(11-5-14) Across Ohio, all of us have a long list of grievances concerning the process and rules
of the Ohio Power Siting Board concerning industrial wind facility siting. We promised to bring
these issues and concerns to the attention of Governor Kasich but we were encouraged to wait
until after the election. And so it is today that we are launching an important signature gathering
initiative. We would like to have a minimum of 500 signers of the letter to Governor Kasich
proposed below. Please take a moment to add the names of every member of your household to
our message. We are calling for the Governor to halt any further processing of any wind matter
until the proper rules are in place. These rules must faithfully implement the legislative intent of
the General Assembly. The current rules are so deficient in that regard as to effectively create an
unregulated environment where property owners and families across Ohio are unprotected.
We need our collective voice to be loud and clear. The existing process is unfair to citizens,
violates our constitutional protections and undermines the work of the Ohio General Assembly.
Governor John Kasich
State of Ohio
Riffe Center, 30th Floor
77 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215-6117
Dear Governor Kasich:
The undersigned residents of Ohio communities affected or threatened with industrial wind
development wish to bring to your attention the untenable situation we face due to the failure of
the Ohio Power Siting Board ("OPSB") to protect the public interest. We assert that the OPSB
has not adopted rules that adequately and faithfully implement the requirements of siting statutes.
Moreover, it has acted in ways that contribute to public confusion resulting in the loss of due
process. The actions and omissions of the OPSB have abridged our fundamental constitutional
right to be protected and secure in the possession of our property. We call for legal reforms to
curb the errors and failures in the Board's administration of the wind power siting program over
the past six years.
For example, the OPSB was supposed to complete a mandatory five-year review of its rules
through a proceeding it initiated in July 2012; to this end it issued orders adopting new rules in
Case No. 12-1981-GE-BRO. Throughout that rulemaking proceeding, OPSB invited the input of
utilities, wind developers, parties who recently filed applications, and their attorneys. However,
the Board never notified or solicited the input of members of the public who intervened in OPSB
matters. The Board did not even notify intervenors who were extensively involved in the
development of the Board's original wind power siting rules in 2008-09. Furthermore, the Board
never filed notice of the proposed or final rules in the Register of Ohio, presumably because the
OPSB and PUCO are exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of R.C.
Chapter 119. In sum, while the Board's recent rulemaking was open to utilities, wind developers,
other regulated entities, and their attorneys, the process was entirely "under the radar" as far as
the public was concerned.
Furthermore, under Ohio law, agencies such as the OPSB must file newly adopted rules with the
Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review ("JCARR") so that the rules can be evaluated by the
General Assembly based on specified legal criteria. Yet, although the OPSB adopted its new set
of rules on February 18, 2014, the OPSB has not filed its newly adopted wind power siting rules
with JCARR and is thereby denying the public an opportunity to address the mismatch between
the OPSB's rules and the requirements specified by the Ohio General Assembly.
Time and again OPSB's hearing process has proven hostile to public participation. Before
approving a power siting certificate, the Board must hold both a "public hearing" at which any
interested party may be heard and an "evidentiary hearing" at which only the applicant, Board
Staff, and approved intervenors may participate. But the Board representatives conducting public
hearings refuse to answer questions about the project and refer members of the public back to the
wind developer for responses to their questions. In evidentiary hearings, the Board routinely
imposes a discriminatory double standard by requiring intervenors (usually members of the
public) to submit live expert witness testimony while allowing developers to submit reams of
documentary information as "evidence" without expert support.
The Board delegates the oversight and conduct of both hearings to an Administrative Law Judge
employed by the PUCO, who then prepares the written decision and certificate for the Board's
approval (usually at a single meeting with minimal discussion). No Board member participates in
the hearings, which calls into question the depth of the Board members' understanding of the
issues they are called on to decide.
From the perspective of local property owners, who strongly object to the placement of wind
farms near their homes and property, we must spend our time and our own money to do the job
that the OPSB should be doing for the public and yet we feel we are being undercut by the OPSB
at every turn. The net result of OPSB actions works to effectively deprive us of any meaningful
opportunity to be heard. At the same time, the OPSB is issuing, over the strong objections of
local property owners and local government officials, more certificates authorizing the
construction of new wind farms that intend to violate the minimum setback requirements in
current law. In other cases, the OPSB is allowing certificated wind farms to evade the General
Assembly's new setback requirements by improperly extending the life of those certificates
before the effective date of the setback requirements.
Contrary to the statutory requirements enacted by the General Assembly, the OPSB is complicit
in and protective of unfair and unreasonable wind industry practices. Examples include:
1. Permitting legal notice of public hearings to appear at times when the public is least
likely to see them;
2. Scheduling public hearings at times the public is least able to attend;
3. Allowing wind companies to conduct required pubic information meetings without
specifying the location of proposed wind turbines;
4. Allowing wind companies to meet the Board's public notification requirements using
maps that lack necessary detail, such as roads or parcel boundaries, to enable landowners
to assess the potential impact on their properties;
5. Enabling wind companies to negotiate unfair and one-sided contracts that obligate the
signer to waive impacts they often do not understand; that burden the entirety of a
property for up to 45 years; that are negotiated using a divide and conquer strategy ; that
include no right of rescission; and that include onerous and overbroad confidentiality
clauses. Oftentimes, the property owner is elderly and may not be in a position to
understand or negotiate in his or her best interest.
6. Failing to establish clear and enforceable standards for audible noise and instead allowing
the use of vague "design goals" that fail to consider worst-case impacts;
7. Failure to establish any standards at all for inaudible low frequency noise emissions;
8. Refusing to consider a report from a Wisconsin power siting proceeding that cited new
scientific findings regarding low frequency noise from wind turbines and concluded that
there is now enough evidence to classify low-frequency noise and infrasound from wind
turbines as "a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the wind industry."
9. Failing to require that setback waivers be obtained from all adjacent property owners as
required by law;
10. Failing to require wind developers to specifically articulate the alleged benefits accruing
to the described project area and, instead, accepting alleged benefit claims that pertain to
unrelated and distant communities even though the impact/burden of the project is borne
by the local property owners;
11. Failing to accord due weight to local governments who object to applications on the basis
of harms to the community's economic health and welfare or cultural identity;
12. Failing to adopt rules for siting industrial wind turbines near public and private
recreational areas, including Indian Lake as well as numerous golf courses and equestrian
facilities;
13. Extending certificate expiration dates without following the statutory requirements for
amendment of certificates, such as the requirements for investigation by the OPSB staff
and for public hearing to consider substantive changes in the assumptions underlying the
original certificate;1 (1 Chief among these changes is the dramatic increase in blade
length which increases vibration and low frequency emissions as well as recent medical
studies concerning related health effects. )
14. Failing to consider cumulative impacts in areas where multiple projects are sited;
15. Failing to require developers to establish a complaint resolution protocol acceptable to
the community prior to issuing a certificate; and
16. Blaming insufficient funding/lack of resources to fully carry out their duties.
As the Ohio Supreme Court has stated, "It is axiomatic that the federal and Ohio constitutions
forbid the state to take private property for the sole benefit of a private individual." Norwood v.
Horney (2006), 110 Ohio St.3d 353, 365. Yet that is exactly what the Power Siting Board has
repeatedly permitted to occur. The constitutionally protected property rights of Ohioans are
being harmed in favor of industrial wind development. These massive industrial power plants are
being imposed in rural residential communities by private for-profit developers. The
developments are structured as limited liability companies owned more often than not by foreign
private equity firms. These industrial power plants are not public utilities and are not empowered
with the right of eminent domain but, through the faulty administration of the law by the Ohio
Power Siting Board, that is effectively the result. Ohio's administration of wind power
development is unregulated under the guise of regulation.
We request that you halt further consideration of any industrial wind power application until
lawful rules are established, eliminate the exemption from rulemaking due process currently
afforded to the Ohio Power Siting Board under Revised Code Chapter 119, and require that any
application for certificate amendment or extension be subjected to the due process of meaningful
public notice, a full investigation, and a fair hearing. If the State of Ohio is unable to administer a
fair regulatory program that protects her citizens, siting decisions must be returned to local
zoning and control.
Respectfully Submitted,
Signed by Residents of Ohio
CC:
Lt. Governor Mary Taylor
Riffe Center, 30th Floor
77 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215-6117
President Keith Faber
Ohio Senate
1 Capitol Square, 2nd Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Speaker William Batchelder
Ohio House of Representatives
77 S. High St
14th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Chairman Tom Johnson
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
180 E. Broad St.
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Thank you for your immediate attention to this effort. We ask that all signatures be sent to us
by November 10th.
(11-3-14) This past Friday the Vorys law firm filed a motion in opposition to two residents in
the Blackfork Wind case. Blackfork Wind, proposed for Crawford and Richland Counties, seeks
to amend its Certificate of Approval by adding two new turbine models. The Amendment was
filed on September 12th - three days before the property line setback law became effective. The
Teflon team at Vorys makes an aggressive effort in the attached motion to assert that none of the
residents' claims "stick". They assert the two citizens live too far away to be eligible to intervene
even though one resident is ½ mile from a turbine and will experience shadow flicker. Then
Vorys claims that in the event the Ohio Power Siting decides the citizens are eligible to
intervene, their argument that the project should be subject to the property line setback should be
dismissed because the legislation (HB 483) was not yet effective on the date the application for
Amendment was filed.
On June 26th, 684 citizens from affected communities signed a letter to Governor Kasich,
Speaker Batchelder and Ohio Senate President Faber expressing appreciation for the passage of
HB 483 extending setbacks from property lines. The Ohio Power Siting Board has the ability to
establish setbacks at any distance. The original laws established the original setbacks as
"minimums". Even Senator Seitz admonished the OPSB to not default to the minimum when
considering wind power siting cases. But more compelling is the plain language of HB 483 that
reads as follows:
"(ii) Any amendment made to an existing certificate after the effective date of the amendment of
this section by H.B. 483 of the 130th general assembly shall be subject to the setback provision
of this section as amended by that act. The amendments to this section by that act shall not be
construed to limit or abridge any rights or remedies in equity or under the common law."
This language does not say applications filed before the effective date of the law are exempt. It
says amendments made to projects after the effective date shall be subject to the new setbacks.
The Vorys firm represents wind developers in numerous projects across Ohio including Timber
Road, Scioto Ridge, Buckeye Wind and Blackfork Wind. Citizens should be watching closely to
see whether the Ohio Power Siting Board upholds the law as it was written by their elected
representatives. This is not Washington, D.C. where the President can subvert laws through
executive action. This is Ohio where the General Assembly and the Chief Executive Officer, the
Governor, are in overwhelming control of the state government. Unelected administrative
agencies like the OPSB must not be allowed to subvert the actions of elected officials at the
behest of wind industry attorneys.
(10-29-14) We enjoyed three recent news reports that were worth sharing. Fox Business reports
that the states with the largest use of wind power have the highest utility bills. They note private
investors are encouraged to hold on to their own money while the government (you and me)
provides the life support for wind through the Production Tax Credit. The outcome of the
election may pull the plug on the PTC. Enter the League of Conservation Voters. Fox reports "It
would be an understatement to say that the outcome of the 2014 elections is important for wind
energy producers. In an effort to see PTC friendly Harry Reid as Majority Leader, the wind
industry has essentially turned the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) into their own personal
Trojan horse.
Much of the LCV leadership has deep ties to the wind energy:


Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) serves as the
Treasure of the LCV.
Peter Mandelstam, former AWEA board member and founder of Green Sails wind
energy company also serves on the LCV board.
Unsurprisingly, much of the LCV's campaign activities have been aimed squarely at renewal of
the PTC. The organization brags that it will spend over $25 million supporting pro PTC
candidates and attacking their opponents before November elections. Should LCV's campaign
fail, loss of the PTC could prove fatal to some wind companies. "
We have seen Ohio LCV hand at work in Ohio with LCV support of Rep. Mike Duffey (RColumbus) who opposed SB 310. We are quite certain that we shall see more of the Ohio LCV
as the legislature's Study Committee gets up and running. Julie resigned from the OLCV board
of directors on May 31, 2014 after it became clear the board would have no substantive input
into the organization's advocacy for wind.
Elsewhere, media reports are shining a spotlight on a new study from the Adam Smith
Institute which, following nine years of examination of wind performance at 22 UK wind
developments found:
"Most significantly, it found that the system would be only running at 90 percent of capacity or
higher for 17 hours a year, and at 80 percent or higher for less than one week a year; conversely,
total output was at less than 20 percent of capacity for 20 weeks of the year, and below 10
percent during nine weeks a year. The most common power output of this 10GW model wind
fleet is approximately 800MW. The probability that the wind fleet will produce full output is
vanishingly small," the authors note. The consequence is that many more wind turbines will have
to be built than is often assumed, as the capacity of the fleet can't be assumed to be synonymous
with actual output.
The findings will deliver a body blow to governmental claims that their current target of
generating 27 percent of energy from renewable sources - mostly wind and solar - by 2030 is
credible."
In the world of solar, repeal of the in-state requirement for the purchase of renewable energy
meant that both wind and solar energy could be sourced from out of state providers who often
sell at lower prices. As a result, the Indianapolis Speedway is seeking to become qualified by
the PUCO as a renewable energy provider to Ohio. Gives new meaning to 'the speed of light'!!
The costs of renewable energy policies are a concern of the National Black Caucus of State
Legislators. In a 2014 White Paper, the NBCSL expresses concerns that the use of distributed
generated, like solar panels, could unfairly shift the burden of meeting the costs of the grid to
low income and minority people. In some areas, utility companies are discussing raising
electricity charges - for the "fixed costs" of the grid, for everybody to make up for revenues they
say they're losing to rooftop solar. In Wisconsin, for example, the investor-owned utility
Wisconsin Public Service Corp. wants to hike monthly fees from $10.40 to $25." A copy of the
report is attached.
(10-27-14) This past week the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) issued two orders granting
requests for rehearing of previously denied appeals. Earlier, the OPSB had granted a motion to
extend the Everpower project despite the fact that the rules call for an application and hearing
and, further, any extension should be considered an amendment of the original certificate. If an
amendment had been required, Everpower would have been subject to new setback requirements.
By granting the extension as a 'motion', the OPSB enabled Everpower to avoid the new setbacks.
UNU objected to this decision but was overruled. UNU appealed the decision and requested a
rehearing on the matter. The request for rehearing was granted. As we have reported before, the
status of the OPSB's rules are in question due to procedural issues. The decision to grant the
rehearing in this case means nothing more than the OPSB wished to take some time to consider
the issues raised in the appeal. The OPSB will not meet again until late November which would
be the earliest that the matter could again be considered. (Order attached)
Likewise, the OPSB granted a rehearing on the Greenwich Wind appeal in Huron County.
Again, the OPSB takes pains to say that they are not ruling on the merits of the appeal. They
simply want to take more time to consider the issues raised in the appeal. (Order attached)
In Logan County, Everpower objected to a request by an Indian Lake property owner to
intervene in the case regarding an amendment to the Scioto Ridge Wind project. Everpower
maintains that a homeowner residing and recreating within ½ mile of the project is not impacted
and therefore should not be granted status as an intervenor. The Rudolph Reply brief asserts that
Everpower's objections are nothing more than "proof of how out of touch they are with the
community". Well said.
We were amused by recent claims by the Ohio Environmental Council made in support of
proposed federal emissions limits on coal-fired plants "saying the rules could spur already rapid
[solar] development in the state." WHAT??? After crying that a freeze on renewable mandates
would ruin the fragile solar market in Ohio, the same folks are now boasting "that Solar energy
deployment is increasing rapidly in Ohio, growing an average of 47% annually over the past
three years, according to Environment Ohio." Nice to see such a good demonstration of why
mandates are not needed.
Lots of energy (pun intended) is beginning to rev up around the Congressional elections and the
lame duck Congress. Many believe a big push will be made to renew the now expired federal
Production Tax Credit and make it retroactive. We guess the Halloween season is as good a time
as any to bring back this zombie subsidy. Forbes magazine has a good article on why the
subsidy is not needed. We also include a press release and some news coverage of two rallies
in Ohio this week by Waste in the Wind - a coalition of senior advocates, Tea Partiers and a
former Oklahoma Congressman. This group came to Ohio to ask taxpayers to contact their
Congressman to object to any Lame Duck Congressional Action on the PTC. We will join the
chorus after the election. In the meantime we urge everyone to vote. It is so important - and true
that you create your own future. Many counties will have wind cases going to the Ohio Supreme
Court. Everyone has a stake in the outcome of this election. We ask for a fair and impartial
consideration of the issues surrounding industrial wind development. We think a vote for French
and Kennedy will bring that about.
(10-23-14) Last week the PUCO issued a rule to implement the portion of Senate Bill 310 that
called for the elimination of the in-state mandate for renewable energy. In its deliberations on
how to fashion the rule, the Ohio Environmental Council and the Sierra Club argued that the instate mandate elimination was only a two-year elimination and that any rule must reflect the
temporary nature of the in-state repeal. The PUCO rejected OEC and Sierra's arguments but we
found the language used in their order was interesting:
"The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that, [f]ollowing a primary rule of statutory construction,
we must apply a statute as it is written when its meaning is unambiguous and definite," and that
"[a]n unambiguous statute must be applied in a manner consistent with the plain meaning of the
statutory language, and a court cannot simply ignore or add words."
Fair enough - we agree. We wonder, then, how the PUCO/OPSB could have gotten so far off
track when establishing other siting rules for noise, ice throw, recreation areas, complaint
processes and everything else called for in the law. Hmmm…
And speaking of the Sierra Club, the latest issue of Fortune Magazine reports:
"Environmentalists and renewable-power providers fear that Ohio could be the spearhead for
pushing back other states' mandates for renewables. Despite five years of relatively robust
investment in renewables here, the presence in Ohio of two of the nation's largest utilities (AEP
and FirstEnergy), along with the legacy coal industry (Ohio produced 26,000 tons of coal in
2012), makes it a prime battleground for the struggle between clean energy and cheap, dirty coal.
"This is ground zero," says Sierra Club Ohio energy director Dan Sawmiller."
The Fortune story features efforts by Honda to 'appear' environmentally responsible. The people
in and around Russell's Point can see Honda's green totem quite clearly. In the article Honda
reports that its turbines provide 10,000 MW hours a year or 10% of the plant's energy needs.
They say it is a "good bet" Honda will be adding more. No wonder Honda favors state mandates
that keep the price of their renewable energy credits elevated and shifts some of their costs to
Ohio consumers and ratepayers
Meanwhile, over at GM, the story is solar with a huge installation at Lordstown. We note again
that the "appearance" of being green is important to the automaker and it is a point of pride that
the solar panels can be seen from the Ohio Turnpike. The 8,500 panel array is a 2.2 MW
installation designed to supply 1.5% of GM's needs at Lordstown.
In Van Wert and Paulding Counties, the Northwest Ohio Wind Project originally proposed by
National Wind and then sold to Trishe Wind has now been sold again to Starwood Global
Energy who plans to build 100 MW by 2015 and another 250 MW sometime thereafter. We
included an old article describing the 59 turbine project which was approved by the OPSB in
2013.
And last, Everpower/Terra Firma owner, Guy Hands is seeking a new communications director.
For those of you who might be interested, Hands describes what he is looking for: "The City can
be a jungle, as we all know, so I want resilience and someone with the hide of a rhino. I want an
early bird and a night owl, someone who rises early and can stay awake until the wee small
hours. Someone with leopard-like instinct, able to take a considered approach and make
decisions based on what the situation demands. I want someone who can keep an eagle eye on
the issues impacting our business and who isn't afraid to swoop in and seize an opportunity that
presents itself. Finally, like a giraffe, someone who is willing to stick their neck out. And of
course, someone who is a bit of a monkey and can appreciate my humorous side."
(10-21-14) Attached is the brief filed with the Ohio Supreme Court by Joe Grant, an intervenor
in Everpower's Scioto Ridge project. Like other appeals filed in Champaign and Huron Counties,
the issue of inadequate setbacks is a primary concern. In this instance, the brief makes a
compelling case that the Ohio Power Siting Board approved turbines which represent a danger of
ice throw as well as blade shear to neighboring non-participating properties. Further, the OPSB
failed to consider the adverse impact to Indian Lake State Park. OPSB had knowledge of the
distance which blades and ice could be thrown but defaulted to the state minimum's which were
later changed by the legislature. It may be useful to look at the timeline of events. In April, 2014
the Everpower project was approved; in May, 2014 an appeal was filed with the OPSB; in June,
2014 the appeal was denied while at the same time the bill revising setbacks was enacted; in
July, 2014 Mr. Grant filed a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court; in September, 2014
the new setback law became effective and in October, 2014 the attached brief was filed. It is
certainly difficult to understand why the OPSB pursued their course of action in light of what
they knew.
We were intrigued by two recent posts. In the first, a University of Vermont looks at how wind
industry messages are changing. Arguments promoting wind that are now found to be fading
away include: wind promotes energy independence (maybe people figured out electricity isn't
made from foreign oil); wind promotes local economic gain (jobs are temporary construction
jobs) ; and wind opponents are only concerned about aesthetics. As concerns about health
impacts are rising, the NIMBY arguments sound less credible and so big wind is now falling
back on the evils of climate change to justify their existence.
We need look no further than to the American Wind Energy Association's recent blog post on
the Top Ten Reasons Americans Support Wind:
1. It is free
2. Promotes local manufacturing jobs
3. Supports other blue collar jobs
4. Landowners benefit
5. "Captures Our Imagination"
6. Clean Air
7. Conserves Water
8. Is Beautiful
9. Fights Climate Change
10. Provides "unexpected" economic benefits like tourism
Having waded through this swamp of AWEA's arguments, it was refreshing to read a rebuttal of
sorts from the Heartland Institute that asserts electricity costs have skyrocketed in windy states;
manufacturing jobs are principally located outside of the US; and other jobs created come at the
expense of existing jobs. As for being beautiful and capturing our imagination….well that
sounds pretty dumb to us!
(10-17-14) On Monday night, the Brown County Board of Health in Wisconsin voted to declare
the Shirley Wind Project to be a human health hazard. The approved motion states:
"To declare the Industrial Wind Turbines at Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore,
Brown County, WI. A Human Health Hazard for all people (residents, workers, visitors, and
sensitive passersby) who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions
potentially harmful to human health."
This is an important step forward in the debate about industrial wind setbacks and the effects of
low frequency noise. Readers of Wind News will recall that the study of LFN by four
acousticians was underway at Shirley when Union Neighbors United intervened in Everpower's
Buckeye Wind II before the Ohio Power Siting Board. One of the researchers working on the
Shirley Wind study was Everpower's noise expert, David Hessler. On the witness stand at OPSB
in November, 2012, Hessler responded to a question from UNU's attorney about LFN as follows:
Q: Low-frequency noise cannot be ruled out as a potential problem at wind farms, can it?
A: Yeah, up until recently my belief was that it could essentially be ruled out, but I'm changing
my mind on that a little bit.
Hessler was changing his mind because of what he was learning at the Shirley Wind project.
(The full report is included in the attached motion.)
The OPSB hearings closed on December 6, 2012. On December 12th , the Shirley Wind study
was concluded and on December 24th the report was issued. That report concluded two
important points.


"An important finding on this survey was that the cooperation of the wind farm operator
is absolutely essential. Wind turbines must be measured both ON and OFF on request to
obtain data under nearly
identical wind and power conditions to quantify the wind turbine impact which could not
be done due to Duke Energy's lack of cooperation."
"A most interesting study in 1986 by the Navy reveals that physical vibration of pilots in
flight simulators induced motion sickness when the vibration frequency was in the range
of 0.05 to 0.9 Hz with the maximum (worst) effect being at about 0.2 Hz, not too far from
the blade passing frequency of future large wind turbines. If one makes the leap from
physical vibration of the body to physical vibration of the media the body is in, it
suggests adverse response to wind turbines is an acceleration or vibration problem in the
very low frequency region. The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough
evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN and infrasound as a
serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry. It should be addressed beyond
the present practice of showing that wind turbine levels are magnitudes below the
threshold of hearing at low frequencies."
On January 17, 2013, UNU requested that the record in Buckeye Wind II be reopened to allow
inclusion of the Shirley Wind Report. (See attached Motion) Everpower objected and the OPSB
denied the request. Now the Health Department in Brown County, Wisconsin has determined the
Shirley Wind project is a health hazard to "residents, workers, visitors, and sensitive passersby."
The Health Department's decision was made public on a local radio talk program. We have
provided the link to the radio program.
The radio program makes several important points. First, the State of Wisconsin controls the
siting of industrial wind turbines and local governments are unable to put restrictions on them
unless they are deemed a health hazard. The mere designation of health hazard will not shut
down the turbines. However, it will force the debate and the wind industry will have to present
evidence that LFN does not cause adverse health impacts. It is believed they will not be able to
refuse to cooperate as Duke Energy did previously. That will be a tall order. The radio program
host asserts that the wind industry "can no longer put smarmy editorials in newspapers around
the state that obfuscate the real issue which is what the wind lobby has done again and again and
again." "They are not going to be able to do that this time."
(10-14-14) Attached are two motions filed by Everpower this week. One is in opposition to
UNU's request for a rehearing on Everpower's motion for an extension of their Buckeye Wind I
certificate. We do not know when the OPSB might rule on the motions due to the complexities of
their rule making (or lack thereof). The second motion filed by Everpower concerns Scioto
Ridge and their opposition to a local homeowner's effort to be granted intervenor status. The
homeowner has a vacation home at Indian Lake and the viewshed in the area will be severely
compromised. The OPSB was required by law to address the siting of industrial wind turbines
near recreation areas and they failed to do so. The imposition of a buffer zone for all kinds of
recreational areas is a logical thing to do but the OPSB never did it. This is one area where
citizens from all over Ohio find fault with the existing rules and any proposed revisions.
During consideration of SB 310, the Ohio Manufacturers Association was actively engaged in
opposition to freezing the mandates. A number of large employers in Ohio took issue with the
OMA and yesterday they made public that they have left the OMA and started their own
organization. We think this is big news and have included a press report about the matter.
Hopefully, the voice of these large employers will ring in the ears of legislators who want to
keep government mandates on private business.
The legislative committee to study Ohio's renewable and alternative energy mandates is now
complete. House of Representatives Speaker Bill Batchelder, R-Medina, appointed six members
Thursday to the Energy Mandates Study Committee. His appointees and six from the Senate,
announced three weeks ago, have pivotal roles in deciding the fate of Ohio's energy standards,
which were frozen in May.
Here are Batchelder's appointments:
• Peter Stautberg, R-Cincinnati. Stautberg, chairman of the House Public Utilities Committee, is
co-chairing the review committee, along with Sen. Troy Balderson, R-Zanesville, who cosponsored the bill that initiated the freeze. Stautberg lost his seat in the Republican primary in
May, so his term runs out at the end of the year. A Stautberg aide told me that committee
meetings are planned to be held before the year's end, although it's unlikely that the report will be
issued then. Stautberg's seat will be filled by another representative when his term ends, and one
of the five other sitting members will likely replace him as co-chair.
• Ron Amstutz, R-Wooster
• Lou Blessing III, R-Cincinnati
• Christina Hagan, R-Alliance
• Jack Cera, D-Bellaire
• Michael Stinziano, D-Columbus
The 12-person committee has eight Republicans and four Democrats. Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio Chairman Tom Johnson is the 13th member, although he cannot cast a
vote. The committee must issue a report by the end of September 2015.
Our first impressions are that Christina Hagan understands and is sympathetic to setback
concerns. Julie Johnson and Tom Stacy have met with her a number of times over the past few
years. Rep. Stautberg will be leaving the legislature at year end because he lost his primary. He
currently sits as Chairman of the House Public Utilities Committee and it is possible he could be
succeeded by Rep. Hagan. Rep. Stinziano is smart and represents the OSU area where a number
of ardent renewable energy activists are. OSU currently has a contract to buy some of the wind
generated in Van Wert County. We suspect Stinziano to be a formidable opponent. Rep. Blessing
is a question mark. He supported SB 310. But his father who previously served in the legislature
has been a huge wind proponent and may represent some wind companies. The senior Blessing
testified a number of times in support of mandates.
(10-13-14) A great deal of important activity has taken place across Ohio this past week. We
invite you to go to the website of the Ohio Power Siting Board for more information as it is not
possible to attach all relevant materials for each wind project.
Everpower Scioto Ridge
Greenwich Wind Park Huron County
Blackfork Wind Crawford/Richland County
We have also attached an article we have mentioned before from a science journal on health
effects. This article is an effort by medical professionals to better organize the body of evidence
pointing to wind turbine adverse health impacts. To the extent doctors worldwide can approach
their diagnosis in a consistent way and document symptoms in a consistent manner, a more
credible effort can be made to assess health impacts. Those who have operating turbines in their
communities should make this document known to local physicians.
(10-6-14) As we have previously reported, the Ohio Power Siting Board revised its rules for
siting industrial wind turbines and rescinded the old rules in February, 2014. A number of
concerns have been raised about the OPSB rule revision process, including the fact that the
public was pretty much excluded from participation in the process. The law requires OPSB to
file all revised rules with the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Revision ("JCARR") prior to the
changes becoming effective. The OPSB failed to do this and it has been a matter of some
confusion as to what rules apply. Moreover, given that new laws on setbacks are now in effect,
the rules proposed last February are not up date. Chaos. Today JCARR announced that OPSB
has made a filing on rules 4906 - 1- 01 through 4906 - 17 - 07. The proposed changes can be
viewed at the Register of Ohio website. We understand that JCARR has up to 65 days to review
the rules. During that time the public can file comments. Once we have studied the proposed
revisions, we will share our concerns.
On a related note, we attach correspondence of interest from Senator Seitz in support of the
Greenwich Wind opponents who are seeking a rehearing in their case. Senator Seitz expresses
concerns about how OPSB has interpreted certain provisions addressing setbacks.
A recent story on Pennsylvania's decision to review the contributions of industrial wind
contained two rather surprising points. Everpower representative, Michael Speerscheider, is
quoted as saying, "In today's markets, there's no real way to value what wind brings to the energy
mix,". Good grief. Worse yet, the article states that: "According to the Pennsylvania Game
Commission, each wind turbine kills 26 bats and four birds on average each year. With 720
turbines currently installed, that amounts to 21,600 mortalities." Good grief again. It strikes us
that this number is much higher than what Everpower proposed in its application.
In the "better late than never" category, a letter from Vestas to the City of Falmouth from 2010
has come to light. The letter indicates that both noise and danger of ice throw are possible and
the City of Falmouthwas requested to accept/acknowledge that any impacts would be their
responsibility and not the responsibility of Vestas. The manufacturer states in the letter that,
should noise be an issue, the only mitigation would be to turn the turbine off with a resulting
impact to power production. Falmouth has been much in the news over the years due to
excessive noise and community complaints. It seems local elected officials knew ahead of time
that there would be trouble.
And in the "we told you so" category, Siemens reports that wind energy is simply not
competitive in the US without public subsidy. We note that Michael Speerscheider of Everpower
continues to contend otherwise.
(10-02-14) Interesting news has been reported around the country and the world in the past few
days. Pennsylvania and Oklahoma are both taking steps to review wind energy in their states. In
Oklahoma a real estate developer calls the expansion of wind "a time bomb just waiting to go
off" despite the aggressive efforts of wind lobbyists to kill any legislative oversight or reform.
This article is a "must read" and thanks to Mike Burton for bringing it to our attention. We are all
the more grateful to Senator Seitz for seeing the problems on the horizon instead waiting until
1,700 turbines had been built such as in Oklahoma.
Closer to home in Pennsylvania, calls for a review of wind have been answered by the
establishment of a legislative review committee to study impacts to landscape, wildlife and the
grid. Everpower's Michael Speerscheider states he is happy to participate but fears the study's
outcomes will be biased. He fears the way the study was legislated indicates a foregone
conclusion unfriendly to wind. That EXACTLY what he and other wind lobbyists said about the
Ohio study. We will probably hear the same thing soon from the Oklahoma wind lobby.
The UK's Telegraph is reporting that a new study by scientists at the University of Munich
which has been published in a science journal called Open Science indicating long term low
frequency noise exposure may damage hearing. The report is careful not to say this effect has
been proven but it does give reason for further study and it does say the type of low frequency
noise in question is like that emitted from industrial wind turbines.
We also share a news item from Huron County about the resolve of citizens to fight the
proposed Greenwich Windpark. The protests from this area along with the folks at Blackfork
Wind, Hardin Wind, Scioto Ridge, Timber Road and Buckeye/Champaign all reflect a protest
against sloppy and ineffective regulation like that described in the Oklahoma news report. As the
article says: "To ensure the opportunity didn't slip away, lawmakers promised little or no
regulation and generous tax breaks. But now that wind turbines stand tall across many parts of
the nation's windy heartland, some leaders in Oklahoma and other states fear their efforts
succeeded too well, attracting an industry that gobbles up huge subsidies, draws frequent
complaints and uses its powerful lobby to resist any reforms. The tension could have broad
implications for the expansion of wind power in other parts of the country." We hope so!
(09-28-14) There is much activity in the world of industrial wind. In Maine, First Wind is
seeking approval to use the new taller turbines which are now measuring 574 feet tall.
Elsewhere, the wind industry's principal insurer, GCube, has released its first ever "insider"
report on losses and claims called "Breaking Blades". Among the report's findings are that "with
an estimated 700,000 blades in operation globally, there are, on average, 3,800 incidents of blade
failure each year. Lightning strikes are still one of the most common reasons for failure. The
report explains that the first strike often impairs the lightning protection system such that the
second strike can destroy the blade. In some cases, corrosion protection is insufficient causing
detachments of blades from the main hub assembly and, in some cases, causing third party
liability claims from human injury. Vibration is also cited as an ongoing reason for blade failure.
We have discussed various vibration concerns from longer blades as a cause of low frequency
noise.
Flying Magazine has an article this month on the death of an Ag Pilot whose family was
awarded $6.7 million following the pilot's collision with an unlighted met tower. The article
notes that "The meteorological evaluation towers, known as METs and equipped with small
wind anemometers, have been cropping up all across the country as investors seek to cash in on
the wind energy craze. By keeping them just below 200 feet, wind farm entrepreneurs save the
money, time and hassle of registering them with the FAA - while putting ag pilot's lives at risk."
Meanwhile, Everpower has sent its latest Newsletter to local leaseholders advising them that they
are considering offering to make one-time upfront payment of the entire 20 year lease payments
if the leaseholder would prefer to get their money up front. The amount of the one-time payout
would be less than what the landowner would receive over the life of the project but would be
appealing to some leaseholders who may have urgent financial needs. Everpower is seeking a
bank that might assist them in this initiative.
On the Ohio Power Siting front, we attached the coverage on the Huron County Greenwich
project and a recent community meeting where Tom Stacy, Kevon Martis and Mark Shieldcastle
presented. Shieldcastle, former State of Ohio wetland wildlife manager who is now with the
Black Swamp Observatory, expressed his frustration with the wind industry for using "junk
science" to evade true protection of wildlife. In Champaign County, the Urbana Daily Citizen
reports that the County and Township governments did not file requests for rehearing of the
OPSB's decision to grant Everpower's certificate extension. Presumably, these governments have
their hands full with their two other active suits.
(09-25-14) This week several filings have been made with the Ohio Power Siting Board. Union
Neighbors United has requested a rehearing on the OPSB's approval of Everpower's motion to
extend the certificate expiration date in Phase I of Buckeye Wind. Ohio law requires that
extensions be granted only after applications to amend a certificate are investigated, subjected to
hearing and appeal and some due process accorded to the public. UNU asserts Everpower is
seeking to avoid due process because any delay in obtaining the extension would subject them to
the new setback rules which require measurement from property lines. The attached UNU
application for rehearing makes the case that Everpower is simply attempting to avoid these
new requirements. Moreover, UNU points to the Blackfork Wind and the Paulding County
Timber Road III projects (also represented by the Vorys law firm) that filed similar extension
requests in order to get around the new law that seeks to protect the property rights of
landowners in and around the footprint of a wind project.
It is important to note, again, that the OPSB has failed to properly adopt its revised rules because
they were not submitted to the Ohio General Assembly's Joint Committee on Agency Rule
Review. This means that the whole issue of what rules even apply to any wind development are
up in the air. The ones who lose in the chaos are citizens who are trying to protect themselves
and their communities. The OPSB has heaped insult on top of injury by not only leaving in
question what the rules are, but also unlawfully suspending the rules for project extensions in
order to accommodate the wind developers who are trying to duck the laws. What a mess.
The Greenwich Wind project in Huron County is yet another example of the regulatory chaos.
The Omega Corporation, one of the entities impacted by the Greenwich Wind project, filed to
extend the time period for the community to intervene in this project. They were denied. We
have also attached their application for a rehearing of the Board's denial. This is another
indictment the OPSB and its failure to faithfully and fairly implement the laws regarding wind
development. Further information on this and all other wind cases pending before the OPSB can
be found on the OPSB website.
We will keep you abreast of what happens next in this drama. It is complicated but very much
worth taking the time to understand because the future of a number of Ohio wind developments
hangs in the balance.
(09-18-14) Yesterday the Ohio Senate members of the General Assembly's Renewable Energy
Study Committee were announced. We were surprised to see Sen. Cliff Hite on the list and will
be curious to see if he will be as aggressive as he has been in the past in supporting the wind
industry. Hite represents much of the area targeted for wind development including all or part of
Auglaize, Defiance, Fulton, Hancock, Hardin, Henry, Logan, Paulding, Putnam, Van Wert, and
Williams Counties. Also most Committee members have significant Farm Bureau connections.
We also provide information on one of the Vorys firm's other client's - Blackfork Wind being
developed by Element Power, another UK based entity which is owned by a private equity firm,
Hudson Clean Energy Partners.
Hudson has offices in New Jersey and China. A Hudson issued a press release this week about its
success in raising $91 million. One third of these funds will support Element's wind
developments in Northern Europe. Reading the company's profile, we note their commitment to
"risk mitigated" opportunities. Risk mitigation seems to be provided by U.S. Treasury through
the PTC, local PILOT and state mandates. We hope that the Study Committee clearly
comprehends that it is the taxpayer and the ratepayer who enhance the return on investment for
these private equity players and their limited liability subsidiaries.
(09-17-14) My goodness the attorneys for the Vorys law firm have been busy! Requests for
extensions were filed last week for just about every wind project they are working on including
Blackfork, Timber Road, and the Blackstone projects. Our guess - just a guess - is this might
have something to do with trying to avoid the new property line setbacks as well as trying to
keep the projects alive during the two year renewable mandate freeze. But the Ohio Power Siting
Board may be in a state of confusion as no one knows what the rules seem to be. We will be
watching this closely.
We were interested to see two townships sue a wind developer over the repair of roads in Illinois.
Be sure to read the article describing the dreadful situation experienced by residents. ""You had
people who couldn't get to their homes without their cars being completely covered in tar."
Also yesterday the Cumberland, MD newspaper reported a story of the affect an Everpower
project, known as Twin Ridges, is having on residents of a PA community near the Maryland
state line. Noise, a constant hum, headaches and shadow flicker from 68 turbines built by
Everpower are described. Residents report that they receive no resolution of the complaints they
file with the company. What is perhaps one of the most surprising points made in this story by
Everpower's representative, Michael Speerscheider, is that when they measure noise levels, they
"filter out" the "background noise". Siting procedures and rules for noise differ from state to state
and community to community but it would have seemed to us that a "normal" background noise
level would have been agreed upon prior to building the facility and that current noise levels
would assume that anything over the preconstruction background noise would be due to the wind
turbines. To have Everpower claim that by using their own equipment, they are within noise
limits seems odd to us.
UNU has consistently expressed concern about complaint resolution procedures which even
today have not been proposed by Everpower for the Buckeye project. To read that after 20
complaints have been made by one family, the problem continues at such a level as to motivate
the family to post a huge sign by their driveway saying "This is God's Country - Why am I living
in the dark, deep, depths of Hell?" is certainly troubling.
A comment filed by another resident following the newspaper story speaks to the finances of the
Twin Ridges project. "Time for accountability and transparency....Twin Ridge is project name,
but it is Big Savage, LLC is a subsidiary of Everpower. They received $65,408,684.00 on Jan.
24, 2013 from the US Treasury. In addition, it also received state subsidies: "Matthew Karnell,
director of the Commonwealth Financing Authority's programs division for the Department of
Community and Economic Development, said the agency awarded Twin Ridges a $12.7 million
grant that was essential to construction So, total federal and state subsidies equaled: $78,108,684
. Good grief.
(09-14-14) Following our concern about the "spin" from Juhl Wind on the performance of the
Honda turbines we had feedback from some of you. Some reports indicated that employees in the
plant are able to monitor performance daily because the performance monitoring equipment is
available for all to see. Observations from some claim that performance has yet to reach expected
production levels. Our local wind watcher, Tom Stacy, took a look at the report and found the PR
release to be questionable. Tom contacted the newspaper and some of his concerns are reported
here.
A sigh of relief went out across NW Ohio as we learned that Senator Seitz will be appointed to a
seat of the Renewable Energy Study Committee. Senator Seitz has a level of technical
understanding and a long experience in dealing with renewables. His participation will be
important.
In Huron County, opponents of the Greenwich Windpark are working to appeal the OPSB
decision approving that project. According to the Sandusky Register, the group also plans to
attend a local Farm Bureau meeting next Monday to question their support for the project.
(09-13-14) Yesterday, September 12th, Everpower filed an extensive amendment to its Scioto
Ridge project in Logan and Hardin Counties. The filing includes approximately 70 different
documents but the main amendment is attached and describes the reasons for the amendment.
The important thing to note here is that Everpower filed the amendment on September 12
because the new property line setbacks go into effect on September 15th. By filing yesterday,
Everpower seeks to avoid the new setback requirements that would have required them to
relocate any turbines that are too close to non-participating property owners.
In the attached document, Everpower proposes to consider two additional turbine models and to
move certain turbines and transmission lines. These changes affect setback measurements, noise
modeling and shadow flicker among other things. As a result of the changes, Everpower
estimates on Page 23 that:
Of the 52 non-participating residences predicted to receive more than 30 hours of shadow flicker
per year, 15 are pending (i.e., landowner is anticipated to become a participant) and 37 are nonparticipants. However, to assure a worst-case analysis, pending participants have been included
with the nonparticipating receptors in the summary above. Table 08-02 summarizes the expected
shadow flicker for non-participating receptors exceeding 30 hours/year predicted, comparing the
results presented in the original Application with those anticipated under the currently proposed
layout.
With respect to the setbacks, Everpower notes at page 32:
(c) Locations of Turbines in Relation to Property Lines and Habitable Residential Structures
The minor shifts in the five turbines do not violate any of the property line setbacks and
residential setbacks under the Board's rules at the time the original Application was filed. As
noted below, the average property line setback has increased to 1,201 feet from 1,198 feet and
the average residential structure setback has increased to 1,996 feet from 1,989 feet. The project's
setbacks are described below.
(i) Setback to Property Lines
Section 4906-17-08(C)(1)(c)(i) requires that "the distance from a wind turbine base to the
property line of the wind farm property shall be at least one and one-tenth times the total height
of the turbine structure as measured from its tower's base (excluding the subsurface foundation)
to the tip of its highest blade." The maximum height of turbines under consideration for the
Facility at the time the original Application was filed was 492 feet (150 meters), which yields a
property line setback of 541 feet (165 meters). All turbine locations, including the turbine
relocations proposed in this Amendment, will comply with these setbacks, and the two new
turbine models proposed in this Amendment are less than 492 in total height. As currently sited,
the distance between proposed turbines and the nearest non-participating property line ranges
from 549 to 2,669 feet, and averages 1,201 feet. The original Application presented a range of
549 to 2,637 feet with an average of 1,198 feet. (Ed's note: Do not be confused by use of
averages!)
(ii) Setback to Habitable Residential Structures
Section 4906-17-08(C)(1)(c)(ii) requires that "the wind turbine shall be at least seven hundred
fifty feet in horizontal distance from the tip of the turbine's nearest blade at ninety degrees to the
exterior of the nearest habitable residential structure, if any, located on adjacent property at the
time of certification application." The maximum rotor diameter of the turbines under
consideration for the Facility at the time the original Application was filed was 400 feet (122
meters). If the turbine blade were at ninety degrees, the tip would extend from the base of the
tower one-half the length of the rotor diameter, or 200 feet (61 meters), which added to 750 feet,
yields a total setback of 950 feet. All turbines and locations, including the turbine relocations
proposed in this Amendment, will comply with these setbacks, and the two turbine models
proposed in this Amendment both have blades less than 200 feet in length. As proposed, the
distance between the proposed turbines and the nearest non-participating residential structure
ranges from 1,292 to 4,047 feet, and averages 1,996 feet. The original Application presented a
range of 1,335 feet to 4,047 feet with an average of 1,989 feet. (Ed's note: Do not be confused by
use of averages!)
With respect to Indian Lake, the amendment states:
(5) Impact on Recreational Areas within One Mile
The impact on recreational areas remains as described in the original Application. Of the turbines
that have been shifted, only turbine 25 is within 1 mile of Indian Lake State Park, and it was relocated to the east,
away from the park. Noise and shadow flicker were re-modeled (see Exhibits B and C of this
Amendment, respectively), but results for Indian Lake State Park are the same as in the original
Application. There are
no other recreation areas within one mile of the Facility.
(6) Visual Impact and Mitigation Measures
Visual impact mitigation measures remain as described in the original Application.
There is a great deal of specific information in this 44 page Amendment. The document and all
related exhibits with maps and charts for specific areas can be found at the PUCO website by
clicking on this link.
(09-11-14) *Update* Another change in submitting comments to the US Fish and Wildlife
Service on eagle permits.
After sending my comment by e-mail, I received the following response from Dr. George Allen
(below.)
Thank you so much for commenting and if you have not done so, please consider sending a
comment by hard copy to the USFWS using the docket number here and the correct address.
Docket -- FWS-R9-MB-2011-0094
From: Allen, George <george_t_allen@fws.gov>
Date: Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: FWS-R9-MB-2011-0054-0165
I'm sorry, but I am not working on eagle regulations changes. If you wish to comment on docket
FWS-R9-MB-2011-0094 (Notice on EIS for possible eagle regulations changes), you must submit
your comment via one of the two methods in our 23 June 2014 Notice (Federal Register volume
79, pages 35564-35567). Comments sent to my email do not get into the docket, and will not be
considered.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods.
Electronically: go to the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal . Search for FWS-R9-MB-2011-0094 and
follow the directions for submitting comments. Comments due by 11:59 PM on 22 September.
By hard copy: mail to Public Comments Processing, Attention: FWS-R9-MB-2011-0094;
Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg
Pike, Mail Stop: PDM, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. Comments must be postmarked no later
than 22 September.
Please note in your submission that your comments are in regard to Eagle Management and
Permitting. Send your comments by only one of the methods described above.
We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that
we will post any personal information you submit.
Sharing with you a request from our friend, Sherri Lange. Comments to United States Fish and
Wildlife Service are needed.
Online comments are closed-- BUT--hard copy comments are still being accepted and hard copy
comments will have more "meat."
Then--e-mail a copy of your comments to Dr. George T. Allen at USFWS.
This is another opportunity to make a difference--please help by mailing your comments very
soon.
Thank you!
(09-10-14) This Friday the new laws affecting wind development and renewable energy will
become effective. Our friend Lisa Linowes of Wind Action has shared the attached bid and asked
prices for Ohio Renewable Energy Credits ("REC's") that the wind developers rely upon as part
of the financial analysis for project viability. The February 2014 chart shows bids for Ohio sited
REC's at $18.00 by September 2nd the Ohio bid price on certified projects was down to $8.50.
A significant loss. An article which appeared yesterday in the Gongwer News Service discusses
the expansion of REC-eligible energy under the new certification rules. Now eligible to compete
in the previously protected 'sandbox' of wind and solar are hydro power, anaerobic digestion,
abandoned coalmine recovery, methane gas from municipal waste facilities and out of state wind
and solar. Predictably, AWEA and wind advocates are very unhappy.
One environmental advocate tries to claim there are "societal values" to wind that make it
superior to other renewables. ""When you compare the societal values of wind and solar and
traditional renewable resources, there's much greater value than there is from allowing methane
digesters that don't even produce electricity to count as renewable energy," he said in an
interview." We suspect many rural Ohioans threatened by a nearby wind facility would disagree
with the notion of wind's "societal benefits." The one thing everyone can agree on - the price of
REC's in Ohio has collapsed.
In another interesting "collapse," the Ohio Power Siting Board's Chief of Facility Siting and
Environmental Analysis, Klaus Lambeck, was terminated from his position last Friday. Lambeck
has been a fixture in the wind world since SB 221, the renewable mandate, was passed in 2008.
He was #2 to former OPSB Director, Kim Wissman, who was terminated earlier this year. We do
not have any specific details but believe it is a good sign for all of those who seek a fair hearing
and unbiased consideration at the OPSB. Fingers crossed for better days ahead.
Sometimes we wonder about how the media decides what is "news" and whether or not any
critical thinking is involved in preparing a story. This came to mind this morning as we read both
in the Bellefontaine Examiner and the Urbana Daily Citizen about the two wind turbines at
Honda. In the Urbana paper, the story by-line credit was the politically active media group
"Civitas Media" and in Bellefontaine, "Written by THE BELLEFONTAINE EXAMINER
STAFF" was the by-line. In Urbana, the story ran among other "news" items described by the
paper as "Submitted Story". Here is the press release issued by Juhl Wind of Pipestone,
Minnesota, the developer and ConSolutions, the owner of the Honda turbines. It seems to us that
what is being reported as a news item researched by Examiner staff is, in fact, a "Submitted
Story". Would it have been so hard for the press to write that Juhl, ConEd and Honda jointly
announced whatever? Doesn't the media have some responsibility to identify a "submitted story"
as such? Evidently not when it fits their political bias.
