Better Plan, Wisconsin

COUPLE SETTLE WITH WIND FARM OPERATORS OVER 'UNBEARABLE HUM'

SOURCE The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk

November 29  2011 

A couple have settled a High Court damages action against the owners and operators of a wind farm they say drove them from their farmhouse home with its ”unbearable” noise.

A judge was told today the terms of the settlement agreed by tenant farmers Sarah Jane and Julian Davis were strictly confidential.

The couple moved out of Grays Farm in Deeping St Nicholas, near Spalding, Lincolnshire, in December 2006 six months after the eight-turbine wind farm began operating about half a mile from their home.

They blamed the ”whoom whoom whoom” and the low frequency ”hum” of giant turbine blades for their exile in a case that was closely watched by the wind farm industry.

They said the ”intolerable” noise disrupted their sleep, made them feel ill and was so severe that it warranted a reduction in council tax and rendered the £2.5 million farmhouse no longer marketable as a family home.

Mr and Mrs Davis were accused of being ”over-sensitive” to the noise and ”exaggerating and overreacting”.

The couple launched a claim for damages and an injunction against defendants including Fenland Windfarms Ltd and Fenland Green Power Co-operative Ltd.

The long-running hearing was due to resume today, but trial judge Mr Justice Hickinbottom was told the case was settled.

Both sides said in a joint press release: ”The terms of that settlement are strictly confidential, and the parties will not be answering any questions about the terms of that agreement.”

The case was described as being of general importance because hundreds of other families say they have suffered similar disturbance from wind farms up and down the country.

The operators were accused at the start of the High Court hearing earlier this year of trying to impose “a code of silence” on those examining or recording the noise the turbines caused.

The terms of today’s settlement mean that details of the how the settlement was reached will remain secret.

The judge said he had been given a copy of the signed agreement – “nobody has seen it other than me, and I am giving it back to you”.

When the case was before the court in July, Peter Harrison QC, appearing for former nurse Mrs Davis, 55, and her husband, 46, told the judge: “Wind farms have emphatically not been the source of trouble-free, green renewable energy which the firms promoting and profiting from wind energy would have the general public believe.”

The court heard research suggested the complaints relate to the “amplitude modulation” (AM) of the aerodynamic noise from the turbine blades in certain conditions.

Mr and Mrs Davis, who have two grown-up children, were seeking an injunction to bring about modification of the operation of the wind farm, plus £400,000 damages to compensate them for the noise nuisance.

Mr Harrison said: “Their lives have been wholly disrupted by that noise.”

Alternatively the couple asked for damages plus a “like for like” replacement for their farm home they estimate is worth about £2.5 million.

Mrs Davis emphasised that her wish was to move back from rented accommodation into her home.

The couple said the “horrible” noise problem caused by the 320ft (100m) high turbines could be resolved by removing two of the turbines and limiting the hours of operation of a third.

Their QC told the court that, instead of experiencing trouble-free, green renewable energy when the wind farm started operations, Mr and Mrs Davis faced “an industry operator – a subsidiary of EDF – which has refused to acknowledge the noise their turbines make and the effect that has had on the lives of these claimants”.

Instead, the main operator “appears to have tried to impose a code of silence on those examining or recording the noise that these turbines in this location have caused”.

Mr Harrison added: “Further, at least until recently when their own recordings and monitoring have finally forced the defendants to acknowledge they are causing problems, their approach has been to try and shoot the messenger”.

NEXT STORY

BIRD SLAUGHTERHOUSE: REPOWERING ALTAMONT PASS WITH SMOKE AND MIRRORS

By Cathy Taibbi,

SOURCE  Wildlife Conservation Examiner, www.examiner.com

November 29 2011

If you love eagles and hawks, bats or gulls, or desire truly eco-friendly energy, this is a must-read.

Is wind energy the safe, sustainable ‘green’ energy solution we’ve been lead to believe it is? Has the repowering (using new, ‘safer’, more bird-friendly turbines) at Atlamont Pass, really a step in the right direction – Or has it resulted in an even bigger ‘eagle slaughterhouse’ in the guise of eco-friendly technology? And  how will this ‘new improved’ turbine design help – or decimate – wildlife populations?

This week we have a scathing report on the wind industry, well-known to be one of the LEAST ‘Earth-friendly’ of the so-called  ’green’ energy technologies – and breathtakingly inefficient as an energy source, as well.

In an industry as corrupt and lucrative as Big Oil, it should come as no shock that wind-farms (industrial utility installations often owned by fossil-fuel utility companies) are routinely pushed through using falsified or rigged environmental impact studies and outright deceptive impact reporting.

These vast, deadly installations not only destroy hundreds of acres of sensitive and critical habitats for wildlife, but they guillotine birds by the millions, and the change in air-pressure around the whirling blades actually causes the lungs of bats to explode.

Leading authority on birds-of-prey and the wind farm industry, Jim Wiegand, is my guest columnist this week.  Mr. Jim Wiegand is Vice President of Save The Eagles International. His meticulously researched report on the new “safer’ wind turbine installation at the infamous Altamont Pass in California is alarming.  It is shared, verbatim, below.

Repowering Altamont Pass with Smoke and Mirrors 

A few months back it was disclosed through the media that the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area was repowering with new safer turbines. With their new turbines Altamont was going to drastically reduce the bird mortality rate by 80 percent and raptors by 67 percent. We were led to believe that this major upgrade was going to drastically  reduce the number of bird kills in the Altamont region while increasing energy production.  This highly publicized move was received as good news across the world because thousands of eagles and tens of thousands of other raptors have been slaughtered at the wind turbines of Altamont Pass.

I began to think about it. The turbine designs haven’t really changed, they ‘re just bigger. I did not understand how this could be possible. So I set out on a journey to find out if the new turbines really are safer for birds and raptors.

Why is my opinion important? I am a wildlife biologist, an expert on birds of prey, and I tell it the way it is.  I have even done my own research in the Altamont pass area before wind turbines were installed.  The wind turbine issue has been of great concern to me because protected and rare species have been getting chopped up in great numbers at Altamont for over 30 years. Some will say this is not my business and they will be wrong.  Dead eagles are my business.    

