Download “Industrial Wind Factories in George Washington National Forest”

Download “Brownsville noise diary, March 3 to August 5, 2008″

Download “Brownsville noise diary, August 6 to August 31, 2008″

January 16, 2001

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report, which was prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, examines the White House energy plan prepared by the White House energy task force under the direction of Vice President Cheney and compares the policies in the White House energy plan to those advocated by Enron. The analysis in the report is based on testimony of Enron officials before Congress, other public statements by Enron officials, Enron lobbying materials distributed to Congress, lobbying disclosure reports filed by Enron lobbyists, and news accounts of Enron positions.

The White House energy task force was formed on January 29, 2001, under the name the White House National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPD Group). The President released the White House energy plan that the task force developed on May 17, 2001. According to the Office of the Vice President, the task force met six times with Enron executives. The first meeting took place on February 22, 2001, about three weeks after the formation of the task force. On April 17, 2001, the Vice President met personally with Enron CEO Kenneth Lay to discuss the energy policy. The last meeting between task force officials and Enron executives apparently took place on October 10, 2001, less than one week before Enron announced the $1.2 billion reduction in shareholder value that precipitated Enron’s collapse.

The analysis in this report reveals that numerous policies in the White House energy plan are virtually identical to the positions Enron advocated. In total, there are at least 17 policies in the White House energy plan that were advocated by Enron or that benefitted Enron financially. These policies fall into four general categories: (1) policies that promote the deregulation of the electricity market; (2) policies that promote energy derivatives and commodities markets; (3) policies that expand natural gas and oil production; and (4) other policies that benefitted Enron.

In the area of electricity deregulation, the White House energy plan supports an expansive form of the controversial policy of “open access,” which guarantees energy traders like Enron access to the transmission lines of electric utilities. In 1999, Enron told members of Congress that this policy was Enron’s “single most important initiative.” The White House plan also supports the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), an action that would have enabled Enron to increase its ownership of electric utility companies. In February 2000, Enron lobbied Congress for “a provision granting FERC-certified transmission projects the power of eminent domain” so that power lines could be constructed more expeditiously. The White House energy plan endorses this policy, even though it conflicts with traditional state authority over transmission siting decisions. In addition, the plan includes several other deregulation initiatives supported by Enron, including one provision that would help energy traders like Enron gain new rights of access to the power lines maintained by the Bonneville Power Administration. …

Even in areas where Enron did not get every policy it advocated, the White House energy plan is helpful to the company. In the area of global warming, for example, the plan does not support the mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions sought by Enron. But the plan does direct federal agencies to identify “market mechanisms” to address global warming, which would help develop the type of market in carbon credits sought by Enron.

The policies in the White House energy plan did not benefit Enron exclusively. And some of the policies may have independent merit. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that any other corporation in America stood to gain as much from the White House energy plan as Enron.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ENERGY DERIVATIVES AND COMMODITIES MARKETS

B. Emissions Credits

Enron Position. Enron has promoted commodities trading markets in a wide number of areas, from weather derivatives to forest products and from electricity to metals. In particular, Enron has lobbied extensively for government policies that would support new or expanded markets in areas such as carbon and air emissions credits, which are bought and sold by Enron Global Markets. For example, Enron supported development of an international market in carbon dioxide emissions under a climate change agreement.

White House Energy Plan. The White House energy plan recommended policies that would expand and develop several new markets for emissions credits. The White House energy plan does not endorse the Kyoto Protocol on climate change or mandatory controls on carbon dioxide, but it does recommend use of market mechanisms to address climate change. The plan states:

The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct federal agencies … to identify environmentally and cost-effective ways to use market mechanisms and incentives … and cooperate with allies, including through international processes, to develop technologies, market-based incentives, and other innovative approaches to address the issue of global climate change.”

As part of a proposal supporting legislation to reduce emissions from electric power generators, the energy plan recommended establishing “mandatory reduction targets for emissions of three main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury,” and measures to “[p]rovide market-based incentives, such as emissions trading credits to help achieve the required reductions.”

The recommendation for emission trading credits is one of only three recommendations in the White House energy plan chapter on the environment, and it is the only one of the three that pertains to pollution from energy production.