Elsewhere, real news was being made in Allegany, New York where the Bradford Era
News and the Olean Times reported that "Close to eight years of legal battles, community upsets
and neighbors bickering with neighbors over a proposed 29-wind-turbine farm project in the
town of Allegany came to an end on Tuesday. The final nail in the coffin of the proposed
EverPower Wind LLC farm in the communities of Chipmonk and Knapp Creek was hammered
when the Allegany Town Board unanimously voted to rescind the wind overlay district." The
story is provided below. Longtime readers of the Wind News may recall that elected officials in
Allegany established a wind overlay district through their local zoning as an incentive to wind
developers. This wind overlay district never had the support of the community and over the next
eight years the people waged a fierce battle which included electing new local government
officials, engaging in litigation and ultimately, on Wednesday repealing the wind overlay district
to ensure that following Everpower's defeat, no other wind developer could build in the Allegany
area.
Closer to home we also note that Antioch College in Yellow Springs broke ground on 3,300
panel solar farm covering five acres in Greene County.
(09-08-14) As most of the focus remains on national and state elections, little activity is
occurring in either Columbus or Washington. September 14th is the date the law establishing the
Ohio Energy Study Committee becomes effective. We understand at this point that the
Committee will not be appointed until after the November election. Similarly, it does not appear
there will be a vote in Washington on extending the Production Tax Credit for wind until after
the election. If the U.S. Senate goes Republican, anything could happen. We provide some
updates on the PTC as well as articles on changing views of climate change and growing
community hostility to wind.
One issue we are looking at currently is the rules in the Ohio Administrative Code that
implement Ohio's existing renewable energy law. These rules were adopted in 2008 and it is a
requirement that they be reviewed every five years. It appears that the rule review did take place
and Everpower was actively involved in commenting on them. Some of Everpower's suggestions
were adopted by the OPSB and some were denied. The process requires that once the rules are
reviewed and revised, they must be filed with the legislature's Joint Committee on Agency Rule
Review. At that point, the public has an opportunity to object to any rule revisions or
interpretations. Once the JCARR completes its review, the new rules become effective. The
OPSB revised its wind rules on February 18, 2014 thereby rescinding the old rules. BUT….they
never bothered to file them with the JCARR. It is an open question as to whether there are any
rules in effect or what the rules are. At a minimum, the OPSB looks negligent and the public is
once again put at a disadvantage. We will be studying this issue and how to approach it. We will
keep you advised of what we learn.
(09-01-14) Today's Statehouse news service reports that the Hardin Wind Energy project that
was approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board yesterday intends to request an amendment to its
approved certificate. It has been generally agreed that certificates that are amended after the
effective date of the new setback law must comply with the new requirements. Surprisingly,
OPSB spokesperson, Matt Butler, is quoted as saying: "... developers of the Hardin project have
requested amendments to their certificate, which will likely be the first case to test how the new
setback limits will affect previously certified projects." [emphasis added]. This bears watching
carefully as it was the intent of the legislation to grandfather existing projects but not those who
seek to make substantive changes.
In a follow up article on the OPSB's action, UNU Attorney Jack Van Kley stated that the Board
erred in its decision to approve Everpower's motion without giving consideration to new
scientific information and whether Phase I is adequately sited to protect the public. UNU will
request a re-hearing on the matter.
In the meantime, we enjoyed several quotes from the articles below. From US News and World
Report: "America is about as likely to become reliant on green energy to meet its baseload power
requirements as a unicorn is to stroll down the middle of Washington's Pennsylvania Avenue
during rush hour followed by a pink elephant."
And from MAWT: "Spain provides the perfect "model" for any Country looking to destroy itself
in blind pursuit of "green" energy ideology. Trying to power a (notionally) first world economy
with intermittent and unreliable wind and solar power is nothing more than an infantile delusion.
When the cost of the insanity is borne by millions of struggling (and probably unemployed)
power consumers and 100s of thousands thrown on the unemployment scrap heap, it borders on
the criminal."
We hope the prospective members of the Ohio Renewable Energy Study Committee are taking
note of these articles.
(08-31-14) Yesterday the National Review reported "top down" bias in the Obama
Administration's US Fish & Wildlife Administration in favor of the wind industry. Most citizens
understand this bias when 30 year kill permits are issued to wind projects that have an
anticipated life expectancy of only 20 years. This story is notable for the fact that two former
USFW&S investigators have come forward to speak on the record about the agency wanting "an
alternative energy so badly that they're prepared to turn a blind eye on all the bad parts of it."
North Dakota Congressman Kevin Cramer, who sits on the House Natural Resources Committee,
states "I think it's hypocrisy at its worst. On one hand, they want to be environmentally clean. On
the other, they don't care how many birds they kill doing it."
So what is the wind industry's response to the problem? They hired an attorney from the National
Wildlife Federation to become the new Executive Director of the Wind Energy Foundation.
John Kostyack reportedly worked on endangered species cases and won significant cases on
behalf of his corporate clients. We assume in his new role, Mr. Kostyack will leverage his
political connections and lots of spin along with the apparent legitimacy of a career in
'environmental protection' to fend off the mounting number of cases filed on behalf of eagles,
migratory birds and endangered bats. Why are we not surprised?
(08-26-14) Consistent with expectations, the Ohio Power Siting Board approved motions to
extend the deadlines for the Buckeye Wind I project to May, 2018 and Hardin Wind Energy
LLC to March, 2018. The Hardin County project was not opposed. The Buckeye Wind project
was opposed by Champaign County, Urbana, Goshen and Union Townships as well as Union
Neighbors United. It is interesting to note that in trying to justify a need for extension, Invenergy
blamed its Hardin County difficulties on the market while Jason Dagger of Everpower blamed
the community's efforts to protect its interests through litigation. It is anticipated that the Board's
Order approving the Everpower extension will be appealed.
The Greenwich Windpark project was approved despite the contention that the public did not
have adequate opportunity to comment on the project. Sen. Skindell, a non-voting member of the
OPSB, spoke on behalf of the opponents and questioned whether the staff had considered the
merits of the public's concerns. A spokesperson for the OPSB affirmed that the staff had noted
the public comments but was not persuaded by them. Sen. Skindell (D-Lakewood) then asked
whether the Staff of the OPSB had been informed by any wind developer that the recently
enacted legislation eliminating the in-state renewable energy mandate or the legislation changing
measurement of wind turbine setbacks would prevent any developer from going forward. The
response from the staff was that they had not heard of any developer who was unable to go
forward due to legislative changes. We are reminded of Senator Skindell's previous worries that
wind development would be stopped in Ohio as reported last June by Green Energy Ohio (see
link to story above). It appears that his fears were not well-founded.
We continue to appreciate the ongoing interest and support of the community in this never-
ending effort to protect our local economy, our families and our environment. Today's actions
are a disappointment to many but it is not the end of the road... only a bump.
(08-24-14) This week wind developer, Invenergy, was sued by people living near its Orangeville
Wind Farm in New York. The attorney representing the residents is the same person who sued
over the Love Canal contamination years ago. It is interesting to note that Invenergy dismisses
the action by stating they meet the existing rules and regulations. We often see inadequate siting
laws established at the behest of the wind industry and, when problems result, wind developers
act as if the deficient standards were established by an independent entity unrelated to them. We
are reminded that the proposed Buckeye Wind Phase II development was initially an Invenergy
project. The Hardin Wind Energy LLC project in Hardin County is also an Invenergy project.
We have attached a recent press release issued by the Greenwich Neighbors United in Huron
County to announce that the school board has voted to oppose the project. The school board
states: "Although the schools in the community would benefit from the tax dollars of the wind
turbines, the school board feels that the detrimental impact on the community and the school
children far outweigh any tax benefit. " The OPSB will consider the Greenwich project at its
Monday meeting.
Elsewhere, the cancellation of three industrial wind projects in Alabama and Indiana are being
celebrated by their communities. Perhaps wind developers will begin to seek out remote areas for
their projects and understand that rural does not mean "remote".
(08-22-14) In a late breaking move, attorneys for an adjacent non-participating property owner in
Huron County have filed a request to intervene in the Greenwich Park wind application which is
scheduled to be approved on Monday. This is unusual in that the time allowed for a party to seek
intervenor status is far past but this late request to intervene seems compelling. In the
attached motion, Omega, a company owning 1,200 acres next to the proposed wind
development disputes the developer's claims that there is no opposition to the project. They point
out that public notice was given in the local press on December 23, 24 and 27th when the public
attention was directed to the holidays and the local public hearing in May was held right in the
middle of planting season when rural residents were unavailable.
Also important to note is that, in its staff report in support of the project, the OPSB refers to
Ohio's in-state mandate for renewable energy. However, this mandate was repealed and cannot
serve as a basis for approval of the project. The request to intervene also asserts considerable
public opposition to the project and makes reference to correspondence filed by members of the
public as well as State Senator Manning, Ohio Rep. Terry Boose and Senator Bill Seitz.
Technical difficulties at the OPSB prevented us from obtaining copies of these letters. The
upshot of this seems to call into question the extent to which the OPSB accords due process to
the public. Due process - or the lack it - is central to concerns raised in Everpower and Hardin
Wind's attempts to extend the expiration dates of their projects. All three will be on the OPSB's
Monday agenda.
Elsewhere, the federal Production Tax Credit extension continues to be the subject of much
speculation. In a recent energy trade paper column, A Word About Wind, the following was
reported:
What will happen to US wind after 2016? That is the question that lingers unanswered as
Republicans and Democrats in Congress fight over the wind production tax credit (PTC).
The wind PTC is a subsidy regime that supports the construction of wind farms. It expired at the
end of 2013 and, despite plans from the Democrats to reintroduce it earlier this year as part of a
tax extenders bill, this was scuppered by Republicans in Congress.
There is no sign of the Republicans backing down. On 13 August, Kansas Congressman Mike
Pompeo led a group of 54 members of Congress in calling for a permanent end of the PTC. It
called the PTC one of the "most anti-competitive and economically harmful tax provisions", and
said even a one-year extension would cost US taxpayers around $13.4bn.
This makes the 2013 edition of the US Department of Energy's 'Wind Technologies Market
Report', which was published earlier this week, more interesting than most. For one thing, it
shows how split opinion is about what will happen to the PTC and what this would mean.
Consultancies IHS and MAKE respectively forecast that 8.4GW and 5.1GW of extra wind
capacity would be added in 2016, with both assuming that the PTC would be extended for 2016.
But Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Navigant based their forecasts, of 3.6GW and 2.8GW
added respectively, on the assumption that there would be no PTC extension.
In May, we said we expected the PTC to be extended for 2016. Given subsequent battles in
Congress we now think this is less likely - although, like those working in the US, we simply don't
know. Uncertainty like this can never be good for the market.
But our overriding feeling from the energy departments 96-page report is that there are actually
a lot of reasons to be positive, PTC or no PTC.
The funding of projects held steady in 2013 due to the low level of activity, but has picked up this
year. Investors appear confident that sufficient capital will be available to finance projects, and
several investors - including NRG, Pattern and NextEra - have spun-off yieldcos as a way to
raise capital from public equity markets.
Wind energy is also looking more competitive. The cost of energy in wind PPAs reached an alltime low of $25/MWh nationwide, compared with $70/MWh in 2009. This must be good news for
wind as it is in competition with other energy sources including shale gas.
And the cost of turbines has also dropped by around $600/kW since 2009 and 2010, to now
around $1,630/kWh, although this was partly due to the limited number of projects that were
completed in 2013. Again, this can only help the wind sector to compete.
We don't believe the US wind sector is in the midst of a boom, but this report also shows that it
isn't all doom and gloom.
(08-20-14) The Ohio Power Siting Board has placed three industrial wind items on its Agenda
for August 25th. Everpower's request to extend the expiration of its Phase I certificate by means
of a motion without a hearing or public input will be considered. UNU, Champaign County and
the townships all filed objections to the motion. (See today's Springfield News Sun) Invenergy
has also requested an extension of its certificate for their development in Hardin County. Like
Everpower, Invenergy made its request by Motion to avoid a hearing. Invenergy's request for a
36 month extension does not appear to have been challenged by anyone with the exception of
one citizen. The third project is Windlab Development's proposal to place 2.4 MW Nordex
turbines in Huron County.
In news from Scotland, the government has announced it will conduct an investigation into low
frequency sounds from wind turbines and their effect on health and wellbeing. A number of
people in that country are questioning why there are no standards for these emissions. Elsewhere
in Scotland, Everpower owner Terra Firma (which also has significant ownership interests in
wind company Infinis), has announced Infinis has put off decisions on building two projects
totaling 98MW until impact of the Scottish independence referendum is clear. People in Scotland
are due to vote on 18 September about whether the country should remain part of the UK. Infinis
said it would not start work on its 55MW Galawhistle or 48MW A'Churach projects in Scotland
until it knew the vote result and its impact on energy policy. Infinis stock continues to decline.
(08-06-14) In the course of Everpower's efforts to extend the expiration date of their certificate
of approval to build the first phase of Buckeye Wind, there is much going back and forth. While
Urbana Township and Champaign County were able to meet the deadline for objecting to
Everpower's request, Goshen and Union Townships requested an extension of ten days to file
their comment because they needed to take action on the record at their meetings last night.
Attached is Everpower's motion to deny Goshen and Union Township the opportunity to object
and to deny their request for an extra 10 days to get their comments in. Everpower asserts that
the rules are the rules and they should be enforced. It is ironic then that Everpower on August
4th, files a Motion for a Waiver of the OPSB rules that would require them to file an application
to amend their certificate. This motion is attached. Everpower asks that the procedural rules not
only be suspended on their behalf but that the Ohio Power Siting Board expedite action on
Everpower's behalf.
In seeking to justify why the County, townships, UNU or anyone else should be denied the right
to object to the extension of the deadline for Buckeye I, Everpower argues "Neither justice nor
efficiency nor economy would be served by further work elevating form over substance."
"Protracted delays due to extensive briefing of procedural issues that are not material to the
substance involved are contrary to a policy of facilitating a just, efficient and inexpensive
determination of the matter." Everpower is arguing that it will cost the Ohio Power Siting Board
money to process an application so why not just waive the requirement they submit one? They
claim it would be just 'more efficient' to grant their motion and forget the due process that the
community is entitled to. This certainly raises questions on what kind of a "community partner"
Everpower would be if the project is ever built.
(07-31-14) This week objections to Everpower's motion to extend the 2015 deadline for
building the Buckeye I wind facility to 2018 were submitted to the Ohio Power Siting Board by
Champaign County, Urbana Township and Union Neighbors Untied. The objections all raised
the procedural requirement that amendments to the certificate of approval must be requested
through filing an application and holding a hearing. Everpower appears to be trying to skirt a
hearing by having filed a motion instead of an application. One big difference between a motion
and an application is that the public is denied the opportunity to comment on a motion.
Champaign County and Urbana Township make the further point that in the hearing for Buckeye
II, every attempt by the County, City or UNU to question the cumulative effects of Buckeye I
and Buckeye II projects on a combined basis were prevented by Everpower. As an example,
efforts to determine how noise levels would be affected by the combination of the two projects
were denied. Everpower had successfully argued that Buckeye I and Buckeye II were two
entirely separate projects. They are now trying to act as if they are one in the same.
We note also that some citizens filed objections to Everpower's motion further supporting the
need for a hearing. All of the letters and documents in the case can be accessed at the Ohio
Power Siting Board link above. We have attached the County's Memorandum in Opposition.
In Mercer County, Apex, the developer for the proposed Long Prairie facility ignores the
Resolution adopted by the Mercer Township Trustees Association in opposition to wind
development anywhere in Mercer County and claims they are optimistic about going forward.
They blame Governor Kasich despite widespread community opposition. In response, " Rob
Nichols, a spokesman for Kasich's office, said the setbacks were created to protect property value
and human health. "Every industry has rules and provisions," he said. "This office sees this
industry as no different than any other." Notwithstanding, Apex claims to be working toward
changing the law. Van Wert Township Trustee, Milo Shaffner, is quoted as saying: "They are
very unsightly to begin with," he said. "The sound they make is so disturbing, it sounds like a jet
plane going overhead. My wife and I can't sit on our front porch and drink coffee in the mornings
anymore." Schaffner said his quality of life has "gone down the drain" since the turbines arrived.
"We used to have a great landscape to look at," he said. "Our roads are ruined, my neighbors
have health issues. Those turbines are industry and this is supposed to be farm country. They
don't belong here."
And in Toledo, the incessant drumbeat of the Toledo Blade continues advocate for mandates.
Wind lobbyist Terrence O'Donnell is quoted in an article below: "But lobbyists such as Terrence
O'Donnell , a Columbus attorney from the global law firm of Dickinson Wright, said it's doable
if he and other advocates find the right balance of political diplomacy. They want to ensure
Ohio's new two-year freeze on renewable energy mandates for utilities becomes just that - a
timeout from requirements set forth under a 2008 law and not a backdoor strategy to repeal it
after this fall's gubernatorial election."
A new report from Germany would take the opposite view as the Germans warn: "Finally, the
report highlights how large-scale deployment of renewable capacity does not translate into a
substantial displacement of thermal capacity. Because wind and solar are intermittent resources,
there are many hours in the year during which most generation still needs to come from thermal
power plants in Germany. The stopgap role and the corresponding lower capacity factor of
thermal power increased costs per units of power produced, and in the long run will increase the
price of conventionally produced power. This also affects the technical efficiency of traditional
generation plants, given that these plants are designed to operate as consistent, baseload
generators, not as cycling units."
On Tuesday, August 5th, a town meeting will be held at the Armory in Kenton at 128 North
Main Street. The doors open at 6:30 and the meeting begins at 7:00.
(07-27-14) More than a month ago we learned that Everpower intended to close its Bellefontaine
office on or about August 1st. At the time, the Bellefontaine Examiner called to verify the story
and Jason Dagger denied it. On July 22nd, Everpower's Dagger and Mike Pullins sent a letter to
Buckeye Wind Leaseholders (page two) advising them that the local office is indeed closing
and the Pittsburgh office will handle any related business. The letter goes on to say Dagger and
Pullins will continue to be available locally and that an "operations and maintenance facility"
will open when construction begins. In the meantime, they express concern over the
"uncertainty" caused by the renewable energy freeze and the elimination of the in-state mandate
(SB 310) as well as the threat of new setback requirements. Everpower believes the change in
setback language was enacted without any "qualified experts" like the wind industry. They assert
that the language implementing new setbacks is "unclear" but could impact Buckeye I, Buckeye
II and Scioto Ridge. Notwithstanding, Dagger and Pullins remain optimistic that the projects will
go forward but warn that "LANDOWNER AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT IS MORE
CRITICAL THAN EVER." They ask for a demonstration of "strong community support" and
state:
"The more that is demonstrated by public officials, the better the investment environment for
Everpower. We encourage you, your family and friends to reach out to your local officials and
share your support of the projects and ask that they take a public stand in support of the
projects."
We do not know what this plea for support means. We do know that Pullins and Dagger have
asked the Union, Urbana and Goshen township trustees to withdraw their lawsuit filed in the
Ohio Supreme Court on July 16th. They have attended Township Trustee meetings recently to
vigorously argue for a negotiation rather than a court action. The County and the Townships
current appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court makes the case that Everpower was unlawfully
granted amendments to their certificate without a hearing. This is important to understand
because it appears they are trying to do it again by filing a motion to extend the deadline of their
certificate of approval. Under the current certificate of approval, Everpower must commence
construction by March 22, 2015. By attempting to obtain an extension by motion instead of an
application, Everpower eliminates the opportunity for the public to comment. If Everpower is
required to file an application seeking an extension, the public would have an opportunity to
comment. More important, if the Ohio Power Siting Board were required to hold a hearing on the
request for an extension, it likely would not hold the hearing before the new setbacks become
effective on September 15th.
If you have an opportunity to let the Township Trustees and County Commissioners know you
support their appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. If you believe an application should be required
for Everpower's certificate extension, please tell them now. If you would like to write to the Ohio
Power Siting Board to request a hearing on the extension of Everpower's certificate, you can
email the OPSB and you must reference the case number Case No.: 08-0666-EL-BGN. Written
comments can be mailed to Ohio Power Siting Board, 180 E. Broad Street, Columbus Ohio
43215 and you must include the case number.
(07-26-14) We share two reports. The first from The Economist discusses the work of the
Brookings Institute that concludes wind and solar are the most expensive means by which to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and government policy should focus on reducing emissions
rather than trying to boost certain kinds of renewable energy. This article is not easy to
understand but provides one of the clearest explanations of why wind development is not in the
best interests of Ohio ratepayers. We hope the legislative study committee will look at this issue.
Second, we include a good review of the American Bird Conservancy's efforts to fight the
issuance of 30 year kill permits for eagles. This article practically reads like a novel about
government corruption!
(07-25-14) There has been a somewhat quiet consolidation of wind developments in Ohio and
Indiana this year and we are just now beginning to see the bigger picture. Wind projects in
various stages of development across Ohio have been sold to Apex. We will be seeing and
hearing more about Apex in the days to come. Could they have been surprised by the change in
property line setbacks and the renewable mandate freeze? If not, they may become buyers for
other projects in Ohio as other developers threaten to leave the state. Who is Apex? Our research
indicates they are a subsidiary of Greenlight Energy Resources which, in turn, appears to be
connected to BP Alternative Energy.
It is often difficult to sort through ownership of wind facilities/leases. In the case of Apex, there
seems to have been little publicity. The "press releases" quoted below are the complete texts we
could find. It seems the announcements may not have even been sent to the media in the areas
where the acquired projects are located. Lack of transparency is nothing new in the world of
industrial wind but a new law in Kentucky may begin to change that. Earlier this year the
Kentucky legislature passed a law that requires a wind developer to announce when they intend
to work in an area and, in some cases, send letters to property owners advising them of their
interest in the area. We understand that that the public notice must be given before wind leases
are signed. In addition, prior to submitting an application to the state, the local community can
request a public meeting to review the proposed application. Another article indicates that
NextEra and Duke Renewables both abandoned Kentucky projects when required to give the
public more information about their plans. Perhaps they thought educated property owners would
not sign wind leases. Hmmm……. Read local comments.
(07-18-14) Lots to report as news of Everpower's request to amend their Buckeye Wind I project
deadline hits the paper in both Urbana and Springfield. On one hand Everpower appears
determined to press on while on the other hand they appear cautious. This compares to Iberdrola
who has determined that they will be unable to find enough willing leaseholders in Van Wert and
Putnam Counties to make their Dog Creek and Leipsic Wind projects possible due to the new
setback requirements. As we have seen, there is resistance in Putnam County but on Tuesday the
County Commissioners went ahead and approved the County as an Alternative Energy Zone
thinking it might help. We will be interested to hear more about this. We recall that Van Wert
County rescinded its AEZ designation. (Note: We are amazed that the wind industry calls the
setback area the "fall zone" - completely ignoring blade shear, flicker and noise issues! See the
Norwalk Reflector story.)
By seeking to extend its deadline to build until 2018, it appears that Everpower hopes to dodge
the effects of both recently passed legislation. By amending their certificate prior to September
14th, they avoid the possibility the new setback requirements on Phase I would apply to them
and by moving the extension to 2018, they have a chance to see the re-imposition of a renewable
energy mandate after the legislative Study Committee completes its work. The Urbana paper
reports: "The motion further states that even if the appeals are resolved prior to March 22, 2015,
the company will be left with insufficient time to finalize financing, develop final engineering
plans, complete engineering, obtain procurement and construction contracts, and review plans
with the board's staff."
As Champaign County approaches time for the County Fair, work is underway by Erin Hennigan
and Amy Blanton to again host a wind education and public outreach booth. Many will recall the
wonderful effort put forth by these dedicated people last year. They consistently had more people
crowding around their small booth than Everpower had at their corporate display. Erin and Amy
have asked that we put the call out for volunteers. Please consider whether you might have three
hours to contribute to the cause, or if you would like to make a donation, contact Erin to
volunteer. Please consider helping us out! Last year it was pretty great to hear people's stories
and see how much support we have. Everpower was pretty unsettled by our booth! The fair runs
from August 1-8th. It remains critically important to continue the education of our community.
(07-16-14) It was gratifying to read that while Governor Kasich is out and about during this
campaign season, he is defending the new property line setbacks which will become effective
September 14th. The Columbus Dispatch reports the Governor "defended the increased setback
restrictions on wind turbines by saying, "Private property rights are important. People choose to
live somewhere. You just don't go in there and disrupt their life." The Dispatch goes on to note
that "Energy has emerged as a key difference between Kasich and Democratic challenger Ed
FitzGerald."
Defense of safe setbacks that respect property lines comes at a time when fire hazards are being
studied. The Financial Times reports that "Wind farms have long been blamed for blighting
views and killing birds but now it is claimed they are also a bigger fire hazard than commonly
thought. About one wind turbine fire a month is reported publicly around the world but that is
"just the tip of the iceberg", according to Guillermo Rein of London's Imperial College, coauthor of research estimating that the actual number of blazes could be 10 times higher."…"The
results surprised us a lot," Mr. Rein said, explaining that he and colleagues found information
about the extent of turbine fires was often incomplete or not publicly available." During the
Buckeye Wind Phase II case, the Ohio Power Siting Board sided with Everpower's attorneys
when they objected to UNU's efforts to enter accident and fire information into the case record.
Yesterday, Champaign County and the Townships filed an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court
protesting the OPSB's failure to hold a hearing on amendments to the Buckeye Wind project.
This filing comes at the same time that Everpower is seeking an extension to their certificate of
approval for Phase I.
We also include another press report about the community education meeting in Bellefontaine.
Speakers included Tom Stacy who addressed the economics of the project and concluded "the
money that is returned in the form of local taxes and leases to local landowners is a small portion
of the tax money the wind development companies are taking out of the state, Mr. Stacy said. "If
we think schools are underfunded and this is a way to address that, there is a better way to do
that than to give a company from outside the country 95 percent of the tax money and let them
return the other 5 percent to the schools and local government." Philip Morse, a mechanical
engineer also spoke at the meeting and asserted, "Wind turbines do not generate energy when
wind speeds are less than 8 miles per hour and when wind speeds are too high they are constantly
using energy to operate the braking systems or can shut down entirely, the engineer said. "The
name of the game is not about engineering or power production. It is about something else that
other people are better prepared to answer than I am," Mr. Morse said. "On an industrial scale
like this, these things are going to be energy suckers - feed me your money; feed me your power.
"Wind turbines are not alternative energy sources," he said. "They are lackluster supplemental
energy at best."
(07-15-14) Last night Logan County's Fight the Wind leaders held a public information session
on Everpower's Scioto Ridge Project. You can watch the Lima television coverage here. The
meeting was also covered on Columbus News.
As citizens in Logan County were educating themselves about the Everpower project planned for
Logan and Hardin Counties, two requests for extension were filed. Everpower submitted a
request for an extension of Phase I of the Buckeye Wind I project until March of 2018. The
certificate issued for this phase is due to expire in March, 2015. A request for extension of
Hardin Wind, LLC was also filed. This project was originally an Invenergy development but we
believe it was acquired by Everpower and consolidated into the Scioto Ridge project. The recent
budget bill which contained language revising setbacks makes the new setbacks applicable to
new projects as well as to currently approved projects that request amendments. An extension
would presumably be an amendment triggering new setback requirements. However, the new
setbacks provisions do not become effective until September 15th and so it is unclear at this
point how the Ohio Power Siting Board will regard these requests.
We also include a very misinformed Editorial from the Lima News who think electricity is
generated with foreign oil and that wind turbines are no different than tall trees. The failure of
the media to understand the issues surrounding wind development keeps the public in the dark. It
is for this reason that educational efforts such as those last night in Logan County are so very
important.
(07-14-14) The "silly season" of election politics gets underway full steam now that we are past
the 4th of July celebrations. Ed Fitzgerald, Democratic candidate for Governor, leads off with a
campaign promise to repeal Senate Bill 310 freezing Ohio's renewable mandates during a two
year
study period and he promises to "undo" the recent extensions of wind turbine setbacks measured
from property lines. We suggest that as you visit your county fairs this summer, stop by the
Democratic Party tent and ask for the studies on which candidate Fitzgerald bases his policies.
Engage his campaign staff in a discussion of health impacts and see what they know. Ask them
what safety documents underpin his support for the proximity of industrial wind turbines to
homes.
Speaking of property line setbacks, following last year's adoption of both property line setbacks
and required property value guarantees by the Tipton County, Indiana Board of Zoning Appeals,
wind developer Juwi sued the county. Juwi claimed the Board's actions made this late stage wind
project difficult to build. But now Juwi has issued a press release announcing
"the continuing litigation costs and indefinite time period associated with pursuing the permits
through litigation no longer make sense for the company." Juwi will abandon the Kokomo area
project.
And lastly, we caught up with the latest reports on Everpower's owner, Guy Hands, CEO of
Terra Firma Capital Partners. Yesterday, investigators from the U.K.'s The Independent
newspaper released their findings that British taxpayers have provided millions in subsidy to
Terra Firma through the UK
Export Finance agency courtesy of a crony deal between Hands and his friend, the UK Foreign
Secretary, William Hague. The story's focus is on the point that tax dodging companies are not
supposed to get taxpayer subsidies.
Hmmmm... The Terra Firma subsidiary in this instance is AWAS an airplane leasing business
located at an address in the Cayman Islands shared by 18,000 other businesses and referred to by
President Obama as "either the largest building in the world or the largest tax scam in the world".
The Independent goes on to quote the British Prime Minister who " pledged to crack down on
companies avoiding tax, saying: "Companies need to wake up and smell the coffee, because the
customers who buy from them have had enough."
Indeed. During our season of US Independence Day celebration, it is ironic to reflect on how
much we have in common with our British cousins - we are both fed up with public subsidy and
a rigged system that favors special interests. Terra Firma is front and center both here and
abroad. Seems like Mr. Hands is in everybody's pocket!
(07-13-14) This week Everpower spoke on the record to the Springfield News Sun about their
future plans. Everpower spokesman, Michael Speerscheider, had this to say:
" It's still too early to say whether the legislation will mean the end of the Buckeye wind farm,"
said Michael Speerschneider, a spokesman for Everpower. The project is in jeopardy because the
state legislation will freeze current mandates for renewable energy, he said, making it harder to
find a buyer for the electricity produced by the turbines. Everpower doesn't have a timeline for
when it will decide whether to move ahead or kill the projects. "It's very early," Speerschneider
said. "We're still trying to figure out what it all means and if we can work through it. It could
very well be something that leads to having a lot more difficulty in completing the projects."
The American Wind Energy Association ("AWEA") stated they plan to be actively engaged in
the process of the new legislative Study Committee and their spokesman states "We'd say it starts
a two-year debate and we plan to win the debate," Kelley said. "I don't think we can afford to
wait two years."
Meanwhile, Senator Keith Faber states in the article that: "The renewable mandates might make
sense, he said, but the state needs to determine whether the wind farms are a good investment for
consumers.
"They're getting multiple subsidies," Faber said of the wind farms. "The question is when is
enough enough and when should they be viable."
This is the first time we have heard Senator Faber express concern about the subsidies that
federal and Ohio taxpayers and ratepayers have paid out to support wind development. Under
current law, renewable energy is eligible to seek local tax abatement of the public utility personal
property tax for projects where construction begins prior to January 1, 2019. But we believe the
mandate is also a form of subsidy so it is difficult to understand exactly what Senator Faber
means. On more than one occasion, Everpower has expressed concern over whether they could
go forward without the federal Production Tax credit, or whether failure to be granted PILOT
payments would make the project infeasible. Those two issues didn't come up in the context of
today's story even though the PTC is currently expired and Everpower has yet to make
application for PILOT in Champaign County.
In the meantime, Everpower's local team of Jason Dagger and Michael Pullins were busy
advising the Champaign County Commissioners on local economic development. In a public
hearing to which only four members of the public went, Dagger and Pullins comprised ½ of the
"public". They opined as follows:
"Buckeye Wind Farm Project Manager Jason Dagger said this was a tremendous asset to move
money back toward economic development. "I would encourage you to move more (money)
towards economic development if there's ever the possibility to do that because I think that is a
driver for this county," Dagger said. "We need to see groundbreakings in general. Whether
they're renewable energy or general businesses that need to expand in the community, we need to
see folks out there attracting them in here and showing the assets that we have." EverPower
Consultant Mike Pullins suggested the county should partner with surrounding counties to
leverage resources toward economic development."
Could they be working on warming up the Commission for their plea for tax abatement as a
"driver" for their debatable economic development? Linked here is a thought provoking article
in the context of whether wind development is a benefit or a harm to a community. A farmer
from Illinois speaks out about many of the harms to his community.
(07-02-14) First we would like to thank everyone who signed on to the letter of thanks to
Governor Kasich, Senate President Faber and Speaker of the House William Batchelder. The
letter carried with it a whopping 684 signatures! Julie Johnson had an opportunity to speak to
Governor Kasich the day the letter was sent and was able to emphasize to him how many
potentially impacted Ohioans appreciated his support for new property line setbacks and the
energy mandate freeze. He was glad to hear the news and said we were the ONLY ones who
expressed thanks and that everyone else he heard from was angry. (We can only guess that might
be wind developers or leaseholders.) The Governor acknowledged shadow flicker, noise and
vibrations could be a problem in people's homes.
Coincidentally, a Michigan Court ruled last week in favor of citizens who sued over excessive
noise, vibration and flicker from a 56 turbine wind development. This case is interesting because
the area residents had hired an independent noise consultant prior to construction of the wind
project. The noise expert predicted there would be problems before the project was built. Local
press reported "Independent analysis demonstrated that the turbines would not only exceed the
noise ordinance as proposed by CMS and adopted by Mason County but that the turbine noise
would create widespread complaints and result in legal action by those subjected to this
industrial development in a rural environment." Likewise, Union Neighbors United hired an
independent noise consultant to do studies in Champaign County prior to the Ohio Power Siting
Board issuing a permit for the Buckeye Wind Phase I project. UNU's consultant made the same
kind of predictions about the potential for widespread complaints in Champaign County if the
project was built. It was good to see the citizens in Mason County, Michigan prevail in the court.
A hot topic in many counties is tax abatement and whether wind projects should be granted
significant local subsidy for their projects. Most counties have raised concerns about granting
favorable tax treatment to wind projects that will do widespread damage to the community and to
local property owners. Many townships have actually adopted resolutions in opposition to wind
development. In Van Wert County, where an Alternative Energy Zone designation allowed for
an automatic tax abatement for the Blue Creek project, the County Commissioners have now
rescinded the designation. As other wind projects approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board seek
to move forward, it is less likely that tax abatement will be granted. But that did not stop AWEA
from honoring the legislator behind the subsidy program as their "2014 Windpower Influencer".
Ugh. Senator Chris Widener appears to be the "Crony of the Year" for the wind industry. We
look forward to Widener's term ending in 2015.
Many will recall that Everpower's initial plans called for wind turbines near two Champaign
County air strips - Grimes Field and Weller Field. Approximately 18 turbines were deemed
hazards by the FAA due to height restrictions near airports. Now the FAA is considering
lowering the allowable heights near airports from 250 feet to 160 feet. The FAA wants the new
height limits to accommodate planes that lose an engine. They cite the ongoing danger to
aviation due to increasing development near airports and they specifically identify wind turbines
as a source of concern.
Word from Van Wert County is that Iberdrola is seeking property easements from nonparticipating property owners near their planned Dog Creek project. No news on progress but we
will keep an eye on it.
(06-25-14) We need you to comment.
The comment period is now open for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rules
for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants already in operation - aka the existing-source
rule. Now, more than ever, we need you to send comments to the EPA, urging it to implement
common-sense rules that will keep electricity reliable and affordable.
We're still studying how this will affect Ohio's electric cooperatives specifically, but if the EPA
plan is implemented as written, electric cooperative members could see price hikes of $40 a
month or more.
Please visit Action.coop to send a prewritten message, which you can alter if you choose, to the
EPA. Tell your co-workers, relatives and friends who aren't co-op members that they can
visit TellEPA.com, which is the non-member's route to filing a comment.
The July issue of Country Living includes a story on the new rule plus a comment card that
readers can tear out and mail back.
Is it really about global warming?
Averting global warming has been cited as the driver behind the EPA's proposed rule aimed at
limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. But a recent analysis of the
proposal for the Global Science Report concluded that the environmental benefit is minimal less than two one hundredths of a degree Celsius by the year 2100.
The authors, Chip Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels, pointed out that the number was
missing from the EPA's fact sheet touting the rule's benefits.
"We're not even sure how to put such a small number into practical terms," they wrote, "because,
basically, the number is so small as to be undetectable. Which, no doubt, is why it's not included
in the EPA Fact Sheet."
(06-23-14) Setbacks from wind turbines seem to be big news from Findlay to Finland where the
Ministry of Social Affairs & Health has issued a new report asserting that existing 1,640 foot
setback regulations in that country are "far too short". How timely.
The report states that "the Ministry has stated that a buffer zone of 500 meters [1,640 feet]
between habitation and a wind power plant is all too short and that the distance should be clearly
greater. The Ministry has suggested as the rule of thumb that the distance should be roughly 10
times the polar altitude of the power plant. The real sites of the power plants or the type and size
of the power plants are not yet known in the context of the land use plan. Therefore the Ministry
proposed 2 km as the buffer zone [about 1.25 mile]. In this way the hazards of power plants
could with great probability be avoided. Now a buffer zone of 2 km is referred to in discussions
as the absolute minimum distance, which was not the purpose in the Ministry's opinions. Wind
power plants can be built closer than that but then the impact assessment should be careful and
assertive and be based on reliable given values. Power plants should not be built within a
distance shorter than 2 km without a comprehensive health impact assessment."
With this context in mind, it is shocking to see the Ohio wind developers and environmental
leaders continue their attacks citing jobs, money to communities, climate change and so on as
justification for inadequate setbacks. Interestingly, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health
takes the view that if residents are not adequately protected, wind energy will become so hated
that all further wind development will come to an end. This is diametrically opposed to the
response of wind developers in Ohio. Perhaps the difference is that some developers in Ohio do
not plan to be long term owners of these facilities and so they do not care. Recall that
Everpower's owner, Terra Firma, is on the record as saying they plan to exit the company in five
or so years.
The conclusion of the Finland Ministry report states:
"It has been annoying to follow the discussion that aims at promotion of additional construction
of wind power in Finland and where views of worried citizens have not been taken into
consideration. The actors promoting wind power construction should understand that no
economic or political objectives should be placed above the requirements for individuals' health
and wellbeing, and that people's worries cannot be removed by justifying wind power
construction by climate policy or economic objectives - rather the opposite. The worries can only
be removed by well-done impact assessments and well implemented projects in connection with
which the nearby residents have been genuinely heard and their worries have been taken into
consideration. The next few years will show if there is desire to understand this matter and how
wind power construction will succeed or not."
If an article written by Jereme Kent, the owner of One Energy of Findlay, Ohio is any indication,
absent the new setback legislation, there would be no consideration of the people living in harm's
way. Mr. Kent believes more PR and more lobbying are the answer. Mr. Kent completely
disregards the views of "worried citizens" and will surely hasten the day when wind is so hated
that all further wind development will come to an end. Or maybe it already has.
(06-17-14) Last Friday, Governor Kasich signed into law SB 310 and HB 483. This is a great
day for industrial wind turbine opponents in Ohio, particularly our area. Ohio is the first state to
reverse course on renewable mandates.
SB 310 freezes the renewable mandate for two years while a study committee reviews Ohio's
energy policy. More important, SB 310 repeals the requirement that any portion of the renewable
mandate has to be satisfied from renewable power generated inside Ohio. This makes it less
likely wind farms will be built in Ohio, as wind electricity is cheaper to generate in other states.
Additionally, thanks largely to State Senator Keith Faber, HB 483 now measures a turbine
setback at 1,125 feet from the property line of a non-leasing landowner. This provision is a step
in the right direction. ANU members may have noticed in one of the recent emails a reporter was
quoted as saying that in the Blue Creek wind farm in Van Wert County only 19 of the 152
turbines could have been sited using this setback requirement. This statement is a little hard to
believe. However, even if this is not entirely correct, the impact of an increased setback on the
viability of wind farms is enormous.
ANU wants to thank everyone for their tireless work in this effort locally since February 2012.
Hard to believe it has been over two years since our first organizational meeting in Buckland.
Keep up the good work, as the wind proponents will only work harder.
Finally, ANU encourages everyone to reach out and personally thank Julie
Johnson, Champaign County, and Tom Stacy, Logan County. The amount of time, effort and
money they have spent cannot be measured. Without them this would not have been achieved.
(06-16-14) Today the Urbana Daily Citizen printed the attached "editorial" . The concluding
message is: "To date, the only measurable result of this seven-year process so far has been
mounting expenses and acrimony. We would like to exit purgatory now. Perhaps our escape is
nearer now." The Governor is expected to act on turbine setback legislation today. We will keep
you posted.
(06-10-14) We need your help again.
The Governor's Office is being flooded with call from the renewable energy advocates to veto
the setback language in the budget bill.
It is not right to have the setback measured from a home - it should be from a property line.
If the wind company wants to intrude on the neighbor's property, it needs to get an easement and
compensate the landowner.
CALL GOVERNOR KASICH NOW TO ASK FOR SUPPORT OF SETBACKS IN
HOUSE BILL 483.
CALL 614-466-3555
Thank you!
(06-08-14) Another week of waiting and a promise that next week the Governor will sign both
bills to expand wind turbine setbacks and to call a time-out on the renewable mandates. We sure
wish the Governor would hurry up because the wails coming from the wind industry are
keeping Kevon Martis working overtime at the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition. Below
are two editorials from the Toledo Blade. One appears today and the other was printed
yesterday. As usual, Iberdrola carries on about how much they have invested in Ohio (it was
our tax dollars to begin with) and that they might have to rethink their future plans.
Meanwhile, in regard to the proposed setbacks from property lines, our favorite Farm Bureau
wind cheerleader, Dale Arnold, is quoted as saying, "Many farmers see the proposed setback
requirements as an affront to their private property rights, Dale Arnold, Ohio Farm Bureau
energy policy director, said. "What science, what evaluation, what discussion has gone into
this?" he asked. "We're concerned many of those [setback requirements] are arbitrary." Well, we
will tell you what went into the legislators' consideration - the manufacturer's recommendations.
Many of us will recall the Ohio Wind Working Group that was intended to develop "Best
Practices" for the wind industry back in 2007. Dale Arnold was a member of this group and
when it was determined that the recommendation by the National Academy of Science for ¼
mile setbacks should be adopted, the whole group folded and the State terminated the contract of
the group's facilitator. It has taken 7 years to right a wrong.
Yesterdays Toledo Blade column, linked above, was riddled with errors. One of the most
repeated accusations from the opponents of the mandate freeze is that "Governor Kasich caved to
members of ALEC, who double as lawmakers, in the General Assembly. He caved to Charles
and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists whose money increasingly dictates legislative and
election outcomes. He caved to a nationally coordinated attack on Ohio's clean-energy standards.
He caved to fossil-fuel fans who are financially threatened by renewable-energy progress."
Whew! For all of us who worked as citizens - not funded by some big fossil fuel lobby or
billionaires - this type of harangue shows that the wind industry and its friends in the media have
no arguments of substance to support renewables and so they resort to name calling.
If the wind developers and environmental community want to engage in conspiracy theories,
Kevon Martis offers his version with a Guest Editorial that the Bellefontaine Examiner printed
on Saturday on page six. Martis's editorial was submitted to numerous Ohio papers, including the
Urbana Daily Citizen. We'll see if anyone else picks it up.
Last, in a rather uncomfortable report, the World Council For Nature issued a news bulletin on
the deaths of 1,600 mink at a fur farm in Denmark. The proximity of wind turbines and low
frequency vibrations are considered to be the cause of the problem.
(06-05-14) The lobbying and last ditch efforts have not stopped. The good news is that the
renewable mandate freeze was sent from the legislature to the Governor's Office yesterday
afternoon and the Governor's Office has reiterated they will sign it. In a last effort, a letter
(attached) was sent to the Governor from a coalition of groups opposing the bill including
AWEA, Everpower and the Van Wert and Hardin County Chambers of Commerce. These
actions have been opposed by the people living in those counties.
In the meantime, we understand that the budget bill with the new setback provisions has also
gone to the Governor. This has prompted yet more Editorials, this time from the Toledo Blade
and the Cleveland Plain Dealer calling for a line item veto of the setback. We suspect that the
Governor and Senator Faber may be having a conversation about that. We recall that in Senator
Faber's home county, Mercer County, the Township Trustees Association passed a Resolution
opposing the development of wind energy in Mercer County. We shared additional setback
information with the legislature yesterday including that the State of Wisconsin requires 1,800
foot setbacks from the property line. Tom Stacy did a bit of figuring and has determined the
financial impact to the wind developer of securing easements from non-participating neighbors.
The conclusion is that "Even if the cost of leasing appropriate amounts of land surrounding wind
projects triples from current levels, that would only be an increased expense for the developer
equal to 4.6% of subsidies and only about 3% of total revenue." In other words, wind developers
can afford to negotiate easements and compensate neighboring non-participating property
owners.
(06-04-14) Yesterday two views on wind turbine setbacks were featured in the media. The
Bellefontaine Examiner spoke with Senator Faber who is quoted in the story below as saying,
""We need wind energy setbacks to be consistent with other zoning laws," Sen. Faber said. "You
shouldn't be able to use other people's properties for the purpose of zoning setbacks."
Notwithstanding, the wind industry is busy in the background trying to convince others that the
Governor should veto any change to the setback rules. Because the new setback language is
contained in a budget bill, we believe it is eligible for a line-item veto should the wind industry
prevail. An Editorial in the Akron Beacon Journal expresses support for a veto both because
they feel it could harm the wind industry and because they do not like the process of putting the
change into the budget bill where many other legislative initiatives are contained. They fail to
remember that two extensions of the PILOT program were legislated without discussion as a part
of earlier budget bills. The wind industry is quick to use the budget process when it suits their
purposes but cries foul when the results are against their interests. It is dumbfounding to us that
the Akron Editorial Board does not seem to understand that easements and compensation are
appropriate strategies to employ when one wants to intrude on another's property. Nor do they
seem to think that the wind industry should be treated like any other entity when it comes to
following zoning norms. This should be a concern to all with respect to the blind support for
wind at any cost. We are grateful that Tom Stacy and Michael Shepherd have posted comments
on the Akron editorial.
(06-03-14) Yesterday the House and Senate Conference Committee met to make changes to the
Mid-Biennium Budget Review ("MBR"). This is the bill into which Senator Keith Faber inserted
the revision to wind turbine setback measurement. Faber's language changed the measurement to
the property line from the residence. The Conference Committee made a change to the language
before voting it out of Committee. The MBR will now be voted on today before the legislature
goes into its summer recess. The change grandfathers in all wind applications in the pipeline as
well as certified projects. We always assumed this to be the case but the new language removes
any uncertainty. The good news is that many Ohioans will be better protected going forward.
R.C. 4906.20, 4906.201
Specifies that the minimum setback, beginning on the effective date of the bill, for a wind turbine
be at least 1,125 feet in horizontal distance from the tip of the turbine's nearest blade at 90
degrees to the property line of the nearest adjacent property.
Permits wind turbines that already received a certificate of approval from the Power Siting
Board prior to the effective date of the bill to continue under the existing setback requirement,
which is measured from the nearest, habitable,
residential structure, located on the adjacent property, if any.
We are still awaiting word that the Governor has signed SB 310 to freeze the renewable energy
mandates. We have no reason to doubt that it will be signed but the wait is frustrating. While we
are waiting, we have taken a look at some other news and reviews. First we bring you an article
from Renewable Energy Magazine written by the head of a PR firm in Boston that specializes in
countering "NIMBY" initiatives (Not-In-My-Back-Yard). The author lays out the strategy for
wind companies to be better prepared to win legislative battles. The article focuses on Ohio. The
strategy actually resembles the one employed by citizens all over Northwest Ohio - except our
campaigns were based on truth. Once the Governor does sign the freeze bill, we will need to
remain actively engaged in continuing to educate our communities and it appears likely the battle
to educate may be harder if the wind industry deploys massive PR initiatives. The Public
Strategy Group counts Iberdrola among its clients. We think wind PR is "lipstick on a pig" - it is
still a pig.
Perhaps the PR campaign has already started as seen in an article from the Mansfield News
Journal where a contractor writes an opinion piece on the value of wind energy because he
makes money from building access roads for wind turbines. It is important to remember that SB
310 is about MANDATES. It really is not about wind or solar per se. If these technologies can
stand on their own two feet and serve a cost effective and beneficial service, the public will
support them without a mandate. The Opinion piece in this newspaper lacks one shred of
documentation to support the author's claims. This is a county where wind PR could triumph if
ongoing opinions like this are not aggressively countered by ongoing public education. Richland
County's Representative Romanchuk was one of six Republican legislators who voted against SB
310.
Just north of Richland County, a wind development is planned for Huron County's Greenwich
Township. A public hearing was held and it is reported that about 40 people attend and two
spoke in favor. The developer intends to erect 25 Nordex 2.4 MW turbines. "Monica Jensen, vice
president of development for WindLab in North America, said three things still have to happen
for the Greenwich Wind Farm to get under way in 2015. The Ohio Power Siting Board, the state
agency that regulates wind farms, has to issue a certificate for the project. In addition, Windlab
has to obtain a contract to sell the power, and Windlab has to complete getting a connection from
the wind farm to the electrical grid." It will be interesting to watch the progress of this project
given the current environment. The Sandusky Register article describing this project also lists
an inventory of pending Ohio projects. All of these projects would be grandfathered into the old
setback rules.
Lest anyone be too upset, Michigan Capitol Confidential, a publication of the Mackinac
Institute quotes the Ohio Environmental Council as saying. ""Contrary to the reassuring tone of
yesterday's statement by the governor's office, the final bill as approved by the General
Assembly did not land 'at the right spot' for Ohio and does anything but assure that Ohio will
'move forward in a balanced way,' " the group said in a statement. "Rather, Gov. Kasich's
anticipated approval of this recklessly imbalanced legislation will not simply 'freeze' but all but
annihilate clean energy standards." (emphasis added). Ohio's standards were not "clean energy"
standards. They were renewable mandates for wind and solar and projects approved without any
evaluation of their actual contribution to clean air.
