Resource Library -- latest additions
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. This resource library is provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Re: Proposed Sale of The Farm House, Grays Farm, North Drove, Spalding
Author: Mutton and Russell, Estate Agents
An estate agent declines to list Jane and Julian Davis’s property:
“Further to your letter dated 26th April 2008 regarding the proposed selling of the aove mentioned property. Whilst I understand the difficulty of the situation you are placed in with the problems caused by the wind turbines, until such problems have been resolved I am not able to place a current market value on the property as I do not believe any prospective purchaser would want to inhabit the property, or, indeed in the current climate, whether any mortgage lender would be prepared to lend on the property.
“I am therefore sorry to say that I find myself in the rare situation of having to decline any instructions to market the above property, until such problems have been resolved to the satisfaction of any prospective purchaser ot their mortgage lender.”
Russell Gregory MNAEA
Munton & Russell
View: “Re: Proposed Sale of The Farm House”
Two Dozen Suggestions About Wind Power Leases for Farmers
Author: Ontario Federation of Agriculture
1. Meet with your neighbours — The wind company will be approaching your neighbours. Meet with them and work together with your OFA MSR.
2. Cost of a Lawyer — Ask the wind power company to pay to have the agreement reviewed by a lawyer who will work for everyone in the area. This saves you $ 500 to $ 1,000.
3. Transferability — Add a clause that stipulates that the agreement cannot be transferred by the wind company to any person or company without your approval. If the company is truly in the wind business, they will be willing to pay you a fee if the lease is transferred.
4. Appearance – None of the leases address appearance, but you could have to look at the thing for 50 years. Add a clause that prohibits advertising on the tower. Add a clause that stipulates that the paint colour be agreed. Add a clause that requires that the tower be painted within six months of the appearance of rust or discolouration. Add a clause that covers effective reclamation of the site when all is done.
5. Building Restrictions – Attach a map of the property to the agreement that outlines areas where new buildings over 20 metres can and cannot be built.
6. Fill Material — Under no circumstances should a developer use fill taken from your land.
7. Gear oil — Many wind towers have a reservoir of toxic lubricating oil (PCP’s) in the generator compartment. You can prohibit the use of such oil in the lease.
8. Option Termination — Add a clause that stipulates that the contract is ended if construction has not started on a wind tower within five years from the date of signing. Do not sign a contract without a clear beginning and a clear end.
9. Net Meter Tower — Ask the company to lend you its crane to install your own net metered wind generator. You’ll have to be ready when they are, but it could save you $ 10,000.
10. Option — Set the option payment at a minimum and escalating according to the value of the land. The minimum should be $ 5,000. And the option should cover annual payments while a test tower is in place as well as crop losses etc. You should become an owner of the wind data collected if no tower is built within five years.
11. Rent — Change the clause with respect to rent so the percentage of gross income paid to the farmer starts at 3% or more. Rent should apply to all income from the project including green house gas credits etc. Once the tower has paid for itself the rent should increase. Change the rent clause so the percentage of gross income paid to the farmer increases with the cost of power or at set intervals of 2 to 5 years, so rent rate rises to about 10%.
12. Insurance — Add a clause stipulating that the wind power company must produce a certificate of valid insurance covering liability to the farm and others each year and that in any event it assumes full liability for all damage caused by the wind tower.
13. Protect Capital Value — Add a clause requiring the wind power company to make whole any losses in re-sale value that might occur as a result of the lease or a wind tower being in place. If the wind tower effects your land value, losses might not be covered by rent.
14. Your Other Rights — Some leases have clauses that appropriate your development rights for aggregates, ground water, top soil, sale outside of the family and even your right to speak in public on wind power questions. Any such clause should be stricken from the agreement.
15. A Cooling Off Period – have a clause that states that either party may cancel the agreement within 30 days without reason or penalty.
16. 0ther Development – If the property might be valuable for other development in the next 50 years, think. At most, sign a lease that commits you for no more than 20 years if, for example, you feel your land might be valuable for urban or other development.
