National Review Online published the article Let's Be Gone with the Wind today.
An excerpt:
"National President Obama likes to talk about making sure “the biggest corporations pay their fair share.” Treasury secretary Tim Geithner calls for tax reform to close loopholes and subsidies. Budget hawks say federal spending must be curbed. Congress and federal environmental regulators claim they are doing everything they can to save endangered species. By doing nothing and waiting for December 31 to pass, all of those folks could strike a blow in support of each of these policies. All they have to do is let the federal production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy expire on schedule this coming Monday."
Wind Victims Ontario:
For a depressing yet very informative read, check out the site Wind Victims Ontario. It has personal testimonies from people who live near turbines in Canada. It also has case studies, health research articles, videos, expert testimony, and more resources.
On a personal note, I drove into Gratiot County a few times over the holidays, where there are wind turbines as far as the eye can see. They've even built more since I was there last time. Knowing what I know about them, it's chilling to see them. Money wasting, an inefficient way of producing energy, wildlife killers, hazardous to human health, disrupting communities, and today ... not even one of them moving.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Wall Street Journal article on wind subsidies
The Wall Street Journal published an informational article, The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies:
Federal subsidies for new wind-power generation will end on Dec. 31 unless they are renewed by Congress. For the sake of our economy and the smooth operation of the energy market, Congress should let the subsidies lapse. They waste taxpayer money, subvert the allocation of capital, and generate a social cost many times the price tag of the subsides themselves.
Since 1992, the federal government has expended almost $24 billion to encourage investment in wind power through direct spending, tax breaks, R&D, loan guarantees and other federal support of electric power. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a one-year extension of existing federal subsidies for wind power would cost taxpayers almost $12 billion.
The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high—$52.48 per one million watt hours generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, the subsidies for generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear power are $3.10, from hydropower 84 cents, from coal 64 cents, and from natural gas 63 cents.
In addition, wind power benefits from federal mandates requiring the use of renewable energy by federal agencies along with preferential treatment by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Many states provide additional tax breaks, subsidies and mandates for wind power. The total value of these additional subsidies has never been calculated.
But the cost to taxpayers is only part of the problem. Subsidized, wind-generated electricity is displacing other, much cheaper sources of power. The subsidies are so high that wind-power producers can pay utilities to take the electricity they produce and still make a profit. Such "negative pricing" has occurred for some time in the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest and in Texas—and, according to the Energy Information Administration, it will likely grow.
In West Texas, where wind power is a larger percentage of total electricity production than in any other part of the country, negative energy-price distortions have occurred 8% or more of the time for the last five years. Donna Nelson, the chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission, warned in September that the market distortion caused by negative prices "makes it difficult for other generation types to recover their cost and discourages investment in new generation."
The net result is that federal subsidies are triggering an inefficient and costly transformation of grid resources from low-cost megawatts to high-cost "maybe" watts—electricity generated only when the wind blows.
When electricity demand peaked in Chicago on July 6, 2012, wind energy, which comprised 2,700 megawatts of capacity, was able to supply only four megawatts of electricity, a stunning 99.8% failure rate. In Europe, one day this February wind power produced almost a third of Germany's electricity—but four days later it produced none (it was a still day).
To read the rest of the article, go here: The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies.
Federal subsidies for new wind-power generation will end on Dec. 31 unless they are renewed by Congress. For the sake of our economy and the smooth operation of the energy market, Congress should let the subsidies lapse. They waste taxpayer money, subvert the allocation of capital, and generate a social cost many times the price tag of the subsides themselves.
Since 1992, the federal government has expended almost $24 billion to encourage investment in wind power through direct spending, tax breaks, R&D, loan guarantees and other federal support of electric power. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a one-year extension of existing federal subsidies for wind power would cost taxpayers almost $12 billion.
The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high—$52.48 per one million watt hours generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, the subsidies for generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear power are $3.10, from hydropower 84 cents, from coal 64 cents, and from natural gas 63 cents.
In addition, wind power benefits from federal mandates requiring the use of renewable energy by federal agencies along with preferential treatment by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Many states provide additional tax breaks, subsidies and mandates for wind power. The total value of these additional subsidies has never been calculated.
But the cost to taxpayers is only part of the problem. Subsidized, wind-generated electricity is displacing other, much cheaper sources of power. The subsidies are so high that wind-power producers can pay utilities to take the electricity they produce and still make a profit. Such "negative pricing" has occurred for some time in the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest and in Texas—and, according to the Energy Information Administration, it will likely grow.
In West Texas, where wind power is a larger percentage of total electricity production than in any other part of the country, negative energy-price distortions have occurred 8% or more of the time for the last five years. Donna Nelson, the chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission, warned in September that the market distortion caused by negative prices "makes it difficult for other generation types to recover their cost and discourages investment in new generation."
