MORROW COUNTY, Ore. - It's their slice of heaven.
"When you get out here, everything kind of drains away from you," Sherry Eaton says as surveys her 10-acre rural home. "It's quiet, peaceful."
At least, it was.
"It looks like something prehistoric, something in the movies," Sherry’s husband Mike Eaton says about the more than a dozen towering wind turbines that have appeared above a ridge near their home.
Wind energy is the latest rage in going green and in shifting the United States away from fossil-based energy supplies. And more wind turbines are coming to Oregon. It is even required by law.
But with giant wind turbines now looming nearby, the Eaton’s fear the rapid move to clean energy will come at the expense of their health.
The problem is something called "Wind Turbine Syndrome."
"I pulled in the driveway after they started putting the towers up and there they are, I was just flabbergasted," Sherry said about the turbines, which reach nearly 400 feet into the sky.
But the view is not the half of it.
"My health concern is because I have a motion disorder, the research we've been researching has a possibility linked to having problems with [the turbines]," said Mike Eaton, who was an artillery man in Vietnam and has inner ear damage from all the blasts. He suffers from debilitating vertigo, which is similar to being seasick. He walks with a limp and a cane for assistance.
"In other words, I don't know what [the turbines] will do to me," he says. "To be honest with you… I don't want to be the guinea pig to find out."
Certain noises set off his vertigo, and he wonders if the sounds made by the whirling blades and churning turbine motors will be constant triggers.
That's why a soon-to-be-published book has them so alarmed. It’s called "Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment."
It's the work of New York physician and ecologist, Dr. Nina Pierpont.
Among the problems associated with Wind Turbine Syndrome are "a debilitating, complex of symptoms" including sleep disturbance, headache, dizziness, vertigo, nausea and panic episodes "associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering which arise while awake or asleep."
Dr. Pierpont began seeing patients in her clinic suffering from many of those symptoms and found a common thread among them: all lived near a new wind farm.
Dr. Owen Black is one of the experts asked to critique the research in the book. He is an expert in disorders of the inner ear.
He's also the Director of Neurology Research for the Legacy Research and Technology Center in Portland.
"Judging from the studies done, particularly by the Navy on low frequency sound pressure levels and given the symptom patterns that are described here, I definitely think it needs to be investigated," Dr. Black told KATU News. "What the cause is, I have no idea."
Dr. Pierpont's hypothesis says wind turbines produce vibration, low frequency noise and their moving shadows create visual stimulation known as "flicker."
All of those things that can affect the body, especially if you're someone with a "pre-existing migraine disorder, motion sensitivity, and inner ear damage" like Mike Eaton.
KATU News attempted to talk to the company building the wind farm next to the Eaton’s home about their concerns, but Susan Dennison of Invenergy, LLC, told KATU News "there hasn't been any conclusive evidence that turbines cause health problems."
Near the Eaton’s home, another company was cutting the ribbon on a newly-built wind farm.
Arlo Corwin, director of development for the Northwest region for Horizon Wind Energy said "we have definitely heard of these theories and we do think they are theories and we've never seen any credible source cited that substantiates this or scientific study that says this happens."
Horizon just commenced operation of the large new wind farm near Arlington.
Dr. Black concedes that "this area is very difficult because very few people have expertise in the areas that need to be studied" when it comes to the health affects of wind turbines.
He said that proving Wind Turbine Syndrome would require a comprehensive and very expensive study.
Meanwhile, The Eaton’s keep on eye on the nearest wind turbines, which are within a half-mile of their home.
Dr. Pierpont’s book says there should be a buffer of at least a mile and a quarter - maybe more - to protect the public.
"It's sickening, the pit of your stomach, you're whole life is going to change, and you have no control over it," Sherry Eaton says as she looks toward the temporarily still turbines.
Health concerns have not been part of the permitting process for wind farms in the Northwest. In fact, the state of Oregon touts it has "adopted an expedited siting processes for wind farms".
To learn about more Wind Turbine Syndrome, click here and here.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Reduced Jordanville Wind Project Fine, Iberdrola Tells Packed House
Spanish multi-national Iberdrola unveiled a slimmer version of the Jordanville Wind Project before a packed town-hall meeting Monday, Nov. 10.
It was unclear, though, if anyone has changed his or her mind on an issue that divided the townspeople of Warren and Stark, where the wind project is planned, and Herkimer from Otsego counties; the northern county gets the benefits, and two counties share the impacts.
And while the prospective wind project has a new owner, some of the faces remained the same. For instance, Iberdrola’s vice president in charge of the 40-turbine project is Skip Brennan, the same Skip Brennan who was promoting the original wind farm for Community Energy as it shrank from 75 turbines to 68 to 49.
The current project, which was described as achieving a “suitable balance” between those pro and con in the community, also happens to top out at 80 megawatts; if it were a watt higher, it would fall under the review of the state Public Service Commission, which has issues strongly worded opinions about the shortcomings.
Since it escapes PSC review, the hearing the other night was to solicit public comment on Iberdrola’s revised filings required under SEQRA, the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
The company’s revised arguments, detailed by Brennan and emphasized on poster board across one wall, state:
• The project has gone though an exhaustive environmental review, dramatized by a pile of bound volumes a table long and three feet high, although it turned out those documents were actually for the Maple Ridge Farm near Lowville, the biggest in the state and now home to almost 200 turbines.
• The 28 eliminated turbines (from the 68-turbine version) is a 41 percent reduction, (although only an 18 percent reduction from the 49-turbine level set by state Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood in response to an Article 78 challenge.)
• Eight turbines were removed to the south, creating a five-mile buffer strip between the project and the Glimmerglass National Historic District.
• Four turbines were removed north of Holy Trinity Monastery, creating a one-mile buffer.
• A PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) has been negotiated, which will generate $640,000 in local revenue annually, half of which would go to the Owen D. Young Central School District. Landowners would share $240,000 a year.
Some 36 people were scheduled to speak, five minutes each.
Representative of the anti side was Susan Marquardt, who cited low energy usage in the two towns, and called for “a unifying energy alternative” to the wind farm.
Troy Hugick was among the pros, quoting president-elect Barack Obama, “we have a righteous wind at our back.” He concluded, “and I believe we do.”
Brennan encouraged people with questions to visit the project description on Iberdrola’s web site.
It was unclear, though, if anyone has changed his or her mind on an issue that divided the townspeople of Warren and Stark, where the wind project is planned, and Herkimer from Otsego counties; the northern county gets the benefits, and two counties share the impacts.
And while the prospective wind project has a new owner, some of the faces remained the same. For instance, Iberdrola’s vice president in charge of the 40-turbine project is Skip Brennan, the same Skip Brennan who was promoting the original wind farm for Community Energy as it shrank from 75 turbines to 68 to 49.
The current project, which was described as achieving a “suitable balance” between those pro and con in the community, also happens to top out at 80 megawatts; if it were a watt higher, it would fall under the review of the state Public Service Commission, which has issues strongly worded opinions about the shortcomings.
Since it escapes PSC review, the hearing the other night was to solicit public comment on Iberdrola’s revised filings required under SEQRA, the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
The company’s revised arguments, detailed by Brennan and emphasized on poster board across one wall, state:
• The project has gone though an exhaustive environmental review, dramatized by a pile of bound volumes a table long and three feet high, although it turned out those documents were actually for the Maple Ridge Farm near Lowville, the biggest in the state and now home to almost 200 turbines.
• The 28 eliminated turbines (from the 68-turbine version) is a 41 percent reduction, (although only an 18 percent reduction from the 49-turbine level set by state Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood in response to an Article 78 challenge.)
• Eight turbines were removed to the south, creating a five-mile buffer strip between the project and the Glimmerglass National Historic District.
• Four turbines were removed north of Holy Trinity Monastery, creating a one-mile buffer.
• A PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) has been negotiated, which will generate $640,000 in local revenue annually, half of which would go to the Owen D. Young Central School District. Landowners would share $240,000 a year.
Some 36 people were scheduled to speak, five minutes each.
Representative of the anti side was Susan Marquardt, who cited low energy usage in the two towns, and called for “a unifying energy alternative” to the wind farm.
Troy Hugick was among the pros, quoting president-elect Barack Obama, “we have a righteous wind at our back.” He concluded, “and I believe we do.”
Brennan encouraged people with questions to visit the project description on Iberdrola’s web site.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Don’t rush to invest in wind, solar power
We have just seen the collapse of the financial Goliath that was built by fast-buck bankers and encouraged by altruistic but shortsighted government policies that required banks to make more loans to those least able to repay them, and encouraged passing on these loans as quality investments.
