SENATE INQUIRY INTO WIND TURBINES IMPACT

My name is Kim Forde and I live in north . I am an environmental professional with more than 25 years’ experience in my field, and with 15 years’ worth of direct experience working in the energy generation sector. I now run my own consulting firm, The Missing Link, providing environmental and systems advice across the region.

I was the Environmental Manager - Renewables for for 8 years based in its hydro assets in North Queensland and supervised the environmental and community elements of the approval, construction and operation of Windy Hill for 7 years, and with operations for 2 years. After Windy Hill Wind Farm commenced operations, I stayed in the house, less than 200m from the closest turbine, twice per week for almost two years, with no impacts on my ability to sleep (and I am a light sleeper) or my health. I experienced no anxiety or heart palpitations or any of the other ‘symptoms’ that are falsely propagated by opponents of the industry. Nor did any of my colleagues or any of the other visitors (more than 50) to the site report any ill-effects.

I have maintained an involvement with Windy Hill Wind Farm as a consultant to Ratch Australia in its approval process for the Mt Emerald Wind Farm. I regularly (approx 5 times per year) access Windy Hill Wind Farm to provide members of the public opportunities to experience an operating wind farm up close and see for themselves that there are no impacts in terms of noise or safety or health or birds or any other fallacy that is propagated by the anti-wind lobby, based on generating a culture of fear. On regular occasions I host an Open Day at the site and have present on site to answer questions the landowners and their now grown-up children and grandchildren; employees and their families; near neighbours and members of the community. The number of visitors to each Open Day for the past three years have been more than 60 each day. The consensus from all visitors is a balanced, positive and educational experience.

The noise from the Windy Hill turbines can only just be heard in the car park that is less than 100m from the nearest turbine. You can carry on a normal conversation in the viewing area – have done it 100’s of times, with visitors ranging from school groups, to formal tour groups, to grey nomads who stop for a look and a chat. Almost to a ‘person’ they go away with their questions answered and any misunderstandings clarified. Their comments paraphrased ask ‘what is all the fuss about?’; ‘there is almost no noise’; ‘the wind is louder’; ‘the cows are grazing happily right underneath them’; ‘the noise is less than the passing trucks’; ‘aren’t they beautiful/ majestic/ stately’ to look at.

In 2013, 6 members of the anti-wind group associated with Mt Emerald Wind farm also attended the Open day at Windy Hill. For 5 of those 6 members, it was their FIRST VISIT to an operating wind farm. They had based all of their protests to that point, and since, on mis-information provided by other anti-wind groups and sourced from the internet. Despite being able to speak without difficulty at the base of the towers, this group promoted the lie that turbines produce noise similar to a jet aircraft. Despite speaking to people who had lived, or worked, safely on the same farm as the turbines for 15 years, they still insist in their rantings that there are ‘health impacts’ with no medical evidence of what that really means. Despite there being no evidence of any significant bird or bat death at this site, attributable to the operations of the wind turbines, they still raise false and unvalidated claims of fauna impact, standing up at one public meeting to claim more than 20 bird deaths per day for two years. When asked to provide evidence of this, none was forthcoming, because it simply wasn’t true. They relied on not being ‘called out’ to provide real evidence to back their claims, particularly from members of the media focussed on a 7 second controversial ‘grab’. Despite evidence from across the country and the world that wind farms have no negative impact on land values, they still incite fear by promoting this as a consequence. It is my conclusion there are none so blind as those who will not see, and deaf as those who do not wish to hear anything than their own view. I would like these people investigated to determine how much fear, illness and lost opportunity is the result of their self-interested fear mongering and them held accountable for the damage that they cause.

