******
Mr. Wozniak or Ms. Hanni,

As I do not have the e-mail addresses for the Goodhue County Planning Advisory
Commission members, please send this e-mail to them for me.  Many thanks.


Please note below the website on the wind energy ordinance for Trempealeau County.
Wisconsin (at end of e-mail).  This is clear proof that other places protect the
citizens of their county without objection. 

The Goodhue County Planning Advisory Commission WECS Subcommittee has taken much
time to develop the draft wind ordinance for Goodhue County.  Dan Rechtzigel, Joan
Volz, and Tom Webster were selected by the PAC for this Subcommittee.  Their
recommendations and the draft ordinance should be accepted and diligently sent on to
the Goodhue County Board of Commissioners.  I question the PAC's efforts to slow
this process down as those not on this Subcommittee were not at the eight meetings
whereby the Subcommittee delved deeply into the issues.  What was the purpose in
having a Subcommittee do the research and painstaking work?

The County PAC understands the urgency of getting a revised wind ordinance in place
before the MPUC issues site permits to future wind developments in Goodhue County.
What is your reasoning for not meeting as soon as possible to complete your task?
Mr. Wozniak stated in an e-mail to me dated 8/17/10:  "I specifically told the PAC
last night that if they were not going to act on the Zoning Text Amendment that they
could schedule a special meeting."

Commissioner Jim Bryant, you have said publicly that you are hearing from many
people who are in support of the AWA Goodhue Wind Project.  I ask you why those
"many people" have not come forth and stated their comments publicly.  A few have
but not in comparison to those opposed.  The few letters in area papers supporting
wind development in Goodhue County have been from individuals who live outstate or
outside Goodhue County.  If you are still counting, please consider this letter (and
the many others I have sent in the past to you) as my support to keep large WECS out
of Goodhue County.

Special meetings have been called in the past.  I respectfully request that the
County PAC meet ahead of their next regularly scheduled meeting on September 20,
2010, to take a vote on the County's revised wind ordinance.
===============================
Wind Generator and Wind Generating Facility Ordinance for Trempealeau County, Wisc.
Author:  Trempealeau County (Wisc.) Board

The Trempealeau County (Wisc.) Board adopted a strong new wind energy ordinance on
Dec. 17, 2007. It includes a one-mile setback from homes and workplaces, a half-mile
setback from property lines, and a two-mile setback from wildlife refuges. It also
has a 40 dbA upper noise limit and strong noise restrictions. It was drafted by a
citizens advisory committee that was appointed by the County Board Chair in the
summer.

Wind Ordinance for Trempealeau County

Barbara A. Stussy
Zumbrota, MN

******

Dear Goodhue Wind Truth and Readers,

One of the Goodhue County Planning and Zoning board members, after the 8/16/10 Sub-committee ordinance meeting, voiced the opinion that industrial wind energy will reduce CO2 emissions and help with climate change.  I wish to submit this article from the website, betterplan.squarespace.com because, it explains very well why this is not so.  The U.S. Department of Energy is releasing figures that confirm any perceived improvements to the environment are minimal.  Some of the information in this article was turned in at the two-day state hearings for the Goodhue Wind project, in Goodhue, July 21 and 22, 2010.  Thank you for taking the time to review this article.  It is a good summary of an important piece of the energy puzzle.

Sincerely, Marie McNamara 

Wind energy gets huge subsidies. So where are the CO2 reductions?
Source: Energy Tribune, www.energytribune.com
August 27, 2010 By Robert Bryce,

Note: This story is an extended version of an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 24.

Over the last few years, the wind industry has achieved remarkable growth largely due to the industry’s claim that using more wind energy will result in major reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. There’s just one problem with that claim: it’s not true. Recent studies show that wind-generated electricity may not result in any reduction in carbon emissions, or those reductions will be so small as to be almost meaningless.