We are now building a second Goliath in the form of irrational investment in wind and solar-voltaic energy. These are intermittent sources of electric power that our grid has no means to store for use when needed. The rush to invest in such irrational alternative energy schemes is driven by the same fast-buck investment bankers and by more altruistic but shortsighted government policies that require us to subsidize the cost of building such intermittent energy sources, and purchase their power output, whether we can use it or not.
This country needs reliable and affordable electric power for our homes and industries, and we have no more ability to make the wind blow or to move clouds when we need electric power than a farmer has the ability to make it rain on parched crops. We cannot afford another Goliath with feet of clay.
David Amsler
Franklinville
We are now building a second Goliath in the form of irrational investment in wind and solar-voltaic energy. These are intermittent sources of electric power that our grid has no means to store for use when needed. The rush to invest in such irrational alternative energy schemes is driven by the same fast-buck investment bankers and by more altruistic but shortsighted government policies that require us to subsidize the cost of building such intermittent energy sources, and purchase their power output, whether we can use it or not.
This country needs reliable and affordable electric power for our homes and industries, and we have no more ability to make the wind blow or to move clouds when we need electric power than a farmer has the ability to make it rain on parched crops. We cannot afford another Goliath with feet of clay.
David Amsler
Franklinville
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wind farm moratorium eyed
The Holland Town Board, in the initial stages of writing a law on wind farms in the town, may adopt a moratorium on such entities as early as next month.
Wednesday, the board unanimously approved a public hearing for 8 p. m. Dec. 10 to impose a moratorium on wind farms until a local law regulating them has been adopted.
Eleven months ago, the board organized a subcommittee to investigate the sometimes controversial source of power. Since then, the group has studied various town ordinances to create a law that will suit the town.
Wednesday night, Town Attorney Ronald Bennett was asked by Supervisor Michael Kasprzyk to review the subcommittee’s work for proper legal wording.
Though no projects in the town have been proposed, the supervisor said the committee’s work has been prompted by the proliferation of wind farms in neighboring towns and the controversy they bring with them.
“All of our neighbors to the east — Sheldon, Java, Wethersfield — have projects going on. To the south of us, Sardinia said they don’t want to deal with it. I want us to be prepared, if we’re approached,” Kasprzyk said.
He said the Town of Eagle in Wyoming County has embraced the wind turbines while Farmersville has enacted a moratorium until officials rework their code book.
As the vanguard of the green movement, wind farm proposals are controversial, with some seeing the giant wind turbines as “an abomination of the landscape,” Kasprzyk said.
“So far I haven’t heard anyone against them in Holland, but maybe that’s because there’s no proposal on the table,” he added.
A public hearing on the new law, which will set the terms and conditions under which a wind farm can operate in Holland, is tentatively scheduled for January.
Wednesday, the board unanimously approved a public hearing for 8 p. m. Dec. 10 to impose a moratorium on wind farms until a local law regulating them has been adopted.
Eleven months ago, the board organized a subcommittee to investigate the sometimes controversial source of power. Since then, the group has studied various town ordinances to create a law that will suit the town.
Wednesday night, Town Attorney Ronald Bennett was asked by Supervisor Michael Kasprzyk to review the subcommittee’s work for proper legal wording.
Though no projects in the town have been proposed, the supervisor said the committee’s work has been prompted by the proliferation of wind farms in neighboring towns and the controversy they bring with them.
“All of our neighbors to the east — Sheldon, Java, Wethersfield — have projects going on. To the south of us, Sardinia said they don’t want to deal with it. I want us to be prepared, if we’re approached,” Kasprzyk said.
He said the Town of Eagle in Wyoming County has embraced the wind turbines while Farmersville has enacted a moratorium until officials rework their code book.
As the vanguard of the green movement, wind farm proposals are controversial, with some seeing the giant wind turbines as “an abomination of the landscape,” Kasprzyk said.
“So far I haven’t heard anyone against them in Holland, but maybe that’s because there’s no proposal on the table,” he added.
A public hearing on the new law, which will set the terms and conditions under which a wind farm can operate in Holland, is tentatively scheduled for January.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Increased setbacks recommended for Enfield wind law
The setbacks in the proposed Enfield wind law are not large enough, according to a letter from the Tompkins County Planning Department to Town Supervisor Frank Podufalski, but following that advice could kill the wind farm proposal for a site near Connecticut Hill.
The planning department recommends increased setbacks between property lines and the wind towers from 1.1 times the blade radius to 1.5 times the height of the tower. This would increase the setback from property lines from about 100 feet to roughly 600 feet. The height of the turbines is approximately 400 feet.
The size of setbacks has become the focal point of the proposed local law, and if the standards are increased to comply with the county recommendations, wind farm developer John Rancich's proposed wind farm would likely die. The county recommendations contain setbacks that are similar to a local law passed at the end of 2007 that was seen by some wind proponents as a desperate push by an outgoing town board resistant to the wind farm project.
Increased setbacks would kill Rancich's project because long, narrow plots in the vicinity would allow landowners to keep neighbors from having a tower on their own property, Rancich said last year. County Planning Director Ed Marx said the recommendations were solely based on wind laws in other communities and that the department did not consider the specific wind farm proposal.
“We feel like community support for alternative energy will be enhanced if we make sure adjacent property owners are properly protected as much as possible from the adverse impacts. I guess when you're developing a law it shouldn't be developed for a single project. It should be developed for the community and adjacent communities.”
The county recommendations also ask Enfield to increase setbacks from dwellings from 1.1 times the height of the tower to two times the height of the tower.
But Enfield does not have to comply with the county recommendations. If the Enfield Town Board does not adopt the recommendations, it will need a supermajority, which means four votes on the five-member board, to pass the proposal into law.
Marx based the county recommendations on examples of laws compiled by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which vary considerably.
Town attorney Guy Krogh defended the proposed law.
“On setbacks, (NYSERDA) give(s) this ridiculous range of standards from barely anything to two times tower height, and somehow the county says ‘Well 1.1 (times the height of the tower) is at the low end. We think 1.5 (times the height of the tower),' ” Krogh said.
Krogh added that he doesn't see the relationship between community and intercommunity impacts and larger setbacks.
Marx said with greater setbacks there will likely be greater community support for alternative energy projects.
Residents living near the Rancich site have had concerns since wind energy was proposed.
Bruce Varner, a Connecticut Hill resident, wrote Podufalski requesting setbacks larger than proposed by county planning. However, he thinks a compromise could be found by the town board adhering to the county recommendations.
“If (the Enfield board) would alter the setbacks to what (county planning is) specifying and the sound levels to what they're specifying, I would think that's something workable. I would want them farther away,” Varner said
Varner also suggested moving the project across the street where he said a smaller but safer wind farm could be built. Rancich has said that his testing has only been done on the proposed site and that a smaller wind farm would not make the project financially viable.
At a public hearing last week, most attendees voiced strong support for the wind law with setbacks at 1.1 times the height of the tower.
The planning department recommends increased setbacks between property lines and the wind towers from 1.1 times the blade radius to 1.5 times the height of the tower. This would increase the setback from property lines from about 100 feet to roughly 600 feet. The height of the turbines is approximately 400 feet.
The size of setbacks has become the focal point of the proposed local law, and if the standards are increased to comply with the county recommendations, wind farm developer John Rancich's proposed wind farm would likely die. The county recommendations contain setbacks that are similar to a local law passed at the end of 2007 that was seen by some wind proponents as a desperate push by an outgoing town board resistant to the wind farm project.
Increased setbacks would kill Rancich's project because long, narrow plots in the vicinity would allow landowners to keep neighbors from having a tower on their own property, Rancich said last year. County Planning Director Ed Marx said the recommendations were solely based on wind laws in other communities and that the department did not consider the specific wind farm proposal.
“We feel like community support for alternative energy will be enhanced if we make sure adjacent property owners are properly protected as much as possible from the adverse impacts. I guess when you're developing a law it shouldn't be developed for a single project. It should be developed for the community and adjacent communities.”
The county recommendations also ask Enfield to increase setbacks from dwellings from 1.1 times the height of the tower to two times the height of the tower.
But Enfield does not have to comply with the county recommendations. If the Enfield Town Board does not adopt the recommendations, it will need a supermajority, which means four votes on the five-member board, to pass the proposal into law.
Marx based the county recommendations on examples of laws compiled by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which vary considerably.
Town attorney Guy Krogh defended the proposed law.
“On setbacks, (NYSERDA) give(s) this ridiculous range of standards from barely anything to two times tower height, and somehow the county says ‘Well 1.1 (times the height of the tower) is at the low end. We think 1.5 (times the height of the tower),' ” Krogh said.
