Bosque County Citizens Against Wind Turbines

Presentation to the Bosque County Commissioner's Court

January 25, 2021 The purpose of this presentation is to inform the Bosque County Commissioners Court of opposition to any act by the Bosque County Commissioner's Court that would increase the likelihood of the construction of wind turbines in the County. Our initial presentation is directed at two goals supported by the information included with this memorandum:

1. Best Result- The Bosque County Commissioner's Court would pass a resolution stating it's position against wind turbines and specifically that no tax abatements will be granted for such purpose.

2. Next Best Result- Should any application be made for tax abatements or other actions that would further the construction of wind turbines in Bosque County, the Commissioner's Court would agree to move slowly and deliberately to allow citizens to be heard and information beyond this presentation to be made on the key issues.

This opposition is based on at least the following issues supported by the studies and articles attached and on the flash drives provided:

3. Many organized groups of landowners, business men and women, residents and government officials have already organized and established websites over flowing with credible data on the negative impact of wind turbine energy. These groups include at least the following:

a. TLOW.org (Brown County)

b. Texas Land Owners Coalition (TXLC.org)(Central Texas)

c. Save our Scenic Hill County Environment (Soshillcountry.org)

d. WindAction.org ( National watch dog group)

e. Plus groups without websites including:

i. Cross Timbers Landowners Conservancy

ii. Lower Laguna Madre Foundation

iii. North Texas Wind Resistance Alliance

iv. Protect North Palo Duro Canyon

v. Protect Our West Texas Landscape

f. An overview of the key issues from the TLOW.org website is attached to this presentation. 4. Negative impact of wind turbines on the value of land on which they are constructed as well as neighboring land severely affective the County tax base.

a. See Derry Gardner (Gardner Appraisal Group, Inc./ San Antonio, Texas ) report and summary supporting a decrease in value of land between 29% and 45% for an average of 37%. (47 page report included in flash drive provided)

b. See Kurt C Kielisch ( President/ Sr. Appraiser - Appraisal Group One) report and summary supporting a decrease in value of land between 12% and 40%. ( 17 page report included in flash drive provided)

c. See Kurt C Kielish ( President/ Sr. Appraiser - Appraisal Group One) Wind Turbine Impact Study (Summary attached; full 73 page report in flash drive provided)

d. See Lansink Appraisals and Consulting (Ontario, Canada) case study report supporting a decrease of between 35% and 37% in two case studies. ( 71 page report included in flash drive provided)

5. Growing evidence and concern over adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines.

a. See Adverse Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines article by Dr. Roy Jeffery (Ontario, Canada) concluding that industrial wind turbines can harm human health if situated too close to residents. (See article attached)

b. Madison County Iowa Board of Public Health on record that there are legitimate negative health effects caused by wind turbines. (See Article attached)

6. Extensive Study and Presentation to the Hamilton County, Texas Commissioner's Court Noting the Following Impact:

a. Decreased property values

b. Property taken through eminent domain for transmission lines

c. Loss of scenic beauty and recreational assets

d. Local businesses will be negatively impacted by wind turbines

e. Noise, nuisance and turbine effects on health and pitting neighbor against neighbor

f. Big energy law suits against rural counties g. Turbines and transmission lines effect on endangered species

h. Impact on Fort Hood flights and training

i. Wind turbine fires and accidents

j. Good for the wind company but not good for county residents

k. Serious concerns over decommissioning wind turbines; blades last 10 years. (See article attached)

7. Risk of Damage, Failure, Injury and Fire

a. See pictures of all of these issues.(Pictures attached)

8. Resolutions Against the Construction of Wind Turbines (attached)

a. Gilespie County Resolution

b. Gilespie County EDC Resolution

c. Fredricksburg Visitors and Convention Bureau Resolution

d. Farm Bureau Resolution Property Values Will Decrease

Decreasing Property Values of 25% to 40% Where Wind Farms Exist Are Real. The installation of industrial wind power facilities will severely reduce local property values. Historically, 80% of land real estate transactions Brown and Coleman counties are those involving recreational buyers. In other words, people buy land in Brown and Coleman counties to enjoy the beauty, peace, and tranquility of the land and lifestyle that it represents. The result of a wind project in our area will be a significant reduction in marketability of our land, homes and our county if we allow it to proceed.

While solar has a much smaller footprint, the impact to those adjoining or in sight line could still encounter a substantial impact on marketability and value in a market such as Brown County where recreational buyers make up the vast majority of transactions. The common sense approach concerning values, and the most widely used and accepted approach to valuing rural property, is defined as an estimate of value of recent sales of similar property in the surrounding or competing areas - as compared to the subject property. The facts are these: property values in our Brown County Texas areas have increased dramatically over the last several years with buyers from urban areas acquiring land for recreation and retirement purposes. These buyers spend money in our county and our cities. They eat at our restaurants, shop at our stores, contract with our tradesman, and pay taxes. In areas of our state and nation where wind turbine companies have developed wind industrial zones, property values have decreased materially. Many cannot sell their land once turbines are introduced.

So, what will happen when industrial wind zones are developed in our counties, where land is selling at $3,000 or more per acre? It will significantly slow down our real estate market and slow our economic growth as we have come to know it. Just as scenic views and water features tend to increase property values, we know based on publicly available evidence that massive industrial turbines and power transmission lines will dramatically decrease property values. Based on independent studies, the values may decrease 25% to 40% or more in these areas. In fact, buyers are already wary of the prospect of wind zones in our county. Several brokers who sell property in our area, including Comanche and Mills Counties, state that 8 of 10 buyers will not even look at a property if there are wind turbines in view. Brokers have reported, that within the last six months they have had clients decide not to buy land because of the potential of wind turbines being built in proximity to the property. Those landowners who wish to sell property at this time are already seeing the effects of this proposed project.

Value and marketability impacts are real and they are substantial. Furthermore the wind and solar companies gain the large profits of increased electricity costs, federal subsidies, and state tax credits. The landowner gains none of these tax incentives or real profits in comparison to such wind companies. Hard facts are - if wind turbines are in your view, you lose.

Sources: Gardner report link http://www.texas-wildlife.org/program-areas/impact-of­ wind-turbines-on-market-value-of-texas-rural-land Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/09/23/do-wind­ turbines-lower-property-values/?fbclid= ... Wind Action Group: http://www.windaction.org/posts/26696-testimony-of­ michael-mccann-on-property-value-impacts-in-adams ... Renewable Energy Requires Our Tax Dollars to Survive

"For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." Warren Buffett

Renewable energy exists because our representatives in both the federal government and our local governments give multi-national companies our tax dollars. There are three significant tax revenue sources for these companies.

The federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) provides a significant tax revenue for wind installations. It is estimated that this tax credit will provide $488 of our tax dollars to the wind energy industry by the time it phases out. The PTC is a subsidy that benefits a few energy corporations. Only 15 parent companies account for more than three-fourths of all PTC eligibility. The PTC distorts electricity markets. It encourages wind energy producers to accept negative prices. The negative prices increase costs for other energy producers and electricity suppliers. The PTC operates within a web of wind energy incentives that increase costs to taxpayers, further distort electricity markets, and benefit large corporations. The PTC is slated to phase out completely by the end of 2019.

The federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) provides significant tax credits offsetting the cost of building solar installations. This credit is the single largest funding source for,solar in Texas. Without the ITC, Texas would not have one solar installation. The ITC encourages large corporations, many of them foreign, to make investments in our rural areas.

Local property tax abatements are also sought and provided to wind and solar developers. Under Texas Chapter 312 & 313 of the property tax code, local governments can provide a cap on the valuation of the newly installed wind and solar facilities at $1 OM per year for 10 years. Assuming that an installed cost $250M - $400M, this is an astronomical benefit to the large corporations and a terrible disservice to our communities. Taxpayers see little benefit from this installation value as the equipment depreciates up to 80% over that 10 year period. With a life of 10 - 15 years, at the 10 year mark where the $1 OM cap on value is to be lifted, the market value at that time of the equipment will be greatly reduced. Therefore, the taxpayers of Brown and Coleman county will never see the benefit of the increase in tax base due to this installation. While these companies may promise the county and school districts a windfall, that is not the case. School districts in Texas are subject to the so called Robin Hood law which ensures a level funding across all school districts based on student population. Therefore any funds received from a wind company are subject to offset by the State of Texas.

Local tax abatements under Chapter 312 & 313 are also granted at the local level. County Commissioners are also not required to ask for public input on this issue until 30 days prior to their final vote. They are also exempt from the Open Meetings statute. This means they can meet with wind companies privately, negotiate agreements, have closed door discussions all without their constituents knowledge. At the point where the public is finally invited to a hearing on the issue, the decisions are most always already made. An issue such as this project that will potentially impact Brown and Coleman Counties for the next 60 years, should not be a decision made without public input and debate. To overcome this lack of transparency, communities have actively reached out to their commissioners through in-person discussions, email, phone or petitions. In summary, these wind companies need our tax dollars to build these installations. Without the PTC and the ITC, this industry will significantly slow. Without the local abatements, no proposed project will proceed. Our county leadership needs to hear from our landowners and residents to ensure they know we will not support tax abatements in Brown and Coleman counties.

Sources: https://www.texaspolicy.com/the-production-tax-credit-corporate-subsidies­ renewable-energy/ https://www.texaspolicy.com/its-time-to-end-tax-abatements-for-renewables/ https://www.texaspolicy.com/texas-wind-power-story-part-1 / https://www. tri btalk. org/2018/08/1 O/renewable-energy-subsid ies-are-wrong­ for-texas/ https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/even­ warren-buffet-ad mits-wind-ene ... '

Renewable Energy Does Not Deliver on Jobs

In Texas, as part of the agreement entered into when a renewable energy company receives a Chapter 312 & 313 property tax abatement, they must commit to bring full-time jobs to the local communities granting the abatement. Those positions are required to be quality jobs with compensation that is above the average annual wage for similar jobs in the area. The problem lies in the ability of the local governments to issue waivers on the jobs creation requirement after the wind energy company has received the abatement and completed construction. In fact, 87% of all waivers in Texas under Chapter 313 for job creation are granted to the renewable industry. Multiple statistical analyses of Chapter 313 deals, conducted since the law was amended to allow waivers of job-creation requirements, have shown that wind farms disproportionately take advantage of their ability to qualify for big tax breaks from school districts without providing any new employment opportunities to the community. During the construction phase, a majority of the labor is from out of the local area. In most cases, the renewable energy company contracts with a construction company that is responsible for building the project. This company has their own experienced employees that are deployed to each project. They may utilize some local labor for some tasks but the vast majority of compensation is paid to non-local employees. In short, renewable energy is not about jobs creation. It is about tax credits for the rewnewable energy companies.

