Better Plan, Wisconsin

500 foot wind turbine near home in Brown CountyTHERE SHOULD BE A MORATORIUM ON WIND PROJECTS UNTIL HEALTH QUESTIONS ARE RESOLVED

SOURCE:  madison.com 

September 2, 2011

What if siting massive 50-story industrial wind turbines close to peoples’ homes harms them, kills animals and disrupts lives?

All of this has happened to several families in southern Brown County. One couple tried to live with the six 50-story turbines west of their property, but [the wife] had migraine headaches after the turbines went online in December 2010.

They could not adjust to the low frequency noise emitted by the giant machines.

My husband and I were invited to visit their home in April after they left to stay with their daughter. We all wondered if the swallows would return in May to their mud nests in the barn. They did not.

Recently, I learned of another farm family in the shadow of wind turbines who were having similar health problems. Their three children are now living with their grandparents, where their headaches have subsided.

One-third of this farmer’s dairy herd has died since the turbines began operation. An autopsy of a calf showed no infectious cause for its death.

What now?

For the past 20 months, I and my neighbors have written letters, paid for billboards and testified at hearings appealing to our representatives and State Board of Health for a moratorium until epidemiological studies can be done in Wisconsin wind projects to find the answers needed to help these families and others like them.

We are all still waiting.

Sandra Johnson

Greenleaf

Letter from Washington DC

WIND TURBINES AND BIRDS

SOURCE The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com

August 31, 2011

Regarding the Aug. 29 news story “Wind farms’ turbines drawing static over bird kills”:

It is hardly an “extreme” position to contend, as do the American Bird Conservancy and many other wildlife advocates, that wind power companies should be compelled to comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other longstanding laws designed to protect eagles, hawks and other species being harmed by poorly sited and operated wind power projects. Rather, the extreme position is the one being effectively advocated by the wind power industry: that the industry should receive a blanket exemption from the government’s enforcement of these laws.

The wind industry’s refrain that birds are also killed by other sources, particularly cats, is fallacious. Cats rarely, if ever, kill the eagles and other raptors increasingly threatened by turbines situated on mountain ridges. More important, that bird populations are already suffering from a plethora of effects is an additional reason to avoid additive deaths from wind turbines. Wind power may ultimately prove to be of some, albeit likely limited, value in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. But that possibility affords no justification for the administration’s failure to enforce federal wildlife protection laws.

Eric R. Glitzenstein, Washington

The author is an environmental attorney.

NEXT STORY

From Australia

ENVIRO GROUPS WELCOME WIND FARM PLANNING CHANGES

Stock & Land, sl.farmonline.com.au 1 September 2011

The Victorian Landscape Guardians and the Australian Environment Foundation have welcomed Planning Minister Matthew Guy’s announcement of amendments to planning provisions for the establishment of wind farms in Victoria.

The amendment reforms the way wind farms can be approved and prohibits a wind turbine being constructed within two kilometres of an existing dwelling, unless there is written consent from the owner of the dwelling.

The amendment also ensures wind farms would not be permitted within five kilometres of regional growth areas and establishes no-go zones for wind farms in the Yarra Valley, Dandenong Ranges, Mornington Peninsula, Bellarine Peninsula and Great Ocean Road region, the Macedon and McHarg Ranges, and the Bass Coast.

Randall Bell, president of the Victorian Landscape Guardians said “We welcome the announcement of the Baillieu Government’s commitment to landscape conservation in declaring some Victorian landscapes off limits for wind farms.

“Significantly, from a planning perspective, the Baillieu Government has signalled that, unlike the Bracks/Brumby Governments, the landscape and rural communities are front and centre in the planning process.

“Sadly, for many landscapes such as Cape Bridgewater and Bald Hills, it is too late. Despite this recognition the prospect remains that, with carbon tax sourced funding and federal government subsidies, the Victorian landscape could still become an industrialised pin cushion of 150 metre high wind turbines.

Max Rheese, executive director of the Australian Environment Foundation said the new requirement for wind farms to be at least five kilometres from regional growth centres will address the concerns of some rural residents.

“The planning provisions put in place by the previous government were obviously biased towards wind farm developers with little regard for the health and well-being of rural residents and this announcement restores some balance.

“Health concerns acknowledged by the recent Senate inquiry, which made recommendations for medical studies into the effects of wind farms must now proceed without delay for the many people who already live closer than 2 kilometres to hundreds of existing wind turbines” said Mr Rheese.

From the U.S.

TEXAS WIND ENERGY FAILS AGAIN

Source: National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com

August 29, 2011

Robert Bryce

Wednesday brought yet another unspeakably hot day to Texas and, alas, it was yet another day when wind energy failed the state’s consumers.

Indeed, as record heat and drought continue to hammer the Lone Star State, the inanity of the state’s multi-billion-dollar spending spree on wind energy becomes ever more apparent. On Wednesday afternoon, ERCOT, the state’s grid operator, declared a power emergency as some of the state’s generation units began to falter under the soaring demand for electricity. Electricity demand hit 66,552 megawatts, about 1,700 megawatts shy of the record set on August 3.