This issue is especially important now that states, even in the absence of federal legislation, are mandating that utilities produce arbitrary amounts of their electricity from renewable sources. By 2020, for example, California will require utilities to obtain 33% of their electricity from renewables. About 30 states including Connecticut, Minnesota, and Hawaii, are requiring major increases in the production of renewable electricity over the coming years. Wind, not solar or geothermal sources, must provide most of this electricity, because it is the only renewable source that can rapidly scale up to meet the requirements of the mandate. But those mandates will mean billions more in taxpayer subsidies for the wind industry and result in higher electricity costs for consumers.

There are two reasons wind can’t make major cuts in carbon emissions. The wind blows only intermittently and variably; and wind-generated electricity largely displaces power produced by natural gas-fired generators rather than that coming from plants that burn more carbon-intensive coal.
Because the wind is not dependable, electric utilities must either keep their conventional power plants running all the time (much like “spinning reserve” in industry parlance) to make sure the lights don’t go dark, or they must continually ramp up and down the output from conventional coal- or gas-fired generators (“cycling”).

Coal-fired and gas-fired generators are designed to run continuously. If they don’t, fuel consumption, and emissions of key air pollutants, generally increases. A car analogy helps explain the reason: An automobile that operates at a constant speed — say, 55 miles per hour — will have better fuel efficiency, and emit less pollution per mile traveled, than one that is stuck in stop-and-go traffic. But the wind, by its very nature, is stop-and-go. The result: minimal or no reductions in carbon emissions by shifting conventional generation to wind.

In 2008, a British energy consultant, James Oswald, along with two co-authors, published a study in the journal Energy Policy, which said that any reductions in Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions due to added wind generation capacity “will be less than expected.” The study went on to say that neither the extra costs of cycling the power plants “nor the increased carbon production are being taken into account in the government figures for wind power.”

An April study by Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based energy analytics firm, looked at power plant records in Colorado and Texas. (It was commissioned by the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States.) Bentek concluded that despite huge investments, wind-generated electricity “has had minimal, if any, impact on carbon dioxide” emissions. Thanks to the cycling of Colorado’s coal-fired plants in 2009, for example, at least 94,000 more pounds of carbon dioxide were generated because of the repeated cycling. In Texas, Bentek estimated that the cycling of power plants due to increased use of wind energy resulted in a slight savings of carbon dioxide (about 600 tons) in 2008 and a slight increase (of about 1,000 tons) in 2009.

This month, the US Association for Energy Economics published a paper by Ross Baldick, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, which concluded that new wind generation capacity “may not be decreasing greenhouse emissions. However, even assuming that wind displaces fossil emissions, it is not ‘worthwhile’ for reducing greenhouse emissions” even if regulators put a price on carbon dioxide of up to $35 per ton.

The problems posed by the intermittency and variability of wind energy could quickly be cured if only we had an ultra-cheap method of storing large quantities of energy. If only. The problem of large-scale energy storage has bedeviled inventors for centuries. Alessandro Volta and Thomas Edison both produced working batteries. Edison spent years working on battery technology, sinking about $30 million of his own money (in current dollars) into his quest for a durable, high-capacity battery. He had some success. But modern batteries have the same suite of problems that Edison faced: they are too big, too expensive, too finicky, and lack durability.

Other solutions for energy storage like compressed air energy storage and pumped water storage are viable, but like batteries, those technologies are expensive. And even if the cost of energy storage falls dramatically — thereby making wind energy truly viable — who will pay for it? Further, even if we have a dramatic breakthrough in energy storage, the deployment of that new technology will likely take decades.

Despite the lack of storage, the US and other countries continue to deploy huge amounts of new wind generation capacity and that expense is being undertaken with the assumption that wind energy will lower carbon dioxide emissions. But federal authorities have done some estimates on how more wind energy will affect emissions. And those estimates are revealing.