Attention is now diverted to President Obama's announcement of EPA rules to cut carbon
emissions by 30%. The Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Environment Ohio and other
left wing organizations were quick to attack Ohio's renewables freeze as an impediment to
compliance with the Administration's proposed plan. It is interesting to hear the rhetoric this
time. Rather than its past focus on Global Warming or Climate Change, the Obama
Administration decided to frame the matter as an urgent health concern. In this context, EPA
Secretary McCarthy used the word "moral" six times in her announcement and the word "coal"
once. And so the newest PR campaign is launched.
(05-30-14) Attached below are several articles covering yesterday's historic vote in the Ohio
House. Following the House approval, the Senate concurred and the bill went to Governor
Kasich for signature. If you would care to watch the session on the House floor, the portion
covering SB 310 begins at about 50 minutes into the program.
As you can see from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Editorial Board is calling for a veto of the
legislation. We are once again asking for your help in urging the Governor to sign the bill. Please
email these members of the Governor's staff: Scott Milburn ; Eric Poklar ; and Wayne Struble .
Let these gentlemen know you support the Governor in signing the bill because a timeout is
needed to evaluate our energy policy. Tell them you oppose mandates that protect special
interests while robbing communities of their right to determine their own future. Include the fact
that wind and solar have been proven to be both unreliable and inefficient means of powering
Ohio's manufacturing economy. There has yet to be a wind farm that has produced a 30%
efficiency.
You will note in the Lima paper that Everpower's Michael Speerscheider claims the extended
setback included in the Ohio Mid-biennium Budget Review applies to the Scioto Ridge Wind
Farm. We do not understand why he thinks this way and we have included the analysis of the
Legislative Service Commission with respect to an interpretation of the language. Based on our
reading, applications approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board prior to this amendment are
grandfathered in.
(05-29-14) The press releases were flying all day. Every environmental advocate, every
misguided newspaper editorial board, and the renewable developers were throwing their
"energy" into a last minute attempt to bring about a veto. Meanwhile, the Governor was on a
five-city tour of the state to tout his newest JobsOhio website called Ohio Means Jobs. A major
feature of the website is "Ohio Energy Pathways" that are intended to lead people to a job in the
renewable energy field.
The Governor's Office has confirmed that the Governor will sign the bill and we hope it is today!
On Monday, the President will release a draft of his climate change regulations. The National
Chamber of Commerce issued a release saying that a quarter of a million jobs would be lost as a
result and the economy would be wrecked. The Natural Resources Defense Council rebuts the
Chamber's arguments. In Ohio, the Chamber was active on the local scene in support of SB 310
while its Van Wert Chamber affiliate took the opposite position.
In prepared statements to the media, EDP Renewables and Everpower threatened to leave the
state. We observe the renewable energy lobby focusing on jobs and perceived environmental
benefit. In the Toledo Blade, two ministers speak out on the "moral implications" of the
renewable freeze.
Thank you to all who wrote to the Governor's Office to express your support for SB 310. Well
done.
(05-28-14) The House passed SB 310 this afternoon following hours of debate. We do not have
the official count but think it was in the order of 52 In Favor; 38 Opposed and 9 not voting. We
will give you a full report tomorrow but we are NOT FINISHED. We will be asking for your
help with support for the Governor's signature. The opponents will not rest until every avenue is
exhausted. They made repeated attempts to amend or replace the bill today. They gave
impassioned speeches filled with erroneous information. They will not rest and neither can we!
More later - we just wanted to share the big news as soon as we could.
(05-27-14) I urge everyone to contact our state representative, Tony Burkley, to urge him to
support passage of SB 310 which freezes Ohio's renewable energy mandate at 2014 levels. This
bill has passed the Ohio Senate and has passed out of committee in the Ohio House of
Representatives. It is scheduled to be voted on today by the full House. It appears Representative
Burkley is either undecided or against passage. Everyone is urged to contact his office ASAP
by using any of the contact information below - urging him to support passage of SB 310.
Thanks for your help.
Tony Burkley:
Email
Phone (614) 644-5091, Fax (614) 719-3974
(05-26-14) THANK YOU for your efforts this weekend in support of the passage of Ohio
Senate Bill 310. Today the House Public Utilities Committee narrowly voted the bill out of
Committee with two Republicans voting against it - Romanchuk and Duffey - and one Democrat
for in favor. The bill eliminates the in-state mandate for wind and solar and freezes the mandates
for renewables and energy efficiency at their 2014 levels while a Study Committee evaluates the
impact of these energy policies on Ohio consumers and manufacturers. The bill will now go the
full House for a vote and, assuming it passes, it will go to the Governor and become law.
Our job is not over as we will be actively engaged in following the work of the Study Committee
and providing what input we can in the process. We will continue to keep you abreast of how the
wind developers respond to today's action. We are so very, very grateful for your support.
Renewable energy providers and windmillers will do everything possible to avoid revealing to
you how much the hydrocarbon-fired utility is paying for both the cost of electricity and the cost
of the Renewable Energy Credits (RECS). "If the electric consumers of America ever find out
how much money renewable energy providers are making from artificially increased prices, they
might come out and tear down the windmills."
How Warren Buffett Milks Consumers & Taxpayers Through Wind Energy
(05-22-14) Contact Representative Robert Sprague! We need ALL on board to focus on Rep.
Sprague to support Senate Bill 310!
The focus is on Rep. Sprague--contact him first and foremost! And do so ASAP!
TELL REP. SPRAGUE TO VOTE YES ON SENATE BILL 310!
Here is Sprague's personal assistant's email and phone number:
Andrew Yogmour
Email
(614) 466-3819
Robert Sprague
Thank you!
(05-21-14) On Tuesday, the House Public Utilities Committee heard almost 7 hours of
testimony. Thank you to those who made the trip once again and to those who submitted written
testimony. By going to Ohiohouse.gov you can read all submitted testimony including that of
Mercer County Engineer, Jim Weichert. The plan was to hear testimony on Tuesday and then
vote Senate Bill 310 to freeze the mandate and to eliminate the in-state requirements out of
Committee on Wednesday morning and then to the floor of the House on Wednesday afternoon.
But the wheels came off on Tuesday night due to the fierce and well-funded lobbying efforts of
the opponents. There is a lot of money at stake in this legislation. In fact, we think is it more
about money than it is about energy. Tom Stacy has prepared a review of the costs to Ohioans.
Right now residential customers of DP&L are paying an extra $96 a year for the mandates. This
cost will increase every year. For employers, it will cost jobs. See Tom's Q&A below.
One of the very sad things is the extent to which the wind industry and investment bankers have
succeeded in co-opting people of faith. Yesterday's Columbus Dispatch front page featured
members of the clergy standing in front of Trinity Episcopal Church urging the Governor to veto
SB 310, if it passes. Many churches benefit from subsidized energy efficiency through Interfaith
Power & Light. There is nothing wrong with Christian charity but families are harmed when
employers are forced to reduce their work force in order to pay the ever increasing electricity
costs of the energy mandates. It is an unintended consequence of government intervening in a
market where it doesn't belong. According to Tom's analysis, the mandates (EE and RE
combined) will cost Ohioans $4.03 Billion through 2025 and $873 Million each year thereafter.
These costs fall the hardest on low income families and employers. The clergy is advocating for
a bill that will inevitably cause Ohioans to lose jobs so that the churches can get a break on their
electric bill. We think that is an uninformed position, if not immoral.
The House will wheel and deal over the Memorial Day weekend and the House Public Utilities
Committee will reconvene on Tuesday morning. It is anyone's guess what will happen. The
legislators rumored to be sticking points are Republicans Damschroder (whose Seneca County
constituents are about to be bombed with 198 industrial wind turbines covering 29,000 acres);
Reps. Boose, Baker, Sprague, Duffey and Burkley. It is interesting to note that one of the Seneca
County projects is proposed by turbine manufacturer, Nordex. In documents filed with the Ohio
Power Siting Board, Nordex says: "Wind resource is extremely limited in Ohio; there are only a
handful of project sites with the wind resource necessary to support a utility scale project. The
convergence of sufficient wind resources, sufficient transmission capacity, compatible land uses
and interested landowners willing to lease their land - all are needed for a viable wind energy
project. In order for Ohio utilities to meet the requirements for renewable energy mandated by
the Ohio legislature, all viable Ohio wind sites must be considered as potential wind energy
project sites. Each specific criterion set forth in OAC Rule 4906-17-04 may not apply even
though the site is an appropriate one for a wind energy project." It appears from this statement
that unless the mandates are eliminated, no community will be able to protect itself. We think
Nordex probably knows what they are talking about.
In the meantime, the Ohio Senate passed the Mid-Biennium Budget review bill. It now goes to a
conference committee for concurrence by the Ohio House with amendments added to the bill in
the Senate. One of these amendments was added by Senator Faber to change the existing
measurement of turbine setbacks from the home to the property line. This is something we have
fought for a long time. The setbacks distance will remain at 1,125 feet but it will be from the
property line. Existing projects with certificates of approval from the Ohio Power Siting Board
will be grandfathered into the old setbacks but new projects would have to comply whenever the
bill becomes effective which could be July 1, 2014. It is possible that this amendment will be
killed by the House conferees. We will be watching. The extended setback provides more
protection to homeowners and would require the wind developers to compensate neighboring
property owners if they want to intrude on their land.
PS Linked article on Everpower's projects from the Urbana Daily Citizen. A remarkable quote
from Jason Dagger in the article: "EverPower Project Manager Jason Dagger said on Monday
that the board's decision completed the procedural process for the Buckeye Wind project. "We
now have the ability - by the board's determination - to construct the project but now we want to
work with the county and townships to alleviate any final concerns that they have," Dagger said.
"We have an open door policy for that part and we want to continue that discussion." Dagger
said construction on the project would not happen this year. Regarding the Scioto Ridge project,
Dagger said the company plans to continue to work with intervenors in that project."
TOM STACY Q & A
Q: What DOES the mandate cost residential customers (of DP&L) now - per year?
A: About $96 per year for the efficiency and renewables riders combined.
HERE is a link to a "mandate tax" calculator published by the Industrial Energy Users-Ohio
coalition of companies. An average residential household uses about 1,200 KWhs per month.
Most Bellefontainers are served by DP&L but you can choose your consumption, type of
customer, electricity provider and voltage on the calculator. Please feel free to offer a link to the
calculator so people can calculate for themselves.
Q: What HAS the mandate cost ALL customers SO FAR since its inception?
A: The PUCO reports to the General Assembly every year the costs of compliance with the
mandate. Those reports are available on PUCO's web site HERE (under Alternative Energy
Portfolio Standard Reports).
Renewable Energy Certificate prices were not published for 2009 and 2010. Therefore, using the
weighted average REC value from 2011 applied to the compliance MWHs for the two previous
years yields the mandate to date has cost the average household $395 (including the efficiency
riders) and all Ohio electricity consumers a total of
$363 Million through 2014 (estimated)
Q: What WILL the mandate cost customers IF it is ever fully met...
- based on historical cost in most recent year reported by PUCO?
A: The mandates (EE and RE combined) will cost Ohioans $4.03 Billion through 2025 and $873
Million each year thereafter.
Q:- based on the COST CAP defined in ORC 4928.64 (C)(3) and interpreted by PUCO?
A: From this year forward if the 3% cost cap were met every year the mandate would cost
Ohioans $5.96 Billion
Linked above is a "mandate tax" calculator published by the Industrial Energy Users-Ohio
coalition of companies. An average residential household uses about 1,200 KWhs per month.
Most Bellefontainers are served by DP&L.
Q: Will my employer's electricity bill impact my job?
A: While electricity usage varies widely by industry type, heavy industries such as steel, plastics,
chemicals and aluminum could use as much as $180,000 per year in electricity PER
EMPLOYEE. That means a 10% increase in electricity rates for your employer takes $18,000
per year off the table for wages and benefits every year. That could mean a number of other
things, too. An employer might even be forced to close or relocate a business to different a state
with more competitive electricity prices.
Data example taken from HERE
Q: Where are the laws that prescribe these payments?
A" The law is section 4928.64 of the Ohio Revised Code
(05-19-14) Today will be a busy day as around 30 witnesses will testify in the Ohio House
Public Utilities Committee concerning Senate Bill 310. Today's Columbus Dispatch reports that
the bill may spark a national movement toward repealing mandates for renewable energy.
Americans for Prosperity has thrown their support behind the bill.
Closer to home, the Urbana Daily Citizen reports that two appeals were rejected by the Ohio
Power Siting Board. Both appeals were directed toward Everpower projects: Buckeye Wind and
Scioto Ridge. In Scioto Ridge, the citizens were trying to address the fact that they had no real
opportunity to register objections to the project because most are summer people in the Indian
Lake area. Everpower waited until after Labor Day when they were gone, to hold a public
hearing. In Champaign County, the County and Townships had objected to amendments in the
Buckeye I project that moved the staging area further to the east and made modifications to roads
and underground lines. The news report states that local officials expressed concern about
adequate protection the community's infrastructure. Today, one of the witnesses who will testify
in in Columbus in support of Senate Bill 310 is the Mercer County Engineer who has similar
concerns about damage to local infrastructure that may be beyond the County's financial ability
to repair.
At the federal level, there is still much debate about legislation to extend a number of expired tax
provisions like the Production Tax Credit. This gets very complicated because a Senator like
Ohio's Rob Portman, who opposes extension of the PTC, may vote in favor of a different bill that
is important to him but that bill might have the PTC extension tacked on to it. It does not mean
that Portman supports the PTC. This is exactly what happened recently and the wind developers
are busy trying to mislead the public - again - that there is support for the PTC. In fact, Iberdrola
wrote a letter to the Editor of the newspaper in Van Wert congratulating him on his vote in
support of the PTC. This is a lie and they know it but, factually, Portman did vote for a bill that
had the extension of the wind subsidy tacked on. Last week, Portman had an opportunity to vote
on a procedural bill that prevented the renewal of the PTC and did so. It is complicated but the
wind industry assumes we are too stupid to figure it out. Letters to the Editor thanking Portman
for his stand against renewal of the Production Tax Credit would be helpful in every local paper.
Letters to the Editor do find their way to the Senator's attention. Senator Sherrod Brown is a lost
cause.
On the health front, a study from Canada has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed
medical journal. This is big news because the wind industry continues to discount any adverse
health effects from people living near wind turbines. The wind industry points to the lack of
peer-reviewed studies. It takes a long time - years - for studies to be conducted and findings
published. Hopefully this is just the start of more published research documenting health issues.
(05-18-14) The Ohio House Public Utilities Committee was greeted by fifty witnesses wishing to
testify on Am. Sub. S. B. 310 yesterday. The group was a mixture of both supporters and
opponents and only a small number were able to be heard. Many were asked to hold over until
next week. Among those who were not heard were the wind developers. Copies of all testimony
submitted can be obtained on the Committee website. We have attached the testimony of
Everpower, Iberdrola and EDP. We expect them to testify next week.
Iberdrola rests its support for the renewable mandate on climate change and the idea that the fuel
- wind - is free. Iberdrola objects to how renewables are characterized: "The Energy Mandate
Study Committee's foregone conclusion is telegraphed in the legislation that creates the
committee and uses terms like unreliable, unaffordable and unrealistic." Ominously, Iberdrola
warns that "If you proceed with passage of SB 310, you are jeopardizing the viability of two
additional investments in Ohio we are planning that would total about 250 MWs of generation
capacity…" These two unannounced projects are in addition to Blue Creek Dog Creek and
Leipsic Wind. We have no idea where the two new projects are targeted to be.
EDPR, developer of Timber Road in Paulding County, testified that project was the "direct
result" of the mandate. Like Iberdrola, EDPR has unknown projects of 400 MW's in the very
early stages of planning. Where?
Everpower's Michael Speerscheider gives testimony indicating his belief that tax abatement
through the PILOT is a foregone conclusion because he states the amount the company will be
paying for Buckeye I, Buckeye II and Scioto Ridge. Everpower acknowledges "The investments
that EverPower has made in the state have been made possible by the policies that the Ohio
General Assembly put in place." (That policy is an unconstitutional mandate to build in-state
renewable energy.) Speerschneider cites numerous industry sponsored research papers to support
the notion that renewables do not increase costs and that the subsidies they receive are far less
than what other companies receive. In saying this, Everpower tries to equate tax credits and tax
abatement with oil depletion allowances or investment tax credits available to any company as
part of the tax code. This is a phony argument but, remarkably, he goes on to say "Denouncing
wind energy because it relies on some level of government incentives is intellectually and
ideologically dishonest."
While not testifying, the American Wind Energy Association's (AWEA) lobbyist Dayna Baird
filed a comment on yesterday's story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer saying: " First, AWEA is
supportive of a compromise amendment to SB 310 that makes significant changes to the
renewable energy standards ." We do not know what the proposed "compromise" amendment
might be but we are pretty sure it would eliminate the two-year freeze on the mandate while the
Committee undertakes its review of Ohio's mandates.
Amidst all of the cheerleading for why the energy efficiency and renewable mandates are good
for Ohioans and good for business, the annual survey of 500 Chief Executives was announced
showing that Ohio has dropped five spots to number 26 as the best place in America to do
business. Regulations and taxes put us in the bottom half of the country with places like New
York and California while our neighbor Indiana, with no energy mandates, was rated 6th best in
the country. Hmmmmmm…..
In other news, an Editorial from Forbes praises the leadership in the Ohio Senate for passing SB
310, another German firm takes a big hit from renewable energy, a candidate for Canadian
Prime Minister vows to do away with all green energy programs that have been a "financial
disaster" and the Ohio Power Siting Board approves a request for a re-hearing in Everpower's
Scioto Ridge project.
(05-17-14) We have received word that at 5:00 p.m. yesterday afternoon, Kim Wissman,
Director of the Ohio Power Siting Board was terminated. We have no other information at this
time but welcome the news. Many of us remember years ago when Ms. Wissman came to
Urbana to address the community and stated flatly that unless we had wind power, the lights
would no longer come on when we flipped the switch. Everyone now knows this to be false.
Hearings will resume on Tuesday in the House Public Utilities Committee and there is a
possibility of a vote on Wednesday. The advocates for keeping energy efficiency mandates have
repeatedly talked about all the cost savings being enjoyed. Little did they know that on Friday,
AEP filed a rate increase to cover the energy efficiency costs. "Just yesterday, AEP-Ohio filed
for new rate increases with the PUCO to comply with the energy efficiency mandate. Come
August, AEP-Ohio residential customers will see a 115 percent increase in their mandate
surcharge and large electric users will see a whopping 391.6 percent increase in their efficiency
surcharge." See Chris Pandoni's article.
In Kentucky, NextEra has announced that it is walking away from a proposed development
which it has allegedly been working on for four years. NextEra blames a request by the State of
Kentucky to hold a public hearing 90 days prior to filing an application as well as the prospect of
tougher setbacks. In Ohio, public hearings are held after applications are filed. In the article
NextEra is quoted saying: " NextEra has been and remains committed to reasonable public
transparency...at the appropriate time in the project; it would be imprudent and unreasonable for
NextEra to convene a public meeting at this time because the project is in the early development
phase; and dissemination of highly sensitive and proprietary information at this stage of the
project harmful to NextEra's business activities would occur at the requested public meeting." In
other words, NextEra doesn't want anyone in the community to know where the turbines are
planned until it is too late. Sounds familiar!
More good news comes from Washington, D.C. where a bill to renew a number of tax breaks
failed to move forward on procedural grounds. The extension of the Production Tax Credit was
included in the package that did not move forward. It is unlikely that the Senate will be able to
move on the bill until after the November election. We will want to keep up the communication
with our Senators and Representatives to push for an end to the PTC. We have included the
youtube video of a floor speech by Senator Flake of Arizona where he calls the PTC a "zombie".
Worth a watch.
(05-14-14) The Ohio House of Representatives' Public Utilities Committee met to consider Am.
Sub. S.B. 310 yesterday. Only supporters of the bill were heard and today the opponents will
have their turn. Bob McConnell, Terry Rittenhouse and Julie Johnson were among those who
testified. Charles Ruma of Columbus and Indian Lake also provided written testimony. In
addition, a businessman from Lakewood testified and then answered a number of questions with
great passion and persuasion. He told the Committee in no uncertain terms to get the government
out of his business. He said he could have started a new business with the money he has wasted
on complying with the mandates and he resents having to subsidize his competitors.
Press coverage of the screams coming from the renewable sector called provisions of the bill a
"nuclear bomb" that would blow up the industry. Maybe so. Meanwhile, in Germany,
conventional energy generator E.ON called for the German government to compensate gas-fired
power plants for losses caused by wind and solar. The whole power structure of Germany is at
risk because of Germany's past support of renewable energy which has rendered this reliable
baseload generator unprofitable. The timing of Eon's problems couldn't have been better. While
wind screams about Am. Sub. S.B. 310 burning down their business, it looks more like the bill
would protect Ohio from destroying our reliablegas-fired power plants. Germany's experience
makes it hard to argue any other way.
(05-13-14) Senate Bill 310 has passed the full Senate and this week--Tuesday and Wednesday-House hearings on this bill will take place.
Tuesday, May 13, are proponent hearings. There are but 6 individuals scheduled as proponents
of SB 310. This is not a good showing.
As it now stands, those testifying AGAINST SB 310 greatly outnumber the proponents. SB 310
is as close as we have come to pushback on big wind in Ohio. Increasing the number of "in
person SB 310 proponent testimony" is important AND necessary.
It has been confirmed that there WILL be a House hearing next week. The day of that hearing
has not been announced but it will likely be Tuesday or Wednesday.
SO--I am searching for individuals who are willing to write and deliver in-person proponent
testimony for SB 310.
Many ask about submitting written testimony. Written testimony is OK but what is really
important is bodies standing up there and articulating why the mandates are BAD.
This way the press hears it. And...the press is not going to read written testimony.
Testifying in person helps the committee take action. They can ask questions when people are
present.
Sam Randazzo's comments to the Suddes article in Sunday's Columbus Dispatch follow. There
are good ideas in there on which to build testimony.
If one plans to testify in person, testimony must be submitted 24 hours in advance of the hearing.
Attached above are the House Public Utility notices for this week's hearings as an FYI.
The Hearing schedule is not set until late in the week. BUT knowing that there will be an
additional hearing allows needed time to write testimony and submit it in advance of the 24 hour
deadline.
Will you testify as a proponent of SB 310 at next week's House hearing? Will you ask other
capable individuals to do the same?
This may be our last best hope to keep big wind at bay. If you think you might be interested in
testifying, let me know. We don't want everyone saying the same thing and want to make sure a
variety of points are made. If you need help, we will be happy to assist. We will have a better
idea of the important points to hit after the opponents testify on Wednesday.
Thank you all so much!
Samuel Randazzo comments:
Mr. Suddess' May 11, 2014 item regarding proposed changes in Ohio's electricity usage
reduction mandate law and the hundreds of millions of dollars in hidden taxes that it imposes on
electric consumers each year continues a campaign that ignores the facts. Instead, the item
resorts to false images of the legislative proposal as the chosen means to advance the
proposition that mandates tied to failed assumptions from 2007 can somehow guide us to a
better future. Among other things, the current version of the legislation, proposes to hold the
renewable energy and electricity usage compliance requirements at the 2014 level in 2015 and
2016 so that a better and more permanent resolution can be considered. If electricity sales
increase in 2015 and 2016, the proposed legislation will require extra mandate compliance in
2015 and 2016. If the General Assembly does nothing else prior to January 1, 2017, Ohio will
resume the government compelled imposition of technologies, behavior and electric bill
increases on Ohio's electric consumers and extend the forced march for at least two years. And
why does the legislation call for a "time out"? Well, the mandates are based on a set of
assumptions that can no longer be regarded as credible. For example, Ohio's mandates
assumed, among other things, that: (1) our domestic natural gas supply would soon be depleted,
leaving us increasingly dependent on foreign liquefied natural gas; (2) we would not realize the
energy price and reliability benefits that are currently flowing from our abundant domestic shale
resources; and, (3) an overheated economy would continue rather than be stunningly
"corrected" by the Great Recession. None - not one - of these assumptions would be regarded as
credible if advanced today to support adoption of the mandates. In the face of this undisputed
truth, SB 310 defers, for a limited period of time, the currently scheduled escalation in the
anticompetitive force and electric bill increasing consequences of the 2008 mandates to allow
the mandates to be reevaluated based on our current reality. The alternative would be for the
General Assembly to ignore the facts and thereby punish electric consumers who are being
compelled, by the force of law, to pay higher and higher electric bills for the benefit of
stakeholders who profit from parasitic technologies which intermittently show up for work. The
only alternative offered by stakeholders who oppose the "time out" is one which calls for Ohio's
elected officials to do nothing. During the 16 months of deliberations and many hours of
hearings in the House and Senate, these just-say-no stakeholders opposed Senate Bill 58,
Substitute Senate Bill 58, House Bill 302, Senate Bill 34, Senate Bill 310, and Substitute Senate
Bill 310. They were repeatedly invited to offer constructive suggestions and they declined. And if
you were inclined to believe the trumped up claims of these anti-reform stakeholders - if you
were to accept their assertion that the supply-side and demand-side strategies they want Ohio to
mandate are the lowest cost options for consumers - you would also be left to speculate as to why
consumers must be forced to buy their particular products or services rather than left to
voluntarily act in their own self-interest. The Ohio mandates also have nothing to do with what
types of electric generators produce the electricity consumed in Ohio or air quality. That is
controlled at the federal level and under an interstate system which requires all types of electric
generating technologies to compete with each other, based on price and within environmental
limits, to satisfy demand. If, as the reform opponents claim, renewable technologies are the
lowest cost option, they will easily win market share, the old fashioned way, based on economic
merit rather than government mandates.
(05-11-14) The Ohio House of representatives gears up this week to hear testimony on Senate
Bill 310. On Tuesday, Senator Balderson will provide sponsor testimony followed by other
witnesses in support of the bill. On Wednesday opponents, interested parties and the rest of the
world will testify. Speaker of the House, Rep. Bill Batchelder, wants to wrap up passage before
Memorial Day. We expect to see every conceivable opponent argument come out in a last ditch
effort to derail the bill. We have been on this roller coaster for so long we know anything could
happen but we believe there is stronger support in the House than we saw in the Senate.
We share a story from the Bellefontaine Examiner where Everpower's Michael Speerschneider
grumbles about the mandate freeze but says nevertheless "This doesn't make it impossible to
build if we can find appropriate buyers, but it certainly doesn't make it any easier," he said.
As we have reported, a significant point in support of repeal of the mandate is the unConstitutional nature of the in-state mandate. This requires a percentage of wind to be generated
inside the state of Ohio even if out of state wind is available and cheaper. This issue has been the
subject of litigation in Colorado and in Minnesota. This week in Colorado, a major victory was
achieved when a federal court determined that the challengers to the Colorado mandate had
"standing" to bring a lawsuit. Often, those who seek to protect mandates will argue that
opponents do not have a right - or the legal standing - to sue. In this case, "The Court has
recognized that the Colorado RES harms interstate Commerce," said David W. Schnare, E&E
Legal's General Counsel and lead attorney in the case. "Next he will decide whether that
damages not only citizens' pocket books, but the Constitutional rights of our citizens, our
businesses and the States that surround Colorado. A decision in favor of E&E Legal's
constitutional argument would follow other recent, similar Federal Court decisions and would
lay the cornerstone to building a national effort to challenge the constitutionality of renewable
standards in the other twenty-nine states with similar statutes."
And last, we invite you to look at some photos. These pictures are wonderful views of wind
"farmers" planting 45 tons of rebar and 630 yards of concrete to grow one wind turbine. It is
certain nothing else will ever "grow" in this field.
(05-10-14) This article was published today in the Columbus Dispatch, Dayton Daily News and
Springfield News Sun. It deserves comment. The columnist and the paper are trying to make SB
310 look harmful to Ohioans. It is anything but. Senator Faber and Speaker Batchelder are to be
commended for standing up to the wind industry and investment bankers who are merely trying
to make huge profits at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers. Please take a moment to voice
your support for SB 310 to freeze the mandates.
(05-09-14) Please vote and help our friends in Maine. Thanks!
Please take 5 seconds to vote here.
(05-08-14) Yesterday, in an effort to address some of the concerns of the Ohio Consumers
Council, Ohio Manufacturer's Association and AWEA, a substitute Senate Bill was introduced.
This bill will be heard at 9:30 am this morning. We have attached press coverage describing the
current state of affairs. The revised proposal eliminates the in-state mandate. This is one point we
pushed hard for. The bill also opens up the definition of renewable to include other forms of
power which we also advocated. The freeze in this bill is only for three years but during that
time, a study committee will take a close look at the costs and, we hope, other issues like siting.
It is anyone's guess what will happen next but this bill is a good step. We will keep you posted
and thank you again for your support.
Congratulations to Nino Vitale on a decisive win for the 85th District of the Ohio House of
Representatives!
(05-07-14) At about 1:00 this morning the Senate voted to adopt SB 310 to freeze the renewable
energy mandate. NextEra, a wind developer, says we have won "for now". But it is a big win and
we believe a strong case can be made for why the mandate harms ratepayers while enriching the
investment banking community. At the end of the day we think this is more about money than it
is about energy. (See the attached Goldman Sachs policy designed to ensure a profitable market
for renewable energy credits.) There were many people on the team that brought this victory.
Tom Stacy, Linda Hughes, Milo Schaffner, Nino Vitale, Kevon Martis, Lisa Linowes, Sherri
Lange, Michael Shepherd, Charles Ruma, Gary Biglin, Brent Heffner, Dawn Davis, Page and
Grace Mays, many friends from Champaign, Logan, Hardin, Auglaize, Van Wert, Mercer,
Crawford, Seneca, Miami and more. We know we are forgetting some - so many of you who
wrote throughout to say you were praying for us. Next week the House will begin hearings on
the bill and it is expected to pass. A study committee will be formed and the work will begin
again. We will continue to keep you informed. We need you to stick with this!
Elsewhere, UNU filed its reply brief with the Ohio Supreme Court. The attached reply brief
addresses the Constitutionality of the in-state mandate. This will be the last document filed
before the oral arguments in the court which will likely take place in the fall.
We also understand from a recent conversation with a central Ohio Congressman, that the
Production Tax Credit may not be extended this time. Iberdrola announced today the
abandonment (for now) of a project in New York with local reports saying: ""It lines right up
with what the town has been sharing with anyone who's been asking us," he said Wednesday.
"Iberdrola withdrew their local application quite a while ago, and we have had no
communications with them. If the tax credits both at the state and federal level aren't
there, these projects are not economically viable."
(05-06-14) The war is on - see the article in yesterday's Cleveland Plain Dealer. The alleged
"compromise" is an amendment drafted by Terrence O'Donnell on behalf of Sen. LaRose and
presumably Cliff Hite along with the Ohio Manufacturer's Association and the American Wind
Energy Association and the wind developers working in Ohio. All we can do is keep up the
pressure. Many people think this article was fed to the newspaper to create an "appearance" of
compromise while in reality a war is being waged and we are on the front lines. Should the
mandates remain in place, it is Senator Faber's district that will be destroyed and he is the
President of the Senate. There are mountains of politics involved here and the upcoming reelection of the Governor comes into the picture. No one wants the Republican Party to appear to
be embroiled in an internal fight. But that is exactly where they are.
Meanwhile, the Northwest Wind, LLC project in Paulding County that was approved by the
Ohio Power Siting Board last year is in trouble. Its parent company, National Wind, declared
bankruptcy. Milo Schaffner has advised us that only a few access roads were started in an effort
to qualify for the federal subsidies before they expired. No meaningful construction ever took
place.
Thanks to all who called the Governor's Office and Senator Faber. We will do our best to keep
you informed
(04-30-14) The Kenton Times report summary on a candidate debate follows. Note that the
incumbent senator (Cliff Hite) for District One continues to believe it is his civic duty to promote
wind turbines where people live--because he says......people do want them...?
MILO SCHAFFNER understands what a wind development does to an area--he has lived it.
VOTE SCHAFFNER FOR SENATE DISTRICT 1!
Conservative principles questioned in race for District 1 in Ohio Senate
Cliff Hite: Hite has been a supporter of wind energy development in his district including the
existing wind farms in Van Wert and Paulding counties and proposed developments in Hardin
County. Most people support the development of the farms, he noted, and the tax revenue it will
generate for schools, townships and counties.
The development not only is in the best economic interest of the communities involved, but will
improve the climate for future generations.
"If people want them, I want them and people do want them," Hite said of the wind farms.
He said criticism by his opponents that he is accepting campaign contributions from the wind
farm developers inaccurately implies he is being influenced by the donations.
"That does not influence my decisions," said Hite. "I hold their feet to the fire."
The legislature is considering making future adjustments to the PILOT (Pay In Lieu Of Taxes)
program, but Hite sees wind as one of the pieces in the solution to the state's energy future.
"Wind, solar, bio-degradable, nuclear, coal, natural gas all have roles in our energy policy,"
Milo Schaffner: Schaffner is a trustee of Hoaglin Township in Van Wert County and has seen
first-hand the need for local control in the development of wind farms. He said the distance
approved by the state legislature for distance between turbines and homes is not sufficient.
"People are living too close to the turbines," he said.
But making changes to those regulations are not likely to happen with Senator Cliff Hite in the
Senate, said Schaffner.
"Look who is giving him a lot of money - wind, wind, wind," said Schaffner. "There is nothing
wrong with taking money, but when your views are skewed by that, it is wrong."
Schaffner believes Hite's support for establishing a setback from the foundation of a home
instead of from a property line was made to better serve the companies looking to develop the
farmland into wind farms, rather than in the interest of the people living in the area.
(04-29-14) Just released is a new survey from Ohioans for Sustainable Jobs. We have attached a
copy of the survey results which provide strong support for either freezing or repealing Ohio's
energy mandates. While we have often taken a measured stance when looking at polls, we
applaud this poll for providing copies of the questions asked and for giving the survey
respondents enough information to make an informed reply. The press release covering the
survey is below and the polling results are attached. The message is that Ohioans do not want
government to tell them what to do and they do not want to be forced to pay for something they
had no say in. Moreover, they don't want to vote for someone who supports mandates and higher
energy costs.
While polls are designed to influence policy makers - and we note here that the Ohio Senate will
be holding another hearing on SB 310 this Wednesday - the wind industry is also working to
influence policy makers at the local, state and federal levels. Wind News has written much on
this topic. But a recent article in a wind industry trade publication sets a new low for a public
relations strategy. Instead of supporting research into the health effects of low frequency noise or
offering property value guarantees to non-participating property owners, the wind industry is
recommending strategies to win public support that have more to do with manipulation that
honesty. In "Smart Community Engagement" from North American Windpower, developers are
encouraged to:



Investigate the voting patterns of influential families
Mobilize supporters to lobby decision-makers; and
Stack the deck at public hearings
After all these years, developers are still so blinded by money, they still resort to political
strategies that have little credibility with communities. The new poll results from Ohioans for
Sustainable Jobs may be a harbinger that public support is turning away from wind or at least
turning away from the public subsidies and mandates that prop them up.
(04-28-14) Tragedy struck in South Dakota as a small plane crashed in foggy weather killing
four people at a NextEra wind farm. The report also notes that another small plane suffered a
fatal accident in 2008. The FAA attributed the 2008 crash to a combination of difficulty
maneuvering around a wind farm, lack of instrument reading equipment and bad weather. The
Champaign County community has said over and over again that the proposed Everpower
project poses a serious threat to local aviation. Most pilots in the area fly on visual not instrument
and turbulence generated from wind turbines is well documented. We continue to believe the
project threatens aviation-related tourism such as the MERFI as well as diminishes Grimes Field
as a flight destination.
Locally, the Urbana Daily Citizen devoted a significant portion of its front page today with a
story on a Logan County couple who withdrew as intervenors in the Scioto Ridge Everpower
project. This was odd in that, as far as we know, a group of citizens who asked to intervene has
not yet been granted that status by the OPSB. Technically the people who withdrew were never
intervenors to begin with. The UDC decided this was "news". The UDC also received the press
release from the Ohio Chamber about the poll showing lack of support for the Ohio renewable
mandates but chose not to report it.
In national news, political pundits increasingly point to the states as being the place where
legislation is being passed while Congress remains in gridlock. The Washington Post takes a
look at state action on energy policy in the absence of federal action and puts a spotlight on
Ohio. The Post questions where Governor Kasich will stand if asked to sign legislation freezing
the mandate. The Post falls back on pro-mandate polls to erroneously claim public support for
the mandates :
"In Ohio, which relied on coal for 69 percent of electricity generation in 2013, the push to
reverse the renewable-energy standards is very much alive, with the Akron-based utility
company FirstEnergy leading the charge.
Environmental groups who are fighting to protect Ohio's renewable-energy standards fear that
the heavily Republican legislature will vote in favor of the reversal, so they are placing their
faith in Gov. John Kasich (R). He has given qualified support to renewables in the past, saying in
his 2012 State of the State address that, although the state should avoid anything that drives up
costs for residents, "we need to embrace renewables."
This year, he hasn't taken a position on the reversal bill. Opinion polls in Ohio show widespread
support for expanding renewable-energy use, and Kasich is running for reelection this year. But
the governor, who won by a slim margin in 2010, is thought to harbor ambitions for national
office, and it isn't clear how the issue cuts for him politically. "
Last, a hat tip to Tom Stacy for his wonderful depiction of how much local Ohio taxpayers give
away to wind energy developers when they grant tax abatement and receive PILOT payments
instead. This is what the Hardin County Commissioners have done to their community. Let's
hope they "get the picture" and rescind their Alternative Energy Zone designation.
(04-26-14) As an increasing number of Hardin County residents are waking up to the fact that
the county is a designated Alternative Energy Zone in which tax abatement to Everpower is
automatic, there is increasing pressure on the County Commissioners to rescind the designation.
A press report from the Kenton Times indicates that the Commissioners did not fully understand
the impacts of their decision to establish an AEZ. It appears that the Farm Bureau's Dale Arnold
has been actively engaged in the discussion as he tries to equate "wind farming" with agriculture.
" But Arnold said neighbors are reminded when they move out to the country that they are not
entering a residential area. "This is a business and working zone." Well, actually no, it isn't. A
rural residential area is a place where people live and some of them farm or lease their land for
farming. In order to develop wind in Ohio, the law had to the pre-empt the zoning that protected
people living in the country. Sadly, the inadequate setbacks successfully negotiated by the wind
developers meant that when local zoning was pre-empted, residents were left with next to no
protection at all. When people move out to the country they don't expect that - nor should they.
Similar "awakenings" are happening in other places, too. We note in a story from Kokomo,
Indiana that thousands of citizens awakened to an E.ON project planned for Howard County
after hearing from neighboring Grant County elected officials. "Brock said county officials have
been misled by E.ON when asking about potential drawbacks to wind turbines, such as decreased
property values, safety and noise levels. "I was 100 percent, maybe 110 percent in favor of wind
farms when I was approached," he said. "I voted in favor of it. However, after my own research
and after being misled on a number of issues, I'm very much opposed to them."
In Ireland, many landowners are stuck with lease options that remain in effect even though
changes in government policy may mean that the wind farms will not be built. The Ireland Law
Society says "the lease options negotiated by energy companies could still have serious longterm consequences for farming families." The Law Society is calling upon the Irish Farmers
Association (our Farm Bureau equivalent) to help leaseholders renegotiate their leases. The Law
Society states that farmers did not realize they were giving away the rights to do what they wish
with their land for 30 years or more. Moreover, farmers believed that income from the leases was
farm income. "Ms. Fagan also warned that the income from the wind farm leases - the bulk of
them initially for five-year periods - will be treated as commercial income and not farm-related
income. "Many farmers have received a payment of €1,000 from wind farm companies for the
execution of the option over their farm. These payments are fully taxable and do not qualify as
income that can be set off against ordinary agricultural reliefs. Their net benefit after tax relative
to the personal restrictions they impose on the farmer is questionable," she said."
While rural residents, farmers and even County Commissioners are waking up to a reality much
different than they were led to believe, wildlife and birding associations are waking up as well.
We note in this story that a coalition of 70 organizations have signed on to a letter to the
Secretary of Interior (letter attached) requesting national policies for wind turbine siting. "When
it comes to wind energy, siting is everything," the groups wrote. "Indeed, we believe that much
of this conflict could be averted by a National Wind Energy Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS), which would determine where wind energy should be developed and where it should not.
"Siting wind energy turbines in major bird migration routes, in or near critical breeding habitat,
and in or near other sensitive areas, such as wetlands, wildlife refuges and parks, and priority
Greater Sage-Grouse habitat poses far too great a risk to our public trust resources, including
birds and bats," they added."
Excuse us for pointing out that these birding groups supported wind development in the name of
climate change, green ideology or whatever until the turbines "came home to roost" in important
bird and bat areas. All of these stories have a common thread of support for wind until it happens
to you. And we wonder why birds still have a higher priority than people - and that includes the
folks at the Blackswamp Bird Observatory who are now fighting the LeedCo Icebreaker project
in Lake Erie. We still do not see these folks supporting SB 310.
As battles heat up in local communities, politicians are now awake and responding. In
England the clash between the country's two major political parties over wind has become a
significant issue in their coming national elections. If the Conservatives win, much could change
including an end to subsidies and more of a deciding voice for local communities.
And, happily, as Investors Business Daily reports, the investment community is waking up to
the fact that both private and public investment in wind is a loser. "It's not a stretch to believe the
real motivation behind the big push for another round of "temporary" wind subsidies is to line
the pockets of major Democratic campaign donors who have bet the farm on renewable energy.
Now those investments are going bust, so the CEOs are rushing to President Obama and Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid to be financially rescued. And these are the people who say that
Republicans are in the game of pay to play."
We can't help remarking on the irony that the Farm Bureau who continues to confuse industrial
wind development with agricultural endeavors has actually encouraged everyone from wellmeaning rural people to county commissioners to "major Democratic campaign donors" to "bet
the farm" . All across the world people are waking up to the consequences of a bad bet.
(04-23-14) We had to chuckle when the Urbana Daily Citizen printed on today's front page an
Associated Press story about the colorful antics of the Senate Public Utilities Committee, Sen.
Bill Seitz. Apparently left with little else to defend against a freeze on the renewable mandates,
opponents of Senate Bill 310 have resorted to whining about Chairman's Seitz conduct. After
sitting through more than a year of hearings ourselves, we marvel that Seitz could sit still at all as
an endless parade of lobbyists and environmental ideologues have tried every way known to man
to protect their guaranteed renewable market.
At the national level, Sen. Lamar Alexander is keeping up the pressure on his colleagues to do
away with wind subsidies. Many in Washington and across the country are astounded that
President Obama has once again delayed the Keystone pipeline. Given the ongoing recession and
the number of real jobs that hang in the balance, there can be no reason other than politics for the
ongoing delay. This delay may impact the farm community later this year as rail cars to carry
grain to market will be harder to come access since they will be carrying oil. Speaking of
recession, we note that Champaign County is one of only ten counties in Ohio with an
unemployment rate at or below 5.2%.
We are now watching a new "wrinkle in the wind" as the Ohio Department of Natural Resources
and the Ohio EPA have proposed inserting a provision in the mid-biennium budget bill that
would assess penalty fees on wind operators who kill birds. The two cabinet officials opine that
such a program would help raise revenue for the state to use in the protection of wildlife
threatened by wind turbines. The whole thing sounds crazy and it is unclear where the idea
originated. We shared a press report about the penalty fee program with wildlife expert Jim
Wiegand and he replied with his annotated version of the story.
Press Report on the Mid-Biennium Budget Review (House Bill 490) as annotated by wildlife
expert Jim Wiegand
The Director also shared that imposing fees on wind farms that kill too many birds and bats
would help reduce the industry's negative effect on wildlife.................... How can this help if the
studies are rigged and this industry's profits are so high that it will just be considered a cost of
doing business? Look at the drug companies settling periodic class action suits on their bad
drugs that should not be allowed.
Allowing ODNR to set wildlife "taking" limits for wind farms was only one of several proposals
that Director Zehringer and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director Craig Butler
pitched to the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee considering the environmental
mid-biennium review budget bill (HB 490)....................Setting limits is not enforceable nor
should it even be considered until proper studies have been conducted. Proper studies would
allow for better management, accurate take limits, and far more in potential fines the industry
hides most of their mortality.
Chairman Rep. Dave Hall advised members that the committee would "take our time" in
deliberating on the bill and likely won't meet again until the second week in May when the panel
will hear proponent and opponent testimony on the MBR measure.............It should take as much
time as is needed for proper studies to be conducted and evaluated. Sometime in May is not
enough time for anything except to railroad though a decision.
Mr. Zehringer said the proposed limits on wind farms generating more than 5 megawatts of
electricity would allow the Division of Wildlife to charge fees consistent with the value of
wildlife being killed by whirling blades of wind turbines in Ohio..........There should be no fees
based upon megawatts. They should be imposed upon on everyone (land owners, developers, and
current owners) that operate a propeller style wind turbine. Fees should also not be passed on to
ignorant consumers or taxpayers locked into wind energy contracts.
The measure would allow the chief to take into account the size, location and amount of
"incidental take" to tailor limits and fees to each wind farm, he said. "Our interest is to avoid,
minimize and mitigate to the greatest extent possible the taking of wildlife as a result of the
operation of these facilities."................. Unless the Chief is an expert in the field of wildlife, this
chief should not be able to set any limits. "Our interest is to avoid, minimize and mitigate to the
greatest extent possible the taking of wildlife as a result of the operation of these facilities." This
statement has been a line used by the industry for over 30 years while they continue to annihilate
wildlife across North America. This statement, like the road to Hell, is paved with good
intentions.
"Rep. Rex Damschroder challenged the notion of charging businesses a fee for killing birds and
he compared it to taxing drivers for killing deer that dart out into the road".......... Poor analogy
because drivers are not ripping up and down roads in wildlife refuges or along ridgelines at 200
miles per hour.
"Noting that wind farm operators have no control over where the animals fly". .............this is
correct but they have control over where they choose to build their deadly turbines and they have
control over the fraudulent documents they produce to hide how deadly they are. They also have
very reasonable and accurate knowledge of bird and bat behavior in the areas where they put
their turbines and do nothing to avoid high usage areas.
"Director Zehringer said charging a fee would help fund wildlife programs that could help ensure
that reduced bird and bat populations are eventually replaced"................... How in God's name
are any of the important bird and bat populations being slaughtered off by wind turbines ever
going to be replenished by giving money to wildlife groups that are part of the rigging process?
Division of Wildlife Chief Scott Zody noted that wildlife is considered part of the public trust in
Ohio and nationally and, as such, taking animals generally requires permission. ......................
Currently public permission that is given, is based upon fraudulent documents and fraudulent
impact expectations.
The proposal would help the division research bird and bat populations, set acceptable levels of
"take" and penalize operators that exceed their limit, he said.............. Setting any acceptable
levels of "take" is an impossible feat unless the USFW voluntary regulation are done away with
and accountability regulations established that would include incarceration for the wind
industry's current fraudulent practices.
Rep. Andy Thompson said birds' migratory patterns tend to follow the most favorable winds and
questioned whether there was a fundamental conflict between wind farms and wildlife.
.......................There is nothing to question because wind farms establish an open killing season
on all bird and bat species.
Mr. Zody said the proposal would help the state to better balance the interests of the industry
with the needs of wildlife............... " No state can ever balance the needs of wildlife unless the
USFW voluntary regulations, which protect the wind industry's fraudulent practices, are done
away with.
Rep. John Patterson asked whether the measure could help the division learn more about changes
in birds' migratory patterns................Nothing new will ever be learned about bird/wind turbine
conflicts if studies are rigged and meaningful studies are avoided as they have been for decades
"What might be an appropriate position for a wind farm today might not be an appropriate
position in the future," he said.............. In time as bird and bat populations are destroyed by the
wind industry, they can then brag about lower rates of mortality and expect less resistance to
their deadly projects.
Mr. Zody agreed that the fee revenue could help the division better monitor bird movement and
learn more about changes in migratory patterns over time............What good is throwing money at
any problem if the studies are rigged? Altamont pass has been studying their problems for 30
year and the only thing that has been accomplished is more killing and more feadly rotor sweep
being installed.
Audubon was part of a legal settlement that required a 50% reduction in mortality . This is a
direct quote........... "The 2007 Settlement Agreement requires the Wind Power Companies to
reduce raptor mortality by 50% and to implement adaptive management measures if a 50%
reduction in mortality is not achieved".
I have found that very little has changed at Altamont Pass and one of the adaptive management
measures is that studies are being rigged to make it appear that lower mortality has been
achieved. It is all a huge fraud because hundreds of carcasses are now being eliminated from the
calculations. These fatalities include golden eagles, burrowing owls, red-tail hawks, and kestrels
are being culled from the data with the exclusionary term "incidental" carcasses. This was not
done with the pre-settlement studies. A high percentage of carcasses are also being eliminated
with new exclusionary formulas and undersized search areas.
Audubon knows about all this because I have written about it in several articles. If mortality in
any way ever goes down at Altamont, it will be due to diminished populations of the species
being slaughtered and not because of Audubon, adaptive management or more studies. Also note
that in the settlement that Audubon endorsed the repowering of Altamont with huge turbines.
This was a move that had been in the works for years by the industry, long before there was ever
a lawsuit. None of this really had anything to do with mortality. By endorsing the repowering of
Altamont Audubon helped to guarantee that at least 2-3 times more deadly rotor sweep will be
added to this wind farm. These huge turbines will have new mortality search areas 7-10 times too
small and it will appear on paper that mortality has decreased .
Rep. Jim Buchy compared the fee proposal to "an estate tax on birds."...................... Poachers
use premeditation and are prosecuted with fines and/or incarceration. The same should apply to
this industry. Also if I am not mistaken an Estate tax is deductible. This proposed fee/fine should
never be deductible .
Rep. Brian Hill drew this conclusion from the exchange: "It's time to burn more coal and burn
more natural gas.".........................deflection is a very poor reaction to an incredibly serious
problem. Wind turbines will cause the extinction of dozens of protected species in the near
future. Ask Rep. Brian Hill how these sprawling inefficient wind energy projects can really help
cure climate change when the growth in other energy sectors will always carry the energy
demand/ load for society.
We think Jim is on target.
