Better Plan, Wisconsin

Emerging Energies, the wind developers responsible for the controversial Shirley Wind Project in Brown County, are now prospecting in New Haven Township in Dunn County and have expressed interest in siting turbines on the Town Chairman's land, according to sources in the area.

Emerging Energies was named in a federal lawsuit filed by St. Croix County residents.

 The suit alledged that former town board members had conflicts of interest and illegal and secretive dealings with Emerging Energies, LLC, in order to reach the agreements for the approval of the project.

According to the attorney representing Town of Forest residents, they were not notified that the former town board members- who lost a special recall election on February 15, 2011,- had approved an agreement in 2008 and another one on August 12, 2010, to proceed with the proposed wind energy project.

Landowners who signed contractual leases with Emerging Energies to allow wind turbines on their properties are said to be prohibited contractually from talking about the leases and the proposed project.

The first public notice of the controversial wind energy project arrived in the form of a postcard which was mailed to each Town of Forest property owner with postage paid out of Town funds, announcing the project and a planned bus trip to Glenmore, Wisconsin, to view the “Shirley Project”–which was represented as having “the same wind turbines that are coming to Forest, WI.”

According to the lawsuit, no public hearing was ever held by the defendants during a three-year development period marked by secretive deliberations between the former town board members and Emerging Energies, LLC.

Emerging Energies has filed an application with the Public Service Commission for its "Highland Wind Farm" project in St. Croix County. [CLICK HERE TO VISIT PSC WEBSITE: Type in docket number 2535-CE-100 to see Emerging Energy's application. The docket does not appear to be open for public comment at this time]  

Residents believe Emerging Energies wants to bypass the local wind ordinance enacted by the Town Board of Forest. The Town of Cylon is reportedly part of the project.

Bill Rakocy, who is one of the founders of Emerging Energies is well known to Better Plan. He served as one of the Wind Siting Council members charged by the PSC to come up with rules to regulate the siting of large wind turbines in our state.

The Shirley wind project developed by Emerging Energies has already Bill Rakocy of Emerging Energiesresulted in one family abandoning their home because of noise and other problems that began once the Shirley turbines went on line. The turbines in the Shirley wind project are fifty stories tall, making them the largest in the state.

The project has since been 'flipped', and purchased by utility giant, Duke Energy of North Carolina. The amount of money Mr. Rakocy made from this transaction is unknown.

However, the price paid by the Enz family who were forced to abandoned their home due to noise and vibration caused by Rakocy's project is very clear.

       Dave Enz lived near the hamlet of Shirley, 12 miles from Green Bay, since 1978. Last year, wind turbines arrived, several within a half-mile, and he had no inkling they’d be trouble.

Then, he and his wife endured months of earaches, nausea and unexplained anxiety until they realized, when their symptoms vanished on vacation, that it was probably the turbines.

“It’s not the noise that gets you, the audible noise,” said Enz. It’s vibration: “It makes you want to run away.” He and his wife did, to their kids’ house. “We never expected to be homeless while we owned a home,” he said. The couple, in their upper 60s, are now looking for a campground to live in.

And the house? Enz says that in good conscience they can’t sell it.

SOURCE: SOURCE: www.jsonline.comMilwaukee Journal Sentinal 4/27/11

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Here in the U.S. we often hear about how wind development has been fully accepted in Europe, particularly in Denmark where it is often said there have been few complaints.

So why are these Danes risking their lives and risking arrest by laying down in front of the construction equipment for a new Danish wind project?

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO

From Minnesota:

Investigators | Wind Power Struggle in Minn.: MyFoxTWINCITIES.com

Glenmore Wind Energy Moratorium Challenged

Developer Appeals to Public Service Commission

By Matt Kapinos
(Denmark News: July 21 , 2011)

Michigan based CEnergy North America LLC has filed a request to open the docket with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) relating to a proposed 14.35 megawatt wind farm in the Town of Glenmore.

The request is, in effect, an appeal to the PSCW to overturn or override the moratorium on large wind development the Glenmore Town Board passed earlier this year.

