Word of today’s NYT article came in over the wire today, and it’s an interesting concept to deal with a very real problem, but not nearly enough!!!

Turbines to Loud?  Here, Take $5,000

My clients raising noise issues in wind project dockets at the PUC, including the “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines” (09-845) have noted, “how will we be compensated for having to live with all this noise?”  In our capitalist culture, $$$ is compensation.  Offensive projects aren’t shut down, money is offered.

Minnesota Noise Rules don’t take into account ambient noise, they just set standards for noise, a binary limit on certain types of noise.

Minnesota’s legislature acknowledged that people don’t want to live by transmission lines, and enacted “Buy the Farm” (in full, below)which gives landowners facing a transmission line on their property can opt out, and force the utility to buy their full parcel, not just an easement.  Why not the same with wind projects?

Here’s the actual waiver that the wind developer is asking them to sign:

Noise Easement – North Hurlburt Wind, Caithness Corporation

And check this sentence, regarding the Compensation which is outlined in “Exhibit C” attached to the agreement:

Exhibit C shall be redacted from the recorded version of this agreement.

It seems to me that for the blanket “right to offend,” the offers reported are way too low, and waivers are one-sided.  From the article:

Ms. Pilz, the local Caithness representative, did not volunteer the information that Caithness offers people money to sign noise easements, though she eventually confirmed in an interview that it did. She also would not say how much money it offers, though several property owners said she had offered them $5,000.

“What we don’t do in general is change the market price for a waiver,” Ms. Pilz said. “That’s not fair.”

Some people who did not sign said that Ms. Pilz made them feel uncomfortable, that she talked about how much Shepherd’s Flat would benefit the struggling local economy and the nation’s energy goals, and that she suggested they were not thinking of the greater good if they refused.

Don’t change the market price?  Well, that says there’s a price and that there’s a market.  Caithness does not control the market — they’d better get clear on that right quick.  I’ would presume that as this becomes more of an issue the price will go up!  LET THE MARKET DECIDE!!!  I love it when that happens…

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Minnesota’s “Buy the Farm” law:

Minn. Stat. 216E.12, Subd. 4.Contiguous land.

When private real property that is an agricultural or nonagricultural homestead, nonhomestead agricultural land, rental residential property, and both commercial and noncommercial seasonal residential recreational property, as those terms are defined in section 273.13 is proposed to be acquired for the construction of a site or route for a high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more by eminent domain proceedings, the fee owner, or when applicable, the fee owner with the written consent of the contract for deed vendee, or the contract for deed vendee with the written consent of the fee owner, shall have the option to require the utility to condemn a fee interest in any amount of contiguous, commercially viable land which the owner or vendee wholly owns or has contracted to own in undivided fee and elects in writing to transfer to the utility within 60 days after receipt of the notice of the objects of the petition filed pursuant to section 117.055. Commercial viability shall be determined without regard to the presence of the utility route or site. The owner or, when applicable, the contract vendee shall have only one such option and may not expand or otherwise modify an election without the consent of the utility. The required acquisition of land pursuant to this subdivision shall be considered an acquisition for a public purpose and for use in the utility’s business, for purposes of chapter 117 and section 500.24, respectively; provided that a utility shall divest itself completely of all such lands used for farming or capable of being used for farming not later than the time it can receive the market value paid at the time of acquisition of lands less any diminution in value by reason of the presence of the utility route or site. Upon the owner’s election made under this subdivision, the easement interest over and adjacent to the lands designated by the owner to be acquired in fee, sought in the condemnation petition for a right-of-way for a high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more shall automatically be converted into a fee taking.

Well, a busy couple of days.  Mark Roberts, M.D., Exponent, toady for whatever project developer has the dough to pay him, made appearances in Goodhue, Minnesota for a hearing on the Goodhue Wind project, and in Wausau, Wisconsin, for an open house for a proposed biomass plant.  How much of a toady is he?

Dig this, he was “Corporate Medical Director of BP.”  Yes, our friend British Petroleum!

LINK TO PROFILE – MARK ROBERTS, M.D.

Wednesday, he was here in Goodhue, a puppet for the developers.

Here’s a link to the rest of the story: Goodhue Wind Truth

Thursday, he’s in Wausau, WI, a puppet for the developers.

Here’s a link to the rest of the story: Saving Our Air Resource, opponents of that Wausau biomass plant.

From Faux News 55:

Here’s from the Wasau Daily Herald:

Rothschild residents preview Biomass plant plans

By Kathleen Foody • Wausau Daily Herald • July 23, 2010

OTHSCHILD — The mood at the open house hosted by We Energies on Thursday about a proposed biomass plant in Rothschild was calm, though discussion about the project has become heated.

About 110 residents attended the sessions, one each in the afternoon and evening, at the Holiday Inn in Rothschild. Staff from We Energies and Domtar stood near displays and video monitors, explaining the plant plan and its effects on the community.