(04-18-14) As another week passed, the rhetoric continued on the renewable mandate freeze. No
hearings were held this past week and there will be no hearings on the legislation this coming
week. This could be the result of negotiations to amend the bill but we do not know. The
Columbus PBS station aired a debate on the legislation between Tom Ford representing the
Advance Energy Economy group and Sam Randazzo representing industrial energy users. By
clicking on this link you can watch the debate. We think Sam Randazzo did a great job in
exposing how energy mandates ultimately harm jobs and the economy.
In the meantime, the Advanced Energy Economy crowd released a survey finding overwhelming
support for the mandates and renewable energy. They surveyed 600 people but did not release
the questions so it is hard to take the poll seriously. And given that it was conducted during their
campaign to defeat SB 310, it is even more questionable. If you click on the link above and read
the comments, it demonstrates there are lots of skeptical Plain Dealer readers who doubt the
survey. One such commenter points to a recent Quinnipiac Poll as an example of a more credible
survey. The results of the Quinnipiac are linked here and question # 27 reflects that most
Ohioans are concerned about jobs and education and not much else - not energy and not the
environment. Put in this context, the AEE poll looks pretty weak. We attached the press
release from AEE so you can read their spin for yourself.
While AEE was trying to make 600 answers to leading questions the basis for renewable energy
mandates in Ohio, over 7,000 protesters took to the streets of Dublin, Ireland to protest wind
turbines. We shared this photo with our friends in the Statehouse including Senator Faber. We
thought they would like a peek into the future of NW Ohio unless the mandate is repealed. Please
note also, the recent meeting in Van Wert County where Iberdrola promotes another planned
wind project.
(04-14-14) We are beginning to feel like ringmasters in a three ring circus as the action revs up at
the Local, State and National levels. Today we report on what's happening in each ring.
LOCAL - News from citizens in the region report ramped up action as Everpower's PR firm,
Wilt, travels the area seeking opportunities to make "educational" presentations favorable to the
wind industry. A drive through the countryside will reflect that where there is a "We Support
Buckeye Wind" sign, there is a "Vote Chamberlain" sign nearby. Mike Pullins is working
overtime. A Candidate Debate Night in Bellefontaine sponsored by the Logan County Branch of
the American Association of University Women and the Bellefontaine Examiner is scheduled for
Wednesday, April 16, 2014, at the Ohio Hi-Point Career Center Auditorium from 7:00-9:00 PM.
Both candidate Nino Vitale and Milo Schaffner will be on hand. Wind questions are sure to be
raised on this forum. We remind voters that if you are registered as an Independent, you are still
eligible to vote in the Republican Primary. VOTE VITALE - VOTE SCHAFFNER
STATE - Yesterday's Columbus Dispatch ran opposing opinion pieces on Senate Bill 310 to
freeze the state mandates. A renewable trade group executive and the sponsor of SB 310, Sen.
Troy Balderson both speak out on their views. We think Senator Balderson's position is just
common sense. Sam Randazzo points out that an OSU "study" manufactured by the trade group
has been proven to lack credibility. Elsewhere the Lake Erie wind project known as "Icebreaker"
found their application to the OPSB to be rejected for incompleteness. We understand this
setback may jeopardize federal funding LEEDCo was anticipating to receive in support of the
project.
NATIONAL - Senator Harry Reid announced his intention to move forward on a vote for a two
year extension of the Production Tax Credit when the Senate returns from its Easter recess. Reid
wants to see action on the legislation before Memorial Day. The Joint Committee on Taxation
estimated April 3 that a two-year extension of a 2.3-cents-per-kWh subsidy for new wind
turbines would cost taxpayers more than $13 billion over the next decade. There is considerable
tension in the US House as conservative members are raising objections to Speaker Boehner's
continued leadership. These concerns rest on the failure to constrain federal spending and the
PTC could wind up being a test of Republican resolve. Speculation is that tax extender
legislation could get tacked onto to some unrelated "must pass" bill. AWEA says they aren't
worried. Our friend Glenn Schleede has shared a letter he sent to members of Congress in
opposition to the extension of the PTC. Glenn urges everyone to write and invites us all to copy
any part or all of his letter if it is helpful to you.
(04-12-14) This is a quick note to thank you all for the incredible PUSH to get that letter into the
Ohio Power Siting Board. It was very impressive to have the two kick technique, right behind Al
and Suzanne's missive of 168 pages.
We really are thankful, and we must truly get together and have a shindig somewhere soon. Is
that still a word?
Behind this hideous idea were thousands more coming. So this was very important....I know,
they all are!
SPECIAL THANKS TO AL, SUZANNE, TOM W, TOM M, RICK UNGER, CHARLIE
WRIGHT, AND GIL OF THE HAWK ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA, WHO ALSO
WROTE HIS OWN LETTER. ALSO THANKS TO JIM WIEGAND WHO CONSTANTLY
FED US INFO, AND SUPPORTED THIS, AND WHOSE DEDICATION IS WELL KNOWN
IN THE WORLD. SPECIAL MENTION ALSO TO KEITH PETRIE OF LONGPOINT
WATERFOWL, AND HMANA.
In case you also missed the Master Resource List of special mentions.
PS we could use your comments on this story.
(04-11-14) Yesterday those who want to keep the energy efficiency and renewable mandates just
the way they are had their opportunity to testify. There were the usual suspects like the Sierra
Club and the Environmental Defense Fund. There were the companies that are subcontractors to
the wind developers like Hull Associates. There were others whose businesses rely on or receive
significant profit from the mandates. Some of these were small companies and some were great
big ones like Honda and Owens Corning. And of course there was Everpower's own Mike
Speerschneider, accompanied by his Vorys Attorney and Mike Pullins. The Farm Bureau
submitted written testimony. All in all there were 23 witnesses who testified in opposition to
freezing the mandates. We attach three testimonies from Everpower, the Farm Bureau and the
Hardin County Chamber of Commerce.
It is important to know that those companies that want Ohio's energy mandates to be eliminated
are those on whom significant costs have been placed. As the Columbus Dispatch writes:
"Utilities pay for renewable energy and energy-efficiency programs through special charges that
appear on customers' bills. This ranges from about $5 per month for a typical household to more
than $100,000 per month for a large company. Timken, a maker of steel and ball bearings,
estimates it will pay $2 million this year." So why would Honda oppose a bill that would limit or
get rid of costly special charges incurred by electricity customers? BECAUSE the rural electric
cooperatives in Ohio are EXEMPT from the energy efficiency and renewable mandates and they
DO NOT PAY the riders.* Honda is served by the co-ops and does not pay the charges that
Timken must pay. And what about Owens Corning? They make the fiberglass used in wind
turbine blades as well as some glass used in solar panels. A guaranteed market for their products
is more important to them than the health of all Ohio manufacturers and ratepayers. We have
included a comment posted on the Toledo Blade Editorial that provides a refreshingly different
perspective.
With respect to Everpower's Speerschneider testimony, many of the Committee members were
gone when he gave his remarks and he was asked only two leading questions by friendly
Senators. Speerschneider said he thought the Study Committee established under SB 310 should
do its work while the mandates remained in place and active. In the event the mandates were
frozen during the study period, he felt the bill ought to provide for their resumption automatically
at the conclusion of the Study Committee's work.
Other observations from the hearing were that the Committee is now considering eliminating the
exemption on the mandate surcharges and start adding those costs to the bills of Electric Co-op
customers - residents, farmers, small businesses - everyone. If the opponents of SB 310 ( like the
Farm Bureau) want to keep the mandates, maybe the farmers need to share the pain of their
costs. Senator Seitz said that the previous bills like SB 58 treated the opponents much more
favorably. Seitz admonished the opponents that maybe they should have supported SB 58 instead
of spending all their time "rolling marbles under his feet."
And finally, we have discussed the position of organizations like the Audubon Society. After
realizing that wind turbines in the migratory flyway over Lake Erie would be devastating to the
avian population, they worked hard to kill a project proposed by the Ohio National Guard. Now
that they are out of the woods temporarily, they have gone back to their old ways and have
joined the fray in opposing Senate Bill 310. They are aggressively seeking to have their members
oppose the freeze on the mandates on the basis that climate change will get worse without the
mandates and the birds will die. What can you say? They have no shame.
* Attached are maps of Hardin, Logan and Champaign County showing the geographic service
areas of the electric utility companies and the rural electric co-ops. The areas served by the Coops may be at risk in the future of losing their exemption from compliance with the mandates.
(04-10-14) Yesterday the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee began their serious
consideration of the bill to freeze the state's energy mandates at current levels. All testimony on
Tuesday was in favor of the bill. Today the opponents will be heard. We attach two presentations
- one from the Timken Company and one from Tom Stacy of Logan County. Both are excellent.
Given the words of these witnesses, two things are striking. One, as you will see below from the
press coverage of the Vitale-Chamberlain election presentations to the Logan County Chamber
of Commerce, there are HUGE differences between these two candidates. Vitale, representing
the free market, understands like yesterday's witnesses, that mandates are a manipulation of the
system and eventually hurt everyone. Chamberlain supports the leaseholder's alleged right to get
a little of the crony gravy despite the impact on others. He tosses off the real threat to people by
saying the Everpower projects won't happen if the community doesn't want them. Really? The
more one thinks about what Chamberlain is saying, the more he looks like what he is…a career
politician. The prospect of him ever being elected is frightening and we again urge all to take
charge of your future and VOTE VITALE. (If you are in Cliff Hite's district: VOTE
SCHAFFNER.)
Equally disappointing is the position that companies like Honda are taking in support of the
mandates. Perhaps they want to appear "green" for marketing purposes. But we suspect that the
taxpayer subsidies and renewable energy credits that lower their electric bill and reduce their
taxes are the main driver. Honda gets something for nothing courtesy of the Ohio ratepayer and
taxpayer. The notion, too, that they think it is appropriate for the government to tell them how to
run their business in terms of energy efficiency strategies is a puzzle. Are Timken and Honda on
the same planet?
During yesterday's hearings, one issue remained unclear. Senator Hite wanted to ensure all
existing built wind projects will continue to get the benefit of the mandate. Senator Seitz replied
that the wind industry should be happy that SB 310 potentially gives wind a guaranteed market at
the frozen level for the rest of time. That is they will if the Study Committee does not
recommend something different or if the legislature takes no further action after enacting SB
310. The question becomes not just whether the guarantee extends to already built projects or if
developers who have managed to negotiate power purchase agreements for approved but not
built projects would also be protected. Hite tried to imply that the State of Ohio cannot change
the terms of its energy policy for existing developers. The final article today from Lawrence
Solomon argues the opposite and is well worth reading. Solomon asks:
"Can the government break a contract for political purposes? Yes, says Osler. The Appeal Court,
in fact, "made it clear that proponents who choose to participate in discretionary government
programs, such as Ontario's renewable energy program, do so primarily at their own risk.
Governments may alter the policies that underlie a program, and may even alter or cancel such
programs, in a manner that may be fully lawful and immune from civil suit."
Renewable developers take note: Governments are entirely within their rights in going back on a
deal. In a democracy, when the deals are not only inspired by rank politics but are also so odious
as to outrage the voters, developers should expect nothing less."
(04-09-14) Last night Mike Pullins and a local couple attended the Union Twp. Trustees meeting
to question why they continue to oppose the Everpower project. They distributed a packet of
literature in an effort to demonstrate that wind turbines have no impact on property values, that
they reduce electric bills and save water. We recently heard from an area homeowner who
continues to have no luck selling her house and who has at least three written reports from
realtors saying the wind turbines were a factor in the decision. We provide an example below to
demonstrate that not only do poorly sited wind developments reduce selling prices, oftentimes
they render a home unsaleable. The figures from the homes that could not be sold at any price
are not included in the wind industry's "research". We won't even try to address the increase in
electric rates. The legislature will be dealing with that but we thought we would share a story
from Canada where "the plug has been pulled" on a proposed wind project after a finding that
""Manitoba Hydro has determined that the capacity value of wind generation within Manitoba to
meeting the winter peak load is zero," Hydro said in a report to the PUB. It doesn't really matter
what it costs if it isn't there when you need it. But the point is that all wind turbines must be
backed up by conventional generation.
All politics is local and throughout Ohio and the Midwest, citizens and ratepayers are continuing
to push back against wind with greater and greater force. In Tipton County Indiana, the three
Commissioners who supported wind now have Republican primary opponents in all three races.
The news report below states, "Now comes the political reckoning for those who supported the
Prairie Breeze plan. May 6, three races could determine whether Tipton County joins Boone
County in banning wind farms completely." We point out this line, in particular: "It wasn't until
the county council passed a tax abatement for the project, in December 2012, that the opposition
went viral. " We think it is just common sense.
Finally, we are giving you the latest update on our friend Guy Hands, the head of Terra Firma,
Everpower's owner. This story is a trip. Seems Guy is spending his time with resin garden
bunnies and "garden slippers for retirees" since his efforts to raise money for renewable energy is
being met with "headwinds".
Hello,
New feedback has been received on a showing of your listing at South Parkview Rd.
Buckeye State Realty viewed the property on Sunday, September 8th at 2:00 PM, and their
response to your feedback request is below:
1. Question: Is the customer interested in the property?
Answer: Not at all
2. Question: How well did the property show? (Please add comments below)
Answer: Good
3. Question: Compared to other similarly priced properties you have shown this client, this
house is: (Please add comments below)
Answer: Slightly worse
4. Question: Please rate this property (Please add comments below)
Answer: 3
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS: Landscaping needs redone. No pathway to basement
from outside. Wind mills to be installed in area is a set back.
If you wish to see the full activity report on this listing with all previous showings and feedback,
please log into the online system.
Thank you very much!
(04-08-14) I am sure you have heard that Senator Portman recently voted to include the wind
PTC as part of an extenders package in the Senate. Please feel free to pass the attached letters to
Senator Portman to members of your organization for signing. Additionally, if any member of
your organization signs a letter or makes a phone call to Senator Portman's office, I would
greatly appreciate hearing any intel they receive. We are working with our lobbyist to ensure that
the information we receive is passed onto our elected officials and any bit of information we get
is helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions!
Doc 1
Doc 2
Doc 3
Doc 4
Doc 5
Best,
Lindsey Kerr
Project Manager
(04-07-14) The Mansfield News reports there are a considerable number of wind projects in the
pipeline in Huron, Crawford, Richland, Seneca, Sandusky and Morrow Counties. These projects
may be at risk if the Ohio Renewable Mandate is frozen. Interestingly, as the Ohio Power Siting
Board contends that the state renewable mandate plays only a supporting role in their approvals
of wind projects, a representative of Green Energy Ohio states in the Mansfield News that "The
state RPS is the primary driver for development. It's what's creating demand for renewable
energy. With that gone, there will be no incentive to sign on to a purchase-power agreement. A
lot of wind farms are having trouble selling their power now." Hmmm…… We also chuckled
when this GEO rep complained that taxpayer subsidies for wind are no different than subsidies
for fossil fuels. According to Breitbart, the Heritage Foundation estimates that if the oil industry
received a commensurate subsidy, they would get a $30 dollar check for every barrel produced.
Breitbart also takes a well-deserved shot at the Republicans (including Sen. Rob Portman) who
supported including the PTC in the recent tax extenders bill. Breitbart notes: "Hence, both
Republicans and Democrats profess a desire to clean up the tax code and close "loopholes," yet
they can't even let a pair of subsidies that have already expired remain at rest. For all the talk
about incorrigible bipartisanship on Washington, most of the work on a committee level is quite
harmonious. Sadly, it usually benefits the corporate lobbyist and permanent political class."
A new and important paper written by Drs. Alec Salt and Jeffery T. Lichtenhan, both Professors
of Otolaryngology at Washington University in St. Louis, examines the many ways by which
unheard infrasound and low-frequency sound from wind turbines could distress people living
nearby. The introduction and conclusion of the paper is excerpted below. The full article is
attached. The professors note that, "In the coming years, as we experiment to better understand
the effects of prolonged low frequency sound on humans, it will be possible to reassess the roles
played by acousticians and professional groups who partner with the wind industry. Given the
present evidence, it seems risky at best to continue the current gamble that infrasound
stimulation of the ear stays confined to the ear and has no other effects on the body. " Salt and
Lichtenhan assert that the sound measurements used by acousticians in service to the wind
industry utilize a measurement that is essentially irrelevant to understanding the impact on the
human body. In that regard, we got a kick out of this poster.
(04-06-14) This week the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee will hold two hearings on SB
310 to freeze the renewable energy mandates. The first hearing will be Tuesday, April 8 at 4:00
p,m, in the Senate Finance Hearing Room. This meeting will be limited to Proponent and
Interested Party testimony. The following day, Wednesday, April 9th, hearings will resume at
9:00 a.m. for Opponents and Interested Party testimony. It is unclear at this point how many
hearings will be held after Wednesday but we are guessing that there may only be one more
hearing after this week. Most of the issues involved have been heard in the context of previous
legislation.
Because this bill requires the establishment of a "Study Committee" to explore issues, it stands to
reason that the Senate Public Utilities Committee does not need to duplicate the task of the Study
Committee in its hearings. As we reported earlier, the Study Committee will be comprised of
certain representatives, including someone from the Ohio Consumers' Counsel. We have linked
to an article about SB 310 from the Columbus Dispatch. In this article, the head of the Ohio
Consumers' Counsel calls the renewable mandates one of the "jewels" of the law that was passed
in 2008. It is clear that the Consumers' Counsel does not represent any "consumers" that we
know. If anyone wishes to testify in support of the freeze (and in opposition to the Consumers'
Counsel) you must complete and submit a Witness Slip as soon as possible. The Witness Slip is
attached for your use. Remember, you would testify as a PROPONENT on Tuesday. Again, we
encourage anyone who can attend these hearings to do so. The opponents will be there in force.
Everpower reports from elsewhere reflect ongoing concerns of the people in Allegany, NY who
fear that Everpower may take another run at their project if the Production Tax Credit is
reauthorized at the federal level. Meanwhile, closer to home, a letter to the Editor of the Kenton
Times calls for the County Commissioners to rescind Hardin County's Alternative Energy Zone
designation.
Finally, another blade broke in Indiana last week. It was the second blade break within a two
month period and follows earlier breaks at other wind projects which had been blamed on faulty
spar caps. This time G.E. thinks the cause may have been a lightning strike.
REMINDER: The polls are open for voting. Getting out to vote in the primary is important.
(04-05-14) Yesterday brought the expected as well as the unexpected. We expected the US
Senate Finance Committee would insert the Production Tax Credit into the tax extenders bill
which now will go to the US Senate Floor for a vote. What we did not expect was that Ohio
Senator Rob Portman would be one of five Republicans to make it happen. Portman was joined
by Grassley, Thune, Crapo and Cornyn. Rumor has it Portman was trying to get some tax relief
for former employees of Delphi and traded his vote. Or maybe he just thinks wind is great and
you should pay for it.
Unbelievable that Portman would do this!!!
Please don't pass up any opportunities to let the Senator know what you think of his vote. The
Senate passed tax package comes with an $86 billion cost and it only extends tax breaks for
TWO YEARS. We have provided an article that gives a good overview on the sausage-making
as well as perspective on what happens next.
We also follow-up with another article from the Columbus Dispatch about Senate Bill 310 and
the upcoming fight. The pro-wind folks will presumably be arguing about jobs since they sure
can't make a good argument for anything else about wind. We hope they don't forget to count all
the jobs created for the dead bird, bat and eagle collectors.
Perhaps the best of the day, however, comes from the Deputy Editor of the Cleveland Plain
Dealer who screams out that "In Ohio, we've got yet another effort brewing to scrap "renewable
energy" standards that never should have been passed, because they require utilities to buy power
at artificially high rates. "Alternative energy" rent-seekers wallow in subsidies. Consumers get
stuck with the bill." This article is hysterical - really. It will make you laugh and give you hope
that while they are bumbling around in Cincinnati, the folks in Cleveland are on the
money…..literally.
(04-04-14) Much is happening in the ongoing effort to stop wind industrial development
everywhere! Please see the letter below from Sherri Lange, CEO of North American Platform
against Wind Power. The attached letter is a joint effort between Canada and the US to put a
stop to the building of wind turbines in Lake Erie.
As always, with wind development, there is little lead time to gather signatures for opposition.
The attached letter has already been submitted, but additional signatures can be attached to it for
the next few days.
Please also consider adding your individual name, and the name of your organization if you have
one.
SEE SHERRI'S INSTRUCTIONS BELOW FOR SUBMITTING YOUR INFORMATION.
YOU WILL BE SENDING YOUR INFO DIRECTLY TO HER.
Sherri's email
As always, thanks for your help and support.
Dear Friends and Fellow Birders,
FOR THOSE NEW TO THIS PROJECT: 6-9 INDUSTRIAL TURBINES are proposed for about
4-6 miles off shore of Cleveland. The environmental cost will be serious. LEEDCo CEO, Mr.
Wagner, has justified his proposal with some extremely dubious assessments as you see in the
letter.
Wind turbines do not belong in the Great Lakes, prime migration areas for both Canada and the
US. Ontario has an offshore moratorium. Please help us to defeat this "incubator" project, which
is the pilot project for thousands more!
We enlist your help with this shut down of a project that we must now allow. TIME SENSITIVE
for permit ONE, from Ohio Power Siting Board, April 7, 2014.
We have heard from OPSB and US Army Corps of Engineers, that they will add additional
names to the letter we had to speedily send out a day or so ago. We had to get hard copies (12)
in the mail as well. But now if we act fairly quickly, we can send them additional names to add to
the letter.
PLEASE CONSIDER adding your name: we need an address, and of course as many from the
US as we can get. But all are welcome. If you have a membership with a group, you may choose
to add that. But not necessary.
Many thanks for your consideration. Power in numbers.
Hawk Migration sent their own letter of concern. HMANA
Just send me your info, I will create a list and send along as an addendum.
(04-03-14) Today a very full hearing room was the scene of the first hearing on Ohio Senate Bill
310. Sponsor Troy Balderson was the sole witness at the hearing. There was very little
questioning and Senator Hite had a scowl on his face all day. All the wind developers were
present (including Mike Pullins of Everpower) as well as AWEA representatives, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, and many assorted lobbyists. The entire front row seats were filled
with the anti-fracking crowd one of whom wore a bright red decorated NO FRACKING cape. It
seemed apparent that the pro-mandate people were the no frack-no nukes-no coal crowd. We
could call them the "no-jobs" folks. Senator Balderson's testimony was standard fare but during
the limited questioning, he was adamant that his bill was for one group only: ordinary Ohioans.
GOOD! Our Logan County colleague, Linda Hughes, went right up to Senator Balderson at the
conclusion of the hearing to introduce herself as an "ordinary Ohioan" who was going to hold
him to his commitment. Good job! The coverage provided in tonight's Gongwer Report is
comprehensive and we encourage you to read it.
We have also included a perspective from the other side. It appears that the Ohio Environmental
Council will try to push the jobs aspect of the mandates as a "benefit". We are puzzled by this
approach which fails to recognize that the cost of electricity is imbedded in every product that we
buy. An increase in the cost of electricity due to mandates not only raises our home electricity
bills but it increases costs of our employers and all the products we buy. In short, it is
inflationary. We will hear much more of this in the coming days.
On February 26th, Wind News reported that Everpower was probably the likely buyer of the
bankrupt Big Sky wind project in Illinois. Today Bloomberg News reports that Everpower has
purchased this 240 MW facility thereby doubling its US holdings. The story is reported below. It
is important for Terra Firma to have producing wind assets in order to attract investment in its
newest renewable fund.
UNU has polled its Board and we are in agreement that Republican candidate Nino Vitale is the
best choice for election on the May primary. Nino supports a free market, property rights and
strong local government. Mandates, subsidies and the taking of a neighbor's private property for
the setback safety zone of an industrial turbine are opposed by Nino Vitale. We urge everyone to
vote. This will be a hotly contested race and, because there appears to be no general election
opponent, the winner of the primary will be the next Representative of Champaign, parts of
Logan and parts of Shelby County. Nino is endorsed by outgoing Representative John Adams. If
you would like to know more about Vitale's candidacy, visit his website.
(04-02-14) We have several important messages to pass along to you this morning. Thanks to the
active participation of our readers and others like you across the nation, the first draft of the bill
to extend numerous expired tax breaks did not include the Production Tax Credit for wind. Lisa
Linowes of WindAction sent us this news last night and her message is that we must keep up the
calls and faxes and emails.
Happily we know where Congressman Jordan stands - squarely opposed. Attached is a March
18th letter from Congressman Jordan to a constituent stating his opposition to the PTC. If you
see him - thank him.
The big push for the PTC is coming from Iowa's Senator Grassley who lobbies for ethanol when
he isn't busy helping wind. Our good friend, Glenn Schleede has drafted a great letter to the
Senate Finance Committee and he invites us to copy all or parts of it if needed when contacting
the Senate committee members. Glenn's letter is reprinted below.
AS if that wasn't enough going on last night, a debate among the Ohio House Republican
candidates to fill the seat of retiring Rep. John Adams, took place in Shelby County. Reports of
the debate reveal that candidate Nino Vitale is actively speaking out against subsidies for wind
whether they be at the federal, state or local level. Also on the podium was candidate Doug
Chamberlain who stated that he is neither for or against wind. He takes no position. Friends, that
is how we got into this ditch and that kind of position will keep us there. Voting commenced
yesterday. Do not stay home - go vote for your future.
As the political action heats up in the US, bombs were dropped in the UK yesterday when Prime
Minister David Cameron's spokesman indicated "David Cameron wants to go into the next
election pledging to "rid" the countryside of onshore wind farms, a source close to the Prime
Minister has said. Mr. Cameron wants to toughen planning laws and tear up subsidy rules to
make current turbines financially unviable - allowing the Government to "eradicate" turbines, the
source said." We are watching the stock price of Infinis, the Terra Firma spin off renewable
company sink. This must make it difficult for the efforts of Terra Firma to raise money for its
next equity investment fund.
Glenn Schleede Letter to US Senators
How much will Senator Grassley's plan to extend the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) add to
the national debt we are passing along to our children and grandchildren?
On Thursday, April 3, 2014, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee is expected to consider and
report out to the full Senate a bill that would extend various federal tax breaks.
Senator Grassley (R-IA) has announced that he will amend this tax break "extender" bill to
continue for two more years the wind "Production Tax Credit" (PTC) that benefits corporations
that own "wind farms." Owners of "wind farms" would be able to reduce their income tax
liability by $0.023 (adjusted upward for inflation) for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced
by their wind turbines during the next 10 years.
The wind PTC was initially passed in 1992 as a temporary incentive to help a then fledgling
industry - with the expectation that wind energy would be environmentally benign and become
economically competitive. However, after 20 years of lucrative wind energy tax breaks and
subsidies valued at over $100 billion:
• Producing electricity from wind has proven to have numerous adverse environmental,
economic, electric system reliability, scenic, and property value impacts not originally foreseen
and still not admitted by wind industry advocates; and
• Electricity from wind remains high in true cost and low in real value - with the wind industry
providing no evidence that electricity from wind will ever be commercially viable (i.e., without
large tax breaks and subsidies).
Grassley's proposed 2-year extension of the wind PTC would add more than $20 billion to the
huge national debt that Congress is loading on to our children and grandchildren. That $20
billion would be in addition to the hundred plus billions that have already been lavished on the
wind industry since the wind PTC was instigated by Senator Grassley in 1992!
Further, since the Government must pay interest on the national debt and Congress has shown no
intention of paying off the national debt the burden of tax breaks such as the wind PTC will grow
and grow - more than doubling the debt over the next two decades even if interest charges
average only 4% per year and there was no more annual federal budget deficits.
Clearly, it is time for all members of Congress, including Senator Grassley, to resist pressure
from the wind industry and stand up for today's tax payers - and even more so for our children
and grandchildren who will bear - unfairly -- the debt that is being passed on to them.
Glenn R. Schleede
Lisa Linowes Report from Washington
BIG NEWS - the PTC and ITC were LEFT OUT of the first draft of the Senate tax extender bill
thanks to Republicans on the Committee objecting!
Thank you again for taking the time to contact the Senators on the Senate Finance Committee.
Your voices matter more than you can imagine. See the article below.
Unfortunately, we're not out of the woods by a long shot. Sen Grassley (R-IA) is expected to
propose an amendment on Thursday that adds the credits back in for 2 years. No costs have been
released yet, but the PTC/ITC are cited as the most expensive of the energy tax provisions being
considered. The PTC alone could easily hit $25 billion if extended for 2 years.
Please keep emailing/calling. If anyone needs help with the list of email addresses to send to, do
not hesitate.
(04-01-14) Today's Urbana Daily Citizen reports on Everpower's response to the appeal filed by
Champaign County and the townships of Goshen, Union and Urbana. The appeal concerns issues
related to Everpower's relocation and consolidation of the staging area on US Hwy 36.
Everpower raises concerns about delays and expense that could result if the Ohio Power Siting
Board rejects the County/Township appeal and it goes on to the Supreme Court. Everpower
requests the opportunity to negotiate the issues within a narrowly defined framework.
Elsewhere AWEA has put out a call to action for its supporters to write and call Ohio legislators
to derail Senate Bill 310. A wind developer in Findlay placed a full page ad in yesterday's
Columbus Dispatch trying to generate citizen opposition to the bill which gets its first hearing
tomorrow afternoon. The ad placed by ONE Energy is so confusing, a retired attorney for the
PUCO thought it was an ad in support of the bill! We have attached a copy.
(03-31-14) Sharing information with you on the Senate Public Utilities Committee hearing this
Wednesday at the Statehouse.
Consider loading your car with your friends and heading to Columbus on Wednesday. A full
house of supporters would be a good thing.
Thanks.
Information on the Wednesday hearing is below.
A show of strength for affected citizens at this hearing would be a positive force.
There are yellow "no wind turbine" caps available to borrow--if you would like to wear one and
have others who would do so, please let me know soon.
Note that the hearing is scheduled to begin at 2:30 OR the end of the Senate session--my
experience is the hearings do not start at the scheduled time, but there is no way to know until
you get there.
Public Utilities
Committee Notice
To: Members of the Public Utilities Committee
From: William Seitz, Chair
Date: March 28, 2014
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
2:30 PM, Or at the conclusion of Session
Finance Hearing Room
Agenda:
SB 310; Balderson
Modifications to renewable energy, energy efficiency, and peak demand reduction requirements
1st Hearing Sponsor Pending Referral
(03-29-14) Today is a big day. Senator Faber is leading an effort to freeze the Ohio renewable
mandate. Legislation is scheduled to be introduced today and hearings will begin soon with the
stated goal of enactment before June. What does this mean? We consulted with Tom Stacy,
Ohioan for Affordable Energy and Lisa Linowes, Executive Director of WindAction. They
believe a freeze at 2014 levels would result in a "need" to generate a total of about 117 MW of
in-state renewable energy.* When that amount of new generation is attained, there will be no
further requirement to generate more in-state renewable energy. The current mandate is filled by
a variety of sources: Biomass, hydro, wind and coal mine methane (CMM). Tom Stacy
developed the attached pie chart to show the amount each source currently provides: Biomass
(45%); Hydro (15% ); Wind (37% ); and CMM (3%). If wind has a CF (Capacity Factor) of 30%
and, if it fulfills about 37% of the in-state requirement for wind, only 43.29 MW's of wind would
be needed before the mandate is capped or "frozen".
There are many more than 43 MW's of wind that have been approved in Ohio by the OPSB. The
question becomes, if only 43 MW of in-state generation would be needed, would any Ohio utility
buy the excess? If Ohio generated wind is not the most affordable choice, it is doubtful that a
utility would buy it absent a mandate. If there is no market for in-state wind, there would not be a
compelling reason to build it. The risk to a lender would increase substantially. We can expect
furious pushback from the renewable industry, mostly wind, against freezing the mandate at
2014 levels. We will be there as we have been for the past few years to report on the legislative
battle. But this time, having the support of Senator Faber will very likely enhance the prospects
for passage.
(*According to the 2012 filings by the utilities and suppliers, Ohio's RPS load (load subject to
the RPS) was 131.2 million MWhs, Assuming the same RPS load for 2013 and 2014, and
assuming wind provides ALL of the in-state obligation, Ohio will need an incremental increase
in installed wind for each year of 117 MW at a 30% CF. This number is still inflated because
Ohio's law calculates RPS load as the average in sales for the preceding three years. Electricity
sales for most utilities dropped off precipitously from 2009 to 2010 and dropped further in 2011.
In 2013, the 2009 sale numbers were no longer part of the baseline RPS calculations and you
should see the RPS load drop by 20+% for most suppliers. Lisa Linowes)
(03-29-14) Yesterday was like a lightning round. Senate Bill 310 was introduced in the Senate,
referred to the Senate Public Utilities Committee and scheduled for its first hearing on April 2nd
at 2:30. A companion bill will be introduced in the House very soon. This whole process will be
wrapped up in the next 60 days. A Study Committee to review the mandates will include: five
members from each legislative chamber; the chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio; the Ohio Consumers' Counsel; and two utility representatives. Other members would
represent: an electric services company; an environmental group; manufacturers; industrial
customers; small business; large business; and residential consumers. We are not certain what is
meant by residential consumers but we hope it is an individual who understands and advocates
for greater setbacks measured from property lines not homes. We have encouraged the
appointment of Tom Stacy but will have to wait to see what happens. The Study Committee must
recommend changes to the existing law by the end of 2015. If the General Assembly takes no
action on the recommendations, the freeze will remain indefinitely.
An important consideration for Ohio's policy is the cost of renewable energy for ratepayers
including small business and industry. The federal Production Tax Credit subsidy impacts that
cost and it has currently expired. Next week the US Senate Finance Committee will hold a
hearing to extend the PTC along with other federal subsidies. Lisa Linowes of WIndAction has
asked that we call, fax and email members of the Committee, the Chief of Staff and Legislative
Directors to urge them not to support PTC extension. The wind industry is unregulated and
unaccountable to the US taxpayer. No alleged benefit has ever been analyzed to determine its
contribution while billions of taxpayer money has been spent on cronyism. These days it seems
the government and wind industry resemble Russia and the oligarchs more than an American
Democracy. Sadly we note that our Ohio Senator Rob Portman has expressed his support for an
extenders package. Please let Senator Portman know that you disagree. The "Temporary" PTC
has been extended nine times over the last 20 years…enough is enough. The contact information
for the Senate Finance Committee is listed at the bottom. It is the best contact information we
have at this time.
Please contact the Senators on the Senate Finance Committee and let them know you are
adamantly opposed to extending the wind PTC FOR THE 9th TIME. Below is the list of
Senators and the email addresses for their Chiefs of Staff (CoS) and Legislative Directors (LD).
Email any and all. Be sure to cc: your Senator's CoS and LD and Representatives CoS and LD
(contact me if you need help getting email addresses).
Make your message short, polite but firm. Tell them you're fed up with wasting money on an
energy resource that is raising energy costs, harming the economics of reliable generators,
driving the need for billions in new, and otherwise unneeded transmission, dividing communities
and permanently impairing our most sensitive natural areas. Bottom line: The Wind PTC is toxic
and no politician should get near it.
As always, if you have questions, do not hesitate.
Thanks so much!
COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP
Chairman
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
202-224-5244
Fax 202-228-2717
CoS: Jeff_Michels@Wyden.senate.gov
Ranking Member
Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)
202-224-5251
Fax 2-2-224-6331
CoS: Michael_Kennedy@hatch.senate.gov
LD: Jay_Khosla@hatch.senate.gov
DEMOCRATS
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV)
202-224-6472
Fax 202-224-7665
CoS: James_Reid@Rockefeller.senate.gov
LD: Mark_Libell@Rockefeller.senate.gov
Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
202-224-6542
Fax 202-228-3027
CoS: Mike_lynch@Schumer.senate.gov
LD: Megan_Taira@Schumer.senate.gov
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
202-224-4822
Fax 202-228-0325
CoS: Bill_Sweeney@Stabenow.senate.gov
LD: Matt_VanKuiken@Stabenow.senate.gov
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
202-224-3441
Fax 202-228-0514
CoS: Jamie_Fleet@Cantwell.senate.gov
LD: Pete_Modaff@Cantwell.senate.gov
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
202-224-5274
Fax 228-2183
CoS: Pete_Mitchell@Nelson.senate.gov
LD: Susie_Perez-Quinn@Nelson.senate.gov
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
202-224-4744
Fax 202-228-2197
CoS: Danny_OBrien@Menendez.senate.gov
LD: Tim_DelMonico@Menendez.senate.gov Karissa Willhite
Thomas R. Carper (D-DE)
202-224-2441
Fax 202-228-2190
CoS: Jim_Reilly@Carper.senate.gov
LD: Bill_Ghent@Carper.senate.gov
Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)
202-224-4524
Fax 202-224-1651
CoS: Chris_Lynch@Cardin.senate.gov
LD: Priscilla_Ross@Cardin.senate.gov
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
202-224-2315
Fax 202-228-6321
CoS: Mark_Powden@Brown.senate.gov
LD: Jeremy_Hekhuis@Brown.senate.gov
Michael F. Bennet (D-CO)
202-224-5852
Fax 202-224-5852
CoS: Jonathan_Davidson@Bennet.senate.gov
LD: Brian_Appel@Bennet.senate.gov
Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
202-224-6324
Fax 202-228-0604
CoS: Jim_Brown@Casey.senate.gov
LD: Richard_Spiegelman@Casey.senate.gov
Mark R. Warner (D-VA)
202-224-20333
Fax 202-224-6295
CoS: Luke_Albee@Warner.senate.gov
Dep CoS: David_ Hallock@Warber.senate.gov
REPUBLICANS
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
202-224-3744
Fax 202-224-6020
CoS: Jill_Kozeny@Grassley.senate.gov
LD: Colin_Davis@Grassley.senate.gov
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
202-224-6142
Fax 202-228-1375
CoS: Susan_Wheeler@Crapo.senate.gov
LD: Ken_Flanz@Crapo.senate.gov
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
202-224-4774
Fax 202-224-3514
CoS: Jackie_Cottrell@Roberts.senate.gov
LD: Amber_Sechrist@Roberts.senate.gov
Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)
202-224-3424
Fax 202-228-0359
CoS: Flip_McConnaughey@Enzi.senate.gov
LD: Tara_Shaw@Enzi.senate.gov
John Cornyn (R-TX)
202-224-2934
Fax 202-228-2856
CoS: Beth_Jafari@Cornyn.senate.gov
LD: Jerr_Rosenbaum@Cornyn.senate.gov
John Thune (R-SD)
202-224-2321
Fax 202-228-5429
CoS: Summer_Mersinger@Thune.senate.gov Ryan Nelson
LD: Brendon_Plack@Thune.senate.gov
Richard Burr (R-NC)
202-224-3154
Fax 202-228-2981
mailto:CoS%3AChris_Joyner@Burr.senate.gov
LD: Natasha_Hickman@Burr.senate.gov
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
202-224-3643
Fax 202-228-0724
CoS: Joan_Kirchner@Isakson.senate.gov
LD: Jay_Sulzmann@Isakson.senate.gov ?
Rob Portman (R-OH)
202-224-3353
Fax None
CoS: Jonathan_Davidson@Portman.senate.gov Rob Lehman
LD: Pam_Thiessen@Portman.senate.gov
Patrick J. Toomey (R-PA)
202-224-4254
Fax 202-228-0284
CoS: Christopher_Gahan@Toomey.senate.gov
LD: Dan_Brandt@Toomey.senate.gov
(03-28-14) The reply briefs are beginning to come in and the Buckeye Wind II case appears to be
drawing lots of attention particularly with regard to the Constitutionality of the in-state mandate.
AWEA and the Ohio Environmental Council are eager to preserve it. Perhaps the threat of a
mandate freeze makes the issue even more urgent to them as they seek to protect their stateguaranteed market. Attached today are two of the briefs here: One and Two. Colleagues have
sent these comments in response:
"SB 221 [the mandate] results in wind installations (such as Buckeye), it locks in emissions from
fossil plants and precludes the elimination of those emissions by nuclear power. And thus it
doesn't result in a benefit to Ohio residents, it results in a harm." This is because wind cannot
operate independently, fossil fuel plants must continuously run in the background to assure grid
stability as the wind rises and falls.
With respect to the Board's finding that the project serves the need to deliver energy to Ohio's the
bulk power transmission systems to serve generation needs of electric utilities and their
customers, a friend noted "This would then require there to be a shortage of some part of the
demand profile. That part would be peak demand hours. To fulfill that particular demand
segment, wind would be at least an order of magnitude more expensive than other viable
alternatives to filling that niche shortage. OPSB should not be permitted to act as if all electricity
were of the same value regardless of the timeliness or lack thereof of its availability and
delivery."
Elsewhere, a New York appellate court denied Everpower's appeal on their case where they tried
to substitute different turbines in a project. They attempted to assert a right to do so despite no
noise studies for the substituted turbines. The report notes "In its ruling, the court noted
Everpower's contention that Concerned Citizen's lawsuit delayed construction was not the
"primary reason for (Everpower's) failure to proceed with the project in a timely manner."
Instead, the court indicated the "petitioner did not go forward with the construction in large part
because it was waiting to find out whether Congress was going to extend the Production Tax
Credit (PTC) for wind energy" that was scheduled to expire."
(03-27-14) Today we attach the Briefs filed by Everpower and by the Ohio Power Siting Board
in the case before the Ohio Supreme Court. Below is the coverage from the Urbana Daily
Citizen concerning Everpower's brief.
Yesterday, WOSU radio show with Ann Fisher presented Everpower representative Michael
Speerscheider speaking with Ann and Dispatch reporter, Dan Gearino. This segment was
followed by an interview with Logan County Indian Lake representative Kelley Campbell. The
show took call-in questions and it appeared that there were few callers who were opposed to the
project - mostly environmentalists. Nevertheless, Kelley did an outstanding job fielding
questions and holding her ground in the lopsided contest. We encourage everyone to follow this
link to listen to the program and hear what Everpower has to say.
Reports from the Indian Lake area indicate that Sen. Cliff Hite is continuing to try to negotiate
on Everpower's behalf and that he floated the idea of moving the setbacks to 3,000 feet from a
home. We understand there were no takers. The lake realtor community is concerned about their
obligation to disclose the Scioto Ridge approval. Could be a long hot summer.
Yesterday another article on Everpower's plans for their Allegany, New York project was
published in Buffalo.
Lastly, we include a rating of Ohio's renewable energy standing by Energy Trends. They note
Ohio ranks 40th of the 50 states in renewable capacity per capita. You could look at that two
ways - Ohio has poor renewable resources or Ohio has a high population. Either way it doesn't
say much for Ohio. Indiana which does not have a renewable mandate, has a much lower
population and a bunch of wind turbines gets an F!
(03-26-14) On Sunday the Springfield News Sun reported that Champaign County and the
townships filed an appeal of the Ohio Power Siting Board's approval of the Everpower request to
change the staging area for the Buckeye Wind Phase I. The appeal challenges the approval that
was granted without allowing for a hearing on how the consolidation of the Phase I and Phase II
staging areas will impact roads, traffic and the community. The consolidation effectively doubles
the impact. The Sun reports Everpower representative Jason Dagger saying the consolidation
was done to "lessen the impact on the community". We think anyone who lives on or travels US
Hwy 36 would have a different opinion. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten why Everpower
had to change the location of the Phase I staging area: they never had a lease for the land on the
original site despite presenting the location to the OPSB. The Urbana Daily Citizen reports
today that neither the City of Urbana nor Union Neighbors United filed an appeal of the
"consolidated" staging area because this issue most directly impacts the County and the
townships.
This is the week that briefs are due in the Ohio Supreme Court in response the appeal filed by
UNU, the County and townships of the Buckeye Wind Phase II project. A response from
Everpower should be filed within the next day or two. Yesterday, the Ohio Farm Bureau
Federation and the Champaign County Farm Bureau filed their brief in support of Everpower.
The brief is attached.
And not to be forgotten is UNU's suit against the US Fish & Wildlife Service for issuing a permit
to Everpower to kill endangered species Indiana bats. UNU contends the permit fails to
adequately protect bats consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The
USFWS must file the record in the case with the federal court in Washington, D.C. on April 1st.
(03-25-14) Please note attachment--Congressman Jim Jordan's stance on the renewal of the
PTC.
(03-24-14) Today's Dispatch provides a review of the Scioto Ridge project. Clicking on the link
will take you to the Dispatch site where a video interview of local businessman and resident,
Michael Shepherd, as well as an interview with Jason Dagger of Everpower is available.
Also note the comments made to date and we encourage you to read them.
As we reported yesterday, it is possible that legislation imposing a moratorium on the renewable
mandate will be introduced this week. There has been some discussion on revising setbacks as
well as establishing them at the property line rather than a home. Permitted projects would likely
be grandfathered in but projects in the pipeline with applications pending before the OPSB may
or may not be grandfathered. The moratorium is important on several fronts. It provides an
opportunity to address the constitutionality of the in-state mandate. A moratorium also puts a
cloud over the willingness of a utility to enter into a long term power purchase agreement for
wind. With the federal subsidy currently expired, the viability of wind in marginal states like
Ohio presents a risk to an investor.
(03-23-14) Come and be a part of the large and growing grassroots opposition to Everpower's
Scioto Ridge Industrial Wind Project.......
A public information meeting will be held:
Saturday, March 29
2:00 PM
Indian Lake Community Church Building
Orchard Island Road/State Route 708
This meeting is being held in Russells Point, but ALL citizens concerned about the
encroachment of Everpower's Scioto Ridge Industrial Wind Factory slated for Hardin and Logan
Counties--176 turbines, almost 500' tall, sited from homes and not property lines--are welcome
and encouraged to attend.
Special invitations have been extended to local and county officials.
There will be press coverage of this event.
This ad is in the current Indian Lake Shopper's Edge.
(03-22-14) This beaking news appeared today. We encourage everyone to follow the link and
comment on this story.
Who will be "at the table"? Utilities, business groups, environmentalists and consumer
advocates.
Who is missing? The people who lives are most affected by the State renewable mandate: the
landowners and families who live within the area deemed commercially viable for wind.
We have had no say and we continue to have no say. Senator Faber represents many of us. Now
is the time to demand a seat at the table. We will bring you more information as we learn
more. A freeze is a positive move forward. But we cannot leave the decisions about our future in
the hands of those who care little about us. We must focus our efforts on Senator Faber.
(03-21-14) Today we are providing a great deal of news which we think is important to know.
The articles are linked below. Here is a brief recap of what you will find:

An appeal was filed opposing the OPSB approval of an amendment to the Buckeye I
project without granting protections to the County's infrastructure. "In utilizing the same
staging areas for not one but two projects - essentially doubling the estimated turbines
and construction traffic - there certainly are significant impacts which were not
foreseeable in the approval of the original certificate or in the Buckeye II Wind project
and therefore could not be addressed at that time," the application states. "Also, the
relocated staging area may affect the infrastructure in the abutting rights-of-way due to
the same concerns." We note also that while Phase I of the Everpower project required a
negotiated Road Use Maintenance Agreement, Phase II does not. (Call us cynics but it
could be construed that the OPSB and Everpower are trying to force Champaign County
into agreeing to tax abatement because a Road Use Maintenance Agreement would be a
pre-requisite for a PILOT. )

Sweet Home Alabama - Legislation about to be enacted in Alabama will require turbines
to be set back from a property line a distance equal to five times their height.

A new analysis from the Center for Global Development quantifies our disregard of the
world's poor. Investing in renewables, we can pull one person out of poverty for about
$500. But, using gas electrification, we could pull more than four people out of poverty
for the same amount. By focusing on our climate concerns, we deliberately choose to
leave more than three out of four people in darkness and poverty. This article examines
the devastating effects of renewable policies on those least able to afford them.

The American Physical Society will issue a new position statement on man-made global
warming later this year and reports say it is inconceivable, given the new panel's
constitution, that it will be anything other than broadly skeptical of Catastrophic
Anthropogenic Global Warming. An APS representative states that prior support for the
notion of man-made global warming has not been based on credible climate science. "I
think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago." Wind
News has always said it is about the money - not jobs, not the environment, not global
warming, not oil shortages - just money….lots of it for investors.

A US Senate Committee will hold a hearing on a package of tax extenders that includes
the PTC. "When it comes to tax extenders, Senator Hatch believes there's a lot of fat that
needs to be cut and that Congress should not continue to deal with them in a business-asusual manner. A committee markup would provide an opportunity to expose these
provisions to scrutiny and sunlight." This story notes that the US House of
Representatives is not inclined to consider similar legislation.

The UK is dramatically altering its subsidies and policies that favored renewables and, in
particular, wind energy. "The idea was that it (carbon price) would rise from around £16
per ton at launch to £70 per ton by 2030, and encourage producers of dirty energy to cut
their carbon emissions. The policy was also intended to make investing in renewables
more attractive. It won't now." "The second question for investors is whether they should
invest in UK wind projects when they see the government is so willing to weaken its own
green incentives, and so quickly. It is very difficult for businesses to make long-term
spending decisions when policy changes so quickly - although they frequently have to do
so. And the third question is whether investors will take their money elsewhere. The UK
is far from the only place for investors in wind to put their money. Trade body
Renewable UK warns that £4bn investment in UK wind until 2020 is at risk due to the
CPF freeze. Again - it is all about the money. We wonder how the UK's policies will
impact the UK's Terra Firma, owner of Everpower.
(03-19-14) Well done as always Kevon. And I did enjoy the exchange with Sen. Young. Wise
words--I wonder if he got it.
We're sharing with you Kevon's recent IICC testimony in Michigan. Take a look and listen.
Thank you again, Kevon.