As I wrote in these pages earlier this month, Texas has 10,135 megawatts of installed wind-generation capacity, which is nearly three times as much as any other state. And yet, on Wednesday, all of the state’s wind turbines mustered just 880 megawatts of power when electricity was needed the most. Put another way, even though wind turbines account for about 10 percent of Texas’s 103,000 megawatts of summer electricity-generation capacity, wind energy was able to provide just 1.3 percent of the juice the state needed on Wednesday afternoon to keep the lights on and the air conditioners humming.

None of this should be surprising. For years, ERCOT has counted just 8.7 percent of the state’s installed wind-generation capacity as “dependable capacity at peak.” What happened on Wednesday? Just 880 megawatts out of 10,135 megawatts of wind capacity — 8.68 percent — was actually moving electrons when consumers needed those electrons the most.

Apologists for the wind industry point to a single day in February, when, during a record cold snap, the state’s wind turbines were able to produce electricity when the grid was being stressed. Fine. On one day, wind generators produced more than expected. But the wind industry’s lobbyists want consumers to ignore this sun-bleached truth: Texas has far more super-hot days than it does frigid ones. Indeed, here in Austin, where I live, we’ve already had 70 days this summer with temperatures over 100 degrees, and there’s still no relief in sight. And on nearly every one of those hot days, ERCOT’s wind capacity has been AWOL. Each afternoon, as the temperature — and electricity demand — soars, the wind dies down:

This summer’s high demand for electricity has caught ERCOT off guard. In June, the grid operator projected that Texas’s electricity demand would not set any new records this summer. But demand is already exceeding levels that ERCOT didn’t expect to see until 2014. Over the past few weeks, as demand has strained the Texas grid, electricity prices have risen as high as $3,000 per megawatt-hour on the wholesale market, and large industrial users have been forced to curtail consumption in order to avoid blackouts.

And yet — and yet — the state is spending billions on projects that focus on wind energy rather than on conventional generation capacity. As Kate Galbraith of the Texas Tribune reported recently, the Texas Public Utility Commission is preparing the state’s ratepayers for higher prices. Consumers will soon be paying for new transmission lines that are being built solely so that the subsidy-dependent wind-energy profiteers can move electricity from their distant wind projects to consumers in urban areas.

Galbraith reports that “the cost of building thousands of miles of transmission lines to carry wind power across Texas is now estimated at $6.79 billion, a 38 percent increase from the initial projection three years ago.” What will that mean for the state’s ratepayers? Higher electricity bills. Before the end of the year, the companies building the transmission lines are expected to begin applying for “rate recovery.” The result, writes Galbraith, will be charges that “could amount to $4 to $5 per month on Texas electric bills, for years.”

Imagine what the state’s grid might look like if Texas, which produces about 30 percent of America’s gas, had spent its money on natural-gas-fired electricity instead of wind. The latest data from the Energy Information Administration shows that wind-generated electricity costs about 50 percent more than that produced by natural-gas-fired generators. Thus, not only would Texas consumers be saving money on their electric bills, the state government would be earning more royalties from gas produced and consumed in the state.

Further, consider what might be happening had the state kept the $6.79 billion it’s now spending on wind-energy transmission lines and instead allocated it to new natural-gas-fired generators. The latest data from the Energy Information Administration show that building a megawatt of new wind capacity costs $2.43 million — that’s up by 21 percent over the year-earlier costs — while a new megawatt of gas-fired capacity costs a bit less than $1 million, a drop of 3 percent from year-earlier estimates.

Under that scenario, Texas could have built 6,900 megawatts of new gas-fired capacity for what the state is now spending on wind-related transmission lines alone. Even if we assume the new gas-fired units were operating at just 50 percent of their design capacity, those generators would still be capable of providing far more reliable juice to the grid than what is being derived from the state’s wind turbines during times of peak demand.

Unfortunately, none of those scenarios have played out. Instead, Texas ratepayers are being forced to pay billions for wind-generation and transmission capacity that is proving to be ultra-expensive and redundant at a time when the state’s thirst for electricity is breaking records.

A final point: Keep in mind that the Lone Star wind boondoggle is not the result of Democratic rule. Environmentalists have never gained much purchase at the Texas capitol. In fact, the state hasn’t had a Democrat in statewide office since Bob Bullock retired as lieutenant governor, and Garry Mauro retired from the General Land Office, back in 1999. That same year, Gov. George W. Bush signed legislation that created a renewable-energy mandate in the state.

What about Rick Perry, a politico who frequently invokes his support for the free market? In 2005, he signed a mandate requiring the state to have at least 6,000 megawatts of renewable capacity by 2015. Perry’s support has been so strong that a wind-energy lobbyist recently told the New York Times that the governor, who’s now a leading contender for the White House, has “been a stalwart in defense of wind energy in this state, no question about it.”

And during his last election campaign, Sen. John Cornyn, one of the Senate’s most conservative members, ran TV ads showing pretty pictures of — what else? — wind turbines.

