County disputes amount of wind farm’s Payment in Lieu of Taxes

Posted on February 4, 2013 by

Coös County and Brookfield Renewable Power are in disagreement regarding the amount owed as a Payment in Lieu of Taxes for the 33-turbine wind farm in the Unincorporated Places.

County administrator Jennifer Fish said a payment of $495,000 is due, and Brookfield has paid $249,175, with a deadline of February 1 to pay the remainder. “Brookfield notified the county on December 3 that the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) should be $249,175, based on the amount of megawatts that they were allowed to generate,” she said.

Ms. Fish said a one-time payment of $75,000 was made in 2008, and the first payment in 2012 was reduced by $75,000 to $420,000.

Brookfield spokesman Shannon Ames confirmed that Brookfield made the $249,175 payment. “Brookfield is continuing its attempts to resolve this issue with the county,” Brookfield said in a written statement. “We believe that the payment due under the PILOT framework is directly tied to the amount of electricity that Granite is permitted to produce. Unfortunately, the Granite project has been curtailed at various times in 2012 at the direction of ISO-New England. As a result, our ability to generate electricity, revenue and therefore payments from the wind farm were limited.”

The PILOT agreement between the county and Granite Reliable Power is dated March 12, 2008. According to the agreement, the payment to the county will be for turbines “that are actually installed and either generating electricity or capable of generating energy and permitted to generate energy as required by applicable law.” The agreement states that the county will receive $5,000 for each megawatt of installed capacity.

The agreement also states that “by no later than December 1 of each year, GRP shall provide a statement to the county setting forth the estimated amount of the PILOT to be made on the following January 1…In the event that the county disputes the amount of the PILOT…GRP and the county shall meet within 15 business days of receipt of such notice by the county to attempt in good faith to resolve such dispute.”

It goes on to state that, “in the event that the parties cannot resolve the dispute by January 1, GRP shall make the PILOT in accordance with the procedure set forth herein in the amount that GRP believes to be due,” with both sides allowed to go through all avenues to resolve the dispute. The county also has the right, at its own expense, to inspect the property and the records related to the operating capacity of the project.

Ms. Fish said that no date has been set for further discussions. The agreement will expire on the tenth anniversary of the first payment. Brookfield can cancel the PILOT agreement with 30 days by written notice to the county, meaning the wind farm will no longer be exempt from real estate taxes. If the revenues of the facility decrease “due to operational restrictions arising from changes in law, regulation or ordinance or the technical obsolescence of the facility or GRP permanently ceasing its operation of the facility, then GRP may terminate this agreement or seek renegotiation of the payments” with 60 days written notice to the county.

The facility has 33 turbines capable of generating 99 megawatts and is located in Dixville, Ervings Location, Millsfield and Odell. The Granite Reliable Power wind farm was purchased by Brookfield in 2011.

###

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Falmouth may spend millions to remove turbines

