GOODHUE WIND TRUTH
Facts and truths about Wind Energy and Turbines
New Information Posted 10/12/12
New Information Posted 10/12/12
Editorials & Comments
The Wind Developers don't live here and never will. They will do or say whatever they need to in order to get the project through. They will make their money from the project at our expense and leave us with a damaged community.
Don't fool yourself and think this is a passing phase and the community will be fine when the Wind Companies leave, it will not. We will forever be changed.
This project will set the standard for wind development throughout the County and perhaps throughout the State. It does not matter that you do not live in the project area. It is time to speak out against this now.
Wind energy carries its own set of pollution which is detrimental to humans and animals. Health effects caused by low-frequency noise is one side effect, but not the worst. EMF (Electromagnetic Field) and dirty voltage are far worse!
It's time to be heard! It is YOUR RIGHT to protect your property, your community and your life! You have the freedom and right to state your concerns and opinions.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." - Albert Einstein, 1918
___________________________________________________________________
DECEMBER 2011
********
12/28/2011
Letters to the Editor for the week of December 28, 2011
AWA GOODHUE DOES NOT PROMOTE SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
To the Editor:
On Friday, December 16, 2011, at about 2:42 p.m., I heard a helicopter approaching and the windows in my house rattling. By the time, I got my shoes on and went outside, the helicopter was out of sight.
Just minutes later, a neighbor called stating a helicopter was flying directly over her farm. She continued to monitor the multiple helicopter flyovers as it flew loops to the north and south over the AWA Goodhue Wind Project footprint.
I did file a complaint with the Goodhue County Sheriff's Department along with many of my neighbors, one of whom said she was the 14th person to file a complaint.
There is something wrong when people can hire a helicopter to do low flyovers on people's homes, farms, and animals with such disrespect and with no warning notices. AWA Goodhue's wind project has acquired C-BED (community-based energy development) status. Does this incident sound like something that promotes good community relations?
Although I was told that the sheriff's department does not have authority over airspace, I presume Sheriff McNurlin will bring this to the attention of the FAA. I think the county needs to realize that AWA Goodhue is willing to do anything to rid us of our eagles and bats at any cost and to unsettle and intimidate the citizens who live here.
I hope at some point Goodhue County Board of Commissioners Bryant, Rechtzigel, and Samuelson will realize that by not approving the appeal to the appellate court, they have allowed AWA Goodhue to pull out all of the tricks in their bag with total disrespect for the citizens of Goodhue County.
Commissioners Bryant, Rechtzigel, and Samuelson should have stood up for the rights of the citizens of Goodhue County and filed an appeal. Goodhue County's mission, " To effectively promote the safety, health, and well-being of our residents," is no longer effective or true.
Barbara A. Stussy
Zumbrota
********
December 23, 2011
Dear Ms. Pile,
I appreciate your immediate response.
Although you state my "complaint regarding the Goodhue Wind Project has been forwarded to the permittee for resolution," I fail to understand what the resolution is or will be. The December 21, 2011, letter from CEO Peter Mastic regarding the helicopter survey stated, "AWA Goodhue plans to conduct additional monthly helicopter surveys as discussed in the AWA Goodhue's ABPP." Further this letter continues, "We apologize for any inconvenience these surveys may cause and will work to maintain sufficient distances from your property to avoid future disturbances."
How vague can they be? What are "sufficient distances" from my property or any of the homes/farms within the AWA Goodhue Wind footprint? Perhaps we could select someone from the footprint to ride along and/or someone from the FAA to monitor the surveys. Also, perhaps coordinating people with boots on the ground might work better and be less upsetting to the local people, their farm animals, and the wildlife. There still are eagles in the footprint who are adding to their nests. Helicopter flyovers buzzing the eagles' nests, people's homes and farm animals is harassment--plain and simple.
Barbara A. Stussy
Zumbrota, MN
********
December 20, 2011
Dear Ms. Pile,
Thank you for your response.
I am aware that the MPUC granted a site permit to a project they determined we do not need to meet the RES in August of 2011. I am also aware that misinformation from you was a determining factor in that decision and am still astounded that you were unaware of the recommended 2 mile setback from active bald eagle nests and your perception that the Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act was "only recent so enforcement is unknown." The Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act was promulgated in 1941 and the setback is easily confirmed with a call to the Service. How is it that you do not know about appropriate setbacks and enforcement when it is your job to know about such things? Your dismissal of these recent complaints before obtaining necessary and pertinent information is yet another example of your willingness to substitute a perception for a fact. This type of bad decision making puts the state one bad decision from an environmental disaster.
Regarding the "avian study' currently being undertaken by AWA Goodhue and Westwood Professional Services:I believe it is an excuse to harass citizens:
First I would like to point out that at the time of the second helicopter hazing incident, neither the USFWS nor the DNR had received the ABPP you say they are following. The USFWS and DNR received the ABPP the following day and had not yet had time to begin reading through the proposal. A condition of the permit is that the ABPP be approved by the MPUC. This may occur after a review of the document and after there is a public hearing. It is premature to act on an ABPP before it has been approved. (Or are we contending with corruption of the process and a pre-determined outcome regardless of the environmental devastation?)
On November 28, 2011, I received information about a helicopter hovering 10 feet above an eagle nest on County 9. I contacted the USFWS and DNR to see why a survey of an eagle nest would be done at this time of year and was told that it is not necessary to get close to a raptor nest to determine the species of bird that built it so no one knew why someone was at a known eagle nest at this time of year. According to Terrence Ingram, an eagle expert who has been around almost as long as the Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act, the only reason a helicopter would hover 10 feet above an eagle nest at this time of year would be to use the updraft from the rotors to damage or dislodge the nest. This activity is in keeping with AWA's proposed mitigation strategies: harassment of eagles to cause behavior modifications, cutting down nesting, perching and roosting trees, and nest removal. These are not mitigation strategies but are illegal acts meant to disrupt the birds and destroy their habitat. The recommended mitigation spelled out by the USFWS is appropriate siting of turbines: at least two miles from active eagle nests. This is an Important Eagle Use Area and has been an IEUA for almost 20 years. Every other state in the union has shown enough common sense to disallow wind energy developments in major migratory corridors, but Minnesota stands alone in our committment to destroying critical habitat and healthy ecosystems on behalf of wind energy developments that the MPUC determines are wanted but NOT needed. (See June 30 testimony by Christie Brusven.)
It is my understanding that some information on communal foraging can be gained from a helicopter, but communal roosting information is best gathered with boots on the ground. Communal foraging is what was observed and reported by residents living in rural Goodhue County. I photographed this activity, and this activity was observed by an individual with the MN DNR. According to the USFWS information provided by you, communal roosting and communal foraging are normal eagle behaviors.....everywhere, it seems, but in the footprint for the AWA Goodhue project. When eagles communally roost or communally forage in the AWA Goodhue project footprint it is the result of "an organized eagle baiting campaign" aimed at inflating eagle population numbers. I believe the allegation of baiting is the primary reason for the helicopter activity in rural Goodhue County, though some of this may be aimed at identifying which habitats to destroy to better protect AWA Goodhue; as proposed in what has been called an "Avian and Bat Protection Plan". I was told today that Brie Anderson of Westwood witnessed someone in Goodhue County putting a dead animal in the back of a pick-up truck so it could bait eagles to ruin her avian count. If this is true....
1) Why didn't she contact law enforcement and follow the vehicle so the culprit could be apprehended? This seems like a logical action to take.
2) Take a photograph of the activity to prove the allegation. Ms. Anderson has a camera with a zoom lens on her at all times.
3) If she was not comfortable getting close to the vehicle, Ms. Anderson could have used her binoculars to capture a license plate on the perpetrators vehicle. Without evidence, this is a baseless allegation and cannot be taken seriously.
4) Westwood has not conducted surveys to determine eagle counts during migration and has not visited communal roost/foraging sites pointed out to them by residents. Since they do not have a baseline number of eagles utilizing areas X, Y and Z, their claims of inflated numbers are invalid. They do not know whether the numbers are "inflated" or not because this is the first time they have spent time in the field in Goodhue County during fall migration. Eagle populations throughout SE Minnesota have noticeably risen during the last few years. If Westwood had done field studies they would know this to be accurate and true. They did a desktop study and this is one of the many consequences.
5) The USFWS protocols are for flights between 200 and 700 feet. Videotape of the helicopter flying well below 200 feet has been made available on DVD and/or YouTube. This is unnecessary and unsafe.
The exposure of the unprofessional, inadequate and inaccurate pre-construction avian assessment done by AWA Goodhue and Westwood Professional Associates should have caused the MPUC and DoC to demand a higher standard of accountability and truthfulness from this developer. I believe that because there was no appropriate response from the MPUC or Commerce, we are seeing more unprofessional behavior in the form of harassment of citizens and their livestock with helicopters, and more lying to excuse unprofessional results from a poorly done survey. Where is the threshold of deceit or abuse that must be reached before the Department of Commerce steps up to protect Minnesota's citizens from lying, harassment, and devastation of critical habitat that contributes to the agricultural health of our land?
The helicopter activity in rural Goodhue County does not meet USFWS protocols any more than the siting of the turbines for this project meet DNR or USFWS recommended setbacks from critical habitats. The lying and harassing of citizens needs to stop, and the State needs to stop covering up for this bad behavior.
Thank you,
Mary Hartman
*********
December 20, 2011
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
On Friday, December 16, 2011, at about 2:42 PM, I heard a helicopter approaching and the windows in my house rattling. By the time, I got my shoes on and went outside, the helicopter was out of sight.
Just minutes later, a neighbor called stating a helicopter was flying directly over her farm. She continued to monitor the multiple helicopter flyovers as it flew loops to the north and south over the AWA Goodhue Wind Project footprint.
I did file a complaint with the Goodhue County Sheriff's Department as well as many of my neighbors, one of which said she was the 14th person to file a complaint.
There is something wrong when people can hire a helicopter to do low flyovers on people's homes, farms, and animals with such disrespect and with no warning notices. AWA Goodhue's wind project has acquired C-BED (community-based energy development) status. Does this incident sound like something that promotes good community relations?
Although I was told that the County's Sheriff Department does not have authority over airspace, I presume Sheriff McNurlin will bring this to the attention of the FAA. I think the County needs to realize that AWA Goodhue is willing to do anything to rid us of our eagles and bats at any costs and to unsettle and intimidate the citizens who live here.
I hope at some point Goodhue County Board of Commissioners Bryant, Rechtzigel, and Samuelson will realize that by not approving the appeal to the MN Appellate Court, they have allowed AWA Goodhue to pull out all the tricks in their bag with total disrespect for the citizens of Goodhue County.
Commissioners Bryant, Rechtzigel, and Samuelson should have stood up for the rights of the citizens of Goodhue County and filed an appeal. Goodhue County's mission, " To effectively promote the safety, health, and well-being of our residents," is no longer is effective or true.
Barbara A. Stussy
14884 420th Street
Zumbrota, MN 55992
*********
Subject: Re: Goodhue Wind Helicopter Surveys
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011
I got the same message from Pile. This helicopter was not, I repeat not! following protocol when they were at my house. They were jut above my trees which are maybe 50 ft tall. They were just above and to the west of them. It says in second paragraph: To avoid disturbance of nesting birds.... They sure caused a disturbance of the nesting birds here.
O”Reillys said they were flying out all over the place. They had a full view from their deck. They are not to be more than 500 ft from buildings. I believe they were closer here.
FAA called me yesterday. Doesn’t think they broke any rules. I may call them back on that.
Shelley Nygaard
Belle Creek Township
*********
Deborah Pile's reply to one of the complaint emails sent to the MPUC the day of the flyover (more than one person received the same response from Mrs. Pile). Here are pictures taken of the helicopter flyover. The pictures clearly display AWA did not adhere to the rules stated by Mrs. Pile.
Dear Ms. Hartman,
Commissioner Rothman asked me to respond to your inquiry concerning the helicopter flights over the Goodhue Wind project site last Friday.
As you know, AWA Goodhue, LLC was granted a site permit for the Goodhue Wind Project in August 2011. Section 13.1.1 of the site permit requires AWA Goodhue to conduct fall 2011 and winter 2011-2012 surveys for eagles in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requirements. Specific protocol for these surveys, as noted in the Avian and Bat Protection Plan developed in cooperation with the USFWS, includes helicopter surveys once per month from early November 2011 to early April 2012. The flight you observed last week was the second of these monthly required flights. Section 5.1.3.2 of the plan, included below for your reference, delineates the number of transects, altitude (between 200 and 700 feet) and speed (100 miles per hour or less) for the helicopter surveys. The area to be surveyed includes the project area plus a two mile buffer.
We will contact the permittee to review the survey protocol with them in order to insure it is fully understood and followed.
Sincerely,
Deborah Pile, supervisor
Energy Facility Permitting
5.1.3.2 Winter Aerial Surveys
As recommended by USFWS, helicopter surveys will be conducted once per month from early November 2011 to early April 2012 to locate and document Important Eagle Use Areas (IEUAs; e.g. winter night roosts, communal foraging locations, nest territories) that might be located within or near the Project Area. The area to be surveyed will consist of the Operational Project Area plus a two mile buffer. The March aerial survey will be expanded to serve as the spring 2012 leaf-off survey for the nests of eagles, other raptors and colony nesting waterbirds (e.g. herons, egrets and cormorants). No heron or cormorant rookeries have been identified to date within or near the Project Area; the absence of such rookeries will be re-confirmed during the aerial surveys conducted in March and April 2012.
To avoid disturbance to nesting birds, aerial survey techniques will follow the USFWS Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidelines (2010) and the Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for the Bald Eagle (2009). The helicopter will fly 18 north-south transects spaced ½ mile apart to allow each of two observers to observe a ¼ mile strip on each side of the aircraft (Exhibit 10). The helicopter would fly at an altitude between 200 and 700 feet above ground level (AGL) and at a speed of 100 miles per hour or less. When nests or IUEAs are found, the helicopter will circle back and hover at an altitude high enough to minimize disturbance to any birds that may be present and the feature will be located with a sub-meter GPS unit deployed within the helicopter.
Data collected at each feature will include:
1. Type of feature (e.g. winter night roost, communal foraging location, nest);
2. If winter night roosts or communal foraging locations are found, the species of eagle (bald or golden), number, distribution and age classes of eagles observed;
3. For nests, occupied versus inactive, incubation and feeding activity of adults, number of eggs or eaglets; and
4. Any eagle flights observed to or from the feature.
*********
December 17, 2011
Commissioner Mike Rotham
MN. Dept. of commerce
DOC. Energy Permit Compliance,
Yesterday at around 3:00 P.M.. at my home address of 12110-355th St Goodhue MN. 55027/ Sect-07 Twp.-111 Range-016. I heard a helicopter very close by and quite loud. Much closer sounding than normal. Shortly thereafter my neighbor called in alarm as a helicopter was roaming low over their woods very close to their home. She gave me the tail# of N144BH. Black/Navy & White. She saw no law enforcement logo but was concerned that a search of some sort was underway . A short time later the same helicopter flew over my home. I identified it with the same tail # N144BH and color.
This helicopter was very low and I could clearly see these numbers. I was unsure however as to the possibility of it being law enforcement. I called Goodhue Cty Law enforcement to make a report. They immediately stated it was those wind people. They sent an Officer Harris. I expressed my displeasure that a helicopter should be flying so low over peoples homes. It surely looked like a search by law enforcement. Officer Harris explained that no helicopter could fly any closer to a building or animals than 500 ft.. This helicopter was only about 100 ft. in the air and my windbreak trees were whipping hard as I looked at that helicopter. They were not 500 ft. from the building I had just been working in. Officer Harris said he had just been chasing them down trying to get them to stop and there had been several phone calls.
As I have horses and at times we keep cattle I am experienced enough to know that spooked animals can run through fences causing injury to themselves and God forbid they end up on a road and a person is injured or killed in an accident.
As I understand it was indeed a helicopter hired by Westwood Professional Services on behalf of AWA Goodhue/Mesa Power to do bird surveys. I feel this was anything but professional.
With such low flying antics any birds encountered would have been endangered with collision with the helicopter. Any birds would have been frightened off at the very least.
I consider this a harassment of wildlife. I also feel harassed to have them flying so low and close that they could have peered into my windows. They certainly had a full view of everything on my property. I would like to know if they are taking any photos of anything other than birds and their nests. My personal property is not a part of their bird survey.
Thank You,
Rochelle Nygaard
**********
Legal description where we live:
Sect-16-Twp-110 Range-016
======================
Yesterday, December 16, 2011, at 2:42 PM (per my clock), we heard a helicopter go over our home. Although we were in the house, the disturbance was enough to shake the windows of our three-year-old home. By the time we got our shoes on to go outside, we could no longer see the helicopter.
A neighbor that lives about one mile from me also called moments after our incident with similar information. She plans to call the Goodhue County Sheriff's Department to file a complaint and to send a formal complaint to you and AWA Goodhue, LLC.
It was upsetting to us as we had a similar incident one day last week and saw a helicopter go over the house quite low. Unfortunately, we did not document the date and time of that incident.
This morning, I also called the Goodhue County Sheriff's Department to alert them to yesterday's flyover. The Goodhue County Sheriff's Deputy I spoke with indicated there had been six other complaints registered around this same time period.
We also plan to send our complaint by mail to AWA Goodhue, LLC.
Barbara and Daniel Stussy
Zumbrota, MN 55992
*********
Helicopter Fly over video from 12/16/11
Here is video from Scott Logan of the 12/16/2011 helicopter activity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_i2CYjlbV4&feature=g-upl&context=G200c090AUAAAAAAAAAA
*********
DOC Energy Permit Compliance:
I would like to file a complaint about a low flying helicopter that has been flying over our farm today. It was flying so low over the pig house and our bins. It was so low it rattled the windows in our house. The second time was directly over the house, sent my horses running in a panic. The cattle scattered while my husband was cleaning the pens of manure.
I am laid up at home with a back injury and trying to work from home. This was very disruptive! We have also filed a complaint with the local Goodhue County Sheriff.
Flight information:
First “fly by”:
Date: 12/16/2011
Time: 1:48 pm
Flying SE to NW
Second “fly by”:
Date: 12/16/2011
Time: 2:45 pm
Flying S to N
Helicopter number: N144BH
Black in color.
Scott & Melody Ryan
Goodhue, MN 55027
*******
12/28/2011
Letters to the Editor for the week of December 28, 2011
AWA GOODHUE DOES NOT PROMOTE SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
To the Editor:
On Friday, December 16, 2011, at about 2:42 p.m., I heard a helicopter approaching and the windows in my house rattling. By the time, I got my shoes on and went outside, the helicopter was out of sight.
Just minutes later, a neighbor called stating a helicopter was flying directly over her farm. She continued to monitor the multiple helicopter flyovers as it flew loops to the north and south over the AWA Goodhue Wind Project footprint.
I did file a complaint with the Goodhue County Sheriff's Department along with many of my neighbors, one of whom said she was the 14th person to file a complaint.
There is something wrong when people can hire a helicopter to do low flyovers on people's homes, farms, and animals with such disrespect and with no warning notices. AWA Goodhue's wind project has acquired C-BED (community-based energy development) status. Does this incident sound like something that promotes good community relations?
Although I was told that the sheriff's department does not have authority over airspace, I presume Sheriff McNurlin will bring this to the attention of the FAA. I think the county needs to realize that AWA Goodhue is willing to do anything to rid us of our eagles and bats at any cost and to unsettle and intimidate the citizens who live here.
I hope at some point Goodhue County Board of Commissioners Bryant, Rechtzigel, and Samuelson will realize that by not approving the appeal to the appellate court, they have allowed AWA Goodhue to pull out all of the tricks in their bag with total disrespect for the citizens of Goodhue County.
Commissioners Bryant, Rechtzigel, and Samuelson should have stood up for the rights of the citizens of Goodhue County and filed an appeal. Goodhue County's mission, " To effectively promote the safety, health, and well-being of our residents," is no longer effective or true.
Barbara A. Stussy
Zumbrota
********
December 23, 2011
Dear Ms. Pile,
I appreciate your immediate response.
Although you state my "complaint regarding the Goodhue Wind Project has been forwarded to the permittee for resolution," I fail to understand what the resolution is or will be. The December 21, 2011, letter from CEO Peter Mastic regarding the helicopter survey stated, "AWA Goodhue plans to conduct additional monthly helicopter surveys as discussed in the AWA Goodhue's ABPP." Further this letter continues, "We apologize for any inconvenience these surveys may cause and will work to maintain sufficient distances from your property to avoid future disturbances."
How vague can they be? What are "sufficient distances" from my property or any of the homes/farms within the AWA Goodhue Wind footprint? Perhaps we could select someone from the footprint to ride along and/or someone from the FAA to monitor the surveys. Also, perhaps coordinating people with boots on the ground might work better and be less upsetting to the local people, their farm animals, and the wildlife. There still are eagles in the footprint who are adding to their nests. Helicopter flyovers buzzing the eagles' nests, people's homes and farm animals is harassment--plain and simple.
Barbara A. Stussy
Zumbrota, MN
********
December 20, 2011
Dear Ms. Pile,
Thank you for your response.
I am aware that the MPUC granted a site permit to a project they determined we do not need to meet the RES in August of 2011. I am also aware that misinformation from you was a determining factor in that decision and am still astounded that you were unaware of the recommended 2 mile setback from active bald eagle nests and your perception that the Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act was "only recent so enforcement is unknown." The Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act was promulgated in 1941 and the setback is easily confirmed with a call to the Service. How is it that you do not know about appropriate setbacks and enforcement when it is your job to know about such things? Your dismissal of these recent complaints before obtaining necessary and pertinent information is yet another example of your willingness to substitute a perception for a fact. This type of bad decision making puts the state one bad decision from an environmental disaster.
Regarding the "avian study' currently being undertaken by AWA Goodhue and Westwood Professional Services:I believe it is an excuse to harass citizens:
First I would like to point out that at the time of the second helicopter hazing incident, neither the USFWS nor the DNR had received the ABPP you say they are following. The USFWS and DNR received the ABPP the following day and had not yet had time to begin reading through the proposal. A condition of the permit is that the ABPP be approved by the MPUC. This may occur after a review of the document and after there is a public hearing. It is premature to act on an ABPP before it has been approved. (Or are we contending with corruption of the process and a pre-determined outcome regardless of the environmental devastation?)
On November 28, 2011, I received information about a helicopter hovering 10 feet above an eagle nest on County 9. I contacted the USFWS and DNR to see why a survey of an eagle nest would be done at this time of year and was told that it is not necessary to get close to a raptor nest to determine the species of bird that built it so no one knew why someone was at a known eagle nest at this time of year. According to Terrence Ingram, an eagle expert who has been around almost as long as the Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act, the only reason a helicopter would hover 10 feet above an eagle nest at this time of year would be to use the updraft from the rotors to damage or dislodge the nest. This activity is in keeping with AWA's proposed mitigation strategies: harassment of eagles to cause behavior modifications, cutting down nesting, perching and roosting trees, and nest removal. These are not mitigation strategies but are illegal acts meant to disrupt the birds and destroy their habitat. The recommended mitigation spelled out by the USFWS is appropriate siting of turbines: at least two miles from active eagle nests. This is an Important Eagle Use Area and has been an IEUA for almost 20 years. Every other state in the union has shown enough common sense to disallow wind energy developments in major migratory corridors, but Minnesota stands alone in our committment to destroying critical habitat and healthy ecosystems on behalf of wind energy developments that the MPUC determines are wanted but NOT needed. (See June 30 testimony by Christie Brusven.)
It is my understanding that some information on communal foraging can be gained from a helicopter, but communal roosting information is best gathered with boots on the ground. Communal foraging is what was observed and reported by residents living in rural Goodhue County. I photographed this activity, and this activity was observed by an individual with the MN DNR. According to the USFWS information provided by you, communal roosting and communal foraging are normal eagle behaviors.....everywhere, it seems, but in the footprint for the AWA Goodhue project. When eagles communally roost or communally forage in the AWA Goodhue project footprint it is the result of "an organized eagle baiting campaign" aimed at inflating eagle population numbers. I believe the allegation of baiting is the primary reason for the helicopter activity in rural Goodhue County, though some of this may be aimed at identifying which habitats to destroy to better protect AWA Goodhue; as proposed in what has been called an "Avian and Bat Protection Plan". I was told today that Brie Anderson of Westwood witnessed someone in Goodhue County putting a dead animal in the back of a pick-up truck so it could bait eagles to ruin her avian count. If this is true....
1) Why didn't she contact law enforcement and follow the vehicle so the culprit could be apprehended? This seems like a logical action to take.
2) Take a photograph of the activity to prove the allegation. Ms. Anderson has a camera with a zoom lens on her at all times.
3) If she was not comfortable getting close to the vehicle, Ms. Anderson could have used her binoculars to capture a license plate on the perpetrators vehicle. Without evidence, this is a baseless allegation and cannot be taken seriously.
4) Westwood has not conducted surveys to determine eagle counts during migration and has not visited communal roost/foraging sites pointed out to them by residents. Since they do not have a baseline number of eagles utilizing areas X, Y and Z, their claims of inflated numbers are invalid. They do not know whether the numbers are "inflated" or not because this is the first time they have spent time in the field in Goodhue County during fall migration. Eagle populations throughout SE Minnesota have noticeably risen during the last few years. If Westwood had done field studies they would know this to be accurate and true. They did a desktop study and this is one of the many consequences.
5) The USFWS protocols are for flights between 200 and 700 feet. Videotape of the helicopter flying well below 200 feet has been made available on DVD and/or YouTube. This is unnecessary and unsafe.
The exposure of the unprofessional, inadequate and inaccurate pre-construction avian assessment done by AWA Goodhue and Westwood Professional Associates should have caused the MPUC and DoC to demand a higher standard of accountability and truthfulness from this developer. I believe that because there was no appropriate response from the MPUC or Commerce, we are seeing more unprofessional behavior in the form of harassment of citizens and their livestock with helicopters, and more lying to excuse unprofessional results from a poorly done survey. Where is the threshold of deceit or abuse that must be reached before the Department of Commerce steps up to protect Minnesota's citizens from lying, harassment, and devastation of critical habitat that contributes to the agricultural health of our land?
The helicopter activity in rural Goodhue County does not meet USFWS protocols any more than the siting of the turbines for this project meet DNR or USFWS recommended setbacks from critical habitats. The lying and harassing of citizens needs to stop, and the State needs to stop covering up for this bad behavior.
Thank you,
Mary Hartman
*********
December 20, 2011
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
On Friday, December 16, 2011, at about 2:42 PM, I heard a helicopter approaching and the windows in my house rattling. By the time, I got my shoes on and went outside, the helicopter was out of sight.
Just minutes later, a neighbor called stating a helicopter was flying directly over her farm. She continued to monitor the multiple helicopter flyovers as it flew loops to the north and south over the AWA Goodhue Wind Project footprint.
I did file a complaint with the Goodhue County Sheriff's Department as well as many of my neighbors, one of which said she was the 14th person to file a complaint.
There is something wrong when people can hire a helicopter to do low flyovers on people's homes, farms, and animals with such disrespect and with no warning notices. AWA Goodhue's wind project has acquired C-BED (community-based energy development) status. Does this incident sound like something that promotes good community relations?
Although I was told that the County's Sheriff Department does not have authority over airspace, I presume Sheriff McNurlin will bring this to the attention of the FAA. I think the County needs to realize that AWA Goodhue is willing to do anything to rid us of our eagles and bats at any costs and to unsettle and intimidate the citizens who live here.
I hope at some point Goodhue County Board of Commissioners Bryant, Rechtzigel, and Samuelson will realize that by not approving the appeal to the MN Appellate Court, they have allowed AWA Goodhue to pull out all the tricks in their bag with total disrespect for the citizens of Goodhue County.
Commissioners Bryant, Rechtzigel, and Samuelson should have stood up for the rights of the citizens of Goodhue County and filed an appeal. Goodhue County's mission, " To effectively promote the safety, health, and well-being of our residents," is no longer is effective or true.
Barbara A. Stussy
14884 420th Street
Zumbrota, MN 55992
*********
Subject: Re: Goodhue Wind Helicopter Surveys
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011
I got the same message from Pile. This helicopter was not, I repeat not! following protocol when they were at my house. They were jut above my trees which are maybe 50 ft tall. They were just above and to the west of them. It says in second paragraph: To avoid disturbance of nesting birds.... They sure caused a disturbance of the nesting birds here.
O”Reillys said they were flying out all over the place. They had a full view from their deck. They are not to be more than 500 ft from buildings. I believe they were closer here.
FAA called me yesterday. Doesn’t think they broke any rules. I may call them back on that.
Shelley Nygaard
Belle Creek Township
*********
Deborah Pile's reply to one of the complaint emails sent to the MPUC the day of the flyover (more than one person received the same response from Mrs. Pile). Here are pictures taken of the helicopter flyover. The pictures clearly display AWA did not adhere to the rules stated by Mrs. Pile.
Dear Ms. Hartman,
Commissioner Rothman asked me to respond to your inquiry concerning the helicopter flights over the Goodhue Wind project site last Friday.
As you know, AWA Goodhue, LLC was granted a site permit for the Goodhue Wind Project in August 2011. Section 13.1.1 of the site permit requires AWA Goodhue to conduct fall 2011 and winter 2011-2012 surveys for eagles in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requirements. Specific protocol for these surveys, as noted in the Avian and Bat Protection Plan developed in cooperation with the USFWS, includes helicopter surveys once per month from early November 2011 to early April 2012. The flight you observed last week was the second of these monthly required flights. Section 5.1.3.2 of the plan, included below for your reference, delineates the number of transects, altitude (between 200 and 700 feet) and speed (100 miles per hour or less) for the helicopter surveys. The area to be surveyed includes the project area plus a two mile buffer.
We will contact the permittee to review the survey protocol with them in order to insure it is fully understood and followed.
Sincerely,
Deborah Pile, supervisor
Energy Facility Permitting
5.1.3.2 Winter Aerial Surveys
As recommended by USFWS, helicopter surveys will be conducted once per month from early November 2011 to early April 2012 to locate and document Important Eagle Use Areas (IEUAs; e.g. winter night roosts, communal foraging locations, nest territories) that might be located within or near the Project Area. The area to be surveyed will consist of the Operational Project Area plus a two mile buffer. The March aerial survey will be expanded to serve as the spring 2012 leaf-off survey for the nests of eagles, other raptors and colony nesting waterbirds (e.g. herons, egrets and cormorants). No heron or cormorant rookeries have been identified to date within or near the Project Area; the absence of such rookeries will be re-confirmed during the aerial surveys conducted in March and April 2012.
To avoid disturbance to nesting birds, aerial survey techniques will follow the USFWS Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidelines (2010) and the Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for the Bald Eagle (2009). The helicopter will fly 18 north-south transects spaced ½ mile apart to allow each of two observers to observe a ¼ mile strip on each side of the aircraft (Exhibit 10). The helicopter would fly at an altitude between 200 and 700 feet above ground level (AGL) and at a speed of 100 miles per hour or less. When nests or IUEAs are found, the helicopter will circle back and hover at an altitude high enough to minimize disturbance to any birds that may be present and the feature will be located with a sub-meter GPS unit deployed within the helicopter.
Data collected at each feature will include:
1. Type of feature (e.g. winter night roost, communal foraging location, nest);
2. If winter night roosts or communal foraging locations are found, the species of eagle (bald or golden), number, distribution and age classes of eagles observed;
3. For nests, occupied versus inactive, incubation and feeding activity of adults, number of eggs or eaglets; and
4. Any eagle flights observed to or from the feature.
*********
December 17, 2011
Commissioner Mike Rotham
MN. Dept. of commerce
DOC. Energy Permit Compliance,
Yesterday at around 3:00 P.M.. at my home address of 12110-355th St Goodhue MN. 55027/ Sect-07 Twp.-111 Range-016. I heard a helicopter very close by and quite loud. Much closer sounding than normal. Shortly thereafter my neighbor called in alarm as a helicopter was roaming low over their woods very close to their home. She gave me the tail# of N144BH. Black/Navy & White. She saw no law enforcement logo but was concerned that a search of some sort was underway . A short time later the same helicopter flew over my home. I identified it with the same tail # N144BH and color.
This helicopter was very low and I could clearly see these numbers. I was unsure however as to the possibility of it being law enforcement. I called Goodhue Cty Law enforcement to make a report. They immediately stated it was those wind people. They sent an Officer Harris. I expressed my displeasure that a helicopter should be flying so low over peoples homes. It surely looked like a search by law enforcement. Officer Harris explained that no helicopter could fly any closer to a building or animals than 500 ft.. This helicopter was only about 100 ft. in the air and my windbreak trees were whipping hard as I looked at that helicopter. They were not 500 ft. from the building I had just been working in. Officer Harris said he had just been chasing them down trying to get them to stop and there had been several phone calls.
As I have horses and at times we keep cattle I am experienced enough to know that spooked animals can run through fences causing injury to themselves and God forbid they end up on a road and a person is injured or killed in an accident.
As I understand it was indeed a helicopter hired by Westwood Professional Services on behalf of AWA Goodhue/Mesa Power to do bird surveys. I feel this was anything but professional.
With such low flying antics any birds encountered would have been endangered with collision with the helicopter. Any birds would have been frightened off at the very least.
I consider this a harassment of wildlife. I also feel harassed to have them flying so low and close that they could have peered into my windows. They certainly had a full view of everything on my property. I would like to know if they are taking any photos of anything other than birds and their nests. My personal property is not a part of their bird survey.
Thank You,
Rochelle Nygaard
**********
Legal description where we live:
Sect-16-Twp-110 Range-016
======================
Yesterday, December 16, 2011, at 2:42 PM (per my clock), we heard a helicopter go over our home. Although we were in the house, the disturbance was enough to shake the windows of our three-year-old home. By the time we got our shoes on to go outside, we could no longer see the helicopter.
A neighbor that lives about one mile from me also called moments after our incident with similar information. She plans to call the Goodhue County Sheriff's Department to file a complaint and to send a formal complaint to you and AWA Goodhue, LLC.
It was upsetting to us as we had a similar incident one day last week and saw a helicopter go over the house quite low. Unfortunately, we did not document the date and time of that incident.
This morning, I also called the Goodhue County Sheriff's Department to alert them to yesterday's flyover. The Goodhue County Sheriff's Deputy I spoke with indicated there had been six other complaints registered around this same time period.
We also plan to send our complaint by mail to AWA Goodhue, LLC.
Barbara and Daniel Stussy
Zumbrota, MN 55992
*********
Helicopter Fly over video from 12/16/11
Here is video from Scott Logan of the 12/16/2011 helicopter activity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_i2CYjlbV4&feature=g-upl&context=G200c090AUAAAAAAAAAA
*********
DOC Energy Permit Compliance:
I would like to file a complaint about a low flying helicopter that has been flying over our farm today. It was flying so low over the pig house and our bins. It was so low it rattled the windows in our house. The second time was directly over the house, sent my horses running in a panic. The cattle scattered while my husband was cleaning the pens of manure.
I am laid up at home with a back injury and trying to work from home. This was very disruptive! We have also filed a complaint with the local Goodhue County Sheriff.
Flight information:
First “fly by”:
Date: 12/16/2011
Time: 1:48 pm
Flying SE to NW
Second “fly by”:
Date: 12/16/2011
Time: 2:45 pm
Flying S to N
Helicopter number: N144BH
Black in color.
Scott & Melody Ryan
Goodhue, MN 55027
*******
While visions of sugar plums danced in their heads, little did they know that Santa was Dead.
Along by his side lie his fleet of reindeer. On Dasher, On Dancer. On Pranser no more.
Poor Vixen, Poor Comet. Poor Cupid too.
Along with dear Donner and Blitzen they would spread joy no more. All flight paths were blocked by AWA and 1603 Green Subsidy Dollars.
Their demise was predicted by the warning of Brusven who said we’ll erect them.
We’ll drive out those birds and bait if we have to.
And if that does not work then they just may not make it. She was speaking of eagles. Americas symbol of Freedom.
Poor Santa and crew were just Road Kill .
No Matter. Nobody will stop us. You Can’t make us go!
Your land and those tax dollars soon will be mine. The mandate is fine.
PTC is ours. No need for a gift.We take what we want.
Pre-empt we are. Ho! Ho! Ho!
Along by his side lie his fleet of reindeer. On Dasher, On Dancer. On Pranser no more.
Poor Vixen, Poor Comet. Poor Cupid too.
Along with dear Donner and Blitzen they would spread joy no more. All flight paths were blocked by AWA and 1603 Green Subsidy Dollars.
Their demise was predicted by the warning of Brusven who said we’ll erect them.
We’ll drive out those birds and bait if we have to.
And if that does not work then they just may not make it. She was speaking of eagles. Americas symbol of Freedom.
Poor Santa and crew were just Road Kill .
No Matter. Nobody will stop us. You Can’t make us go!
Your land and those tax dollars soon will be mine. The mandate is fine.
PTC is ours. No need for a gift.We take what we want.
Pre-empt we are. Ho! Ho! Ho!
*****
12/16/11
Letter to Nate Arch from Senator Franken's office
Nate,
The only comment I have now, is Senator Franken appears t be in full support of “fraud”. All of this is nothing more than one big Ponzi scheme. For a Wind company to file a lawsuit against a small township is nothing more than “Big Wind” and “Big Energy” bullying the people in Minnesota and bulldozing over their rights!