NEXT STORY:

THE NEW POLICE SIREN: YOU'LL FEEL IT COMING

SOURCE: The New York Times

February 25, 2011

By Ariel Kaminer

Joe Bader tried setting the two tones of his invention four notes apart on the musical scale, but the result sounded like music, not a siren. Same thing when he played around with a five-note interval. But when he set the two tones apart by two octaves and gave the siren a test run outside the Florida Highway Patrol headquarters in Tallahassee, the effect was so attention-grabbing that people came streaming out of the building to see what the strange sound, with its unfamiliar vibrations, could possibly be.

Which was precisely what Mr. Bader, a vice president at the security firm Federal Signal Corporation, was going for: a siren that would make people sit up and take notice — even people accustomed to hearing sirens all the time. Even people wearing ear buds or talking on the phone. Even people insulated from street noise by a layer of glass and steel. Even New Yorkers.

Rumblers, as Mr. Bader called his invention, achieve their striking effect with a low-frequency tone, in the range of 180 to 360 hertz (between the 33rd and the 46th key on a standard piano keyboard), which penetrates hard surfaces like car doors and windows better than a high tone does. When it is paired with the wail of a standard siren, the effect is hard to ignore — like the combination of a bagpipe’s high chanter and low drone, or perhaps like a train whistle and the caboose that moves that whistle through space.

Following the lead of some other municipalities, the New York Police Department gave the devices two limited test runs beginning in 2007. It liked what it heard, with the result that a Rumbler will be coming soon to a police car near you — perhaps one speeding right at you in a high-speed chase through traffic- and pedestrian-clogged streets. And eventually to about 5,000 of the department’s more than 8,000 vehicles.

Some New Yorkers have already raised concerns that the Rumbler’s low-frequency vibration could be injurious to their health. The Police Department insists that there is nothing to worry about and invited me to experience the effect for myself. But when Officer Joe Gallagher, a department spokesman, considered the fact that I am in what used to be known as “a family way,” he suggested that I not actually ride in a Rumbler-equipped squad car. “I don’t want you sitting in the back and going into childbirth,” he said. “I’m not handy with that.”

I’m not so handy with it either, so I rode in Officer Gallagher’s car while Officers Jeff Donato and Matthew Powlett of the 10th Precinct drove ahead of us, Rumbling as they went.

We zoomed up the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive on what appeared to be the only day in recent history that it was free of traffic. When at last we did encounter at least a few other cars, the officers in the front car flipped on the Rumbler, switching among its sound effects: the wail, the yelp, the hi-lo, the fast stutter.

The Rumbler is no louder than a standard siren. In fact, it’s quieter — 10 decibels lower, which translates to only half the volume. But because low-frequency sound waves penetrate cars better than those at a higher pitch, drivers experience the Rumbler as much louder than a standard siren. That’s good news for pedestrians who might prefer not to be deafened, though not necessarily for the officers in Rumbler-equipped cars. To spare the officers’ ears, the device cuts off after eight seconds.

But the officers who demonstrated it for me said they had used it in repeated intervals for longer durations. And though Federal Signal describes the Rumbler as an “intersection-clearing device,” the officers also recounted using it while zipping up long stretches of highway. “It’s like the Red Sea parting,” Capt. Christopher Ikone said.

Low-frequency sound can have physical effects, like making you feel queasy. Enough, in fact, to be of interest to some weapons manufacturers, but their experiments take place at much lower frequencies and much higher amplification than the Rumbler employs. In fact, despite the siren’s name, the rumbling effect is subtle — far less than what you experience when an Escalade rolls up beside you at a stop light, tinted windows lowered, custom speakers blaring and thunder bass thumping. Hearing a Rumbler while standing on the street, I felt a slight tingle under my ribs; in Officer Gallagher’s car, I felt a gentle reverberation on the seat.

I can faithfully report that the Police Department’s newest and soon-to-be-ubiquitous emergency alert signal does not cause eyeglasses to sprout hairline cracks that branch out across the lens and hang there for one long moment before the entire thing shatters with a delicate “plink,” as in some Bugs Bunny cartoon. Nor does it reprogram the rhythm of your heartbeat, the way a loud song on the radio can make you completely forget what you’d been humming when you heard it. Nor does it induce premature labor in pregnant women. It may, however, have caused an innocent citizen heart palpitations.

As we zoomed back down the F.D.R. Drive, dual-tone sirens blaring so we could see the other cars scatter, the driver of a Toyota RAV4 apparently thought he was being singled out and pulled to a complete halt — in the left lane of the highway. That’s an unwise thing to do in any case; an extremely unwise thing to do when you’ve got a police cruiser right behind you.

If the driver did sustain any coronary distress from the incident, help was nearby: a Fire Department ambulance was driving just a bit farther south. As we passed, its siren let out a few warning bleats. But they were the old variety: one tone, no tingling. Compared with the basso profundo confidence of a Rumbler, it sounded like a jealous whine.