Last year, the Energy Information Administration estimated the potential savings from a proposed nationwide 25% renewable electricity standard, a goal that was included in the Waxman-Market energy bill which narrowly passed the US House last year. In its best-case scenario, the annual carbon dioxide savings from that mandate would be about 306 million tons by 2030. Given that the EIA expects annual US carbon dioxide emissions to be about 6.2 billion tons in 2030, that expected reduction will only equal about 4.9% of US emissions. That’s not much when you consider that the Obama administration wants to cut US carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050.

Earlier this year, another arm of the Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, released a report whose conclusions were remarkably similar to those of the EIA. This report focused on integrating wind energy into the electric grid in the eastern US, which has about two-thirds of all US electric load. If wind energy were to meet 20% of electric needs in the eastern US by 2024, according to the report, the likely reduction in carbon emissions would be less than 200 million tons per year. (All the scenarios in the NREL analysis cost a minimum of $140 billion to implement and the issue of cycling conventional power plants is only mentioned in passing.)

Coal emits about twice as much carbon dioxide during combustion as natural gas. But wind generation mostly displaces natural gas because natural gas-fired generators are often the most costly form of conventional electricity production. That said, if regulators are truly concerned about carbon emissions (and cutting air pollution) they should be encouraging gas-fired generation at the expense of coal. And they should be doing so because drillers are unlocking galaxies of natural gas from shale beds, so much so that US natural gas resources are now likely large enough to meet all of America’s natural gas needs for a century.

Meanwhile, the wind industry is pocketing subsidies that dwarf those garnered by the oil and gas sector. The federal government provides a production tax credit of $0.022 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by wind. That amounts to $6.44 per million BTU of energy produced. Meanwhile, a 2008 EIA report said subsidies to the oil and gas sector totaled $1.9 billion per year, or about $0.03 per million BTU of energy produced. Thus, on a raw, per-unit-of-energy-produced basis, subsidies to the wind sector are more than 200 times as great as those given to the oil and gas sector.

Kevin Forbes, the director of the Center for the Study of Energy and Environmental Stewardship at Catholic University, told me that “Wind energy gives people a nice warm fuzzy feeling that we’re taking action on climate change.” But when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions, “the reality is that it’s not doing much of anything.”

******

To: William Seuffert, Tim Pawlenty, Dave Senjem, Mike Jungbauer, Ellen Anderson

The Goodhue County Planning Advisory Commission (PAC) met this past spring to address the need for a revised wind ordinance for Goodhue County.  The Goodhue County PAC appointed a three-person Goodhue County PAC LWECS Subcommittee to address the current Goodhue County wind ordinance and to bring back a revised draft wind ordinance if they deemed it was needed.
 
As part of this Goodhue County PAC meeting, approximately 30 local citizens stood up and spoke in favor of the Subcommittee's draft wind ordinance.  The room was packed to overflowing.
 
Below is the website for the recommendations brought forth from the Goodhue County PAC LWECS Subcommittee on industrial wind and supporting documents.  Also, on this website is a letter sent to Administrative Law Judge Eric Lipman who presided over the public hearing (July 32-22, 2010) regarding the site permit and certification of need requests for the National Wind/AWA Goodhue Wind project.
 
http://www.co.goodhue.mn.us/countygovernment/committees/PlanningAdvisoryComm/2010/August/WECS%20Sub-Committee%20Article%2018%20Revision%20packet.pdf
 
These conclusions by the Goodhue County PAC LWECS Subcommittee (Joan Volz, Chair; Dan Rechtzigel, and Tom Webster) were brought to the full Goodhue County PAC on July 16, 2010.  Nothing was accomplished that evening.  Three Goodhue County PAC members, Howard Stenerson, Bernie Overby, and Larry Olson, controlled the meeting and blatantly tore the Subcommittee's draft wind ordinance apart after the PAC, of which they were a part, had selected them to be on this Subcommittee.  Personally, I think the Subcommittee did a reputable job and brought forward a responsible draft wind ordinance.  Please take the time to read my attached letter.  
 
