You can view a map of Mainstream’s project in Auglaize county here.

Friends: (06-14-13)  US Mainstream has decided to cancel their Ohio projects in Auglaize and Shelby Counties, stopping lease payments and releasing their recorded leases. Attached here is a copy of the letter Mainstream sent to farmers who signed leases. A similar letter was sent to Shelby County. The 12,000 acres is combined, as they had leased 5,200 acres in Auglaize County and 6,800 in Shelby County.

I want to thank the many people who made this possible. We will discuss the future of the group more at length at our upcoming June 22 meeting.

As we enjoy the success of our efforts let us remember it would not have been possible without one another and our neighbors who were willing to listen. We must also remember the farmers who signed leases remain our neighbors. We were able to present out viewpoint in a civil manner and educate the public about our ideas. Let us be mindful to be gracious and respectful of the ideas of others with this good news and our success.

(06-13-13) We are trying to digest this and ascertain its meaning for Ohio.  My first read is that any state Renewable Mandate that requires in-state purchases appears to violate the commerce clause.  This would include Ohio.  Second, it appears that Ohio ratepayers could get stuck paying for some of the costly transmission planned to carry Iowa and Minnesota wind power eastward.  This ruling, alone, could curtail further expansion of wind in Ohio.  Would love to have your thoughts.  I have sent the article to Senators Seitz, Jordan and Faber as well as to Rep. Stautberg and Rep. Adams.  Feel free to send it to others as you think appropriate. Read story here.

Also, We are still trying to get over Champaign County Commissioner Hess’s suggestion that the “naysayers” visit other wind factories.  You may recall that Everpower suggested the same thing a few years ago and local resident, Nino Vitale, followed up.  Nino asked Everpower where he should go and they recommended Benton County, Indiana.  Nino made a terrific video of his experience and thoughts as he flew over the turbines spread across land that looks nothing like Champaign County. The few homes in the area had thick dark film covering the windows to keep out red flashing lights and shadow flicker. Residents refused to talk but directed him to a PR Office in town.  We have copies of the video on DVD and they are available free of charge.  You can pick them up at Williams Hardware in Urbana.  In the meantime, we offer a recent newspaper story from  Barbara Ashbee who was bought out by the wind developer and forced to sign a gag order. Despite the order,  Ashbee  felt compelled to speak out. Maybe Commissioner Hess would like to visit this eloquent “naysayer”. In other news: The FSA now has guidance on how to deal with property enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program while simultaneously leased to Everpower.  The land upon which the turbine(s) sit, along with the acreage used for access roads or transmission, will be determined to be ineligible for CRP subsidy but the remaining leased acreage will continue to be eligible for program funding. Land removed is subject to subsidy recapture and penalty. We hear rumors that Everpower will pick up the tab for these costs.  Leaseholders like Marilyn Koik and Ron Welch are active CRP participants. (Aka double dippers)  Congressman Jim Jordan’s Office has been contacted to register objection to the continued eligibility for federal subsidy of any land under lease for federally subsidized (PTC) wind development.  It is especially perverse when one considers that wind turbines make habitat unsuitable for wildlilfe. Global Wind Day is approaching and we encourage you to join with your fellow wind warriors by going to FaceBook and registering your Anti Global Wind thoughts.  We also recommend calling PUCO Chairman Todd Snitchler at 614-466-3204 to let him know you object to their celebration of an unreliable and environmentally unfriendly resource like wind which would not exist without massive taxpayer funding.  Tell him you demand repeal of the Ohio’s renewable mandate which is evidence in and of itself that no one would willingly buy wind power unless they had a gun to their head. Union Neighbors United safety expert and witness during the OPSB proceedings, William Palmer, just presented a paper at a joint meeting of the American Acoustical Society and the Canadian Acoustical Society in Montreal, Canada.  We have attached copies of Dr. Palmer’s work here and here.

We have also included Dr. William Palmer’s Message on Wind Turbine Noise to us below:

  On Wednesday afternoon there was a meeting of a Sub-committee of the ASA looking at wind turbine noise. I had been previously asked to be a member of that committee, so I missed the afternoon papers to attend the committee meeting. The meeting itself was very interesting. I’m certainly only a bit player on the committee, but had the opportunity to present my case. There were some 30 people present, with interests ranging from that of the President Elect of the ASA – Dr. James Miller (this must be an important subject to him, recognizing that there are many demands on his time at the Congress) as well as Dr. Brigitte Schulte-Fortekamp (a previous VP of the ASA – and well respected in the area of soundscapes), Dr. Klaus Genuit of Head Acoustics, Germany, Dr. Paul Schomer (head of the ASA Standards Committee), and many others, including Andy Metalka from Canada who was able to come to the meeting as at the Congress as a vendor. Certainly the full spectrum of opinions on wind turbine noise was represented and as a result I was surprised that by the end of a 90 minute session, the group were able to agree on a draft policy statement for the ASA along the lines of: (I’m not positive of the final wording as the final read through was too quick for me to copy exactly, but it’s approximately as follows.)”Acoustic emissions of wind turbines have been reported by (many) individuals living near these facilities and referenced by (some) medical authorities as a source of adverse health effects.  There is also mounting evidence that continuous noise can have negative effects on wildlife species and ecosystems. The Acoustical Society of America urges wind energy developers, electrical utilities, and environmental authorities to develop methods for measuring and quantifying wind turbine sound, particularly at very low frequencies. The investigation in an interdisciplinary manner shall fully address the probability of adverse impacts.” Given the diversity of interests represented, I was pleased with the draft. Having support from Dr. Schomer and Dr. Shulte-Fortekamp certainly helped sway the opinion of the group, but I will admit that I had my say too arguing for already impacted individuals. The draft will now go to the Executive Committee of the ASA allowing a final option for change before approval – possibly at the next meeting of the ASA in December in San Francisco. It’s a big body, and things do not move quickly!

(05-30-13) Please take a moment to read today’s Urbana Daily Citizen’s   story about the Everpower wind development.  It is clear that every family and every community in Ohio is at risk from industrial wind turbines.  In that connection, the Ohio Senate is considering three issues in the budget bill and we need your help to lobby for greater safety for all Ohioans. 1. New language is in the Budget Bill to revise setback distance but they continue to measure from our homes not our property lines.  All setbacks MUST be measured from property lines. It is not right to use a neighbor’s land  as the safety buffer for a wind turbine. The language in the bill must be changed to measurement from the property line. 2.The proposed increase to the setback is being made for safety reasons but the bill grandfathers in every project in the pipeline at the Ohio Power Siting Board which robs citizens living near those projects of safety.   New setbacks must protect people at risk and must be applied to all pending projects.   County projects in the pipeline are:

Scioto Ridge in Logan and Hardin

Greenwich Windpark in Huron

Republic Wind Farm in Seneca and Sandusky

Northwest Ohio Wind Farm in Paulding

3.The budget bill extends the tax abatement program and expands it to include smaller projects that are not regulated by the Ohio Power Siting Board.  Wind projects already receive massive tax breaks at the federal level.  Ohioans should not have to provide additional subsidy.  The tax abatement program is due to expire on December 31, 2013.  It should not be extended. Please call these members of the Senate Finance Committee as well as  Senate President Keith Faber to demand that setbacks be measured from property lines; that all pending projects be subject to new setbacks; and that the tax breaks expire on schedule, December 31^st.  Please call today and ask everyone you know from anywhere in Ohio to call.  The Senate will act on the Budget Bill very soon and we need to be heard.

