Better Plan, Wisconsin

FROM DEKALB ILLINOIS:

CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE: Life with Dekalb Turbines: the diary of a family in a wind project.

FROM AUSTRALIA:

DOUBT OVER GREEN ENERGY'S CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH

 SOURCE The Australian, www.theaustralian.com.au

 March 4,  2011

Graham Lloyd, Environment editor,

Wind turbines are closing in on four generations of the Quinn family who still live at Mt Bryan in South Australia’s picturesque and productive Mt Lofty Ranges.

Rosemary Quinn, 74, says she spends her nights locked inside the 1900s stone house she has occupied for 55 years. She shuts the windows and sets the ceiling fan on high to cover the noise of the wind turbines 2km away.

Quinn’s son Bill and his wife Jenny are about to gamble their 200ha property in a Federal Court challenge to the expansion plans of wind farm developer AGL.

Bill Quinn’s daughter Deb, 32, who works for businesses that profit from the wind farm developments, is worried about the future of her daughter, Jacqueline, and what long-term exposure to nearby wind turbines may mean.

The Quinns are not alone.

They are part of an increasingly vocal army of people in rural settlements who believe they have become collateral damage in Australia’s rush to embrace wind as an alternative energy to combat climate change.

Stories such as the Quinns’, and much, much worse, are scattered through the more than 1000 submissions to a Senate inquiry into the effect of wind farm developments on rural communities.

The inquiry by the Senate community affairs committee has certainly received many submissions of support for wind-farm developments to meet the federal government’s 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020. Local community and sporting groups have praised the donations they have received.

But alongside the positive feedback are stories of gag orders, split communities, strongarm tactics and details of awful physical symptoms that people feel sure are the result of living in the auditory and sun-flicker shadow of wind turbine developments that are sweeping the rural landscape.

Family First senator Steve Fielding, who pushed for the Senate inquiry, says: “This is not a question about the viability of renewable technologies. It is to have a look at any adverse health effects for people living in close proximity.”

He says the Senate committee has approached the inquiry with an open mind, but “certainly there are people whose health has deteriorated to the stage that they have had to move out at a complete loss to themselves”.

Public hearings will be held in Canberra on March 25, Ballarat on March 28, Melbourne on March 29 and Perth on March 31.

Glenn Brew of Evansford in Victoria, near the controversial Waubra wind farm, has told the committee he was beginning to think he had a brain tumour until he discovered that other farmers in the area were experiencing headaches similar to his when they were close to the turbines.

Steven Hilary, 50, also of Waubra, has told the committee he is convinced the turbines pose a serious health risk.

“On April 22nd at 4am I suffered a heart attack and to date I have been continually suffering blood pressure issues, heart palpitations, headaches, dizziness, nausea, unbearable tinnitus and disrupted sleep patterns that led to numerous ambulance trips to hospital,” he wrote.

The Senate inquiry clearly has opened a can of worms: affected rural residents believe city dwellers with a penchant for green power have been happy to ignore the situation. Despite what opponents may say, this is not a community backlash that can be dismissed as being rooted in climate change denial or greed.

When Rosemary Quinn first heard wind turbines were coming to her area she visited the already established wind farm developments at Yorke Peninsula and Cape Jervis to have a look.

“I thought they were a terrific invention and we really needed to get all this green power,” she says.

“People now just say I have got a set against them and if they passed us a lot of money it would be all right, but I had a sermon in church this morning that money doesn’t matter. I don’t want their money, I just want some peace and quiet in the last months of my life.”

Sarah Laurie, a South Australian GP who has become a rallying point for people concerned about health effects from living near wind turbines, also cannot be written off as a stalking horse for big coal or the nuclear industry, as her detractors would suggest.

Laurie has worked among South Australia’s Aboriginal communities on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands, where her husband still works as a travelling dentist.

She is a progressive with rooftop solar panels on her Crystal Brook property, and has alienated some friends by asking inconvenient questions about the green revolution. “I still am supportive of wind turbines in the right place,” Laurie says.

“I believe it is a siting issue primarily and we need to get the information in order to site the turbines safely.

“We have a window of opportunity now to get this right. If we don’t I am concerned there is an unfolding public disaster.

“This is not a NIMBY [not in my back yard] issue,” Laurie says. “I don’t think they should be in anybody’s back yard.”

All Laurie is requesting is that rigorous tests, independent of the industry or concerned residents, be carried out. Laurie knows her research, which catalogues a series of health effects among those living near wind turbines, will always be considered tainted by the fact there is a proposal for a wind farm near her own property.

But her findings mirror the results of other research that has also struggled for official recognition from the wind industry and government agencies.

The international research can be traced to British doctor Amanda Harry, who was introduced to a couple living near a wind farm in Cornwall in 2003.

Harry’s research was followed up by South Gippsland GP, David Issa, who surveyed residents living 1.5km to 2km of the Toora Wind Farm in Victoria.

Meanwhile, in Canada, pharmacist Carmen Krough, a senior pharmacist with Health Canada, joined with Bob McMurtry, an ex-dean of a medical school in Ontario, to form a Society for Wind Vigilance in 2009 after experiencing symptoms while staying near a wind turbine development.

As the Ontario Society for Wind Vigilance was being formed, Yale University graduate Nina Pierpont published her survey results, which described a pattern of symptoms that developed or were exacerbated by the turbines, and which disappeared when the subjects left their homes, only to return again when they returned.

She coined the term “wind turbine syndrome” to describe the symptoms that included sleep disturbance, high blood pressure, headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, rapid heart rate and panic attacks. Pierpont recommended more research be undertaken into the effect of infrasound, or very low-frequency sound waves.

The wind industry has rejected all the international research and the need for further research into the effect of infrasound. But it has been prepared to buy out some affected property owners with non-disclosure clauses that prevent the sellers from talking about their experience with turbines.

Laurie says the widespread use of confidentiality clauses has made it difficult for land holders who have agreed to host turbines, or those who have been bought out, to provide first-hand accounts of any health effects to researchers.

The Clean Energy Council, the peak body representing Australia’s renewable energy and energy efficiency industries, told the Senate inquiry that wind energy was an integral part of the renewable energy mix.

It said a survey commissioned by the NSW government in mid-2010 found 80 per cent of residents were supportive of wind farms being built in their local region and more than 60 per cent supported them at 1km to 2km from their residence.

The council cited a National Health and Medical Research Council statement that “there is currently no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects”. There is also a World Health Organisation statement: “There is no reliable evidence that sounds below the hearing threshold produce physiological or psychological effect.”

The council said the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations had established a scientific advisory panel comprising medical doctors, audiologists and acoustic professionals from the US, Canada, Denmark and Britain, which found labels such as “wind turbine syndrome” were not a recognised medical diagnosis but reflective of symptoms associated with annoyance.

The Clean Energy Council’s points are echoed by the main wind turbine companies in their submissions to the Senate inquiry.

All lean heavily on the statement by the NHMRC. But the NHMRC report does not give wind turbines the clean bill of health that the industry claims. In correspondence to Peter Mitchell from Victoria, who set up the Waubra Foundation with Laurie, the NHMRC said it acknowledged there were opposing viewpoints regarding wind turbines and their potential effects on human health.