If you spoke to the Ravenshoe community, as I regularly do, who have had this wind farm in their front yard (within 5km and very visible from the centre of town) for 15 years now, you would find more than 95% satisfaction with the wind farm, the turbines and their operations, and no negatives in terms of health or viability of surrounding dairy farms or the community. In fact, the community has reaped significant benefit from having the wind farm as a tourist destination. Ravenshoe suffered significantly as a result of the closure of their timber industry when the surrounding forests were World Heritage listed in 1988. The dairy industry de-regulation in the mid-1990’s hit them hard. The coming of the wind farm reinvigorated the town, with local jobs created – a few at the farm, but more in the ‘support’ and ‘tourism’ industries. There is a ‘buzz’ in the town that has resulted since construction and operation commenced. In 1999, there was only one place in town to buy very bad coffee, now there are three very good coffee shops to cater for the tourists and locals alike. The Visitor Centre has a display with includes the wind farm and information about it, as does the tourism branding for the town, especially on the internet. Tea towel, t-shirt and postcard sales all feature the turbines in a positive manner. They see it as an asset. It is, and would be for any rural community.

To address your specific criteria, my comments are below.

1. The application of regulatory governance and economic impact of wind turbines, with particular reference to: a. the effect on household power prices, particularly households which receive no benefit from rooftop solar panels, and the merits of consumer subsidies for operators;

All the evidence that I have reviewed suggests that the price of energy for householders will be significantly lower when generating our energy needs from renewable energy, from all sources, by 2020 than from the ‘business as usual’ model of mainly coal. This makes sense purely in the following terms:  the increasing cost of coal as the world factors into the ‘real’ environmental and health costs of coal extraction, transport, generation, pollution protection and rehabilitation of mining sites  the comparison with choosing a renewable energy source that has NO ongoing cost of the power source – be that wind or solar.  The localisation of generation, particularly in regional areas where reliability and the reduction in the length of transmission lines, and the subsequent reduction in transmission losses. As someone who lives in a cyclone prone area, and who has worked in the energy industry for more than 15 years, it is my professional opinion that having generators closer to their users allows regional communities to be more resilient, and recovery much quicker from the significant impacts of these sorts of natural disasters. With all the evidence suggesting more and more intense cyclones in northern Australia as a consequence of climate change, then strategic planning to locate smaller, renewable energy sourced, generation assets adjacent to regional centres, makes sense. b. how effective the Clean Energy Regulator is in performing its legislative responsibilities and whether there is a need to broaden those responsibilities;

The Clean Energy Regulator has, in my opinion, done an excellent job in delivering it legislative responsibilities, and the use of its visionary staff to help identify a future for the delivery of energy in an equitable and economically viable method for Australia is essential. The lack of vision from this and previous Australian governments in working with industry for a gradual transition from a coal-dominated generation focus to a renewably sourced generation sources for all of Australia has been a sad indictment of their short-sightedness and focus on the next electoral cycle and short term profit. The process of transition has been identified in the Zero Carbon 2020 Reports, and represented opportunity for everyone and for Australia be a world leader instead of a laggard, as we are now. Use our expertise in the CER, the CEC and the Climate Council. c. the role and capacity of the National Health and Medical Research Council in providing guidance to state and territory authorities;

This is our leading agency for providing guidance on Health and Medical issues in Australia, and to my mind, deserves immense respect for the authenticity and integrity of their reports on a range of issues. How can you challenge their integrity and the accuracy of their reports on the non-health impacts of wind farms and not discredit their reports on the health impacts of not immunising children or smoking or other significant issues? As a professional in my field, I know how much I value my integrity and reputation and that I would not compromise that for any reason. I know that I continuously review credible research to ensure that my knowledge is up to date and based on valid information. I know that I reality check a range of options for ongoing issues by discussing it with a wide and varied network to ensure that if new and contrary information comes to light, we consider it against our own experience and the results of a range of testing, and are prepared to change and evolve our opinions over time based on good evidence. I know I very carefully review any potential client or task that I take on to ensure that their practices are sustainable and equitable and credible, and I am sure that every scientist and medical professional within the NHMRC goes through the same process. I cannot fault them on their role as guides to Australia in health issues, and I encourage them to continue their valuable works. d. the implementation of planning processes in relation to wind farms, including the level of information available to prospective wind farm hosts;