Posted on February 4, 2013 by

categories:Massachusetts

FALMOUTH— Standing in the shadow of Falmouth’s two town-owned wind turbines on Wednesday, Selectmen Vice Chairman Brent Putnam said he felt a squeeze in the air pressure and heard the loud mechanical noise akin to a jet engine.
“You can feel it,” Putnam said.
That sealed his decision about Falmouth’s two 1.65-megawatt turbines at the Wastewater Treatment Facility.
He then drove about five miles to a special selectmen’s meeting where, for the first time, he and all four other selectmen voted in support of removing the town-owned Wind 1 and Wind 2 turbines, the cause of a bitter three-year controversy in town that began when neighbors complained of adverse health effects they say were from the turbines.
Wednesday night, selectmen voted in favor of sending delegations from the board to state legislators and the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center – a public agency funded with ratepayer dollars – to find out how much financial assistance and debt forgiveness the town could receive if it takes down the turbines.
The board also plans to vote Monday on three separate warrant articles for a special town meeting in April that would collectively recommend the decommissioning of the turbines, fund the dismantling process and pay the cost of operating them for the rest of the fiscal year.
“This is something that has polarized the community,” Selectmen Chairman Kevin Murphy said. “It was a situation in which Murphy’s Law played out.”
In a presentation Wednesday night, Assistant Town Manager Heather Harper – who served as the turbine project’s manager – told selectmen that taking down the turbines would cost up to $11.9 million.
It would cost up to $1.5 million in the first year when accounting for dismantling costs, annual energy costs and other considerations, Harper said. Residents would pay an average of $53 to $66 in additional taxes that year.
Tearing down Wind 1 and Wind 2 may quash arguments among residents and town officials that began when the first turbine was erected in 2010 at a cost of $4.3 million, but the cost of decommissioning them could ignite new quarrels between local and state officials.
In the years leading up to Wind 1’s ribbon cutting, the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, the Clean Energy Center’s predecessor, funded a feasibility study and provided expert advice for design and siting, Catherine Williams, a spokeswoman for the center, said.
In 2007, the Technology Collaborative prepaid Falmouth for $1.9 million dollars in Renewable Energy Credits they expected the turbine to produce. The center, which was established as part of Gov. Deval Patrick’s 2008 Green Jobs Act, sold the Wind 1 turbine to Falmouth in 2009. The turbine had been in storage after Orleans’ water commissioners rejected a plan to install it and another one in a public drinking-water watershed in their town.
“I would certainly hope that they would see it within their financial ability to waive the money for the renewable energy credits,” said Selectmen Douglas Jones, one of two selectmen chosen by the board to speak to officials from the center about taking down Falmouth’s turbines.
Noting that data provided by the center guided many of the town’s decisions related to siting and installation of the turbines, Putnam also sees the agency as partially responsible for the fallout.
“A lot of the information we received about the process was from them,” Putnam said. “We had originally started with a 660-kilowatt turbine and moved up to the 1.65-megawatt turbine, you’ve got to wonder if we would have had all this trouble.”
The center funded a $388,000 report by a town panel charged with finding options to mitigate turbine complaints from abutters and plans to continuing working with the town, Williams said. But it was the town, not the center, that approved Wind 1’s site.
“Our role is to help communities gather the information they need,” Williams said. “At the end of the day, the decision is with the local communities.”
Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, praised the idea of removing the turbines.
Murray, who selectmen named as a legislator they would likely approach seeking financial assistance, said in a statement she looks forward to hearing more about Falmouth’s decommissioning plans.
“This is an issue that has divided the community and I want to thank the town for their commitment to continuing to find a solution that works best for all residents,” she said.
About 10 days ago, Rep David Vieira, R-Falmouth, filed a Wind Energy Relief Act at the Statehouse that would create two funds totaling $22.5 million.
The funds would go toward compensating people and businesses for detrimental effects on health or property resulting from turbines in locations chosen in cooperation with the CEC. Funds would also help towns to relocate or decommission turbines.
Selectmen’s support of dismantling the turbines on Wednesday was a step in the right direction, said Malcolm Donald, an abutter and outspoken opponent of the turbines.
“I’m guardedly happy,” Donald said. “My fear is that they’re going to drag this out as long as possible to generate as much revenue as possible.”
[rest of article available at source]
###
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wind turbine noise complaint predictions made easy

Posted on February 4, 2013 by

Wind turbine noise complaint predictions made easy

Introduction

The public response to wind turbines operating in a number of Massachusetts coastal communities have been greeted with a mixed response. A series of one-page articles have been written based on the acoustic investigations and research by Robert Rand and Stephen Ambrose. They are career-long friends and colleagues dating back to 1981 when they both worked as noise control engineers for Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts. Currently, they are independent acousticians working in Maine.
There should be no wind turbine complaints about noise with today’s knowledge and instrument capabilities. They have never investigated a noise problem where the public has been so vocal about ruined lives and home abandonment. Why are neighbors complaining about wind turbines? Why are regulatory officials unable to protect public health and well-being. The following is written to help answer these two-questions. (Click to view�a PDF version of the four one-page articles).

Wind Turbine Noise Complaint Predictions Made Easy – Part 1

Acousticians have known for decades how to predict the community reaction to a new noise source. Wind turbine consultants have chosen not to predict the community reaction as they have previously done for other community noise sources. If they had, there would be far fewer wind turbine sites with neighbors’ complaining loudly about excessive noise and adverse health impacts.
In 1974, the USEPA published a methodology that can predict the community reaction to a new noise. A simple chart can be used that shows the community reactions (y-axis) versus noise level (x-axis). This chart was developed from 55 community noise case studies (black squares). The baseline noise levels include adjustments for the existing ambient, prior noise experience, and sound character. The predicted wind turbine noise level is plotted on the ‘x-axis’ and the predicted community reaction is determined by the highest reaction indicated by the black squares. Here are some examples; 32 dBA no reaction and sporadic complaints, 37 dBA widespread complaints, 45 dBA strong appeals to stop noise and 54 dBA vigorous community action.
ambrose2013part1graphic
The International Standards Organization (ISO) determined that 25 dBA represents a rural nighttime environment. The World Health Organization (WHO) found that noise below 30 dBA had no observed effect level (NOEL), and 40 dBA represented the lowest observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for noise sources that excluded wind turbines. Wind turbines produce strong low frequency energy that may reduce the WHO cautionary levels by 5 dB, thereby showing closer agreement with the 33 dBA recommendations.
Pederson & Waye (2004) research found that when wind turbine noise levels reached 35 dBA, 6% of the population was highly annoyed, and rapidly increased 25% at 40 dBA. Independent researchers recommend that noise levels should not exceed 33 dBA, which is near the upper limit for sporadic complaints, or a maximum increase of 5 dB, whichever is more stringent.

