Better Plan, Wisconsin

Edward Hobart of Blacksmith Shop Road described his wife’s chronic migraines and sleep disturbance that resulted in her sleeping in the basement. “We cannot sleep in the house because it’s agony,” he said. The couple now plans to move from their home, he said.

Paul B. Tarr of Ambleside Drive described headaches, severe nausea, similar to seasickness, and an inability to stay focused as a result of living near the wind turbines.

RESIDENTS TELL HOW TURBINES HAVE IMPARED THEIR HEALTH

SOURCE: The Enterprise | www.capenews.net

By Brent Runyon,

May 25 2012

An overflow crowd of more than 80 people packed the selectmen’s meeting room at Falmouth Town Hall last night to give and hear testimony about the impact to the health of residents who live near the largest wind turbines in Falmouth.

A total of 30 residents gave testimony about a range of problems, including sleep disturbance, depression, abnormal heart rhythms, ringing in the ears, weight gain, and the increased stress, anxiety, irritability and anger they attribute to their proximity to the town-owned Wind 1 and Wind 2 turbines, the privately owned Notus Clean Energy turbine and the Woods Hole Research Center turbine.

The board of health did not make any decisions last night and will continue to accept written testimony until May 31. All of the testimony will be sent to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, “both with a sense of urgency, and with the provision for department personnel to further investigate this issue,” said chairman of the Falmouth Board of Health Gail A. Harkness.

While the testimony given at the Falmouth hearing is public, Ms. Harkness said the Department of Public Health can keep health information confidential. Nearly all of the residents who testified said they would give more detailed descriptions of their health problems, but felt they could not because of the public forum.

The tone of the evening was subdued as residents spoke quietly into the microphone at the lectern to the board of health, as other residents, State Representative Timothy Madden (D-Nantucket), Falmouth Town Manager Julian M. Suso, Selectman David Braga, a news crew from WBZ-TV, the CBS affiliate in Boston and other people from as far away as Saugus and Kingston, Rhode Island, listened. The testimony was so quiet at times that about half of the speakers were told to speak directly into the microphone so the audience could hear them.

Dr. Harkness opened the hearing by showing off a gavel that she said, “in its previous life had been a meat tenderizer,” but she never used it to quiet the crowd. The only unruly moment of the night was when Joanne M. Vannah from the Saugus Alternative Energy Committee repeatedly attempted to make a statement about wind turbines in her community. Dr. Harkness ruled her out of order, and the other members of the board and the audience shouted at Ms. Vannah until she sat down.

Residents described a range of health problems they attributed to living near the wind turbines.

“There is no getting accustomed to the noise from these machines,” said Diane C. Funfar of Ridgeview Drive who lives 1,662 feet from Wind 1 and 1,558 feet from Wind 2, which are sited at the town wastewater treatment plant on Blacksmith Shop Road. Both turbines are Vestas 1.65-megawatt models that stand 262 feet at the hub. Ms. Funfar described eye problems she believed are caused by the turbines. She has worn contact lenses for 42 years, she said.

When Wind 1 started two years ago, she said, “I began having eye discharge, eye irritability and headaches, which have worsened with time.” When she has traveled, she said her eye problems cleared up.

Ms. Funfar also described the effects on her husband, Barry A. Funfar, a Vietnam veteran who has post traumatic stress disorder and whose symptoms had been getting better. After the wind turbine started, she said, “I witnessed his decline, with his worsening irritability, anger, drinking, and severe depression, and he again became difficult to live with.”

“We are suffering and need relief,” she said. “Please help us return to and enjoy the peace and tranquility we once had in our home. Please turn these tortuous machines off.”

John J. Ford of Blacksmith Shop Road also described a high level of stress and disturbance. “My life has not been the same since the three 1.65-megawatt industrial wind turbines have been operating,” he said. “I felt tortured.”

“While prior to the wind turbine installations I had the luxury of excellent health, I am currently depressed as well as fatigued and now deal with high blood pressure and an elevated level of triglycerides,” he said.