The net result is that federal subsidies are triggering an inefficient and costly transformation of grid resources from low-cost megawatts to high-cost "maybe" watts—electricity generated only when the wind blows.
When electricity demand peaked in Chicago on July 6, 2012, wind energy, which comprised 2,700 megawatts of capacity, was able to supply only four megawatts of electricity, a stunning 99.8% failure rate. In Europe, one day this February wind power produced almost a third of Germany's electricity—but four days later it produced none (it was a still day).
To read the rest of the article, go here: The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Two articles in the Lansing State Journal
Today's Lansing State Journal has an update on the wind turbine issue in Clinton County:
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
ST. JOHNS — In a few days, another year will end without approval or rejection of a Chicago company’s proposal to erect 40 towering, utility-grade turbines to convert the winds of Clinton County to power for households, farms, industry and business.
And while 2013 is likely to see a decision on the $123 million project that dates to 2008, approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners still would not initiate construction.
Years of litigation might be a more accurate forecast.
“We’ve put forward a project that meets the requirements of the (county’s) zoning ordinance,” Tim Brown, managing member of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms LLC, said in a telephone interview from his Chicago office. “We hope the county’s ready to make a decision. It’s been quite some time.”
Planning Commission action was expected Dec. 13. Brown and about 150 other people, mostly landowners opposed to the project, gathered at the Clinton County Courthouse to hear whether Forest Hill’s application for a special-land-use permit would be endorsed or denied.
They departed quickly after only three of seven planning commission members showed up and the meeting was canceled.
The next meeting is scheduled for Jan. 10.
If approved, the permit request would advance to the Board of Commissioners, probably in February.
Brown said he does not have a problem with the county’s “very deliberate” review process.
Ordinances passed by the Dallas, Essex and Bengal township boards requiring towers to be shorter than the 427-foot-tall structures planned by Forest Hill and allowed by county zoning are of greater concern.
The township ordinances limit the height to 400 feet in Bengal, and 380 feet in Dallas and Essex. The townships also have stricter rules for noise and require greater setbacks than the county.
To read the rest of the article go here:
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
They also published an article on the issue yesterday:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
"ST. JOHNS — Ken Wieber, 49, grew up on the mixed-use dairy and cash-crop farm he operates on 540 acres in Clinton County, a few miles north and west of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms proposed wind-turbine project.
An active leader of the opposition, Wieber said he focused on the health, safety and property rights of residents living near the proposed project after the county “failed miserably” to do so in the recent revision of its zoning ordinance.
Wieber said the project’s opponents compromised on the zoning ordinance because “we realize we can’t stop these things (wind-turbine developments).”
“We understood early on that if we propose something that is entirely restrictive and unrealistic then we’re not going to get anywhere,” he said. “We have to allow wiggle room. We have to have a compromise in there somewhere.”
One of the biggest compromises, he said, was a zoning provision that allows neighboring landowners to waive the setback requirements that otherwise would prohibit erection of a tower on land leased to Forest Hill Energy.
If Forest Hill then had “to go out and get more waivers from the neighboring people and if that costs them more money, so be it,” Wieber said.
Apart from noise, tower heights and setbacks from property lines, Wieber questions the fundamental economics of industrial-grade wind-turbine farms.
“They always talk about this as ‘harvesting the wind’ or one more crop that they can harvest. The only thing being harvested here is the federal incentives. That’s what’s being harvested and that’s being done by Forest Hill Energy,” he said.
“Do we really want as a county or state or nation to base our future economy on an industry that provides an expensive, intermittent and inefficient product and is entirely depending on government subsidies for its existence?”
In floor remarks delivered to his U.S. Senate colleagues on Dec. 14, Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, echoed Wieber by criticizing the federal government and “the brazenness of those who have been receiving this giveaway money.”
To read the rest of the article go here:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
ST. JOHNS — In a few days, another year will end without approval or rejection of a Chicago company’s proposal to erect 40 towering, utility-grade turbines to convert the winds of Clinton County to power for households, farms, industry and business.
And while 2013 is likely to see a decision on the $123 million project that dates to 2008, approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners still would not initiate construction.
Years of litigation might be a more accurate forecast.
“We’ve put forward a project that meets the requirements of the (county’s) zoning ordinance,” Tim Brown, managing member of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms LLC, said in a telephone interview from his Chicago office. “We hope the county’s ready to make a decision. It’s been quite some time.”
Planning Commission action was expected Dec. 13. Brown and about 150 other people, mostly landowners opposed to the project, gathered at the Clinton County Courthouse to hear whether Forest Hill’s application for a special-land-use permit would be endorsed or denied.
They departed quickly after only three of seven planning commission members showed up and the meeting was canceled.
The next meeting is scheduled for Jan. 10.
If approved, the permit request would advance to the Board of Commissioners, probably in February.
Brown said he does not have a problem with the county’s “very deliberate” review process.