Over the years I have seen the wind industry answer to this problem.  Environmental laws have been changed in their favor, the industry has virtually no regulations, they have their own army (of) biologists, and as far as they are concerned, wind turbines belong just about everywhere the wind blows. Their money has always won and the golden eagles as well as all other raptors, have always lost.

I now have a different story to tell.  It is important because the scientific studies that were used to bring us this good news are loaded with seriously flawed information. In addition, this false information is now being used to sell even more turbines to the ignorant across the world. Ignored is the fact that if something is not done,  we are going see major population declines of nearly every raptor species across the world.  This includes the extinction of several species. All caused  by the uncontrolled  installations of the propeller style wind turbine.

For this critique I have looked through decades of reports and studies on Altamont Pass. To sum it up, Altamont Pass  is one big mess and mortality is really much worse than what is being reported. I will explain why and hope to bring some clarity to a very complex set of circumstances. Some of what I have to say is quite tedious but in the end  I believe everyone that reads this, will never think of Altamont pass or any other wind farm, in the same light again.

The Golden Numbers

The industry numbers used to proclaim that the larger turbines used for the repowering of Altamont will be much safer, are presented in ratios comparing Fatalities/1 Megawatt /Per Year. Many charts and hundreds of ratios were used to compare the different species of birds killed at Altamont. I could tear apart any of these numbers but I will only illustrate and discuss a few of the key numbers. Those being the numbers used for the media reports, target species of raptors and those used for all native birds.  The target raptors are those species killed in the greatest numbers every year at Altamont. They are the Golden Eagle, the Red-tailed hawk,  the American kestrel, and the Burrowing Owl.  The all native birds category,  are all the many species of native birds killed at Altamont over the years.

The numbers from numerous studies show that raptor mortality since 2005 at Altamont has ranged from 4.035 fatalities per megawatt to .803 fatalities per megawatt per year according to the size class of turbine. The death rate for all native birds  range from 11.00 fatalities per megawatt a year down to 2.389 for the newly repowered Buena Vista wind farm.

The higher  mortality numbers were derived from the smallest 40-65 Kw class turbines in use at Altamont for over 20 years. The lower mortality figures were derived from studies conducted on much larger 1 MW turbines in the newer section of Altamont called Buena Vista. There were also comparisons to other progressively smaller turbine size categories as well.  The categories shown below illustrate a progressive increase in mortality per megawatt. These numbers can be seen below.

40-65 KW         95-200 KW             250kw-400kw            660 KW             1MW

Wind Turbines     Wind Turbines      Wind  Turbines    Wind Turbines    Wind  Turbines

4.035/MW/year3.243/MW/year1.579/MW/year2.117/MW/year0.748/MW/year11.000/MW/year8.140/MW/year4.111/MW/year3.512/MW/year2.389/MW/year

These are impressive numbers and it appears that Altamont is on its way to reducing yearly mortality and living up to the settlement agreement made with the Audubon society, Californians for Renewable Energy (“CARE”);  and Attorney General ( People of the State of California), to reduce mortality.  But there is a lot more to these numbers as I will illustrate and the agreement made to reduce mortality is not being met.

Rated Capacity and Actual Energy Production 

Altamont pass has a rated capacity of 580 MW. This number represents the theoretical total energy output of their 5000 or so turbines under high wind conditions. Every turbine depending on its size also has an industry given “rated capacity”. These turbines are represented in the different categories seen above.  For the sake of simplicity I will  compare just two different wind turbines. One from the from the lowest 40-65 KW category and one from the 1 MW category,. those being an older Windmatic  65 KW  will be compared with  one of the new Mitsubishi  1 MW turbines that have been installed in the Buena vista section of Altamont.  These can be seen in the images provided.

The average wind speed in the Altamont region is in the 12-16 mph range. At 12.5 mph the Windmatic wind turbine produces about 135,000 KWh  per year. According to the manufacturer the 1 MW turbine at the same wind speed produces about 1,000,000 KWh. This comes out  to a 7.4 to one ratio in energy production when compared to the smaller turbine.  The “rated capacity” for the smaller turbine is 65 KW  This industry rating when compared to the 1 MW Mitsubishi rating creates a  ratio that  is 15.4 to 1(65kw divided by1000kw).  With this disparity between “rated capacity” and actual energy production it more than doubles the number of wind turbines used to compare fatalities for the much higher 40-65Kw  mortality category. This  type of comparison can be used with any of the turbines installed at Altamont.

All the mortality numbers from Altamont were derived by using comparisons to “rated capacity”.  By using bird mortality and equating it to rated capacity, it creates a deception or trick of numbers because rated capacity is a subjective wind industry figure that refers to maximum energy potential of a turbine at a particular wind speed. The term rated capacity is so vague that it should NEVER be discussed in any mortality impact studies to protected species.

I know the State Of California  is well aware of this as well because twenty years ago the California Energy Commission made the following statement about rated capacity….. “Because the wind industry does not yet employ a standardized turbine rating system, much of the data reported is not directly comparable. Turbines are tested under different conditions and rated at widely varying miles per hour specifications. Evidence of the problem is indicated by the lack of correlation between blade swept area and turbine KW specifications.”  Yet the wind industry has created false correlations for their mortality studies.

Instead what should always be discussed in every scientific mortality study are total rotor sweep area, tip speed, and placement because these are the primary wind turbine factors that slaughter our birds.

Currently there is no data available from Altamont Pass or any other wind facility across America, equating actual energy production to raptor and bird mortality. If one understands the magnitude of what  I have just presented, then it becomes obvious that  that none of the wind industry mortality studies using rated capacity comparisons have  credibility.   Rated capacity, that vague term of potential, is also used in another deceptive manner,  it is used to embellish the energy projections of wind farms.

In the end, with these new turbines going into Altamont,  more energy will be produced and that is the real reason why they are repowering. It is not for the birds and never has been.  More energy will be produced because at 300 feet up in the sky these turbines reach into stronger winds and far more rotor sweep will be put into Altamont.  Likewise  if the same old turbines now on  60- 80 foot towers were placed at the same level, they too would produce far more energy.