Wind Turbine Noise Complaint Predictions Made Easy – Part 2

People react in a predictable manner to changes in sound level and frequency content caused by a new noise source. Wind turbines are the cause for numerous complaints about excessive noise and adverse health effects. These complaints will continue to be a public health hazard as long as modern acoustic instruments are used without a person listening to identify the sound sources or by manipulating computer prediction models to provide acceptable results. Wind turbine predictions are based on meeting a specific noise level. Regulatory boards and agencies are not accessing noise levels consistent with how people hear.
ambrose2013part2graphic
The wind turbines at Falmouth Massachusetts clearly show why there are so many neighbors complaining. An effective way to evaluate a sound source is by comparing the ON operation to OFF. The below graph shows wind turbine ON fluctuates from 35 to 46 dBA and when OFF decreases to 27 dBA.
Using the USEPA (1974) community noise assessment methodology adjusted for a quiet area. The predicted public reaction for wind turbine noise indicates widespread complaints and threats of legal action, as shown by the shaded box. Massachusetts DEP noise regulation limits the wind turbine ON maximum levels to no more than 10 dB above the ambient background (L90, exceeded 90% of the time) when OFF. The sound level increase is 19 dB for wind turbine operation.

Wind Turbine Noise Complaint Predictions Made Easy – Part 3

Sleep interruption and disturbance indicates the real potential for causing significant public harm from nearby wind turbines. A peer-reviewed research paper has investigated residents living near GE 1.5 MW wind turbines. Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, Jeffrey Aramini and Christopher Hanning, published “Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health“�in the peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal�Noise & Health, September-October 2012.
The study focused on sleep quality as defined by the Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), daytime sleepiness by Epworth Sleepiness Score (ESS), and general health according to SF36 ver2; Mental Component Score(MSC) and Physical Component Score (PSC). Residents received questionnaires based on participant-inclusion criteria living for individuals living within 1.5-km (4921-ft) of the nearest 1.5 MW wind turbine(s). Baseline random samples were collected from residents living 3 to 7-km (9840 to 22,965-ft) away. The study conclusion has a strong recommendation for a separation distance of 1.4-km (4593-ft) away from a 1.5 MW wind turbine. This would be especially true for wind turbines located in quiet environments.
ambrose2013part3graphic
An aerial photo shows the locations of Falmouth’s Wind 1, 2 and NOTUS turbines as red pins. The above sleep study recommended separation distance of nearly 4600-ft are shown as red circles. The Falmouth Board of Health’s health study (June 11, 2012) confirms the sleep study’s conclusion for complaints inside the red circles with yellow pins inside.

Wind Turbine Noise Complaint Predictions Made Easy – Part 4

Wind turbine developers promote wind energy for financial benefit for communities when they are built on municipally owned properties as in Falmouth, Kingston, Scituate and Fairhaven. In return, towns relax their bylaw restrictions to permit loud industrial type noise sources on municipal land often near quiet residential areas. Town planners approve wind turbine development without performing proper reviews as required in the bylaws. Towns understand they can build a municipal project in any land use zone. However, these projects still need to comply with the zoning bylaws.
Zoning bylaws are enacted to control community development to minimize conflicts between abutting land uses. Industrial and commercial development often produces more traffic, noise, smoke, odors, etc. than residential use. Industrial and commercial facilities are limited to districts with large lots and setback distances. Residential district restrictions protect neighbors’ expectations for peace, tranquility and protection of public health and wellbeing.
Bylaws are implemented to provide guidance to town officials and regulatory boards. Public officials are required to perform their duties in a consistent manner. Boards review new developments for appropriate economics, engineering and environmental impacts. Decisions can become emotional when there are disputed considerations for public good versus public harm. Boards are required to enforce their bylaws and should not alter rules, grant waivers or create amendments to benefit a project under consideration.
Too many towns have adopted changes to encourage wind turbine development, which were later proven detrimental to public health, safety and wellbeing. Large wind turbines produce loud noise levels that travel thousands of feet and could not comply with existing town bylaw noise limits.
###
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How to Meet Renewable Energy Goals Without Industrial Wind Turbines

