2012-02-25 ANU Presentation

1,192 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,192
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
537
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2012-02-25 ANU Presentation

  1. 1. Preserve and ProtectPO Box 6Wapakoneta, Ohio 45895www.noauglaizewind.orgAuglaizeunited@bright.net
  2. 2. • Ohio is a low capacity wind generation state• Significant numbers of local agricultural landowners have not signed leases and do not support this Mainstream project• Ohio’s wind industry exists primarily because of artificial market support from Ohio’s renewable energy mandate as well as federal and state tax credits and abatements• Our County’s Landscape, including The Land of The Cross Tipped Churches, is too valuable and too densely populated for projects of this nature
  3. 3. • 1 to 5 acre residential parcels up to a mile away from a turbine may experience a decline in value of approximately 25% to 30%, and require Property Value Guarantees to be protected• Setbacks of approximately 3,500 feet from a turbine base, 7 times the height of a 500 foot turbine, from non consenting residential structures are necessary to address health concerns, about shadow flicker and noise
  4. 4. Our Viewpoint Continued• The nature of the Process in Ohio requires the County to either: (1) commit now as to where it stands on defeat or passage of the PILOT; (2) encourage local townships to pass zoning ordinances consistent with the wishes of their residents to exhibit true local control; and/or (3) Intervene on behalf of concerned citizens into the Ohio Power Siting Board process• Wind power may not be green at all and will lead to increased electric utility rates
  5. 5. Project Scope Mainstream Renewable Power – Based in Dublin Ireland 8,000 – 10,000 acres  Currently have 4,000 to 5,000 acres leased Up to 75 Turbines Approximately 450 feet tall 100 to 150 megawatts of generation capacity Proposed Capital Investment is unknown at this time 5 to 10 Permanent Full-Time Jobs Proposed Location  Northern Boundary – Southern Allen County  Western Boundary – Moulton Fort Amanda Rd  Southern Boundary – Infirmary Rd  Eastern Boundary – 25-A
  6. 6. What Is Driving This Ohio Mandates  By 2025 25% of power purchased by Ohio consumers must come from alternate energy sources  12.5% must be produced by renewable sources such as wind or solar Production Tax Credit (PTC)  Set to expire at the end of 2012  Began as a $5 Million per year subsidy  It is now $1 Billion per year  This equates to $0.037 per kWh Nearly 2 Billion Dollars from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act  80% of this money has gone to foreign countries  This has allowed the wind industry to create 6,000 Jobs in foreign countries Source: ABC World News Feb 2010 and the Investigative Reporting Workshop Source: Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard Source: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/02/wind-panic-awea-ptc
  7. 7. Map of Mainstream’s Proposed Wind FarmCompiled by Auglaize Neighbors United from information provided by Mainstream
  8. 8. Some Key Issues Landscape Property Values Health Concerns Process  Lack of Local Control and Zoning Economics
  9. 9. Landscape
  10. 10. Fond du lac, WisconsinSource: Chicago Reader, There will be wind, May 14, 2009
  11. 11. DeKalb County, IllinoisSource: nowindfarms.com
  12. 12. Land of the Cross Tipped ChurchesOn the National Register of Historic Places - 1979Thematic Submission  Not just the Buildings themselves, but also the Sightlines  Including St Joseph Wapakoneta and St Patrick GlynwoodMercer/Auglaize Visitor’s Bureau  61 Bus Tours – approximately 40 people eachNational Marian Shrine of the Holy Relics  Approximately 20,000 visitors a year
  13. 13. Land of the Cross Tipped Churches Area and Churches that are protected: “Cross Tipped Churches of Ohio”
  14. 14. Land of the Cross Tipped Churches St Joseph Wapakoneta St Patrick Glynwood
  15. 15. Landscape ContinuedAt Least Nine Concerns:1. Soil Compaction2. Crop Damage3. Damaged Field Tile4. Does not Specify Location of Service Lanes5. Restrictions for Additional Buildings and Heights6. Damage caused from Construction including waterways and side ditches7. Length of Contract - 50 years ++8. Doesn’t Specify Number of Turbines9. Mainstream can sell leases
  16. 16. Landscape Continued “Whitley County Indiana’s population density of 90 people per square mile exceeds the normal 20 to 40 density in Iowa where wind farms are located.”Source: Roger E McEowen, Iowa State ProfessorPresentation to a group of citizens in Whitley County IN Summer 2011http://vimeo.com/26405304