Source: https://files. texaspolicy.com/uploads/2018/11116091653/Money-for­ Nothing .pdf

Landowners Give Up Property Rights for Up to 60 Years

The contracts being offered by the renewable energy companies include easement rights that last up to 60 years. Easements provide the renewable companies with the rights to your property below ground, surface, and above ground. For solar, the loss of access and use is especially significant as the entire property would be covered with solar panels and other installations rendering it unusable. The contracts also give them the right to build new roads, construct buildings such as warehouses, clear land, lay electrical lines underground, or build transmission towers above ground. Most of the construction will occur on site. For wind, there will be temporary concrete plants built to produce the thousands of tons of concrete needed. There will be large amounts of materials brought in and staged on leased property. The construction equipment consisting of earth movers, dump trucks, cement trucks, cranes and work vehicles will begin early and end late during this phase, greatly increasing traffic and potential for accidents on our rural roads. For the most part, the landowner does not have a say in any of these activities or where they are located. These easements allow for construction crews, maintenance crews or others associated with the solar and wind installation, to come and go when they like without the landowner being notified. Will they respect your land, will they clean up trash they bring, will they let your livestock out, or infringe on your privacy? Negative Environmental Impacts Will Be Significant

Wind turbines proposed in this area recently have been be 600' to 650' tall. To put this in perspective, the transmission line towers that run in the proposed area are only 200' tall. Also, in Texas, there are only 9 buildings taller than these turbines. This can be compared to having 60 to 80 sixty story buildings dotting our landscape. Recently proposed solar projects require the clear cutting of thousands of acres for the installation of millions of panels. The impact to our views, the viewshed, will be significant. The negative impact to our environment will be irreversible.

Solar farms also pose real environmental challenges, including habitat degradation and harm to wildlife. Due to the nature of the solar installations, thousands of acres are required for a -200MW facility. Solar requires clear cutting of all native trees, plants and grasses. Creeks, drainage and other surface water areas may be modified to allow for solar panel installations resulting in changes to runoff and the potential for flooding and erosion. Wildlife is also severely impacted due to loss of habitat and displacement. The impact that solar farms have on individual species can send ripples throughout entire ecosystems. The habitat therefore becomes less livable for plants and wildlife that have adapted to its specific conditions.

Construction has significant impact on the natural landscape. The sheer size of these installations requires building new straight and sturdy roads across landowner property that can handle semi trucks delivering -150' long blades or millions of solar panels and cement trucks delivering tons of material. Cement plants are built to produce the tons of cement required for each turbine or foundations for faclities. Material for cement is brought in and has to be staged and stored. Vegetation must be cleared wherever construction is to occur, thousands of acre$ in the case of solar. Trenching and transmission line corridors will leave miles long areas void of trees and brush. Assembly areas must be created where turbines can be staged and built. Warehouses may be constructed as well as parking areas for construction crews and equipment. All of this will increase traffic, litter, damage to our roads, impact on our wildlife, damage to our land and increase noise in our communities. In the case of wind, each turbine is required to have an FAA approved hazard light. As many in our local area can attest, these lights are visible for up to 30 miles or more. This would bring an enormous amount of light pollution to our area. Our amazing night skies will be changed forever. Our land and homes in close proximity will be impacted by 60 to 80 lights blinking in harmony every few seconds. One landowner who has turbines 18 miles from his home reported that he can no longer sit outside on his porch at night as the lights are so distracting that he can no longer enjoy the warm summer night sky.

Also with wind, each turbine is a mechanical generator. The sound that these turbines produce has been compared to a jet that never lands. Sound can be as high as ?Odb which is the same as an air conditioning unit or a loud conversation and it never stops as long as the wind blows. Landowners have reported that the greatest impact is at night when sleep can be interrupted. One landowner who has a turbine approximately 2,000 feet from her home, stated they she is always tired due to the turbines. The noise outside can be just as distracting and irritating to landowners who have enjoyed the peace and serenity of the country life for generations. Solar is not without its own noise concerns. Each solar panel has a electric motor that is used to position the panels throughout the day to align with the sun. In a 200MW, installations with over 1 million panels, 1 million electric motors would also be required and are not without noise. Current Income May be Impacted

Many landowners in this proposed area derive income from their land. They raise and sell cattle. They grow cash crops or hay which they sell. They lease their land to hunters for bird and deer hunting. With the installation of wind turbines, many of these activities will immediately be impacted during the initial construction phase. Fencing and cross fencing may be removed for new roads, buildings, assembly sites or other construction. Land will be disrupted where it may not be possible to grow or harvest crops. Hunters may be deterred from leasing due to the current construction or increased traffic on properties. Landowners should consider the impact from lost income during this initial construction phase. One landowner reported that his land was damaged due to the clearing of all vegetation along the line of turbine construction. The result was that when rains came, his land flooded where it never had flooded before. This type of impact could hamper landowners' ability to carry out income producing activities during this period.

Once completed, permanent impairment is likely for areas of a property where income was derived in the past. Farming activities may be prohibited in areas where turbines, underground electric lines, above ground transmission lines are located. Buildings and roads may now dissect fertile land. Will hunters, who seek to leave the cities for the natural and peaceful countryside, continue to lease or will they decide to go elsewhere? These are real and important considerations for landowners when weighing the positive and negative financial impact of signing a wind lease. Wind Turbine Impact Study

Author: Appraisal Group One

This is a study of the impact that wind turbines have on residential property value. The wind turbines that are the focus of this study are the larger turbines being approximately 389ft tall and producing 1.0+ megawatts each.

The study has been broken into three component parts, each looking at the value impact of the wind turbines from a different perspective. The three parts are: (1) a literature study, which reviews and summarizes what has been published on this matter found in the general media; (2) an opinion survey, which was given to area Realtors to learn their opinions on the impact of wind turbines in their area; and, 3) sales studies, which compared vacant residential lot sales within the wind turbine farm area to comparable sales located outside of the turbine influence.

The sponsor for this study was the Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy (CCCRE) (Calumet County, Wisconsin), which contracted our firm, Appraisal Group One, to research the value impact that wind turbines have on property value. Appraisal Group One (AGO) protected against outside influence from CCCRE by having complete independence to the gathering of facts, data and other related material and the interpretation of this data to the purpose of this study. AGO chose the location of the study, the search parameters, the methodology used and the three-step approach to the study. AGO does not enter into any contract that would espouse any preconceived notion or have a bias as to the direction of the study and its findings. The purpose of the study was to investigate the value impacts of large wind turbines, the issues influencing these impacts and to report these findings on an impartial basis ....

The geographic area of this study was focused in Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties. These two counties have three large wind farms. They are:

• WE Energies - Blue Sky Green Field wind farm which has approximately 88 wind turbines and is located in the northeast section of Fond du Lac County, bordering Calumet County to the north. • Invenergy - Forward wind farm which has approximately 86 wind turbines and is located in southwest Fond du Lac County and northeast Dodge County. • Alliant - Cedar Ridge wind farm which has approximately 41 wind turbines and is located in the southeastern part of Fond du Lac County. Of these three wind farms, only the WE Energies and Invenergy wind farms were used in the sales study since the Alliant - Cedar Ridge wind farm did not have enough viable sales within the turbine influence area to use as a base of comparison. The Realtor survey was limited to Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties, that being the area which had the three wind farms ....

Summary of Findings & Conclusion of Impact

The survey indicated that in all but two scenarios (those being Questions #8 and #9), over 60% the participants thought that the presence of the wind turbines had a negative impact on property value. This was true with vacant land and improved land. Where the group diverted from that opinion is when they were presented with a 10-20 acre hobby farm being in close and near proximity. In these cases 47% (close proximity) and 44% (near proximity) of the participants felt that the wind turbines caused a negative impact in property value.

The answers showed that bordering proximity showed the greatest loss of value at -43% for 1-5 acre vacant land and -39% for improved properties. Next in line was the close proximity showing a -36% value loss for 1-5 acre vacant land and -33% for improved property. Last in line was the near proximity, showing a -29% loss of value for a 1-5 acre vacant parcel and -24% loss in value for improved parcels. These losses show a close relationship between vacant land and improved land. This pattern was replicated regarding the bordering proximity for a hobby farm, whereas 70% believed it would be negatively impacted. Lastly, the opinions regarding the impact of the wind turbines due to placement, that being in front of the residence or behind the residence, showed that in both situations most participants believed there would a negative impact (74% said negative to the front placement and 71 % said negative to the rear placement).

In conclusion, it can be observed that: (a) in all cases with a 1-5 acre residential property, whether vacant or improved, there will be a negative impact in property value; (b) with 1-5 acre properties the negative impact in property value in bordering proximity ranged from -39% to -43%; (c) with 1-5 acre properties the negative impact in property value in close proximity ranged from -33% to -36%; ( d) with 1-5 acre properties the negative impact in property value in near proximity ranged from -24% to -29%; (e) in all cases the estimated loss of value between the vacant land and improved property was close, however the vacant land estimates were always higher by a few percentage points; (f) it appears that hobby farm use on larger parcels would have lesser sensitivity to the proximity of wind turbines than single family land use; and (g) placement either in front or at the rear of a residence has similar negative impacts. ------· Corn rnenta ry Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines

Roy D. Jeffery MD FCFP Carmen Krogh Brett Horner CMA

anadian family physicians can expect to see is irregular in intensity. The noise includes grating and increasing numbers of rural patients reporting incongruous sounds that distract the attention or dis­ C~ adverse effects from exposure to industrial wind turb rest. The spontaneous recurrence of these noises turbines (IWTs). People who live or work in close prox­ disturbs the sleep, suddenly awakening the subject imity to IWTs have experienced symptoms that include when the wind rises and preventing the subject from decreased quality of life, annoyance, stress, sleep dis­ going back to sleep. Wind turbines have been blamed turbance, headache, anxiety, depression, and cognitive for other problems experienced by people living nearby. dysfunction. Some have also felt anger, grief, or a sense These are less precise and less well described, and of injustice. Suggested causes of symptoms include a consist of subjective (headaches, fatigue, temporary combination of wind turbine noise, infrasound, dirty feelings of dizziness, nausea) and sometimes objective electricity, ground current, and shadow flicker.' Family (vomiting, insomnia, palpitations) manifestations.' physicians should be aware that patients reporting A 2009 literature review prepared by the Minnesota adverse effects from IWTs might experience symptoms Department of Health' summarized case reports by Harry that are intense and pervasive and might feel further (2007), '° Phipps et al (2007)," the Large Wind Turbine victimized by a lack of caregiver understanding. Citizens Committee for the Town of Union (2008)," and Pierpont (2009)." These case studies catalogued com­ Background plaints of annoyance, reduced quality of life, and health There is increasing concern that energy generation from effects associated with IWTs, such as sleeplessness and fossil fuels contributes to climate change and air pol­ headaches.' lution. In response to these concerns, governments In 20!0, Nissenbaum et al used validated question­ around the world are encouraging the installation of naires in a controlled study of 2 Maine wind energy proj­ renewable energy projects including IWTs. In Ontario, ects. They concluded that "the noise emissions of IWTs the Green Energy Act was designed, in part, to remove disturbed the sleep and caused daytime sleepiness and barriers to the installation of IWTs.' Noise regulations impaired mental health in residents living within 1.4 km can be a considerable barrier to !WT development, as of the two !WT installations studied."" they can have a substantial effect on wind turbine spac­ Reports of adverse health effects" and reduced qual­ ing, and therefore the cost of wind-generated elect1ic­ ity of life" are also documented in !WT projects in ity.' Industrial wind turbines are being placed in close Australia and New Zealand. proximity to family homes in order to have access to A 2012 board of health resolution in Brown County transmission infrastructure. 4 in Wisconsin formally requested financial relocation In Ontario and elsewhere, 5 some individuals have assistance for "families that are suffe1ing adverse health reported experiencing adverse health effects resulting effects and undue hardships caused by the irresponsi­ from living near IWTs. Reports of !WT-induced adverse ble placement of industrial wind turbines around their health effects have been dismissed by some commenta­ homes and property."" tors including government authorities and other orga­ An Ontario community-based self-reporting health nizations. Physicians have been exposed to efforts to survey, WindVOiCe, identified the most commonly convince the public of the benefits of IWTs while mini­ reported !WT-induced symptoms as altered quality of mizing the health risks. Those concerned about adverse life, sleep disturbance, excessive tiredness, headache, effects of IWTs have been stereotyped as "NIMBYs" (not stress, and distress. Other reported effects include in my backyard) .6·7 migraines, hearing problems, tinnitus, heart palpita­ tions, anxiety, and depression." In addition, degraded Global reports of effects living conditions and adverse socioeconomic effects During the past few years there have been case reports have been reported. In some cases the effects were of adverse effects. A 2006 Acactemie Nationale de severe enough that individuals in Ontario abandoned Medecine working group repott notes that noise is the their homes or reached financial agreements with wind most frequent complaint. The noise is described as energy developers." piercing, preoccupying, and continually surprising, as it

This article has been peer reviewed. Can Fam Physician 2013;59:473-5

VOL 59: MAY• MAI 2013 I Omadian Family Physician. Le 111edecin de famille canadien 473 Commentary I Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines

After considering the evidence and testimony pre­ Pierpont documented symptoms reported by indi­ sented by 26 witnesses, a 2011 Ontario environmental viduals exposed to wind turbines, which include sleep review tribunal decision acknowledged IWTs can harm disturbance, headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, dizziness, human health: vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic This case has successfully shown that the debate episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsa­ should not be simplified to one about whether wind tion or quivering when awake or asleep." The American turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they Association convened a panel literature review that can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The determined these symptoms are the "well-known stress debate has now evolved to one of degree.w effects of exposure to noise," or in other words, are "a subset of annoyance reactions."26 Indirect effects and annoyance Noise-induced annoyance is acknowledged to be an When assessing the adverse effects of lWTs it is impor­ adverse health effect. 27-30 Chronic severe noise annoy­ tant to consider what constitutes human health. The ance should be classified as a serious health risk. 31 World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as "a According to the WHO guidelines for community noise, state of complete physical, mental and social well-being "[t]he capacity of a noise to induce annoyance depends and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."" upon many of its physical characteristics, including its Despite being widely accepted, the WHO definition sound pressure level and spectral characteristics, as of health is frequently overlooked when assessing the well as the variations of these properties over time."32 health effects of lWTs. Literature reviews commenting Industrial wind turbine noise is perceived to be more on the health effects of IWTs have been produced with annoying than transportation noise or industrial noise varying degrees of completeness, accuracy, and objectiv­ at comparable sound pressure levels. 33 Industrial wind ity." Some of these commentators accept the plausibil­ turbine amplitude modulation,34 audible low frequency ity of the repmted !WT health effects and acknowledge noise, 35 tonal noise, infrasound,36 and lack of night­ that !WT noise and visual effects might cause annoy­ time abatement have been identified as plausible noise ance, stress, or sleep disturbance, which can have other characteristics that could cause annoyance and other consequences. However, these IWT health effects are health effects. often discounted because "direct pathological effects" or a "direct causal link" have not been established. In 2010, Health effects in Ontario expected the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health released The Evidence-based health studies were not conducted to Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines, which acknowl­ determine adequate setbacks and noise levels for the edged that some people living near wind turbines report siting of IWTs before the implementation of the Ontario symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, and sleep dis­ renewable energy policy. In addition, provision for vigi­ turbance but concluded "the scientific evidence avail­ lance monitoring was not made. It is now clear that the able to date does not demonstrate a direct causal regulations are not adequate to protect the health of all link between wind turbine noise and adverse health exposed individuals. effects."23 The lead author of the report, 23 Dr Gloria A 20 lo report commissioned by the Ontario Ministry Rachamin, acknowledged under oath that the literature of the Environment concludes: review looked only at direct links to human health.24 Focusing on "direct" causal links limits the discus­ The audible sound from wind turbines, at the levels sion to a small slice of the potential health effects of expelienced at typical receptor distances in Ontalio, is IWTs. The 2011 environmental review tribunal deci­ nonetheless expected to result in a non-tiivial percent­ sion found that serious harm to human health includes age of persons being highly annoyed .... [R]esearch "indirect impacts (e.g., a person being exposed to noise has shown that annoyance associated with sound and then exhibiting stress and developing other related from wind turbines can be expected to contribute to symptoms)."" stress related health impacts in some persons.37 According to the night noise guidelines for Europe: Consequently, physicians will likely be presented with Physiological experiments on humans have shown that patients reporting health effects. noise of a moderate level acts via an indirect pathway Family physicians should be aware that patients and has health outcomes similar to those caused by reporting adverse effects from IWTs might experience high noise exposures on the direct pathway. The indi­ symptoms that are intense and pervasive and that rect pathway starts with noise-induced disturbances of they might feel further victimized by a Jack of care­ activities such as communication or sleep.25 giver understanding. Those adversely affected by IWTs

474 Cmwdicm Family Pliysician ·le Mertecin de famille ca11adie11 ! VOL 59: MAY• MAI 2013 Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines I Commentary