From Australia

WIND FARM NO-GO ZONES TO BE ESTABLISHED

SOURCE:ABC  www.abc.net.au

August 29, 2011

By Anthony Stewart

The State Government is set to introduce new planning rules that will restrict where wind farms can be constructed.

Sweeping changes to the rules governing the construction of wind farms in Victoria will be gazetted today.

The Planning Minister, Matthew Guy, has amended local government planning schemes and state planning provisions that will deliver on a Coalition election promise to create wind farm no-go zones.

Wind farms will be prohibited in areas including along the Great Ocean Road, Mornington Peninsula, Macedon and Yarra Ranges and Wilsons Promontory.

The Government has formalised the set-back policy that stops the construction of wind turbines within two kilometres of houses, without the consent of the owner of the home.

The amendment also blocks the construction of wind turbines within five kilometres of major regional centres, a change that had not previously been flagged by the State Government.

Russell Marsh from the Clean Energy Council says the two kilometre setback policy will result in billions of dollars in lost investment

“The two kilometre setback the Government was talking about would reduce investment in wind energy in Victoria by 50 and 70 per cent,” he said.

“We were forecasting over $3 billion in investment will disappear from Victoria because of the two kilometre setback policy.”

The State Opposition’s planning spokesman, Brian Tee, says the Government has changed planning rules by stealth.

He says the Planning Minister should have introduced legislation if he wanted to block wind farm development.

“He absolutely should have brought this to the Parliament because this is going to have serious consequences,” he said.

“He hasn’t got the balance right and the cost is going to be paid by the environment.”

SECOND STORY:

SOURCE: The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com

August 28,2011

By Darryl Fears,

Six birds found dead recently in Southern California’s Tehachapi Mountains were majestic golden eagles. But some bird watchers say that in an area where dozens of wind turbines slice the air they were also sitting ducks.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is investigating to determine what killed the big raptors, and declined to divulge the conditions of the remains. But the likely cause of death is no mystery to wildlife biologists who say they were probably clipped by the blades of some of the 80 wind turbines at the three-year-old Pine Tree Wind Farm Project, operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

As the Obama administration pushes to develop enough wind power to provide 20 percent of America’s energy by 2030, some bird advocates worry that the grim discovery of the eagles this month will be a far more common occurrence.

Windmills kill nearly half a million birds a year, according to a Fish and Wildlife estimate. The American Bird Conservancy projected that the number could more than double in 20 years if the administration realizes its goal for wind power.

The American Wind Energy Association, which represents the industry, disputes the conservancy’s projection, and also the current Fish and Wildlife count, saying the current bird kill is about 150,000 annually.

Over nearly 30 years, none of the nation’s 500 wind farms, where 35,000 wind turbines operate mostly on private land, have been prosecuted for killing birds, although long-standing laws protect eagles and a host of migrating birds.

If the ongoing investigation by the Fish and Wildlife Service’s law enforcement division results in a prosecution at Pine Tree, it will be a first. The conservancy wants stronger regulations and penalties for the wind industry, but the government has so far responded only with voluntary guidelines.

“It’s ridiculous. It’s voluntary,” said Robert Johns, a spokesman for the conservancy. “If you had voluntary guidelines for taxes, would you pay them?”

The government should provide more oversight and force operators of wind turbines to select sites where birds don’t often fly or hunt, the conservancy says. It also wants the wind industry to upgrade to energy-efficient turbines with blades that spin slower.

The lack of hard rules has caused some at the conservancy to speculate that federal authorities have decided that the killing of birds — including bald and golden eagles — is a price they are willing to pay to lower the nation’s carbon footprint with cleaner wind energy.

But federal officials, other wildlife groups and a wind-farm industry representative said the conservancy’s views are extreme. Wind farms currently kill far fewer birds than the estimated 100 million that fly into glass buildings, or up to 500 million killed yearly by cats. Power lines kill an estimated 10 million, and nearly 11 million are hit by automobiles, according to studies.

“The reality is that everything we do as human beings has an impact on the natural environment,” said John Anderson, director of siting policy for the wind-energy association.

 Next Story

WIND POWER IS DYING

SOURCE: frontpagemag.com

August 28, 2011

By Tait Trussell,

While the U.S. is dumping billions of dollars into wind farms and onshore and offshore wind turbines, this energy source is being cast aside as a failure elsewhere in the world.

Some 410 federations and associations from 21 European countries, for example, have united against deployment of wind farms charging it is “degrading the quality of life.”

The European Platform Against Wind farms (EPAW) is demanding “a moratorium suspending all wind farm projects and a “complete assessment of the economic, social, and environmental impacts of wind farms in Europe.” The EPAW said it objects to industrial wind farms which “are spreading in a disorderly manner across Europe” under pressure from “financial and ideological lobby groups,” that are “degrading the quality of life living in their vicinity, affecting the health of many, devaluing people’s property and severely harming wildlife.” A petition for a moratorium has been sent to the European Commission and Parliament, said EPAW chairman J.L Butre.