  17. 17. • Decommissioning – At the end of the turbine’s useful life will there be funds available for removal• Once here the Projects Proliferate - Van Wert up to 300 Turbines• Champaign County – Phase II of 50 more turbines proposed even before initial 50 are constructed and ongoing litigation in the Ohio Supreme Court
  18. 18. Property ValueThe Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory released anew report: "The Impact of Wind Power Projects onResidential Property Values in the United States: AMulti-Site Hedonic Analysis," funded by the U.S.Department of Energy. It is the most comprehensiveanalysis to date in the United States or abroad on thesubject. The research uncovered no conclusiveevidence of widespread property value effects incommunities surrounding wind projects. Source: NextEra Company Website
  19. 19. Property Value continuedWind farms, residential property values, and rubber rulersFebruary 16, 2010 by Albert R. WilsonReal estate appraisal experts are challenging the scientificcredibility and accuracy of a recent US Department ofEnergy (DOE) report on the effect of wind power projectson property values.…the Report should not be given serious consideration forany policy purpose. The underlying analytical methodscannot be shown to be reliable or accurate.Source: arwilson.com
  20. 20. Property Value continuedWind Turbine Impact Study 9/12/2009 by Appraisal Group OneDodge and Fond Du Lac Counties, WI 1-5 acre properties in bordering proximity (600 ft) ranged from 39-43% reduction in property value. 1-5 acre properties in close proximity (1000 ft) ranged from 33- 36% reduction in property value. 1-5 acre properties in near proximity (1/2 mile) ranged from 24-29% reduction in value. Source: National Windwatch
  21. 21. Property Value continuedCertified Real Estate Appraisers determined thatindustrial wind development projects adversely affectedland values within immediate wind zone and peripheralareas of approximately 2 miles. This is based onresearch done in various States for property within 2miles of wind turbines.Based on CREA studies, property values declined from20-43% on parcels within 3 miles of turbine sites.Source: The Chronicle Express.com, A new Slant on Wind Farms
  22. 22. Property Value continuedThere is a significant loss of value within 2-3 miles withvalue losses measured at 20-40%.Wind developers have been known to buy out the mostvocal neighbors and then turn around and sell thosesame homes for 60-80% below the appraised value,thus confirming value losses by their own actions.Sources: McCann Appraisal, LLC and Windturbinesyndrome.comhttp://www.knowledgestream.org/kstream/item.asp?item_id=8862
  23. 23. Property Value continuedProperty Value Guarantees (PVG) Are Necessary Financial gain to developer and landowner/lessor should not be at expense of neighboring property owner equity If applicant believes claim of no property value impact, then there will be no significant impact to them with a PVG requirement or condition Sources: McCann Appraisal, LLC and Windturbinesyndrome.com http://www.knowledgestream.org/kstream/item.asp?item_id=8862
  24. 24. Property Value continuedTown of Hammond in New York, passed a ResidentialProperty Value Guarantee (RPVG) 12-28-2010Hammond passed an …“Exclusive option of anyresidential property owner living within close proximity(two miles) to a wind turbine," where a property ownerhas a once in a lifetime right to be reimbursed for his orher real property and five acres surrounding thatresidence at the then appraised value, if they follow theprovisions listed in the document.Source: The Journal, Hammond Panel Adopts Home Guarantee 12/30/2010
  25. 25. Health ConcernsHealth Effects from Industrial Wind Turbines• Two categories of effects – those you can see and feel and those that you hear.• First category includes: shadow flicker, ice throw and blade shear (danger from falling parts)• Second category includes noise that you can hear (audible) and noise you can’t hear (infrasound)
  26. 26. Health Concerns - Setbacks• Minimum setbacks established in Ohio 4906-17:• From the property line: • 1.1 times the total height of the turbine structure as measured from its tower’s base to the tip of its highest blade • Example: 495 feet for a 450-foot turbine• From the residence: • 750 feet in horizontal distance from the tip of the turbine’s nearest blade at 90 degrees to the exterior of the nearest habitable residential structure• Mainstream Lease specifies it will not install wind turbines within 1,200 feet of any occupied residence, without the prior written consent from Lessor (No contractual protection for neighboring residence)