More News:
Kansas Senate votes to repeal renewable energy standards
Bentley signs local wind farm bills
LePage slams ‘green’ energy at clean-tech business forum
(03-18-14) On Monday the Ohio Power Siting Board approved Everpower's Scioto Ridge
project. This was expected. We have attached the board's order which discusses concerns for
safety, noise, shadow flicker, wildlife impact and the like. The closest turbine to Indian Lake is
planned to be about ½ mile from the lake; eagles, sandpipers and bats are protected species that
will be impacted; 60.5 miles of new or "improved" access roads will be built; a 4.8 mile
transmission line is planned to run through McDonald Township (15 homes within 1,000 feet of
the line); 36 streams and 2 wetlands will be impacted; distances from turbines to property lines
range from 549 feet to 2,637 feet; 10 turbines are sited 541 feet or less from a gas line (the
minimum required is 541'); and 48 non-participating landowners will experience more 30 hours
of shadow flicker (23 of these are considering entering participation agreements). Hardin County
currently is a designated Alternative Energy Zone which means tax abatement is automatically
granted without further action by the County Commissioners. (There has been discussion about
rescinding the designation but it is unclear whether this is possible at this point.) Logan County
does not have a similar designation and tax abatement will be subject to a vote of the Logan
County Commissioners for those turbines which are situated in Logan County. Below is a news
report covering the Scioto Ridge approval.
Hardin Wind gets approval for 176-turbine farm
(03-15-14) Auglaize Co. Patriots will meet on April 3, 2014 at RJ's Coffey Cup at 6:30 PM.
The program will include candidates Milo Schaffner for OH Senate District 1 and Brett Eley for
OH House District 82. Stephanie Kreuz, the Heritage Action rep for northwest Ohio will also
present "How to Hold Congress Accountable".
The public is welcome to attend this informative meeting.
(03-14-14) Coming soon to the Ohio Hi-Point Career Center main auditorium is a public forum
featuring candidates for Senate District 1.
Conservative Republican candidates Milo Schaffner from Van Wert County and Corey
Shankelton from Williams County have agreed to attend. Incumbent Senator Cliff Hite has yet to
confirm his attendance.
The Top of Ohio Patriots are sponsoring this forum on March 27 at 7 PM at the Ohio Hi- Point
Career Center, 2280 Ohio 540, Bellefontaine. The format is 4 prepared questions for the
candidates with questions from the audience to follow.
Senate District 1 includes the counties of Auglaize (part), Defiance, Fulton (part), Hancock,
Hardin, Henry, Logan (part--the Townships of Bokescreek, Rushcreek, Richland), Paulding,
Putnam, Van Wert and Williams.
Corey Shankleton is on Facebook.
Milo Schaffner is on Facebook.
The Republican candidate for Ohio Senate District 1 will be determined on primary election day,
May 6, 2014.
Milo Schaffner, a Hoaglin Township Trustee in Van Wert County, has been involved in
Iberdrola's Blue Creek Wind Facility in Van Wert and Paulding Counties from its inception. As a
result of his ongoing experience with Iberdrola and Blue Creek, Milo is now actively speaking
against such projects.
And in Hardin and Logan Counties, residents are actively opposing Everpower's proposed Scioto
Ridge Industrial Wind Factory--176 turbines--almost 500 feet tall--sited from homes and not
property lines.
This strong grassroots organized effort has resulted in a significant number of "Resolutions to
Oppose the Scioto Ridge Wind Project" from township trustees in Hardin and Logan Counties as
well as an opposition resolution from the Belle Center Village Council.
At the request of the Scioto Ridge opposers, Milo Schaffner has willingly traveled to our area to
speak publicly to the Hardin and Logan County Commissioners. At township trustee meetings,
he has outlined the realities of living in the shadow of the Blue Creek Wind Factory.
In addition, Mr. Schaffner has testified on several occasions at Statehouse legislative hearings.
Milo has proven through his actions that is a friend to those of us who believe that 500' industrial
wind turbines do not belong where people live.
Conversely, incumbent Senator Cliff Hite has proven through his actions that he is a friend to
wind developers and the $ they contribute to his political coffers.
If you reside within Senate District 1, we encourage your support for Milo Schaffner for Ohio
Senate. Spread the word to friends and neighbors in Senate District 1 and beyond to support Milo
Schaffner as Ohio Senator, Senate District 1.
Your informed vote is so important. Plan to attend on March 27 to listen and to question the
candidates.
(03-13-14) Last night the Rushcreek Township Trustees adopted two Resolutions in opposition
to Everpower's Scioto Ridge projects. One Resolution was directed to the Ohio Power Siting
Board and the other to the Logan County Commissioners with respect to possible tax abatement
for Scioto Ridge. These are well researched and thorough documents that should make anyone
think twice about supporting an industrial wind project in a rural residential setting much less
provide tax incentives to facilitate it. The unanimously adopted resolutions are attached and we
encourage you to read them.
We also recommend listening to the radio coverage from Peak of Ohio Radio Jason Dagger is
interviewed for Everpower as well as Rick Kennedy for Rushcreek Twp. We will link newspaper
coverage when it becomes available.
Two more letters to the Editor have appeared in the March 8 Bellefontaine Examiner. These
letters respond to an earlier letter written by Jason Dagger that appeared in multiple area papers.
We understand that these letters were also submitted to the Urbana Daily Citizen but they have
not appeared to our knowledge.
Finally, we have three important articles that address the federal production tax credit. The first
story from Bloomberg financial news describes the money companies like Google are raking in
due to taxpayer funded subsidies. "Providing tax breaks to cash-rich companies distorts the
market and passes costs to consumers," according to one analyst while another estimates ½ of the
profits from solar projects come from tax incentives. Against this backdrop is the issue of
whether or not to end the subsidies. One very informative article from E&E News supports the
notion that a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's tax laws is needed.
U.S. Rep. Dave Camp has been working on this subject for years and has introduced a
comprehensive draft that would not only end the Production Tax Credit but would also scale
back the amount of subsidy being received by existing wind developments. Camp's term as
Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee is coming to an end and he wanted to put a
proposal on the table now. It is likely that Paul Ryan will succeed Camp as Chairman of Tax &
Means. Ryan has expressed support for the Camp draft. The third story reviews the landscape for
Republicans relative to tax overhaul and the political implications. In the event you are really,
really interested in the Washington machinations surrounding tax reform, the story from Politico
is informative. The groundswell for a free market and a more fair tax system in America
continues to give us hope we are seeing the end of the PTC.
(03-12-14) Today we bring you news from Logan County where the Bellefontaine Examiner
reports on the Rushcreek Twp resolutions in opposition to Everpower that were adopted on
Monday night.
We also attach a review of wind turbine setbacks from around the world that was conducted by
the State of Minnesota. It appears that Ohio's siting regulations are among the least protective in
the world. The report notes that "For countries with required or recommended wind turbine
setback distances, the average lower setback distance is approximately 470 meters (1,542 feet),
and the average upper setback distance is approximately 700 meters (2,297 feet)." Interesting,
too, is the discussion of shadow flicker which generally has been recommended as being limited
to 30 hours per year. The Minnesota report makes it clear that 30 hours is the worst maximum
allowed and that 8 hours per year of actual flicker is the more acceptable standard. Ohio uses 30
hours as their standard. It does not appear that most countries have standards for inaudible noise
which has come to prominence with the increasing size of turbines. Infrasound is a significant
issue and it largely absent from the Minnesota Report.
Elsewhere, concerns among farmers in Illinois and Indiana are in the news as reported here.
(03-10-14) We have three press reports to share today. First is an Editorial from Investor's
Business Daily calling for an end to the Production Tax Credit. It notes how much of the federal
subsidy is paid by Ohio taxpayers but is spent in other states.
Next we have a letter to the Editor of the Columbus Dispatch from a Russells Point citizen that
eloquently takes issue with last week's writer who wrote in support of wind energy. We include
with the letter the comments that follow. These comments illustrate how dumb(or is it something
more sinister?) the Ohio General Assembly's Cliff Hite-inspired foot dragging looks.
And finally we include an article from Van Wert about Iberdrola's plans to obliterate what is left
of Hoaglin, Jackson, Ridge and northwestern Washington townships. Iberdrola appears to be
holding out a threat to Van Wert Commissioners that if tax abatement is not granted, they might
choose their Leipsic project instead.
We are seeing a ramp up of project activity, perhaps propelled by a threatened phase out of the
in-state mandate or perhaps the true end of the PTC. We think local elected officials are waking
up to the fact that wind loses in every cost benefit analysis. Granting tax abatement to facilitate a
bad deal for taxpayers, ratepayers, industry, property owners and wildlife is poor public policy.
We salute all of you who are educating your policy makers, you who are running for office to
help tackle the issue at the State level and you, our letter writers and commenters who refuse to
let the pro-wind PR machine go unchallenged. Thank you.
(03-05-14) Attached are three draft letters about the PTC.
No PTC #1
No PTC #2
No PTC #3
Please feel free to customize it however you'd like. I do ask, if possible, if you could email me
the signed copy or let me know who all signs onto the letter. We are keeping track of how many
touches we get into Speaker Boehner, Congressman Tiberi and Senator Portman's offices. Please
let me know if you have any questions and thank you for your help!
My email is linked below.
Best,
Lindsey Kerr
Project Manager
(03-02-14) We have linked to testimony given this past week by Robert Bryce to the Senate
Committee on the Environment and Public Works. It is one of the most compelling and
comprehensive reviews of the impact the wind industry is having on the bird and bat populations.
Although lengthy, it should be required reading for anyone considering a cost-benefit analysis of
wind power.
(03-01-14) Thank you to all who called members of Congress this week to oppose extension of
the Production Tax Credit. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) big lobbying push
on Tuesday was timed to get out ahead of Rep. Dave Camp's release on Wednesday of his
proposal for comprehensive tax reform. Not only would Camp not reinstate expired clean energy
incentives such as the renewable energy production tax credit (PTC), he also would dramatically
reduce payments to companies still eligible for the credit." In the days to come, there will be
much pulling and tugging in the Congress but it is unlikely that tax reform will move forward
until after the election. In the meantime, a tax extender for a one year PTC is unlikely given the
generous extension last year.
The prospect of the PTC finally going away makes the notion of protecting the Ohio mandate for
wind through 2025 look almost silly. If the PTC covers 1/3 of the capital cost of wind
development and it is terminated, who picks up the shortfall in Ohio? Ohio electricity consumers
- families and employers. This makes Senator Cliff Hite's position on safeguarding the mandate
even less credible. It appears the race is heating up between Sen. Hite and Van Wert County's
Hoaglin Twp. Trustee Milo Schaffner. Milo is putting the pressure on and the more
opportunities he has to get his message out to the press and to voters, the clearer the choice
becomes for voters in the 1st Ohio Senate District. The Gongwer Report referenced above took a
look at the race. We note that Hite is still trying to protect a special niche in his district
irrespective of its effects on others. He continuously dodges legitimate questions about his
position on wind development, especially the Constitutionality of the in-state mandate.
Challenger Milo Schaffner will keep asking those hard questions.
Finally, Terra Firma is still trying to shake things up and generate enthusiasm for the upcoming
€2 billion renewable infrastructure fund they are trying to launch in May. We admit we cannot
understand the timing for such a fund when there is so much uncertainty about wind's future in
the US and abroad. A report released this week now documents the magnitude of manufacturing
losses in Germany as a result of their now discredited energy policies.
We have to believe that Sen. Cliff Hite reads the papers and sees what has happened in Germany.
Is he hoping voters in his district are too dumb to know?
(02-26-14) Yesterday the PBS station in Cleveland sponsored a debate with Sen. Seitz,
Economist Jonathon Lesser, Terrence O'Donnell for Advanced Energy Ohio (and son of Ohio
Supreme Court Justice) and John Colm of Cleveland-based WIRE-net. The link to the audio for
those who would like to hear it. Press coverage from Columbus Business First. You will see that
Senator Seitz is confident the Senate will pass some form of mandate repeal before the end of the
year. There are several options under consideration for renewable energy. First would be the
repeal of the in-state mandate which the Senator believes is unconstitutional. Next he proposes
freezing the annual renewable benchmark at the current level and not ever increasing it. There
will likely be some negotiating on this point but we will stay closely involved.
One of our readers inquired recently about what the pre-requisites are for going forward with a
wind project. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) reports that only 1 in 10
planned projects is ever built. The six key elements described by AWEA as necessary are:
■Adequate wind: Turbines usually need wind that blows at least 11 miles per hour on average.
Small changes in wind speed can make a dramatic difference in the output of a wind farm.
■Land rights: Developers need to secure adequate land rights from private owners or public
agencies, so lease agreements come into play.
■Permits: Developers must secure proper permits from all levels of government.
■Transmission: Access to adequate and available transmission capacity is essential, and
proximity to existing lines keeps costs down.
■A buyer for the wind power: Developers must secure a utility or other entity to purchase the
power generated from the wind project.
■Financing: In order to build and operate a wind farm, developers need an investor or investors.
"Each of these six elements must be secured to move a wind project from development, through
construction, and into operation. Failure to successfully navigate any one of these issues can
result in a shelved project. On average, only one in ten projects originally conceived by a
developer will actually get constructed and put into operation. " The last two bullet points are
impacted to a great degree by whether an in-state mandate is in place. The uncertainty
surrounding the future of the Ohio in-state mandate serves as a barrier to obtaining a long term
power purchase agreement and/or financing.
So what about the federal Production Tax Credit that expired December 31, 2013? AWEA has
gathered its lobbying army in Washington where they are receiving training today for their
assault on Capitol Hill tomorrow beginning at 9:00 a.m. One of AWEA's cheerleaders on board
to support cronyism and special interest tax legislation is former Ohio Republican Congressman
Steve LaTourette who went from his seat in the US House of representatives to the backroom
where, as President of McDonald Hopkins Government Strategies, he lobbies his former
colleagues. We think tomorrow would be a perfect time to call your Congressman's Washington
Office and express your opinion about attempts to reauthorize the PTC. Let them know that you
know AWEA will be calling on them to push for favorable tax treatment. As a taxpayer, you
should let your Representative know how much you oppose this corporate welfare that has
propped up the wind industry for about twenty years. The PTC has died and it should stay dead.
Telephone numbers for all Ohio Congressmen are listed below. The most important members for
purposes of the PTC are Ways & Means Committee members Pat Tiberi and Jim Renacci.
1.Steve Chabot 202-225-2216 Small Business
2.Brad Westrup 202-225-3164 Veterans Affairs
3.Joyce Beatty 202-225-4324 Financial Services
4.Jim Jordan 202-225-2676 Oversight & Government
5.Bob Latta 202-225-6405 Energy & Commerce
6.Bill Johnson 202-225-5705 Energy & Commerce
7.Bob Gibbs 202-225-6265 Agriculture
8.John Boehner 202-225-6205
9.Marcy Kaptur 202-225-4146 Appropriations
10.Michael Turner 202-225-6465 Oversight & Government
11.Marcia Fudge 202-225-7032 Agriculture
12.Pat Tiberi 202-225-5355 Ways & Means
13.Tim Ryan 202-225-5261 Budget
14.David Joyce 202-225-5731 Appropriations
15.Steve Stivers 202-225-2015 Finance
16.Jim Renacci 202-225-3876 Ways & Means
(02-22-14) Early yesterday morning one of the turbines in northern Indiana caught fire. It was a
spectacular sight which you can watch on the video link. People in the area were concerned since
the flaming turbine was so close - a mile - from town. If this had happened in Champaign
County, homeowners, children and seniors living nearby would have been required to evacuate
their homes before dawn because, in some instances, Everpower's setbacks are shorter than the
manufacturer's safety guidelines. Reports from the Indiana noted the relief of citizens that the fire
did not happen during dry season.
The Ohio Power Siting Board approved amendments to the Buckeye I project as expected. The
Springfield News Sun reports on the approval as well as the PILOT payment paid out in Van
Wert which the wind industry is touting. But as Logan County's Tom Stacy says; ""From my
perspective it's not what you get, it's what you gave away." The PILOT is about 20% to 25% of
what would be paid without the PILOT. As we have said before, if you are going to sell your
county, don't leave money on the table. And for goodness sake, don't take it from the residents
who will have to live with the project. As UNU's attorney says in the story, "Concerns about
safety and noise for neighboring homeowners should also be considered first, regardless of
potential revenue for the county, said Jack Van Kley, an attorney for UNU who has argued
against the project. "No amount of money is going to compensate people for the loss of comfort
in their own homes," Van Kley said. Yesterday's fire in Benton County, Indiana brings that
message home in a truly frightening way.
But wait! Look at what is happening in Illinois where another wind project is" going up in
flames" so to speak - the 240 MW Big Sky project is in trouble as Edison Mission is unable to
repay the loan on the wind development made by the turbine manufacturer, Suzlon. This is an
important story about another wind project in the PJM grid system which also serves Ohio. Big
Sky does not have a long term power purchase agreement and sells on the spot market where it
has been unable, despite grants and subsidies, to earn a sufficient return. There are similarities
here between Big Sky and Everpower's Buckeye and Scioto Ridge projects. Right now, we
understand that Everpower does not have a long term power purchase agreement, does not have
federal subsidies, probably does not have an investor and the spot market apparently can't
provide an attractive return in the PJM system. For these and other reasons, we very much doubt
Jason Dagger's upbeat outlook conveyed to the Springfield News Sun.
(02-12-14) We reported last week that wind industry lobbyists rushed to deny any inappropriate
language in wind leases and took Senate Public Utilities Chairman Seitz to task for disclosing
what they believed was confidential secret information. Sen. Seitz today forcefully
disputed AWEA's claims. Individual wind developers also replied to Senator Seitz. We attach
copies of the Everpower and Iberdrola replies. If you would like a reply from a different
company, please let us know. We also include coverage from today's Springfield News Sun
concerning Everpower's Buckeye Wind project and the Ohio Supreme Court appeal.
Logan and Hardin County citizens opposing Everpower's Scioto Ridge project will have a
community information session on Monday, February 17th in Belle Center at 6:00 at the
Richland Township Memorial Hall. All are encouraged to attend. An information flyer is
attached.
We understand that more than 60 citizens were present today to speak against
Everpower's Scioto Ridge project at the Logan County Commissioner's meeting. Early reports
indicate the Indian Lake residents are very concerned now that they are living with Honda's two
turbines nearby. We will provide more information as we receive it.
(02-11-14) Last week we reported that the Chairman of The Ohio Senate Public Utilities
Committee heard from citizens that many lease agreements contained confidentiality provisions
that inhibited people from speaking out if they regretted having signed a wind lease or if they
were experiencing adverse impacts. Chairman Seitz requested copies of lease agreements to see
for himself and, as a result, he found that the wind industry did appear to be intimidating people
in contravention of their First Amendment protections under the US Constitution. He has written
a letter to the lobbyist for AWEA in Ohio, Dayna Baird Payne, and is awaiting a response. We
will keep you posted on what we learn. The letter and attachments are included here. It is
gratifying to have Senator Seitz take up this issue and we encourage you to share the information
with your local elected officials and leaseholders who may have an interest.
Excerpts from the Seitz letter to Dayna Baird Payne include:
"I am sure you agree with me that citizens have a First Amendment right to petition their
government for a redress of grievances and that artificial or contractual barriers to public
participation are an intolerable infringement on that right, not to mention an inhibitor to the
search for truth in matters important to public policy."
"I am also sure that I would agree with you that companies have a legitimate right to protect their
confidential financial information and their legitimate trade secrets and proprietary information.
However, the language in the attached documents goes vastly beyond the protection of those
legitimate interests, and I can certainly see where landowners might reasonably believe they have
been sworn to observe the Code of Omerta by reason of the overbroad language."
"It is also of grave concern that the "No interference" clause (Section 9.2) requires that
"Landowner's activities …shall not, currently or in the future, impede or interfere with the siting,
permitting, construction, installation, maintenance, operation, replacement, or removal of
Windpower Facilities, whether located on the Property or elsewhere." Quite conceivable, if
"activities" include speech, a landowner is thereby forbidden from opining on public issues
concerning the siting or operation of wind power facilities that are not even located on the leased
property."
"I therefore seek prompt written assurance from the Ohio wind power developers who have
entered leases such as those described above, and AWEA, that they do not construe anything in
those leases as prohibiting any landowners from testifying on either SB 34 or SB 58. Or from
making any public comment on wind power or Ohio energy policy, except insofar as the
landowners refrain from commenting on the financial terms of the leases they have signed and
revealing such information as has been disclosed to them by the developer and which has been
properly designated as a trade secret or proprietary and confidential information."
In addition to the above, we have seen lease Agreements that specifically identify "wildlife
surveys" as subject to confidentiality. This could mean if an endangered species bat like the
Indiana bat was found on leased property by someone other than the developer, information
about the find could not be shared. We think this is another area where "over-reach" impedes the
"search for truth in matters important to public policy." We recall that Invenergy had
documented the presence of three maternal roost colonies of the protected Indiana Bat at some
point after Everpower had claimed to the Ohio Power Siting Board that there was no finding of
Indiana bats in the project area. Subsequently, when Everpower acquired the assets of Invenergy,
the purchase agreement required Invenergy to destroy all records and documents relating to bats.
Because of this, UNU was unable to discover anything concerning Indiana bats during the
hearings on Champaign Wind.
(02-10-14) This week the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee reconvenes to consider
proponent testimony for SB 34 to repeal Ohio's renewable mandate. It continues to be a source of
concern that Republicans on the Committee care more about taking campaign donations from
wind developers and serving their special interests than supporting their constituents or for that
matter the Governor of Ohio.
Please take a moment to watch Governor Kasich say what he thinks about energy mandates in
this brief clip from his address to the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.
We are delighted to hear that Sen. Cliff Hite, the number one obstacle to repeal of the mandate,
has now been challenged in the upcoming Republican primary by Van Wert County's Hoaglin
Township Trustee Milo Schaffner. Congratulations to Milo and a big thank you for stepping
forward to represent the people of the 1st Senate District which includes a part of Logan, Hardin,
Van Wert, Paulding and Hancock Counties.
Last week, Ohio Senate Public Utilities Chairman Bill Seitz lashed out at the wind industry for
putting overbroad confidentiality language in leaseholder agreements. This week, AWEA sniped
back at Seitz as noted in the Gongwer Report below:
"Christy Omohundro, AWEA's director for eastern state policy, told Sen. Seitz that the wind
industry was "very troubled" that he disclosed confidential and commercially sensitive
information.
Along with his original letter, which was widely distributed, the chairman attached samples of
actual leases including the financial terms and payments between wind developers and
landowners, she said.
"Your disclosure of such information with an obvious commercial value not only hurts wind
development in your state but is also bad for the business climate in Ohio. On behalf of our
members, AWEA requests that in the future you respect their legitimate interest in not having
their confidential and commercially sensitive contractual terms with Ohio landowners
unnecessarily disclosed. Anything less creates an environment that is unfriendly to all business in
Ohio," she said."
Really? The leases were submitted into the public record by troubled citizens.
Elsewhere, the citizens of Logan and Hardin County are making it clear to their respective
County Commissioners that the costs of the Everpower Scioto Ridge project do not outweigh the
alleged benefits and, for that reason, full taxation of the Everpower project is required. We will
be hearing more about this in the coming weeks. Residents near Indian Lake are joining the
campaign as well now that they see firsthand how the two Honda turbines impose on their
community even from a distance.
Finally, we wanted to report on a court in Michigan which has ordered Consumers Wind to
produce a noise mitigation plan after the County determined noise levels to be excessive. When
the County attempted to enforce a noise limit, the wind company went to court to try to overrule
the County. Our colleague, Kevon Martis of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition noted that
"There are only two ways to reduce the noise level," Martis said. "One would be to increase the
distance between the turbines and the homes, and it is too late for that. The other is to reduce the
decibel level, which would significantly increase the operating costs of the plant." It is striking to
us that when local governments attempt to enforce regulations on wind developers, the wind
developer turns around and sues the local government entity. Everpower did this in Allegany,
NY and Consumers has done it in Mason County, MI
(01-29-14) The is past Wednesday, the Senate Public Utilities Committee held its second hearing
to consider repeal of the Ohio mandate that requires the use of wind and solar. There are three
Republicans who we believe stand in the way of passage of this bill: Sen. Hite (Hardin,
Auglaize, Van Wert, Paulding and part of Logan); Sen. LaRose (Cleveland area) and Sen.
Eklund (Canton area). It was gratifying that many of Sen. Hite's constituents traveled the
distance to Columbus to testify and shameful that he got up and left the hearing and did not listen
to one single constituent.* Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition Kevon Martis gave compelling
testimony but, more important, responded brilliantly to many of the Committee's questions.
Kevon's testimony can be seen here and the questioning begins at 9:23. It is worth watching.
The press coverage was mixed and we include it here and here. Chairman Seitz made two
important points during questioning 1) his belief the Ohio mandate is unconstitutional and 2)
measurement of setbacks from homes instead of property lines is unheard of in zoning. One point
that was made repeatedly was the cost of renewable energy and that it is not right to enforce a
mandate that requires Ohioans to pay more for their electricity especially when that type of
energy has such low value. Yesterday, the PUCO issued a draft report on the renewable mandate
confirming the higher costs of in-state wind and solar. News coverage is provided below and the
full report is attached.
Finally, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes both had good articles this week which we share in
the hope that this mainstream media coverage indicates a growing national rejection of wind.
Diane and Julie
* Our friends from Hite's district may wish to know that Hite presumably left to attend a
meeting of the Education Committee which convened at 4:00 to consider: HB 111 Duffey, 1st
Hearing, Sponsor
State universities-student trustees-vote/ attend executive sessions; HB 342 Brenner/Driehaus,
Informal Hearing (pending referral), Sponsor Straight A Program-educational service center
eligible for grant/project goals; SB 167 Tavares, 3rd Hearing, Proponent/Opponent/Interested
Party School district policies - violent, disruptive, or inappropriate behavior. While these topics
may have been of interest to Sen. Hite, we do not believe they merited the discourtesy of
ignoring constituents who traveled far to testify.
(01-28-14) The prestigious London School of Economics has concluded a 12 year study which
proves the obvious: wind turbines devalue property. A draft of the study has been circulated and
the final report is due to be released next month. A new report from the British media with Proof
wind turbines take thousands off your home is attached.
(01-27-14) Testimony on SB 34 ...
Yes it is true, I testified last Wed. at the State House in Columbus representing not only my
beliefs, but also to let them know what "ANU" has been fighting for since Jan. of 2012. I also let
them know that if the need ever arises again, we will be ready to fight this battle again, just as
HARD & as QUICKLY......... as we did the first time. Don't want them to think we are going
away anytime soon. It may be too late to testify this week now, but I believe you still have time
for next week's hearing yet. Email ANU if you are interested and I will hook you up with Julie
Johnson or Tom Stacy. Two great people!
I will say........ it was interesting to say the least. I would recommend everyone doing this at least
once in their lifetime, and yes........ now may be the time. Here is your chance to be heard! Help
defend your health and your property, while the option is still there.
Have a great evening. Try to stay warm!!!
(01-15-14) You are invited to testify!
The testimony for proponents of Ohio Senate Bill 34 before the Ohio Senate Public Utilities
Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, January 22, at 2:30 PM in the Senate Finance Hearing
Room in the Ohio Statehouse.
The bill is a TOTAL REPEAL of the renewable and energy efficiency mandates that were
made law in 2008. This may be the only hearing on the bill and it is important for impacted
citizens to testify in order to educate the Committee that the costs are high and the benefits are
low. The human cost in terms of injury to health, property value and wildlife is not outweighed
by any alleged benefit to Ohio citizens or ratepayers. The only entity benefiting are leaseholders
and investors - some of whom are foreign. Your personal story about your situation is important.
Julie Johnson and Tom Stacy are happy to help you. Your testimony only needs to be brief - two
or three pages at most. It must be written and the Committee will need a number of copies.
Please complete the attached witness slip and return it as soon as possible to the bill sponsor,
Senator Kris Jordan's chief of staff, Ron.Puff. This is necessary to reserve a spot on the witness
list.
Your testimony, addressing "Chairman Seitz, Vice Chairman LaRose, Ranking member Gentile,
and Members of the Senate Public Utilities Committee", as a proponent of SB 34 (repeal of the
mandates) would be perfect!
If you will testify, please contact Tom Stacy at (937) 407-6258 OR email Julie Johnson .
Our best shot to defeat the Scioto Ridge project proposed for Hardin and Logan Counties is
through changes in Ohio law!
Thank you.
(12-25-13) We thank each and every one of you for the friendship and support you have given
over the past year. An educated community is the best chance we have to ensure wise decisions
are made at all levels of government. Your ongoing efforts to stay abreast of the news and share
it with your friends and family is a gift to the community. We wish you all the blessings of
Christmas!
(12-14-13) The Urbana Daily Citizen in Champaign County, Ohio has posted a survey question
asking if the reader supports the development of wind in eastern Champaign County. Please go
to urbanacitizen.com NOW to vote NO. Everpower may have requested this survey question as
a means to generate support for tax abatement in the Buckeye Wind case. The survey asks three
questions and following the third question, the results are published. It is important that your
voice be heard.
Please respond to this poll and share this request with others.
Note: The poll is located in the middle of the page approximately halfway down.
It is a rotating poll--and the question we ask you to respond to is a specific wind question.
So, keep trying and answer NO--please respond very soon!
Thank you!!!!
(12-12-13) We wanted to share the latest news about the federal Production Tax Credit which is
scheduled to expire on December 31st. The extension of this subsidy is not in the proposed
federal budget and will likely not be renewed in 2013. Whether the PTC is extended retroactively
next year as part of comprehensive tax reform is still a matter of debate but, as the article below
mentions, support is beginning to wane. The American Wind Industry Association will continue
to pressure members of Congress and taxpayers will continue to push back. We will keep you
advised of what we learn.
(12-10-13) Citizens across the United States and Canada are appalled that the Obama
Administration is about to issue rules on granting permits to wind developers to kill "protected"
eagles. These permits have a 30 year term - longer than the lifespan of the wind turbines. The
North American Platform Against Wind Turbines has asked us to join in protest by contacting
the White House to protest these permits. Below are two recent articles about the kill permits as
well as phone numbers you may use to call. This is just one more unilateral administrative action
by a government that chooses not to play by the rules. Citizens should not tolerate it.
Call the President
Phone Numbers:
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
Eagle-killing rule almost done
"Kill As Many Eagles as You Want"
(12-05-13) Lots going on at the State and Federal Level. Yesterday, a study was released in
Washington by the Institute for Energy Research showing the costs of the Production Tax Credit.
The report linked above reflects that the PTC costs Ohioans over $100 million. The ERI invited
Tom Stacy of Logan County to be one of the presenters to Congressional staff in an effort to stop
the extension of the PTC when it expires on December 31st.
At the State level, today is the day SB 58 is slated to be voted out of Committee. Thank you to
all who filed comments on the Toledo Blade editorial and to those of you who contacted your
legislators in support of the Senate bill. Here is the response a member of the Logan County
community received from Senator Seitz:
Dear ____,
The fact that I am the only one to reply tells you something; too many of my colleagues are
afraid of Big Wind and have forced me to compromise beyond what I would have wanted to do if
we really had Republicans that acted like Republicans, but do not despair. I believe, and have
been assured by experts, that the bill in its current form will strike a heavy blow at big wind
(pardon the pun), for a number of reasons not least of which are these three:
1. the bill ends the in-state preference at December 31, 2018-7 years before it was otherwise
going to end;
2. the bill contains a clause that the preference will end even sooner if a court declares it
unconstitutional, which I think will happen, even if I have to be the petitioner myself
3. in various clever ways we have added things to what "counts" as renewable; thus diluting Big
Wind's protected corner of the sand box.
Finally, the bill goes to the House when passed by the Senate and to my knowledge the House's
way of thinking is much more in line with yours and mine, as opposed to the Republican
members of the Senate who are in the thrall of Big Wind.
Sincerely,
William J. Seitz
(12-04-13) I thought the bill was getting watered down too much. It appears the Senator Seitz
agrees:
The following is a statement from Senator Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) on the postponement of
the hearing and vote on Senate Bill 58:
"Today I cancelled the Public Utilities Committee meeting and our consideration of Senate Bill
58.
This decision reflects nothing more than my continued adherence to the principle that it is more
important to get this complex subject done right than to get it done quickly. This is particularly
so since it is unlikely that the House could appropriately consider the bill in the last few days
remaining this year. Extensive revisions have been made to the bill that is now before the
Committee. An additional handful of amendments to the substitute bill that was to be accepted
today have also been drafted, and the additional time will now allow us to incorporate those
amendments into yet another fresh substitute bill which we will take up in the future.
In addition, I will be pursuing a three prong strategy to reform the current envirosocialist
mandates that have afflicted Ohio ratepayers through hidden charges and fees on their electric
bills. These charges are likely to sharply escalate in the next few years if we do not act to pass
Senate Bill 58 or act to pursue an alternative to that bill.
The three prongs are as follows:
1. We will continue to work with parties who have acted honestly and in good faith to find
compromise that will facilitate passage of Senate Bill 58.
2. We will shortly commence extensive hearings on Senator Jordan's bill (Senate Bill 34). That
bill would end the mandates once and for all at its passage. Half the states in the United States
have no energy efficiency mandates at all. Approximately half the states that have renewable
portfolio standard mandates have mandates that are less costly and less ambitious than Ohio's.
In most cases, those states' mandates do not include unconstitutional and uneconomic
requirements that renewable power emanate from sources located in that state, to the exclusion
of cheaper sources from elsewhere in the United States. Given the inordinate difficulty that I
have had in negotiating an orderly transition from the current central government planning
model to free markets, I have decided to explore an alternative urged on me by my many friends
in the Ohio House that a better alternative is to simply end the mandates now. Those who want
to pay more for energy efficiency and renewable power will be free to buy it. Those who wish to
purchase cheaper sources of electricity will be similarly free to choose.
3. I will also convene meetings of interested parties to map a legal strategy to seek judicial
invalidation of the unconstitutional mandate that utilities purchase half their renewable energy
from Ohio-based sources, to the exclusion of cheaper sources in other states. California,
Massachusetts, and Minnesota have abandoned their in-state mandates in recognition of the
constitutional problem. Lawsuits are presently pending in Colorado and North Dakota
challenging these laws. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)
observed several years ago that these in-state mandate laws are likely unconstitutional. The
State of Michigan is poised to reform or repeal its in-state mandate, because a Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals decision this year observed that it faced an insurmountable constitutional
obstacle under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
We have seen enough of unconstitutional government mandates emanating from federal and
state governments, and liberty loving Ohioans should join together to seek judicial redress at the
earliest possible time."
(12-3-13) Today's Toledo Blade ran an Editorial. Yesterday the Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote
one as well. On Wednesday the Senate Public Utilities Committee will vote to pass Senate Bill
58 which has our strong support. It is possible that the bill will go quickly to the Senate floor for
a vote and IT MUST PASS. Please take a moment to comment on the Editorial in today's Toledo
Blade. You must be on Facebook to comment. We need as many as possible to comment
TODAY.
We continue to remind people that Ohio is not a wind rich state. The National Renewable Energy
Lab estimates that there is only .22% of land available in the state capable of producing at 35%
of rated capacity. The two operating wind developments in the Van Wert area have yet to even
reach 30%. Moreover, we believe Iberdrola sold the power from Blue Creek to OSU for about
$54 per MWh while the cost in the PJM (grid operator) market is around $30. The citizens of
west central Ohio have been studying this issue for quite a while because our communities are
the target for turbine siting due to lack of wind resources in the rest of the State. In the last
biennial budget, citizens tried to get more reasonable turbine siting measured from property lines
instead of homes. But the "green activists" and the wind lobby won out and we have unsafe
setbacks. Result? The property values in the footprint of the Blue Creek project have fallen 26%.
The Mercer Township Trustees Association passed a resolution last spring stating that wind is
unwelcome anywhere in Mercer County. Almost 90% of Shelby County respondents to a
newspaper poll said NO to industrial wind. The people of west central Ohio - whose zoning
authority was preempted by the wind lobby - have no one to defend them except Sen. Seitz who,
thank God, has been willing to listen to the people, understand the facts about the value of wind
and see the wind lobby for what it is.
(11-26-13) Three timely articles for your review:
GOP Senators Cry Foul in Wind-Energy Settlement for Killing Eagle
Wind Turbines Are Climate-Change Scarecrows
Green Energy: The Rotary Dial Phone of the Future
(11-24-13) There are three stories of note we wanted to share with you:
1. A Judge orders Falmouth to run wind turbines on 12-hour schedule to be turned off from 7
p.m. to 7 a.m. every weekday as well as Sundays and holidays Acoustical expert, Rob Rand,
notes that "This will reduce the town's wind-derived income compared to running all the time
and will put pressure on their financial accounts, as they owe millions to the State for the ARRA
"loans" whose payback was blindly based on being able to run all the time. The cost of operating
improperly sited wind turbines is becoming visible."
2. Duke Energy Pleads Guilty To Killing Birds At Wind Farms and has been fined $1 million
for illegally killing eagles and they have admitted they knew their siting was wrong prior to
construction and would lead to eagle kills;
3. A clause inserted into a Coalition Agreement May End Germany’s Green Energy Shift and
could have the effect of requiring wind and solar plants to pay for the baseload back-up power
required when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. This is thought to "seal the fate"
of renewables if they have to shoulder these costs rather than dumping them on the backs of
consumers who never agreed to pay for them.
Each of these stories indicate that unseen costs of wind energy are at last coming into public
view. To be sure, there are other costs that remain to be demonstrated to the public and to policy
makers. Yet, these three stories are very encouraging and they make a fine step in the right
direction. They are something to be thankful for this holiday season. Blessings to you all and a
Happy Thanksgiving.
(11-22-13) The Urbana Daily Citizen reports that the Ohio Power Siting Board has scheduled a
hearing on January 6th to review Everpower's request to modify Buckeye Wind Phase One. The
hearing will address issues raised by moving the staging area 1.3 miles west from the original
approved location at the NW corner of Ludlow Road and East US Hwy 36. You may recall
that, while Everpower represented that this would be the location of the staging area, they never
had a lease for the land nor, to our knowledge, did they ever disclose that fact to the OPSB. The
new proposed location appears to raise concerns with respect to the planned expansion of the
Robert Rothschild Company and the related sewer line extension. However this matter is
ultimately resolved, should the project go forward, it ought not be forgotten that the Phase One
approval was based on representations by Everpower that were not true and now they have to fix
it. What other misrepresentations were made by Everpower in order to gain approval?
In a tizzy over threats to the renewable mandate, a huge ad campaign is being launched by the
Sierra Club (some Logan County folks refer to the Sierra Club as a "terrorist
organization"!). Perhaps Sierra's screams of protest, in fact, belie the truth that Ohio ratepayers
are paying considerably more for in-state generated wind. The wind developers want the public
and the media to focus on the hysteria of the environmental lobby so they will not see the money
pouring out of our pockets and into theirs.
Environmentalists Launch Ad Campaign, Release Study To Defend Clean Energy Law:
Opponents of a GOP-led effort to roll back Ohio's green energy law issued a glowing review
Thursday of how renewable and energy efficiency requirements have benefitted consumers,
while another organization launched an ad campaign targeting the bill.
Advocates also cast a harsh light on the measure in the way of a highly visible electronic ad
towering over Capitol Square.
With those efforts, environmental groups are taking full advantage of a legislative pause while
Sen. Bill Seitz's (R-Cincinnati) colleagues review his controversial proposal (SB 58 ) to ease
compliance with mandates for utilities to procure 12.5% of their electricity from renewable
resources and cut customer consumption 22% by 2025.
Sen. Seitz, who chairs the Senate Public Utilities Committee, called off a vote on the measure
this week to give members more time to review a substitute version, which he said represents a
compromise with his original plan to eliminate the requirement for half of Ohio's renewable
energy to come from in-state sources. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, November 18, 2013)
The Sierra Club Ohio Chapter took its fight against the legislation to a huge electronic billboard
across from the Statehouse on the corner of Broad Street and High Street with an ad stating:
"Stop electric rate hikes, consumer rip-offs, and hand-outs to utilities. Stop SB58."
Meanwhile, Environment Ohio issued a report indicating that energy efficiency requirements
have generated 5 million megawatt-hours of cumulative energy savings - enough electricity to
power Cincinnati, Cleveland and Dayton for a year - between January 2009, when the law
(SB221, 127th General Assembly) took effect and December 2012.
During that time it has also reduced peak electricity demand by 1,583 MW, the equivalent
capacity of Ohio's sixth-largest power plant, the report said. In addition, 313 MW of wind power
and 25 MW of solar energy were added in 2012, which could produce more power than Dayton
households use in a year.
"The clean energy law is getting results for the Buckeye State," Environment Ohio state associate
Christian Adams said. "Four years in, Ohio's Clean Energy Law is reducing pollution, cutting our
dependence on coal and gas, creating jobs, and saving Ohioans money."
Dan Litchfield, senior business developer with Iberdrola Renewables, said passage of the law
prompted the company to shift its focus from Indiana to Ohio when deciding where to build the
Blue Creek Wind Farm, a 304 MW project that came online in June 2012.
"We knew the law would create a market for clean energy that we could compete for," he said.
"We are looking forward to further investment in the state and hopefully a higher percentage of
Ohio labor now that there are some firms with wind energy construction experience."
Mr. Adams said the report shows Sen. Seitz's proposed changes to the law are unnecessary.
"The clean energy law's proven track record in delivering energy savings and spurring renewable
energy development in Ohio show that the law is working as intended. Senate Bill 58 would take
Ohio back to the bad old days of wasteful energy use and overreliance on dirty energy sources,"
he said.
Proponents of Senate Bill 58 say it would prevent electricity rate spikes as the energy efficiency
benchmarks ratchet higher in coming years and would allow large mercantile customers that
have already implemented their own electricity-saving measures to opt-out of paying for their
competitors' upgrades.
(11-21-13) On Nov 21 the battle against wind is being fought on two fronts: State and
Federal. We will cover both and ask that you take action if you have not done so already. Each
voice counts and we are only as strong as our collective effort. Thank you. We have much
additional news that we will be reporting in the coming week.
STATE UPDATE AND CALL TO ACTION Thank you for contacting your state officials
concerning Sub SB 58 and its companion House Bill 302. The landscape is changing from
moment to moment and you are a part of the dialogue on that change. If you have not yet
contacted Rep. Adams and Senator Faber with copies to Senator Seitz please do so today. If
you live outside of the Districts which Adams and Faber represent, email your own State Rep.
and Senator but also copy Seitz and Faber. This is still a moving target and the wind industry
and its allies are pulling out all the stops. Please email Senator Faber AND Rep. John
Adams to DEMAND the elimination of the instate mandate for wind. Less than 10% of Ohio is
marginally suitable for the commercial development of wind. That means that the BURDEN of
the state mandate falls disproportionately on their constituents. Fulfillment of the mandate will
only be possible with the continued use of unsafe and inadequate setbacks that threaten health
and safety and destroy property values. Ask FABER and ADAMS not to support the destruction
of the very people they are sworn to represent. A copy of your two emails will go to Senator
Seitz as well. Attached is a the email sent from property appraiser, Mike McCann, a nationally
recognized expert on home values near wind developments. McCann discusses the impacts on
Van Wert homes inside the footprint of the Blue Creek project where values dropped around
26% and 7 homes went into foreclosure.
In the article at the bottom of this post, Sen. Seitz describes the opponents as "…the usual
suspects," a group that he said includes " enviro-socialist rent-seekers" who depend on
government mandates, while he said its supporters include a wide array of businesses and labor
groups. Among those identified as opponents are Honda and Scott's Miracle Grow in
Marysville. Both of these companies want to appear "Green" but, in the case of Honda, "green"
also means $$ as they take advantage of the federal subsidies and tax credits to install two giant
wind turbines at their transmission plant near Indian Lake. The turbines are under construction
and we suspect the people who live in the area or vacation there will soon have the pleasure of
their noisy company. By limiting the size of the project, Honda was able to avoid Ohio Power
Siting Board scrutiny.
With respect to Scott's, Michael Shelton is the company's "Sustainability Manager" and in his
spare time serves as the Chairman of the Ohio League of Conservation Voters, a left wing group
supporting as Seitz would say "Enviro-Socialism". Much of the problem is a dangerous
combination of ignorance and ideology. If you would like to express your opinions to Scott's
you can call 937-644-0011 or E-mail: Scotts . Many of Honda's and Scott's employees live
inside the proposed footprint of the Everpower project but apparently these companies have little
regard for their well-being.
FEDERAL UPDATE AND CALL TO ACTION Lisa Linowes of WindAction writes that our
Congressional delegation in the US House of Representatives, who favor expiration of the wind
PTC, need our help.
Fifty-two of them signed a letter organized by Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo opposing extension of
the PTC and their action earned them the wrath of the Big Wind Attack Machine.
Two Ohioans: Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Urbana) and Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Portsmouth) signed the
letter. We need to thank Rep. Jordan and Rep. Wenstrup by calling or emailing their
Washington offices at the numbers listed below. If you need assistance, let us know.
It would be useful to remind all of the members that ONLY RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
RECEIVE UNLIMITED, OPEN-ENDED CREDITS for the electricity they generate regardless of
where the project is located or whether the energy is needed or not. No form of fossil
generation has a production-related subsidy. Rather, tax credits granted fossil fuels are akin to
those available to any industry involved in mining and mineral extraction. The generation side
does not received any subsidy.
Member Name
DC Phone DC FAX Contact Form
Representative Steve Chabot 202-225(R - 01)
2216
2022253012
http://chabot.house.gov/contact/
Representative Brad
Wenstrup (R - 02)
202-2253164
2022251992
http://wenstrup.house.gov/contact/
Representative Joyce Beatty 202-225(D - 03)
4324
2022251984
https://beatty.house.gov/contact/email-me
Representative Jim Jordan
(R - 04)
202-2252676
2022260577
http://jordan.house.gov/contact/
Representative Bob Latta (R 202-225- 05)
6405
2022251985
http://latta.house.gov/contact/
Representative Bill Johnson
(R - 06)
202-2255705
2022255907
http://billjohnson.house.gov/contact/
Representative Bob Gibbs (R 202-225- 07)
6265
2022253394
https://gibbs.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
Representative John A.
Boehner (R - 08)
2022250704
http://boehner.house.gov/contact/
202-2256205
Representative Marcy Kaptur 202-225(D - 09)
4146
2022257711
https://forms.house.gov/kaptur/webforms/issue_subscri …
Representative Michael R.
Turner (R - 10)
202-2256465
2022256754
http://turner.house.gov/contact/
Representative Marcia L.
Fudge (D - 11)
202-2257032
2022251339
https://fudgeforms.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=214& …
Representative Patrick J.
Tiberi (R - 12)
202-2255355
2022264523
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Representative Tim Ryan (D 202-225- 13)
5261
2022253719
http://timryanforms.house.gov/contact/
Representative Dave Joyce
(R - 14)
202-2255731
2022253307
https://joyce.house.gov/email-me
Representative Steve Stivers 202-225(R - 15)
2015
2022253529
http://stivers.house.gov/contact/
Representative James B.
Renacci (R - 16)
2022253059
https://renacciforms.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=58 …
202-2253876
(11-20-13) In a disturbing turn of events, the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee and
Chairman Senator Seitz have agreed to compromise on the renewable mandate for wind and
solar. It is a disappointment - but perhaps just another setback in our ongoing fight. Here is what
has happened:
1. The bill will require renewable energy to be " deliverable" into Ohio which will
eliminate Canadian Hydro power - for now. A transmission line is being built to deliver
the power and when it is built, Canadian Hydro will be eligible to compete.
2. The mandate will stay as long as in-state wind and solar will not exceed the cost of out
of state renewables by more than 5%. (This might help a little because Ohio wind is
expensive.)
3. The mandate will phase out at a yet-to-be determined time and may perhaps be tied to
the two-year extension of the PILOT that was put into the budget bill last summer..
4. If the mandate is found to be unconstitutional by a court, the bill provides that any
renewable energy deliverable to Ohio from anywhere will count toward Ohio's renewable
goals. Senator Seitz continues to believe the instate mandate is unconstitutional.
We will keep you posted as we learn more. Van Wert County Republican Senator Cliff Hite and
Cleveland area Republican Senator Frank LaRose are the two Committee members who are
catering to the special interests of big wind.
Separately, an unknown group will be submitting a ballot issue to the Secretary of State to put an
issue on the November 2014 ballot to provide $1.3 billion in bond financing for wind and solar
development. An article follows below on this issue. It is interesting to note that even the Sierra
Club has a problem with this proposal. Diane and Julie
________________________________________
Gongwer - Bill to Amend State Green Energy Law Diluted
The sponsor of a controversial plan to dilute Ohio's green energy law said Monday that he was
willing to let the in-state renewable requirement live on a few more years and drop references to
Canadian hydroelectric power in a new version of the bill.
Sen. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) said in an interview that he planned to back off somewhat from his
original plan to eliminate the requirement for half of Ohio's renewable power to come from instate sources when he introduces a substitute version Wednesday before the Senate Public
Utilities Committee votes on the measure (SB 58 ).
For months wind and solar power developers, aligned with environmentalists, consumer and
some manufacturers' groups, have fought hard to preserve clean energy standards, which require
utilities to produce 12.5% of Ohio's electricity to come from renewable sources, while helping
customers cut consumption 22% by 2025 (SB221, 127th General Assembly).
While opponents say the bill jeopardizes Ohio-produced clean energy along with wind turbine
and solar panel manufacturers, Sen. Seitz believes the in-state renewable energy requirement
violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. "There will be some level of
compromise on in-state renewable resources where, very reluctantly, we will continue the current
unconstitutional state of affairs for some extended period of time before replacing it with a more
conventional buy Ohio provision," he said.
Rather than eliminating the requirement, the substitute bill will include a preference for Ohioproduced renewable energy as long as it doesn't cost 5% more than out-of-state renewables, he
said. The provision is in line with other "buy Ohio" language already in state law. Furthermore,
the current 50% in-state requirement will continue "for a period of time that remains under
negotiation," the sponsor said.
Sen. Seitz said he wants to tie the new provision to a tax break program for alternative energy
projects, which the biennial budget (HB 59 ) recently extended by two more years. (See
Gongwer Ohio Report, September 11, 2013)
The substitute bill will also include a severability clause in case a court invalidates the 50% instate renewable requirement or the new buy-Ohio language, he said. If that happens, the
legislation will revert back to the original proposal allowing any renewable energy that is
"deliverable" to Ohio to qualify toward the renewable portfolio standards (RPS).
Other revisions to the proposed "deliverability standard" will remove specific reference to
Canadian hydroelectric power, the sponsor said. "Having said that, if Canadian hydropower at
some point in the future is able to be deliverable into the PJM footprint, it would count. But it
doesn't count now because it's not deliverable," he said.