IV. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT BENEFITTED ENRON

C. Promotion of Wind Power

Enron Position. Enron Wind designs and manufactures wind turbines, and Enron owns six wind power generation plants. Enron has lobbied aggressively for extension of the wind and biomass tax credit. For example, in the first six months of 2001, Enron paid outside lobbyists over $200,000 for work on wind power issues, in addition to conducting its own lobbying on these issues.

White House Energy Plan. Consistent with Enron’s position, the White House energy plan recommended extending the wind and biomass tax credit and taking other actions that would promote the wind turbine business. The plan states:

• The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the Secretary of the Treasury to work with Congress on legislation to extend and expand tax credits for electricity produced using renewable technology, such as wind and biomass. The President’s budget request extends the present 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour tax credit for electricity produced from wind and biomass.
• The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the Secretaries of the Interior and Energy to work with Congress on legislation to use an estimated $1.2 billion of bid bonuses from the environmentally responsible leasing of ANWR for funding research into alternative and renewable energy resources, including wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.

Download “How the White House Energy Plan Benefitted Enron”

Also see:  “Enron’s Ken Lay asks for Texas Gov. Bush’s help in securing tax credits for wind”

Interview (part 2) with Ralph and Kevin Mittelstadt, dairy farmers, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. See transcript below (again, thanks to Better Plan).

[ Click here to view or download the entire "Wisconsin Wind" video (1 hr 49 min) ]

Q: You were offered to sign a contract but you chose not to. How did that impact you and the community. Did it make any of your neighbors unhappy with you because of that?

Ralph: Many of the neighbors were unhappy. They sent us threatening letters.

Q: Threatening letters?

Ralph: Saying we owe them so much money because we’re keeping them from getting money from these wind towers. Because we had an airstrip here, and originally, the Dodge County Board said that they should stay away 9,200-some feet, what the FAA said they should from an airstrip. Because we’ve been here 36 years with an airstrip. But evidently it didn’t mean much because they just appointed other people to override them.

Q: Now these letters that were written to you by your neighbors, were they hand-written letters from the people themselves? Or were these letters coming from the company?

Ralph: They were typed-up from the company. The PR person. Form letters from a PR firm [names firm] from Chicago, Illinois.

Q: Were they connected to the developer?

Kevin: Yeah. The developer, he’s on the Carbon Climate Exchange. I don’t know if you know about that. They’re the ones trading carbon credits? He’s onto that. And this PR firm worked for Al Gore. And too, himself, so there’s kind of a tie.

Q: Do you know anything about property values, have you heard anything in the local community, are people concerned about property values being not maintained– a drop in property values?

Ralph: I think the property values where the turbines are is going to drop. Because you have less work-land, number one, and any houses that were built up around them– people don’t want them in their back yard no more now, and so if they want to sell their houses, they ain’t going to get as much money for it.

Q: Can you talk about some of the effects it’s had on the community, you mentioned that neighbors are pitted against neighbors. Can you expand on that and tell us a little bit more about some of the effects on the local community because of the development?

Kevin: I’d say there’s more hostility.

Q: More hostility?

Kevin: Yeah. In general, yeah. Money changes people.

Ralph: Our neighbor across the road had their house for sale and they had three different buyers on it. And every one that found out a wind turbine was going up in the back yard they backed right out of the deal.

Q: Has the house sold yet?

Ralph: No. They took it off the market now. They couldn’t get it sold.

Q: Can’t get it sold because of the development. You mentioned the shadow flicker earlier, about the sun and the blades, can you talk about that a little bit, as far as what’s that like here?

Kevin: If it lines up it will go over your whole yard, you know. It will come off your buildings.

Q: Does that happen every day? At a certain time?

Ralph: Just if it’s clear out and the wind turbine is turned right.

Kevin: I guess if I was hosting a wind turbine I wouldn’t put it east or west of my house.

Q: I had someone else mention that, because of the sun rising and the sun setting.

Kevin. Right.

Q: What was the interaction with the local officials like at the township board, or commissions who were appointed to approve this. Did you have a good feeling about working with them? Or did you not? Could you comment on that?