Posted on February 4, 2013 by

Following is the Executive Summary Energy Plan unveiled yesterday by Energize Vermont, which has been leading the fight against ridge top wind projects.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blog/show?id=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A45003&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Certificate of Public Harm Issued Pursuant to the Public Trust and Social Fabric of the State of Vermont

Posted on October 15, 2012 by

It Is Hereby Certified that the People of the state of Vermont this day found and adjudged that the construction of utility-scale wind on Vermont’s ridgelines as proposed and supported by the Shumlin Administration, the Department of Public Service, the Public Service Board, and eleven utility-scale wind developers, will harm the general good of the State of Vermont, and a Certificate of Public Harm (CPH) is hereby issued to these entities. This CPH is awarded for the following violations of Vermont’s environmental, social, and economic well-being: Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Colebrook Wind Farm Opponents Lose, In a Flawed System

Posted on October 4, 2012 by
Dan Haar

11:29 p.m. EDT, October 3, 2012
Opponents of the planned wind farms in Colebrook have lost their case in state Superior Court, as a judge said their claims that the six turbines, as tall as a 40-story building, would not unduly hurt the environment or harm the neighbors.
The two rulings this week by Judge Henry Cohn — for two separate proposals of three turbines each — leaves BNE Energy Inc. closer to building the 9.6-megawatt project in a bucolic northwest Connecticut town. But the opponents vowed to appeal the case further, and a principal at BNE said the firm does not have a timetable for construction.
Connecticut is the only state in the region without a commercial wind farm at a time when the technology takes hold on mountain ridges and, to a lesser extent, in coastal waterways.
As the fight plays on, it’s clear from Cohn’s decisions that Connecticut’s system for approving wind projects is deeply flawed. Even if the public’s need for these things outweighs the harm to the small handful of people who live nearby — which could well be true — there’s no way to compensate those neighbors for noise, or in the case of one Colebrook couple, loss of business at a historic bed and breakfast just a few hundred yards from a turbine.
And there’s no system in place for state regulators to say, “Yup, this is what we need at that location,” the way hospitals, to give one example, must win a certificate of need if they want to expand. Tighter wind farm regulations — which were proposed after the Connecticut Siting Council approved the BNE plan in June 2011 and are still being debated — would not change that.
The opponents argued that the siting council failed to take into account noise, threats to birds and bats, wetlands issues, and the effect on property values of giant towers looming nearby. They also said the council was prejudiced in favor of the developers from the start, and did not have authority to approve the wind farm anyway, because it regulates only those energy plants that use “fuel.”
Cohn, in New Britain Superior Court, rejected all of those arguments, though he did not deny that the turbines could have a real impact on life in Colebrook, for people and animals. Cohn cited precedents that he said required him to reject opponents’ arguments because the siting council has wide leeway in making its rulings.
The lawsuits will not stop the wind turbines, said Greg Zupkus, a partner in BNE, which was located in West Hartford but, he said, has now moved its office to Colebrook.
“It’s obvious that our opponents are just trying to delay the project. But we still will be successful,” Zupkus said Wednesday.
One of the key issues is distance of the turbines from neighbors. Although state rules on wind farms had not yet been written at the time of the BNE proposal, and still are not sealed, “when we brought our projects to the Connecticut Siting Council we followed best practices in the industry,” Zupkus said.
That includes building no turbines within 1,000 feet of a house, said Zupkus, who added, “there are turbines being put up in cities next to apartment buildings.”
Michael Somers, who owns the historically listed Rock Hall Bed & Breakfast with his wife, Stella, said “best practices” call for turbines to be set back on an owner’s property. By contrast, he said, one of the BNE turbines would be so close to the line that its blades would pass within 9 feet of a neighbor’s property.
“To say that’s best practice,” Somers said Wednesday, “is just a lie.”
There are 19 houses within 2,000 feet of the BNE property in the Colebrook South proposal and nine houses within 2,000 feet of the Colebrook North portion, causing Michael Somers to call the area “a residential neighborhood.”
Nicholas J. Harding, a lawyer for the opponents at Reid & Riege in Hartford, said that he and his clients had not decided which issues they would appeal, but that an appeal would happen. BNE is free to continue working on the site, where it has done limited work, but at some risk if an appeals court reverses Cohn’s decision.
Also standing in the way of construction is an Army Corps of Engineers permit, not yet granted, and a separate fight over whether the town of Colebrook has the right to require a zone change. Harding said BNE missed a chance to appeal a local ruling requiring a zone change, thereby losing the protection from local control that energy projects normally enjoy.
This case is loaded with issues, among them “shadow flicker,” which occurs when turbine blades spin between the sun and a neighbor’s property, for a limited number of hours each year. “Shadow flicker occurs early in the morning and it occurs in the evening. Just when you would want to go out on your deck and grill dinner, you’re going to be a victim of shadow flicker,” Harding said.
Looking at the big picture, Zupkus and other wind power proponents say the technology must be part of the state’s strategy for boosting renewable energy generation. They are right, and there will always be offended neighbors in a dense state.
There’s nothing wrong with the distant sight of wind turbines, if they are part of a strategic plan. But the system needs to compensate people like Michael and Stella Somers, who lovingly restored a historic business just a few years ago, only to see it threatened by progress.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Welcome to Wise Choices for Lee