France, earlier his year ran into opposition to its plan to build 3,000 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind turbines by 2020. That year is the target date the European Union set for providing 20 percent of its energy through renewable sources. An organization called the Sustainable Environment Association, opposes wind power, saying the subsidies will “not create a single job in France.”

In Canada, Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) has launched a province-wide drive against wind power. It said Aug. 8 it wants to ensure that the next government is clear that “there is broad based community support for a moratorium…and stringent environmental protection of natural areas from industrial wind development.” WCO claimed, “The Wind industry is planning a high powered campaign to shut down support” for the WCO’s aims. “Our goal is to store the petition until the next legislative session gets underway in the fall…”

The Netherlands has approximately 2,000 onshore and offshore wind turbines. But even though Holland is synonymous with windmills, the installed capacity of wind turbines in the Netherlands at large has been stagnant for the past three years, according to an article in February in the Energy Collective. It was 2237 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2011. That was said to be about 3.37 percent of total annual electricity production. The principal reason for the stagnant onshore capacity “is the Dutch people’s opposition to the wind turbines.” They are up to 400 feet in height.

The Dutch national wind capacity factor is a dismal 0.186. The German wind capacity factor “is even more dismal at 0.167,” the article said.

Expanding wind power to meet the European Union’s 20 percent renewables target by 2020 meant adding at least another thousand 3 MW, 450-foot wind turbines to the Dutch landscape “at a cost of about $6 billion.” Not surprisingly, the Dutch people found that to be far too costly—“an intrusion into their lives and an unacceptable return on their investment, especially when considering the small quantity of CO2 reduction per invested dollar.”

An added 3,000 MW of offshore turbines also was rejected. The capital cost was figured at $10 to $12 billion. The cost was judged to be too much and the wind energy produced too little. “The energy would have to be sold at very high prices to make the project feasible.” The article added, “The proposed Cape Wind project in Massachusetts is a perfect example of such a project.” Environmental Lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in July wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal blasting the project off Cape Cod as “a rip-off.” Recently, the Netherlands became the first country to abandon the European Union target of producing 20 percent of its domestic power from renewables by 2020.

In Denmark, the Danes became aware that the poor economics of their heavily-subsidized wind energy is a major reason for the nation’s high residential electric rates. Opposition to the gigantic onshore turbines was so great that the state-owned utility finally announced last year that it would abandon plans for any new onshore wind facilities.

The Energy Collective article also reported that a CEPOS (Center for Political Studies) study found that 90 percent of wind energy sector jobs were transferred from other technology industries and that only 10 percent of the wind industry jobs were newly created jobs. As a result, the study said, Danish GDP is $270 million lower than it would have been without wind industry subsidies.

The Australian government, like the U.S., has placed a major emphasis on deploying renewable sources of energy, especially wind energy. As in the U.S., Australia set a target of 20 percent of its energy to come from renewal sources by 2020. The government provides generous subsidies and tax breaks to wind energy developers. But medical studies on farmer families living within 5 miles of wind farms found health problems ranging from sleep deprivation to nausea. Similar health effects have been discovered in other locations, including in the U.S.

Because wind blows only intermittently, Britain has determined that it will have to construct an additional 17 natural gas-powered plants as back-ups to wind to keep the lights on by 2020. These plants will cost 10 billion pounds, according to a posting by the Institute for Energy Research. One analyst was quoted as saying, “Government’s obsession with wind turbines is one of the greatest blunders of our time.”

Onshore wind power today costs about $0.13 per kWh. That’s nowhere near either the objective of the U.S. Department of Energy or the cost of competing power sources. The wind turbines jutting into the sky all across the country exist only because of the massive federal subsidies. Is this considered a failure by Obama officials? No way. Obama’s 2012 budget proposal increases renewables spending by 33 percent.

Wind farms in Texas that will cost $400 million over the next two years produce, incredibly, an average of only one job for every $1.6 million of capital investment. So the state’s comptroller general figured, according to a December 20, 2010 story in the Austin American-Statesman.

As long ago as 1973, then-President Nixon called for “Project Independence” in reaction to the OPEC oil embargo. The project was to achieve energy independence through development of alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal power. So, there’s nothing new about renewable energy.

The Obama 2012 budget asks for $8 billion for “clean” energy, mainly wind power subsidies. As recently as Feb. 7, the secretaries of Energy and Interior announced plans to launch dozens of offshore turbines miles out at sea, while admitting the expense would be unknown. Despite generous subsidies, wind power is expected to provide no more than 8 percent of electric power in the U.S. by 2030.

The American Wind Industry Energy Association, the wind lobby group, said the top five states for wind energy were Texas, Iowa, California, Minnesota, and Washington. It said the second quarter of 2011 saw over 1,033 megawatts of capacity installed. It also maintained that wind is second only to natural gas and U.S. wind power represents more than 20 percent of the world’s wind power.

Over the next half century, say, it’s possible some new technologies will revolutionize energy. But, if so, they surely will come from the private sector — not government.

