Here’s the report, which is part of the US Department of Energy (DOE):  http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tablees1a.html

The numbers below come from the March 2010 column in the first table, “Total Electric Power Industry Summary Statistics,” right on the top of the first page.

Of that total (still measured in units of 1000 megawatthours), here is how many thousand megawatthours came from each of the following sources during March 2010:

Coal:                                            145,198    (about 46.5%)

Nuclear:                                         64,639    (about 20.7%)

Natural Gas:                                    62,882    (about 20.1%)

Hydroelectric:                                  20,574    (about 6.6%)

Wind:                                                8,196     (about 2.6%)

Wood & wood derived fuels:             3,306     (about 1.1%)

Petroleum Liquids                              1,249     (about 0.4%)

Petroleum Coke                                 1,210     (about 0.4%)

Solar                                                       64     (about 0.0%)

(There are a few other minor sources, including biomass, geothermal, etc., each with tiny amounts)

You can see that in March 2010, if you combine both petroleum liquids and petroleum coke (anything used in the USA that is derived from oil), only about eight-tenths of one percent came from those sources…by far the lions share of our electricity comes from coal, with natural gas and nuclear fighting for second/third place, and hydroelectric “in fourth place.”   Wind energy only accounted for 2.6% of our electricity in March 2010.

This means that the arguments that we need wind energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil are…to put it in a word…ridiculous.  They are not based on anything factual at all.  It represents a smart ploy on the part of the wind industry’s public relations firms, however, to use the general public’s ignorance of where our electricity actually comes from, along with the public’s distaste of relying on oil from foreign countries and fear of terrorist regimes in order to gain public support for wind development by saying we need to use turbines to replace foreign oil.

I noticed that most of the speakers at the Adams County Public Hearing who spoke in favor of wind development in Adams County mentioned our need to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.  I don’t disagree that it would be good to do that, but the way to do that is ride bicycles instead of drive cars, or buy more electric cars, or find other ways to cut down on burning gasoline in automobiles.

It is amazing, and a little frightening, that so many otherwise intelligent Americans have “bought” this idea about wind energy without giving it any critical thought.  But let us be smarter than that.  One commercial aired on CNN showing military vehicles being blown up by roadside bombs, ending with an appeal to “bring our boys home” and then showing wind turbines as the “answer.”  We can all look forward to the day when, in peace, our troops can return home.  However, just a tiny bit of reasonable thinking reveals that cars use gasoline, which is the real “culprit” behind our dependence on foreign oil–and covering the whole nation with wind turbines will not change the amount of foreign oil we burn in our automobiles.

The statistics above prove that electricity mainly comes from coal, nuclear, and natural gas–all of which are produced domestically and create scores of jobs in the United States–far more than mostly foreign-owned wind companies produce as they win big in our massive give-away of American tax dollars to subsidize wind development.  The “war of words” between wind and oil is a 2.6% producer of electricity (wind) telling the nation that we need wind to replace a 0.8% producer of electricity (oil).

But don’t be too hasty about eliminating that 0.8% producer.  Not all electric generation plants perform the same function on our nation’s grid.  Petroleum products are normally burned in what are called “Peaker Plants.”  Those generate electricity on demand during times of peak electric demand; they have to be ready to fire up quickly to balance the demand on the grid with an equivalent supply.  Wind energy, by contrast, cannot ever serve this function on the grid, because it only offers electricity when the wind blows–not “on demand.”  So, to replace oil burning peaker plants, we need some other form of electricity generation that is “on demand,” and wind is not a candidate for that.

Even if we cover the entire nation with wind turbines, we cannot dismantle even one oil-burning “peaker plant,” unless we’re willing to have all the lights go out when everyone turns on their air conditioners on a hot, still day.  Because wind energy generation is completely dependant on something out of our control–the wind speed–we must have enough electric generating capacity available from other sources–coal, nuclear, or other non-wind sources–to meet 100% of our needs at all times.  That means that wind’s current function on the electric grid is simply to create excess electricity and ”replace” power purchased (not produced) from the other sources on the grid.  The effect of this is to take purchases (money) away from nuclear or coal or other sources, without enabling them to cut down on production–so what do you think that does to the price of electricity from those sources? This excess production of electricity by wind turbines happens on a moment-by-moment basis (whenever the wind blows), eliminating the possibility to plan ahead for even a brief period of time when we could “switch on wind” and “switch off coal.”  Because we cannot depend on wind, we cannot tell an eight hour shift over at the coal-burning plant to stay home, for example–they have to keep their coal burning and be ready to “carry” wind turbines by “switching on” at any moment.  That means that even when we “switch on wind,” we cannot stop burning coal.

