Skip to main content

EverPower Rebuttal

A FACTUAL RESPONSE TO EVERPOWER’S FALSE CLAIMS

Julia F. Johnson February 15, 2012

This paper responds to published claims by Everpower that local opposition to wind

energy is not based on fact. When someone is trying to sell you something, the old

saying “Buyer Beware” should be remembered. In the case of wind energy, this caution

is important and appropriate.

Because the proposed Buckeye Wind project area is so densely populated, one of the

most important areas of concern is loss of property value. Jason Dagger claims there is

no impact on property value and he cites a property value study from the Lawrence

Berkley Lab as proof. In truth, even the author of the study, Ben Hoen, himself,

criticizes the way the wind industry uses the study to mislead landowners. In Hoen’s

own words:

“You know we are very cautious about what happens close to the

turbines. We really don’t know what’s going on there... It’s a dicey

situation and complicated, but I think homes that are very close, there is

just too much unknown right now; that seems reasonable. I think one of

the things that often happens is that (wind) developers put our report

forward and say look property values aren’t affected, and that’s not what

we would say… I think for homes that are close we have a lot more

ambiguity and real issues.” Ben Hoen, April 12, 2010

Think about that for a minute…the author of the very study touted by Everpower says

that for property close to turbines there is too much that is unknown. Hoen goes on to

wonder if there is a need for Property Value Guarantees. Over the past two years,

more of those “unknowns” referenced by Ben Hoen have become “knowns,” particularly

in the field of infrasound, believed to be a major cause of sleep disturbance and ill

health. An interview with Ben Hoen is available at:

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/ben-hoen-on-need-for-property-value-

guarantee/

In Lee County, Illinois, another area curiously cited by Everpower, the Informed

Farmer’s Coalition recounts numerous problems related to property and tax matters.

(info@informedfarmers.org )


A far better source of information is the thorough investigative report by the CBC News

of Canada (found at www.safesetbacks.com ) where rapid expansion of wind projects

has “provoked a backlash from rural residents living near industrial wind turbines who

say their property values are plummeting and they are unable to sell their homes.” The

CBC has documented scores of families who've discovered their property values are not

only going downward, but also some who are unable to sell and have even abandoned

their homes because of concerns nearby turbines are affecting their health. This CBC

report, along with other documentation has led the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to

call for the halt to further wind development in Ontario.


Dagger also references the Highland Wind Farm in Cambria County, Pennsylvania

where he asserts Everpower was welcomed. By whom? The project sits on a reclaimed

strip mine. Is eastern Champaign County really comparable to a former strip mine? In

the February 3, 2012 issue of the local POP City e-magazine, Everpower CEO, Jim

Spencer called for an increase in renewable standards as a pre-condition for further

expansion in Pennsylvania given that abundant, affordable natural gas present in the

Marcellus shale is making it a tough market for them. Elsewhere, in another industry

publication, Spencer speaks to the recent $12.7 million grant Everpower received from

the State of PA for the Twin Ridges project saying it was a “significant factor” in their

decision to build.


Yet, Everpower disputes that the wind industry cannot exist without subsidy. It appears

they needed one in Pennsylvania. A subsidy is a cash payment from government to the

private sector. At the federal level, Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code provides a

production tax credit (PTC) for the generation of electricity from renewable energy

sources including wind. The PTC is 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour and is earned for a

period of 10 years from when the project is placed into service. The PTC is set to expire

and will not be available to wind projects placed in service after December 31, 2012

unless it is extended.


The American Wind Energy Association is trying hard to secure an extension of the

PTC, claiming the industry may fail without it. It is worth noting that, since it was

adopted in 1992, the cost of the PTC for wind energy has ballooned from $5 million a

year in 1998 to over $1 billion annually today. Most would agree that this level of

subsidy is not sustainable for the future. Even if the PTC were to sunset at year-end,

taxpayers are still obligated to cover nearly $10 billion in tax credits for wind projects

built in the last decade. This is in addition to the nearly $20 billion debt for wind projects

eligible under the federal Section 1603 grant program.


It is common for the wind industry to claim that fossil fuels also receive subsidy. The

Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State rails against this

misrepresentation by the wind industry. Tax advantaged benefits or incentives available

to the petroleum industry to produce oil and gas, such as the Investment Tax Credit, are

the same benefits extended to all industry. On the other hand, the PTC is an earmark

for wind.


In another sleight of hand, Everpower cites a Texas study reflecting that the wind

industry only receives 3.4% of available subsidies. A 2007 report by the U.S. Energy

Information Administration pegged the total taxpayer bill at $16.6 billion in direct

subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and similar subsidies. On a per-unit of energy

basis, this cost is $23.37 / megawatt hour for wind. This compares to $24.34 for solar;

$29.81 for clean coal; $.44 for coal and $1.59 for nuclear. Clearly, wind energy is

neither affordable nor competitive. Worse yet, the updated 2010 EIA report shows

renewable energy subsidies increased by 186 percent from $5.1 billion to $14.7 billion

between 2007 and 2010!