The meeting lasted until shortly after midnight and was tabled to next month's meeting (9/20/10).  I am wondering how this will affect the outcome for our County knowing that the PUC will be making a ruling on the AWA Goodhue Wind project very near in the future.  We truly needed that wind ordinance in place BEFORE the wind developers are granted a site permit.  My county has let me down, and it saddens me greatly. 
 
We have asked the County to enact a one-year moratorium to allow the precious time needed to research and educate those making the decisions on industrial wind can do so in a responsible way.  The County officials felt a moratorium was not needed and a revised wind ordinance could be completed in a "month at the most."  Well, that did not happen!  Goodhue County continues to drag its feet and sit on its hands so that nothing is completed before the industrial wind projects begin.  Is that responsible?  By the time/if  the Goodhue County PAC sends a revised wind ordinance to the County Board of Commissioners, it may be too late to have the ordinance in place BEFORE the wind turbine projects are granted site permits and begin to break ground.  I would like to think Goodhue County is listening, but I don't think so. 
 
The MPUC and OES are accepting documents for the various dockets attached to this National Wind/AWA Goodhue Wind project.  Numerous times I have pointed out discrepancies in the documents submitted by AWA Goodhue Wind.  As an example, the AWA Goodhue Wind submitted their Environmental Report dated June 2010 regarding preliminary sitings of the wind turbines.  My home and that of many others were not on this preliminary site map.  Note the date of this documents was June 2010. 
 
So, now I am writing you to find out what can be done at the State of Minnesota level.  My County is too densely populated to have wind turbines sited at 1,000 feet for nonparticipants and 1,500 feet for nonparticipants.  The wind turbines will continue to get bigger and louder.  Responsible wind ordinances are necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Goodhue County AND the citizens of the State of Minnesota.  Minnesota has been a leader in healthcare and, yet, you have not looked at the ramifications of these large, industrial-scale wind turbines.  Setbacks, noise (especially nighttime noise), and shadow flicker are just a few of the many concerns presented by these mammoth wind turbines.  What can you do to help me and other concerned citizens in Goodhue County?
 
Barbara A. Stussy
Zumbrota, MN  55992

******

To: Jon Kline, William Seuffert, Ellen Anderson, Micael Jungbaur, and Tim Pawlenty

This site contains the findings of the Goodhue County Sub-Committee on industrial wind. It also has the letter submitted by the sub-committee to the Administrative Law Judge, Eric Lipman who presided over the hearing in Goodhue.  We in Goodhue county are still waiting for a decision by Planning and Zoning before it can go to County commissioners.

At the meeting to view this sub-committee's findings, It was clear that several of the other county planning members were very angry with these findings. Their treatment of the sub-committee and its findings in the public meeting was appalling to say the least.

A meeting for a final vote by the Planning Committee has not been set as of yet. We can only speculate to that outcome. There has been sufficient time to harass the sub-committee now and cause them to not stand firm in their findings. We saw that start at the meeting.
 
County officials knew about several proposed wind projects well over a year ago and today complain about not having enough time to form ordinances.  Anything they have done has been at the demand of the public. We have strenuously asked for a moratorium on many occasion to allow them time to properly address the situation. They have refused to act on every request. They now are not happy with their own sub-committee.

My personal speculation and that of many others is that our county officials intend to drag their feet and not act in a timely manner intentionally to pass the final decision on to the PUC. This allows them to blame any unfavorable findings onto the PUC, thus avoiding personal responsibility. I hold them personally responsible! There have been very deliberate actions and inactions in my opinion.  I find the sub-committee did a very thorough study and came up with very reasonable conclusions fitting our county.

Thank You, Rochelle Nygaard
Goodhue County Resident


Click Here to view Goodhue County Sub-committee Findings
******

******

Dear State of Minnesota Government Officials,   
                                                                             

I am not sure if you are following the planned development of large industrial wind farms for Goodhue county. I would like to let you know that as a resident I do not support such plans. I personally do all I can to be a responsible steward of the land. I love America. I love Minnesota. This is my home! A government, "For the People, By the People. That is the belief I was raised with.  It would appear that is not what exists any longer.