Ralph: They seemed to be sold out to the wind energy company already. Everything was just for the wind energy– they wined and dined a lot of them ahead of time. And they’re very positive about it. They don’t want to listen to people. They think a lot of the complaints and stuff have no merit.

Q: You say you flew up to Minnesota to look at the project up there. Can you comment on that, as far as what your thoughts were when you took that visit up there.

Kevin: There’s quite a few of them. And people up there seemed to be positive toward them, I guess.

Q: Is there much development, are they located around homes or around farms, or buildings, do you know?

Kevin: There’s not– it’s not as populated as here. It’s pretty sparse. More open.

Q: Was it a similar developer that was up there?

Kevin: There’s quite a few of them. It’s all different. Some of it is actually owned by farmers. On their own. There’s actually a wind turbine manufacturer that moved in the pipes, I believe. The built the propeller blades there. So it’s actually benefiting the community there.

Q: So your decision not to participate [in hosting a turbine] was an individual decision. Do you think if they were to do it differently in this area with a different development you would still participate in it?

Ralph: Probably not.

Kevin: No.

Ralph: I think someday if you could have a small one to generate your own current to the house, maybe it wouldn’t be a bad thing. If they could prove it’s efficient enough. But I don’t think they can prove it yet. That it’s going to be efficient enough to generate enough for a home.

Kevin: We own 450 acres. We took most of the fence lines out ourselves, you know? By hand. Moving all the rocks. So, we didn’t really want nobody putting a road through the middle of it.

Q: Do you have any thought in general about the efficiency of wind-power?

Ralph: I think they shoot a lot of figures at you showing they produce more electricity than they really do. And in this area here, Wisconsin, only got wind enough for– what– 21% of the time?

Kevin: I think 24%. or 30. The always give the figure that it produces so much– like 63,000 homes this is supposed to provide power for.

Q: That’s at 100%.

Kevin: But they never tell you it takes a 25 mile per hour wind to make that. So the power curve is pretty sharp on a wind turbine. When the wind drops off it goes down dramatically. So, on average they’re not going to produce very much power.

Ralph: It takes a little over 8 miles an hour just to start producing electricity. So the turbine can be turning out there, and not doing nothing. And up at Calumet, up here, what was that guys name up there?”

Kevin: Dean [Last name]

Ralph: He said that they brought that up at the meetings. They wanted them to shut the turbines down if they ain’t producing electricity, and he said these people just jumped right off of their chairs. Because they want to keep these people that are seeing these turbines turning believing that they’re making electricity all of the time.

Kevin: The average person sees them turning and they hear that figure that it’s going to produce power for 66,000 homes– and they’re thinking, “Well, this is great.”

Q: So you’ve attended a lot of meetings and have been quite involved with this process right from the start, then.

Kevin: I think we were the first people that they called. Because of the airstrip.

Q: You feel, you mean that the knowledge you’ve attained has put you in a position where you know what you need to know about it?

Kevin: Yeah.

Ralph: There’s always more to learn, too. There’s always more to learn about it.

Kevin: I mean, we’re open minded. Like you said, we have the test tower, and we gave them a fair shake,

Q: How do you feel about the development here, now that it’s here. How’s it make you feel to see this here?

Ralph: It’s a mess. It’s a mess now. I don’t know if they are going to get it straightened out in time for these farmers here, they want to put their crops in in the spring.

Kevin: It changes the view, I guess. That’s what people always tell me, because, you know, we live here, so I don’t really get to see it from far away distance, but they say, “We can see it from Beaver Dam”– or Fond du Lac, or Lake Winnebago.

Ralph: From Oshkosh they can see this down here, you know? They can see it from Oshkosh.

Q: The state– or I guess it was the Public Service Commission, that would be the agency. But they don’t give much credence to what people think about aesthetics– how things look. Any comments on that?

Kevin: I guess they really don’t care if a couple people don’t like the way it looks.

Q: Is there more than a couple people that don’t like the way it looks?

Ralph: Oh, I would say if it would come down to a referendum, vote from all the people, I think it would be kind of marginal if it would go through. But it didn’t come down to that. And it should have, I think. I think the whole township should vote on it.

I think that would be a good thing. To get all the people to vote on it one way or another.