Not only does the wind industry receive generous federal support (for now) but it is also

supported by state mandates for its use. In Ohio, legislation to repeal the mandate has

been introduced in the Ohio Senate. One basis for the repeal is that the mandate is

projected to add significant cost to consumers, businesses and industry even if federal

subsidies are continued. At the local level, Everpower is subject to the Public Utility

Personal Property Tax. They were actively involved in advocating legislation that would

exempt them from this tax in return for making Payments-In-Lieu-Of-Tax. Iowa State

calls this a “publicity gimmick” where it appears that the developer is being benevolent

but is, in fact, significantly increasing the rate of return on investment to investors like

Goldman Sachs or G.E. at the expense of the taxpayer.


Turning to the issue of openness and transparency, Everpower has failed miserably. On

April 24, 2009 Everpower submitted its first application to the Ohio Power Siting Board

for review. The State of Ohio’s rules for processing wind development applications did

not take effect until May 9, 2009. On this basis, Everpower claimed the rules for siting

did not apply to them. The application submitted at the time provided no information on

the total land area requirements nor did it include township-by township population and

housing data for Champaign County. Everpower asserted (erroneously) that such

information did not exist. All information concerning the Buckeye Wind application is

publically available at the Ohio Power Siting Board.

http://www.opsb.ohio.gov/opsb/index.cfm/cases/08-0666-el-bgn-buckeye-wind-project-

buckeye-wind-llc/


It would be fair to say that the 2009 application submission for Phase I was the first real

knowledge the community had of Buckeye Wind. Did Everpower host an information

meeting for the public? Yes. But this was in 2009. Some of the earliest lease option

agreements on Perry, Ault and Yocom Roads had been signed three years earlier in

2006. The options were not fully recorded; instead, Memoranda of Lease Option

Agreement were filed which provided very little access to the public seeking information.

In fact, Everpower did not file these Memoranda of Lease until 2007. In 2009, the New

York Attorney General established a Code of Conduct governing wind leases to prevent

conflicts of interest with elected officials and to provide some transparency to the public.

Everpower must comply with the New York requirements but they do not seem to

uphold the spirit of the Code in Ohio.


Similar to the 2009 Public Information meeting, Everpower’s 2012 Public Information

meeting at Triad High School failed to adequately inform the public because maps

utilized showed insufficient detail so as to obscure leased property locations. Moreover,

they failed to reflect the true scope of the project by excluding the turbines in Phase I.

Information about the distribution of turbines by school district has been unavailable

even after contacting the office in Bellefontaine to request it. The map finally produced

and published in the Urbana Daily Citizen was made by a citizen – not Everpower.

Everpower has made certain outreach efforts but some have been manipulative. For

instance, due to the characteristics of sound propagation, the sound from wind turbines

is quietest at the base. To take people to a project at high noon when shadows do not

fall and stand at the base of the turbine is absurd to anyone with an understanding of

acoustics. Sadly, most people are not equipped with this kind of knowledge.

Everpower claims to have encouraged leaseholders to seek out an attorney of their

choosing to review the leases. Maybe. Because the leases are not public record, it is

not possible to tell if a leaseholder was treated fairly or given truly independent counsel.

The best information for potential leaseholders can be obtained from the Center for

Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University. (www.calt.iastate.edu ) A model

lease agreement is available there and all leaseholders should compare theirs to the

model.


When listening to Everpower and its PR folks remember - at the end of the day, this isn’t

about the environment and it isn’t about independence from foreign oil. Everpower is

selling our community and it’s really about money…lots of it. Buyer Beware.

Popular posts from this blog

Living With Turbines

Click here to view a news story on turbine development in a community similar to ours. Click here for another great link showing the visual impact of 400-foot turbines with 1,100-foot setbacks when placed near homes(Champaign County's proposed turbines are 492-feet to give you some idea of the visual impact of the turbines that will possibly be coming here).

Some Fascinating Reading...

There is some amazing information contained in the post-hearing brief filed by County attorneys Jane Napier and Nick Selvaggio. If you are interested in the facts about how Everpower's application (the "Applicant" in the following excerpt) was vetted by the State of Ohio, read below. Follow the link for the entire brief that was filed. "Apart from client concerns, the undersigned lack confidence in the recommendation process utilized by Staff to evaluate the Application. Specifically, the undersigned question whether the Staffs evaluation of the Application content was sufficiently thorough in order for the Staff to conclude that the criteria for certification as set forth in Ohio Revised Code Section 4906.10(A) has been met. The rationale for such position is set forth below. During the adjudicatory hearing, the Applicant used a corporate executive to "sponsor" the Application. Through the sponsor's testimony, the Applicant sought to establish the fo