Better Plan, Wisconsin

WINDMILL SECURITY OVERKILL: Residents-- Northumerland

 Source: NORTHUMBERLAND TODAY, www.northumberlandtoday.com

November 29, 2010

By VALERIE MACDONALD,

ROSENEATH -- The security was high at an open house at the Alnwick Civic Centre held for a proposed local wind farm Friday night.

Not only was there a police cruiser sitting outside -but there were at least three OPP officers on duty but out of uniform, about a half dozen uniformed security guards and another security man in plain clothes, as well as video surveillance. A sign warned about the latter and suggested people leave if they didn't want to be videotaped.

This is overkill, said several meeting attendees from the local, anti-wind turbine group, Alliance for the Protection of the Northumberland Hills.

"It's threatening," agreed Debbie Lynch, a woman who is also protesting another proposed industrial wind turbine development in Central Ontario where she lives near Norwood.

There were other concerned citizens from the Clarington, Pontypool and Millbrook areas, where wind farms are also being pursued under the rules set by the Ontario's Green Energy Act . The resulting green power will be subsidized in the form of a high per kilowatt hour "feed in" rate into the Hydro One electrical grid over the term of a 20-year contract for proponents who meet all the government-imposed criteria.

The government policy is to increase green energy and bring manufacturing jobs to Ontario as it imposes increasing Ontario content rules on the infrastructure installed for wind, solar and other energy-producing alternatives.

OPP Sgt. Jeff Lavalley, who identified himself as head of the OPP Aboriginal Policing Bureau, said officers were there to "be informed about what's going on" in relationship to the series of meetings in the area about different proposed wind farms. While not in uniform, he stressed they were not "plain-clothed" police officers.

"There have been incidents at other venues," he said. These "incidents" included intimidation and threats, particularly at the Millbrook wind turbine meeting, the Sgt. added.

Among those groups being consulted as part of the approvals process to install turbines under the Ontario Green Energy Act are First Nation peoples, said wind turbine company spokesperson Larissa Murray in an interview. There was one man escorting her everywhere she went in the Alnwick Civic Centre during the meeting.

Murray identified herself as vice president of Tantenco LLC of Delaware whose parent company is in Germany where she has lived for a number of years before beginning her career in the wind power business. Tantenco and Sunbeam LLC of the U.S. each have 50% ownership of Clean Breeze Wind Park LP (Limited Partnership), identified as the proponent for the development that was subject of Friday night's meeting. The two U.S. firms are the financial backers, she also said.

If local ownership can be increased to a minimum of 50% in the windpark, the payback on power produced through the Ontario government backed plan will rise to 14.5 cents per killowatt hour from 13.5, she said. Local investors will be sought in the future, Murray said. Studies are being conducted ranging from noise and wind assessments to the proximity to wetlands, woodlands and residences, she said. This information will be made public at least 60 days before the second public meeting, Murray added.

If there is no lease with a landholder, however "I can't put up a turbine," she said.

The local project area is bordered by County Road 22 on the north, County Road 23 on the west, just east of County Road 45 on the east, and south along Norble Road and Scots Line. A FITT contract for up to 10 megawatts of power production would be met by up to five turbines and cost about $20 million to put in the ground and wire into the grid, Murray said.

Energy Farming Ontario is a consulting firm on the local project and "some of its staff own equity" in Clean Breeze Wind Park, Murray explained. M.K. Ince & Associates Ltd. is the consulting firm overseeing the studies that are underway, holding the required public meetings and undertaking the renewable energy approvals process, she said.

A common factor in all of the 10 proposed wind turbine farms in Ontario is that M.K. Ince & Associates is undertaking the approvals process confirmed local project manager for the firm, Andrea McDowell. Half of those are in Central Ontario.

The field work for Clean Breeze Wind Park has been completed, said M.K. Ince & Associates spokesperson Jane Zednik but not all the studies. She said that they would be completed and made public in time for the second required public meeting which she expected to be held April, 2011. They will be available on the web site energyfarmingontario. com and at public libraries, Zednik said.

At this stage in the process the design has not be completed, where the lines will be buried or on poles, the location of the turbines, access roads, etc., Zednik said. One company representative said there would be a total of five turbines and another said that wasn't decided yet.

Morely Nelson has already told Northumberland Today that he has an agreement with Clean Wind Park to allow the company to put up wind turbines on his property, and that of his brother Ken. He said he lives on the property and has done his own research at other wind farms and is satisfied with what he found.

The Alliance for the Protection of the Northumberland Hills, however, is not of the same mindset.

They have warned potential landowners contemplating entering into long-term leases for wind turbines that there are downsides. They have issued newsletters and visited their neighbours. At the meeting they distributed a bulletin entitled: "What you should know about wind turbines."

The document stated that property values could be devalued by "at least 25%" and that those selling properties could wait twice as long to find a buyer if their land is in the vicinity of wind turbines.

"Concerns over noise, health affects, value loss and destruction of rural views stigmatize areas, chasing away buyers," the Alliance's statement warns.

Property reassessments are supporting this claim and it cites an appeal board decision in Amaranth Township where the assessment was cut in half by an appeal board.

Alliance member Tyne Bonebakker lives within the study area of the proposed local windfarm and he says the provincially mandated 550 meter setback from wind turbines is inadequate.

Another person who would be directly affected if the project went ahead is Denise Little who told Murray she is concerned that her retirement home will be ruined because of the project. In an interview Little said she is the type of person who gets migraines and will likely be susceptible to the ill affects that other people say they have suffered by living close to wind turbines.

These include a low-frequency noise and shadow flicker, to a strobe effect, according to the Alliance's bulletin. It claims nausea and dizziness as side effects.

"Our group is one of more than 40 citizens' groups throughout Ontario. More than 60 municipalities in Ontario have challenged the Green Energy Act and are asking for a halt to industrial wind turbine developments," the bulletin also states. The group believes more health studies need to be undertaken and that what has been done so far is inadequate.

Opposition is world wide, the anti-wind turbine group's literature also stresses.

But Murray says she has grown up with wind turbines and isn't negatively impacted by them. Europe has had them for over 30 years, she said.

