Better Plan, Wisconsin

OUR WIND INDUSTRY VIDEO OF THE DAY:

Click on the image below to watch a happy wind developer talk about his project. Note the lack of homes in this video. Also note the compression of the soil and other side effects of the heavy machinery required during turbine construction. Rock out to the guitars in the background.

OUR REALITY VIDEO OF THE DAY

Life with turbines: Click on the image below to hear the turbine noise from a wind project home in DeKalb, Illinois. Recorded December 17th, 2010

WIND DEVELOPMENT THREATENS ICONIC AMERICAN BIRDS

SOURCE www.salem-news.com

December 29 2010

Safeguards needed to prevent population declines in the Whooping Crane and Greater Sage-Grouse, and reduce mass mortality among eagles and songbirds.

(LOS ANGELES) – Today, American Bird Conservancy announced that three iconic American bird species face especially severe threats from wind energy development.

“Golden Eagles, Whooping Cranes, and Greater Sage-Grouse are likely to be among the birds most affected by poorly planned and sited wind projects,” said Kelly Fuller, Wind Program Coordinator for American Bird Conservancy, the nation’s leading bird conservation organization.

“Unless the government acts now to require that the wind industry respect basic wildlife safeguards, these three species will be at ever greater risk.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) currently estimates that more than 400,000 birds are already being killed each year after being struck by the fast-moving blades of wind turbines.

This figure is expected to rise significantly, and will likely eventually pass the million mark as wind power becomes increasingly ubiquitous under a Department of Energy plan to supply 20% of America’s power through wind by 2030.

Golden Eagles have already been one of the major victims of the largest wind farm in the United States at Altamont Pass in California. The Altamont wind farm was sited in an area that eagles and other raptors use to hunt ground squirrels and other small mammals.

Using the now-outdated towers as perches, thousands of raptors have been killed as they launch out through the spinning turbines towards their prey. While new tower designs have been developed, they don’t completely eliminate the risk.

Much of the additional wind build-out planned for the western U.S. is expected to occur in areas used by Golden Eagles.

A further threat to birds is expected to come from the major transmission line build-out required to service new wind farms. Large birds such as the endangered Whooping Crane can fail to see the wires in time and die after colliding with them. According to a recent FWS report, “The Great Plains states traversed by the Whooping Cranes during their fall and spring migrations are among the windiest states in the nation.

The best places for wind energy development in these states overlap to a large extent the Whooping Crane migration corridor, and many of these areas provide attractive stopover sites. Thus, the potential for impacts to Whooping Cranes from future wind energy development is high.”

The threat to yet more birds comes not from collisions, but from loss of their habitat due to wind farm construction. The Greater Sage-Grouse is already reduced to a tiny fraction of its former range and population size due to degradation of sagebrush habitat in the West.

The proliferation of giant turbines looming over the habitat can cause birds to abandon remaining traditional breeding grounds. The total habitat footprint from wind farms is predicted to exceed 20,000 square miles by 2030, much of it in states such as Wyoming, one of the last remaining sage-grouse strongholds.

While the threat from wind development stands out for these three iconic American birds, it is by no means limited to a small handful of species. More than ten billion birds are estimated to migrate across the country each spring and fall, many at night.

Wind turbines will be an unexpected obstacle to these migrations. Plans to build a wind farm at Canada’s Point Pelee—a migration hotspot on the Great Lakes—were recently shelved due to a public outcry over the expected impact on songbirds, but other wind developments are planned along the U.S. side of the lakes, and in other areas through which migrating birds funnel, with as-yet uncalculated bird impacts.

While Whooping Cranes are protected under the Endangered Species Act and Golden Eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, most migratory birds are only protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which has seldom been enforced to prevent such mortality as is predicted as a result of wind development.

The Greater Sage-Grouse, meanwhile, currently receives no federal legal protection, though several states have stepped up to protect remaining core breeding areas. In the face of increasing wind development, realizing the potential for state agencies to do yet more will be important for this species.