Government mandates and Cap & Trade dictate. They don't have to be good for the citizens or the land. It just exists so some one can make a few bucks off the backs of hard working Americans. If it can be packaged as green, Those same people can hand over hard earned dollars and innocently think they are doing good as they are being fleeced.

We in Goodhue county have been used and pitted against one another. We are good hard working people. Christians for the most part. We help our neighbors. We pray for our neighbors.

Today that has all changed. People in the affected area don't talk. Relatives don't talk. A 150th church dinner was strangely silent.  This community has been torn apart. Why????  For renewable energy???  Developers who don't live here! Government who does not live here! A majority who does not want this here!  A PUC and a OES and a MPCA that has never asked us what we want is making a decision in St. Paul about what we should have here. I thought this was America.  I guess I have died and woken up in communist hell!
 
Is this going to continue throughout America? One cannot go on the internet and not see that there is a problem all over the world with wind energy. Looking at government sites refers one to the wind industry sites (Who's in who's pocket?).

Here in Goodhue county, residents were not aware of these proposed developments till the final stages of the state hearings. Why?  Why the secret dealings? Secret contracts. One sided contracts.  Ponzi style contracts! Misuse of C-BED status. We find out later that lawyers for developers worked on government staff to write initiatives that made this all possible and in essence created lucrative jobs for themselves in the wind industry. Now if one really wants this stuff and the stuff that goes with it (CAPX) there are plenty of cash strapped places where they would welcome this development. Goodhue County is not that place!

We have educated people who make good money and build nice houses and pay high property taxes. Why? Because Goodhue County has been wonderful place to live.  Those in Goodhue county against large industrial wind do want good reliable and cost effective renewable energy. We are the countries most green citizens. We believe INDUSTRIAL wind is a waste of money and this government could spend its (OUR TAX DOLLARS)money more prudently. Energy efficiency of homes ,autos and other gas using items for a start. Why fund such high cost projects that line the pockets of millionaires when the average homeowner  and business could realize the savings if funds were placed in efficiencies that helped everyone.

I also have a problem with contracts that give developers control of land that belongs to others. Everything over, under and on that land.  What is the motive behind this? T.Boone Pickens did not put up the wind farm in Texas but still walked off with easements and water rights. Something smells funny! What are landowners signing away here? Water? Fracking????  Are they sharing those carbon credit monies with land signers? Just have to wonder.

Here, In the effected townships a majority do not want industrial wind, but others, not here make the decisions. Meetings for public input are an effort in futility. Law says they must be held. We witness government representatives shaking hands and socializing with wind developers at those meetings.
 
If some in other areas wish to have industrial wind we say, Your welcome to it. Pay for it yourself and keep it next to your own home.  I have spent over a year witnessing the unethical development of wind farms. These are only a few of the problems I and others have been dealing with in Goodhue county.  Goodhue county commissioners could stop this now and choose not to. 

Rochelle Nygaard, Goodhue County MN
 

******

August 20, 2010

Who do you stand for?  Who stands for you?

After months of hard, detailed and dedicated work, the Goodhue County Planning Advisory Sub-Committee presented their Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) zoning standards on August 16, 2010.  The meeting included public comment and consideration by the remaining five members of the Planning Advisory Committee.  These standards have been the most talked about, studied and highly contested issue in Goodhue County in many years.  

County residents turned out and spoke unanimously and strongly in support of the sub-committee’s work.  It was clear citizens had researched and studied the issues and the proposed standards thoroughly. Residents presented concise, thoughtful and sometimes detailed feedback.  

When public comment was closed, it was the Planning Advisory Committee’s (PAC) turn.  Four months ago, the PAC assigned the difficult, tedious, vital and controversial work to a sub-committee of three:  Joan Volz, Tom Webster and Dan Rechtzigal.    Rich Bauer provided brief, precise feedback demonstrating he had followed both the topic and the detail of the issue.  Chair Harold Stenerson, on the other hand, put forward unfocused, uneducated, nitpicking questions – kicking sand in the gearbox till the whole process ground to a halt.  After midnight the PAC adjourned without a vote.