Alnwick/Halidmand Mayor Elect Dalton McDonald says he lives next door to the proposed site and neither he nor his wife have concerns, even though he believes they'll be able to see them when they take walks on their property.

He noted, however, that the Green Energy Act passed by the provincial government takes away any regulating power from municipal governments.

"I can have no more impact (on any decisions) than anyone else," McDonald said.

SECOND FEATURE

PUBLIC SOULD GET ANSWERS ON WIND FARM

SOURCE: UticaOD.com

Secrecy swirling around the sudden disruption in construction of Herkimer County’s first wind farm should outrage residents in Fairfield and Norway, and they should be demanding clear answers from town leaders.

Iberdrola Renewables halted turbine construction earlier Nov. 12 to perform more tests after it discovered concrete used in the some of the foundations was weak and did not meet company standards. Work resumed Nov. 19 after some tests were completed and, Iberdrola says, foundations now meet or exceed its standards. Further results are pending.

But little is known about what happened, how it was corrected and whether it could happen again.

• Iberdrola spokesman Paul Copleman would only respond to O-D inquiries by e-mail. He declined to release the names of the project’s contractors or discuss whether all current contractors would remain on the project.

• The project is small by standards set that require state oversight. The state Public Service Commission regulates wind energy projects of 80 megawatts. The Hardscrabble project falls just six megawatts shy of that. That puts regulation in the hands of local officials, PSC spokesman Jim Denn says.

• Town supervisors won’t talk. Neither Fairfield town Supervisor Richard Souza nor Norway town Supervisor Judy Gokey returned phone calls. Meanwhile, Stephanie Vetter, an environmental engineer assigned to the project, would not comment on the recent problems. She directed questions to town officials.

This is unacceptable. The Hardscrabble Wind Farm is slated to place 37 turbines in Fairfield and Norway. If the project fell within the parameters of state law, the state would have the authority to step in and conduct an investigation. But since oversight of smaller projects rests with the locality, the onus is on local officials to provide answers.

If Norway and Fairfield leaders know details of the incident and how it has been corrected to assure the public safety, they need to be upfront with that information. If they aren’t aware of what happened, they need to demand a full accounting from Iberdrola and then share that information with town residents.

We often complain about lack of autonomy and overregulation by big government, but when localities are given that responsibility and officials fail to carry out their duties or stay mum, the public is shortchanged. Don’t let that happen here. Ask questions and demand answers.

THIRD FEATURE

What Doyle did not mention was that ethanol producer Didion Milling Inc., which got $5.6 million and the largest share, is one of Wisconsin’s most chronic air and water polluters— a firm designated by the federal government as a “high priority violator.”

Less than a month before Doyle’s announcement, a federal judge ruled that Didion — headquartered in Johnson Creek, Wis. — had violated the federal Clean Water Act numerous times in 2008 and 2009. Among the violations: use of excessive amounts of chlorine and other chemicals, and the discharge of a murky yellow liquid with solids down a company wastewater pipe into a tributary of a fishing lake. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by residents who lived near the company’s Cambria, Wis., plant, about 45 miles northeast of Madison, the state capital in central Wisconsin.

The company also settled a state lawsuit in April by agreeing to pay $1.05 million for 23 air and water claims that stretched from 1999 to 2010 — a move that effectively ended three federal lawsuits filed by residents living near the plant.

Documents obtained by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism under open records laws show that officials evaluating Didion’s application for a U.S. Energy Department stimulus grant did not ask about — and Didion didn’t disclose — details of its environmental compliance record.

And once it won the grant, Didion’s project was exempted from having to conduct an analysis of its environmental impact as required by the National Environmental Policy Act — just like 99 percent of the $33 billion in stimulus projects funded by the Energy Department, according to an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative news organization in Washington and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, a nonprofit based in Madison.

Doyle’s office did not respond to e-mail and phone messages seeking response.

Didion’s vice president of operations, Dale Drachenberg, declined to address questions about the company’s environmental record or the process that led to the grant. Instead, he issued a statement touting the job-creation and clean energy benefits of the stimulus-funded project.

“Since the day we started construction on our ethanol production facility, we’ve made innovation and conservation top priorities,” Drachenberg said.

On its website and in statements, Didion has cast itself as an eco-friendly company. It was one of 50 companies that in August won a grant from the state Department of Commerce’s Wisconsin Profitable Sustainability Initiative to examine and reduce its waste streams. And in September, the company hosted a Green Energy Expo at the Cambria plant, where people could learn about recycling, energy conservation and the future of alternative fuels.

To Karen Dettman, who lives across the street from Didion and has lived with its spills, smells, noise, traffic, and murky discharges, the company’s federal grant is “green energy at any cost.”

Environmental advocates in Wisconsin also believe federal and state regulators should have taken companies’ environmental into account before awarding stimulus grants or NEPA exemptions.

“You’d think it would be a normal part of the check, whether they’re in compliance with environmental laws. That’s a phone call or two at the most,” said George Meyer, a former Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources secretary who is now executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization.

Consultants working for the state’s Focus on Energy program acknowledged they recommended Didion’s plant-expansion proposal for a grant without considering the company’s past environmental problems.

Focus on Energy, established by the Wisconsin Legislature to encourage renewable energy and energy efficiency, worked through a private contractor, CleanTech Partners of Middleton, Wis. Focus on Energy solicited applications from Wisconsin industries for federal energy efficiency stimulus grants. CleanTech picked nine, bundled them up and sent them off to the Energy Department.

CleanTech got about 25 applications — from paper companies, a lawnmower engine manufacturer and others — and winnowed the field using American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and Energy Department criteria: whether the project would preserve or create domestic jobs, how the project would be managed, how much it would cost and the potential energy savings.

Didion proposed to install a host of new technologies at its Cambria plant that would produce more ethanol from corn with less energy usage, thus allowing the company to expand production. The new technology would also extract a new product in the process, corn oil, to get more value out of the corn.

The Energy Department grant money, matched by Didion’s utility, Alliant Energy, would help the project pay for itself in 3.9 years, according to Didion’s application. It would save 11 million kilowatt-hours of energy — enough to power 828 homes for a year.