It would be a good thing for wind energy to actually help our nation cut back on burning coal someday (although it would eliminate domestic jobs in the coal industry), but first we would need the ability to store the intermittent power that wind turbines produce, and make it something we can control and plan ahead to use.  Unfortunately, we do not have that ability at this time; batteries that would store the amounts of power needed are too expensive and impractical.  Other ideas have been proposed, such as using turbines to pump water from a river below a hydroelectric dam back up into the reservoir, so that we could get “double” use of the same water in hydroelectric generation.  In that scenario, extra water could be released at times of peak electric need, and create more electricity in a predictable way.  Ideas such as this are prohibitively expensive at this time (have you priced hydroelectric dams lately?), and could not make enough of a impact in the total picture, but still deserve further study as a possible useful role for wind turbines.  If this is a future possibility, more turbines should be built near hydroelectric dams, and not 1000 feet from people’s homes in rural America.

I hope Americans stop to think just a little bit before we wreck every scenic vista in the nation, destabilize our electric grid, raise the cost of our own electricity, and give mostly foreign companies huge American tax subsidies over a terribly expensive and half-baked idea, all because we believed the wind companies commercials that told us we could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil while driving our cars around under 400 foot wind turbines.

A Concerned Citizen

Download File(s):
McCann Appraisal, LLC written testimony re Setbacks & property values June 8 2010.pdf (5.07 MB)

I work for wind power constructors all across America as a project controls consultant and have been in the power industry for the past 30 years. Let me offer some observations before this paper and others rush to support jamming wind towers on the mountains in Maine.

No project I have worked on ever proposed placing a tower within two miles of a residence. Communities I have worked in are always 100 percent in favor of the projects. No one ever has an issue with a landowner giving an easement for cash, nor does anyone take issue with the constructor.

So, why can’t we find places in Maine two miles or more from residences on low-lying areas that don’t go against the wishes of local citizens and throw up 2,000 wind towers so the governor can feel green?

Answer: greed. It’s all about money.

Change the state’s ordinance to embrace those simple rules and see how much money the developers throw at projects in Maine.

I am also aware of the cost of wind power. Adding 20 percent wind to the Maine power mix is voting to increase a monthly light bill by 25 to 40 percent when the transmission and distribution costs are added in.

Evidently, the people involved in the sweetheart deals made in Augusta with developers aren’t too worried about that.

Wind is the most expensive power in America. No one disputes that.

Tom Powell, Dixfield

By Tom Powell
May 10, 2010 12:00 am

Web Ref: http://www.sunjournal.com/node/841157

Dr Chris Hanning, a retired NHS sleep disorder specialist, is one of a number of experts due to speak at a conference in Darlington on Saturday.

Organised by the Bolam Area Action Group, the Wind Action Conference, at Polam Hall, will bring together 140 opponents of wind farms from Devon up to the Highlands of Scotland.

Dr Hanning, who founded one of the largest NHS hospital services of its kind in the UK, in Leicester, has reviewed more than 40 international reports on the impact of wind farm noise.

He is convinced that building wind turbines within two kilometres of homes will lead to health problems, because of the low frequency noise produced by turbine blades.

“If a wind turbine is within two kilometres there is a high risk of sleep disturbance and a high risk of ill health,” Dr Hanning told The Northern Echo.

“If they are built offshore they may have a point but they should not be placed too close to people’s homes.

“If the industry and the Government agreed to a two kilometre setback, all of this fuss would die down,” he added.

The retired consultant said the repetitive, low-level “thump” produced by wind turbines was “several times more annoying than road traffic or air noise”.

Under certain wind conditons the turbine noise could be “very intrusive”, he added.

John Wilson, a member of the action group which is opposing the construction of wind turbines near the village of Bolam, near Darlington, said: “We are expecting 140 people from all over the country, from the South-West to Scotland and Wales. It is going to be a truly national conference.”

People who say their lives are blighted by wind turbines are due to speak at the event.

Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users’ Group, will talk about the economics of wind power.

The British Wind Energy Association insists that every reputable scientific study has shown that wind turbines are safe.

For more information visit windconf.co.uk

March 4, 2010
England, U.K.

By Barry Nelson, The Northern Echo, www.thenorthernecho.co.uk 4 March 2010

Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”

The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, “Wasting Money on Climate Change,” that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.

Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.

The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government’s promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.

A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?

In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.

Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).

This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.

Financial Post
Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government’s legislative committee On Bill 150.

Posted: April 08, 2009, 7:29 PM by NP Editor
wind power, Michael J. Trebilcock

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com

Now substitute wind for oil and gas and consider the noise complaints being lodged against wind projects around the world.

The Obama administration has made the increased use of wind power to generate electricity a top priority. In 2009 alone, U.S. wind generation capacity increased by 39%. But more wind power means more giant turbines closer to more people. And if current trends continue, that spells trouble.

In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter’s property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. “We tried everything—earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night.” Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.

Mr. Porter’s story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories—most of them published in rural newspapers—have documented the problem.

I’ve spoken to nine other people in New York, Wisconsin, Ontario, New Zealand, Nova Scotia and England who live, or lived, near wind turbines. All complained of the noise, with sleep deprivation being the most common complaint. For example, Janet Warren, who raises sheep near Makara, New Zealand, told me via email that the turbines near her home emit “continuous noise and vibration,” which disturb her sleep and are causing “loss of concentration, irritability, and short-term memory effects.”

Complaints about sleep disruption—as well as the deleterious health effects caused by the pulsing, low-frequency noise emitted by the giant turbines—are a central element of an emerging citizen backlash against the booming global wind industry.

Lawsuits that focus on noise pollution are now pending in Maine, Pennsylvania and New Zealand. In New Zealand, more than 750 complaints have been lodged against a large wind project near Makara since it began operating last April. The European Platform Against Windfarms lists 388 groups in 20 European countries. Canada has more than two dozen antiwind groups. In the U.S. there are about 100 such groups, and state legislators in Vermont recently introduced a bill that will require wind turbines be located no closer than 1.25 miles from any residence.

In theory, big wind projects should only be built in desolate areas. But the reality is that many turbines are being installed close to homes. Wind developers put a turbine within 550 meters of Mr. Porter’s house. Hal Graham, a retired office manager in Cohocton, N.Y., complains about the noise pollution caused by a turbine 300 meters from his home. Tony Moyer, a plumbing superintendent in Eden, Wis., grumbles about the noise generated by three turbines built within 425 meters of his house.

Doctors and acoustics experts from the U.S. to Australia report a raft of symptoms that they blame on wind turbine noise, including sleep disturbance, headaches and vertigo. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., has studied 36 people affected by wind turbine noise since 2004 at her own expense. The people she interviewed were widely dispersed; they lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland and Italy. She found that the collection of symptoms she calls “wind turbine syndrome” disappeared as soon as people moved out of their noise-affected homes and into new locations at least five miles from any turbines.

Across the border, Ontario-based orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert McMurtry has been researching wind turbine noise for the past 18 months. Dr. McMurtry, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, counts more than 100 people in Ontario he believes are experiencing adverse effects from turbine noise. “It has compromised their health,” he says.

The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled “Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel.” It declared: “There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.” It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are “too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.”

Yet the report also noted that in “the area of wind turbine health effects, no case-control or cohort studies have been conducted as of this date.” True enough—but it means there are no studies to prove or disprove the case. It also says that “a small number of sensitive people” may be “stressed” by wind turbine noise and suffer sleep deprivation. But who gets to define “sensitive” and “small number”? And if turbine noise and sleep disturbance aren’t problems, then why are people in so many different locations complaining in almost identical ways? Such questions are only going to be pressed with more urgency in the future.

By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, an eightfold increase over current levels. Installing tens of thousands of new turbines inevitably means they’ll be located closer to populated areas.

The health effects of low-frequency noise on humans are not well understood. The noise in question often occurs at, or below, decibel levels that are commonly considered a public nuisance. And detecting low-frequency noise requires sophisticated acoustic gear. For all of these reasons, this issue should be investigated. If policy makers are serious about considering all of the impacts of “green” energy, then an impartial, international study of the effects of wind turbine noise should be undertaken without delay.

Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His fourth book, “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future,” will be published in April by PublicAffairs.

Source: http://www.djreprints.com
MARCH 1, 2010, 6:44 P.M. ET

FPL Energy Illinois Wind, in the lawsuit it filed Friday, says the Lee Village Board “arbitrarily” denied their request for permits to build six wind turbines within the one-and-a-half miles around the village that municipalities have control over under state law. The company wants a judge to order Lee to grant the permits.

But attorney Keith Foster with Foster and Buick Law Group, which represents the village, says the Board’s denial was based on input it received from the wind farm company and after hearing potential reasons for denying the request during two public hearings. He says the Board’s reasons met the requirement for denying the permits.

“The reason would have to have a reasonable basis so any reason at all that is considered rational by an ordinary person would be a basis for denial,” says Foster.

The Village Board’s reasons for the denials included feeling the 450-foot tall turbines would be too close to homes.