might have already pursued other avenues to miti­ 10. Harry A. Wind turbines, noise and health. Rowe, MA: National Wind Watch; 2007. Available from: http://docs.wind-watch.org/wtnoiseJlealth_2007_a_ gate the health effects with little or no success. It will harry.pdf. Accessed 20.13 Mar 26. be important to identify the possibility of exposure to 11. Phipps R, Amati M, Mccoard s, Fisher R. Visual and noise effects reported by residents living close to Manawa tu wind farms: preliminary survey results. Rowe, IWTs in patients presenting with appropriate clinical MA: National Wind Watch; 2007. Available from: http:!/docs.wind-watch. symptoms.38 org/phlpps-visualnoiseeffects.pdf. Accessed 2013 Mar 26. 12. Large Wind Turbine Citizens committee for the Town of Union. Setback recommendations report. Rowe, MA: National Wind Watch; 2008. Available from: http://docs.wind-watch.org/LWTCC-Town-of-Union_ Conclusion FinalReport_Ol-14-08.pdf. Accessed 2013 Mar 26. Industrial wind turbines can harm human health if sited 13. Pierpont N. Wind turbine syndrome: a report on a na/ural experiment. Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books; 2009. too close to residents. Harm can be avoided if IWTs are 14. Nissenbaum MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD. Effects of industrial wind turbine situated at an approp1iate distance from humans. Owing noise on sleep and health. Noise Henllh 2012;14{60):237-43. 15. Thorne B. The problems with "noise numbers" for wind farm noise assess­ to the lack of adequately protective siting guidelines, ment. Bull SciTechnol Soc 2011 ;31 (4):262-90. people exposed to IWTs can be expected to present to 16. Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, Dirks KN, Hill EM. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life. Noise Hen/th their family physicians in increasing numbers. The docu­ 2011;13(54):333-9. 17. Brown counly boaid of health resolution requesting emer;gen<:; state. aid for mented symptoms are usually stress disorder-type dis­ families suffering around industrial wind turbines. Rowe, MA: National Wind eases acting via indirect pathways and can represent Watch; 2012. Available from: http://docs.wind-watch.org/Brown%20 County%20Board%20ol%20Health%20Resolution%20011 012. pdf. serious harm to human health. Family physicians are Accessed 2013 Mar 28. in a position to effectively recognize the ailments and 18. Krogh CME, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a self-reporting sur­ vey: adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance provide an empathetic response. In addition, their con­ monitoring. Bull Sci Technol soc 2011;31(4):334-45. tributions to clinical studies are urgently needed to clar­ 19. Krogh CME. Industrial wind turbine development and loss of social justice? Bull Sci Technol soc 2011;31(4):321-33. ify the relationship between !WT exposure and human 20. Erickson v. Directo1; Ministry of the Environment. Environmental Review Tribunal Nos. 10-121 and 10-122. 2011. Available from: www.ert.gov.on.ca/ health and to inform regulations that will protect physi­ files/2011 08/00000300-AKT5 7 57 C7 C0026-BHHS l C7 A 750026. pdf. cal, mental, and social well-being. .'~{ Accessed 2013 Mar 28. 2 l. World Health Organization. Definition of health. In: Preamble to the Dr Jeffery is a family physician in the Northeastern Manitoulin Family Health Constitution of the World Health organization. Geneva, Switz: World Health Team in Little Current, Ont. Ms Krogh is a retired pharmacist and a former Organization; 1948. Available from: www.who.int/about/definition/en/ Editor-in-chief of the Compendium of Pharmaceutical Specialties. Mr Homer is print.html. Accessed 2013 Mar 28. a Certllied Management Accountant. 22. Homer B, Jeffery RD, Krogh CME. Literature reviews on wind turbines and health: are they enough? Bull Sci Technol soc 2011;31(5):399-413. competing interests 23. Chief Medical Officer of Health. The potential health impact ofwind tm"bines. Dr Jeffery, Ms Krogh, and Mr Horner are on the Board of Directors for the Toronto, ON: Ministry of Health and Long-Term care: 2010. Available from: Society for Wind Vigilance, an international federation of physicians, acousti­ http://health.gov.on.ca/en/conunon/ministiy/publications/reports/ cians, engineers, and other professionals who share scientific research on the wind. ..turbine/wind_turbine.pdf. Accessed 2013 Mar 27. topic of health and wind turbines. 24. Erickson v. Director, Minisay of the Environment. Environmental Review Correspondence Tribunal Nos. 10-121 and 10-122. Transcript of Dr G. Rachamin. 2011 Mar 4. Dr Roy D. Jeffery, Northeastern Manitoulin Family Health Team, Box 549, Little 25. World Health organization Europe. Night noise guidelines for Europe. current, ON POP IKO; e-mail [email protected] Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health organization Europe; 2009. Available from: www.euro.who.int/_data/assets/pdf_file/0017 /433l 6/E92845.pdf. The opinions expressed in commentaries are those of the authors. Publication Accessed 2013 Mar 27. does not imply endorsement by the College of Family Physicians of Canada. 26. Colby WD, Dobie R, Leventhall G, Lipscomb DM, Mccunney RJ, Sei!o MT, et al. Wind turbine sound and health effects. An expert panel review. Washington, References DC: American Wind Energy Association, canadian Wind Energy Association; I. Havas M, Colling D. Wind turbines make waves: why some residents near 2009. Available from: www.canwea.ca/pdf/talkwind/Wind_Turbine_Sound_ wind turbines become ill. Bull Sci 1echnol Soc 2011(5);31:414-26. and_Health_Effects.pdf. Accessed 2013 Mar 27. 2. Government of Ontario [website]. chapter 12. An act to enact the Green 27. Health Canada [website]. Communily noise annoyance. Ottawa, ON: Health Energy Act, 2009 and to build a green economy; to repeal the Energy Canada; 2005. Available from: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/ Conservation Leadership Act, 2006 and the Energy Efficiency Act and to amend community-urbain-eng.php. Accessed 2013 Mar 27. other statutes. Toronto, ON: Government of Ontario; 2009. Available from: 28. Suter AH. Noise and its effects. Washington, DC: Administrative conference www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/statutes/english/2009/elaws_src_ of the United Slates; 1991. Available from: www.nonoise.org/library/suter/ s09012_e.htm#. Accessed 2013 Mar 26. suter.htm. Accessed 2013 Mar 27. 3. canadian Wind Energy Association [website]. Letter to Neil Parish re: sound 29. Michaud DS, Keith SE, McMurchy D. Noise annoyance in canada. Noise level limits for wind farms. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Wind Energy Association; Health 2005;7(27):39-47. 30. Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and se!f­ 2004. Available from: www.canwea.ca/images/uploads/File/Wind_ reported health and well-being in different living environments. Occup Environ Energy_Policy/Envirorunentai_Issues/SoundLevels.pdf. Accessed 2013 Med 2007;64(7)A80-6. Epub 2007 Mar 1. Mar 26. 31. Maschke C, Niemann A. Health effects of annoyance induced by neighbour 4. Hornung R Business ofgreen: wind energy and budget expectations {video]. noise. Noise control Eng J 2007;55(3):348-56. Toronto, ON: Business News Network; 2010. Avallable from: http://watch. 32. Berglund B, Llndvall T, Schwela DH, editors. Guidelines for communi!Y noise. bnn.ca/clip272347. Accessed 2013 Apr 4. Geneva, Switz: World Health organization; 1999. 5. Hanning CD, Evans A. Wind turbine noise. BM/ 2012;344:el527. 33. Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R, Bouma J. Response to noise from 6. Martin C. NIMBY mentality unacceptable when it comes to green-energy modem wind farms in the Netherlands.; Acoust Soc An1 2009;126(2):634-43. projects, McGuinty says. London Free Press 2009 Feb 12. 34. Leventhal! G. lnfrasound from wind turbines-fact, fiction or deception. Can 7. Schliesmann P. Wind turbine debate swirls. Kingston Whig-Standard Acoust 2006;34(2):29-36. 2010 Jan 2. Available from: www.thewhlg.com/ArticleDlsplay. 35. M0ller H, Pedersen cs. Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines. aspx?e=2244137&archive=true. Accessed 2013 Mar 26. } Acoust Soc Am 2011 ;129(6):3727-44. 8. Academie Nationale de Medecine Groupe de Travail. Le retentissement du 36. Salt AN, KaltenbachJA. lnfrasound from wind turbines could affect humans. Bull 2011;31 (4):296-302. fonctionnement des &Jliennes sur la sante de l'homme. Paris, France: Academie Sci Technol soc 37. Howe Gastmeier chapnik Limited. Lowji-equem::y noise and in.frasound Nationale de Medecine; 2006. Available from: www.academie-medecine. associated with wind turbine generator systems. A literature revieiv. Turonto, fr/sites_thematiques/EOLIENNES/chouard_rapp_I4mars_2006.htrn. ON: Ontario Ministry of the Environment; 2010. Available from: www.ene. Accessed 2013 Mar 26. gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/documents/ 9. Minnesota Department of Health {website]. Public health impacts of wind tur­ resource/stdprod_092086.pdf. Accessed 2013 Mar 27. bines. St Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Health; 2009. Available from: 38. McMurlry RY. Toward a case definition of adverne health effects in the www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/windturbines.pdf. environs of industrial wind turbines: facilitating a clinical diagnosis. Bull Sci Accessed 2013 Mar 26. Tee/mo/ soc 2011;31 {4):316-20.

VOL 59: MAY• MAI 2013 ! Canadian Family Physician. Le Midecin de Jami/le canadien 47 5 Wind Turbines Can Cause Sickness, Say Public Health Officials

WHO 13 Digital Staff 1 year ago WINTERSET, Iowa - The Madison County Board of Public Health is going on record to say that there are legitimate negative health effects caused by wind turbines. Board Chair Dr. Kevin de Regnier said the board identified two concerns after a review of scientific literature and months of hearings and meetings with residents and MidAmerican Energy. The two health concerns identified are:

1. "Flicker" caused by the sun reflecting off turbine blades creates a strobe effect that can cause headaches and nausea. 2. "Infrasound" is a soundwave just below what the ear can actually detect. It is created by the turbines disturbing wind flow. It, too, can cause headaches and nausea.

"Resolved that the Madison County Board of Health determines that there is the potential for negative health affects associated with commercial wind turbines and that current setbacks are inadequate to protect the public health," said Madison County Public Health in a statement to Channel 13. The board recommends that any future wind turbine projects be 1.5 miles from any residence. However, the Iowa Environmental Council disputes these claims and said there is not any proven health consequences associated with wind turbines. Dr. Peter Thorne, head of the Occupational and Environmental Health department at the University of Iowa, spoke with the Madison County Board of Public Health last Thursday. Dr. Thorne presented findings from two comprehensive reviews of peer-reviewed science. The findings did not show any scientific evidence that infrasound causes health concerns, according to the Iowa Environmental Council. That paper can be viewed here. The Iowa Environmental Council also noted that Dr. de Regnier voted against the the resolution. The County Board of Supervisors will discuss this Tuesday morning at 10 a.m. AFFECTS OF WIND f ARM TURBI ES PROPOSED FRENCH STATE OWNED, EDF GROU ON CORYELL and HAMILTON COUNTIES

May 10, 2017 Prepared by Kimberly McCullough of Hamilton, Texas

NTENTS

WIND FARMS AFFECTS ON PROPERTY VALUES&. 2

PROPERTY TP,!

LOSS OF SCENIC BEAUTY AND RIECb~EATIONAl ASSET 3

LOCAL BUSINESS THAT Will 13E NIEGATiVElY IMPACTED IEl'\f Tl!Jr~BINES 3 NOISE, NWSANCE, AND TURBINES AFFECT ON HEALTH AND PITTING NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR

BIG ENERGY LAWSUITS AGAijNST b'{llli'«.C\l COUNTIES 5 TURBINES AND TRANSMmmON UNES AFFECT ON ENDANGERED SPECIES l3i IMPACT Of FORT HOOD AVIATION FUGHTS AND TRAINING 1 WiND TURBINE FIRES AND ACCmlENTS 9

IENIEIRG\f PRICES AND COST Pi~ODUCTiON 10

DECOMMISSIONING Of WIND FAr~M TUr~BINES 11 PUBUC OPPOSITION TO WIND FARMS '12

Page 1of12 WIND FARMS AFFECTS ON PROPERTY VALUES:

In a letter dated September 22, 2009, Austin energy attorney, William B Osborn, solicited landowners in Coryell County owning 4,000-10,000 acres each, for development of a proposed Vista Mountain Wind Power Project, Hamilton County, Texas. 1

Filings with the FAA as of 4/14/2017 list 91 turbines the height of 40 story buildings (499') proposed to be placed on the highest vistas (1,300-1,400') from South of Evant up to Indian Gap.

• In his letter he makes the statement "If you have plans to subdivide acreage into small tracts to sell to residents of the DFW or Austin area wanting a weekend getaway, they are likely not going to want to purchase land with an industrial type of use, but will look for more solitude. That will tend to hurt your subdivision ability if you allow a wind project."(pg 3)

As the majority of Coryell and Hamilton property owners surrounding the proposed turbines are in fact smaller in comparison to the 1,500 to 4,000 acre hosting ranches, Mr. Osborn, an energy expert versed in wind farm projects, acknowledges the property values will be negatively affected. Thus, as the detai.ls posted on the FAA website indicate the turbines will be placed on the highest vistas in the counties, they will not just affect nearby landowners values, but the values of all land within view.

Osborn's opinion is further supported in Gardner Appraisal Group's 2009 report, Impact of Wind Turbines on Market Value of Texas Rural Land,2 which indicates property values in areas of wind facilities are 10%-30% less than property not in area of wind facilities. (pg 24) The report includes in Case Study One, (pg 25) details of a ranch in Erath County where upon learning of a planned wind farm project within 1.Smiles of the property, the buyer backed out of the offer even after the seller offered a 25% discount. Case Study Two includes property values on similar tracts of land in Taylor County with and without wind turbines which reflected a property containing turbines was valued at 29%-40% below those with no turbines in view. (pg 27)

Appraisal One Group's presentation, Wind Turbines & Property Value reflects the below impact of farms on property values conducted in Wisconsin

Blue Sky Green Field Results • Sales within the wind turbine area so!d for less than comparative sales outside of the turbine area.