Krogh added that he doesn't see the relationship between community and intercommunity impacts and larger setbacks.
Marx said with greater setbacks there will likely be greater community support for alternative energy projects.
Residents living near the Rancich site have had concerns since wind energy was proposed.
Bruce Varner, a Connecticut Hill resident, wrote Podufalski requesting setbacks larger than proposed by county planning. However, he thinks a compromise could be found by the town board adhering to the county recommendations.
“If (the Enfield board) would alter the setbacks to what (county planning is) specifying and the sound levels to what they're specifying, I would think that's something workable. I would want them farther away,” Varner said
Varner also suggested moving the project across the street where he said a smaller but safer wind farm could be built. Rancich has said that his testing has only been done on the proposed site and that a smaller wind farm would not make the project financially viable.
At a public hearing last week, most attendees voiced strong support for the wind law with setbacks at 1.1 times the height of the tower.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Lincoln residents push for wind moratorium
LINCOLN, Maine — A group of residents again pressed the new Town Council on Monday night for a 180-day moratorium on wind farms as their reaction to a Massachusetts developer’s proposal for a $130 million wind farm.
After new Councilor Marcella Ireland and returning Councilor Samuel Clay were sworn in, the council took no action on residents’ claims that First Wind of Massachusetts’ farm would harm health, lower land values and ruin the beauty of Rollins Mountain, the range of hills running from Burlington through Lincoln to Lee and Winn that the proposed farm would be built upon if approved.
“There must be a reason why so many towns in the United States and Europe are holding moratoriums on wind farms,” resident Joan Goodwin said. “A huge chunk of land within our towns will be forever blighted by this.”
About 80 people attended the meeting, held at Mattanawcook Academy to accommodate the crowd.
Councilor Michael Ireland considered seeking a moratorium but did not pursue one Monday because he did not want to impede the planning board’s review of the Rollins Mountain project. First Wind formally applied to the board Friday for permits to build the windmills in Lincoln, listing the total cost of the project at $130 million, $10 million more than town officials previously had estimated.
The board’s review process begins next Monday. It is required to produce a decision in 30 days, planning board chairman Peter Phinney said. The other towns, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also must approve the project, First Wind officials have said. The DEP application is due to be filed within two weeks.
Ireland did not rule out seeking a moratorium. The council is due to review the First Wind farm at Mars Hill on Saturday, he said.
Attorney Timothy Woodcock of Eaton Peabody, the town’s legal counsel, doubted a moratorium could occur. Under state law, moratoriums are limited to 180 days. They must be used only to prevent a shortage or overburdening of public facilities or because existing plans and laws are “inadequate to prevent serious public harm,” the statute states.
The board’s recommendation against a moratorium and opinion that the town’s ordinances were adequate for a review would undercut any moratorium effort, Woodcock said. The council also must pass a moratorium with an agenda listing, public hearing and majority vote.
Several residents spoke for the project, saying they favored clean energy, lower taxes and the increased electricity capacity it promises. They said the project would be a boon to local businesses and that First Winds’ other projects at Stetson Mountain and Mars Hill already have added hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars to the local economy.
First Wind officials, who attended the meeting, listed 30 town businesses as among the nearly 150 statewide that have received new customers and money from the project.
Those town businesses include hardware stores, restaurants, motels, auto dealers, Lincoln Pulp & Paper Co. LLC., W.T. Gardner & Sons, Larry Hamm Construction Co., Chester Forest Products, Hogan Tire and Ramsay Welding and Machinery.
First Wind’s projects have boosted Maine’s economy by $50 million, said Matt Kearns, the company’s vice president of business development for New England.
“I don’t know what the total impact to this town will be from this project, but it seems to be the primary beneficiaries will be the Gardner and HC Haynes companies,” resident Tate Aylward said. “If this benefits them, it does benefit the town to some extent.”
Under all scenarios town officials are considering, at least $400,000 in tax revenues would be generated annually by the project, town Economic Development Director Ruth Birtz said.
nsambides@bangordailynews.net
794-8215
After new Councilor Marcella Ireland and returning Councilor Samuel Clay were sworn in, the council took no action on residents’ claims that First Wind of Massachusetts’ farm would harm health, lower land values and ruin the beauty of Rollins Mountain, the range of hills running from Burlington through Lincoln to Lee and Winn that the proposed farm would be built upon if approved.
“There must be a reason why so many towns in the United States and Europe are holding moratoriums on wind farms,” resident Joan Goodwin said. “A huge chunk of land within our towns will be forever blighted by this.”
About 80 people attended the meeting, held at Mattanawcook Academy to accommodate the crowd.
Councilor Michael Ireland considered seeking a moratorium but did not pursue one Monday because he did not want to impede the planning board’s review of the Rollins Mountain project. First Wind formally applied to the board Friday for permits to build the windmills in Lincoln, listing the total cost of the project at $130 million, $10 million more than town officials previously had estimated.
The board’s review process begins next Monday. It is required to produce a decision in 30 days, planning board chairman Peter Phinney said. The other towns, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also must approve the project, First Wind officials have said. The DEP application is due to be filed within two weeks.
Ireland did not rule out seeking a moratorium. The council is due to review the First Wind farm at Mars Hill on Saturday, he said.
Attorney Timothy Woodcock of Eaton Peabody, the town’s legal counsel, doubted a moratorium could occur. Under state law, moratoriums are limited to 180 days. They must be used only to prevent a shortage or overburdening of public facilities or because existing plans and laws are “inadequate to prevent serious public harm,” the statute states.
The board’s recommendation against a moratorium and opinion that the town’s ordinances were adequate for a review would undercut any moratorium effort, Woodcock said. The council also must pass a moratorium with an agenda listing, public hearing and majority vote.
Several residents spoke for the project, saying they favored clean energy, lower taxes and the increased electricity capacity it promises. They said the project would be a boon to local businesses and that First Winds’ other projects at Stetson Mountain and Mars Hill already have added hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars to the local economy.
First Wind officials, who attended the meeting, listed 30 town businesses as among the nearly 150 statewide that have received new customers and money from the project.
Those town businesses include hardware stores, restaurants, motels, auto dealers, Lincoln Pulp & Paper Co. LLC., W.T. Gardner & Sons, Larry Hamm Construction Co., Chester Forest Products, Hogan Tire and Ramsay Welding and Machinery.
First Wind’s projects have boosted Maine’s economy by $50 million, said Matt Kearns, the company’s vice president of business development for New England.
“I don’t know what the total impact to this town will be from this project, but it seems to be the primary beneficiaries will be the Gardner and HC Haynes companies,” resident Tate Aylward said. “If this benefits them, it does benefit the town to some extent.”
Under all scenarios town officials are considering, at least $400,000 in tax revenues would be generated annually by the project, town Economic Development Director Ruth Birtz said.
nsambides@bangordailynews.net
794-8215
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Is Noble flipping ownership?
On October 24, 2008, Noble Environmental (there being many versions or layers of Noble, it turns out) applied to the NYS Public Service Commission for permission to do the following:
Pursuant to Part 8 of the New York State Public Service Commission’s (“Commission”) Rules and Regulations, 16 NYCRR Part 8, Noble Altona Windpark, LLC (“Noble Altona”), Noble Chateaugay Windpark, LLC (“Noble Chateaugay”), and Noble Wethersfield Windpark, LLC (“Noble Wethersfield”) (together, the “Noble Wind Companies”), and EFS Noble II LLC (“EFS II” and together with the Noble Wind Companies, “Petitioners”), hereby petition the Commission for a declaratory ruling that the Commission will not review, under Section 70 of the Public Service Law (“PSL”), a proposed transfer of certain membership interests in the Noble Wind Companies’ upstream owner, Noble Environmental Power 2008 Hold Co. LLC (“NEP 2008”) to EFS II.
As a result of this transfer, which will occur in connection with an equity contribution from EFS II to NEP 2008, Noble Environmental Power 2008 Hold Co. Prime, LLC (“Noble Holdco”) will hold all of the managing Class B membership interests in NEP 2008, and EFS II will hold all of the passive, non-controlling Class A interests in NEP 2008 (the “Transfer”) and neither any of the Class B interests nor any associated management rights. In addition, Petitioners hereby request that the Commission declare that EFS II and certain of its affiliates will not become electric corporations under the PSL as a result of their ownership of the Class A interests in NEP 2008. (Emphasis added.)
Does this signal that Noble is flipping ownership? Hard to say. RiverCityMalone sent the petition (read the petition, here) to two experts. One an attorney and the other a business analyst.