 Senate Finance Chair Scott Oelschlager  614-466-0626

Senate Finance Vice Chair William Coley 614-466-8072

Senator Dave Burke 614-466-8049

Senator Bob Peterson 614-466-8156

Senator Tom Patton 614-466-8056

Senator Shannon Jones 614-466-9737

Senator Frank LaRose 614-446-4823

Senator Keith Faber 614-466-7584 (05-27-13) Please help welcome our friends from the Spencerville/Delphos area as they join us in educating the public about the true costs of wind turbines. Visit their new site at SaveOurSkyline (05-02-13) A Dream Home Is No More (An open letter from a resident of Van Wert County) In 2010 my wife and I purchased a building lot in Van Wert County, northwest of Delphos in Washington Township. Later that year we built our home where we planned to raise our family and spend the rest of our lives. Unbeknownst to us, during this time, area landowners were secretly signing land leases with a wind energy company so that wind turbines can be built. We are very angry, mainly because of the secrecy with which this all took place, let alone the money and hard work that went into buying land and building our home. We would have never built here had we known this information. Learn from our misfortune, do research (landaccess.com) and ask questions if you are planning to purchase land or a home in Van Wert County near Middle Point and Delphos. If you don’t, you could have wind turbines as a neighbor within the very near future. To land owners who are considering entering into a lease: Please read an article written by Bill Gunderson that appeared in the Washington Times on March, 16 2013 entitled GUNDERSON: Some Basic Facts About Wind Energy. It doesn’t work.  Here is the link to the article. All I ask is that you conduct independent research and think about your neighbors before you sign a land lease. – Mark A. Wilson, Delphos (05-01-13)  Another opportunity for you to cast a vote….please do. Please vote NO! (Scroll down, the poll is on the left hand side.) Here’s the link Many of you have noticed the irritating postmark now appearing on the mail you receive. The postmark features three wind turbines and the sun. It is ironic that the bankrupt US Postal Service chose to celebrate “Earth Day 2013″ by featuring two energy generation sources that are not economically viable without massive public subsidy from a debt ridden federal government. Yikes! The good news is that tomorrow is the last day the mark will be used. If you would like to share your thoughts on the mark with the Postal Service, you may write to USPS here (04-28-13) Wind Power Honeymoon Over in Van Wert County? (04-25-13) Good recent information about property value impacts from a recent Mike McCann report per this link regarding Tipton County Indiana. Also near the middle of presentation, there are two slides that discuss Van Wert County.

(04-23-13) We think the tide is beginning to really turn against wind.  Yesterday, CNW Group reported on the actions of a Canadian Court in giving the green light to people who might wish to sue wind developers and leaseholders for property damage due to declining property values.  In the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee, remaining witnesses who wanted to testify about energy efficiency were given an opportunity and then the final panel on the review of the five-year old Renewable Portfolio Mandate (SB 221) took place with Logan County’s Tom Stacy participating.  A recap is printed below and we will provide copies of testimony when they become available. The Committee may provide the public with one additional hearing but it is not certain. Senator Seitz announced in the hearing that they have enough information to go forward and draft the Substitute Senate Bill 58 language. The new bill will could come out as soon as May or as late as the fall.  There will be lots of testimony taken at that time. The GOOD NEWS:  it is almost a certainty that the renewable mandate will be frozen in place at today’s levels. (translation: enough is enough) .  The projects that have been built will be honored with respect to the treatment of renewable energy credits and so forth.  The big question is how projects in the pipeline will be handled.  We do not know how Everpower will be impacted but we do know that this will put a chill on investors if no one  has to buy the power generated by wind.  During the hearings, Senator Cliff Hite was very unhappy.  He tried again to plead that if wind brought revenue to Van Wert and Paulding Counties who otherwise had nothing, wasn’t it worth it and wasn’t it good public policy?  The economist on the panel replied that people like Senator Hite only look at one side of the coin when speaking of benefits and they never look at costs.  Amen!  We think a moratorium on approving any  additional wind projects would be a good place to start.  In the meantime we are working on extending setbacks from property lines and not our homes.

QUOTE OF THE DAY FROM THE HEARING: “We don’t build more schools for the purpose of creating jobs for bus drivers.”  Jonathon Lesser, Economist, Ohio Senate Hearing April 23, 2013

GONGWER REPORT RECAP OF SENATE RENEWABLE MANDATE HEARINGS

A major manufacturing group allied itself Tuesday with environmentalists in fighting to preserve energy efficiency requirements as senators considered overhauling the state’s green energy law.

Sen. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati), chairman of the Senate Public Utilities Committee, said he expected to introduce legislative language that will flesh out his “placeholder bill” on energy efficiency and renewable energy (SB 58) sometime between mid-May and the fall.

Most of the witnesses appearing before the committee said the requirements for utilities to generate 12.5% of their electricity from renewable standards and reduce customers’ consumption 22.2% by 2025 have just started delivering benefits and asked senators to forestall any changes to the law (SB221, 127th General Assembly).

Neal Elliot, of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, testified on behalf of the Ohio Manufacturers Association, saying the cost of energy efficiency programs is considerably lower than the price tag for constructing new power plants.

Continuing the energy efficiency standards in coming years could save customers almost $5.6 billion in avoided energy costs, he said, referring to a new ACEEE study. Of that total savings, $2.2 billion stems from reduced wholesale electricity prices that help cut utility bills for both participants and non-participants in utilities’ programs, he added.

“Energy efficiency is the lowest-cost energy resource to meet customer electricity needs in Ohio and can be deployed much more quickly than new capacity can be constructed,” he said.

Meanwhile, OMA President Eric Burkland said in a statement that easing or eliminating the standards would turn cost savings into higher prices and increase customers’ exposure to more unstable and less predictable market pricing.

“While natural gas prices have reached historic lows and an abundance of shale gas has been discovered, the need for energy efficiency remains strong,” he said. Energy efficiency programs allow utilities to defer more costly spending in new generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure.

“Ohio’s Energy Efficiency Resource Standards should be retained. Watering down the standards or eliminating them entirely would be an unfortunate and risky step backward for Ohio – and a blow to broader economic recovery efforts,” Mr. Burkland said.

Ned Ford, energy advisor to the Sierra Club Ohio, told the committee that energy efficiency requirements have avoided the need to build a new 500 MW coal or natural gas plant that would cost roughly $2 billion.

Between 2009 and 2011, Ohio utilities spent $344 million and installed equipment that will save more than $2.1 billion in retail rates during its lifespan, he said.

Strong energy efficiency programs, along with continued investment in wind generation, are likely the least-cost strategy for Ohio’s electricity supply, he said. Easing dependence on natural gas will help keep prices for the commodity lower and more stable.

“I have been thrilled to see Ohio move from almost a dead stop in 2007 to 22nd in the pack of U.S. states for electric efficiency program activity,” Mr. Ford said. “Billions of dollars of savings, modernizing our energy infrastructure, creating jobs and economic development, and fending off some very painful future costs are all achievements that we should want to expand on.”

Robert Kelter, of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said FirstEnergy Corp. was pushing to roll back energy efficiency requirements in order to earn more money from its customers.

Energy efficiency programs lower demand for the utility’s product, which also causes the price it can charge for power to drop, he said, calling it a “double whammy” for the company’s bottom line.

FirstEnergy has argued that energy efficiency requirements jeopardize Ohio’s economic recovery as the benchmarks become increasingly stringent.

Ohio customers have already spent $500 million on energy efficiency programs to achieve a minimal reduction, the Akron-based utility said during a previous hearing. The company argued that a provision requiring the savings outweigh the costs is based on a flawed formula. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, April 9, 2013)

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Associate Director for Energy Tom Andrews said repealing clean energy requirements would have a negative impact on jobs, low-income families, small businesses and the environment.

“An energy policy that resembles a roller coaster is not in the best interest of the residents of Ohio. Residents, businesses and investors want to see a stabilized energy policy that includes all available sources of energy,” he said.

Trish Demeter, director of clean energy campaigns for the Ohio Environmental Council, said Ohio had only one commercial scale wind project generating 7.2 megawatts of electricity when the renewable portfolio standard was enacted five years ago.

Today there are more than 215 wind turbines operating with a capacity of 450 megawatts, she said. More than 100 companies that provide parts to the wind industry employ 7,500 Ohioans.

Ohio is also home to more than 160 solar supply chain businesses employing more than 2,900 people, Ms. Demeter said. “Ohio’s clean energy standards are clearing the air of harmful air pollution.”

While most of the witnesses urged support for the state’s clean energy law, a few were highly critical of it.

Jonathan Lesser, president of Continental Economics, said energy mandates undermine the competitive market policy that the legislature has sought to create, and will therefore increase the costs of electricity.

Subsidies reduce the economic incentive to innovate and reduce costs, causing market prices to be higher than they would be in a fully competitive market, he said.

If energy efficiency programs actually cost less than generating more power, why is there a need for continued subsidies and state mandates, he asked. “Individuals and businesses will engage in it voluntarily based on their own economic calculations.”

Mr. Lesser also took issue with studies that link renewable energy and energy efficiency requirements to economic growth.

“The problem with these studies is they assume that the money to pay for these mandates falls from the sky. In reality, the money comes from all of us in the form of higher electric costs, higher taxes, or both. It is as if the sponsors of those studies conducted a cost-benefit analysis and completely ignored the cost side.”

Mr. Lesser suggested policymakers interpret the 3% cost cap on renewable energy “in a more market and consumer-friendly” way that allows utilities to disregard the requirement if the cost of renewable resources is more than 3% of the prevailing wholesale market price. He also recommended implementing an annual dollar spending cap on energy efficiency.

Tom Stacy, of Save Western Ohio, said wind energy wouldn’t ever be able to replace the reliability of nuclear, coal and natural gas plants.