He signed the 1603 cash grant, now they believe they have the “right” to do this!
Thank you for the lack of support,
Melody Ryan
Goodhue, MN
******
12/15/11
AWA Bullying Belle Creek Township and Residents
Over the past 4 years the community of Belle Creek Township has been fighting back to protect their property and rights over an Industrial Wind Facility. Two community groups, Goodhue Wind Truth and Coalition for Sensible Siting have studied the ill effects of living in and near a large Wind facility.
Majority of the residents of Belle Creek have requested the Township vote for a one year moratorium to research the cost and effect of a large wind facility in our Township. The beginning of 2011, Belle Creek voted in a one year moratorium. Which is a basic right local government should have to hold, but according to “Big Wind”; such as AWA Goodhue, they don’t have this right. AWA just served papers to sue Belle Creek Township over our moratorium!
We have been dealing with constant harassment from this Wind Developer, from calls to drop ins, to lies, to relentless request to sign their contracts, so matter how many times people turn them away. Recently, low flying planes and reporting farmers to the Health departments because a cow dies. We fear for our livelihoods and our safety.
Because we fight for our rights, we are now bullied by “Big Wind”.
If you want to read more visit the MPUC website and search edockets siting 08-1233 and Health 09-845, (http://www.puc.state.mn.us/puc/index.html).
Melody Ryan
Belle Creek Township
******
12/14/2011
Letters to the Editor for the week of December 14, 2011
Zumbrota Record
WIND TURBINES ARE A PUBLIC NUISANCE
To the Editor:
My dictionary defines nuisance as 1. a person, thing, or circumstance causing trouble or annoyance. 2. anything harmful to the community for which a legal remedy exists. annoyance is defined as 1. irritation, vexation 2. something that annoys.
Cities have ordinances prohibiting public nuisances such as loud engine noise, barking dogs, accumulation of debris, etc. Farmers whose cattle or dogs consistently run loose and annoy the neighbors are subject to legal action. Not many years ago our county commissioners ordered a salvage yard near Goodhue to close, partly because it was considered a public nuisance.
Now, Goodhue County is about to have foisted on it, by the MPUC and a few county commissioners, a public nuisance of immense magnitude; eventually the possibility of hundreds of giant electricity-generating wind turbines.
Won't the flashing red lights at night, especially cloudy nights, be terribly annoying and irritating? Residents of Goodhue County, including the south side of Red Wing, should maybe be prepared to get some heavy shades, curtains, or blinds for their windows.
Some governing bodies seem to be more interested in money than the welfare of their constituents.
Richard Reese
Red Wing
*****
OUR COMMISSIONERS NEED COURAGE
To the Editor:
The majority of our county commissioners have decided to allow the extremely controversial proposed wind farm to proceed even though they earlier passed an ordinance to keep a greater distance of the tower from a nonparticipant. Commissioner Rechtzigel's conscience told him to save money and not appeal the PUC's rejection of the country's ordinance ("Since we can't win anyway!"). Hopefully, when he is teaching his students American History, he doesn't use the same philosophy (no guts - no glory!) Commissioner Bryant sees an appeal as too costly. We can only hope that he is also monitoring the cost of the yearlong silica sand study, which is in his neighborhood. It will cost $5,000 for the committee meetings without fees for the paid experts. Commissioner Samuelson just had a change of heart after winning his re-election.
These same commissioners endorse a 1.9% levy increase for the county's budget while discovering a $348,900 fund balance in its ordinance enforcement fund (wind setbacks). At that rate, they could lower their new levy to a 1% increase and spend the ordinance fund, since they are afraid to fight the wind project. It looks like the only hope left for the many citizens opposed to the wind farm will be the Lourdes High School Science Club, as they monitor the possible harmful effects of wind turbines on the county's eagle population. These students will have the courage to honestly report their findings. Let's hope it is not too late.
Don Buck
Zumbrota
___________________________________________________________________Letters to the Editor for the week of December 14, 2011
Zumbrota Record
WIND TURBINES ARE A PUBLIC NUISANCE
To the Editor:
My dictionary defines nuisance as 1. a person, thing, or circumstance causing trouble or annoyance. 2. anything harmful to the community for which a legal remedy exists. annoyance is defined as 1. irritation, vexation 2. something that annoys.
Cities have ordinances prohibiting public nuisances such as loud engine noise, barking dogs, accumulation of debris, etc. Farmers whose cattle or dogs consistently run loose and annoy the neighbors are subject to legal action. Not many years ago our county commissioners ordered a salvage yard near Goodhue to close, partly because it was considered a public nuisance.
Now, Goodhue County is about to have foisted on it, by the MPUC and a few county commissioners, a public nuisance of immense magnitude; eventually the possibility of hundreds of giant electricity-generating wind turbines.
Won't the flashing red lights at night, especially cloudy nights, be terribly annoying and irritating? Residents of Goodhue County, including the south side of Red Wing, should maybe be prepared to get some heavy shades, curtains, or blinds for their windows.
Some governing bodies seem to be more interested in money than the welfare of their constituents.
Richard Reese
Red Wing
*****
OUR COMMISSIONERS NEED COURAGE
To the Editor:
The majority of our county commissioners have decided to allow the extremely controversial proposed wind farm to proceed even though they earlier passed an ordinance to keep a greater distance of the tower from a nonparticipant. Commissioner Rechtzigel's conscience told him to save money and not appeal the PUC's rejection of the country's ordinance ("Since we can't win anyway!"). Hopefully, when he is teaching his students American History, he doesn't use the same philosophy (no guts - no glory!) Commissioner Bryant sees an appeal as too costly. We can only hope that he is also monitoring the cost of the yearlong silica sand study, which is in his neighborhood. It will cost $5,000 for the committee meetings without fees for the paid experts. Commissioner Samuelson just had a change of heart after winning his re-election.
These same commissioners endorse a 1.9% levy increase for the county's budget while discovering a $348,900 fund balance in its ordinance enforcement fund (wind setbacks). At that rate, they could lower their new levy to a 1% increase and spend the ordinance fund, since they are afraid to fight the wind project. It looks like the only hope left for the many citizens opposed to the wind farm will be the Lourdes High School Science Club, as they monitor the possible harmful effects of wind turbines on the county's eagle population. These students will have the courage to honestly report their findings. Let's hope it is not too late.
Don Buck
Zumbrota
NOVEMBER 2011
11/30/11
Commissioner Samuelson
I urge you to reconsider your position not to appeal. Above all else the people of Belle Creek by and large on the issue of wind energy favor adequate setbacks. It doesn't matter if they believe in wind energy or not. You made a very good decision when you proposed the ten-rotor compromise. I have said all along that ten-rotor diameters if anything is not adequate to prevent all of the adverse effects of industrial turbines it is a compromise. Ice and even blade fragments are documented as traveling farther from turbine than the ten-rotor setback.
The people who are not willing to compromise are the wind developers. Face it, they have not dealt openly and honestly with us. I talked with many people when I was running against you most people did not want wind turbines at all, of course some did but of those that did most favored doing this only if there were adequate setbacks. You have been well respected and fairly elected and I see no point in pursueing a recall election against you as Steve Groth wishes to do. You are simply wrong on this issue.
There is a saying about leadership that goes something like this" If you think you are out in front leading your troops and you turn around and there is no one behind you, then you are not leading you are are simply out for a walk..."
Rick Conrad
___________________________________________________________________Commissioner Samuelson
I urge you to reconsider your position not to appeal. Above all else the people of Belle Creek by and large on the issue of wind energy favor adequate setbacks. It doesn't matter if they believe in wind energy or not. You made a very good decision when you proposed the ten-rotor compromise. I have said all along that ten-rotor diameters if anything is not adequate to prevent all of the adverse effects of industrial turbines it is a compromise. Ice and even blade fragments are documented as traveling farther from turbine than the ten-rotor setback.
The people who are not willing to compromise are the wind developers. Face it, they have not dealt openly and honestly with us. I talked with many people when I was running against you most people did not want wind turbines at all, of course some did but of those that did most favored doing this only if there were adequate setbacks. You have been well respected and fairly elected and I see no point in pursueing a recall election against you as Steve Groth wishes to do. You are simply wrong on this issue.
There is a saying about leadership that goes something like this" If you think you are out in front leading your troops and you turn around and there is no one behind you, then you are not leading you are are simply out for a walk..."
Rick Conrad
OCTOBER 2011
October 4, 2010
Dear Commisioner Samuelson,
I am writing to comment on the Wind Power project which is proposed for Goodhue County. Although wind power is currently in vogue with the jet set and it is politically correct to support it, the facts are it is still an inefficient and costly enterprise with only government subsidies to keep it on life support. It requires backup by natural gas or some other easily dispensable power as the wind is unpredictable and unreliable.
It is a sad fact that the myth of carbon dioxide driven global climate change is driving state and local governments to favor wind projects in areas where it is inappropriate. Although the state is pushing for unrealistic amounts of renewable energy through wind and solar in the next decade or so, it will never happen. The technology is not feasible at this time or for quite some time yet. Nuclear and coal are the long term solution for our energy woes. Don't let the currently popular state push for renewable energy help influence and ramrod through a project which is not in the best interest of the citizens of Goodhue County. Our population density is too high with too many residences near the proposed turbines. There should be at least a one-half mile setback from the property line of any property owner who is not being compensated by the wind power company. Even if some residents stand to make some money, that does not justify the imposition of lower property values on those who are not compensated and see their property devalued because they have a turbine in close proximity. Also, there are no definitive answers on the issue of health effects due to low amplitude/low frequency noise on those subjected to it for years. It is unwise to experiment on the citizens of Goodhue County.
In conclusion, turbine projects should be limited to areas where the population density is lower and residences are much fewer.
Rolfe and Lynne Otterness
13705 390th St.
Goodhue, MN 55027
SEPTEMBER 2011
Dead Bald Eagles
Whoooosh .whoooosh .whoooosh AAWWWKKKKK-SPLAT. What is that sound? If you are lucky enough you will hear the not so rare sound of a giant Wind Turbine blade colliding with a Bald Eagle.
What have you people on the Left done now? You bow down to nature and Bald Eagles but now your fool hardy Renewable Energy Mandates are going to murder Red Wings Eagles. Don't you know that your actions have consequences?
I was with the Wind Industry from the start in the 1980's and worked as a R&D Technician on the worlds largest Wind Turbines in California's Altamont Pass. While there, I personally transported two injured Golden Eagles to the Raptor Rehab Center in Sacramento. One of them lived but minus a wing. I counted many others including Red Tail Hawks, rare Burrowing Owls, Falcons, and Kites etc. that didn't make it.
I personally liked the Golden Eagle Flambé. That is when a Golden Eagle cross phases it's self on a 12,000 volt power line and falls to the ground in a flaming ball, fully cooked. There is a nesting pair of Bald Eagles out by Belle Creek, their flight path is right in line with these new turbines. I hope they make it.
I was working R&D on the first generation of Giant Wind Turbines. I was the first in the world to set blades on the biggest privately owned wind turbines yet developed. I was there, done all that and learned a lot. The three biggest things I learned are:
1) Giant Wind Farms are not feasible and will not work (I could write a book)
2) Renewable Energy is light years away in development for it to take the place of clean coal, natural gas, oil and Nuclear Power. Not EVEN close.
3) Wind Energy and other Renewable Energies will work if you look outside the box.
It is a shame that the citizens of the area worked tirelessly trying to save their homes and their lives. Fighting Windmills with broken lances. Neighbor now hates neighbor after living together for 150 years. 100 good reasons were given for the Wind Turbines not to be here and the Government could not give one why they should other than to fulfill a Left Wing ideology and put money into General Electric's pockets. By the way, Obama says we should hate rich people. The people at General Electric are rich and General Electric pays ZERO taxes in America.
In 1982, the Renewable Energy Students from the Red Wing Energy Education Center (I was a student) erected an anemometer at a farm in the Vasa area to measure for the feasibility of a wind generator. Our study showed that the wind was slightly above borderline. THERE IS NOT EVEN ENOUGH WIND HERE TO HAVE AN EFFECIANT OUTPUT AND FINANCIAL RETURN!!! The only reason they are here is because of the existing grid and a left wing ideology that is putting the wrong kind of Change in America.
If any one would want these to work, it would be me because they have been a big part of my life. Facts are facts and Don Quixote I am not.
The Bald Eagle; America's symbol; ground into the dirt like America itself.
Ed Nobach
Sunrise Alternatives
AUGUST 2011
___________________________________________________________________
JULY 2011
7/20/2011 ZUMBROTA RECORD
Mechanic's Corner: Goodhue County
Randy Hinzmann
Columnist
Tell me this, Goodhue County, what is it about you that makes outsiders want to take your natural resources and plunder them with no regard for the residents who live within your borders? Is it your pristine rivers and streams, your bluffs and wetlands, or your bountiful farmland? Maybe it's your panoramic sunsets over unspoiled horizons, your herds of contented cattle grazing peacefully in fertile valleys. Or maybe you just have "sucker" tatooed on your forehead.
Whatever the case, lately it seems everybody with any kind of money wants a piece of you. To pillage and plunder and then walk away after making millions and leave the desecration to be cared for by your citizens.
It wasn't always like this, you know. There was a time when most everybody who lived here cared about you. Then someone discovered that you were holding some of the finest clay for making pottery and the rush was on to get it, lasting most of one hundred years. Soon after that, it was limestone for building foundations, gravel for roads, etc. At some point a nuclear powered electrical generating plant was built right beside your biggest river. Now it's industrial wind and fracking sand they want. Where does it end? Who is to blame? Certainly not you, Goodhue County - all you have ever done is exist. No, the blame lies with man and his greed, the lure of easy money. Because greed is a basic human emotion. This is just my opionion, I could be wrong. More observations next time.
7/20/2011 ZUMBROTA RECORD
TOO LITTLE AND TOO LATE
To the Editor:
This past week AWA Goodhue Wind sent letters to people living within one half-mile of their proposed turbine sites. This must be their good faith effort to allow us to participate in their project. Unfortunately I believe their effort is too little and too late. This offer should have been made three years ago when the project started.
Wind developers have known for more than ten years that their industry receives most of its complaints from residents who live at distances between one quarter-mile and one half-mile from large turbines. This fact turns up repeatedly in the history of utility scale wind development. People who live less than a quarter of a mile from a turbine are more likely to be paid participants. People more than a quarter of a mile away are likely to be non-participants. Participants do not experience fewer problems; they are financially and legally motivated not to complain. These facts are what led to the C-Bed local Community based energy development model. C-Bed was intended to ensure that the people most severely affected by alternative energy development would the local owners and participants.
Since T. Boone Pickens owns almost 100% of this project, most of the financial benefits will go to Texas. One hundred percent of the problems will stay here. Will Pickens care if we can sleep at night? Or if stray voltage ruins local dairy herds? As to this good faith offer, would it have been made at all if the Minnesota PUC had not required it of AWA Goodhue Wind as a condition of granting a permit? Should we thank AWA for this offer? Or should we thank Goodhue Wind Truth (www.goodhuewindtruth.com) and the Coalition for Sensible (www.coalitionforsensible siting.com)?
Rick Conrad
Goodhue
7/13/2011 ZUMBROTA RECORD
THE LITTLE PEOPLE LOSE AGAIN
To the Editor:
The use of Eminent Domain by the rich and famous to secure private property for their own gain supposedly is being stopped by our government. However, it seems to be "alive and healthy" in Minnesota. Dozens of property owners in Goodhue County have spent thousands of dollars and hours to protect their property rights from Texas millionaires' plans to build wind towers close to their dwellings. A state judge and the PUC board have rejected their arguments about historically documented serious health issues (Europe) connected to close proximity to wind towers. It is too bad that they will not build a tower close to the judge's home to see what her thoughts are several years later.
So what is my problem since I don't live in the tower zone? Guess what - any of us living south (east and west) of the Goodhue zone are the next area for another 500 towers. Goodhue was the test case for protecting the interests of residents in more densely populated areas, and big business won again! Isn't it ironic that if the DNR owned land in this area, there would be no towers on this land (have to protect the wildlife).
It is also interesting how some of the residents of the Hay Creek area saw nothing wrong with the devious permitting process used by the wind companies. Now they are doing everything possible to prevent the same process by the out-of-state sand mining company to operate in their back yard. "What comes around, goes around."
Wind energy has proven to be unreliable - too much at night and fall and spring when we don't need it. If it were not for government subsidies, the rich and famous would not be building towers in our area.
One more thought, Professor Eric Grimsrud wrote the book on global warming and found "dirty coal" to be the reason for our climate change problems (New York City will be under water someday). Montana has one of the largest coal deposits and has been actively mining coal this past century. I am guessing some of the state's coal revenues are part of Eric's university retirement. The old adage applies: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you!"
Don Buck
FAREWELL, DEMOCRACY
July 6, 2011 ZUMBROTA RECORD
To the Editor:
I witnessed a death on June 30, 2011 as the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission merrily gutted and filleted democracy and left it bleeding on the PUC floor.Commissioner O'Brian skillfully maneuvered Commissioner Anderson like a pawn in a chess game. Perhaps they were playing "Good Cop, Bad Cop."
Regardless, the effect was the same. The MNPUC gave a big middle finger to Goodhue County. How dare they write an ordinance on wind development. You have the right to do that, but we will squash it! A big middle finger to the people of Goodhue County for daring to ask its local government for help. You will have NO LOCAL CONTROL! A big middle finger to your legislators. They can't help you either. The message is: Business is open in Goodhue County! Have at her. Stake your claim. Cover that county with industrial turbines. Those people can squawk but we will silence them! The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is not a democracy.
Rochelle Nygaard
Goodhue
LANDOWNERS STRIPPED OF "BUNDLE OF RIGHTS"
July 6, 2011 ZUMBROTA RECORD
To the Editor:
June 30, 2011 will be noted in history as the day Goodhue County rural landowners were stripped of our "Bundle of Rights"!
In real estate law and terminology, there are certain things that are guaranteed to a fee simple property owner. The term for this is the "Bundle of Rights." One of these rights is that you have right "of quiet enjoyment." Others are, the right to possess, control, encumber, and dispose. The term "encumber" means to place an interest on the land to someone else. Only the owner has the legal right to encumber the land (other than eminent domain and police powers). The term "encroachment" is also another form of encumbrance.
An encroachment can best be described as an unauthorized physical intrusion or an unauthorized trespass. Loud noises, bright lights, violation of the owner's air space, are some examples. These encumbrances and encroachments are illegal if the owner does not authorize it. The land owner can take legal action to prevent these things from happening.
At the MPUC only one participant, Dennis Gadient, made the provoking statement, "I should have the right to do whatever they want with my own land."
Most everybody would agree with that opinion. However, that right stops when a person, while exercising that right, encumbers or encroaches another's "bundle of rights." Example: My neighbor will have one to three 450 ft wind towers on his property which will have bright blinking red lights, emit a low frequency sound and shadow flicker, distort my scenery view, and cause stray voltage to my property.
He and other participants along with the help of the wind industry and our Minnesota Public Utilities Commissioners will exercise that right to encumber or encroach on their own land. They do not have the right to encumber or encroach upon Goodhue County rural landowners, who chose NOT TO SIGN A CONTRACT with AWA Goodhue Wind Developer.
The Minnesota Statute 216F.081 provides that a county may adopt by ordinance standards for LWECS that are more stringent than the PUC's General Permit Standards. The PUC must consider and apply these more stringent standards in its consideration of permit applications for LWECS in that county, unless it finds good cause not to do so.
On Jun 30, 2011, the MPUC ruled against accepting the Goodhue County Ordinance. They chose to make recommended modification to our county wind ordinance! They changed the 10 RD set back to 6 RD, allowance of shadow flicker from 20 hours per year to 33, and other wildlife environmental conditions.
We have a law that states a county can have the authority to adopt ordinance standards for LWECS that are more stringent than the PUC's General Permit Standards. What was the "good cause" for the PUC Commissioners to modify the ordinance to "allow" this project? This makes no sense at all!
The MPUC Commissioners acknowledged that this project has the most opposition from community members from any other project to date. They recognized this will be the first industrial wind facility with the highest population to date in Minnesota. They made statements to the fact, "they should not always permit projects if it doesn't fit the area". This project does not fit! The MPUC has made us the "the test rat" in their lab of industrial wind energy.
We are too densely populated. We have sensitive wildlife (eagles, loggerhead shrike, bats); we have a majority of people who don't want turbines here! The participant number is grossly manipulated compared to the actual number of parcels signed. This project has been "shoddy" work from day one!
Yet, our MPUC Commission chose to ignore all this and permit the project. They have raped Goodhue rural landowners of our "Bundle of Rights".
Melody Ryan
Goodhue
Mechanic's Corner: Goodhue County
Randy Hinzmann
Columnist
Tell me this, Goodhue County, what is it about you that makes outsiders want to take your natural resources and plunder them with no regard for the residents who live within your borders? Is it your pristine rivers and streams, your bluffs and wetlands, or your bountiful farmland? Maybe it's your panoramic sunsets over unspoiled horizons, your herds of contented cattle grazing peacefully in fertile valleys. Or maybe you just have "sucker" tatooed on your forehead.
Whatever the case, lately it seems everybody with any kind of money wants a piece of you. To pillage and plunder and then walk away after making millions and leave the desecration to be cared for by your citizens.
It wasn't always like this, you know. There was a time when most everybody who lived here cared about you. Then someone discovered that you were holding some of the finest clay for making pottery and the rush was on to get it, lasting most of one hundred years. Soon after that, it was limestone for building foundations, gravel for roads, etc. At some point a nuclear powered electrical generating plant was built right beside your biggest river. Now it's industrial wind and fracking sand they want. Where does it end? Who is to blame? Certainly not you, Goodhue County - all you have ever done is exist. No, the blame lies with man and his greed, the lure of easy money. Because greed is a basic human emotion. This is just my opionion, I could be wrong. More observations next time.
***
7/20/2011 ZUMBROTA RECORD
TOO LITTLE AND TOO LATE
To the Editor:
This past week AWA Goodhue Wind sent letters to people living within one half-mile of their proposed turbine sites. This must be their good faith effort to allow us to participate in their project. Unfortunately I believe their effort is too little and too late. This offer should have been made three years ago when the project started.
Wind developers have known for more than ten years that their industry receives most of its complaints from residents who live at distances between one quarter-mile and one half-mile from large turbines. This fact turns up repeatedly in the history of utility scale wind development. People who live less than a quarter of a mile from a turbine are more likely to be paid participants. People more than a quarter of a mile away are likely to be non-participants. Participants do not experience fewer problems; they are financially and legally motivated not to complain. These facts are what led to the C-Bed local Community based energy development model. C-Bed was intended to ensure that the people most severely affected by alternative energy development would the local owners and participants.
Since T. Boone Pickens owns almost 100% of this project, most of the financial benefits will go to Texas. One hundred percent of the problems will stay here. Will Pickens care if we can sleep at night? Or if stray voltage ruins local dairy herds? As to this good faith offer, would it have been made at all if the Minnesota PUC had not required it of AWA Goodhue Wind as a condition of granting a permit? Should we thank AWA for this offer? Or should we thank Goodhue Wind Truth (www.goodhuewindtruth.com) and the Coalition for Sensible (www.coalitionforsensible siting.com)?
Rick Conrad
Goodhue
***
7/13/2011 ZUMBROTA RECORD
THE LITTLE PEOPLE LOSE AGAIN
To the Editor:
The use of Eminent Domain by the rich and famous to secure private property for their own gain supposedly is being stopped by our government. However, it seems to be "alive and healthy" in Minnesota. Dozens of property owners in Goodhue County have spent thousands of dollars and hours to protect their property rights from Texas millionaires' plans to build wind towers close to their dwellings. A state judge and the PUC board have rejected their arguments about historically documented serious health issues (Europe) connected to close proximity to wind towers. It is too bad that they will not build a tower close to the judge's home to see what her thoughts are several years later.
So what is my problem since I don't live in the tower zone? Guess what - any of us living south (east and west) of the Goodhue zone are the next area for another 500 towers. Goodhue was the test case for protecting the interests of residents in more densely populated areas, and big business won again! Isn't it ironic that if the DNR owned land in this area, there would be no towers on this land (have to protect the wildlife).
It is also interesting how some of the residents of the Hay Creek area saw nothing wrong with the devious permitting process used by the wind companies. Now they are doing everything possible to prevent the same process by the out-of-state sand mining company to operate in their back yard. "What comes around, goes around."
Wind energy has proven to be unreliable - too much at night and fall and spring when we don't need it. If it were not for government subsidies, the rich and famous would not be building towers in our area.
One more thought, Professor Eric Grimsrud wrote the book on global warming and found "dirty coal" to be the reason for our climate change problems (New York City will be under water someday). Montana has one of the largest coal deposits and has been actively mining coal this past century. I am guessing some of the state's coal revenues are part of Eric's university retirement. The old adage applies: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you!"
Don Buck
***
FAREWELL, DEMOCRACY
July 6, 2011 ZUMBROTA RECORD
To the Editor:
I witnessed a death on June 30, 2011 as the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission merrily gutted and filleted democracy and left it bleeding on the PUC floor.Commissioner O'Brian skillfully maneuvered Commissioner Anderson like a pawn in a chess game. Perhaps they were playing "Good Cop, Bad Cop."
Regardless, the effect was the same. The MNPUC gave a big middle finger to Goodhue County. How dare they write an ordinance on wind development. You have the right to do that, but we will squash it! A big middle finger to the people of Goodhue County for daring to ask its local government for help. You will have NO LOCAL CONTROL! A big middle finger to your legislators. They can't help you either. The message is: Business is open in Goodhue County! Have at her. Stake your claim. Cover that county with industrial turbines. Those people can squawk but we will silence them! The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is not a democracy.
Rochelle Nygaard
Goodhue
***
LANDOWNERS STRIPPED OF "BUNDLE OF RIGHTS"
July 6, 2011 ZUMBROTA RECORD
To the Editor:
June 30, 2011 will be noted in history as the day Goodhue County rural landowners were stripped of our "Bundle of Rights"!
In real estate law and terminology, there are certain things that are guaranteed to a fee simple property owner. The term for this is the "Bundle of Rights." One of these rights is that you have right "of quiet enjoyment." Others are, the right to possess, control, encumber, and dispose. The term "encumber" means to place an interest on the land to someone else. Only the owner has the legal right to encumber the land (other than eminent domain and police powers). The term "encroachment" is also another form of encumbrance.
An encroachment can best be described as an unauthorized physical intrusion or an unauthorized trespass. Loud noises, bright lights, violation of the owner's air space, are some examples. These encumbrances and encroachments are illegal if the owner does not authorize it. The land owner can take legal action to prevent these things from happening.
At the MPUC only one participant, Dennis Gadient, made the provoking statement, "I should have the right to do whatever they want with my own land."
Most everybody would agree with that opinion. However, that right stops when a person, while exercising that right, encumbers or encroaches another's "bundle of rights." Example: My neighbor will have one to three 450 ft wind towers on his property which will have bright blinking red lights, emit a low frequency sound and shadow flicker, distort my scenery view, and cause stray voltage to my property.
He and other participants along with the help of the wind industry and our Minnesota Public Utilities Commissioners will exercise that right to encumber or encroach on their own land. They do not have the right to encumber or encroach upon Goodhue County rural landowners, who chose NOT TO SIGN A CONTRACT with AWA Goodhue Wind Developer.
The Minnesota Statute 216F.081 provides that a county may adopt by ordinance standards for LWECS that are more stringent than the PUC's General Permit Standards. The PUC must consider and apply these more stringent standards in its consideration of permit applications for LWECS in that county, unless it finds good cause not to do so.
On Jun 30, 2011, the MPUC ruled against accepting the Goodhue County Ordinance. They chose to make recommended modification to our county wind ordinance! They changed the 10 RD set back to 6 RD, allowance of shadow flicker from 20 hours per year to 33, and other wildlife environmental conditions.
We have a law that states a county can have the authority to adopt ordinance standards for LWECS that are more stringent than the PUC's General Permit Standards. What was the "good cause" for the PUC Commissioners to modify the ordinance to "allow" this project? This makes no sense at all!
The MPUC Commissioners acknowledged that this project has the most opposition from community members from any other project to date. They recognized this will be the first industrial wind facility with the highest population to date in Minnesota. They made statements to the fact, "they should not always permit projects if it doesn't fit the area". This project does not fit! The MPUC has made us the "the test rat" in their lab of industrial wind energy.
We are too densely populated. We have sensitive wildlife (eagles, loggerhead shrike, bats); we have a majority of people who don't want turbines here! The participant number is grossly manipulated compared to the actual number of parcels signed. This project has been "shoddy" work from day one!
Yet, our MPUC Commission chose to ignore all this and permit the project. They have raped Goodhue rural landowners of our "Bundle of Rights".
Melody Ryan
Goodhue
***
________________________________________________________________________________
JUNE 2011
Who do these commissioners really represent?
Kenyon Leader
Submitted by Jaci Smith on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 19:18
To the editor:
Do Commissioners Dan Rechtzigel and Jim Bryant represent citizens? Citizens requested that County Commissioners recognize and address the fact that AWA Goodhue LLC, failed to perform the required pre-construction avian study. At the June 21, 2011, County Board meeting Commissioners Jim Bryant and Dan Rechtzigel demonstrated again that they represent Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens/ Mesa Power.
Last November, Bryant and Rechtzigel wrote a letter to the MN Public Utilities Commission tearing down the Goodhue County Wind Ordinance passed just weeks earlier. In November 2011 Mesa Power executive Mark Ward met with Commissioners Rechtzigel and Richard Samuelson as documented in the contested case hearing on the AWA Goodhue wind project along with documentation of what the wind company wanted the Commissioners to say. Under cross examination, Mark Ward stated he asked Goodhue County Commissioners to write letters to the MPUC. Within days, Rechtzigel and Bryant sent their letter on County Board letterhead.
US Fish & Wildlife Service and MN DNR have already indicated that the desktop study and leaves on the trees field “survey” were inadequate. The survey results state there are ZERO Bald Eagles nesting in the wind project area and that no flight paths were observed. AWA recommended cutting down raptor nesting trees within 1⁄4 mile of wind turbines to reduce bird mortality. The study also states that if the “unverified” raptor nests were active, this wind project would have the largest concentration of raptors of any wind project in the United States. The wind company consultant has worked diligently to ensure those nests are NOT verified by failing to survey the project area when the leaves are off the trees and when raptors are nesting.
Citizens asked our County Commissioners to represent citizens’ interests, hold an out-of-state corporation accountable, and protect Bald Eagles living in the AWA Goodhue wind project area. This would be the same AWA Goodhue LLC that spent $380,000 lobbying our state officials just last year while failing to register as lobbyists.
Commissioners Rechzigel and Bryant both spoke out in opposition to requiring a pre-construction avian study. I think it is clear whose interests they represent.
Kristi Rosenquist
Mazeppa
Kenyon Leader
Submitted by Jaci Smith on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 19:18
To the editor:
Do Commissioners Dan Rechtzigel and Jim Bryant represent citizens? Citizens requested that County Commissioners recognize and address the fact that AWA Goodhue LLC, failed to perform the required pre-construction avian study. At the June 21, 2011, County Board meeting Commissioners Jim Bryant and Dan Rechtzigel demonstrated again that they represent Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens/ Mesa Power.
Last November, Bryant and Rechtzigel wrote a letter to the MN Public Utilities Commission tearing down the Goodhue County Wind Ordinance passed just weeks earlier. In November 2011 Mesa Power executive Mark Ward met with Commissioners Rechtzigel and Richard Samuelson as documented in the contested case hearing on the AWA Goodhue wind project along with documentation of what the wind company wanted the Commissioners to say. Under cross examination, Mark Ward stated he asked Goodhue County Commissioners to write letters to the MPUC. Within days, Rechtzigel and Bryant sent their letter on County Board letterhead.
US Fish & Wildlife Service and MN DNR have already indicated that the desktop study and leaves on the trees field “survey” were inadequate. The survey results state there are ZERO Bald Eagles nesting in the wind project area and that no flight paths were observed. AWA recommended cutting down raptor nesting trees within 1⁄4 mile of wind turbines to reduce bird mortality. The study also states that if the “unverified” raptor nests were active, this wind project would have the largest concentration of raptors of any wind project in the United States. The wind company consultant has worked diligently to ensure those nests are NOT verified by failing to survey the project area when the leaves are off the trees and when raptors are nesting.
Citizens asked our County Commissioners to represent citizens’ interests, hold an out-of-state corporation accountable, and protect Bald Eagles living in the AWA Goodhue wind project area. This would be the same AWA Goodhue LLC that spent $380,000 lobbying our state officials just last year while failing to register as lobbyists.
Commissioners Rechzigel and Bryant both spoke out in opposition to requiring a pre-construction avian study. I think it is clear whose interests they represent.
Kristi Rosenquist
Mazeppa
__________________________________________________________________
MAY 2011
From: Shelley
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:02 AM
To: rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn ; Steve Drazkowski ; Tim Kelly ; Senator John Howe
Subject: Fw: Goodhue County, Belle Creek Township Eagle pics
Representative McNamara,
I am forwarding my letter to Mark Ward of Mesa Power Group(American Wind Alliance-T. Boone Pickens) 99% owner of the AWA Goodhue LLC proposed wind project. The issues of avian and bat studies that have not been done as recommended by USFWS should be of importance to yourself and the other who sit on the House Committee on Environment, Energy & Natural Resources. This type of problem is exactly why this committee exists.
Due to the findings by USFWS on their own field study of the project footprint, I believe a closer examination of what kind of work is being done and submitted as fact when applying for site permits on wind developments should be re-examined. 1 1/2 hours on the most accessible roads in the AWA Goodhue proposed project yielded a much different picture than presented by the project employed services.
In reading the site permit application one finds that AWA Goodhue has not complied adequately with USFWS recommendations. Cutting down roosting and nest trees as suggested mitigation by the applicant and it’s paid research company Westwood Professional Services is not acceptable mitigation.
Thank You,
Rochelle Nygaard, Goodhue County
From: Shelley
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:24 AM
To: mward@bpcap.net
Subject: Goodhue County, Belle Creek Township Eagle pics
Mark Ward,
These are photos taken in late April near the Cty# 9 & Cty# 7 intersection. This eagle regularly frequents their yard. This photo was taken after it had taken a rabbit from the backside of their barn and hedgerow.
On April 27th, residents escorted 2 USFWS personnel on a 1& 1/2 hour tour of the AWA Goodhue footprint area. On that day alone 36 eagle were seen. 6 active nests with eaglets were found and a possible 7th. Also noted was the likely kill by a golden eagle.
I personally have seen a golden eagle along county #8 a few years ago. Others in this area have mentioned seeing one. These sitings were made from local roads. Most likely others could be found in off road areas and places not investigated that day.
I find it very disturbing that a company who’s job it is to know about wildlife and be able to locate them such as Westwood Professional Services was unable to locate any eagles except the 2 widely photographed birds that are noted by state records.
Since several other bird species of concern potentially inhabit this proposed wind development footprint I believe a more thorough field study should be done. A desktop study and a quick search of state records in not an acceptable body of work. A thorough spring and fall migration study needs to be done as requested by USFWS. A Loggerhead Shrike study was to be done as well. They are likely in the area and USFWS did attend the fall PUC meeting and talk about this. A bat study was discussed in your site permit as well. Simply ignoring USFWS is unacceptable.
This project is in the Mississippi Flyway. Thousands of birds pass through and live here. This is simple fact. Other birds of concern: Short Eared Owl, Red Shouldered Hawk,Cerulean Warbler,Acadian Flycatcher. The Mississippi Flyway is not a suitable place to locate industrial wind turbines.
As noted by the USFWS, the northern half of this project footprint should be avoided. Mesa Power should reconsider siting this project with it’s multitude of avian populations both year round and migratory.
Thank You, Rochelle Nygaard, Goodhue County
Goodhue County, Belle Creek Township Eagle pics
__________________________________________________________________Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:02 AM
To: rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn ; Steve Drazkowski ; Tim Kelly ; Senator John Howe
Subject: Fw: Goodhue County, Belle Creek Township Eagle pics
Representative McNamara,
I am forwarding my letter to Mark Ward of Mesa Power Group(American Wind Alliance-T. Boone Pickens) 99% owner of the AWA Goodhue LLC proposed wind project. The issues of avian and bat studies that have not been done as recommended by USFWS should be of importance to yourself and the other who sit on the House Committee on Environment, Energy & Natural Resources. This type of problem is exactly why this committee exists.
Due to the findings by USFWS on their own field study of the project footprint, I believe a closer examination of what kind of work is being done and submitted as fact when applying for site permits on wind developments should be re-examined. 1 1/2 hours on the most accessible roads in the AWA Goodhue proposed project yielded a much different picture than presented by the project employed services.
In reading the site permit application one finds that AWA Goodhue has not complied adequately with USFWS recommendations. Cutting down roosting and nest trees as suggested mitigation by the applicant and it’s paid research company Westwood Professional Services is not acceptable mitigation.
