Better Plan, Wisconsin



Glenmore town board approves turbines: fox11online.com

GLENMORE TOWN BOARD APPROVES TURBINES

SOURCE: FOX11

MARCH 17, 2011

GREEN BAY - Emotions continue to run hot over a wind turbine project in Brown County. The Glenmore town board tonight voted to allow CG Power Solutions to build seven turbines in the community.

The vote happened without public comment.

When the meeting was adjourned soon after the vote, many of those attending shouted down the board members. Law enforcement officers watched the crowd as the board members left.

Tonight's meeting and vote came on the heels of another heated meeting last week. At that time, the board originally approved the permit for the project, but when the crowd became angry then, the board abruptly ended the meeting.

It later reconvened and voted to delay the permit for two months. Then, the turbine company challenged that second vote, saying it violated state open meeting law.

We were not able to speak with board members following tonight's meeting.

Opponents to the plan say they have a number of concerns, including health issues.

Next story

AIRING WIND FARM FEARS

By Erin Somerville, Central Western Daily, www.centralwesterndaily.com.au 18 March 2011

They may look harmless, but the increasing amount of wind turbines freckling hills and skylines around the central west may be doing more harm than good.

Insomnia, nausea and headaches are just some of the health complaints slowly being brought to the surface by people living near wind farms.

Dr Sarah Laurie,who has done extensive research into the health effects of wind turbines in rural communities, spoke to residents around Blayney on Wednesday night about her findings.

Residents and land holders were particularly interested as they face a proposed $200 million wind farm being built in the Flyers Creek area across 16 properties.

“I am not anti-wind, but there’s a problem,” Dr Laurie said. “You can’t ignore the fact that people are getting sick.”

The sudden and unexplained common symptoms presented by those living up to 10 kilometres away from wind farms include nausea, headaches, sleep deprivation, tinnitus, panic attacks and high blood pressure.

Children are also presenting unusual symptoms including waking with night terrors and sudden bed wetting, despite having gone years without wetting the bed.

Residents report they can only solve these problems by leaving the area.

Dr Laurie said that medical practitioners, wind turbine companies, and the government can no longer ignore the evidence linking wind farms with negative health affects.

She believes infrasound waves that are inaudible to humans are responsible for the health problems.

“There’s a stimulation of the nervous system, and I think this is from the infrasound,” she said.

“[People] can’t really protect their homes from it because they are very penetrative.”

Although infrasound waves occur naturally, Dr Laurie believes it’s the pulsating nature of the sound waves as the blade passes the tower that is mainly responsible for the health problems.

The Senate has launched an inquiry on rural wind farms and their health effects.

Over 1000 submissions have been made so far.

Dr Laurie is hoping the inquiry will prompt the government to investigate the issue so it is better understood and preventative strategies can be taken in the future.

“It is acoustic pollution,” she said.

There are no regulations stating how far a wind farm can be from a residence.

Infigen Energy, the company behind the proposed Flyers Creek wind farm, did not provide the Central Western Daily with a comment.

Next story

BOARD OF HEALTH PRESSED TO STUDY EFFECTS OF TURBINES

SOURCE Falmouth Enterprise, (via National Wind Watch)

15 March 2011

By ELISE R. HUGUS,

Falmouth Board of Health will request that health impacts from the town’s wind turbines be studied by the state Department of Public Health, and that a complaint log based on science be established online for residents to report adverse effects from the turbines.

In a meeting last night, the board heard a presentation from Ambleside Road resident J. Malcolm Donald on health effects from a 28-turbine wind farm in Mars Hill, Maine. The controlled study, conducted by Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, found that a large percentage of residents living within 1,100 meters of the turbines experienced symptoms, compared with residents who lived three miles away. According to Mr. Donald, the study found that 77 percent of abutters to the wind farm experienced feelings of anger, and over 50 percent felt feelings of stress, hopelessness, and depression. Over 80 percent reported sleep disturbances, compared with 4 percent in the control group, he said, and 41 percent of abutters experienced headaches.

The study, which was completed in March 2009, has yet to be published in a creditable journal—and, as several board members pointed out, has yet to stand up to the rigors of the scientific method, which include peer review and replication.