Posted on September 4, 2012 by

— an informational site for those seeking timely, accurate information regarding projects impacting our town.  http://www.wisechoicesforlee.org/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

VT: Letters to Senator Bernie Sanders

Posted on August 21, 2012 by
Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 10:50 pm

Subject: Letters to Sen. Bernie Sanders

August 18, 2012
Dear Mr. Sanders,
I am writing to you as my very last resort because of a situation that is so unbelievable and frustrating for the neighbors of Georgia Mountain Community Wind (GMCW).  This letter is not about whether wind is good or bad for Vermont’s ridgelines, but rather about dwindling property rights of Vermonters and the promise of 1603 federal grant money as an excuse to sue Vermonters.
My husband’s aunt, Jane FitzGerald is an abutting property owner to GMCW.  My husband Scott and I are not abutters, but live across the road from the project.  We were pro-se intervenors in the Section 248 approval process for the project, as was Aunt Jane.  Aunt Jane’s son, Dan FitzGerald and his wife Tina FitzGerald and daughter, Heidi FitzGerald were also pro-se intervenors.  I will admit that we all were not pleased when the project was approved by the Public Service Board, but that is not why I am writing.  You see the PSB approved the project with two out of five wind towers placed approximately 155 feet from Aunt Jane’s property line.  The edge of the access road for the project runs parallel to her property line and right up against it – no setback.  GMCW has been blasting right up to her property line to build the road – no setback.  They have been blasting right up to her property line at the turbine sites – no setback. They are not using blasting mats and they are setting off large blasts. Therefore, she has large amounts of flyrock from the blasting on her property. GMCW has also dug sediment basins on her property.
We took pictures of the flyrock and the basins and filed a complaint with the PSB.  It took them one month to respond, while GMCW continued to blast even larger flyrock, further into Jane’s property.  They finally responded that she should settle this matter in superior court.  This is a problem that the PSB created, by approving the project with virtually no setbacks.  Now they have washed their hands of it, thrown away the key and the only recourse a property owner has is to spend massive amounts of money on attorneys to sue?  I’m sorry to say that Aunt Jane does not have that kind of money.
In an attempt to stop the blasting of flyrock onto Jane’s property, my husband Scott and his cousin Dan went up to the mountain on this past Thursday, 8/16, and put up two tents on Jane’s property, well inside her line, but within 1,000 feet of the blasting.  At blasting time they were of course asked to move 1,000 feet back so that they were not in danger of getting hit by flyrock.  Of course they refused, because Dan has every right to be anywhere he wants to be on his mom’s property, as did Scott as Dan’s guest. GMCW proceeded to call the Milton Police department and 2 officers and a detective came up.  One of the officers was armed with an assault rifle.  They admitted that they could not legally throw Dan off from his land and left.  This did prevent them from blasting on that day.
On the next day, I went up on the mountain with Dan, Annette Smith from Vermonters for a Clean Environment and three representatives from the Vermont Department of Public Service and the Agency of Natural Resources to show them the flyrock and sediment basins on Jane’s property.  While we were there, Dan was served with a restraining order to stay off from his own land, within 1,000 feet of the property line.  His mom, Aunt Jane, was served as well at home.  Both Dan and Jane have also been sued for damages by GMCW….for being on their own property. This is property that she has maintained over the years for the simple reason that she and her now deceased husband John wanted their kids and grandkids to be able to enjoy it by hiking, camping and hunting.  That right has now been stolen from them.
I think that you would be especially interested to know that GMCW is using the Section 1603 grant from the U.S. Department of Treasury as an excuse to sue the FitzGeralds.  GMCW will receive approximately eight million dollars from this grant, but only if the project is operational by December 31st of this year.  They are claiming that the FitzGeralds are putting them in jeopardy of not receiving that grant money by stopping them from blasting once.  Evidently, they are on a very tight schedule, but it seems ridiculous that one blast has affected their schedule that much. Did they not think that the neighbors would want to use their own land?   Our tax dollars should not be given to such irresponsible developers.  Of course it’s ultimately the Public Service Board’s fault for approving the project with no setbacks in the first place.
So there you have it.  The FitzGeralds land has been taken away from them by a private company.  They have not been compensated.  They are being sued for using it.  They are paying taxes on it.  How is this okay?
If this is going to be the way of living in Vermont, then we need to make some changes.  If a project is approved for the public good, it needs to be good for the neighbors as well.  If land is going to be used and taken at the whim on the developer, then the neighbor needs to be compensated, not sued. And if the Public Service Board is going to make such approvals, then they need to do some policing of the projects and make sure that they are being built in a respectful manner.