“It is important to note that these views are presented by a variety of groups or people, including those with vested interests,” the NHMRC said. “It is important to note that the review, its conclusions and recommendations are based on published scientific evidence at the time of writing and may be updated in future to take into account new evidence as it emerges.”

FROM ONTARIO

WIND POWER FOES LOSE LEGAL BATTLE

SOURCE: The Globe and Mail

March 4, 2011

By Richard Blackwell

Anti-wind power activists in Ontario have suffered a major legal setback, as a panel of judges ruled the province has the right to determine how closely turbines may be placed to homes.

In a decision released Thursday, three judges of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said the provincial government’s regulations that spell out the minimum distance – usually 550 metres – are legitimate.

Lawyers for Ian Hanna, a resident of Prince Edward County, 200 kilometres east of Toronto, had argued at a hearing in January that regulations in Ontario’s Green Energy Act that govern how far turbines must be from dwellings are illegal. If the court had agreed, new wind development in the province could have come to a standstill.

The ruling was a relief for the wind power industry. If it had gone the other way, “it would have created a tremendous amount of uncertainty, ” said Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

He said the turbine setbacks were determined through an extensive consultation process, and they are among the most stringent in North America. The association’s position is that there is no direct link between wind turbines and human health.

Mr. Hanna's argument was based on the premise that Ontario did not take proper account of the possible negative impact to human health when it established the minimum turbine setback.

Essentially, he argued, there is no medical evidence that the setback is safe, and that by publishing regulations without sufficient proof, the province breached the “precautionary principle” in its own environmental bill of rights. That principle says the government has to show an activity is safe before it is approved.

But the judges disagreed, saying that “the health concerns for persons living in proximity to wind turbines cannot be denigrated, but they do not trump all other considerations.”

Ontario’s Environment Ministry correctly followed the process outlined in the environmental bill of rights, and conducted sufficient consultation before coming up with its regulations, the ruling said.

The judges also noted that anyone in the province can challenge specific proposed wind projects in front of an environmental review tribunal, and if they can prove that the 550-metre setback is not sufficient, the tribunal can stop the project or increase the setback.

Mr. Hanna said Thursday that he will consider an appeal of the ruling and will continue to fight on behalf of those who think more research must be done into the health effects of wind turbines. “I’ve met too many people who are really suffering from living too close to turbines,” he said. “I’ve seen what it can do to them … I couldn’t walk away.”

Mr. Hanna’s lawyer, Eric Gillespie, said there are some positive aspects to the court ruling. The decision made it clear that Ontario’s environmental bill of rights must be taken into account when regulations are set, he said, and it opens the door to other legal challenges to government decisions related to wind energy. “Given the amount of public interest and concern around this issue, it would be very surprising if this was the last legal challenge,” he said.

Ontario’s Environment Minister John Wilkinson said the province’s setback rules are based on 40 years of peer-reviewed science. But he said the ministry “is always open to new research.”

FROM OHIO & ILLINOIS

WIND FARM FALLS FLAT

SOURCE: The Daily Standard, www.dailystandard.com

March 2, 2011

By Shelley Grieshop,

Mel Haas of DeKalb County, Ill., said a nearly identical situation occurred in his agricultural area nearly eight years ago – and the turbines were still built.

“They came here in 2002-2003 and told us if the community didn’t want this, they would move on,” and they did, Haas said in a phone interview this morning.

However, NextEra officials returned and in January 2010 began operating a wind farm with 126 turbines – many of which surround his rural home in Shabbona.

Haas said he has a message for the people in Mercer County: “Watch your back. Stay vigilant on this issue.”

ST. HENRY – NextEra Energy Resources announced Tuesday it is pulling the plug on a locally-proposed wind farm project out of respect for the area’s rich religious history.

Representatives of the Florida-based wind development company told The Daily Standard they changed their minds about constructing 40 to 70 wind turbines in the region after learning how much residents value the southern Mercer County-based “Land of the Cross Tipped Churches.”

“The last couple months we’ve had discussions with community leaders and area clergymen, and we’ve come to understand and appreciate the whole Cross Tipped Church region,” NextEra spokesman Steve Stengel said.

“We’ve listened to the community and heard what they had to say … and we agree with them.”

The Land of the Cross Tipped Churches highlights the roots of Catholicism in the area and in 1979 was added to the National Register of Historic Places. The tourist attraction includes 65 churches, former convents, schools and rectories, as well as cemeteries and other sites across Mercer, Auglaize, Darke and Shelby counties.

An informational open house scheduled by NextEra for Thursday in St. Henry has been canceled. Stengel said the event was nixed because of the flooding problems residents are experiencing.

“We don’t want to seem insensitive to the communities,” he said.

Stengel said NextEra “still likes Mercer County” as a wind farm site and is now focusing its attention in the north and northwest sector. Wind test towers will be erected in that area “when appropriate sites are selected,” he said.

The four test towers NextEra has in southern Mercer County will stay in place and continue to collect valuable data, Stengel said. NextEra director Scott Scovill said all leases penned between the company and area landowners are binding and will be honored.

News about NextEra’s decision to abandon the project brought joy and relief to those who had been opposing the development in the St. Henry, Maria Stein, Fort Recovery and Minster area.

“If they’re going to go ahead and make that move, we have to give credit where credit is due,” said Jim Niekamp of St. Henry, a spokesman for Citizens Against Turbines (CAT). “We have to give them credit for listening. It’s what we all hoped for.”

Niekamp said many people feared the proposed giant wind turbines would dwarf the church steeples that identify the region’s heritage. He feels the issue has caused many people to realize the value of “what lies in our own backyard.”

The Rev. Tom Hemm, pastor of the St. Henry cluster of Catholic churches, met with Next-Era officials several times in recent weeks as a representative of the Precious Blood Society. NextEra had unsuccessfully sought to lease land from St. Charles Center in Carthagena – a facility owned by the Precious Blood, he said.

“Our role as the Precious Blood community was to be neutral,” Hemm said, adding the organization supports alternative energy ideas. “We listened and heard excellent reasons from both sides.”
Hemm said his hope all along was that community members embraced the moral values embedded in their heritage.

“I wanted to be sure the values represented by those crosses – mutual respect and a willingness to listen – were being lived by the community,” he said.

NextEra representatives said they haven’t given up hope on establishing their own roots here.

“We wouldn’t be in Mercer County if we didn’t think there was an opportunity here,” Stengel said.

Although happy about the move, Niekamp is skeptical. Mel Haas of DeKalb County, Ill., said a nearly identical situation occurred in his agricultural area nearly eight years ago – and the turbines were still built.
“They came here in 2002-2003 and told us if the community didn’t want this, they would move on,” and they did, Haas said in a phone interview this morning.

However, NextEra officials returned and in January 2010 began operating a wind farm with 126 turbines – many of which surround his rural home in Shabbona.

Haas said he has a message for the people in Mercer County: “Watch your back. Stay vigilant on this issue.”

Stengel confirmed Haas’ version of the company’s actions, but said the company “re-engaged” and ultimately built the wind farm in a different location within the county after market conditions improved.

UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY: Note from the BPWI Research Nerd--

It's been three years since the 86 turbine Invenergy wind project went on line near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin.

Today, March 3, marks the third anniversary of the activation of Invenergy's 400 foot tall turbine #4.

The Public Service Commission allowed Invenergy to erect a turbine that is forty stories tall weighing more than 250 tons less than 1600 feet from a home belonging to the Meyer Family.

(Note: The PSC also permitted Invenergy to site these same turbines as close as 1000 feet from non-participating homes in this project)

Gerry Meyer began keeping a noise diary three years ago. Here's how it begins:

March 3, 2008
Turbine #4 turning slow for the first time. 10:00 pm I went out to check the fire and I looked up in the sky to try and see the jet flying over. It was not a jet, but the turbine.

March 6, 2008
Same sound as Wednesday the 3rd of March

March 7, 2008
Turbine sound. Our 13 year old son, complained of a headache. He had not been told headaches being one of the side effects of turbine noise. My wife and I were concerned about how the turbine noise would affect him. He has become our son via social services with many problems. His ears are like that of Radar on MASH. He hears sounds before we do, such as fire department sirens. 

Three Years have passed.

Here is a recent e-mail from Gerry Meyer

February 11 2011– 5:40AM. We went to bed last night at 10:20PM.

This was the worst night of sleep since the turbines went up almost 3 years ago.

I was woke up at 11:38. Even on bad nights I usually get 2 or 3 hours of sleep before being woke up. I was woke up every hour after that. I thought I would remember the other times but I can’t remember them this morning. At one of the wake ups I had a head ache--  At 5:38AM I was woke up to the thumping sound of the turbines and could no longer sleep. It is Sunday morning. It would be nice to sleep a little later, but it is not possible. I am so angry as I type this my fingers are shaking. 

Video below, filmed by Gerry Meyer: 

Turbine #4 is the closest one to the house but there are many others. Click on the video below to see them and hear what Gerry Meyer has to say about living in the wind project.

Better Plan posted the following in 2008: Excerpts from Gerry Meyer's turbine noise diary

   GOT TURBINE NOISE? 

Today we feature the first entries of a noise log kept by a Brownsville family who live 3/4 miles east of South Byron in Fond Du Lac County, Wisconsin.

The new wind turbines have just gone on line there. They aren't the only family we've heard are having turbine troubles. We've heard from several. Children seem to be especially affected by noise and headaches.

If you are having problems with turbines it's important you start a day to day diary right away so you will have a record of what is happening to you. And please let us know how you are doing!

The Diary Begins:

Our family lives on County Road Y in Brownsville, Wisconsin, which is about ¾ of mile east of South Byron. 

Turbine # 4 is 1560 feet behind my house.

Turbine # 3a is about 500 feet mostly east and a little north of turbine #4.

Turbine #6 is about ¾ of mile to the northwest of our home.

Across the road, mostly south and slightly west is turbine #73 at a distance of 2480 feet.

Down the hill to the west is turbine #74a which is about ¾ of a mile away.

We can hear all five of these turbines at various times.

The following is a log of our experiences with wind turbine noise

March 3, 2008
Turbine #4 turning slow for the first time. 10:00 pm I went out to check the fire and I looked up in the sky to try and see the jet flying over. It was not a jet, but the turbine.

March 6, 2008
Same sound as Wednesday the 3rd of March

March 7, 2008
Turbine sound. Our 13 year old son, complained of a headache. He had not been told headaches being one of the side effects of turbine noise. My wife and I were concerned about how the turbine noise would affect him. He has become our son via social services with many problems. His ears are like that of Radar on MASH. He hears sounds before we do, such as fire department sirens.

March 8, 2008
Saturday AM. Loudest so far. Like jet in sky with whoosh to it. I have not written every day. That does not mean the turbine sound is not there. I feel we may never have peace and quiet ever again. We can only hope there are days with no breeze.

March 10, 2008
5pm. Sounds like a high flying jet. 10pm Low flying jet. At 10pm loudest I have heard it. My son still has headache.

March 18, 2008
#4 not turning but could hear whose of #6. We could hear the turbines daily so if there is no record that does not mean there was no sound.

March 25, 2008
Could hear whoosh of #3a. #4 not turning at 4:45 PM. At 5:30PM #6 turning with jet sound of whoosh of turning blades.
Our son is a foster child we adopted. He has lots of issues which are mostly behavior but also include mental problems. If we just stopped by to talk and you interacted with him you would not know, but tick him off and you would see it. He is like Radar on MASH in that he usually hears sirens before we do. My wife was concerned about his health when talk began about turbines and then we received information about health issues. Our son does not know about the health issues from us or from anyone talking about them.
        Soon after #4 began turning he had a bad headache. It lasted about four days or he mentioned them for four days. At school there is a complicated way to help him try and behave and do his schoolwork. He does not focus and is angered easily. So there is a level system with level 4 being the best and in level 1 he is in solitary confinement and cannot go to his regular classes. Level 3 he is in the special ed. Room with other students. Level 2 he is in the special ed room but kept from other students. For about two weeks he did well and stayed at level 4. After the turbine began turning  and the headaches he has now gone to level 1. I should also say he can only go up or down one level in a day. Since Wednesday he has told teachers and the principal and us that his head is spinning and in some cases he tells us that his head is spinning 100 miles an hour. I would guess it has a connection to his behavior at school. Sometimes we can hear the turbine while in our house.

March 26, 2008
#4, #3a & #6 running. Can distinguish between #3a and #4 jet sound whoosh.

March 27, 2008
Fairly quiet

March 28, 2008
Not much wind. Slow turn. Not much noise.

March 29, 2008
Wind from SE. Jet sound with only slight Wind.

March 30, 2008
Turbines around us not running much.

March 31, 2008
6AM Jet sound. 10PM fog, drizzle. Woosh sound.

April 1, 2008
Wind NW 14 mph. 6:15AM #4 not running. I hear #6 with jet sound.
 2:30 PM tower #6 still very loud.

April 2, 2008
6AM. Wind from the SW. #4 jet sound. Now hearing #73 and #74a as the have come on line. In the afternoon #74 is louder than #73.

April 3, 2008
6AM Some sound from #4

April 4, 2008
6AM #4 turning slow, no wind. 11PM #4 and 73 loud and sound like jet going over

April 5, 2008
Our son could not sleep and was up at 1:30 AM. I sent him back to bed and went to our family room in the north end of the house. I could hear turbine #6 from inside the house. Remember that turbine is ¾ of a mile from our house. I turned on the TV (low sound) and could still hear the turbine.
7:30 AM Definitely that jet sound from #4.
Can also hear #’s 3a, 6 and 73. I had a brief unusual feeling in my head somewhat like when one gets off a roller coaster. This was around 11:00AM. This is the loudest the sound has been since March 5th. At 11pm still that jet sound.

April 6, 2008
6-6:15 AM. Wind from the South. Turbine #’s 4, 6, 73, 74a all turning. Jet sound as soon as I went out the house door. 9AM #’s 6 &73 loudest. 10PM #4 quite loud. Saturday has been the worst day so far.

