Dear IICC supporters and interested observers:
This past fall three townships in Clinton County (north of Lansing) determined that Clinton County zoning was not adequately protecting the health safety and welfare of their residents when the county considered a Special Land Use permit to Forest Hill Energy for the construction of an industrial wind plant.
It is the opinion of the IICC that FHE’s application did not meet the dictates of the county zoning ordinance and we testified to that effect before the county commissioners.
Nonetheless, the SLU was approved by 5-2.
The residents of Dallas, Bengal and Essex Townships petitioned their township trustee boards by overwhelming numbers to protect their health safety and welfare. Their boards complied with the wishes of the people by enacting Police Power Ordinance language that is consistent with protecting people from the ill effects of improperly sited industrial wind turbines.
(Mason County commissioners were not so wise and this is the result: http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/04/mason_county_wind-farm_neighbo.html)
FHE has decided to bring suit against the three rural townships. http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/comments/article/20130409/NEWS01/304090026/Suit-challenges-townships-powers-120M-wind-project
To our knowledge this is the first time that a PPO wind regulation ordinance has been so challenged in MI.
We know that restrictive zoning ordinances that essentially preclude industrial wind development from occurring in a given township have been challenged legally and the township prevailed. http://www.topplaw.com/files/Johnecheck%20v.%20Bay%20Township%20U.S.%20District%20Court%20Western%20District%20of%20Michigan.pdf
We feel strongly that these three rural townships have done the correct thing in responding to the clearly expressed will of their residents.
Further, we feel that FHE’s suit is fully consistent with the predatory tactics of wind developers across the state.
When wind developers prevail in their demands to build wind installations without adequate protection for the rural residents of those communities, the results are predictable: complaints about noise and health impacts, property value devastation and ultimately expensive litigation born by those thus afflicted.
We have seen this same scenario play out once already in Ubly, MI and now again in Mason County.
Thus,
We the statewide membership of the IICC reaffirm our petition to Governor Snyder to enact a moratorium on further wind development in the State of Michigan.
1. Due to intermittency, wind is powerless to replace baseload coal generation.
2. Because wind Power Purchase Agreements in MI are averaging $80/MWh but wind is generated in MISO primarily when the value of that energy to the grid is around $20.00/MWh, wind generation absolutely increases the cost of electricity and the price of doing business in Michigan. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/18239/RSCAS_2011_45.pdf?sequence=1
3. Wind is among the least cost effective means to avoid emissions from coal-fired generation.
4. Because wind cannot replace baseload fossil generation, wind’s environmental and human impacts are additive to coal’s alleged impacts.
5. Because MI’s wind resource is anemic compared to the Midwest, wind generation mandates like PA295 places MI at a cost disadvantage relative to MN, IA, WI, IL and IN.
6. Wind developer’s activities in MI have a foul record: conflict of interest worthy of a RICO investigation, zoning battles, referenda, recall and litigation all rending the fabric of our precious rural communities in two.
Wind energy is a high cost/low value proposition and should not retain its mandated seat at our energy table.
Sincerely,
Kevon Martis
Director
www.iiccusa.org
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Friday, April 19, 2013
Meanwhile in other states ...
Wind turbine blade the size of a football field snaps off in Iowa
"Authorities in western Iowa are investigating how a wind turbine blade that’s the size of a football field snapped off.
A technician for the Eclipse Wind Farm in Adair discovered the blade in a field Friday morning. Siemens Energy, the turbine manufacturer, is investigating the accident.
Iowa Wind Energy Association President Kathleen Law says it’s rare for a blade to get loose, and she’s never heard of this happening in Iowa."
Tipton County approves wind farm, with limits
"A central Indiana county has given the go-ahead to a proposed $300 million wind farm while also approving restrictions that address concerns about the project’s impact on property values.
The Tipton County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a conditional use permit Wednesday for juwi Wind’s plans for up to 94 wind turbines capable of generating up to 150 watts of power, The Kokomo Tribune reports.
The approval means the company can move forward as long as it guarantees it won’t diminish property values and that the wind turbines are built at least 1,500 feet from property lines. Company officials have 30 days to appeal the permit."
Meaning:
"The energy company would provide the difference between the sale price and the appraised value if a property owner couldn’t sell his or her home for the appraised value."
"Authorities in western Iowa are investigating how a wind turbine blade that’s the size of a football field snapped off.
A technician for the Eclipse Wind Farm in Adair discovered the blade in a field Friday morning. Siemens Energy, the turbine manufacturer, is investigating the accident.
Iowa Wind Energy Association President Kathleen Law says it’s rare for a blade to get loose, and she’s never heard of this happening in Iowa."
Tipton County approves wind farm, with limits
"A central Indiana county has given the go-ahead to a proposed $300 million wind farm while also approving restrictions that address concerns about the project’s impact on property values.
The Tipton County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a conditional use permit Wednesday for juwi Wind’s plans for up to 94 wind turbines capable of generating up to 150 watts of power, The Kokomo Tribune reports.
The approval means the company can move forward as long as it guarantees it won’t diminish property values and that the wind turbines are built at least 1,500 feet from property lines. Company officials have 30 days to appeal the permit."
Meaning:
"The energy company would provide the difference between the sale price and the appraised value if a property owner couldn’t sell his or her home for the appraised value."
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Forest Hill Energy suing our townships
The Lansing State Journal posted this today:
Suit challenges townships' powers in $120 million wind project
An excerpt:
But William Fahey, the Okemos-based attorney for Dallas and Essex townships, said the state legislature has granted townships broad powers to regulate conduct for the public health, safety and general welfare.