It’s just a couple of people that are on the town board. And you should bring that out and make them aware of all of the problems– and the good things– if there’s good things about it, I mean, bring them all out. It should be the people that make the decision. Not just a couple of them.

Kevin: There was a couple of people that spoke up you know, and thats fine if they want to build them, but the town and the county should actually benefit from it, you know. Instead of losing all this money that’s going away from the town and county. Because it does affect– like you said– all the people can see it and it affects you, I guess.

Living with amplitude modulation, lower frequency emissions and sleep deprivation.

Abstract: Although wind energy has a role to play in the renewable energy sector, when wind turbines are sited too close to people’s homes, the noise pollution has dire consequences on those who live nearby. The authors, who live within 930 metres of the nearest wind turbine of a wind farm, document their personal experiences that underscore research findings on the adverse impact of wind turbine noise on human well-being, as well as present the results of sound data measured by acousticians at their home. The paper describes the nature of the noise — with its pulsating character, the vibrations felt by the body, and its intrusiveness, as well as the impact on their lives. The authors note that rural environments, which are attractive to the wind energy industry, are especially challenging because background noise is low or virtually non-existent, particularly at night. Yet current UK guidelines, set by the Government in 1997 with significant input by the wind energy industry, offer no respite to those who live near wind turbines or those communities analyzing current wind turbine applications from developers. The authors suggest that the wind energy industry would gain credence by acknowledging that there are gaps in the ability to predict with accuracy whether wind turbines will create noise pollution. Moreover, the industry could avoid the issue altogether by placing wind turbines further from homes. This solution would simultaneously contribute to the credibility of the wind energy industry while protecting the public’s health and their right to the amenities of their homes.

Download “Noise pollution from wind turbines”

1. Can they provide large amounts of electricity?
2. Can they provide reliable and predictable electricity?
3. Can they provide dispatchable electricity?
4. Can they service one or more grid demand elements (base load, load following, or peak load)?
5. Can their facilities be compact (so that they can be sited near demand)?
6. Can they provide economical electricity?

Today, a new one has been added, often trumping all six other criteria: Can they reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Do industrial-scale wind energy turbines meet these criteria?

1. Yes, but with disproportionately huge amounts of land and equipment.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. No.
6. No.
7. No.

Download “Wind Power: How We Got Here”

Wind turbines “can have negative impacts on bat populations as well as on their prey and habitats, such as:
• Damage, disturbance or destruction of foraging habitats and commuting corridors;
• Damage, disturbance or destruction of roosts;
• Increased collision risk for bats in flight;
• Disorientation of bats in flight through emission of ultrasound noise.”

Download “Guidelines for consideration of bats in wind farm projects”

Questions included:
Do you ride near wind turbines?
Are they near public rights of way?
Have you encountered any problems?
Location of respondent

Of the 116 responses, 19 people rode near turbines (16%)

16 people informed us the turbines were on, or very near a right of way, the remainder being on private land.

The main problems reported were:
Turbines casting shadows
Noise from turbines
Flying ice in winter
Movement of blades

All of the above upsetting the horse and often unseating the rider or causing them to fall

From the 19 respondents, 5 people have actually fallen off at least once, 3 of these required hospitalisation and 1 horse was unable to be ridden after the incident.

People who encountered no problems stated they were riding horses who were accustomed to the turbines or riding very steady older horses. They also acknowledged that they could understand how other people’s horses may be upset by the presence of a turbine and are aware of incidents occurring.

Lots of people also commented that they wouldn’t mind one turbine, however a whole farm of turbines may cause them to rethink their riding route.

In one particular instance, a report of over half the members of Haworth and Oxenhope riding club experiencing problems was reported, this being over 100 incidents.

Location of respondents:
1 incident in North East
5 incidents in Lancashire
1 incident in Cumbria
1 incident in West Yorkshire
1 incident in Cornwall
2 incidents in Wales

Lancashire: 1 unable to pass, 1 fall, 1 bolted, 2 distressed horses
Wales: 1 sudden stop and spin around, 1 bolted
West Yorkshire: 1 distressed horse but heard of many more riders having problems, over half the bridleway group
Cornwall: 1 distressed horse
Cumbria: 1 distressed horse
North East: 1 distressed horse due to noise

Respondents were also asked if the presence of turbines would deter them from taking their horse to a given place e.g an equestrian holiday. Of the 99 people who answered the question, 66 would not take their horse on holiday where there were turbines present (65%)

The main reasons were:
Their horse had never seen a turbine and they would be unsure of its reaction
Unnecessary risk
Scenery and views spoilt

Equestrian Business
This will have implications for many equestrian businesses including bed and breakfast establishments. In the areas where incidents were reported the British Horse Society has registered bed and breakfasts that cater for equestrians.