April 7, 2008
5:30 AM Can hear the turbines easy.
10:00 PM Quietest in 3 days

April 8, 2008
Drizzle and not many turbines turning at 10PM. #4 some sound

April 9, 2008
My wife told me she had a headache Friday through Monday with turbines turning. She had no headache Tuesday. Turbine was not turning. This morning she told me she has a headache and asked me if the turbine is turning. Yes it is.

April 10, 2008
Fairly quiet today.

April 11, 2008
6AM Could hear the woosh but turbines were hidden in fog. 3:00 PM Loud, jet sound with strong south wind.

April 12, 2008
7:00 AM #4 Jet sound with whoosh sound. At breakfast I asked my son if he could hear the turbines in the house. “Yes, and I hear them in my room,” he said, “Some nights I can’t sleep” His room is upstairs in the SW corner of the house. As I sit below his room (inside the house) I can hear the turbine.

Here's Better Plan's post from last year at this time, when the Meyer's had been living with the turbines for two yearS.

What's it like to live in the 86 turbine Invenergy Forward Energy wind project?

Here are two recent notes to Better Plan from the Meyer Family. They are residents of the Invenergy Forward Energy wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac county. 

Since the turbines went online near their home two years ago, they have had trouble sleeping, increased blood pressure, ringing and crackling in the ears and headaches. Cheryl has been taking sleeping medication, something she never needed before the turbines started up.

The closest turbine to their home is less than 1600 feet.

From Cheryl Meyer

March 8, 2010

"The turbines are so loud that our dog, Trigger, goes to the backroom window and barks at them.

It sounds like a snowplow driving around the house full bore with its blade down.

I find it interesting the last few days that when I go out with the dog he goes so far down the sidewalk and then turns and looks north to the turbine. He stares at it a few seconds and then moves on.

 But they have been usually loud the last two days. Just thought I would let you know.  

 Cheryl

March 9, 2010

From Gerry Meyer:

Cheryl has a really bad headache.

 She has tried Imatrex or the shot three times in three days, so today went to the Doctor....

The message Cheryl wrote you was when I was in LA. I remember her telling me that the turbines sounded like snow plow coming through the house.

You could add that Trigger barked because that is what he does when a vehicle comes in the driveway. The turbine was so loud he thought a plow was in the driveway.

Gerry

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

On February 18th, I spent another night in the Meyer home to get a better idea of what they are living with and was kept up well past three in the morning by a thumping from the turbines that seemed to come from all directions.

The only thing I can compare it to is the bass sound you hear coming from a car with powerful speakers. You feel the noise as well as hear it. It was impossible to sleep until it finally stopped.

The typical turbine jet sounds and whooshing were louder outdoors than indoors, but the low thumping was penetrating and much louder inside the home than outside the home. This was especially so on the second floor.

The Meyer family home is a typical wood framed old farm house found throughout rural Wisconsin. The Meyer's young son often goes to bed with two radios playing, one on either side of his head to counteract the turbine noise.

VIDEO SOURCE wivb.com

Second Feature:

WHO CAN COMPLAIN AND HOW?

PLANNERS STUDY WIND TURBINE ISSUES

SOURCE: Ludington Daily News

March 3, 2011

By Jennifer Linn Hartley

How many complaints a person or a household should be able to lodge cost-free against wind turbines and how those complaints would be dealt with were among the topics the Mason County planning commissioners discussed Wednesday night.

Planning commissioners continued to pore over potential changes to the Mason County Zoning Ordinance in regards to wind turbines Wednesday at the Mason-Lake ISD building, a new location for planning commission meeting due to an anticipated large crowd. More than 75 people attended.

Late last year a group of concerned residents proposed an amendment to the ordinance, requesting more stringent rules for wind turbines in the county.

Consumers Energy has proposed 56 476-foot tall wind turbines in Riverton and Summit townships.

As the Mason County Zoning Ordinance is written now, a complainant must pay for the complaint, and if the wind turbine owner is found to be in violation, then the turbine owner pays and the complainant is reimbursed. The system is designed to guard against nuisance complaints.

Commissioners Wednesday discussed whether the complainant should have to pay to submit a complaint, and, if not, how many complaints each person or household should be allowed.

“The complainant out there shouldn’t have to pay,” said Commissioner Bruce Patterson. “It shouldn’t be up to the person who lives out there in that area to have to pay for the complaint. That’s just wrong.”

Commissioners discussed allowing three complaints from one household before a complainant has to pay. If, on the fourth complaint, the turbine is found to be out of compliance, then the turbine owner pays.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Click on the image below to see members of the wind siting council dismiss safety concerns while creating setback guidelines for Wisconsin.

Yesterday, a joint committee that reviews administrative rules suspended the wind rules created by the PSC "on the basis of testimony it received at its February 9, 2011" and on the grounds that the PSC rules "create an emergency relating to public health, safety or welfare"  and are "arbitrary and capricious" and "impose undue hardship on landowners and residents adjacent to wind turbine sites."

 CLICK on image below to watch TV report on the rule suspention SOURCE: FOX 11 NEWS

STATE LAWMAKERS DENY PROPOSAL FOR NEW WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS

SOURCE: The Badger Herald, badgerherald.com

March 1, 2011

By Maggie Sams,

“The purpose of this hearing was not about whether wind is effective but whether this rule by the PSC was reasonable or not.

We are trying to balance the needs of industry workers and health-concerned citizens,” JCRAR co-chair Rep. Jim Ott, R-Mequon, said.

“The biggest issue we heard came from testifiers at the hearing that 1,250 ft. is too close and will result in shadow flicker and noise issues.

The health issue from testimony was the determining factor in my vote.”

To the dismay of wind energy advocates, a state legislative committee suspended enacting a rule that would have implemented statewide wind energy production regulations.

The rule would have standardized regulations concerning the construction of wind turbines in the state of Wisconsin. It also included regulations to address issues like noise level and shadow flicker.

Another part of the rule would mandate setback distances between turbines and adjacent, non-participatory properties to equal three times the maximum length of the turbine blade — roughly 1,250 feet. Turbines would only have to be one blade length away from the property hosting it.

Republicans on the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules said they voted against the rule in the interest of citizen health and well-being.

“The purpose of this hearing was not about whether wind is effective but whether this rule by the PSC was reasonable or not. We are trying to balance the needs of industry workers and health-concerned citizens,” JCRAR co-chair Rep. Jim Ott, R-Mequon, said. “The biggest issue we heard came from testifiers at the hearing that 1,250 ft. is too close and will result in shadow flicker and noise issues. The health issue from testimony was the determining factor in my vote.”

Although the vote to suspend the wind-siting rule pleased many homeowners living near turbines, it upset wind energy activists. Those who were in support of the rule believed it would have provided a boom to the economy and help create jobs.

“Creating uniform regulations for the state of Wisconsin would have brought hundreds, if not thousands, of job opportunities to the state,” Clean Wisconsin Program Director Amber Meyer Smith said. “With the return to local regulation we have jeopardized at least eleven prospective clean energy projects.”

Not only did advocates claim Wisconsin would lose jobs, but many also said they feared Wisconsin’s wind industry would move to surrounding states.

