election. The former board had approved the proposed wind energy project last summer.

A citizens’ lawsuit was filed in February. In March, the new town of Forest board voted to rescind a wind energy development agreement and other approvals that had been granted to a wind developer. The project, being proposed by a private developer named Emerging Energies, is in jeopardy.

The project in Forest called for 39 wind towers. Each tower stands about 500 feet tall.

Many landowners in the town had signed leases with the wind firm, but were prohibited from discussing the project. When the rest of the town’s residents got “wind” of the deals, the uprising began.

Now there are battles over setbacks, noise, quality of life, health, property value, safety and more. Emerging Energies, LLC, has also threat-ened the new town board with legal action.

A similar scenario developed in the eastern part of the state when a Chicago wind energy developer, Invenergy LLC, dropped its plan to build a large wind farm near Green Bay.

Opponents in the Green Bay area are expressing the same concerns and claim they will continue to work to prevent the “irresponsible development of industrial wind projects.”

State energy regulators are now trying to come up with a plan to help support wind projects. Regulators may be asked to go back to the drawing board to develop statewide rules governing wind power projects, under a bill to be considered this week.

The Legislature’s joint committee for review of administrative rules voted earlier this month to temporarily block a wind farm site rule developed by the state Public Service Commission.

Supporters of wind energy development say legal problems will stall development, leading to a loss of jobs tied to wind turbine construction as well as revenue for host property owners and local governments. There seems to be plenty of controversy over, among other things, setbacks for wind towers.

A property rights bill introduced by Gov. Scott Walker in January would restrict wind towers from being placed less than 1,800 feet from a property line. That bill had the apparent support of wind farm opponents and the Wisconsin Realtors Association.

In its most recent wind farm decision, the PSC ruled that 1,250-foot setbacks be required for We Energies’ Glacier Hills Wind Park, now under construction in Columbia County.

The bottom line is, when wind towers begin popping up in either populated areas, or rural countryside, there is likely to be plenty of opposition. A group of wind towers doesn’t do much for the scenic value of any topography.

Despite all the virtues of wind power, developing a power source to a degree where it would have a significant impact could be difficult when facing “not in my backyard” neighborhoods.

MIDWEST WIND SUSPENDS DEVELOPMENT WORK IN STATE

"Wind industry representatives said the PSC rule was restrictive because it set specific decibel limits for turbine noise and shadow flicker restrictions as well as setbacks."

Source: JSOnline.com

March 31, 2011

By Thomas Content

Midwest Wind Energy is suspending development of two wind farms in Wisconsin, the Illinois company said Wednesday.

The company developed the Butler Ridge wind farm in Dodge County and the Cedar Ridge project in Fond du Lac County, projects now owned and operated by other companies.

Midwest Wind said it was actively working on a 98-megawatt wind farm in Calumet County and another project for which a location had not yet been announced.

Midwest Wind cited development opportunities in other states at a time when Wisconsin policymakers are moving to restrict wind farm development.

"Most states are clearly open for renewable energy development and the economic development dollars and jobs that come with it,” said Stefan Noe, company president. “So long as there are states rolling out the welcome mat it doesn't make sense to devote significant dollars to a state that is creating unreasonable roadblocks for wind development."

The action came one week after Invenergy of Chicago canceled plans to develop a large wind farm near Green Bay, and one day after a legislative committee voted to introduce a bill sending wind siting rules back to the state Public Service Commission for more work.

Republican lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker have said the PSC rule allowed turbines to be built too close to nearby homes. Wind industry representatives said the PSC rule was restrictive because it set specific decibel limits for turbine noise and shadow flicker restrictions as well as setbacks.

A bill that passed in the Legislature two years ago called on the PSC to set up a uniform standard for wind projects across the state, to replace a patchwork of local rules and moratoriums that were in place with regard to wind projects.

Keith Reopelle, senior policy director at the environmental group Clean Wisconsin, said the new chair of the PSC, Phil Montgomery, was a co-sponsor and supporter of the bill that called on the PSC to set statewide standards. He said he hoped the agency would move quickly to develop a workable set of rules.

When the bill was introduced in 2009, Montgomery – then a state lawmaker from Brown County and ranking Republican on the Assembly energy and utilities committee - released a statement in support of a uniform state standard.

“Wind power is job-creating power,” Montgomery said in April 2009. “A fair and uniform state standard for siting wind developments will create an environment of investment in our state while moving us closer to our green energy goals.”

WIND TURBINE PLANT ON HOLD

Source: Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune

March 31, 2011

By Nathaniel Shuda

"I think we had to give them every opportunity to succeed," council member Lee Albrecht said. "You have this carrot dangling out there that there are 600 jobs on the horizon; I think you have to do whatever you can to have that carrot come to you."

According to MWE President, Stefan Noe, it no longer makes sense to invest significant development capital in a state that appears to be closed to the wind energy business. “Most states are clearly open for renewable energy development and the economic development dollars and jobs that come with it. So long as there are states rolling out the welcome mat it doesn’t make sense to devote significant dollars to a state that is creating unreasonable roadblocks for wind development.”