Board member John B. Waterbury, a biologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said he had carefully read the study and other documents sent by Mr. Donald over the weekend. “As a scientist, I look and see there isn’t much peer-reviewed literature. Then there are people who are clearly impacted by this thing in a number of ways,” he said. Fellow board member George R. Heufelder said he was not convinced that the physiological symptoms listed in the study are connected to the turbines. “I can’t dismiss your irritation and angst, but my analysis says, show me the facts. It takes someone to do a good, controlled study,” he said. Mr. Donald cited the “precautionary principle,” a legal term that allows policy makers to make decisions that are not based on scientific evidence. “You don’t really need to know why something is happening. If we know it’s happening, we need to take preventive mesures to stop it from happening,” he said. Board member Jared V. Goldstone pointed out that although the principle has been adopted in the European Union, it is not law in the United States. “The legal underpinnings of [Dr. Nissenbaum’s study] just aren’t there. Right now it’s a political issue,” he said.

Mr. Donald also read verbatim a Climatide blog post written, coincidentally, by Dr. Goldstone’s wife, Heather M. Goldstone, a WCAI reporter with a doctorate in ocean science and a background in toxicology. As part of the radio station’s series on “the Falmouth Experience” with turbines, she drew parallels between the debate over the health effects of wind turbine energy and toxic chemical pollutants.

Several residents of Blacksmith Shop Road, where the town-owned turbines are located, spoke about the health and quality-of-life impacts they started experiencing after the fi rst turbine was erected last spring.

John J. Ford, who said he lives 2,745 feet from the Notus Clean Energy turbine at Falmouth Technology Park and 3,740 feet from Wind 1 at the wastewater treatment facility, said he is currently trying to soundproof his bedroom in order to sleep at night. With an elevated heart rate and blood pressure, he said his experiences are similar to those in the Nissenbaum study. “My neighbors and myself would be enthralled, if the board of health took a more active role in this,” Mr. Ford said.

Colin P. Murphy, also of Blacksmith Shop Road, said that he has felt all the effects listed in the study “at some point or other.” He invited board members to spend time in the neighborhood for a full 24-hour period in various wind conditions to feel the effects for themselves. station’s series on “the Falmouth . [sic]

Mark J. Cool, a resident of Fire Tower Road, asked the board to take a proactive approach by approaching state authorities for help and working with other town committees to address the residents grievances. “At the very least, acknowledge that something is going on in our neighborhood. It’s an enormous problem for everybody,” he said.

Chairman Gail A. Harkness said it was clear that residents are affected, but the turbines are related to the town’s finances, over which the board of health does not have jurisdiction. Mr. Murphy said that money should not be a concern for the board of health. “Aren’t I worth more than $178,000? I think I’m worth more than that,” he shouted, referring to the town’s estimate of how much money will be saved through wind energy each year.

Mr. Donald said that those savings should be enough to fund a study.

“Why can’t the board take some milk from those ‘cash cows’ to fund an epidemiological study?” he asked.

Dr. Harkness, an epidemiologist by training, suggested approaching the schools of public health at Harvard or Boston University to do a controlled study. “One residential study does not give you the truth. Repeated findings do not lead to a cause-effect scenario,” she said.

Mr. Cool asked board members whether they had seen the noise complaint log, which Falmouth Wastewater Superintendent Gerald C. Potamis explained is being kept by a private consultant. Dr. Goldstone said that could be helpful, especially if the log featured “controlled vocabulary” that could be used as scientific data for the sometimes subjective complaints.

Several residents said they had not heard of the log, and had been sending their complaints directly to selectmen or the town manager. Dr. Waterbury suggested posting the log, along with wind turbine data, on the town website so that it would be easily accessible.

Board members questioned whether pending litigation between a group of residents and the town would affect the online log, but they said they would explore the idea, along with the possibility of getting state health authorities to conduct a study in the affected neighborhoods.

The board will follow up on these action items at its next meeting on March 28.

Next story

PLANNERS APPROVE TWO MILE SETBACK

SOURCE East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com

March 16, 2011

By Clinton Reeder,

The Umatilla County Planning Committee has voted unanimously to send a proposed two-mile setback of wind towers from rural homes and from city urban growth boundaries to the Umatilla County Commissioners for approval.

This guarantees both the cities and the rural homeowners the right to say “no” to wind towers encroaching upon their properties against their will. If they say “no,” then no tower can be built closer than two miles from a home, nor will a wind tower be built closer than two miles from a city’s urban growth boundary.

[rest of article available here]

Next story

FLICKER OF HOPE FOR WIND TURBINE VICTIMS

SOURCE: The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk

March 17, 2011

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent,

The misery of shadow flicker, which blights the lives of people living near some wind turbines, could soon be over.

The flickering is caused when rotating turbine blades periodically cast shadows through openings, such as windows.

A report commissioned by the Department for Energy and Climate Change recommended that turbines should be built no closer than 10 rotor diameters from the nearest home.