Rep. Gary Hebl, D-Sun Prairie, echoed concerns that the committee’s vote to suspend the rule was a major setback for the wind industry.

“We have developers of alternative energy — in this case wind — that have been given a kick to the gut. These folks who were going to create jobs are now going to have to go to different states,” Hebl said. “Not only would this have created hundreds of jobs, they would have been green jobs. It would have been a win-win.”

The rule would have become effective March 1, but the JCRAR chose to have another hearing to suspend the wind-siting rule after a long and passionate hearing on the rule Feb. 9.

“We heard nearly nine hours of testimony during February’s hearing,” Ott said. “Based on the testimony — some pro and a lot of con — we decided to hold a motion to suspend the rule. This is a situation where the legislature is exercising its oversight of a public agency.”

The committee voted 5-2 along party lines. The committee normally has ten voting members, but two of the 14 Democratic senators in Illinois to prevent a vote on the budget repair bill did not attend, and one Republican was on leave for unknown reasons.

COMMITTEE SUSPENDS RULE GOVERNING PLACEMENT OF WIND TURBINES

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

March 1, 2011

By Thomas Content

A legislative committee voted Tuesday to suspend rules adopted by the state Public Service Commission last year regarding the placement of wind turbines.

The 5-2 vote by the joint committee that reviews administrative rules means there are now no statewide standards in place governing setbacks – the minimum distance between a turbine and a nearby home – and other permitting requirements for wind turbines on small wind projects.

In a debate that has pitted economic development opportunity against concerns about property rights, wind energy supporters argued in favor of the rule while critics of wind power projects contended it was not restrictive enough.

The PSC rule, finalized in December, would have taken effect Tuesday if the vote had failed.

Jennifer Giegerich of the League of Conservation Voters expressed disappointment with the vote, saying it sends the wrong message on job creation at a time when the wind components industry in the state has been expanding.

“Now we’re back to where we were two years ago when wind developers said Wisconsin was an unfriendly place to build,” she said.

The full Legislature must follow up on the committee’s vote by passing a bill to throw out the PSC rule. A bill under consideration would send the matter back to the PSC for revision, giving the agency seven months to complete that work, said Scott Grosz, a state Legislative Council attorney.

Sen. Leah Vukmir (R-Wauwatosa) said the PSC rule was tantamount to “a government-sanctioned taking because it reduced the value of property for nonparticipating landowners without their consent and without compensation.”

But Rep. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) said all energy choices are controversial, including coal, and it’s important for the state to support wind energy.

“This is the next generation of technology,” he said. “Why would we not be supporting this when they say if you suspend these rules they’ll just go to another state.”

The American Wind Energy Association said the PSC rule was restrictive enough, given that it set specific noise limits and restrictions on shadow flicker in addition to turbine distance setbacks.

“These rules were developed collaboratively by the wind energy industry and all major stakeholders in Wisconsin, based on input from six public hearings and two years of information gathering, to protect the interests of all involved parties,” said Jeff Anthony, director of business development at the American Wind Energy Association and a Wisconsin resident.

But Bob Welch, a lobbyist for the Coalition for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship, which represents groups that have been fighting wind projects, said his constituents need a “fair hearing” at the PSC. “As far as those who want to build wind turbines in Wisconsin, all they’ve got to do is treat their neighbors fairly,” Welch said. “Property rights need to be protected.”

SECOND FEATURE:

WHY AREN'T LACKAWANNA WINDMILLS TURNING?

SOURCE: wivb.com

 March 1 2011,

George Richert, 

LACKAWANNA, N.Y. (WIVB) – Have you noticed many of the new windmills along Route 5 are not working?

This isn’t the first time they’ve had mechanical problems, and we managed to dig up some hard numbers on just how much electricity they actually are generating.

In its first year, Steelwinds had to replace all of the gear boxes in the eight turbines. The next year, the blades had to be fixed. And for this entire winter, only half of the Lackawanna windmills have been working at any given time.

So we did some research to see just how much electricity these turbines have actually been producing. According to the numbers filed with the NY Independent System Operator, the eight Lackawanna windmills averaged about 40 Megawatt hours of electricity per year in 2008 and 2009. That’s enough to power almost 6,000 homes, and works out to about 23 percent of its capacity. 100 percent would only be achieved in a constant wind, with turbines that never needed maintenance, so 30 percent is the average capacity for a wind farm.

The bottom line is Steelwinds is putting out less electricity than an average wind farm, partly because of mechanical problems, but it has no effect what Lackawanna gets.

Mayor Norman Polanski said, “We still get our money from them, our $100,000 a year. Uh, but people call about them all the time, they want to know what’s going on.”

At the going rate for electricity, Steelwinds is still making over $2 million a year for the electricity it is generating. On top of that, its investors get an extra two cents a kilowatt for going green. So the investors that helped pay a million bucks to build each one of these turbines get $800,000 every year in federal tax credits.

Steelwinds has plans to build six more, but the company just notified Erie County that plans have been “delayed for several months” until next December because of “delays in completing all of the PILOT agreements, and other circumstances beyond Erie Wind’s control.” You can read the full letter here.

We reached the project manager and a Steelwinds spokesman weeks ago about this story, but they had no comment about any of it.

UPDATE: John Lamontagne of First Wind contacted News 4 Tuesday night with this explanation: “The turbines are currently down due to composite work being completed in the towers. Given the scope of work being done and the the harsh winter conditions, there has been a delay in returning the turbines to service. We expect the turbines to return to service in the near future.”

NEXT FEATURE:

 WIND SHORTFALLS MAKE GRID GUYS NERVOUS

Source: energyBiz: For Leaders in the Global Power Industry

March 2, 2011

By Ken Silverstein

When it comes to integrating wind into the transmission lines, system operators say that they are challenged. While they understand and appreciate the reasoning, they are saying that the networks lack the flexibility to handle wind variation. 

Green energy has a lot of public appeal. But the intermittent nature of wind and solar power coupled with the relatively higher costs put the grid’s traffic cops in an untenable position. Those are the fellows whose job it is to schedule the resources to where they need to be so that the electricity keeps flowing. Their task is to maintain that reliability with the lowest-priced fuels. 
 
“We have to be truthful about what the impact will be,” says Jim Detmers, principal in Power Systems Resources and the former chief operating officer of the California ISO. “The devil is in the details. These new embedded costs will be significant.” Better communication with policymakers is essential. 

In the case of California, it now has 3,000 megawatts of wind. In a few years, that will be 7,000 megawatts. A few years later, it will be 10,000 megawatts. By 2020, the goal is to have 33 percent of electricity generated from renewable energy. “That’s making grid operators nervous,” says Detmers, who spoke at Wartsila’s <http://www.wartsila.com/en_US/about-us/overview>  Flexible Power Symposium in Vail, Colo. 
 
Simply, the wind does not blow on demand. Ditto for the sun. So these resources must be backed up with other, “dispatchable” forms of generation. But such “firming” or “cycling” creates two distinct issues: The first is that the power is not free and the second is that if coal plants are “cycled” up and down, they release more pollutants per unit of output than if they ran full steam ahead. 