Noe cites the recent suspension of PSC 128 by the Wisconsin Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules as the most convincing evidence that Wisconsin is not interested in working with the highly lucrative wind energy industry. PSC 128 was the culmination of almost 2 years of work by the Wind Siting Committee and resulted in some of the most restrictive and detailed wind siting rules in the country. Although restrictive, these rules created a workable compromise between the wind industry and a range of stakeholders.

“Our four projects alone represent more than $600 million of capital investment in Wisconsin and more than 400 construction jobs and 40 permanent high-tech jobs. The industry as a whole has the potential to be a multi-billion dollar industry for the state. These projects also generate millions in local landowner payments and local government revenues, cash flow that is sorely needed in Wisconsin’s rural communities.” Noe said.

Midwest Wind Energy, LLC is a leading developer of utility-scale wind farms in the Midwest and Great Plains with seven projects totaling 649 megawatts currently in operation. MWE has an additional 5000 megawatts of projects in its development pipeline.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: This story could have been written about any Wisconsin community targeted by wind developers: Sneak into a community and offer the big landowners big money to agree to host turbines and most importantly keep their mouths shut about the plan. These moves are straight from the wind developers playbook.

PUTTING THE WIND UP THEM

SOURCE: Goulburn Post, www.goulburnpost.com.au

March 30, 2011

by Alby Schultz

There was a public meeting in the small town of Boorowa in my federal electorate of Hume a short while ago.

A good percentage of the population packed the ex-services club to hear first-hand about the rumours swirling through the community that this area was to be the site of a massive wind generation project.

There were audible gasps from the audience as it was revealed that the project was indeed real, that it would span some 35 kilometres and involve the construction of more than 100 turbines.

There were more gasps when it became apparent that the wind energy developer had actually been in negotiations with some of their neighbours for many months.

The meeting heard that the farmers who had been quietly persuaded to host the turbines would reap tens of thousands of dollars in rental a year.

They heard about pilots who wouldn’t fight fires or dust crops if they had to fly in the vicinity of the giant swirling blades.

They heard about possible health effects for those on neighbouring land ranging from heart palpitations to migraine headaches.

But this is not an argument against wind power. It is also not a criticism of farmers who have struggled through a decade of drought and see the way clear to make some alternative income.

There may indeed be areas where wind turbines can be built and where the impact is minimal. But there are many areas where they should not be constructed. As things stand though I truly fear our rural social capital – as fragile as our topsoils – is in places being chopped to pieces by turbine blades.

We need to start by calling a spade a spade. These turbines are not ‘farming’. That is Orwellian nonsense. This is industrial scale power production in green clothing. These are major commercial developments and should be considered in the same way as any major development.

A decade ago wind turbines were almost human in scale. But the turbines which some of the Boorowa farmers will have built near their homes (the closest will be just over a 1000 metres away) are truly gargantuan. If one of these turbines was standing on Sydney Harbour, its blades would be well clear of the top of the Harbour Bridge.

I warrant that should a neighbour decide to build a two storey extension overlooking the backyard of one of these Sydney bureaucrats there would be an immediate cry of “you can’t destroy my amenity and land value like that!”

And yet when a farming community raises concerns about mega turbines they are labelled ‘nimbys’ (not in my backyard).

Local decision making must be put back into prime place. At present it is hopelessly biased towards the developer. The state government boasts that large wind developments are considered ‘critical infrastructure’ and given the red carpet treatment with a guaranteed four month approval processes.

Communities are provided just 30 days to digest and provide comment before the Minister gives the project a tick. Better still the states should all revisit the National Wind Code which the Howard Government proposed in 2006 and which they rejected.

The code would have seen legislation eventually produced right around the country better protecting local community rights.

Wherever large wind generation projects arrive the plot is predictable. A wind company identifies an area with good wind resources and reasonably close to the national grid. They begin quiet negotiations with landowners.

In my view, these power companies preying on landholders who in most case have had no cash-flow as a result of nine years of heartbreaking drought. Well down the track others in the community find out.

Those who have done the deals face bitterness and anger. Those who missed out feel betrayed and angry. Sydney based bureaucrats need to understand the impact this has in small rural communities.

There is precious little interaction when you live on a property an hour or more from your rural centre – perhaps just at special events or football or cricket matches. Wind turbine money in my electorate has poisoned those relationships.

Families stop talking to each other. Animosity and bitterness run deep. Whole rural farming communities are fractured and it lasts for years. The NSW Industry Department’s website says that whilst planned or operating wind power installations in NSW will deliver 960 megawatts at present there is potential to grow that to 3000 megawatts (a 300 per cent increase)!

The implication of that for rural communities in Hume, and elsewhere, are truly frightening unless we give local communities far more say over whether or not they want wind turbines of this scale in their area.