“Headaches, earaches, anxiety, stress and anger are just some of the physical and mental maladies of this human being that stands before you,” Mr. Ford said. “Waking at night with labored breathing and a pounding chest are common occurrences. Getting back to sleep is very difficult. Adding acoustical windows to my bedroom to eliminate the noise has not worked. Bouts of unannounced vertigo are experienced while at home. Interestingly, I do not experience these symptoms when I am away from the turbines.”

Neil P. Andersen of Blacksmith Shop Road, who also spoke for his wife and daughter, described a constant and monotonous ringing in the ears that is exacerbated by other sounds. “Something as simple as the microwave buzzing has us blocking our ears,” he said.

“My wife and I have aged over five years in the past two years,” he said. “Our lives are in your hands.” He said he knows of at least six Town of Falmouth employees and board members who are experiencing negative health effects from the wind turbines, but who will not come forward unless their testimony is kept confidential.

Mary Zawoysky of Ransom Road, the only resident who spoke about the turbine at the Woods Hole Research Center on Woods Hole Road, described an unusual phenomenon, in which she felt her heart beat at irregular rhythms. She attributed the cause to the low frequency waves from the wind turbine. She said she also has chronic sleep disturbances related to the turbine.

Edward Hobart of Blacksmith Shop Road described his wife’s chronic migraines and sleep disturbance that resulted in her sleeping in the basement. “We cannot sleep in the house because it’s agony,” he said. The couple now plans to move from their home, he said.

Paul B. Tarr of Ambleside Drive described headaches, severe nausea, similar to seasickness, and an inability to stay focused as a result of living near the wind turbines.

Other residents identified sleep disturbance as the primary problem with the turbines. Madeline Tundidor of Brush Hill Circle lives near the Notus Clean Energy turbine in Falmouth Technology Park, owned by Daniel H. Webb. “It’s like a fleet of planes continually over my house,” she said. “It’s not easy to go to sleep,” Ms. Tundidor said.

Robert J. Sagerman of Deer Pond Road said he lives about a mile from the Notus Clean Energy and is awoken by the “whoosh whoosh” sound when the wind blows from the north or northwest. “It is a distinct sound that is annoying and makes it difficult to go back to sleep.”

Sharon P. Eddy of Blacksmith Shop Road who lives near Wind 1 also described sleep disturbances, along with ringing in her ears and a pressure in her head. She said she has left her house four times to recover from the feelings.

Mark J. Cool of Fire Tower Road, an air traffic controller for 32 years, described the sleep disturbances he experienced over the past two years. Recently, he said, two planes he was controlling nearly collided. His lack of concentration from the sleep disturbances may have affected his decision-making, he said.

Loretta O’Brien of Blacksmith Shop Road, who lives near the Notus turbine, said the turbine has affected her mental, emotional and physical health. Most of her problems stem from being awoken by the turbine; that has disrupted her work and decreased her ability to concentrate.

Todd A. Drummey of Blacksmith Shop Road also described sleep disturbances, headaches, stress and anger related to the turbines. He said other residents would not come forward because they feared being harassed by other members of the community.

Other residents described various ways the turbines had disturbed their daily routines and schedules. Jill V. Worthington of Blacksmith Shop Road, who lives near the Notus turbine and Wind 1, said she has had trouble concentrating and forced herself to play Sudoku to focus. As a result, she said she plays Sudoku more often and feels she cannot take time to relax her mind.

Charles E. Eastman Jr. of Ambleside Drive said Wind 2 “looms over the neighborhood and is very ‘dissettling.’ ”

Paul Koh from Blacksmith Shop Road lives near the Notus turbine and described a video he has of the turbine creating interference on his television set. Mr. Koh is a 19-year-old Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School graduate, who attends the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. He said his father, who sleeps on the side of the house closer to the turbine, is bothered by sleep disturbances.

Kelley T. Souza of Blacksmith Shop Road said she initially said the proximity of the wind turbines did not bother her, but now said she feels that the turbines are affecting her entire family.

Linda H. Ohkagawa of West Falmouth Highway lives near Wind 2 and described changes to her mood. “I have reportedly become irritable,” she said.