This means that if the blade had an 80metre (262ft) diameter, it should be at least 800 metres, or half a mile away.

Shadow flicker is worse when the sun is low in the sky in winter, when the wind can also be strong.

Studies cited in the report said that, over the long term, it could cause “a significant nuisance”.

It was also a risk for a small number of people with epilepsy.

Although the report concluded that flicker was not a “significant health risk”, protesters insist the issue can cause headaches and stress–related problems.

Lynn Harlock, who lives almost half a mile from Redtile wind farm in Cambridgeshire, said she was “sick to death” of flicker.

“You cannot sit in any rooms when the sun is setting at certain times of year,” she said.

“It is like flashing strobe lighting. It is quite upsetting not being able to sit in your own home.

“People think you are barmy. They think you are after compensation. But all we want is our home back.”

The report recommended that homes and offices within 500 meters, or a third of a mile, of a turbine should not suffer flicker for more than 30 minutes a day or 30 hours a year.

Developers applying for planning permission where there could be a flicker should put in place measures to stop significant nuisance, it added.

In many cases, problems could be solved by shutting a turbine down for short periods of the year, changing the position slightly or planting vegetation and trees.

The Coalition wants to build up to 6,000 wind turbines onshore over the next 10 years.

Charles Hendry, minister for energy and climate change, welcomed the report. He said new planning laws would ensure turbines were sited where there was plenty of wind rather than near residential areas where they might cause protests. Planning guidance would stick to the “10 diameter rule”.

Lee Moroney, a wind energy expert with the Renewable Energy Foundation, said the rules were not strong enough and wind turbines should not be built within a mile of residential areas.

Birds are not so eagle–eyed after all, according to a study that found that some species crash into wind turbines and power lines because they do not look where they are going.

Professor Graham Martin at the University of Birmingham said large birds of prey and sea birds were particularly vulnerable to crashing into man–made structures. In a study published in the journal Ibis, he suggested the reason was because birds had evolved to look for movement either side and potential prey on the ground rather than straight ahead.

He suggested that wind farms or other structures should have decoys on the ground to try to distract birds, or emit sound to alert them to the danger.

ROTOR CRASHES AT IBERDROLA WIND FARM IN NORTH DAKOTA

SOURCE: North American Wind Power

March 16, 2011

NAW has learned that a rotor came crashing to the ground at the 149.1 MW Rugby Wind Power Project, located near Rugby, N.D. The wind farm, owned and operated by Iberdrola Renewables, consists of 71 2.1 MW wind turbines, which were manufactured by Suzlon Wind Energy Corp.

According to a local resident, the incident occurred around 2:30 p.m. local time on Monday. There were no reported injuries.

Dan Smith, a local commercial photographer who has photographed the wind project from its early stages, says the wind farm's technicians told him that the incident may have stemmed from a failed braking mechanism.

"It looks like the braking mechanism failed, and the rotor gained speed, flexed and hit the tower and sheared off the mounting plate at the hub where it connects with the nacelle," Smith explains.

He adds that the rotor appeared to scrape the tower on its way to the ground, which could require the tower to be replaced as well.

READ ENTIRE STORY AT NORTH AMERICAN WIND POWER WEBLINK

CLICK ON THE IMAGE BELOW TO WATCH A SIMILAR ROTOR COLLAPSE AFTER WIND TURBINE BRAKES FAIL

From Illinois

WIND FARM PLAN SHOCKS BOARD

Source www.saukvalley.com

16 March 2011

BY DAVID GIULIANI,

MORRISON – Some Whiteside County Board members are upset that they hadn’t been informed about the possibility of wind energy development in the county.

A couple of weeks ago, a county official told a board committee about a company’s plans for wind turbines north of the village of Deer Grove and extending west of state Route 40.

Deer Grove, 11 miles south of Rock Falls, has a population of about 50.

Apparently, some board members didn’t know of the proposed project until they read about it in the newspaper.

At the board’s monthly meeting Tuesday, member Bill Milby, whose district includes Deer Grove, said a number of people have contacted him expressing their concerns about the proposed wind farm.

Milby said he wished he would learn of such developments from the county, rather than the newspaper.

Stuart Richter, the county’s planning and zoning administrator, emphasized that the county hadn’t received an application from the company, Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Energy. He said he expected to receive the application in September.

“It’s not a big secret,” he said, adding that he hadn’t seen the layout of the proposed wind farm.

Board member Jim Duffy asked whether the wind farm would be rushed through the board at the last minute.

“I certainly hope not,” Richter responded. “This is all new to us, but we won’t be reinventing the wheel.”