Rotor Sweep

All things being equal,  if we look at rotor sweep comparisons to produce the equal amounts of energy (135,000 kwh)  it shows that at a 7.4 to 1 ratio Windmatic have a combined total rotor sweep of 1140 sq meters (7.4 x 154sq meters=1140). The new 1 MW Buena vista turbines reaching almost 300 feet into the air have a rotor sweep of 2959 square meters. Each of these turbines has a rotor sweep equal to the total sweep area of 19.2 of the smaller Windmatic turbines. They also a total rotor sweep of  2.6 times for the same energy production. But more importantly the mortality equivalent of 19.2 turbines in the numbers above, is being compared to just one 1 MW turbine when it should be compared to just 7.4 turbines. This creates a figure showing 2.6 times more fatalities for the smaller turbines. If this inflated 2.6 ratio is plugged into the industry numbers it drastically lowers the mortality numbers again for the smaller 40kw-65kw class of turbines.

Even so, there are far bigger problems with the wind industry mortality studies and their conclusions.

Proportional Rotor sweep and Search Areas 

In order to get the mortality data,  an area around each turbine must be searched. If we compare the areas searched between the different turbine types the results are shocking. Especially when comparing the search areas of the 1MW turbine to the smallest and supposedly most dangerous 40-65 KW turbines.

40-65 KW 95-200 KW            250kw-400kw             660 KW                   1MW

Wind Turbines       Wind Turbines          Wind  Turbines       Wind Turbines       Wind  Turbines

rotor sweep area 154 sq meters  1658 square feetrotor sweep areaapp. 350 sq m app.1734 sq feetrotor sweep areaapp. 800 sq m app. 1734 sq feetrotor sweep area1734 sq meter s18,664 sq feetrotor sweep area2960 sq meter 31,860 sq feet50 meter search50 meter search50 meter search60 meter search75 meter search

Published Scientific reports claim declining fatalities in the new larger turbines installed at Altamont but the data also shows something else if you look close. The data shows that there a direct association between the number of fatalities found in relation to turbine size. It is an illusion because from the highest number of fatalities found in the studies down to the lowest shows progressively smaller search areas for each of the five larger wind turbines categories.

The area searched for each of the smaller Windmatic turbines is 50 meters out from the base of each turbine.  The area searched looking for bodies around the 1 MW turbines at Buena Vista was 75 meters.  Since the 1 MW turbines are actually 19.1 times bigger we can multiply the 7850 square meter Windmatic search areas by that amount for comparison. This will give us an area of  149,935 square meters that was searched for the fatalities listed for the smallest turbines. Now if we look at the total area searched for the much larger 1 MW turbines it is just 17662 square meters

A total single search of the so called safer 38 turbines installed in the Buena Vista wind project,  covered  671175 square meters. The total search area of the same rotor sweep equivalent ( 726  40-65 Kw turbines)  of the smaller turbines was 5,699,100 square meters.   A difference of  5,028,735 square meters, or almost  2 square miles.

This is very important because wounded birds with severed limbs can travel for days before dying and smaller birds hit by blade tips can fly like a baseball upon impact.

The mortality figures given by the industry for the 1 MW turbines were derived from    search area equivalents 8.5 times smaller.  The new larger turbines with lower claimed fatalities had bird and bat mortality searches covering an area of  over 26  million less square feet every time searchers looked through the turbines.  What does this all really mean?  That if you do not look, you will not see.

Now that the wind industry undersized search radius ploy has been exposed, an argument can also be made that comparison search areas should be derived from the equal angles created from the outside edge  or the maximum height of the rotor  sweep to the outside edge of the search radius. I have looked into this and depending on tower height, it still creates a search area radius in the 130-142 meter range that should have been done for each of the Buena Vista 1 MW turbines. This is still 3 – 3.6 times too small.  But even if this had been done, the increased search areas would not account for the higher winds at the increased elevation of impact,  nor the greater impact to birds generated  from birds hitting blades with much faster tip speeds of the newly installed 1 MW turbines.

All Native Bird Comparisons                                                                                                     

The new turbines were said to drastically reduce the bird mortality rate by 80 percent. This statement is not true. Not only are the all native bird figures wrong from the result of  using distorted comparisons of rated capacity, rotor sweep, and search area sizes, but birds species that do not use the habitat, were used to create the low Buena Vista number of 2.389 bird fatalities/per MW/ per year.

Bird species that do not live in or use the habitat should not have ever been used. I’ve walked the Buena Vista habitat. The habitat where the Buena Vista wind turbines are placed, is a treeless semi desert grassland (see images).  You will not see wild turkeys, flickers, scrub jays, pelicans and many of the other bird species that were used to build the 80 percent reduction number. This is another trick of numbers used to create the safer turbine myth.

Other problems with the Turbine comparisons

Hidden in the numbers are several other facts that completely change the widely published repowering conclusions. With the largest 1MW turbines, is the terrible news that the golden eagle death rate went up over all other wind turbine categories from .043 fatalities to .084 per MW /per year. Even with the many flawed comparisons and conclusions the death rate still nearly doubled when compared to the 40-65 kw turbines. When accounting for these flaws, the death rate for the golden eagle becomes even more alarming because it easily escalates mortality to over 4 times as many golden eagles killed with the so called safer turbines.

Another fact buried in the 67% lower raptor mortality numbers is the fact that with the burrowing owl mortality category, no mortalities were reported because they also do not live around the turbines in Buena Vista 1 MW turbine habitat.  This lowered the overall raptor mortality of the raptor species. The closest and rare observations of this species were all about 1/2 mile away from the closest turbines.

Lastly it must be pointed out that the these same 1 MW Turbines put in other locations of  Altamont pass with better habitat would kill far more raptors, birds, and bats. In other words the bird and raptor mortalities reported would have been higher in nearly every category except for those species like the Horned lark and Prairie falcon that prefer this semi desert habitat. The death list from the Buena Vista turbines shows that their mortality numbers went up.

The only reasonable conclusions that can be made from the Buena Vista Mortality studies  is that the new larger turbines are far more dangerous to the golden eagle and wind turbines kill the indigenous species from the habitat where they are placed.