There are many, many other issues with this project that we have complained about to the Public Service Board, who have responded with either “go to superior court” or no response at all, but this is by far the most atrocious and scary yet.  My husband and I own 25 acres here on Georgia Mountain, and who is to say that someday, someone won’t be allowed to come along and decide that they want our back 10 acres and just be allowed to take it from us?  Evidently, that is a real possibility here in Vermont now.
Please, please look into this matter.  Anne Margolis from the Department of Public Service was one of the people who went up the mountain with us yesterday and witnessed Dan being served with the restraining order and lawsuit.  Please contact her, and she will tell you that this is all true. She took pictures of the flyrock and the sediment basins and talked with other neighbors about problems that they have had with GMCW. Her number is (802)828-3058.  Also, please visit Georgia Mountain the next time you are in Vermont.
Thank-you for your attention to this matter,
Melodie McLane
1179 Georgia Mountain Road
Fairfax, Vermont  05454
(802)893-2170
————————
Hand delivered to Senator Bernie Sanders in Middletown Springs on Saturday, Aug. 18, after speaking about it in the public Q&A:
Senator Sanders:
I would like to give voice to the people of this state and beyond whose lives, health, and livelihoods are being sacrificed in the name of Green industrial development.
Yesterday I hiked up Georgia Mountain in Milton, Vermont as part of a group that included representatives from the ANR and DPS that was led by a local resident and landowner. We were there when the landowner was given a restraining order to keep him off of his own land because he and others in support of him were cited as “interfering” with construction work by being present on his land.  I learned this morning that Georgia Mountain Community Wind is also suing Dan and his 85-year-old mother.
After hiking down the mountain yesterday we stopped to visit with a man who lives on what WAS a quiet private road. This man’s homestead is now at the main access to the same industrial development site up on the mountain.  His home address was given as the location for deliveries, which resulted in him receiving a letter from a project supplier notifying him if the bills were not paid they would put a lien on his property. Thirty two year old trees that he planted in front of his house were cut down when he was not home to make way for oversized trucks and equipment to get by. He was without power for a time and is still without phone service after three weeks since lines to his house were cut. As we stood in front of his home to talk there was a steady stream of trucks and heavy equipment going back and forth on the recently “improved” gravel road that now borders his property and is lined with cement barriers and huge construction signs. At the beginning of the private road a copy of the newly issued restraining order against his neighbor was posted on a signboard.
These people and their neighbors have had their homes rocked by and in at least one case physically damaged by, up to 7,000-pound blasts that have been going on for weeks. All the while their complaints are being ignored. Their attempts to give voice to their rights have time and time again been met with injustice and abuse.
I could go on to tell you about numerous other people around this state and beyond who have been drained financially and emotionally in their fights to hold onto their homes, and their livelihoods, and to protect themselves and their families to no avail.  The damage and destruction does not end with the construction  – what follows are the stories of illness and ruin that force people to leave the places that they called home.
The people that I met yesterday and many more like them are the victims of one more scam that is permitting economic, health, and environmental destruction in the name of Green Industry. The only Green in this business is the stuff filling the pockets of big corporations.
Elizabeth Cooper
Middletown Springs, VT 05757
Wind energy development in Vermont is a large mountaintop quarrying operation, but few of the protections provided to neighbors of quarries regulated by Act 250.
GMCW response to neighbors’ July 3 letter
DPS response to neighbors’ July 3 letter
PSB response to neighbors’ July 3 letter
ANR response to neighbors’ July 3 letter
GMCW’s Temporary Restraining Order
GMCW’s Complaint Against Jane and Dan FitzGerald
Georgia Mountain Community Wind went to court on Friday afternoon and got a Temporary Restraining Order against the FitzGeralds who adjoin the wind site to the west (without a hearing, just like in Lowell with GMP and the Nelsons) and also filed suit against them for:
1. Private nuisance — cannot proceed with scheduled blasting, jeopardizing the project’s ability to get Treasury Grant moneys.  Wrongful conduct being within the blast safety zone, encouraging others to be in the blast safety zone has unreasonably interfered with GMCW’s use and enjoyment of its property and its rights pursuant to the CPG.  GMCW has suffered damages.
2. Intentional interference with contract.  Been present and or have encouraged others to be present within blast safety zone.  Suffered damages and irreparable harm. 
3.  Request for declaratory judgment.  Entitled to declaratory judgment that defendants’ wrongful actions constitute a nuisance and entitle them to injunctive relief.