“Without strong standards designed to protect birds through smart siting, technology, and mitigation programs, wind power will soon affect millions of birds. Given the subsidies paid to the wind industry by the government, many of the negative impacts to birds will be unwittingly funded by the American taxpayer,” said Fuller. “We understand the problem and we know the solutions. American Bird Conservancy supports wind energy, and some operators are already working to protect birds, but we need to make all wind power bird smart now before major build out occurs.”

SECOND FEATURE:

HAMMOND WIND PANEL ADOPTS HOME GUARANTEE

 SOURCE The Journal, www.ogd.com 

December 30 2010

By Matt McAllister,

HAMMOND – Is the Hammond Wind Committee nailing the coffin on the town’s chances of hosting an Iberdrola-owned wind farm?

The committee voted 9 to 1 Tuesday evening – with committee member and leaseholder, Michele W. McQueer, casting the lone dissenting vote – to adopt the controversial Residential Property Value Guarantee (RPVG) as a suggestion to the town board.

In a recent letter from Iberdrola Renewables to the committee, Mark Epstein, Esq., senior counsel, wrote, “We believe that if the Committee chooses to pursue the RPVG, it will prevent any development of windpower facilities in Hammond.”

Iberdrola Communications Manager Paul Copleman e-mailed the following statement on Wednesday: “We are disappointed in the Committee’s decision to recommend the Residential Property Value Guarantee in its current form. While we appreciate and welcome the Committee taking a close look at the concerns expressed by some community members, we have explained the significant and potentially prohibitive burden such a RPVG would place on both members of the community and any company wishing to open a business in Hammond.

“We look forward to continuing to work with the Committee, but most likely won’t reach any decision about the project’s viability until Hammond adopts zoning laws governing wind energy.”

The agreement, drafted by Richard K. Champney, committee member and real estate attorney, was reviewed over the past several weeks by all committee members, who offered their suggestions. Many members of the public were also considered, according to Mr. Champney, who said he had received a horde of phone calls and e-mails, none of which offered opposition to his proposal.

After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made by Merritt V. Young and seconded by Ronald R. Papke.

The revised document includes changes in Section 13, “Exclusive option of any residential property owner living within close proximity (two miles) to a wind turbine,” where a property owner has a once in a lifetime right to be reimbursed for his or her real property and five acres surrounding that residence at the then appraised value, if they follow the provisions listed in the document.

These provisions now include:

* Property owner must notify guarantor within 90 days of issuance of an industrial wind farm permit;

* Property owner must have been the legal owner of real property at the time permit was issued;

* Property owner and the guarantor will enter into a 30-day cooling off period where property owner discusses entering into a Good Neighbor Program and if it is not possible, they will continue to complete the agreement application;

* Guarantor will consider relocating wind turbine out of a two-mile radius of the property owner’s residence;

* If property owner and guarantor have not reached agreement within 60 days, the property owner orders a certified property appraisal that can be used as cost replacement value;

* If still no agreement, a second and/or even a third appraisal can be ordered which will then be averaged with the first to determine the final controlling value the property owner will receive as a buyout from the guarantor (wind company). This option cannot be used in conjunction with any future guarantee of the sale of a residence.

In further discussion before moving on to the next issue, there was mention made of a Good Neighbor Agreement that Iberdrola representative, Jenny Burke, had just made available to committee members which was apparently offered as an alternative to the RPVG.

Good Neighbor Agreements are made between non-participating land owners in the vicinity of wind turbines and the wind company, according to Ms. Burke, and can involve either monthly or annual payments in exchange for closer proximity. In response to a question from committee member, Frederick Proven, Ms. Burke said such agreements typically apply to anyone living within 3000 feet of a wind turbine but that it hadn’t been decided for this particular project because a turbine layout has not yet been established.

Mr. Champney said that a landowner could not apply for both agreements, as it would constitute “double dipping.” He said he would be willing to hold a complimentary workshop for landowners to help them understand the ramifications of a Good Neighbor Agreement.

Members discussed property management issues that included oversight of the wind project, decommissioning, and insurance and liability issues.