The proposal to burn woody biomass as fuel to create electricity for sale by the Milwaukee energy company and steam to power the Domtar paper mill is pending before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Since the plant was proposed in September 2009, We Energies has tried to get ahead of critics with direct mailings, community meetings and door-to-door consultations.

Many residents who attended the Thursday meetings said they were undecided or in favor of the $250 million project and felt satisfied with answers to their questions about air quality, jobs and traffic around the plant.

“I want to make sure it’s safe. My grandkids attend (Rothschild Elementary School) across the street (from the mill),” Andy Champine of Weston said. “I walked in neutral to get the facts.”

Barry McNulty, a spokesman for We Energies at the event, said the company was pleased with turnout and the questions posed.

“No one particular issue stood out,” he said. “Residents asked very similar questions (as at the February open house), and we tried to give them a better understanding of what we do and how we do it.”

Rob Hughes, a member of Save Our Air Resources, a citizen group that has opposed the plant, said he applauded the open house events. But he’s not satisfied with We Energies’ responses to his requests for specific information on air quality if the plant is constructed.

“They had a doctor there saying this is good, but thousands of doctors have signed on to a letter (in Massachusetts) saying these plants are bad for people’s health,” Hughes said.

Hughes was referring to the Massachusetts Medical Society, and its December decision to oppose three biomass plants, citing respiratory problems that air pollution can cause or worsen. The organization also asked state governments to discourage the construction of biomass facilities.

The Public Utilities Commission hearing/meeting on the Certificate of Need (09-1186) and Siting Permit (08-1233) for Goodhue Wind went on until 10:30 last night, and many people still had not spoken.   It starts up again at3:00 p.m., again at the Goodhue school.

For the full record, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and “Search eDockets” for 08-1233 (siting) or 09-1186 (Certificate of Need).

And here is a small part of Goodhue Wind Truth’s filings:

Direct Testimony – Richard R. James, INCE

The “How-To” Guide to Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks from Sound

Wind Turbine Noise – What Audiologists Should Know

News coverage of yesterday’s shindig:

In the Beagle

Goodhue Wind releases detailed site plan

On MPR:

Wind turbine or the Foshay Tower: Which is taller?

At Finance & Commerce:

Goodhue Wind execs, opponents meet before administrative judge

Rochester Post-Bulletin:

Wind buffer proposals from Zumbrota, Goodhue meet resistance

And at MinnPost:

Concerns about wind farms to be aired at Goodhue hearing

Rochester Post-Bulletin:

Proponents and critics of proposed Goodhue County wind farm speak up

On KSTP – check the video!!!

Controversy brewing over wind mill farm

I’d guess there will be something in the News Record and the Beacon soon too…

In the STrib – info on capital funding for the Goodhue project and other National projects:

Deutsche Bank funding will give a push to local wind developer

National Wind will get help on 12 projects and a loan to expand.

By JENNIFER BJORHUS, Star Tribune

A Minneapolis-based wind developer is getting a lift from Deutsche Bank. The German investment bank will help finance 12 wind projects, including five slated for Minnesota, that National Wind has in various stages in the pipeline, National Wind said Thursday. The bank also gave the developer a senior secured loan for an undisclosed amount to finance an expansion to the West Coast and New England.

“We anticipate that Deutsche Bank will participate in financing those projects,” Leon Steinberg, National Wind’s chief executive, said in an interview Thursday.

The projects are still subject to underwriting, but it’s good news for the company at a time when many wind developers are struggling with tight financing.

Robert Martorano, managing director of Deutsche Bank’s asset finance and leasing group, said in a statement that Deutsche Bank is making renewable energy a priority.

National Wind, which employs about 42 people, develops relatively large wind farms with local land owners who maintain majority ownership when projects are done. It has sold three operational wind farms so far: one in Minnesota’s Cottonwood County and two in North Dakota. The 12 projects it is working on would generate 3,950 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power an estimated 1.6 million to 3.6 million homes, depending on weather and the sizes of the homes. The five slated for Minnesota would generate about 1,030 megawatts, or enough to power 412,000 to 927,000 homes.

National Wind made headlines in April with news that one of Texas oil magnate Boone Pickens’ companies is backing another National Wind project in the state, a 78-megawatt wind farm it’s developing around Goodhue, Minn., south of Red Wing. Pickens’ Mesa Power is helping finance that project and supplying about 52 1.5-megawatt GE wind turbines.

The state Public Utilities Commission has granted the Goodhue farm preliminary approval. A group called Goodhue Wind Truth has been opposing the project, which would span about 32,000 acres.

Today (well, really really late yesterday), Goodhue Wind Truth filed the testimony of Richard R. James, INCE, for Wednesday’s hearing over in Goodhue:

Direct Testimony – Richard R. James, INCE

A must read:

The “How-To” Guide to Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks from Sound

And this was published earlier this month:

Wind Turbine Noise – What Audiologists Should Know

To check out the rest of his exhibits, look at the PUC docket for the AWA Goodhue Wind project:

• www.puc.state.mn.us

• and then to “Search eDockets”

• and then search for docket 08-1233

Wednesday’s hearing is for both the Certificate of Need and Siting Permit for AWA Goodhue’s 78MW wind project in Goodhue County, west of the City of Goodhue, utilizing the Goodhue and Vasa substations.  This is the one that T.Boone Pickens is involved with, and they’re claiming it’s a C-BED project — but the AWA Goodhue LLC’s HQ is at 8117 Preston Road, Suite 200, Dallas, Texas, 75225.  Walker Clarke is the “organizer” and he’s in Houston.