Seeking injunctive relief and damages, compensatory damages, interest, attorneys fees, costs.

Must respond within 20 days.  
Hearing will be held August 30, Chittenden County Vermont Superior Court, Burlington.
Ritchie Berger
Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew
Neighbors are seeking a lawyer to take the case pro bono.  Please reply if you have any suggestions.
—————–
Annette Smith    
Executive Director
Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Inc.
789 Baker Brook Rd.
Danby, VT  05739
office: (802) 446-2094
cell: (802) 353-6058

Send

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Federal agencies sued over failure to disclose correspondence with wind industry – Promise of government transparency not being met

Posted on June 27, 2012 by

categories: Press releases, U.S.

link: http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/06/26/federal-agencies-sued-over-failure-to-disclose-correspondence-with-wind-industry-promise-of-government-transparency-not-being-met/

In a lawsuit filed today in Washington D.C. District Court American Bird Conservancy has accused the federal government of suppressing information about wind energy projects and their potential negative impact on America’s wildlife. ABC is being represented in the suit by the Washington D.C. public-interest law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal.

ABC charges that two Interior Department (DOI) agencies flagrantly violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by failing to comply with statutory deadlines for disclosure of information, and by failing to provide their correspondence with wind developers and other information related to potential impacts on birds and bats, and bird and bat deaths at controversial wind developments in 10 states.

“It’s ridiculous that Americans have to sue in order to find out what their government is saying to wind companies about our wildlife—a public trust,” said Kelly Fuller, Wind Campaign Coordinator for ABC. “ABC is concerned that many of these projects have the potential to take a devastating toll on songbirds, majestic eagles, and threatened and endangered species,” she added.

ABC filed six requests under FOIA – all of them more than eight months ago. ABC’s FOIA requests asked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s correspondence with wind developers regarding birds and bats, as well as related information about wildlife impacts, such as studies showing which bird and bat species were in the area and how many had been killed by the facilities. ABC’s FOIA requests were to be processed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which subsequently referred one request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Under FOIA’s strict deadlines, the agencies were required to fulfill the requests or claim exemptions within 20 working days.

“In President Obama’s first month in office, he directed federal agencies to respond to the public’s FOIA requests promptly and in a spirit of cooperation. The President said, ‘A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.’ With this lawsuit, ABC is asking the Department of the Interior to carry out the President’s promise,” said Fuller. “Some DOI offices have not sent a single document that we asked for, even though the agencies were legally required to do so more than seven months ago.”

Many organizations are concerned about the U.S. government’s management of wind energy’s impacts on wildlife. In May 2012, ABC and 60 other organizations asked committees in the U.S. House and Senate for Congressional oversight of FWS’s implementation of new voluntary guidelines for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating the impacts of wind energy on wildlife. Ninety-one organizations endorsed an extensive rulemaking petition submitted by ABC requesting that FWS establish mandatory wildlife protection regulations in lieu of the voluntary approach favored by the industry.

In a March 2012 letter rejecting ABC’s petition, FWS Director Daniel Ashe asserted that FWS was being “meticulously transparent” in how the Service was addressing the impact of wind power on wildlife, and asked for ABC’s help in assessing the effectiveness of the voluntary wind guidelines. “But stonewalling FOIA requests is hardly ‘transparency,’ and without timely access to the crucial information held by the Service, evaluating the effectiveness of the guidelines will be impossible. ABC also will not be able to properly fulfill our mission to protect native birds and their habitats throughout the Americas,” said Fuller.