One resident gave testimony that the turbines does not bother him. Paul C. Lorusso of Blacksmith Shop Road, who lives about 2,000 feet from the Notus turbine, said the wind turbines do not affect him or his family. “I can honestly say I have had no sleep issues,” he said. “It’s not problematic and it’s really not an issue.” Initially, when the turbines went up, he marveled at how tall they were, but he said, “they just became part of the landscape.” There is some flicker effect on his home, he said, but he added some shades, which alleviated the problem.

Terri L. Pentifallo-Drummey of Blacksmith Shop Road said she is a neighbor of Mr. Lorusso, and said the topography of the land around their houses plays a role in how they experience the turbines. Because her home is on top of the hill, and his is below the tree line, their experiences vary greatly, she said.

After the testimony, Rep. Madden said he will help the town in any way he can. “My goal is to help the town. If there’s anything I can do,” he said. “We’re here to help.”

MASSIVE WIND DAMAGE CAUSED BY WINDY CONDITIONS

Source WANE, www.wane.com

April 24 2012 

A wind turbine in Paulding County, Ohio has been badly damaged.

According to a spokesman with EDP Renewables, the turbine, which is located near Payne, had two of its blades sheared early Tuesday afternoon.

Representatives from EDP Renewables have closed the site, which is known as Timber Road II and said no one was injured by the falling debris.

That particular turbine was completed in 2010 and is still under warranty by its manufacturer Vestas which is conducting their own investigation.

EDP is monitoring other turbines in the area for any signs of fatigue or damage.

NewsChannel 15 received several pictures a damaged turbine in Paulding County. We’ve added them to this story.

Kimberly Troth sent  pictures using NewsChannel 15 Report!t tool.

Kimberly Troth sent pictures using NewsChannel 15 Report!t tool.

Polly Scott sent this photo of damaged blades on a windmill using Report!t

Polly Scott sent this photo of damaged windmill blades using Report!t

An anonymous viewer sent in this picture of a damaged windmill using Report!t

New York State

PUBLIC HEARING DRAWS FULL HOUSE

By Chris Hoffman,

Source: Madison County Courier, www.madisoncountycourier.com

April 25, 2012 

The crowd at the Public Hearing before the Town of Madison Planning Board nearly filled the 350-seat auditorium at Madison Central School on April 18. The hearing opened at 7 p.m. and more than 40 local residents read comments until almost 10:30 p.m.

Comments were overwhelmingly opposed to the project, with only 7 in favor, most of whom were members of the Stone Family who live near the existing windmills on Stone Road and who stated they have experienced no adverse affects. Several speakers subsequently pointed out, however, that comparing the two projects is meaningless because of the difference in size, scope, and siting.

The proposed wind farm would site 36 turbines within and around a residential area that contains over 150 homes, with each turbine nearly 500 feet tall and within setbacks of 1,000 feet from existing homes. Additionally, the proposed turbines are a new model with no track record, as they have never been used anywhere in the country.

Speakers represented a broad demographic spectrum – people who have lived here since they were young children; people who relocated here to get away from industrialization and overcrowding; fourth generation farmers and new farmers; business owners with past experience in the energy and construction industries; homeowners who have lived here for decades and built or bought their homes because of the proximity to a serene natural environment.

Many speakers addressed specific sections of the draft Generic Environmental Statement (dGEIS) submitted to the Planning Board for review, pointing out numerous flaws and inadequacies. Jane Welsh stated that the Planning Board should never have accepted the dGEIS for review because it is incomplete as it stands, and should have been returned to the developer for corrections.

Laura Wilson of Hamilton Village Real Estate and Sue Martin of Martin Realty both spoke to the “blatant inadequacy” of the section in the dGEIS concerning real property values, which sites a 2009 report that states, “neither the view of the wind facilities nor the distance of the home to those facilities is found to have any consistent, measurable, and statistically significant effect on home sales prices.” Both Wilson and Martin, who have more than 50 years of combined experience in the local real estate market, cited studies and data that refuted this conclusion, and termed the report relied on by the dGEIS as fatally flawed and outdated.