Planning and approval processes for wind farms should the same as for any other business or industry. I do not see why there should be a different process or standards required for wind farms than for others. Informing the community on what is proposed is a key responsibility of any proponent, prior to a project gaining approval through the appropriate regulatory process. Like any project, a proponent has a range of information already available, usually based on experience at other, hopefully similar sites. Certainly they would have undergone their internal feasibility studies to get the project through that evaluation mechanism. The approval process requires the identification of ‘potential’ impacts and mitigation strategies for foreseeable issues. All states have templates for this assessment mechanism. I have personally completed a number of these and they are robust. I see no problem with providing that information to the public, and that is what happens in every instance that I have been involved in. The proponent has been open and transparent in the process - as someone who intends to be part of the local community for 25 plus years once one of these farms is built, it is in their interest to do so.

I cannot understand why these projects have been subject to such variability, and such significant increases in requirements, or levels of certainty of impact, that are not applied to other industries. At Mt Emerald, the surrounding area has been approved in the past 20 years for – a prison and prison farm, a sugar mill, a very large scale waste facility and a speedway/raceway, in addition to many large and small scale farms – bananas, various vegetable and fruit crops and sugar cane farms. None of these have been subject to the same level of scrutiny or generated the same level of publicity as has been propagated here. This project will have substantially less environmental impact that any sugar mill or waste dump and will have substantially less clearing of native vegetation than occurred to create the surrounding farms; it will have significantly less social impact than having a prison and prison farm located in the neighbourhood; it will however provide a significant economic benefit for the region during construction and operation – though both local jobs and an ongoing community benefit fund, which no other industry group would even be asked to contribute to. Yet, it still faces uncertainty in the approval process. The documentation has sat on the desk of the former Planning Minister in Queensland since mid-November, with all ‘I’s dotted and all ‘t’s crossed.. waiting for a political decision to be made.

A small group, of less than 10 very vocal people, and one local Councillor who failed to declare her vested interests and membership of said group, have helped delay this particular project for almost 4 years. They were responsible on 2 occasions of forcing their way into public meetings set up as information sessions for the general community with bull horns, waving banners and bringing along a group of ‘rent-a-crowd’ agitated young farm workers into areas where families, children and older residents were trying to get reasonable answers from proponents, and their technical experts, to their questions. They deliberately sabotaged those processes then complain that the processes aren’t effective. The safety of the public in these instances is paramount, and the proponent would be vilified if they continued in the circumstances, should someone be hurt. It is a no-win situation that has not simple answer, except to hold the ‘anti’ groups to the same level of scrutiny and requirement to base their arguments on truth and verified (scientific) evidence and not heresay and outright lies. e. the adequacy of monitoring and compliance governance of wind farms;

Monitoring on wind farms should be to the recognised international standards. The New Zealand and South Australian standards, that are commonly used, are recognised internationally as being of the highest levels, and therefore should continue to be implemented. Any changes should be justified based on valid research or evidence; or at least compared to one of those two standards, to ensure that it is valid.

Any failure in monitoring seems to come from a failure of regulatory agencies to ensure that monitoring is undertaken at required timelines, or those regulators do not have the internal capacity or budgetary resources to effectively review the results for compliance to agreed standards. Not just in the wind industry, do regulators – councils, government departments of all sorts and at all levels, impose monitoring requirements that are: 1) not based on any standard 2) not reviewed or compared against those standards by someone qualified to do so 3) not followed up when there is a non-compliance, in a timely manner with an idea on what the appropriate response should be to remedy the situation. It is my experience that most businesses and industries do their best to comply with approval requirements and to verify that compliance through effective and regular monitoring, however, it is also my experience that very few compliance agencies have the resources or skilled experienced personnel to effectively verify compliance or reporting requirements. It is my experience that I deal with a new ‘regulator’ approximately every 6 months on any project that I am seeking approval for, requiring the education and backgrounding of that new person on agreed commitments and history of the project time and time again. This is not good enough. Regulators need to significantly improve their record keeping on projects to reduce the time that the approval process takes and this need for constant education. I was present at Mt Emerald wind farm site when staff of the federal Dept of Environment to site, who were responsible for approving the project, confessed they had NEVER been to an operating wind farm. How can they possibly effectively approve a project without the context of a real site to help understand the technical and scientific information that they were being presented with?