The Stark Reality

One of the reasons the new turbines are so dangerous to eagles is because the placement of the Buena Vista turbines now has the highest concentration of wind turbines in all of the Altamont region. In addition, for any bird species that pays a visit to the Buena Vista Wind farm, the chances of coming out alive are the worst in all of Altamont. Now within this .85 mile square mile area, anything that flies  must face 1,205,132 square feet of air space with spinning turbine blades. Their blade tip speed is 210 mph when spinning at 19.8 rpm.  The Buena Vista section of Altamont Pass now has more than three times the density of spinning blades (rotor sweep) found anywhere else in the entire Altamont wind resource area. In other words, the equivalent of 726 of the older Windmatic wind turbines have been crammed into one small area.

For the Buena Vista project 179 older turbines were taken out and this repowering project  added 441,320 more square feet of rotor sweep to the previous total. When the original 179 turbines that were pulled out, they also did not sit on .85 square miles, they were spread out over an area of 3.9 square miles. The untold truth is that the Buena Vista wind farm is now the most dangerous installment of turbines in the entire region of Altamont Pass and it is going get worse.

Why Altamont Death Rate is Really Much Higher                                                                        

When looking through the many studies conducted at Altamont over the years, I also saw mistakes  researchers we were making with their the studies under the turbines. I can report that mortality is much worse than anything reported and much higher than any of previous of estimates. Especially for the smaller birds and bats. This is because all the previous studies were set up to see only the leftovers from scavenging. Unreported in the studies is the fact that Ravens, sea gulls, vultures are picking the search areas clean long before the searchers arrive. Over the years I have spent time studying each of these species and from what I have seen of their behavior I know that most of the smaller species killed by the turbines are carried off or eaten from the turbines in a day or two after they hit the ground.

In all the studies researchers have been coming back to the turbines checking for bodies   two weeks, a month , or even 3 months later so they can tally up the fatalities. But its really old news and even if they checked everyday the ravens and gulls would make fools out of them.

A look at the many Altamont studies consistently shows that these species as a group are the most commonly seen birds in the Altamont Pass region. These species are tenacious scavengers equipped with very keen eyesight. Their eyesight may not equal that of  an eagle’s, but it is not far off. In addition there is another very important characteristic about raven behavior that plays a part in all of this. That is, they stash food. Hiding it away even if they do not need it or can ever possibly eat it all, they will fly off  and hide it.  I have witnessed ravens carry off and hide a months worth of food in a few hours. But due to spoilage much of the food taken could never be consumed.

Scavenger studies by researchers have been set up to account for the disappearance of fatalities, but as I have seen, they too are flawed. For example with the Buena Vista scavenger studies, the dead quail used in the scavenger studies were too big for gulls to swallow whole or for the ravens to carry away.

There are other very serious problems with all the mortality studies. These problems arise from deliberate  interference from those protecting the money. Lack of researcher access given by the wind companies, wind farm personnel picking up and hiding bodies, land owners with leases wanting to keep a lid on the bad publicity so their money will keep coming in. Then there are those endless studies generated from the wind industry experts.  As anyone can see from the results of the Altamont repowering studies, none have these have much merit.

I have a lot more I could say about Altamont but I will save it for another day. Right now I want the people in the Bay Area,  to understand the next ugly chapter of what is about to take place at Altamont Pass, more eagles will die.

The future

The result of the repowering of Altamont will bring many more fatalities to the golden eagle and all raptors.  Currently Altamont has a rated capacity of 580 Mw of which it has never come close to achieving.  With the new turbines and by using the obscure meaning of “Rated Capacity”,  I believe the industry is going to make it happen. In the process the total rotor swept area for Altamont will be increased by several million more square feet.  For Altamont the blood bath will not only continue, it will get much worse. If this happens a mortality decline for raptors will never be reported until there is a decline in the overall raptor populations or the media grabs a hold of a cooked-up wind industry report.

The repowering of Altamont is in it early stages. I know that 100 much larger 2.3 MW turbines are scheduled to be put in at Altamont by NextEra. The total rotor sweep of these turbines will equal 4400 of the early turbines 65 KW turbines (see image). Combine these turbines with the 38 1 MW turbines installed at Buena vista,  the 31 Diablo Winds 660 KW turbines and together they will total 5434 of the early 65KW turbines. I have been told that as many  as 700 of these huge new generation wind turbines are planned for the repowering of Altamont.

So I ask, at what point if ever, does any of this ever sink into the consciousness of  the Bay Area?

MINNESOTA WIND FARM SUIT FORWARDED TO HIGH COURT

By Thomas Content 

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

November 28, 2011

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on the legality of the process used by state regulators to approve a Minnesota wind farm.

In 2009, two customer groups challenged the Public Service Commission’s decision to grant a permit for Wisconsin Power & Light Co. to build the $460 million Bent Tree Wind Farm in Minnesota to meet Wisconsin’s renewable energy standard.

The project was large enough that it should have been subjected to the same review as other large energy projects, the customer groups said.

A circuit court rejected those arguments, siding with the PSC that large wind farms don’t need an exhaustive review if they are being built out of state. Now the state Appeals Court has decided to put the matter directly before the state Supreme Court rather than issuing its own ruling.

The Wisconsin Citizens’ Utility Board and Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group had objected to the permit, saying the PSC was setting a precedent for other major out-of-state energy projects Wisconsin utilities may propose in the future.

The Appeals Court said it’s important for the state Supreme Court to weigh in, given the conflict between two different sections of the Wisconsin state law.

“It appears to us that the Supreme Court should resolve the legal issue to avoid delays and legal battles over the next large out-of-state project,” a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a decision last week.

Wisconsin Power & Light, along with Milwaukee-based We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service Corp. of Green Bay, say the more exhaustive review should not be required for out-of-state projects, and that a lesser review would still protect ratepayers from an unnecessary project.

We Energies said the customer groups’ interpretation is unconstitutional because it would restrict interstate commerce – in this case the sale of electricity across state lines.

But a more exhaustive review could have detected earlier problems experienced at the wind farm because of a weak transmission grid in the area, customer groups said. The PSC penalized the Madison utility last year for failing to disclose the grid congestion problems earlier.

The transmission congestion problems were preventing WP&L from generating as much power as it had first envisioned. In updates on the project this year, Alliant Energy Corp., WP&L’s parent company, said transmission upgrades in the area helped boost the output of the wind farm, exceeding the company’s own projections.