From Canada

COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT: Wind project resident pleads for help in another useless email to developers

SOURCE: Windyleaks.com- documents obtained through freedom of information request

EMAIL TO:  Scott Hossie, CANADIAN HYDRO DEVELOPERS
                    Gary Tomlinson – Provincial Officer, Ministry of the Environment

FROM: (A resident of Amaranth/Melancthon, Ontario)
DATE: March 16, 2009

“It is 1:00 AM.

I can’t take much more of this Scott. The Turbines were down a lot yesterday as I suppose you were testing again. Even with them looking like they weren’t working the vibration / hum in and around our house yesterday was very loud. Again, I cannot fathom what causes that when it appears everything is not running. You would know better than we.

At dinner last night it was quiet and it was the first time that it felt like the days before these turbines started. I had forgotten what peace was like.

Dennis and I went to bed at 7:20 last night because it was quiet, to try to catch up on our sleep. I prayed that you would leave these things unhooked last night so we could have one full night of rest. By midnight I was awake with the vibration back and very loud. I am so disappointed and back on the couch with the TV on to try to drown it out.

I need an answer and I need to move. I cannot bear this any longer and I will  not put up with this for Dennis and our pets either. My head felt like stew when I left the house yesterday to go shopping because the vibration was so strong. I don’t know what it is doing to us but I have the worst headache in the world right now.

I have to go to school all this week. I want you to call Dennis Monday and tell him what is going on. Gary, I am pleading with you to make this vibration in our house stop. It is absolutely maddening.”

Email to: Ministry of Environment Officials
From: a resident of Amaranth/Melancthon, Ontario
Date: Wednesday March 25, 2009 (18:18 :53)

“To all:

I would like to request a meeting with everyone to solve this ongoing problem at our property. We have vibration in our house virtually every night, some rare nights not.

I have not been lately, and will not email Canadian Hydro anymore as I do not have any faith that they are trying to help us and please note, this lack of correspondence does not suggest that things are any better in our house.

 We have done nothing but try to help them figure this out and it appears that all of our input has been for nothing. Either they are refusing to acknowledge that we have a very big problem or they do not know anything about the business they are in and can’t fix it. This would never be allowed to continue in any industrial or commercial workplace. And even then, at least the employees get to go home to a quiet house to rest. Where in the world are the safety standards for the homeowners that have had this forced upon them? This is just insane.

I do not know at which point the body starts to break down with constant vibration going through it when it is supposed to be resting. I hate for my husband, our pets and myself to be the collection of lab rats that figures that one out for them. I have to ask you what you think we would be doing right now if we had children at home? Think about it.

I cannot put our house up for sale and move. Nobody could live here, and that was echoed by   S_ _    H_ _ _ _ (employee of the developer) as he sat at our table a month or so ago. What are we supposed to do? We need help, Please….”

SECOND STORY:

From New York State

ORLEANS TOWN COUNCIL TO CONSIDER STRICT POWER ZONING REGULATIONS

SOURCE  watertowndailytimes.com

 AUGUST 28, 2011

By NANCY MADSEN

LAFARGEVILLE — The Orleans Town Council is weighing zoning law amendments that will make its rules for wind turbine placement among the most restrictive in the region.

The town of Henderson banned all wind energy towers in November. Orleans would still allow commercial and residential turbines, but the noise and setback rules would make placing turbines in the town very difficult. A public hearing continued from Aug. 11 will be reconvened at 8 p.m. Sept. 8 at the town offices, 20558 Sunrise Ave. Copies of the law are available at the town office.

The law was written and reviewed by the Planning Board after the town’s Wind Committee made zoning recommendations in October 2009 and a Wind Economics Committee made further recommendations in May 2010.

“The Planning Board wrote it, which basically went with what the committee members had suggested — it’s very strict,” town Supervisor Donna J. Chatterton said. “Pretty much, it’s a stop to having any, but they can change it.”

The proposed law would push turbines away from neighboring property lines, roads, the St. Lawrence River, neighboring town lines, state- and federally regulated wetlands and residential, historic, school and wildlife refuge areas by 3,000 feet or 10 times the diameter of a turbine’s blade sweep area, whichever is greater.

The noise regulation sets absolute levels for daytime, evening and nighttime in both the A-weighted, or basically audible spectrum, and C-weighted, or low-frequency, noise levels. If the background noise is greater than five decibels below the standard, the allowed noise level would be five decibels above the background noise level.

For example, the allowed noise level for daytime, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., is 45 decibels on the A-weighted scale and 63 decibels on the C-weighted scale. But if the A-weighted background noise during that period reaches 44 decibels, the allowed limit would be 49 decibels. If the turbines emit a steady pure tone, which sounds like a whine, screech or hum, the allowed noise limit is decreased by five decibels.

During the evening period, 7 to 10 p.m., the law would allow 40 decibels in the A-weighted scale and 58 decibels in the C-weighted scale. And during the nighttime period, from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., the law would allow 35 decibels in the A-weighted scale and 53 decibels in the C-weighted scale.