Board members also discussed the wind overlay district and attempted to clarify how it applies to the waterfront. Several committee members felt that rather than starting at Route 12, it should begin at the St. Lawrence River shoreline. This discussion will continue Tuesday at 7 p.m. in the Hammond Central School Library, with additional agenda items to include economics and tourism, setbacks and environmental issues.

THIRD FEATURE

WIND FARM PLAN CHALLANGED

SOURCE The Border Watch, www.borderwatch.com.au

December 30 2010

Anelia Blackie,

An eight Mile Creek landowner is furious after learning his house would be within 750 metres of wind turbines if the proposed wind farm development goes ahead at Allendale East.

The Acciona Energy project has been temporarily stalled pending the outcome of a court decision after Allendale East dairy farmer Richard Paltridge opposed the development, standing alone in his battle against the company.

But in the past week, Paul Manning and his wife Kaeli have thrown their support behind Mr Paltridge — only to find out that up to 30 residents also share their objections, but chose to remain anonymous because they feared victimisation.

“We are a hard working young family — my partner has shed blood, sweat and tears to make that property what it is today,” Mr Manning told The Border Watch.

“She literally cried when she began to comprehend what the wind farm’s impact will have on our future plans, including the future development of our investment, our retirement, in terms of the potential for the property and the personal connection we have with it.”

According to Mr Manning, many of the landowners, including himself, do not live on their properties, but work interstate and were therefore ill-informed or excluded from a community consultation process about the $175m development.

He has joined the Concerned Residents Group fighting to have the consultation process re-opened.

“We are very disappointed and concerned at hearing about decisions and actions so detrimental to our family’s future,” Mr Manning said.

“The only previous communications we have received in regards to this very serious matter was a very simple and poorly copied generic pamphlet that was delivered nearly two years ago — we have received nothing since.”

“With gag orders on many of the neighbours and our current work interstate, we have heard little about the planning, design and impact of the wind farm.”

Mr Manning said the proposed wind farm added to other issues already looming over the community and causing them to lose confidence in Local Government.

“Through our recent investigations, one thing has become increasingly clear about the view the community has of the government at all levels,” he said.

“There is a real undercurrent of a no confidence vote brewing within the community due to the problems with the cray fishing season being shortened and all the forests and timber mills scheduled to be sold off to overseas interests — many jobs will be lost and the real talk is that the region will become a ghost town kept in a near death state by the humming and whirring of turbines — this has already been demonstrated at similar locations.”

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ACCIONA COMES TO TOWN AND WIND DEVELOPERS GET COZY WITH MEMBERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT?

Residents at a town meeting show their displeasure, then the cops come.

SECOND FEATURE:

Click on the image above to find out why concerns were raised about Eric Callisto who is now the chairman of the Public Service Commission and considered by many to be the driving force behind weakening the new wind rules to reflect wind developers wishes. 

THIRD FEATURE:

Fire shut down turbines in Clear Lake, Iowa last week.

In Wisconsin, the new wind rules which take effect at the beginning of 2011 allow wind developers build 500 foot tall turbines just 1250 feet from non-participating homes.

SOURCE: National Wind Watch

WIND BARGAINING

SOURCE: East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com

December 26 2010

By Erin Mills

As the mammoth Shepherd’s Flat wind farm makes a growing commotion on the hills above the Willow Creek valley, several residents are packing up or already gone.

“I told them I wouldn’t sign any noise easement unless they bought me out,” said Richard Goodhead, who retired with his wife, Joanne, to a 106-acre farm in the valley in 1997.

At first, Goodhead said, Patricia Pilz a representative from Caithness Energy — the company building Shepherd’s Flat — refused his proposal. She hoped he would take a $5,000 check and sign a noise waiver like some of his neighbors.

“She said, ‘We’re not in the real estate business,’” Goodhead said. “I said, fine — I’m not in the windmill business.”

A month and several negotiations later, the company changed its tune. The Goodheads signed a final purchase agreement this week with the New York-based company, selling their land and home for $800,000.