No doubt, the price of wind and solar energy is falling while their productivity rates are increasing. But the technologies still have a ways to go. 

“If you are a grid operator, you must be dispassionate and follow the engineering,” says David O’Brien, former head of the Vermont’s Department of Public Service and now a consultant for Bridge Energy Group, during a phone call. “The best thing they can do is to provide the data to their stakeholders and to be an honest broker. But they have to ultimately accept the policy mandates.”

Public Demands
 
According to Steve Lefton, director of Intertek Aptek who also spoke at the Wartsila conference, those base-load coal units developed decades ago were never designed to firm-up wind generation. They were made to run at full capacity. So when they are used as such, they create excess emissions. 
 
As wind energy increases its market share, thermal plants can be expected to rev up and down more often. If coal is the main fuel source that is dispatched, it will decrease the emissions savings from wind. 
 
“The actual emissions reduction rates from wind are far less than what the lobbyists are touting,” if system operators do not have the flexibility to use cleaner backup fuels, says Brannin McBee, energy analyst for Bentek Energy <http://www.bentekenergy.com/> , a speaker at the conference. “Thermal plant cycling is also very expensive,” particularly if the older coal plants are used to firm up the wind generation. 
 
With the public demands to increase green energy growing, what might be an optimal firming fuel? The answer could be natural gas. Regulators tend to favor it because it releases far fewer emissions than coal while the price is expected to remain low at $4-$7 per million BTUs. 
 
Coal facilities without carbon capture and sequestration cannot get the permits to operate, says Doug Egan, chief executive of Competitive Power Ventures. And if the plants are built with such capacity they are too costly. Even those with coal gasification that nearly eliminate the sulfur, nitrogen oxide and mercury but which don’t capture and bury the carbon are prohibitively expensive, he adds. 
 
In recent years, developers have abandoned their plans to build 38 coal plants, says the Sierra Club <http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2010/12/this-year-the-outlook-dimmed-for-coal.html> . Meanwhile, it says that 48 more can be expected to be retired. 
 
Natural gas is the most plausible option to firm up wind and solar. More than enough of it exists with the recent discoveries of shale gas, the unconventional source that is extracted from rocks more than a mile beneath the ground using hydraulic fracturing. That withdrawal technique, though, is under fire from some community organizations that say it is polluting their drinking water. 
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants developers to voluntarily disclose the chemicals they are using as a way to ease tensions. Producers are balking for now, saying its exploratory methods are proprietary. 

“Fracking can be dealt with,” says Egan. “Producers will share their secret sauce. It will make it the process slightly less efficient. But a deal with get cut.” 
 
Managing a grid and keeping the lights on is difficult. Green energy’s role will increase but so too will the challenges associated with delivering it -- facts that must be relayed to policymakers and customers alike. Older coal plants present the most issues but the newer gas-fired generation may be more accommodating.

From the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules:

(Emphasis ours)

Motion on

Ch. PSC 128

That the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules suspend Ch. PSC 128, pursuant to s. 227.26 (2) (d), Stats., effective March 1, 2011, on the basis of testimony received at its February 9, 2011 meeting, and on the grounds that the contents of Ch. PSC 128 create an emergency relating to public health, safety, or welfare; are arbitrary and capricious; and impose an undue hardship on landowners and residents adjacent to wind turbine sites as stated in s. 227.19 (4) (d) 2 and 6.  

COMMITTEE VOTES TO SUSPEND WIND-SITING RULES
SOURCE: WisBusiness.com

March 1, 2011

By Andy Szal

The Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules this morning voted to suspend wind turbine siting regs that were set to take effect today.

The committee voted 5-2 along party lines to suspend PSC rule 128 and now has 30 days to submit a bill repealing the measure to the full Legislature.

Rep. Gary Hebl, D-Sun Prairie, accused the majority of going around the normal legislative process and flip-flopping, since a number of Republicans supported the wind siting bill last session.

"This wasn't a flash in the pan, fly by night rule," Hebl said.

Sen. Leah Vukmir, R-Wauwatosa and the committee co-chair, said the committee had a duty to reconsider the PSC rule after lawmakers voiced concerns about the issue early in the new session. Rep. Dan LeMahieu, R-Cascade, added, "We didn't vote for the rule. We voted to give them the authority to promulgate a rule."

Rep. Fred Kessler, D-Milwaukee, said the bill would have a particularly detrimental effect on the wind turbine industry in Manitowoc.

"These jobs probably will go to other states," Kessler said.

SECOND FEATURE: Different state, same story: The trouble with wind turbines sited too close to homes. Above, shadow flicker in the home of an Illinois family, below stories from more families having trouble.

WIND FARM COMPLAINTS

Source: KWQC-TV6

March 1, 2011

"As the sun comes across the sky, it hits the turbine blades and causes this flicker," she said.

Nearby homeowners say it can go on for hours. "When it first happened, we felt there was something wrong with the electricity because it felt like every light was blinking,"said Barb Draper.

People crowded a meeting in Princeton, Illinois Monday night to express their concerns about wind farms. Residents packed into a meeting with the Bureau County Board of Appeals. Some want to put a stop to the proposed Walnut Ridge wind project. It would build 150 turbines over more than 15,000 acres and affect more than 75 landowners.

Others at the meeting are already surrounded by wind turbines from the Big Sky wind farm. They want the county and the companies to focus on issues caused by the current turbines. They complain that the turbines are noisy, cast flickering shadows that can cause seizures and even block television reception.

The Anderson family in rural Ohio, Illinois says it has turned their quality of life and turned it into living in an industrial park. THe nearest wind turbine is 1,750 feet from their home. Deb Anderson says ever since the turbines started running, their life hasn't been the same.

"As the sun comes across the sky, it hits the turbine blades and causes this flicker," she said.

Nearby homeowners say it can go on for hours. "When it first happened, we felt there was something wrong with the electricity because it felt like every light was blinking,"said Barb Draper.

"On, off, on, off as the blade caught the sun it made a very disturbing motion. It almost made you sick to your stomach." added Bob Draper.

Another problem that came up after the turbines were turned on is with their TV reception. The family says it varies, depending on the direction of the blades. Some days, the family gets 15-20 channels. During our visit, they could only get in two.

On top of that there's the noise that won't go away. These property owners say they understand the benefits of the wind farms. But they'd like the problems fixed before more wind turbines come into the area.

The wind power company has put up two antennas on their house, but the family says they didn't help. They company also offered them money to buy a better delivery system, like satellite TV.

Ryan Light in the Director of Renewable Energy for the Eastern Iowa Community College District. He says those are some of the drawbacks for people living near large wind farms.

"One effect we need to look at a little harder into is the flicker effect, which is the spinning of blades and shadow cast. For people with certain medical concerns it can cause seizures," Light said.

He says there are companies working to alleviate the radio interference with a new kind of blade and there is more research being conducted on noise reduction systems.

SPLIT DECISION FINDS WE ENERGIES DIDN'T EARN TOO MUCH

SOURCE: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

March 1, 2011

By Thomas Content

In a 2-to-1 vote, state regulators ruled Thursday that We Energies won’t have to issue credits to its 1.1 million electricity customers for profit it earned in 2008 and 2009.