Past pollution never came up, said Thomas Reitter, a consultant for CleanTech, who worked on the applications for Focus on Energy. The only environmental issue he addressed was to make sure companies fully filled out DOE’s boilerplate environmental questionnaire. “It’s DOE’s evaluation,” he said.

The questionnaire is designed to help the Energy Department decide whether a project should trigger a detailed environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Such reviews can take months or even years to complete.

The form asked questions including what permits would be required, how solid waste would be hauled and what emissions would result. But nothing in the 12-page form asks firms about their compliance history.

And Didion did not offer much information in response to several of the queries.

“Describe any issues that would generate public controversy regarding the project,” the form says.

Didion checked “None.”

“Summarize the significant impacts that would result from the proposed project,” the last question on the form states, asking for details.

Didion left that one blank.

If federal officials who approved the stimulus grant had examined Didion’s record, they would have found a lengthy list of violations.

Aside from the 2009 Clean Water Act lawsuit, a second group of residents sued Didion last year under the federal Clean Air Act for years of air violations that the state had documented — but for which it had never punished the company.

Those and many other violations dated back to 1999. Among them: Didion built 15 grain silos, three mills, and a grain dryer without applying for the required air pollution permit. The company exceeded emission limits and ran a grain dryer outside permitted times. And it falsely claimed on a permit application that it was complying with the law, according to court records.

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency database shows Didion has received 11 notices of violation in the past five years — one of the most among all Wisconsin companies. The notices signify that state regulators believe they have solid evidence the company has broken the law, and they are the first step toward punishing the company with a formal enforcement action.

“It’s highly unusual for us to have a source that we’ve sent this many notices of violation to,” said Tom Roushar, DNR air management program supervisor for the region. “Usually if we send one, the source corrects it, and we don’t have to repeat it.”

In late 2009, while the governor was trumpeting the grant for Didion, the state Department of Justice was taking the company to task. Assistant Attorney General Steven Tinker alleged in a letter before it sued Didion that the company had racked up thousands of air permit violation-days, a measure of the number of days that each violation continued, though the total number was never counted in the Columbia County Circuit Court case that followed.

In March, the state sued Didion, and the two parties reached a settlement in April: The company would pay $1.05 million for 23 air and water claims from 1999 to 2010 and folded in the violations from three citizen lawsuits. The settlement in state court effectively rendered the federal lawsuits moot.

Residents in Cambria, a village of 746 people in south central Wisconsin, are divided over whether the plant is good for the community. At a county planning and zoning meeting earlier this year, Didion’s expansion plans were approved unanimously.

Joelle DeBoer, a Didion employee, said her company has been a good neighbor by supporting local charities and providing local jobs. She wrote a letter supporting the expansion plans.

“I believe it’s really going to help Cambria’s community, just because we’ll be bringing more jobs to the community,” DeBoer said.

Other residents said they were infuriated by the state and federal governments’ lack of attention to companies’ environmental record.

“It’s crazy not to consider their background and their history,” said John Mueller, a Cambria resident who lives a half-mile from Didion’s mills, and is co-founder of Cambrians for Thoughtful Development. The group sued the company twice for violations that were later included in the state’s settlement.

“We know they’re not trustworthy,” he said.

Editor’s note: Christa Westerberg, a Madison attorney who provides pro bono legal services to the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, has represented Cambrians for Thoughtful Development, a citizens group, in two federal environmental lawsuits against Didion Milling Inc. Westerberg provided the Center with information about the suits that has been independently verified. She did not provide the Center with legal services or participate in the writing or editing of this report.

SORRY WE MISSED THE PARTY: Drinking with the PSC

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: For those of you who have been following the wind siting rules issue in our state, Deborah Erwin (pictured below) of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission will be a familiar name to you. The photo was taken at the August "WIND POWER HAPPY HOUR" event at the Capitol Brewery.

SOURCE: Breezesandbeverages.blogspot.com

Friday, September 3, 2010

Great Attendnce for the August Wind Power Happy Hour at Capital Brewery

Photo: Deborah Erwin from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and Mike Ross from American Superconductor at Capital Brewery in Middleton, Wisconsin.

In what turned out to be one of our most well attended events of the year, more than 60 people attended the August Wind Power Happy Hour to sample some of Capital Brewery's finest offerings, sit in the Bier Garten on one of the nicest days of the summer, and to hear from a couple of great presenters.

Mike Ross, Sr. Engineer for American Superconductor in Middleton, Wisconsin was the company spotlight for this meeting. He provided an overview of three key aspects of AMSC's products: Windtec technology, superconducting cables, and the SeaTitan--a 10 MW wind turbine being developed for off shore purposes. Mike also shared that AMSC recently acquired an ownership stake in Blade Dynamics, a designer and manufacturer of advanced wind turbine blades based on proprietary materials and structural technologies.

Deborah Erwin is the Docket Manager for the Public Service Commission and the Wind Siting Council that has been developing rules for wind farms under 100 MW in Wisconsin. Its been a tough job, but she reported they are almost ready to be sent to the Legislature for approval. Click here to see a current copy of the proposed Wind Siting rules and the press release issued by the PSC on their completion of their efforts.

Special thanks to Capital Brewery for their hospitality, and for letting us use the Bier Stube for our event.

FIRST FEATURE:

THE ALLURE OF TECHNO-GLAMOR

Source: Wall Street Journal

November 20, 2010

By Virgina Postrel

[Please note: photos added by Better Plan]

When Robert J. Samuelson published a Newsweek column last month arguing that high-speed rail is "a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause," he cited cost figures and potential ridership to demonstrate that even the rosiest scenarios wouldn't justify the investment.

He made a good, rational case—only to have it completely undermined by the evocative photograph the magazine chose to accompany the article.

The picture showed a sleek train bursting through blurred lines of track and scenery, the embodiment of elegant, effortless speed. It was the kind of image that creates longing, the kind of image a bunch of numbers cannot refute. It was beautiful, manipulative and deeply glamorous.

The same is true of photos of wind turbines adorning ads for everything from Aveda's beauty products to MIT's Sloan School of Management. These graceful forms have succeeded the rocket ships and atomic symbols of the 1950s to become the new icons of the technological future. If the island of Wuhu, where games for the Wii console play out, can run on wind power, why can't the real world?