The Goodheads made a killing, according to the Gilliam County assessor’s office. A clerk reported their manufactured home and farm has a real market value of $167,110.

No Caithness representative, including Pilz, responded to the East Oregonian’s repeated phone calls for this story. However, Pilz told a New York Times reporter last summer that Caithness does not change the “market price” for a noise waiver, because that would be unfair.

The Goodheads tell a different story; they say Caithness offered them several deals before it caved to their request for a buyout. One was $6,000 every year for about 20 years, another was the proceeds from one nearby turbine. All the offers required the Goodheads to sign a waiver allowing noise levels of up to 50 adjusted decibels at their residence.

Fifty adjusted decibels, or 50 dBA, is about the sound of a normal conversation in a room. Oregon’s industrial noise ordinance caps the allowable decibels for a wind farm at nearby residences at 36 dBa or 10 dBA above a measured ambient noise level.

The company that owns the wind farm to the south of Shepherd’s Flat, Invenergy, and its neighbors have fought over the noise rule for several months. The county planning commission heard hours of testimony and both parties appealed its decision to the county court twice. The issue still isn’t resolved; the next hearing will be sometime in January.

By buying noise easements, Caithness hopes to avoid a similar dispute. But the Goodheads are among those who don’t want to live next to a wind farm for any price. Joanne Goodhead pointed out that the jury is still out on the health effects of turbines. The Oregon Public Health Office recently held “listening sessions” around the state to hear residents’ concerns. The wind industry maintains that turbines are perfectly safe.

The Goodheads also wonder what will become of the valley’s wildlife. The area’s antelope population has noticeably declined since the Willow Creek wind farm came, they said. And a curlew nesting area will soon be surrounded by turbines.

“Everyone is rolling over and playing dead for (the wind companies), it’s amazing,” Joanne Goodhead said. “Anything that’s quoted as ‘green’ is OK, whether it is or not.”

The other side of the story, of course, is how profitable Shepherd’s Flat will be for landowners and the county. Now a growing network of roads and concrete slabs, Shepherd’s Flat is already providing much-needed employment for an area suffering from the recession. During the construction phase, it will employ an average of 500 people. Upon completion, 35 will work at the farm full-time.

Once its 338 turbines are up and running, Shepherd’s Flat will begin paying property taxes. According to its tax arrangement with counties, called a strategic investment plan, it will pay more than $5 million to Gilliam County and more than $2 million to Morrow County every year for the next 15 years.

Thanks to Shepherd’s Flat, a handful of landowners will retire in style. Industry insiders say they are paid up to $15,000 per turbine per year.

Other neighbors of Shepherd’s Flat who have sold their homes are Clyde and Alicia Smith and Arman and Sandra Kluehe. The Kluehes got less than they feel their home was worth, but they’re not complaining. They learned of Shepherd’s Flat shortly after relocating from the Willamette Valley and never relished the thought of living across a narrow valley from a forest of turbines. When Pilz offered them the $5,000, they turned her down.

The Kluehes put their house on the market, but after months of no bites, they grew resigned. They continued to upgrade their home, installing a pellet stove and a sprinkler system for their new trees. They painted the house’s trim. The painter was just finishing up one day when their real estate agent called. He said a buyer was ready to pay full price, cash, for the Kluehe’s house.

They wavered for a moment — they had just invested nearly $20,000 — but the agent said they could not back down or the buyer could sue.

“I just looked at my husband and said, ‘We don’t really have an option,’” Sandra Kluehe remembered. “We had five weeks, maybe six, to find a house and get out. It was very stressful.”

The buyer was a Portland-based lawyer. A quick dig on the Internet revealed the lawyer worked for Caithness. Sandra Kluehe found out later the purchaser was actually a local landowner involved in the wind farm.

The Kluehes now live in Redmond, near Smith Rock State Park, where no wind turbines are allowed.

“It feels like a burden has been lifted from our shoulders,” Arman Kluehe said. “There’s like an oppression in that valley.”