Residents within two miles of the project would have a property value guarantee, which requires appraisals before turbine construction and when residents try to sell their properties in the first five years after construction of the wind farm. The developer and property owner would agree on an asking price, based on an appraisal, and the developer would pay the difference between the asking price and sale price.

Other regulations include:

■ The Town Council and Variance and Project Oversight Board must approve change of ownership of the project or the project’s controlling entity.

■ Notification of the project’s pending application to the town is required to be sent to all landowners within two miles of the project’s boundaries.

■ Submission of studies are required on the project’s creation of shadow flicker, visual impact, noise, electromagnetic interference, transportation issues, ice and blade throw, stray voltage and wildlife harm as well as an emergency response plan, current property value analysis, operation and maintenance plan, decommissioning plan, earthquake preparedness manual and cultural, historical and archeological resource plan.

■ Submission of an escrow agreement, proof of liability insurance of $20 million per year and wind speed data from a year prior to construction are required.

■ Turbine and blade height are limited to 400 feet.

■ An annual report from the owner or operator on the operation and maintenance activities are required so that the town can compare the project’s plan and its actual results, and its noise projections and actual noise levels.

The proposed law goes into great detail on how sound measurements should be taken. The council has flexibility on applying fines for lack of compliance with the regulations.

The amendments do not substantially change rules for personal wind towers.

Wind power development critics support the amendments and said the town should not fear the state’s placing turbines against the town’s proposed law under the rejuvenated Article X electricity development law.

“The setbacks are great,” said Patricia A. Booras-Miller of the Environmentally-Concerned Citizens Organization. “They were thinking of Article X, too; there’s a lot of documentation to support their reasons.”

The town feels urgency, too, to pass the law before a new slate of council members is elected in November. The council must act on an environmental review of the law, so the law may not pass at the September meeting.

“We want to go the next step so we can get approved before the end of the year, before our board changes,” Ms. Chatterton said.

A Press Release from the Public Relations arm of the American Wind Energy Association:

TWENTY FOUR GOVERNORS ASK PRESIDENT TO FOCUS ON WIND ENERGY DEPLOYMENT

SOURCE: AWEA

Iowa, Aug. 24—A coalition of 24 governors from both major parties and each region of the country has asked the administration to take a series of steps to provide a more favorable business climate for the development of wind energy, starting with a seven-year extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) to provide stable, low tax rates for wind-generated electricity.

A letter from the governors, sent last month to the White House, has since been made public by the Governors Wind Energy Coalition. Signed by coalition chair Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I-RI), and vice chair Gov. Terry Branstad (R-IA), the letter says:

"Although tax credits for wind energy have long enjoyed bipartisan support, they are scheduled to expire next year. Wind-related manufacturing will slow if the credits are not extended, and some of the tax credits' benefit will be lost if Congress pursues a last-minute extension. It is important to have consistency in policy to support the continued development of wind manufacturing in the United States. Extending the production tax credit and the investment tax credit, without a gap, is critical to the health of wind manufacturing in our nation. The wind manufacturing industry in the U.S. would benefit even greater if the extension of these credits would be for at least seven years."

"Governors have always focused on jobs and economic development as their main responsibility. Now that Washington is following suit, it helps for these Governors to tell Washington what has been putting people to work in their states," said AWEA CEO Denise Bode. "It is also helpful for them to support the removal of roadblocks that can occur in administrative agencies, so that deployment objectives are not unintentionally thwarted."

The governors' letter also calls for:

- Establishing a combined intergovernmental state-federal task force on wind energy development to "ensure the Administration's wind energy goals are met."

- Expanding the Department of Energy's renewable energy programs to "focus not only on technology research and innovation, but also on technology deployment and market development," noting that, "these are precisely the types of efforts other nations are utilizing to successfully compete with the United States. We must recognize that a scientific breakthrough five or 10 years from now, plus several more years for commercial acceptance, will be of little value if our wind industry has been relegated to minor players in the global marketplace."

- Improved collaboration on siting new wind turbines: "... [W]e believe wind energy and wildlife protection are entirely compatible and we urge a prompt resolution of the Wind Energy Guidelines and Eagle Guidance concerns."

- Expediting deployment of offshore wind: "A new U.S. offshore wind sector would create tens of thousands of jobs in businesses ranging from R&D and engineering to manufacturing and marine construction."

- Identifying transmission and grid integration priorities for Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) such as the Bonneville Power Administration

The 24 governors' letter concluded, "We believe these actions will help address some of the national economic and energy challenges before our nation. We look forward to working with you and your Administration to further our nation's wind energy development to help drive economic growth, energy development, and the creation of high-paying jobs." Full text is available from the coalition's website.

The wind energy success story has come up on the campaign trail as well, such as when President Obama met with small business owners Aug. 16 in a diner in Guttenberg, Iowa. In the group was Rob Hach of Anemometry Specialists, a weather tower company based in Alta, Iowa, that surveys locations for wind turbines. Hach pressed for the Production Tax Credit's extension, as did the governors. Photo here.

Previously, at the Republican straw poll Aug. 13 in Ames, Iowa, six GOP presidential candidates including frontrunner Mitt Romney signed their names to a 130-foot turbine blade to show their support for the wind energy industry. (See further details.)