Policy wonks assume the current rage for wind farms and high-speed rail has something to do with efficiently reducing carbon emissions. So they debate load mismatches and ridership figures. These are worthy discussions and address real questions.

But they miss the emotional point.

To their most ardent advocates, and increasingly to the public at large, these technologies aren't just about generating electricity or getting from one city to another. They are symbols of an ideal world, longing disguised as problem solving. You can't counter glamour with statistics.

Glamour always contains an element of illusion. (The word originally meant a literal magic spell.) By obscuring some details and heightening others, it offers an escape from the compromises, flaws and distractions of real life. It shows no bills on the kitchen counter, no blisters under the high heels, no pimples on the movie star's face.

In those glamour shots, wind power seems clean, free and infinitely abundant. Turbines spin silently and sometimes appear barely taller than a child. The wind blows constantly and in exactly the right amount—never so much that it piles up unwanted power and never so little that it requires backup supply. The sky is unfailingly photogenic, a backdrop of either puffy clouds or a brilliant sunset; the landscape is both empty and beautiful; and there are no transmission lines anywhere.

The image of a speeding train, meanwhile, invites you to imagine taking it when and where you want, with no waiting, no crowds and no expensive tickets. Like the turbines, high-speed trains exemplify autonomy and grace, sliding along effortlessly, with no visible source of fuel. To a stressed-out public, they promise an escape from traffic jams—and, at least until the first terrorism scare, from the hassles, intrusion and delays of airport security.

For all its deceptiveness and mystery, glamour reveals emotional truths. What today's green techno-glamour demonstrates, first and foremost, is that its audience has no inclination to give up the benefits of modernity and return to the pre-industrial state idealized by radical greens. Neither the Unabomber nor Henry David Thoreau would go for wind farms and high-speed rail. To the contrary, these iconic new machines cater to what Al Gore denounced in "Earth in the Balance" as "the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." They promise that a green future will be just as pleasant as today, only cleaner and more elegant.

For at least some technophiles, in fact, the trains and windmills are goods in and of themselves, with climate change providing a reason to force the development and adoption of cool new machines that wouldn't otherwise catch on. These technologies also restore the idea of progress as big, visible engineering projects—an alternative to the decentralized, hidden ingenuity of computer code.

They evoke the old World's Fair sense of hope and wonder, a feeling President Barack Obama draws on when he endorses high-speed rail subsidies as "building for the future." They are the latest incarnation of flying cars and electricity too cheap to meter.

The problems come, of course, in the things glamour omits, including all those annoyingly practical concerns the policy wonks insist on debating. Neither trains nor wind farms are as effortlessly liberating as their photos suggest. Neither really offers an escape from the world of compromises and constraints. The same is true, of course, of evening gowns, dream kitchens and tropical vacations. But at least the people who enjoy that sort of glamour pay their own way.

—Virginia Postrel is the author of "The Future and Its Enemies" and "The Substance of Style." She is writing a book on glamour.

SECOND FEATURE:

TURBINES IN GARDEN'S FUTURE

SOURCE: The Daily Press, www.dailypress.net

November 22 2010

By Ashley Hoholik

What does the contract say about the wind developer's rights over your land?

“…[Wind developer] shall have a non-exclusive easement over and across said property for audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, electrical, and radio frequency interference, and any other effects attributable to [wind developer's] operations.”

The lease further stipulates: “[Property owner] waives any claim with regard to any such interference or effects.”

GARDEN – A landscape dotted with wind turbines is in the Garden Peninsula’s future, thanks to a downstate sustainable energy firm. Heritage Sustainable Energy, of Traverse City, Mich., has already signed leases with a number of area residents, but not everyone is welcoming the company.

After nearly two years of various wind studies conducted in the Garden area, some by Heritage, few residents were surprised when a company began to seriously pursue unused parcels of land.

Heritage, which is best known for its nearly 2,000-acre Stoney Corners Wind Farm Project near Cadillac, Mich., plans to site leased areas and assess the land’s potential in housing one of their nearly 400-foot wind turbines.

According to Heritage Project Manager Rick Wilson, the company is excited about the Garden Township Wind Energy Project and has already leased approximately 10,000 acres throughout the Garden Peninsula, including Garden and Fairbanks Township.

“The size of this wind project is moderate; about 13 wind turbines will be placed on agricultural land between south Garden to north of Garden,” Wilson said.

“We’ve been doing energy analysis in the area for about three years and have three meteorological towers already out there.”

Wilson said the turbines will be used to produce energy that will then be sold into the transmission grid and passed on to larger Michigan utility companies.

“We’ve done the preliminary studies, done the pre-planning work, and now we are in the pre-development stages,” he explained. “We’re working toward developing this project and are hoping to begin installation of the wind turbines by the end of 2011 or early 2012.”

According to a Heritage 10-year lease provided to a Garden resident, anyone leasing their land to Heritage will be paid $15 per net surface acre. If the company decides to actually build on the leased land, a one-time $10,000 fee will be paid to the lessee. The lease also notes that Heritage has the option to continue the lease beyond the 10-year period by paying an extension payment of $30 per net surface acre. For this reason, the lease is “considered to be continuous.”

While some residents were quick to jump on board with Heritage’s project, whether it was for the financial perks, to support alternative energy or a combination of the two, others are not as willing.

Cliff and Rosemary Stollings of Garden were approached by Heritage, but decided against leasing their land. Their concerns are rooted in the fact that, currently, Delta County has no zoning ordinance for wind energy. This would give too much leeway to Heritage, said Cliff, and offers no governance on the distance a wind turbine needs to be away from a residence.

The Heritage lease stipulates that a wind turbine will have to be at least 400 feet away from a residence. Conversely, the Stollings claim that, in researching wind energy, it is now generally recommended that wind turbines be at least a mile to a mile and a half away from a residence.

While there is conflicting research regarding a wind turbine’s proximity and subsequent impact on wildlife and human health, the Stollings’ factored the potential negative impact in their decision.