SECOND FEATURE---

Energy Dept. Approves $1.3 Billion Loan for World’s Largest Wind Farm
 

SOURCE: allgov.com

Sunday, December 26, 2010

By Noel Brinkerhoff

GE Wind Turbines

Amendments to Ontario’s Renewable Energy Approvals regulations begin Jan.1, which is generally fine with the industry, but opponents see shortcomings

A change to Ontario’s Renewable Energy Approvals regulations slated to come into effect Jan.1, will affect rural property rights, says the president of Wind Concerns Ontario. The organization is a coalition of 54 citizens groups protesting large-scale wind power generation in the province.

John Laforet says the amendment, one of several posted on the province’s environmental registry, will allow wind energy developers placing turbines to use typical local building patterns and existing zoning by-laws to calculate setbacks from vacant lots. The regulations previously required developers to calculate distances from the middle of the lot.

“Why is it that a developer gets to tell you how you get to use your land because it’s getting in the way of their profit?” says Laforet, pointing out that in many instances assumptions would be made on houses eventually being located close to a road or highway, therefore giving wind developers greater flexibility when establishing a turbine’s location. “It just speaks to the lack of property rights considerations in this whole debate,” he says.

Laforet who lives in Scarborough, also criticized another amendment that will mean wind developers won’t have to move turbines to conform to setbacks if a dwelling is built on a property between the times the energy project is approved and construction begins. According to provincial documents, the change “requires proponents to consider all noise receptors at the time they make their site plan public” rather than, as previously, at the time of construction. What this means to a property owner who might want to build a house within the setback area after a project is announced but hasn’t yet broken ground is that developers won’t be required, as they were in the past, to move the turbine to comply with the setback regulation.

Other amendments include:

• changing the definition of a noise receptor, to dwelling, from overnight accommodation;
• requiring developers of all renewable energy projects to deliver written notice of a proposed project to landowners within 550 metres of its location. (Previously, developers were required to notify landowners within 120 metres of a project);
• extending the municipal consultation period to 90 days before the final public meetings and providing draft reports 60 days before the final public meeting; and
• requiring Class 3, 4 and 5 wind project developers to conduct a specification report that presents acoustic emissions data that complies with Canadian Standards Association standards.

Laforet notes there are several amendments coming down the pipes and one of his main issues with them and the Renewable Energy Approvals regulations is that the provincial government “has said in writing they don’t know what they’re doing as it relates to regulating noise” and don’t know how to measure the noise to determine compliance. “So what value are regulations written by a government that can’t enforce them even if they wanted to?”

Colette McLean, who cash crops about 145 acres near Harrow in Essex County, says there’s a lot of lip service to say municipalities have their say but they don’t. It’s the province rather than municipalities who is in charge of delivering green power project approvals, she notes.

McLean has four wind turbines within one kilometre of her home and 24 within five kilometres. She’s concerned about the impact on her own and her family’s health. She also worries that green energy projects will have on the province’s electrical rates and how the local wind turbines will affect her property values.

Research in the United States shows up to 40 per cent reduction in values for properties near wind projects and some have had to abandon their homes. “Naturally I don’t want that to happen,” she says.

Ted Cowan, a farm policy researcher with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, says he hasn’t had an opportunity to fully review the regulations, calls the changes “modest improvements” and says they may help to clarify some areas the federation had flagged as concerns. One of these was the expansion of the area to which notification of a project has to be sent.

Cowan says they may also clarify that the greater setback requirement of 550 metres will be applied to all residences. “The old regulations had an implicit waiver for the homes that were on land where a person had signed a lease and we felt that that implicit waiver was wrong,” he says. “Noise protection is something that everyone deserves.”

Marnie Dawson, manager of renewable energy approvals for Samsung Renewable Energy says she likes the amendments, calling them “more beneficial” to developers. Expanding the areas in which developers will have to send notice to property owners is good because it will make people more aware of projects, she says. The impact to developers having to comply with this change “is minimal, really,” she says.