Board member Jon Hinton suggested the county put a hold on all permits for a while, adding that he hadn’t known about the proposed wind farm until recently.

Members asked what would happen when companies abandoned their turbines.

Richter responded that the county would enter into separate agreements for such issues. He said some counties require companies to post money to be put in escrow to cover the costs of the eventual decommissioning of their turbines.

During the public comment portion of the meeting, Sterling resident Amanda Norris, head of the local Sauk Valley Tea Party, said she and her husband recently bought land near Prophetstown and planned it to use for recreational purposes.

“This leaves us very concerned about protecting our property rights,” she said. “Having a turbine only a few hundred feet from our property would make it worthless to us. How does Whiteside County intend to protect the rights of property owners such as me and my husband?”

Whiteside County doesn’t have any wind turbines, but Lee and Bureau counties have had them for years. Those counties have been embroiled in bitter debates because many residents find the turbines noisy and unsightly, and say they cause health issues.

Mainstream is planning 190 turbines for the local project, which would include Bureau, Lee and Whiteside counties. Most of the turbines would be in Lee County, but company representatives wouldn’t say how many would be in each county.

The representatives confirmed that they planned to apply for permits in the three counties in the coming months.

DOCTOR'S LETTER FEATURES IN SENATE INQUIRY

SOURCE: The Courier (Ballarat) through National Wind Watch

March 12 2011

By Brendan Gullifer,

A letter from Ballarat GP Scott Taylor to Waubra wind farm operator Acciona has been submitted to the Senate inquiry into wind farms.

In what is believed to be the first public statement by a local health professional on the issue, Dr Taylor says there is a “strong correlation” between symptoms of three of his patients and the operation of turbines at Waubra.

Dr Taylor outlines symptoms suffered by former Waubra residents husband and wife Carl and Sam Stepnell.

“In the last six months the Stepnells have had increasing problems including increased feeling of pressure in their head and ears, a feeling of uneasiness and frequent waking at night,” Dr Taylor wrote in September, 2010.

Dr Taylor, who works at Ballarat Group Practice in Victoria St, said the Stepnells’ symptoms “significantly improved” when turbines were not in operation for two weeks, but worsened again when the turbines came back on line. He said the Stepnells noticed they had “significantly less problems” when away from the turbines on holidays, and had no previous history of symptoms presented.

“I also confirm that I have one other patient who lives at Waubra on a 10 acre farm who is distraught with exactly the same symptoms as the Stepnells,” Dr Taylor wrote.

“I believe from the circumstantial evidence that there is a strong correlation between their symptoms and the operation of the turbines nearby.”

While a number of local doctors have been treating Waubra residents, this is believed to be the first public confirmation by any local GPs of concern over the link between wind turbines and health.

The letter was submitted by the Stepnells as part of their submission to the Senate inquiry. The Stepnells moved from Waubra last year, saying their home was uninhabitable due to turbine noise.

A spokesman for Acciona said: “It is not appropriate for Acciona to share the details of sensitive personal correspondence, nor will we comment on submissions to the Senate Inquiry which is currently underway. However we can say that we have received no medical or scientific advice with any evidence that positively links the operation of wind turbines to adverse health effects.”



WHY NOT TO DISMISS HEALTH IMPACTS OF WIND TURBINES

 SOURCE: Climatide, climatide.wgbh.org

 March 12, 2011 By Heather Goldstone,

The wind energy movement bills itself as an integral part of efforts to reduce fossil fuel usage and curb climate change while helping build the new green energy economy. But complaints about adverse health impacts – loss of sleep, headaches, depression – have surfaced in communities around the world where wind turbines are located in close proximity to homes, including here on Cape Cod. In their efforts to dismiss claims of adverse health impacts caused by nearby wind turbines, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) comes out looking more like big industry than grassroots environmentalist.

I was a toxicologist in a former career, and I see a lot parallels between this debate and debates about the toxicity – or not – of chemical pollutants. So, here are three reasons not to dismiss complaints about wind turbines drawn from the environmental movement and the science of toxicology.

Argument: It’s all in their heads

An AWEA-commissioned review of the science surrounding wind turbines, sound, and health asserts that the main impact of wind turbine noise is to annoy people:

A feeling described as “annoyance” can be associated with acoustic factors such as wind turbine noise. … Annoyance is clearly a subjective effect that will vary among people and circumstances. … the main function of noise annoyance is as a warning that fitness may be affected but that it causes little or no physiological effect. Protracted annoyance, however, may undermine coping and progress to stress related effects. … The main health effect of noise stress is disturbed sleep, which may lead to other consequences.