A portion of the lease addresses some of these possible impacts, but not in the way that the Stollings would have liked:

“…Lessee shall have a non-exclusive easement over and across said property for audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, electrical, and radio frequency interference, and any any other effects attributable to Lessee’s operations.” The lease further stipulates: “Lessor waives any claim with regard to any such interference or effects.”

Garden Township Supervisor Morgan Tatrow said that Heritage has been visiting the area frequently, working with the township and attending a county joint governmental meeting, various Garden township meetings, and even school board meetings.

“Heritage has already obtained lease permits from private property owners, and their plans right now are to obtain the permits for access roads leading to their wind turbine locations,” explained Tatrow. “We, the township, are talking with our legal people because there are currently no ordinances regarding wind towers.” In the meantime, Heritage will continue work on the project as residents from both sides voice their support or concern.

“It’s an excellent project and an economic opportunity for Delta County and Garden Township,” said Wilson. “It is going to mean around $5 million worth of investment in the local community during the construction process and the estimated personal property tax revenue is between $30,000 to $40,000 per turbine, per year.”

THIRD FEATURE

On Electric Cars---

Adding an electric vehicle or two to a neighborhood can be like adding another house, and it can stress the equipment that services those houses. "We're talking about doubling the load of a conventional home," says Karl Rabago, who leads Austin Energy's electric vehicle-readiness program. "It's big."

Opportunity has power industry scrambling

Benefits: Big cuts in fuel costs, greenhouse gas emissions

SOURCE: Portland Press Herald

November 22, 2010

By JONATHAN FAHEY The Associated Press

The first mass-market electric cars go on sale next month, and the nation's electric utilities couldn't be more thrilled -- or worried.

Plugged into a socket, an electric car can draw as much power as a small house.

The surge in demand could knock out power to a home, or even a neighborhood. That has utilities in parts of California, Texas and North Carolina scrambling to upgrade transformers and other equipment in neighborhoods where the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt are expected to be in high demand.

Not since air conditioning spread across the country in the 1950s and 1960s has the power industry faced such a growth opportunity.

Last year, Americans spent $325 billion on gasoline, and utilities would love even a small piece of that market.

The main obstacles to wide-scale use of electric cars are high cost and limited range, at least until a network of charging stations is built. But utility executives fret that difficulties keeping the lights on for the first crop of buyers -- and their neighbors -- could slow the growth of this new niche.

"You never get a second chance to make a first impression," says Mike Rowand, who is in charge of electric vehicle planning at Duke Energy.

Auto executives say it's inevitable that utilities will experience some difficulties early on. "We are all going to be a lot smarter two years from now," says Mark Perry, director of product planning for Nissan North America.

Electric cars run on big batteries that are charged by plugging into a standard wall socket or a more powerful charging station.

A combined 30,000 Nissan Leafs and Chevrolet Volts are expected to be sold over the next year. Over the next two years, Ford, Toyota and every other major automaker also plan to offer electric cars.

Governments are promoting the technology as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.

Congress is offering electric car buyers a $7,500 tax credit and some states and cities provide additional subsidies that can total $8,000. The Leaf sells for $33,000, the Volt for $41,000.

Electric cars produce no emissions, but the electricity they are charged with is made mostly from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, which do. Still, electric cars produce two-thirds fewer greenhouse gas emissions, on average, than a similarly sized car that runs on gasoline, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Driving 10,000 miles on electricity will use about 2,500 kilowatt-hours, or 20 percent more than the average annual consumption of U.S. homes. At an average utility rate of 11 cents per kilowatt-hour, that's $275 for a year of fuel, equivalent to about 70 cents per gallon of gasoline.

"Electric vehicles have the potential to completely transform our business," says David Owens, executive vice president of the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group.

Nationwide, utilities have enough power plants and equipment to power hundreds of thousands of electric cars. Problems could crop up long before that many are sold, though, because of a phenomenon carmakers and utilities call "clustering."

Electric vehicle clusters are expected in neighborhoods where:

• Generous subsidies are offered by states and localities.

• Weather is mild, because batteries tend to perform better in warmer climates.

• High-income and environmentally conscious commuters live.

So while states like North Dakota and Montana may see very few electric cars, California cities like Santa Monica, Santa Barbara and Monrovia could see several vehicles on a block.

SoCal Edison expects to be charging 100,000 cars by 2015. California has set a goal of 1 million electric vehicles by 2020.

Progress Energy is expecting electric car clusters to form in Raleigh, Cary and Asheville, N.C. and around Orlando and Tampa, Fla. Duke Energy is expecting the same in Charlotte and Indianapolis.

Adding an electric vehicle or two to a neighborhood can be like adding another house, and it can stress the equipment that services those houses. "We're talking about doubling the load of a conventional home," says Karl Rabago, who leads Austin Energy's electric vehicle-readiness program. "It's big."

LETTER FROM A WIND DEVELOPER

SOURCE: WINDACTION. ORG http://www.windaction.org/documents/30057 <http://www.windaction.org/documents/30057>

The exerpt below is from an October 28 letter from AES Wind LLC written to leaseholders. AES was planning a 500 +/- MW wind facility in the county.

The comments about the Indiana bat are of interest to anyone residing in any of the 23 Midwestern and eastern states considered part of the bat's range.

October 28, 2010

From Paul Burdick

Re: Update on EAS’s Clinton County Wind Farm

Dear Clinton County Landowners:

We at AES Wind have been making good progress advancing our wind farm development in Clinton County and we have been extremely gratified at the high level of interest and support of Clinton County landowners.

Throughout the development process we continually review the market prospects and probability of success for all of our projects.

Reluctantly, we have come to the conclusion that for the foreseeable future, at least through the limited life of our wind leases, the prospects for completing a wind project in Clinton County are extremely limited.

In that light, we have been forced to conclude that, barring an abrupt change in market conditions, we must begin to let our wind leases lapse as their renewal dates occur.

This doesn’t mean that the conditions won’t ever be right, it simply means that we need to be realistic about the timing and the likelihood of the broader market events that will be needed for ultimate success. The following discussion will give you some more detailed information on the hurdles we face and how this is driving our decisions.

Eventual success of wind energy projects in the US relies to a great extent on some form of renewable energy legislation, either at the state or federal level. An important part of our development effort is to forecast the timing and amount of demand for our product.