Thank You,
Rochelle Nygaard, Goodhue County
***
From: Shelley
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:24 AM
To: mward@bpcap.net
Subject: Goodhue County, Belle Creek Township Eagle pics
Mark Ward,
These are photos taken in late April near the Cty# 9 & Cty# 7 intersection. This eagle regularly frequents their yard. This photo was taken after it had taken a rabbit from the backside of their barn and hedgerow.
On April 27th, residents escorted 2 USFWS personnel on a 1& 1/2 hour tour of the AWA Goodhue footprint area. On that day alone 36 eagle were seen. 6 active nests with eaglets were found and a possible 7th. Also noted was the likely kill by a golden eagle.
I personally have seen a golden eagle along county #8 a few years ago. Others in this area have mentioned seeing one. These sitings were made from local roads. Most likely others could be found in off road areas and places not investigated that day.
I find it very disturbing that a company who’s job it is to know about wildlife and be able to locate them such as Westwood Professional Services was unable to locate any eagles except the 2 widely photographed birds that are noted by state records.
Since several other bird species of concern potentially inhabit this proposed wind development footprint I believe a more thorough field study should be done. A desktop study and a quick search of state records in not an acceptable body of work. A thorough spring and fall migration study needs to be done as requested by USFWS. A Loggerhead Shrike study was to be done as well. They are likely in the area and USFWS did attend the fall PUC meeting and talk about this. A bat study was discussed in your site permit as well. Simply ignoring USFWS is unacceptable.
This project is in the Mississippi Flyway. Thousands of birds pass through and live here. This is simple fact. Other birds of concern: Short Eared Owl, Red Shouldered Hawk,Cerulean Warbler,Acadian Flycatcher. The Mississippi Flyway is not a suitable place to locate industrial wind turbines.
As noted by the USFWS, the northern half of this project footprint should be avoided. Mesa Power should reconsider siting this project with it’s multitude of avian populations both year round and migratory.
Thank You, Rochelle Nygaard, Goodhue County
Goodhue County, Belle Creek Township Eagle pics
****
APRIL 2011
April 24, 2011
Friends:
As a physicist (energy expert) and longtime environmental advocate, I applaud your efforts to educate the public about energy and environmental issues.
My focus has been on the science. For instance, after talking to a LOT of people about renewables (like wind power), my conclusion is that almost everyone has only a superficial understanding of this very technical matter. Additionally, the public and political perception of wind energy is being driven by special interest lobbyists, and by “environmentalists” who are well-intentioned but misguided.
My belief is that such complex technical matters should be based on real science, rather than on inputs from those who stand to economically or politically profit.
The simple webpage where I have collected some pertinent documents is at WindPowerFacts.Info. For a simple to understand overview, I would pay special attention to the two short videos posted there.
I have put on numerous community presentations about our energy future, with a focus on the question of whether we want our energy policies to be determined by lobbyists or by science. This is now online at EnergyPresentation.Info. (Please pass this on to other open-minded parties you are in contact with.)
Let me know any questions you have on my presentation, or any of my articles.
If you like I will add you to my network of science oriented persons. This is currently some 5000 individuals, and about 500 of them are PhDs or experts. I periodically send out informal energy and environmental information to this group.
regards,
john droz, jr.
Crystal Coast, NC
***
Subject: April 2011 article in "NEWS" from Goodhue County Electric Cooperative
I just opened my bill from the Goodhue County Electric Cooperative and saw this article, "What Do We Get for our Money?" by Mark Glaess, Minnesota Rural Electric Association.
It is not on their website yet, but I will share a few paragraphs with you.
"In 2007 then Governor Pawlenty promoted renewable energy, conservation mandates and a goal to reduce carbon emissions. Four years later every Minnesotan has higher energy rates as a result. We now know that the wind mandate has cost this state close to $100 million because that breeze occurs when it is least needed. Those costs will only get worse as the renewable mandate increases until we hit 25% by 2025. How about the cost to reduce Minnesota's carbon emissions (which the world-wide scheme does not matter)? According to a research paper authored by Peter Nelson for the "American Experiment," the cost of carbon reduction statewide costs, on average, $208 per ton. Your electric co-op, which must spend more to meet conservation demand because our loads are largely residential, spend an "average" of $473 per ton of CO2--double the state's average."...How long can the State of Minnesota pay magnitudes more? Which again raises the question legislators who mandate this and mandate that must ask: What, exactly are we getting for our money?"
So, if you get the above newsletter, be sure to use this article in your letters to township, county, and state government.
Barbara A. Stussy
Zumbrota, MN 55992
Here is the pdf of the April 2011 NEWS mentioned.
***
4/12/11
As a native of Goodhue County in opposition to the proposed AWA Goodhue Wind Project I am asking for your support for Bills H.F. 811 and H..F 812 authored by Representative Tim Kelly and Co-authored by Representative Steve Drazkowski. There is also a companion bill in the Senate offered by Senator John Howe, S.F. 1069 and S.F. 1070
These bills are in regard to setbacks of industrial wind turbines and the use of C-BED.
The experience in Goodhue County and the ensuing contested case before the MN PUC are a result of the need for change in how industrial wind is sited and the need for oversight in how C-BED is used.
The current siting criteria that the Office of Energy Security uses in determining safe siting of turbines was written in 1995 by Larry Hartman of the OES. Mr. Hartman’s educational background does not qualify him to make such determinations in safety. The 1995 rules were written for small WECS under 25 KW. At that time manufacturer suggestions were for 10-12 roto diameter setbacks. There is no explanation for the choice of 3 and 5 diameter setbacks chosen by OES.
In 1995 when rules were written no-one envisioned the size of the turbines today or the size of the projects themselves covering thousands of acres. Rules were written with small turbines at rural homesteads that would run the farm in mind.
The attempt to cram these massive industrial machines into the populated, quiet rural setting of Goodhue County has created an angry outcry. It is time for change. It is time for an examination of the cost of industrial wind. It is time to prove what the cost/benefit ratio really is. MN has met it’s commitment to 25x25 renewable with hydro. We need to count it all.
C-BED: We in opposition to the AWA Goodhue Wind Project have had serious issue with how C-BED was being used/misused on this project. In the beginning the Company of National Wind came asking for a letter of C-CED from our County Commissioners. A story of this small project that would benefit the residents and offer investment opportunity to locals was given. Believing the word of the developer that letter of support was given. Shortly thereafter National Wind sold to AWA Goodhue Wind and we were hearing of a Texas ownership. The small project grew to a large project. Local ownership changed from 10 years to 20 years. Local investors % of investment is small.
Suspicion grew! After the letter of support from the county the whole project changed. The development was sold. Small became large. The terms that the letter of support were based on completely changed. The only thing that has not changed is the small percentage of local ownership.
At the March 15-17 hearing at the PUC upon cross examination on the stand it was revealed that 99% of this project is owned by outside entities leaving only 1% of possible MN ownership. Of that 1% even some of that is questionable as to remaining in Minnesota. According to C-BED rules 35-51% is to be Minnesota owned. Registering a Company in Minnesota. Setting up a mailbox in Minnesota. Having someone collect your mail and shipping it to Texas were your actual office is is an abuse.
As stated by Representative Tim Kelly:” C-BED has been hi-jacked!” is saying it politely!
Please support H.F 811 & H.F 812 and companion bill S.F. 1069 and S.F. 1070 in the Senate.
Thank You for your consideration,
Jason L. Grisim
LeRoy MN 55951
(Native of Goodhue Cty. Family still resides there and I still hunt there.)
(Goodhue Cty. is no place for turbines. I’m surrounded in Mower Cty.)
JANUARY 2011
January 10, 2011
Dear Ms. Swanson:
I request you investigate and take action to protect citizens in Minnesota from the harmful negative effects of Large Wind Energy Conversion System (LEWCS) installation and operation. The rush to collect huge tax and rate subsidies is driving the development of large industrial wind generation complexes into more densely populated areas of Minnesota. A specific concern to me is stray voltage produced by large industrial wind turbines and their associated lines.....
Bob Rosenquist
Mazeppa, MN
Click here to read the full letter to the Minnesota Attorney General including footnotes.
***
Eric Lipman, Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 64620
600 North Robert Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0620
1/10/2011
Re; Public Utilities Docket E999/M-10-222
Honorable Judge Lipman,
When our newly elected (Goodhue County, MN) sheriff was campaigning last fall I was discussing with him the pending wind turbine project(s) for our county. I commented that at one meeting where public input was allowed a Goodhue County Police Officer stated he'd not been able to receive verification that the turbines would not interfere with communication between personnel working in the field of criminal activity. Now sheriff McNurlin, responded that he himself (McNurlin) had overseen the construction of the communications system and that it was safe from interference - "except" he conceded after a pause - if componants were exactly aligned. When I hear of this "orderly siting" I cannot help wondering whose order and to what end?
Some might say, after what has transpired thus far regarding the Zumbrota/Goodhue area situation, orderly chaos might be a better term as the disruption of this community continues to reject reason!
Environment (visual, audio, wildlife, community relationships and more) are being destroyed or greatly altered, to provide power for some far away somewhere while costs escalate for those living in the community, to enrich the pocketbooks of others. Minimizing human impact? If this is minimal one can only imagine what anything other than minimal might be!
Catherine Huisman
Red Wing, MN 55066
__________________________________________________________________Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 64620
600 North Robert Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0620
1/10/2011
Re; Public Utilities Docket E999/M-10-222
Honorable Judge Lipman,
When our newly elected (Goodhue County, MN) sheriff was campaigning last fall I was discussing with him the pending wind turbine project(s) for our county. I commented that at one meeting where public input was allowed a Goodhue County Police Officer stated he'd not been able to receive verification that the turbines would not interfere with communication between personnel working in the field of criminal activity. Now sheriff McNurlin, responded that he himself (McNurlin) had overseen the construction of the communications system and that it was safe from interference - "except" he conceded after a pause - if componants were exactly aligned. When I hear of this "orderly siting" I cannot help wondering whose order and to what end?
Some might say, after what has transpired thus far regarding the Zumbrota/Goodhue area situation, orderly chaos might be a better term as the disruption of this community continues to reject reason!
Environment (visual, audio, wildlife, community relationships and more) are being destroyed or greatly altered, to provide power for some far away somewhere while costs escalate for those living in the community, to enrich the pocketbooks of others. Minimizing human impact? If this is minimal one can only imagine what anything other than minimal might be!
Catherine Huisman
Red Wing, MN 55066
DECEMBER 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Cannon Falls Beacon
Lied to
To the editor:
I have been lied to. All of the citizens of Goodhue County have been lied to. Documents posted on the Public Utility web site this week have revealed the unethical behavior of three county commissioners. After months of debate and public testimony Goodhue County passed an updated ordinance governing wind electrical generation on October 5, 2010. The ordinance was designed to partially protect the health, safety and property right of citizens of Goodhue County.
The Goodhue County Commissioners directed County Attorney Steve Betcher and County Land Use Director Lisa Hanni to appear at the Public Utilities Commission to defend and explain the ordinance. They, along with Commissioners Ted Seifert and Ron Allen did so on October 21, 2010. As a result, the Public Utilities Commissioners referred this project to an Administrative Law Judge to make a thorough and deliberate study of the merits of the Goodhue County ordinance and to study the legal meaning of "good cause".
The very next day Commissioners Samuelson, Bryant, and Rechtzigel began secret negotiations with AWA representatives to circumvent the ordinance.
This ordinance is our last defense against AWA which had already lied to Judge Lipman and the county of the dangers of stray voltage generated by the wind turbines. Every one of the 52 GE 1.5 wind turbines under normal operating conditions will send up to 1200 volts and 56 amps of harmful stray currents to ground.
Section 4.5 of the pre-filed comments of AWA Goodhue, LLC that were submitted to Judge Lipman on July 16, 2010 revealed a serious misrepresentation of the truth. The second paragraph states, "There is an equipment ground installed, but it is there for safety only. There is no current in this conductor, either at zero generation or maximum generation."
This lie is one of the reasons why the Goodhue County ordinance of 10 rotors is so important for the safety of the citizens of Goodhue County. Industrial wind turbines must be sited a safe distance from people's homes and livestock facilities.
Bob Rosenquist
Mazeppa
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Cannon Falls Beacon
Unacceptable
To the editor:
I have attended several Pac and Commissioner meetings and listened to discussions with those members, as well as their running opponents. I was in attendance at the meeting when the new ordinance was voted in. It is very CLEAR to me that Richard Samuelson was in favor for the 10 RD setback from non-participants! Same as his opponent Jeff Hommedahl.
This took place pre-election. Post election, Commissioner Samuelson immediately meets with the Wind Developers and wants to change the setback he proposed! What is up with this? What is up with his public letters? Is he feeling the heat because of his "flip, flop actions" after an election? Did he support the 10 RD to gain votes?
I believe, if Commissioner Samuelson had not supported the 10 RD prior to the election, he would have lost and Jeff Hommedahl would be our new commissioner! Also, what "under the table deals" are happening between the 3 commissioners and the wind developers to take it upon themselves to write letters to the PUC stating their personal opinions on County letterhead and sign with their titles?
If I wrote a letter with my personal opinion to a public department using my employer's letterhead paper, I'd be fired! This type of action is UNACCEPTABLE! They are abusing their positions, and should be reprimanded! Our County Attorney should be looking into this!
If Commissioner Samuelson can change his vote on the RD setback, then the people of Goodhue County, should be able to change their vote for County commissioner!
Melody Ryan
Goodhue
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Cannon Falls Beacon
Support wind ordinance
To the editor:
This is my response to Goodhue County Commissioner Richard Samuelson's letter from last week.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC), who issues site permits for large wind developments, chose to send this AWA Goodhue Wind's request for a site permit to an administrative law judge because Goodhue County's wind ordinance is in some instances "more stringent" than state standards.
As Goodhue County's Attorney Stephen Betcher wrote earlier, "Goodhue Co. intends to present testimony and evidence concerning the process and procedures followed in developing the Goodhue Co. Wind Ordinance Amendments now in effect in Goodhue Co. We will prepare and submit written testimony from Co. staff, elected officials, members of the Goodhue Co. PAC, citizens, experts and consultants involved in developing, preserving, and interpreting the record... The total record of all proceedings and all submissions will be developed and presented. We anticipate 2-3 days of written, direct and cross examination testimony based on content of our record and comments from counsel for AWA Goodhue, LLC..."
This process may take time. Do I as a taxpayer and citizen of Goodhue County NOT have the right to have our new County Wind Ordinance fully defended and supported? The County Board agreed to be a "party at the table" regarding its wind ordinance.
The addition of a 40 decibel (dB) noise level maximum of the industrial wind turbines was discussed at a previous BOC meeting and many of the Goodhue Co. Planning Advisory Subcommittee meetings. However, the monitoring of noise levels of out-of-compliance wind turbines is difficult to measure and is very costly. The 10 RD setback from non-participating landowners is easy to measure and is cost effective. Because other factors such as air density and temperature can fluctuate the noise levels of the wind turbines, using the 40 dB noise level maximum just isn't practical. And, participating landowners can elect to have the industrial wind turbines closer if they so wish.
The AWA Goodhue Wind Project may be scaled down from 52 turbines to 34 turbines. This project has continuously changed since the County's resolution of support (11/4/08): "small" turbines became "large"; 2 townships became 5; 39 turbines became 52 turbines (and now 34 and perhaps larger and noisier than the original 1.5 MW models); and Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens'company American Wind Alliance was added as equity partner through AWA Goodhue LLC, and is now the company getting the MPUC permit.
The wind developers are here in Goodhue Co. because there is access to the grid to transport electricity and there is federal tax money to support them.
Let's support the County's wind ordinance as it stands! Goodhue Co. deserves better, and Goodhue Co. can do better for itself.
Barbara A. Stussy
Zumbrota
***Cannon Falls Beacon
Lied to
To the editor:
I have been lied to. All of the citizens of Goodhue County have been lied to. Documents posted on the Public Utility web site this week have revealed the unethical behavior of three county commissioners. After months of debate and public testimony Goodhue County passed an updated ordinance governing wind electrical generation on October 5, 2010. The ordinance was designed to partially protect the health, safety and property right of citizens of Goodhue County.
The Goodhue County Commissioners directed County Attorney Steve Betcher and County Land Use Director Lisa Hanni to appear at the Public Utilities Commission to defend and explain the ordinance. They, along with Commissioners Ted Seifert and Ron Allen did so on October 21, 2010. As a result, the Public Utilities Commissioners referred this project to an Administrative Law Judge to make a thorough and deliberate study of the merits of the Goodhue County ordinance and to study the legal meaning of "good cause".
The very next day Commissioners Samuelson, Bryant, and Rechtzigel began secret negotiations with AWA representatives to circumvent the ordinance.
This ordinance is our last defense against AWA which had already lied to Judge Lipman and the county of the dangers of stray voltage generated by the wind turbines. Every one of the 52 GE 1.5 wind turbines under normal operating conditions will send up to 1200 volts and 56 amps of harmful stray currents to ground.
Section 4.5 of the pre-filed comments of AWA Goodhue, LLC that were submitted to Judge Lipman on July 16, 2010 revealed a serious misrepresentation of the truth. The second paragraph states, "There is an equipment ground installed, but it is there for safety only. There is no current in this conductor, either at zero generation or maximum generation."
This lie is one of the reasons why the Goodhue County ordinance of 10 rotors is so important for the safety of the citizens of Goodhue County. Industrial wind turbines must be sited a safe distance from people's homes and livestock facilities.
Bob Rosenquist
Mazeppa
***
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Cannon Falls Beacon
Unacceptable
To the editor:
I have attended several Pac and Commissioner meetings and listened to discussions with those members, as well as their running opponents. I was in attendance at the meeting when the new ordinance was voted in. It is very CLEAR to me that Richard Samuelson was in favor for the 10 RD setback from non-participants! Same as his opponent Jeff Hommedahl.
This took place pre-election. Post election, Commissioner Samuelson immediately meets with the Wind Developers and wants to change the setback he proposed! What is up with this? What is up with his public letters? Is he feeling the heat because of his "flip, flop actions" after an election? Did he support the 10 RD to gain votes?
I believe, if Commissioner Samuelson had not supported the 10 RD prior to the election, he would have lost and Jeff Hommedahl would be our new commissioner! Also, what "under the table deals" are happening between the 3 commissioners and the wind developers to take it upon themselves to write letters to the PUC stating their personal opinions on County letterhead and sign with their titles?
If I wrote a letter with my personal opinion to a public department using my employer's letterhead paper, I'd be fired! This type of action is UNACCEPTABLE! They are abusing their positions, and should be reprimanded! Our County Attorney should be looking into this!
If Commissioner Samuelson can change his vote on the RD setback, then the people of Goodhue County, should be able to change their vote for County commissioner!
Melody Ryan
Goodhue
***
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Cannon Falls Beacon
Support wind ordinance
To the editor:
This is my response to Goodhue County Commissioner Richard Samuelson's letter from last week.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC), who issues site permits for large wind developments, chose to send this AWA Goodhue Wind's request for a site permit to an administrative law judge because Goodhue County's wind ordinance is in some instances "more stringent" than state standards.
As Goodhue County's Attorney Stephen Betcher wrote earlier, "Goodhue Co. intends to present testimony and evidence concerning the process and procedures followed in developing the Goodhue Co. Wind Ordinance Amendments now in effect in Goodhue Co. We will prepare and submit written testimony from Co. staff, elected officials, members of the Goodhue Co. PAC, citizens, experts and consultants involved in developing, preserving, and interpreting the record... The total record of all proceedings and all submissions will be developed and presented. We anticipate 2-3 days of written, direct and cross examination testimony based on content of our record and comments from counsel for AWA Goodhue, LLC..."
This process may take time. Do I as a taxpayer and citizen of Goodhue County NOT have the right to have our new County Wind Ordinance fully defended and supported? The County Board agreed to be a "party at the table" regarding its wind ordinance.
The addition of a 40 decibel (dB) noise level maximum of the industrial wind turbines was discussed at a previous BOC meeting and many of the Goodhue Co. Planning Advisory Subcommittee meetings. However, the monitoring of noise levels of out-of-compliance wind turbines is difficult to measure and is very costly. The 10 RD setback from non-participating landowners is easy to measure and is cost effective. Because other factors such as air density and temperature can fluctuate the noise levels of the wind turbines, using the 40 dB noise level maximum just isn't practical. And, participating landowners can elect to have the industrial wind turbines closer if they so wish.
The AWA Goodhue Wind Project may be scaled down from 52 turbines to 34 turbines. This project has continuously changed since the County's resolution of support (11/4/08): "small" turbines became "large"; 2 townships became 5; 39 turbines became 52 turbines (and now 34 and perhaps larger and noisier than the original 1.5 MW models); and Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens'company American Wind Alliance was added as equity partner through AWA Goodhue LLC, and is now the company getting the MPUC permit.
The wind developers are here in Goodhue Co. because there is access to the grid to transport electricity and there is federal tax money to support them.
Let's support the County's wind ordinance as it stands! Goodhue Co. deserves better, and Goodhue Co. can do better for itself.
Barbara A. Stussy
Zumbrota
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Cannon Falls Beacon
Unethical behavior
To the editor:
The stench wafting through Goodhue County? It's the unethical behavior by three of our County Commissioners. The County passed an updated Wind Energy ordinance and directed staff to defend it at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). On November 16, 2010 the County Board voted unanimously to be an intervening party with the Administrative Law Judge as she examines the Goodhue County ordinance.
Richard Samuelson offered the amendment to change the ordinance to a hard 10 Rotor diameter set-back and remove noise and shadow flicker measurements. His amendment was accepted and the wind ordinance passed October 5, 2010. At the November 16, 2010 Board meeting, Mr. Samuelson said he regretted his amendment and intended to write a letter to the PUC. He also put forth the idea of a 1/3 mile setback. As it turns out, Mr. Samuelson had already sent an email to the PUC two days earlier. AWA Goodhue LLC's recent filings with the PUC make it clear the 1/3 mile idea came directly from them. Mr. Samuelson's email fails to state "this is my personal opinion" or "this does not represent the position of the Goodhue County Board."
At least Mr. Samuelson sent his deceitful correspondence using his personal email account. This is more than we can say for Jim Bryant and Dan Rechtzigel. They sent a joint letter to the PUC using County letterhead on November 15, 2010. Their bizarre letter looks to be a result of back room discussions with AWA Goodhue LLC representatives after October 21, 2010. Bryant and Rechtzigel seem to believe they can turn back time as-well-as highjack the PUC process to directly negotiate an agreement with AWA representatives. Mr. Rechtzigel failed to disclose their previous day's correspondence at the November 16, 2010 County Board meeting.
Undermining months of work from an open, public process by sending your personal opinion using County Board letterhead is despicable.
Kristi Rosenquist
Rural Zumbrota Township
***
***
Published December 12 2010
Red Wing Republican Eagle
Letter: Wind ordinance is all about safety
To the Editor:
Documents posted on the Public Utility website raise a question about unethical behavior of three county commissioners.
After months of debate and public testimony, Goodhue County passed an updated ordinance governing wind electrical generation Oct. 5. The ordinance was designed to partially protect the health, safety and property rights of citizens of Goodhue County.
Commissioners directed County Attorney Steve Betcher and County Land-use Director Lisa Hanni to appear at the Public Utilities Commission to defend and explain the ordinance. They, along with Commissioners Ted Seifert and Ron Allen, did so Oct. 21.
As a result, the Public Utilities referred this project to an administrative law judge to make a thorough and deliberate study of the merits of the Goodhue County ordinance and to study the legal meaning of “good cause.”
The very next day AWA representatives began negotiating to circumvent the ordinance.
This ordinance is our last defense against AWA, which has misled Judge Lipman and the county of the dangers of stray voltage generated by the wind turbines. Every one of the 52 GE 1.5 wind turbines under normal operating conditions will send up to 1,200 volts and 56 amps of harmful stray currents to ground.
Section 4.5 of the pre-filed comments of AWA Goodhue that were submitted to Judge Lipman on July 16, 2010, revealed a serious misrepresentation of the truth. The second paragraph states, “There is an equipment ground installed, but it is there for safety only. There is no current in this conductor, either at zero generation or maximum generation.”
This is one of the reasons why the Goodhue County ordinance of 10 rotors is so important for the safety of the citizens of Goodhue County. Industrial wind turbines must be sited a safe distance from people’s homes and livestock facilities.
Bob Rosenquist
Zumbrota Township
***Red Wing Republican Eagle
Letter: Wind ordinance is all about safety
To the Editor:
Documents posted on the Public Utility website raise a question about unethical behavior of three county commissioners.
After months of debate and public testimony, Goodhue County passed an updated ordinance governing wind electrical generation Oct. 5. The ordinance was designed to partially protect the health, safety and property rights of citizens of Goodhue County.
Commissioners directed County Attorney Steve Betcher and County Land-use Director Lisa Hanni to appear at the Public Utilities Commission to defend and explain the ordinance. They, along with Commissioners Ted Seifert and Ron Allen, did so Oct. 21.
As a result, the Public Utilities referred this project to an administrative law judge to make a thorough and deliberate study of the merits of the Goodhue County ordinance and to study the legal meaning of “good cause.”
The very next day AWA representatives began negotiating to circumvent the ordinance.
This ordinance is our last defense against AWA, which has misled Judge Lipman and the county of the dangers of stray voltage generated by the wind turbines. Every one of the 52 GE 1.5 wind turbines under normal operating conditions will send up to 1,200 volts and 56 amps of harmful stray currents to ground.
Section 4.5 of the pre-filed comments of AWA Goodhue that were submitted to Judge Lipman on July 16, 2010, revealed a serious misrepresentation of the truth. The second paragraph states, “There is an equipment ground installed, but it is there for safety only. There is no current in this conductor, either at zero generation or maximum generation.”
This is one of the reasons why the Goodhue County ordinance of 10 rotors is so important for the safety of the citizens of Goodhue County. Industrial wind turbines must be sited a safe distance from people’s homes and livestock facilities.
Bob Rosenquist
Zumbrota Township
Published December 10 2010
Red wing Republican Eagle
Letter: Two stand firm on wind
To the Editor:
Many citizens have worked many months, spent much time and money researching and providing commissioners, PUC, legislators, etc., with evidence needed for making sound decisions on wind development.
The County Board voted to accept the 10-rotor setback from properties of non-participating members, those living in the footprint but have not signed on to participate in the project. This was clearly defined and discussed prior to the vote to approve the ordinance.
However Mr. Samuelson requested to change his vote cast prior to the election of Nov.2, after he was safely reelected no longer needing to heed the concerns of voters.
Thanks, Commissioners Ron Allen and Ted Seifert for standing by duly passed regulations that have come about through diligence and hard work of many.
Catherine Huisman
Red Wing
Red wing Republican Eagle
Letter: Two stand firm on wind
To the Editor:
Many citizens have worked many months, spent much time and money researching and providing commissioners, PUC, legislators, etc., with evidence needed for making sound decisions on wind development.
The County Board voted to accept the 10-rotor setback from properties of non-participating members, those living in the footprint but have not signed on to participate in the project. This was clearly defined and discussed prior to the vote to approve the ordinance.
However Mr. Samuelson requested to change his vote cast prior to the election of Nov.2, after he was safely reelected no longer needing to heed the concerns of voters.
Thanks, Commissioners Ron Allen and Ted Seifert for standing by duly passed regulations that have come about through diligence and hard work of many.
Catherine Huisman
Red Wing
***
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Republican Eagle
Stand firm on wind ordinance
To the Editor:
Jeff Hommedahl's letter (R-E Nov. 20) stated Richard Samuelson cast the deciding
vote in the 10-rotor blade setback. It should be noted Samuelson did not cast the
deciding vote; he made the motion for the 10RB setback, which is far different
than casting the third or deciding vote.
Commissioner Ted Seifert seconded the motion and I cast the third vote.
As a board we have studied the wind issue for 18 months. We have attended
numerous hearings and presentations on the benefits and issues related to the
impact of the wind issue on Goodhue County.
With the approval of a wind ordinance, I hoped we could move onto other issues.
This does not appear to be the case.
The wind issue was reopen when Samuelson, at the Nov. 16 board meeting stated he
was "wrong" and wanted to change his vote.
You may ask what had changed between Oct. 19 and Nov. 16. I have not received any
new information concerning the wind issue that we as a board of commissioners did
not have before Oct. 19, when Samuelson made the 10-rotor diame ters setback
motion which is now part of the new Goodhue County Wind Ordinance.
Samuelson won a close election over Hommedahl, who on Oct. 19 appeared before the
board at a hearing and reported that he supported the 10RB in no uncertain terms
and if elected he would continue to support this setback. Hommedahl's statement
appeared to have been well received by the people at the board meeting speaking
in favor of the 10RB setback.
After that hearing is when Mr. Samuelson made his motion for the 10RD setback.
One board meeting after the election, Samuelson wants to change his motion.
We had a 3-2 vote in favor of new wind ordinance and that wind ordinance is the
official position of Goodhue County. Fortunately for the county, Roberts' Rules
of Order did not allow the new wind ordinance to be changed Nov. 16. We need to
be firm with our new wind ordinance and not have a position that changes with the
wind.
Ron Allen
Red Wing
Ron Allen represents Goodhue County District 1
***
Dec 1, 2010 Zumbrota Record
WHAT IS ON THE LINE?
To the Editor:
What is really on the line in the decision whether or not to apply Goodhue County's setbacks in the permitting of AWA Goodhue's wind project? The future of the planet? Not likely. The future of wind development in Goodhue County? Maybe, but only if you assume that wind can only be developed by large industrial corporations who sign a minimal amount of land and bully their way through the permitting process. The future of AWA Goodhue? Possibly, but only their timeline and project layout are affected for sure. They can proceed by signing more land and participants and negotiating with the people who live inside ten rotor diameters of their turbines.
The ten-rotor setback ensures that wind development will be done in areas where the majority of residents are signed participants. It does not prevent all industrial wind energy development. It reduces the shadow flicker on non-participants to almost zero. It ensures lower noise levels for non-participants; it does not ensure that turbine noise for non-participants will not exceed present background levels.
How does it affect you as an individual landowner? It certainly reduces the number of sites where you can site turbines on your land without the consent of your neighbors. But would you really want to inflict possible problems on your neighbors without their consent? Their consent might even offer you some protection from legal actions. If you and you neighbor don't get along now, doing a turbine on your land closer to their house than the house where you live is not likely to improve relations. Conversely, if your neighbor were to become a paid participant you may become the best of friends.
So what is really at stake? Not wind development so much as who will benefit and who will pay the price. Will the people who have lived here for generations benefit or pay the price for wind development? Where is the proof that 1500-foot setbacks that AWA Goodhue offered to non-participants will protect us from property value loss and health problems? Ice flies more than a 1/2-mile from large turbines. Do your own research. Don't take my word for it or listen to any single person's opinion on this and never sign a wind lease without consulting a lawyer who specializes in wind energy development. And always talk to your neighbors first.
Rick Conrad
Goodhue
Dec 1, 2010 Zumbrota Record
SAMUELSON HAS A CHANGE OF HEART
To the Editor:
On November 16, I attended a regularly scheduled Goodhue County Board of Commissioners (BOC) meeting. The items in conflict were regarding the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissioner (MPUC) pre-hearing and the question as to whether or not the BOC should "direct (county) staff to intervene in the Matter of the Application of AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC ... on behalf of the county." Commissioners Ron Allen, Ted Siefert, Dan Rechtzigel, and Richard Samuelson were present. Commissioner Jim Bryant was absent.
In the course of this meeting, Rechtzigel expressed his concerns over the issue of the 10-rotor diameter (RD) setback for industrial wind turbines from non-participating landowners within the AWA Goodhue Wind project footprint. Discussion ensued. Samuelson stated he had to "eat crow" because he was no longer supporting the 10 RD setbacks, which he had conveniently supported just one month earlier (10-5-10) at the time of the vote on the revised Goodhue County Wind ordinance. In fact, Samuelson made the motion before the BOC at that time.
Since that October meeting, the November 2 elections came and went, Samuelson was re-elected, and now he wishes to change his mind. Isn't that convenient? Do you follow my drift?
During the course of the November 16 BOC meeting, Samu-elson also stated emphatically that he would write the MPUC about his change of heart. I found this disturbing for a couple of reasons: 1. The County BOC had voted on this new ordinance with a vote of 3-2 (majority vote to approve); and 2. County Attorney Steve Betcher had advised that a letter from Samuelson would make the county wind ordinance appear weak and could affected the credibility of the county's stand on this issue. Commissioner Allen questioned Samuelson's maneuver to change the county's wind ordinance just one month later.
In the past couple of days, much more has happened. Samuelson actually had written the MPUC on November 14, two days prior to the BOC meeting with his post-election change of heart and signing it as District 2 (County) Commissioner. Also, Rechtzigel and Bryant wrote the MPUC on November 15, one day prior to the BOC meeting, and on Goodhue County letterhead, with their challenges to the county's wind ordinance.
So we have letters from county commissioners (relating their disfavor of the county's wind ordinance) sent to the MPUC before a BOC meeting to discuss - let alone authorized or approved - by the county board.
Is there a question of the perception that these letters came from the entire county board? Was this misuse of power as county commissioners? Was this inappropriate use of county stationery? I was told these letters were not run past the county attorney. Is there a need to request the county to investigate for possible unethical conflicts of interest? Were compromises made behind the scenes or compensation or incentives offered? Do we need to look more closely at the open meeting laws?
We are taught that government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Our elected county officials are chosen to represent the people in Goodhue County. When personal agendas interfere and cloud the judgment of those elected officials, they cross a fine line which is just plain wrong. They need to be accountable.
Steve Groth
Goodhue
WHAT IS ON THE LINE?
To the Editor:
What is really on the line in the decision whether or not to apply Goodhue County's setbacks in the permitting of AWA Goodhue's wind project? The future of the planet? Not likely. The future of wind development in Goodhue County? Maybe, but only if you assume that wind can only be developed by large industrial corporations who sign a minimal amount of land and bully their way through the permitting process. The future of AWA Goodhue? Possibly, but only their timeline and project layout are affected for sure. They can proceed by signing more land and participants and negotiating with the people who live inside ten rotor diameters of their turbines.
The ten-rotor setback ensures that wind development will be done in areas where the majority of residents are signed participants. It does not prevent all industrial wind energy development. It reduces the shadow flicker on non-participants to almost zero. It ensures lower noise levels for non-participants; it does not ensure that turbine noise for non-participants will not exceed present background levels.
How does it affect you as an individual landowner? It certainly reduces the number of sites where you can site turbines on your land without the consent of your neighbors. But would you really want to inflict possible problems on your neighbors without their consent? Their consent might even offer you some protection from legal actions. If you and you neighbor don't get along now, doing a turbine on your land closer to their house than the house where you live is not likely to improve relations. Conversely, if your neighbor were to become a paid participant you may become the best of friends.
So what is really at stake? Not wind development so much as who will benefit and who will pay the price. Will the people who have lived here for generations benefit or pay the price for wind development? Where is the proof that 1500-foot setbacks that AWA Goodhue offered to non-participants will protect us from property value loss and health problems? Ice flies more than a 1/2-mile from large turbines. Do your own research. Don't take my word for it or listen to any single person's opinion on this and never sign a wind lease without consulting a lawyer who specializes in wind energy development. And always talk to your neighbors first.
Rick Conrad
Goodhue
***
Dec 1, 2010 Zumbrota Record
SAMUELSON HAS A CHANGE OF HEART
To the Editor:
On November 16, I attended a regularly scheduled Goodhue County Board of Commissioners (BOC) meeting. The items in conflict were regarding the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissioner (MPUC) pre-hearing and the question as to whether or not the BOC should "direct (county) staff to intervene in the Matter of the Application of AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC ... on behalf of the county." Commissioners Ron Allen, Ted Siefert, Dan Rechtzigel, and Richard Samuelson were present. Commissioner Jim Bryant was absent.
In the course of this meeting, Rechtzigel expressed his concerns over the issue of the 10-rotor diameter (RD) setback for industrial wind turbines from non-participating landowners within the AWA Goodhue Wind project footprint. Discussion ensued. Samuelson stated he had to "eat crow" because he was no longer supporting the 10 RD setbacks, which he had conveniently supported just one month earlier (10-5-10) at the time of the vote on the revised Goodhue County Wind ordinance. In fact, Samuelson made the motion before the BOC at that time.
Since that October meeting, the November 2 elections came and went, Samuelson was re-elected, and now he wishes to change his mind. Isn't that convenient? Do you follow my drift?
During the course of the November 16 BOC meeting, Samu-elson also stated emphatically that he would write the MPUC about his change of heart. I found this disturbing for a couple of reasons: 1. The County BOC had voted on this new ordinance with a vote of 3-2 (majority vote to approve); and 2. County Attorney Steve Betcher had advised that a letter from Samuelson would make the county wind ordinance appear weak and could affected the credibility of the county's stand on this issue. Commissioner Allen questioned Samuelson's maneuver to change the county's wind ordinance just one month later.
In the past couple of days, much more has happened. Samuelson actually had written the MPUC on November 14, two days prior to the BOC meeting with his post-election change of heart and signing it as District 2 (County) Commissioner. Also, Rechtzigel and Bryant wrote the MPUC on November 15, one day prior to the BOC meeting, and on Goodhue County letterhead, with their challenges to the county's wind ordinance.