• There were substantially less sales available within the wind turbine area than outside of it.

• The impact of the wind turbines on vacant residential land is in the range of -19% to -40%.

• This loss range corresponds with the Realtor survey.

Forward Wind Farm results • Sales within the wind turbine area sold for less than comparative sales outside of the turbine area. • There were substantially less sales available within the wind turbine area than outside of it.

1 Copy of Osborn solicitation letter included in package. (The author of this study has reprinted quotes from Mr. Osborn's letter in their original form including typos).

2 Gardner Appraisal Groups 2009 Impact of Wind Turbines on Market Value of Texas Rural Land

Page 2of12 • The impact of the wind turbines on vacant residential land is in the range of-12% to ·30%. -·This loss range corresponds with the Realtor survey

It is for this reason, one of the largest land owners solicited by Mr. Osborn indicated in an email he had no interest in entertaining the venture.

Denton, Fredericksburg, Kingsville, and Llano are just some of the Texas cities who have opposed wind farms due to the concern that reduced property values will result in economic loss for the property owners and educed tax base for the county and local school district.

PROPERTY TAKEN THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN:

"You are receiving the enclosed formal notice because one or more of the routes for a proposed transmission line may require an easement or other property interest across your property, or the centerline of the proposed project may come within 300 feet of a house or other habitable structure on your property. This distance is expanded to 500 feet if the proposed line is greater than 230 kilovolts (kV). For this reason, your property is considered directly affected land."

The above language is from the Public Utility Commission of Texas' (PUC) Rights and Process for Building Transmission Lines brochure' submitted to landowners. Page 4 of the brochure indicates "Utilities may buy easements through a negotiated agreement, but they also have the power of eminent domain (condemnation) under Texas law."

Area values will be further suppressed, since according to Mr. Osborn, "A developer of the Vista Mountain farm will have to build a high voltage connection line about 4 miles to the south to connect to a transmission line or to a new CREZ high voltage line which would be built through the Lometa area. "

These transmission lines will not only adversely impact directly affected property owners, but will degrade property values of nearby neighbors as well as the net assessment of the counties values.

LOSS OF SCENIC BEAUTY AND RECREATIONAL ASSET

Construction of such industrial wind farms and transmission lines will permanently degrade the scenic vistas for long distances and will forever scar a popular and beloved natural asset.

In Mr. Osborn's letter, he states "I have been told by sources in the Sweetwater area that the deer seem to grow accustomed to the turbines and are not spooked by them, but of course they will be somewhat spooked of the maintenance vehicle traffic (which he indicates could be present on a daily basis)." He further states, "A lease provision can be written to permanently make compensation for any lost hunting revenue." (pg 3)

Though turbine hosts may be compensated for lost revenue, property owners and citizens will forever lose their scenic views and peaceful existence of the quality of life. Visitors and hunters escaping the city to enjoy a natural environment may simply choose to spend their recreational time and money in counties who have maintained the solitude and beauty they are seeking. The stars at night will include blinking red lights 2000' above a hunters camp.

LOCAL BUSINESS THAT WILL BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY TURBINES

3 PUC State of Texas PUC Rights and Process for Building Transmission lines

Page 3of12 For recreational visitors who choose to spend their time sightseeing or hunting in counties unspoiled by turbines and transmission lines, the following Hamilton business who pay taxes, provide jobs, are active in and give back to the community could see their business negatively impacted:

Town Square business Antique Store Hidden Valley Art Galleries Restaurants Gas Stations Feed Stores Museums Game Processors Gift Shops Dollar Stores Drug Store Grocers and Markets Gun Shop Hardware Stores Wenzel's Lonestar Meat Co Red Wing Dove Winery Landowners leasing to hunters

NOISE, NUISANCE, AND TURBINES AFFECT ON HEALTH AND PITTING NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR

Research on the internet exposes multitudes of complaints from landowners of the noise, acoustic pressure pulsations, flickering and interference with television, telephone, satellite and Internet reception caused by the 40 story turbines and 164 foot blades that can spin at 160 mph. (Abco Fire Protection Report April 2017)

In Willacy County Texas, twenty-three residents including Willacy County Commissioner, Noe Loya and Precinct 3 Justice of the Peace, Juan Silva Jr., filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy and E.ON Climate & Renewables NA accusing their wind turbines of creating noise, devaluing property and posing possible health risks, federal court records show .. " 4 The lawsuit states the companies "carelessly and negligently failed to adequately disclose the true nature and effects that the wind turbines would have on the community, including the plaintiffs' homes."

Commissioner Loya "can no longer enjoy sitting outside because of the loud noise," the lawsuit states. "The turbines also cause noise both inside and outside of the home, disturbing the peace and making it difficult to enjoy living there. (Loya) also experiences problems with his television reception. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property, among other losses," the lawsuit states. The lawsuits states justice of the Peace, Silva "has difficulty sleeping, cannot have his windows open (and) cannot enjoy the sound of nature, due to loud noise from wind turbines. 11

Residents of Ludington, Michigan in Mason County, filed suit against Lake Winds wind farm owner CMS Energy on April 1, 2013. In the case, they argued that noise, vibrations and flickering lights emanating from the farms 56 turbines was adversely affecting their health, causing dizziness, sleeplessness and headaches. Mason County Planning Commission determined that the wind plant was not in compliance with safety guidelines. CMS Energy appealed that decision to the Mason County Zoning Board of Appeals and lost. In January, CMS took the case to court and it has now lost again.5

Another account of how turbines effected a rural family is provided by Ted Hartke, an Illinois engineer, surveyor and farmer who wrote in a testimony', that after "the dust, traffic, (and) construction noise while our road was constructed in front of our property, we thought we had lived through what he thought was the worst part of the project." "In January, our noise problem began. We had a couple bad nights of engine whining noise. We thought we might get used to it ... sort of like people become accustomed to living near busy highways or train tracks. However, our noise was lasting all night long, kids were waking up numerous times every night. It was totally unexpected ... a complete shock. We were unaware of how the noise was going to change our lives. 11

Below are exerts from Mr. Hartke's testimony at a May 28, 2013, Boone County Illinois Zoning Meeting:

1.) Wind turbines will wake you up at various times. It is impossible to get healthy sleep.

4 Valley Morning Star Newspaper Article- 23 Texas landowners Sue 2 Windfarm Companies 5 Capcon Article Mason County Michigan Court Back Wind Noise Finding 6 Submission by Ted Hartke

Page 4of12 2.) The engine 11whining 11 or 11 humming" noise is very disturbing and stressful. This low frequency noise penetrates your house, and there is no place where you can go inside your house to escape it. (OUTSIDE your house, the noise doesn't seem so bad. INSIDE your house, the noise is unbelievable.)

3.) There were mornings when I put clothes on my kids and shoved them out the front door when they were sleep deprived and not ready for a full day of school. Wind turbines are hard on your children.

4.) I have argued with my wife at 2:30, 3:30, 4:30, and 5:30 in the morning. Wind turbines are hard on your marriage.

5.) Being exhausted severely impacts your work performance and stresses relationships with employees and co­ workers. Wind turbines are hard on your careers.

6.) I have embarrassed myself and have cried in front of my peers while describing the insurmountable problem my family is experiencing with this noise. Wind turbines are hard on your public image.

7.) Standing up and requesting assistance to solve this problem required me to put pressure on my county board representatives. My ties with community leaders have been severed .... hurting my small business. Just like any other person, I had to put my family first, and I put my business at great risk while going up against neighbors, public officials, fellow citizens, and construction companies who hire my firm to do engineering and survey work. I decided to come up to your community tonight because I feel a heavy burden and responsibility to other men, women, and children who will suffer from future wind turbine placement.

8.) Between January and May, I was able to convince lnvenergy to shut down turbines approximately 50 times during nighttime noise events. During that time, I contacted contractors and researched ways to soundproof my home. I was rejected by several contractors who did not believe they could fix my problem. Soundproofing against low frequency noise is extremely difficult. My home had too many large windows, a fireplace flue, 5 dormers, vaulted ceilings in the living room and upstairs bedrooms. On Saturday, May 11th, my request to turn off one of these turbines was declined. We were awake all night with high levels of wind turbine noise. We cannot live this way. This wind turbine noise is torture ... torture is what you do to terrorists, not my children!

9.) It is not too late for your community to create an ordinance that protects you from the trouble I am living through.

If you still want to proceed with allowing wind farm development under this weak ordinance, then maybe you should think about how stressed you will be when your names are listed on the lawsuit for voting in support of the inadequate setbacks and no way to enforce noise violations. Now is your opportunity to stop and think about it.

Ted Hartke moved his family out of their house permanently a few days before Christmas never to return.

In Brown County, Wisconsin, since the erection of 8 turbines in Glenmore, among the largest in the United States at just under 500 feet tall, three families have vacated the homes they still own and complaints involving over 75 people in the project area have been filed with the Brown County Board of Health. This includes affidavits representing over 50 people that have been submitted to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. The root of the complaints and the home abandonments are the conditions created by Shirley Wind, allege the residents. The declaration of Duke's, Shirley Wind turbines as a "Human Health Hazard" follow a year long study linking the signature of inaudible low frequency noise (created by the passing of the massive turbine blades past their supporting towers) to the homes that have been abandoned and to the homes where people continue to suffer. 7

BIG ENERGY LAWSUITS AGAINST RURAL COUNTIES

7 Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy~ Wisconsin Health Board Proclalms Turbines Human Health Hazard

Page 5of12 When counties in rural American have imposed limits on billion dollar energy companies plans to extend their wind farms, they react by suing in State or federal court. Since October 2016, wind giant NextEra Energy has filed lawsuits against five rural governments from Oklahoma to Michigan, all of which have imposed limits on wind­ turbine development.'

On January 17, 2017, Hinton, Ok {population 3,200) town officials passed an ordinance that calls wind turbines "a public nuisance'1 and prohibits their installation within two miles of the town's borders. In a phone interview with a National Review reporter, Hinton's mayor, Shelly Newton, states, she and other town officials met with NextEra representatives last year and that the company agreed to the two-mile restricted area. When the town officials asked NextEra to put the agreement in writing, the company refused. A month after the town passed the ordinance, the company filed its lawsuits.