The attorney noted that the petition seems to be an effort to hand off tax credits to a special tier of investors now going by the name EFS Noble II (which, in turn, is a “wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric,” p. 5 of Petition). One can only guess the reasons. Are some of the EFS II investors in fact big corporations in financial distress, eager to reap the full benefit of tax credits? (Note that the tax credits are none other than your tax dollars being turned over to wealthy corporations.) Is Noble passing along big-bucks tax credits to EFS II investors in return for much-needed cash? (“EFS II will make cash-only capital contributions to Noble Environmental Power 2008 in exchange for 100% of the passive, non-controlling Class A membership units of Noble Environmental Power 2008,” p. 7 of Petition.) Can we go a step further: Might this cash infusion into apparently cash-strapped Noble consist, perchance, of tax dollars turned over to Wall Street investment banks in the recent $700 billion bailout?
The business analyst went even further. He felt the petition did indeed suggest transfer of ownership (witness the phrase, “transfer of certain membership interests”), though not of day-to-day control and operations. Moreover, in his opinion, “the goal of this document is to eliminate legal oversight controls.”
“This is the beginning of the multiple ownership/control transfers that were predicted,” he continues. “There will be more. We can predict that local protections and/or income will be reduced (diluted) at each transfer.”
Read the petition yourself, and you connect the dots.
As I read it I’m struck by the layers and versions of what I thought was simply Noble Environmental Power. A veritable torrent of them. (Am I the only person who thinks “Enron”?)
Then, to ask the PSC please don’t review this transaction. Why not review it, I ask? This is followed by multiple and loud assurances that the EFS II crowd won’t in any way control operations, and they really are not electric corporations—which brings to mind Shakespeare’s famous line, “Methinks the lady protesteth too much.” As in, What are these people hiding?
But I digress. Is Noble flipping ownership? Maybe the better question is: Who is Noble Environmental? How many versions and iterations and layers and incarnations and legal entities are there of this company we all thought was just Plain Jane Noble? “Noble Environmental is, in turn, owned by JPMP Noble Wind Energy, LLC, and certain individuals, trusts and limited liability companies,” p. 4 of Petition. Presumably JPMP stands for something like JP Morgan Bank? Not to mention the certain individuals, trusts and limited liability companies.
Are you confused yet? (Jeez, I always thought it was Chuck, John, Mark and the guys, driving around in little white trucks and that yellow Hummer, which I see vanished. Call me naïve.)
And which LLC within this Yellow Pages of Limited Liability Corporations now has master control of the lease you, dear reader, hold in your hand? Which LLC is ultimately responsible, now, for discharging agreements (legal and “good faith”) made with the Town of Chateaugay, among others? And what does the fine print say about each LLC’s legal and financial obligations to leaseholders and towns and school boards–and are those obligations now, shall we say, mutating?
But the question most relevant to this editorial: Is Noble churning its identities?
Let me be clear, I ask these questions not to impugn Mother Noble’s integrity, but in the pursuit of clarity. (“And now abide faith, hope, and clarity, and the greatest of these is clarity.” ) I consider myself pretty well educated—and I find anything but clarity and reassurance as I read this document (prepared, I see, by two turbocharged law firms).
When I was a professor I often counseled students, “If you read something and find it impenetrable and inscrutable, there’s a good likelihood it’s deliberately so.” I decided long ago that if I read a document in the English language and it makes no sense, there’s something fishy. It’s not me; it’s it. (Let’s call it Martin’s Fishy Principle of English Prose.)
Read this petition and apply Martin’s Fishy Prose Principle. (It’s handing over your tax and electricity-rate dollars, so you’d better be able to understand it.) No, don’t surrender your God-given mental faculties and plead, “Well, Gee, I guess the lawyers understand it, so it must be okay.” Big mistake! If you, my friend, can’t understand this, the problem lies with the document–and the shrewd people who crafted it.
Pursuant to Part 8 of the New York State Public Service Commission’s (“Commission”) Rules and Regulations, 16 NYCRR Part 8, Noble Altona Windpark, LLC (“Noble Altona”), Noble Chateaugay Windpark, LLC (“Noble Chateaugay”), and Noble Wethersfield Windpark, LLC (“Noble Wethersfield”) (together, the “Noble Wind Companies”), and EFS Noble II LLC (“EFS II” and together with the Noble Wind Companies, “Petitioners”), hereby petition the Commission for a declaratory ruling that the Commission will not review, under Section 70 of the Public Service Law (“PSL”), a proposed transfer of certain membership interests in the Noble Wind Companies’ upstream owner, Noble Environmental Power 2008 Hold Co. LLC (“NEP 2008”) to EFS II.
As a result of this transfer, which will occur in connection with an equity contribution from EFS II to NEP 2008, Noble Environmental Power 2008 Hold Co. Prime, LLC (“Noble Holdco”) will hold all of the managing Class B membership interests in NEP 2008, and EFS II will hold all of the passive, non-controlling Class A interests in NEP 2008 (the “Transfer”) and neither any of the Class B interests nor any associated management rights. In addition, Petitioners hereby request that the Commission declare that EFS II and certain of its affiliates will not become electric corporations under the PSL as a result of their ownership of the Class A interests in NEP 2008. (Emphasis added.)
Does this signal that Noble is flipping ownership? Hard to say. RiverCityMalone sent the petition (read the petition, here) to two experts. One an attorney and the other a business analyst.
The attorney noted that the petition seems to be an effort to hand off tax credits to a special tier of investors now going by the name EFS Noble II (which, in turn, is a “wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric,” p. 5 of Petition). One can only guess the reasons. Are some of the EFS II investors in fact big corporations in financial distress, eager to reap the full benefit of tax credits? (Note that the tax credits are none other than your tax dollars being turned over to wealthy corporations.) Is Noble passing along big-bucks tax credits to EFS II investors in return for much-needed cash? (“EFS II will make cash-only capital contributions to Noble Environmental Power 2008 in exchange for 100% of the passive, non-controlling Class A membership units of Noble Environmental Power 2008,” p. 7 of Petition.) Can we go a step further: Might this cash infusion into apparently cash-strapped Noble consist, perchance, of tax dollars turned over to Wall Street investment banks in the recent $700 billion bailout?
The business analyst went even further. He felt the petition did indeed suggest transfer of ownership (witness the phrase, “transfer of certain membership interests”), though not of day-to-day control and operations. Moreover, in his opinion, “the goal of this document is to eliminate legal oversight controls.”
“This is the beginning of the multiple ownership/control transfers that were predicted,” he continues. “There will be more. We can predict that local protections and/or income will be reduced (diluted) at each transfer.”
Read the petition yourself, and you connect the dots.
As I read it I’m struck by the layers and versions of what I thought was simply Noble Environmental Power. A veritable torrent of them. (Am I the only person who thinks “Enron”?)
Then, to ask the PSC please don’t review this transaction. Why not review it, I ask? This is followed by multiple and loud assurances that the EFS II crowd won’t in any way control operations, and they really are not electric corporations—which brings to mind Shakespeare’s famous line, “Methinks the lady protesteth too much.” As in, What are these people hiding?
But I digress. Is Noble flipping ownership? Maybe the better question is: Who is Noble Environmental? How many versions and iterations and layers and incarnations and legal entities are there of this company we all thought was just Plain Jane Noble? “Noble Environmental is, in turn, owned by JPMP Noble Wind Energy, LLC, and certain individuals, trusts and limited liability companies,” p. 4 of Petition. Presumably JPMP stands for something like JP Morgan Bank? Not to mention the certain individuals, trusts and limited liability companies.
Are you confused yet? (Jeez, I always thought it was Chuck, John, Mark and the guys, driving around in little white trucks and that yellow Hummer, which I see vanished. Call me naïve.)
And which LLC within this Yellow Pages of Limited Liability Corporations now has master control of the lease you, dear reader, hold in your hand? Which LLC is ultimately responsible, now, for discharging agreements (legal and “good faith”) made with the Town of Chateaugay, among others? And what does the fine print say about each LLC’s legal and financial obligations to leaseholders and towns and school boards–and are those obligations now, shall we say, mutating?
But the question most relevant to this editorial: Is Noble churning its identities?
Let me be clear, I ask these questions not to impugn Mother Noble’s integrity, but in the pursuit of clarity. (“And now abide faith, hope, and clarity, and the greatest of these is clarity.” ) I consider myself pretty well educated—and I find anything but clarity and reassurance as I read this document (prepared, I see, by two turbocharged law firms).