Bed and Breakfast Establishments –
County Durham and surrounding area: 7
Lancashire: 5
Cornwall: 5
West Yorkshire: 11
Cumbria: 6

One respondent commented that her clients have stopped coming due to the erection of turbines in the surrounding area.

Download “The British Horse Society Windfarm Consultation”

Interview (part 1) with Ralph and Kevin Mittelstadt, dairy farmers, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. See transcript below (again, thanks to Better Plan).

[ Click here to view or download the entire "Wisconsin Wind" video (1 hr 49 min) ]

Q: You both farm– a family farm. Dairy farm?

Kevin: Dairy and cash crop.

Q: And you also fly [airplanes]?

Both: Yes.

Q: What can you tell us about you experience with this development in this area from when it started until today?

Kevin: We gave it an open mind when they came, and we decided not to go with the developer when it came down to it.

Q: You hosted a met tower on your land?

Kevin: Yes

Ralph: For a little over two years.

Q: What was the experience like working with that company with the met tower, was it a good experience?

Ralph: There was no problem with the met tower and it didn’t interfere with the land too much because we put it on one of the fence lines. Only the diagonal cables that come off– we had to look out for when we worked around it.

Q: What were some of the issues you found with your decision to not host a turbine. Did they give you any problems when you decided that you didn’t want to participate in the project?

Ralph: The company?

Q: Yes.

Ralph: Yeah, they were very negative to us. They actually come out and threatened me. “Either you do this or we’re going to put them around you.” And he told us if we don’t sign the contract, “we’re going to put them all around you and shut you right down.”

Kevin:[Our first contact was when] We got a call from the company in Illinois in 2002 and one of the guys actually came out here and we didn’t know what was going on, this was the first we ever heard of it. Basically they said they knew of our airstrip because it’s on the map, and that if we didn’t go along with what they were going to do in the future, they would build around you.

Q: What was your primary reason for choosing not to participate with the tower? Was it because of your airstrip and how it would interfere with that?

Ralph: I think, if there was any reason, one was we’d lose too much farmland, it would create a problem with flying, because propellers create a vortex and your plane becomes unstable and it pulls you down, so now we can’t spray our crops and we’re damaging so much good farmland, so we figured it wouldn’t be feasible to even go that way because we’d be losing too much in agriculture.

Q: Now you have wind turbine around you. We look out the window here and you’ve got one here and another one over there– have they affected your flying? Have you flown with them up?

Kevin: You wouldn’t want to fly down wind of them. They place them far enough apart– [the turbines] themselves so they don’t create turbulence between the two so you probably wouldn’t want to fly in between there.

Q: So is your runway impacted by this type of development?

Kevin: Yeah. They actually hired a pilot that was one of the friends of one of the lawyers to testify to the PSC that he flew down by Paw Paw Illinois [where there are turbines] and it didn’t affect him when he flew. He came and testified, he was at all the hearings saying that it wasn’t a problem. Had these graphics. What it would look like to have one next to your runway. Claimed that the buildings are more of a problem for a runway than a wind turbine.

Q: Because of the air flow?

Kevin: Because of the close proximity of our runway to the hanger there. [He said] it would be more of an obstacle than a 400 foot wind turbine.

Q: You mentioned this in this area– there’s a lot of crop dusting?

Ralph: We did have a lot of cash cropping. Peas and sweet corn.

Q: Can you tell us how that’s changed and how this type of development is going to affect that?

Ralph: Well, the peas and corn are kind of going out if we can’t spray with the airplane. Because it doesn’t make sense to drive in fields where the crops are big already and run it down.

Kevin: The problem is– like this last summer we had problems with the sweet corn, a lot of it blew over sideways– and you can’t get down the rows. So we lose an option.