17. Power Sales -Stipulate that power must be sold via the IESO or that you get to approve any other contract. Without this the power can be sold to a third party firm held by the wind power company and the 3% rent you were hoping for will 3% of very little.
18. Hours, Times of Access – stipulate that access is during ordinary business hours and requires permission on weekends, at any time or hour in an emergency and that the wind power company agrees to defer any activity except emergency repairs that interfere with seeding, harvest, calving, lambing, or other farm or family activities that are time restricted.
19. Area of Lease — Limit the area covered by lease to a suitably small area – 1 to 5 acres.
20. Applies to One Lot Only — Limit the agreement so it only applies to the actual lot leased and that there is no reference to any other land owned by the farmer.
21. Wind Rights Only — Do not allow any clause that gives the wind power company a right of first refusal or an option for any purpose other than the use of the wind. Such clauses encumber sales, wills, development of other businesses etc.
22. Term of Lease – suggest 3 year option, 20 years for first term and 5 year renewals to follow. These time frames provide company with enough time to do tests and make profits and they bring the replacement date for the generator and the lease renewal dates closer together, which improves your negotiating position.
23. Assessment and Property Taxes – the land owner is ultimately responsible for taxes – a clause to require the wind power company to pay taxes associated with the wind tower is essential and it requires an enforcement clause – you cannot afford their taxes, unless you have their income. In the case of default, you should get the licences to produce and sell power.
24. Wait ‘Til You Know Your Choices – The government is preparing Standard Offer Price rules. With those rules, (out in early 2006) you may be able to run your own farm energy project and do better than you might as a landlord. Lease offers should become more competitive once the Standard Offer rules are known. Don’t sign a lease until the choices are clear and you have determined what is best for your farm operation for the next 20 plus years.
Download “Two Dozen Suggestions About Wind Power Leases for Farmers”
Download “30 Suggestions on Wind Power Leases for Farmers” (April 2007)
Standard Utility Easement for Wind Energy Development
Author: Detroit Edison Company
3. Ingress and Egress. Grantor also grants to Grantee, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, licensees, invitees and guests, a non-exclusive Easement on, over and across the Easement Area, for vehicular and pedestrian ingress from the public right of way to all portions of the Easement Area and egress to the public right of way from all portions of the Easement Area by Grantee, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, licensees, invitees and guests, for the Term. Grantee agrees not to unreasonably interfere with Grantor’s activities on the Easement Area and to use commercially reasonable efforts to construct any roads for ingress and egress parallel and perpendicular to existing property lines, ditches and outlets.
8. Continued Use of Easement Area.
(a) Grantor’s Limited Use and Enjoyment. Grantee shall have the sole and exclusive right to conduct wind energy development activities on the Easement Area. However, Grantor may enjoy the limited use of the Easement Area provided that any activity of Grantor, its employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, licensees, invitees and guests, does not obstruct the wind, in any way impede or decrease the output or efficiency of Grantee’s Wind Units, or otherwise interfere with the speed and direction of the wind, Grantee’s Wind Unit facilities or related structures or the rights granted to Grantee under this Easement. Grantor shall not place any fixtures or equipment or build any other structures on the Easement Area without the prior written consent of Grantee, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
(b) Restricted Areas. Notwithstanding the foregoing, by written notice from Grantee to Grantor, at any time during the Term, Grantee may identify certain specific areas within the Easement Area (individually, a “Restricted Area”) in which Grantee’s use shall be exclusive and Grantor’s use in any manner shall be prohibited …
Download “Standard Utility Easement for Wind Energy Development”
Report from the Bethany (N.Y.) Wind Turbine Study Committee
Author: Bethany Wind Turbine Study Committee
Extensive research of environmental, health & safety, legal, and financial issues of large-scale wind energy installations, with recommendations. 25 January 2007.
Download “Report from the Bethany Wind Turbine Study Committee”
Wind energy production records from the San Gorgonio Pass, Calif.
Author: Alexandra Weit
The first two pages of graphs show the production from the San Gorgonio Pass near Palm Springs and Tehachapi, Calif., combined. The next pages of production records are from the San Gorgonio Pass only, with hourly, monthly, and annual data. The last 2 pages show the “gross system power” in California for 2006.