  27. 27. Health ConcernsShadow Flicker Analysis – Blue Creek Wind Farm There are two primary concerns about shadow flicker. The first is that shadow flicker could potentially trigger epileptic seizures … and the second is that shadow flicker could become a source of annoyance to residents living in close proximity to wind turbines. Prepared by CH2MHill for Heartland Wind LLC, December 2009
  28. 28. Health ConcernsShadow Flicker Analysis – Blue Creek Wind Farm There are currently no federal or state standards regulating frequency or duration of shadow flicker for wind turbines. International studies and guidelines from Europe and Australia, including the Best Practice Guidelines for the Irish Wind Energy Industry (Irish Wind Energy Association [IWEA], 2008), have suggested 30 hours of shadow flicker per year as the threshold of significant impact, or the point at which shadow flicker can be considered a nuisance. Heartland Wind used a threshold of 30 hours per year for this analysis to identify affected residences. Prepared by Epsilon Associates , Inc for Heartland Wind LLC, April 7, 2010
  29. 29. Health ConcernsShadow Flicker Analysis – Blue Creek Wind Farm Mitigation Measures –  Turbine micro-siting to minimize projected impacts,  Good Neighbor Agreements to offer compensation to affected residents, and  Window blinds or curtains, window awnings, and vegetative plantings to be offered to affected residents, including those with and without a Good Neighbor Agreement. Prepared by Epsilon Associates , Inc for Heartland Wind LLC, April 7, 2010
  30. 30. Noise Level Recommendations• Normal nighttime sounds in a rural area are between 25 and 35dB. However, an increase to 45dB will sound at least twice as loud, and an increase to 55dB will sound 4 times as loud.• Humans perceive a clearly noticeable change with an increase in sound of 5dB. An increase in 10dB sounds about twice as loud and an increase in 20dB sounds about four times as loud.• According to ISO recommendations for community noise limits, there are NO rural settings where 45 dBA is acceptable at night. Study by Marshall Chasin, M.Sc.(C) FAAA, Centre for Human Performance & Health, Ontario Canada The “How To Guide to Siting Wind Turbines To Prevent Health Risks From Sound – George W. Kamperman,P.E. and Richard R. James, INCE
  31. 31. Noise levels If existing nighttime ambient noise is measured and averaged over the entire night, the standard will not reflect the true sound levels during the quietest part of the night: early evening frog choruses and human activity, along with pre-dawn bird choruses, tend to elevate average sound levels well above the actual sound levels during the deep nighttime hours of 11pm-4am. In practice, it’s not uncommon for turbine noise of 40 or 45 dB to be 15 or even 20dB louder than the true ambient noise level during the quietest parts of the night. These are the situations in which the turbine noise may become especially problematic for nearby neighbors.1 1 Wind Farm Noise: 2009 in Review. Acoustic Ecology Institute
  32. 32. Annoyance associated with exposure todifferent environmental noises 40 35 % Highly Annoyed 30 Wind Turbines 25 Aircraft 20 Road Traffic Railways 15 10 5 0 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Sound Exposure (dBA)Pederson and Waye, Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise- a dose-response relationship. J. Acous. Soc. Am. (2004)
  33. 33. Low Frequency Sound• There is a considerable low frequency content of industrial wind turbine sound.• For sounds that contain a low frequency component, WHO says the limits on nighttime noise may need to be even lower than 30dBA to avoid health risks.• The presence of amplitude modulation (swish- boom) limits the masking of other ambient sounds. Pedersen E and Persson Waye K. 2004. Perceptions and annoyance due to wind turbine noise - a dose- response relationship. J Acoust Soc Am 116(6):3460-3470
  34. 34. What Are the Health Effects?• Sleep disruption - awaking several times a night with difficulty falling back to sleep. Irritability, headaches, difficulty with concentration and memory. Low level of noise triggers non-waking arousal during sleep which disrupts normal sleep stages causing the sleeper to feel less rested. Prolonged exposure increases stress and the risk of depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular disease. Those who find the noise increase intolerable have the greatest risk of negative health impacts.
