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wind turbines that were built in the 1970’s and 1980’s, have been abandoned due to loss of government subsidies and outdated mandates, and in part,
to outdated technology.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.