Wind and solar developers say allowing cheap and plentiful Canadian hydroelectricity to qualify
as renewable would effectively gut the RPS once a new transmission line is completed beneath
Lake Erie that connects Canada to the PJM network.
Sen. Seitz said the project would likely make Canadian hydropower "deliverable" to Ohio, thus
qualifying toward the RPS without the need to spell it out in the legislation. "Why shouldn't we
be green at the cheapest price possible? Again, I ask, is it about being green or making green?
That is the question posed by this bill," he said. As for changes to the energy efficiency
standards, Sen. Seitz said there would be several complex technical revisions, but no significant
departure from his plan to allow far more energy-saving upgrades to qualify toward satisfying
the requirements.
However, the substitute measure will include a new reporting requirement for large industrial
customers that choose to opt-out of energy efficiency programs, he said, noting the original
proposal would have allowed non-participating mercantile ratepayers to simply submit verified
statements outlining their electricity-saving efforts. "Annually, thereafter, we're probably going
to require that they submit some sort of a report with respect to what they actually did so that it's
not simply a verified statement of what they plan to do. It would be some accountability as to
what they actually did, or, if they didn't do it, why not," he said.
The sponsor said he planned to scale back, somewhat, provisions that would grant utilities shared
savings incentives for complying with the annual energy efficiency benchmarks to ensure they
don't get bonuses for upgrading their own infrastructure. Otherwise, he said there will likely be
no major changes to the shared savings incentives, including the 33% cap.
Opponents, such as the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, say the shared savings proposal would create
a windfall for electric companies by essentially making customers pay them $33 million for
every $100 million that energy efficiency programs save. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, October 9,
2013) The OCC recently teamed up with the Ohio Manufacturers Association and other business
and environmental groups to pitch an alternative approach to Sen. Seitz's plan.
"Our proposal strikes a fair balance for Ohio's energy efficient future, unlike the current
legislation that enriches utilities at the expense of millions of Ohio consumers and businesses,"
Ohio Consumers' Counsel Bruce Weston said in a statement.
The coalition's proposal would remove all the changes that would raise electricity bills, such as
the shared savings language, and would eliminate provisions that water down energy efficiency
standards, such as allowing utilities to count old power plant upgrades, the coalition said.
The proposed amendment would preserve the streamlined industrial opt-out provision, but
require those customers to bid their energy efficiency savings into PJM auctions, which lowers
the price of electricity for all customers, the coalition said.
"This compromise amendment strikes the right balance by helping the largest energy users while
maintaining the existing energy efficiency framework that is helping Ohio manufacturers lower
costs and improve their competitiveness," OMA President Eric Burkland said.
In addition to the OCC and OMA, the alternative proposal was supported by the Ohio Hospital
Association, Ohio Advanced Energy Economy, Ohio Environmental Council, and Ohio Partners
for Affordable Energy.
The coalition's proposed amendment is unlikely to get any traction, at least as long as Sen. Seitz
is managing the bill. "That's not a compromise, that's a capitulation," he said when asked about
it. "In your dreams."
________________________________________
Gongwer - Ohio Clean Energy Amendment
A mysterious group pushing a constitutional amendment to generate funding for green energy
projects is back with a slight tweak to its $13 billion bond proposal, which is set for a hearing
before the Ballot Board on Tuesday.
Supporters of the Ohio Clean Energy Amendment recently collected the requisite 1,000 valid
signatures and had their summary of the ballot issue approved by Attorney General Mike
DeWine - the initial hurdles to start collecting the 385,247 signatures required to place the issue
before the voters.
Before that can happen, the Ballot Board will convene to determine whether the amendment
consists of only one or multiple separate measures.
The proposal to require the state to issue $1.3 billion in bonds for 10 years to fund green energyrelated projects is nearly identical to a plan that emerged last year before a coalition of
environmental groups came out in strong opposition. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, March 1,
2012)
Yes for Ohio's Energy Future Committee spokesman German Trejo said the group hopes to put
the measure before voters in the 2014 general election.
The difference between this proposal and last year's version is the new one doesn't tie the start of
the bond measure to a specific date, he said.
"The initiative is important not just for clean energy but also for the creation of jobs in the state
of Ohio," he said. "We believe it is time that the state of Ohio brings a broader and serious clean
energy component and the people of the state of Ohio benefit from this type of initiative."
The plan will generate an estimated 300,000 direct and indirect jobs in the state, he said.
Sierra Club Ohio Chapter manager Jed Thorp said environmental groups still aren't convinced.
"This was bad policy last year, and it's bad policy now. There are better ways to advance clean
energy in Ohio," he said in an email.
Environmental groups have expressed concern that the constitutional amendment would send
$13 billion to a corporation based in the state of Delaware that would have sole control over how
the money would be spent. They say nothing in the language spells out how members of the
Ohio Energy Initiative Commission would be selected.
Opponents have also criticized a provision that would give the out-of-state entity up to $65
million a year for administrative expenses and said the language describing eligible projects was
so broad it could include virtually any technology.
Mr. Trejo dismissed the criticism, saying the proposed commission would prevent political
interests from interfering with the best funding decisions for the state.
"The reason why it is important to have an independent commission to manage the funds that
would be allocated by the state of Ohio is because we often see politicians put partisan interests
before the people's interest," he said.
When asked who provided funding for the campaign, Mr. Trejo said simply that it was a
"citizen-driven initiative" backed by individuals that want a clean energy future for the state.
"We have a very robust fundraising strategy," he said. "No oil, no coal, and no large corporations
are behind this initiative.
"We want the people of the state of Ohio to be well-informed about what this initiative is in
order not to be tricked or mislead by individuals who do not understand this initiative and are
actually acting against the best interests of workers and the environment in the state," he added.
(11-19-13) Senator Seitz has asked that we SPREAD the word about what Big Wind is
doing. Please email Senator Faber AND Rep. John Adams to DEMAND the elimination of
the instate mandate for wind. Less than 10% of Ohio is marginally suitable for the commercial
development of wind. That means that the BURDEN of the state mandate falls
disproportionately on their constituents. Fulfillment of the mandate will only be possible with
the continued use of unsafe and inadequate setbacks that threaten health and safety and destroy
property values. Ask FABER and ADAMS why they support the destruction of the very people
they are sworn to represent. A copy of your two emails will go to Senator Seitz as well.
PLEASE WRITE TODAY – THE HEARING IS TOMORROW
Spread the word: Big wind is demanding continuance of the unconstitutional in-state mandate
thru December 31, 2019 (I offered December 31, 2016) AND no further changes to the definition
of renewables, which would mean that we could not allow Senator Coley to amend the bill to add
Ohio River hydro or Senator Patton to amend the bill to include certain forms of anerobic
digesters and methane gas contraptions. In other words, whatever benefits Big Wind and three
Ohio counties (Paulding, Van Wert, and Hardin) is preferable to other, cheaper renewables that
benefit the other 85 counties.
Sincerely,
William J. Seitz
(11-18-13) We did not want to lose sight of last week's effort by Everpower owner, Terra Firma,
to sell its European renewable energy business, Infinis. Terra Firma sought to begin the spin-off
(pun intended!) of Infinis by issuing stock in the company through an IPO (Initial Public
Offering). Headlines from the stock offering last week were: "Hands' wind power venture
Infinis heads trio of flotation flops " and "Infinis Energy, Just Retirement and TCS Group
make poor debuts on London bourse"
Today's article makes some important points about financing wind energy:
• "Private equity firms and their investors are turning away from renewable energy investments
and focusing their attention on deals to extract and produce fossil fuels, as massive discoveries of
shale gas in the Unites States push down energy prices and put returns from renewable energy
investments under pressure."
• "At the same time, heavily indebted governments in southern Europe have removed support for
solar and wind power, leaving such investments to stand on their own feet and at the mercy of
market forces."
• "However, the reaction among private equity dealmakers and their investors has been to shift
their attention to these new forms of fossil fuels as a better way of making a bigger return."
• "Returns from wind energy developments that could have presented solid mid to high teens
results a couple of years ago have dropped, just as less complicated deals for more familiar
sectors such as industrials or healthcare have returned."
• "If the economic environment is better for industrial businesses outside of renewables that's
where the capital will go. It's not just a shale gas thing, it's also about where the big money guys
think they can make a better return.
• "If you are a developer in renewables, you have probably got to offer more return than possibly
might be available."
What does all of this mean? It means tremendous pressure on the federal government to extend
the PTC; pressure on state government to keep renewable mandates; and tremendous pressure on
local governments to grant tax abatement through PILOTs.
We will continue to monitor each level of government - eyes wide open! And we are grateful to
those federal, state and local elected officials who understand they are part of the game played by
Terra Firma/Everpower and other wind developers to hang on to $$ in a changing market
environment. Could this be the beginning of the end?
Another related story:
Investors' actions say much about the appeal of 'clean' energy
(11-14-13) I am sharing this timely request with all on my e-mail list who are constituents (or
closely adjoin) Senator Cliff Hite's Ohio Senate District One. The request below has been sent to
many who are in the footprint of Everpower's proposed Scioto Ridge Industrial Wind project in
Hardin and Logan Counties.
Please take a moment right now and contact Senator Hite--he is very pro-wind and believes that
all in his district agree with his view.The sample letter below was written by an individual in the
footprint of the project.
Please revise the letter or compose your own. E-mail Senator Hite and CC Senator Seitz,
Senator Hite's aide Chris Collins, and Senator Faber.Thank you so much for your help. Quantity
is necessary--please share this e-mail and encourage others to contact Senator Hite immediately.
To friends in Ohio Senate District One: I am sending an urgent message for your help in
emailing Senator Cliff Hite, a major proponent of the wind industry. Senator Bill Seitz has
introduced Substitute SB 58 bill to scale back parts of Ohio's renewable energy and energy
efficiency standards. Passing this bill would repeal the in-state mandate requiring utilities to buy
Ohio generated wind which far exceeds the cost of wind energy generated out of state. The
Senate Public Utilities Committee has received a legal opinion that the in-state mandate violates
the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Senator Hite is pro wind and claims everyone in
his District supports Big Wind and opposes any repeal of the mandate. Sen. Hite needs to know
many people in his district do not approve of Big Wind. The Committee will vote next week.
Below is the message I am sending to Senator Hite, Senator Hite's aide, Chris Collins, Senator
Seitz and to Senate President Keith Faber.
You may copy or revise my e-mail or compose your own.
Please e-mail Senator Hite immediately and CC Senator Hite's aide Chris Collins, Senator Bill
Seitz and Senate President Keith Faber.
Encourage your spouse, your children, your friends and neighbors to e-mail as well.
Senator Cliff Hite:
hite@ohiosenate.gov
Senator Hite's aide:
Chris.collins@Ohiosenate.gov
Senator Bill Seitz
sd08@senate.state.oh.us
Senate President Keith Faber
SD12@ohiosenate.gov
Thank you,
Betsy Reames
Sample email:
Contrary to your belief, not everyone in your district supports wind energy. I am a homeowner
in the footprint of the Scioto Ridge Wind Project and am not willing to sacrifice property value,
health and deal with noise issues and shadow flicker caused by turbines. Wind energy is costly
and subsidized heavily by taxpayers and does not reduce our usage of natural gas and other
energy resources. In addition, the cost of generating wind energy is still prohibitively expensive
when compared to natural gas and fossil fuels.
It is my request that you vote for Substitute SB 58 exactly as it stands.
Add your name and address
(11-05-13) Good morning, Thank you again for signing the nationwide coalition letter that calls
on Congress to let the wind PTC expire at the end of the year. I am happy to announce that 102organizations signed on. Please find the final version of the letter attached and posted online. We
will send this up to Capitol Hill today.
Thank you for your partnership on the issue. If you have questions, please let me know.
Best regards,
Christine Harbin Hanson
Federal Affairs Manager
Americans for Prosperity
2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 350 | Arlington, VA 22201
(10-29-13) This morning the Times Herald headlined the Everpower story from New York
where the Chipmonk Ridge project has been terminated. We call your attention to the fact that
when the Allegany Planning Board tried to get a new noise survey from Everpower in order to
understand the impact of the new turbines proposed for the area, Everpower refused and then
sued the town and the Planning Board. We have also reprinted an analysis of the cost of wind
power that clearly refutes claims by developers of wind's affordability.
This story is covered in depth at Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County website
Several upcoming events you may wish to put on your calendar are the November AWEA
protest in East Lansing, Michigan sponsored by Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition Interstate
Informed Citizens Coalition. A brochure providing additional information is attached. IICC was
very instrumental in organizing and participating in the Ohio AWEA conference protest last
month. If you are able to help return the favor by traveling to Michigan, please rsvp to IICC as
soon as possible.
Another upcoming important date is November 13th when three panels of national experts will
testify in the Ohio Senate on the bill to repeal Ohio's in-state wind mandate. Some of the "rock
stars" of the anti-wind movement will be appearing. We will provide more detailed information
on the exact time and place of the hearing as we get closer to the date.
Wind power costs in U.S. are six times higher than claimed
(10-27-13) A new report has been released by the Institute for Energy Research which is
staggering. We urge you to read the article and note the following conclusion:
"Wind energy is not nearly as "clean" and "good for the environment" as the wind lobbyists want
you to believe. The wind industry is dependent on rare earth minerals imported from China, the
procurement of which results in staggering environmental damages. As one environmentalist
told the Daily Mail, "There's not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous
for the environment." That the destruction is mostly unseen and far-flung does not make it any
less damaging.
All forms of energy production have some environmental impact. However, it is disingenuous for
wind lobbyists to hide the impacts of their industry while highlighting the impacts of others.
From illegal bird deaths to radioactive waste, wind energy poses serious environmental risks
that the wind lobby would prefer you never know about. This makes it easier for them when
arguing for more subsidies, tax credits, mandates and government supports. "
(10-26-13) In breaking news, Everpower has backed out of its plan to build their project in
Allegany, New York. This article is self-explanatory. We congratulate the people of Cattarugus
County who were relentless in their opposition to the Chipmonk Ridge project.
(10-25-13) RSVP to Kevon Martis if you plan to protest at the AWEA Wind Energy Forum in
East Lansing on Nov. 4.
A successful protest was held in Ohio in September.
Michigan is next--please join in and make your voices heard!
Thank you.
Good afternoon ICC supporters and interested observers!
The plans for the AWEA protest Nov. 4th in East Lansing are coming along very nicely.
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MI PROTEST EVENT OF THE LAST 6 YEARS! WE
NEED YOUR VOICES!
PLEASE RSVP TO ME IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO!
Our friends in Huron County are trying to fill a bus for this event. There would be a small charge
per person to ride but would certainly be less than the cost of fuel from the Thumb area.
If you are from the Thumb and are interested in riding down and back, please end and email to
portcrescent@gmail.com for more details on schedule, etc. If we can fill this bus, it would make
a HUGE impact for the event! And I think it would be a lot of fun just to ride together and build
community.
URGENT NEWS::
The speaker's list for the AWEA event has been released
The names there are the Who's-who list of wind profiteers and opportunists in the State of
Michigan- Rich VanderVeen who pushed the Gratiot County wind project, John Sarver who said
"rural residents do not have a right to peace and quiet", Rick Wilson of Heritage Energy, Patty
Birkholz of MLCV, Doug Jester from 5 Lakes Energy, Chris Kolb of the Michigan
Environmental Council- all the names that pushed the failed Proposal 3 ballot measure last year.
Our message to them is simple: NO MEANS NO!!!!
Steve Bakkal of the Michigan Energy Office and MPSC Commissioner John Quackenbush are
also speaking. I have sent word to them that we are very troubled by their presence and hope that
they will convey to the AWEA crowd that wind energy in Michigan is causing harm and
devastating our rural communities. We have several folks who will be attending inside and
taking notes. To date I have not received a response from their offices. I will keep you posted.
US Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means committee is scheduled to speak
as well. I have placed a call in to his DC office asking for clarity on his position with respect to
the Production Tax Credit for Wind Energy so that our protest could be properly targeted.
I have not yet received an answer. I have also asked that he cancel his appearance. We may need
to take more action here. Keep your phone dialing fingers nimble and I will keep you posted.
Senator Debbie Stabenow is speaking as well. Our efforts to reach her on wind energy in the past
have fallen upon deaf ears. We may start a telephone campaign later next week asking her to
cancel her appearance as well.
Finally, I spent all day in Lansing on Thursday. I spoke with many members of the Senate
Energy and Tech Committee. I also visited members of the same committee but on the House
side.
Our voices are being heard and I expect there to be significant changes to PA295 as a result.
UPDATE: We have secured adequate funding our testimony before the OH Senate Energy
committee as well. Thank you to ALL who have assisted. We are making a difference in OH just
as we are in MI! THANK YOU!
I will contact you all again as this week progresses.
In the meantime, please take some time to start making protest signs for the event. Feel free to
use the names of the AWEA speakers to inspire your efforts. We will again have IICC T-shirts
for folks who wish to wear them. It would be good to have a few signs showing the names of
which counties are represented.
Signs asking Governor Snyder to protect your communities from predatory wind developers or
wind development are valuable as well.
And a few asking for the end of the PTC for wind energy are good..
We have folks traveling from OH, IN and hopefully Ontario to help us out.
Please feel free email this text or the attached flier along to as many as possible.
Sincerely,
Kevon Martis, Executive Director
Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition
(10-24-13) Dollars--several thousand--are needed to fund expert witnesses who will testify in
favor of Senator Bill Seitz' Substitute Senate Bill 58!
Tom Stacy is spearheading this effort and the details are explained by him below.
This is another opportunity for those of us who are involved --SB 58 makes future in-state wind
development uncompetitive.
Please, please consider contributing to the expert witness fund. The funds are needed very soon.
Share with your friends and supporters, too.
Thanks to Tom for making this happen.
And thanks to you for all that you do.
From Tom Stacy:
Thank you for considering deferring the cost of bringing expert witnesses in support of OH Sub
SB 58, who are opposed to further wind energy development in Ohio and across the US.
Ohio Senator Seitz, Chairman of Senate Public Utilities Committee, introduced Substitute SB 58
to reduce the economic impact and taxpayer/rate payer burdens associated with Ohio's renewable
energy and energy efficiency mandates. Senator Seitz then asked me to assemble experts from
various fields to testify in support of Sub SB 58 - and specifically to "set the record straight"
regarding the high true cost and low true value of wind electricity. I have done so. The witness
list is attached.
I now need to fund the witnesses' travel expenses and, in a few cases, honorarium fees. I
currently have commitments for $3500 and need $4500 more within a few days. Your help is
needed!!!
This is an opportunity to ensure a good bill is not compromised by its rent seeking and
misguided opponents.
It is vital we present strong expert proponent testimony to neutralize the arguments from well
funded opponents such as the American Wind Energy Association.
Will you help us "turn the tide" on renewable energy subsidies and mandates in Ohio and
beyond? Please act today and feel free to call Tom Stacy (937) 407-6258 to discuss this effort in
more detail. Thank you!
Checks can be made payable to Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition. The mailing address is:
Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, Inc.
101 E. Adrian Street
Blissfield, MI 49228
The IICC's Federal Tax ID Number is 27-4703482.
Donations are NOT tax deductible.
Here are some additional details:
The bill does not change the mandated levels of either efficiency or renewables, but rather
eliminates the unconstitutional in-state requirement for renewables, allows Canadian hydro to
count as renewable, and offers an easy opt-out of the efficiency mandate for large and energy
intensive businesses whose livelihood already depends on maximizing their energy efficiency something they pay for themselves on an ongoing basis.
The provisions in the bill will minimize current and future ratepayer impact of renewables by
allowing more clean, dependable, and truly affordable technologies to compete - and from a
wider geographic region. This makes future in-state wind development uncompetitive, reducing
the prospects of future wind plant development in Ohio considerably, if not entirely. Only
planned projects that have secured long-term power purchase agreements might still be built.
The bill is good for Ohio and federal taxpayers and Ohio rate payers while giving the legislature
and Governor political cover from rent seeker and environmental zealot attacks.
THIS BILL NEEDS TO PASS AS INTRODUCED AND YOU CAN HELP THAT HAPPEN
BY FUNDING THE EXPENSES WE ARE INCURRING TO BRING EXPERT PROPONENT
WITNESSES!
Attached here are the bill and sponsor testimony.
Checks can be made payable to Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition; address above.
Thank you!
Tom Stacy, Ohioan for Affordable Electricity (937) 407-6258
Kevon Martis, Executive Director, Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition
(10-22-13) Today we bring you news from both sides of the "pond". In the UK, Everpower's
owner, Terra Firma, has announced that they are taking their British wind company Infinis
public in a stock offering. This was the "exit strategy" they had planned on and they hope to
generate a great deal of money to launch a new renewable venture fund. Or maybe they just see
this as a good time to unload Infinis before public subsidies disappear. Interestingly, they are
promising potential shareholders a 6% return on their investment. A pretty rich deal and likely
meant to distract investors from the uncertain future of renewable energy. Closer to home, a
professional engineer who is employed in the wind industry writes an important editorial in the
Olean, New York newspaper stating his strong opposition to Everpower's Allegheny project on
the basis that the company cannot be trusted and that the many 'unknowns' associated with the
project pose a significant risk to the community. The writer raises many issues that, frankly, we
had not thought of before and which are very disturbing.
(10-15-13) We thought this recent report on the effects of wind turbines on nearby property
values in Australia was important to share with you. This study uses real estate valuation
professionals and studies the real impacts of real wind projects as opposed to the wind industry's
theoretical mathematical projections based on hedonic regression models. Among the
conclusions are that the blight can extend beyond the immediately impacted area to the larger
local economy as people are deterred from moving into a community.
(10-14-13) Timing is everything. The result of renewable energy policies promoting wind in
Europe have not only driven ratepayers into fuel poverty but have now raised concerns that
utilities may not be equipped to handle a cold spell this coming winter. A coalition of ten energy
CEO's are calling for an end to wind subsidies. The group includes the CEO of Iberdrola, the
developer of the Blue Creek wind facility in Van Wert and Paulding Counties. Yet, remarkably,
Iberdrola's US representative, Eric Thumma, is leading the charge against Sub SB 58 to save
special treatment and incentives for wind. This article from the Wall Street Journal raises the
question of how American wind developers can continue to promote subsidies, mandates and tax
breaks that have resulted in such harm to European communities. We think this is not only an
economic but a moral issue.
(10-10-13) Yesterday there was considerable testimony given before the Senate Energy and
Public Utilities Committee. Some of you will remember Senator Kris Jordan who joined us in
Mechanicsburg a few years ago for the screening of "Windfall". Senator Jordan testified
yesterday in support of his bill, SB 34, to repeal the state renewable mandate entirely. We have
attached Senator Jordan's remarks. Also providing testimony was Ohio Supreme Court Justice
Terrence O'Donnell's son, Terrence O'Donnell II. The younger O'Donnell is a lobbyist for
AWEA and Ohio Advanced Energy Economy which opposes the Seitz bill, Sub SB 58. The
press coverage of the day from the Toledo Blade provides an amusing quote from Chairman
Seitz that many would agree with: "requiring the purchase of more wind and solar power in Ohio
is "much like mining for gold in an area that doesn't have much gold."
(10-05-13) We wanted to give you a head's up that October 3 through 6 is the Annual Green
Energy Ohio tour and this year it features a stop at the Dick and Margaret Miller Van Wert farm
which is in Iberdrola's Blue Creek Wind factory. The Millers are interviewed in this month's
Green Energy Ohio magazine where they describe some of the downsides of leasing farmland.
One example is that they cannot farm up to the turbine because there is a requirement that seven
acres surrounding the turbine be cleared for bird and bat kill monitoring. The Millers live three
miles from their two turbines. Another stop on the tour is Urbana University. We do not think
this is a wind related stop but it might be for solar. Please also take a look at page 17 in the
Green Energy Ohio magazine which features a story on an anemometer erected near St. Paris to
evaluate the feasibility of powering the Ice River Springs Bottling company.
The Green Energy Ohio Tour provides an opportunity for news stories about renewable energy
and its future in light of the bill pending in the Senate to eliminate in-state requirements to buy
wind. The Springfield News Sun is working on a story about how the bill could impact the
Everpower Buckeye Wind project as well as others around the state. We assume Everpower will
use the opportunity to comment that they are on track no matter what. Take that with a grain of
salt! This past Wednesday the second hearing was held in the Senate to hear opponents of the bill
we have attached three samples from 1) Iberdrola; 2) the Ohio Environmental Council and 3)
Union of Concerned Scientists. We understand that the questioning from Senator Seitz was very
tough and those testifying were not able to provide convincing responses. Next Wednesday,
AWEA will provide testimony opposing the bill. Prior to the hearing on Sub SB 58, the
Committee took testimony from Senator Kris Jordan who introduced a bill last February to
entirely repeal the Ohio renewable energy law. Senator Seitz has decided to move forward on SB
34 at this time because it makes his bill appear to be less extreme and it provides an even greater
threat to the wind industry. We will try to obtain a copy of Sen. Jordan's remarks.
At the federal level, the Production Tax Credit for wind is getting caught up in the debt ceiling
and tax reform. Maybe it will be harder to extend it again this year. If so, this is another factor
that Everpower must consider in deciding to move forward.
(10-01-13) Yesterday the Ohio Power Siting Board issued its decision reaffirming its earlier
approval of Everpower's Phase II of the Buckeye Wind Project. This was expected. The process
now provides that both the County and Townships as well as UNU have sixty days to appeal the
decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The news coverage in the Springfield paper indicates that Everpower is ready to move forward
but not right away. The type of turbine to be used has not been determined. This may mean that
Everpower will not make the current deadline to be eligible for the federal Production Tax Credit
subsidy which is due to expire December 31, 2013.
Furthering complicating the matter for Everpower is the introduction of Sub. S.B. 58 which
amends the Ohio Renewable mandate. Testimony offered in support of this legislation states a
desire by the sponsor, Senator Seitz, and others to have the billed passed by year-end.
The attached article from today's Urbana paper page one and page two reflects some of
Everpower's uncertainty about "market factors". We note that UNU intends to proceed to the
Ohio Supreme Court and we hope that the County will do likewise.
There are continuing significant health concerns related to the siting of the turbines and the
methodology used by Everpower to determine noise levels. Please also read the latest
communication from Dr. Alec Salt of Washington University Medical School to Australian
acousticians who have tried to dismiss the impacts of infrasound from wind turbines. Dr. Salt
accuses the wind industry of misleading the public.
And closer to home, Pioneer Rural Electric also accuses the wind industry of misleading the
public in their most recent Country Living editorial.
(09-30-13) This week Senator Seitz introduced legislation (Sub SB 58) to significantly amend
Ohio's Renewable Energy Mandate (RPS). It is our understanding that Senator Seitz intends to
hold hearings on the measure every Wednesday until about the end of November. It is expected
that this will be more than sufficient time for everyone to have their say - both pro and con. The
bill is lengthy but we have attached it along with the testimony from Senator Seitz and two of the
bill's proponents Dave Boehm and Sam Randazzo.
An article from the Statehouse News Service - GONGWER REPORT-- provides a good review
below. Make no mistake, this is going to be a fierce battle. We have been advised the Committee
does not want to hear about setback issues such as ours. They are more focused on the harms to
the economy that the mandate for wind and solar will bring to Ohio ratepayers and employers.
At issue also is the unconstitutionality of the mandate. These hearings will have an impact on
projects in the pipeline like Everpower's Buckeye Wind because it raises the possibility that no
utility will be forced to buy their energy. At this point, it is unlikely that a utility would enter into
a long term power purchase agreement. There will be much negative press.
Is it a coincidence that, today, Everpower launches a massive PR campaign to push for the
PILOT? Please see the full page ad in today's Urbana Daily Citizen asking citizens to call or
write to the County Commissioners in support of tax abatement.
The ad is misleading in many ways. For example, it infers that 11 eleven counties have granted
PILOT for wind and this is not true as we have previously explained. There are two things that
could be happening and we do not know if it is either or both. The PR campaign could be to
assist in the fight to save the wind mandate or it could be to pressure our local elected officials
into granting tax abatement before Sub SB 58 passes the Senate. But, before an application for
tax abatement is received locally, it must be submitted at the State level and Everpower has not
made a submission yet. It could happen soon but it has not happened yet. We'll keep you up to
date as soon as we hear anything.
GONGWER REPORT:
Sen. Bill Seitz rolled out much anticipated legislation Wednesday that he said would preserve
Ohio's renewable and energy efficiency standards, while revising to law to recognize economic
realities and make green energy more affordable.
The Senate Public Utilities Committee chairman delivered sponsor testimony on a substitute
version of placeholder legislation (SB 58 ) that he introduced earlier this year to overhaul the
2008 clean energy law (SB221, 127th General Assembly).
"Getting green at the cheapest price is the goal," Sen. Seitz (R-Cincinnati) told reporters after a
lengthy hearing.
Meanwhile, defenders of the state's energy efficiency (EE) requirements and the renewable
energy portfolio standards (RPS) said the bill would effectively gut the law and wreck the
developing clean energy industry in the state. (See separate story)
The chairman said planned to have several hearings on the bill in coming weeks and he hoped to
get it passed by the end of the year.
During his sponsor testimony, Sen. Seitz said requirements for 25% of the state's electricity to
come from alternative sources and a mandate on utilities to help reduce customers' consumption
22% by 2025 were adopted under false assumptions about the energy market.
"Simply put, Senate Bill 221 is in need of reform to account for the fact that the economic
projections upon which it was based have turned out to be wrong," he said.
When the measure was passed in 2008, electricity demand was expected to continue increasing,
creating a need for more power plants, but that has not happened, he said. Moreover, new natural
gas resources discovered since then have disproved the assumption that increased generating
capacity would come primarily from coal.
"It would be the height of foolishness to fail to account for these changed circumstances as we
move forward with what was, in essence, an 18 year plan predicated on these assumptions," Sen.
Seitz said.
While utilities have so far been able to comply with the standards, the cost of compliance "is
about to escalate dramatically," he said.
Chairman Seitz said he believed the law should never have been enacted in the first place. But he
realizes that after five years on the books it is popular with people who "see the mandates as a
license to grow their business at the expense of a statewide pool of unsuspecting ratepayers who
are, in effect, subsidizing businesses that are enjoying a state-mandated market niche."
He said the bill would:
• Expand what can be counted toward the EE benchmarks to include utilities' enhancements to
their own transmission and distribution network; count improvements that result in reduced
power needs for water and sewage treatment systems and the use of recycled glass; and allow
excess compliance to be banked forward.
• Reset the EE compliance schedule to lower benchmarks in the near term, while increasing them
in the years right before 2025.
• Allow large industrial customers to opt out of EE programs and riders. This would apply to
slightly more than 110 companies in the state, he said.
• Grant utilities a one-time chance to choose between two EE cost cap mechanisms. One would
limit annual spending in future years at 2013 spending levels, the other would express EE
savings for 2013 on a cost per kilowatt-hour basis then set that as the cap going forward.
"These provisions are an absolutely essential reform, as EE charges are non-bypassable, in the
interest of protecting ratepayers against jacked-up power rates caused by excessive EE spending
that is not cost-effective," he said.
As for the RPS, Sen. Seitz said the bill would adopt the methodology that the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio used in a recent case addressing the existing 3% cost cap, which he
compared to dumping water into a pond until the level rises 3%, rather than comparing the cost
of a kilowatt of wind and solar power to traditional sources.
"If there is one part of my bill that I dislike, this is it because it codifies a cost cap so generous to
the renewables providers that we all will be paying for expensive power for a long time," he said,
adding that a direct KW comparison would shut down the wind and solar industries in Ohio.
The bill would also replace the requirement for half of the 12.5% renewable standard to come
from in-state with language specifying "sources deliverable and dispatchable into Ohio," he said.
Another provision would also broaden the definition of renewables to capture hydropower from
Canada, he said.
Sen. Seitz later told reporters that that proposal was a "commonsense" way of ensuring Ohio gets
renewable power at the lowest possible price.
"If we allow hydro power from our western, southern and eastern borders, what's wrong with our
northern border?" he said. "I've read anecdotally there's a lot of hydro power from Ontario and
Quebec, so we'll find out."
The legislation also fleshes out the existing requirement for 12.5% of Ohio's electricity to come
from "advanced" sources by allowing advanced sources that also produce EE to count toward
both standards, he said.
Members also heard two witnesses representing large industrial customers testify in support of
the substitute bill.
David Boehm, of the Ohio Energy Group, said it would improve the current law by allowing for
counting of all activities that save energy toward achievement of the mandates.
The current regulations impose requirements that "disqualify real and significant energy
efficiency activities," he said.
The witness further said that while statutory language speaks to the utilities' EE obligations and
costs, they get passed onto consumers.
"By the end of 2012 Ohio's utilities have collected over a half billion dollars from Ohio's electric
consumers and it's just getting started," Mr. Boehm said. Billions more will be extracted from
ratepayers unless "rational restraints" are imposed, like those provided in this legislation, he
added.
Mr. Boehm also applauded inclusion of the cap on EE costs greater than those spent in the year
2013.
Although ratepayers must fund mandated utility payments, he said the benefits "are markedly
skewed in favor of residential and commercial participants, particularly in programs like building
insulation and high efficiency lighting."
Mr. Boehm also praised the legislation for clarifying the scope of qualifying energy efficiency
projects. Previously, some groups have successfully established rules or protocols that excluded
the full recognition of energy savings due to reasons outside of the statute's intent, he said.
"If, for instance, the energy savings came from what was regarded as a change in behavior rather
than a costly new device, the savings were not counted," he said. "SB58 corrects these practices,
implementing practices that look at the result, not the motive or the method."
Responding to a question from Sen. Seitz, the witness said the bill would recognize energy
savings due to a changes, such as when a company turns off an assembly line.
The current law fails to count such EE savings, he said. "From the very beginning, this process
seemed to depend on somebody buying expensive equipment."
Sen. Seitz also suggested that under the current practice the legislature had "abdicated to
bureaucrats" decisions about whether an EE upgrade should count or not because it was
something a business was going to do anyway.
Mr. Boehm agreed, saying the PUCO is improperly charged with determining a question of
intent.
Sen. Lou Gentile (D-Steubenville) asked what was wrong with the current EE opt out provision
in the law.
Mr. Boehm said it still requires companies to implement EE programs on a schedule that's in line
with the annual benchmarks.
"Some people seem to think that before this bill came along nobody did any energy efficiency,"
he said. "That's not true. What we're asking the committee is let us do it at our own pace."
Sam Randazzo, general counsel of Industrial Energy Users-Ohio, offered similar testimony in
support of the bill.
He lauded changes to counting EE gains and recalled that a northwestern Ohio school district
recently replaced several aging buildings with new ones. But the PUCO refused to credit the total
energy savings, and instead only counted the EE above that of a typical new school building, he
said.
Mr. Randazzo asked the legislature not to delay action on the bill for another session.
The PUCO's EE compliance plans work on a three-year schedule, he said. Every time the
legislature delays, it pushes back "the opportunity to reflect common sense reforms in the way
this law is working potentially for three years."
Sen. Cliff Hite (R-Findlay) asked how much EE standards have saved consumers.
Mr. Randazzo said it was very little because any savings go into the wholesale market, which is
not the price that Ohio customers are paying. While Ohioans pay the EE riders, any price
suppression effect is flowing to consumers in other states. "We're paying for the mandates and
we're not getting the benefits."
The Ohio Manufacturers' Association did not testify, but issued a statement saying its recent
analysis shows that the benefits of the current law outweigh the costs.
"The OMA-commissioned cost-benefit analysis is clear on two points. First, manufacturers of all
sizes, in all regions of Ohio, are saving money on their energy costs thanks to the energy
efficiency standards and requirements established with bipartisan support in 2007," OMA
President Eric Burkland said.
"And second, any effort to dilute Ohio's energy efficiency standards and requirements is not in
the state's best long-term interest and eventually will result in higher energy costs for all
customers. Unraveling Ohio's energy efficiency program would be a major step backward for
Ohio," he warned.
Business Group Says Seitz 'Gutting' Green Energy Law
Businesses that benefit from the state's green energy law described Sen. Bill Seitz's proposal as a
backdoor attempt to render Ohio's renewable and energy efficiency standards toothless.
During a Statehouse news conference Wednesday before a substitute version of the bill was
accepted (see separate story), members of the Ohio Advanced Energy Economy warned that the
legislation would take the wind out of the sails of a growing industry in Ohio.
OAEE President and CEO Ted Ford complained Sen. Seitz (R-Cincinnati) locked clean energy
proponents out of the bill-drafting process entirely.
"He excluded any voice that supports the existing standards as they are," he said.
When they were finally allowed to see the language Tuesday evening, it was "even worse" than
they'd feared, Mr. Ford said.
"It was basically a gutting of the energy efficiency standards," he said, adding that the bill is also
"undermining" the renewable energy standards.
For example, Sen. Seitz's proposal to allow hydropower from Canada to qualify for Ohio's
renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS) would "wipe out our in-state renewable businesses,"
Mr. Ford said.
"You can basically supply all the renewable energy required under the current standard by just
making hydro cheap," he said. "The utilities will continue buying renewable energy, they'll
continue making money on renewable energy, but they'll be exporting the dollars outside of the
state."
Participants noted that Lake Erie Power Corp recently announced plans to construct a new
transmission line beneath the lake connecting Canada to the PJM network, of which Ohio is a
member.
John Seryak, president of Go Sustainable Energy, blasted proposed changes in how utilities
would be able to count upgrades made by their customers toward the state's energy efficiency
standards.
The bill would allow businesses to create their own metric to measure efficiency savings, he
said. For example, a restaurant that makes 100 sandwiches a week one year, and then increases
to 105 sandwiches the next year would be able to claim that its consumption of kilowatt-hours
per sandwich decreased.
"The utility now will claim those as efficiency savings, even though no electricity's been
reduced, and will cover the costs for that loss of electricity from ratepayers, and will take a profit
on that. This is decidedly not what the resource standards were intended to do," he said.
Another provision that would allow facilities that qualify as "advanced energy" to also count
toward the energy efficiency standards is "nonsensical," Mr. Seryak said.
"We have no place collecting ratepayer funds on the electric grid for anything that produces no
electricity," he said. "I could claim that my fireplace heats my home, reduces my energy costs
and take electric ratepayer funds for it."
Mr. Seryak said limiting the amount of money that electric utilities can spend on energy
efficiency programs will harm utility ratepayers.
"Because these programs are already proven to be cost-effective, it's a cost cap on savings - it
limits the ability of the consumer to save money," he said, noting that the law already requires
energy efficiency programs to save ratepayers more money than they cost.
And allowing large industrial customers to opt out of energy efficiency will effectively create a
subsidy for them, he said. Small business and residential ratepayers will have to continue paying
the energy efficiency riders that reduce demand and ultimately lower the cost of electricity for
everyone.
Mark Wiley, president of Kastle Solar, LLC, said legislative uncertainty has already jeopardized
two proposed renewable energy school projects in Green and Brown counties that his company is
working on.
In 2011, Kastle installed rooftop solar systems for two Adams County elementary schools that
now generate 40% of the power the facilities consume, he said, adding that the energy savings
have helped the district keep teachers in the classrooms.
"These projects are on hold today and they will not go forward if Mr. Seitz's bill is enacted as it's
established today," he said. "Those are the real world impacts to small businesses, such as
ourselves."
(09-26-13) A great day in Columbus with about thirty protesting citizens marching in front of the
Hilton Hotel where the American Wind Energy Association was holding its Midwest Summit.
It was an IMPORTANT effort coordinated by the Interstate Concerned Citizens and Kevon
Martis. We were joined by wind warriors from Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania! Thank you!
Woody Allen said once that "Eighty per cent of success is just showing up." Amen. Please read
the breaking coverage below from the legislature's news service. Woody was right.
We neglected to thank Tom Stacy for his leadership in the protest as well as thank him for the
great banners he brought. They were terrific. You can view photos here: Photo 1, Photo 2, Photo
3, Photo 4.
We understand Tom will be in the Ohio General Assembly for the introduction of the Seitz
legislation. This is going to be a hard fight and we will be calling upon you in the future to
support changes to the Ohio renewable policy.
In the meantime, we must continue our efforts locally to support free market elected officials at
both the state and local level.
Gongwer Report:
Wind Industry, Other Groups Gear Up For Fight Over Green Energy Law
On the eve of a key senator's unveiling of his plan to overhaul Ohio's clean energy law, the wind
industry warned that the proposed changes cloud a sunny forecast for renewable energy
development in the state.
The American Wind Energy Association's news conference on Tuesday kicked off what will
likely be a pitched battle over Republican efforts to scale back the state's renewable energy and
energy efficiency requirements on electric utilities (SB221, 127th General Assembly).
Wind energy opponents also rallied against "industrial wind cronyism and taxpayer fleecing" in
Columbus Tuesday afternoon, and the Ohio Advanced Energy Economy Institute scheduled a
news conference Wednesday morning to tout a report on the benefits of the clean energy law.
Wednesday afternoon the Senate Public Utilities Committee is set to accept a substitute version
of placeholder legislation (SB 58 ) that Chairman Sen. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) introduced
earlier this year.
Among other things, the substitute version would eliminate the requirement for half of the 12.5%
of Ohio's electricity supply to come from renewable energy facilities located in the state, Sen.
Seitz said last month. The sponsor said a federal court ruling found in-state energy preferences
elsewhere were an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause. (See Gongwer Ohio
Report, August 21, 2013)
Eric Thumma, director of institutional relations for Iberdrola Renewables, said the in-state
renewable energy requirement was a "prime driver" for the company to construct the 304megawatt Blue Creek Wind Farm in Van Wert and Paulding counties.
"The great thing about the Ohio requirement is you're getting energy from Ohio, you're getting
investment in Ohio," he said.
"The policies that the Ohio General Assembly put in place are working. We're meeting the
benchmarks," he said, urging lawmakers not to alter the renewable energy portfolio standards
(RPS).
Susan Innis, senior manager of public affairs for Vestas, said Ohio's RPS, combined with a
robust supply chain and proximity to wind farms, makes the state fertile ground for wind turbine
manufacturers.
New technology that enables turbines to generate electricity with winds as slow as six miles per
hour have also made wind power more viable in the state, she said.
Dayna Baird, contract lobbyist for AWEA, said changes to the RPS could jeopardize
development of the seven proposed wind farm projects that have already been certified by the
Ohio Power Siting Board and are ready to move forward.
Wind developers are waiting for electric utilities to issue the next request for proposals to secure
a long-term contract before breaking ground on the projects, she said. "When the next RFP does
come out, there's going to be a lot of serious competition."
Meanwhile, another group protested what it called "the lies and manipulation" of the wind
industry and its legislative allies during a rally scheduled later in the day.
Kevon Martis, of Interstate Concerned Citizens, said elected officials allowed the industry to
encroach on private property and endanger the wellbeing of rural residents.
"The emperor has no clothes and it is time the media and state legislatures admit it," he said in a
news release.
The wind industry is dependent on "massive public subsidy at both the federal and local level as
well as on unconstitutional state mandates," the group said, and warned that other countries are
working to undo policies that encourage wind development.
"The U.S. and Ohio should learn from the failures abroad, and stop wasting taxpayer dollars on
an endeavor destined to raise electricity rates, make the U.S. a less attractive place to
manufacture and ultimately costing jobs," Interstate Concerned Citizens said.
In other developments, the Ohio Advanced Energy Economy Institute said it would unveil an
Ohio State University study that shows Ohioans will pay $3.65 billion more on their electricity
bills over the next 12 years if Sen. Seitz's proposal is enacted.
Ohioans saved 1.4% on their electricity bills since energy efficiency and renewable energy
standards were enacted in 2008, according to the study. The law also stimulated investment in
the energy sector that expanded gross domestic product by $160 million in 2012, and created
more than 3,200 Ohio jobs in the period from 2008 to 2012.
Sen. Seitz has said his bill would also make it easier for electric utilities to comply with the
state's energy efficiency standards and limit the amount they could spend on the mandate.
(09-21-13) Wind warriors Kevon Martis and Tom Stacy have been hard at work to prepare for
the protest of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) "Summit" on Tuesday,
September 24th. Below is the information you will need if you are planning to come to
Columbus and we hope you do. AWEA has gotten 'wind' of the demonstration and has notified
all Summit participants that:
"Special Note: We have been informed that anti-wind groups and individuals have made plans to
demonstrate outside our event between noon and 3 pm. AWEA Public Affairs is aware of the
situation and will handle it. Please resist the temptation to engage with them. Do not argue with
them or try to answer what they're saying. It will not convince them, and talking with them or
responding in any way would only seem to give them legitimacy and encourage media attention,
which is what they want."
Let's not disappoint AWEA and let's DO encourage media attention. This is a critical time as
hearings on the state renewable mandate will begin on Wednesday. Opposition and media
attention is important. Make no mistake, AWEA intends to fight back and they have called for a
press conference to demonstrate support for the mandates on October 10th at the Statehouse.
PLEASE TRY TO ATTEND THIS IMPORTANT EVENT - THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU
CONTINUE TO DO TO PROTECT YOUR COMMUNITY!!!!!
_______________________________________
TUESDAY GATHERING PLACE: Meet on the west side of High Street just south of
Nationwide Blvd. There is a small park space there - part of Nationwide Insurance tower
frontage. Convene at 11:50 - 12:00 on the sidewalk or just into the park area, then we will march
as a group AT 12:00 PM SHARP north across the bridge on the west side of High street to the
front of the Hilton where we will continue to walk (picket) in front of the hotel.
PARKING: Parking is ample in the area. There is a parking garage on the north side of
Nationwide Blvd. between High and N. 3rd Street, for instance.
DIRECTIONS: From west of Columbus, take I-70 east to I-670. Take the Rte 33 east exit and
turn right at the light on the ramp. This will take you into downtown to High Street where you
will turn left and proceed north on High Street to Nationwide Blvd.
SIGNS: Tom Stacy has made several banners. You are encouraged to make your own signs.
Please note that Senator Hite is the one who controls setbacks and who will not let measurements
be taken from property lines. Senator Widener is one who created the PILOT program to make it
profitable for the wind developer to build in unsuitable places. Republicans should be ashamed
of these two elected officials who disrespect property rights and steal from the taxpayers through
massive public subsidies to an otherwise unsustainable business. Below are some suggestions for
signs.
Cliff Hite: Sierra Club Approved???????
Cliff Hite Stole My Property Rights
Governor Kasich: Protect Us From AWEA!
I Am a Victim of AWEA!
Chris Widener and Barack Obama LOVE AWEA!
Chris Widener riding the gravy train with AWEA! Rural communities pay!
Chris Widener Going for the taxpayer $Green$
AWEA: Fossil Fueled Since 1974
Senator Hite loves socialized electricity!
We are victims of Anti-fossil NIMBYs!
FREE THE MARKET! (Picture of a light bulb in a jail cell?)
(09-15-13) North West Ohio Leaders-The details of the September 24 AWEA protest in Columbus have just been e-mail blasted from
Logan and Champaign Counties. And beyond.
The rally will be from noon to 3:00 in front of the downtown Hilton Columbus. Bring your own
protest sign, wear a protest t-shirt or your NO WIND hat if you have one. Extra hats will be
available. Bring money for parking - try to carpool with your friends.
Thanks to Kevon for his hard work in organizing this effort. Thanks to Tom Stacy, too.
As leaders, I am sharing with you Kevon's request to group leaders--Push this to as many wind
warriors as possible.Spread the word and swell the crowd!
Please RSVP to me as soon as possible.
We may be able to coordinate limited carpooling.
Bring protest signs. Email me if you need ideas.
Group leaders: please push this to as many wind warriors as possible.
I DO NOT CARE IF THIS LEAKS TO AWEA! POST IT ON WEBSITES, FACEBOOK,
TWITTER, Etc!
Get the word out far and wide!
It is important that we send a message to the media and to big wind that developments are being
inappropriately sited; wind is dependent on taxpayer subsidy; wind is an intermittent and
unreliable source of energy; Senators Cliff Hite and Chris Widener are owned and operated by
the special interests of the wind industry; support repeal of the RPS or whatever message you
feel comfortable with.
Thanks to all and sure hope to see you and all your friends on Sept. 24.
(09-06-13) We have two important matters to share with you.
First, AWEA (the American Wind Energy Association) is holding a big Ohio Wind Energy
Summit at the Hilton in Columbus, Ohio on Tuesday, September 24th. Tom Stacy of Save
Western Ohio and Kevon Martis of Interstate Concerned Citizens Coalition are coordinating a
protest and we need as many people as possible to support this event. If you can get a day off, get
a baby sitter or bring the kids, a good turnout of protestors is needed to counter the messages
coming out of AWEA.
The Summit is described below. If you are available, please notify Tom Stacy or Kevon Martis.
They will provide you with further instruction and information. Kevon is recruiting volunteers
from neighboring states and we Ohioans need to do our share. Thank you for giving this your
most serious consideration. As noted below, the Ohio Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) will
be subject to revision and legislation will be introduced at the same time this conference is being
held. We need to show support for repeal of the standard. We note that Ohio Senator Chris
Widener, father of the PILOT program is a featured speaker.
The second important news item is that Ohio Senator Bill Seitz will be introducing legislation to
amend the state’s RPS. This could happen any day. "Lawmaker" link at top of this page is a news
clip on this welcome action. At the same time, the PUCO has come out with a report saying
renewable energy is good for Ohio consumers. This report claims benefits that, thankfully, Sen.
Seitz challenges. The important thing is to question why the report ignores the many harms of
wind energy that outnumber the negligible claimed benefits: massive footprint and wasted land
use; harms to wildlife, human health and safety; property value decline; dependency on taxpayer
subsidy at federal and local level. Etc. You know the arguments! Please comment!