You may be aware that several US Senators have recently proposed legislation calling for a national renewable energy mandate, although it remains unclear as to when such legislation might be passed and whether it would clear both houses of Congress.

We are all keenly aware that this is a political issue that has a great deal of uncertainty and is the subject of great debate. In general, we remain optimistic that over time our nation’s demand for renewable energy will grow.

However, even if there were to be renewable legislation sometime in 2011 we do not believe the resulting mandates and demand would grow rapidly enough to levels where we could build much, or perhaps any of the capacity that our leased land can accommodate within the limited life span of our lease options.

An additional and significant new hurdle facing all wind farms in the region is the possible presence of the endangered Indiana bat. New rules issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service require that all operating and proposed wind farms within 23 easter states in the Indiana bat range go through a special review process to confirm and ensure that the bat populations will not be harmed.

This process is expected to take approximately 2-1/2 years. This position of the USFWS has been in the works for a while; however the process is only now being fully defined. WHile not necessarily fatal to wind farm development, these new lengthy and uncertain environmental review requirements only compound the timing problems we face.

It is the combination of these conditions that has led us reluctantly to the conclusion that we must reduce the size of our near term wind farm plans, which in turn means that for now we will be reducing the amount of land kept under lease. To that end our current plan is to let leases lapse as their renewal dates occur.

Although we are scaling back our effort, there are a few things we will continue to do in the hopes that the market comes around. One is that we will continue to pursue our ongoing interconnection application in order to determine how much wind capacity could be installed and the cost.

Another is that we will continue to operate our installed wind monitoring towers in order to maintain the long term continuity of the data we have collected to date. And, of course, we will continue to monitor the market to see if the future holds any renewed prospects.

While the stalled growth in demand for renewable energy adversely affects our near term plans, we still believe that Clinton County is a great place for a wind farm and it’s really only a matter of time before the full potential can one day be realized.

As always, if you have questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me directly and thank you again for your patience and enthusiasm.