So we have letters from county commissioners (relating their disfavor of the county's wind ordinance) sent to the MPUC before a BOC meeting to discuss - let alone authorized or approved - by the county board.
Is there a question of the perception that these letters came from the entire county board? Was this misuse of power as county commissioners? Was this inappropriate use of county stationery? I was told these letters were not run past the county attorney. Is there a need to request the county to investigate for possible unethical conflicts of interest? Were compromises made behind the scenes or compensation or incentives offered? Do we need to look more closely at the open meeting laws?
We are taught that government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Our elected county officials are chosen to represent the people in Goodhue County. When personal agendas interfere and cloud the judgment of those elected officials, they cross a fine line which is just plain wrong. They need to be accountable.
Steve Groth
Goodhue
***
Letters to the Editor for the week of December 1, 2010 in the News-Record (Zumbrota, MN)
DO WE KNOW WHAT THE COST OF WIND GENERATION IS?
To the Editor:
I have been reading in the News-Record about the concerns over wind generation
in the different areas in our country. But I never read anything about the
cost to consumers.
The power companies are forced to build or add on to substations, build
transmission lines and distribution lines to use the power the wind generators
produce. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars that the consumers end
up paying.
In my last Xcel Energy bill the price per kwh was $0.063650 but by the time
you add up all the other costs they include, my bill almost doubles with the
added charges.
You have to understand that a very large share of the added costs on the bill
are due to the power Xcel Energy purchases that is generated by wind. It is
much cheaper to generate power with nuclear or coal generation.
If more wind towers are built, the cost to the consumer for their electricity
will go up considerably. This would be for any consumer that is served by a
utility that supplies power that is generated by wind. In today's economy with
everyone struggling to make ends meet, do we need to pay higher electric
bills?
It is my understanding that every wind tower that is built to produce
electricity is also subsidized by the state and the federal government. This
adds to our tax burden.
Terry Krahn
Pine Island
***
____________________________________________________________________
NOVEMBER 2010
Published November 23 2010
Letter: Be thankful for Goodhue Wind Truth
The Republican Eagle
To the Editor:
It boggles my mind that the wind project developers and some of our elected and appointed county officials can’t seem to understand that if huge turbines cannot be safely sited in an area, they don’t belong there.
Goodhue Wind Truth has provided plenty of evidence that turbines placed closer than 10 rotor diameters from residences can cause health and safety problems for some people and animals.
This Thanksgiving would be a good time for Goodhue County’s rural residents to thank Goodhue Wind Truth for researching and exposing the affects of industrial wind projects.
I quote a writer to the editor of Readers Digest. “I’m tired of people thinking that they have no responsibility to respect the peace and quiet of others.”
Richard Reese
Red Wing
***
Published November 21 2010
Samuelson's shifting wind position draws fire
By: Eric Ludy, The Republican Eagle
Richard Samuelson changed his position and the resulting outcry -- from two fellow County Board members and opponents of the proposed Goodhue Wind project -- has left him feeling caught in the middle.
"I will not be held hostage for my thoughts and beliefs," the Goodhue County commissioner said Friday. "It's just something to be considered."
The point for consideration: Samuelson wants the county to revert from its stance on setbacks for commercial wind turbines -- over a half mile from those not participating in a wind project -- and enact universal noise standards instead.
He thinks it would be a fair compromise between project opponents, who have cited wind turbine noise as a major health concern, and project developers, who have said the setbacks would effectively end their project.
But some people have raised questions about the commissioner's motives for the change. They have expressed concerns that it could hurt the county's efforts to advocate for its recently passed ordinance.
The problem, they say, is that the commissioner supported those setbacks at an October County Board meeting, giving the deciding vote to an ordinance that ultimately could delay a state decision on the Goodhue Wind for several months.
Now, as the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission votes Tuesday on whether to reconsider its decision to conduct further research on Goodhue County's wind ordinance, it is faced with the added complication that a majority of county commissioners no longer support the law -- and have sent letters to the body saying so.
"It makes it look like we don't know what were doing -- like down here, locally, we can't seem to get it together," said Commissioner Ted Seifert, who voted in support of the ordinance.
Samuelson and Commissioners Jim Bryant and Dan Rechtzigel all sent letters to the state energy regulator early this week arguing against the setback and instead writing in favor of universal safety standards.
But Seifert and Commissioner Ron Allen -- both supporters of the setback -- have accused Samuelson of a deliberate case of post-election amnesia.
Samuelson's opponent in the November election, Jeff Hommedahl, advocated for 10-rotor-diameter setbacks like those the county ultimately passed. To curry favor with voters in his district, Seifert and Allen said, Samuelson supported the same thing.
"Evidently, Richard thought he had to support the setback because his opponent did," Seifert said.
But Samuelson said his change of heart had nothing to do with the election, but came out of a desire to find a middle ground for the project that has pitted supporters and opponents - often neighbors - against each other for more than two years.
"I'm just looking for a compromise position to keep the county out of this long, drawn-out process," he said.
Reached Friday, Rechtzigel said the new majority opposed to the setbacks on the County Board would probably not lead to an updated ordinance anytime soon, though he said he would continue to make his position against the ordinance language known to the state.
"The board did what it did," he said. "We'll just have to see how this plays out."
Meanwhile, county staff will prepare to advocate for the ordinance at the planned series of administrative law judge hearings. The fact that the ordinance no longer has majority support will make no difference in the county's case, according to Goodhue County Attorney Steve Betcher.
"The only official action that the board has taken is to adopt the ordinance and also the vote to intervene," he said.
***
***
***
Zumbrota Record
***
Wind energy's ripple effectsPublished November 20 2010
Letter: Letter to PUC proceeded board meeting
To the Editor:
Thursday morning I received a notification from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission that a number of items had been received as “public comment” this past week regarding the AWA Goodhue Wind Project. Within those comments was a letter by Commissioner Richard Samuelson sent Nov. 14, which was two days prior to the Goodhue County Board meeting Nov. 16.
Samuelson stated at the meeting he would write a letter to the PUC regarding his dissent from the 10 rotor diameter setbacks. He should have said he had written that letter to the PUC.
Apparently, he had already made up his mind to distance himself from the County Board before he even came to the meeting.
Earlier I had decided that I really didn’t wish to sling “mud” at Samuelson as he told me face to face he would support the 10 RD setbacks before and after his election to the District 2 seat. What am I to think happened to make him change his tune?
I have tried to remain professional and decent about this AWA Goodhue Wind issue. Are there any legal ramifications about Samuelson sending his letter and signing it as a Goodhue County commissioner rather than a general citizen of Goodhue County.
Personally, I am concerned that he is using his seat inappropriately.
Barbara A. Stussy
Zumbrota
Letter: Letter to PUC proceeded board meeting
To the Editor:
Thursday morning I received a notification from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission that a number of items had been received as “public comment” this past week regarding the AWA Goodhue Wind Project. Within those comments was a letter by Commissioner Richard Samuelson sent Nov. 14, which was two days prior to the Goodhue County Board meeting Nov. 16.
Samuelson stated at the meeting he would write a letter to the PUC regarding his dissent from the 10 rotor diameter setbacks. He should have said he had written that letter to the PUC.
Apparently, he had already made up his mind to distance himself from the County Board before he even came to the meeting.
Earlier I had decided that I really didn’t wish to sling “mud” at Samuelson as he told me face to face he would support the 10 RD setbacks before and after his election to the District 2 seat. What am I to think happened to make him change his tune?
I have tried to remain professional and decent about this AWA Goodhue Wind issue. Are there any legal ramifications about Samuelson sending his letter and signing it as a Goodhue County commissioner rather than a general citizen of Goodhue County.
Personally, I am concerned that he is using his seat inappropriately.
Barbara A. Stussy
Zumbrota
***
Questions for Commissioner Samuelson
The Wednesday November 17, 2010 edition of the Red Wing paper quote Goodhue County Commissioner Richard Samuelson as saying “ I made a mistake” when voting in favor of the 10 times rotor diameter setback for industrial wind turbines in the county. Commissioner Samuelson expressed regret in voting for the 10 times diameter set back. Originally Commissioner Samuelson was in favor of the much smaller 1,500 foot setback (about 3 city blocks) for turbines that are nearly 400 feet tall.
I have the following questions for the commissioner:
Why did you change your mind and go with the more reasonable 10 times diameter set back? Was it because you were in a tight race for re-election and your opponent publically supported the 10 times rotor diameter set back at the county board meeting where you cast the deciding vote? Why the change of heart again now after the election? Did you succumb to the recent high pressure that the industrial wind companies have apparently been exerting?
Commissioner Samuelson, while you and I might have different political philosophies, I had always thought of you as a man of honor and conviction. In a race decided by a swing of just 86 votes (2.1% of voters) I think you owe the people of your district an explanation for you changing decision.
Jeff Hommedahl
The Wednesday November 17, 2010 edition of the Red Wing paper quote Goodhue County Commissioner Richard Samuelson as saying “ I made a mistake” when voting in favor of the 10 times rotor diameter setback for industrial wind turbines in the county. Commissioner Samuelson expressed regret in voting for the 10 times diameter set back. Originally Commissioner Samuelson was in favor of the much smaller 1,500 foot setback (about 3 city blocks) for turbines that are nearly 400 feet tall.
I have the following questions for the commissioner:
Why did you change your mind and go with the more reasonable 10 times diameter set back? Was it because you were in a tight race for re-election and your opponent publically supported the 10 times rotor diameter set back at the county board meeting where you cast the deciding vote? Why the change of heart again now after the election? Did you succumb to the recent high pressure that the industrial wind companies have apparently been exerting?
Commissioner Samuelson, while you and I might have different political philosophies, I had always thought of you as a man of honor and conviction. In a race decided by a swing of just 86 votes (2.1% of voters) I think you owe the people of your district an explanation for you changing decision.
Jeff Hommedahl
***
Zumbrota Record
Letters to the Editor for the week of November 17, 2010
COUNTY DOES GOOD JOB
To the Editor:
We would like to thank the Goodhue County Commissioners and staff for their work on the new county wind ordinance that offers proper protection and compromise for non-participants in commercial wind energy projects.
On October 21, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) heard public comment on this issue. Goodhue County Commissioners Ron Allen and Ted Seifert, County Attorney Steve Betcher, and County Staff Lisa Hanni did an excellent job presenting on behalf of the county before the PUC. Their presentation and dialogue with the commissioners was clear, professional, and well done.
The Minnesota PUC and staff have collected and assessed the wealth of information presented by concerned citizens; noise, health, safety, and property value experts; and the wind industry. The PUC has decided to put the issue of the Goodhue County standards before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Citizens have engaged in public meetings at township, county, and state levels and endorsed the updated and reasonable standards of 10 rotor diameters from non-participants and stray voltage testing requirements. This takes into account the ability of local control for Goodhue County.
On November 19, a pre-hearing conference will be held at the PUC at 1:30 p.m. to lay out the time table for this process. We encourage citizens to attend and support the new Goodhue County wind ordinance by listening in. PUC Offices and Hearing Room are at 121 7th Place East in St. Paul, MN 55101, 3rd floor of the Metro Square Building. (Another meeting on November 23 addresses the petition by AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC to rescind this pathway; agenda item 11 with a 9:30 a.m. meeting start; citizens are encouraged to come listen in.) While we await details, it is important to thank Goodhue County commissioners, county attorney, and staff. They represented Goodhue County very well with their professional job at the PUC.
Bruce and Marie McNamara
Goodhue
***Letters to the Editor for the week of November 17, 2010
COUNTY DOES GOOD JOB
To the Editor:
We would like to thank the Goodhue County Commissioners and staff for their work on the new county wind ordinance that offers proper protection and compromise for non-participants in commercial wind energy projects.
On October 21, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) heard public comment on this issue. Goodhue County Commissioners Ron Allen and Ted Seifert, County Attorney Steve Betcher, and County Staff Lisa Hanni did an excellent job presenting on behalf of the county before the PUC. Their presentation and dialogue with the commissioners was clear, professional, and well done.
The Minnesota PUC and staff have collected and assessed the wealth of information presented by concerned citizens; noise, health, safety, and property value experts; and the wind industry. The PUC has decided to put the issue of the Goodhue County standards before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Citizens have engaged in public meetings at township, county, and state levels and endorsed the updated and reasonable standards of 10 rotor diameters from non-participants and stray voltage testing requirements. This takes into account the ability of local control for Goodhue County.
On November 19, a pre-hearing conference will be held at the PUC at 1:30 p.m. to lay out the time table for this process. We encourage citizens to attend and support the new Goodhue County wind ordinance by listening in. PUC Offices and Hearing Room are at 121 7th Place East in St. Paul, MN 55101, 3rd floor of the Metro Square Building. (Another meeting on November 23 addresses the petition by AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC to rescind this pathway; agenda item 11 with a 9:30 a.m. meeting start; citizens are encouraged to come listen in.) While we await details, it is important to thank Goodhue County commissioners, county attorney, and staff. They represented Goodhue County very well with their professional job at the PUC.
Bruce and Marie McNamara
Goodhue
Zumbrota Record
11/10/2010
Publisher's Notebook: The winds are changing direction
Pete Grimsrud
Publisher/Columnist
The "winds of change" are not limited to the Republican victories that swept across Minnesota and the rest of the country. Another is the recent victory by the anti-wind movement in Goodhue County.
I was wrong about the inevitability of the Goodhue Wind project successfully moving forward. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has decided to gather more information about wind farms of this magnitude in an area with our rural population density.
It is a well-earned victory for those asking for their concerns to be addressed. Local legislators and commissioners made the difference by supporting passionate local constituents at the state level.
The one frustration dealing with government bodies is that it can be a slow moving process riddled with red tape. In this particular case, the anti-wind locals may rejoice that it's the wind company that is frustrated by delays to establish a sound long-term wind policy. The recent ruling may cost the Goodhue Wind project government subsidies that ensure a profitable venture.
Setting standards only to kill the project shouldn't be done any more than establishing standards that will assure the project's completion. Hopefully a closer look will set a precedence that is good for Goodhue County and the State of Minnesota. Congratulations to those who were passionate enough to fight for their rights and win a closer look by the PUC.
Publisher's Notebook: The winds are changing direction
Pete Grimsrud
Publisher/Columnist
The "winds of change" are not limited to the Republican victories that swept across Minnesota and the rest of the country. Another is the recent victory by the anti-wind movement in Goodhue County.
I was wrong about the inevitability of the Goodhue Wind project successfully moving forward. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has decided to gather more information about wind farms of this magnitude in an area with our rural population density.
It is a well-earned victory for those asking for their concerns to be addressed. Local legislators and commissioners made the difference by supporting passionate local constituents at the state level.
The one frustration dealing with government bodies is that it can be a slow moving process riddled with red tape. In this particular case, the anti-wind locals may rejoice that it's the wind company that is frustrated by delays to establish a sound long-term wind policy. The recent ruling may cost the Goodhue Wind project government subsidies that ensure a profitable venture.
Setting standards only to kill the project shouldn't be done any more than establishing standards that will assure the project's completion. Hopefully a closer look will set a precedence that is good for Goodhue County and the State of Minnesota. Congratulations to those who were passionate enough to fight for their rights and win a closer look by the PUC.
***
by GARY CARLSON
from The Minneapolis Star Tribune, November 8, 2010
I just returned from a meeting of my county planning committee, where we debated the pros and cons of our neighbor's proposal to put up two 400-foot wind turbines, with the closest about 1,300 feet from our property line. My family lives on a bluff on the edge of Northfield. I cannot sleep. It was my first contact with any kind of city or county planning, and the four-hour meeting was surreal. But let me step back and provide the background to this story.
I am an integrative physician who mainly works with patients suffering chronic problems. Often, they have seen many traditional doctors who have not been able to help them; they come to me as a last resort. They have "functional problems" -- irritable bowel syndrome, chronic headaches, fibromyalgia. Often their doctors "can't find anything wrong" with X-rays, blood tests or biopsies. But nonetheless these people are sick. Many of them are very sensitive to environmental stimuli, probably as an adaptive reaction to their chronic problems.
So back to the wind on the bluff. I also fancy myself an environmentalist. We placed a geothermal heat pump in our house 12 years ago when most people didn't know what they were. I regularly walk the 6-mile round trip to work to save on CO2 emissions. So six weeks ago when we heard about the plan to put up these turbines, I was a little ambivalent. My brother, who lives nearby, didn't like it. I have always liked wind power, and though I didn't really want such large structures in my morning sky, I kind of let it go.
Then I got hit over the head. I was reading the New York Times and came upon an article about multiple lawsuits against wind farms all over the United States because of health concerns, and I said to myself, "What health concerns?" Three hours of intense Internet research later, I was shocked.
I know environmental sensitivity; these are the patients I take care of every day.
The last four weeks have been a blur. Getting up to speed on the science of sound and the medical research related to wind turbines has been exhausting, and in the process I have discovered the dark medical underbelly of industrial-sized turbines. They produce a lot of infrasonic and low-frequency noise. You don't hear it, but it can make you sick. It is hard to put a number on how many people are affected, but some experts suggest that 15 percent of people living within one-half to one mile of one of these turbines will develop some sort of symptom. Sleep disturbance is the most common problem. If you are old, or young, tend to get carsick easily, or have a chronic medical disease, you are at higher risk. Some are affected so severely that they have to move.
Minnesota's wind turbine setbacks are ridiculously outdated, although the Public Utilities Commission is trying to catch up. Some European countries have listened to their citizens and have moved setbacks to between half a mile and a mile. We listen to the big wind energy companies and are stuck around 500 feet.
There were five wind projects on the docket at the planning meeting, and I kept standing up with my two minutes of time for each of them trying to educate about infrasonic noise and about why we need to protect people with these setbacks. I think they thought I was a madman. I felt like a canary in the mine yelling, "Please, please -- we can have wind turbines, but don't place them closer then one-half mile from residences, or these people, especially vulnerable people, will get sick!"
We lost four and tied one (tabled for now). I felt devastated.
But don't count me out, because this canary can still sing.
Gary Carlson is board-certified in family medicine, holistic medicine and medical acupuncture. He works at the Allina Medical Clinic in Northfield and the Penny George Institute for Health and Healing at the Abbott Northwestern Hospital.
***
____________________________________________________________________________
OCTOBER 2010
State Representatives and Goodhue County Commissioners,
Take 10 minutes and visit this website, "life with Dekalb turbines"
(http://lifewithdekalbturbines.blogspot.com/). This family has a blog of the day to day experiences of living 1400 ft from a turbine. This is just 100 ft short of what the Wind Developers and you, my county commissioners are stating I can live with.
Please read their words carefully! What they experience everyday, we in Belle Creek will be MADE to live with based on the decision your making!
After reading their blog, you tell me this is acceptable? This is what our state Legislature Representatives and our local government are telling us is acceptable! Your job is to look out for the health and welfare of our county and state, to protect my basic rights. You can't seriously believe living with this type of violation to our rights is acceptable!
We were told by National Wind/Goodhue Wind/AWA Wind/Geronimo representatives that the complaints we heard directly from people living in Fond du lac Wind farm, was because of a "poorly sited project"; well that is the same thing being told to these people. How many poorly sited projects does there have to be before something is done? STOP now; take a moment to research what is already in place! Look at what you are doing to our state and rural communities! For what, a way to waste our tax dollars, for electricity where the demand has dropped? You are asking us to be test rats!
One of my basic rights is my property rights. My land is of great value to our way of life and our livelihood. We make a living off the land. Our family has strong roots here. My land value is based on my view, and quietness of the countryside I live in everyday, and the product we produce. I enjoy gazing at the stars, which will be replaced with blinking red lights from the turbines. That is NOT my choice...
Landowners' Rights Stop Where Neighbors' Rights Start: In real estate law and terminology, there are certain things that are guaranteed to a fee simple property owner. The term for this is the 'Bundle of Rights.' One of these rights is that you have right 'of quiet enjoyment.' Others are, the right to possess, control, encumber, and dispose... An encroachment can best be described as an unauthorized physical intrusion or an unauthorized trespass. Loud noises, bright lights, violation of the owner's air space, are some examples. These encumbrances and encroachments are illegal if the owner does not authorize it.
I feel this wind project is an encroachment on my property rights! I DO NOT give authorization to live next to or in an industrial or commercial wind farm, nor under at least 1 mile near a wind turbine of over 200 ft!
I have as much right as the person who signed into the project! I have a right to protect the health and welfare of my family and property. Don't take this right away from me!
Melody Ryan
Goodhue, MN
Take 10 minutes and visit this website, "life with Dekalb turbines"
(http://lifewithdekalbturbines.blogspot.com/). This family has a blog of the day to day experiences of living 1400 ft from a turbine. This is just 100 ft short of what the Wind Developers and you, my county commissioners are stating I can live with.
Please read their words carefully! What they experience everyday, we in Belle Creek will be MADE to live with based on the decision your making!
After reading their blog, you tell me this is acceptable? This is what our state Legislature Representatives and our local government are telling us is acceptable! Your job is to look out for the health and welfare of our county and state, to protect my basic rights. You can't seriously believe living with this type of violation to our rights is acceptable!
We were told by National Wind/Goodhue Wind/AWA Wind/Geronimo representatives that the complaints we heard directly from people living in Fond du lac Wind farm, was because of a "poorly sited project"; well that is the same thing being told to these people. How many poorly sited projects does there have to be before something is done? STOP now; take a moment to research what is already in place! Look at what you are doing to our state and rural communities! For what, a way to waste our tax dollars, for electricity where the demand has dropped? You are asking us to be test rats!
One of my basic rights is my property rights. My land is of great value to our way of life and our livelihood. We make a living off the land. Our family has strong roots here. My land value is based on my view, and quietness of the countryside I live in everyday, and the product we produce. I enjoy gazing at the stars, which will be replaced with blinking red lights from the turbines. That is NOT my choice...
Landowners' Rights Stop Where Neighbors' Rights Start: In real estate law and terminology, there are certain things that are guaranteed to a fee simple property owner. The term for this is the 'Bundle of Rights.' One of these rights is that you have right 'of quiet enjoyment.' Others are, the right to possess, control, encumber, and dispose... An encroachment can best be described as an unauthorized physical intrusion or an unauthorized trespass. Loud noises, bright lights, violation of the owner's air space, are some examples. These encumbrances and encroachments are illegal if the owner does not authorize it.
I feel this wind project is an encroachment on my property rights! I DO NOT give authorization to live next to or in an industrial or commercial wind farm, nor under at least 1 mile near a wind turbine of over 200 ft!
I have as much right as the person who signed into the project! I have a right to protect the health and welfare of my family and property. Don't take this right away from me!
Melody Ryan
Goodhue, MN
***
_______________________________________________________________________________________
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
SEPTEMBER 2010
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 2010
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.”
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.”
***
____________________________________________________________________________
JUNE 2010
***
JUNE 2010
June 18, 2010
Industrial Wind Falls Short
To the Editor:
I am responding to the editorial from Roger Kittelson of Lomira, Wisconsin. Roger is a friend and classmate of mine, but I’m afraid there are some points I disagree with. Roger, do you live out in the country, and at what distance from a turbine, or do you live in the city, away from any noise they create?
You may be right about turbines not lowering agricultural land values, but for most of the people living in the rural area, they had better be ready to take about a 20-40% drop in the value of their home should they live in or within a mile of a wind turbine complex.
The sources of electrical power that we have now in our country, whether it’s nuclear, coal, natural gas, or hydro, all have their pluses and minuses. But when it comes to wind power, you have to look pretty hard to find any good in it. They found out long ago out in California that wind as a source of power just doesn’t work. When it comes to running our country with electricity, the one thing that makes electricity different from the petroleum industry is that you can’t store it. They’ve tried to invent ways of doing it, but on the grand scale of the country’s energy needs, it hasn’t happened. That’s where wind energy fails completely. The wind doesn’t always blow. You don’t know how hard it’s going to blow (very important), or when it’s going to blow. There is nothing reliable about it. And any cleanliness there was when the turbines were turning is quickly lost when back-up generation is used. Coal and nuclear work very well for base load generation, but not very well for backing up turbines because of their slow response time in ramping up and down. Hydro works pretty well as a back-up but we are limited on how much of that we have. About the only thing we have right now for this purpose is natural gas fired plants. These plants were created because of the availability of natural gas in our country, and to be used as peaking plants, especially during hot summer days when power usage is high. They are not economically viable for major usage as a back-up.
People must remember this, for any power you expect to receive from a wind turbine plant, you must also erect another power plant of some sort to back that up. You’re paying roughly double for that power. If you don’t think it’s going to show up on your electric bill, guess again.
As far as reducing our dependence on foreign oil, electricity production has nothing to do with foreign oil. All of our electrical energy comes from the sources I mentioned earlier. Oh wait, about 1% of our electrical power comes from the burning of a product that is a by-product of the refining industry.
I won’t even touch on the health related problems of the wind industry, only to say that if they do come here, I hope you don’t have to live near them.
Bruce McNamara
Goodhue, MN
To the Editor:
I am responding to the editorial from Roger Kittelson of Lomira, Wisconsin. Roger is a friend and classmate of mine, but I’m afraid there are some points I disagree with. Roger, do you live out in the country, and at what distance from a turbine, or do you live in the city, away from any noise they create?
You may be right about turbines not lowering agricultural land values, but for most of the people living in the rural area, they had better be ready to take about a 20-40% drop in the value of their home should they live in or within a mile of a wind turbine complex.
The sources of electrical power that we have now in our country, whether it’s nuclear, coal, natural gas, or hydro, all have their pluses and minuses. But when it comes to wind power, you have to look pretty hard to find any good in it. They found out long ago out in California that wind as a source of power just doesn’t work. When it comes to running our country with electricity, the one thing that makes electricity different from the petroleum industry is that you can’t store it. They’ve tried to invent ways of doing it, but on the grand scale of the country’s energy needs, it hasn’t happened. That’s where wind energy fails completely. The wind doesn’t always blow. You don’t know how hard it’s going to blow (very important), or when it’s going to blow. There is nothing reliable about it. And any cleanliness there was when the turbines were turning is quickly lost when back-up generation is used. Coal and nuclear work very well for base load generation, but not very well for backing up turbines because of their slow response time in ramping up and down. Hydro works pretty well as a back-up but we are limited on how much of that we have. About the only thing we have right now for this purpose is natural gas fired plants. These plants were created because of the availability of natural gas in our country, and to be used as peaking plants, especially during hot summer days when power usage is high. They are not economically viable for major usage as a back-up.
People must remember this, for any power you expect to receive from a wind turbine plant, you must also erect another power plant of some sort to back that up. You’re paying roughly double for that power. If you don’t think it’s going to show up on your electric bill, guess again.
As far as reducing our dependence on foreign oil, electricity production has nothing to do with foreign oil. All of our electrical energy comes from the sources I mentioned earlier. Oh wait, about 1% of our electrical power comes from the burning of a product that is a by-product of the refining industry.
I won’t even touch on the health related problems of the wind industry, only to say that if they do come here, I hope you don’t have to live near them.
Bruce McNamara
Goodhue, MN
***
Subject: How to shoot down windmill promoters
From: John Adams
Date: Tue, June 08, 2010 5:53 am
To: windtruth@goodhuewindtruth.com
How to shoot down windmill promoters
The following is from a newsletter put out by Greenies who OPPOSE wind power. The email followed a strategy discussion of how to defeat a bad wind energy bill (the disastrous Massachusetts Wind Energy Siting Bill).
What I have reproduced is fairly long but there is in fact more to it. If you ask to be put on the mailing list of John Droz jr. (aaprjohn@northnet.org) you can get the whole of it. Droz is a physicist and his site is here http://windpowerfacts.info/.
When I first got involved with the Wellfleet (Cape Cod, Massachusetts) situation in November, what I (and others in our community) knew about wind turbines would fit in a thimble. However, we knew enough to understand that erecting 400 foot, kinetic industrial towers in the middle of a national park was an insane idea. It seemed like such a sacrilege, that we barely knew where to start arguing with the proponents. What do you say to someone who is so seriously unhinged that he or she actually thinks that it's a great idea to industrialize a national park?
We rapidly grew to appreciate the human health hazards (e.g. acoustic effects), the profoundly detrimental environmental consequences (e.g. for wildlife), the impact on property values and, most tragically, the despair and ruin that they caused in the lives of decent, well-meaning people burdened to live in the shadow of these behemoths.
The knowledge that seemed least relevant to me because the other consequences were so dire was the efficacy of the technology: does wind energy actually work? Does it accomplish anything consequential? Those were way down on my list of concerns.
I knew enough to know that the proponents had no business erecting the damn things in the National Seashore. But others repeatedly said that it would be crazy and self-defeating to address the larger policy issue with any sort of traditional cost / benefit analysis. Are we getting our money's worth? Does the yield justify the investment? That sort of thing. And it was deemed especially foolhardy even to suggest to a bunch of Prius driving liberals in Wellfleet who are hell bent on saving the world that wind energy doesn?t actually work. Furthermore it seemed to me that we had plenty of ammunition in our battle to let sleeping dogs lie ? or to let the windmill supporters live with their illusions about the promise of wind energy ? as long as they could be convinced that putting them in the park was dangerous and outrageous. So I didn?t really do my homework and answer these questions for myself.
Now, however, after encountering the vapid, idiotic, pompous and patronizing delusional drivel of the Superintendent of the Cape Cod National Seashore (an unapologetic promoter of his grand vision of a string of token wind energy projects within the boundaries of the park you know who I mean as you have similar proponents in your community) -- over and over and over again ? I am completely of the opposite view.
I now see that his arguments are hollow (meaningless, bloated, irrelevant, not applicable and false) and his advocacy of industrializing the park is morally bankrupt. He keeps trying to inflate the shell of his argument (the national mission to promote alternative energy), but repeatedly ignores the substance of his core responsibility: to preserve and protect the natural landscape in its original condition for all future generations.?
Gradually, it has become apparent that not only is it maddening to listen to such bombast as if he had been granted a special dispensation from on high to pursue his brilliant plan, but it is downright dangerous to allow such contentions to linger unchallenged that this could EVER possibly be a good idea, or that these promoters have any clue what they are talking about.
We simply must call a spade a spade here in order to deny such impostors the opportunity to wrap themselves in the cloak of their presumed authority, or to "frame" the debate, as some of our representatives have attempted to do.
The central argument against wind turbines in this debate is simple and devastating: they don't work!
* They will not solve our energy issues (e.g. they don't reduce our dependence on imported oil).
*They will not solve our environmental problems (e.g. they don't consequentially reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions).
* They are not a substitute for conventional energy sources (e.g. because they are not reliable, have no Capacity Value, are much more expensive, etc.).
Why should citizens take this approach?
Why take this as the point of departure, instead of seeking to elicit sympathy for the very real suffering of folks in nearby communities subjected to wind development?
The reason is simple: if you allow the proponents to retain this high moral ground,the fictional idea that wind turbines actually accomplish something useful and that at least THEY are trying to do something about global warming, energy independence, etc. while YOU are in denial and whining about a bit of noise that is no louder than a refrigerator ---- then you have likely lost right off the bat.
Making it mostly about you makes it is all too easy for these promoters to paint us as NIMBY's and nincompoops.
They will come across as virtuous and wise, you as selfish and uninformed.
They want to change the world with their cutting edge technology, you are living in the past.
They care about our grandchildrens grandchildren, you are a crybaby because you can't stand paying a few more cents per KWH on your electric bill.
They are bold visionaries, you are the reason we're here in the first place.
Etc.
Who do you think is holding the stronger hand here?
But, suppose you turn this around and you first DEMAND that they prove their case: that they provide scientific proof that the technology actually works BEFORE you move on to catalogue all of the adverse consequences. You can do this by asking a few innocent questions:
* Please show me the independent, objective studies (using real-world data, not models) that show that wind energy actually is technically, economically and environmentally beneficial?
* Please explain to me how we're going to get electricity if these things only produce power when the wind blows, and not too slow, or too fast? What are we going to do if the wind only blows at night when we don't need electricity' but doesn't blow during the daytime in August when it's hot as hell where I live? Isn't a lot of that production worthless? Has anyone ever invented a practical, affordable method of storing electricity for future use?
* What do we do if we have three calm days in a row? Or a calm month? How do I watch the World Series? How do I use my computer?
* How do we manage the wildly fluctuating flow of electricity produced or not produced by the wind turbines? Isn't modern electricity essentially a river of current that needs to be predictably available to be useful, not a flood, but certainly more than a trickle and, heaven forbid, not a dry gulch? Isn't that sort of a problem; especially if the oft-stated goal of increasing alternative energy to 20% of our total output by 2020 is actually realized?
* What about the economics? The average residential US customer pays 10¢/KWH for electricity. In Denmark (where they have installed many more wind turbines) the average residential customer pays 35¢/KWH. How will paying this huge 350% increase be beneficial to citizens? How does this jive with the marketing PR that says wind energy is inexpensive?
* Will this wind project actually replace any conventional fossil-fuel electric plants? How many can we get rid of? Can we dispense with them entirely? Can we turn them on and off at will like dimming the lights to compensate for the unpredictable, skittering output from the wind mills? If we do a granular analysis of wind energy (not giving credit to useless gross production that is produced in the middle of the night, when nobody wants it, for example), what is the actual reduction in CO2 emissions that we can hope to achieve starting from the assumption that consumers and businesses don't consider availability of electricity?optional and aren't willing to put up with haphazard, unpredictable delivery of this miraculous form of energy that they take for granted?
* To replace a single medium sized conventional electric power plant we would only need several thousands of these 410 foot behemoths covering hundreds of square miles of territory. Exactly how many square miles of land will be needed to appreciably reduce coal use? Since they aren't making more land, how is this a "renewable" or "green" concept?
* My favorite: those who claim that "forward thinking environmentalists" should give their support to projects like the wind turbine proposal in Wellfleet for wind turbines in the middle of the national park.
* Take the opposite approach by saying: OK, Let's do it! Let's harness the wind resource within the park in the service of all humanity. But let's not stop with a few. Since this is such a great idea, let's REPLICATE this wonderful idea throughout the entire park system. If it's good enough for the National Seashore, it's good enough for the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Yellowstone too! We can't afford to let all of those other wind resources go to waste!
* Surely, this is not too great a price to pay. Why, if we were just forward thinking enough to agree to ruin thousands of pristine habitats similar to Wellfleet or to convert the entire State of Rhode Island into a wind farm, for example -- we could replace ONE small power plant, right? Well, no, we couldn't actually replace the power plant, since we would have to keep it running just in case the wind didn't blow (or blew at the wrong time). But who cares: at least we'd be doing something, and we?d surely all feel a lot better about ourselves! No one could say we didn't do our part.
Then you ask the proponents how many billions of dollars they want to spend on this adventure not for a single project, but the total figure.
Then you ask them where they're going to put them How do you put them in cities and towns without adversely affect citizens (e.g. by bombarding them with high intensity infrasound and flicker and constant mechanical noise)? How do you put them in conservation preserves, in the unsettled areas, without destroying habitat and driving off wildlife It really makes sense to "save the world" by destroying its inhabitants?
Then you ask them how many miles of transmission lines we'll have to construct at what cost, and what consequences will this have ? and how much power will we lose getting the electricity from the desolate, windy points (where the windmills live and the wildlife has fled) to the settled areas, hundreds of miles away?
Then you ask them who's going to pay for all of this? And how will that be accomplished? And what happens to all of these projects if the legislature (or the federal government; or the voters) have a change of heart or fall upon hard economic times and the river of government subsidies slows to a trickle?
Then you ask them why they keep talking about foreign oil and energy independence?when only about 1% of electricity is produced by burning oil and virtually all of our electricity currently comes from home-grown sources?
Then you ask them why shouldn't we be focusing some of those billions of dollars of investment on conservation; and on reducing vehicle emissions; and on switching over to natural gas (which is plentiful, relatively clean, and cheap) rather than splurging on all of those exotic, noisy mammoth wind mills?
Here is the bottom line.
Don't let these agenda promoters reduce the argument to whether or not we are willing to make the sacrifice in the service of a noble and necessary cause. (BTW by we they mean people they don't know and don't care about in communities with wind projects.) Tell them you think that the whole idea is nuts and make them prove it to you otherwise.
So what do they actually LIKE about the idea? Remind me again?
They are neither virtuous nor wise. The developers are mostly cynical profiteers out to make a buck, who pull the necessary strings and grease the necessary palms to win their approvals. They are opportunists who travel to financially stressed rural areas and entice unsuspecting farmers to sign their lease agreements which neuter their rights to their own land. Most of the others are ill-informed and idealistic and maybe a bit impulsive who have no idea what they're in for once the blades begin to spin. They reassure energy committees and the town fathers that everything will be fine. Talk is cheap!
It's no louder than a refrigerator! You won't even know it's there.? They are beautiful, shining symbols of our freedom and of our energy independence.
I'm not immune to the sufferings of others on the contrary, it breaks my heart and I am acutely aware of the many other adverse consequences that derive from the installation and the operation of these massive machines. But after being in the trenches on this issue I am quite sure that it is a mistake to shoulder the burden of pointing out all of the bad consequences of their "brilliant" idea instead of demanding to see the proof as to WHY are they recommending it in the first place?
What's so inspiring about a stupid idea that doesn't work AND one which devastates residents, divides communities and ruins habitat in the process?