(08-21-13) We took a little breather after the Champaign County Fair where our colleagues
operated a marvelous information booth to inform local citizens about what Buckeye Wind
means to our community. More "No Wind" signs were distributed and several hundred people
signed a petition in opposition to local tax breaks for the project. You will recall that when
Everpower first surfaced and was seeking to sign leases, they were touting the revenue windfall
in terms of taxes that the community would collect. We know now that while they were
promising significant tax revenues, they were simultaneously working to escape their tax liability
by making "Payment-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes" or PILOT. All along, Everpower has assumed they
would force the County Commissioners to approve tax breaks. The application for Phase One
and Phase Two both assume local tax exemption. We can ask ourselves, why did they decide to
come here knowing what Ohio taxes are but now threatening to pull out if they must pay these
taxes? Is this just a bluff to get something for nothing? Are they pushing to unload as much of
their costs onto the Champaign County taxpayers in order to pump up the return to their
investor? Are we that dumb to fall for such a threat? The attached August 15th letter to
leaseholders from Everpower says it all. They are asking local citizens to "pressure" the County
Commissioners. They take a shot at the Anti-Wind Fair booth and accuse opponents of
spreading "negatives views and to recruit new members to support their cause. We must make
sure that their voices are drowned out by the facts and the positive message of job creation,
economic growth, and environmental benefit to the community." That is a mouthful!
As for "negative views" such as threats to health and safety, lowered property value; impaired
access to emergency services; compacted farmland; noise; damaged roads, etc…..we say IF THE
SHOE FITS, WEAR IT.
As for job creation we know that about 12 permanent jobs will be created in a seven county
region. Economic growth is their guess while loss of local employers is known. Better to
protect the employers you have than to speculate that new employers will want to live in an
uninhabitable community. And as for environmental benefit? Slaughter of bats and raptors,
evacuation of wildlife, fragmentation of land and threats to aerial application of fungicides don't
sound like environmental benefits to us.
Everpower says that 11 Counties currently have approved PILOTs. This statement is meant to
imply that 11 counties have offered tax incentives for wind development. Not true. Eleven
Ohio counties have designated themselves as Alternative Energy Zones which grants automatic
PILOT to qualifying projects including solar and geothermal. Of the 11 counties, four are not
viable for wind including Clinton, Franklin Noble, and Summit and a fifth county, Van Wert
recently revoked its AEZ designation. The attachment named " Setting the Record Straight"
describes the actions taken in six other counties opposed to wind. Everpower likes to present
one side of the story but the truth can only be discerned by looking at both sides…maybe that is
why it is called the "whole" truth.
Everpower claims that the PILOT "would make the Buckeye Wind Farm the largest source of tax
revenue in the county." First, PILOT is not a tax and the money is not tax revenue. Second,
Auditor Karen Bailey has stated that this is not a meaningful figure. It is not apples to apples.
Everpower says that PILOT had bipartisan support when it passed in the legislature. This was
under the Strickland Administration. Do you think urban legislators cared about giving rural tax
breaks? The County Commissioners Association had to fight hard to preserve some local control
and won the right to have the final say over granting PILOT at the local County Commissioner
level. The author of the bill, Senator Chris Widener, has been under an ethics investigation for
self-dealing. He is a keynote speaker for AWEA's upcoming conference in Columbus. He
sneaked an extension of the tax break into the budget bill to deny the public the ability to debate
its merits.
Everpower says that PILOT "taxes at a high but sustainable rate with other wind projects in the
Midwest." One more time…this is not a tax. The comparable rates in other states are unknown
because the tax structures are different. Moreover, there is no adjustment for inflation. The
Ohio School Boards Association hired the Education Tax Policy Institute to testify against the
PILOT before it was passed. They demonstrated the ways in which the wind industry
manipulated figures to inflate the true cost and to make it "appear" to be out of line with other
states. For instance, the wind industry did not adjust for depreciation and figured a theoretical
tax on 100% of value over 20 years. They also used a blended urban millage instead of a rural
millage.
Everpower says the PILOT "assures no depreciation value on the tax rate over time". We repeat
…this is not a tax and therefore there would be no depreciation. There would also be no
adjustment for inflation. We might add here that Everpower's owner Terra Firma has stated that
they do not retain assets longer than five to seven years. This means Everpower won't be around
to make payments over the twenty year period.
Everpower says the PILOT "creates a tax environment that makes Ohio green energy projects
competitive with other states. One more time - not a tax or a tax environment. This comparison
damns Ohio with faint praise. We know that wind energy is a loser and only generates about
30% of its stated capacity. Who wants a competitive loser? Gives new meaning to "The Biggest
Loser".
As you will see Everpower goes on to say the taxpayer is a winner and that Champaign County
tax revenue is a winner. Folks this is just gross manipulation of words to convey an impression
of something that is not true.
In summary, Everpower looks panicked but it could be an act intended to motivate the
leaseholders to lobby the Commissioners. We believe the lease option agreements required
leaseholders to support Everpower's efforts to obtain government approvals and permits. Do not
forget that the City of Urbana, Champaign County and the Township Trustees have all expressed
on the record that the project DOES NOT serve the public interest. Notwithstanding, Everpower
tries to assure its leaseholders that they are fighting a small band of opponents who spread
misinformation and whose voices must be drowned out. This is pretty ugly stuff. We thank all
of you for the time and effort you have put into seeking the "whole truth" and standing up to a
large corporation who is sadly manipulating a vulnerable group of people. Bless you all.
(08-02-13) Opening day of the Champaign Co Fair was a great success for the wind warriors
who created a provocative display that generated much interest. Erin Hennigan reports: "What a
day! Well, I think we REALLY took Everpower by surprise today and they are scrambling!!! My
spy who gave us a heads up on their flyers gave us the ability to have posters made ready to
dispute some of their claims for the PILOT. We got 56 signatures to show the commissioners
Tuesday of people who are against the PILOT. Amy Blanton may have gotten more to add to
that number. I left around 8:30 and there was still a decent crowd in the building. Lots of new
interest from the western part of the county! Most people are just looking for information and
want to figure out the truth, regardless of what side they end up on. Our evidence is pretty hard
to dispute though.
Scott Blanton - WONDERUL job on the DVD!!! It's exactly what we wanted and it completely
catches people's eyes. Definitely a great conversation starter and a true eye opener! When people
see the explosions and the shadow flicker, it's a real wake-up call! [Note: Scott combined the
Everpower sister company's burning turbines, the blades moving through downtown Urbana and
other good footage which continuously runs on a large screen.]
However, along with the good, there were a few issues. We had 3 people who were less than
friendly. Tom Nisonger actually was in our faces with his finger yelling. That was a great display
of the Farm Bureau at their best since he was wearing their shirt at the time. We had a lady cuss
at us and then run back to Everpower's booth and someone else who called us liars and said he
wanted 100 of these turbines in his backyard. Basically they all really showed their ignorance
and their true colors.
Please remember when working the booth, we do NOT want to sink to their level. Let them rant
and look like fools. It's pretty easy to do. We need to stay professional and kind at all costs. I
think we all did a good job!! I figure for 56 signatures for the commissioners, I can take a few
shots for the team! LOL!!
Overall it was great! Several times, all three of us in the booth were engaging in conversations
with different people. People were wanting yard signs and when I left, we were actually down to
two. So, I've added a column to the sign-up sheet for more information. If they want a yard sign,
we just get their address and then can order and deliver them!
Again, thank you to EVERYONE who helped pull this together in such a short time!! Just from
today, I think it was SO worth it! There are still plenty of open shifts for anyone who would like
to help out. Please don't let the hotheads scare you away. In the heat of the moment, it was
interesting, but we all actually had several good laughs about it.
If you have any questions, please let me know! Christi Fosson and I will be there at the booth all
day tomorrow if anyone wants to stop by!"
For anyone interested in volunteering, please contact Erin Hennigan . If you can't volunteer, stop
by and thanks these folks for a terrific effort!
Why U.S. wind installations have slowed
(07-26-13) On 7/25/13 Urbana Daily Citizen reported that the County and Union Neighbors
United motions for rehearing on the Buckeye Wind II were granted. We want to make clear
that this ruling on the rehearing was made solely for the purpose of giving the OPSB additional
time to consider the arguments. It is likely that the OPSB will rule on the merits of the motions at
its meeting scheduled for September 30th. Depending on the ruling at that time, an appeal could
be filed with the Ohio Supreme Court. We encourage you to watch the preview of the film "Too
Close" which will be released in September. We don't think the film shows anything we don't
already know but it is nonetheless very jarring to listen to these voices. Perhaps we can get some
legislators to watch. In the meantime, please contact Erin Hennigan if you are able to give some
volunteer time to work in the citizens booth at the Champaign County Fair. The booth will be in
the Mercantile Building where Everpower will also have a booth. Every volunteer helps!
New film coming this September. Preview here: TOO Close the Victim's Stories
(07-23-13) On July 11 the Urbana Daily Citizen reported on the outcome of the Ohio Biennial
Budget Bill which extends setbacks for future industrial wind projects but which does nothing to
enhance protection for property owners. Essentially, the new language increases minimum
setbacks from homes from about 914 feet to 1,125 feet. Because no corresponding increase was
made in the setback from property lines, the increase only serves to condemn (or "take") about
211 feet more of the non-participating neighbor's land.
In other news, UNU property value expert witness, Mike McCann wrote to set the record straight
on EverPower's false statements made in their rebuttal to motions for reconsideration of the
OPSB decision in the Buckeye Wind case. Real Estate Appraiser Mike McCann, an expert
witness in the Buckeye Wind case writes: "For what it is worth, Champaign's response is
inaccurate. They state as fact that I am a real estate "broker", (and do not have the right
qualifications to render an opinion) which is not true. I am a licensed real estate appraiser, and
was appropriately licensed in my home state AND Ohio, and thus the opinions I expressed are
not only within the training and experience of my actual profession, but they were supported by
both licensing and empirical identifiable sale data.
In contrast, Thayer [Everpower witness] has never held an appraisal license and is not qualified
to render property value opinions (Value opinion by definition IS an appraisal). And Thayer did
not identify a single location/address or details of any property sale in his report, which is
contrary to the requirements specifically stated in the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice (USPAP) ."McCann also points out that EverPower's witness was practicing
the profession of real estate appraising by virtue of giving value opinions in an official
proceeding WITHOUT having an appropriate appraisal license and that neither his report nor his
opinions were developed in accordance with USPAP.
In New York State, EverPower's lawsuit against the community continues while, in the words of
a local citizen, "The sentiment seems like they would like EverPower to go away."
Elsewhere we see turbine manufacturer, Vestas, trying to stifle data on the health impacts of
wind turbines in Denmark in order to maintain their ability to export suffering to countries
around the globe.
We also include an eloquent letter from a Wisconsin sufferer and, finally, a good overview
calling for the end to subsidies and debunking wind industry claims on job creation.
(06-30-13) As promised, Terry Rittenhouse has posted his video of the three turbine blades
moving through Monument Square in Urbana. Wow - what a sight. They are really, really long
and we believe the ones proposed by Everpower are even longer. Share this video with your
friends and neighbors! Thank you, Terry!
(06-23-13) We have the opportunity to send a loud and clear message but we need your help.
Republicans from three counties are joining together for a picnic on Sunday, June 23. The
Logan, Hardin and Hancock County parties are gathering from 4 to 6 p.m. at the West Liberty
Lions Club Park in Logan County. The cost is $5 per person and children are free. The Logan
County Republican literature states that the speaker will be Senator Cliff Hite and we understand
that Justice Judith French will be present as well. Also attending will be Ohio House of
Representatives 83rd district Robert Sprague. Finally, a supporter of our cause from the
legislature, Representative John Adams is expected to be there. Given the location of the
gathering, we feel certain that Everpower representatives and leaseholders will be on hand to
gush about the wonders of wind. Cliff Hite is the single biggest obstacle in Ohio to reasonable
siting of wind turbines and the biggest threat to the protection of private property. Hite has
derailed all efforts to insert into the Budget Bill language that would measure setbacks from the
property lines of non-participating neighbors. He regards us as NIMBYs and claims that, as he
drives around Van Wert in his convertible, the turbines are nearly silent. Hite claims to be a
Republican - a conservative. This is untrue. Wind turbines are a left-wing folly made possible
by market intervention and massive public subsidy. These are not conservative values. We need
YOU to come to the picnic and create a presence for real Republicans and the wind opposition.
We need you to help spread the truth about wind. Attached here is a sheet of talking points to
assist you. RSVP for the picnic to Ranae Lentz at (937) 599-5265. Meet Tom Stacy for
discussion and materials at 3:30 PM at the West Liberty Lions Park, E. Baird Street, in the
concession stand parking area (red extended cab truck). I know this is late notice but we need
you and hope that you will make every effort to attend. This is the only way we are going to
make a difference. We need to challenge Cliff Hite in public. Additional RSVP: Please let Tom
Stacy as soon as possible whether you will attend. Tom's number is: (937) 407-6258 or email Tom Stacy
You can view a map of Mainstream's in Auglaize county here.
(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 31st. 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 fiveyear 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 @ 614466-8150. 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%
(03-20-13) Our letter to Congressman Jordan was sent yesterday with 623 names (we had to
correct an inadvertent double count of some names) and we are so proud of the effort you made
to reach out to others in the community. We want to give special recognition to our partner,
Linda Hughes, who worked with the NW Ohio community to make this a strong and unified
message. Yesterday, the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee met to review Ohio's
renewable energy mandate. During the hearing, where a great deal of criticism was leveled at
wind energy, a very frustrated Senator Cliff Hite exclaimed that wind was the shale oil of NW
Ohio and everyone supported it. Today we were able to communicate that at least 623 NW
Ohioans would disagree with Sen. Hite. We all need to keep reaching out to others in our
counties to build upon our success. We will be sending a press release out on our letter to NW
Ohio newspapers.
The long awaited hearings by the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee took place
yesterday. A big thank you to our Crawford County friends who made the trip to
Columbus. A full news report is copied below and all testimony is attached. The testimony
may be difficult and too technical for many of our readers but we wanted to make it available to
you. It was not a particularly "good" day for renewables - especially wind. The day began with
testimony from the electric grid operator, PJM and then a panel of invited 'experts' both pro and
con made statements and discussed their views with the Committee. At one point in the hearing
Chairman Seitz read from the articles we sent to him about the broken and rusting turbines that
litter the countryside. After Senator Hite proclaimed that turbines were beloved throughout NW
Ohio, Senator Seitz asked whether twenty years from now Van Wert and Paulding Counties were
going to be great big junkyards of rusting and broken down turbines. He envisioned the people
looking at Senator Hite and asking, "What were you thinking?" Senator Hite was not pleased.
GONGWER REPORT
Senators assessing the state's green energy requirements heard widely diverging views Tuesday
on the costs and benefits of the five-year old law.
A regional transmission organization executive provided the Senate Public Utilities Committee
with an overview of the wholesale electricity market before senators heard a six-member panel
debate the success of Ohio's renewable and energy efficiency requirements.
The hearing was part of the committee's analysis of the 2008 law that requires 12.5% of Ohio's
electricity to come from renewable sources, like wind and solar (SB221, 127th General
Assembly). The statute also calls on utilities to meet increasingly stringent energy efficiency
benchmarks.
Chairman Sen. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati), who has expressed concerns that the mandates increase
the cost of electricity, scheduled a series of hearings on the issue in preparation for potential
legislation to revise or eliminate them.
Andrew Ott, PJM Interconnection's senior vice president for markets, said federal air pollution
rules had prompted utilities to retire several major coal-fired power plants in Ohio that will
increase the price of capacity, especially in northern Ohio.
Meanwhile, increasing development of shale gas has generated interest in gas-fired power plants,
he said. Gas generation is projected to outstrip coal as the primary fuel source by 2016 in PJM's
13-state region.
Increased gas production from shale and decreased demand resulting from the economic
recession has helped reduce the cost of electricity, Mr. Ott said. Displacement of coal-fired
generation with natural gas is the primary driver of a "substantial" decrease in carbon dioxide
and other emissions in recent years.
Chairman Seitz asked how much of a "price suppression effect" Ohio's energy efficiency and
renewable energy requirements had on the wholesale electricity market.
Mr. Ott said energy efficiency standards have had a "modest" effect, but added that would likely
increase as the requirements ratchet up in coming years. Renewable mandates had some impact,
but overall it was also fairly minimal, he said.
On further questioning from the chair, Mr. Ott said the overall cost of wind energy was
likely about twice as high as market price for electricity.
Chairman Seitz said he wanted to be able to see how electricity market increases predicted in
2007 compared to actual historical market trends because the comparison could prove
"informative" to the panel's investigation. Mr. Ott said no one at the time predicted the ensuing
price decrease due to unforeseen developments in shale gas combined with decreased demand as
a result of the economic recession.
Sen. Bill Coley (R-Middletown) asked what impact wind turbines generating power in the
middle of the night have on the electricity market.
Mr. Ott said PJM's market was able to absorb for the unpredictable nature of wind generation.
"Because the market is so large and diverse, we really don't have concerns, if you will, with the
intermittency of wind."
Responding to a similar line of questioning from Sen. Shannon Jones (R-Springboro), Mr. Ott
said PJM accounts for variation in reliability among different power sources by assigning
different values in the capacity market. For example, wind is valued at about 13% of a facility's
rating, while coal is set at about 40%, he said.
During a subsequent panel discussion, Daniel Simmons, of the Institute for Energy Research,
described what he said were several "misconceptions" about renewable portfolio standards.
He dismissed suggestions that the U.S. was running out of traditional energy resources, and cited
a Congressional Research Service study that found the country has the largest combined coal, oil
and natural gas resources in the world.
Renewable standards do not increase the net number of jobs, he said, noting that they require
more expensive electricity. Residential electricity in states with the requirements costs 27% more
than states without it, he said, suggesting higher prices discourage job creation.
"Mandating renewables will only increase the cost of electricity and create a further drag on an
already struggling economy," Mr. Simmons said. "Wind and solar are not cost-competitive yet
and we should let the technologies improve instead of mandate their use and pay the price with
higher electricity rates."
Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor, claiming that he was representing "the little guy,"
said renewable requirements charged higher prices for electricity that was just as good as
electricity from other sources.
Ohio's electricity prices are already 10% higher than rates in Indiana and 26% higher than
Kentucky, he said. "It's more money out of people's pockets as a result."
While environmental concerns have been used to justify renewable energy standards, air
pollution emissions have declined and will continue to do so with or without the mandates, he
said.
Meanwhile, wind turbines kill "a tremendous" number of birds and bats each year, Mr. Taylor
said.
Sam Randazzo, general counsel for the Industrial Energy Users-Ohio, said in the five years since
the portfolio mandates became law, customers' electric bills have significantly increased.
"We are currently on track to spend $1 billion or more of Ohio consumers' wealth over the next
three years to chase compliance with Ohio's command and control system of portfolio mandates
that pick winners and freeze out innovation," he said.
The review and analysis of the relationship between job creation and destruction as required in
past legislation has been mostly ignored, Mr. Randazzo said.
There can be conflict between statutory definitions and rules from the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio, he said. In the case of "geothermal energy," the statute considers it a
renewable energy resource, but the PUCO says it is not unless the energy produced is electrical.
A geothermal heat pump therefore does not meet the commission's standard.
Similarly, the PUCO portfolio mandates exclude energy efficiency improvements unless they
directly result in a change in electricity usage, he said.
Mr. Randazzo recommended the legislature suspend utility and competitive retail electrical
services provider compliance at the 2012 or 2013 level for the "alternative energy resource"
compliance requirement. The suspension should be maintained while long-term work to
complete the review that the General Assembly required is done, he said.
He also suggested helping the PUCO eliminate all counting problems so there is less risk that the
implementation of the mandates will result in exclusions of alternative energy resources that are
helping to reduce energy intensity.
John Crespo, of American Electric Power, urged members to "be mindful" of the investments
that utilities have already made to comply with the benchmarks.
"The General Assembly should ensure that pre-existing commitments are fully honored and that
the opportunity for cost recovery by utilities of their current and future commitments is not
undermined. Once utilities have complied with existing benchmarks, their ability to recover their
compliance costs should be protected from any changes in law that may alter the benchmarks or
caps," he said.
Mr. Crespo noted that AEP has entered into long-term purchased power arrangements with two
wind facilities and one solar facility. "The continued recovery of these costs is important for the
financial health of AEP, as it would be for other utilities in the state that are similarly situated,"
he said.
Colin Murchie, director of government affairs for SolarCity Corporation, testified on behalf of
the Solar Energy Industries Association. He said the reduction in price for a 100 watt solar panel
from $325 in 2008 to $70 today is the result of the volume and certainty from the state
renewables portfolio standards.
"If you allow the policy to simply run its course, we believe that solar costs will continue to
converge with grid costs and drive that number (for REC prices) down, leaving you with a strong
installed base and all the other benefits of this in-state investment," he said.
Mr. Murchie said the solar target of 0.5% by 2025 is achievable. There is almost 70 megawatts
of solar in the state out of the 550 needed to meet that goal.
He recommended preservation of the alternative energy resource standards given the solar
industry has "delivered on our half of the bargain - driving subsidy prices down through
competition, creating a new thriving industry and adding significant jobs."
Eric Thumma, president of the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition, said Ohio's renewable
energy standards were working to diversify the state's electricity resources and spur investment
in clean energy.
"We recognize that cost is the all-important concern," he said. "The state is meeting the
benchmarks with geographically and technologically diverse investments and it is doing so in a
cost-effective manner."
The PUCO's rules implementing the 3% cost cap on renewable energy enables reasonable
investments, he said. "It is vital that the cost cap protect consumers both from prices that do not
reflect the true incremental cost of new AEPS resources, e.g. windfall profits to generators or
suppliers, or instances in which the cost of the marginal resource to meet an AEPS benchmark is
simply too high."
Mr. Thumma said the cost cap should be interpreted so that a customer paying $100 a month for
electricity generation without renewable requirements would be limited to paying no more than
$103.
Sen. Jones said that Mr. Thumma's view of the cost cap doesn't seem to match the PUCO's
interpretation.
Mr. Thumma said he wouldn't object to lawmakers clarifying the scope of the cap to match his
interpretation.
Mr. Murchie said changes to the standard could have a chilling effect on the state's solar
industry. "Uncertainty threatens investment," he said, adding that the industry has developed
well since the standard was enacted.
Mr. Taylor said Ohio is one of the worst states for solar power production, saying the cost to
generate solar power in Ohio will be higher than it is in other states.
Mr. Randazzo said there are reasons other than cost that companies choose to produce or buy
solar power.
Property rights vs. wind farms
Recent resident WDN letter concerning Shelby Co. wind farm
(03-11-13) The one year extension of the Production Tax Credit for wind is unclear in defining
eligibility.
The IRS will decide what criteria must be met in order to receive this generous taxpayer subsidy
which covers 30% of the cost of new wind projects. The House Oversight Subcommittee on
Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements can influence the IRS and Ohio Congressman Jim
Jordan sits on this subcommittee.
We in Ohio are joining our colleagues from other states to send a message to the Committee and
to Rep. Jordan. The message in the letter below will be heard loud and clear if as many of us as
possible sign on to the letter.
You can sign-on by replying to this email link with your name and mailing address. We
encourage everyone of voting age in your household to sign.
Please share the letter and help refer other signers to us.
We would like your response as soon as possible as we would like to send this by Friday,
March 15, if we can. Thank you once again for your support and participation. You make a
difference!
Text of letter as follows:
March 10, 2013
Representative Jim Jordan
U.S. House of Representatives
1524 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
Re: Wind Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) Rulemaking
Dear Representative Jordan:
We are writing to urge the House Oversight Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care
and Entitlements to exercise its oversight responsibilities regarding recent changes to the
wind production tax credit (PTC) and ensure that 'commence construction' does not permit
PTC-eligible projects to be constructed for many years after the PTC provision has
expired.
In the final hours of the fiscal cliff[i] negotiations, a package of energy tax extenders[ii] was
surreptitiously added to the bill which assured the 20-year old wind production tax credit a $12
billion, 1-year extension. This move was done behind closed doors, without debate or any
opportunity for amendment. Moreover, the bill included no obligation of the Congress to find a
way to pay for it.
With this extension, a critical change to the PTC was introduced that relaxed the eligibility
requirements for the credit. Renewable energy projects now need only 'commence construction'
by January 1, 2014 to qualify for the credit, instead of requiring projects to be 'placed-in-service'
by that date.
Since the law did not define what it means to 'commence construction', the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) must determine the intent of the Congress and develop clarifying guidance.
The incentives for gaming the 'commence construction' requirement are substantial given the
potential value of the tax credits in scale and duration and the anticipated expiration of the
program itself at the end of this year. David Burton, partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld,
has stated that developers who plan well and bank enough 2013 PTC-eligible component parts
"may be able to continue to construct PTC-eligible wind farms indefinitely[iii]."
Not surprisingly, potential PTC beneficiaries are pressuring the IRS to accelerate its rulemaking
process in order to provide sufficient time to develop strategies to 'game' the qualification rules
to achieve "compliance" before January 1. If they succeed, this particular form of regulatory
'gaming' would encumber taxpayers with subsidy obligations for projects that may not go into
production for many years after the PTC provision has expired.
The attachment to our letter proffers several proposals for interpreting 'commence construction'.
At the end of 2012, lobbyists for the wind industry teamed with the Senate and the
Administration to push through this latest extension of the PTC. In doing so, they turned pressure
to avoid the putative fiscal cliff to their advantage while leaving American taxpayers to pay the
price. Unless you exercise your oversight responsibilities effectively, it appears likely that the
problems associated with the extension of this subsidy may be compounded - not alleviated - in
the IRS rulemaking process. We respectfully request that you and the honorable members of the
Subcommittee ensure this does not happen.
Respectfully,
<signatures follow below>
ATTACHMENT: Criteria defining 'Commence Construction'
Proposal
Notes
Institute an in-service date on projects Current law only designates a start construction date.
Projects must demonstrate evidence that all local, state
Require project financing and
and federal permits are in place and project financing is
permitting to be in place
secured.
Prohibit the safe harbor when
Prohibit the counting of monies expended for project
determining start construction as used components by the developer or by contacted vendors
under the 1603 cash grant program
when determining start construction.
Projects must demonstrate available transmission before
Require available transmission
starting construction.
Require a minimum percentage of project completion to
be achieved by January 1, 2014 which includes a physical
metric that is measurable. Project construction applies to
the entire proposed site; individual wind turbines within a
Proof of meaningful construction
larger project will not be treated as projects independent
of development plans. Site preparation including land
clearing is insufficient proof of 'commencing' project
construction.
[i] American Taxpayer Relief Act (P.L. 112-240)
[ii] Energy tax extenders were part of the Senate Finance Committee mark-up of S. 3521 (112th):
Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012 which was reported by the Committee but
died with no vote or debate by the full Senate.
[iii] North American Windpower, Post-PTC Extension, Wind Energy Developers Face New
Questions,
http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.10917#.UTtZSVec1N
Q (Jan 3, 2013).
(03-10-13) There's so much news to report it is hard to know where to start. Please read this
story to learn more about the fight brewing in Champaign County over the City of Urbana's
ability to pursue meaningful economic development in the face of Everpower. Read about the
Ohio Senate's introduction of Senate Bill 58 to reconsider Ohio's renewable energy policies. In
response to the introduction of S.B. 58, AWEA has issued a press release on an Ohio poll
showing "overwhelming support" for wind energy and the obliteration of two rural Ohio
counties. Notable is that AWEA's press release is issued by the son of Ohio Supreme Court
Justice Terrence O'Donnell - the deciding vote in Everpower's Phase I approval. Attached also is
a new report from the American Energy Alliance rebutting employment claims of the wind
industry. And last but not least, folks in upstate New York have hired the Love Canal personal
injury attorney to sue Invenergy and its leaseholders. Next we will circulate the sign-on letter
to Congressman Jordan so please be on the lookout for it.
(03-08-13) Aside from snow and sequestration, Washington, D.C. is focused on how the Internal
Revenue Service will define "commence construction" under the federal Production Tax Credit
that pays for 30% of a wind development's costs courtesy of the US taxpayer. You will recall
that when the PTC expired on December 31, 2012, it was extended for one year but the extension
was changed to an ambiguous date. Rather than a project being " in operation" by January 14,
2014, it must only meet the definition of having "commenced construction." During the
upcoming year, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) will be furiously lobbying for
yet another extension. Here is a link to a letter from a number of Democratic Senators working
with AWEA to prod the IRS to hasten its work defining the eligibility date. Meanwhile, a goodly
group of Champaign County citizens took an opportunity to make a presentation to Congressman
Jim Jordan articulating some of the issues and concerns that we, as taxpayers, have with the
PTC. We are actively pursuing these issues with Jordan's office as he now sits on the oversight
committee that will be taking a closer look at the PTC before any action to extend it once
again. Thanks to the Anita Bartlett, Glenda Rodriguez, Terry Rittenhouse, Wayne Taylor, Joy
Mohr and Joe Hughes for a splendid presentation.
PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT ISSUES
Prepared for Congressman Jim Jordan
March 4, 2013 - Champaign County, Ohio
1. ISSUE: The PTC enables developers to build in wind 'resource poor' areas. Grid operator,
PJM, estimates the Everpower Buckeye Wind project will only make a 13% contribution to peak
demand. Projects that cannot deliver meaningful power should be denied taxpayer subsidy.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish minimum performance criteria for PTC eligibility. Require
public disclosure of performance. Today, there is no performance threshold or oversight. The
PTC should be tied to performance throughout and subject to loss or recapture if it falls below
minimums.
2. ISSUE: PTC enables wind to be built in unsuitable areas such as densely populated
communities. In densely populated communities with access to the grid, such as Champaign
County's eastern third, 100 or more turbines are planned to be placed too close to the homes of
over 1,000 families. Grid proximity enhances the return on investment to the developer and
trumps other concerns such as environmental sensitivity or population density. In Ohio, the wind
industry and the Strickland Administration arranged to pre-empt local zoning and establish
setbacks which are shorter than manufacturer's recommended setbacks for safety. Further, they
established that the measurement would be from a family's home not their property line.
Champaign County families have been forced to spend $100's of thousands of dollars on legal
fees to protect their homes and property from two potential PTC enabled projects proposed by a
foreign private equity fund seeking generous returns on investment at US taxpayer expense.
RECOMMENDATION: The PTC must require turbines to be setback from property lines not
homes. Setbacks must be equal to or greater than manufacturer recommended setbacks in the
absence of state or local zoning requiring greater setbacks.
3. ISSUE: The Everpower Wind project will be placed in a rural residential area comprising over
40% of Champaign County's total assessed residential real estate value. This kind of
inappropriately sited project, facilitated by the PTC, will devalue taxpayer property and cause a
corresponding loss to the local tax base. Wind industry studies which claim no impact to
property value exclude properties within ½ mile of a wind turbine and include properties as far
as 5 to 7 miles away.
RECOMMENDATION: PTC must require turbines to be setback from property lines not
homes. Setbacks must be equal to or greater than manufacturer recommended setbacks in the
absence of state or local zoning requiring greater setbacks. Federal subsidies must discourage
development in rural residential communities.
4. ISSUE: Inappropriately sited projects facilitated by the PTC cause adverse health impacts.
Industrial scale wind turbines emit low frequency noise which adversely affects the health of
people living within 1.5 miles of a wind turbine. The wind industry denies this but will not
measure LFN/infrasound in order maintain deniability. They assert "what you cannot hear cannot
hurt you." Yet, hundreds of people around the world have abandoned their homes. The State of
Wisconsin ordered a study to measure the presence of LFN/infrasound and its presence was
confirmed. Notwithstanding, the study was compromised by the refusal of Duke Energy to
cooperate. The wind industry is following the playbook of tobacco and similar industries in
trying to avoid regulation. David Michaels, Former Clinton OSHA Director and current Director
of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at the George Washington University
School of Public Health and Health Services, wrote an exposé titled "Doubt Is Their Product."
Michaels charges that mercenary scientists and lobbyists are hired by unscrupulous companies to
dispute the scientific evidence that would alert the public to dangers. Michaels devotes one
chapter of his book to such a company, ENVIRON, whose principal epidemiologist K. A.
Mundt, is alleged to have manipulated data to hide the link between chromium exposure and
cancer risk. ENVIRON is now serving the wind industry and K. A. Mundt is the epidemiologist
hired by Everpower to rebut claims of threats to health from inappropriately sited wind turbines
in Champaign County.
RECOMMENDATION: The E.P.A. or OSHA must investigate claims of adverse health impact
caused by inappropriately sited industrial wind turbines. A national database should be
established and the wind industry must be required to participate in state or federal government
investigations into the effects of LFN/infrasound on human populations. The United States Navy
did work in this field in 1986 and determined a wave frequency at which "nauseogenicity" was
induced. It is believed the sound wave emissions from industrial wind turbines are similar to
those which induce nauseogenicity. A moratorium on federal subsidies for wind should be
adopted until health and safety issues are resolved.
5. ISSUE: Since 1995, the federal government has awarded subsidy payments to landowners
through the USDA FSA for conservation and habitat protection. (www.farm.ewg.org) Since
1995, $11.4 million in conservation subsidies have been awarded in Champaign County alone.
Recipients of these subsidies are now leasing protected land to Everpower for wind turbines that
are known to have an adverse impact on wildlife. For instance, one Everpower leaseholder,
(name available on request), has collected $721,038 in conservation funds. Because the PTC
does not consider prior taxpayer investment in environmental/habitat protection, the PTC offers a
perverse incentive to destroy environmental value built up at taxpayer expense.
RECOMMENDATION: At a minimum, the PTC should be reduced by the amount previously
invested by USDA FSA and a claw-back provision should be imposed on landowners who lease
protected property.
6. ISSUE: The PTC facilitates projects that harm federally protected endangered species thus
undermining the Endangered Species Act. In Champaign County, the presence of the endangered
Indiana bat is confirmed in the project area. Everpower is seeking a 30 year take permit to kill
this bat and many other bats. Boston University scientists have determined the yearly economic
value of bats to be $74 per crop acre in avoided pesticide costs. In Champaign County this equals
$12 million annually. It is wrong for one federal program to undermine another and to impose
additional costs on a community. Moreover, the increased use of pesticides will threaten the
certification of Champaign County organic farmers.
RECOMMENDATION: The PTC should be denied in areas where the presence of any
protected species is confirmed.
Also here is a link of interest:
Insider: clarity on PTC ‘begin construction’ language expected soon
(03-02-13) Big news to report from Allegany New York where Everpower had sued the Planning
Board for not cooperating and assisting them in expediting a 29 turbine wind development. The
court ruled against Everpower yesterday. Details at link here.
We have also been encouraged to go see the movie, FrackNation, which presents a favorable
view of natural gas drilling known as fracking. A schedule is posted below. And we remind you
once again of the opportunity to visit with our Congressional Representative Jim Jordan on
Monday, March 4th.
Find your nearest event:
• Tuesday April 30 at 6:30 PM in Wooster, OH
(03-01-13) Congressman Jim Jordan will be holding a "Roundtable Chat" on Monday March 4
from 8:15 am to 9:30 am at Urbana University. The meeting will be in the Moore Room on the
lower level of the UU Student Center. The meeting is hosted by the Urbana Chamber of
Commerce. (Note: Terry Howell, a Chamber Director, testified in support of the Everpower
PILOT before the County Commissioners.) Congressman Jordan has been appointed to the
newly formed House Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Subcommittee. This
Committee will have influence over federal tax subsidies for wind. If you have an opportunity to
attend, tell Rep. Jordan that you oppose the extension of the Production Tax Credit and you
object to the expansion of the program by the Senate in the fiscal cliff negotiations. By changing
the wording of the bill to include any project that "begins construction" from "begins operation,"
the one year extension was made a two year extension. The cost went from $12 billion to $24
billion. The wind industry, while screaming for "loopholes" that give favorable tax treatment to
fossil fuel companies, is also trying to expand those loopholes to include wind. The Master
Limited Partnership Parity Act is the principle vehicle they are working on. Congressman Jordan
should vigorously oppose this bill.
Below is a link to the news report from Fairhaven, MA. Unbelievably, it appears the wind
company turned down the power output when the sound measurements were being
taken. Well…maybe it is believable.
Wind Turbine Battle Erupts Again in Fairhaven, MA
(02-26-13) Community considers taking down wind turbines after illness, noise
(02-25-13) Take a moment today to follow this link to the Springfield News and post a comment
on the story. Point out that evidence from all over the world is growing every day that people
living less than 1.25 miles from turbines are getting sick. That property devaluation is
obvious. People in New York, Massachusetts, Canada and elsewhere are suing their neighbors
who erect turbines. The Nevada Supreme Court has declared them a nuisance. Also encourage
readers to watch the documentary Wind Rush at
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiCQabGuKFk.
(02-19-13) Another Storm Brewing Over Wind Production Tax Credit
(02-15-13) Lima News: Being snookered by wind farms
(02-13-13) OPSB schedules hearing for Oregon Clean Energy Center
(02-12-13) Rockford Saying No to Green Energy
(02-11-13) Do you support plans to create additional wind farms around the Lima Ohio
region?
The voting has ended and the results are in. Poll web page here.
Question:
Do you support plans to create additional wind farms around the region? Tell us about it in a
letter to the editor at the Lima News .
Results:
Yes 39.4%
No 60.6%
Despite dawn of a new term, forecast cloudy for energy and enviro issues
Economic Forum calls for $14 trillion 'greening' of global economy
US taxpayers giving $4B to foreign firms for green energy projects
(01-17-13) The final briefs are being submitted to the OPSB in the Everpower Champaign Wind
aka Buckeye II case. After all parties have an opportunity to read them, they will file final reply
briefs and then it will be up to the administrative law judges and the Board of the OPSB to rule
on the case. A ruling is likely by the end of February or beginning of March. The briefs are
lengthy but worth reading. Today we are transmitting the City of Urbana and the Champaign
Wind briefs. The law requires that the decision to approve or deny certification rest on the
applicant meeting 8 criteria which are listed below. We believe #6 "the public interest" is
key. The overwhelming opposing testimony at the Triad hearing, the letters in opposition written
by local people to the OPSB and the UNU case make a strong case that the project does not serve
the public interest. The City of Urbana also makes this case in asking the OPSB to deny the
project. On the other side, Buckeye Wind case that starts on page 39 says the project serves the
public interest because they have communicated with the community; they carry liability
insurance; they assert no impact on property value; Ohio has a renewable mandate; setbacks
meet minimum standards set by the state (before 2.5 MW turbines existed); and because EMS
Careflight will figure out how to fly through the project area. It should be noted that the OPSB
Staff in their brief, rejects Everpower's EMS assertions.
(1) The basis of the need for the facility …;
(2) The nature of the probable environmental impact;
(3) The facility represents the minimum adverse environmental impact …;
(4) In the case of an electric transmission line or generating facility, that the facility is consistent
with regional plans for expansion of the electric power grid of the electric system serving this
state and interconnected utility systems and that the facility will serve the interests of electric
system economy and reliability;
(5) That the facility will comply with Chapters 3704, 3734, and 6111 of the Revised Code and all
rules and standards adopted under those chapters and under sections 1501.33, 1501.34, and
4561.32 of the Revised Code. In determining whether the facility will comply with all rules and
standards adopted under section 4561.32 of the Revised Code, the board shall consult with the
office of aviation of the division of multi-modal planning and programs of the department of
transportation under section 4561.341 of the Revised Code;
(6) The facility will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
(7) In addition to the provisions contained in divisions (A)(1) to (6) of this section and rules
adopted under those divisions, what its impact will be on the viability as agricultural land of any
land in an existing agricultural district established under Chapter 929 of the Revised Code that is
located within the site and alternative site of the proposed major utility facility …;
(8) That the facility incorporates maximum feasible water conservation practices as determined
by the board, considering available technology and the nature and economics of the various
alternatives.
IS LOGAN COUNTY NEXT?
A rumor floating around town is that Everpower's Michael Pullins told a resident there may be as
many as 15 phases planned for the Buckeye Wind project. The Urbana Daily Citizen reports
activity is underway in Logan County. Could this be Phase III?
(01-15-13) Two interesting links concerning eagles:
Nextera Energy in damage control mode on Eagle Nest removal
Bureaucrats ignored advice from biologist to leave eagle's nest and move wind turbine in
Haldimand County
(01-13-13) We wanted to share a few items of interest this week. As expected, the wind
industry and their renewable energy advocates are rushing to discredit the new documentation
proving wind turbines emit Low Frequency Noise/Infrasound. In a letter to the Editor, a
Wisconsin State Senator fights back. Here's the letter: Constituent pleas falling on deaf ears
We have forwarded this to Ohio State Senators Seitz, Jordan and Faber. Unfortunately, the Ohio
press corps still believes in the myths of wind. Julie recently recounted many of wind's
downsides in an interview with Columbus Business First but her arguments were not reported.
Instead the blather of the green lobby was emphasized in the article. But not to be deterred! A
major decision was rendered this week by the Ohio Public Utilities Commission which refused to
allow AEP to pass the costs of a large solar energy development to ratepayers. The PUCO
argued that the solar energy was not needed. The PUCO Board members made this decision
over the objections of the staff. An interesting review is included below.
PUCO deals blow to AEP solar project
Enjoy following link to Columbus Dispatch article... And PLEASE write comments of support
for PUCO Chairman Todd Snitchler! They are needed !
PUCO chief blasts ‘green’ energy on Twitter
More articles of interest:
Wind power backers thankful for tax extension from Congress
How corporate tax credits got in the 'cliff' deal
(01-10-13) Lots of news to share with you today. First and best is that Senator Bill Seitz has
been named Chairman of the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee while our friend Senator
Kris Jordan was named Vice Chairman of Energy and Natural Resources. Both of these Senators
have been sympathetic to our fight and have followed closely as events have unfolded over the
past few years. Jordan introduced a bill two years ago to repeal the Ohio Renewable
Mandate. Below are several "political" articles that should be of interest to you. In addition, the
Columbus Dispatch reported today that " West-central Ohio has a lot of Statehouse clout.
Forget the state's major cities. The Statehouse power base is centralized in the rural, western part
of the state. Not only is Faber the new Senate president, but Sen. Chris Widener, R-Springfield,
is the No. 2 Senate leader. In the House, three members from the region are part of the GOP's
majority leadership team: Reps. Matt Huffman of Lima, John Adams of Sidney and Jim Buchy
of Greenville are the Nos. 2, 4 and 6 leaders, respectively." If we can continue to grow our
ranks, we have an unprecedented opportunity to have a meaningful voice in the Ohio energy
debate. We need to be educated, vocal and active. Never pass up an opportunity to send a letter
to the Editor or attend a fund raiser for one of these people. Make sure you get to know their
staff. Drop in and visit them when you are in Columbus and communicate with them
regularly. Please scroll all the way to the bottom to read about the valiant efforts of our
colleagues fighting the Black Fork Wind Farm.
Senate President Keith Faber announced Tuesday that Sen. Scott Oelslager will chair the
influential Senate Finance Committee.
The newly sworn-in Senate president also unveiled the chairmen and vice chairmen for 15 of the
chamber's other standing committees.
Sen. Faber (R-Celina) said Sen. Oelslager (R-N. Canton) was "one of the most respected and
experienced members of the Ohio Senate" and noted that the Republican has more than 27 years'
experience in the state legislature.
"He brings an incredible wealth of institutional knowledge to the budget process, and, more
importantly, he'll provide a steady hand in guiding one of the most complex pieces of legislation
the Senate will handle this year," Sen. Faber said in a statement.
Several Republican senators were vying for the coveted chairmanship, which oversees the
chamber's deliberations on the more than $50 billion biennial budget.
The previous Finance Chairman Sen. Chris Widener (R-Springfield) was recently chosen Senate
president pro tempore. Sen. Faber has said members of leadership would not chair any
committees.
Sen. Oelslager, who is considered one of the caucus's more moderate members, said he was
grateful for the opportunity to lead the Senate's budget process.
"I look forward to working with my counterparts in the Ohio House, as well as with the Kasich
Administration, to craft a balanced, fiscally responsible spending plan that continues to put Ohio
on the road to recovery," he said.
Sen. Oelslager became a member of the Ohio Senate in 1985 and went on to serve four
additional terms before becoming a House member in 2002. He returned to the Senate in 2011,
where he most recently served on the Finance and Judiciary committees and chaired the Senate
Health, Human Services & Aging Committee.
Sen. Bill Coley (R-West Chester) was named vice chairman of the Finance Committee.
Gov. John Kasich is expected to publicly unveil his executive budget Feb. 4. The House will
kick off deliberations before forwarding it to the Senate. The two-year spending plan must be
enacted prior to the end of the current fiscal year on June 30.
Sen. Faber previously announced the creation of three sub-committees of the Finance
Committee: Education, Medicaid and General Government. Senators not serving on the full
Finance panel will participate in a sub-committee. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, January 4, 2013)
Other committee appointments released Tuesday were:

Agriculture Committee Chairman Sen. Cliff Hite (R-Findlay); Vice Chairman Sen. Troy
Balderson (R-Zanesville).
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Sen. Balderson; Vice
Chairman Sen. Kris Jordan (R-Powell).
Public Utilities Committee Chairman Sen. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati); Vice
Chairman Sen. Frank LaRose (R-Copley Twp.).
Workforce & Economic Development Committee Chairman Sen. Bill Beagle (RTipp City); Vice Chairwoman Sen. Gayle Manning (R-North Ridgeville).
Transportation Committee Chairwoman Sen. Manning; Vice Chairman Sen. Tom
Patton (R-Strongsville).
Public Safety, Local Government & Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman
LaRose; Vice Chairman Sen. Jim Hughes (R-Columbus).
State Government Oversight & Reform Chairman Sen. David Burke (RMarysville); Vice Chairman Sen. Joe Uecker (R-Loveland).
Criminal Justice Committee Chairman Sen. John Eklund (R-Chardon); Vice
Chairman Sen. Seitz.
Civil Justice Chairman Sen. Coley; Vice Chairman Sen. Larry Obhof (R-Medina).
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Commerce & Labor Committee Chairman Sen. Kevin Bacon (R-Columbus); Vice
Chairman Sen. Eklund.
Ways & Means Committee Chairman Sen. Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster); Vice
Chairman Sen. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina).
Medicaid, Health & Human Services Committee Chairwoman Sen. Shannon
Jones (R-Springboro); Vice Chairman Sen. Burke.
Insurance & Financial Institutions Committee Chairman Sen. Jim Hughes (RColumbus); Vice Chairman Sen. Bacon.
Rules Committee Chairman Sen. Faber; Vice Chairman Sen. Widener.
Reference Committee Chairman Sen. Jordan; Vice Chair Sen. Oelslager.
Committee membership will be announced Wednesday, according to the caucus.
Articles of Interest:
Insight: In "fiscal cliff" bill, White House was key to corporate tax breaks
(01-04-13) We are off and running in 2013! We regret the short term extension of the PTC in
the fiscal cliff negotiations and the wind industry is breathing a temporary sigh of relief. But, the
extension does not remove the cloud of uncertainty over the industry in the eyes of the investor
community. This "cloud" is going to get dark and stormy as firebrand Rep. Darrell Issa,
chairman of the powerful House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform promises
hearings on the wind industry. Washington insiders think Wind will face "significant hurdles" in
its quest to get a much longer term extension. Today, Congressman Issa named central Ohio's
conservative Rep. Jim Jordan to his Oversight Committee. We look forward to working with
Rep. Jordan's Office to expose many of the myths of wind.Below are two items of interest. The
first is The Hill's take on the PTC's future in Washington and the second article is the coverage
from the Columbus Dispatch. It appears that while we aren't happy, we can take some comfort
in knowing wind's supporters aren't really happy either. More to come.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/275301-issa-wind-power-credit-of-seriousinterestWind-industry tax credit renewed
(01-03-13) Thank you for a great effort to stop the extension of the tax credit for wind. While
we can be frustrated by the one year extension, wecan also be cheered by the fact that the wind
industry tried for a six year extension. They will certainly come back for more but the issue has
achieved a great deal of visibility thanks to the efforts of citizens in Ohio and across the
nation. It reminds us of Ohio State football...three yards and a cloud of dust. We will continue
our efforts at the federal, state and local levels. It is the right thing to do.
Renewable-Energy Tax Breaks Pass Despite Headwind :
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323635504578215790054677734.ht
ml?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle
The Wind Production Tax Credit: Corporate Welfare at its Worst
(01-02-13) Happy New Year! The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the fiscal
cliff tax package today around noon. Please call or fax the Ohio delegation to request that the
extension for the Production Tax Credit for wind be removed from the package. Do not email
the Representatives. Below are the names and numbers to use. Thank you for helping. Every
call makes a difference and your voice will be remembered when the wind industry comes back
again for their next extension. Thank you!
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES from Ohio
Steve Chabot, (R) 202-225-2216, Fax: 202-225-3012
Jean Schmidt, (R) 202-225-3164, Fax: 202-225-1992
Michael R.Turner, (R) 202-225-6465, Fax: 202-225-6754
Jim Jordon, (R) 202-225-2676, Fax:202-226-0577
Bob Latta, (R) 202-225-5705 / 202-225-6405, Fax: 202-225-5907
Steve Austria, (R) 202-225-4324, Fax: 202-225-1984
John Boehner, (R) 202 225-6205, Fax: 202-225-0704
Marcy Kaptur, (D) 202-225-4146, Fax: 202-225-7711
Dennis Kucinich, (D) 202-225-5872 / 202-225- 5871, Fax:202-225-5745
Marcia L. Fudge, (D) 202-225-7032, Fax: 202- 225-1339
Pat Tiberi, (R) 202-225-5355, Fax: 202-226-4523
Betty Sutton, (D) 202-225-3401, Fax:202-225-2266
Steven La Tourette, (R) 202-225-5731, Fax: 202-225-3307
Steve Stivers, (R) 202-225-2015, Fax: 202-225-3529
James Renacci, (R) 202-225-3876, Fax: 202-225-3059
Tim Ryan, (D) 202-225-5261, Fax: 202-225-3719
Bob Gibbs, (R) 202-225-6265, Fax: 202-225-3394
Bill Johnson, (R) 202-225-5705, Fax: 202-225-5907
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CALLS AND FAXES!!! We have been informed that the
House leadership is working on an amendment to the Senate bill.
Also, according to Politico, Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) opposes the Senate bill which is
good news.
The article also mentions that several lawmakers are suggesting removing the business tax
extenders (ie the PTC) as a way to lessen the cost.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/senate-clears-fiscal-cliff-deal-89-885640.html#ixzz2GlVTYcFb.