Bob Albrecht spoke of childhood memories of growing up on Thayer Road, where he and his brother Carl used to play in the woods among the trees, trees that he has always referred to as the “Witness Trees,” because they have been there so long that they bear witness to the generations of families who live in this area, noting that “individuals have a reasonable expectation to the quiet enjoyment of their homes.”

Eve Ann Shwartz spoke on behalf of the Hamilton Town Council.

“The Hamilton Town Council believes that the proposed project would violate Town of Hamilton laws adopted to protect our citizens from the negative impact of improperly planned windpower projects,” Shwartz said. “With the currently proposed siting, Hamilton properties bordering on the Madison town line may be subject to quality of life impingements and health concerns such as flicker effect and noise pollution. The Town of Madison’s current regulations and buffers are not as protective as those provided under the Town of Hamilton’s zoning.”

“While we understand that the Town of Madison’s laws control the development of land in Madison, we believe that the siting of wind farms is a unique type of land use,” she added. “Because wind turbines can be seen for many miles and the noise they generate and the shadows they create can extend for thousands of feet, their impacts can extend beyond town boundaries. We respectfully request that you honor the intent of our laws and modify the siting of the proposed project.”

Shwartz also addressed the potential impact on property values.

“The proposed project is sited within one mile of 92 properties in the Town of Hamilton, covering 1,807 acres with an assessed value of $8,716,400,” Shwartz said. “According to numerous studies, wind turbine projects have a negative impact on nearby property values. A recent study of more than 11,000 property transactions in Franklin, Clinton, and Lewis Counties found an average reduction in value of 7-15 percent for properties located within one mile of wind turbine projects. Owners of these 92 properties will experience a collective loss of value ranging from $610,148 to $1,307,460. The Town of Hamilton will likewise see its tax base eroded by the same amounts, resulting in lower property tax and sales tax revenues.”

Shwartz requested that the Town of Madison demand larger setbacks from properties located within the Town of Hamilton.

Additionally, Shwartz requested that any PILOT payments going to the Town of Madison be shared proportionally with the Town of Hamilton, “to reflect that portion of our town residents with impacted viewscapes, and that the PILOTS be increased to $7,500/MW in order to compensate Town of Hamilton taxpayers for the loss of property values.”

Town of Madison Supervisor Ron Bono stepped up to the microphone about midway through the evening. The room went silent, waiting to hear what Bono would say. He said, “After taking the trip to Hardscrabble Wind Farm in Fairfield last Sunday, and seeing windmills in every direction, I now want to see the size and number of these proposed windmills reduced, as I do not want to change the landscape of Madison.” The crowd erupted in applause.

The Town of Madison Planning Board will continue to accept written comments on the dGEIS until 5 pm on Friday, May 18. Written comments will be given the same consideration as oral comments made at the public hearing, and may be submitted by mail (certified mail is recommended) to the Town of Madison Planning Board, P. O. Box 66, Madison, NY 13402. After the comment period ends on May 18, the Planning Board has 30 days to review all comments.

The dGEIS is available online at http://madisonmatters.org/dgeis/, where it has been divided into individual chapters and appendices for easier viewing.

Chris Hoffman is a freelance reporter for the Madison County Courier.

PROPERTY VALUE LOSSES NEAR WIND TURBINES GREATER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT, APPRAISERS SAY

By Billie Jo Jannen,

SOURCE East County Magazine, eastcountymagazine.org

March 30, 2012 

The current study, released in July of 2011 by the Economic Financial Studies School of Business at Clarkson University, cites losses of up to 45 percent on properties located within 0.10 miles of new wind turbine facilities.

A real estate appraisal expert who has made a specialty of assessing impacts from nearby wind turbines has announced that he is revising his figures in response to a recent study of over 11,300 transactions near northern New York state turbine arrays.

Mike McCann of McCann Appraisal, LLC spoke at a Boulevard wind energy information meeting last winter and said property owners experience an average 25 percent value loss. At the time, he expected properties up to two miles away to experience value changes in response to turbine construction.

“I wish to refine my distance of forecast adverse value impacts to include at least three miles, should any 3 MW turbines be proposed by any of the developers in East County,” McCann said. “Furthermore, property value guarantees should extend to this greater range to reflect the nuisance and stigma effect of more powerful turbines on marketing of homes.”