According to the American Wind Energy Association, the installed capacity in the San Gorgonio Pass is 565 MW. The production in 2006 was 732,561,714 kWh, or 14% of capacity (from a high in 2002 of 19.5%).
Download “SCE wind energy production records”
Amendments to Calumet County, Wis., ordinance
Author: Calumet County, Wis., Board of Supervisors
These amendments concerning noise and setbacks from wind energy systems were approved into law on March 18, 2008. Includes thorough guidelines for pre- and post-construction noise measurements and estimates of impact from wind turbines.
“The audible sound emitted by Wind Energy System operations shall not be greater than 5 dBA above the background noise level (L90) for the quietest period of the day measured during the pre-build noise study.”
“No low frequency sound or infrasound from wind energy system operations shall be created which causes the sound pressure level both within the project boundary at any sensitive receptor and within a one-mile radius beyond the project boundary to exceed the following limits [see document].”
“In the event audible noise due to wind energy system operations contains a steady pure tone, such as a whine, screech, or hum, the standards for Audible Sound shall be reduced by five (5) dB(A).”
“In the event the audible noise due to wind energy system operations contains repetitive impulsive sounds, the permitted sound pressure level for Audible Sound (Rule 4) shall be reduced by five (5) dB.”
“In the event the audible noise due to wind energy system operations contains both a pure tone and repetitive impulsive sounds, the standards for Audible Noise (Rule 4) shall be reduced by a total of seven (7) dB.”
“A Wind Energy System that emits sound (or causes structural or human body vibration) with strong low frequency content where the time-average C-weighted sound level exceeds the A-weighted sound level by at least 20 dB when measured inside a structure and adversely affects the subjective habitability or use of any existing dwelling unit, hospital, school, library, nursing home, or other sensitive noise receptor shall be deemed unsafe and must be shut down immediately.”
“Each Wind Energy System shall be set back from the nearest residence, school, hospital, church or public library, a distance no less than one thousand eight hundred (1,800) feet.”
“The County Board may impose a setback that exceeds the other setbacks set out in this ordinance if it deems that such greater setbacks are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.”
Download “Calumet County Wind Ordinance Amendments”
Noise
Wind Energy Noise Impacts
Author: Acoustic Ecology Institute
‘Wind energy has long been a favorite of many environmental advocates. No carbon emissions, utilizing a free resource without depleting it in the least, even the potential for distributed generation rather than distant centralized power plants: for many of us, wind was the cleanest of green power sources in our dreams of the energy future.
In recent years, as wind turbines have grown from the small backyard kits that the truly committed built in the 70’s, the reality has made those dreams become less certain. Modern wind turbines are massive structures, hundreds of feet tall, and often constructed in large wind farms that in effect industrialize rural landscapes, from the rolling grassy hills of California, to the vast rangeland of Texas, to ancient ridgelines in the Appalachians, to the commons in rural England. While the trade-offs may be worth it in some areas, the downsides have become more apparent. Resistance to wind farms is often belittled as NIMBY-ism (Not In My Backyard); but at the same time, proponents often slip into oversimplifeid WARYDU rhetoric (We Are Right; You Don’t Understand). If we are to forge a reliable energy future that is respectful of both the environment and the rights of neighbors, we’ll need to move past knee-jerk reactions on both sides, and develop best practices that can ensure that the landscape and local residents don’t become long-term casualties of today’s “Klondike Wind Rush.” …’
Go to: “Wind Energy Noise Impacts” (slightly reformatted from original, two links fixed)
Or go to original at Acoustic Ecology Institute: click here.