The 200-megawatt wind farm was projected to supply enough power over a year’s time to supply about 50,000 typical homes.

NEXT STORY:

National:

U.S. Targets American Indian Lands for Renewable Energy Projects

By Ehren Goossens

SOURCE: Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com

November 28, 2011 

The U.S. Interior Department plans to require the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs to approve leases for renewable-energy projects on land held by American Indians unless the bureau can show why the proposals should be rejected within two months.

Under the proposed rules, the bureau would have to approve leases unless it finds a “compelling reason” not to do so, the department said today in a statement. The bureau would have 60 days to evaluate industrial development and renewable-energy projects, and 30 days to consider residential leases.

The rules would apply to leases for solar projects, wind farms, commercial development and residential use on 56 million acres of American Indian lands, about the size of the state of Utah, the Interior Department said. They don’t cover leases for oil, natural gas, mining or other sub-surface development projects.

“The proposed changes are the most comprehensive reforms of Indian land leasing regulations in more than 50 years,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in the statement.

The changes are intended to “streamline” the lease- approval process, which has no deadlines and can drag on for years, the Interior Department said.

NEXT STORY:

Michigan

WIND PROJECT FACES SCRUTINY

By Ashley Hoholik - staff writer, Daily Press, www.dailypress.net 28 November 2011 ~~

GARDEN – The future of a Garden Peninsula wind farm is uncertain, as its developers face government scrutiny about the farm’s potential impact on migratory birds. Heritage Sustainable Energy recently received a written reprimand from the U.S. Department of Interior, but the company insists the issue has been, and will continue to be, addressed.

As a downstate sustainable energy firm out of Traverse City, Heritage is planning to place approximately 15 wind turbines throughout the Garden Peninsula. The farm announced last year it will produce energy to be sold to Consumers Energy and Detroit Edison.

In August, Heritage held an open house for residents to learn more about the project and its timeline. During that event, some residents and visitors voiced concerns about wind turbines’ potential impact on certain migratory birds and other avian species. However, officials from Heritage assured the public there were ample paid studies conducted by Michigan State University and the Michigan Natural Features Inventory prior to the farm’s development.

On Nov. 4, the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), sent Heritage a letter, expressing its displeasure about the company’s disregard of their advice, and issuing a warning of possible corrective action from the agency.

“Based on the data currently available, we must once again recommend that you not construct a commercial wind energy development on the Garden Peninsula because of the high potential from avian mortalities and violations of Federal wildlife laws,” wrote Scott Hicks, field supervisor for the USFWS. “Since 2007, our office has expressed significant concerns with this project.”

Some of the concerns listed in the letter include: the proximity of the farm to a Great Lakes shoreline and Big Bay de Noc; the proximity to adjacent wetland habitats; and the high level of avian departures or arrivals on the peninsula.

“These factors are all likely to lead to … high levels of avian mortality by wind turbines at the proposed project site,” wrote Hicks.

According to Rick Wilson, Heritage’s vice president of operations, the company is and has been addressing the USFWS’s concerns.

“We have had comprehensive avian studies ongoing since 2007 and have continuously been in direct contact with the USFWS along with the MIDNR regarding all wildlife and environmental issues of potential concern,” he explained in response to questions regarding the agency’s letter. “We are confident that the wind farm will have no significant impact on wildlife and we will continue to work in a collaborative effort to assure this.”

In his letter to Heritage, Hicks explained that constructing the wind farm would violate certain parts of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as well as the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Heritage, he added, is aware of this violation.

“Your (Heritage) project specific data documents the high levels of avian use at the proposed project site,” Hicks wrote. “For example, monitoring efforts for the proposed project produced a mean of 732.8 ‘large’ birds detected per survey (122.1 ‘large’ birds/hour) and 73.3 ‘small birds detected per survey (366.5 ‘small’ birds/hour) in the fall of 2010.”

These documents, Hicks noted, support the evidence the Garden Peninsula is a migratory corridor for birds. In addition, the USFWS also pointed out the frequent use of the area by bald eagles could be another problem for the company.

At the end of his letter to Heritage, Hicks warns the company of the consequences of its project:

“Any eagle or migratory bird mortalities caused by your proposed facility would be a violation of the MBTA and/or Eagle Act a potential criminal violation,” he wrote. “These events will be properly referred to our law enforcement office for appropriate follow-up.”

Hicks goes on to explain while there are permits available to take a bald eagle, the company would likely not qualify for one, nor have they applied. He also said there is no permit to take migratory birds.

A final recommendation Heritage move the site of their proposed wind project is made at the conclusion of the letter.

“Once again, the service recommends that you re-evaluate your project and select an alternative location with less potential for impacts to federally-protected wildlife,” wrote Hicks. “This has been our recommendation since our first correspondence in 2007 and remains our recommendation today.”

The photos below were taken by Jim Bembinster. They show how farmfields have been fragmented by wind turbines and access roads in WeEnergie's Columbia County wind project. What they don't show is the compaction of the soil from heavy machinery. Compacted soil affects crop production. Contracts signed by farmers in this project gives WeEnergies the right to site the turbines as they see fit.

CLICK HERE To read about a farmer whose land was leased to WeEnergies for this project and what has happened to his life and his farm since then.

From Minnesota:

SEVERAL LOCAL LANDOWNERS WANT OUT OF WIND CONTRACT

By Regan Carstensen,

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

November 21, 2011 

“Those landowners a lot of times are making decisions based on what the wind folks are saying,” said Jaime Edwards of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. “If they had both sides of the story, they may not have signed the contracts.”

AWA Goodhue Wind has faced many battles in its journey toward getting a permit for a wind farm in Goodhue County, and another one is about to ensue.

A handful of participating landowners who agreed to be part of the 78-megawatt wind farm are now anxious to get out of their contracts and have sent what they call a letter of termination to AWA Goodhue.

AWA Goodhue officials declined to comment.

In addition to a long list of other reasons, the landowners — who asked not to be identified — said realizations about possible effects on the area’s wildlife caused them to want out of the project.

“Those landowners a lot of times are making decisions based on what the wind folks are saying,” said Jaime Edwards of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. “If they had both sides of the story, they may not have signed the contracts.”