From: John Adams
Date: Tue, June 08, 2010 5:53 am
To: windtruth@goodhuewindtruth.com
How to shoot down windmill promoters
The following is from a newsletter put out by Greenies who OPPOSE wind power. The email followed a strategy discussion of how to defeat a bad wind energy bill (the disastrous Massachusetts Wind Energy Siting Bill).
What I have reproduced is fairly long but there is in fact more to it. If you ask to be put on the mailing list of John Droz jr. (aaprjohn@northnet.org) you can get the whole of it. Droz is a physicist and his site is here http://windpowerfacts.info/.
When I first got involved with the Wellfleet (Cape Cod, Massachusetts) situation in November, what I (and others in our community) knew about wind turbines would fit in a thimble. However, we knew enough to understand that erecting 400 foot, kinetic industrial towers in the middle of a national park was an insane idea. It seemed like such a sacrilege, that we barely knew where to start arguing with the proponents. What do you say to someone who is so seriously unhinged that he or she actually thinks that it's a great idea to industrialize a national park?
We rapidly grew to appreciate the human health hazards (e.g. acoustic effects), the profoundly detrimental environmental consequences (e.g. for wildlife), the impact on property values and, most tragically, the despair and ruin that they caused in the lives of decent, well-meaning people burdened to live in the shadow of these behemoths.
The knowledge that seemed least relevant to me because the other consequences were so dire was the efficacy of the technology: does wind energy actually work? Does it accomplish anything consequential? Those were way down on my list of concerns.
I knew enough to know that the proponents had no business erecting the damn things in the National Seashore. But others repeatedly said that it would be crazy and self-defeating to address the larger policy issue with any sort of traditional cost / benefit analysis. Are we getting our money's worth? Does the yield justify the investment? That sort of thing. And it was deemed especially foolhardy even to suggest to a bunch of Prius driving liberals in Wellfleet who are hell bent on saving the world that wind energy doesn?t actually work. Furthermore it seemed to me that we had plenty of ammunition in our battle to let sleeping dogs lie ? or to let the windmill supporters live with their illusions about the promise of wind energy ? as long as they could be convinced that putting them in the park was dangerous and outrageous. So I didn?t really do my homework and answer these questions for myself.
Now, however, after encountering the vapid, idiotic, pompous and patronizing delusional drivel of the Superintendent of the Cape Cod National Seashore (an unapologetic promoter of his grand vision of a string of token wind energy projects within the boundaries of the park you know who I mean as you have similar proponents in your community) -- over and over and over again ? I am completely of the opposite view.
I now see that his arguments are hollow (meaningless, bloated, irrelevant, not applicable and false) and his advocacy of industrializing the park is morally bankrupt. He keeps trying to inflate the shell of his argument (the national mission to promote alternative energy), but repeatedly ignores the substance of his core responsibility: to preserve and protect the natural landscape in its original condition for all future generations.?
Gradually, it has become apparent that not only is it maddening to listen to such bombast as if he had been granted a special dispensation from on high to pursue his brilliant plan, but it is downright dangerous to allow such contentions to linger unchallenged that this could EVER possibly be a good idea, or that these promoters have any clue what they are talking about.
We simply must call a spade a spade here in order to deny such impostors the opportunity to wrap themselves in the cloak of their presumed authority, or to "frame" the debate, as some of our representatives have attempted to do.
The central argument against wind turbines in this debate is simple and devastating: they don't work!
* They will not solve our energy issues (e.g. they don't reduce our dependence on imported oil).
*They will not solve our environmental problems (e.g. they don't consequentially reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions).
* They are not a substitute for conventional energy sources (e.g. because they are not reliable, have no Capacity Value, are much more expensive, etc.).
Why should citizens take this approach?
Why take this as the point of departure, instead of seeking to elicit sympathy for the very real suffering of folks in nearby communities subjected to wind development?
The reason is simple: if you allow the proponents to retain this high moral ground,the fictional idea that wind turbines actually accomplish something useful and that at least THEY are trying to do something about global warming, energy independence, etc. while YOU are in denial and whining about a bit of noise that is no louder than a refrigerator ---- then you have likely lost right off the bat.
Making it mostly about you makes it is all too easy for these promoters to paint us as NIMBY's and nincompoops.
They will come across as virtuous and wise, you as selfish and uninformed.
They want to change the world with their cutting edge technology, you are living in the past.
They care about our grandchildrens grandchildren, you are a crybaby because you can't stand paying a few more cents per KWH on your electric bill.
They are bold visionaries, you are the reason we're here in the first place.
Etc.
Who do you think is holding the stronger hand here?
But, suppose you turn this around and you first DEMAND that they prove their case: that they provide scientific proof that the technology actually works BEFORE you move on to catalogue all of the adverse consequences. You can do this by asking a few innocent questions:
* Please show me the independent, objective studies (using real-world data, not models) that show that wind energy actually is technically, economically and environmentally beneficial?
* Please explain to me how we're going to get electricity if these things only produce power when the wind blows, and not too slow, or too fast? What are we going to do if the wind only blows at night when we don't need electricity' but doesn't blow during the daytime in August when it's hot as hell where I live? Isn't a lot of that production worthless? Has anyone ever invented a practical, affordable method of storing electricity for future use?
* What do we do if we have three calm days in a row? Or a calm month? How do I watch the World Series? How do I use my computer?
* How do we manage the wildly fluctuating flow of electricity produced or not produced by the wind turbines? Isn't modern electricity essentially a river of current that needs to be predictably available to be useful, not a flood, but certainly more than a trickle and, heaven forbid, not a dry gulch? Isn't that sort of a problem; especially if the oft-stated goal of increasing alternative energy to 20% of our total output by 2020 is actually realized?
* What about the economics? The average residential US customer pays 10¢/KWH for electricity. In Denmark (where they have installed many more wind turbines) the average residential customer pays 35¢/KWH. How will paying this huge 350% increase be beneficial to citizens? How does this jive with the marketing PR that says wind energy is inexpensive?
* Will this wind project actually replace any conventional fossil-fuel electric plants? How many can we get rid of? Can we dispense with them entirely? Can we turn them on and off at will like dimming the lights to compensate for the unpredictable, skittering output from the wind mills? If we do a granular analysis of wind energy (not giving credit to useless gross production that is produced in the middle of the night, when nobody wants it, for example), what is the actual reduction in CO2 emissions that we can hope to achieve starting from the assumption that consumers and businesses don't consider availability of electricity?optional and aren't willing to put up with haphazard, unpredictable delivery of this miraculous form of energy that they take for granted?
* To replace a single medium sized conventional electric power plant we would only need several thousands of these 410 foot behemoths covering hundreds of square miles of territory. Exactly how many square miles of land will be needed to appreciably reduce coal use? Since they aren't making more land, how is this a "renewable" or "green" concept?
* My favorite: those who claim that "forward thinking environmentalists" should give their support to projects like the wind turbine proposal in Wellfleet for wind turbines in the middle of the national park.
* Take the opposite approach by saying: OK, Let's do it! Let's harness the wind resource within the park in the service of all humanity. But let's not stop with a few. Since this is such a great idea, let's REPLICATE this wonderful idea throughout the entire park system. If it's good enough for the National Seashore, it's good enough for the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Yellowstone too! We can't afford to let all of those other wind resources go to waste!
* Surely, this is not too great a price to pay. Why, if we were just forward thinking enough to agree to ruin thousands of pristine habitats similar to Wellfleet or to convert the entire State of Rhode Island into a wind farm, for example -- we could replace ONE small power plant, right? Well, no, we couldn't actually replace the power plant, since we would have to keep it running just in case the wind didn't blow (or blew at the wrong time). But who cares: at least we'd be doing something, and we?d surely all feel a lot better about ourselves! No one could say we didn't do our part.
Then you ask the proponents how many billions of dollars they want to spend on this adventure not for a single project, but the total figure.
Then you ask them where they're going to put them How do you put them in cities and towns without adversely affect citizens (e.g. by bombarding them with high intensity infrasound and flicker and constant mechanical noise)? How do you put them in conservation preserves, in the unsettled areas, without destroying habitat and driving off wildlife It really makes sense to "save the world" by destroying its inhabitants?
Then you ask them how many miles of transmission lines we'll have to construct at what cost, and what consequences will this have ? and how much power will we lose getting the electricity from the desolate, windy points (where the windmills live and the wildlife has fled) to the settled areas, hundreds of miles away?
Then you ask them who's going to pay for all of this? And how will that be accomplished? And what happens to all of these projects if the legislature (or the federal government; or the voters) have a change of heart or fall upon hard economic times and the river of government subsidies slows to a trickle?
Then you ask them why they keep talking about foreign oil and energy independence?when only about 1% of electricity is produced by burning oil and virtually all of our electricity currently comes from home-grown sources?
Then you ask them why shouldn't we be focusing some of those billions of dollars of investment on conservation; and on reducing vehicle emissions; and on switching over to natural gas (which is plentiful, relatively clean, and cheap) rather than splurging on all of those exotic, noisy mammoth wind mills?
Here is the bottom line.
Don't let these agenda promoters reduce the argument to whether or not we are willing to make the sacrifice in the service of a noble and necessary cause. (BTW by we they mean people they don't know and don't care about in communities with wind projects.) Tell them you think that the whole idea is nuts and make them prove it to you otherwise.
So what do they actually LIKE about the idea? Remind me again?
They are neither virtuous nor wise. The developers are mostly cynical profiteers out to make a buck, who pull the necessary strings and grease the necessary palms to win their approvals. They are opportunists who travel to financially stressed rural areas and entice unsuspecting farmers to sign their lease agreements which neuter their rights to their own land. Most of the others are ill-informed and idealistic and maybe a bit impulsive who have no idea what they're in for once the blades begin to spin. They reassure energy committees and the town fathers that everything will be fine. Talk is cheap!
It's no louder than a refrigerator! You won't even know it's there.? They are beautiful, shining symbols of our freedom and of our energy independence.
I'm not immune to the sufferings of others on the contrary, it breaks my heart and I am acutely aware of the many other adverse consequences that derive from the installation and the operation of these massive machines. But after being in the trenches on this issue I am quite sure that it is a mistake to shoulder the burden of pointing out all of the bad consequences of their "brilliant" idea instead of demanding to see the proof as to WHY are they recommending it in the first place?
What's so inspiring about a stupid idea that doesn't work AND one which devastates residents, divides communities and ruins habitat in the process?
***
____________________________________________________________________________
OLDER EDITORIALS 2010
Subject: How to shoot down windmill promoters
From: John Adams
Date: Tue, June 08, 2010 5:53 am
To: windtruth@goodhuewindtruth.com
How to shoot down windmill promoters
The following is from a newsletter put out by Greenies who OPPOSE wind power. The email followed a strategy discussion of how to defeat a bad wind energy bill (the disastrous Massachusetts Wind Energy Siting Bill).
What I have reproduced is fairly long but there is in fact more to it. If you ask to be put on the mailing list of John Droz jr. (aaprjohn@northnet.org) you can get the whole of it. Droz is a physicist and his site is here http://windpowerfacts.info/.
When I first got involved with the Wellfleet (Cape Cod, Massachusetts) situation in November, what I (and others in our community) knew about wind turbines would fit in a thimble. However, we knew enough to understand that erecting 400 foot, kinetic industrial towers in the middle of a national park was an insane idea. It seemed like such a sacrilege, that we barely knew where to start arguing with the proponents. What do you say to someone who is so seriously unhinged that he or she actually thinks that it's a great idea to industrialize a national park?
We rapidly grew to appreciate the human health hazards (e.g. acoustic effects), the profoundly detrimental environmental consequences (e.g. for wildlife), the impact on property values and, most tragically, the despair and ruin that they caused in the lives of decent, well-meaning people burdened to live in the shadow of these behemoths.
The knowledge that seemed least relevant to me because the other consequences were so dire was the efficacy of the technology: does wind energy actually work? Does it accomplish anything consequential? Those were way down on my list of concerns.
I knew enough to know that the proponents had no business erecting the damn things in the National Seashore. But others repeatedly said that it would be crazy and self-defeating to address the larger policy issue with any sort of traditional cost / benefit analysis. Are we getting our money's worth? Does the yield justify the investment? That sort of thing. And it was deemed especially foolhardy even to suggest to a bunch of Prius driving liberals in Wellfleet who are hell bent on saving the world that wind energy doesn?t actually work. Furthermore it seemed to me that we had plenty of ammunition in our battle to let sleeping dogs lie ? or to let the windmill supporters live with their illusions about the promise of wind energy ? as long as they could be convinced that putting them in the park was dangerous and outrageous. So I didn?t really do my homework and answer these questions for myself.
Now, however, after encountering the vapid, idiotic, pompous and patronizing delusional drivel of the Superintendent of the Cape Cod National Seashore (an unapologetic promoter of his grand vision of a string of token wind energy projects within the boundaries of the park you know who I mean as you have similar proponents in your community) -- over and over and over again ? I am completely of the opposite view.
I now see that his arguments are hollow (meaningless, bloated, irrelevant, not applicable and false) and his advocacy of industrializing the park is morally bankrupt. He keeps trying to inflate the shell of his argument (the national mission to promote alternative energy), but repeatedly ignores the substance of his core responsibility: to preserve and protect the natural landscape in its original condition for all future generations.?
Gradually, it has become apparent that not only is it maddening to listen to such bombast as if he had been granted a special dispensation from on high to pursue his brilliant plan, but it is downright dangerous to allow such contentions to linger unchallenged that this could EVER possibly be a good idea, or that these promoters have any clue what they are talking about.
We simply must call a spade a spade here in order to deny such impostors the opportunity to wrap themselves in the cloak of their presumed authority, or to "frame" the debate, as some of our representatives have attempted to do.
The central argument against wind turbines in this debate is simple and devastating: they don't work!
* They will not solve our energy issues (e.g. they don't reduce our dependence on imported oil).
*They will not solve our environmental problems (e.g. they don't consequentially reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions).
* They are not a substitute for conventional energy sources (e.g. because they are not reliable, have no Capacity Value, are much more expensive, etc.).
Why should citizens take this approach?
Why take this as the point of departure, instead of seeking to elicit sympathy for the very real suffering of folks in nearby communities subjected to wind development?
The reason is simple: if you allow the proponents to retain this high moral ground,the fictional idea that wind turbines actually accomplish something useful and that at least THEY are trying to do something about global warming, energy independence, etc. while YOU are in denial and whining about a bit of noise that is no louder than a refrigerator ---- then you have likely lost right off the bat.
Making it mostly about you makes it is all too easy for these promoters to paint us as NIMBY's and nincompoops.
They will come across as virtuous and wise, you as selfish and uninformed.
They want to change the world with their cutting edge technology, you are living in the past.
They care about our grandchildrens grandchildren, you are a crybaby because you can't stand paying a few more cents per KWH on your electric bill.
They are bold visionaries, you are the reason we're here in the first place.
Etc.
Who do you think is holding the stronger hand here?
But, suppose you turn this around and you first DEMAND that they prove their case: that they provide scientific proof that the technology actually works BEFORE you move on to catalogue all of the adverse consequences. You can do this by asking a few innocent questions:
* Please show me the independent, objective studies (using real-world data, not models) that show that wind energy actually is technically, economically and environmentally beneficial?
* Please explain to me how we're going to get electricity if these things only produce power when the wind blows, and not too slow, or too fast? What are we going to do if the wind only blows at night when we don't need electricity' but doesn't blow during the daytime in August when it's hot as hell where I live? Isn't a lot of that production worthless? Has anyone ever invented a practical, affordable method of storing electricity for future use?
* What do we do if we have three calm days in a row? Or a calm month? How do I watch the World Series? How do I use my computer?
* How do we manage the wildly fluctuating flow of electricity produced or not produced by the wind turbines? Isn't modern electricity essentially a river of current that needs to be predictably available to be useful, not a flood, but certainly more than a trickle and, heaven forbid, not a dry gulch? Isn't that sort of a problem; especially if the oft-stated goal of increasing alternative energy to 20% of our total output by 2020 is actually realized?
* What about the economics? The average residential US customer pays 10¢/KWH for electricity. In Denmark (where they have installed many more wind turbines) the average residential customer pays 35¢/KWH. How will paying this huge 350% increase be beneficial to citizens? How does this jive with the marketing PR that says wind energy is inexpensive?
* Will this wind project actually replace any conventional fossil-fuel electric plants? How many can we get rid of? Can we dispense with them entirely? Can we turn them on and off at will like dimming the lights to compensate for the unpredictable, skittering output from the wind mills? If we do a granular analysis of wind energy (not giving credit to useless gross production that is produced in the middle of the night, when nobody wants it, for example), what is the actual reduction in CO2 emissions that we can hope to achieve starting from the assumption that consumers and businesses don't consider availability of electricity?optional and aren't willing to put up with haphazard, unpredictable delivery of this miraculous form of energy that they take for granted?
* To replace a single medium sized conventional electric power plant we would only need several thousands of these 410 foot behemoths covering hundreds of square miles of territory. Exactly how many square miles of land will be needed to appreciably reduce coal use? Since they aren't making more land, how is this a "renewable" or "green" concept?
* My favorite: those who claim that "forward thinking environmentalists" should give their support to projects like the wind turbine proposal in Wellfleet for wind turbines in the middle of the national park.
* Take the opposite approach by saying: OK, Let's do it! Let's harness the wind resource within the park in the service of all humanity. But let's not stop with a few. Since this is such a great idea, let's REPLICATE this wonderful idea throughout the entire park system. If it's good enough for the National Seashore, it's good enough for the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Yellowstone too! We can't afford to let all of those other wind resources go to waste!
* Surely, this is not too great a price to pay. Why, if we were just forward thinking enough to agree to ruin thousands of pristine habitats similar to Wellfleet or to convert the entire State of Rhode Island into a wind farm, for example -- we could replace ONE small power plant, right? Well, no, we couldn't actually replace the power plant, since we would have to keep it running just in case the wind didn't blow (or blew at the wrong time). But who cares: at least we'd be doing something, and we?d surely all feel a lot better about ourselves! No one could say we didn't do our part.
Then you ask the proponents how many billions of dollars they want to spend on this adventure not for a single project, but the total figure.
Then you ask them where they're going to put them How do you put them in cities and towns without adversely affect citizens (e.g. by bombarding them with high intensity infrasound and flicker and constant mechanical noise)? How do you put them in conservation preserves, in the unsettled areas, without destroying habitat and driving off wildlife It really makes sense to "save the world" by destroying its inhabitants?
Then you ask them how many miles of transmission lines we'll have to construct at what cost, and what consequences will this have ? and how much power will we lose getting the electricity from the desolate, windy points (where the windmills live and the wildlife has fled) to the settled areas, hundreds of miles away?
Then you ask them who's going to pay for all of this? And how will that be accomplished? And what happens to all of these projects if the legislature (or the federal government; or the voters) have a change of heart or fall upon hard economic times and the river of government subsidies slows to a trickle?
Then you ask them why they keep talking about foreign oil and energy independence?when only about 1% of electricity is produced by burning oil and virtually all of our electricity currently comes from home-grown sources?
Then you ask them why shouldn't we be focusing some of those billions of dollars of investment on conservation; and on reducing vehicle emissions; and on switching over to natural gas (which is plentiful, relatively clean, and cheap) rather than splurging on all of those exotic, noisy mammoth wind mills?
Here is the bottom line.
Don't let these agenda promoters reduce the argument to whether or not we are willing to make the sacrifice in the service of a noble and necessary cause. (BTW by we they mean people they don't know and don't care about in communities with wind projects.) Tell them you think that the whole idea is nuts and make them prove it to you otherwise.
So what do they actually LIKE about the idea? Remind me again?
They are neither virtuous nor wise. The developers are mostly cynical profiteers out to make a buck, who pull the necessary strings and grease the necessary palms to win their approvals. They are opportunists who travel to financially stressed rural areas and entice unsuspecting farmers to sign their lease agreements which neuter their rights to their own land. Most of the others are ill-informed and idealistic and maybe a bit impulsive who have no idea what they're in for once the blades begin to spin. They reassure energy committees and the town fathers that everything will be fine. Talk is cheap!
It's no louder than a refrigerator! You won't even know it's there.? They are beautiful, shining symbols of our freedom and of our energy independence.
I'm not immune to the sufferings of others on the contrary, it breaks my heart and I am acutely aware of the many other adverse consequences that derive from the installation and the operation of these massive machines. But after being in the trenches on this issue I am quite sure that it is a mistake to shoulder the burden of pointing out all of the bad consequences of their "brilliant" idea instead of demanding to see the proof as to WHY are they recommending it in the first place?
What's so inspiring about a stupid idea that doesn't work AND one which devastates residents, divides communities and ruins habitat in the process?
***
5/14/10
The good intentions of Minnesota legislators and Governor Tim Pawlenty to increase the use of renewable energy sources was transformed by a group of special interest lobbyists into a massive wealth transfer for T. Boone Pickens and other large out-of-state corporations.
In 2006 the Governor announced the, “The Next Generation Energy Initiative.” February of 2007 the mandate passed and in 2009 Mr. Pickens formed AWA Goodhue and hired the law firm of Fredrikson & Byron to represent his effort to build a wind farm in Goodhue County. The description found on the Fredrikson & Byron website shows quite clearly he made the right choice:
Savvy business leaders know that successful interaction with the government is vital to their organizations’ business strategies. Fredrikson & Byron’s professionals understand how legislative decisions impact industries and are ready to help organizations develop an effective response plan. Some organizations wish to affect decisions before they are made. For these businesses, an active approach is necessary and our team’s solid relationships with key decision-makers is a necessary part of the plan for success.
Fredrikson & Byron immediately put Christina Brusven on the job:
Christy’s practice focuses on regulatory, renewable energy and wind development matters. She advises developers on the acquisition, development, financing, and permitting of wind and biomass projects. She also advises clients on regulatory matters involving the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
Prior to joining the firm, Christy worked in the Energy Division at the Minnesota Department of Commerce as Special Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, [Edward Garvey].
Christy was instrumental [with Edward Garvey] in drafting and negotiating…the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, a bill signed by Governor Tim Pawlenty in May 2007. Christy also participated in strategic planning at the Department and advised the Deputy Commissioner on matters involving energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other regulatory matters.
Christina’s former boss and co-author of the renewable energy law, Edward Garvey, is a principal at Weber Johnson. Fredrikson & Byron are on the Weber Johnson client list. I guess Mr. Johnson was selectively introducing facts to persuade people to believe his position in his May 5, 2010 letter in the Rochester Post Bulletin. It may be technically true that, “Weber Johnson Public Affairs does…not and have not ever represented the Goodhue Wind Project.” I don’t see much difference.
Bob Rosenquist
Mazeppa, MN
****
Dear William,
Thank you for responding. I hope this meeting you are referring to, is not the same as our public hearing? If so, then I feel this will be a waste of our time. I’ve attended the Public Hearing in Albert Lea for the Freeborn project with Wisconsin Power and Light. That in my opinion was a “waste” of time. Just a way for the PUC to appease the people of the community and make they feel they have a voice, when in reality they don’t. It was hard to tell who worked for the State or who Worked for the Wind Developer!
Please consider an “open discussion” meeting with Senators and landowners in this area. Like a town home meeting. Most of the public meetings have not been well advertised or have included only the landowners who have “signed” into the project with the wind Developers. If you are serious about holding a meeting, it will have to happen soon! The project is being pushed through the PUC very fast and the developer is stating they are to break ground in August to September.
We have many concerns about this project and how it will affect our animals, wildlife, health, property and human rights. There are more against than for this project. The Wind Developer has exaggerated the number of project participants. The claim there is approximately 215 participants, which in reality, they are counting every member of the participants family that is over 18 years of age. It really comes down to around 45-50 parcels of land, many are small parcels. Some are absentee land owners. Many of the farmers who run large parcels of land are not in favor of this project. They feel this in Agriculture Land and turbines are an industrial product. It is not a part of land conservation, in fact is the opposite.
Goodhue County has some of the richest soil in the US. We take pride in being 4th generation farmers. The family farmer knows how to care for the land, community, and animals. There are eagles and other wildlife that live in this area. We were told the Wind Developer was able to “negotiate” the terms of the environmental study with the DNR. Also, NO post study! We don’t understand this. We have to abide by the DNR rules, why don’t they?
We are being told, we have NO choice. The project will go in, and we will have to live with it. This I feel, is a violation of my basic human right! What happened to the “majority rule”? What happened to the rights of the people, politics trump human rights? That appears to be the case here. We really are too populated for this to safely work. Wind Energy just does not “cut the mustard”. It cannot sustain itself without our tax dollars thrown at it to work. That is a waste of the people’s hard earned money.
We’re being told Windustry will bring jobs Minnesota needs. This project is not going to bring “hard” jobs to this community. The jobs they opened up are “soft” jobs. Added duties to people who already have jobs. The developer brings in their own trained crew and materials. The developer for AWA Goodhue Wind, it appears the road of profit, will lead to T. Boone Pickens and Texas. How does Minnesota gain from that?
I believe if something has the potential to cause a negative impact to humans, environment and animals, then it truly is not “Green”. I urge our politicians who claim Wind Energy is going to be good for Minnesotans (because they are for the people) to take the time and visit those who live with wind turbines. Don’t visit with those who “make” the money from the project, but those who can no longer live in their home or have to live in the basement because the noise it to loud in the upstairs of their home or the farmer whose milk production has dropped due to ground voltage. Please talk to these people! Go to Dexter and knock on doors! Get to know the people in those communities and truly find out what happened to that community!
Please hear us! Our wonderful community has been damaged, torn apart. Relationships lost forever. If we could “move the farm”, we would. We fear for our livelihood and our farming business as well as our life of serenity!
Thank you,
Melody Ryan
***
From: William Seuffert [mailto:William.Seuffert@senate.mn]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:45 PM
To: Melody Ryan
Subject: Re: Goodhue Wind Project
Dear Melody-
My apologies for not replying sooner. Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding wind development in your community. Senator Prettner Solon co-Chairs the Legislative Energy Commission. We are tentatively planning to have a meeting in southeastern Minnesota later this summer to hear from landowners regarding wind development. Once we set a date, we will send out notice online. That would be a good opportunity for you to express your concerns on these issues to legislators who sit on the Commission.
Will
William Seuffert
Committee Administrator
Senate Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications Committee
Office of State Senator Yvonne Prettner Solon
G-9 State Capitol
75 Rev. Dr. MLK Jr. Blvd.
St Paul, MN 55155-1606
(651) 296-7593 (office)
(651) 225-7594 (fax)
william.seuffert@senate.mn
***
5/26/10
Goodhue County Commissioners
Goodhue County Planning and Zoning,
As Goodhue County officials and residents, I would like you to consider our homes and families in your decisions regarding commercial wind development in our county. If planned development goes through as developers and persons writing mandates would like to happen. Goodhue County and much of the state of Minnesota will be covered with turbines and power lines. I would agree that the present grid needs updating but the reason should not be to accommodate commercial wind development. Our utility company is telling us usage is down and with continued emphasis on energy efficiency it will continue to come down.
Our utility company is at this time forced to buy renewable energy at the highest rate. If all renewable energy worked at nameplate capacity we would already be near the 20x20 mandate. Once we do reach that mandate utilities will not be willing to purchase excess power at these high rates. Wind energy even being called green is questionable at best when you count the true costs. Foreign oil is not at the bottom of this nor will we stop buying oil because of wind energy. Foreigners may more likely own a part of these projects!
With the monstrous footprint needed for wind development we are covering the rural landscape at an alarming rate. Home values will drop and that means fewer tax dollars to the counties. Building sites are gone and no new tax dollars come in. Goodhue county has a fairly large population density compared to areas farther south and west. That is because of the closeness to Rochester and the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis and their suburbs. But aside from that is the beauty of this area. we will not be a desirable place to live any longer if turbines are thrown in with homes. People will leave. I already have neighbors selling.(If they can).
This counties population is mostly non farmers. They are the biggest tax payers. They need to be considered when we look at property values and health. There is plenty of evidence out there supporting the problems associated with large wind turbines. They are real studies done by educated people. Noise problems, flicker and flashing lights at night do cause problems.
Wind developers have paid persons to do what studies they want. When they want, and only release what they want , when in their favor as they see it. They have attempted to downplay any information those in opposition would present. As I recall tobacco companies did the same thing!
I would urge you to search your hearts and do your duty to work for the people of Goodhue County. Do you really believe everything some stranger representing big business, carrying a briefcase, and sporting some degree tells you? Yes, some people locally will profit but, at what expense to everyone else?
If so many are unhappy with this plan for renewable energy, don't you think there is something wrong? I believe we could take on the permitting of projects. The PUC has experts available and a fee should cover any expenses. That includes hiring persons to handle those things.
Half mile setbacks from non participating land owner homes is a reasonable expectation to ensure the health and safety of Goodhue county residents and preserve values of property. Anything less leaves the door open for future lawsuits.
None of the persons who will make the most money off these projects live here. Nor will they ever live here. Goodhue County is the home of the people you represent. In considering the future remember these contracts are for 57 years. Do you want your name on this?
Thank You,
Rochelle Nygaard
Goodhue
***
4/25/10
" In The Near Future This Could Be Goodhue County" (For Sale Signs Popping Up Now)
Subject: Goodhue county could see Mass Exoduses from the southern part of the County!
Residents in the footprint of the proposed wind farms selling homes and fleeing. Goodhue County is now to become an undesirable place to live. The word is, "Get Out While You Can!!!"
Home values will plummet. Electric rates will rise. With the proposed 600 plus wind turbines it will become a deserted area like Dexter MN. Add the CapX2020 power line and it will become a Pinball machine. Kind of like living at the Airport. Lights flashing through the night and no view of the stars for at least 57 years. (That is the length of the contracts). Add in the risk of the radar clutter and the Prairie Island Nuclear Plant Security and Mayo Helicopters not landing within 5 miles of a turbine, It could also becomes a dangerous place to live!
National Security may not be guaranteed. However all danger could be averted if Goodhue County Commissioners and Planning and Zoning Officials chose to do the correct thing, To Protect the Health and Welfare of the Citizens of Goodhue County! Take on the permiting of all wind projects. Keep our county in control. 1/2 mile setbacks are a must from non participating land owner homes!
Rochelle Nygaard
Goodhue
***
This is a letter Rick Conrad wrote to the energy committee, which he directed to Senator Solon who is now running for Lt.Govenor. Many feel she to blame for much of the bad energy policy and our dependence on the Utilites for our electricity. Senator Solon is responsible for all of Minnesota's current bad energy policies including the weaking of C-BED. Rick feels no one should ever vote for her again until she changes her ways. Se never responed back to his letter.
The problems with Industrial Wind
Industrial Wind will do little or nothing to reduce carbon emissions or our reliance on conventional fuels. The wind cannot be trusted to blow on demand. While there is plenty of energy in the wind, unless you can store it until needed you get little net energy gain from erecting industrial size turbines. Nameplate megawatt sizes on turbines reflect their maximum instantaneous generating capacity they actually only generate about a third of the nameplate value and then only when the wind blows. One megawatt of installed industrial wind will yield about a third of megawatt of electricity and only if you have a way store the electric and release it during demand conditions. Without the capability to store the electricity you get even less net gain possibly even no net gain.
The BIG problem
The big problem with industrial wind is the turbines are too large, too loud and placed too close to the homes of citizens by wind developers seeking to maximize their profits which come mostly from incentives paid out of our tax dollars. Peoples main objections to industrial wind could be eliminated by reasonable set backs or much more stringent siting and noise requirements. The very idea that a 50 db sound limit should be acceptable to me when I currently enjoy a background sound level that is much lower, is a personal insult to myself and most other rural residents. CBED was meant to address many of the siting problems. It doesn’t because local ownership is not required and enforced. Working with only a few local people who own large tracts of land wind developers are taking advantage all the other people that live in our community. A very large percentage of the people living in this area reside on small acre parcels and pay very high property taxes anything that adversely affects their property values will eventual affect the entire County. We are not fighting wind energy development. We are fighting to protect our homes and our families. We must have safe setbacks of at least the .6 mile recommended by many sources including the Minnesota Health Department.
Other Alternatives
Solar projects would be safer, quieter, and be a better match to needs. While a 79 Megawatt wind energy project requires control and wind rights to ten thousand acres, a similar size solar energy project could be done on as little as ten to twenty acres. The real opportunity for alternative energy for the future and broader based economic development is solar cell roofing materials which even people living in town could use to lower their net energy demand on the grid or even sell excess home owner generated electricity to the grid. I see great hope for wind energy in the future, but done with smaller more durable and less intrusive technology. While larger turbines seem to offer greater performance efficiencies the turbines are also operating near the outside performance envelope of the materials used to construct them, this means that they will be less sustainable, require more maintenance, and pose greater risks of accidents to anyone living close to them.
The REAL problem
Anyone armed with a sharp pencil and a list of facts about wind energy conversion can easily show it just does not make economic sense. Why are so many wind developers trying to do projects in Goodhue County? The answer is politics and energy policy. The United States government and the Minnesota government both have wisely realized that we must plan for a cleaner and more reliable energy future. Minnesota has placed goals on energy production requiring that utilities get 25 per cent of the electricity that they sell from renewable sources by the year 2025. They also placed an even higher requirement on any utility that operates a nuclear power plant (Xcel Energy Prairie Island) of getting 30 per cent of their electricity from alternative sources. Faced with having to meet these goals to continue operating and not wanting to deal with thousands or tens of thousands of people hooking up small net metered generation systems all over the State; Utilities have chosen to promote utility scale wind generation or industrial wind. Even though it costs the utility more to for the wind generated electricity the government incentives will help them to make up the difference in cost or they will raise their rates or both. Industrial Wind allows the utilities to maintain control of electricity production and control of electricity prices.
Rick Conrad, 25 Jan 2010
P.S. If your primary mission as a Judge is to dispense justice, I do not see how you can allow Goodhue Wind AWA to move forward this year. If their project is truly justifiable, it will even more justifiable next year.
***
____________________________________________________________________________
EDITORIALS & COMMENTS FROM 2009
Solar is better than wind energy
Rick Conrad, Goodhue - 12/19/2009
To the Editor:
Wind energy NIMBYism. It really is a case of not in my back yard. The New Ulm, Minn., project is a prime example. There are many just as suitable locations closer to the city of New Ulm that could host their turbines. Why did they choose to build them out of sight in another county?
The 25 percent renewable energy by 2025 never specified that it be with industrial wind projects. Wind is not even the best choice to use. The wind energy available occurs mainly at night. Solar is a much better match to the needs for increased peak power. Peak power demands occur mainly in the summer during daylight hours, which is when the least amount of wind energy is available.
Minnesota CBED (community-based energy development) is a joke. The definition of local investment is any investor from Minnesota. All or at least most of the money for the projects in Goodhue will come from the Twin Cities. CBED in no way guarantees Goodhue residents any control over these “local” projects. A dozen or a couple dozen local people may benefit financially from the Goodhue Wind projects. Many hundreds will live within the .6 mile “hazard” zone. The real impact of these projects could extend several miles out from project boundaries.
Rick Conrad Goodhue
***
11/18/2009
Goodhue Wind Amended Site Application MPUC Docket Number IP670/WS-08-1233 October 19,2009 states the applicant (Goodhue Winds) had installed a temporary meteorological (MET) tower February 3,2009 and is collecting “favorable” wind resources from the preliminary data they have gathered but does not disclose this data in the permit.
This 60 meter MET tower was constructed on parcel number 25.013.0302 in the A-1 Agricultural Protection District of Belle Creek Township after receiving a Conditional Use Permit from Goodhue County to collect wind data for the original proposed development in Goodhue and Belle Creek Townships.
The applicant has instead chosen to offer modeled wind data collected from the 70 meter DOC Met tower located in Clarks Grove Mn which is approximately 80 miles from the center of the modified wind project in Goodhue County. The reliability of this data appears questionable in that Clarks Grove had available data from June 1996-July 2007 but the applicant was only able to use data from June 1996 to March 2002 due to a sensor “malfunction” at that met tower.
In section 2.2.6 of Extreme Wind Conditions and in section 2.3 Other Meteorological Conditions the applicant provides historical weather data of the project area opting to use the weather periods of January 1950 to June 2008. On July 10,2008 Goodhue County, including areas of the proposed wind farm and far reaching areas of south eastern Minnesota experienced “extreme” weather including an EF0 tornado (65-85 mph wind speeds) 3 miles east of Vasa, straight line winds estimated at speeds of 75 mph and greater which created large areas of damage to structures and landscapes. Large hail was also experienced in this storm. This information has been on record with the National Weather Service Weather Service Forecast Office (NOAA) since July 14, 2008.
Why would the applicant fail to disclose such a significant weather occurrence in their application?
Mary Brickzin-gale
***
Concerned residents have relentlessly questioned how far wind turbines should be set back from other structures in rural Goodhue County. Commissioners learned Tuesday that addressing those concerns locally regarding two proposed wind farms could be difficult. To influence the state to impose stricter setbacks on wind farms over 25 megawatts - projects proposed in rural Goodhue are 78 and 50 megawatts - the county would need to take on permitting and regulatory responsibility for more medium-scale projects.