Glenmore ordinance #046, passed by the newly elected Town Board at their May meeting reads, in part: "There is hereby established a temporary stay (moratorium) on the construction of large wind energy systems in the Town. During the temporary stay provided by this ordinance it shall be unlawful to install or construct any large wind energy systems or part thereof, and the Town shall not accept or process any application or issue any building permits relating to the proposed construction of any large wind energy system."

During the spring elections this year, Glenmore was notable in that it held a primary election to whittle down the pool of candidates for town supervisor positions.  Most towns struggle to fill the ballot, and town supervisor positions in other municipalities often rely on write-in candidates to fill vacancies.

After the completion of the Shirley Wind Project late last year, and subsequent complaints from residents regarding health concerns and property values among other issues, wind turbines became the predominant issue in the election, and the sheer number of interested parties led to the primary.

The one year moratorium passed unanimously by the new board after notable opposition from citizens and organizations opposed to wind development in the town.

The request to open the docket, filed on behalf of CEnergy by their attorney, Elias Muawad of Bloomfield Hills, MI, seeks the PSCW's judgment as to "Whether or not the Township of Glenmore is wrongfully withholding the building permit which was granted to [CEnergy] by the Town of Glenmore at a Town Council meting."

You may recall the Glenmore board meeting in March of this year where the board voted to grant CEnergy the building permit.  Soon after the vote was held, attendees began yelling and threatening some of the town's officials, necessitating the support of law enforcement. At that meeting, the board had voted to issue the permits, adjourned, then re-convened, potentially in deference of Wisconsin's open meetings law, and voted to rescind the permit and table the issue for sixty days pending the state's approval of the PSCW's Wind Siting Council recommendation for the siting of wind turbines.  Within that sixty day reconsideration period, the new board took office and voted to put the one year moratorium in place.

The document alleges CEnergy received the town board's approval, and that they have met the requirements the board put in place at that March meeting. Specifically, the board asked for the necessary letter of credit (to provide for damages and dismantling of the installation later) on behalf of and in the name of the permit holder, and a hold harmless agreement to protect  the town in case of a lawsuit against the developer. The document claims, "There was never any condition that in exchange for the Building Permit, that the name on the Letter of Credit should be in the name of [CEnergy]" although the minutes from the March board meeting clearly show that the board asked for that change. Either way, the document goes on to say CEnergy would willingly change the letter.

Additionally, the document goes on to state, "the moratorium is invalid because [CEnergy] was granted approval for the Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit prior to the moratorium being in effect" and that "there is no reasonable health, safety, or welfare issues granting the moratorium" --a claim that goes to the very heart of the issue in Glenmore.

Attorney Bob Gagan, legal counsel for the Town Board, made his limited comments regarding the situation to that effect, stating, "We disagree with the allegations stated in the Request to Open the Docket. The Town Board's goal is to protect the health and safety of the residents of the Town."

Gagan went on to say that the Board is awaiting new state standards for the siting of wind turbines, a process that has seemingly hit the skids since the state legislature's Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules declared the original recommendations of the Wind Siting Council "arbitrary and capricious."  WPSC has yet to determine when or how it will proceed with determining new standards, and many local governments and wind developers have been in limbo ever since.

Muawad said in a phone interview with The Denmark News, "The Town granted the permit, and has since refused to issue it on paper.  CEnergy has invested a lot of money in the project, well into the millions. We would rather find an amicable end to this situation, because CEnergy would like to maintain good relations with the neighbors of this facility. However, we are also pursuing legal action in the form of a civil suit. We are not going away."

From Vermont

WORK SUSPENDED ON LOWELL MOUNTAIN PROJECT

 SOURCE: Vermont Public Radio News, www.vpr.net

July 22, 2011

By John Dillon

(Host) Green Mountain Power says work started on its Lowell Mountain wind project without state permission.

The work included filling in a wetland that was supposed to be protected to lessen the impact of the ridgeline development._

As VPR’s John Dillon reports, the Agency of Natural Resources is now investigating.

(Dillon) On a site visit to its proposed Lowell Mountain wind project, GMP said it had discovered that trees were cut down without permission. The company also saw that landowner Trip Wileman – who owns the ridge where the turbines will be built – had installed culverts and filled in part of a protected wetland.