The state’s renewable energy requirements don’t account for the fact that wind power isn’t generated when the wind isn’t blowing, he said. “Wind energy’s full cost can only be fairly compared to the cost of the fossil fuel it saves.”

(04-15-13) It appears the Ohio House may pass legislation this Thursday to amend the setback to be 1,250 feet from the base of a turbine to a residence.  This amendment in the House would be meaningless.  Presently wind developers rarely site a turbine within 1,200 feet of a residence.  Said another way, if the House amendment becomes the law, the wind industry and the Ohio General Assembly will be able to say they changed the setback, technically true.  However, in substance, this amendment would be no real change.

  Real change would be if the setback was 1,250 feet from the base of a turbine to the property line of a non-participating landowner.  The logic behind this language is that wind developers should not be able to effectively “take” the land of a non-participating landowner by allowing the non-participants land to be use to satisfy the setback.  Developers should have to satisfy the setback by using the land of the participants in the project.

 The bill which the House will likely pass Thursday then goes to the Ohio Senate, where it can be amended to add the 1,250 feet from the property line.  This is why contacting the state senators is so important at this point.  State representatives can be contacted too, as they will play a role later, but for now, senator contact is the most important.  Currently, the house is not taking further amendments to its bill.  However, if the senate amends this language, then the differences in the two bills will have to get resolved in a conference committee.  Please contact State Senators, Keith Faber and Cliff Hite, as well as your State Representatives. The purpose of the contact to these elected officials is to support Ohio amending its wind turbine setback to be 1,250 feet from the base of a turbine to the property line of a non-participating landowner, (someone who has not signed a lease).

You may call the Ohio Legislative Information Hotline @ 1-800-282-0253 Mon-Fri from 8:30 AM -5:00 PM. You can leave a message for any representive or senator you would like to contact.

You can call Representative Tony Burkley (District 82) @ 614-644-5091 or Representative Jim Buchy (District 84) @ 614-466-6344 or Senator Faber @ 614-466-7584 or Senator Hite @ 614-466-8150. Toll free at 1-800-282-0253 Mon-Fri from 8:30 AM -5:00 PM.

Also, you can  email House from www.ohiohouse.gov/members/member-directory  or Senate by going to: www.ohiosenate.gov/members/senate-directory 

Thanks for your help. This is an IMPORTANT issue. We want these setbacks from our “property lines” NOT……. from our homes!!!

(04-11-13) PLEASE SEND A COMMENT TO COLS DISPATCH HERE ! Wind-energy capacity swells in Ohio amid uncertainty We warned that the wind lobby was cranking up its lobbying machine in a desperate effort to save the industry now that most people realize the “emperor has no clothes”.  It is particularly galling that the lobbyist for the wind industry in Ohio is most concerned that: “If Ohio’s requirements are watered-down, the economy will suffer, said Dayna Baird, an Ohio-based lobbyist for the wind group. “The people (who will be hurt) most are the ones who have spent a couple of million dollars to go through the Ohio Power Siting Board process expecting those (renewable-energy) standards to be there,” she said.  The wind industry doesn’t care that citizens have spent their own hard earned dollars trying to save their homes, their health and their communities?  Here we see that they are most concerned that Everpower might lose its investment in trying to put a wind factory in a populated community that they thought wouldn’t have the brains or resources to fight back.  The same assault on rural NW Ohio communities in Shelby, Mercer, Crawford, Auglaize, Seneca, Richland, Putnam, Logan and elsewhere is underway.  The wind industry is trying to grandfather in any project that has already filed an application with the Ohio Power Siting Board to “protect their investment.”  We cannot let this happen. (04-05-13) Attached here is a copy of a resolution passed about 2 weeks ago by the Mercer County Township Trustee’s Association in opposition to wind turbines in Mercer County. Also here is the advertisement for the upcoming Mercer County meeting. I know some of the people on their committee and plan to attend to show my support. Please join us if you are able. (04-01-13) The following is an open letter from a resident in Scott, Ohio: Hello, I used to live in the Blue Creek Wind Farm at 10038 Elm Sugar Rd. Scott, Ohio. In July 2012 the bank sold my home at considerable loss for $16,500, down from a prewind farm appraised value of $73,000. This devaluation wasn’t due to any obvious aesthetic damage the property had suffered nor the fact that no one looking to move to the country wants to live in an industrial zone. This depreciation was caused by the risk factors associated with living there, primarily infrasound exposure. Besides adverse health effects, selling a residence in a wind farm is also risky. Failure to call out the presence of infrasound can result in a lawsuit, even declaring it’s presence may not be enough protection. When the property owner participates in the sale the owner assumes most if not all of the risk and the bank is protected. Lack of regulation means there are no established standards for safe levels of exposure to infrasound, any exposure must be recognized as dangerous. Lack of regulation also means there are no laws to compel the wind farm companies to tell you their machines produce it. The wind farms generate an ambient area of infrasound extending well beyond their boundaries with roving hot zones depending on wind speed, direction, turbine placement, etc. Due to the large number of variables actual infrasound levels can be determined only by extensive mapping of the site after the wind farm is in operation. Blade thump is produced when a wind turbine blade tip passes the supporting pylon at approximately 200 mph. The pressure buildup that occurs, in addition to auditory noise levels, generates an inaudible burst of infrasound that comes out essentially as a beam spreading outward into a fan shaped area at ground level, at right angles to wind direction in the direction of blade rotation. Reaching out to a mile or more with lesser amounts going in the opposite direction, the intensity and area depending on blade speed and other factors. These bursts penetrate all structures, we lack the technology to protect buildings from infrasound penetration. These infrasound fields are hot zones, when 2, 3 or more fields overlap one another you have intensely hot areas. At a top operating speed of 19 RPM with 3 blades, that is 57 bursts per minute being generated by each and every wind turbine in operation. Each pulse passing through your body like a shock wave acting as a hammer on every cell, whenever the turbines are in operation. Nerve cells are most easily injured by this effect, developing nerve cells much more so. There are serious health risks even for healthy adults living with frequent exposure to infrasound and especially for children, the elderly and individuals with various health conditions. Once symptoms develop it may be too late for some and even short term exposure may result in lasting effects on some children. The quarter mile setbacks currently required are point blank for exposure to the infrasound generated by wind turbines. To those of you living near the wind turbines or about to be, please note one simple fact: We live in a society that doesn’t change it’s ways until the body count gets high enough… sometimes not even then. There are two things happening right now: 1. The wind farm companies will intensify ongoing lobbying efforts to obtain protection from lawsuits (Torte Reform). Specifically, protection from the class action lawsuit which is what the wind farms are. 2. Residential properties in or near wind farms are toxic assets, as the news spreads banks will cease making loans on these homes and those potentially so. Thank you Steve Rusk (03-30-13) Here are a few articles we wanted to share with you.  In Crawford County, it is remarkable the developer believes that the IRS interpretation of rules for “commence construction” might be lenient enough to allow them to qualify for the Production Tax Credit this year.   At the same time, they believe the repeal of the Ohio RPS mandate would ruin them.   While the Ohio Supreme Court made a ruling on the Black Fork Wind project, we also see that yet another project is in the planning stages for Sandusky and Seneca Counties.  The good news worth watching comes from Wisconsin where legislation has been introduced to allow lawsuits against leaseholders and to disallow a defense that the project was issued a certificate by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Element Power still intends to construct Black Fork Wind Farm Wind farm ruling a mixed bag, leaves a few hurdles Proposed Bill to Allow People to Sue Over Wind Turbine Damages (03-29-13) “Ohio state Sen. Bill Seitz, a Republican who is leading a review of his state’s renewable-energy mandate, said the policy reminded him of “Joseph Stalin’s five-year plan.” He added that his main interest is “in what delivers the lowest price for electricity in our state. That is what we are trying to figure out.” From the Wall Street Journal: States Cooling to Renewable Energy Bills to Curb Requirements for Utilities Crop Up Nationwide, Generally in GOP-Led Legislatures  Strong winds power giant turbines in Palm Springs, Calif., on Wednesday. Mandates for utilities passed by states have fueled a big expansion of wind and solar capacity in recent years. Legislatures in half the states that require electric utilities to buy renewable energy are considering proposals to roll back those mandates. The policies have helped fuel a huge expansion of U.S. solar and wind capacity in recent years. Now debates are arising, especially in Republican-held statehouses, about whether they increase costs for customers. There is no federal rule requiring utilities to purchase renewable energy, but mandates require it in 29 states. This year, legislators in at least 14 of those states have introduced bills that would water down or repeal renewable-energy mandates, according to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency at North Carolina State University, though none has been signed into law so far. Ohio state Sen. Bill Seitz, a Republican who is leading a review of his state’s renewable-energy mandate, said the policy reminded him of “Joseph Stalin’s five-year plan.” He added that his main interest is “in what delivers the lowest price for electricity in our state. That is what we are trying to figure out.” Backers of the mandates say the U.S. needs to shift away from fossil fuels to prevent global warming and disruptive climate changes, and that the policies create jobs and entice companies to invest in the U.S. The state battles show how the front lines of energy policy are moving away from a gridlocked Congress. “We’ve shifted a lot of resources away from federal lobbying,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, the big environmental group that has pushed for more use of renewable energy. The club boosted its presence in North Carolina ahead of the 2012 elections and is keeping staff on the ground to work on several energy bills there. Despite tough Chinese competition In the solar power business, solar energy is growing in popularity in the U.S. Three solar company CEOs tell WSJ’s Russel Gold that as costs comes down solar power is becoming competitive with conventional power. Meanwhile, Grover Norquist, the antitax advocate better known for his influence with conservatives in the nation’s capital, has signed letters to lawmakers in Kansas, North Carolina and other states urging them to support the rollbacks, saying a mandate “acts much like a tax increase” by boosting energy bills. Studies from conservative think tanks have predicted double-digit cost increases from various state mandates. Supporters of renewable energy call the projections of cost increases overblown. The Kansas state utility regulator recently estimated the state’s mandate accounted for less than 2% of electricity costs in 2012. States with mandates “have seen in some cases over a billion dollars of investment and thousands of jobs both in construction and manufacturing,” said Rob Gramlich, interim chief executive of the American Wind Energy Association. “The benefits are no longer hypothetical.” Most of the current policies act like North Carolina’s. Utilities there must generate energy from sources the law classifies as renewable-including wind and solar farms and landfill gas-or cut usage through energy efficiency. The renewable sources and efficiency savings must account for 12.5% of retail electricity sales by 2021. North Carolina adopted the law in 2007, when Democrats controlled the legislature. Both chambers flipped to Republican hands in 2010, one of 11 states nationwide where the GOP took control that year. Now, some leading North Carolina lawmakers are backing a repeal of the 2007 law. The abundance of cheap natural gas in the U.S. is driving out carbon-free options: solar, wind, and nuclear. But is it the right solution to our environmental problems? NRG Energy CEO David Crane talks with energy reporter Russell Gold at WSJ’s ECO:nomics conference. Utility companies are generally steering clear of the state frays. North Carolina-based Duke Energy Inc., DUK +1.21%for one, hasn’t taken a position on the repeal effort there. The American Legislative Exchange Council, a nonprofit whose members include fossil-fuel companies and mostly Republican state legislators, created a model bill for rolling back the standards last year and urged its members to pass similar bills in 2013. Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said the push to repeal the mandates was coming from conservative think tanks “funded by fossil-fuel interests.” Todd Wynn, who directs ALEC’s energy task force, said in an email, “I have not received one dime to work directly on renewable-energy mandates.” In Texas, freshman state Rep. Scott Sanford, a Republican, said he got the idea to introduce a bill to eliminate the state’s mandate from a paper by the Texas Public Policy Foundation that found the policy was increasing costs for Texas consumers. According to a list of its 2010 donors, the foundation received funding from individuals affiliated with a range of fossil-fuel companies. The author of the foundation paper said funding didn’t influence the study’s outcome. Mr. Sanford said he wrote the bill because he is opposed to government mandates, not because he favors any particular energy source-a sentiment echoed by legislators in other states. “Texas is blessed with a lot of incredible resources for energy, wind and solar amongst them. But they need to be developed with free-market principles, not with the heavy hand of government directing us to an inefficient process,” he said in an interview. The bills have passed one legislative chamber in both Montana and Missouri. But in Kansas, a bill to delay the state mandate has stalled in the House. The state Senate, also in Republican hands, rejected a similar bill. Among those voting against it: Sen. Terry Bruce, the majority leader, whose district includes a Siemens AG SIE.XE -0.53%plant that makes wind turbines. Mr. Bruce said Thursday that Kansas’ mandate has boosted the state’s economy and hasn’t led to a jump in electricity prices. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324373204578376840349947404.html On line poll March 25  in Sidney Daily News asking if you support wind turbines in Shelby County? Poll Results are in: Do you favor the construction of wind turbines in Shelby County? Yes 22% No 78% Content older than sixty days is archived.