When I was a professor I often counseled students, “If you read something and find it impenetrable and inscrutable, there’s a good likelihood it’s deliberately so.” I decided long ago that if I read a document in the English language and it makes no sense, there’s something fishy. It’s not me; it’s it. (Let’s call it Martin’s Fishy Principle of English Prose.)
Read this petition and apply Martin’s Fishy Prose Principle. (It’s handing over your tax and electricity-rate dollars, so you’d better be able to understand it.) No, don’t surrender your God-given mental faculties and plead, “Well, Gee, I guess the lawyers understand it, so it must be okay.” Big mistake! If you, my friend, can’t understand this, the problem lies with the document–and the shrewd people who crafted it.
More chaos and confusion
The news today that oil giant BP has dropped plans to build wind farms and other renewable energy projects in Britain should come as a major wake-up call to our guardians in Whitehall – but it won’t.
The company has shelved ideas of building a UK onshore wind farm at the Isle of Grain in Kent and will not bid for any offshore licences, instead focusing on renewables spending on the United States.
With some projects already in trouble, finding difficulty in attracting investors, the withdrawal of a major player like BP drives the government's renewable energy policy further into the land of fantasy, underlining the fact that we are now relying for our future energy supplies on something which is not only unachievable, but demonstrably so.
The fantasy economics of offshore wind power are well illustrated by news from another front, with RWE agreeing to buy 50 percent of the world's biggest planned offshore wind park from Scottish & Southern UK.
This is the development at Greater Gabbard, in the North Sea off the east coast. It is costed at £1.3 billion, yet will only have an installed capacity of about 500 megawatts and a deliverable capacity of about a third of that. Thus, with a price tag about the same as a modern nuclear plant, it will produce only about an eighth of the power. Even with the renewables obligation subsidy, this does not make sense.
To add to the government's discomfort, BP has also decided to pull out of carbon capture, withdrawing from the UK's competition to set up the world's first commercial-scale plant. The company had been one of four groups of companies shortlisted for the competition, along with consortia led by E.ON, Peel Energy and ScottishPower.
With the government pinning its hopes on "clean coal" as one of its energy policy planks, this must reduce significantly any chances of getting carbon capture into play, further increasing our reliance on gas generation. And here also the news is not good. We are told that much needed expansion of gas storage facilities needed to help the UK weather the vagaries of global energy markets have received a blow with the announcement that two projects have suffered serious setbacks.
One is by Portland Gas, under construction in Dorset. This had been expected to open in the second half of 2011, but is being held up by problems securing financing. The facility was now unlikely to open before March 2012.
Andrew Hindle, the Portland Gas chief executive, said: "The global credit crunch has all but closed off the likelihood of achieving [the 2011] target for the time being and this factor, combined with cutbacks in longer-term spend by industry participants in the sector, has meant that halting the current joint venture funding process is in the best interests of all shareholders."
Reflecting the broader turmoil in the energy market, we also hear of the collapse two small suppliers to the business market, Electricity4Business and BizzEnergy – both of which have gone into administration. This reflects the unstable wholesale prices and the increased cost of credit.
And, to add even more to the joy, The Australian notes that the wonderful EU's emission trading scheme is in trouble – the price of "carbon" has collapsed.
This, says the paper, is making a mockery of Europe's stumbling attempts to lead the world with a market-based carbon strategy. It is causing irritation and frustration to the armies of advisers and investors who seek to cajole utilities into big investments in carbon reduction.
James Cameron, the director of Climate Change Capital, a financial adviser and fund manager, said: "The whole purpose of the ETS is to take carbon out. It's not there to benefit funds or to support trading."
On that, you could have fooled us, as the whole scheme has degenerated into a money-making scam.
But then, this simply reinforces the sense of confusion and disarray which seems to pervade the very fabric of government and commerce. And, as always, it will be us that pays, not only in increased costs but also in the very real risk of the lights going out.
The company has shelved ideas of building a UK onshore wind farm at the Isle of Grain in Kent and will not bid for any offshore licences, instead focusing on renewables spending on the United States.
With some projects already in trouble, finding difficulty in attracting investors, the withdrawal of a major player like BP drives the government's renewable energy policy further into the land of fantasy, underlining the fact that we are now relying for our future energy supplies on something which is not only unachievable, but demonstrably so.
The fantasy economics of offshore wind power are well illustrated by news from another front, with RWE agreeing to buy 50 percent of the world's biggest planned offshore wind park from Scottish & Southern UK.
This is the development at Greater Gabbard, in the North Sea off the east coast. It is costed at £1.3 billion, yet will only have an installed capacity of about 500 megawatts and a deliverable capacity of about a third of that. Thus, with a price tag about the same as a modern nuclear plant, it will produce only about an eighth of the power. Even with the renewables obligation subsidy, this does not make sense.
To add to the government's discomfort, BP has also decided to pull out of carbon capture, withdrawing from the UK's competition to set up the world's first commercial-scale plant. The company had been one of four groups of companies shortlisted for the competition, along with consortia led by E.ON, Peel Energy and ScottishPower.
With the government pinning its hopes on "clean coal" as one of its energy policy planks, this must reduce significantly any chances of getting carbon capture into play, further increasing our reliance on gas generation. And here also the news is not good. We are told that much needed expansion of gas storage facilities needed to help the UK weather the vagaries of global energy markets have received a blow with the announcement that two projects have suffered serious setbacks.
One is by Portland Gas, under construction in Dorset. This had been expected to open in the second half of 2011, but is being held up by problems securing financing. The facility was now unlikely to open before March 2012.
Andrew Hindle, the Portland Gas chief executive, said: "The global credit crunch has all but closed off the likelihood of achieving [the 2011] target for the time being and this factor, combined with cutbacks in longer-term spend by industry participants in the sector, has meant that halting the current joint venture funding process is in the best interests of all shareholders."
Reflecting the broader turmoil in the energy market, we also hear of the collapse two small suppliers to the business market, Electricity4Business and BizzEnergy – both of which have gone into administration. This reflects the unstable wholesale prices and the increased cost of credit.
And, to add even more to the joy, The Australian notes that the wonderful EU's emission trading scheme is in trouble – the price of "carbon" has collapsed.
This, says the paper, is making a mockery of Europe's stumbling attempts to lead the world with a market-based carbon strategy. It is causing irritation and frustration to the armies of advisers and investors who seek to cajole utilities into big investments in carbon reduction.
James Cameron, the director of Climate Change Capital, a financial adviser and fund manager, said: "The whole purpose of the ETS is to take carbon out. It's not there to benefit funds or to support trading."
On that, you could have fooled us, as the whole scheme has degenerated into a money-making scam.
But then, this simply reinforces the sense of confusion and disarray which seems to pervade the very fabric of government and commerce. And, as always, it will be us that pays, not only in increased costs but also in the very real risk of the lights going out.
Are turbines making some people sick?
Opponents of wind farm developments allege turbines are not just ugly and inefficient, they can also make you sick. There are growing reports of people who live near wind turbines complaining of headaches, nausea, sleeplessness and other symptoms. Sufferers contend the illness is caused by low frequency noise and vibrations released by the turbines, along with the flickering shadows cast when the sunlight is cast through the blades. While wind power proponents contend there is conclusive evidence turbines are safe, Kingston's Medical Officer of Health was concerned enough to say developments need to be monitored. Here, we present four views on so-called "wind turbine syndrome." -- James Cowan, National Post
The Sufferer
"Our home was 423 metres from the nearest turbine. When we first heard about the project, we were trying to be green -- we always recycled more than we threw in the trash -- so I thought it was great. I was in favour of them, even as they were doing the construction around us. But my health did deteriorate immediately when the turbines were on . . . I had ringing in my ears, it felt like there was something crawling in my ears -- I said ‘what in earth is going on?' And then the shadowing effect when the sun is behind the blade, it was so bad, I just thought the top was going to blow off the top of my head. But we went camping in July and it cleared up -- I didn't have a headache, I wasn't going to bathroom as frequently, I had none of the itchy ears. I came back and it immediately started again. When the blades were facing the house, I couldn't concentrate at all, I couldn't sleep, my body would ache . . . so finally I started to clue in that something had to be going on with the turbines. I could tell before I got out of bed, just based on how I felt, whether they were running."
-- Helen Fraser, former neighbour of Melancthon Wind Project in Ontario
The Author
"If people are so disturbed by their headaches, tinnitus, panic, sleeplessness, or disrupted children that they must move or abandon their homes to get away from wind turbine noise and vibration, then that noise and vibration is significant, because the symptoms it causes are significant. The role of an ethical acoustician is to figure out what type and intensity of noise or vibration creates particular symptoms, and to propose effective control measures. My study subjects make it clear that their problems are caused by noise and vibration. Some symptoms in some subjects are also triggered by moving blade shadows."