Sincerely,
~~~
Paul Burdick
Vice President
AES Wind, LLC

SECOND FEATURE

Symposium speaker: Lawsuit against MOE goes to court Jan. 24-25

SOURCE: Wellington Advertiser

November 21, 2010

by Jim Curry

This is the second of a three-part report on the First International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Adverse  Health Effects, held Oct. 29 to 31.

Last week’s report covered the alleged negative health effects of low frequency noise produced by industrial scale wind turbines.

In addition, it was noted leading world health agencies, including the World Health Organization, call for a minimum 1.5km setback from turbines to residences.

Also last week, the report highlighted the research of several leading and highly respected doctors, who say there are significant adverse health effects and negative effects on learning due to industrial wind turbine noise.

At last month’s symposium Eric Gillespie, of Cunningham & Gillespie LLP, an environmental law firm, delivered an update on the Ian Hannah legal case. Hannah farms in Prince Edward County (Belleville-Trenton area) and is representing a number of other residents with a common concern about adverse health effects.

This case is a class action lawsuit against the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) based upon the concern that the 550m set back, which is a regulation in the Green Energy Act, is not sufficient and that health issues may occur. In addition, the case alleges the MOE has not respected the “precautionary principle” in putting forth this setback.

The precautionary principle states if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

In essence, the principle, which is recognized by the Supreme Court of Ontario, states if there are any doubts about whether something causes an adverse effect, don’t do it. Gillespie said the industrial wind turbine company must prove scientifically there are absolutely no adverse effects to human, or animal health or the local environment due to the wind turbine farm.

This case is scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Supreme Court at Osgoode Hall, Toronto, on Jan. 24 and 25.

Another important piece of legislation states any newly approved wind farm project is subject to an appeal process filed with the Environmental Appeal Tribunal. The tribunal has the authority to halt further construction until the appeal is reviewed.

Gillespie also suggested anyone that agrees to have a turbine on their property should make sure the binding agreement with the developer states the developer will be solely responsible for any legal costs in the event of a lawsuit from a neighbouring property owner. If this is not legally included, the property owner may be held responsible for possible damages caused by the turbine.

One of the key speakers was Dr. Michael Nissenbaum,  a radiologist at Northern Maine Medical Centre and certified by the Royal College of Physicians of Canada, and American Board of Radiology. His research represented the world’s first controlled study of alleged adverse health effects related to industrial wind turbines. His research was conducted at Mars Hill, Maine and at Vinalhaven, Maine. He used information gathering techniques on sleep effect studies that are accepted by the medical community around the world.

Nissenbaum stated the sound energy from wind turbines has a more disruptive sleep effect than any known industrial noise of the same sound pressure. This is thought to be due to the complex tones generated by the turbine blades as they pass by the tower. Nissenbaum also noted the sound energy is mostly in the low frequency range, which  readily passes through building materials and into the home and penetrates the ground as well as deep within the body. 

He said low frequency noise impacts the emotion centres of the brain, which release stress hormones that trigger fear, anxiety, suspense, flight and arousal. He mentioned low frequency (ultrasound) is used to scan deep within the body, and high frequency is used for shallow scanning such as a thyroid.

The results of Nissenbaum’s study show people within 1.5km of turbines display a higher incidence of mental health issues, increased stress levels, high desire to want to injure or kill someone, high level of anger, a higher level of psychotropic medication use and poorer sleep than the control group that was 4.5km away from the wind turbines. Mental health improved as the distance from the wind turbines increased.

Of interest was the pre and post attitude results pertaining to wind turbines. Prior to the turbines coming on stream, both the area close to the turbines and those in the control area felt the turbines would be a good for their areas. After the wind turbines started to produce energy the attitudes were completely opposite. Those close to the wind turbines were very agitated and wished the turbines could be stopped, and those in the control area for the most part had no issues; but some were effected even at that distance.

Nissenbaum concluded wind turbines do have an adverse effect to human health and wellness, and 1.5km should be the absolute minimum setback, although it should be  more to mitigate effects on health and overall quality of life. He says the impact of wind turbines needs to be determined prior to installation and not after the fact.

Wind Fight Keeps on in Morrow County

SOURCE: East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com

November 19, 2010

Erin Mills

IRRIGON — Both parties involved in the fight over noise from the Willow Creek Energy Center have again appealed a Morrow County Planning Commission ruling to the Morrow County Court.

The planning commission’s Oct. 26 ruling expanded on its earlier decision — also appealed to the county court — that found the wind project in violation of state noise rules and gave it six months to comply.

The company that owns the 48-turbine project, Invenergy, appealed the ruling because “the planning commission’s decision incorrectly construed the applicable noise standard and was not supported by substantial evidence in the record,” according to its appeal application.

The four neighbors who live near the project appealed the ruling because it did not immediately ensure compliance with the noise rule, particularly at night, and didn’t force Invenergy to pay for the neighbors’ noise study.

The Morrow County Court is scheduled to review the issue Dec. 8 at 10 a.m. at the Riverfront Center at the Port of Morrow.

SECOND FEATURE

BRUCE COUNTY COUNCIL BACKS CALL FOR TURBINE STUDY

SOURCE: The Sun Times, www.owensoundsuntimes.com

 November 18, 2010

By Don Crosby,

Bruce County council is throwing its support behind a request from Huron-Kinloss that the Grey Bruce Health Unit study the health effects of wind turbines close to homes.

"I have a lot of people in my community that have been sick since the turbines [have been] up and working. We hope if we pass this resolution around to other municipalities we'll gain some support. Take this to the health board and hopefully Dr. [Hazel] Lynn will see fit to take it to the next level, whether that's a health study or whether it's getting other health units in other counties involved in this process," Huron-Kinloss Mayor Mitch Twolan said after Thursday's meeting of the county's agriculture, tourism and planning committee.

"I think it's very important that no further turbines are erected until some sort of health study is done."

Twolan said he knows of seven families who left their homes since 38 turbines became operational in the Ripley area.

There are proposals for another 50 turbines in Huron-Kinloss and Twolan said he's hearing of other people who say they are affected but haven't said anything.

"There is a silent majority out there that have not come forward to state their concerns because they don't want it to be public. So in the best interest of all our people in all of our municipalities I think this is very important," he said.

Kincardine Mayor Larry Kraemer, who has long been on the health unit's board of directors, said he doesn't believe the medical officer of health can undertake this kind of study herself, but voted to support the Huron-Kinloss resolution.

Lynn earlier this year called on the provincial government to conduct studies to clear up claims of people who say they are suffering from living too close to wind turbines.

Twolan said there is still too little information available to the general public and municipal leaders, who feel left out of the loop yet take the brunt of complaints.

"We're told in the Green Energy Act that everything is in order and in place, yet we have people sick in our community . . . I think it's incumbent on us as leaders at the municipal level to hear their concerns and take it to the next level," he said.

Twolan said energy companies have tried to solve the problems of the seven families who moved.

"In fairness to them they have tried to rectify the situation, but before we move forward in new proposals let's have all of the answers in place and these concerns addressed," he said.

Although Twolan was acclaimed as mayor in the recent election he says concerns about the effects of wind turbines on residents was uppermost in the minds of the electorate.

Residents have given him and his council a second chance, but expect them to do something about these concern, Twolan said.

"As long as you take the message to the next level people will listen. And I genuinely believe in my people. We have issues and we have concerns. The Green Energy Act and these wind turbines are more than just about green energy. There are people out there that are just not happy with this whole process," Twolan said.

Bruce County councillors voted unanimously to support the Huron-Kinloss resolution.

THIRD FEATURE:

IBERDROLA HALTS PLANS FOR WIND INDUSTRY FARM

SOURCE:  Putnam County Sentinel, putnamsentinel.com

November 18, 2010

Marlena Ballinger, Managing Editor,

OTTAWA – According to an e-mail sent to the Putnam County Commissioners last week by CIC director Martin Kuhlman, the Wind Energy Project in Putnam County has come to a standstill.

Kuhlman stated in the email that Iberdrola is upset because a Sentinel reporter was present during a phone call between Iberdrola representative, Tim Lang and the Commissioners.