That's according to a legal interpretation from County Attorney Stephen Betcher of new legislation. "You would be responsible for the boots on the ground aspects of the process," Betcher said. The county already regulates construction of wind energy conversion systems up to 5 megawatts. Larger projects are passed on to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
Betcher said state law now allows counties to step in and regulate wind farms between 5 and 25 megawatts as well with PUC's help. In doing so, commissioners could impose stricter standards - including for setbacks - than the state currently does on mid-range and larger projects. Those stricter standards must then be considered by the PUC when issuing permits for large wind farms like those proposed by Goodhue Wind and Geronimo Wind. No other Minnesota counties have taken advantage of the new legislation that appears to grant counties more power. "That process at this time is untested," Betcher said. "This is a very important issue to be discussed and the board is taking it very seriously."
More than 40 residents packed the County Board room Tuesday morning for the informational meeting. Several landowners have started a Web site with wind energy information, news and studies. The group has also held several community meetings advocating what they consider responsible development of wind energy.
"I feel Goodhue County is some of the richest and most productive land in the world," said Steve Growth, a rural Goodhue County landowner and a member of the concerned citizens group, told commissioners.
Dan Schleck, a Twin Cities environmental lawyer representing the group, disagreed with Betcher's legal interpretation. He said the law allows counties to impose stricter rules on large wind farms without permitting and regulating smaller projects. "You folks have a lot more power than you think you do," Schleck said.
Betcher said his legal advice was based on the PUC's interpretation of the law. Schleck suggested the county impose a moratorium on wind farms so commissioners and staff have more time to research the issue and others, like how wind farms affect property values and tax revenues. "I think you have a very tough decision here," Schleck said.
***
6/28/2009
“Facts are meaningless, they can be used to prove anything”- Homer Simpson
This letter is in response to the article “Mistakes at Wisconsin wind farm haunt local wind projects”. I would like to take this time to introduce myself and give you a brief background of myself so you know who you are reading about. My name is Brian Loos and I live in Goodhue Township I have a Bachelor of Science Degree from Minnesota State University Mankato in Parks and Recreation with an emphasis in resource Management. Some of the course that I participated in was, Wildlife as a rec resource, Wildlife Management, Wetlands Management, along with other Earth sciences and Biology classes. I am deeply offended that the columnist who wrote the article would suggest that we as a group of concerned citizens would base our concerns solely on one Industrial Wind Turbine project. I personally researched many Industrial Wind Turbine Projects around the country and around the world. Case in point, Blair County Pennsylvania (NBC News 6) , Cohocton NY (Atlanta NY- Evening Tribune), Janesville WI (Janesville Gazette), Penghu archipelago Taiwan (The Telegraph-UK), Huron County (News 5) watch the video at http://www.wnem.com/video/19798049, these are just a few of the Industrial Wind Turbine projects I have researched. Every project has the same complaints noise, vibration, shadow flicker, and sleep problems. How will this project be any different?
According to the article it was reported that on June 16th there was a wind meeting put on by National Wind, yet I wasn’t invited nor were the majority of us that live in Goodhue and Belle creek Townships. This is just another example of how under handed and secretive these Wind Turbine companies are.
“If those who are opposed could be assured that no one’s life would be adversely affected by the proposed wind projects” “to get assurances-perhaps even written- that the promises made to create healthy, environmentally friendly wind projects do occur.” – Sandy Hadler Zumbrota News Record. Don’t guarantees make us feel all warm and good inside the truth of the matter is if the Industrial Wind Turbine Companies were to put Property Value assurances or guarantees into writing they would be leaving the door open for law suits, the Wind Companies are smarter than that and you had better believe the Wind Companies have their attorneys working hard so as not to lose a law suit, that could cost the Wind Companies Millions.
On May 19th at the Goodhue School there was an open public meeting to discuss the wind issue and both Wind Companies were represented. I asked one question in the open forum and it was an easy Yes or No question, I asked if the Wind companies were so sure that may property value would not go down would they purchase my property for a fair market value. The representative from the Wind company said “Well I am trying to sell my house” the he proceeded to talk around the issue with back talk and meaningless dribble; I never did get a yes or no answer.
“The Financial benefits to local people would be awesome”–Sandy Hadler Zumbrota News Record. That statement pretty much sums it up it, it’s all about the money and nothing else, that’s the second time the columnist has mentioned money in her articles wonder where her priorities are? So screw your neighbors, friends and family as long as you get paid! Well I for one put people’s health and quality of life before the all mighty dollar.
Let me ask you this when your child went in the ditch in the middle of January with sub zero temperatures did the Wind companies allow your child into their homes to warm up and use the phone, No, I did, your neighbor. Have the Wind companies ever helped you heard your cattle back home at all hours of the night and morning, No, I did. Who do you ask to watch over your livestock and home place in the event of a family emergency? The Wind Companies? No, it’s me your neighbor, your friend!
So who are you go going to believe, a company by their own admission is a for profit company and trying everything they can to sell you a product, or your neighbor who you have known for years and who truly cares about you and your family.
“The local area would be contributing to green energy!”-Sandy Hadler Zumbrota News Record
According to the Wikipedia encyclopedia Green Energy is defined as follows: Green energy is the term used to describe sources of energy that are considered to be environmentally friendly and non-polluting, such as geothermal, wind, solar, and Hydro. Sometimes nuclear power is also considered a green energy source. Green energy sources often considered “green” because they are perceived to lower carbon emissions and create less pollution. That is a funny word perceived, don’t you think?
Nowhere in that definition does it state that “Green Energy” should destroy valuable crop land forever by pouring 300 tons of concrete into a hole. Nor does it state that huge specialized tractor trailers, earth movers, and cranes be used to put in these 400 foot Industrial Wind Turbines. I wonder what kind of a carbon foot print these huge pieces of equipment leave? I wonder if these pieces of equipment burn gas or diesel? If I haven’t raised enough questions for you about the viability of Industrial Wind Turbines, here are a few facts from the May 22, 2009 study from the Minnesota Department of Health.
On page 6 of the study the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC 2007) states the NRC concludes that noise produced by wind turbines is generally not a major concern beyond a half mile. I wonder why the Wind Turbine companies don’t follow the recommendations of the Minnesota Department of Health? Maybe they just don’t care. I would feel better if the Wind companies took a forward thinking approach to this and would put in writing that the Turbines would be placed a half mile from any occupied dwelling.
On page 14 of the MDH study in section 4 titled Wind farm noise it states, The noise from multiple turbines similarly distant from a residence can be noticeably louder than a lone Turbine simply through the addition of multiple noise sources. I wonder what the 90 Turbines the two wind companies want to erect will sound like when they are turning at the same time . Especially if the Wind Turbine noise is between 45 to 50 dB’s. On page 18 of the MDH study it states that at greater than 45dB more respondents reported sleep interruption. Last time I checked sleep was good thing.
Page 14 of the study addresses shadow flicker. Modeling conducted by the Minnesota Department of Health suggests that a receptor 300 meters perpendicular to, and in the shadow of the blades of a Wind Turbine, can be in the shadow flicker of the rotating blade for almost 1.5 hours a day. At this distance a blade may completely obscure the sun each time it passes between the receptor and the sun. With current wind turbine designs, flicker should not be an issue at distances over 10 rotational diameters (~1000 meters or 1 Km (.06mi) for most current Wind Turbines). I was curious how far .6 miles was so I looked it, .6 miles = 3168 feet.
According to the columnist’s article “National Wind places turbines at a minimum of 1,500 feet from residences”- Sandy Hadler Zumbrota News record. If the MDH recommends 3,168 feet from an occupied dwelling then why would the Wind companies only place them at 1,500 feet?
In summation as Homer Simpson said “Facts are meaningless they can be used to prove anything”. The facts are out there you just have to look, I hope this has helped potential Turbine hosts become more informed. The group of concerned citizens in Goodhue Township and Belle Creek Township are not against wind energy by any means we would just like to see a proper setback of a ½ mile from any occupied dwelling. So I ask the Wind Turbine companies this is it to much ask to have a ½ mile set back to insure the safety, security ,piece of mind, and quality life we all so richly and greatly enjoy? We have offered up a compromise which will benefit the Turbine hosts, the Turbine companies, all you have invested money in the project, along with all property owners who will affected by this wind project. “Money can’t buy happiness”.
Thank you for your time and thank you to the majority of landowners in Belle Creek and Goodhue Townships who have signed our pet ion for proper Wind Turbine setbacks. If you have not signed the pet ion and would like to please contact me at loosbrian@hotmail.com and we will surly get you a copy.
Respectfully Yours,
Brian Loos
Goodhue Township
***
June 26, 2009
Goodhue, MN 55027
Zumbrota News Record
Editorial Comments:
‘Local Wind Projects Haunted’ Response
Dear Editor,
In response to the article in your paper about mistakes made at a Wisconsin wind project, I do agree with the writer that “this poorly planned project has made current developers defensive about their projects.” There are many parts of the country, where residents are discovering that wind projects are poorly planned and are leaving health and safety problems in their wake. Other consequent problems are devalued property values, road damages, communication signal issues, and more. Yes, due to complex issues being ignored, poor projects have and are being built in our country. Projects are going up at a rapid speed, without properly addressing all the issues.
I don’t think anyone objects to renewable energy. What is objectionable are the problems caused by any form of energy production. Have these problems been anticipated, worked on, and weighed out before placing industrial wind projects amongst citizens’ homes and farms? As we research wind power, we find that the problems are repeating themselves, yet regulations are not changing to protect citizens. The allure of money and industry assurances are perhaps contributing to this. In other locations in our country and around the world, regulated distances of turbines from homes are as far as one and two miles, and more.
In light of the Minnesota Department of Health Report on the “Public Impacts of Wind Turbines” released 5/22/09, law makers need to reevaluate and redraft regulations. The Minnesota statute allows for county governments to examine regulations. The Minnesota Health Report states a very different distance from current law for reducing problems for our citizens. This report is easily found on line, and if you don’t have time to read through the approximate 30 page report, there are many summaries to be found.
At earlier meetings in Goodhue, held by the wind companies, my neighbor who attended, told me that the companies mentioned this report and how they were anxiously waiting for it. They expected the state to have a positive report. The Health report did not turn out the way the wind companies wanted. I expect they will downplay the report.
Will the county, the state, and the wind companies vouch for citizens’ health, safety, and also, not mentioned in the article, property values, road damages, communication signals, and more? Is potential revenue being put ahead of citizen health and safety? The topic of energy is large and complex. In studying hard the last six months or so, we have expanded our look at high voltage transmission as part of the development of wind, eminent domain issues, and more health and safety information. Everyone can educate themselves, everyone can practice conservation a great deal more, and together lay out a thoughtful, regulated plan that all citizens can live with, so we are not “haunted by mistakes.”
Sincerely,
Marie McNamara
***
Compromised Group?
At what point did concerned citizens become the compromised group? Aren't the comprised people the ones who have surrendered their families and their community to the whims of the industrial wind energy companies?
I like money, I like it a lot! The problem I have with the big wind companies is that if they are given free rein to do as they please, they will site their 400 hundred foot plus turbines with one single goal; that is to make as much money as they can for themselves. They won't care how that will affect me, or you, or your families. They won't respect the fact I was here first.
I am not used to hearing a refrigerator running when I sit in my yard. Right now I can hear things like worms slurping thru the soil after a rain shower; or the hum of a humming bird checking the flowers on my arbor for food. I daily hear all the little sounds that everyone who lives in country now takes for granted. Sure, times are hard and a farmer has got to do whatever it takes to make ends meet. If you feel you are getting a good deal from one of these industrial wind companies and you need the money, then sign; BUT at least be in favor of proper setbacks. Is it really too much to ask of your neighbors that they don't do anything to hurt you?
Proper setbacks would only require that the wind energy companies not site wind turbines where the shadow of turbine falls on your neighbor’s house and that any sound generated by the turbine not be loud enough to be heard in your neighbor’s yard. If the turbines are really as quiet as they claim, what possible problem could anyone have with simple requirements like that?
Read my wind energy blog at areavoices.com and go to www.Goodhuewindtruth.com to see if you want to help your friends and neighbors; not hurt them.
Rick Conrad
8/4/09
***
Wind concerns for Goodhue
To the editor:
My family and I live within the proposed footprint of the wind farms near Goodhue. I refuse to be labeled as "anti-wind." I recognize the need to implement renewable sources of energy to save our environment and our planet. As a former engineer, I can see that wind energy is probably the easiest current technology we have to harness nature's energy. As a Minnesotan, I can understand that the path to achieving our state's lofty goal of having 25% of our energy come from renewable sources by 2025 is probably wind energy. As the daughter of a southwestern MN farmer, I can appreciate the financial help that hosting a wind turbine(s) on your land would offer for cash-strapped landowners/farmers. There's no need to accuse me of being "anti-wind."
Current state regulations say wind turbines could be as close as 750 ft. from homes. As I investigate this topic, I'm finding health and wealth to be my biggest concerns.
Health: There are health reports from European doctors (Drs. Amanda Harry, Christopher Hanning, G.P. van den Berg, etc.) and American doctors (Drs. Nina Pierpont, Michael Nissenbaum) indicating that the low frequency noise component generated by wind turbines can cause symptoms - such as sleep disturbances, headaches, vertigo to name a few - in people living close to a wind turbine.
Pierpont has dubbed the constellation of symptoms "Wind Turbine Syndrome" and she recommends a minimum 1.25 mile setback between homes and turbines. A far cry from 750 ft. A larger study is needed to determine how many are affected and at what distances, but how will we get honest data when wind developers won't allow landowners who have signed on to say anything negative about wind? As a sidenote, I find it interesting that the Army Field Manual 2 22.3 lists sleep deprivation as an unacceptable means to interrogate prisoners (decided on by Obama's administration this past January), but it's currently perfectly acceptable to allow persons living next to wind turbines to suffer chronic sleep deprivation. POWs in this country are getting more respect than citizens.
Wealth: Then, there's the issue of property valuations. A Canadian realtor, Chris Luxemberger, saw a $48,000 average drop in price for homes in the $300,000 range. And the number of homes that could not be sold jumped from 3% (the local norm) to 11%. No buyer at any price. He was considering 600 Canadian properties within 3.6 miles of a wind turbine. You don't have to have one 750 ft from you to see your property's value decline.
In Texas, losses were expressed in percentages. Expect about 25% on average (varied from 15-45%) less for your home if you find a buyer. Can you afford that? Not many can. Which is why people who suffer from symptoms find themselves stuck where they are. For some, eventual home abandonment and financial ruin will result. Developers deny home values are affected. Yet as of June 2009, wind developers in Dufferin County in Ontario have spent 1.75 million dollars clandestinely buying homes of people complaining of health effects. In exchange for the buyout, homeowners are having to sign nondisclosure statements.
So you don't live near Goodhue, you say? How does this affect you? Let me paint a picture for you called "How to Determine Where to Build a Wind Farm."
First, you must be able to harvest the wind. In Minnesota, the regions having favorable wind conditions are limited to the western edge of the state, the southwestern corner, and the southeastern corner. Second, you must be able to transmit the energy generated. Remember hearing about CapX2020, the energy corridor proposed along highway 52? Its construction would make all southeastern communities close to 52 a PERFECT location for a wind farm. Minimal distance to hook up to transmission lines means maximizing profits for wind developers.
Third, there must be a demand for the product (electricity). Minnesota has a long way to go to reach their goal of 25% of their energy coming from renewable sources. MANY more wind farms will need to go up. Where does that leave you, citizens of southeastern Minnesota?
The more you learn now, the better prepared you'll be when the wind developer comes to your community wanting to erect a wind farm. Have concerns? Talk to your county commissioners and elected officials. Write to the Public Utilities Commission, Attn. Burl W. Haar Executive Secretary, Docket Number E-999/CI-09-845, 121 7th Place E. Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101-2147 before the comment period on health effects from wind turbines ends on September 16.
All contact information can be found at www.goodhuewindtruth.com. For more information on my facts, check out these websites: www.windaction.org, www.windturbinesyndrome.com.
Jean Schulte
Concerned Resident Near Goodhue
8/28/09
***
Response to Columnist’s Wind Power Article
After reading a columnist's response to 'A Farmer's Regrets' in the News Record on May 6th, I felt the need to express some opposing local opinions that are based on facts. There are multiple concerning points in the article and with industrial wind power. Just because some very real health and safety risks associated with the industrial wind power were not mentioned in one specific article, by no means, justifies the assumption that they are not valid. Look at the facts. Look at all of the issues people all over the country are forced to struggle with daily due to improper siting of wind turbines. Concerns such as noise, sleep deprivation, flicker and ice throw are valid issues that are publicized in many articles from all over Wisconsin as well as all over the country.
The complete disregard for family, friends, neighbors and community is very concerning. There is no community in Community Based Energy Development. The future of the peaceful enjoyment of our homes is being determined behind closed doors in meetings with deceiving wind developers and trusting landowners. I would like to encourage all landowners to meet with their neighbors face to face to understand concerns and opinions prior to selling their wind rights. This is a major decision that has ripped apart communities all over the country. Let’s not let this trend, which has already started, continue in Goodhue County.
While I agree that society must conserve and continue to research and promote alternative power sources, I do not agree that improperly sited industrial wind turbines are a valid alternative. The free reign of anything deemed “green” is ridiculous. Anyone who questions whether wind is our best alternative is considered to not care about the environment. The mentality of not basing decisions on the facts plagues society. Questioning the feasibility of industrial wind ultimately results in supporters playing the “green” card and making some worthless comparison to a refrigerator. I have never seen a 400’ tall refrigerator and they typically are not used as headboards.
Per a recent article in the Financial Post and data from a 2008 report from the US Energy Information Administration, “on a one dollar per megawatt basis, taxpayers subsidize wind at $23.34 compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at $0.25; coal at $0.44; hydro at $0.67; and nuclear at $1.59. According to the Wall Street Journal, “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.” Under current regulation and government it costs tax payers between $69 and $137 per ton of emissions avoided by alternative power. Under a free market with a cap and trade type of system or a carbon tax this would only cost $15 per ton.” Is an alternative with so many drawbacks and is 93 times more expensive to tax payers than natural gas a good one?
Our local and state leaders need to stand up and lead. They need to gain an understanding of proper siting requirements of industrial wind turbines, which is not 750’ from property lines or 50 decibels - whichever is greater. Under most circumstances we rely on and respect the recommendations from Health Organizations and experts, but when it comes to siting wind turbines we completely disregard their opinions.
There is no comparison between 400 foot tall noisy turbines with 300’ blade diameters and wood power poles. This isn’t a question of wind power Vs no power. The power lines were existing when we bought our homes. We were not surrounded. The power poles do not make noise. The power poles cannot be seen 10 miles away. The power poles do not cause sleep deprivation. The power poles do not build up ice and then throw it for hundreds of feet.
The percentage of people that wind turbines will be pleasing to in rural Goodhue County is low. The vast majority of my neighbors oppose a project that does not include proper setback regulation.
There is no connection between foreign oil and electricity generation. Crude oil is not imported to be burnt as a fuel to produce electricity. Wind power has no impact on the crude oil market.
Lance Johnson – Goodhue MN
As I gaze out the window of our home just west of Goodhue, MN, I see rolling farm land, a few cows and the occasional farmer out doing what he/she does best. Sounds peaceful, right? Having spent years and our life savings building this ultra-efficient, Geothermal heated/cooled home, my wife and I thought we found a safe place to raise our three children.
Two Wind Developers and landowners are trying to change all of that. They are looking to place between 70 and 90 400-foot-tall wind turbines near this community including the City of Goodhue and the townships of Belle Creek, Goodhue, Mineola, Cherry Creek and possibly others.
Those of us left in the wake will deal with towers & spinning blades by day, blinking lights at night, shadow-flicker when the sun goes behind the turbine and constant noise when the wind blows. Property values will also suffer ultimately resulting in lost tax revenue. I am not looking for a payout here or my fair share, I am happy with the status quo.
I am not anti-wind. I am for what I call Smart Alternative Energy Projects. Solar collector grids in the desert outside of Phoenix is Smart! Wind Farms in sparsely populated areas with lots of wind is Smart! Wind Farms in more densely populated areas and too close to non-participating residents is NOT Smart and recent studies show not safe either!
Please help me convince the officials at the Public Utilities Commission that a 500 or even 1000-foot setback is inadequate. A half-mile setback for non-participating landowners diminishes the effect of the turbines. This setback does not totally negate these issues. Want to learn more? Visit Goodhuewindtruth.com.
I Thank You as do my children!
Tom Schulte
Goodhue, MN
***
Millionaire investors have come here to make a select few of us millionaires; so they claim. They will do this by taking advantage of all the new opportunities in wind energy. New Green Energy is all the rage now; it’s the happening thing. The Wind Developers tell you to jump in, just sign over your wind rights to us and we’ll take care of everything. Your ship has come in; it’s going to be great! Problems, what, possible problems could there be? It’s just a windmill, every farm used to have one. Noise, what noise? There’s no gas or diesel engine; it runs off the wind; how could it possibly make noise? The wind turbines barely make any sound at all.
At the proper set back it sounds like a refrigerator running. Will it bother my neighbors, you ask. How could it? It’s just a windmill. Anyway, at this point we don’t really need to tell them anything, and their property; well it just isn’t suitable for our purposes. Look, don’t you like money? The windmills are coming anyway; don’t get left out. “Why do I have to sign such a long contract?” you ask? Well, it takes money to make money. Our investors have to know that you are committed; after all they are putting millions of dollars into this project. I don’t want to sign away any of my property rights, you say. Look all we really care about is your wind rights. All that other stuff in the contract is there merely to protect our investors. Who are your investors, you ask? Well, since we are a CBED project, a lot of them are your friends and neighbors. Look; by not signing you’re not just hurting yourself, but also everyone in the community who has invested in the project.
Doesn’t this sound like the typical traveling salesman’s spiel to you? Don’t get left out, I’m doing you a favor, and this won’t hurt anyone! You are being foolish if you don’t sign. Everyone else is doing it.
Regardless of what they say, these industrial wind energy people did not come here to help us. I believe, they came here with a business plan that is long and boring read. It includes things like: profits from manufacturing large industrial wind farms, profits from obtaining wind rights, profits from erecting large wind turbines, profits from government programs promoting clean energy, profits, IF ANY, from the actual sale of the electricity produced. Of course, I have not seen their actual business plan; has anyone?
Not having seen their business plan, I think it is unfair for me to try summarizing it. But let me try anyway; BUSINESS PLAN...HIDE behind limited liability Corporation, MAKE lots of money; GET OUT while the getting is good!
I am the last person; anyone who knows me; would expect to be against anything alternative! I am against this project, because nothing will hurt wind energy development in the county more than a bad project.
You can’t put a deck on your house without a building permit. It has to be reviewed by township and county boards. But wind energy developers can put up giant wind turbines whose shadows will hurt the neighbors by inflicting SHADOW FLICKER! A very disturbing strobe lighting effect! NOISE, no one should have to listen to the noises produced by these monstrously large machines in their own yard because someone else wants to make a little money.
If you sign, you will get a few dollars an acre for your wind rights. WHAT ARE WIND RIGHTS REALLY WORTH? No one seems to know. Do you really think these outside investors aren’t looking for a deal? Do you really want to give away your wind rights for 30 or more years? Who will get a turbine? The turbines are so huge and they are only talking about doing approximately 50. You think you have a good spot for one? Maybe your neighbor’s land is better. What if they need your wind rights just to put a turbine on your neighbor’s property? If you get a turbine on your land, then I guess you might get 2 % of the gross proceeds from that turbine. What is the formula used to calculate that percentage? What guarantee do you have the formula won’t change? Where does the rest of the money go? Doesn’t it appear that most of the proceeds go to the outside investors? Do you really want to be told what you can and cannot do on your own land?
Isn’t approximately 2 % profit next to nothing compared to the profits they expect to make? How can this possibly be a good deal when it’s generated from your original wind rights on your land?
When you sign with these companies, why can’t you talk to your neighbors about it? Is that for your own protection? Don’t they want you bragging to your neighbors about how much money you’re going to be making? WHY are these companies keeping so many secrets? When I asked about setbacks and how many windmills I would be looking at out my living room window, I was told if I wasn’t signing, they didn’t have to tell me. Why is our local government allowing this to happen?
I believe there is a lot of money to be made from the wind. I like the idea of a windmill in the distance quietly spinning out electricity and money for “its owner”. Don’t sign away your wind rights and be locked out of that future forever. If you have a neighbor with a few acres or a building site nearby, don’t do something in haste that may harm the people living there or destroy their property value. Of course, if it’s some city slicker who complains your manure stinks… well not even then, don’ t do it!
There are better ways to make money off the wind. Maybe the money isn’t as easy, but I don’t trust these industrial wind energy companies to do what is best for me or the citizens of Goodhue County. Why should I trust them, they keep secrets from me. They admit they came here to make a profit for their investors. What they don’t talk about is HOW MUCH MONEY they actually pump out of here for themselves! Keep your wind rights, use them yourself. Put up a turbine on your land. Let your family and friends in on the deal. Get the government money for wind energy development that you paid in as taxes back. Collect 100 % of the gross revenues yourself. Use your own formula to calculate how much money you get to keep. Be the boss; don’t answer to a board of directors. Be a good neighbor!
WAKE UP. DON’T SIGN AWAY YOUR WIND ENERGY FUTURE!
Rick Conrad
***
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Docket Number E-999/CI-09 845
121 7th Place E., Suite 350 RESPONSE PERIOD COMMENTS
Saint Paul, MN 55101-2147
Attn: Dr. Burl W. Haar, Executive Secretary
Dear Dr. Burl Haar, and Commissioners,
September 24th, 2009 Goodhue County Commissioner sponsored a public meeting for the Geronimo and National Wind (Goodhue Wind, LLC).
The panelist consisted of the following representatives:
Geronimo: Charlie Daum; Director of Development
Patrick Smith; GSI Specialist
Matthew Betolatus; Financial Analyst
National Wind; Goodhue Wind, LLC:
Chuck Burdick; Senior Wind Developer
Tim Casey, National Acoustic Program Manager; HDR Engineering. It is unclear who hired him to speak at this meeting. He has a Bachelors Degree in Biology from Xavier College (20 years ago). Studied Environmental engineering & Health in Minnesota and Illinois, but never completed his degrees in this field.
Geronimo Wind acknowledged all their employees who were present in the audience at the meeting’ however; National Wind (Goodhue Wind) did not. They made mention of their employee names who have been working this territory, but conveniently left out two local residents they hired as Field Representatives. We find that quite disturbing since one of the Field representatives has used unethical tactics and pressure in getting landowners to sign contracts. They refer anyone who opposes their project as “anti-wind people”. When in reality, we don’t oppose the wind; we want safe turbine setbacks from our homes and property.
The meeting appeared to be very slanted toward the Wind Developers. Especially, when it was sponsored by our county commissioners. There was “no one” on the panel to represent the views of the other side. Many other landowners and residents who reside in and around the footprint oppose this project. There are more against it than for it.
The county displayed a map of our townships and placed a circle around each home to represent a 1500 ft setback. In between the circles were slivers of areas where a turbine could be sited. There was not much room at all for turbines! The county spokes person stated that if they have to adopt a ½ mile setback the project could not be developed. So, if this is true, then isn’t it obvious, especially from view the map, that a wind farm does not belong here! It looked very clear we are too densely populated for them to safely site a wind farm in Belle Creek, Mineola and Goodhue townships!
Both Developers spoke in turn about their project and progress. Then Tim Casey spoke on Turbine Noise. He tried to explain how the turbine generates noise. He described the noise from the nacelle, the structure and the generator. Then he explained the noise and vibration created from the wind through the blades of older generation turbines, and this type of noise is not created by newer models of turbines. He said the swish noise of the turbine is caused by the aerodynamic sound from the blade rotating and passing the mast. The mast blocks the wind from the blade and this causes a change in the aerodynamic pressure. He then goes on to explain the change of wind speeds between the tips of one blade at the lowest point to the tip of the blade at the highest point, explaining wind changes called wind shear. He said there is an aerodynamic fluctuation of pressure which causes a change sound, they call this amplitude modulation. He stated some people find this noise disturbing. He stated we don’t know who is sanative to this type of pressure or noise. He they do not know who is affected by this. He stated there is only self proclaimed or peer review sources who claim they are getting sick from the turbines. He tries to discredit any studies taken from people who live in or around a wind farm. He states there are no studies taken by any medical professionals. He said people only perceive they are sick because the can see the turbine.
When questions were put to him comparing the turbine noise to something that sounds similar such as sounding like a jet engine or a helicopter, he said we could not compare the sound because there were no diesel engine in a turbine. So, you could not compared to turbine noise to anything you know. I find that odd, how else does a person explain a certain noise?
Reality is there are studies that have been taken by Dr. Nina Peirpont; the Onterio Health Study by Dr. Robert McMurtry; the Dean of Medicine at the University of Western Ontario, Canada. People who live in a wind farm are getting sick and are complaining. There has to be something to this. They are getting sick from something, possibly the high voltage lines that connect the turbines and carry the power?! I don’t want us to be the test rat for this project!
At this meeting you were to fill out a card with questions, however, they failed to let people know about this at the beginning of the meeting, so many who had questions did not get a chance to fill out a card. Also, the cards they did take, were censored, we watched as they ran through and picked out certain questions and laid other cards on the table. Some people complained after the meeting their question was not read.
The county said they researched property values in other counties with wind farms. They stated the property values did not decline, “but” the only checked on land values of agricultural land with turbines! Not the small residential land. This is not the type of research I expect from my county officials! They should be looking out for “all” of us!
After the meeting my husband and I had a short discussion with one of the developers and asked if they planned to do an environmental study. They said they likely will do one since there had not been done. We then made mention of several eagles in this area and asked how this would affect them. The developer stated it would be a problem, and they’ll have to get a special permit that protects them from having to pay a file when an eagle is killed by the turbine.
The rest of us would have to pay a fine, but they can get a permit…to kill a protected bird we worked so hard to get off the endangered list!
The turbines are an industrial product and don’t belong on agricultural land where food is grown. Nor should they be placed in populated areas where “people” live! If they can’t site them at least ½ mile from our homes, then they don’t belong here.
Sincerely,
Melody Ryan
Goodhue, MN
***
My comments to the PUC regarding wind turbines setbacks
Destruction of habitat is wrong whether it is the destruction of the habitat of a rare frog, the habitat of a bald eagle or the habitat of the graying hard working American taxpayer. People should have the right to harvest the wind that blows across their property but only if they can do it without harming their neighbors or destroying the value of their neighbors property Even if you disregard all the other problems with siting wind turbines near to peoples residences, the 50 decibel limit applied to wind turbines sited into quiet rural areas is unfair to property owners. The 50 decibel limit that stems from Minnesota Rule 7030 is a noise pollution limit normally applied in urban areas with normal background noise levels that are much higher than the background levels normally found in a quiet rural area. The 50 decibel limit does nothing to protect the value of your property when the value of your property is based on other people’s desire to obtain a quiet place in the country. Very few people will want to purchase your property when all you can hear is noise from wind turbines.
I have little hope that wind energy developers will learn to respect the rights of small property owners any time in the near future on their own. Eventually if enough people are hurt or loss property value I am sure that a class action law suit will be filed against the wind energy industry in general. Measures need to be taken now to insure that wind energy and all property owners are protected. Reasonable set backs need to be adopted.
Wind energy development should have simple common sense requirements. Two basic ones should be that you can not cast a shadow on someone’s residence or building site and that no noise generated by the wind turbine be detectable above the normal background sound levels of the area. Also, some form of enforceable remedy needs to be available to those people who experience problems from wind turbines. Someone at some level needs to be able shut down the operation of turbines found to be in violation of whatever the sound limit is.
Perhaps the incentives to build these large scale industrial wind farms should be eliminated altogether. Instead the incentives should be redirected to promote more individually owned wind generators tied into the local utility grid which by their very nature would create less problems with public acceptance.
I believe the biggest problem with alternative energy development is that local utilities are unable to accommodate individuals who have access to wind or solar power without creating problems for themselves. Local utilities need to be able to take the power from small generators and resell it for a profit or at least not lose money in the process. I would invest money today in alternative energy generating equipment if I was sure I could sell enough power to the local utility over the lifetime of the equipment to recover my money.
Exchange standards and connection standards that will allow the small scale alternative energy producers to sell their power to local utilities for a guarantied below retail price and the local utility to resell all forms of green power for a profit need to be developed. These standards along with equipment that would allow local utilities the ability to instantly disconnect any grid inter tied generation equipment safely without damage to private party equipment, would allow the entire grid to function more efficiently and safely. For Instance if the local utility were to piggyback a signal on the power line and if any generator had to receive this signal to remain connected then if a line broke or the utility quit transmitting the signal the generator would instantly be disconnected from the grid.
Industrial wind energy production is not alternative energy it is just business as usual. Industrial wind developers do little more than destroy the tax base and avoid paying their own taxes. Real alternative energy is individuals, small businesses, cities, and towns taking advantage of resources available locally to create their own power and selling any extra to others who need it. As controllers of the grid the sooner you accept that, the sooner a brighter energy future will dawn for all Americans.
Rick Conrad
4 September 2009
***
Rick Conrad, Goodhue - 12/19/2009
To the Editor:
Wind energy NIMBYism. It really is a case of not in my back yard. The New Ulm, Minn., project is a prime example. There are many just as suitable locations closer to the city of New Ulm that could host their turbines. Why did they choose to build them out of sight in another county?
The 25 percent renewable energy by 2025 never specified that it be with industrial wind projects. Wind is not even the best choice to use. The wind energy available occurs mainly at night. Solar is a much better match to the needs for increased peak power. Peak power demands occur mainly in the summer during daylight hours, which is when the least amount of wind energy is available.
Minnesota CBED (community-based energy development) is a joke. The definition of local investment is any investor from Minnesota. All or at least most of the money for the projects in Goodhue will come from the Twin Cities. CBED in no way guarantees Goodhue residents any control over these “local” projects. A dozen or a couple dozen local people may benefit financially from the Goodhue Wind projects. Many hundreds will live within the .6 mile “hazard” zone. The real impact of these projects could extend several miles out from project boundaries.
Rick Conrad Goodhue
***
11/18/2009
Goodhue Wind Amended Site Application MPUC Docket Number IP670/WS-08-1233 October 19,2009 states the applicant (Goodhue Winds) had installed a temporary meteorological (MET) tower February 3,2009 and is collecting “favorable” wind resources from the preliminary data they have gathered but does not disclose this data in the permit.
This 60 meter MET tower was constructed on parcel number 25.013.0302 in the A-1 Agricultural Protection District of Belle Creek Township after receiving a Conditional Use Permit from Goodhue County to collect wind data for the original proposed development in Goodhue and Belle Creek Townships.
The applicant has instead chosen to offer modeled wind data collected from the 70 meter DOC Met tower located in Clarks Grove Mn which is approximately 80 miles from the center of the modified wind project in Goodhue County. The reliability of this data appears questionable in that Clarks Grove had available data from June 1996-July 2007 but the applicant was only able to use data from June 1996 to March 2002 due to a sensor “malfunction” at that met tower.
In section 2.2.6 of Extreme Wind Conditions and in section 2.3 Other Meteorological Conditions the applicant provides historical weather data of the project area opting to use the weather periods of January 1950 to June 2008. On July 10,2008 Goodhue County, including areas of the proposed wind farm and far reaching areas of south eastern Minnesota experienced “extreme” weather including an EF0 tornado (65-85 mph wind speeds) 3 miles east of Vasa, straight line winds estimated at speeds of 75 mph and greater which created large areas of damage to structures and landscapes. Large hail was also experienced in this storm. This information has been on record with the National Weather Service Weather Service Forecast Office (NOAA) since July 14, 2008.
Why would the applicant fail to disclose such a significant weather occurrence in their application?
Mary Brickzin-gale
***
Published November 17 2009
Attorney provides legal advice on wind farm options
Concerned residents have relentlessly questioned how far wind turbines should be set back from other structures in rural Goodhue County. By: Jen Cullen, The Republican Eagle
Attorney provides legal advice on wind farm options
Concerned residents have relentlessly questioned how far wind turbines should be set back from other structures in rural Goodhue County. By: Jen Cullen, The Republican Eagle
Concerned residents have relentlessly questioned how far wind turbines should be set back from other structures in rural Goodhue County. Commissioners learned Tuesday that addressing those concerns locally regarding two proposed wind farms could be difficult. To influence the state to impose stricter setbacks on wind farms over 25 megawatts - projects proposed in rural Goodhue are 78 and 50 megawatts - the county would need to take on permitting and regulatory responsibility for more medium-scale projects.
That's according to a legal interpretation from County Attorney Stephen Betcher of new legislation. "You would be responsible for the boots on the ground aspects of the process," Betcher said. The county already regulates construction of wind energy conversion systems up to 5 megawatts. Larger projects are passed on to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
Betcher said state law now allows counties to step in and regulate wind farms between 5 and 25 megawatts as well with PUC's help. In doing so, commissioners could impose stricter standards - including for setbacks - than the state currently does on mid-range and larger projects. Those stricter standards must then be considered by the PUC when issuing permits for large wind farms like those proposed by Goodhue Wind and Geronimo Wind. No other Minnesota counties have taken advantage of the new legislation that appears to grant counties more power. "That process at this time is untested," Betcher said. "This is a very important issue to be discussed and the board is taking it very seriously."