Jennifer Green, executive coordinator of the Agri-Energy Producers’ Association of Ontario, says the changes won’t have dramatic or immediate impact on those generating farm-based biogas. The amendments are listed on the province’s environmental registry.

      WIND FARM STRONG ARM:SENATOR PLALE CANCELS VOTE ON THE NEW WIND RULES AT THE 11th HOUR

  With four out of seven committee members set to vote against the wind rules and send them back to the PSC, Senator Plale suddenly takes away the vote. Rules to become law on January 1st.

Thursday is the last day state lawmakers could try to block changes to wind turbine rules, but Action 2 News learned there's already talk about trying to reverse these rules next year. 

CLICK HERE TO WATCH VIDEO OF THE NEWS CAST

DEBATE OVER WIND TURBINES ISN'T OVER

SOURCE: WBAY-TV, www.wbay.com

December 22, 2010 By Matt Smith,

New rules about wind turbines are set to go into effect at the start of the new year.

Thursday is the last day state lawmakers could try to block the changes. A vote was scheduled for Thursday but late Wednesday afternoon the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee told Action 2 News that won’t happen.

One of the most talked-about proposals from the Public Service Commission is how far turbines must be placed from neighboring homes.

Right now it’s based on an equation. For example, if a 450-foot turbine were put up on a property, the equation determines it would have to be 1,395 feet away from the nearest home. Under the new regulation, the distance would be capped at 1,250 feet.

The commission also proposes changing how much residents living close to turbines could be paid, which could be higher or lower than before.

While some state lawmakers applaud these changes, others have spent the past week trying to halt them and now vow to continue the fight in January.

The outgoing chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, who scheduled then canceled Thursday’s vote, tells Action 2 News each side will try to work out its differences when the next legislative session starts.

In the meantime, it appears the new regulations will go into effect January 1st.

We found at least five state lawmakers wrote letters to chairs of the Senate and Assembly energy committees, asking for a vote which could have halted the changes. But both outgoing chairs tell Action 2 News those votes won’t happen by Thursday’s deadline.

“Sometimes at hearings the people that do the voting on the committee, it’s not that we don’t hear the concerns, it’s that we don’t agree with the concerns, and that’s the case for myself,” Representative Jim Soletski (D-Green Bay), chairman of the Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities, said.

In a statement, a spokesperson says the Public Service Commission “made modifications that, in its judgment, result in a more workable rule and make it more likely the rule will pass legislative scrutiny.”

“How it happened? I guess they didn’t care,” Senator Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay) said.

Senator Cowles led the effort this past week to stop the changes.

“We didn’t get any changes that made us happy. It got worse, in fact,” Senator Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay) said.

Senator Cowles wants the setback much higher, between 1,800 and 2,000 feet, because of noise concerns.

“It’s a little over four football fields. That’s nothing. These are large industrial turbines. Yes, we want alternative energy. No we don’t want them too close to homes,” Cowles said.

“There’s enough public comment on the other side, too,” Soletski said.

Soletski sees it differently than Cowles. He wishes turbines could be even closer to neighboring homes to increase their effectiveness.

“If you get a whole lot farther than 1,250 you’re going to make it economically implausible to build a wind farm,” Soletski said.

“We’ll try all aspects in order to get it done. We’re not saying no wind turbines, we’re saying get them far enough away from homes so you don’t disrupt people’s lives.”

Now Cowles and other opponents will turn to the next legislative session — an option that has no guarantees.

SECOND FEATURE:

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Click on the video below to watch a corporate commercial for Spanish wind farm giant, Acciona.

Acciona Wind already holds long term leases to land in rural Wisconsin which is earmarked for future wind development.

Companies like these pay lobbyists like the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) or state level lobbying organizations to push for legislation that will favor wind development. Wisconsin's PSC mandated shorter setbacks from homes and louder noise limits are an example of this.

AWEA pushed for recently passed legislation that that gives Acciona a US government cash grant for 30% of the cost of any wind project they build here ---if they can get one of their potential Wisconsin projects ready to go before 2012.

Bucky, meet the new neighbors.