And yet, they draw a line between “annoyance” and a health impact: (my emphasis)

There is no evidence that sound at the levels from wind turbines as heard in residences will cause direct physiological effects.

Rebuttal: Immune suppression

AWEA’s argument seems to hinge on dismissing annoyance as a subjective, emotional response and, thus, dismissing the secondary health effects of annoyance. But consider this: certain chemicals can alter the immune system, impairing its ability to fight off infections. This might not be a problem if we lived in germ-free bubbles (i.e. not a direct health problem). But in the real world, the increased risk of infection poses a serious health threat. Not satisfied?

There are also deeper flaws in AWEA’s argument:

• As discussed earlier this week, the word “annoyance” as it is used by several researchers addressing the wind turbine issue has a technical definition that encompasses “a significant degradation of quality of life.”
• Sleep disturbance and deprivation need not be a secondary effect of stress; noise at levels typically produced by large turbines is capable of partially or fully waking a person. Prolonged sleep deprivation constitutes a medical issue in itself, and is also a trigger for other health problems.
• Some residents report physical sensations – like ear popping – not related to stress. There is little or no scientific data to address these claims … a point I’ll get to shortly.

Argument: It only affects a small number of people

Dr. Robert McCunney is an MIT researcher and a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. He was a member of AWEA’s expert panel that reviewed the available science and determined that there is no evidence that wind turbines directly cause health effects. He has also provided expert testimony in court to that effect. He says it’s important to remember that most people aren’t negatively affected by wind turbines:

… at least in the studies that are available, the percentage of people who report annoyance in the proximity of wind turbines tends to be a relatively low… it’s not the predominant effect, and it’s not a majority of people who report these symptoms.

Furthermore, the AWEA report states that “a small number of sensitive people … may be stressed by the sound and suffer sleep disturbances,” citing above-average sound sensitivity, as well as personality traits and pre-existing negative attitudes toward wind turbines as factors predisposing persons to such impacts.

Rebuttal: Cancer clusters

To only consider impacts that affect the majority of people holds wind turbines to a standard that would be unthinkable for chemical pollutants.

Did drinking water contaminated with industrial chemicals give the majority of children in Woburn, Massachusetts leukemia? Or did chromium give the majority of people in Hinkley, California cancer? Absolutely not. If they had, documenting those cancer clusters would have been far more straightforward. But both were eventually validated and resulted in court settlements (check out A Civil Action and Erin Brokovich this weekend for the full stories, if you’re not familiar).

For that matter, is lead any less of a concern because it mostly impacts young children and unborn babies – a particularly sensitive portion of the population?

The standard is not a majority effect, but rather, a greater than expected occurrence of symptoms in any segment of the population, based on comparison with other turbine-free areas of similar geography, demographics, etc.

Argument: There’s not enough evidence

AWEA doesn’t deny that people living close to wind turbines around the world are reporting negative impacts. However, most of the surveys and case studies that currently exist are what scientists call anecdotal data – personal stories that have not been subjected to rigorous scientific investigation or the quality-control process of peer review. Thus, Dr. McCunney and the AWEA panel insist that there’s not enough scientific evidence to conclusively link wind turbine noise to health complaints.

Rebuttal: Precautionary principle

Here we can draw on an idea long embraced by the environmental movement and the scientific community (although less so industry or government) – that of the precautionary principle. The 1998 Wingspread Conference convened by the Science and Environmental Health Network crafted and adopted the following definition (my emphasis):

Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public bears the burden of proof.

The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic, and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.

In 2005, UNESCO released a report aimed at clarifying when and how the precautionary principle should be applied:

The [precautionary principle] applies when there exist considerable scientific uncertainties about causality, magnitude, probability, and nature of harm;

This would certainly seem to be the current situation with regard to claims of health impacts caused by wind turbines. We do not yet have controlled, peer-reviewed studies that nail down exactly how many people are affected, what their symptoms are, when they began, and at what distances and sound levels they occur. Establishing the who, what, when and where of a problem will be an important first step before moving on to the more intricate questions of how and why. So there’s a long way to go before we reach a rigorous scientific understanding of the relationship between wind turbines and health. But the highly suggestive evidence at hand almost certainly meets the standards of the precautionary principle.

TURBINE DAMAGES RAIL TRACK, THEN LEAVES

A couple of men got out, one looked under the turbine, one man hydraulically raised the load; then they got back into the truck and drove off the tracks. They then stopped for a few more minutes before driving away.

One of those eyewitnesses, concerned that approximately four feet of the rail showed a marked twist, called in to 911 to alert authorities of the possible danger.