Dorothy Schnure is a GMP spokeswoman.

(Schnure) “We have taken these errors very seriously. We have asked the contractors to leave the site. We have asked Mr. Wileman – and he’s agreed – not to access the portions of his land that are in the conservation easements. We want to make sure that nothing else happens that is not correct and appropriate and under permitted conditions.”

(Dillon) The wetland issue is a problem for GMP beyond the environmental impact.

GMP wants to build 21 turbines along the ridgeline. The construction will affect streams and upper elevation wetlands. The wetland that was damaged was supposed to be protected under a conservation easement to offset the impacts of the development

So the Agency of Natural Resources is now trying to determine the extent of the damage, and whether additional mitigation work will be needed. Deb Markowitz is ANR secretary.

(Markowitz) “So the first thing is we want to make sure the Public Service Board doesn’t approve any easements right now because our biologists are going up to walk on the land and our foresters are taking a look to see whether or not those changes affect those easements.”

(Dillon) Critics of the Lowell project say GMP violated the Clean Water Act by filling in the wetland. Annette Smith is executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, which has questioned the environmental impact of large scale ridgeline wind projects.

(Smith) “The activities should be sent to enforcement, and those should be dealt with. And until a determination, the existing water quality permits that haven’t been issued should be put on hold.”

(Dillon) There are also questions whether the unauthorized construction will push back GMP’s time line for the Lowell project.

Jared Margolis is a lawyer who represents the towns of Albany and Craftsbury. He says the question now is whether the Public Service Board can approve GMP’s wetland mitigation plan. That approval is required prior to construction. And GMP wants to start construction August 1st.

(Margolis “Right now they don’t have a viable mitigation plan because what they were using for mitigation has been impacted itself. So that needs to be figured out prior to construction.”

(Dillon) GMP also needs a water quality permit from the state before it can start work. Several groups – including the Vermont Natural Resources Council – have challenged the permit, saying the project will damage upper elevation streams and cause erosion. GMP says the streams will be continuously monitored to assess water quality.

For VPR News, I’m John Dillon in Montpelier.

WIND POWER VS WHOOPING CRANE ON THE PRAIRIE

SOURCE Earth Techling, www.earthtechling.com

June 20 2011

by Pete Danko,

The term of art is incidental take. It refers to the “harassment, harm, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capture, or collection of any threatened or endangered species.” Incidental take is in the news now because the Obama administration has given notice that it is evaluating issuing an incidental take permit (ITP) – a free pass of sorts – in a 200-mile-wide corridor from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico where whooping cranes migrate.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said it was acting at the urging of a collection of wind-power developers – including familiar names like Duke, Acciona, Iberdrola and NextEra – under the banner of the “Wind Energy Whooping Crane Action Group.” The service said an ITP, if issued, would “cover regional-level construction, operation, and maintenance associated with multiple commercial wind energy facilities” in portions of nine states, including Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas.

To obtain an ITP, the government said, an applicant must submit “a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) containing measures which would minimize incidental take to any species protected by the ESA, including avoidance of incidental take, and mitigate the effects of any incidental take to the maximum extent practicable; and ensure that the taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. If the Service determines that an applicant has satisfied all permitting criteria and other statutory requirements, the ITP is issued.”

The government said the species affected could include the endangered interior least tern and endangered piping plover, as well as the lesser prairie-chicken, a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). But it’s a population of whooping cranes that would also be covered by the ITP – Grus Americana, the tallest North American bird – that is drawing the most attention.

According to a 2009 government report, the Aransas-Wood Buffalo Population (AWBP) of cranes, the species’ only self-sustaining flock left on Earth, has been making a slow comeback, but still numbers just 247 individuals. So precarious is the AWBP population, the report said, that a rise in mortality rate of a mere three percent annually – as few as eight additional bird deaths each year – would reverse its comeback and spell doom for the species. For its part, the wind industry said it neither wants to nor expects to diminish the whooping crane’s long-term prospects, but rather it seeks to “streamline the ESA permitting process, allowing for the compatible goals of effective wildlife conservation and robust wind energy development.”