Q: Are the other farmers in the area that are close to the wind turbines are they concerned about not being able to spray their ground?

Ralph: A couple of them. One of them that hosted turbines right here to the south of us asked the company if they would shut the turbines down when the crop duster goes through.

Q: What’d they say?

Ralph: They said no.

Q: What’s your experience been, either with the local officials or the company. Do you feel like they came in here and they wanted to work with people or did they just come in here and disregard what people thought?

Ralph: They seem to come in and– they put up a front like they are really trying to do something for you. But in the long run, they’re going to stick you in the back it seems. And they want to turn neighbor against neighbor. So that you can fight amongst [yourselves] and then they can come out and sit back and be the winners.

Q: Let me ask you a couple of questions about the quality of life. You mentioned you talked to your neighbors. Can you comment at all about the noise or the sound or what it sounds like or what other people have thought about that?

Kevin: When the winds over 12 miles an hour it sort of sounds like a jet engine. It’s a deeper tone, you know, a deep roar.

Q: Does it keep you awake at night, does it wake you up? Does it affect people’s sleep patterns?

Ralph: You can hear it when you’re outside. But now it’s winter and we don’t have our windows open. So that’s going to make a difference. When you’re outside you can hear it constantly.

Q: What are the setbacks like around here from a home. This [turbine] here you mentioned is 1000-1500 feet away?

Kevin: I think that’s the minimum. [1000 feet]

Ralph: That’s the minimum.

Q: Do you feel that’s adequate? That they should be set father away?

Ralph: I think they should be set farther away from the home. At least 1500 feet. At least.

Q: And do you know, are there any benefits to the local community? The landowners here are getting paid, and the community is getting paid– is it creating any jobs? We’re asking people questions on jobs because at the state level, they’re saying these kinds of developments are going to create jobs. Can you comment on that at all? Are they going to create any jobs for the local economy.

Kevin: They said they were going to hire a couple of people to service them.

Q: Local people?

Kevin: I don’t know. It would have to be specialized I guess. You would have to have some kind of training.

Ralph: They do hire some local contractors who come in and do the gravel work.

Q: So construction jobs.

Kevin: In the construction phase there’s lots of jobs. There were at least two hundred people worked on it or better.

Ralph. But it’s short term. Once it’s constructed now, [it's over]. We would like to see it be more local. Because we have quarries right here. But they bypass them and they go to the big operators. The big construction outfits that they can get it cheaper with, you know?

Q: Can you tell us a little bit about the access roads [to the turbines], how they’re put in and what they look like and what they’ve done to the farm fields?

Kevin: They put 90 feet of culvert in, and put (breaker rock?) down and top over road gravel.

Q: And how much land area does that take up when they go in there? How many acres of land do these access drives take out of a typical farm field?

Ralph: I would say it’s pretty close to five acres per turbine.

Kevin: It depends on how far back in the field they go.

Ralph: And how many roads they go through the field with.

Q: Is that disrupting the farming activity for the local farmers here having their fields divided up?

Kevin: I would say yeah. I mean the general trend in farming is bigger and bigger, wider equipment, so you’re going have to be inefficient I guess when you’re farming smaller fields. Especially with GPS, we just adopted that last year, so you’re going have to go around stuff instead of in straight lines.

Q: As far as the contracts– you were offered to sign a contract. What was your thought about the context of the contract?

Ralph: Very one-sided. They’re in control of everything.

Q: So if you own a piece of property as a landowner and the developer comes in and you sign an agreement with them, do you have any control over where they’re going to put these access drives in or where they are going to place the turbines, or do you have any say-so?

Ralph: There it would depend on the company, I think. Because each company has different contracts. There are some companies that are a lot better at understanding, and work with the people. But the one we happen to have in this area I don’t think is very nice at all.

Kevin: Just a couple of farmers that we know they said they weren’t happy with where they put the stuff. They said there’s no leeway in where they can put it. So they either had to go along with it or that was the end of it.

Interview with Scott Smrynka, dairy farmer, Lincoln Township, Wisconsin. See transcript below (again, thanks to Better Plan).