Joint Statement to Wisconsin Task Force on Wind Siting Reform
Author: Kamperman, George; and James, Richard
December 13, 2007
To: Wisconsin Task Force on Wind Siting Reform
Subject: Comments on Electric Generation and Supply templates
Re: Wind Siting Reform Policy
Please let us take this opportunity to briefly introduce ourselves. We are noise control consultants with many years of experience in community noise and related land-use planning issues. Mr. Kamperman has over 50 years of experience and was active in the early 1970’s assisting the US EPA, states such as Illinois, and many communities in setting their community noise standards and guidelines. Mr. James has over 35 years of experience in the same field and has represented many of the largest corporations in the US on community noise issues and litigation. He has also served on the S12 Working Group for the American National Standards Institute, which has oversight on standards related to acoustics including community noise and works to coordinate ANSI standards with those of ISO and other standards organizations. We are currently involved with assisting some of the communities in Wisconsin with understanding and addressing wind turbine developments proposed for their communities.
We are writing this joint letter to the Task Force because we have mutual concerns about the impact of the work of the Task Force on the communities in Wisconsin that are under consideration for wind farm development. These concerns are a result of our work with those communities and our review of the Task Force’s recent draft Policy documents and the Draft Model Wind Ordinance for Wisconsin (Feb. 7, 2007) and its associated reference guide.
Our review finds substantial errors of fact and understanding regarding community noise and the impact of noise on land-use planning and the safety and health of citizens that would be affected by these policies. We do not intend to address all of them but several of the more egregious errors are addressed in this letter.
It appears to us that there has been little or no input into the work of the Task Force from un-biased and experienced professionals from our profession. Nor does it appear that there has been much, if any input from the medical and research professionals. Mr. Kamperman suggests that one way to resolve this lack of expertise on the Task Force panel would be to include someone with his experience on the Task Force panel. Please consider the offer in the Post Script below.
We would like to address two major errors and failures of understanding in the Task Force’s documents.
First, the limits and guidelines set forth fail to adequately consider the health and safety of the people who will be living in the communities in which the wind energy systems are to be located. For example, there is no scientific evidence currently available from independent medically qualified authorities to support a statement that the 50 dBA sound pressure level to which residents may be subjected on a 24/7/365 basis is safe and healthful for all people including children and those with special needs.
The World Health Organization [Report on the second meeting on night noise guidelines, WHO, Dec. 6-7, 2004] has found that sound levels during nighttime and late evening hours should be less than 30 dBA during sleeping periods to protect children’s health. They noted that a child’s autonomous nervous system is 10 to 15 dB more sensitive to noise than adults. Even for adults, health effects are first noted in some studies when the Lmax sound levels exceed 32 dBA, 10-20 dBA lower than the levels needed to cause awakening. The WHO researchers found that sound levels of 50 dBA or more strongly disrupted hormone secretion cycles. For sounds that contain a strong low frequency component, which is typical of wind turbines, WHO says that the limits may need to be even lower than 30 dBA to not put people at risk.[Community Noise (Berglund et al., 2000)] ANSI standards recommend that no sound pressure levels exceed 65 dB (e.g. No weighting) in the lower frequency ranges to avoid structural vibrations and potential damage. 50 dBA would not protect against this situation, yet studies have shown that wind turbine sounds at residences sometimes exceed 65 dB in the frequency range below 20 Hz.
The recent conference held in Lyons, France, for the purpose of addressing wind turbine noise and health concerns demonstrated that wind turbine sound emissions of the types routinely experienced by people living close to wind farms may have significant cardio-vascular health effects after long term exposure. Again, we caution the Task Force that there is no scientific or medical basis for equating a 50 dBA limit for Wisconsin communities with health and safety.
Both the policy statement and supporting Model Ordinance are woefully lacking any scientific evidence supporting the sound limits and other recommendations that impact the acoustical environment. There is no un-biased evidence presented that the people living near wind turbine installations will not be forced to accept industrial scale operations that could introduce new risks into a community against the will of its citizens. Further, the statements in these documents that 50 dBA is based on review of other statutes and standards adopted by communities with wind farms shows only that the other communities also did not properly research the issues of community noise and its effects on health and safety. There is no objective argument for considering these other standards as a reason to adopt a similar set of limits. The documents provided by the promoters of wind energy that support the methods and limits proposed by the Task Force that we have seen would not pass a peer review by professionals in our field. They, also, should not be used as the basis for guidelines in Wisconsin.