-- from the website of Dr. Nina Pierpont, author of Wind Turbine Syndrome
The Government
"Additional research is still required to make definitive conclusions about wind turbine noise impacts as well as human response to wind farms.
In addition, detailed research on meteorological conditions, and their impact on sound generation needs to be undertaken to realise definitive conclusions."
-- Acoustic Consulting Report prepared for Ontario government by Ramani Ramakrishnan, Acoustician
The Industry
"There have been studies published in all kinds of peer reviewed journals that say there's no link here. Now, all that aside, there are still people who claim to have impacts on their health -- we don't know why. Health is very complicated thing and we don't dismiss their claims. If they're feeling unhealthy, they're feeling unhealthy. But there's nothing in the scientific literature to suggest it is the wind turbines doing this."
The Sufferer
"Our home was 423 metres from the nearest turbine. When we first heard about the project, we were trying to be green -- we always recycled more than we threw in the trash -- so I thought it was great. I was in favour of them, even as they were doing the construction around us. But my health did deteriorate immediately when the turbines were on . . . I had ringing in my ears, it felt like there was something crawling in my ears -- I said ‘what in earth is going on?' And then the shadowing effect when the sun is behind the blade, it was so bad, I just thought the top was going to blow off the top of my head. But we went camping in July and it cleared up -- I didn't have a headache, I wasn't going to bathroom as frequently, I had none of the itchy ears. I came back and it immediately started again. When the blades were facing the house, I couldn't concentrate at all, I couldn't sleep, my body would ache . . . so finally I started to clue in that something had to be going on with the turbines. I could tell before I got out of bed, just based on how I felt, whether they were running."
-- Helen Fraser, former neighbour of Melancthon Wind Project in Ontario
The Author
"If people are so disturbed by their headaches, tinnitus, panic, sleeplessness, or disrupted children that they must move or abandon their homes to get away from wind turbine noise and vibration, then that noise and vibration is significant, because the symptoms it causes are significant. The role of an ethical acoustician is to figure out what type and intensity of noise or vibration creates particular symptoms, and to propose effective control measures. My study subjects make it clear that their problems are caused by noise and vibration. Some symptoms in some subjects are also triggered by moving blade shadows."
-- from the website of Dr. Nina Pierpont, author of Wind Turbine Syndrome
The Government
"Additional research is still required to make definitive conclusions about wind turbine noise impacts as well as human response to wind farms.
In addition, detailed research on meteorological conditions, and their impact on sound generation needs to be undertaken to realise definitive conclusions."
-- Acoustic Consulting Report prepared for Ontario government by Ramani Ramakrishnan, Acoustician
The Industry
"There have been studies published in all kinds of peer reviewed journals that say there's no link here. Now, all that aside, there are still people who claim to have impacts on their health -- we don't know why. Health is very complicated thing and we don't dismiss their claims. If they're feeling unhealthy, they're feeling unhealthy. But there's nothing in the scientific literature to suggest it is the wind turbines doing this."
Friday, November 07, 2008
Wind turbines have residents seeing green
The proposed Bent Tree Wind Project has many county residents engulfed in a glow of promised “green.” Lucrative offers to landowners for wind turbines sited on their property and annual “wind right” payments have many asking, “where do I sign?” The Freeborn County coffer is also eagerly anticipating the promised wind energy production tax, estimated to be between $350,000 and $450,000 annually, should the entire 400-megawatt project get approved. This green glow of prospective cash amidst hard economic times seems almost too good to be true!
Well, if something seems too good to be true, it usually is. There’s a saying: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” The underlying truth is that someone always has to pay for the cost, one way or another. But so far, I haven’t heard who that someone is.
I’m not talking about cost strictly in financial terms. Anyone familiar with wind energy should understand that power consumers will pay for the project through increased electricity rates, and all taxpayers will also contribute through the government subsidies needed to make the inefficiency of wind power to be perceived as viable. We have our elected officials to thank for determining that these costs were prudent, naturally with the help of special interests.
These costs, however, are only the beginning. The real and significant costs of this project would soon be felt by the residents of Freeborn County alone. After the dust clears from the construction of some 250 wind turbines reaching 400 to 500 feet into the sky, over 32,000 acres of peaceful countryside will have been turned into a massive industrial complex. Only then will the true costs be felt.
So the question becomes, what are those costs and are we willing to pay them? Our elected officials and state agencies appear to have considered this for us as well. One example is by setting standards for setbacks from occupied dwellings. Any tower constructed would have to be at least 500 feet from a home. In addition to this, noise pollution must comply with pollution control limits. Such standards are stated to be “established on the basis of present knowledge for the preservation of public health and safety.”
So where does this “knowledge” come from? Certainly not from the U.S. National Research Council, which recommends a half-mile setback from residences. Not from Germany, the world leader in wind production which has implemented a one-mile setback from residences to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Not from hosts of doctors and citizens who have testified to the negative health affects and dangers of living near turbines. (The list goes on.) If not from numerous qualified individuals, organizations and countries, then where does this “knowledge” come from? Any guesses?
I’m all for progress, as long as it is sustainable and safe. But the fact is if this project moves forward as proposed, residents within miles of the complex will suffer the costly consequences. Property values will plummet and health and safety will be compromised. In this case, ignorance will not be bliss. Either this project should be done right, with proper consideration of consequences, or it should not be done at all.
I encourage ALL Freeborn County residents to better inform themselves on the impact this project would really have to our area. There is an abundance of unbiased and credible information available at numerous Web sites, some of which are listed below.
Residents need to take a step back from the “green” glow and from the thinly veiled propaganda being offered us. Examine the real facts and potential threats to ourselves and our neighbors before jumping on the Bent Tree Bandwagon.
Well, if something seems too good to be true, it usually is. There’s a saying: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” The underlying truth is that someone always has to pay for the cost, one way or another. But so far, I haven’t heard who that someone is.
I’m not talking about cost strictly in financial terms. Anyone familiar with wind energy should understand that power consumers will pay for the project through increased electricity rates, and all taxpayers will also contribute through the government subsidies needed to make the inefficiency of wind power to be perceived as viable. We have our elected officials to thank for determining that these costs were prudent, naturally with the help of special interests.
These costs, however, are only the beginning. The real and significant costs of this project would soon be felt by the residents of Freeborn County alone. After the dust clears from the construction of some 250 wind turbines reaching 400 to 500 feet into the sky, over 32,000 acres of peaceful countryside will have been turned into a massive industrial complex. Only then will the true costs be felt.
So the question becomes, what are those costs and are we willing to pay them? Our elected officials and state agencies appear to have considered this for us as well. One example is by setting standards for setbacks from occupied dwellings. Any tower constructed would have to be at least 500 feet from a home. In addition to this, noise pollution must comply with pollution control limits. Such standards are stated to be “established on the basis of present knowledge for the preservation of public health and safety.”
So where does this “knowledge” come from? Certainly not from the U.S. National Research Council, which recommends a half-mile setback from residences. Not from Germany, the world leader in wind production which has implemented a one-mile setback from residences to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Not from hosts of doctors and citizens who have testified to the negative health affects and dangers of living near turbines. (The list goes on.) If not from numerous qualified individuals, organizations and countries, then where does this “knowledge” come from? Any guesses?
I’m all for progress, as long as it is sustainable and safe. But the fact is if this project moves forward as proposed, residents within miles of the complex will suffer the costly consequences. Property values will plummet and health and safety will be compromised. In this case, ignorance will not be bliss. Either this project should be done right, with proper consideration of consequences, or it should not be done at all.
I encourage ALL Freeborn County residents to better inform themselves on the impact this project would really have to our area. There is an abundance of unbiased and credible information available at numerous Web sites, some of which are listed below.
Residents need to take a step back from the “green” glow and from the thinly veiled propaganda being offered us. Examine the real facts and potential threats to ourselves and our neighbors before jumping on the Bent Tree Bandwagon.
Public hearing on wind law draws residents for, against
ENFIELD — It seems the proposed Enfield wind law — whether it passes or not — is going to leave some residents unhappy.
At a Thursday public hearing, most of the 60 residents on hand spoke in favor of the law, but Ken Donley, a Black Oak Road resident, said those against the law and the wind farm itself weren't out in full force.
“They're not here tonight because for them, being here is a waste of time,” he said
That feeling stems from opinions that the town board is going to pass the law regardless of public comment and that the project itself is “agenda driven,” Donley said.