Governors play a major role in promoting wind energy themselves. In Iowa, Gov. Branstad signed the nation's first renewable energy standard during the first year of his first term, in 1983. That encouraged Iowa to become the first state to generate 20 percent of its electricity from wind, a goal which the George W. Bush administration predicted the entire nation can reach by 2030.

As in Iowa, wind energy has become big business in Texas, where over 10,000 megawatts (MW) of power has been installed while Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been governor.

GOP candidate Newt Gingrich, in signing the wind blade Aug. 13 at the Iowa straw poll, said he favors a 10-year extension of the national tax incentive, to avoid the "up-and-down effect" on renewable energy development when the policy changes. "If you're going to have tax credits that are designed to create investment, they have to have a long enough time horizon that people who invest believe that they'll be there," Gingrich said.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a leader in getting the PTC for renewable energy extended from 2003 through 2012, also signed the wind blade that day. He said that considering the U.S. currently spends $830 million a day on foreign oil, we need an "all of the above" energy strategy that includes wind.

Steve Lockard, CEO of TPI Composites, greeted the presidential candidates at the wind blade, which was made at his factory and drives turbines each capable of making power for 500-1,000 homes. Lockard said U.S. business appears to be strong through 2012, keeping 700 workers at his plant working around the clock. "There's growing concern about 2013 demand, due to the expiring tax credit," Lockard said.

#

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Which Governors are asking for seven more years of government money for wind development?

Rhode Island
Gov. Lincoln Chafee-I
Chairman

Iowa
Gov. Terry Branstad -R
Vice Chairman

Arkansas
Gov. Mike Beebe -D

California
Gov. Jerry Brown -D

Colorado
Gov. John Hickenlooper -D

Florida
Gov. Rick Scott- R

Hawaii
Gov. Neil Abercrombie- D

Illinois
Gov. Pat Quinn- D

Kansas
Gov. Sam Brownback-R

Kentucky
Gov. Steve Beshear -D

Maine
Gov. Paul Lepaige -R

Maryland
Gov. Martin O’Malley-D

Massachusetts
Gov. Deval Patrick -D

Michigan
Gov. Rick Snyder-R

Minnesota
Gov. Mark Dayton -D

Montana 
Gov. Brian Schweitzer- D

New Mexico
Gov. Susana Martinez-R

North Dakota
Gov. Jack Dalrymple-R

Oklahoma
Gov. Mary Fallin- R

Oregon
Gov. John Kitzhaber-D

Pennsylvania

Gov. Tom Corbett-R

South Dakota
Gov. Dennis Dugaard-R

Washington
Gov. Christine Gregoire-D

West Virginia
Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin-D

SECOND STORY:

FROM ILLINOIS

PUBLIC PANS WAIVER REQUEST OF WIND FARM

SOURCE:  The News-Gazette, www.news-gazette.com 26 August 2011 Tom Kacich,

URBANA — Officials with the company proposing a 30-turbine wind farm in northeast Champaign County are asking the county zoning board to allow them to figure in the scrap value of the turbines when covering decommissioning costs.

Further, representatives of Chicago-based Invenergy LLC also asked that they be allowed to negotiate township road agreements beyond the time the case would be before the county zoning board of appeals. Instead, they want to extend the negotiating period to the time that the county board votes on the proposal.

But a number of people at Thursday’s zoning board meeting urged the board not to grant any waivers or road agreement extensions to Invenergy.

“Let’s get it done out here in the public and let’s let everybody see it,” said Doug Bluhm, an Ogden Township board member.

Marvin Johnson, the highway commissioner in Compromise Township, one of two townships in Champaign County where the wind turbines would be located, said he thought negotiations regarding upgrades to township roads were “moving along real good and I’d like to see it going that way.”

Deb Griest of Urbana, a former zoning board of appeals member, also urged against agreeing to any extensions.

“This is the board where these discussions do occur constructively.”

Michael Blazer, an attorney for Invenergy, pledged that “if we think we will damage (roads) in advance, we will fix it in advance.”

Invenergy also asked that it be allowed to calculate the value of the scrapped wind turbines when it sets aside money for decommissioning costs.

But some audience members voiced displeasure with that idea.

“You don’t know what that value could be. It could be zero,” Bluhm said. “Using scrap value is a shot in the dark.’

About 75 people attended the first of four scheduled zoning board hearings on the wind farm application, and about a dozen testified or asked questions. The next hearing will be at 7 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 1.

The wind turbines in Champaign County would be part of a larger wind farm, most of which would be in Vermilion County, known as the California Ridge Wind Energy Project.

Mike Herbert, business manager and financial secretary for IBEW Local 601 in Champaign, endorsed the wind farm proposal, saying that Invenergy “builds quality projects” and would upgrade township roads so that they’re “as good or better” than they are now.

Four county board members — Republicans Steve Moser and Gary Maxwell, and Democrats Alan Kurtz and Pattsi Petrie — attended the zoning board meeting.