Mary Hartman, a Rochester resident, has been monitoring the project footprint because she’s concerned about the area’s ecosystem and how it will be affected by more than 45 wind turbines.

Hartman has been in contact with some of the landowners who are looking to void their contracts, and she said she has been helping them see how she thinks a wind farm could be putting migratory birds — especially eagles — in harm’s way.

“The people who signed didn’t necessarily know that they had to be concerned about this,” Hartman said.

She said that the topography of land — including the rolling terrain and proximity to water — within the project footprint is ideal for eagles and allows them to soar on warm wind currents in the valleys. But Hartman is worried the construction of a wind farm might disrupt their usual flight paths.

“When they want to come out of the ridge, if they’re surrounded by wind turbines they’re going to get hit,” she explained.

DNR officials share Hartman’s concerns.

“It’s nice to try to use alternative energy, but we are right on the Mississippi Flyway,” Edwards said. “You really have to look hard at whether something like this should be placed on a flyway.”

Edwards also said that although the project has fewer than 50 turbines planned, once one moves in, she expects more are likely to follow.

“It’s the American way — if one wind turbine is good, then 200 must be better,” she explained. “But is it really?”

Edwards traveled out to and studied the project footprint in order to provide assessments of any potential impacts to the non-game wildlife there.

Hartman also has had her fair share of bird watching in Belle Creek Township, including a time she pointed out eagles’ nests to officials at Westwood Professional Services, a company that AWA Goodhue hired to assess the project’s impacts on the environment.

Westwood’s technical director of environmental services, Ron Peterson, compiled a report in June about observations he made with Hartman in May, and concluded there were many fewer eagles and nests in the area than she had seen.

He reported that of the 12 nests Hartman said she had previously observed, six did not exist, one was abandoned, one was new but in an uncharacteristic location, three had been previously recognized by Westwood and one was a duplicate reference to an already known nest.

During her most recent trip to Belle Creek Township on Wednesday, Hartman said she saw more than 15 bald eagles in the project footprint. And although the likelihood of seeing them is higher now that it is migration season, Edwards of the DNR said the eagles would be hard to miss at other times of the year as well.

“There’s no way that you cannot see eagles in that area. They were all over the place,” Edwards said of the numerous times she’s studied the area.

In addition to the research done by the DNR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has done studies of the project footprint and made recommendations to AWA Goodhue on how to best avoid negative impacts to the birds.

USFWS can’t do much beyond those suggestions.

“We can’t bring enforcement against anybody until there’s a documented take of a migratory bird or an eagle,” Rich Davis of USFWS explained.

Davis said AWA Goodhue has not applied for an incidental take permit. Without the permit, the company could face a significant fine upon the death of an eagle from a wind turbine collision.

“If they are actually prosecuted for that and found guilty of the take from their project, they would not be eligible to pursue (an incidental take) permit in the future,” he said.

Any additional eagle deaths from wind turbines would result in more substantial fines, Davis said.

WIND RUSH: 1630 DOLLARS BLOWN ON WIND

By Felicity Carus,

SOURCE AOL Energy, energy.aol.com

November 16, 2011

$178 million, the third largest 1603 grant, was awarded to Babcock & Brown in December 2009, four months after it went bust.

Hundreds of millions of federal dollars from a flagship clean energy grant program were awarded to projects that were well under way before Barack Obama was inaugurated, despite the aim of the 1603 grant program to “primarily” stimulate new projects.

“When the financial crisis hit many developers found that they didn’t have the tax liability that would allow them to claim the credits, so the program was developed to offer an alternative way to continue to incentivize renewable energy development,” a Treasury spokeswoman said. “So, the 1603 program was primarily meant to incentivize new renewable energy projects, but it also supported some existing investments.”

The 1603 grant program was funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009, better known as the stimulus, but was extended for another 12 months last year.

The 1603 “cash” grant program was a payment for “energy property” in lieu of tax credits, such as the Production Tax Credit used mostly in the wind industry, and the Investment Tax Credit used mostly to encourage solar developments. Awards were equivalent to 30% of the project’s total cost placed in service on 1 January or later. At least one payment has been made to a company after it went bust.

As of 31 October 2011, Treasury figures for the 1603 grant show that $8.474 billion of a possible $9.6 billion was split between 22,747 projects. Treasury claims these grants attracted an additional $32.9bn in private and federal investment to fund 14.1 GW-worth of projects, with a total estimated electricity generation of 36.8TWh.

The top 1603 award for any renewable industry went to E.ON Climate & Renewables North America. Treasury documents show that $542.53 million was awarded to E.ON Climate & Renewables North America this September for six projects.

The six E.ON projects to receive the largest combined sum include Stony Creek in Pennsylvania, and Inadale, Pyron, Panther Creek III, and both Papalote Creek I and Papalote Creek II in Texas.

Bankruptcy Is No Bump In The Road

In March 2010, Pattern Energy Group, based in San Francisco, acquired the 283.2 MW Gulf Windenergy project in Texas for an undisclosed sum from Babcock & Brown, which was placed into voluntary liquidation in March 2009.

Pattern Energy Group was a spin out from the Sydney-based global investment firm and purchased the Gulf Wind project as part of Babcock & Brown’s liquidation of assets. But $178 million, the third largest 1603 grant, was awarded to Babcock & Brown in December 2009, four months after it went bust.

But the Treasury still paid out on the award after the company called in the administrators.

“Treasury would only become a creditor if we had to recapture the funds because, for example, the project was abandoned,” said a spokeswoman. “The project was sold to another entity, which is allowed under the Section 1603 program, and is still operating.”

Pattern Energy Group also received two identical 1603 payments of $40.155 million this year for its two Hatchet Ridge wind projects in California.

Last year, Investigative Reporting Workshop revealed that $706 million in federal stimulus money went to wind farms that were completed before President Obama was inaugurated. A total of $1.3 billion went to 19 farms finished before the first dime of stimulus grant money for renewable energy was ever handed out, the report said.

As of October 31, 2011, Treasury records show at least 95 solar and wind projects were awarded grants in 2009, which means it is almost certain that these projects were well under way before Barack Obama introduced the stimulus. Although there is no suggestion of wrongdoing, there is a question of additionality, a clear objective of the stimulus funds.