Renewables in Perspective

ANU supports renewable energy, which includes cogeneration. We are opposed to taxpayer funded subsidies for “green energy” programs that distort the energy market by redirecting capital inefficiently and create unlimited taxpayer liabilities. These subsidies ensure that the public pays for the failures while the private sector reaps the benefits of any successes.

GM’s $9,800 Car . . . The One We’re Not Allowed to Buy

Two federal agencies; unelected and unaccountable bureaucracies have made it illegal – a criminal offense – to sell you a car like the Sail. more here

EPA Official’s ‘Philosophy’ On Oil Companies: ‘Crucify Them’ – Just As Romans Crucified Conquered Citizens

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies – just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience. more here

Geothermal: Energy Right Under Our Feet

One of the country’s foremost geothermal authorities, David Blackwell of Southern Methodist University’s Geothermal Lab, explained, “It’s actually so big, it shows up on the maps we make of the United States as this big bullseye of heat.” more here

UN Seeks New Powers to Remake World at Rio Sustainability Summit

The United Nations plans to use its upcoming UN Conference on “Sustainable Development” in Rio de Janeiro to amass a vast array of unprecedented new powers and literally re-shape civilization, the global economy, and even peoples’ thoughts, according to official documents. All of it will be done in the name of transitioning toward a so-called “green economy.” more here

Earth Day Special: The Media’s Top 25 Worst Environmental Quotes

Sunday marked the 42nd anniversary of Earth Day and for 25 of those years the MRC has documented the media’s role in advancing the  green agenda. more here

Green for Green: Taxpayers Fork Out For Algae Fuel

Over $21.7 million of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money has already been awarded to one particular company, Solazyme, in order to continue working on converting algae into fuel. more here

The WWF Vast pool of oil money

Remember the headline in The Independent that pointed an accusing finger: Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers. more here

Obama Invests $5 Million In Bullshit Energy

Just when we thought we had seen the epic failure of every single possible “alternative energy” project by this administration, along comes the announcement that the USDA is investing $5 million in a “biogas anaerobic digester” that will use “cow manure to heat an ethanol plant and create 15 permanent jobs.”more here

A Short History of Fuel Substitution in the UK

In the late 18th century the English learned that coal gas could easily be piped and stored to provide a brilliant light, so it spread quickly wherever coal could be moved by sea, river or canal. more here

World’s Largest Solar Plant Files For Bankruptcy

Solyndra was just the appetizer. In what will come as a surprise only to members of the administration, the company which proudly held the rights to the world’s largest solar power project,  named Solar Trust of America (“STA”), filed for bankruptcy. more here

Check out how bright Ohio’s future could be if we are smart about our natural resources:  Good for Ohio: Clean Coal Information Campaign by American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity

Information about the Environmental Impact of Industrial Wind:  Roger A. McEowen, Professor at the Iowa State University Center For Agricultural Law and Taxation:

Very Little Carbon Dioxide Savings:  The National Research Council of the National Academies concluded in a 2007 study that even under the most optimistic conditions, the U.S. carbon dioxide savings by 2020 will be approximately 1.755 percent – a trivial amount. Specifically, the authors of the report estimated that by 2020, wind energy will offset approximately 4.5 percent of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted by other electricity sources. In 2005, electricity generation accounted for 39 percent of the nation’s total CO2 emissions. Thus, 4.5 percent of 39 percent is 1.755 percent.

Adverse Visual Impact:  A section of land can house anywhere from six to twelve aerogenerators, which means that the size of a typical wind power station may have a visual impact of between 150 and 250 square miles.

For Full Report: Roger McEowen – Iowa State Professor – Wind Farm Report

When a wind developer says a wind farm can power 50,000 homes…What does that REALLY mean?  Because of the low capacity factor for an aerogenerator, it is inaccurate to say, for example, that “a wind power station will be able to power 50,000 homes.” The accurate statement would be, with respect to a wind power station with a 30% capacity factor, “The wind power station can provide power for up to 50,000 homes 30 percent of the time on a random basis.  In fact, a 30% capacity factor is really never achieve.  (In all of New York, the average capacity factor was under 20%.)  Thus, the wind turbine facility cannot really replace baseload coal, gas or nuclear power sources.