Failure to move this to the County Board is de-facto support of industrial wind corporate welfare. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has to consider and apply County standards unless they find good cause not to.  If the WECS zoning standards don’t go through the County Board and get adopted by October 1, 2010 then there are no County standards for the PUC to consider.  

Ineptitude?  Inability to grasp the situation? Or is it a desire to spare County Board members who are seeking re-election from having to take a public stance?  

If the incumbent County Board members have not figured it out yet, this issue demands tough decisive leadership.  There is no happy common ground available.  You either stand with resident and business taxpayers of Goodhue County or you stand for out-of-state corporations backed by lawyers and lobbyist.  The pillaging of taxpayers and rate payers is well underway with the August 2, 2010 request by Xcel Energy to the PUC to raise electrical rates by 37.5% mainly due to industrial wind costs.  

Who do you stand for?  Who stands for you?

Steve Groth
Zumbrota, MN


******

Aug. 18, 2010

Monday (Aug.16) I attended the meeting of Goodhue County Planning Commission, interested in the on-going happenings surrounding the proposed wind turbine farm for Goodhue/Zumbrota area of Goodhue County.  A big part of the agenda was reviewing the draft of report from 3 member sub-committee.  This group was appointed to look-over and research issues of concern citizens have brought forth in previous meetings/hearings, it became obvious to any paying attention that they [the sub committee] had done a through job investigating the issues provided.  Some who had attended their meetings confirmed their dedication to detail and in depth research.  However the attitude of some committee members was embarrassing at best!  

Howard Stenerson who chairs the committee, with a smirk on his face, seemed to take delight in pointing out little discrepancies common to such drafts while stating he did not mean to be picky. Points that did not alter conclusions of report but which could be quickly tweaked afterward instead of in front of an audience.  He went so far as to mention that handling of papers may interfere with people's ability to hear when Ms. Volz was speaking but a short time later turned his head,curling his body away from the audience while he himself was speaking.  I perceived an attitude of condescension toward the report without giving valid or constructive criticism and or correction of its content.  Bernie Overby also took on a mild smirk when Howard at the beginning of meeting asked if there were any disclosures and Mr. Overby pronounced that his voting on the subject would not be influenced on his personal association with the project (he has 80 acres signed over to another wind project).

These members' behavior was non professional toward a committee they had appointed, people who had done the real grunt work for the committee as a whole, working on behalf of citizens with concerns.  It seemed a game to members pretending to give time and hearing to the importance of input, a charade, allowing the time for input while minimizing the efforts of workers and items of the report.

I find it repugnant that Mr. Overby would minimize the work of this board allowing the suggestion at least of a conflict of interest (his ownership of 80 acres in another proposed site for wind towers) on his part rather than relinquishing his vote on this issue.  Even if he can be objective in his decision surely the impression of impropriety must be considered.

Some issues concerning wind energy in Goodhue County remain, and seem to be ignored by some who have a vote on the issue, consider; at least two parties at this meeting reported that the latest maps officially provided by the wind company, do not show their own residents [that are] within the area of concern, affording the impression that incomplete/inaccurate information is being provided.

A person with property in footprint when towers are erected owns that property but the manufacturers suggest you keep your distance, if a person wonders closer than suggested distance and a problem occurs are they then liable for damages to themselves on their own property or should liability fall on the provider of said equipment?  This seems to jeopardize the
use of one's own property.

An electrician provided testimony of stray voltage with existing power systems yet the idea of testing for stray voltage with the wind turbines was deemed too expensive for consideration.  In the midst of farm country where such problems have interfered with simple watering of stock, is this not a legitimate concern?

Issues concerning the real goals of some on this board also remain.