  35. 35. How Many Will Be Affected Surveys suggest between 10% and 40% of those hearing sound levels close to regulatory limits may be disturbed. Dr. Robert McMurtry estimates that 25% of people living within 1.5 miles of turbines experience disruptions in their daily lives, especially sleep disturbances, which often balloon into other health problems. Wind Farm Noise: 2009 in Review – Jim Cummings Dr. Robert McMurtry, former dean of medicine- U. of Western Ontario
  36. 36. What Distance is Safe “Noise produced by wind farms is generally not a major concern beyond a half mile” 1 “The vast majority of severe noise issues occur at under a half mile with significant noise disruption hardly ever occurring beyond three-quarters of a mile”2 1 2007 report on wind farms and human health from Nat’l Academies of Science 2 Jim Cummings, Wind Farm Noise: 2009 in Review
  37. 37. Process Contact individual Landowners  Write leases with individual Landowners Contact Township Trustees for permission to place a MET Tower for Wind Testing Once Developer has enough leases to make their project viable  Pre-application letter 15 days before public meeting  Certificate application to the Ohio Siting Board Ohio Siting Board reviews process  Ohio Siting Board Flowchart – County can Intervene Contact County Commissioners  Approval or Rejection of PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes)  Meeting with Superintendents
  38. 38. Process Continued
  39. 39. Process continued No Meetings are required until 15 days after pre- application letter is submitted to Siting Board Only official time in the process for Informing the community is the Informational Meeting listed above and once more 60-90 days after submittal for the Public Hearing in Columbus Most other communities like Urbana only learn about the project after it is too late As of 2-14-12, every project submitted to Siting Board has passed  8 Approved  1 Pending  1 Withdrawn (at request of applicant)  0 Denied
  40. 40. Economics Money into the Community1  $3,000 per MW in Nameplate Capacity (1.6 MW) = $4,800 a turbine per year  $1/Lineal Foot for Access Roads (Assume 1,320ft) = $1,320  $30 per Acre (Assume 100 acres leased per turbine) = $3000  At 75 Turbines = approx. $684,000 (increased annually 2.5%)  Construction materials from community  Estimates of 5 -10 permanent jobs  County, Township, Schools and possibly Towns to split either  Property Taxes (approximately $22,300 per megawatt to schools and townships)  At 75 Turbines at 1.6 MW = approx. $2,676,000 annually Or 1 Source : Mainstream Lease
  41. 41. Economics Continued PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes)  $9,000 PILOT per Mw  At 75 Turbines at 1.6 MW = $1,080,000 annually Abatement of $1,596,000 At 10 Permanent Jobs = Abatement of $159,600 per job Per Revised Code 5727.75 After Certification of the project by the Ohio Department of Development as a qualified energy project local county commissioners must vote to either deny or grant the tax abatement. Source: Driscoll & Fleeter Analysis of April 13, 2010 regarding SB 232
  42. 42. Production Tax Credit (PTC) Adopted in 1992 as a “Temporary” subsidy Began as a $5 Million per year subsidy It is now $1 Billion per year This equates to $0.022 per kWh In some areas this equals or exceeds the wholesale power cost Even if allowed to expire this year taxpayers are still obligated to cover $10 Billion in tax credits for wind projects built in the last decade This is in addition to the nearly $20 Billion in debt already accrued for wind projectsSource: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/02/wind-panic-awea-ptc/