John Droz discusses the Scientist’s approach to determining whether wind power makes sense:   Scientist John Droz – Presentation on Wind Energy from a scientific view

Five Myths About Green Power

How can you help?

#1:  Write a Letter to the Editor and deliver it to the Wapakoneta Daily News or the St. Marys Evening Leader.  This will help the public to be aware of the fact that there are many people who are against industrial wind turbines in Auglaize County and against the subsidies and mandates which prop up the wind industry.

#2:  Contact your legislators, both State and Federal.  How do you find out who represents you?  First, you must know your 5-digit zipcode PLUS the four digit extension.  Find out that number here:  USPS Zip Code Directory.

After you know your full zip code, click here to determine your representatives:  Ohio Legislators.  If you know who your Legislators are, here are their phone numbers:  Rep. John Adams (House district 78):  Phone: (614) 466-1507; Rep. Robert Sprague (House district 76):  Phone (614) 466-3819; Senator Keith Faber (District 12):  Phone: (614) 466-7584;     Senator Cliff Hite (District 1):  Phone: (614) 466-8150; After January 1, 2013, Jim Buchy is added and he is:  Phone: (614) 466-6344

Now, the important part…CALL THEM TODAY and as OFTEN as you can.  Put their number on your speed dial.  Here is what you could say:

 ”Hi, I am <your name here> and I live in Auglaize County.  I am opposed to the development of industrial wind facilities in populated areas such as Auglaize County.  I am asking you as my representative to oppose subsidies and mandates for wind power.” 

#3:  Sign the petition – Email us and we will get your signature on our petition

#4:  Other important actions you should take:

Contact your Township Trustees and County Commissioners and let them know that you oppose the County or Township allowing a private wind developer using the public road right of way.  If the County or Township allows the private company to use the right of way, you could have a trench across your property with high voltage electric in it.  Typically you own to the center of the road and neither the county nor the township should give a private company rights in your property. Make sure they know that they do not have your consent.

Contact your Legislature and support SB 216 which would repeal the renewable energy mandates. Also, importantly right now, please let our Ohio Representatives know that you support Senate Bill 289 and House Bill 443 which will expand the definition of renewable energy to include waste gas that currently is being vented to the atmosphere, this project will reduce air emissions, improve the facility’s efficiency, and tap into an under‐utilized resource‐‐a resource that is abundant in Ohio’s manufacturing and industrial sectors. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that Ohio’s manufacturing and industrial sectors could generate upwards of 9,800 megawatts of power from cogeneration.  We can’t see any reason why our State Representatives would not pass this bill!

Attend Public Information Meetings, Speak to You Neighbors, Contact individual Landowners

Contact County Commissioners regarding Approval or Rejection of PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes)

Our Mercer County Neighbors Successfully Stopped more than one Wind Developer and also have proposed a Wind turbine ban in St. Henry:

St. Henry in Mercer county is on track to become the first municipality in the state to ban wind turbines within corporation limits.
Council is taking a proactive approach to what could potentially be a major problem down the road. View full story here

Amendment to the Transportation Bill to extend the PTC:  SO FAR SO GOOD…If you communicated with your legislators, Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman, YOU made a BIG difference…together, we defeated the amendment to the recent transportation bill that would have extended the Production Tax Credit for wind!  GREAT NEWS!  Keep up the good work and if we become aware of any additional legislation pending in Ohio or the Congress, we will let you know!

Sample Letter to Gov Kaisich

Sample Letter to Rep Jim Jordan

Officials to Contact

Support Senator Kris Jordan and SB216

Kasich’s 10 pillars energy policy

Draft report from the Ohio PUCO about alternative energy benchmarks for public comment.

How Obama’s Green Energy Agenda is Killing Jobs

Friends,

(7-29-12)  Lots of activity this week here and abroad.  Please take a moment to read these important updates. Everpower paid their application fee this week and the clock has started to tick!

PTC    As Congress looks forward to beginning its August recess, citizens across the country are mobilizing to meet their representatives at home in their district offices or at town meetings.  We understand big wind is complaining non-stop that its future is doomed and all fingers are pointed at Congressional Republicans for refusing to extend the PTC. Many believe big wind is making a mistake with its message. It’s now abundantly clear to investors and shareholders that they’re working with an industry that rises and falls at the whim of elected politicians. People are beginning to rethink their positions.  The PTC is falling out of favor for many, but there is much important work to do. We are fortunate to have Urbana’s Rep. Jim Jordan continuing to challenge the extension of the PTC.  If you have a moment to call and thank him – now is the time. (Mansfield: 419-522-5757; Lima: 419-999-6455; or Findlay 419-423-3210)  If you or members of your family live in another Congressional District,  call the local office over the next week to insist that the Production Tax Credit for wind NOT be granted an extension.  Today’s Politico reports that  Congress is struggling on this issue.While they are making early moves toward a six-month deal to keep the government funded and avoid a September shutdown, Republicans are struggling to develop a tax extenders package – potentially including the soon-to-expire wind production tax credit – against opposition from more conservative members. GOP freshmen and conservative members of the Republican Study Committee (chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan) have shown little love for the extenders. For these Republicans, any support for the PTC could dilute their pursuit for a broader tax-reform package in the next Congress, if the party retains the majority.  We will continue to watch  and report what we see. In the meantime, call your Congressman!

Friends,
(05-01-12)  Thank you for a remarkable effort to submit signatures for the letter opposing the extension of the federal Production Tax Credit! We will be submitting the letter on May 10 after we merge the signatures from Auglaize, Mercer, Shelby, Logan, Van Wert, Paulding and other counties. A strong voice for Ohio will be heard in Washington, D.C. If you haven’t signed on yet or would like to encourage a friend, please do.

Attached to home page is an update from recent Van Wert daily paper concerning the Blade Shear accident in Paulding County. All the turbines at Timber Creek II remain turned off and all blades are waiting to be inspected. Large cranes have been brought back to the site to dismantle the blades from the damaged turbines. This must be a difficult situation for the landowner at planting time.

Tomorrow the Ohio Senate will unveil changes proposed to the Governor’s energy plan. You will recall last week a group of local citizens testified in support of expanding the definition of renewable energy to include waste heat recovery and cogeneration. Governor Kasich reinforced the points we made in our testimony during a speech sponsored by a Washington, D.C. newspaper. Printed below is the coverage of the remarks and the weak defense of the wind lobbyists.

Lastly, a good Editorial from the Wall Street Journal entitled “Gouged by the Wind” describes how state renewable requirements are driving up the cost of electricity. Another busy week!

 

Friends,
(04-28-12) Hello everyone. Will you please share this call to action with those in your area who would be willing to sign? They may contact me directly or you may share their contact information/consent with me. And….remember to include YOUR name and address as well!

As we advised you earlier, we are submitting comments for the record to protest the extension of taxpayer subsidies for wind energy. Below is the text of the letter.
We are now collecting signatures from Ohioans for the letter and ask that you join us in signing by replying to this email with your name and address.
Every signature adds to the weight of our comments, so we encourage everyone of voting age in your household to sign.
We will attach your name to the letter and send it to Congressman Tiberi, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures.
This is time sensitive. Please reply with your name and address by Tuesday, May 8.
The American Wind Energy Association is actively recruiting people to sign letters of support for the extension and we need to provide a strong voice in opposition. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Spread the word by sharing this e-mail with friends and neighbors who would like to sign. Your friends may reply directly to me with name and address or you may forward their consent to me. We expect a great response and your help in gathering signatures will make a difference.
Thank you again for all of your support. We are on the home stretch and your participation will be meaningful to Chairman Tiberi who is from Columbus, Ohio.