Catherine Huisman

*****
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:35 AM
To: Michael Wozniak ; Lisa Hanni ; Richard Samuelson ; Daniel Rechtzigel ; Ted
Siefert ; Jim Bryant ; Mike Allen ; Jeff Hommedahl
Subject: Fw: Planning Advisory Meeting: August 16th

Dan Rechtzigel,

Thank you for your great job working on a revised ordinance draft for GOODHUE COUNTY in regard to WECS.  Much thought and time was put into this very important subject affecting in one way or another all the residents of this county. Many are completely unaware and uninformed on this matter. That fact is well known to those promoting industrial wind. They would prefer no study of this issue. If one does a thorough examination a favorable outlook in the industrial wind sales pitch is unlikely. You are a perfect example of that. You did your home work. You sorted through the evidence and came up with a conclusion. We who object to industrial wind did not provide that reading material.

Our own county employee, Mike Wozniak and staff gathered that information for you. Along with that and your own discovery, You came up with very safe and reasonable recommendations. It pained the public to watch as you were tag teamed between Mr.
Stenerson and Mr. Overby in their attempt to discredit all of your hard work and  reasonable conclusions. I still believe Mr. Overby should remove himself. His claim that he has nothing to gain here is not so. The ordinances being revised will  directly effect the project he is personally vested in.

The tactics of Stenerson, Overby and Olson used were designed to put you on the spot with little time to respond.  Make you doubt yourselves and just tear you apart in front of an audience. They wanted you to look weak. They exposed themselves further in this effort. It is clear and always has been, that they have a personal agenda to make this project and all others work. They used bully tactics on you. It was shamefully obvious that they have no wish to represent all the citizens of the county. Only a select few. Clearly they do not accept or respect the findings of the Sub-Committee they appointed.

I would suggest we take back control of this county. We should not listen to suggestions of what the PUC may or may not do. This keeps getting thrown at you to intimidate you. You yourselves made phone calls and found standards to be old and outdated. I think Goodhue county should be a proactive leader and challenge these outdated standards. You have been charged with protecting the health and welfare of this counties residents. You are well within your right to challenge any outside entity that does not. 

You, we in Goodhue county are being looked at as an example. The outcome of what happens here is in the forefront of this issue all over the country. If AWA Goodhue Wind goes forward with no challenge it will be open territory for industrial wind. While some areas are conducive to and welcome this sort of development, it is clear Goodhue county is not one of those areas. 

The tactics used to sneak this project and others through the system before the citizens knew what was happening must not happen again. It is not clear where and how the public is to inform itself on issues effecting the county. Perhaps this issue should be addressed also as we move forward. Not all residents have computers. Navigating and finding info on the county website is not so easy. My newspaper is Cannon Falls. No county stuff is there unless it hits the front page as has now happened with this issue in the end of the process.

I noticed 4 LWECS in Kenyon-Dennison as I was Looking at the Goodhue project in the FAA site. Does the public know about those? Will they need to slow down and follow the ordinances now being drafted? They are of the same size(height-398 ft.) and at the same stage of the permiting process as AWA Goodhue Wind?   A moratorium would have offered the time to explore and address all issues. 

Please stand up for your conclusions as a subcommittee. Your letter should go to OES, MPCA and the PUC. Each one of these agencies has a part in controlling what happens in our county. We need our voice to be heard.   Thank You for your courage in the conclusion of your findings. 

Thank You, Rochelle Nygaard

Please forward to all planning and zoning committee members, especially those addressed: Joan Volz, Tom Webster and Dan Rechtzigel


*****
Title: 2010 Goodhue County Commissioner Elections and the Wind Issue
 
The Goodhue county commissioners has been ineffective in their handling of the wind issue until the public outcries forced them to act. Old ordinances where written several years ago to control small wind development for personal use.

They where not intended for the massive industrial structures now being forced through our county.  Goodhue county officials were well aware that these projects were in the works and did nothing to inform and protect the residents. It was only in the last few months that they formed a sub-committee to look at and revise current ordinances. Again public outcry forced this.
They appear to have hoped the project would be built and no-one would notice. How did they plan to hide the fact that they had turned a vast part of rural Goodhue County into an industrial park. Several other projects are in the works following the outcome of AWA Goodhue Wind.