Ordinances passed by the Dallas, Essex and Bengal township boards requiring towers to be shorter than the 427-foot-tall structures planned by Forest Hill and allowed by county zoning are of greater concern.
The township ordinances limit the height to 400 feet in Bengal, and 380 feet in Dallas and Essex. The townships also have stricter rules for noise and require greater setbacks than the county.
To read the rest of the article go here:
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
They also published an article on the issue yesterday:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
"ST. JOHNS — Ken Wieber, 49, grew up on the mixed-use dairy and cash-crop farm he operates on 540 acres in Clinton County, a few miles north and west of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms proposed wind-turbine project.
An active leader of the opposition, Wieber said he focused on the health, safety and property rights of residents living near the proposed project after the county “failed miserably” to do so in the recent revision of its zoning ordinance.
Wieber said the project’s opponents compromised on the zoning ordinance because “we realize we can’t stop these things (wind-turbine developments).”
“We understood early on that if we propose something that is entirely restrictive and unrealistic then we’re not going to get anywhere,” he said. “We have to allow wiggle room. We have to have a compromise in there somewhere.”
One of the biggest compromises, he said, was a zoning provision that allows neighboring landowners to waive the setback requirements that otherwise would prohibit erection of a tower on land leased to Forest Hill Energy.
If Forest Hill then had “to go out and get more waivers from the neighboring people and if that costs them more money, so be it,” Wieber said.
Apart from noise, tower heights and setbacks from property lines, Wieber questions the fundamental economics of industrial-grade wind-turbine farms.
“They always talk about this as ‘harvesting the wind’ or one more crop that they can harvest. The only thing being harvested here is the federal incentives. That’s what’s being harvested and that’s being done by Forest Hill Energy,” he said.
“Do we really want as a county or state or nation to base our future economy on an industry that provides an expensive, intermittent and inefficient product and is entirely depending on government subsidies for its existence?”
In floor remarks delivered to his U.S. Senate colleagues on Dec. 14, Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, echoed Wieber by criticizing the federal government and “the brazenness of those who have been receiving this giveaway money.”
To read the rest of the article go here:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Request for a five-year moratorium
This letter will be hand delivered to the Clinton County Planning Commission on December 26, 2012.
Dear Planning Commission:
I write regarding the Special Land Use/Final Site Plan submitted by Forest Hill Energy (PC-32-
12).
This issue has become highly contentious here in Clinton County, draining to both the residents
and to members of the Planning Commission. As of today, nothing good will come of approving
the permit; the county most likely is concerned about a law suit if it denies the permit. The
problem is: too much of the information about industrial wind turbine technology and its
effects on people is speculative.
I am requesting that the Planning Commission pass a five year moratorium on industrial wind
turbines in Clinton County for the following reasons:
1. The Planning Commission is authorized to act on behalf of its residents: specifically, for the
health, safety, and welfare of Clinton County residents. The most important issue the Planning
Commission can look at us: Are these industrial wind turbines safe for the residents? Do or can
these industrial wind turbines harm or affect the health of the residents? Do these industrial
wind turbines promote the welfare of Clinton County residents?
2. The answer to the first question as to whether or not the industrial wind turbines are safe is
not clear: in the manuals published by the manufacturers of these wind turbines the workers
themselves are not permitted to be as close to functioning wind turbines as our properties will
be. The bottom line to this is: a worker may not get as close to an operating wind turbine as
I can get while still standing on my property. Is this what the county intends? Approving this
special use permit would not promote the safety of residents in the 3 township area presently
affected.
3. The answer to the second question as to whether or not industrial wind turbines are healthy
is even more worrisome, and even speculative. Numerous studies have been performed across
the country which are shedding light on health affects and noise pollution. These have been
published not only through universities, but also in newspapers, and by wind energy companies
themselves. There are acoustical engineers on both sides of this: there are engineers who
argue that the frequencies are safe; others who argue that they are unsafe. Toss into this
melee of information the fact that industrial wind turbines are manufactured by more than
one company and the results are even more speculative. If wind turbines did not affect at least
some people’s health, there would not have been any studies. It is the fact that they did affect
the health of at least some members of the population that has created the need for further
study. Again, approving the special use permit at this stage of the game might adversely affect,
and might not promote the health of residents.
3. The answer to the third question as to whether or not the industrial wind turbines promote
the welfare of residents is easy. The welfare (definition of welfare: the condition of faring
well; exemption from pain or discomfort; prosperity) of those residents who will live adjacent
to wind turbines, as you have heard from them time and time again, will be adversely affected.
They have brought a wealth of data regarding property values, shadow flicker, and personal
preference/discomfort. Approving the special use permit right now will absolutely negatively
affect the welfare of those residents. You have heard this on a regular basis from 200, if not
more, of those residents.