Similarly, law suits were filed by NextEra shortly after officials in Clinton County, Mo., passed a ban on wind turbines and in January in Indiana state court after officials in Rush County denied a permit for a 22-turbine project the company wants to build.

Ellington Township, Mich {population: 1,200) and Almer Township, Mich., {population 3,100) are fighting a 118- megawatt NextEra project in federal court, that would put more than four dozen 500-foot-high wind turbines on roughly 10,000 acres in Tuscola County; the facility would cover about 15 square miles.

TURBINES AND TRANSMISSION LINES AFFECT ON ENDANGERED SPECIES

Hamilton County, due to its natural habitat and scenic high reaching vistas, is critical habitat for feeding and nesting to many local and migrating species that area listed as endangered and threatened. According to an April 2017 US Fish & Wildlife {FWS) report prepared for the area where the 91 wind turbines are proposed in Hamilton and Coryell Counties, there are 25 Migratory species of particular conservation concern that may be potentially affected by activities in this area.' Included in this list is the Bald Eagle, which, according to FWS, "appear to be particularly susceptible" to colliding with wind turbines, compared with other birds. Why? "Many of the areas that are promising sources of wind energy unfortunately also overlap with eagle habitats, and eagles are at risk because their senses tend to be focused upon the ground as they look for prey, rather than staring ahead to see spinning

11 blades •

Included in the FWS report of species to be affected by turbines are bats. According to Russ Mason, Michigan Department of Natural Resources wildlife chief, "Bats find turbines attractive, you can watch with infrared photography the bats chasing the turbine blades."

Paul Cryan, a bat biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, worries about the ongoing impact of turbines on bat populations, which are an essential link in certain ecosystems. 11 Bats are long-lived and very slow reproducers," he said. "Their populations rely on very high adult survival rates. That means their populations recover from big losses very slowly. 11

On the basis of currently available data in peer-reviewed publications and graduate theses, this analysis supports the conjecture that hundreds of thousands of bats are dying annually in the United States at wind energy facilities and suggests that well over 600,000 bats may have been killed at such facilities in 2012. {Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities - Bioscience 2013)

8 National Review-A Wind Energy Giant Attacks Small Town America May 2, 2017 9 FWS-Affects of Proposed Activity on Endangered and Threatened Species Hamilton and Coryell April 2017

Page 6of12 On their website, https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wind/wildlifeimpacts/index.html, FWS indicates, "Wind energy developments can harm wildlife and their habitat as a result of:

•collisions with wind turbines and associated infrastructure (e.g., transmission lines and towers);

• loss and degradation of habitat from turbines and infrastructure at the project site; fragmentation of large habitat blocks into smaller segments that may not support area-sensitive species; species that we are most concerned about are species that are declining and under threat from other sources. The magnitude and growth of the wind energy industry is great enough that the resulting mortality and habitat lost could have population-level effects on vulnerable wildlife."

On the American Bird Conservancy website, the annual loss of birds from wind turbines was estimated as high as

573 1000 in 2012. However, vastly more turbines are in operation now, and more than 1.4 million bird deaths are projected by 2030 or earlier if the U.S. meets its goal of producing 20 percent of electrical energy with wind. If that figure reaches 35 percent, as new Department of Energy projections suggest, up to 5 million birds could be killed annually. (https ://abcbirds,org/program/wind-energy/)

In 2012, no one noticed until far too late that the 5,000-turbine wind farm at Altamont Pass is on a major migratory path for birds. The National Audubon Society, has called it 'probably the worst site ever chosen for a wind energy project'. An estimated 10,000 birds including up to 80 protected golden eagles, 380 burrowing owls, 300 red-tailed hawks and 330 falcons were being shredded each year in Altamont's massed banks of turbine blades - to say nothing of thousands of bats - until outraged conservationists sued America's 'deadliest' wind farm four years ago. As a result, 11 it has agreed to grind to a halt for four months every year to avoid causing more carnage during the migration season. "(www.audubon.org/nevvslwill~wind~turbines*ever~be-safe-birds March 16, 2016)

One of the most endangered species protected by the Endangered Species Act is the Whooping Crane. The Aransas-Wood Buffalo population (AWBP) of whooping cranes is the only remaining wild, self-sustaining, migratory whooping crane population. In 1941, the population of the AWBP was reduced to a mere 15 individuals and has rebounded to nearly 330 this winter 2017. According to a FWS study with Texas State University, San Marcos, 10 "Collision with power lines is the greatest source of mortality for fledged whooping cranes in the (AWBP) that migrate between the Northwest Territories, Canada to the Texas coast. There have been 45 documented whooping crane mortalities from power line strikes in North America. Table 1 on Page 4 shows crane mortality in Coryell, Lampasas and Comanche County. This is before the addition of wind turbines and new transmission lines.

A 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study,(pg 8)11 Hamilton and Coryell are depicted as being an area of "Core Intensity" in the AWBP migration path. A map in a 2016 study prepared for the Dept of the Interior shows Hamilton and Coryell Counties to be in an area of the only stopover roosting sites found in Central Texas (Page 3) 12

According to Wade Harrell, Head of US Whooping Crane Recovery, "Whooping Cranes will seek out remote roosting sites on high plateaus away from human development." These plateaus are the exact sites proposed for erecting the 499' turbines.

10 Whooping Crane Collisions with Power Lines: an Issue Paper THOMAS V. STEHN, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service TOM WASSENICH1, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 11 Whooping Crane Migration Path and Stopover Site Use Intensity Within the Great Plains 2015 study prepared in collaboration with the Canadian Wildlife Service, Crane Trust, Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ii Evaluation of Nocturnal Roost and Diurnal Sites Used by Whooping Cranes in the Great Plains, United States US Dept of Interior.

Page 7of12 FWS Whooping Cranes and Wind Development 2009 study states, "Direct mortality of whooping cranes from wind energy development would reduce the size of the AWBP and could subsequently reduce the level of genetic variability within the flock. Removal of individuals from the flock would have a direct impact on the ability of the population to increase and reach down listing targets. Whether the impact is at a level that precludes recovery depends on the number of individuals lost and the frequency at which they are lost. It should be noted, however, that mortality of any birds in such a small population as the AWBP of whooping cranes does represent a loss of genetic material and a setback for recovery efforts. Wind farms, and the overhead transmission lines typically associated with them, represent increased structural hazards to this species. It is known that whooping crane collisions with power lines is a major threat to the species and that birds, including large birds, are killed by wind turbines." "The best available information also indicates that whooping cranes may avoid stopover habitat that is developed with wind energy appurtenances, particularly turbines. This avoidance may deny them the use of important habitat, and thus may result in take in the form of harm by significant habitat modification."

IMPACT OF FORT HOOD AVIATION FLIGHTS AND TRAINING

Fort Hood, the largest military base in the world, protectorate of US citizens, and the largest job provider in Coryell and Bell Counties, is located less than 20 nautical miles from where French owned EDF has proposed building their wind farm. Fort Hood is served by Robert Gray Army Airfield and Hood Army Airfield (RGAAF and HAAF).

RGAAF is a fully instrumented airfield tasked with the primary mission of providing training and deployment of Ill Corps and Fort Hood personnel and equipment. The airfield is capable of handling the world's largest military and civilian aircraft, covering approximately 3,800 acres within the fenced area.

Tenant aviation units at Robert Gray AAF include the 504th Military Intelligence Brigade, Texas Flight Detachment and the 1st Cavalry Division's Combat Aviation Brigade. Airfield operations and services include the Base Flight Operations, Operation Support Airlift (OSA) Military Flight scheduling office, USAF Weather Operations, Alert/Services and Airfield Security Operations. Each of these sections are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 13

When turbines were being proposed near Naval Air Station in Kingsville, Tx, the Department of Navy prepared a study which found the degradation to NAS Kingsville RADAR and NAVAIDS (Navigation Aids) caused by electromagnetic interference from nearby wind farms, would reduce Navy's ability to train aviators safely. The study further predicted that Navy would graduate 24-31 fewer pilots annually due to this impact.14

Turbines also create turbulence known as 11 a circular vortex that can roll a plane if it gets in there," said Tom Mulinazzi, a l

Turbines, with an overall height of 2,000', whose electromagnetic interference causes degradation to radar, would pose considerable risk to Fort Hoods military readiness, ability to train aviators safely, conduct regular missions, and perform daily operations. These risks would be escalated during period of inclement weather or heavy fog. If training missions were to be moved to other bases, the economy of Coryell would be impaired significantly.

As Hamilton Municipal Airport is located apx 11 nautical miles from the proposed wind farm, turbines on the surrounding towering vistas, are of particular concern.

13 Fort Hood Fact Sheet No. 0710- Robert Gray Army Airfield 14 Dept of Navy April 23, 2011 Evaluation of Wind Turbine Compatibility at Naval Station Kingsville, Tx.

Page 8of12 To date, there have been 7 fatal aviation accidents in the US involving wind farms. 15 In the three fatalities from 2003, 2005, and 2011, final NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) reports cited the unmarked towers and the inability of the pilot to see the towers as the probable causes for the accidents. In the 2013 fatality, the MET tower (used to record wind speeds for wind turbines) was marked but sun glare impaired the pilot's ability to avoid the tower.

In 2014, a private plane traveling from Hereford, Tx to Pennsylvania, hit a 300' turbine in South Dakota in heavy fog and rain and killed all 4 passengers. It was determined the facility was not charted on FAA maps and the warning light, which was not operable, had not been reported.

Other aviation fatalities have happened involving wind turbines but without direct collisions and where blame was attributed to the pilot. One such incident occurred on February 8, 2008 when Philip Ray Edgington, an experienced American Airlines pilot, was flying his vintage Cessna 140 airplane near Grand Meadow, Minnesota, at an elevation between 300 and 600 feet above ground level (agl).

Mr. Edgington came upon an array of 400-foot tall turbines, whereupon "the airplane made a 90-degree course change, which was followed by a figure-8 turn at varying altitudes between 800 and 1,500 feet agl." The NTSB reported that the craft "impacted terrain in a nose-low, high-speed impact. When the pilot was unable to maintain control of the airplane while maneuvering at low altitude."