Stepping In When Banks Falter

But many developers were faced with a finance gap as credit markets dried up from 2008, forcing investors to shy away from the tax-revenue dependent PTC. The funding shortfall in 2008 reveals the precariousness of mechanisms to finance renewable energy projects. Without healthy rates of tax revenue, the industry is at risk of collapse.

Moraine Wind II developed by Iberdrola Renewables, was an example of hundreds of projects that could have collapsed if the government had not introduced the 1603 cash grant.
PPM Energy, a precursor to Iberdrola Renewables, was granted a site permit authorizing construction of the project on 31 July 2007, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission records show. That project was complete by 1 January 2009, and Iberdrola Renewables was awarded $28,019,520 in September 2009.

Jan Johnson, communications director of Iberdrola Renewables, says the 1603 grant arrived just in time.

“It was essential when the 2008 financial crisis wiped out the market for monetizing tax credits,” he said, “leaving wind companies that were in the midst of building multi-million dollar facilities stuck with a decision to shut down construction and lay off workers or continue projects and take huge financial losses.

“Iberdrola Renewables and other renewable energy project developers has reasonably good assurance from the Obama transition team and congressional leaders in late 2008 that Congress would adopt what eventually became the 1603 program.”

Defending The Forward March Of Wind

Developer and manufacturers in the wind industry would also have been badly hit, says Vic Abate, VP of GE Energy’s Renewables business.

“The industry would have come to a screeching halt without 1603. A lot of those projects would never have been built. That would have been much more disruptive in my view to the economy to the industry and to the success of the US in moving forward towards a more independent energy future. 1603 did exactly what it was intended to do. It allowed those projects to keep marching forward.”

The 1603 grant was only seen by the market as a mechanism to promote additionality to the extent that it prevented the industry from grinding to a halt.

“The 1603 was not a new program, it was in lieu of the tax credits,” says Richard Caperton, a senior policy analyst with the energy opportunity team at the Center for American Progress. “These wind farms were already going to get a tax credit but they got a cash grant.

“It was intended to pick up the slack in that industry. A lot of projects get built by selling the tax credit to a tax equity investor and when there are no tax equity investors, the tax credits are worth significantly less so they created the cash grant program to make up for that. It was a well-designed alternative to a tax credit that met a specific need.

You could try to get the general public upset about this, but tax credits and cash grants are economically the same to the government and to the taxpayers.”

Video from Vermont: pristine woods being cleared for industrial scale wind turbines.

Panorama of destruction across the peaks of the Lowell Mountains from Hunter on Vimeo.

broken landscape on steep slopes of the Lowells from Hunter on Vimeo.

VILLAGE OF CASCADE FACING LAWSUIT OVER OPEN MEETINGS VIOLATIONS

Written by Eric Litke,

SOURCE www.sheboyganpress.com

November 15, 2011

Cascade officials were more than happy to talk publicly about their two wind turbines last summer, when the 120-foot generators made the village the first in the state to power its wastewater treatment plant solely by wind.

But one resident says village government was too quiet in the months leading up to construction, alleging in a lawsuit that the seven-member board violated state open meetings law by repeatedly discussing the $500,000 expenditure using vague agenda items that gave residents no warning or chance for input.

Susan Lodl, 60, of Cascade, filed the lawsuit in November 2010, and her effort garnered some judicial backing last month when Sheboygan County Circuit Court Judge Terence Bourke ruled there was enough evidence to proceed toward trial on the core allegations.

Lodl said she didn’t set out to sue the village that has been her home since 1974, but she was left with no recourse when the board responded to her initial objections with indifference and even hostility.

“A number of us started going to meetings, and we were treated quite rudely. A friend of mine was even called names,” she said. “I even told them at one of the board meetings, ‘Your agenda and your minutes do not coincide.’ And they just kept doing their thing. … They just blew me off as a disgruntled village resident.”

So Lodl decided to take a stand.

“It’s been a haul, let me tell you. It’s been very hard, very time consuming and nerve-wracking and hard for some common Joe Citizen to do this,” she said. “I (hope) the Village Board — and I’m hoping other municipalities — will learn from this that they have responsibilities to their constituents to be specific on what they’re going to do and vote on at meetings, and they have to abide by the laws that govern them. The public has a right to know.”

‘Their meetings have been a sham’

The lawsuit alleges an array of open meetings law violations from November 2008 to February 2011, but the wind turbines are at the heart of Lodl’s concerns.

The pair of 100-kilowatt generators went into service in June 2010 next to the wastewater treatment plant, located on Bates Road on the east side of the village. Cascade received $400,000 in grants but still had to borrow about $500,000 to finish the project.

The turbines were projected to save $30,000 in electricity annually and generate additional power for sale to WE Energies, meaning they should pay for themselves in about 12 years, officials said at the time. The Sheboygan Press filed an open records request Nov. 4 seeking documentation on the cost and savings to date, but the village has not yet responded.

Lodl, who lives just over 1,000 feet from the turbines, was unaware of the project until the village sent a letter in May 2009 advising residents of a special meeting. By then, she said, the time for input had clearly passed.

“Our president informed me and everyone else sitting in the room, that yeah, this was basically a done deal,” said Lodl, who was on the Village Board about 10 years ago. “We’ve been sold a bill of goods all the way down. This was planned. They had this thing staked out. Their meetings have been a sham.”

When Lodl objected to the lack of prior notice, she said one board member “very snidely turned and said, ‘It’s your responsibility to go to the meetings, and everything is posted on the agendas.’” So Lodl looked back at those agendas, and what she found — allegedly — were meetings where the turbines and other topics were discussed with little or no mention on the agenda.

The lawsuit, filed Nov. 11, 2010, names as defendants the Village of Cascade, the Village Board, the village’s Sewer and Water Committee, Village President David Jaeckels, Village Clerk Sherry Gallagher, the six village trustees, one former trustee and one other citizen who sits on the sewer committee. An amended complaint was filed March 10 that contains a total of 19 purported violations.