4. On the other side of the coin, there is a handful (only 27) residents who have spoken in
favor of these industrial wind turbines. Looking at the site plan proposed by Forest Hill and
comparing it with the records held by the equalization department, one can easily see that
these 27 residents have all signed a contract with Forest Hill Energy to place industrial wind
turbines on his/her property. Those 27 people will argue that their welfare will be enhanced.
5. On that same sign of the coin the Planning Commission might be lured by the promised
tax dollars to the county. Yes, the Federal subsidies for these industrial wind turbines might
continue and this form of energy which is highly subsidized might provide economic relief
for Clinton County. These highly subsidized companies would, with Federal dollars they
receive, pay personal property taxes to the county. In other words, my personal Federal tax
dollars might be used to subsidize the wind turbine placed right behind my house, degrading
my comfort in my home and on my property, potentially affecting my health, lowering my
property value, while my Clinton County neighbors receive these (my) Federal tax dollars which
were siphoned through Forest Hill Energy. However, once these subsidies are gone, these
companies will most likely be out of business and there will be no income to the county.
The decision you make now affects all of us for the next 30 years. It would seem to me that
you are put in an untenable position, and I appreciate this. With so much information being
speculative, with the only apparent supporters being the Federally subsidized company and the
27 residents who will benefit economically, I would like the Planning Commission, if it feels it is
not in a legal position to deny the special use permit, to put a five year moratorium on all wind
energy projects in the county. Huron County did the same on November 14, 2012. The five year moratorium would give time for more information to be verified and not as speculative.
The five year moratorium will hold at a status quo the health and safety of the residents, and it
will certainly positively affect the welfare of those residents whose properties are adjacent to
the proposed wind turbines.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Dallam Ayoub
P.S. I typically cite all of the studies I have used, but this letter would have been far too
lengthy. The information is readily available to all, both in scholarly publications as well as in
newspapers. Most, if not all of it, has already been provided to you.
Dear Planning Commission:
I write regarding the Special Land Use/Final Site Plan submitted by Forest Hill Energy (PC-32-
12).
This issue has become highly contentious here in Clinton County, draining to both the residents
and to members of the Planning Commission. As of today, nothing good will come of approving
the permit; the county most likely is concerned about a law suit if it denies the permit. The
problem is: too much of the information about industrial wind turbine technology and its
effects on people is speculative.
I am requesting that the Planning Commission pass a five year moratorium on industrial wind
turbines in Clinton County for the following reasons:
1. The Planning Commission is authorized to act on behalf of its residents: specifically, for the
health, safety, and welfare of Clinton County residents. The most important issue the Planning
Commission can look at us: Are these industrial wind turbines safe for the residents? Do or can
these industrial wind turbines harm or affect the health of the residents? Do these industrial
wind turbines promote the welfare of Clinton County residents?
2. The answer to the first question as to whether or not the industrial wind turbines are safe is
not clear: in the manuals published by the manufacturers of these wind turbines the workers
themselves are not permitted to be as close to functioning wind turbines as our properties will
be. The bottom line to this is: a worker may not get as close to an operating wind turbine as
I can get while still standing on my property. Is this what the county intends? Approving this
special use permit would not promote the safety of residents in the 3 township area presently
affected.
3. The answer to the second question as to whether or not industrial wind turbines are healthy
is even more worrisome, and even speculative. Numerous studies have been performed across
the country which are shedding light on health affects and noise pollution. These have been
published not only through universities, but also in newspapers, and by wind energy companies
themselves. There are acoustical engineers on both sides of this: there are engineers who
argue that the frequencies are safe; others who argue that they are unsafe. Toss into this
melee of information the fact that industrial wind turbines are manufactured by more than
one company and the results are even more speculative. If wind turbines did not affect at least
some people’s health, there would not have been any studies. It is the fact that they did affect
the health of at least some members of the population that has created the need for further
study. Again, approving the special use permit at this stage of the game might adversely affect,
and might not promote the health of residents.
3. The answer to the third question as to whether or not the industrial wind turbines promote
the welfare of residents is easy. The welfare (definition of welfare: the condition of faring
well; exemption from pain or discomfort; prosperity) of those residents who will live adjacent
to wind turbines, as you have heard from them time and time again, will be adversely affected.
They have brought a wealth of data regarding property values, shadow flicker, and personal
preference/discomfort. Approving the special use permit right now will absolutely negatively
affect the welfare of those residents. You have heard this on a regular basis from 200, if not
more, of those residents.
4. On the other side of the coin, there is a handful (only 27) residents who have spoken in
favor of these industrial wind turbines. Looking at the site plan proposed by Forest Hill and
comparing it with the records held by the equalization department, one can easily see that
these 27 residents have all signed a contract with Forest Hill Energy to place industrial wind
turbines on his/her property. Those 27 people will argue that their welfare will be enhanced.
5. On that same sign of the coin the Planning Commission might be lured by the promised
tax dollars to the county. Yes, the Federal subsidies for these industrial wind turbines might
continue and this form of energy which is highly subsidized might provide economic relief
for Clinton County. These highly subsidized companies would, with Federal dollars they
receive, pay personal property taxes to the county. In other words, my personal Federal tax
dollars might be used to subsidize the wind turbine placed right behind my house, degrading
my comfort in my home and on my property, potentially affecting my health, lowering my
property value, while my Clinton County neighbors receive these (my) Federal tax dollars which
were siphoned through Forest Hill Energy. However, once these subsidies are gone, these
companies will most likely be out of business and there will be no income to the county.
The decision you make now affects all of us for the next 30 years. It would seem to me that
you are put in an untenable position, and I appreciate this. With so much information being
speculative, with the only apparent supporters being the Federally subsidized company and the
27 residents who will benefit economically, I would like the Planning Commission, if it feels it is
not in a legal position to deny the special use permit, to put a five year moratorium on all wind
energy projects in the county. Huron County did the same on November 14, 2012. The five year moratorium would give time for more information to be verified and not as speculative.
The five year moratorium will hold at a status quo the health and safety of the residents, and it
will certainly positively affect the welfare of those residents whose properties are adjacent to
the proposed wind turbines.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Dallam Ayoub
P.S. I typically cite all of the studies I have used, but this letter would have been far too
lengthy. The information is readily available to all, both in scholarly publications as well as in
newspapers. Most, if not all of it, has already been provided to you.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Failure to comply
The Clinton County Planning Commission received six documents on December 11.
These documents support the request that the Clinton County Planning Commission deny the Special Use Permit Application submitted by Forest Hill Energy Fowler Farms because it fails to comply with the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance.
Feel free to share this information, as it will be discussed at the January 10 meeting.
Some excerpts - see the link below to read all the details:
A. REPORT FROM RICK JAMES OF E-COUSTIC SOLUTIONS DEMONSTRATES FHEFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CLINTON COUNTY’S 45 dBA SOUND LIMIT.
In support of this request, please find attached December 10, 2012, correspondence from Rick James of E-Coustic Solutions. As Mr. James points out, several defects mandate that FHEFF’s Application be denied, such as:
FHEFF’s failure to comply with Sections 1341(A)(4) and (B)(3)(a) are fatal and its Application must be denied.
B. REPORT FROM K & S DEMONSTRATES FHEFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CLINTON COUNTY’S 45 dBA SOUND LIMIT.
C. OTHER “CONDITIONS” FOR CONSIDERATION.
In the event that the Clinton County Planning Commission chooses to disregard the considered opinions of both Mr. James and its own consultants, K & S, FHEFF’s Application, there are two other “conditions” that should be placed upon FHEFF’s Application before it receives final approval: (1) a study of low frequency noise emitted by wind turbines and (2) a valid interconnection agreement.
D. CONCLUSION
Article 13 of the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”) addresses “Special Land Uses.” Section 1301(B)(4) states, in pertinent part,
[i]t shall be incumbent upon the applicant to furnish adequate evidence in support of the proposed Special Land Use complying with the provisions of this Ordinance. It shall be the obligation of the
applicant to furnish evidence, or proof, of present and future compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (Emphasis added.)
In other words, the burden of proof is on FHEFF to demonstrate compliance with all provisions in the Ordinance.
FHEFF has simply failed to meet the requirements for approval of its Application. FHEFF has acknowledged that it failed to comply with ANSI when conducting its background sound study, in violation of Section 1341(A)(4). Furthermore, FHEFF cannot demonstrate compliance with the “shall not exceed” 45 dBA sound limit set forth Section 1341(B)(3)(a).1 FHEFF has been given ample opportunity to produce information confirming compliance with Clinton County’s Zoning Ordinance, but has failed to meet its burden. As such, the time has come for the Clinton County Planning
Commission to deny FHEFF’s Application.
Respectfully submitted,
Joshua J. Nolan
NOLAN LAW, LLC
Please click here to read the six documents.
These documents support the request that the Clinton County Planning Commission deny the Special Use Permit Application submitted by Forest Hill Energy Fowler Farms because it fails to comply with the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance.
Feel free to share this information, as it will be discussed at the January 10 meeting.
Some excerpts - see the link below to read all the details:
A. REPORT FROM RICK JAMES OF E-COUSTIC SOLUTIONS DEMONSTRATES FHEFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CLINTON COUNTY’S 45 dBA SOUND LIMIT.
In support of this request, please find attached December 10, 2012, correspondence from Rick James of E-Coustic Solutions. As Mr. James points out, several defects mandate that FHEFF’s Application be denied, such as:
- Failure to comply with the “shall not exceed” 45 dBA sound limit set forth in Section 1341(B)(3)(a) of the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance;
- Failure to comply with ANSI standards in conducting background sound study, as required by Section 1341(A)(4) of the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance;
- Inappropriate application of average sound in order to artificially inflate background sound values.