“Our constitution says the powers of townships shall be liberally construed,” Fahey said. “Unless there is some specific statute out there that takes these powers away, the townships continue to have the powers and can exercise them.”
Clinton County’s new zoning ordinance also addresses the issue, Fahey said, stating in three places that the ordinance “does not take away any power the townships have independently to regulate activities in these townships.”
You can also read Forest Hill Energy's complaint here.
Suit challenges townships' powers in $120 million wind project
An excerpt:
But William Fahey, the Okemos-based attorney for Dallas and Essex townships, said the state legislature has granted townships broad powers to regulate conduct for the public health, safety and general welfare.
“Our constitution says the powers of townships shall be liberally construed,” Fahey said. “Unless there is some specific statute out there that takes these powers away, the townships continue to have the powers and can exercise them.”
Clinton County’s new zoning ordinance also addresses the issue, Fahey said, stating in three places that the ordinance “does not take away any power the townships have independently to regulate activities in these townships.”
You can also read Forest Hill Energy's complaint here.
Monday, April 8, 2013
IRS increases tax credit
Not the news you really want to read ... from Fox News:
"Despite the GAO report that points out holes in the government’s approach to wind energy, the Internal Revenue Service announced last week it would be increasing the production tax credit available for energy generated by wind, geothermal, solar and certain biomass projects because of inflation.
According to an April 3 notice in the Federal Register, wind, geothermal and "closed-loop" biomass projects will now get 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced, up from 2.2 cents.
The credit was set at 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour in 1993 dollars and was indexed to inflation. The IRS has regularly updated the credit since then. The tax break – 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour -- costs taxpayers about $1 billion a year. The new increase adds another $545 million in expected taxpayer support for the wind industry, according to the Institute for Energy Research."
You can read the rest of the article here: Overlapping wind energy initiatives spark claims of waste, as IRS increases tax credit.
"Despite the GAO report that points out holes in the government’s approach to wind energy, the Internal Revenue Service announced last week it would be increasing the production tax credit available for energy generated by wind, geothermal, solar and certain biomass projects because of inflation.
According to an April 3 notice in the Federal Register, wind, geothermal and "closed-loop" biomass projects will now get 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced, up from 2.2 cents.
The credit was set at 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour in 1993 dollars and was indexed to inflation. The IRS has regularly updated the credit since then. The tax break – 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour -- costs taxpayers about $1 billion a year. The new increase adds another $545 million in expected taxpayer support for the wind industry, according to the Institute for Energy Research."
You can read the rest of the article here: Overlapping wind energy initiatives spark claims of waste, as IRS increases tax credit.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Wind-power business CEO hopes government will "roll back misguided subsidies"
Patrick Jenevein, CEO of the Dallas-based Tang Energy Group, wrote a Wall Street Journal article called, 'Wind-Power Subsidies? No Thanks.'
The subheading reads: "I'm in the green-energy business. If Washington sent a little less 'green' our way, it would be good for the industry."
In part of it, he writes:
"Government subsidies to new wind farms have only made the industry less focused on reducing costs. In turn, the industry produces a product that isn't as efficient or cheap as it might be if we focused less on working the political system and more on research and development. After the 2009 subsidy became available, wind farms were increasingly built in less-windy locations, according to the Department of Energy's "2011 Wind Technologies Market Report." The average wind-power project built in 2011 was located in an area with wind conditions 16% worse than those of the average project in 1998-99. "
For example, Clinton County's wind power classification is 'marginal' or 'poor', according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
He finishes by writing:
"The wind industry has largely been out-competed by natural gas, which has proved to be a clean, reliable and cheap power source for the future without subsidies or even venture-capital funding. As such, my company isn't planning any new investments in the wind business, even though we would love to still be worth the $2 billion we were several years ago.
Of course, we could yet be proven wrong by technological innovation. Without subsidies, the wind industry would be forced to take a hard fresh look at its product. Fewer wind farms would be built, eliminating the market-distorting glut. And if there is truly a need for wind energy, entrepreneurs who improve the business's fundamentals will find a way to compete."
You can read the entire article here.
The subheading reads: "I'm in the green-energy business. If Washington sent a little less 'green' our way, it would be good for the industry."
In part of it, he writes:
"Government subsidies to new wind farms have only made the industry less focused on reducing costs. In turn, the industry produces a product that isn't as efficient or cheap as it might be if we focused less on working the political system and more on research and development. After the 2009 subsidy became available, wind farms were increasingly built in less-windy locations, according to the Department of Energy's "2011 Wind Technologies Market Report." The average wind-power project built in 2011 was located in an area with wind conditions 16% worse than those of the average project in 1998-99. "
For example, Clinton County's wind power classification is 'marginal' or 'poor', according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
He finishes by writing:
"The wind industry has largely been out-competed by natural gas, which has proved to be a clean, reliable and cheap power source for the future without subsidies or even venture-capital funding. As such, my company isn't planning any new investments in the wind business, even though we would love to still be worth the $2 billion we were several years ago.
Of course, we could yet be proven wrong by technological innovation. Without subsidies, the wind industry would be forced to take a hard fresh look at its product. Fewer wind farms would be built, eliminating the market-distorting glut. And if there is truly a need for wind energy, entrepreneurs who improve the business's fundamentals will find a way to compete."
You can read the entire article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)