The public has until October 12 to comment on the proposed action (see http://www.fws.gov/southwest/ to download a copy of the notice).

WIND DEVELOPERS VS BIRDS

American Bird Conservancy, www.abcbirds.org 20 July 2011

(Washington, D.C., July 20, 2011) American Bird Conservancy (ABC)—the nation’s leading bird conservation organization—today raised concerns about new draft Department of the Interior (DOI) guidelines for wind development that appear to have been overly influenced by energy industry lawyers and lobbyists. The new draft reverses agency protection recommendations for many bird species and adds unrealistic deadlines that would lead to “rubber-stamping” of wind projects. ABC expects millions of migratory birds to be harmed by poorly-planned wind energy.

The draft guidelines were released ahead of a Wind Federal Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for today and tomorrow in Arlington, Virginia, where Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is expected to speak.

“What is particularly surprising is that even the original guidelines proposed by Interior weren’t mandatory. Here, industry is asking for voluntary guidelines to be weakened. What they might succeed in getting, though, is a set of guidelines that lack clarity, plus greater likelihood of legal problems,” said Mike Parr, Vice President of ABC.

“What we are talking about is thousands of unpermitted wind farms that break bird protection laws and open up legal liability for wind developers and risk for investors. Mandatory guidelines would give developers certainty that they would not face prosecution, and would generate a dialog between wind developers and the Fish and Wildlife Service to help minimize and mitigate bird impacts,” he added.

“Given the Administration’s commitment to scientific integrity, it’s hard to understand why the peer-reviewed work of agency scientists was dismissed in favor of text written by an industry-dominated Federal Advisory Committee,” said Kelly Fuller, Wind Campaign Coordinator at ABC. “ABC would like to see the next draft include more of what the agency scientists wrote.”

Recommendations on wind energy were developed over a two-year period by an industry-dominated, 22-member Federal Advisory Committee and forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior in March 2010. Over the next year, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists made a series of changes to those recommendations to improve protection for birds. Those revised guidelines were then published for public comment in February 2011 (an overwhelming number of the comments called for the guidelines to be strengthened, not weakened). They also underwent scientific peer review. Last week, FWS re-issued a new draft of those guidelines, available at http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/WEG_July_12_%202011.pdf that removed many of the key bird protection elements following pressure from industry.

“ABC supports bird-smart wind energy development in which birds can co-exist with wind energy. America must avoid repeating the mistakes we made with hydropower half a century ago, when we built dams without careful environmental review or consideration, necessitating spending millions of dollars today to remove them. We must likewise steer clear of the mistakes we are making today with coal, which result in costly impacts to public health and wildlife. These new guidelines are not bird-smart,” she added.

Parr said “The new guidelines would harm birds by only giving U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) biologists responsibility to review wind projects within new, truncated deadlines, and without the funding to hire the requisite additional staff. The new draft guidelines would also protect fewer migratory birds than the earlier version and move away from DOI’s legal responsibility to protect all migratory bird species, not just ‘species of concern’.”

In addition, the new guidelines remove protections for both birds and people that FWS biologists had recommended in their peer-reviewed guidelines, including:

Allowing greater latitude in installing overhead power lines between wind turbines, which increases the risk to larger birds such as eagles, hawks, and cranes, instead of burying the lines.

Removing a recommendation that wind developers address wildfire risk and response planning, something that could be potentially very important, especially in Western communities or areas experiencing drought.

Removing a recommendation that wind developers avoid discharging sediment from roads into streams and waters, a standard recommendation at construction sites that protects water quality.

Removing a recommendation to avoid active wind turbine construction during key periods in the life histories of fish and wildlife, such as the nesting season for migratory birds.

The publication date for the final version of the guidelines has not yet been announced.
Concerned citizens have until August 4 to comment on the current guidelines. Comments can be sent to windenergy@fws.gov.

#

American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit membership organization which conserves native birds and their habitats throughout the Americas by safeguarding the rarest species, conserving and restoring habitats, and reducing threats while building capacity in the bird conservation movement.

 

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

WISCONSINS DIRTY GREEN SECRET: The most recent post construction mortality studies confirm that Wisconsin's wind turbine related bat-kill rate is the highest in North America and is considered to be unsustainable.

Aside from a single article by Tony Walter in the Green Bay Press Gazette, the media has been silent on this issue. (The article by Tony Walter is no longer available on the Press Gazette website (why?) but you can read it HERE.)

State and local environmental groups are taking a strict hands-off approach to this subject and have not spoken out, allowing the slaughter to continue with no complaint.

If you are a member of a Wisconsin environmental group, please urge them to look into this issue and speak up.

HOW BAD IS IT?

Wind developers claim turbine related bat mortality will cause about four deaths per turbine per year.

Pennsylvania is making headlines with a bat kill rate of 25 kills per turbine per year.

In Wisconsin, the most recent post construction mortality study puts the kill rate at over fifty bats per turbine per year.

Larry Roberts/Post-Gazette

Suzanne B. McLaren, the collection manager in the Carnegie Museum of Natural History's section of mammals, extends the wing of an approximately 3-inch specimen of a Seminole bat, rare in Pennsylvania, which was reportedly killed in the vicinity of a wind turbine.

The butterfly effect suggests the flapping of a tiny insect's wings in Africa can lead to a tornado in Kansas.

Call this the bat effect: A bat killed by a wind turbine in Somerset can lead to higher tomato prices at the Wichita farmers market.

Bats are something of a one-species stimulus program for farmers, every year gobbling up millions of bugs that could ruin a harvest. But the same biology that allows the winged creatures to sweep the night sky for fine dining also has made them susceptible to one of Pennsylvania's fastest-growing energy tools.

The 420 wind turbines now in use across Pennsylvania killed more than 10,000 bats last year -- mostly in the late summer months, according to the state Game Commission. That's an average of 25 bats per turbine per year, and the Nature Conservancy predicts as many as 2,900 turbines will be set up across the state by 2030.

This is a bad time to be a bat.

It may seem like a good thing to those who fear the flying mammals, but the wind farm mortality rate is an acute example of how harnessing natural energy can lead to disruptions in the circle of life -- and the cycle of business. This chain of events mixes biology and economics: Bat populations go down, bug populations go up and farmers are left with the bill for more pesticide and crops (which accounts for those pricey tomatoes in Kansas).

Wind industry executives are shelling out millions of dollars on possible solutions that don't ruin their bottom line, even as wind farms in the area are collaborating with the state Game Commission to work carcass-combing into daily operations.

"If you look at a map and see where the mountains are, everything funnels through Somerset," said Tracey Librandi Mumma, the wildlife biologist who led the March commission report on bird and bat mortality. "If I'm out driving ... I wonder, 'How many are being killed at that one?' "

Bats are nature's pesticide, consuming as many as 500 insects in one hour, or nearly 3,000 insects in one night, said Miguel Saviroff, the agricultural financial manager at the Penn State Cooperative Extension in Somerset County.

"A colony of just 100 little brown bats may consume a quarter of a million mosquitoes and other small insects in a night," he said. "That benefits neighbors and reduces the insect problem with crops."

If one turbine kills 25 bats in a year, that means one turbine accounted for about 17 million uneaten bugs in 2010.

Bats save farmers a lot of money: About $74 per acre, according to an April report in Science magazine that calculated the economic value of bats on a county-by-county basis.

In Allegheny County, bats save farmers an estimated $642,986 in a year. That's nothing compared with more agricultural counties in the region such as Somerset ($6.7 million saved), Washington ($5.5 million) or Westmoreland ($6.1 million).

Lancaster County? You owe bats $22 million.

In all of Pennsylvania, bats saved farmers $277.9 million in estimated avoided costs.

Initially, the "Economic Importance of Bats in Agriculture" article was meant to attract attention to the white-nose fungus virus that is wiping out entire colonies of bats across the country.

"We were getting a lot of questions about why we should care about white-nose syndrome," said author Justin Boyles, a post-doctoral fellow in bat research at the University of Tennessee. "Really, it's the economic impact that makes people listen."

The white-nose syndrome is compounding the wind turbine problems, having killed more than a million bats in the northeastern United States since 2006. It surfaced in Pennsylvania in 2008 and has killed thousands of in-state bats.