FHEFF’s failure to comply with Sections 1341(A)(4) and (B)(3)(a) are fatal and its Application must be denied.
B. REPORT FROM K & S DEMONSTRATES FHEFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CLINTON COUNTY’S 45 dBA SOUND LIMIT.
C. OTHER “CONDITIONS” FOR CONSIDERATION.
In the event that the Clinton County Planning Commission chooses to disregard the considered opinions of both Mr. James and its own consultants, K & S, FHEFF’s Application, there are two other “conditions” that should be placed upon FHEFF’s Application before it receives final approval: (1) a study of low frequency noise emitted by wind turbines and (2) a valid interconnection agreement.
D. CONCLUSION
Article 13 of the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”) addresses “Special Land Uses.” Section 1301(B)(4) states, in pertinent part,
[i]t shall be incumbent upon the applicant to furnish adequate evidence in support of the proposed Special Land Use complying with the provisions of this Ordinance. It shall be the obligation of the
applicant to furnish evidence, or proof, of present and future compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (Emphasis added.)
In other words, the burden of proof is on FHEFF to demonstrate compliance with all provisions in the Ordinance.
FHEFF has simply failed to meet the requirements for approval of its Application. FHEFF has acknowledged that it failed to comply with ANSI when conducting its background sound study, in violation of Section 1341(A)(4). Furthermore, FHEFF cannot demonstrate compliance with the “shall not exceed” 45 dBA sound limit set forth Section 1341(B)(3)(a).1 FHEFF has been given ample opportunity to produce information confirming compliance with Clinton County’s Zoning Ordinance, but has failed to meet its burden. As such, the time has come for the Clinton County Planning
Commission to deny FHEFF’s Application.
Respectfully submitted,
Joshua J. Nolan
NOLAN LAW, LLC
Please click here to read the six documents.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Meeting postponed
After everyone assembled for the meeting at 7:00 p.m. tonight, Larry Simon announced that some of the board members were going to be unable to attend. He said that one was doing business in Lansing, one had called in sick, and some had other issues. Kelly Chadwick, Patti Jandernoa, and Larry Simon were present.
As a result, after waiting until 7:05 p.m. to see if anyone else made it, they cancelled the meeting.
The new meeting time is Thursday, January 10 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board of Commissioners Room, Suite 1300, Courthouse, 100 E. State Street, St Johns.
Thank you to everyone who attended. Merry Christmas, and we'll see you in January.
As a result, after waiting until 7:05 p.m. to see if anyone else made it, they cancelled the meeting.
The new meeting time is Thursday, January 10 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board of Commissioners Room, Suite 1300, Courthouse, 100 E. State Street, St Johns.
Thank you to everyone who attended. Merry Christmas, and we'll see you in January.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Letter to the planning commission
To: Clinton County Planning Commission
From: Jim and Kathleen Larsen (Essex Township)
Date: December 11, 2012
Clinton County is arguably the best county in Michigan, based on several criteria: It has one of the
state’s highest median household incomes; according to the 2010 census it is one of the fastest growing counties in Michigan; it is number one in milk production; and 90% of its farmland is classified as prime growing soil. Building a wind farm in the midst of this rich, productive farmland would be sheer folly and present an unacceptable risk to some of the top producing dairy farms in the county.
There are only two arguments in favor of installing these turbines: 1.) Economic gain; 2.) Sympathy for the clean, renewable energy movement, and we argue that neither if these arguments is valid.
1. The economic reasons would be to receive increased tax revenue and perhaps to produce
more jobs. There has already been much discussion about the likely offsets to this new
revenue in the form of reduced intake from property taxes due to the expected devaluation
of property in the area of the wind turbines. In addition to this possibility, there is the fact
that the entire project is dependent upon government subsidies. Since the building of the
turbines in Gratiot County began, the law in Michigan has changed to lower the amount of
taxes collected on the state’s wind turbines. Currently there are five counties in Michigan,
including Gratiot, that have banded together to consolidate legal costs in order to contest
this new law. One has to wonder if these counties would have built these wind farms, had
they known the tax revenues they expected to get, were subject to change.
With the vagaries of the political landscape, the subsidies themselves could dry up. This in fact did happen in California, where 14,000 rusting wind turbines that were built in the 1970’s and 1980’s, have been abandoned due to loss of government subsidies and outdated mandates, and in part,
to outdated technology. The abandoned Altamont Wind Farm in California is in one the best
places on the planet for generating wind, and yet when subsidies ended, it was not feasible to
continue this source of energy.
The U.S. Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory classifies wind power
into 7 different categories, with number one being superb wind power, and number seven
being poor. Clinton Country ranks number six in the “ marginal” category.
The Mackinaw Center for Public policy notes that in Europe where there are many aggressive
renewable energy mandates that have been in effect longer than in the United States,
that recent headlines have referred to these mandates as destroying their economy. The
Mackinaw Center also notes that in Minnesota, according to the Minnesota Rural Electric
Association, the forced use of renewable energy cost rural electric ratepayers more than $70
million last year.