ABC’s FOIA requests were in regard to proposed and existing wind energy developments in Arizona, California, Florida, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas. Birds that could potentially be harmed include Bald and Golden Eagles, as well as birds that have been federally designated as threatened and endangered, such as Whooping Cranes, Northern Aplomado Falcons, Least Terns, Piping Plovers, Marbled Murrelets, Snail Kites, Wood Storks, and Northern Crested Caracaras. Other birds that could potentially be harmed include night-migrating songbirds, birds of prey, and candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act such as Greater Sage-Grouse and Sprague’s Pipit.

ABC supports Bird-Smart Wind Power, which employs careful siting, operation and construction mitigation, bird monitoring, and compensatory mitigation to reduce and redress any unavoidable bird mortality and habitat loss. In May 2012, ABC released an interactive web map to help wind energy development become more Bird-Smart. The map shows more than 2,000 locations in the United States where birds will be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of wind energy development.

American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit membership organization whose mission is to conserve native birds and their habitats throughout the Americas. ABC acts by safeguarding the rarest species, conserving and restoring habitats, and reducing threats, while building capacity in the bird conservation movement.

###

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

News report misses fact on true costs of Vinalhaven industrial wind turbines

Posted on June 27, 2012 by

categories: Maine

link: http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/06/26/news-report-misses-fact-on-true-costs-of-vinalhaven-industrial-wind-turbines/

On June 5th the Bangor Daily News incorporated a misleading statement of energy “savings” claimed to be “substantial” when in fact electric rates on the Maine island, Vinalhaven, are higher than if the turbines had never been built.

The quote was provided by former Harvard Business school professor George Baker, Fox Islands Wind CEO, who “said that the wind project has reduced the cost of electricity on Vinalhaven from 28 cents per kilowatt hour to 24 cents per kilowatt hour.” He called it “a significant reduction”.

The news report was based on an island tour by the US Department of Agriculture which financed $10.5 million of the $14.5 million wind turbine project. Anyone reading the Bangor News Report is likely to take the statement as fact. That is a mistake.

Fox Islands Wind Neighbors on Vinalhaven analyzed utility customers’ bills and the published cost of electricity to Maine utilities. The graph shows cost per kilowatt hour and dates from 2004 to the present. The FIEC rate numbers are from billing statements to consumers. Based on historical trends, Vinalhaven residents are paying more, not less, because of the poorly planned wind turbines.

The graphs shows that the years leading up to November 2009, when the wind turbines began operating, the cost of electricity to islanders closely tracked the CMP rate, as indicated by the trend lines. The project was “sold” to islanders who believed the promoters that it would reduce costs. (Data set is available.)

In early 2009 electric rates in Maine began to drop because of low natural gas prices and increasing supply. The CMP rate continued to decrease (because natural gas prices kept falling) while FIEC rates increased dramatically from about $.20/kwh to about $.25/kwh — a 25% increase. CEO Baker refers to a rate of $.28 without mentioning the date: October, 2008. When the wind turbines are not spinning — because of the intermittent nature of wind and inefficiency of turbines — Vinalhaven’s Electric Co-Op (FIEC) buys electricity through the wholesale market, via underwater cable, at a price based on the ISO-NE standard offer rates.

Fox Islands Wind Neighbors is a group of citizens living near industrial wind turbine who bear the full costs of destruction to property values, health and natural quiet on the small rural island in Penobscot Bay. In November 2009, Fox Islands Wind LLC (FIW) commenced operation of three 1.5 megawatt GE turbines. From the first day, neighbors complained about excessive noise from the industrial turbines only to be stonewalled by FIW, that operates the turbines, and its sole customer: the local electric coop.

The misleading statement about energy costs on Vinalhaven, printed without further investigation by Bangor Daily News, is part of a pattern. In the years before the turbines were permitted, wind power enthusiasts on Vinalhaven first contracted with an engineering firm then deliberately concealed from neighbors its results when they strongly pointed to noise problems likely to affect neighbors. After the turbine farm commenced operation, Baker and FIW obstructed discovery of facts of wind turbine noise and delayed time after time the opportunity to resolve the responsibility for measurement and mitigation with the state of Maine. FIW has repeatedly delayed progress of a petition by the neighbors against the state in Maine Superior Court.

Just as wind power advocates claims of economic benefits are phantom, the $10. 5 million loan application to the US Department of Agriculture by FIW should also be scrutinized for compliance with all federal legal requirements.

###

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment