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.