As for jobs, Michigan County Lines reports that the Gratiot County turbines are manufactured
overseas and out of state. Transportation and assembly would produce only short term non-
sustainable jobs.
2. As for the green energy aspect, you are already well aware that there is an environmental
cost to wind turbines that includes the loss of birds, bats and wild life, and this has been well
documented. The effects on the health of human beings and farm animals is often discussed,
as pertaining to the effects of noise and shadow/ flicker, and there seems to be much
disagreement regarding the scientific data, or lack thereof. There is plenty of evidence to the
effect that these wind turbines affect at least a portion of the animal and human population
in a negative manner. Do we want to take the chance that some of our citizens may become
ill? What if the wind turbines had the effect of lowering the dairy production, as has been
suggested in other wind farm areas?
On Sunday October 28, 2012, the Lansing State Journal’s headlines announced that the Board
of Water and Light is building a new plant that will burn natural gas, which will allow them
to burn 139,000 fewer tons of coal annually. They expect to reduce total greenhouse gas
emission by 20%. According to Bjorn Lomborg of Stale.com, on 9/15/12, carbon dioxide
emissions in the U.S. dropped to the lowest level in 20 years. He says that according to U.S.
Energy Information Agency, from the first five months of 2012, this year’s expected Co2
emissions have declined 14% from their peak in 2007. He says the reason for this, is the switch
to natural gas, which is 10 times more efficient at reducing Co2 emissions than wind turbines.
Could we perhaps be in the waning stages of the wind energy movement? Energy must be
affordable or our economy will plummet. Are wind turbines that cannot compete without
government subsidies the wave of the future? Can we count on a stable political climate
that would guarantee the subsidies for decades into the future? When the wind initiatives
exploded about four years ago, the price of natural gas was much higher. The price has dropped
significantly in recent years, and natural gas actually reduces our Co2 emissions significantly. I’d
hate for the Planning Commission to take steps that might ruin our magnificent and prosperous
county. If wind power were economically efficient, no government subsidy would be needed.
Please don’t bring this blight to our county.
From: Jim and Kathleen Larsen (Essex Township)
Date: December 11, 2012
Clinton County is arguably the best county in Michigan, based on several criteria: It has one of the
state’s highest median household incomes; according to the 2010 census it is one of the fastest growing counties in Michigan; it is number one in milk production; and 90% of its farmland is classified as prime growing soil. Building a wind farm in the midst of this rich, productive farmland would be sheer folly and present an unacceptable risk to some of the top producing dairy farms in the county.
There are only two arguments in favor of installing these turbines: 1.) Economic gain; 2.) Sympathy for the clean, renewable energy movement, and we argue that neither if these arguments is valid.
1. The economic reasons would be to receive increased tax revenue and perhaps to produce
more jobs. There has already been much discussion about the likely offsets to this new
revenue in the form of reduced intake from property taxes due to the expected devaluation
of property in the area of the wind turbines. In addition to this possibility, there is the fact
that the entire project is dependent upon government subsidies. Since the building of the
turbines in Gratiot County began, the law in Michigan has changed to lower the amount of
taxes collected on the state’s wind turbines. Currently there are five counties in Michigan,
including Gratiot, that have banded together to consolidate legal costs in order to contest
this new law. One has to wonder if these counties would have built these wind farms, had
they known the tax revenues they expected to get, were subject to change.
With the vagaries of the political landscape, the subsidies themselves could dry up. This in fact did happen in California, where 14,000 rusting wind turbines that were built in the 1970’s and 1980’s, have been abandoned due to loss of government subsidies and outdated mandates, and in part,
to outdated technology. The abandoned Altamont Wind Farm in California is in one the best
places on the planet for generating wind, and yet when subsidies ended, it was not feasible to
continue this source of energy.
The U.S. Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory classifies wind power
into 7 different categories, with number one being superb wind power, and number seven
being poor. Clinton Country ranks number six in the “ marginal” category.
The Mackinaw Center for Public policy notes that in Europe where there are many aggressive
renewable energy mandates that have been in effect longer than in the United States,
that recent headlines have referred to these mandates as destroying their economy. The
Mackinaw Center also notes that in Minnesota, according to the Minnesota Rural Electric
Association, the forced use of renewable energy cost rural electric ratepayers more than $70
million last year.
As for jobs, Michigan County Lines reports that the Gratiot County turbines are manufactured
overseas and out of state. Transportation and assembly would produce only short term non-
sustainable jobs.
2. As for the green energy aspect, you are already well aware that there is an environmental
cost to wind turbines that includes the loss of birds, bats and wild life, and this has been well
documented. The effects on the health of human beings and farm animals is often discussed,
as pertaining to the effects of noise and shadow/ flicker, and there seems to be much
disagreement regarding the scientific data, or lack thereof. There is plenty of evidence to the
effect that these wind turbines affect at least a portion of the animal and human population
in a negative manner. Do we want to take the chance that some of our citizens may become
ill? What if the wind turbines had the effect of lowering the dairy production, as has been
suggested in other wind farm areas?