WIND TURBINE FIRES AND ACCIDENTS

GCube, the leading provider of renewable energy insurance in the US, based on 2012 US reported claims, shows that blade damage and gearbox failure account for the greatest number of losses - (41.4% and 35.1%). The top two most frequently reported causes of loss were cited as poor maintenance (24.5%) and lightning strikes (23.4%). Design defect (11.5%), wear and tear (9.3%) and mechanical defect (6.2%) featured in third, fourth and fifth when it came to assessing and understanding the reason cited for the initial claim. 15

Jatin Sharma, head of business development at GCube and author of Towering Inferno, said: "While the vast majority of renewable energy losses escape the attention of the international media, it seems that, every few weeks, a turbine fire makes the headlines'1

Turbine fires which cost over US$225m per year. According to a 2014 report by the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS), over 90% of wind turbine fires result in total loss of the turbine or severe structural failure of its major components. Collateral costs include dangers posed to bystanders, nearby buildings and vehicles, workers that may be in turbines, and adjacent wildfire-prone areas." 17

Unfortunately, there's no shortage of fuel on board wind turbines whose blades can turn at 180 mph. According to the IAFSS, the main fire-loading comes from the large gear-house at the top of a turbine and upwards of 235 gallons of lubricating oil and other flammable liquids can be stored inside the housing, and thousands of feet of polymer-coated cable run down the shaft to a transformer below. This fuel seems to be ignited by four main causes: lightning, electrical malfunction, hot surface ignition, and maintenance.

IAFSS states, "lightning is the most common ignition source of turbine fires, and this risk is exacerbated once the fuel is ignited, what can be done? Typically, not much. Wind turbine heights far-exceed the reach of fire department aerial trucks, making them impossible to put out from the ground. When a wind turbine lights up, the

15 Wind Energy and Aviation Safety March 2, 2017 16 GCube Top 5 US Wind Energy Insurance Claims Report 2012 17 GCube report on wind turbine fires

Page 9of12 fire department's first role is to establish a "safe zone" around the expected perimeter of falling debris. Turbines in rural areas are often in remote areas and difficult to access by fire trucks. Fires may burn for long periods before fire trucks arrive which is can be particularly threatening to during periods of high winds when embers are carried for miles.'1

In Australia, an 8400-acre brush fire recently destroyed livestock, outbuildings, and at least one home. The fire was sparked by a freak accident involving a wind turbine, and this has exacerbated longstanding issues between locals and the windfarm operator. (abcofire.co1n/2017!04/wind-turbine-fires)

Texas State Representative, Susan King, had a wind turbine on her Taylor County ranch that caught fire at 10 o'clock at night and burned two acres. "I'm watching a turbine on my land on fire, throwing fire balls on my property. I think it needs to be very clearly delineated: if you have property and machinery that is the source of a fire that damages someone land or uses someone 1s resources, who is responsible for the cost, 11 said King. 11 They {volunteer fire fighters) leave their families in the middle of the night. They're willing to do it for zero. They do assist them from time to time but in no way is it enough. I think with the drought we need to take a hard look at

how we pay these people, not with their salaries, but paying for fuel or access to water and equipment, 11 said King. "18

Despite this inaccessibility, abundance of fuel and ignition sources, and high-profile high-cost losses, there is currently no legal requirement to provide fire detection or suppression measures on wind turbines, fund fire departments or reimburse for loss or damages to neighboring property.

ENERGY PRICES AND COST PRODUCTION

In Mr. Osborn's solicitation letter of 2009, he states, "Natural gas prices at the current price {$3.00 mcf Sept 2009) are extremely low. It is generally estimated that lacking government subsidies, wind power is not competitive in price until natural gas exceeds $6.00/mcf. It is possible that the price of natural gas will stay low for many years to come. 11 (pg 11}

On 5/5/2017, natural gas prices were $3.27, far below the $6.00 level Mr. Osborn indicates natural gas will have to exceed to be competitive.

Osborn further concludes, "Building a pipeline across the McKenzie Delta region of northwestern Canada or will tend to depress natural gas prices in Texas, by competitive effect on national demand. A reduction in Texas natural gas prices will hurt demand for wind power."(pg 13) President Trump on March 24, 2017 approved the TransCanada l

As former Senator Phil Gramm stated in a December 25, 2012, Wall Street Journal article: "The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high-$52.48 per one million watt hours generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, the subsidies for generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear power are $3.10, from hydropower 84 cents, from coal 64 cents, and from natural gas 63 cents."19

These uncompetitive rates for heavily subsidized wind power led LCRA {Lower Colorado River Authority), the leading nonprofit utility that sells wholesale power to electric co-ops and cities around Central Texas, to exercise a $60 million dollar payout with German owned E.ON. In 2009, LCRA signed an 18-year deal to obtain electricity from the Papalote Creek Wind Farm near Corpus Christi, at a price of $64.75 per megawatt-hour. With power going for about $25 a megawatt-hour on the open market, LRCA's General Manager, Phil Wilson, opted to make the sizeable payout to achieve its priority to give customer's "the best-priced product we can,". One of E.ON's

18 KTXS- Susan King Reacts To Wind Turbine Fire On Her Taylor County Ranch 19PUC.Texas.gov May 30, 2014 Meeting Document

Page 10of12 lenders sued the river authority who claimed government immunity from the suit. (http://www.statesman.com/news/lcra­ poised-pay-miliion-back-out-wlnd-power-contract/YEdMVzpKlwY04JluFByVpK/)

The consequences of continuing to provide hefty subsidies to generate wind power at non-competitive prices could lead to more defectors, lawsuits and potentially, bankruptcy's and abandoned wind farms.

Thus, should French State owned EDF desire to build a wind farm in Hamilton and Coryell Counties, is not because it is economically feasible for American's, but because it is lucrative due to the millions of dollars of tax credits and incentives they obtain.

Further support of this summation is Orborn's, statement, "It is customary that developers of wind power request and receive a phase-in of their add valorem tax burden, such that the tax paid in the earliest years of the project is reduced. These agreements sometimes provide that the tax is lowered exactly to the amount that the local school tax district would be allowed to keep before the Robin Hood rules force it to send it's tax revenue to other districts in the state. We are uncertain how the Evant School district would respond to such a request. If a project were on the verge of profitability, a tax abatement might make a difference in attracting the interest of a national developer."(pg 15)

DECOMMISSIONING OF WIND FARM TURBINES

Texas, the state with the highest wind-energy generation capacity, imposes no requirement that unregulated wind farms be decommissioned at the end of a useful life. With technology changing rapidly, it is often more viable to purchase new technology than to repair ageing and antiquated equipment.

Lisa Linowes, executive director of WindAction Group, a nonprofit which studies landowner rights and the impact of the wind energy industry says, "So we're coming in on 10 years of life and we're seeing blades need to be replaced, cells need to be replaced, so it's unlikely they're going to get 20 years out of these turbines. Estimates put the tear-down cost of a single modern wind turbine, which can rise from 250 to 500 feet above the ground, at $200,000. This means landowners and counties in Texas could be on the hook for tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars if officials determine non-functional wind turbines need to be removed." 20

Texas law Review Vol 95:123 states: leases fail to obligate the developer to post decommissioning security for the same reason as naked decommissioning requirements: they are ineffective against bankrupt and dissolved operators. 21 Alternatively, a subsidiary may be lumbered with all the current debts and other liabilities, which are loaded up in such a way as to exceed its assets (as long as the wind farm is operating, the parent sees that sufficient cash flushes through the subsidiary for it to remain technically solvent, at least in the short term). In the event that a creditor(s) pursues the subsidiary for any substantial claim, the parent (or related holding company) drains the assets and the subsidiary winds up in insolvent. If a wind company fails, does a lien holder have rights to take action against the land owners? What about addition taxes the land owner must pay for improved access roads or other improvements left by the defunct developer that increased the assessed value pf the property?

(https:llstroatwindtur/Jine.comltagldeco1nn1issioning)

20 Valley Star Newspaper - Retiring Old Worn Out turbines Could Cost Billions Feb 2017 21 Texas law Review Vol 95:123 2016

Page 11of12 While planning authorities often talk about obtaining what are called "decommissioning bonds", whatever promises are made, are given by the subsidiary (not the parent), which is designed to have no assets available to

cover the cost of decommissioning; whenever that inevitable event takes place. Meanwhile1 the wind farm may have changed hands many times,

Such was the case of wind farms in Hawaii, (whose below history is from Hawaii Wind Working Group):

Kahuku Wind Farm Westinghouse Turbines (1985)

• Hawaiian Electric Renewable Systems (HERS) installed, owned and operated from 1985-1993 • (15) 600 kW Westinghouse turbines • Westinghouse design. Westinghouse did not continue in the wind energy area, so there were no upgrades available. • Energy production lower than projected • Operation and maintenance costs higher than projected • Turbines sold in 1993 to New World Power • New World Power owned and operated from 1993 to 1996 • New World Power eventually went bankrupt • Reverted to landowner, Campbell Estates • U.S. Army acquiring parcels at Kahuku for training

Boeing MOD-SB Wind Turbine (1987)

• Hawaiian Electric Renewable Systems (HERS) owned and operated from 1987-1993 • 3,200 kW Boeing turbine • Worlds largest wind tw·bine at the time (a special crane had to be shipped in to install it). The two blades together measured 320 feet from tip to tip. One of the blades is on display in Honolulu at the Ward Avenue facility of Hawaiian Electric Company. • Last of federal-sponsored turbines, was built for the U.S. Department of Energy by the Boeing Aerospace Company, under the project management of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It was an experimental machine. • Energy production was lower than projected

Molokai Wind Energy Development Vestas Wind Turbines (1991)

• 1 MW private wind farm development on Molokai • Power purchase agreement (PUC approved) • Wind-Diesel wind farm demonstration • (3) 100 kW Vestas wind turbines • (1) 100 kW diesel generator • Electronic problems due to possible lighting strike (1994) • Power purchase agreement terminated ( 1997)

PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO WIND FARMS

On Page 11 of Osborn's, 2009 letter, he states that opposition to wind farms in Hamilton or Coryell could make the sale of the project to a wind power company difficult.

Considerable opposition for the reasons provided in this study has caused a large group of concerned local tax paying citizens 1 many who are land owners and business owners solicited by a wind farm developer or are in the affected areas, to form an opposition group to keep wind farms out of their prospective counties.