  43. 43. Production Tax Credit (PTC) February 15, 2012, Senator Lamar Alexander gives a speech on the floor of the United States Senate He asks Congress to reject any efforts to “put in the payroll tax agreement a four year extension of the so-called production tax credit” calling it “a big loophole for the rich and investment bankers.” Senator Alexander stated that 20 years is long enough for a wind production tax credit for what our distinguished Nobel prize winning Secretary of Energy says is a mature technology According to the Joint Tax Committee, Big Wind has received and will receive between 2007 and 2016 $27 billion Senator Alexander said, “And what do we get for these billions of dollars in subsidies? We get a puny amount of unreliable electricity that arrives disproportionately at night when we don’t need it.” The TVA spent $60 million building 30 big wind turbines to see if they would work. They discovered the wind blows 19% of the time and is reliable 12% of the time. The $60 million investment produced 6 megawatts of power over a 10 year period. Source: Senator Lamar Alexander speech to the US Senate 2/15/2012
  44. 44. Economics continued Some Federal Subsidies of Electrical Energy Sources per MWH US Energy information Administration $23.37 Subsidy Report April 2008$25.00$20.00$15.00$10.00 $5.00 $1.59 $0.44 $0.25 $0.67 $0.00 Coal Nuclear Nat Gas Hydro Wind EIA Report 2007 Chapter 5 www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/index.html - John Droz 1 megawatt = 1000 kilowatts
  45. 45. Economics continuedMidwest Electric - Wind Power Debate“…Our concern is with a misguided state and nationalenergy policy that is forcing these unreliable anduneconomic systems on the backs of taxpayers and utilitycustomers….Make no mistake, you will pay for these windfarms many times over. Quite simply, nobody is putting upa wind turbine with their own money. Local, state andfederal governments are providing significant tax creditsand subsidies in order to artificially support wind power.And we all know government money actually comes fromyou, the taxpayer.…the per unit cost (kilowatt hour) is three to four timeshigher than electricity …Those higher costs will bereflected in energy rates” Source: Matt Berry, Midwest Electric Newsletter 12/8/10
  46. 46. Economics continuedMinimal Environmental Benefit Wall Street Journal, Aug. 24, 2010  Wind power’s effect on reducing carbon dioxide emissions has been “minimal, if any”  Due to “cycling”: Need to have sufficient base load generation (ie, coal) ready to ramp up when wind velocity weakens  Cycling is very inefficient and can increase greenhouse gas emissions  Need to add more fossil fuel plants to back-up the wind turbines
  47. 47. Wind Unpredictability Grid operators make “day ahead” projections of wind energy availability. Wind unpredictability can result in forecast errors of +20% (300 mW more than predicted) to -30% (450 mW less than predicted) Uncertainty causes planning problems and leads to higher costs As a result, base load plants (ie. coal need to “cycle” in order to be ready to serve load that wind can’t meet Cycling causes wear and tear; additional fatigue damage results in shortened boiler life Source: Buckeye OREC Power Supply Renewable Energy Report Fall 2011
  48. 48. Story County Wind Farm, Iowa 150 megawatts (mW) rated capacity Located in central Iowa (among nation’s best wind production areas) Buckeye Power has purchase agreement for 30 mW July 21, 2011 – extreme heat wave – peak day in the history of PJM regional transmission network Actual output dropped to zero during PJM peak Wind electricity production typically falls during extreme heat – when utilities need it most Production is highest overnight and during months when electric demand is low Source: Buckeye OREC Power Supply Renewable Energy Report Fall 2011