Commissioners have been passing the buck to the PUC. Fact is the PUC has repeatedly said they want direction from Goodhue County. Legislators Kelly and Drazkowski confirmed that Goodhue county can write more stringent ordinances.  It would appear our officials have failed to lead.  How does a project worth hundreds of millions of dollars pass through the system with nonstop approval without the publics knowledge.

Should we believe that county officials knew nothing about this? Clearly it takes several years to plan and implement a project of this size. Goodhue County has not finished it's developer agreement that would protect our tax dollars in the event the project failed or had a cost impact to the county. This should have happened in the beginning. They continue to rubber stamp everything. Do we need this "GREEN" energy? Or does someone else need the "GREEN$$$"?

Not one county official ever spoke to the Goodhue County Rural Electrical Association on this matter. Every issue raised by opponents is a valid and costly problem that the county could ultimately be on the hook for. The $425,000.00 that signors and investors may see is nowhere near the cost that could ultimately fall upon the tax payers when lost levy dollars, property values and the end of growth in the industrializes zones are calculated.

Signors have been duped as well. No coal plants will close. No electricity is generated from gas. CO emissions will go up. Electric rates will rise. As citizens affected by this project show up in droves to express their displeasure and bring every form of evidence and studies they have collected for the record. The project moves on with no vote against it at the county level. Who have our commissioners been working for ?

Along with these wind projects hundreds of miles of utility lines such as CAPX will criss cross Minnesota at ratepayer expense to ship electricity east.(New Jersey already says it wants no Midwest wind energy). Currently Iowa has ceased much of it's wind farm production. Other states are looking at following suit. 

As the facts about this form of so called green energy surface the water is getting pretty muddy. Questionable signing practices and misuse of the C-BED  definition of community involvement. (The community clearly not behind this project) The cream has already been skimmed off the top. Follow the money.(Right out of Minnesota) . Even if this project is not in your back yard, it will cost you money.

Do you want to pay for it? Vote out  commissioners who don't represent the people. Primary is August 10th. I will vote, "Rapp for Commissioner!" Your vote is your voice.

Goodhue County Resident, 
Rochelle Nygaard 

*****

Letter to the Editor:
 
In response to the 8/16/10 Goodhue County Planning Advisory Commission (PAC) meeting,

I sat in disbelief as some of the PAC members continued to attack the new draft wind ordinance.  In particular, Mr. Howard Stenerson of Red Wing continued to ask the same question over and over taking up precious time and yet not able to offer solutions.  As the chair of the PAC, he should provide leadership; I did not see this.  Does he not remember that the same questions were discussed initially and, thus, the PAC WECS Subcommittee was formed to come forward with a revised wind ordinance?  He repeatedly asked which kinds of "wind" did the County wish to regulate.  Should the direction have been decided prior to establishment of the Subcommittee?  At the previous PAC meeting, the Subcommittee asked for more direction on the draft wind ordinance.  Why didn't Mr. Stenerson bring up this issue?  Is the County not obligated to protect ALL the citizens of Goodhue County?  This is like saying that the County will oversee small feedlots or small industries but not the big ones!
 
The Subcommittee spent countless hours and wrestled efforts into this draft wind ordinance.  They researched and discussed thoroughly the issues weighing on the citizens of the County.  The 8/16/10  meeting should have been a session to fine tune the draft ordinance brought forth.  If PAC members disliked it, they should have come forth with solutions as they had seen the draft wind ordinance prior to the meeting.
 
The County has the ability to enact more stringent standards for the large WECS without assuming the permitting process for these wind turbines.  The Subcommittee has done their job.  Now the PAC  needs to move forward with the educated research and hard efforts rather than putting their heads in the ground and hoping big wind will go away.
 
Barbara A. Stussy
Zumbrota, MN  55992

*****