The Village also wants a judge to examine how the company’s lawsuit was filed, with the village’s lawyers saying an unidentified, “badge-waving” agent filed the suit and an unidentified person served summons to village board members while demanding they appear in court this week. The law firm says it has serious questions about the tactics of the wind farm company and its attorneys.

“And we are going to monitor that closely and we are going to raise objections with any tactics that are used, any procedures that are employed, that are outside of the rules that we all have to follow that are given to us by the Supreme Court,” says Foster.

An official for the wind farm project calls the claims misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

http://www.1360wlbk.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=559%3Alee-wants-suit-by-wind-farm-company-dismissed&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=65

“We believe the Village of Lee acted well within its authority in rejecting the sitting request,” attorney John Countryman said in a written statement Wednesday. “I have serious questions about the tactics of this Florida outfit and their Chicago attorneys.”

The document filed Wednesday asks a judge to investigate who was involved in filing the lawsuit and serving the summons. The document also asks a judge to throw the lawsuit out because it was filed improperly.

FPL Energy Illinois Wind LLC filed the lawsuit Friday in DeKalb County Court, claiming the Lee Village Board improperly denied the company’s application for permits to build six wind turbines. The turbines would not be within village limits, but they fall within the village’s jurisdiction, according to state law.

Anthony Pedroni, project manager of the DeKalb-Lee wind farm project, said any problems raised by lawyers for Lee are “misinterpretations or misunderstandings.” He said he was certain the law firm hired by FPL followed the letter of the law in having summons served to Lee Village Board members.

“It’s a well-respected firm, and they know how to properly go about this process,” Pedroni said.

FPL’s lawsuit demands a judge compel approval of the permits – allowing construction to move forward – and to award at least $200,000 in damages for time and resources lost while the project sits idle.

The six turbines involved in this lawsuit are part of a 151-turbine wind farm that straddles the DeKalb-Lee county line. Turbines in the non-municipal portions of the project – which will be home to most of the turbines – are under construction.

Another legal action is pending; a citizens group filed a lawsuit in July, claiming the DeKalb County Board improperly granted construction permits and is seeking a halt to the project.

By Kristen Schmidt

Daily Chronicle

23 September 2009

These effects arise not only from audible noise frequencies but also from persistent inaudible low frequency noise waves of a cyclical nature which are felt, but not heard. There are a growing number of scientific observations and studies suggesting that people living up to 2 miles away from these industrial wind farms may be affected.

Many European nations with more than two decades of experience with industrial wind factories have now implemented regulations stipulating setbacks of 1-1.5 miles.

Health concerns and the need for careful siting of wind turbines

Download File(s):
NMMC_Medical_Staff_Statement.pdf (84.84 kB)

Wind farm proposal goes back to public hearing

MALTA – The public will have a chance to be heard once again on an energy company’s proposal for a wind farm after the county’s planning and zoning committee sent the application back to a public hearing.

The DeKalb Planning and Zoning Committee voted 7-0 Wednesday on a motion to have a new public hearing based on an opinion rendered by DeKalb County State’s Attorney Ron Matekaitis. The state’s attorney’s office advised that new information on the application – the company has made a series of concessions since its original proposal – should render a new opportunity for public testimony to be heard by the hearing officer, Planning and Zoning Committee Vice Chairwoman Pat Vary said.

NextEra Energy Resources, a subsidiary of FPL Group, has proposed building and operating a 151-turbine wind-energy plant; 133 turbines would be built in Afton, Clinton, Milan and Shabbona townships and 18 turbines would be in parts of Lee County.

The date of the public hearing is tentatively scheduled for 9 a.m. on May 11, Vary said. She said that they would have liked to hold it earlier, but Hearing Officer Dave Dockus, who last week recommended the application for a special use permit be denied, will be out of town.

A location is still to be determined, Vary said, and if the public hearing is held on May 11, it would end by 5 p.m. and continued to the next day if need be.

Margaret Foshe, a Lee resident, said she would like to see more meetings in the southern part of the county.

“We have more of a vested interest,” she said, adding that while it may not change the county board’s final decision, it would bring a higher turnout of people living in the area of the proposed wind farm.

The public hearing is the third to be scheduled on the wind farm proposal. A Feb. 19 public hearing was canceled because of inadequate space when about 400 people showed up, spilling into the hallways outside of the multipurpose room of county health facility. Rescheduled to March 21, more than 700 people attended the beginning of a 19-hour hearing held in a high school gymnasium that lasted until nearly 4 a.m.

More than 100 people gathered for Wednesday’s Planning and Zoning Committee meeting, which lasted less than five minutes. Public comment was not to be heard.