The language in the bill which would be removed includes:
SEC. 407. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF CREDITS WITH RESPECT TO
FACILITIES PRODUCING ENERGY FROM CERTAIN RENEWABLE RESOURCES.
(a) PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT.(1) EXTENSION FOR WIND FACILITIES.-Paragraph (1) of section 45(d) is amended by
striking ''January 1, 2013'' and inserting ''January 1, 2014''.
(3) MODIFICATION TO DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED FACILITY.(A) IN GENERAL.-The following provisions of section 45(d), as amended by paragraph (1), are
each amended by striking ''before January 1, 2014'' and inserting ''the construction of which
begins before January 1, 2014''
Here are some additional numbers you can call if you would like. Also, we have two new phone
numbers for Rep. Latta and Kucinich.
Majority Leader: Rep. Eric Cantor 202-225-2815
Majority Whip: Rep. Kevin McCarthy 202-225-2915
Republican Conference Chairman: Rep. Jeb Hensarling 202-225-3484
(12-30-12) Yesterday the results of the first significant study on the adverse health effects of
Low Frequency Noise (LFN) were released. This study was conducted in Wisconsin at the
Shirley Wind Farm where 8 Nordex turbines are located. This study was important to us because
Everpower's noise consultant, David Hessler, was one of the experts conducting the study. You
may recall that during the hearings before the Ohio Power Siting Board, a couple who had
abandoned their home and were living in a trailer came to Columbus to be a presence during the
testimony of Hessler. We believe this couple's home was one of the homes tested in the
study. Below we have printed the announcement of the news from acoustical expert, Rick
James, the noise expert for Union Neighbors United. The most important thing for you to know
is that all four of the experts participating in the study AGREE. Details of this study are available
here.
The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies
(12-23-12) Before we settle in for Christmas with family and friends, we wanted to alert you to
the status of things in Washington concerning renewal of the Production Tax Credit for
wind. And also… back by popular demand is the Vestas holiday greeting from last year. With
all best wishes of the season to you and your family and great gratitude for the support you have
provided in our ongoing campaign.
PTC - The situation is as follows:
1) On Thursday (Dec 21), the House passed a bill that addresses spending cuts sufficient to avoid
the sequester. Nothing in the House bill even hints at the PTC;
2) Harry Reid now has two bills on his desk -- the bill passed by the House on Thursday as well
as the Senate finance committee tax-extender bill from August that never went to a floor vote;
3) Reid DOES NOT HAVE THE 60 VOTES to pass either bill so he is stuck. Still, he has no
choice but to pass something. What gets passed out of Senate may/may not have the wind PTC
extension included -- and we do not know what an extension might look like.
4) In the end, this thing goes to Conference and things get a little scary when Conference
Committee members go behind closed doors. But there is a hard reality that Congress knows by
now:
-- LOTs of people are watching Congress particularly on the PTC question and there has been
plenty of debate in the public arena on why the PTC should NOT be extended;
-- Congressional members and staffers are aware that there are much bigger issues facing the
country -- bigger than the wind PTC;
-- AWEA has managed to irk enough members (including Senators) with its campaign that it's
not clear folks like Grassley will go to the floor defending the indefensible. Some believe the
PTC is not even on the radar for some members when considering the larger issues. And
finally….
-- Nothing is getting passed without a "pay-for". If Congress can't find the money to cover the
extension, it goes nowhere. The Senate Finance Committee bill from August had NO pay-fors.
Come Wednesday, the fight shifts back to the Senate. We will be emailing you with any calls to
action.
SEASONS GREETINGS FROM VESTAS
http://video.vestas.com/photo/4177296
The wind production tax credit still hangs in the fiscal-cliff balance
(12-18-12) As we wait and watch how the Production Tax Credit for Wind
is handled on Capitol Hill, we wanted to share two thoughtful articles with
you. AWEA has requested a six year extension of the tax credit.
Congressman Tiberi's office regards this as their "opening bid" in the
negotiations. Last week Senator Lamar Alexander took to the floor of the
Senate to offer his opinion of the wind subsidy and a former high ranking
official in the Bush Administration wrote a thoughtful piece for Forbes. If
you know of others who would like to be on our mailing list, please
encourage them to send us their email address. Sadly, there is still a need
to educate our community.
PS Oh! We forgot to tell you! AWEA's Executive Director, Denise Bode, has
submitted her resignation. Maybe she doesn't see much future for this
miserable industry.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2012/12/13/the-fiscal-cliff-and-sm
art-energy-tax-policies/
http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p...
(12-17-12) Today we are passing along a message from Lisa Linowes, the Executive Director of
www.windaction.org . Lisa's article contains good links to additional resource material. In
particular, we point out the Editorial from the Washington Post last week which turned thumbs
down on renewal of the PTC. In addition we'd like to share perhaps one of the most eloquent
quotes we have read in the past few days. This comes from James Delingpole writing in The
Spectator, a British publication. Delingpole writes:
"No more would I trade in blood diamonds or child pornography than I would accept
money in any shape or form from Big Wind. The time is long since past when anyone
complicit in this vile, corrupt, mendacious industry - not the lawyers, not the engineers, not
the land agents, not the investors - could be unaware of the damage it does: to the
landscape, to rural communities, to wildlife, to people's health, to the economy generally."
Keep your fingers crossed that our elected officials at the federal, state and local level are finally
"getting it" and please don't pass up an opportunity to share Lisa's paper with your own local
elected officials. Finally, a huge thank you to all who have written your own heartfelt and
eloquent letters to the Ohio Power Siting Board. In response to complaints about the hundreds of
letters from non-local members of the Operating Engineer's Union, we were amazed to see the
OSPB imply that the Operating Engineers are "stakeholders" in the process.
A MESSAGE FROM LISA LINOWES
Hi Everyone -- A number of folks contacted me asking my thoughts regarding AWEA's 6-year
"phase-out" and Denise Bode's resignation. I think the outcome is good for us.
Master resource.org carried my essay on the topic from today. I believe we are witnessing how
ill-prepared AWEA is when things are not going their way. "As a clear sign of the upset, please
look at the WashPo editorial from Saturday where the editorial board trashes the PTC but
advances the carbon tax scheme. But more importantly, there are ONLY 9 comments on the
piece. Click on the All Comments tab on the piece. [sic] [recte assumed]"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/blowing-in-the-wind/2012/12/15/1aafe362-4620-11e28e70-e1993528222d_allComments.html#comments Where's AWEA's war room?
Best,
--Lisa
(12-13-12) Four AWED people have had three days of revealing meetings this week with DC
legislators. I will send out a report once we get it together. In the meantime I can tell you that
things are moving FAST regarding the PTC, and Ohio Representative Pat Tiberi is a key player.
He chairs the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures — which includes
the PTC.
Per this article today, AWEA is making a ridiculous offer for a six year phaseout. The obvious
strategy is that they will look like really flexible people when they ultimately agree to a two year
package!
Please call Tiberi's office and insist that no deal be struck to extend the PTC. What sense does it
possibly make to extend a program that costs $12B for a one year extension, and is a net jobs
loser? (Use your own words.)
Please review this article for other important facts and talking points. Reference him to
ptcfacts.info for the details.
AWEA contributed a toll free number to be connected to the Congressional Switchboard: 1-866899-9078. (If that does not work use 1-866-220-0044.)
This is important to do today.
Please pass this on to all Ohio residents who want a science-based energy policy.
(12-10-12) Dec 6th at 7:00 pm we wrapped up the last of the hearings before the Ohio Power
Siting Board. Below is a recap of the day. Dec 15th, our friends in Mechanicsburg are planning
an event in connection with the community's Christmas celebration parade. We encourage
everyone to come and show your support - again. Finally, we have attached a few more articles
of interest.
Ohio Power Siting Board Hearings - Everpower called Dr. Ken Mundt to the stand on Dec 6th
to rebut the medical testimony offered by UNU witnesses Dr. Jerry Punch and Acoustician Rick
James. Dr. Mundt is an epidemiologist who asserted that no valid epidemiological studies exist
to prove that noise from wind turbines is harmful to health. Mundt has a history of providing
epidemiological studies for industry to discredit claims of harms to health. He has been involved
on behalf of the tobacco, vinyl chloride, semi-conductor and chromium industries in this
regard. A recent book entitled "Doubt is their Product" by David Michaels, who currently
serves as Assistant Secretary of Labor and Director of OSHA, covers the work of Mundt and his
companies ENVIRON and Applied Epidemiology in chapter nine called "Chrome-Plated
Mischief". It is not flattering. Michaels' expośe details how mercenary scientists have "shaped
and skewed the technical literature, manufactured and magnified scientific uncertainty and
influenced government policy to the advantage of polluters and manufacturers of dangerous
products." It seems that adverse health impacts from industrial wind turbines are Mundt's latest
target. Everpower's attorney's vigorously objected to letting any of this damning information
into the record.
There are now 300 comments filed on the Ohio Power Siting Board website. Almost all of them
are form letters from Local 18 of the Operating Engineers. There are about twenty from
leaseholders, a number of whom reside outside of Champaign County. There are maybe ten or
less from Champaign County residents in opposition to the project. If you would like to express
your opposition, you can do so online at
http://dis.puc.state.oh.us/CaseRecord.aspx?CaseNo=12-0160 and clicking on File a Public
Comment link.
A Word About Champaign County Commissioner Bob Corbett - Throughout the three week
hearing process, Commissioner Bob Corbett drove to Columbus and sat through the testimony
every day. We can't help but believe this was a valuable educational experience for him. While
you are busy sending out your Christmas cards this season, consider sending one to
Commissioner Corbett thanking him for giving of his time to learn about the issues and threats to
the citizens of Union, Wayne, Goshen, Salem and Urbana Townships. The address for the
Commissioner's Offices is 1512 South US Hwy 68 Suite A100, Urbana, Ohio 43078.
With deadline looming, PTC backers focus on eligibility requirements
Tax-blowing boondoggle: don’t give wind energy more credit than it deserves
Turbine damage raises concerns for Livingston County wind farm
Falling blade kills worker during Vestas installation in Germany
(12-8-12) Some additional information from Ontario, and here we go. Release will begin to the
media immediately. Kindly post and circulate. Individual letters to Dr. Arlene King would be
helpful, if you share this message's content. Contact the Premier too if you wish, and anyone
else. Media Release is linked here. It's long, but it's a story. A big one!
Contact info:
DR ARLENE KING
PHONE: 416-212-3831
FAX 416-325-8412
EMAIL: Arlene King
(11-18-12) It has been a loooong week! The hearings started at 9:00 am and continued to almost
7:00 pm every day. Add two hours of travel time each day and we are ready for the weekend. In
this message we have two important missions.
First we want to bring you up to date with the testimony offered and provide the news coverage
from the Urbana and Springfield papers and
Second we want to ask for your help once more. Everpower has undertaken an aggressive
campaign to have people write letters of support to the Ohio Power Siting Board. They know
that the Public Hearing at Triad did not go well for them because you turned out in significant
numbers to provide testimony against the project. (They questioned Julie on the stand about
those yellow "No Wind" hats!) We need to counter this effort with one more campaign. More
information is provided below. Please help with this time sensitive and urgent request.
We also want to thank those of you who have signed on to the letter to our Congressmen to stop
further taxpayer subsidies for wind. The industry is mounting a massive campaign to renew the
subsidies for years to come. Given the fiscal crisis we face, this campaign defies logic and puts
the interests of the wind industry above those of American families and businesses.
If you have not signed on to the letter, you still have time, just reply to this Email link with your
name and address. Thank you for your ongoing support. Together we are making a difference.
Ohio Power Siting Board Public Comments - Everpower has sent letters to leaseholders and
others to generate support for Buckeye Wind Phase II. They ask people to tell the OPSB
that the project will:






Pay millions in tax revenue to schools and local government
Contribute to Ohio and U. S. energy independence
Create hundreds of construction and manufacturing jobs and many ongoing operational
jobs
Assist Ohio in achieving its Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard
Jump start an economic engine that will allow my friends, family and neighbors to thrive
with a higher quality of life in Champaign County
Generate clean, renewable electric energy for thousands of homes and businesses
If it were not so serious, Everpower's arguments would be laughable.
Testimony by witnesses from the County, the City of Urbana and Union Neighbors United has
provided ample evidence that If you live in the project area, your health, safety and economic
welfare are at risk.
Moreover, County Prosecutor Nick Selvaggio disclosed in the hearing that the amount of money
going into the County General Fund as a result of this project is $47,000. Seven permanent jobs
are predicted in a seven county area and the loss of 23 jobs could occur if the local golf club
cannot survive being in the middle of an industrial power plant. The project will do nothing to
assist Ohio and the nation to achieve energy independence because we do not import electricity
and electricity is not produced by burning foreign oil.
FIGHT BACK by sending your own letter to the Ohio Power Siting Board, 180 East Broad
Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attention: Buckeye Wind Project-Case No.: 12-0160-EL-BGN.
Send your letter as soon as possible, preferably this weekend. If you live in the project area, say
so. You do not need to live in the project area to send a comment. Precedents set in this case can
impact other Ohio communities. Write in your own words why you think this project is wrong
for Champaign County. The costs to the community simply do not outweigh the benefits alleged
by Everpower's form letter.
Recap of Testimony Milo Schafner, a Township Trustee from Van Wert County testified that the roads have been
damaged and not adequately repaired; his property experiences shadow flicker even though he is
a mile from a turbine; he and his wife can feel the turbines in their bodies when they sit on their
front porch; they have felt ill along with their neighbors; the complaint resolution process is
inadequate and, basically, they feel they were duped by the wind developer. Schafner's point is
that nothing in the Blue Creek project should be considered a precedent for Buckeye Wind II
because the safeguards provided to the citizens of Van Wert are inadequate.
William Palmer, a Public Safety consultant from Canada testified that numerous turbines in
Buckeye II are too close to homes and public roads. Dangers to the public from ice throw and
blade throw or fire are not protected against. Mr. Palmer has analyzed many accidents and his
conclusions were derived from looking at real experience. Everpower protested and sought to
have much of Mr. Palmer's work (he is an engineer who studied at MIT) stricken from the
record. The OPSB agreed to eliminate much of Palmer's work. The wind industry has no
database of accidents which they could have compiled as good corporate citizens because they
do not want people to know about dangers or perhaps they are concerned about liability. This
makes the work of William Palmer all the more important when considering safety.
Mark Westfall testified briefly that he was not a leaseholder and that he supports the
project. We aren't sure what he added to the proceeding.
Don Bauer testified that when he was approached to sign a lease, the developer did not inform
him of manufacturer safety recommendations; did not inform him about shadow flicker; and did
not mention the possibility of blade or ice throw. When asked the name of the Everpower
representative who contacted him to sign the lease, Bauer said he could not remember the
gentleman's name. (uh, that would be Jason Dagger or Mike Pullins, Don). Bauer said he had no
idea if there was a complaint process. When told Everpower wanted language in the OPSB's
recommendations requiring them to mitigate problems replaced with language that requires them
only to make a "good faith effort," Bauer said that was fine. He further expressed "no opinion"
on potential damage to county and township roads because he lives on a State Route. When
asked by County Prosecutor Selvaggio if he knew the County General Fund would only receive
$47,000 from a PILOT, Bauer replied he thought that seemed "a little low."
Jonathan Knauth testified for the County that the proposed Decommissioning Bond was
inadequate and exposed the County to significant financial risk. The salvage figures often
quoted by companies that buy scrap metal are the prices paid for steel delivered broken down
into 18x60 inch pieces. Any bond must consider the engineering, planning, logistics,
management, equipment and processing costs of decommissioning. Knauth said the cost to take a
turbine down is close to the cost of erecting it.
Mike McCann testified on Thursday that properties within a mile or two miles of a turbine will
see significant decline in value. McCann is a real estate appraiser from Chicago with
significant expertise in the impacts of wind farms on property value. He has also studied and
provided peer review to a number of wind/property value research papers. McCann testified
that the research Everpower is relying on contains over 7,000 properties of which only 28 are
similarly situated to those in Champaign County. This makes Everpower's research either
meaningless or designed to mislead the public
Some recent news articles of interest:
Wind turbine siting impact, decommissioning bonds discussed
Battle over economic benefits, tear down costs for turbines
Lowell wind: Neighbors complain of ‘unbearable’ noise over weekend
Electricity costs: The folly of wind-power
Wind power does not reduce CO2 emissions as much as claimed
(11-15-12) 88 Organizations Tell Congress: "Let the Wind PTC Expire!"
Good evening,
Thank you for your efforts. The final coalition letter is attached here.
I also wanted to let you know that our coalition letter is on the full back page of The Hill
yesterday. With the Wind lobby out in full force on Capitol Hill this week, this full-page ad
sends a strong message to Congress that extending the wind PTC is a bad idea.
Thank you so much for your partnership on this important issue. As the expiration of the wind
production tax credit approaches, it is more important than ever that our organizations show a
united front to Congress and the administration in opposing it.
Thanks again.
Americans for Prosperity
(11-12-12) FYI, this information is worth sharing with like-minded people. It will take a
persistent grass roots effort to dissuade our politicians to listen to the powerful AWEA. For every
1 tax $ that we give to coal, gas and nuclear, our government gives 88$ to wind alone and we all
know that money talks in Washington!
With the US elections behind us, we need to review where we stand with the wind Production
Tax Credit (PTC), our #1 issue of 2012. This summary is a bit long, but there are a LOT of
things going on, and I want you to be in the loop.
Some believe that "the post-election landscape looks exactly the same vis-a-vis the PTC as preelection". This is NOT our view, for the following three reasons:
1 - Republicans (our main allies fighting the PTC) were in the minority in the Senate before, with
47 members (out of 100). They now have 45. In the pre-election situation, getting 3 Democrats
(or Independents) to side with their position was difficult but doable. (This assumes that
Republicans like Grassley vote responsibly.) Every additional out-of-party vote needed, probably
doubles the difficulty. So the difference between 5 and 3 Senate Democrat votes needed might
not seem like much to the casual observer, but this is a HUGE post-election change, and it is not
good for us.
2 - One of the main drivers behind the Republican's hard line stance to date on such matters as
the PTC, was that they were expecting to be in a stronger majority position after the 2012
election. That expectation has now evaporated. Additionally, based on the fact that Republicans
actually lost seats in the House, they have a new looming concern: possible loss of their House
majority in 2014! They are now going to be very careful to not be portrayed as the bad guys
holding up progress.
What that means is that they will be much more likely now to make political compromises (i.e.
instead of taking a firm stand to do the right thing) - like going along with the PTC. This is a
MAJOR post-election change, and not in our favor.
3 - Sensing blood in the water, AWEA and their allies (e.g. some major environmental groups)
are now pulling out all the stops. For instance, the Sierra Club is blanketing the DC metro with
pro-PTC signs. AWEA has scheduled a week long intensified DC campaign. And more about
this. Here is another AWEA sponsored event. This is yet another MAJOR post-election change,
that represents more work for us.
-So what are we doing, and how you can help?
So far we have successfully beat back AWEA's congressional efforts five (5) time in the last
year. Thanks to YOU, this is an amazing success - particularly considering that we are an
unfunded, all-volunteer coalition. Here is an outline of how I see things going forward:
1 - We simply can not to rest on our laurels. Because we have had success to date, it will be a
MAJOR mistake to assume that continuing to do the same as we did before will continue to
work. The situation has changed, and we must also.
2 - We have a Political Team of volunteers. Their number one job has been to provide education
to Congressional members that we have identified as being on the fringe regarding the PTC (e.g.
based on their past voting record). To date these legislators have been inundated by AWEA
propaganda, and we need to put some balance to that. The Political Team needs to reinvigorate
their efforts to fully accomplishing this important objective.
[Note: we had a big political coup when Dr. George Taylor, the Political Team leader, was
interviewed about the PTC on national TV last week (The Weather Channel). Unfortunately they
edited his 10± minute interview down to two 15 second snippets. But the fact that we got
national coverage is really good. (I made a video of what it looked like on my TV, which you
can see here.)]
3 - Anyone else who would be interested in assisting in this Political Team effort should contact
me. You must be willing to dedicate at least one hour a day to this critical task - e.g. making
phone calls to our representatives.
4 - We will utilize more of our good connections. For instance, we will be having a private
meeting with John Boehner in the next few weeks. If you have some high-level DC political or
business or media connections that could be helpful, please let me know ASAP.
5 - We are working with several other national organizations who are also against the PTC. Our
DC liaison, Dave Banks, has been actively working with these groups, who have been meeting
once a week to discuss strategy, etc. If you know of any such national group that would like to
participate in this effort, please email me.
6 - We are working on instigating an official investigation into the jobs claims made by AWEA.
To date no specifics of AWEA's data has ever been published (e.g. exactly where the 7000±
Iowa claimed jobs are), and no independent source has ever vetted these claims. From what we
have found out so far, their jobs claims are wildly exaggerated. This is a VERY BIG DEAL, and
any person with economics qualifications that would like to help here should contact me
immediately.
7 - Everyone on our network simply MUST be up-to-speed on this matter, to be able to speak
effectively about it to their representatives. We have gone to the trouble of creating
PTCFacts.Info, the definitive internet site about the PTC. It's of little use though if you don't take
advantage of it - by learning what's there and by referencing it at every opportunity!
8 - We also must be of one mind in our anti-PTC campaign. The single anti-PTC message that
we absolutely must continue to aggressively spread is "Wind Energy is a Net Jobs Loser!". (The
details are explained on PTCFacts.Info). Our second soundbite is that we should continue to
communicate that the best US energy policy should be based on the premise of "All of the
Sensible." These two themes are fully compatible.
9 - We need your full cooperation when we reach out for assistance. For example, we asked for
your groups to sign on to a national anti-PTC letter that was being sent out. This is the first goaround where 64 groups signed on. This time we now have about 90 groups - which is great, but
we should have more. These groups do not have to be a formal organization, and can be
informal local coalitions. There may well be an updated version of this letter sent out soon, as
this fight intensifies. If you have not already done so, please email your basic group info
to Christine Harbin.
10-A similar letter to the House leadership has been written for Tea Party groups to sign on. We
are hoping that at least a hundred of those groups will be forthcoming... We are also working on
getting several utility companies to sign their own anti-PTC letter.
11-We sent you out a request a few weeks ago for all the House Ways and Means member to be
contacted (see details in that email). That is very important as it will be those people who decide
if the PTC is included in a package of "Tax Extenders" that will be presented to the House to
vote on. It is important to keep the PTC out of that package. If you have a few minutes after that,
please call your own congressional person and voice your disapproval of any extension of the
PTC. That might help balance the new Sierra Club ads.
12-I hope that you realize that I have gone to great lengths to minimize having to ask your for
financial contributions. IMO the most important things you can contribute are your time and
ideas. But, as I said in the beginning, things have changed and so must we if we are going to
have a chance for success here.
For instance, it would be great to run a full page anti-PTC ad in a major Washington newspaper,
or to create a powerful (short) YouTube video. If you can help us get a large financial
contributor(s), we will judiciously pursue such projects. [Along the same line, if you have other
media/PR skills you'd like to contribute, please let me know.]
----------Other national energy matters, post-election.
A - The election results apparently has resurrected the dumb idea of a carbon tax. We will have
to get involved with that soon, but right now the PTC is our number one priority. Actually most
of the arguments used against the PTC also apply to the carbon tax - which is why we need to be
focused on what these arguments are, and why we need to convey them to our representatives.
B - On the positive side, there will be more effort to kill the RPS mandates in some states. The
fact that Michigan voters rejected such an imposition is a good result. I am working on the North
Carolina situation, and results so far are very encouraging. ALEC is also getting started in that
direction.
----------The next few months will likely be particularly intense in DC. Our energy and environmental
policies are (should be) apolitical issues, so we all need to work together on these
extraordinarily important matters.
(11-01-12) We'd like to share two recent articles that rebut some of the wind industry's claims.
The first was published in The Foundry and makes the case that talking about "wind capacity" is
a whole lot different than talking about electric power generation. The author makes the point
that comparing the capacity of wind to anything is useless.
The second article published in The Telegraph discusses the views of the new British energy
minister, John Hays, who declares "...we can "no longer have wind turbines imposed on
communities" and added that it "seems extraordinary" they have allowed to spread so much
throughout the country. Hays says "Enough is enough!"
Lastly, we have attached one of the sound maps prepared for Everpower by their noise
consultant. This map indicates turbines in both Phase I and Phase II as well as projected
combined effects of noise. It is generally understood that an increase of 5 decibels over
background sound for audible noise is the most one can endure without being highly annoyed.
The first most important requirement is to ensure that background noise levels in quiet rural
environments have been properly measured. Everpower took measurements on the properties of
ten leaseholders. The next step is to ensure that no residents in the footprint experience an
increase of more than 5 decibels. The measurement and impacts of low frequency sounds which
cannot be heard by the ear but are sensed by the body are not included on this particular
map. But we thought this map was helpful to those of you who want a better understanding of
where your home is in relation to the turbines and what Everpower thinks you will experience in
terms of audible noise.
(10-30-12) A great deal of testimony by witnesses for Everpower has been filed on the Ohio
Power Siting Board's website. Of particular interest may be the Testimony of Michael
Speerscheider, the Everpower representative objecting to a number of conditions requested by
the Staff of the OPSB.
Leaseholder testimony is provided by Mark Westfall and Don Bauer. A request by Everpower to
keep the names and addresses of leaseholder's secret was filed as well.
Our very preliminary attempt to understand the Phase II map shows roughly 26 landowners with
leases of which four do not live in Champaign County and two are Mike Pullins and Jason
Dagger. Again, this is nothing more than a best guess. Attached are the maps provided in the
application if you care to do you own estimating. Note that these maps do not include Phase I.
The maps are very enlightening to how much land is required.
If you would like to review the documents filed this week, please go to link here.
With respect to homes close to turbines, Everpower indicates that 453 are within 1/2 mile and
1,234 are within a mile. We believe this is for Phase II not the combined Phase I and II.
If you go to the above website link, you will see a link that enables you to file a public
comment. If you would like to go on record with a comment, you can use this link. If you
offered testimony at the Public Hearing, your testimony will appear on the record automatically.
(10-26-12) How wonderful to experience the show of community support in opposition to
Everpower at last night's hearing. It was an amazing evening that ended some time around 10:30
p.m. and we know not everyone could stay to testify. Attached is the coverage from today's
Urbana Daily Citizen. The article fails to reflect that the testimony was about 75% in opposition
and 25% in support (35 to 11). Thanks to all who attended, testified or submitted letters!
Supporting Testimony in Favor of Wind
Testimony was taken from 11 witnesses of which 7 were leaseholders: Nancy Roberts, Jerri
Palmer and Nancy Instine testified as widows trying to save the family farm; Jon Berry testified
about carefully weighing the measures taken to protect his neighbors before signing on; Kent
Pullins of Cincinnati testified the project was needed to save Triad from bankruptcy and that it
was not right that people with inherited wealth could hire lawyers to oppose it; Rod Yocum
testified about belly buttons and that everyone had one - not sure about his point; Ted Black also
offered support. Others were a representative from the Operating Engineers Union representing
workers; a machinist who talked about a part for the lighting made locally by Hughey Phillips;
James Cushman who owns a gravel pit and thought wind would replace the use of diesel oil; and
Sandra Chester, a non-participating homeowner who lives on Rte 29 and compared the project to
rural electrification.
Opposing Testimony Highlights
Four landowners were families that had turned down a lease and three witnesses were trying to
sell their homes without success.
Tom Stacy testified that OPSB Director Wissman assured him in a meeting several years ago
that there would not be two overlapping projects approved in Champaign County.
Dawn Davis pointed out the China connection and the risk that control over eastern Champaign
County could wind up in the hands of the Chinese.
Terry Rittenhouse greeted the audience in Chinese. He gave a dramatic reading of the Vorys Ad
(attached). Everpower's Vorys attorney Mike Setterini formally objected to its admission on the
basis of relevance. ALJ will rule later.
Mark Schmidt, an Associate Professor of Physiology, testified the human body is 45 to 75%
water and the water experiences oscillation from sound wave frequencies. He talked about the
use of low frequency sound waves by the military and said the 500 foot turbines were weapons
and they were aimed at his house.
Dan Boulton testified he turned down an easement and offer of $800 for a turbine to the east of
his property. He asked how close the turbine was to his property and after consulting someone in
New York, Everpower said it was inside the setback minimum. They offered him $1,500 on the
spot and $2,500 annually. Boulton said safety should not be negotiated for a price.
Barbara Behling also turned down a lease both for turbines and for a staging area. She testified
about manufacturer's setbacks as well as injuries and fatalities from the Caitheness website.
Nurse Mary Sue Schmidt testified about Dr. Carl Phillips' epidemiology work demonstrating
adverse health impacts.
Yasmin Dye, a German native testified in about the backlash against turbines in Germany as well
as the soaring price of electricity.
Dave Carter, a Honda Engineer, who read the manufacturer's safety manuals in the application, a
G.E. Manual at 11.1 "Approaching and Entering a Frosted Generator". The process requires
you park your vehicle 350 meters (1,148 feet) from the turbine and call for someone to remotely
stop the turbine. Carter said that this distance was about three city blocks in Urbana and if you
were at the center of Urbana, you would have to walk north all the way to Steve's Market to
understand that distance. He said the problem was not with Everpower who is following the rule
but that the rule is flawed and puts people in harm's way. (We note here that the rule is only a
minimum standard which the OPSB can extend.) Carter said as an engineer he knows that G.E.
doesn't just make these procedures up. Insufficient safety regulations are irresponsible and
probably libelous. He said if he was a leaseholder he would be concerned that someone would
come after him.
Dave Dye testified his family would be surrounded by ten turbines.
Brad McDavid testified as a member of the Union Twp Zoning Board that if the project was
locally zoned, it would be zoned industrial and housing would be prohibited.
Judge Roger Wilson quoted Shakespeare:
"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?"
Judge Wilson said the turbines are a sea of troubles. We need to take up arms against them.
Judge Wilson went on to question whether there was a predisposition on the part of the OPSB.
He said the setbacks were "grossly inadequate" and determined by greed. He said the
construction would be highly detrimental to the infrastructure. (This is in opposition to a prowind witness who said we were getting a bunch of free upgrades to the local infrastructure
through widened roads and reinforced bridges.)
(10-23-12) The wind developer in Champaign County is taking a large cash infusion from the
Chinese. The leases there will then be held in essence by the Chinese. That would be great
information to get out to potential lease signers here in Auglaize County. The ones that have
signed did so because they liked the salesman from Mainstream. I think they should know that
just like in Champaign their lease could end up in the hands of a Chinese Investment firm.
UK private-equity group Terra Firma is quietly preparing a new renewables-focused
investment fund with the backing of China Development Bank (CDB), according to reports.
State-owned CDB is said to have committed to pouring an undisclosed amount into the fund,
which will be worth as much as £3bn ($4.8bn).
CDB - an increasingly aggressive investor in renewable-energy assets around the globe - will
reportedly market the new fund to potential investors in China, while Terra Firma will focus on
regular private-equity investors in its core Western markets.
Neither entity has yet confirmed the reports. But the result could be a welcome injection of
capital into renewable-energy enterprises in Europe and the US at a time when many
sources of traditional funding have dried up - and one that could give Chinese
manufacturers another window of entry into Western markets.
Terra Firma - among the largest private-equity firms in Europe, even after its disastrous
investment in music label EMI, which it lost control of last year - currently owns three
renewables companies: UK multi-technology developer Infinis, US wind developer
EverPower, and Italian PV operator Rete Rinnovabile.
All of its companies were purchased as fully-operational businesses, sometimes - as in the case
of UK wind developer Novera (now part of Infinis) - after a protracted takeover battle with their
owners.
Terra Firma jumped into the wind space in 2009 through its purchase of EverPower, which
owns nearly 200MW of operational wind capacity in the US and has more than 2GW more
under development.
Later that year it acquired Novera through its UK waste-to-energy subsidiary Infinis, and
continues to aggressively develop onshore wind projects across England and Scotland.
Inifinis claims to produce nearly one-tenth of the UK's renewable electricity - primarily through
its 343MW base of landfill gas assets, but also via its 211MW of onshore wind farms.
Earlier this month Infinis secured a £75m loan from National Australia Bank for another five
onshore wind projects in the UK, all expected to be on line by next spring.
In 2011 Terra Firma moved decisively into the PV space, buying the developer Rete Rinnovabile
from Italy's transmission system operator Terna for €641m ($832m) - the largest European PV
acquisition to date.
Rete Rinnovabile owns nearly 90 PV assets across Italy totaling 241MW, incorporating modules
and inverters from big names like First Solar, Yingli, SMA and Power-One, as well as Italian
manufacturers like Solsonica and Santerno.
The deep-pocketed CDB continues to flex its muscles on the global stage in its bid to aid
Chinese manufacturers.
Last month it loaned R98.7m ($48.5m) to Brazilian wind developer Desenvix (which will use
Sinovel turbines), while Canadian Solar secured a C$93m ($95.4m) loan this summer to help
fund its acquisition of SkyPower's PV pipeline in the province of Ontario.
(10-6-12) Fox News has broadcast a special program which aired on Sunday, October 7.
"Behind Obama's Green Agenda" is the work of Fox investigative reporters. If you missed the
broadcast you can still watch it on YouTube here.
AVIATION - We have located a website which represents the National Agricultural Aviation
Association at www.agaviation.org. In a section entitled "Let's Be Fair About Sharing the Air"
they state:
The airspace aerial applicators work in is becoming increasingly obstructed by
transmission lines, wind turbines and hard-to-see meteorological testing towers. That
concerns the aerial application industry, not just in terms of safety, but also in terms of
accessing farmers' fields to treat their crops. In response, NAAA has launched a public
outreach campaign to raise awareness about the worrisome effects of wind energy
development on agriculture and aviation.
This is an important resource for those concerned about the ability of farmers to access crop
spraying services if their fields are within 1/2 mile of a turbine. Concern for medical aviation
services is expressed also.
BATS - Another study has been published concerning the threat to the Indiana Bat as well as
other bat species. An article about the study was published in the Chattanooga, TN. The study is
linked here
Thank you for your support.
Dave
(9-24-12) Our recommended national energy slogan is “All of the Sensible” (in contrast to the
absurd “All of the Above”). Please pass it on. Related to this, US citizens should make sure to
get up-to-speed with what is on our PTCFacts.Info pages, where we are advocating the sensible
policy.
Our informal citizens coalition now has a Facebook page. Please check it out and Like us and
Friend us. Thanks Erica and Tauna.
We are still leading on the very important Wall Street Journal poll
about the PTC — thank you. Not sure why it is still going, but assume that it will be wrapped up
shortly.
More reports about greed energy economics:
One US Representative released a fine statement against the PTC. Additionally a Senator and a
Representative came out with a joint position piece. Representative Pompeo sent a fine letter
(9/21/12: to House speaker Boehner) against the PTC, which had 50± House member cosigners.
(Thanks to the many of you that called their House representative to help garner these
signatures.)
Our simplest argument against the PTC is that wind energy is a NET Jobs Loser. What legislator
will support taxpayer funding for a net jobs loss? In response to a recent post by the Sierra Club
endorsing the PTC I wrote:
"There are tens of thousands of jobs at stake in the newspaper business. Internet based news
services have made a hand-delivered paper product obsolete. Should the government step in and
have taxpayers prop up the newspaper business — just to save those jobs?
"That's the same as your argument is here. The fact is that there never has been a scientific
assessment that shows that wind energy is a net benefit to our society. You appear to be
assuming that wind is a good thing — after all, the wind salespeople say it is!
"To see the reality of the PTC situation, see PTCFacts.Info. It carefully explains why wind
energy is a net jobs loser."
More PTC developments:
Best PTC TV interview of the year: AWEA is embarrassed.
Superior article on the PTC.
PTC supporters are focused on jobs. See this counterpoint to the NRDC.
A second critique of NRDC has several good points.
Good PTC commentary here.
An updated version of the Excelon PTC report that I had in the last issue.
Exelon explains its PTC position.
China’s Solyndra Economy is very informative.
I missed this excellent piece before: The Green Economy Mirage.
Property values go down after wind project goes up.
A Wind Industry Lie - property values will not be affected.
More reports about turbine health matters:
Wind Turbine Noise Being Studied to Death.
Couple sues over wind project.
Don't be fooled by wind
Misc energy reports:
These six US GOP House members are being targeted by the Sierra Club, re their energy
positions. That means we should be supporting them.
Environmental Minister says wind energy will not fix global warming.
1,231 new coal plants are now planned worldwide!
A new development with wind turbines and the military in NC.
The French military have also weighed in against turbines.
Wonderful four part series on wind energy consequences.
An important story about wind capacity factor degradation.
What if Wind Energy Had Been Their Idea?
Wind’s Reliably Poor Performance.
A fine article about nuclear safety from an expert.
Government of, by and for the EPA
Sue & Settle: a new tactic to make environmental law.
Germanys’ experience with wind energy should be a warning.
It’s Time to Kill the Electric Car.
Some recent global warming articles of interest —
Myth of the 98%.
EPA Reform Needs to be Discussed.
PBS severely criticized for a token attempt at being balanced.
Some other recent articles of general interest —
Thought for the day: “If President Obama is elected for a second term, just think of the mess he
will inherit this time!”
A short important video: We Stopped Dreaming.
Climate Science and Political Science.
For anyone interest in politics, I recommend this book.
Thank you for your support.
john droz, jr.
(9-5-12) Whether you are a US citizen or not, please go to this Wall Street Journal poll and
vote against extending the PTC.Please pass it on to your lists.
AWEA is encouraging their allies to vote in this poll. They got a big head start here, and are
currently ahead.
Are we really going to let them send a national message that wind energy actually needs
MORE subsidies???
Here is a good discussion of the PTC. US citizens should make sure to get up-to-speed with what
is on our PTCFacts.Info pages.
I saw the "Obama 2016" movie a few weeks ago, and I would endorse it. Here is an
interesting review from an unexpected source.
This is a MUST WATCH 1 minute video for all US citizens. Please pass it on!
Our proposed national energy slogan is “All of the Sensible” (in contrast to the absurd “All of
the Above”). Please pass it on.
Lastly, see this amazing panoramic photo of Mars.
(8-30-12) Our proposed national energy slogan is “All of the Sensible” (in contrast to the absurd
“All of the Above”). Please pass it on!
More reports about greed energy economics:
Misinformation about Subsidies
Why Not Let the PTC Expire?
GE makes $21 Billion a year on “clean” energy
Good news: Vestas to cut more jobs
More reports about turbine health matters:
Wind Turbines Can be Hazardous to Human Health.
Turbine Health Testing in Massachusetts.
More reports about turbine wildlife matters:
Golden Eagles fall prey to wind industry
Developers move turbines to save some birds
WVa Wind projects want permission to kill endangered bats.
A Big Bird Kill.
Misc energy reports:
Romney Energy White Paper. A somewhat typical news article. A good article about Paul
Ryan’s position on energy matters.
A report of wind energy’s fossil fuel savings. We shouldn’t have to be doing such research, but
are forced to since the wind industry keeps the data under wraps. There is little surprise in that.
EPA loses a court battle re air pollution rules.
Grid Instability Has Industry Scrambling.
Military Bases Want More Say with Wind Projects.
Green Energy — Buyer Beware!
Idaho Legislator: Wind Was a Big Mistake
King Natural Gas
Geothermal in California.
Confirmation Bias.
Cameron’s Greatest Crime (wind energy).
THORIUM: Energy Cheaper Than Coal is an informative book now available.
We fight (a very short patriotic video).
Our Sim City Government
Some recent global warming articles of interest —
Apocalypse Not
The Climate Skeptic who wasn’t
The National Review is having an interesting dustup with Michael Mann. And it also spills over
to CEI. IBD says it was the greatest fraud of all time!
Climate Forecasts - What To Believe?
Here is an opportunity to critique PBS NewsHour’s global warming coverage, by taking a simple
survey.
A site listing some climate history points of interest.
Thank you for your support.
(8-25-12) Across the country, renewable energy continues to take center stage. We will continue
to keep you abreast of the highlights:
National News: Mitt Romney released his Energy Plan. (copy attached) The Plan argues for
state regulation of energy development, a level playing field for public subsidy and more
government research into innovative energy resources. We translate this to mean that Romney
does not support continuation of the Production Tax Credit for wind and solar. Whether there
will be a phase out period or the PTC will terminate on December 31st is an open question
resulting in a number of companies laying off people now and, in the case of Vestas, a large
turbine maker, announcing the availability for sale of a 20% interest in the company.
State News: At the summer meeting of a group of state legislators from around the country,
model language for a bill called the Electricity Freedom Act was proposed. It "states that a
renewable energy mandate for electricity production is a tax on consumers and repeals that
mandate to restore the process of selecting energy sources through the market." Passage of the
Electricity Freedom Act would serve as a disincentive for any wind developer to invest in that
state because wind is not economically viable without subsidies and mandates as long as natural
gas prices are low.
Local News: Everpower's lobbyist Karl Gebhardt is no longer in the advocacy business and was
appointed Deputy Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and Chief of the
Division of Soil & Water Resources responsible for non-point ag-nutrient management, water
resources, soil inventory, stormwater management, dam safety, coordination with the State's 88
Soil & Water Conservation Districts and related natural resource issues. Presumably, Everpower
has been in the process of seeking a new lobbyist/pr director but we have not received any word
on the results of that effort.
(8-14-12) Yes, my last newsletter wasn't that long ago, but a LOT is happening...
Our proposed national energy slogan is “All of the Sensible” (in contrast to the absurd “All of
the Above”). Please pass it on in everything you write and communicate, as we would like it to
go viral.
We are making substantial progress with a team of our dedicated volunteers fighting the PTC
extension. We will have an educational website up soon, with the url StopPTC.Info.
Our basic position is “The PTC is a heavy taxpayer subsidy of an eighteenth century energy
technology that has no scientifically proven net benefits — and is a net jobs loser.” If you have
any suggestions for improving this statement, please let me know, ASAP. ---------The best looking, most informative, wind energy handout you can give is Kimball
Rasmussen's Rational Look at Renewable Energy (2.0). Here it is online. For hard copies you
can call Keith Hill (Utah: 801-619-6503) who is handling this. Mention my name. They have
been extremely generous in the past about sending out copies to needy folks. ---------On Friday, Robert Bryce had another easy target on PBS News Hour (NRDC) in discussing gas
and our energy options. It is worth watching. Interesting that the NRDC’s complaints against gas
could almost be applied verbatim to the wind business — but they are ignoring that reality. A
bonus is that Ken Salazar actually made a sensible statement about gas and the environment. --------This is a VERY interesting (short) video about US welfare options. IMO the amazing thing is
that PBS actually asked a competent person to represent the position that is contrary to theirs.
This is a classic discussion of the conflict between responsibility (fiscal and otherwise) and those
advocating dependency (although of course not acknowledging it as such). The differences here
are a close parallel to the question (and mentalities) as to whether wind energy should continue
to get handouts. ---------The Sierra Club just released a 23 page glossy marketing brochure entitled "Clean Energy Under
Siege."
A lot of it is about me and the effective network of good people (you!) who are promoting
science-based energy solutions. (Of course they never acknowledge the science part!) Since they
have zero regard for the truth (e.g. they never contacted me) the resulting collection of
misinformation is not a surprising result.
A key thing that they conclude is that I and the Koch brothers (who I don't know) are powerful
forces in the US regarding energy policy! See the “relationship” chart on page 16.
I take the fact that this national organization is specifically targeting us as a badge of honor. It is
proof positive of the exceptional good influences that our network is having. Knowing that 90%
of it is BS, let me know any questions on this puff piece. ---------Here is some of VP candidate Paul Ryan’s voting record on energy issues.
More reports about greed energy economics:
NYS Subsidies — a Road to Nowhere.
Wind subsidies kill birds.
A good assessment of the PTC situation.
Another PTC story worth reading.
Gamesa declares loss amid drastically reduced orders.
More reports about turbine health matters:
A wonderful letter on health effects written by the Waubra Foundation
Austrian Medical Association released their EMF Guidelines.
More reports about turbine wildlife matters:
Good news: a proposed Scottish wind project was cancelled as it was projected to kill less than
one eagle a year over its estimated operational lifetime.
Misc energy reports:
A relevant article just appeared that discusses "churnalism" (as vs journalism). It says that this is
the practice in which journalists simply take the PR material handed to them and churn it out to
their readers or viewers.
A fine piece about US electricity regulation.
A NY town passes a restrictive wind law.
The NY Times (!) has an article about the Coming Oil Boom…
Green Car Collides with Laws of Thermodynamics
A hydro bill energizes debate.
john droz, jr.
Senior Fellow: American Tradition Institute
(08-06-12) It was another busy week.The Ohio Power Siting Board announced hearing dates for
Everpower's Phase II and Everpower published its Legal Notice in the Urbana Daily Citizen
along with their map of turbines and transmission lines. (Remember they are only showing
Phase II not the combined Phase I and Phase II.) It was interesting to see how the paper
covered the announcement by referring to the Farm Bureau as "a farm federation" when
reporting that the Farm Bureau has filed to intervene in support of Everpower. Why the sleight
of hand? Also downplayed was Mitt Romney's call to let the taxpayer subsidy for wind (the
PTC) expire at the end of the year. Everpower has previously stated they could not build if the
PTC expires so Romney's support was a big deal! For details read on......
FEDERAL PTC - On Tuesday, Republicans on the US Senate Finance Committee stripped out
renewal of the Production Tax Credit from a bill which was to be considered on Thursday. This
was done in support of Mitt Romney's call to let the PTC and other special interest tax breaks
die. Romney believes the free market should prevail. So the renewal came out of the bill but on
Thursday, Senator Max Bauccus put it back in. The bill passed out of committee but did not go
to the floor for a vote before the Senate left on vacation. It is likely the bill will come up for a
vote in September but it is not likely to get anywhere in the House now that Romney has shown
his opposition. Please stop by the Romney for President office in your town to let the campaign
know you appreciate Mitt's position.
STATE RENEWABLE MANDATES - Ohio's Republican legislators recently attended a
conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council in Utah where the ALEC Task
Force on Energy recommended a resolution calling for the repeal of state RPS standards,
provided existing contracts entered into on the strength of the mandates now on the books are
respected and that the utilities can get cost recovery on those. This recommendation was made
despite AWEA's participation in the program including a plea from AWEA Executive
Director, Denise Bode. Lack of a state mandate to buy wind would slow or stop wind
development in Ohio.
(08-03-12) Thank you for the MANY phone call that were made to Senate Finance Committee
members regarding the PTC extension.
Unfortunately we lost this skirmish — but not the war. Below is a good commentary by Myron
Ebell from CEI.
I would add three things:
1) I was told that the five who voted against the PTC package were all Republicans: Burr (NC),
Coburn (OK), Cornyn (TX), Enzi (WY). and Kyle (AZ). They deserve our thanks for voting
responsibly!
2) This will next be voted on by the whole Senate, where we will have another opportunity to
defeat it. An staffer told me that it would not be before September.
3) Even if the Senate does approve this, our best chance has always been to stop this in the
House.
We are finalizing our StopPTC.Info website, and it should be up soon. This will be a collection
of ammo against the PTC. We will let you know about the next phase of our plan, and remain
confident that we will prevail.
-----------On a related matter the Sierra Club just issued a marketing brochure entitled "Clean Energy
Under Siege." A lot of it is about me and the effective network of good people (you!) that are
promoting science-based energy solutions. (Of course they never acknowledge that part!) They
have zero regard for the truth (for instance, they never contacted me) so the resulting collection
of misinformation is not a surprising result.
The fact that this national organization is specifically targeting our citizens network is proof
positive of the exceptional good influence that we are having. Keep up the good work...
-----------Another MAJOR accomplishment coincidentally happened today. In North Carolina, the Sea
Level Bill (H-819) became law! (Here is a sob story written by a journalist who is not happy
with the results.)
To my knowledge this is the first time in the world that a key element of the green religion was
made illegal. A wonderful outcome.
The Sierra Club coordinated an extensive effort to derail this — opposed by science-based NC
citizens — and lost. I fully expect that they are creating a sister puff piece on sea level rise, like
the energy one cited above.
Thank you again for your support of science-based technical policies.
regards,
john droz, jr.
------------
The Senate Finance Committee today marked up and passed a business tax extenders package on
a 19 to 5 vote. A provision to extend and expand the wind production tax credit was included in
the chairman’s mark.
Senator Tom Coburn offered an amendment to reduce the PTC by 20%. It failed on a 9-15
vote. All Democrats plus Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.) and Pat Roberts (R-Ks.) voted against
the amendment.
The wind PTC provision that Chairman Baucus included in the bill and that was adopted is
worse in at least two respects than the current wind PTC. I paste a description from the
committee of the wind PTC section. Note that wind farms that begin construction in 2013
qualify for the ten years of credits and that wind farmers can now take a 30% investment tax
credit immediately instead of waiting ten years for full payout of the PTC.
Extension and Modification of Incentives for Renewable Electricity Property Wind Production
Tax Credit and Modification of Other Renewable Energy Credits
Under current law, taxpayers can claim a 2.2 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit for wind electricity
produced for a 10-year period from a wind facility placed-in-service by the end of 2012 (the
wind production tax credit). The bill extends through 2013 the production tax credit for wind.
The provision also modifies section 45 to allow renewable energy facilities that begin
construction before the end of 2013 to claim the 10-year credit, and amends section 45 to clarify
that commonly recycled paper is excluded from qualifying from the production tax credit. This
proposal is estimated to have a net of cost $12.1 billion over ten years.
Investment Tax Credit in Lieu of Production Tax Credit
Under current law, facilities that produce electricity from solar facilities are eligible to take a
thirty percent (30%) investment tax credit in the year that the facility is placed-in-service.
Facilities that produce electricity from wind, closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass,
geothermal, small irrigation, hydropower, landfill gas, waste-to-energy, and marine renewable
facilities are eligible for a production tax credit for electricity produced over a ten-year period.
The investment tax credit is better for small and offshore wind facilities. The bill would allow
facilities qualifying for the production tax credit to elect to take the investment tax credit in lieu
of the production tax credit for facilities that begin construction by the end of 2013. This
proposal is estimated to cost $135 million over ten years.