The current study, released in July of 2011 by the Economic Financial Studies School of Business at Clarkson University, cites losses of up to 45 percent on properties located within 0.10 miles of new wind turbine facilities. This has prompted him to revise his loss figure upward to a maximum of 40 percent and expected adverse impacts out to three miles, with effects becoming less extreme with distance.

“The Clarkson study clearly shows value impacts out to three miles … and clearly shows the closer the turbine, the greater the impact,” McCann said.

A Department of Energy-funded study originally released in 2009 by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, often cited by wind proponents, says property value impacts are negligible and that effect of what is known as “wind farm anticipation stigma” goes away after the turbines are built. The Berkeley results are divided into sale values for pre-announcement, post-announcement and post-construction time periods. The study may be flawed, however, as it leaves out some of the very properties that might provide the most telling results, McCann said.

In the study footnotes, Berkeley authors specified that land without homes, properties of over 25 acres, homes where the sale price was thought to deviate too far from the norm and 34 repeat sales were excluded from the study.

A co-author of the study, SDSU Economic Department Chairman Mark Thayer, defended the exclusions as appropriate from a statistical standpoint and said he feels the Clarkson study supports the Berkeley conclusion that negative value impacts go away after the projects are built.

The Clarkson study is based mainly on pre-construction figures, Thayer said: “There is no impact. Property values do not go down near turbines.”

However, real estate appraisers, which are closely regulated by the federal government, base their calculations on “comps,” or nearby sales of comparative properties. A licensed appraiser would not have the luxury of leaving out the properties omitted by Berkeley, McCann said, so the older study does not offer a realistic assessment of the value loss that would be suffered by neighbors of turbine arrays. Statistically appropriate or not, those sales would not be excluded from an appraisal.

“The fallacy of the Berkeley study is the assumption that value impacts must somehow be statistically significant against a data background of sales located 5 to 10 miles from turbines,” McCann said. “Had they focused on the 1/10th-mile to 3-mile range, I expect their findings would be significant to the homeowners who are losing 15 to 40 percent of their home equity and value.”

Neither of the studies consider time-on-market, McCann said, adding, “And what about the homes that don’t sell at all?” The latter do not show up on studies because there are no transaction records for them.

The size of the turbines being built is also a factor in McCann’s announcement, as almost all the data available is on older installations that contain smaller turbines. Increasingly, 3-megawatt machines are appearing on the landscape with concomitant increases in visibility and sound pressure. Sound is a “disamenity” often mentioned by wind farm neighbors, some of whom have abandoned their homes altogether because of the constant noise.

McCann is a proponent for property value guarantees in communities that are heavily impacted by wind turbine projects. Both the Boulevard and Jacumba planning groups have asked for property value guarantees as a condition for permitting large projects, as well as evidence-supported setbacks and protections in the noise ordinance to include low frequency and sub-audible effects. Both wind developers and the county have, so far, resisted addressing either.

Among the numerous energy projects proposed for the Boulevard area is Tule Wind, a 420-turbine project slated to be built along McCain Valley Road by Iberdrola Renewables. The turbines will range in size from 2MW to 2.5MW.

Asked why, if they are so confident of no impacts, wind developers wouldn’t offer value guarantees, Tule Wind project manager Jeffrey Durocher said the terms of some proposed guarantee programs are just too subjective.

Some proposals “… give the homeowner leeway to claim that any value loss is attributable to the presence of turbines, despite the possible effects of other factors,” Durocher said.

“It’s very difficult to get agreement among the various parties on what causes the value loss. To do that for a number of homes for an unspecified distance is pretty unmanageable,” Durocher said.

PROPERTY VALUE LOSSES NEAR WIND TURBINES GREATER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT, APPRAISERS SAY

By Billie Jo Jannen,

SOURCE: East County Magazine, eastcountymagazine.org 

March 30, 2012 

A real estate appraisal expert who has made a specialty of assessing impacts from nearby wind turbines has announced that he is revising his figures in response to a recent study of over 11,300 transactions near northern New York state turbine arrays.