  49. 49. Hourly Story County Wind Output During Peak Day 180,000 105 160,000 90 PJM Load 140,000PJM Load (MW) 75 120,000 100,000 60 80,000 45 60,000 30 40,000 20,000 Story Co. Output 15 0 0 PJM Load Story Co ACT Gen Story Co Max Gen Source: Buckeye OREC Power Supply Renewable Energy Report Fall 2011
  50. 50. Minimal Environmental Benefit Wall Street Journal, Aug. 24, 2010  Wind power’s effect on reducing carbon dioxide emissions has been “minimal, if any”  Due to “cycling”: Need to have sufficient base load generation (ie, coal) ready to ramp up when wind velocity weakens  Cycling is very inefficient and can increase greenhouse gas emissions  Need to add more fossil fuel plants to back-up the wind turbines
  51. 51. • Ohio is a low capacity wind generation state• Significant numbers of local agricultural landowners have not signed leases and do not support this Mainstream project• Ohio’s wind industry exists primarily because of artificial market support from Ohio’s renewable energy mandate as well as federal and state tax credits and abatements• Our County’s Landscape, including The Land of The Cross Tipped Churches, is too valuable and too densely populated for projects of this nature
  52. 52. • 1 to 5 acre residential parcels up to a mile away from a turbine may experience a decline in value of approximately 25% to 30%, and require Property Value Guarantees to be protected• Setbacks of approximately 3,500 feet from a turbine base, 7 times the height of a 500 foot turbine, from non consenting residential structures are necessary to address health concerns, about shadow flicker and noise
  53. 53. Conclusion Continued The nature of the Process in Ohio requires the County to either: (1) commit now as to where it stands on defeat or passage of the PILOT; (2) encourage local townships to pass zoning ordinances consistent with the wishes of their residents to exhibit true local control; and/or (3) Intervene on behalf of concerned citizens into the Ohio Power Siting Board process Wind power may not be green at all and will lead to increased electric utility rates
  54. 54. What steps can be taken Public Informational Meetings Speak to your neighbors Sign petitions Letters to Governmental Representatives  Repeal Ohio’s Renewable Energy Mandate  Amend Siting Board Legislation  Full disclosure, Community representation, Proper setbacks, Re-protect sightlines to our National Landmark
  55. 55. Resources Ohio 1st District Senator Cliff Hite  Senate Building 1 Capitol Square, Ground Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Ohio 12th District Senator Keith Faber  Senate Building 1 Capitol Square, 1st Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Ohio 76th District Representative Robert Sprague  77 S. High St 13th floor Columbus, OH 43215-6111 Ohio 78th District Representative John Adams  77 S. High St 14th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-6111
  56. 56. Resources Continued Auglaize County Commissioners 419-739-6710  Don Regula  Doug Spencer  John Bergman US Congressman Jim Jordan US Senator Sherrod Brown US Senator Rob Portman www.noauglaizewind.org
  57. 57. Resources Continued http://vimeo.com/2605304 http://www.knowledgestream.org/kstream/item.asp?item_id=8 862 http://www.atinstitute.org/ohio-news-network-covers-ati- study-of-alternative-energy-portfolio-standard-and-possible- repeal/ http://www.atinstitute.org/ati-environmental-law-center-v- state-of-colorado-renewables-mandate-pt-1-pollution/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v= MbIe0iUtelQ http://www.wind-watch.org/ http://www.masterresource.org/2012/02/wind-panic-awea-ptc http://www.opsb.ohio.gov/opsb/ http://www.masterresource.org/2012/02/wind-panic-awea-ptc
  58. 58. Milo Schaffner – Van Wert, Ohio Hoaglin Township Trustee for 11 Years Lincolnview School Board for 8 years Lincolnview School Board President for 5 years Farming since 1974 Owns 640 Acres Owns Schaffner Tool and Die, Van Wert, Ohio

×