More than 40 residents packed the County Board room Tuesday morning for the informational meeting. Several landowners have started a Web site with wind energy information, news and studies. The group has also held several community meetings advocating what they consider responsible development of wind energy.
"I feel Goodhue County is some of the richest and most productive land in the world," said Steve Growth, a rural Goodhue County landowner and a member of the concerned citizens group, told commissioners.
Dan Schleck, a Twin Cities environmental lawyer representing the group, disagreed with Betcher's legal interpretation. He said the law allows counties to impose stricter rules on large wind farms without permitting and regulating smaller projects. "You folks have a lot more power than you think you do," Schleck said.
Betcher said his legal advice was based on the PUC's interpretation of the law. Schleck suggested the county impose a moratorium on wind farms so commissioners and staff have more time to research the issue and others, like how wind farms affect property values and tax revenues. "I think you have a very tough decision here," Schleck said.
***
6/28/2009
“Facts are meaningless, they can be used to prove anything”- Homer Simpson
This letter is in response to the article “Mistakes at Wisconsin wind farm haunt local wind projects”. I would like to take this time to introduce myself and give you a brief background of myself so you know who you are reading about. My name is Brian Loos and I live in Goodhue Township I have a Bachelor of Science Degree from Minnesota State University Mankato in Parks and Recreation with an emphasis in resource Management. Some of the course that I participated in was, Wildlife as a rec resource, Wildlife Management, Wetlands Management, along with other Earth sciences and Biology classes. I am deeply offended that the columnist who wrote the article would suggest that we as a group of concerned citizens would base our concerns solely on one Industrial Wind Turbine project. I personally researched many Industrial Wind Turbine Projects around the country and around the world. Case in point, Blair County Pennsylvania (NBC News 6) , Cohocton NY (Atlanta NY- Evening Tribune), Janesville WI (Janesville Gazette), Penghu archipelago Taiwan (The Telegraph-UK), Huron County (News 5) watch the video at http://www.wnem.com/video/19798049, these are just a few of the Industrial Wind Turbine projects I have researched. Every project has the same complaints noise, vibration, shadow flicker, and sleep problems. How will this project be any different?
According to the article it was reported that on June 16th there was a wind meeting put on by National Wind, yet I wasn’t invited nor were the majority of us that live in Goodhue and Belle creek Townships. This is just another example of how under handed and secretive these Wind Turbine companies are.
“If those who are opposed could be assured that no one’s life would be adversely affected by the proposed wind projects” “to get assurances-perhaps even written- that the promises made to create healthy, environmentally friendly wind projects do occur.” – Sandy Hadler Zumbrota News Record. Don’t guarantees make us feel all warm and good inside the truth of the matter is if the Industrial Wind Turbine Companies were to put Property Value assurances or guarantees into writing they would be leaving the door open for law suits, the Wind Companies are smarter than that and you had better believe the Wind Companies have their attorneys working hard so as not to lose a law suit, that could cost the Wind Companies Millions.
On May 19th at the Goodhue School there was an open public meeting to discuss the wind issue and both Wind Companies were represented. I asked one question in the open forum and it was an easy Yes or No question, I asked if the Wind companies were so sure that may property value would not go down would they purchase my property for a fair market value. The representative from the Wind company said “Well I am trying to sell my house” the he proceeded to talk around the issue with back talk and meaningless dribble; I never did get a yes or no answer.
“The Financial benefits to local people would be awesome”–Sandy Hadler Zumbrota News Record. That statement pretty much sums it up it, it’s all about the money and nothing else, that’s the second time the columnist has mentioned money in her articles wonder where her priorities are? So screw your neighbors, friends and family as long as you get paid! Well I for one put people’s health and quality of life before the all mighty dollar.
Let me ask you this when your child went in the ditch in the middle of January with sub zero temperatures did the Wind companies allow your child into their homes to warm up and use the phone, No, I did, your neighbor. Have the Wind companies ever helped you heard your cattle back home at all hours of the night and morning, No, I did. Who do you ask to watch over your livestock and home place in the event of a family emergency? The Wind Companies? No, it’s me your neighbor, your friend!
So who are you go going to believe, a company by their own admission is a for profit company and trying everything they can to sell you a product, or your neighbor who you have known for years and who truly cares about you and your family.
“The local area would be contributing to green energy!”-Sandy Hadler Zumbrota News Record
According to the Wikipedia encyclopedia Green Energy is defined as follows: Green energy is the term used to describe sources of energy that are considered to be environmentally friendly and non-polluting, such as geothermal, wind, solar, and Hydro. Sometimes nuclear power is also considered a green energy source. Green energy sources often considered “green” because they are perceived to lower carbon emissions and create less pollution. That is a funny word perceived, don’t you think?
Nowhere in that definition does it state that “Green Energy” should destroy valuable crop land forever by pouring 300 tons of concrete into a hole. Nor does it state that huge specialized tractor trailers, earth movers, and cranes be used to put in these 400 foot Industrial Wind Turbines. I wonder what kind of a carbon foot print these huge pieces of equipment leave? I wonder if these pieces of equipment burn gas or diesel? If I haven’t raised enough questions for you about the viability of Industrial Wind Turbines, here are a few facts from the May 22, 2009 study from the Minnesota Department of Health.
On page 6 of the study the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC 2007) states the NRC concludes that noise produced by wind turbines is generally not a major concern beyond a half mile. I wonder why the Wind Turbine companies don’t follow the recommendations of the Minnesota Department of Health? Maybe they just don’t care. I would feel better if the Wind companies took a forward thinking approach to this and would put in writing that the Turbines would be placed a half mile from any occupied dwelling.
On page 14 of the MDH study in section 4 titled Wind farm noise it states, The noise from multiple turbines similarly distant from a residence can be noticeably louder than a lone Turbine simply through the addition of multiple noise sources. I wonder what the 90 Turbines the two wind companies want to erect will sound like when they are turning at the same time . Especially if the Wind Turbine noise is between 45 to 50 dB’s. On page 18 of the MDH study it states that at greater than 45dB more respondents reported sleep interruption. Last time I checked sleep was good thing.
Page 14 of the study addresses shadow flicker. Modeling conducted by the Minnesota Department of Health suggests that a receptor 300 meters perpendicular to, and in the shadow of the blades of a Wind Turbine, can be in the shadow flicker of the rotating blade for almost 1.5 hours a day. At this distance a blade may completely obscure the sun each time it passes between the receptor and the sun. With current wind turbine designs, flicker should not be an issue at distances over 10 rotational diameters (~1000 meters or 1 Km (.06mi) for most current Wind Turbines). I was curious how far .6 miles was so I looked it, .6 miles = 3168 feet.
According to the columnist’s article “National Wind places turbines at a minimum of 1,500 feet from residences”- Sandy Hadler Zumbrota News record. If the MDH recommends 3,168 feet from an occupied dwelling then why would the Wind companies only place them at 1,500 feet?
In summation as Homer Simpson said “Facts are meaningless they can be used to prove anything”. The facts are out there you just have to look, I hope this has helped potential Turbine hosts become more informed. The group of concerned citizens in Goodhue Township and Belle Creek Township are not against wind energy by any means we would just like to see a proper setback of a ½ mile from any occupied dwelling. So I ask the Wind Turbine companies this is it to much ask to have a ½ mile set back to insure the safety, security ,piece of mind, and quality life we all so richly and greatly enjoy? We have offered up a compromise which will benefit the Turbine hosts, the Turbine companies, all you have invested money in the project, along with all property owners who will affected by this wind project. “Money can’t buy happiness”.
Thank you for your time and thank you to the majority of landowners in Belle Creek and Goodhue Townships who have signed our pet ion for proper Wind Turbine setbacks. If you have not signed the pet ion and would like to please contact me at loosbrian@hotmail.com and we will surly get you a copy.
Respectfully Yours,
Brian Loos
Goodhue Township
***
June 26, 2009
Goodhue, MN 55027
Zumbrota News Record
Editorial Comments:
‘Local Wind Projects Haunted’ Response
Dear Editor,
In response to the article in your paper about mistakes made at a Wisconsin wind project, I do agree with the writer that “this poorly planned project has made current developers defensive about their projects.” There are many parts of the country, where residents are discovering that wind projects are poorly planned and are leaving health and safety problems in their wake. Other consequent problems are devalued property values, road damages, communication signal issues, and more. Yes, due to complex issues being ignored, poor projects have and are being built in our country. Projects are going up at a rapid speed, without properly addressing all the issues.
I don’t think anyone objects to renewable energy. What is objectionable are the problems caused by any form of energy production. Have these problems been anticipated, worked on, and weighed out before placing industrial wind projects amongst citizens’ homes and farms? As we research wind power, we find that the problems are repeating themselves, yet regulations are not changing to protect citizens. The allure of money and industry assurances are perhaps contributing to this. In other locations in our country and around the world, regulated distances of turbines from homes are as far as one and two miles, and more.
In light of the Minnesota Department of Health Report on the “Public Impacts of Wind Turbines” released 5/22/09, law makers need to reevaluate and redraft regulations. The Minnesota statute allows for county governments to examine regulations. The Minnesota Health Report states a very different distance from current law for reducing problems for our citizens. This report is easily found on line, and if you don’t have time to read through the approximate 30 page report, there are many summaries to be found.
At earlier meetings in Goodhue, held by the wind companies, my neighbor who attended, told me that the companies mentioned this report and how they were anxiously waiting for it. They expected the state to have a positive report. The Health report did not turn out the way the wind companies wanted. I expect they will downplay the report.
Will the county, the state, and the wind companies vouch for citizens’ health, safety, and also, not mentioned in the article, property values, road damages, communication signals, and more? Is potential revenue being put ahead of citizen health and safety? The topic of energy is large and complex. In studying hard the last six months or so, we have expanded our look at high voltage transmission as part of the development of wind, eminent domain issues, and more health and safety information. Everyone can educate themselves, everyone can practice conservation a great deal more, and together lay out a thoughtful, regulated plan that all citizens can live with, so we are not “haunted by mistakes.”
Sincerely,
Marie McNamara
***
Compromised Group?
At what point did concerned citizens become the compromised group? Aren't the comprised people the ones who have surrendered their families and their community to the whims of the industrial wind energy companies?
I like money, I like it a lot! The problem I have with the big wind companies is that if they are given free rein to do as they please, they will site their 400 hundred foot plus turbines with one single goal; that is to make as much money as they can for themselves. They won't care how that will affect me, or you, or your families. They won't respect the fact I was here first.
I am not used to hearing a refrigerator running when I sit in my yard. Right now I can hear things like worms slurping thru the soil after a rain shower; or the hum of a humming bird checking the flowers on my arbor for food. I daily hear all the little sounds that everyone who lives in country now takes for granted. Sure, times are hard and a farmer has got to do whatever it takes to make ends meet. If you feel you are getting a good deal from one of these industrial wind companies and you need the money, then sign; BUT at least be in favor of proper setbacks. Is it really too much to ask of your neighbors that they don't do anything to hurt you?
Proper setbacks would only require that the wind energy companies not site wind turbines where the shadow of turbine falls on your neighbor’s house and that any sound generated by the turbine not be loud enough to be heard in your neighbor’s yard. If the turbines are really as quiet as they claim, what possible problem could anyone have with simple requirements like that?
Read my wind energy blog at areavoices.com and go to www.Goodhuewindtruth.com to see if you want to help your friends and neighbors; not hurt them.
Rick Conrad
8/4/09
***
Wind concerns for Goodhue
To the editor:
My family and I live within the proposed footprint of the wind farms near Goodhue. I refuse to be labeled as "anti-wind." I recognize the need to implement renewable sources of energy to save our environment and our planet. As a former engineer, I can see that wind energy is probably the easiest current technology we have to harness nature's energy. As a Minnesotan, I can understand that the path to achieving our state's lofty goal of having 25% of our energy come from renewable sources by 2025 is probably wind energy. As the daughter of a southwestern MN farmer, I can appreciate the financial help that hosting a wind turbine(s) on your land would offer for cash-strapped landowners/farmers. There's no need to accuse me of being "anti-wind."
Current state regulations say wind turbines could be as close as 750 ft. from homes. As I investigate this topic, I'm finding health and wealth to be my biggest concerns.
Health: There are health reports from European doctors (Drs. Amanda Harry, Christopher Hanning, G.P. van den Berg, etc.) and American doctors (Drs. Nina Pierpont, Michael Nissenbaum) indicating that the low frequency noise component generated by wind turbines can cause symptoms - such as sleep disturbances, headaches, vertigo to name a few - in people living close to a wind turbine.
Pierpont has dubbed the constellation of symptoms "Wind Turbine Syndrome" and she recommends a minimum 1.25 mile setback between homes and turbines. A far cry from 750 ft. A larger study is needed to determine how many are affected and at what distances, but how will we get honest data when wind developers won't allow landowners who have signed on to say anything negative about wind? As a sidenote, I find it interesting that the Army Field Manual 2 22.3 lists sleep deprivation as an unacceptable means to interrogate prisoners (decided on by Obama's administration this past January), but it's currently perfectly acceptable to allow persons living next to wind turbines to suffer chronic sleep deprivation. POWs in this country are getting more respect than citizens.
Wealth: Then, there's the issue of property valuations. A Canadian realtor, Chris Luxemberger, saw a $48,000 average drop in price for homes in the $300,000 range. And the number of homes that could not be sold jumped from 3% (the local norm) to 11%. No buyer at any price. He was considering 600 Canadian properties within 3.6 miles of a wind turbine. You don't have to have one 750 ft from you to see your property's value decline.
In Texas, losses were expressed in percentages. Expect about 25% on average (varied from 15-45%) less for your home if you find a buyer. Can you afford that? Not many can. Which is why people who suffer from symptoms find themselves stuck where they are. For some, eventual home abandonment and financial ruin will result. Developers deny home values are affected. Yet as of June 2009, wind developers in Dufferin County in Ontario have spent 1.75 million dollars clandestinely buying homes of people complaining of health effects. In exchange for the buyout, homeowners are having to sign nondisclosure statements.
So you don't live near Goodhue, you say? How does this affect you? Let me paint a picture for you called "How to Determine Where to Build a Wind Farm."
First, you must be able to harvest the wind. In Minnesota, the regions having favorable wind conditions are limited to the western edge of the state, the southwestern corner, and the southeastern corner. Second, you must be able to transmit the energy generated. Remember hearing about CapX2020, the energy corridor proposed along highway 52? Its construction would make all southeastern communities close to 52 a PERFECT location for a wind farm. Minimal distance to hook up to transmission lines means maximizing profits for wind developers.
Third, there must be a demand for the product (electricity). Minnesota has a long way to go to reach their goal of 25% of their energy coming from renewable sources. MANY more wind farms will need to go up. Where does that leave you, citizens of southeastern Minnesota?
The more you learn now, the better prepared you'll be when the wind developer comes to your community wanting to erect a wind farm. Have concerns? Talk to your county commissioners and elected officials. Write to the Public Utilities Commission, Attn. Burl W. Haar Executive Secretary, Docket Number E-999/CI-09-845, 121 7th Place E. Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101-2147 before the comment period on health effects from wind turbines ends on September 16.
All contact information can be found at www.goodhuewindtruth.com. For more information on my facts, check out these websites: www.windaction.org, www.windturbinesyndrome.com.
Jean Schulte
Concerned Resident Near Goodhue
8/28/09
***
Response to Columnist’s Wind Power Article
After reading a columnist's response to 'A Farmer's Regrets' in the News Record on May 6th, I felt the need to express some opposing local opinions that are based on facts. There are multiple concerning points in the article and with industrial wind power. Just because some very real health and safety risks associated with the industrial wind power were not mentioned in one specific article, by no means, justifies the assumption that they are not valid. Look at the facts. Look at all of the issues people all over the country are forced to struggle with daily due to improper siting of wind turbines. Concerns such as noise, sleep deprivation, flicker and ice throw are valid issues that are publicized in many articles from all over Wisconsin as well as all over the country.
The complete disregard for family, friends, neighbors and community is very concerning. There is no community in Community Based Energy Development. The future of the peaceful enjoyment of our homes is being determined behind closed doors in meetings with deceiving wind developers and trusting landowners. I would like to encourage all landowners to meet with their neighbors face to face to understand concerns and opinions prior to selling their wind rights. This is a major decision that has ripped apart communities all over the country. Let’s not let this trend, which has already started, continue in Goodhue County.
While I agree that society must conserve and continue to research and promote alternative power sources, I do not agree that improperly sited industrial wind turbines are a valid alternative. The free reign of anything deemed “green” is ridiculous. Anyone who questions whether wind is our best alternative is considered to not care about the environment. The mentality of not basing decisions on the facts plagues society. Questioning the feasibility of industrial wind ultimately results in supporters playing the “green” card and making some worthless comparison to a refrigerator. I have never seen a 400’ tall refrigerator and they typically are not used as headboards.
Per a recent article in the Financial Post and data from a 2008 report from the US Energy Information Administration, “on a one dollar per megawatt basis, taxpayers subsidize wind at $23.34 compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at $0.25; coal at $0.44; hydro at $0.67; and nuclear at $1.59. According to the Wall Street Journal, “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.” Under current regulation and government it costs tax payers between $69 and $137 per ton of emissions avoided by alternative power. Under a free market with a cap and trade type of system or a carbon tax this would only cost $15 per ton.” Is an alternative with so many drawbacks and is 93 times more expensive to tax payers than natural gas a good one?
Our local and state leaders need to stand up and lead. They need to gain an understanding of proper siting requirements of industrial wind turbines, which is not 750’ from property lines or 50 decibels - whichever is greater. Under most circumstances we rely on and respect the recommendations from Health Organizations and experts, but when it comes to siting wind turbines we completely disregard their opinions.
There is no comparison between 400 foot tall noisy turbines with 300’ blade diameters and wood power poles. This isn’t a question of wind power Vs no power. The power lines were existing when we bought our homes. We were not surrounded. The power poles do not make noise. The power poles cannot be seen 10 miles away. The power poles do not cause sleep deprivation. The power poles do not build up ice and then throw it for hundreds of feet.
The percentage of people that wind turbines will be pleasing to in rural Goodhue County is low. The vast majority of my neighbors oppose a project that does not include proper setback regulation.
There is no connection between foreign oil and electricity generation. Crude oil is not imported to be burnt as a fuel to produce electricity. Wind power has no impact on the crude oil market.
Lance Johnson – Goodhue MN
As I gaze out the window of our home just west of Goodhue, MN, I see rolling farm land, a few cows and the occasional farmer out doing what he/she does best. Sounds peaceful, right? Having spent years and our life savings building this ultra-efficient, Geothermal heated/cooled home, my wife and I thought we found a safe place to raise our three children.
Two Wind Developers and landowners are trying to change all of that. They are looking to place between 70 and 90 400-foot-tall wind turbines near this community including the City of Goodhue and the townships of Belle Creek, Goodhue, Mineola, Cherry Creek and possibly others.
Those of us left in the wake will deal with towers & spinning blades by day, blinking lights at night, shadow-flicker when the sun goes behind the turbine and constant noise when the wind blows. Property values will also suffer ultimately resulting in lost tax revenue. I am not looking for a payout here or my fair share, I am happy with the status quo.
I am not anti-wind. I am for what I call Smart Alternative Energy Projects. Solar collector grids in the desert outside of Phoenix is Smart! Wind Farms in sparsely populated areas with lots of wind is Smart! Wind Farms in more densely populated areas and too close to non-participating residents is NOT Smart and recent studies show not safe either!
Please help me convince the officials at the Public Utilities Commission that a 500 or even 1000-foot setback is inadequate. A half-mile setback for non-participating landowners diminishes the effect of the turbines. This setback does not totally negate these issues. Want to learn more? Visit Goodhuewindtruth.com.
I Thank You as do my children!
Tom Schulte
Goodhue, MN
***
Goodhue County Residents Wakeup
Millionaire investors have come here to make a select few of us millionaires; so they claim. They will do this by taking advantage of all the new opportunities in wind energy. New Green Energy is all the rage now; it’s the happening thing. The Wind Developers tell you to jump in, just sign over your wind rights to us and we’ll take care of everything. Your ship has come in; it’s going to be great! Problems, what, possible problems could there be? It’s just a windmill, every farm used to have one. Noise, what noise? There’s no gas or diesel engine; it runs off the wind; how could it possibly make noise? The wind turbines barely make any sound at all.
At the proper set back it sounds like a refrigerator running. Will it bother my neighbors, you ask. How could it? It’s just a windmill. Anyway, at this point we don’t really need to tell them anything, and their property; well it just isn’t suitable for our purposes. Look, don’t you like money? The windmills are coming anyway; don’t get left out. “Why do I have to sign such a long contract?” you ask? Well, it takes money to make money. Our investors have to know that you are committed; after all they are putting millions of dollars into this project. I don’t want to sign away any of my property rights, you say. Look all we really care about is your wind rights. All that other stuff in the contract is there merely to protect our investors. Who are your investors, you ask? Well, since we are a CBED project, a lot of them are your friends and neighbors. Look; by not signing you’re not just hurting yourself, but also everyone in the community who has invested in the project.
Wake Up
Doesn’t this sound like the typical traveling salesman’s spiel to you? Don’t get left out, I’m doing you a favor, and this won’t hurt anyone! You are being foolish if you don’t sign. Everyone else is doing it.
Regardless of what they say, these industrial wind energy people did not come here to help us. I believe, they came here with a business plan that is long and boring read. It includes things like: profits from manufacturing large industrial wind farms, profits from obtaining wind rights, profits from erecting large wind turbines, profits from government programs promoting clean energy, profits, IF ANY, from the actual sale of the electricity produced. Of course, I have not seen their actual business plan; has anyone?
Not having seen their business plan, I think it is unfair for me to try summarizing it. But let me try anyway; BUSINESS PLAN...HIDE behind limited liability Corporation, MAKE lots of money; GET OUT while the getting is good!
Wake up
I am the last person; anyone who knows me; would expect to be against anything alternative! I am against this project, because nothing will hurt wind energy development in the county more than a bad project.
You can’t put a deck on your house without a building permit. It has to be reviewed by township and county boards. But wind energy developers can put up giant wind turbines whose shadows will hurt the neighbors by inflicting SHADOW FLICKER! A very disturbing strobe lighting effect! NOISE, no one should have to listen to the noises produced by these monstrously large machines in their own yard because someone else wants to make a little money.
If you sign, you will get a few dollars an acre for your wind rights. WHAT ARE WIND RIGHTS REALLY WORTH? No one seems to know. Do you really think these outside investors aren’t looking for a deal? Do you really want to give away your wind rights for 30 or more years? Who will get a turbine? The turbines are so huge and they are only talking about doing approximately 50. You think you have a good spot for one? Maybe your neighbor’s land is better. What if they need your wind rights just to put a turbine on your neighbor’s property? If you get a turbine on your land, then I guess you might get 2 % of the gross proceeds from that turbine. What is the formula used to calculate that percentage? What guarantee do you have the formula won’t change? Where does the rest of the money go? Doesn’t it appear that most of the proceeds go to the outside investors? Do you really want to be told what you can and cannot do on your own land?
Wake Up
Isn’t approximately 2 % profit next to nothing compared to the profits they expect to make? How can this possibly be a good deal when it’s generated from your original wind rights on your land?
When you sign with these companies, why can’t you talk to your neighbors about it? Is that for your own protection? Don’t they want you bragging to your neighbors about how much money you’re going to be making? WHY are these companies keeping so many secrets? When I asked about setbacks and how many windmills I would be looking at out my living room window, I was told if I wasn’t signing, they didn’t have to tell me. Why is our local government allowing this to happen?
I believe there is a lot of money to be made from the wind. I like the idea of a windmill in the distance quietly spinning out electricity and money for “its owner”. Don’t sign away your wind rights and be locked out of that future forever. If you have a neighbor with a few acres or a building site nearby, don’t do something in haste that may harm the people living there or destroy their property value. Of course, if it’s some city slicker who complains your manure stinks… well not even then, don’ t do it!
There are better ways to make money off the wind. Maybe the money isn’t as easy, but I don’t trust these industrial wind energy companies to do what is best for me or the citizens of Goodhue County. Why should I trust them, they keep secrets from me. They admit they came here to make a profit for their investors. What they don’t talk about is HOW MUCH MONEY they actually pump out of here for themselves! Keep your wind rights, use them yourself. Put up a turbine on your land. Let your family and friends in on the deal. Get the government money for wind energy development that you paid in as taxes back. Collect 100 % of the gross revenues yourself. Use your own formula to calculate how much money you get to keep. Be the boss; don’t answer to a board of directors. Be a good neighbor!
WAKE UP. DON’T SIGN AWAY YOUR WIND ENERGY FUTURE!
Rick Conrad
***
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Docket Number E-999/CI-09 845
121 7th Place E., Suite 350 RESPONSE PERIOD COMMENTS
Saint Paul, MN 55101-2147
Attn: Dr. Burl W. Haar, Executive Secretary
Dear Dr. Burl Haar, and Commissioners,
September 24th, 2009 Goodhue County Commissioner sponsored a public meeting for the Geronimo and National Wind (Goodhue Wind, LLC).
The panelist consisted of the following representatives:
Geronimo: Charlie Daum; Director of Development
Patrick Smith; GSI Specialist
Matthew Betolatus; Financial Analyst
National Wind; Goodhue Wind, LLC:
Chuck Burdick; Senior Wind Developer
Tim Casey, National Acoustic Program Manager; HDR Engineering. It is unclear who hired him to speak at this meeting. He has a Bachelors Degree in Biology from Xavier College (20 years ago). Studied Environmental engineering & Health in Minnesota and Illinois, but never completed his degrees in this field.
Geronimo Wind acknowledged all their employees who were present in the audience at the meeting’ however; National Wind (Goodhue Wind) did not. They made mention of their employee names who have been working this territory, but conveniently left out two local residents they hired as Field Representatives. We find that quite disturbing since one of the Field representatives has used unethical tactics and pressure in getting landowners to sign contracts. They refer anyone who opposes their project as “anti-wind people”. When in reality, we don’t oppose the wind; we want safe turbine setbacks from our homes and property.
The meeting appeared to be very slanted toward the Wind Developers. Especially, when it was sponsored by our county commissioners. There was “no one” on the panel to represent the views of the other side. Many other landowners and residents who reside in and around the footprint oppose this project. There are more against it than for it.
The county displayed a map of our townships and placed a circle around each home to represent a 1500 ft setback. In between the circles were slivers of areas where a turbine could be sited. There was not much room at all for turbines! The county spokes person stated that if they have to adopt a ½ mile setback the project could not be developed. So, if this is true, then isn’t it obvious, especially from view the map, that a wind farm does not belong here! It looked very clear we are too densely populated for them to safely site a wind farm in Belle Creek, Mineola and Goodhue townships!
Both Developers spoke in turn about their project and progress. Then Tim Casey spoke on Turbine Noise. He tried to explain how the turbine generates noise. He described the noise from the nacelle, the structure and the generator. Then he explained the noise and vibration created from the wind through the blades of older generation turbines, and this type of noise is not created by newer models of turbines. He said the swish noise of the turbine is caused by the aerodynamic sound from the blade rotating and passing the mast. The mast blocks the wind from the blade and this causes a change in the aerodynamic pressure. He then goes on to explain the change of wind speeds between the tips of one blade at the lowest point to the tip of the blade at the highest point, explaining wind changes called wind shear. He said there is an aerodynamic fluctuation of pressure which causes a change sound, they call this amplitude modulation. He stated some people find this noise disturbing. He stated we don’t know who is sanative to this type of pressure or noise. He they do not know who is affected by this. He stated there is only self proclaimed or peer review sources who claim they are getting sick from the turbines. He tries to discredit any studies taken from people who live in or around a wind farm. He states there are no studies taken by any medical professionals. He said people only perceive they are sick because the can see the turbine.
When questions were put to him comparing the turbine noise to something that sounds similar such as sounding like a jet engine or a helicopter, he said we could not compare the sound because there were no diesel engine in a turbine. So, you could not compared to turbine noise to anything you know. I find that odd, how else does a person explain a certain noise?
Reality is there are studies that have been taken by Dr. Nina Peirpont; the Onterio Health Study by Dr. Robert McMurtry; the Dean of Medicine at the University of Western Ontario, Canada. People who live in a wind farm are getting sick and are complaining. There has to be something to this. They are getting sick from something, possibly the high voltage lines that connect the turbines and carry the power?! I don’t want us to be the test rat for this project!
At this meeting you were to fill out a card with questions, however, they failed to let people know about this at the beginning of the meeting, so many who had questions did not get a chance to fill out a card. Also, the cards they did take, were censored, we watched as they ran through and picked out certain questions and laid other cards on the table. Some people complained after the meeting their question was not read.
The county said they researched property values in other counties with wind farms. They stated the property values did not decline, “but” the only checked on land values of agricultural land with turbines! Not the small residential land. This is not the type of research I expect from my county officials! They should be looking out for “all” of us!
After the meeting my husband and I had a short discussion with one of the developers and asked if they planned to do an environmental study. They said they likely will do one since there had not been done. We then made mention of several eagles in this area and asked how this would affect them. The developer stated it would be a problem, and they’ll have to get a special permit that protects them from having to pay a file when an eagle is killed by the turbine.
The rest of us would have to pay a fine, but they can get a permit…to kill a protected bird we worked so hard to get off the endangered list!
The turbines are an industrial product and don’t belong on agricultural land where food is grown. Nor should they be placed in populated areas where “people” live! If they can’t site them at least ½ mile from our homes, then they don’t belong here.
Sincerely,
Melody Ryan
Goodhue, MN
***
My comments to the PUC regarding wind turbines setbacks
Destruction of habitat is wrong whether it is the destruction of the habitat of a rare frog, the habitat of a bald eagle or the habitat of the graying hard working American taxpayer. People should have the right to harvest the wind that blows across their property but only if they can do it without harming their neighbors or destroying the value of their neighbors property Even if you disregard all the other problems with siting wind turbines near to peoples residences, the 50 decibel limit applied to wind turbines sited into quiet rural areas is unfair to property owners. The 50 decibel limit that stems from Minnesota Rule 7030 is a noise pollution limit normally applied in urban areas with normal background noise levels that are much higher than the background levels normally found in a quiet rural area. The 50 decibel limit does nothing to protect the value of your property when the value of your property is based on other people’s desire to obtain a quiet place in the country. Very few people will want to purchase your property when all you can hear is noise from wind turbines.
I have little hope that wind energy developers will learn to respect the rights of small property owners any time in the near future on their own. Eventually if enough people are hurt or loss property value I am sure that a class action law suit will be filed against the wind energy industry in general. Measures need to be taken now to insure that wind energy and all property owners are protected. Reasonable set backs need to be adopted.
Wind energy development should have simple common sense requirements. Two basic ones should be that you can not cast a shadow on someone’s residence or building site and that no noise generated by the wind turbine be detectable above the normal background sound levels of the area. Also, some form of enforceable remedy needs to be available to those people who experience problems from wind turbines. Someone at some level needs to be able shut down the operation of turbines found to be in violation of whatever the sound limit is.
Perhaps the incentives to build these large scale industrial wind farms should be eliminated altogether. Instead the incentives should be redirected to promote more individually owned wind generators tied into the local utility grid which by their very nature would create less problems with public acceptance.
I believe the biggest problem with alternative energy development is that local utilities are unable to accommodate individuals who have access to wind or solar power without creating problems for themselves. Local utilities need to be able to take the power from small generators and resell it for a profit or at least not lose money in the process. I would invest money today in alternative energy generating equipment if I was sure I could sell enough power to the local utility over the lifetime of the equipment to recover my money.
Exchange standards and connection standards that will allow the small scale alternative energy producers to sell their power to local utilities for a guarantied below retail price and the local utility to resell all forms of green power for a profit need to be developed. These standards along with equipment that would allow local utilities the ability to instantly disconnect any grid inter tied generation equipment safely without damage to private party equipment, would allow the entire grid to function more efficiently and safely. For Instance if the local utility were to piggyback a signal on the power line and if any generator had to receive this signal to remain connected then if a line broke or the utility quit transmitting the signal the generator would instantly be disconnected from the grid.
Industrial wind energy production is not alternative energy it is just business as usual. Industrial wind developers do little more than destroy the tax base and avoid paying their own taxes. Real alternative energy is individuals, small businesses, cities, and towns taking advantage of resources available locally to create their own power and selling any extra to others who need it. As controllers of the grid the sooner you accept that, the sooner a brighter energy future will dawn for all Americans.
Rick Conrad
4 September 2009
***
Published September 23 2009
Question developments’ ‘green’ nature of wind is clear
We are all concerned about the effects of global warming and, in response, wind turbine developers have been marching with their “green” flags. This of course allows them to reap huge financial benefits from the tax dollars paid by you and me.
By: Chris Mallery, Kenyon,
To the Editor:
We are all concerned about the effects of global warming and, in response, wind turbine developers have been marching with their “green” flags. This of course allows them to reap huge financial benefits from the tax dollars paid by you and me.
One argument we keep hearing is wind turbines will reduce our reliance on foreign oil. In 2008, U.S. oil consumption was 71 percent for transportation, 23 percent for industrial, 5 percent for residential and commercial, and 1 percent for electrical generation.
Since a major portion of CO2 emissions are from automobiles, we could take the millions of tax dollars that are allocated for wind generation and put that toward hydrogen powered vehicles and upgrades to gas stations.
We would drastically reduce and/or eliminate our reliance on foreign oil and hydrogen powered automobiles produce zero CO2.People also mistakenly believe that by using wind energy we will be able to decrease the number of fossil-fueled and nuclear power plants. Unfortunately that is not true.
The wind blows the most during the winter, not summer when there is the greatest need. The electricity generated in the winter cannot be stored so consequently the coal and nuclear power plants have to work harder during the summer to make up for the lack of wind generated electricity produced.
You could erect additional tens of thousands of wind turbines across our beautiful country and still not eliminate one single coal or nuclear power plant.
Our county commissioners and township officials can have an impact on developments in our county. Please contact the commissioners and local officials and let them know you are concerned not only for the health, safety and quality of life that would be affected by wind turbines but also the true necessity.
Is the stampede for wind energy because of a desire for “green — save the earth” or “green — the color of money”?
Chris Mallery
Kenyon
For information on items discussed here visit:
www.windcows.com
www.wind-watch.org
www.windconcerns
www.ontario.wordpress.com
***
Wind energy development costs 2 million dollars per megawatt installed.
The service life of a turbine is about 20 years.
The total benefit to Goodhue County is about $440,000 a year.
The state will be holding the funds for dismantling.
No information was given about final disposal of turbine blades and whether or not they are hazardous waste.
They stated that they are businessmen out to make a profit.
They stated that louder noise is generated when the wind blows harder.
They stated that the noise would be hard to hear because the noise of the wind would be louder.
They stated that property rights of land owners gave them the right to place turbines at the setbacks as determined by PUC.
They stated that they were doing the community very possible benefit that they could financially.
They did not respond when I stated that 400-foot tower exceed the bounds of property rights.
They stated that they studied wind turbine noise extensively.
They stated that modern wind turbines do not produce noise.
They stated that turbines that were making noise could have their blades optimized to reduce noise.
They did not say whether they would chose to optimize for noise or more electricity when I put the question to them as businessmen which way will optimize blades.
Rick Conrad
9/29/09
***
Scott & Melody Ryan
37859 County 47 Blvd
Goodhue, MN 55027
PUC comment to Docket 09-845
Commissioners,
We are 4th generation on a family crop & livestock farm just outside of Goodhue, MN. My husband has lived here all his life and I’ve lived here for 16 years.Last July we were approached by two wind developers. They both sat at our kitchen table and presented their proposed contacts for obtaining Wind rights to our family farm. We listened and asked many questions.
They told us our electric bill would decrease in cost, and land values in this area would increase. There was much promise of money that would be brought to the town of Goodhue, the school and the community. They made it sound like we’d become extremely wealthy! It was all about the money we would make! Just sounded too good to be true…
They told us we’d be able to continue our farming as if nothing was different. They said turbines were safe and extremely quiet. They never mentioned flicker, ice throw or low frequency noise. They also stated no one could stop the project, that it will happen and they would not take “No” for an answer! They said “why not sign and get a payment, because my neighbor may get a turbine and you’d live next to one anyway”. They made it appear as if you really did not have a choice, so you should “join them, because you can beat them”!
Over a couple months, things they told us did not add up, and the secrecy of meetings and contract changes really bothered us. One developer said if anyone negotiated a better contract than what we signed, everyone who signed in the project got the better contract. If the contract keeps changing, then why sign one? Wouldn’t this make the original contract you signed null and void? So we started doing some research.
We became very concerned about information we found pertaining to health problems caused by low frequency noise, shadow flicker, ground voltage problems, ice throw, land values, and possible litigation from surrounding landowners.
When we approached them on the Pierpont studies of Wind Turbine Syndrome, they told us this information was undocumented and “NO ONE” living in a wind farm ever got sick for the Turbines. They told us “everything you read on the internet is not true”! You can’t believe anything you find there. I find it ironic, that they point you to the internet to read certain documents or view their website to back their words!
We had questions about shadow flicker. They told us that it rarely happens in the US because of the latitude angles of the US in comparison to the sun, and that it is not possible for that to happen here.
