April 2008 W NNDDFAARMRM ByUUPDATE Dr Julian Elder PDATE he decision on WEL Networks’ proposed wind farm at Te Uku is expected to be Tannounced by the Waikato District Council in the near future. Like you, we keenly await the outcome. I’m sending you this UPDATE to provide important background information as part of WEL’s commitment to on-going consultation with the greater Raglan community. The UPDATE forms no part of the resource consent process. The business case for the wind farm is strong and financially sound. Otherwise, we would not be risking an investment of $200 million, particularly when we are owned by the community. The Te Uku wind farm project will only go ahead if it is profitable. But we do acknowledge that there are residents with mixed feelings about the wind farm, and those who oppose it. The proposed wind farm is among the smaller of the wind farms either in operation or planned elsewhere in New Zealand. The generation of power to meet the growing demands of consumers and industry always presents a dilemma. New Zealanders are demanding renewable energy resources, yet at the same time they are demanding more supply. In the Waikato region, 55 percent more power will be needed in the next 10 years to meet the growth of both residential and business consumers. NO TO NUCLEAR POWER Coal fired power stations are being rejected and no-one supports nuclear power. Other ways to deliver power, such as bio mass, tidal and solar, are not currently realistic in commercial terms. Wind, as an energy resource, continues globally as the most widely accepted form of renewable and sustainable generation. WEL has spent five years evaluating a number of sites in the Waikato region and based on that research the Te Uku site is the best location available to us. The wind data collected over the past three years at Te Uku confirms the site’s viability. There is a very real benefit to Raglan if the wind farm proceeds. As a direct result, the power supply will become more secure. We have planned a lines upgrade for Raglan for completion in 2017. But the new wind farm will require this to be completed in 2010 at the earliest along with a new substation at Raglan if the project proceeds. With, or without the wind farm, this work will go ahead. INVESTING IN RAGLAN Meanwhile, over the past three years the company has invested $4 million in improving the power supply to the Raglan district quite separately from planning for the wind farm. Now that we are all in a waiting mode over the wind farm decision, we felt it important to send you this Wind farm UPDATE. It has been prepared to answer questions you might still have and, hopefully, to correct some misinformation that is circulating in the community. As you can imagine, the evidence from both sides represents hundreds of thousands of words, much of it very technical. All of the documents can be viewed at the offices of the Waikato District Council. Alternatively, the WEL evidence is available on the company website, www.wel.co.nz. If you do have any questions please contact the Wind Farm Project Team at the address shown on the back of the UPDATE. *Dr Julian Elder is Chief Executive of WEL Networks Limited and has a background in infrastructure engineering and construction. He has a Doctorate in power generation. majority indicating that they were happy with the Why have the turbines level and quality of information provided to them increased in height from 80 by WEL. Almost everyone thought the information metres to 137 metres. WEL was excellent or good in terms of being clear and Networks told us in a brochure easy to understand. that the turbines would only be 80 After the delivery of the information pack, a series metres high. of advertised public meetings were held in Te Uku, Te Mata, Raglan, Kawhia and Te Akau regions. At At the time of announcing the these meetings, all WEL’s representatives were feasibility study we were in the early available to the public, including the CEO, the stages of considering a range of turbines, project team and expert consultants. sizes and models, from a number of international manufacturers. Two open days were also held at Te Uku. During the fi rst stage of informing the public, WEL fl ew 43 We felt it was important to give the residents residents to the Te Apiti wind farm in Palmerston a sense of visual perspective of the North so they could see for themselves an proposed turbines. So WEL announced operating wind farm. the feasibility study for the proposed site In terms of outcomes from this public process, quoting the turbines under consideration WEL then made a number of changes to the with a hub height of 80 metres and a total project, including repositioning of a turbine. height of 125 metres to the top of the blade. We believe that WEL has made every possible However, after presenting this information to effort to ensure accurate representation of the the community, we identifi ed that the Vestas visual impact, including the Te Apiti wind farm V90 turbine was the most suitable generic Many residents say they visit, which enabled people to make up their own model for the site. It had a hub height of 90 consider that WEL tried to deceive minds on noise and visual impact. metres and total height of 137 metres at the peak them by failing to include the In the event that the Commissioners grant of the blade. Telecom receiver tower in the the wind farm application, and subject During the second round of public open days, photographs published in the to any Environment Court appeal, it is WEL’s intention to set up a community the new turbine height size was discussed with original brochures. Why did WEL those who attended these meetings and this liaison group. This group, with WEL’s support, remove the receiver? would provide an opportunity for direct contact is where the confusion between the hub with the company and the project team. (see height from the initial 80 to the now 90 This is incorrect. The Telecom receiver has community liaison group question on page 4). metres arose. always been in the photographs but it is diffi cult to see against the skyline, particularly because of Much has been made of wind Originally there were only 24 the distance between where the photo was taken data at the site. Why did WEL ignore turbines. Now there are 28. Why? and the actual tower and turbine location some 3 kms away. data gathered independently over a It is correct that in the original information WEL 10 year period at another site? WEL has always been concerned to ensure planned for 24 turbines. that the community has been presented with The wind data related to a different location As landowner agreements became fi nalised the visual material that accurately refl ects the size some 10kms away from the Te Uku site and turbine layout was revised and subsequently of the turbines. at a much lower level relating to the ground increased to 28. conditions. WEL has been monitoring wind As well as the brochure, photographs of the fl ows at the plateau site for three years using The decision to add four more turbines was turbine sizes were clearly indicated in a specially internationally recognised and sophisticated discussed with those who attended the two produced CD. technology for wind data collection. community open days at Te Uku and has Why hasn’t WEL listened to the been consistent with all other subsequent Why did WEL make it diffi cult for information including the application. concerns of the community? submitters by holding the resource The application has always been available WEL has been proactive in communicating with hearings in Ngaruawahia instead of for public inspection at the offi ces of the the community located close to the wind farm at the Te Uku hall or at a venue in Waikato District Council (WDC) since it was and indeed the much wider community extending Raglan? It would have been more lodged on 19 March, 2007. from Whatawhata, Aotea, Kawhia, Raglan convenient and less travel cost township and over the harbour to Te Akau. More WEL is not seeking to increase the number than 7000 information packs announcing the for submitters. of turbines from 28 should the application feasibility study, were delivered to the area, as The hearing process was managed by the be successful. well as business and community leaders Waikato District Council. We understand that throughout the region served by WEL. because of the number of staff, fi les and the need We note in the application that for computer access that the WDC preferred the Professional research was undertaken by a WEL indicated a turbine numbered hearing at their facilities in Ngaruawahia. member of the Market Research Society of New as 29. Yet this is in confl ict with Zealand, Versus Research, following delivery WEL’s application for 28 turbines. of this information. It showed more than 80% We are concerned at the level Why? support for the project from those living in the of noise expected to be generated greater Raglan area, support in Te Uku was 64%, from the wind farm. There is a “number 29” turbine. only 17% opposed. The research had a margin Wind farms do generate noise, but at levels that As a result of community feedback, and after of error of 3.7%.