Meetings cited in the complaint include a Feb. 10, 2009, board meeting where a discussion about purchasing the wind turbines and land took place under an agenda heading of “sewer and water — 2nd well / facility plant update.” Similar discussions occurred under the same heading April 14, 2009, the same day the board declared the meeting was a public hearing regarding floodplain and shoreland ordinances even though the agenda made no mention of a public hearing, the complaint said.

On March 10, 2009, the sewer committee discussed hiring a consultant for the turbine project without any mention in the agenda. The committee also discussed the appraisal and purchase of property for the wind turbine without agenda notice on May 12, 2009.

The board also discussed a truck purchased in January and February 2009 although there was no mention of the truck on the agendas.

Judge rules lawsuit has merit

The village claimed in court filings that the agendas were sufficient because items discussed without notice were listed in previous agendas, meaning residents had sufficient notice that the issues would be discussed at some point. Judge Bourke rejected that claim.

“Looking at other agendas to understand what’s in a particular notice I don’t believe would reasonably apprise an individual of what was going on at that particular meeting,” Bourke said.

Raymond Pollen, an attorney representing the village in the lawsuit, would not elaborate on the village’s defense in an interview last week.

“I think the village has a long history of trying to prepare agendas that completely and accurately communicate what they’re going to be talking about,” Pollen said. “I think they tried to do that here.”

The village made a motion for summary judgment — asking Bourke to rule in their favor without going to trial — and on Oct. 18 Bourke ruled the wind turbines and the truck objections were sufficient to go to trial.

“I believe there’s a genuine issue of fact for trial regarding those allegations,” Bourke said, according to a court transcript. “If I had appeared in Cascade at that particular time and I was unfamiliar with the issues going on in the village, I would not know what the notice meant.”

Bourke ruled Lodl’s complaint was not sufficient in its objections to numerous discussions from 2009 to 2011 under vague headings such as “committee reports,” “old business,” “new business” and “letters.” He then dismissed 10 of the 19 counts in the amended complaint.

“Those counts (that remain) really address the issues that were most dear to my client,” said Matthew Fleming, Lodl’s attorney. “The other things we just kind of threw in there to address what we thought was a pattern of not living up to what the open meetings law required.”

State statute says “every public notice of a meeting of a government body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting … in such a form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof.”

A brief filed by the village said Village Board and committee members were not aware general topic headings “may not be sufficient to give public notice under all circumstances” and did not intend to violate open meetings requirements. It said the village has since changed its procedures to provide more specific notice.

Fleming noted in a reply brief that state statute does not allow ignorance of the law as a defense and that the village’s response “implicitly admitted” to violating the law.

“Intentional or not, the village has at least been willfully negligent in how it noticed its meetings,” Fleming’s brief said. “Because of its shoddy practices, two wind turbines were all but approved for purchase for use across from Ms. Lodl’s home before she or many other concerned members of the public ever knew about the plans.”

Lodl open to resolving case

Lodl’s complaint said she is asking that each defendant be ordered to pay a forfeiture of $25 to $300 for each violation, and Lodl is seeking reimbursement for her court costs and any other payments “as the court deems just and equitable.”

But Lodl and her attorney said they may settle for simply better government.

“The real goal here is to get the village to start following the open meetings law the way they should and give better notice on their public meeting notices,” Fleming said.

Added Lodl: “They have to change and they have to start learning things and they have to start conducting their meetings differently.”

To this point, however, Lodl said her objections and her lawsuit have been met only with enmity.

“The village president won’t even acknowledge me standing next to him in a public building,” she said. “Now we go (to meetings) and they just glare at us — just glare. You do not feel welcome, and that’s sad.”

Pollen, the village’s attorney, said he was unaware of any proposed settlement but would be happy to pass word to the village.

“I’m encouraged … that Mrs. Lodl and her counsel are looking at alternatives to continuing the litigation, and I hope that they will be able to speak with me so that I can communicate that back to the village,” he said. “That’s a very positive thing.”

Pollen said his firm has so far accumulated $33,500 in legal fees from the case, costs that have been billed to the village’s insurance company, Rural Insurance.

Village officials refused to discuss the case, so it was not clear what deductible, if any, the village has been responsible to pay.

NEXT STORY

From Illinois

BEEF UP LAW; END TRESSPASSING BY WIND FARM CREWS

By the Sauk Valley Media Editorial Board,

SOURCE www.saukvalley.com

November 16, 2011

It’s bad enough when poachers or irresponsible hunters trespass on a farmer’s property. But when a wind farm company is alleged to have done the trespassing, that’s worse.

A Compton farmer, Gale Barnickel, told the Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals recently about his beef with contractors building Goldwind USA’s 71-turbine Shady Oaks wind farm in eastern Lee County.

Barnickel told board members that wind farm construction crews had repeatedly trespassed on his family’s property. Transit of construction equipment over farmland caused crop damage, he said.

Barnickel posted signs that prohibited trespassing at various places along his property line. Workers who entered the property should have been aware of what they were doing.

After all, what part of “no trespassing” would they not understand?

According to a Goldwind spokesman, the whole situation was a mistake. The contractor apologized to Barnickel, and the contractor took “concrete steps” to clearly mark the farmer’s land so no further trespassing would occur.

But, as the saying goes, it’s like closing the barn door after the horse ran away.

Goldwind and its contractor should have had a better plan in place to avoid trespassing on a non-participating farmer’s land.

Barnickel filed two reports with the Lee County Sheriff’s Department about the trespassing incidents. He decided not to file any more, as they apparently weren’t doing any good, and he wanted to avoid wasting taxpayers’ money.

The whole situation should be a wake-up call to county governments near and far – especially in Whiteside and Ogle counties, where new wind farms are contemplated.

Are there strong enough trespassing laws in place to keep wind farm construction crews in line?

Are enforcement provisions ready so that if construction crews trespass, authorities can mount a swift and effective response?

Are the fines large enough to discourage construction crews from ever entering private property unless they are absolutely certain it belongs to a participating landowner?

Farmer Barnickel stated: “It’s nerve-wracking being pushed around. Why should I have to put up with that?”

He shouldn’t.

Neither should anyone else.

Goldwind spokesman Colin Mahoney said his company was committed to minimizing the impact of wind farm construction.

We think area counties should strengthen their ordinances so landowners are better protected when wind farm companies stray from such commitments.