Dissenters at the meeting complained the proposed law contains setbacks of 450 feet from structures, such as homes, and 100 feet from property lines. The setbacks are reduced from a wind law that was repealed in early 2008, and it had 600-foot setbacks.
Donley, who would live as close as possible to the wind turbines, said he didn't think anybody would be willing to take his place as a resident nearby the wind farm because of possible safety concerns that are exacerbated by the reduced turbine setbacks.
He wasn't alone in feeling that the setbacks will allow towers too close to homes.
Gary Fisher said he thinks the setbacks could endanger residents if a tower were to collapse, and that with such narrow setbacks houses, or people, would be jeopardized by any flying debris.
One resident who wasn't at the meeting was Bruce Varner, a leader in the fight against the wind farm.
Varner has sent at least one letter to the state Attorney General's office, which was obtained by The Journal, questioning wind farm developer John Rancich's conduct. An official from the Attorney General's office said the entire wind industry is being investigated, but he was not specific.
Varner alleges cocktail parties Rancich hosts are unethical along with his relationship with town attorney Guy Krogh and for the amount of property Rancich owns, which Varner considers a monopoly on the wind industry in Enfield.
No more than two town board members have attended those parties at a time in compliance with the state open government law, Rancich said in August.
Dee Murphy, a Connecticut Hill Road resident and bed and breakfast owner, said she had concerns about the noise since many of her customers go to Enfield to get away from the noise.
Many wind-farm supporters, such as Marguerite Wells and Philipp Meyers, said the turbines aren't major noise producers. Jill Swenson, a Deer Run Lane resident, suggested a wind farm in Enfield might be able to draw from the Ithaca agrotourism crowd.
Meyers, a Texas native who said wind farms are more common where he's from, said he fully supports wind power.
Meyer also addressed the safety concerns brought up by Fisher and Donley.
“I realize it's an unknown, but it's not a real risk,” he said.
Rich Teeter, a Black Oak Road resident who will abut the wind farm, said every time he gets in his car he takes a risk, and that some parts of life deal with risk most people have come to accept.
Town Supervisor Frank Podufalski said he appreciated the turnout, and said Enfield “has a golden opportunity to pass a law with the right restrictions.”
At a Thursday public hearing, most of the 60 residents on hand spoke in favor of the law, but Ken Donley, a Black Oak Road resident, said those against the law and the wind farm itself weren't out in full force.
“They're not here tonight because for them, being here is a waste of time,” he said
That feeling stems from opinions that the town board is going to pass the law regardless of public comment and that the project itself is “agenda driven,” Donley said.
Dissenters at the meeting complained the proposed law contains setbacks of 450 feet from structures, such as homes, and 100 feet from property lines. The setbacks are reduced from a wind law that was repealed in early 2008, and it had 600-foot setbacks.
Donley, who would live as close as possible to the wind turbines, said he didn't think anybody would be willing to take his place as a resident nearby the wind farm because of possible safety concerns that are exacerbated by the reduced turbine setbacks.
He wasn't alone in feeling that the setbacks will allow towers too close to homes.
Gary Fisher said he thinks the setbacks could endanger residents if a tower were to collapse, and that with such narrow setbacks houses, or people, would be jeopardized by any flying debris.
One resident who wasn't at the meeting was Bruce Varner, a leader in the fight against the wind farm.
Varner has sent at least one letter to the state Attorney General's office, which was obtained by The Journal, questioning wind farm developer John Rancich's conduct. An official from the Attorney General's office said the entire wind industry is being investigated, but he was not specific.
Varner alleges cocktail parties Rancich hosts are unethical along with his relationship with town attorney Guy Krogh and for the amount of property Rancich owns, which Varner considers a monopoly on the wind industry in Enfield.
No more than two town board members have attended those parties at a time in compliance with the state open government law, Rancich said in August.
Dee Murphy, a Connecticut Hill Road resident and bed and breakfast owner, said she had concerns about the noise since many of her customers go to Enfield to get away from the noise.
Many wind-farm supporters, such as Marguerite Wells and Philipp Meyers, said the turbines aren't major noise producers. Jill Swenson, a Deer Run Lane resident, suggested a wind farm in Enfield might be able to draw from the Ithaca agrotourism crowd.
Meyers, a Texas native who said wind farms are more common where he's from, said he fully supports wind power.
Meyer also addressed the safety concerns brought up by Fisher and Donley.
“I realize it's an unknown, but it's not a real risk,” he said.
Rich Teeter, a Black Oak Road resident who will abut the wind farm, said every time he gets in his car he takes a risk, and that some parts of life deal with risk most people have come to accept.
Town Supervisor Frank Podufalski said he appreciated the turnout, and said Enfield “has a golden opportunity to pass a law with the right restrictions.”
Shell pulls local wind farm plans
Shell WindEnergy has abandoned plans to build two 50-megawatt wind farms in the hill towns of Albany County.
The company encountered some resistance from landowners who wanted more financial consideration for land leases. Others were against wind farms altogether.
Residents reported today they received letters from Shell saying the company decided to stop looking at sites that included Renssealerville, Berne and the town of New Scotland.
Shell WindEnergy spokesman Tim O’Leary released this statement to the Times Union:
“We’ve ceased our wind development efforts in Albany County. This decision is based upon a number of considerations, primarily, not securing enough land for a viable project and the time projected to obtain project permitting. We are extremely appreciative of the cooperation and support that we have received from landowners, members of the community and other stakeholders.”The two wind farms would have had 50 turbines in all, producing enough electricity to power 25,000 homes.
The company encountered some resistance from landowners who wanted more financial consideration for land leases. Others were against wind farms altogether.
Residents reported today they received letters from Shell saying the company decided to stop looking at sites that included Renssealerville, Berne and the town of New Scotland.
Shell WindEnergy spokesman Tim O’Leary released this statement to the Times Union:
“We’ve ceased our wind development efforts in Albany County. This decision is based upon a number of considerations, primarily, not securing enough land for a viable project and the time projected to obtain project permitting. We are extremely appreciative of the cooperation and support that we have received from landowners, members of the community and other stakeholders.”The two wind farms would have had 50 turbines in all, producing enough electricity to power 25,000 homes.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Anti-windmill group launches Web site
LINCOLN, Maine — A citizens group that opposes a proposed $120 million wind farm on Rollins Mountain has acquired a headquarters, a Web site and is in talks with an attorney, leading members said Wednesday.
The Friends of Lincoln Lakes hopes to use the Web site, friendsoflincolnlakes.org, as a magnet for others statewide and nationwide who oppose or want to learn about wind farms such as those proposed by First Wind of Massachusetts.
“We will be getting information out through the Web site in a fair and direct manner on our concerns,” the group’s public and press coordinator, Gary Steinberg, said Wednesday. “We will have presentations on it and spread information rather quickly, we hope.”
First Wind hopes to build 40 1.5-megawatt windmills, each more than 300 feet tall, in Burlington, Lincoln, Lee and Winn, creating as much as 60 megawatts of electricity through Evergreen Wind Power, a First Wind subsidiary.
The corporation hopes to begin the permitting processes with applications filed to town planning boards, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the next month, its spokesman has said.
First Wind is also scouting for a location for its own office in which company workers can monitor all of its state wind farms, interim Lincoln Town Manager Lisa Goodwin said. No location seems to have been chosen.
Companies building power line connections to First Wind’s projects on Mars Hill and Stetson Mountain have already rented a former auto dealership on West Broadway.
The Web site, Steinberg said, will help the group collect information about wind farms, communicate with other wind farm groups, and answer claims made on First Wind’s Web site, firstwind.com. The group has about 20 active members and more in southern Maine.
“We are pleased that a citizens group formed less than two months ago has been able to put together an educational and analytical effort culminating in this Web site,” Brad Blake, a spokesman for the group, said in a statement.
“It is our mission to get facts, analyses, and perspectives to the residents of Lincoln area communities that they have not had available up to this point,” Blake said. “A sprawling industrial wind site will change the Lincoln Lakes Region forever.”
A prominent feature of the Web site, found by clicking “presentation,” is a slide show illustrating the wind site, Blake said. This features alternating photos of Rollins Mountain and the industrial wind sites in Mars Hill and Stetson Mountain.
First Wind has displayed at the company’s public meetings digitized photo renderings of Rollins with turbines built on it, but despite several requests, has not yet released them to the news media for publication.
The Friends of Lincoln Lakes is also using a house at 296 Main St., Lincoln, as a headquarters and meeting place. Some members have met with an attorney but the group has not completed any representational agreements, Steinberg said.