I asked about ice throw, they told me this was resolved and it is not an issue anymore. However, at one of the Wind Developers meetings, one of the farmers in their projects who host a number of turbines was a guest speaker. I asked him about issues with the turbines on his property. He said they are not noisy and shadow flicker did not bother him, course the turbines are over a mile from his house and neighbors. When I asked about ice throw, he his comment was “Oh, that is a problem, you don’t want to be anywhere near that, you’ll get seriously hurt”!
When asked about litigation issues, they told us our neighbors could not sue us and no litigation would hold up in court. We asked about land values. They told us land values increase if you were in a wind farm! This we found this not to be true from outside realtors.
We asked about land taxes. They told us the county would zone the ½ acre the turbines are on as commercial and they pay those taxes. They did tell us that they know of one site where the county increased the landowner’s property where he had to pay higher taxes. One of our commissioners told me, that if we had a building site, it would be lost to the turbine.
REA sent a letter to all their customers explaining why Wind Power increases your electric cost and as they take on this type of renewable power, they will lose profit and will push this cost off on their customers, expect to see our electric cost increase. When we showed this to the wind developers, they laughed at it and said it was untrue. So who do you believe?
We asked about the new studies that state our electrical demand has decreased and that the wind turbines don’t produce to the numbers they state. The wind doesn’t blow best when we need it. And if it blows too hard, it is not useable! They tell us the data we have is incorrect. Well, then what is correct?
Both wind developers kept talking about this white paper that was to be released in May from the Minnesota health Department. They told us it should be a good report and they were anticipating its release. When it came out, they tried to down play it and that it was inconclusive and we should not believe the report. It was bogus and a lie.
We asked “why Goodhue”? Is the wind so good here? Their answer, “The wind is so, so, okay; but there is room on your electrical grid. That is why we are here”.
We asked them to consider a ½ mile set back from homes. They said they could not do this because it would shut the project down. They admitted their biggest challenge here in Goodhue is we are too populated! If this is true, then a “safe” wind project cannot be built in Goodhue. This is not the right place for industrial size wind turbines. This is agriculture land! People and animals live here! We are not in industrial park or development.
Goodhue has been a close knit community and was a great place to raise your kids, but things have changed since the developers have arrived. Neighbors, families, siblings are fighting against each other. Brother against brother. The community is splitting. One wind employ stated she could see that it was splitting the community. She said she felt really bad about it. Right! They will come in, put up turbines then leave or sell the project. What will we be left with!? A broken, damaged community!
Some have moved, more are getting ready to place their homes up for sale. Others are searching for legal help.
One neighbor had to pay to have his land cleared at the court house, because one of the developers had it listed he signed wind rights away. He was moving because his neighbor signed and he could not live with a turbine next to his house!
Another neighbor down the road keeps complaining they are hounding him daily! He is very frustrated. Because we have openly stated our opinions on requesting safe setbacks, the developers have labeled us as “Anti-Wind people”. We are radical! It can’t be further from the truth! We are trying to protect our rights, land, family and community.
We are getting blamed for stupid things like flat tires and such. I hear comments like “maybe the anti-wind people did it”! This type of thing fightens me! I am starting to become concerned for our safety, this type of behavior can lead to bad things.
There is much to consider and protect when siting and building an industrial Wind farm. There is protecting people’s health, from Wind turbine syndrome, shadow flicker and ice throw. Protecting out land values and livelihoods. Protect our community and generations of familys and friends being destroyed.
We have no one else to turn to other than the people we have elected to represent us. We have tried to contact our county commissioners, only to find out they were contacted almost a years in prior by the wind developers. At one meeting they told us there was nothing they could do to help us, that it was out of their hands. We are having to research and give them information on what they should do to represent the people!
We are finding that Wind Energy is more of a Green Politic, and not so much a good Green Solution!
Scott and Melody Ryan
***
Goodhue County Population Density in relation to LWEC
Whether or not a Large Wind Energy Conversion System (LWECS) Project is good for an area depends a great deal on population density.
Although, we are a rural area we have many people living here with four to ten acres with their house. Unlike western Minnesota and parts of Iowa, which are large cash crop areas, when farms are sold in our area the building sites are kept up and used. Also, they have farms that the fields have many more acres and are wide open with fewer homes dispersed in between.
In fact, in the Goodhue County townships where these Industrial Wind Turbines will be placed, we have a much higher density population. Goodhue Township has 5.5 homes per section on average, Belle Creek Township has 5.2 homes per section on average, and Minneola Township approximately 5.6 homes per section on average. However; there are sections with as many as 8 or 9 homes per section. In comparison, Dean Runde, an Iowa farmer stated, “We only have 1 home per section and sometimes 0 homes per section.” Mr. Runde has turbines on his property but none closer than a ½ mile. “It will never work in your area because you are too populated and it will negatively affect too many people,” Mr. Runde concluded.
People in Goodhue County understand that living in the country means at times they will smell manure, deal with slow equipment on the roads and possibly other small inconveniences. These people are not “chronic complainers”. They do, however; have very real concerns about noise, health issues, and property values dealing with Industrial Wind Turbines. Obviously, these issues become much more important in higher populated areas. For example, the recent “White Paper from the Minnesota Department of Health” show that certain areas such as ours, need stricter setbacks and clearly states, “Low frequency noise from a wind turbine is generally not easily perceived beyond ½ mile.”
Shouldn’t wind farms be placed in more ideal places with less population and with greater setbacks?
Steve Groth
***
October 16, 2009
To the Editor,
I am writing to share some information in regards to the industrial Wind Projects coming into Goodhue County. In an effort to learn more about how a wind project affects us, it seemed like a good idea to talk to people in areas that are being developed or have projects up. With the Goodhue projects, we are getting a side that the wind companies alone are giving us. I have some very big concerns for my family and my neighbors. I have doubts that everyone knew enough when they signed contracts.
So, a neighbor and I came in contact with a farmer in Cambria, Wisconsin. We took a road trip to see him. Gary Steinich is a farmer who regretted signing a wind contract. He was happy to share his story so other landowners and communities would not make the same mistakes as those in his area had.
The town and area of Cambria, Wisconsin is very similar to ours. It has nice farmland and is an Ag based community that was tight and close-knit; with neighbor helping neighbor. Unfortunately, now has changed because of a wind development that will be starting soon.
This is Gary’s story. In 2004 the Steinich family signed their farm corporation with Florida Power and Light (FPL) in a wind farm easement. At that time, their present land values and commodity prices made the turbine lease payments seem very attractive. Gary was assured the project would be similar to the straight line configuration near Montfort, WI, with similar size turbines.
Four years went by and very little was ever mentioned about the project. It was suggested by FPL personnel that the project was “dead” and not going to be built. Suddenly, in 2008, FPL and WE Energies announced the sale of the project and purchase by WE Energies. Landowners were given no choice in the matter to cancel their agreements. “The plan today proposed by WE Energies, is not the proposed plan many of us originally signed for. Their plan consists of 400 ft. turbines, 1000 feet from non-participant homes, contracts for 30-40 years. None of this was anticipated by any of us landowners.”
“Many outspoken proponents of wind development in this area live miles away from the turbines proposed on their property, yet they are perfectly willing to allow turbines placed 1,000 feet from non-participating neighbors,” Gary told us. “One even has said that he would not want a turbine next to his house. Lifelong friendships already have been severed.”
Gary talked openly about the tactics used by the wind developers and how it was not just unique to his area. They use similar tactics everywhere. We are now hearing about it in our community; such as, the relentless pressure to sign; lies about which neighbors had signed, who really didn’t sign. The wind developers made verbal promises to the land owners, but without these important details written in the contracts, will not be honored. The contracts contain non-disclosure clauses or gag orders. Divisions have been created in the community by not having at least a half mile setback written in the contract to protect everyone’s health and safety, but most importantly, what it does to neighbors. People are reluctant to even speak out about the issue. They are afraid of what it will do to their business, how it will affect their family, and how it will affect their friendships. This is no way to put in place a renewable energy plan.
Gary has extreme remorse about what he did to his neighbors, by not thinking of them before he signed. He stated that money and greed motivates all of us, but is a weak justification to the consequences of a project of this magnitude. He sincerely does not want any community to go through what his area is dealing with. He kept saying, “Think about your neighbor and community. They were here before to the wind developers!”
Gary’s story was presented at the Goodhue Lions Building on September 30th, and if you want to see that presentation, it is at www.goodhuewindtruth.com for viewing. I hope everyone looks carefully at wind easement contracts and also thinks about their neighbor and their community.
Sincerely,
Scott Ryan
Goodhue, MN
***
11/15/2009
Goodhue County Population Density in relation to LWEC
Whether or not a Large Wind Energy Conversion System (LWECS) Project is good for an area depends a great deal on population density.
Although we are a rural area we have many people living in the area with four to ten acres with their house. Unlike western Minnesota and parts of Iowa that are large cash crop areas, when farms are sold in our area the building sites are kept up and used. Also, they have farms that the fields have many more acres and are wide open with fewer homes dispersed in between.
In fact, in the Goodhue County townships where these Industrial Wind Turbines will be placed, we have a much higher density population. Goodhue Township has 5.5 homes per section on average, Belle Creek Township has 5.2 homes per section on average and Minneola Township approximately 5.6 homes per section on average. However, there are sections with as many as 8 or 9 homes per section. In comparison, Dean Runde, an Iowa farmer stated, “We only have 1 home per section and sometimes 0 homes per section.” Mr. Runde has turbines on his property but none closer than a ½ mile. “It will never work in your area because you are too populated and it will negatively affect too many people,” Mr. Runde concluded.
People in Goodhue County understand that living in the country means at times they will smell manure, deal with slow equipment on the roads and possibly other small inconveniences. These people are not “chronic complainers”. They do, however, have very real concerns about noise, health issues and property values dealing with Industrial Wind Turbines. Obviously, these issues become much more important in higher populated areas. For example, the recent “White Paper from the Minnesota Department of Health” show that certain areas such as ours need stricter setbacks and clearly states, “Low frequency noise from a wind turbine is generally not easily perceived beyond ½ mile.”
Shouldn’t wind farms be placed in more ideal places with less population and with greater setbacks?
Ann Buck
Goodhue, MN
***
Letters from Mars Hill, Maine
My name is Wendy Todd and I am from Mars Hill, Maine. I grew up in Mars Hill, on a farm that has been in my family for generations. After getting married, my husband Perrin and I moved to southern Maine. About five years ago we moved back to the County to raise our children and enjoy the rural living that we both grew up with. Shortly after moving into our new home at the base of Mars Hill Mountain, construction began on the Mars Hill Wind Farm. The entire project went on line in March of 2007.
The wind turbines have changed our lives forever.
There are 18 families who live under a mile and downwind of the Mars Hill wind project who have been negatively impacted by these massive turbines. We all want for people to understand what is at stake when turbines move into your community. The 28, GE 1.5 megawatt turbines here in Mars Hill have destroyed a way of life that many have cherished for generations. It is an industrial facility that covers over 3 miles. It has destroyed wildlife habitat, breathtaking views, and property values. It has forever scarred the mountain. It has disturbed streams, ponds and wetlands. Safety issues with ice throw, risks of fire and tower collapse are all things that neighbors have to consider.
The noise created by the turbines can be unbearable at times. It causes disruption to sleep patterns, stress and anxiety to most who live downwind of the project. For some it causes headaches, pressure or ringing in the ears, inability to concentrate, feelings of unease, and dizziness. Others who suffer from migraines are saying that their migraines are worse and that their medications are no longer as effective in relieving the pain. Some of my neighbors have turned to medications and other therapies to cope. Most of us have had to alter something, either in our homes or personal lives, to cope with how the turbines have changed the environment. I am not talking about a simple nuisance, this is about life altering changes to the environment that can literally make people sick and change the way you live in your home and use your land. A large number of the families affected have considered leaving their homes.
Many in the acoustic and medical communities are calling for a 1.5 kilometer or greater set back for industrial wind turbines from homes, schools, and medical facilities for reasons of health and well being. Proper setbacks are the only way to provide protection.
I truly believe it is only a matter of time before the scientific data will be there to force more stringent regulation on this industry, but for now you have to protect yourselves because no one else is able to do so. Your friends in Mars Hill are begging that you listen and heed our warnings before you too find yourself in this nightmare.
Many promises were made to our town through the information period before construction began. Talk of job creation, reductions in carbon emissions, and reductions in our taxes were all very appealing. Many inaccurate, false statements were given about the noise issue. We were told that we would have to be within 500 feet of the project to hear anything at all from the turbines and that there would be no noise at all at the base of the mountain. Shadow flicker was never discussed.
The extent of how huge the construction phase would be or what kind of disruption we as citizens should expect was not discussed either. The Mars Hill project was supposed to reduce carbon emissions by 65 million tons, yet when asked to show confirmation of that, they cannot show where any regional power plants have stopped or slowed production that would realize any carbon reductions at all.
The promise of jobs went mostly to large corporations and their employees from mid to southern Maine. Most local crews did not have the expertise to meet the needs of the developer.
They told us that property values tend to go up when turbines move in, but appraisals show a 20 percent to 50 percent devaluation of property depending on proximity and visibility of the turbines. One appraiser even said that some of our properties might never sell.
Mars Hill was the first project of its kind in our state but there should be no excuse for how little the people of Mars Hill knew about this process. Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the developer had a good understanding of what was going to take place but it was never communicated properly to the people of Mars Hill. One can only imagine how different things would be if the truth had been known. The state of Maine has not adopted rules that will protect its residents from this kind of project. At this point in time, individual communities must take action to protect their families because there are no wind industry guidelines that will. The developers hope that they can get in and operational before you understand the facts about wind. They make you feel that you would be a fool not support such a wonderful project. We were naïve and believed what the developer told us.
You are in a different place. So much new information is becoming available to communities who are considering wind. You are not alone. You have the chance and the responsibility to listen to all the information and choose wisely for your town. Any of the 18 families here in Mars Hill are willing to answer any questions or concerns that you may have regarding what life is like under industrial wind turbines. If you are not going to be affected personally ask yourself if a friend or neighbor will be. Protect each other. Ask lots of questions and use caution when listening to the developer. They are there to sell their project, not tell you all the negative things that can happen.
What can you do to learn more? Attend local meetings, listen, and visit a few Web sites on the impacts of industrial wind and wind turbine syndrome. Educate yourselves now before it is too late. Defend your ridgelines, your homes and your way of life. No one else will do it for you. Once the project is approved there is no hope and no turning back.
Responses to Letter from Mars Hill (Maine)
1.Art Giacalone says: November 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
My thanks to Wendy Todd for sharing this information, and to Dr. Nina Pierpont for ensuring that Wendy’s all-too-accurate depiction of the travesty that accompanies industrial-scale wind development is disseminated as widely as possible. Wind developers have been irresponsible and deceptive when selling their projects, and woefully negligent when addressing the problems endured by nearby residents once the “farms” are operating. Government officials and agencies alone have the power and resources to prevent these horror stories. Sadly, they have failed miserably when it comes to protecting families, the character of rural America, and the environment.
Editor’s note: For those who don’t know, Art Giacalone is a Harvard-trained lawyer living in western NY State. He has been heavily involved for years in trying to protect individuals like Wendy Todd, and their communities, from Big Wind. He is a man of tremendous courage and moral fiber. A man whom Nina & I admire enormously. Click here for his website.
2.John Gilbert says: November 6th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I’m a summer resident of South Marysburgh on the eastern area of the south shore region of Prince Edward County (PEC) Ontario. From age 12 in my various sailboats I’ve seen all islands and coastline from Toronto to Brockville, Ontario and Rochester to Alexandria Bay, NY. In 1995 I bought a cottage there because I had learned in my voyages that The Point Traverse area of South Marysburgh was the the most remote location.
Three years ago my brother Barrie a retired wildlife professor chose to settle on Wolfe Island for the same wildlife / remote reasons, but his dreams are now buried under 86 monster wind turbines. Wolfe Island now an Industrial Park is called “Freak Island”.
Grrrr. It’s legal to glorify illegal action in Canada as long as one does not refer to specific targets so if you hear of country boys having fun shooting the blades off turbines in America, let me know. I don’t own a gun but just can’t help smiling at the thought. A Canadian is just like an American, except he has universal health care and no gun. I would rather with all your horrific shooters they consider targeting monster machines instead of people.
***
Question developments’ ‘green’ nature of wind is clear
We are all concerned about the effects of global warming and, in response, wind turbine developers have been marching with their “green” flags. This of course allows them to reap huge financial benefits from the tax dollars paid by you and me.
By: Chris Mallery, Kenyon,
To the Editor:
We are all concerned about the effects of global warming and, in response, wind turbine developers have been marching with their “green” flags. This of course allows them to reap huge financial benefits from the tax dollars paid by you and me.
One argument we keep hearing is wind turbines will reduce our reliance on foreign oil. In 2008, U.S. oil consumption was 71 percent for transportation, 23 percent for industrial, 5 percent for residential and commercial, and 1 percent for electrical generation.
Since a major portion of CO2 emissions are from automobiles, we could take the millions of tax dollars that are allocated for wind generation and put that toward hydrogen powered vehicles and upgrades to gas stations.
We would drastically reduce and/or eliminate our reliance on foreign oil and hydrogen powered automobiles produce zero CO2.People also mistakenly believe that by using wind energy we will be able to decrease the number of fossil-fueled and nuclear power plants. Unfortunately that is not true.
The wind blows the most during the winter, not summer when there is the greatest need. The electricity generated in the winter cannot be stored so consequently the coal and nuclear power plants have to work harder during the summer to make up for the lack of wind generated electricity produced.
You could erect additional tens of thousands of wind turbines across our beautiful country and still not eliminate one single coal or nuclear power plant.
Our county commissioners and township officials can have an impact on developments in our county. Please contact the commissioners and local officials and let them know you are concerned not only for the health, safety and quality of life that would be affected by wind turbines but also the true necessity.
Is the stampede for wind energy because of a desire for “green — save the earth” or “green — the color of money”?
Chris Mallery
Kenyon
For information on items discussed here visit:
www.windcows.com
www.wind-watch.org
www.windconcerns
www.ontario.wordpress.com
***
Wind Energy Fakts as stated at Wind informational Meeting
Wind energy development costs 2 million dollars per megawatt installed.
The service life of a turbine is about 20 years.
The total benefit to Goodhue County is about $440,000 a year.
The state will be holding the funds for dismantling.
No information was given about final disposal of turbine blades and whether or not they are hazardous waste.
They stated that they are businessmen out to make a profit.
They stated that louder noise is generated when the wind blows harder.
They stated that the noise would be hard to hear because the noise of the wind would be louder.
They stated that property rights of land owners gave them the right to place turbines at the setbacks as determined by PUC.
They stated that they were doing the community very possible benefit that they could financially.
They did not respond when I stated that 400-foot tower exceed the bounds of property rights.
They stated that they studied wind turbine noise extensively.
They stated that modern wind turbines do not produce noise.
They stated that turbines that were making noise could have their blades optimized to reduce noise.
They did not say whether they would chose to optimize for noise or more electricity when I put the question to them as businessmen which way will optimize blades.
Rick Conrad
9/29/09
***
Scott & Melody Ryan
37859 County 47 Blvd
Goodhue, MN 55027
PUC comment to Docket 09-845
Commissioners,
We are 4th generation on a family crop & livestock farm just outside of Goodhue, MN. My husband has lived here all his life and I’ve lived here for 16 years.Last July we were approached by two wind developers. They both sat at our kitchen table and presented their proposed contacts for obtaining Wind rights to our family farm. We listened and asked many questions.
They told us our electric bill would decrease in cost, and land values in this area would increase. There was much promise of money that would be brought to the town of Goodhue, the school and the community. They made it sound like we’d become extremely wealthy! It was all about the money we would make! Just sounded too good to be true…
They told us we’d be able to continue our farming as if nothing was different. They said turbines were safe and extremely quiet. They never mentioned flicker, ice throw or low frequency noise. They also stated no one could stop the project, that it will happen and they would not take “No” for an answer! They said “why not sign and get a payment, because my neighbor may get a turbine and you’d live next to one anyway”. They made it appear as if you really did not have a choice, so you should “join them, because you can beat them”!
Over a couple months, things they told us did not add up, and the secrecy of meetings and contract changes really bothered us. One developer said if anyone negotiated a better contract than what we signed, everyone who signed in the project got the better contract. If the contract keeps changing, then why sign one? Wouldn’t this make the original contract you signed null and void? So we started doing some research.
We became very concerned about information we found pertaining to health problems caused by low frequency noise, shadow flicker, ground voltage problems, ice throw, land values, and possible litigation from surrounding landowners.
When we approached them on the Pierpont studies of Wind Turbine Syndrome, they told us this information was undocumented and “NO ONE” living in a wind farm ever got sick for the Turbines. They told us “everything you read on the internet is not true”! You can’t believe anything you find there. I find it ironic, that they point you to the internet to read certain documents or view their website to back their words!
We had questions about shadow flicker. They told us that it rarely happens in the US because of the latitude angles of the US in comparison to the sun, and that it is not possible for that to happen here.
I asked about ice throw, they told me this was resolved and it is not an issue anymore. However, at one of the Wind Developers meetings, one of the farmers in their projects who host a number of turbines was a guest speaker. I asked him about issues with the turbines on his property. He said they are not noisy and shadow flicker did not bother him, course the turbines are over a mile from his house and neighbors. When I asked about ice throw, he his comment was “Oh, that is a problem, you don’t want to be anywhere near that, you’ll get seriously hurt”!
When asked about litigation issues, they told us our neighbors could not sue us and no litigation would hold up in court. We asked about land values. They told us land values increase if you were in a wind farm! This we found this not to be true from outside realtors.
We asked about land taxes. They told us the county would zone the ½ acre the turbines are on as commercial and they pay those taxes. They did tell us that they know of one site where the county increased the landowner’s property where he had to pay higher taxes. One of our commissioners told me, that if we had a building site, it would be lost to the turbine.
REA sent a letter to all their customers explaining why Wind Power increases your electric cost and as they take on this type of renewable power, they will lose profit and will push this cost off on their customers, expect to see our electric cost increase. When we showed this to the wind developers, they laughed at it and said it was untrue. So who do you believe?
We asked about the new studies that state our electrical demand has decreased and that the wind turbines don’t produce to the numbers they state. The wind doesn’t blow best when we need it. And if it blows too hard, it is not useable! They tell us the data we have is incorrect. Well, then what is correct?
Both wind developers kept talking about this white paper that was to be released in May from the Minnesota health Department. They told us it should be a good report and they were anticipating its release. When it came out, they tried to down play it and that it was inconclusive and we should not believe the report. It was bogus and a lie.
We asked “why Goodhue”? Is the wind so good here? Their answer, “The wind is so, so, okay; but there is room on your electrical grid. That is why we are here”.
We asked them to consider a ½ mile set back from homes. They said they could not do this because it would shut the project down. They admitted their biggest challenge here in Goodhue is we are too populated! If this is true, then a “safe” wind project cannot be built in Goodhue. This is not the right place for industrial size wind turbines. This is agriculture land! People and animals live here! We are not in industrial park or development.
Goodhue has been a close knit community and was a great place to raise your kids, but things have changed since the developers have arrived. Neighbors, families, siblings are fighting against each other. Brother against brother. The community is splitting. One wind employ stated she could see that it was splitting the community. She said she felt really bad about it. Right! They will come in, put up turbines then leave or sell the project. What will we be left with!? A broken, damaged community!
Some have moved, more are getting ready to place their homes up for sale. Others are searching for legal help.
One neighbor had to pay to have his land cleared at the court house, because one of the developers had it listed he signed wind rights away. He was moving because his neighbor signed and he could not live with a turbine next to his house!
Another neighbor down the road keeps complaining they are hounding him daily! He is very frustrated. Because we have openly stated our opinions on requesting safe setbacks, the developers have labeled us as “Anti-Wind people”. We are radical! It can’t be further from the truth! We are trying to protect our rights, land, family and community.
We are getting blamed for stupid things like flat tires and such. I hear comments like “maybe the anti-wind people did it”! This type of thing fightens me! I am starting to become concerned for our safety, this type of behavior can lead to bad things.
There is much to consider and protect when siting and building an industrial Wind farm. There is protecting people’s health, from Wind turbine syndrome, shadow flicker and ice throw. Protecting out land values and livelihoods. Protect our community and generations of familys and friends being destroyed.
We have no one else to turn to other than the people we have elected to represent us. We have tried to contact our county commissioners, only to find out they were contacted almost a years in prior by the wind developers. At one meeting they told us there was nothing they could do to help us, that it was out of their hands. We are having to research and give them information on what they should do to represent the people!
We are finding that Wind Energy is more of a Green Politic, and not so much a good Green Solution!
Scott and Melody Ryan
***
Goodhue County Population Density in relation to LWEC
Whether or not a Large Wind Energy Conversion System (LWECS) Project is good for an area depends a great deal on population density.
Although, we are a rural area we have many people living here with four to ten acres with their house. Unlike western Minnesota and parts of Iowa, which are large cash crop areas, when farms are sold in our area the building sites are kept up and used. Also, they have farms that the fields have many more acres and are wide open with fewer homes dispersed in between.
In fact, in the Goodhue County townships where these Industrial Wind Turbines will be placed, we have a much higher density population. Goodhue Township has 5.5 homes per section on average, Belle Creek Township has 5.2 homes per section on average, and Minneola Township approximately 5.6 homes per section on average. However; there are sections with as many as 8 or 9 homes per section. In comparison, Dean Runde, an Iowa farmer stated, “We only have 1 home per section and sometimes 0 homes per section.” Mr. Runde has turbines on his property but none closer than a ½ mile. “It will never work in your area because you are too populated and it will negatively affect too many people,” Mr. Runde concluded.
People in Goodhue County understand that living in the country means at times they will smell manure, deal with slow equipment on the roads and possibly other small inconveniences. These people are not “chronic complainers”. They do, however; have very real concerns about noise, health issues, and property values dealing with Industrial Wind Turbines. Obviously, these issues become much more important in higher populated areas. For example, the recent “White Paper from the Minnesota Department of Health” show that certain areas such as ours, need stricter setbacks and clearly states, “Low frequency noise from a wind turbine is generally not easily perceived beyond ½ mile.”
Shouldn’t wind farms be placed in more ideal places with less population and with greater setbacks?
Steve Groth
***
October 16, 2009
To the Editor,
I am writing to share some information in regards to the industrial Wind Projects coming into Goodhue County. In an effort to learn more about how a wind project affects us, it seemed like a good idea to talk to people in areas that are being developed or have projects up. With the Goodhue projects, we are getting a side that the wind companies alone are giving us. I have some very big concerns for my family and my neighbors. I have doubts that everyone knew enough when they signed contracts.
So, a neighbor and I came in contact with a farmer in Cambria, Wisconsin. We took a road trip to see him. Gary Steinich is a farmer who regretted signing a wind contract. He was happy to share his story so other landowners and communities would not make the same mistakes as those in his area had.
The town and area of Cambria, Wisconsin is very similar to ours. It has nice farmland and is an Ag based community that was tight and close-knit; with neighbor helping neighbor. Unfortunately, now has changed because of a wind development that will be starting soon.
This is Gary’s story. In 2004 the Steinich family signed their farm corporation with Florida Power and Light (FPL) in a wind farm easement. At that time, their present land values and commodity prices made the turbine lease payments seem very attractive. Gary was assured the project would be similar to the straight line configuration near Montfort, WI, with similar size turbines.
Four years went by and very little was ever mentioned about the project. It was suggested by FPL personnel that the project was “dead” and not going to be built. Suddenly, in 2008, FPL and WE Energies announced the sale of the project and purchase by WE Energies. Landowners were given no choice in the matter to cancel their agreements. “The plan today proposed by WE Energies, is not the proposed plan many of us originally signed for. Their plan consists of 400 ft. turbines, 1000 feet from non-participant homes, contracts for 30-40 years. None of this was anticipated by any of us landowners.”
“Many outspoken proponents of wind development in this area live miles away from the turbines proposed on their property, yet they are perfectly willing to allow turbines placed 1,000 feet from non-participating neighbors,” Gary told us. “One even has said that he would not want a turbine next to his house. Lifelong friendships already have been severed.”
Gary talked openly about the tactics used by the wind developers and how it was not just unique to his area. They use similar tactics everywhere. We are now hearing about it in our community; such as, the relentless pressure to sign; lies about which neighbors had signed, who really didn’t sign. The wind developers made verbal promises to the land owners, but without these important details written in the contracts, will not be honored. The contracts contain non-disclosure clauses or gag orders. Divisions have been created in the community by not having at least a half mile setback written in the contract to protect everyone’s health and safety, but most importantly, what it does to neighbors. People are reluctant to even speak out about the issue. They are afraid of what it will do to their business, how it will affect their family, and how it will affect their friendships. This is no way to put in place a renewable energy plan.
Gary has extreme remorse about what he did to his neighbors, by not thinking of them before he signed. He stated that money and greed motivates all of us, but is a weak justification to the consequences of a project of this magnitude. He sincerely does not want any community to go through what his area is dealing with. He kept saying, “Think about your neighbor and community. They were here before to the wind developers!”
Gary’s story was presented at the Goodhue Lions Building on September 30th, and if you want to see that presentation, it is at www.goodhuewindtruth.com for viewing. I hope everyone looks carefully at wind easement contracts and also thinks about their neighbor and their community.
Sincerely,
Scott Ryan
Goodhue, MN
***
11/15/2009
Goodhue County Population Density in relation to LWEC
Whether or not a Large Wind Energy Conversion System (LWECS) Project is good for an area depends a great deal on population density.
Although we are a rural area we have many people living in the area with four to ten acres with their house. Unlike western Minnesota and parts of Iowa that are large cash crop areas, when farms are sold in our area the building sites are kept up and used. Also, they have farms that the fields have many more acres and are wide open with fewer homes dispersed in between.
In fact, in the Goodhue County townships where these Industrial Wind Turbines will be placed, we have a much higher density population. Goodhue Township has 5.5 homes per section on average, Belle Creek Township has 5.2 homes per section on average and Minneola Township approximately 5.6 homes per section on average. However, there are sections with as many as 8 or 9 homes per section. In comparison, Dean Runde, an Iowa farmer stated, “We only have 1 home per section and sometimes 0 homes per section.” Mr. Runde has turbines on his property but none closer than a ½ mile. “It will never work in your area because you are too populated and it will negatively affect too many people,” Mr. Runde concluded.
People in Goodhue County understand that living in the country means at times they will smell manure, deal with slow equipment on the roads and possibly other small inconveniences. These people are not “chronic complainers”. They do, however, have very real concerns about noise, health issues and property values dealing with Industrial Wind Turbines. Obviously, these issues become much more important in higher populated areas. For example, the recent “White Paper from the Minnesota Department of Health” show that certain areas such as ours need stricter setbacks and clearly states, “Low frequency noise from a wind turbine is generally not easily perceived beyond ½ mile.”
Shouldn’t wind farms be placed in more ideal places with less population and with greater setbacks?
Ann Buck
Goodhue, MN
***
Letters from Mars Hill, Maine
My name is Wendy Todd and I am from Mars Hill, Maine. I grew up in Mars Hill, on a farm that has been in my family for generations. After getting married, my husband Perrin and I moved to southern Maine. About five years ago we moved back to the County to raise our children and enjoy the rural living that we both grew up with. Shortly after moving into our new home at the base of Mars Hill Mountain, construction began on the Mars Hill Wind Farm. The entire project went on line in March of 2007.
The wind turbines have changed our lives forever.
There are 18 families who live under a mile and downwind of the Mars Hill wind project who have been negatively impacted by these massive turbines. We all want for people to understand what is at stake when turbines move into your community. The 28, GE 1.5 megawatt turbines here in Mars Hill have destroyed a way of life that many have cherished for generations. It is an industrial facility that covers over 3 miles. It has destroyed wildlife habitat, breathtaking views, and property values. It has forever scarred the mountain. It has disturbed streams, ponds and wetlands. Safety issues with ice throw, risks of fire and tower collapse are all things that neighbors have to consider.
The noise created by the turbines can be unbearable at times. It causes disruption to sleep patterns, stress and anxiety to most who live downwind of the project. For some it causes headaches, pressure or ringing in the ears, inability to concentrate, feelings of unease, and dizziness. Others who suffer from migraines are saying that their migraines are worse and that their medications are no longer as effective in relieving the pain. Some of my neighbors have turned to medications and other therapies to cope. Most of us have had to alter something, either in our homes or personal lives, to cope with how the turbines have changed the environment. I am not talking about a simple nuisance, this is about life altering changes to the environment that can literally make people sick and change the way you live in your home and use your land. A large number of the families affected have considered leaving their homes.
Many in the acoustic and medical communities are calling for a 1.5 kilometer or greater set back for industrial wind turbines from homes, schools, and medical facilities for reasons of health and well being. Proper setbacks are the only way to provide protection.
I truly believe it is only a matter of time before the scientific data will be there to force more stringent regulation on this industry, but for now you have to protect yourselves because no one else is able to do so. Your friends in Mars Hill are begging that you listen and heed our warnings before you too find yourself in this nightmare.
Many promises were made to our town through the information period before construction began. Talk of job creation, reductions in carbon emissions, and reductions in our taxes were all very appealing. Many inaccurate, false statements were given about the noise issue. We were told that we would have to be within 500 feet of the project to hear anything at all from the turbines and that there would be no noise at all at the base of the mountain. Shadow flicker was never discussed.
The extent of how huge the construction phase would be or what kind of disruption we as citizens should expect was not discussed either. The Mars Hill project was supposed to reduce carbon emissions by 65 million tons, yet when asked to show confirmation of that, they cannot show where any regional power plants have stopped or slowed production that would realize any carbon reductions at all.
The promise of jobs went mostly to large corporations and their employees from mid to southern Maine. Most local crews did not have the expertise to meet the needs of the developer.
They told us that property values tend to go up when turbines move in, but appraisals show a 20 percent to 50 percent devaluation of property depending on proximity and visibility of the turbines. One appraiser even said that some of our properties might never sell.
Mars Hill was the first project of its kind in our state but there should be no excuse for how little the people of Mars Hill knew about this process. Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the developer had a good understanding of what was going to take place but it was never communicated properly to the people of Mars Hill. One can only imagine how different things would be if the truth had been known. The state of Maine has not adopted rules that will protect its residents from this kind of project. At this point in time, individual communities must take action to protect their families because there are no wind industry guidelines that will. The developers hope that they can get in and operational before you understand the facts about wind. They make you feel that you would be a fool not support such a wonderful project. We were naïve and believed what the developer told us.
You are in a different place. So much new information is becoming available to communities who are considering wind. You are not alone. You have the chance and the responsibility to listen to all the information and choose wisely for your town. Any of the 18 families here in Mars Hill are willing to answer any questions or concerns that you may have regarding what life is like under industrial wind turbines. If you are not going to be affected personally ask yourself if a friend or neighbor will be. Protect each other. Ask lots of questions and use caution when listening to the developer. They are there to sell their project, not tell you all the negative things that can happen.
What can you do to learn more? Attend local meetings, listen, and visit a few Web sites on the impacts of industrial wind and wind turbine syndrome. Educate yourselves now before it is too late. Defend your ridgelines, your homes and your way of life. No one else will do it for you. Once the project is approved there is no hope and no turning back.
Responses to Letter from Mars Hill (Maine)
1.Art Giacalone says: November 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
My thanks to Wendy Todd for sharing this information, and to Dr. Nina Pierpont for ensuring that Wendy’s all-too-accurate depiction of the travesty that accompanies industrial-scale wind development is disseminated as widely as possible. Wind developers have been irresponsible and deceptive when selling their projects, and woefully negligent when addressing the problems endured by nearby residents once the “farms” are operating. Government officials and agencies alone have the power and resources to prevent these horror stories. Sadly, they have failed miserably when it comes to protecting families, the character of rural America, and the environment.
Editor’s note: For those who don’t know, Art Giacalone is a Harvard-trained lawyer living in western NY State. He has been heavily involved for years in trying to protect individuals like Wendy Todd, and their communities, from Big Wind. He is a man of tremendous courage and moral fiber. A man whom Nina & I admire enormously. Click here for his website.
2.John Gilbert says: November 6th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I’m a summer resident of South Marysburgh on the eastern area of the south shore region of Prince Edward County (PEC) Ontario. From age 12 in my various sailboats I’ve seen all islands and coastline from Toronto to Brockville, Ontario and Rochester to Alexandria Bay, NY. In 1995 I bought a cottage there because I had learned in my voyages that The Point Traverse area of South Marysburgh was the the most remote location.
Three years ago my brother Barrie a retired wildlife professor chose to settle on Wolfe Island for the same wildlife / remote reasons, but his dreams are now buried under 86 monster wind turbines. Wolfe Island now an Industrial Park is called “Freak Island”.
Grrrr. It’s legal to glorify illegal action in Canada as long as one does not refer to specific targets so if you hear of country boys having fun shooting the blades off turbines in America, let me know. I don’t own a gun but just can’t help smiling at the thought. A Canadian is just like an American, except he has universal health care and no gun. I would rather with all your horrific shooters they consider targeting monster machines instead of people.
***