Industry has complained, and it has been acknowledged by government at all levels, to have too much “red” and “green” tape associated with approval processes, and the wind industry would be correct in asserting that they are greater victims of this complaint than almost any other. It is time this was resolved. Identify a standard and stick to it until the standard is reviewed, by the appropriate authority, on regular bases. f. the application and integrity of national wind farm guidelines;

The Wind Farm Guidelines are actively implemented with great support from the Clean Energy Council. The industry representatives that I am involved with are aware of, and conscientiously apply, the guidelines and are actively engaged with the CEC to improve the process. g. the effect that wind towers have on fauna and aerial operations around turbines, including firefighting and crop management;

Substantial evidence has been garnered over more than 20 years that wind towers, have a negligible impact on fauna and aerial operations. I can provide you with graphics and images that represent the relative impact of wind turbines on birds as compared with many other environmental factors including other buildings, cars and mostly cats. The impact is minimal, and is substantially less now than in the past due to the requirement to do preliminary siting and impact studies on potential impacts on threatened species prior to approvals being given. My experience at Windy Hill Wind farm over more than 8 years of conducting or reviewing on-site monitoring of bird and bat deaths was that the numbers who hit turbines and blades was less than 10 birds per year - significantly less (70%) than those that flew into the farm barbed wire fences; the windows of the office buildings and more than 90% less than birds who flew into the Koombooloomba Dam wall (approx 30kms away) and which I was also responsible for. No-one ever complained or fussed about how many birds had been killed over the 50 years of the operation of the Koombooloomba Dam, nor would they. It was an insignificant number compared to predation by other species or impacts of loss of habitat due to land clearing. This is another furphy.

As for aerial operation, even today 26 Feb 2015, the Victorian Emergency Management Commissioner has confirmed that wind towers present no additional risk for fire fighting aircraft than any other landscape feature. I have personally spoken to more than 20 pilots (helicopter and fixed wing) who say that any pilot would be aware of, and successfully avoid any wind turbulence created within a wind farm. They confirm that any impact is short-term and localised. For Mt Emerald Wind Farm, the proponent has already committed to work with local aerial spraying pilots, working on adjacent wind farms, to turn off relevant turbines during any operational times. They are confident that the impact on both wind farm operations and aerial spraying operations would be minimal due to the fact that aerial spraying can only occur at wind speeds lower than the minimal operating regime for the turbines. Wind turbines do not operate below approx 10 -15km/hr and aerial spraying should not occur above these wind speeds due to the inability to control where the chemical is targetted at higher speeds. Again, the risk of interaction has been significantly over-blown. h. the energy and emission input and output equations from whole-of-life operation of wind turbines; and

again, there is significant industry evidence that the CO2 emissions from the creation of wind farms is returned in less than 1 year of operations; and that the whole-of-life impacts are minimal due to the ‘source’ of energy being free and the low ongoing maintenance requirements of the wind farm asset. It needs no massive transport infrastructure to maintain it after construction, which is conducted predominately over existing ‘main’ roads or designated b-double route highways; there are no negative air emissions; no ongoing significant input of water; no need to stockpile large areas of potentially toxic materials. This is a win-win technology. i. any related matter.

Stop fluffing around and get on with approving the retention of the Renewable Energy Target and recognise the evidence of great and valid science that this is the way of the future…that wind turbines and wind farms have almost no negative impact on the environment and the communities in which they could exist and provide many more benefits to the economy and the community through their existence.

Your ‘Kodak’ moment has come – you can either keep going with old ‘film’/(coal) technology and become irrelevant in the scheme of things, or you can embrace ‘digital’ (renewable) low impact, minimally resource use, significantly cheaper and more equitable and ethical technology. Come on people, you are in the position to show leadership for ALL Australians and lead us into the future. Please do it now.

Regards Kim Forde