After the meeting, audience members, company representatives and county board members shared sentiment that the proposal deserves more careful attention – no matter what side of the issue one stands.

“I didn’t know what to expect at this meeting,” said Roger Craigmile of Milan Township, who is against the proposal.

Vary said that the state’s attorney’s recommendation came as a surprise, as she and other county board members learned of it just hours before Wednesday’s meeting.

“FPL representatives responded to the hearing officer’s recommendation by offering to meet all of his objections,” said Michael Haines, D-Kingston. “It essentially changes the application, and the public deserves a chance to respond to the new application.”

“It sounds like the right thing to do,” John Emerson, R-Genoa, added. “It sounds like enough of a change where public opinion can be heard.”

NextEra has proposed a series of conditions to the application. The biggest change is the addition of a property value guarantee program, in which the company would compensate landowners whose properties had devalued, NextEra spokeswoman Mary Wells said.

“That had been an issue that many people expressed concerns about,” Wells said. “We listened and heard them and the county said that is something they would like to see.”

The company has also agreed to place a financial assurance, like a letter of credit, at the beginning of the project as part of the decommissioning process, rather than in 15 years as originally proposed.

In his report, Dockus listed eight reasons to deny NextEra’s proposal. Among those, the proposal lacked both a property value guarantee plan and a sufficient decommissioning process, he said.

Project manager Anthony Pedroni said even if the DeKalb County Board ultimately votes against the project, that wouldn’t necessarily kill plans for the 12 to 18 turbines permitted for northeastern Lee County.

“Obviously, it’d be a dramatic shift from the proposal we have right now, with the whole project together,” Pedroni said.

If in fact DeKalb County does opt out of the project, NextEra would conduct another wind study to see if building only a portion of its original plan would be financially feasible.

Pedroni said he is confident, though, that that won’t happen.

“We’re going to work hard to get to a successful conclusion of this project, and when we get there, we’ll have a wind farm everyone can be proud of,” he said.

Shaw Newspapers reporter Chase Castle contributed to this report.

Daily Chronicle

1 April 2009

In a March 25 report, DeKalb County Hearing Office Dave Dockus recommended the special use permit that was applied for in January by NextEra Energy Resources be denied based on eight findings.

Those reasons include “significant disagreement” between expert sources on the effect wind turbines have on property values and the effect noise of the turbines has on public health. Dockus also cited a lack of evidence on the impact heavy trucks would have on local roads.

But the officer’s recommendation isn’t the final say in the matter. The county board’s Planning and Zoning Committee is scheduled to meet April 1 to discuss the issue, and will make its own recommendation to the DeKalb County Board.

“The county board has a full range of options in front of it,” said Paul Miller, the county’s planning director. These include following the hearing officer’s recommendation and denying the application, approving the application, approving it with conditions, or tabling it and sending it back to the hearing officer.

“The point is that the hearing officer’s recommendation is just that – it’s a recommendation,” Miller said.

In his report, Dockus stated the company provided an inadequate property value guarantee plan, no clear plan on how it would pay property taxes after the current formula expires after 2011, an inadequate decommissioning process and no plan to correct drainage problems that may result during the proposed project.

Lastly, crop dusting and other farm activity would be affected by the proposed wind farm, Dockus stated in the report.

“I think I’m disappointed,” said DeKalb County Board Chairwoman Ruth Anne Tobias, noting that Dockus was the hearing officer who approved a wind farm proposal in 2002.

A 19-hour public hearing on the new proposal was held Saturday at Sycamore High School, after an earlier hearing scheduled in February was canceled because there wasn’t enough space for the several hundred who showed. Officials estimate more than 700 attended Saturday’s public hearing, which lasted until nearly 4 a.m.

Tobias said she was unsure what course of action would be taken.

“We have done that before – we have gone over the hearing officer’s recommendation. I don’t know what will happen this time,” Tobias said.

Dockus, contacted by Miller’s office, denied a request for comment.

To download a copy of the findings, click here.

By Elena Grimm

Daily Chronicle

26 March 2009

Read the full report.

Video: 3/21/2009 09:47 AM

Video: 3/21/2009 09:56 AM

Video: 3/21/2009 11:08 AM

Video: 3/21/2009 01:46 PM

Video: 3/21/2009 02:18 PM

Video: 3/21/2009 04:03 PM

Video: 3/21/2009 04:15 PM

Video: 3/21/2009 05:25 PM

Video: 3/21/2009 08:16 PM

Video: 3/21/2009 10:19 PM

Video: 3/22/2009 12:25 AM

Video: 3/22/2009 02:21 AM

Video: 3/22/2009 02:59 AM