Commissioner Lauren Azar sided with customer groups that had called for the commission to vote to return money to customers, saying the commission should decided that the utility earned more than its maximum profit allowed the regulated utility – 10.75% in 2008 and 2009.

But commissioners Eric Callisto and Mark Meyer voted not to require any profits to be returned to customers. Meyer said it was inconsistent for the commission to be seeking to return profits to customers when a utility earns above its maximum profit level since the commission does not allow utilities to raise rates when utilities fail to earn as much in a given year as the profit level, or return on equity, set by the commission.

Over the past 10 years, utilities have more often earned less than their return on equity, Meyer said.

The debate at Thursday's meeting ended up boiling down to how Callisto and Azar interpreted whether management bonuses paid to utility executives should be included in the calculation of a utility’s profit.

Callisto said the commission specifically excludes management bonuses and incentive pay from being collected in utility rates and that the commission staff will be conducting an investigation of utility bonuses in upcoming rate cases.

He said his position in this case was consistent with how the commission interpreted the issue in setting new rules for how utilities can raise rates when fuel prices climb.

Azar, who wanted the issue of bonuses addressed in the new fuel rules last year, said she has not changed her view. She said she considered utility bonuses too high for a regulated utility, given the state of the economy, high poverty rates in the We Energies service territory. The utility's "shareholders are doing quite well," she said.

In filings with the commission, We Energies had argued that the commission was shifting from utility regulator to utility micro-manager if it adopted the proposal of Azar and customer groups. The utility also argued that the commission has not had a consistent definition for utilities to determine what would and would not be included in a PSC calculation of whether a utility earned too much profit.

Callisto agreed. The issue came up in one prior case – in which the commission also ruled in We Energies’ favor – but the commission’s guidance to utilities on this issue has been “ephemeral.”

An analysis by We Energies prepared last week indicated that the utility could have been required to return $53 million to customers. Based on the majority decision Thursday, the commission determined that the utility earned profit of 10.36% in 2008 and 10.52% in 2009, below the 10.75% profit allowed by the PSC.

That means the utility $25.7 million less than the maximum, according to the filing.

Third Feature

FALMOUTH OFFERS PARTIAL TURBINE SHUTDOWN

SOURCE: Cape Cod Times, www.capecodonline.com

March 1, 2011

By Aaron Gouveia,

FALMOUTH — Falmouth officials have offered to turn off the town’s wind turbine for three hours a day, following noise complaints from neighbors.

Acting Town Manager Heather Harper proposed the partial overnight shutdown, calling the offer a “good faith effort toward a mutual resolution of the matter.”

After tracking complaints regarding the 1.65-megawatt turbine off Blacksmith Shop Road, known as Wind I, town officials found residents are most affected during periods of high winds in the late evening and early morning hours, Harper wrote in a Feb. 23 letter.

“We intend to modify the operation of the machine between the hours of midnight and 3 a.m., the times at which the background noise may be lower than the sound emanating from our wind energy equipment,” Harper wrote.

Details of the town’s offer are still unclear, however. Harper’s letter did not specify whether the turbine would be turned off for three hours every night or only during periods of high winds.

When approached by a Times reporter prior to Monday’s selectmen’s meeting, Harper said she did not know the answer and was unable to provide one before the start of the meeting. The meeting was still in progress as of the Times’ deadline.

But Gerald Potamis, the town’s wastewater superintendent who oversees operation of Wind I, said the change will go into effect as soon as the turbine manufacturer, Vestas, sends a technician to reprogram the turbine.

The shutdown is an “interim solution” until town officials and neighbors can work out a permanent solution, Potamis said.

But Christopher Senie, an attorney representing 18 residents who claim they are adversely affected by turbine noise, vibrations and shadow flicker, has said the town’s offer is not good enough.

Senie, who was not available for comment Monday, penned a Feb. 25 letter that stated this is the second time in four months Harper has made the offer to his clients.

Senie called the three-hour reprieve “wholly inadequate” in his letter, and wrote the suffering of neighbors “will not be lessened in any meaningful way.”

The only acceptable interim solution, he wrote, is to shut off Wind I whenever wind speeds reach 23 mph. It is a proposal Harper has repeatedly rejected, according to Senie’s letter.

“This is the only meaningful way to provide my clients some relief while the ultimate solution is developed and implemented,” Senie wrote.

Todd Drummey, who lives approximately 3,000 feet from Wind I, said the town’s offer “completely misses the point” because it assumes residents will be satisfied with three hours of sleep every night.

“It’s the same offer from back in October,” Drummey said. “It was ridiculous then and it’s ridiculous now.”

The ultimate goal, according to Senie and his clients, is to convince the town it was wrong not to require a special permit before the turbine became operational.

Building Commissioner Eladio Gore deemed the turbine a municipal use, and cited zoning bylaws that exempt “all municipal uses” from the special permit process. Senie, on the other hand, cited another local bylaw specifically pertaining to windmills, that requires a special permit in all instances.

Last month, three members of the zoning board of appeals said Gore made a mistake in interpreting the bylaws. But the appeal failed because two ZBA members recused themselves, meaning a 4-0 vote was necessary to uphold the appeal.

But the neighbors are still hopeful because selectmen — acting as the owners of the turbine — can request a special permit at any time.

To that end, several neighbors showed up at Monday’s meeting hoping to persuade selectmen to start the special permit process, which will give neighbors a chance to negotiate some potential compromises. But they were not on the agenda, and as of 9:30 p.m. it was unclear whether they would be allowed to speak.

NEXT FEATURE:

WOLFE ISLAND WIND PLANT STILL HARMING BIRDS IN IMPORTANT BIRD AREA

SOURCE: Nature Canada, www.naturecanada.ca

Last May, Nature Canada’s Ted Cheskey blogged about a report that described how birds and bats have been affected by the TransAlta wind plant on Wolfe Island, a globally significant Important Bird Area in southern Ontario known for its waterfowl, raptors and swallows. He called the numbers of birds and bats being killed by TransAlta’s turbines “shockingly high,” indeed the highest recorded in Canada and one of the highest in North America.

However, since the report only studied a six month period, TransAlta’s spokespeople argued that it was premature to reach conclusions so soon, especially when comparing the Wolfe Island deaths to yearly casualty rates for other wind plants. Besides, TransAlta reasoned, the results appeared to be within the thresholds of acceptable limits set by provincial and federal government regulators.

Then last month, Stantec Consulting, the firm that produced the original report, released its report on the second half of the year: January 1, 2010 to July 1, 2010.

And the results for birds are troubling.

Wolfe Island: Most Deadly Wind Plant in Canada

Though casualty numbers for birds did not skyrocket in the second sixth month period, a time that included the spring migration, they still were high enough to make the Wolfe Island wind plant the most deadly for birds in Canada.

The 13.4 birds per turbine casualty rate is about 7 times the industry average in Canada according to Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) but below the so-called “adaptive management” threshold for TransAlta facility, as set by various government agencies. That level is 11.7 birds per MW which translates to 21 birds per turbine, which just happens to be the highest level ever recorded at any wind facility in North America (Buffalo Mountain, Tennessee). Using the highest level recorded as the threshold before which any mitigation is even considered seems a bit dubious to say the least.