Anyone interested in joining the group or attending a meeting is asked to visit the Web site or telephone Steinberg at 794-8174. The site is updated continuously, he said.
nsambides@bangordailynews.net
794-8215
The Friends of Lincoln Lakes hopes to use the Web site, friendsoflincolnlakes.org, as a magnet for others statewide and nationwide who oppose or want to learn about wind farms such as those proposed by First Wind of Massachusetts.
“We will be getting information out through the Web site in a fair and direct manner on our concerns,” the group’s public and press coordinator, Gary Steinberg, said Wednesday. “We will have presentations on it and spread information rather quickly, we hope.”
First Wind hopes to build 40 1.5-megawatt windmills, each more than 300 feet tall, in Burlington, Lincoln, Lee and Winn, creating as much as 60 megawatts of electricity through Evergreen Wind Power, a First Wind subsidiary.
The corporation hopes to begin the permitting processes with applications filed to town planning boards, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the next month, its spokesman has said.
First Wind is also scouting for a location for its own office in which company workers can monitor all of its state wind farms, interim Lincoln Town Manager Lisa Goodwin said. No location seems to have been chosen.
Companies building power line connections to First Wind’s projects on Mars Hill and Stetson Mountain have already rented a former auto dealership on West Broadway.
The Web site, Steinberg said, will help the group collect information about wind farms, communicate with other wind farm groups, and answer claims made on First Wind’s Web site, firstwind.com. The group has about 20 active members and more in southern Maine.
“We are pleased that a citizens group formed less than two months ago has been able to put together an educational and analytical effort culminating in this Web site,” Brad Blake, a spokesman for the group, said in a statement.
“It is our mission to get facts, analyses, and perspectives to the residents of Lincoln area communities that they have not had available up to this point,” Blake said. “A sprawling industrial wind site will change the Lincoln Lakes Region forever.”
A prominent feature of the Web site, found by clicking “presentation,” is a slide show illustrating the wind site, Blake said. This features alternating photos of Rollins Mountain and the industrial wind sites in Mars Hill and Stetson Mountain.
First Wind has displayed at the company’s public meetings digitized photo renderings of Rollins with turbines built on it, but despite several requests, has not yet released them to the news media for publication.
The Friends of Lincoln Lakes is also using a house at 296 Main St., Lincoln, as a headquarters and meeting place. Some members have met with an attorney but the group has not completed any representational agreements, Steinberg said.
Anyone interested in joining the group or attending a meeting is asked to visit the Web site or telephone Steinberg at 794-8174. The site is updated continuously, he said.
nsambides@bangordailynews.net
794-8215
BP to focus on U.S. wind farms
BP Plc, Europe's second-largest oil company, will end its planned wind power projects in India, China and Turkey to focus on onshore generation in the U.S.
BP plans to have 1 gigawatt of wind power generating capacity in the U.S. by the end of the year, which will rise to 3 gigawatts ``in the next couple of years,'' said the company spokesman Robert Wine. Together with Clipper Windpower Plc, it plans to invest as much as $15 billion to build the world's biggest wind farm in the U.S.
``We will be retrenching those projects and all the money now will be going to the huge U.S. onshore development,'' Wine, said by phone today. ``This is a serious scale investment, that's going to be the only focus in the future.''
BP is following the same strategy as its European larger rival, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, by focusing on U.S. wind projects. Shell in May sold its 33 percent stake in the London Array project, a 1,000-megawatt wind park off the English coast, citing rising costs. The U.S. offers access to land such as the Texan plains, where developers can build plants with less objections from local communities than in Europe.
In February, BP said it planned to invest about $1.5 billion in alternative-energy projects this year, accelerating a 10-year business development program.
Earlier this year, BP valued its alternative-energy business at $5 billion to $7 billion. In 2005, it agreed to spend $8 billion by 2015 to expand production of solar, wind and biofuel energy.
Joint Venture
BP and Clipper agreed in July to form a joint venture to construct the 5,050-megawatt Titan wind park on 200,000 hectares (500,000 acres) in South Dakota. The park starts near Harrold and ends 83 kilometers (53 miles) east near Wessington. The project will take about 10 years to complete, according to Fred Mitro, a manager at BP Alternative Energy.
BP has ended its partnership with China's Goldwind Science & Technology Co, which aimed to build a wind power project in China's northern province of Inner Mongolia. On Nov. 4, the U.K. company notified Goldwin's unit about the changes to BP's strategies in wind power development, the Chinese company said today in a statement posted on its Web site.
In January, BP signed an agreement to purchase a 49 percent stake in Goldwind's unit, Beijing Tianrun New Energy Investment Co., to jointly build the wind farm. The two companies had agreed to transfer the stake after the planned completion of the project in February next year.
New Investors
Goldwind is seeking new investors in the project now, it said today.
In December, BP said it planned to expand wind power projects in India, the world's fourth-largest wind power producer after Germany, the U.S. and Spain.
BP and Suzlon Energy Ltd., India's biggest maker of wind- turbine generators, last November started operations at a 40- megawatt farm in Dhule, northern Maharashtra. BP was examining plans to install more turbines in Karnataka and Maharashtra.
BP and Electricite de France SA, Europe's biggest power supplier, had previously planned to buy stakes in Turkish companies that won government licenses to set up wind farms, Hurriyet reported July 29, citing no one. BP was interested in acquiring stakes in seven projects with a capacity of 246 megawatts, the newspaper reported.
``We are working on with the various partnerships that we've formed around the world how best to exit from those'' projects, Wine said. ``Anything that was built will remain.''
BP will keep its 22.5 megawatt wind farm at the Rotterdam refinery and a 9-megawatt unit at its terminal in the port of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, he said.
BP plans to have 1 gigawatt of wind power generating capacity in the U.S. by the end of the year, which will rise to 3 gigawatts ``in the next couple of years,'' said the company spokesman Robert Wine. Together with Clipper Windpower Plc, it plans to invest as much as $15 billion to build the world's biggest wind farm in the U.S.
``We will be retrenching those projects and all the money now will be going to the huge U.S. onshore development,'' Wine, said by phone today. ``This is a serious scale investment, that's going to be the only focus in the future.''
BP is following the same strategy as its European larger rival, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, by focusing on U.S. wind projects. Shell in May sold its 33 percent stake in the London Array project, a 1,000-megawatt wind park off the English coast, citing rising costs. The U.S. offers access to land such as the Texan plains, where developers can build plants with less objections from local communities than in Europe.
In February, BP said it planned to invest about $1.5 billion in alternative-energy projects this year, accelerating a 10-year business development program.
Earlier this year, BP valued its alternative-energy business at $5 billion to $7 billion. In 2005, it agreed to spend $8 billion by 2015 to expand production of solar, wind and biofuel energy.
Joint Venture
BP and Clipper agreed in July to form a joint venture to construct the 5,050-megawatt Titan wind park on 200,000 hectares (500,000 acres) in South Dakota. The park starts near Harrold and ends 83 kilometers (53 miles) east near Wessington. The project will take about 10 years to complete, according to Fred Mitro, a manager at BP Alternative Energy.
BP has ended its partnership with China's Goldwind Science & Technology Co, which aimed to build a wind power project in China's northern province of Inner Mongolia. On Nov. 4, the U.K. company notified Goldwin's unit about the changes to BP's strategies in wind power development, the Chinese company said today in a statement posted on its Web site.
In January, BP signed an agreement to purchase a 49 percent stake in Goldwind's unit, Beijing Tianrun New Energy Investment Co., to jointly build the wind farm. The two companies had agreed to transfer the stake after the planned completion of the project in February next year.
New Investors
Goldwind is seeking new investors in the project now, it said today.
In December, BP said it planned to expand wind power projects in India, the world's fourth-largest wind power producer after Germany, the U.S. and Spain.
BP and Suzlon Energy Ltd., India's biggest maker of wind- turbine generators, last November started operations at a 40- megawatt farm in Dhule, northern Maharashtra. BP was examining plans to install more turbines in Karnataka and Maharashtra.
BP and Electricite de France SA, Europe's biggest power supplier, had previously planned to buy stakes in Turkish companies that won government licenses to set up wind farms, Hurriyet reported July 29, citing no one. BP was interested in acquiring stakes in seven projects with a capacity of 246 megawatts, the newspaper reported.
``We are working on with the various partnerships that we've formed around the world how best to exit from those'' projects, Wine said. ``Anything that was built will remain.''
BP will keep its 22.5 megawatt wind farm at the Rotterdam refinery and a 9-megawatt unit at its terminal in the port of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)