Text follows below:

Thanks for all that you do.
Linda hugheslinda1@gmail.com

U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures
April 26, 2012 – Hearing on Certain Expiring Tax Provisions
Comments Submitted for the Record
The undersigned residents and property-owners of the State of Ohio respectfully submit these comments in response to the Subcommittee’s April 26, 2012 Hearing on Certain Expiring Tax Provisions. Our comments are limited to the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy.
Executive Summary: The PTC is often credited for most of the growth in the wind sector but attributing market activity to the subsidy is overly simplistic and fails to consider other crucial factors driving development. When evaluated against key economic and environment criteria, the cost of the subsidy has proven excessive and the benefits to American taxpayers minimal. If the PTC were to expire, the economics of the industry would shift to States with renewable mandates. Power markets will ultimately confront the real cost of wind energy, and price it accordingly. The overall impact on the industry would be far less severe than proponents claim[1].
Supporting Statements:
High Cost: Since adopted in 1992, the cost of the PTC for wind energy has ballooned from $5 million/year in 1998 to $1.5 billion annually today. The open-ended subsidy of 2.2¢/kWh in after-tax income represents a pre-tax value of approximately 3.7¢/kWh. In many regions of the country the PTC now equals, or is greater than, the wholesale price of power. Even if the PTC were to sunset, taxpayers are still obligated to cover nearly $10 billion in tax credits for wind projects built in the last decade. This is in addition to the $15 billion debt for wind projects eligible under Section 1603 (including anticipated 2012 grants).
Inefficient: Since the PTC is uniform across the country it is highly inefficient, supporting poorly sited development in some areas while in other areas supporting projects that would have been built regardless of the credit. This is true in Texas and the Pacific Northwest where wind capacity exceeds transmission capacity and wind is curtailed[2]. In New England the PTC likely pays more subsidy than is necessary owing to aggressive State mandates. Utilities in New England routinely sign long-term power contracts for wind at prices significantly above market.
Other factors advancing wind development: The industry insists it’s at risk of a slow-down without the PTC. This view ignores other crucial factors driving development including state mandates and natural gas prices. It is not possible given available data to identify the extent to which the PTC has contributed to growth in the sector[3]. In fact, demand for wind has eroded recently due, in part, to states meeting their renewable mandates. Lower natural gas prices further reduced wind’s attractiveness as a ‘fuel saver’. The EIA now forecasts flat growth in the wind sector for this decade regardless of what happens with the PTC[4].
Job losses: Despite billions in public funding the wind sector experienced a net loss of 10,000 direct and indirect jobs in 2010 bringing the total to 75,000[5] jobs. Most of the remaining jobs are temporary construction positions requiring peak levels of development year-after-year to maintain current levels. Attempts to attribute job creation to the PTC must be tempered with corresponding job losses due to higher renewable energy prices. The State of Vermont found that adding just 50 MWs of renewable energy at higher-than-market electricity prices “had the deleterious effects of reshuffling consumer spending and increasing the cost of production for Vermont businesses[6].”
Environmental benefits: Wind energy is an unpredictable, variable resource that cannot be relied on to serve load. Its primary benefit is in reducing U.S. electric carbon emissions. According the Navigant[7], a four year extension of the PTC could avoid an incremental 170 million tons of CO2. This “best case” estimate is not predicated on an actual working grid region, but if we accept Navigant’s estimate the cost to taxpayers is at least $23/ton CO2[8], ten-times the $1.92/ton market price for offsets in the Northeastern states participating in RGGI! The PTC is a high-priced vehicle for very questionable reductions of CO2 emissions.
Conclusion: The key question is whether the benefits of the PTC for wind are worth the cost. This 20-year old subsidy is expensive, inefficient, has failed to produce net-job increases that are sustainable, and the cost applied per ton of CO2 is more than 10x the market price of carbon under RGGI. The U.S. power market has undergone significant change since the PTC was adopted, including deregulation. It is not possible to isolate the extent to which the PTC contributes to wind sector growth[9]. Without the PTC, project economics would shift to states with RPS policies. The value of renewable credits might rise in response but power markets will ultimately confront the real cost of wind energy, and price it accordingly.

______________________________________
[1] Linowes et.al. 2012 Congressional Testimony http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-investigation-and-oversight-subcommittee-energy-and-environment-%E2%80%93-joint-hearing  [2] Wiser and Bolinger, 2010 Wind Technologies Market Report, (2011) vii http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-4820e.pdf  [3] Joint Committee on Taxation, Present Law And Background Relating To Tax Credits For Electricity Production From Renewable Sources (2005) 14 https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=1579  [4] EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (2012) http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/  [5] Wiser and Bolinger v – Note: No independent audits exist to confirm job counts. Since any new job in the electricity sector must contribute to increasing the cost of electricity, this creates economic de-stimulus.  [6] VT DPS, The Economic Impacts of Vermont Feed in Tariffs (2009) 12 http://publicservice.vermont.gov/planning/DPS%20White%20Paper%20Feed%20in%20Tariff.pdf  [7] Navigant Consulting, Inc. Impact of the Production Tax Credit on the U.S. Wind Market (2011) 38  [8] Navigant provides no detail on how it determined offsets. The study assumed some wind would be built without the PTC and only looked at incremental benefit over 4 years (2013-16). The cost per offset is potentially higher than 23/ton.  [9] Joint Committee on Taxation 14

{end of call to action text}

Local Wind Opponents, Universities Rally To Expand Renewable Energy Standards

Senators heard neighbor groups and two state universities Wednesday urge support for Gov. John Kasich’s plan to allow cogeneration technology to qualify under Ohio’s renewable energy portfolio standards.
Wind energy developers and environmentalists have been asking the Senate to nix the governor’s plan to allow industrial waste energy facilities to qualify for renewable energy credits, saying it would offset demand for wind power and jeopardize substantial investments the industry has already made.
During his speech to the Ohio Energy Jobs Summit, Gov. Kasich questioned the wind industry’s motives in opposing the energy bill (SB 315 ) provision that would make cogeneration eligible to qualify for the renewable portfolio standards (RPS), which requires for 12.5% of the state’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025 (SB221, 127th General Assembly).
“We believe in solar and wind,” he said. “All those who were in alternative energy, in renewable standards, believe in a cleaner environment and that’s just fantastic. But don’t lobby for your own industry to keep other industries out that result in a cleaner environment.”
Milo Schaffner, owner of Schaffner Tool and Die, Inc., told members of the Senate Energy & Public Utilities Committee that the bill would correct many of the problems of Ohio’s dependence on wind energy to satisfy the RPS.
As a Hoaglin Township trustee in Van Wert, the witness said he worked hard to address issues caused by local wind turbines, such as noise, shadow flicker or “blades flying to pieces.”
Testifying on behalf of Concerned Citizens of Mercer County, Jim Niekamp testified in support of the proposal to add cogeneration to the RPS as a better alternative to wind energy.
Landowners who signed leases with wind developers, and agreements not to complain about them, have forced their neighbors “to live in an industrial energy park against their will,” he said. “It divides communities – neighbors fight with neighbors, friends fight with friends and family members fight with family members.”
Wind energy is more expensive and less reliable than cogeneration, which is abundant in Ohio, Mr. Niekamp said, adding that the RPS risks driving up energy costs for businesses. “How quickly do they start abandoning ship when their costs rise compared to other states?”
Logan County resident Tom Stacy urged to remain narrowly focused on how to keep electricity as dependable and affordable as possible.
Wind energy is much less efficient and more expensive than waste heat power sources and must rely on conventionally fueled electricity sources anyway, he said. Moreover, turbines require at least 50 acres per megawatt, which leads to far more “industrial sprawl” than cogeneration technology.
Champaign County business owner Terry Rittenhouse said waste heat recovery technology is compact, located in industrial areas, and therefore doesn’t present any of the problems that divide local communities like wind turbines.
“Waste heat recovery has no good neighbor agreements, also known as hush money, for which citizens are asked to sign away their civil rights, no destruction of roads, no personal risk of injury for innocent families, no counties covered in strobe lights and aircraft warning lights and no threatened recall elections of government officials,” he said.
Bob McConnell, president of the Desmond Stephan Mfg. Company in Urbana, said he believed the provision would help the steel industry provide affordable products while helping suppliers to be environmentally friendly and reduce their own costs.
“It is unthinkable to me to ask that public policymakers mandate an energy source, incentivize it with subsidies and tax breaks, protect it from free market competition and then force me to use it in my company that operates in an unsubsidized free market where we enjoy no protection from domestic or foreign competition,” he said.
Shelby County farmer Scott Gaier said he was offered a significant amount of money for leasing his land to wind developers, but decided against it when he considered the impact to the community and the fact that he would no longer be able to use aerial spraying on his crops.
“Open space and tillable farm ground are not really renewable because the planet isn’t getting any bigger. When you look at wind energy that way, it doesn’t seem renewable at all,” he said.
While most witnesses offered support for expanding the RPS, members also heard some testimony urging caution.
John DiDonato, vice president of development for NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, said the RPS created powerful incentives for the company to invest in Ohio projects, like the proposed 185 MWm, $350 million Honey Creek wind project in Seneca and Crawford counties.
“Perhaps the most significant issue confronting our industry is regulatory uncertainty – the threat that after several years of new laws and new rules being in place and being allowed to work, an effort will be made to change those rules,” he said. “It’s a significant disincentive to companies like ours.”
Adding cogeneration to the RPS will create an oversupply of renewable energy credits (RECs) that will jeopardize billions of dollars of investment and devalue the market for cogeneration technology as well, he said.
Mr. DiDonato suggested adding benchmarks to the advanced energy portfolio, limiting cogeneration to energy efficiency standards, or increasing the in-state RPS requirement.
Mary Huttlinger, outreach and communications manager for the Small Business Majority in Cincinnati, asked senators to protect the energy efficiency resource standard and find another way to encourage development of cogeneration.
“Ohio small business owners believe government investments in clean energy have an important role in boosting our national economy and creating jobs,” she said, citing results of the group’s recent poll that found 66% of respondents support continued government spending on clean energy.
“Senate Bill 315 as currently written would threaten the progress made in providing affordable alternative energy options to small businesses,” she said. “There are better options to incorporate CHP and WER resources into the state’s energy policies without diluting current energy efficiency and renewable energy targets.”
University CHP: Members also heard representatives of the University of Cincinnati and Kent State University request an amendment to allow their combined heat and power (CHP) plants to be eligible for renewable energy credits.
Joe Harrell, UC’s executive director of utilities, said both facilities were constructed before the 2007 cutoff date for existing CHP to qualify under the bill. In addition, the units sometimes produce more electric energy than steam, which could also disqualify them, depending on how the administrative rules are drafted, he added.
UC’s cogeneration plant, built in 2004, is part of more than $90 million the school has invested in utility infrastructure over the past decade, he said. He suggested the measure be amended to include state universities with CHP facilities built after 2002, which is limited to UC and Kent State.
“Being able to produce and sell renewable energy credits will allow these universities to fully utilize their CHP investments which produce clean, efficient, reliable power in Ohio,” he said.
Tom Euclide, Kent State’s associate vice president for facilities operations and planning, said the school’s CHP plant cost $33 million and generates 12.5 megawatts of electricity, which reduces the carbon footprint and overall operating costs.
Chairwoman Sen. Shannon Jones (R-Springboro) noted that renewable energy developers have argued against expanding the RPS to protect the investments they have already made in wind farms and other facilities. She added that the case of two publicly funded universities, whose shareholders include taxpayers, was unique and asked about the institutions’ return on investment for their CHP units.
Mr. Harrell said UC enrollment has increased by about 20% over the past several years, while energy costs have dropped, largely because of the CHP facility. Mr. Euclide said Kent State had experienced lesser energy savings.
The ability to get RECs will help UC and Kent State get additional revenue from the facilities, which will help reduce operating costs and allow them to invest in more energy efficiency and keep costs down for their student, Mr. Harrell said.
Chairwoman Jones said in an interview that she hopes a substitute bill will be ready for adoption Thursday.
The subbill will not determine which direction the committee will move on some of the more controversial issues, she said. Amendments, which are due from members on Monday, will address more contentious aspects of the legislation.