SOURCE: Lincoln Daily News, www.lincolndailynews.com

Union Pacific and city crews responded to a report of rail damage at the Keokuk Street railroad crossing at 1 p.m. on Thursday. What they found when they got there concerned the officials.

According to witnesses, an eastbound double trailer carrying a wind turbine base supported between two flatbeds did not clear the tracks. When reaching the slight incline of the tracks, the leading flange from the turbine base scrapped the asphalt approaching the tracks and then, catching one of the rails, came to a jarring halt, bending and twisting the rail.

The eyewitnesses stated that the convoy of two lead trucks, the trailer and rear vehicles all stopped. A couple of men got out, one looked under the turbine, one man hydraulically raised the load; then they got back into the truck and drove off the tracks. They then stopped for a few more minutes before driving away.

One of those eyewitnesses, concerned that approximately four feet of the rail showed a marked twist, called in to 911 to alert authorities of the possible danger.

Tracy Jackson, streets and alleys superintendent, and Mark Mathon, city engineer, were at the crossing all afternoon.

According to the officials, a Union Pacific crew on hand at the crossing was waiting for a northbound evening passenger train to pass through Lincoln before attempting any repairs. All trains were being walked through the damaged area at 3 mph until the repairs could be made.

Jackson said the crew hoped to be able to reset the rail into the ground without having to replace it. He added that if the rail needs to be replaced, that will take some time as the special truck that carries such rails would have to be brought in from either St. Louis or Chicago.

Ironically, the crossing is scheduled to be completely reworked in the next few months.

The 5:30 p.m. northbound passenger train came through the crossing at only 3 mph as Union Pacific crewmen kept on eye on the train and the track. Fortunately the train was able to get through the crossing with no problems, and the repair crew began working on the rail.

By the time the 8:30 p.m. southbound Amtrak came through, the crew had finished. This morning there are no flagmen on the scene.

THE COST OF GREEN: HUGE EASTERN OREGON WIND FARM RAISES BIG QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATE, FEDERAL SUBSIDIES

Source: The Oregonian, www.oregonlive.com

12 March 2011

By Ted Sickinger,

The gravel haulers start rolling down Oregon 74 before dawn, their air brakes bellowing under the heavy loads they ferry into the neighboring hills.

Just over the rimrock of Willow Creek Valley, hard-hatted contractors scramble to pour the base pads and lay electrical cable for 338 wind turbines that will soon spin over 30 square miles of sagebrush in Gilliam and Morrow counties. When completed in 2012, Shepherds Flat is expected to be the largest wind farm in the world.

The project is a poster child for the nation’s love affair with renewable energy. From President Barack Obama to former Gov. Ted Kulongoski, from the Oregon Legislature to rural county courthouses, politicians have embraced renewable energy as an economic and environmental cure-all, a means to create jobs, reduce dependence on fossil fuels and combat global warming.

They have backed that pitch with public dollars. And no state has jumped on the bandwagon more enthusiastically than Oregon, which has given or promised more than $1 billion in tax breaks to green energy projects.

Shepherds Flat is a prime example of that spending, too.

Clyde Smith talks about his decision to leave the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm area Clyde Smith talks about his decision to leave the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm area Clyde Smith says he was offered about $15,000 by Caithness Energy to sign a concession to a 51-decibel level for the wind turbines at Shepherd Flats Wind Farm, near his property. Smith refused and gave them three choices. Of the three, they chose to buy his property rather than build an underground house for him.

[video available HERE]

Indeed, Shepherds Flat demonstrates how Oregon provides millions of dollars to projects that would probably go forward without state subsidies. It illustrates how Oregon taxpayers subsidize California’s renewable energy demand. It shows how developers have used the program’s loose administrative rules to qualify for multiple tax credits for the same project. And it reveals how a program that was originally intended to promote conservation and clean energy morphed into an extravagantly expensive green jobs program.

Stacking federal, state and county subsidies is perfectly legal. But the result is that taxpayers who subsidize a project may bear a greater burden for development than the company that profits from it.

For Shepherds Flat, for instance, federal, state and local subsidies total more than $1.2 billion, about 65 percent of its $1.9 billion cost, according to a White House memo.

Caithness Energy, the New York-based developer of Shepherds Flat, did not respond to numerous phone calls from The Oregonian or detailed questions e-mailed to the company concerning the White House analysis and the company’s state tax breaks.

Clyde Smith, a retired truck driver who recently sold his property to Caithness rather than live in the wake of the project’s noise, says he’s been treated well by the company, including a purchase price well above the value of his property.