Yup, sounds locally owned to me!

Oh, how bizarre can it get.  Sometimes, I’m left speechless in disbelief.   We all know about Clean Air Task Force’s toadying for coal, they’re the Clean Air Task FArce, but this?  It’s just going too far.

CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE THINKS THE FEDS SHOULD SIGN A PPA FOR FUTUREGEN ELECTRICITY!

Really, here’s a quote from the Press Release:

Use an Executive Order or similar means to require the federal government to buy electricity from the proposed FutureGen plant in Mattoon, Illinois. This recommendation would provide the financial certainty needed for the project to break ground.

And I’m sure that Tom Micheletti, of Excelsior Energy/Mesaba Project infamy, is not happy about this, not happy about it because they’re proposing the FutureGen and not Mesaba:

IGCC plants have problems getting Power Purchase Agreements because they are NOT economical, even with all the federal and state subsidies, with all the perks, with all the circumvention of regulation, as the ALJ’s noted in their Recommendation to the PUC on the Mesaba Project PPA, it’s just TOO COSTLY!  And, plus, it’s NOT in the public interest!

ALJ RECOMMENDATION – DENIAL OF PPA

But there goes Clean Air Task Farce saying the feds, US, we the taxpayers, should buy up the FutureGen electricity?  Give me a break!  Really, here it is from the horse’s mouth(the other end of the horse is further below) — this CATF press release just out:

REPORT CALLS FOR COMPREHENSIVE ARRAY OF NEW DEMONSTRATION PLANTS, $20 BILLION IN NEW FUNDING

Here’s the entire CATF report:

The Carbon Capture and Storage Imperative

Contact the White House, Executive Office of the President, and tell the staff what you think of CATF’s brilliant idea and what you think of CATF’s lobbying for coal:

CLICK HERE TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THE WHITE HOUSE

And this article about it:

Expert: Feds should buy FutureGen’s power output

A respected environmental advocacy group has recommended the federal government alter the funding strategy for FutureGen.

John Thompson, director of the Coal Transition Project of the CATF, a non-profit organization based in Boston dedicated to reducing atmospheric pollution, believes the Obama administration should commit $1 billion in stimulus money to another carbon capture sequestration facility in Indiana with a 630 megawatt electrical capacity and commit instead to purchasing the electrical output over 20 or 30 years of the 250 megawatt FutureGen power plant proposed for a site west of Mattoon.

“FutureGen needs a commitment from the administration that is ironclad. This is a way to ultimately break the logjam on FutureGen funding. The stimulus money would be better spent at the Edwardsport IGCC project in Indiana that is more than 50 percent complete,” Thompson said in a phone interview Friday morning, referring to recommendations on coal energy solutions in a 70-page report send to President Barack Obama’s Carbon Capture and Sequestration Task Force.

The final decision by the Department of Energy on FutureGen funding has been postponed by at least six months. Last month, FutureGen Alliance CEO Mike Mudd said there is a gap between funding commitments by DOE and the alliance corporate partners of several hundred million dollars for the clean energy project with an estimated price tag of more than $2 billion.

Thompson, who lives in Southern Illinois, and his colleagues on the CATF believe federal support through a full-term energy purchase totaling several billion dollars would overcome concerns on cost overruns and other factors holding up a final agreement on FutureGen so far.

“We’re not trying to say FutureGen is a lower priority. But the facts are what they are,” Thompson explained. “The dangerous aspect of using stimulus money is what if there are cost overruns on FutureGen. It could come up short on construction or during the early stage of operations. We are worried it will become an orphan.”

Thompson said a federal electrical output purchase agreement from a FutureGen plan means the project really has a future. It can be a key part of the effort to institute carbon capture and sequestration in energy production.

He said CCS efforts in the United States have felt pressure from different sources, ranging from utilities reluctant to commit on a major scale to environmental groups wanting to phase out coal use as soon as possible.

“This has been delayed too long. The federal government needs to finally step up. With a stroke of the pen, the Obama administration can say the controversy is over,” Thompson said.

The CCS Task Force is expected to offer its recommendations in coming weeks, possibly in August. Thompson fears the political climate might cause more delays due to opposition to global warming warnings.

“The response in Washington is to rein in spending just at the time we need to complete these CCS projects. Almost of of them are in an advanced stage to break ground or fold up and blow away,” Thompson said. “The Republicans are saying global warming does not exist and many Democrats are saying we can solve our energy problems with wind power. This will require uncomfortable truths that won’t go away. And the public must realize coal won’t go away.”