Page 12of12

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, there have recently been, and almost certainly will be in the future, companies attempting to enter into options for long-term leases with landowners in Gillespie County for the purpose of erecting massive wind turbines (wind farms) across the scenic landscape of oui community; and,

WHEREAS, the Gillespie County Commissioners Court supports private property rights of all landowners and recognizes that potential income to participating property owners who sign options for leases for wind turbines to be located on their property could be beneficial for those property owners; however, the Commissioners Court is concerned about the property rights that ther participating landowners will be giving up by relinquishing control of their property to a wind power company over a long period of time; and, the Commissioners Court is additionally concerned about potential adverse effects and infringement upon the private property rights of laridoWners adjacent to. or near a wind fann ·who either choose not to foase their land to a wind power company or do not have an opportunity to lease their land to a wind power company; and,

WHEREAS, the construction of such industrial wind farms will permanently degrade the scenic vistas of our area for long distances; and,

WHEREAS, industrial wind farms viewable from the Enchanted Rock State Natural Area will forever scar a popular recreational asset of this area; and,

WHEREAS, the construction of such industrial wind farms will likely destroy the peaceful existence that the residents of Gillespie County have come to enjoy over the years by generating noise from the turbines and creating "shadow, strobe, or flicker'' effects; and, ...

WHEREAS, industrial wind fanns could be detrimental to the environmental integrity and wildlife of our area; and,

WHEREAS, it is strongly believed by professional real estate appraisers and members of the real estate community that land values in the area in which industrial wind farms are situated will be substantially decreased; and,

WHEREAS, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the amount of wind generated in this area has resulted in out area being ranked 20th out of 25 potential wind areas in the State of Texas; and, WHEREAS, the Gillespie County Commissioners Court believes that the negative impact of industrial wind farms, including the potential economic loss to the county as a whole, would outweigh any benefits that they would bring to Gillespie County.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF GILLESPIE COUNTY:

That the Gillespie County Commissioners Court opposes the construction and installation of industrial wind farms in Gillespie County and the surrounding Hill Country area. . ~ . Passed and approved this /).0 day of December, 2007. ~:;Lk_ Mal'k Stroeher, County Judge

Cuftis Cameron, ~/;;2;~:A.Roeder, County Commissioner, Precinct No. 1 County Commissioner, Precinct No. 2 {Jrkv~·· f)4fhA/ JcLrL Calvin Ransleben, . Donnie Schuch, ' County Commissioner, Precinct No. 3 County Commissioner, Precinct No. 4

MaryL. Ru e County Clerk GILLESPIE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Industrial Wind Farms

The Gillespie County Economic Development Commission strongly opposes the construction of industrial wind farms in Gillespie County and the surrounding Texas Hill Country area. This position is taken after a careful consideration of the issues associated with the economic and environmental impact of industrial wind farms.

The Hill Country is a jewel of Texas. It is highly touted and highly regarded for its landscapes and scenic beauty. It is a desirable area to both visit and live and property values and the robustness of the tomism economy reflect its attractiveness. Wind turbines are incompatible with the elements that make the Hill Country special. Their presence would cause irreversible harm. There is ample reason to believe that industrial wind farms would cause a general reduction in property values and would cause a significant reduction in tourism. Our county and city governments and our school districts are responsible and fiscally conservative. Accordingly, the loss of revenue from reduced tourist dollars and a tax base reduced by declining property values will result in a corresponding tax rate increase. Tax increases do not stimulate economic vitality.

The environmental impact of industrial wind farms is known. Wind turbines create a noise that is described as a penetrating low-frequency thudding vibration that travels even further than the measured audible noise. The spinning blades can create a flickering light on one side of a blade and a flickering shadow on the other side that can literally cause humans and animals to experience spatial disorientation. The spinning blades also kill and maim birds and bats. Each tower requires a cleared area of several acres at its base and the towers must be connected by roads capable of handling heavy equipment. The destruction of the landscape and wildlife habitat required for this is permanent. And, each tower is required to be lighted with a flashing red light at night. These adverse environmental impacts are a direct cause of the reduction in property values mentioned earlier.

The economic development commission generally applauds the search for alternative energy sources to satisfy our increasing demands. However, the commission is skeptical about the real potential for wind power's contribution. The U.S. Department of Energy reports that wind power has the potential to contribute 1.2% of our energy demand by the year 2030. To achieve this miniscule contribution to energy needs the federal government subsidizes the constluction of wind farms through production tax credits and accelerated depreciation schedules. This essentially passes along a majority of the cost of construction of wind farms to taxpayers. Industrial wind farms are not economically viable without these subsidies. The Gillespie County Economic Development Commission believes that the potential economic loss to the community is grossly out of proportion to the immeasurably small potential contribution industrial wind farms here could make to the energy solution.

The economic development commission respects the rights of individual property owners to make decisions regarding their property without outside interference. However, the commission. is concerned that property owners who exercise their property rights and sign lease options with industrial wind companies are actually relinquishing control of their property. While industrial wind fanns may provide some economic benefit to the participating land owner, adjacent landowners will experience a decrease in property values and other adverse effects which effectively infringes upon their property rights. And there are additional complications. Transmission lines will be required to move the electricity from the wind farms to the electric grid. It is likely that eminent domain would be used to acquire rights-of-way for new transmission lines from non-participating, unwilling land owners.

To summarize, the Gillespie County Economic Development Commission believes that concein for the economic cost to the Gillespie County community as a whole far outweighs consideration of uncertain financial benefits to a few and a marginal at best contribution to future energy needs. RESOLUTION 01<' THE BOARD OF TI:IE FREDERICKSBURG CONVENTION AND VISITOR BUREAU

WHEREAS, tourism to Gillespie County generated an estimated $66,000,000 in direct spendi11g in 2006; and

WHEREAS, nearly 1,000 jobs in Gillespie County were dircclly related to the tourism indusay in 2006;and

WI-IEREAS, ahnost every resident of Gillespie Coirnly benefits from Ll1e economic impact of the tourism in

WHEREAS, visitors from major me1ropolitru1 areas across we State of Texas view the Texas Hill CountTy, including Gillespie County, as a place to relTeat fro111 the urban~ industT.ial built enviromnent~ and

WHEREAS, Gillespie County is a fly zone for 'Ul estimated 1.5 to 1 million Me;cican free tail bats which make their summer home at tl1e Old Tlillllel Wildlife Jvlrurngement Area, a major attraction for ecolou1isn1 to Kendall and Gillespie County; and

WHEREAS, the construction of industrial wind farms will alter the narurnl beauty of Gillespie Coltnty and the Texas I-IiJJ County, affecting the scenic retreat of n1illions of Texans and visitors :6:0111 across the United States; and

WHEREAS, the construction of industrial wiud farms may be in direct view from Enchanted Rock State Natural Area in Gillespie ru1d Llru10 Counties, a national historic site and a highly acclai1ned rock chn1bing venue for the south,vesten1 part of the l.Jnited States; and

WHEREAS, tl1e construction of induwial wind frurns will affect the Mexican free tail bat colony at the Old Tunnel Wildlife lvlaoagement Area as well as bird species and other wildlife; ru1d

WHEREAS, we construction of industrial wind farms could ultiu1ately lead to a decline in tomism to Gillespie County ru1d the Texas Hill Country; ·

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL \TED BY THE BOARD OF THE FREDERJCKSBURG CONVENTION AND VISITOR BUREAU:

The Boru·d of tlie Fredericksburg Convention ru1d Visitor Bureau respects the rights of individual property owners and realizes the need for alternative energy sources. Ho\vever, due to the hJgh poteolial risks for the economy of Gillespie Couniy as a whole, tl1e Bomd opposes die constn1ction ofi11dus1Jial \Vind fan11s ln Gil1espie ('ou11ty.

PASSED J\J'-!D APPROVED TI-ITS 18'" DAY OF DECEMBER2007. )?__,_,L,(_ / . '_£~G:L:Jl Molly Sa~ieJ, Seefetmy THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GILLESPIE COUNTY FARM BUREAU

WHEREAS, the possible installation of wind turbine industrial complexes in Gillespie County would have major impacts on landowners and other residents throughout the county; and, installation of wind turbine industrial complexes would significantly alter the land that has taken generations to develop; and,

WHEREAS, . private property rights are clearly recognized and the potential income to the landowners where wind turbines are actually located could be important; but, negative impacts of installation of industrial wind turbine complexes on neighbors' property rights, use and value of their property could be significant; and,

WHEREAS, royalty income from wind turbines is uncertain due to a number of unknown factors including wind conditions, curtailments, an unspecified number of wind turbines and the dependence of the wind companies on significant tax incentives; and,

WHEREAS, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas has designated only the northern part of Gillespie and parts of surrounding counties as being 20th out of 25 potential wind areas, but adverse ' economic effects would be county-wide; and,

WHEREAS, lease agreements can be very one sided in favor of industrial wind turbine complex companies; and, landowners that sign leases can lose a significant amount of control on how their land is used; and,

WHEREAS, options of heirs as well as current landowners could be severely restricted during the many years the leases cover; and, there may not be any financial guarantee that wind turbines will be dismantled when they are no longer used;

BE IT THERFORE RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GILLESPIE COUNTY FARM BUREAU:

All of those potentially impacted by wind turbine industrial complex installations should become informed of the associated complex considerations including impacts on neighbors and other landowners; and,

Landowners that are approached by wind turbine industrial complex companies should carefully consider all of the implications of signing lease agreements and get independent expert legal advice where it will be helpful; and

The Texas legislature should immediately initiate an interim study of wind turbine generation, focusing on all aspects of the complex industry that is currently without any regulation or oversight; and

County Commissioners should be granted the authority to provide an appropriate level of oversight for the wind turbine industrial complex industry.

Approved this 19th day of November, 2007:

Wallace~ Klussmann, President /Treasurer RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, there have been and there may be other companies in the future who are attempting to enter into lease agreements with landowners in Gillespie County for the purpose of erecting wind turbines (wind farms) on the scenic landscape of our community; and

WHEREAS, the construction of such industrial wind farms will permanently degrade the scenic vistas of our area for long distances; and

WHEREAS, industrial wind farms viewable from Enchanted Rock will forever scar a popular recreational asset of the area; and

WHEREAS, the construction of such indusbial wind farms will destroy the peaceful existence of the quality of life the residents of Gillespie County have come to enjoy over the years bey generating noise from the turbines, creating "shadow, strobe or flicker" effects; and

WHEREAS, industrial wind farms could be detrimental to the environmental integrity and wildlife of our area; and

WHEREAS, it is widely accepted by professional appraisers and members of the real estate community that land values where industrial wind farms are built and the land of the adjoining property owners could be devalued; and

WHEREAS, according to Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the amount-of wind generated in this area is designated as being 20~ out of 25 potential wind areas in the state of Texas; and

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG:

The construction of industrial wind turbines (wind farms) is opposed by the Fredericksburg City Council In the Gillespie County area.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 3rd day of December, 2007.

ATIEST: to)j/~ Shelley Britto ~retarY City of Fredericksburg