Meanwhile, the same creatures that save Pennsylvania farmers millions of dollars each year are also costing energy companies some big bucks as they try to stave off a mass execution beneath the blades.

Technology is being developed on sound generators that would deter the creatures from getting too close with a high-pitched noise only heard by bats. Some studies suggest that a slowdown in blade speed would reduce mortality.

But new technology is expensive and a blade slowdown would reduce the number of megawatts produced.

"All these options cost money," said Ms. Librandi Mumma, and it can be a tough sell to the private industry handing over the information that helps in the research. "You don't want to penalize the hand that's giving you the data."

Companies that have signed a Game Commission cooperation agreement must foot the bill for the commission's pre-construction reconnaissance and post-construction monitoring. The cost of the process varies, but the research can last several months and involve extensive habitat monitoring.

Under the agreement, each site conducts two years of mortality monitoring, sending a lucky employee out every day from April to November to comb the six meters around each turbine for carcasses. The employees are tested to see "how good they are at finding dead things," said Ms. Librandi Mumma.

"We got a dead snake once, because it was on the road and they were just collecting everything dead," she said. "It wasn't because the wind turbine killed it. The guy was just being thorough."

Some retrievers aren't so good.

"The average person finds 30 percent of the carcasses that are under a turbine," said Ms. Librandi Mumma, so the commission has come up with an algorithm that accounts for the missing bodies.

Agents will leave a carcass on the ground and note how long it takes to disappear -- this provides some insight on how many carcasses are unaccounted for because of living animals that have a taste for decomposing flesh.

Some wind companies with Pennsylvania operations have already seen seven-figure expenses on account of the bat problem.

NextEra Energy Resources, which operates the Somerset wind farms visible from the Pennsylvania Turnpike, has five active sites in Pennsylvania but did not participate in the Game Commission study.

The company monitors its mortality rates in house and funds outside research to reduce bird and bat deaths at its sites, said Skelly Holmbeck, environmental business manager at the Juno Beach, Fla.-based firm.

The funding program involving nine different research facilities is "in the millions overall," she said.

Migratory research that precedes any construction can employ bird watchers, nets or tape recorders designed to read the local ecosystem.

PPL Renewable Energy LLC of Allentown had planned on installing four turbines at its Lancaster County wind farm, but went with only two after sensitive avian populations were found nearby.

"There were design aspects that we elected not to use," said spokeswoman Mimi Mylin. "Some construction sites use lattice towers, but those can become roosting sites" for birds.

It's not just bats that are dying around wind turbines. An estimated 1,680 birds were killed by turbines last year, according to the state Game Commission report.

The disparity in mortality stems from biology. Birds typically crash into the blade and die from blunt force trauma, while bats suffer from a condition called barotrauma. It's the bat equivalent of the "bends" that scuba divers can suffer if they surface too quickly.

The rapid drop in air pressure around the blades causes the bats' lungs to burst, and they collapse with no ostensible lacerations or scars on the body.

"They just look like they're sleeping," said Ms. Librandi Mumma.

Bats must fly very close to the blades for their lungs to burst, and some researchers say the lights around the turbines might attract insects, which in turn attract bats.

Barotrauma in bats was only discovered in 2008, when a Canadian biologist thought to dissect one of the unblemished carcasses turning up at wind farms across North America.

"It was an 'a-ha' moment," said Ms. Librandi Mumma.

The turbine problem has yielded some other, unexpected contributions to bat research.

One carcass hunter in central Pennsylvania found a Seminole bat felled by barotrauma under the blades. Seminole bats live in the southeastern United States and rarely show up in Pennsylvania.

"It's like a double-edged sword," said Ms. Librandi Mumma. "You're excited because it's a new bat, but it's a dead one."

The Seminole specimen was kept on dry ice in a small styrofoam container by a commission employee and handed over to Suzanne McLaren, the collection manager at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History's research center in East Liberty. They met in the Ligonier Diamond town square -- home to a postcard-perfect gazebo and lots of sunlight -- for the transfer.

The bat, which may have traveled here from as far as Florida, found its final resting place in a freezer in East Liberty.