Second, to suggest the use of L10 as a descriptor of background sound levels is an egregious mistake. On what scientific basis has this recommendation been made? L10 is not a descriptor of background sound; L90 is the proper descriptor for background sound. L10 is a descriptor of noisiness from transient events. The wind turbines will produce steady sound emission for protracted periods of time. They should not be judged against transient events, but against the steady background sounds that occur during the periods of the day when quiet is expected.
Wind turbine siting guidelines for noise in Europe and many other parts of the world have adopted L90 to define the sound levels in communities prior to construction of wind farms. In New Zealand, L95 is used. The International Energy Agency (IEA) recommends the use of either L90 or L95 to define background sound levels [Recommended Practices for Wind Turbine Testing, Chapter 10]. L90 has been accepted and incorporated into documents developed by wind industry groups. For example, the British Wind Industry Association (BWEA) recommends that turbine sound levels should be kept to within 5 dBA of the average existing evening or nighttime background noise level and defines background noise level as the L90 sound level [BWEA Wind Turbine Noise Working Group Guidelines].
It should be noted that even when these stricter guidelines are followed that experiences in Europe, Britain and New Zealand show that residents near the wind farms are often subjected to turbine noise that are considered objectionable.
Finally, if the mission of the task force is to enable the mission of the DNR:
“To provide a healthy, sustainable environment and a full range of outdoor opportunities.
“To ensure the right of all people to use and enjoy these resources in their work and leisure.
“To work with people to understand each other’s views and to carry out the public will.”
Then, the views of the communities and citizens of Wisconsin who look to the State for guidance on what amounts to the industrialization of rural Wisconsin should be considered as positive and constructive efforts. Their concerns about noise and other new risks being introduced into their communities are valid. They should not be discredited by labeling their concerns as some form of NIMBYism or obstructionism as was implied in earlier drafts of the policy documents. Doing so devalues the input of Wisconsin’s citizens to the State’s efforts to promote renewable energy.
We appreciate the Task Force taking the time to consider our concerns and hope that they are taken in the most constructive light possible.
George Kamperman, P.E.
Bd. Cert. Member Institute of Noise Control Engineers
Member National Council Acoustical Consultants
Fellow Member, Acoustical Society of America
Kamperman Associates, Inc.
312 Washington Avenue
Wisconsin Dells, WI 53965
Tel: (608) 254-5656
george@kamperman.com
Richard R. James
Full Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineers
Member, Acoustical Society of America (past)
E-Coustic Solutions
P.O. Box 1129
Okemos, MI 48805
Tel: (517) 507-5067
rickjames@e-coustic.com
P.S. from George Kamperman
I feel the wind turbine siting issues are so critical in many areas that I would welcome an opportunity to be a part of the PSC committee responsible for determining wind turbine siting guidelines for the State of Wisconsin. If the State is interested in my involvement in this endeavor I offer my services at no cost.
Downloa “Statement to Wisconsin Task Force on Wind Siting Reform”
Yvonne Sheehan’s daily diary 2008, Part 2
Author: Sheehan, Yvonne
Noise diary update, Jan. 31 to Feb. 17, 2008, Rock Chapel, Co Cork, Ireland.
Download “Yvonne Sheehan’s daily diary 2008, Part 2″
Windenergy: the whole truth [Windmolens en wat meestal verzwegen wordt]
Author: Halkema, J.A.
‘In order to make a fair judgment on the possible usefulness of windturbines for the production of “clean electricity” (energy generated by wind, as a major source of green renewable energy), one should only use arguments based on reality. Biased statements based on the concerns of windturbines makers or on political motivations ought to be refrained, as they are suspicious beforehand.
‘Apart from being rational, the arguments used in a debate should also be underpinned by numbers. And it speaks for itself that no disadvantage of the use of windturbines should be concealed. The following story is a discussion on the main questions that play a role when appraising windturbines, which are their characteristics, the benefits and their serious disadvantages which, sadly enough, are often purposefully hidden.’
Download “Windenergy: the whole truth”
Download “Windmolens en wat meestal verzwegen wordt”