U.S. Energy Independence – Discussion here Energy Independence becoming more of a reality

Groundbreaking law prohibits wind turbines

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

ST. HENRY – Council members made history Monday night by passing unique legislation that bans wind turbines in town.

The new law, which unanimously passed third reading, prohibits the construction of all types of wind turbines, wind chargers and wind generators. It also outlaws any device, apparatus or structure used to convert kinetic energy from wind to produce electricity.

State officials previously told The Daily Standard no ordinance of this kind has been passed by any municipality in the state of Ohio.

Council members have said they may consider exceptions to the law on a case-by-case basis. However, village administrator Ron Gelhaus said the legislation has a purpose.

“It’s there to protect the people of the village,” he said.

Council members said the new law was discussed months before Cooper Farms, which has a plant in St. Henry, announced in February the construction of two 1.5-megawatt wind turbines at its Van Wert facility. Company officials had said they would consider placing turbines at other plant sites if the initial pair are deemed successful.

Eric Ludwig, director of corporate development at Cooper Farms in Van Wert, today said the company had “no official plans” to put a turbine at the St. Henry plant, but it was a future possibility.

When asked about the new legislation in the village, Ludwig said, “it would be nice to have guidelines instead of restrictions.”

Gelhaus said he told plant officials the new law did not specifically target them.

Two years ago, wind energy company NextEra proposed building a large wind turbine farm in the southern portion of Mercer County. By the spring of 2011, the project was nixed due to overwhelming objection from area residents.

By Shelley Grieshop

We have been monitoring developments in the US Senate, as subsidy proponents try to put together new packages.

1 — Senators Mark Udall (D-CO), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Scott Brown (R-MA) and Dean Heller (R-Nevada) have introduced legislation to extend for two years the wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC).

This is deceptively labeled as “The American Energy and Job Promotion Act” (S.2201):

http://www.governorswindenergycoalition.org/?p=1615

2 — Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has filed S.2204 which extends several renewable energy tax breaks including the wind PTC. It also resurrects the 1603 credit for wind energy.

This bill is marketed as paying for itself by eliminating tax benefits available for the oil industry:

http://www.paramuspost.com/article.php/20120323152814176

[If you look at the EIA statistics for the electrical energy sector, the most recent annual wind energy subsidies exceeded the subsidies of all other conventional sources of electricity, combined — so go figure the contortions going on here.]

A vote on either of these may occur as soon as Tuesday.

Your Senators need to hear from you on Monday that they should vote NO on S2201, and NO on S2204, and NO on any other bill that extends renewable energy credits.

They can be reached through the Congressional Switchboard number: 202-224-3121.

If you feel energetic, it wouldn’t hurt to make some calls with the same message to:

1) Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader,

2) the three Republican Senators who co-sponsored the shameful S.2201 legislation (see above #1),

3) the four Democrat Senators who opposed the Stabenow amendment, as there is hope for them:

Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Jim Webb (D-VA).

The bottom line, as usual, is that these subsidies: a) produce net job losses, and b) waste money on a third-rate source of electricity that is far inferior to our other alternatives. (Use your own words.)

Thank you for your good efforts. We have beaten the wind lobby three straight times now, and a fourth should be no problem if we maintain our focus.

Regards.

john droz, jr.

Cost of $10 Billion Stimulus Easier to Tally than New Jobs

Companies have received more than $10 billion to create jobs and renewable energy by building wind farms, solar projects and other alternatives to oil and natural gas under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  The program expired in December, and President Barack Obama proposed last week that Congress revive it in the 2013 budget, says the Wall Street Journal.

• On federal applications, companies said they created more than 100,000 direct jobs at 1603-funded projects.
• But a Wall Street Journal investigation found evidence of far fewer — some plants laid off workers, others closed.

The 1603 program was an important part of the government’s push to encourage investment in alternative energy.

• It gave $10.7 billion to 5,098 businesses for 31,540 projects, according to the Treasury Department.
• Recipients were generally reimbursed 30 percent of their costs after projects were finished.
• Those businesses claimed on federal applications that they created 102,883 jobs directly.

But the Journal found evidence of far fewer.  For example:

• About 40 percent of the funding, $4.3 billion went to 36 wind farms.
• During the peak of construction, they employed an average of 200 workers apiece — a total of roughly 7,200 jobs.
• Now, those projects employ about 300 people, according to the companies and economic development officials.

The American Wind Energy Association lobbied successfully in late 2010 to extend the 1603 program through 2011, predicting it would create thousands of jobs.  Wind companies wound up with more than $7 billion of the 1603 money, yet industry payrolls declined to 75,000 last year from a peak of 85,000 in 2009, according to the association.

Read WSJ article here

Senate rejects Stabenow Amendment which would have extended the Production Tax Credit for Wind — This is great news, but we need to make sure that it does not get extended throughout the remainder of the year!  See how our Senators voted here:  Vote on Extension of PTC 3/13/2012

Energy Department slows down renewable energy funds approval process

If you have been approached about a wind farm or are considering signing a lease with a developer please take a few minutes to read the documents below. Also, if you have been approached or have heard of a wind developer becoming active in our County or contacting you or your neighbors, would you please call or email someone involved with ANU to let us know — you are the eyes and ears in our community and we would appreciate having as much information as you are willing to furnish.

A wind farm lease is a lifetime commitment.

1. Before you sign a lease please read this
2. For Wind Turbine Lease Considerations for Landowners read this
3. A Wisconsin resident walks us through a wind farm contract here
4. A Legal Guide for Landowners here
5. 30 Suggestions on Wind Power Leases for Farmers are here
6. NDSU important legal and liability concerns for landowners considering hosting wind turbines is here
7. Think you may need aerial crop spraying in the future? Better read this first
8. More Lease considerations from North Dakota University here
9. An A to Z guide for Wind Farm Development is here
10. Finally, “What have I done?”