Mike McCann of McCann Appraisal, LLC spoke at a Boulevard wind energy information meeting last winter and said property owners experience an average 25 percent value loss. At the time, he expected properties up to two miles away to experience value changes in response to turbine construction.

“I wish to refine my distance of forecast adverse value impacts to include at least three miles, should any 3 MW turbines be proposed by any of the developers in East County,” McCann said. “Furthermore, property value guarantees should extend to this greater range to reflect the nuisance and stigma effect of more powerful turbines on marketing of homes.”

The current study, released in July of 2011 by the Economic Financial Studies School of Business at Clarkson University, cites losses of up to 45 percent on properties located within 0.10 miles of new wind turbine facilities. This has prompted him to revise his loss figure upward to a maximum of 40 percent and expected adverse impacts out to three miles, with effects becoming less extreme with distance.

“The Clarkson study clearly shows value impacts out to three miles … and clearly shows the closer the turbine, the greater the impact,” McCann said.

A Department of Energy-funded study originally released in 2009 by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, often cited by wind proponents, says property value impacts are negligible and that effect of what is known as “wind farm anticipation stigma” goes away after the turbines are built. The Berkeley results are divided into sale values for pre-announcement, post-announcement and post-construction time periods. The study may be flawed, however, as it leaves out some of the very properties that might provide the most telling results, McCann said.

In the study footnotes, Berkeley authors specified that land without homes, properties of over 25 acres, homes where the sale price was thought to deviate too far from the norm and 34 repeat sales were excluded from the study.

A co-author of the study, SDSU Economic Department Chairman Mark Thayer, defended the exclusions as appropriate from a statistical standpoint and said he feels the Clarkson study supports the Berkeley conclusion that negative value impacts go away after the projects are built.

The Clarkson study is based mainly on pre-construction figures, Thayer said: “There is no impact. Property values do not go down near turbines.”

However, real estate appraisers, which are closely regulated by the federal government, base their calculations on “comps,” or nearby sales of comparative properties. A licensed appraiser would not have the luxury of leaving out the properties omitted by Berkeley, McCann said, so the older study does not offer a realistic assessment of the value loss that would be suffered by neighbors of turbine arrays. Statistically appropriate or not, those sales would not be excluded from an appraisal.

“The fallacy of the Berkeley study is the assumption that value impacts must somehow be statistically significant against a data background of sales located 5 to 10 miles from turbines,” McCann said. “Had they focused on the 1/10th-mile to 3-mile range, I expect their findings would be significant to the homeowners who are losing 15 to 40 percent of their home equity and value.”

Neither of the studies consider time-on-market, McCann said, adding, “And what about the homes that don’t sell at all?” The latter do not show up on studies because there are no transaction records for them.

The size of the turbines being built is also a factor in McCann’s announcement, as almost all the data available is on older installations that contain smaller turbines. Increasingly, 3-megawatt machines are appearing on the landscape with concomitant increases in visibility and sound pressure. Sound is a “disamenity” often mentioned by wind farm neighbors, some of whom have abandoned their homes altogether because of the constant noise.

McCann is a proponent for property value guarantees in communities that are heavily impacted by wind turbine projects. Both the Boulevard and Jacumba planning groups have asked for property value guarantees as a condition for permitting large projects, as well as evidence-supported setbacks and protections in the noise ordinance to include low frequency and sub-audible effects. Both wind developers and the county have, so far, resisted addressing either.

Among the numerous energy projects proposed for the Boulevard area is Tule Wind, a 420-turbine project slated to be built along McCain Valley Road by Iberdrola Renewables. The turbines will range in size from 2MW to 2.5MW.

Asked why, if they are so confident of no impacts, wind developers wouldn’t offer value guarantees, Tule Wind project manager Jeffrey Durocher said the terms of some proposed guarantee programs are just too subjective.

Some proposals “… give the homeowner leeway to claim that any value loss is attributable to the presence of turbines, despite the possible effects of other factors,” Durocher said.

“It’s very difficult to get agreement among the various parties on what causes the value loss. To do that for a number of homes for an unspecified distance is pretty unmanageable,” Durocher said.