But as a taxpayer, he’s outraged.

“This is taking money out of your pocket, my pocket, everybody’s pocket,” he said. “This is a boondoggle of boondoggles. It’s a huge waste of our state and federal money.”

To be sure, Shepherds Flat is a boon for Gilliam and Morrow counties, which stand to collect more than $100 million in taxes and fees from the project over 15 years. Construction will create 400 temporary jobs. The project’s ongoing operation will bring 35 permanent jobs into a moribund employment market. And a few landowners will collect lucrative lease fees for the turbines on their property.

“It’s more jobs than that part of the state has seen in 20 years,” said Paul Woodin, a consultant who helped Gilliam and Morrow counties negotiate property tax breaks with Caithness. “It’s changing the economics of these counties.”

Yet by any standard, the cost per job is enormous: $34 million per permanent position when all federal and state subsidies are tallied. Moreover, it’s not clear that those jobs have any link to the $30 million in proposed tax credits from the state of Oregon.

“It just makes me sick,” said state Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, who attempted to reduce the tax credit for large wind farms during the 2009 Legislature but was forced to compromise after Kulongoski vetoed the bill.

“This really exemplifies the problem,” she said. “This is a windfall for a particular company, and that’s not what a taxpayer subsidy is supposed to do.”

Huge federal subsidies

In his most recent State of the Union address, Obama described the nation’s clean energy push as part of this generation’s “Sputnik moment.” He proposed a major increase in research subsidies and urged Congress to pass a national mandate that 80 percent of the nation’s electricity come from “clean” sources by 2035.

Yet Obama’s own advisers have been critical of some of the green subsidies he champions. Last October, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, energy czar Carol Browner, and Vice President Joe Biden’s chief of staff Ron Klain wrote a memo to the president outlining a number of problems with the federal government’s loan guarantee program for renewable energy.

They included the fact that taxpayers were subsidizing projects that would have gone ahead anyway.

Shepherds Flat was Exhibit A.

The memo said the project was “double-dipping,” gorging on a $1.2 billion smorgasbord of federal and state subsidies. The incentives — all within existing law — include a $500 million federal grant, $200 million in federal and state tax benefits from accelerated depreciation, $220 million in premium power prices attributed to state renewable energy mandates, and a $1.3 billion loan guarantee with a value of $300 million.

The memo concluded that the carbon reductions from Shepherds Flat would have to be valued at more than six times the going rate for the climate benefits to equal the subsidies.

Meanwhile, they said, Caithness has “little skin in the game” — about 10 percent of the project’s cost — but stands to earn a 30 percent return on its investment.

“This project would likely move without the loan guarantee,” the memo concluded. “The economics are favorable for wind investment given tax credits and state renewable energy standards.”

A profitable place to build

Wind farm developers have long insisted that Oregon’s business energy tax credit is essential to attract them here rather than to competing states. And there certainly has been an explosion of utility-scale wind farms built in Oregon since 2007.

That’s when the Legislature passed a law that said Oregon would pay 50 percent of the cost of a developer’s new facility, up to $20 million, or a $10 million credit per project.

The legislators who created and expanded the program “should be commended,” said a statement from the Renewable Northwest Project, an advocacy group whose members include project developers, environmental groups and ratepayer advocates. The credits “put Oregon on the map, and it is our hope that sustained support for the program and renewable energy expansion will continue our state’s leadership.”

As generous as Oregon’s tax credits are, many developers aren’t content with just one, and have subdivided their projects to qualify for multiple tax credits.

Shepherds Flat is no exception. In 2007, Caithness applied to Oregon’s Energy Facility Siting Council for a site certificate covering a single project. But by July 2008, when Caithness submitted applications for tax credits, the project had been divided into three legal entities, each applying for a separate $10 million tax credit.

A cover letter accompanying the applications explained that the company originally sought a single permit for “reasons of efficiency and economy,” and would amend its site certificate to reflect the new reality.

The letter went on to say that no financial commitment had been made to the project, and “making such financial commitments depends in significant part” on whether the tax credits were certified by the state.

Such arm-twisting has become a standard — and effective — part of the industry’s lobbying message in Salem. Kulongoski vetoed a bill in 2009 that would have slashed Oregon’s tax subsidies for large wind farms, insisting that it went too far and would jeopardize the growth of Oregon’s green economy.

Yet Oregon has all the essential ingredients for a profitable wind project already in place: a ready market, plenty of wind, and transmission to move the power.