Before last Friday’s commissioner’s meeting, Van Buren Township trustee, Denny Schroeder spoke to commissioners, Travis Jerwers and Vince Schroeder regarding the proposed withdraw of Iberdrola. Commissioner John Love was in Columbus. Denny was basically upset because the commissioners refuse to accept the proposed $4200 per megawatt Iberdrola has agreed to pay.

The project would have generated about 150 megawatts resulting in a $630,000 annual payment from Iberdrola.

According to Senate Bill 232 a company wishing to build a wind energy farm is required to pay in lieu of taxes (PILOT) $6,000 to $8,000 per megawatt to the entities involved but not to exceed $9,000.

The entities involved in this project include Leipsic School district, Van Buren Township and the Putnam County Commissioners.

Over 15 years, the proposed $630,000 per year would be divided out via the school district receiving 72.9 percent, Putnam County receiving 15.3 percent and Van Buren township receiving 11.89 percent.

The commissioners stand alone in the fact they feel Iberdrola should have to abide by Senate Bill 232.

Van Buren township trustees and the school board are willing to go along with the offer presented to them from Iberdrola.

FOURTH FEATURE

WIND ENERGY, SOLAR POWER, FACE CLOUDY FUTURE

SOURCE CNNMoney.com, money.cnn.com

November 18 2010

By Steve Hargreaves, senior writer,

After years of rapid growth and darling status among many in Washington, the future of the American renewable energy industry is uncertain.

That’s because the government cash it has come to rely on may dry up on Dec. 31.

Before the Great Recession, renewable energy developments were helped by a tax credit, worth generally 30% of the cost of the project. When the recession hit, the stimulus package replaced those tax credits with direct cash grants of similar value. Cash is considered more beneficial than credit to the industry.

So far, the government has handed out about $5.4 billion, according to the Energy Department.

Congress could vote to extend the grants, but that’s highly unlikely.

If they’re allowed to expire, incentives for renewable energy will revert to the old tax credits.

“This is not a great place to be in,” said Denise Bode, head of the American Wind Energy Association. “It’s an economic opportunity that will be missed.”

The wind industry is already hurting — even with the cash.

The amount of new electricity wind can generate declined 72% in the third quarter compared to the same time last year, according to the wind association.

The wind industry isn’t the only one saying it will suffer.

Without the cash grant, “we’ll grow at a much smaller rate,” said Edward Fenster, CEO of Sunrun, a San Francisco-based company that installs solar panels on people’s homes.

“They’ve ensured that we’re building something new everyday,” he said

Sunrun has 7,000 customers in seven states. The company installs $1.1 million worth of new systems every day, employing 3,000 contractors.

Fenster said the cash grants let him get cheaper loans than the old tax credits, enabling him to reduce the price of the solar energy he sells by up to 25%. He predicts that price reduction would allow him to double his business next year.

But with “cut spending” the mantra on Capitol Hill, slower growth may be the new reality.

“On a gut level, a lot of the conservatives just don’t like to see the government handing out checks to people,” said Kevin Shaw, an energy lawyer at Mayer Brown. “I just don’t see the grant program being extended.”

But the White House does. The Obama administration has proposed a plan: Pay for it by using money left over from the stimulus package. That’s led some analysts to at least give it a shot at passing.

“You have a road map from the White House,” said Whitney Stanco, an energy analyst at the Washington Research Group. “And previously, Republicans have been amenable to using unspent stimulus funds to pay for other priorities.”

A spokesman for presumed Speaker of the House John Boehner wouldn’t get into details about what the incoming house might fund.

He did say that Republicans support all forms of energy development, including renewables and nuclear power, provided that any money for them comes from expanded domestic oil and gas drilling, a prospect that looks dim.

There’s another piece of legislation that could provide support for the renewable industry besides the cash grant — a mandate that would require utilities to buy a certain percent of their power from renewable energy.

About 30 states already have such a mandate, and the industry has been pushing hard for a federal standard of at least 15%.

But most analysts say that while a broader “clean energy” standard that includes nuclear and natural gas may have a slightly better chance of passing, neither idea will gain traction in the next year.

Even absent the cash grants or the requirement to buy renewable power, some analysts say the sector is not doomed.

Michael Hennessy, a wind analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, is predicting wind turbines will add about 8 gigawatts of power in 2011.

That’s up from 5 or 6 gigawatts projected for hard-hit 2010, but below the record breaking 10 gigawatts in 2009.

The country has about 1,100 gigawatts installed from all sources, with wind accounting for the vast majority of what people consider renewable energy.

“It doesn’t bode horribly in our view,” Hennessy said of the cash grants expiring. It’s just not as good as it could be.

WIND FARM WORK TO CAUSE 33 HAVOC? CONSTRUCTION NEXT YEAR WILL MEAN TRAFFIC INCREASES

SOURCE: Daily Register, www.wiscnews.com

November 14 2010

By Lyn Jerde,

Much of Highway 33 in eastern Columbia County will become a de facto construction zone next spring, as 90 wind turbines start to rise into the skyline.

Before the We Energies turbines stand about 400 feet from ground to the highest blade tip, they’ll take the form of components, moving into the county on trucks and hoisted by cranes, all of which will be much larger than are commonly seen in rural Columbia County.

The logistics of conveying that oversized material and equipment, and safety concerns for turbine builders who will be working in or near highway right-of-way, prompted the Columbia County Highway Safety Committee on Friday to consider ways to keep the wind farm construction accident-free.

Michael Strader of We Energies said there have been no injuries to workers who have been working since last spring to build the foundations and driveways and lay conduit to serve the 90 wind turbines that will comprise Glacier Hills Energy Park, located on leased farmland spanning about 17,300 acres in the towns of Scott and Randolph.

However, he said, there have been plenty of close calls, including drivers speeding past the construction areas, disregarding flaggers and driving too close to the workers. Some of the passers-by, in the early days of construction, shouted derogatory things about the wind farm, Strader said.

Highway safety committee chairman Doug Jarzynski, a Columbia County Sheriff’s Office lieutenant, said Highway 33, along which much of the construction takes place, is a heavily traveled road on which traffic tends to exceed 60 mph, even though the posted speed limit is 55 mph.

That’s why the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office has, from time to time, stepped up patrols in the area to control speed, Jarzynski said. The sheriff’s office will continue to do this as much as possible, he said, but he noted that the department is understaffed.

Speed control will be only one safety-related concern when, in May, the towers and turbines start going up.

According to Strader, trucks that haul in the components for the turbines will need wider intersections in several places to allow for a larger turning radius.

Strader said We Energies will use gravel to widen some intersections, but needs to keep the public from using them.

Angela Adams of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation said she would prefer that We Energies use orange barrels, instead of barricades, to keep the public out of widened intersections. That way, she said, the barrels can stay up all the time, except when workers take them down to admit a construction-related vehicle.

The challenge with that, Strader said, is that barrels tend to be either too light to stand up to a stiff wind or too heavy to be moved easily.

Flaggers from We Energies, including escort vehicles, likely will be used for traffic control heavily beginning in mid-May, when crews expect to be working from sunrise to sunset on building the turbines.

Also, the DOT has designated spots on Highway 33, and a few on Highway 73, where signs will be posted to designate a construction zone where trucks will enter and leave frequently.

According to Strader, each tower will be built from four sections, each of which comes separately by trucks that could be up to 150 feet long, necessitating the traffic control from time to time in areas encompassing not only Highway 33, but also Highways 146 and 73, and possibly some surrounding county and town roads.

Tower segments will be trucked from Manitowoc, and blades and related components will arrive by train from Colorado to a site in the town of Courtland, from which they’ll be transported by truck to turbine sites.

Typically, Strader said, the bottom two sections of several towers will be installed, followed by the addition of the top two sections, which require a different crane than the bottom sections. One of the cranes used will be more than 300 feet tall and will travel on rubber tires to lessen damage to roads and farmland.

Plans call for working from sunrise to sundown six days a week, with Sundays off unless work crews need to make up time lost to inclement weather or other factors that can delay their work. Most of the “visible work” of erecting the turbines should start in mid-May and continue through the fall, Strader said.

During construction, there could be as many as 18 trucks a day in the area where turbines are going up, he said.

Jarzynski said it would be possible for deputies enforcing speed limits in the area to write tickets calling for higher fines in work zones if they determine workers were present.