On Sunday October 28, 2012, the Lansing State Journal’s headlines announced that the Board
of Water and Light is building a new plant that will burn natural gas, which will allow them
to burn 139,000 fewer tons of coal annually. They expect to reduce total greenhouse gas
emission by 20%. According to Bjorn Lomborg of Stale.com, on 9/15/12, carbon dioxide
emissions in the U.S. dropped to the lowest level in 20 years. He says that according to U.S.
Energy Information Agency, from the first five months of 2012, this year’s expected Co2
emissions have declined 14% from their peak in 2007. He says the reason for this, is the switch
to natural gas, which is 10 times more efficient at reducing Co2 emissions than wind turbines.
Could we perhaps be in the waning stages of the wind energy movement? Energy must be
affordable or our economy will plummet. Are wind turbines that cannot compete without
government subsidies the wave of the future? Can we count on a stable political climate
that would guarantee the subsidies for decades into the future? When the wind initiatives
exploded about four years ago, the price of natural gas was much higher. The price has dropped
significantly in recent years, and natural gas actually reduces our Co2 emissions significantly. I’d
hate for the Planning Commission to take steps that might ruin our magnificent and prosperous
county. If wind power were economically efficient, no government subsidy would be needed.
Please don’t bring this blight to our county.
December 13, 7:00 p.m. - Important meeting
The Clinton County Planning Commission & Zoning
Board of Appeals will be discussing the Forest Hill Energy special land use
permit tomorrow night, December 13, at 7:00 p.m.
The meeting will be in the Board of Commissioners Room, Suite 1300, Courthouse, 100 E. State Street, St Johns.
Clinton County residents, please attend. It's important that the board knows our opinions. Thank you for making time for this community issue.
You can see the Planning & Zoning web site here.
You can read the meeting agenda here.
The meeting will be in the Board of Commissioners Room, Suite 1300, Courthouse, 100 E. State Street, St Johns.
Clinton County residents, please attend. It's important that the board knows our opinions. Thank you for making time for this community issue.
You can see the Planning & Zoning web site here.
You can read the meeting agenda here.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Government for the people works only when people are involved - Dec 13
This letter to the editor was submitted for this week's Clinton County News:
Government for the people works only when people are involved in the government.
Citizens of Clinton County, please assist fellow residents to ensure our planning commission
follows its own ordinance, to ensure that a company whose office is in Illinois does not cut
corners or sacrifice residents’ well-being in an attempt to have its special use permit approved.
Forest Hill Energy applied for a special use permit to install industrial wind turbines in
northwest Clinton County. We, the people, have the responsibility and the privilege of making
sure no shortcuts are made that might sacrifice residents’ well-being.
Companies --- many times from outside the state --- try to set up business where they can. It
is up to the people to make sure that these entities are regulated. Today it’s a wind turbine
company; tomorrow it will be something else. Perhaps this “something else” will be in YOUR
section of the county.
At that time residents of the northwestern section will be available to help you. Right now
northwestern residents are asking that ALL Clinton County residents help by attending the
December 13th 7:00 p.m. meeting at the courthouse.
Our section of the county thanks you!
Elizabeth Dallam Ayoub
Bengal Township
Government for the people works only when people are involved in the government.
Citizens of Clinton County, please assist fellow residents to ensure our planning commission
follows its own ordinance, to ensure that a company whose office is in Illinois does not cut
corners or sacrifice residents’ well-being in an attempt to have its special use permit approved.
Forest Hill Energy applied for a special use permit to install industrial wind turbines in
northwest Clinton County. We, the people, have the responsibility and the privilege of making
sure no shortcuts are made that might sacrifice residents’ well-being.
Companies --- many times from outside the state --- try to set up business where they can. It
is up to the people to make sure that these entities are regulated. Today it’s a wind turbine
company; tomorrow it will be something else. Perhaps this “something else” will be in YOUR
section of the county.
At that time residents of the northwestern section will be available to help you. Right now
northwestern residents are asking that ALL Clinton County residents help by attending the
December 13th 7:00 p.m. meeting at the courthouse.
Our section of the county thanks you!
Elizabeth Dallam Ayoub
Bengal Township
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Bengal Township restricts wind turbine projects
The Lansing State Journal's Steven R. Reed has followed up his previous story with today's article: Bengal Township restricts wind turbine projects.
He writes, "Bengal Township has joined the list of local governments imposing stricter wind turbine ordinances than current Clinton County regulations."
You can read the entire article here.
He writes, "Bengal Township has joined the list of local governments imposing stricter wind turbine ordinances than current Clinton County regulations."
You can read the entire article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)