Oregon, California and Washington have each established aggressive renewable energy standards, creating a big, guaranteed market. Utilities are effectively required to invest in windmills, and independent developers are assured of ready customers for their premium-priced power.

Industry officials insist that there are windier places to build than Oregon, notably Wyoming. But Oregon’s wind belt sits directly atop the existing high voltage transmission system built to ship electricity from nearby hydroelectric dams around the Northwest, and even more important, to California.

California already purchases more than half the wind power generated in the Northwest. And when Shepherds Flat is completed, all of its subsidized output is contracted to go to Southern California Edison.

Economical transmission is a make or break proposition for wind projects. Despite growing transmission congestion in the Northwest, Portland General Electric estimates that the cost of importing wind from Wyoming would be 66 percent higher than a local resource, mostly because of transmission costs.

Wyoming offers little in the way of incentives to wind farm developers. In fact, lawmakers there passed an excise tax last year on wind farm output. A study conducted for Wyoming by Energy and Environmental Economics Inc., or E3, found that Oregon’s wind farms could deliver electricity to the West Coast more cheaply than Wyoming’s — even if Oregon’s energy tax credits were eliminated.

Wind developers have told Oregon legislators that in the absence of the state tax credits, Washington is a better place to build because of lower property taxes.

But E3 found the opposite.

“Our analysis found that Washington has one of the least favorable tax codes for wind,” said Arne Olson, a partner with E3. Oregon’s tax structure is favorable to wind even without the tax breaks, he said. “It’s not even close.”

That conclusion didn’t factor in the property tax breaks Oregon counties are providing to wind farm developers. Gilliam and Morrow counties, for example, have agreed to cut Shepherds Flat’s property taxes by an estimated $34 million over the life of their 15-year agreements with Caithness.

Terry Tallman, the Morrow County judge who helped negotiate property tax breaks with Caithness, suspects the state tax break wasn’t necessary to attract the investment. Another wind company considering a large project in the county, Spain’s Gamesa, told Morrow County commissioners that the state credits won’t be a factor in its investment decision.

PGE and PacifiCorp say essentially the same thing.

In the end, E3′s Olson said, both states are seeing plenty of new wind farms, because “the gorge region has been ideal. It meets all the criteria, and that’s why you’ve seen the development.”

SHEPHERDS FLAT WIND FARM: WHAT'S THE COST TO TAX PAYERS?

The Business Energy Tax Credit started life in the 1970s as a conservation and clean energy incentive, but the chief rationale has become economic development — namely green jobs.

So just how much does a wind farm job cost taxpayers? The answer depends on the formula, and involves an implicit assumption that the jobs wouldn’t exist without the subsidy — questionable in the case of Oregon’s large wind farms.

Either way, the simplest formula is to divide all public subsidies for a project by the number of permanent jobs it creates. For Shepherds Flat, with $1.2 billion in subsidies for 35 permanent jobs, that equation delivers a cost per job of $34 million.

Oregon taxpayers pay a share of the federal subsidies, but for simplicity’s sake, consider the cost of the jobs based on the Oregon tax credits alone.

Shepherds Flat is pre-certified for $30 million in state tax credits. At that price, the cost per permanent position is $857,000.

Bob Repine, director of the Oregon Department of Energy, says it’s possible that Shepherds Flat might not get final approval for all three tax credits. One tax credit would cost $10 million, or $285,000 a job.

Critics of tax credits like to calculate how long it would take to repay the subsidies from personal income taxes generated by the resulting jobs.

Industry experts estimate that the 35 permanent jobs would pay an average of $50,000 a year in wages. Assume each employee gets an annual raise of 3 percent. On that basis, it would take about 46 years to generate $10 million in tax revenues from the jobs created directly by the project, and 77 years to generate $30 million.

At a minimum, that’s double the effective life of the wind turbines for the state subsidies alone.

Economic development officials say such analyses are too simplistic. When they analyze the potential return on an incentive, they factor in a multiplier effect that accounts for all the other jobs created indirectly as workers spend their wages and businesses buy local supplies.

That multiplier would be smaller for a wind farm than say, a manufacturer, as wind farms don’t buy as many supplies or raw materials, and the equipment installed is manufactured elsewhere. But in the interest of conservatism, assume that the multiplier effect quadruples the number of permanent jobs created by Shepherds Flat. Then assume that all of the resulting jobs pay $50,000 a year, with 3 percent annual raises, whether it’s a grocery store clerk, a truck driver or the manager of a hardware store.

It’s an economic development fantasy. But under that scenario, it would still take 19 years to repay $10 million in subsidies for Shepherd’s Flat, and 39 years to repay $30 million.