(11-04-12) Wind farm noise does harm sleep and health, say scientists

Evidence is mounting faster and faster that wind turbines within a mile of homes are unhealthy. The front page of yesterday’s London Telegraph reported on a new scientific study confirming these harmful effects while in New York State, sixty citizens have filed suit against Iberdrola for the harms they are suffering from the Hardscrabble Wind Farm. more here

(10-23-12)Last month the town of Woodstock, Maine, decided its setbacks for wind turbines were inadequate to protect against noise disturbances.

A new ordinance was introduced to govern future turbine placement. The new rules would measure from property lines and limit nighttime noise to 35dB. Setbacks would be 1.25 miles. more here

UCLA released this paper which provides important insight into the effects of wind turbine infrasound and the human ear.

High levels of infrasound and low frequency sounds generated by wind turbines pose a potentially serious threat to communities near wind farms.  more here

Noise & Health Effects of Large Wind Turbines

Several physicians from around the world — e.g., Amanda Harry in England, Robert McMurtry in Ontario, Robyn Phipps in New Zealand — have recorded a common set of ill health effects among people living near industrial-scale wind turbines. The symptoms began when local turbines began to turn, and they are relieved when the victims leave the area. Many families have had to abandon their homes as unlivable.

The symptoms include:

• sleep disturbance
• headache
• ringing or buzzing in the ears (tinnitus)
• ear pressure
• dizziness, vertigo
• nausea
• visual blurring
• racing heartbeat (tachycardia)
• irritability
• problems with concentration and memory
• panic episodes with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering which arise while awake or asleep

Dr. Nina Pierpont of New York has called it “wind turbine syndrome” and determined that its primary cause is the effect of low-frequency wind turbine noise on the organs of the inner ear. Click here for her book and other information on the subject. Dr. Pierpont’s work has led her to recommend that large wind turbines not be sited closer than 2 kilometers (1-1/4 miles) from a home — see belowfor link to petition for 2-km setbacks.

Shadow flicker — where the sun behind turbine blades creates a strobing effect on the ground — may also be intrusive and harmful. Many people are also concerned about stray voltage, or ground current, caused by the hundreds of thousands of feet of buried electric cable in a typical wind power facility.

Finally, an increase in noise is itself disruptive and can cause sleep loss and stress, especially in rural areas where there is an expectation of quiet. The World Health Organization notesthat “Measurable effects of noise on sleep begin at LAeq levels of about 30 dB. … When noise is continuous, the equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed 30 dB(A) indoors, if negative effects on sleep are to be avoided. For noise with a large proportion of low-frequency sound [dB(C)] a still lower guideline value is recommended.”

Acousticians Rick James and George Kamperman have extensively studied wind turbine noise: click here to read their siting guidelines. In brief, they recommend a limit at the property line of 35 dBA or 5 dBA above the preconstruction ambient level, whichever is lower, and a limit of 50 dBC or 20 dBC above the preconstruction ambient dBA level, whichever is lower, for low-frequency noise.

Conditions ratified by the U.K. High Courtin May 2011 define pulsing “blade swish (or thump)” noise, or “amplitude modulation”, such that the turbine noise (measured in 125-millisecond intervals 3.5-35 metres outside a dwelling) can not rise or fall by more than 3 dB within any 2-second period more than five times in any 1-minute period with an average sound level of 28 dBA or more, six or more times in any hour.

In Ontario, the Society for Wind Vigilance provides information about adverse health effects and wind turbines, including annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, and physiological effects: click here.

For all of the items about wind turbine noise in the National Wind Watch Resource Library, click here.

Read and sign this petition (click) calling for a 2-kilometer setback of large wind turbines from homes.

Click here for the Ohio Department of Health Turbine Report

Property rights vs. wind farms

(10-23-12) This month a significant Canadian case study was published which examined real property sales and the impact of wind turbines on price.

The erection of a wind turbine creates apprehension in the general public, which makes the property less desirable and thus diminishes the prices of neighboring property. Continuing scientific uncertainty over the adverse health consequences of wind turbines only serves to perpetuate the debilitating effect of wind turbines on property prices. more here

Wind farms DO hit house prices: Government agency finally admits that thousands can be wiped off value of homes

The Valuation Office Agency has been forced to re-band homes into lower council tax categories, confirming what most residents who live near the giant turbines already know: they are detrimental to property prices. more here

The following excerpt from the expert opinion of Michael S. McCann of McCann Appraisal, LLC regarding Adams County, Illinois, illustrates an appraiser’s opinion of the significant negative impact an industrial wind turbine facility such as the one proposed by US Mainstream, can have on a rural area such as Auglaize County:

“First and foremost, I understand very well that consideration of industrial scale wind energy projects is a unique situation for virtually every jurisdiction considering applications or requests from developers to build and operate such projects. They are intensive, large-scale projects with a decidedly industrial character, and most projects in Illinois are proposed to “overlay” existing mixed-use residential and agricultural areas. This type of overlay is also sought in Adams County.

This is significant in the evaluation of land use compatibility or typical zoning standard compliance, since it is virtually impossible to introduce such a large scale project among existing low intensity residential uses without dramatically changing the character of the neighborhoods that will be encompassed by the turbine’s land use overlay.” (emphasis added)

Mr. McCann further explains the manner in which the negative impact is measured by professional appraisers:

“The Appraisal Institute has developed methodology and techniques for evaluating the effects of environmental contamination on the value of real property. The three potential effects that contamination can have on real property: cost effects, use effects, and risk (stigma) effects. All three effects are recognized as being present with utility-scale wind energy projects, as summarized in my written testimony.

Cost effects can include neighboring owner costs to attempt to mitigate against sound intrusion, shadow flicker, medical costs to deal with sleep deprivation related conditions, as well as, in some instances, the cost to rent substitute housing and potential legal costs incurred to protect individual owner’s property rights, etc. For Agricultural property, there can be increased costs due to the loss of ability to retain aerial spraying services, which can result in increased cost for ground spraying methods and/or decreased crop yields.

Use effects include the loss of peaceful use and enjoyment of their homesteads for many turbine neighbors, and there is evidence that livestock has been adversely impacted by the noise from turbines, ranging from death (goats in Taiwan) to reproductive disorders (See Wirtz case in Wisconsin) and behavioral changes and irritability of horses and cattle. These may also represent cost effects, in some cases, or other forms of financial impact.

Stigma effects can range from loss of aesthetics, diminished views and character of neighborhoods, to fear of health issues and noise disturbance, etc. This effect is often manifest in the lack of marketability of homes in the “footprint” and nearby properties most impacted by active turbines, and to varying degrees the known and unknown cost and use effects are also contributing factors to stigma effects.

My opinions are also based on use of the recognized and generally accepted methods for valuing contaminated properties – paired sales analysis (i.e. Appendix C),environmental case studies analysis (i.e. Appendices B, D, E and F) and multipleregression analysis. (i.e. Appendix D). I have also reviewed studies conducted by other appraisers, which yield similar indications of property value impacts.

In the Adams County matter, my evaluation of the proposed wind turbine setbacks is conducted from a real estate valuation perspective with a land use impact focus, since every land use has some impact upon neighboring land uses and residents. The impact can be substantially positive, negative, or so minimal as to be immeasurable in terms of property values. As I understand it, governmental policies and land use decisions are intended to prevent “significant” negative impacts on property values and the peaceful use and enjoyment of existing property by area residents.

Further, I believe the majority of my written testimony, and supporting basis thereof, is applicable to other locations characterized by residential uses interspersed with historically compatible agricultural land uses.”

To see the conclusions of this report by Mr. McCann, click here:

Discussion of Industrial Nature of Wind Turbine Developments

1/9/12 Why should wind turbine setbacks be measured from property lines?

Land of the Cross Tipped Churches

On the National Register of Historic Places – 1979

Mercer/Auglaize Visitor’s Bureau

• Not just the Buildings themselves, but also the Sight lines
• Including St Joseph Wapakoneta and St Patrick Glynwood
• 61 Bus Tours – approximately 40 people each
• National Marian Shrine of the Holy Relics
• Approximately 20,000 visitors a year

For a description of this area see link: Cross Tipped Churches of Ohio

How would you like to see this image past the Land of the Cross Tipped Churches?

 

Wind Energy Turbine developers may state that their turbines are designed to operate up to 25-30 years. But the reality is closer to only 12-15 years.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9770837/Wind-farm-turbines-wear-sooner-than-expected-says-study.html  What happens, then? Could Ohio become a gravesite for turbines? Can we afford to maintain and operate them, as they age? Probably not, if you read this exhaustive industry survey.  According to it, “O&M costs are double or even triple initial projections…and wind farm return on investment is around -21%…O&M costs can now be expected to increase on average 253% over the 20 year life of the various wind machines”http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/315977#1xzzndrzmpop