[ Click here to view or download the entire "Wisconsin Wind" video (1 hr 49 min) ]

Scott Smrynka speaking about stray voltage trouble on his farm: [Video image: an ohm reader with flickering numbers] This is a five hundred ohms resistor here, this wire is hooked to my stall, this white wire is a remote ground rod way across way, way away from the buildings. So I can go shut the power off across the road and this will still read the same. So it’s coming out of the earth. And I’m four wired. When I shut my power off all four wires are disconnected. So my ground and neutral don’t even come to the farm either.

This is coming out of the earth getting on my stalls, and this is where the cows are living.

Q: What kind of impacts are you having?

Low milk production, health issues, reproduction problems, cows dying of cancer and stuff like that. And more of it. More than normal. This [points at ohm meter] before we started was 5000. When the windmills went on, that was 5000. And we’ve got it this low. By doing a lot of different things that I’m going to keep to myself.

The utility has been out on this farm numerous times. Every time they come in this yard. An hour before they come in this yard [points to ohm meter] this goes to zero. Before they even do anything. And then when they leave, maybe a day or the weekend, it goes back to whatever is coming out of the earth. So they can clean this up. It’s just they can’t keep it clean, for one thing. Can’t keep it low enough for one thing. You’re just battling with them all the time.

Another thing, our meter’s right there for– we check the water meter for how much water the cows drink. Cows this size, when we were milking before, we were getting 30-35 gallons of water in these cows. Now we struggle to get over 22 gallons a cow. That’s the milk production. You can’t get the water in them. You need the water to cleanse their body, their whole system –digest the food.

Every animal that dies on this farm gets autopsied. Calf, cow– tear it apart, we want to know what’s wrong. What’d she die from. What happened? And what we’ve seen– the organs– the heart was inflamed– the kidneys– the liver blackened and a lot of– the biggest thing that seems to come out is the colostrum salmonella. They die from it. It’s frustrating. What I’ll tell you to make it very simple is it microwaves you from the inside out. That’s what it’s doing to our cattle.

You say, what human issues does it have? I’m no scientist, but what I see in my cows gotta be affecting me too, and my family. I mean what you’re seeing with these cows– reproduction and production– they had the Univeristy vets out her from Madison, saying my cows only laid down 8.3 hours a day and a cows supposed lay down 12 to 14 to 16 hours a day– I’m only getting half that. It’s affecting– that’s why they ain’t reproducing. The reproduction isn’t there, the production isn’t there. So 8.3 hours. That’s all these cows lay down. They don’t want to lie down. That’s why I’m losing the milk production. And another thing we had a university vet come out here and stood right here by the return alley as the cows were being milked and said 33% of our cows are lame. We’ll if they ain’t laying down, they’re going to be lame, right? And then you ask these vets and the utility and that, ok, you had these studies done, and that’s what they’re saying– what are we going to do?

They’re saying my stall design needs to be changed. I got three layers of rubber mattresses under these cows feet. How can I get it any softer. Stall design. You can see there’s nothing in front of them. When they lunge they can get up and do whatever they want. And the other two groups of cows are in sand bedding, so if they’re in sand bedding that’s as soft as you’re going to get. So I told them I wouldn’t buy it.

Then the vets asked me, what do you think it is? I said, “Right here.” [pointing to the ohm meter] You get that down and I guarantee these cows will lay down. Because at times we get it low. Really low.

And there’s times when I got in trouble here, three four years ago, I clipped a lot of ground rods across the road. Stayed like that for 14 months. This meter went way down. My cows went up twenty pounds of milk, these issues weren’t here. Until the utility found it, put it back together.

Q: So you know where it’s coming from.

I know where it’s coming from. I have no doubt in my mind. And I had a 30,000 pound heard average before those windmills were up. Now I struggle to get 20,000.

So I mean, it’ all boils down to stray voltage– or I’m not going to call this stray voltage– ground currents or electrical pollution. There’s more to this story than they let the people know. There’s a lot we don’t know. It’s amazing. I just came across it while I was catching this stuff, and trying to figure out and solve my problem, using transformers, you name it. So I mean, what you guys gotta do is do a lot of research. If they’re there [the wind developers], pounding on the door, and got permits from landowners and all that, then you’re kind of screwed. Because their foot’s in the door already. You gotta do this before they get their foot in the door.