NINETY ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS SEEKING TOUGHER RULES ON WIND PROJECTS

By Robert Bryce,

Source www.huffingtonpost.com 

March 15, 2012 

In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that the domestic wind turbines are killing about 440,000 birds per year. Since then, the wind industry has been riding a rapid growth spurt.

But that growth has slowed dramatically due to a tsunami of cheap natural gas and hefty taxpayer subsidies. Even worse: that cheap gas looks like it will last for many years, and Congress has, so far, been unwilling to extend the 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour subsidy for wind operators that expires at the end of this year.

And now, the wind industry is facing yet another big challenge: increasing resistance from environmental groups who are concerned about the effect that unrestrained construction of wind turbines is having on birds and bats. Ninety environmental groups, led by the American Bird Conservancy, have signed onto the “bird-smart wind petition” which has been submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

It’s about time. Over the past two decades, the federal government has prosecuted hundreds of cases against oil and gas producers and electricity producers for violating some of America’s oldest wildlife-protection laws: the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Eagle Protection Act. But the Obama administration — like the Bush administration before it — has never prosecuted the wind industry despite myriad examples of widespread, unpermitted bird kills by turbines. A violation of either law can result in a fine of $250,000 and/or imprisonment for two years.

But amidst all the hoopla about “clean energy” the wind industry is being allowed to continue its illegal slaughter of some of America’s most precious wildlife. Even more perverse: taxpayers are subsidizing that slaughter.

Last June, Louis Sahagun, a reporter with the Los Angeles Times, reported that about 70 golden eagles per year are being killed by the wind turbines at Altamont Pass, located about 20 miles east of Oakland. A 2008 study funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency estimated that about 2,400 raptors, including burrowing owls, American kestrels, and red-tailed hawks — as well as about 7,500 other birds, nearly all of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treat Act — are being killed every year by the turbines at Altamont.

A pernicious double standard is at work here and it riles Eric Glitzenstein, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer who wrote the petition to the Fish and Wildlife Service for the American Bird Conservancy. He told me, “It’s absolutely clear that there’s been a mandate from the top” echelons of the federal government not to prosecute the wind industry for violating wildlife laws.

Glitzenstein comes to this issue from the left. Before forming his own law firm, he worked for Public Citizen, an organization created by Ralph Nader. But when it comes to wind energy, “Many environmental groups have been claiming that too few people are paying attention to the science of climate change, but some of those same groups are ignoring the science that shows wind energy’s negative impacts on bird and bat populations.”

That willful ignorance may be ending. The Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife recently filed a lawsuit against officials in Kern County, California, in an effort to block the construction of two proposed wind projects — North Sky River and Jawbone — due to concerns about their impact on local bird populations. The groups oppose the projects because of their proximity to the deadly Pine Tree facility, which the Fish and Wildlife Service believes is killing 1,595 birds, or about 12 birds per megawatt of installed capacity, per year.

The only time a public entity has pressured the wind industry for killing birds occurred in 2010, when California brokered a $2.5 million settlement with NextEra Energy Resources for bird kills at Altamont. The lawyer on that case: former attorney general and current Gov. Jerry Brown, who’s now pushing the Golden State to get 33 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2020.

Despite the toll that wind turbines are taking on wildlife, the wind industry wants to keep its get-out-of-jail-free card. Last May, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed new guidelines for wind turbine installations. But the American Wind Energy Association quickly panned the proposed rules as “unworkable.”

Billions of dollars are at stake. And the wind industry is eager to downplay the problem of bird and bat kills. But the issue, which clearly has the Obama administration in a tight spot, is not going away. The Sierra Club now favors mandatory rules for wind turbine siting.

And while wildlife protection is essential, the broader issue of equitable treatment under the law may be more important. For years, says Glitzenstein, the Interior Department has been telling the wind industry: “‘No matter what you do, you need not worry about being prosecuted.’ To me, that’s appalling public policy.”

Disclosure: Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, which over the past ten years, has obtained about 2.5 percent of its budget from the hydrocarbon sector.