Estimated and actual numbers of birds killed, proportioned by the species actually found, over the entire 12 month period, paints a disturbing picture:

• Tree Swallow 218 (calculation based on 31 corpses)
• Purple Martin 49 (calculation based on 7 corpses)
• Bobolink 73 (calculation based on 9 corpses)
• Wilson’s Snipe 50 (calculation based on 7 corpses)
• Red-tailed Hawk 10 (actual count)

It is important to note that the calculated numbers are arrived at using Stantec’s formula to calculate total casualty rates. A sample of turbines are visited either weekly or twice a week and a search for bird corpses on the ground beneath the blades is conducted. As the method is not intended as a comprehensive search, determining the casualty rate requires taking in factors like the ability of the search team to find carcasses, the percentage of the area searched and the rate of predation between searches. The 31 Tree Swallow corpses, in other words, represent about 15% of the calculated number of tree swallows killed, based on Stantec’s calculations and field testing.

Birds Most Effected are Already in Serious Decline

While the report and the research behind it appear to be quite solid, the authors contend that the casualty rates are quite sustainable and will not have any effect on the species populations. They do this by contrasting the kill numbers from the turbines with the estimated Ontario population of the most affected species – Tree Swallow, numbering about 400,000 and Bobolink, about 800,000. (They do not do this for Red-tailed Hawk, which in fact may not meet their sustainability criteria). They also contrasted the numbers with estimates of birds killed by other human activities or artifices such as tall buildings, vehicles, cell towers, and pets.

While this argument has gained considerable traction among some in the wind industry and even the scientific community, it fails to consider that the turbines at Wolfe Island are killing different species than the tall buildings, cats and cars. Tree Swallow, Purple Martin, Red-tailed Hawk, Turkey Vulture and Bobolink rarely if ever show up on lists of casualties from tall buildings, and are unlikely victims of cats, with the possible exception of the Bobolink. And vehicle collisions, well – while this is a legitimate concern, Turkey Vultures have arguably had a net benefit from the carnage caused by vehicles.

But it is some of these very species – the ones most likely to be harmed by Wolfe Island’s turbines – that are already experiencing declines.

Take swallows, for example. Most species of swallow have declined significantly in Canada over the past 20 years. Adding additional threats to already stressed populations is not prudent. According to trend data on this species from Breeding Bird Survey routes in Ontario, the Tree Swallow has declined by about 6% annually over the past 20 years, a cumulative decline of almost 80%! In other words, the current estimated population of 400,000, was 2 million only 20 years ago. Bobolink, recently added to COSEWIC’s list of threatened species, declined 4.1% over the same period. We should not trivialize the impact of removing dozens, or hundreds of individuals from a population of species that are clearly in trouble.

In the meantime, good documentation of the impacts is essential. While TransAlta had to deliver these studies – they were a condition of the wind project’s approval – the company and Stantec should be recognized for doing good work. Once one takes the spin out of the document, the data and the methodologies are solid. The quality of the monitoring appears to be high, and some weaknesses, such as a potential bias to undercount the number of raptor fatalities, are recognized in the report.

With regard to birds of prey, even if they were not undercounted, the number of casualties is excessively high at .27 per turbine. This was the highest recorded rate for raptor kills outside of California. The victims included:

• 10 Red-tailed Hawks,
• 1 Northern Harrier,
• 1 Osprey,
• 2 American Kestrel,
• 1 Merlin
• 8 Turkey Vulture

This number crossed the “notification threshold” for the project, meaning that the CWS and MNR were notified about the high rates. The report states that TransAlta and MNR have initiated discussions regarding “adaptive management” in response to the raptor deaths. We look forward to hearing what the response might be.

Next Steps to Reduce Bird Deaths

With the plant already in operation, the only option now is to mitigate the risk to wildlife perhaps by slowing down the blades of the turbines at hazardous moments of the year, or turning them off. However, unless the numbers of casualties increase even further in the next two years, it is unclear how far the threshold must be exceeded and how often, before mitigation is implemented. It is reported in the document that four notifications were made by the company to the government for raptors alone, yet none appears to have led to mitigation.

Today, several wind farms are being proposed around the eastern end of Lake Ontario, the most worrying being Gilead’s Ostrander Point wind farm. Ostrander Point is an area that is arguably even more significant for birds than Wolfe Island, because of its specific geography. Ironically, the land on which the Gilead project is being proposed is owned by the Province of Ontario – a Crown forest block.

Opposition to turbines in agricultural areas appears to have persuaded government officials to meet their renewable energy agenda by prioritizing “crown lands” as locations for wind energy plants. While this might be appropriate and acceptable for some properties, when a wind plant is located in an area of great significance to wildlife, as is the case with Ostrander Point, so-called green energy ceases to be green at all. The Ontario government needs to think more carefully about where they allow wind turbines. It is not too late for the Province to design a policy that promotes green energy and also protects key biodiversity sites including Important Bird Areas.

Otherwise, as more of these facilities are built in bad places, wind energy will become a significant contributor to the declines of several species that are already in trouble, and the Green Energy Act will be recognized and remembered for all of the wrong reasons.

About Wolfe Island

Wolfe Island, located in the eastern end of Lake Ontario, a shore distance from Kingston, is about 32 kilometres long and about 11 wide in the widest area covering about 12,140 hectares.  The west end of the island is exposed to the westerly winds blowing across much of the length of Lake Ontario.   The island is a mixture of agricultural land under various regimes of management from annual crops to pasture, natural habitats from woodlands and patches of second-growth forest, to grasslands, wetlands and the residences and farms of the Wolfe Islanders.   TransAlta’s 86 turbines tower 80 metres above the farmland, pasture, and grasslands, and are constructed largely on the western side of the islands where the winds are probably the strongest.   The wind plant has a nameplate capacity of 198 Megawatts, but the average output in its first year of operation was only 48 Megawatts, a quarter of the capacity, due to the variability of winds.  This output number appears to be about average for Ontario’s wind industry. 

Wolfe Island is a Globally significant Important Bird Area, (IBA) recognized for its significance for waterfowl primarily, but also for its importance to raptors (birds of prey including hawks and owls) and Tree Swallows.  Being at the eastern end of Lake Ontario, the island’s habitats are also important stop-over destinations for migrating birds and bats.  Nature Canada believes that industrial wind plants should be excluded from IBAs, and other sites that are known to be highly significant for wildlife, particularly birds.   No wind plant, even the notorious Altamont plant in California, has ever, to our knowledge been decommissioned because of impacts on wildlife.   Once these things are built, then are not turned off until they stop working or break down.   For us at Nature Canada, this a strong incentive to encourage provincial policies to exclude wind plants from IBAs and important migratory corridors and fight the few existing proposals within IBAs.   However, the Wolfe Island plant is built and operating, so its impacts on birds and bats will be instructive for other projects being proposed or considered in areas that are significant for birds. 

"On, off, on, off as the blade caught the sun it made a very disturbing motion. It almost made you sick to your stomach." added Bob Draper.