Open Letter to Governor Kathleen Sebelius

(The following letter was submitted in October 2007 to the Governor of Kansas by J.P. Michaud, resident of Ellis County)

Dear Governor Sebelius,

I was encouraged to read yesterday in our local paper, the Hays Daily News, that your obligation to protecting the health and welfare of the people of Kansas was first and foremost in your mind in supporting the decision to deny the permits for Sunflower Electric's new coal plants.

However, I must ask why that same concern does not appear to extend to the more than 100 families in Ellis County whose, health, homes and livelihoods have been threatened by efforts to site a massive wind energy development inappropriately close to residential settlements.

You pointed out that only 15% of the energy generated by the proposed coal plants would be used by Kansas, while 85% would be sold out of state, while Kansas would bear 100% of the local environmental impact. The same is true for Iberdrola's (CPV Wind Hays) development in Ellis County. Local residents would see their local environment devastated, lose millions of dollars of real estate value, have their health threatened, their quality of life diminished and the scenic beauty of their community destroyed forever, only to have the bulk of the power and the profits exported.

I am not going to argue that wind energy is a huge corporate boondoggle for taxpayers, that it is the most expensive and inefficient form of electricity generation, that it cannot replace any conventional generation because of the fickle nature of wind, that it is only feasible because of massive tax incentives provided to foreign corporations, that wind turbines rarely operate long enough to recover the carbon footprint of their installation, etc, etc.

However, I am going to argue that wind energy has an undeniably large environmental footprint that demands appropriate sites be selected for wind turbines.

The state should not turn a blind eye when large scale energy generation of any kind is proposed in the wrong place as local governments have neither the resources nor the expertise to regulate developments of this magnitude.

The proposed site for Iberdrola's project was selected on the basis its proximity to power lines and the covert scheming of a handful of (mostly non-resident) landholders. There was no independent environmental impact study, no economic impact study, and no consideration given to the rights of neighboring landholders. Both our local zoning board and our county commission are rank with corruption and conflicts of interest that should be sufficient to convene a grand jury investigation.

They completely ignoring the interests of the community at large in the hopes of profiting their own families. Our recently adopted zoning regulations (imposed specifically to facilitate wind energy development) are so inadequate that they contain only 1.5 pages that supposedly 'regulate' wind energy development – compared to 26 pages on signs! Add to this the fact that we have absolutely no comprehensive plan for zoning as recommended by state guidelines and it is not surprising that David Yearout, a member of your own energy council, saw fit to remove himself from the process, so much of his template was deleted from our regulations.

I understand and applaud your commitment to renewable energy. However 'renewable' does not mean 'without impact' – either socially, economically or environmentally. All forms of energy generation have impacts and must be carefully sited so as to minimize these impacts on our population – not simply to maximize the profits of greedy developers.

On behalf of myself and the more than 750 signatories of the Ellis County Wind Farm Moratorium Petition, I request that you weigh in on this issue and defend the innocent families of Hays Ellis County who are now facing the imminent threat of a new application from Iberdrola, carefully gerrymandered to exclude a perfectly valid protest petition that defeated their initial application.

Please tell Iberdrola that, while we support wind energy, we value the health and welfare of our people even more. The wind blows just as hard across the 20 sections of vacant land in southeast Ellis County where almost nobody lives.

Respectfully,

J.P. Michaud
1189 180th Ave.
Hays, Kansas

Wind energy will raise power bills

(submitted to Hays Daily News, Oct. 25)

I agree with Craig Volland (HDN Oct. 23) that power bills will be going up. However, I disagree when he says that "rates will increase less if we utilize our state's world class wind resources". In fact, nothing is going to raise our electricity rates faster than the installation of wind power. It is the most inefficient and overpriced form of power currently being flogged to consumers by 'green-posing' politicians and profit-hungry wind developers.

The real cost of wind power is staggering when you add it all up. Estimates indicate that it is 2.5-4.0 times more expensive than energy from conventional sources. But wind turbines must be sited where wind is suitable, rather than where power is needed, and 6% of that power is lost for every 100 miles it must travel to the end user. Distribution costs are also higher for wind power because more extensive power lines are required to connect it to the grid. Furthermore, the constantly fluctuating energy yield from wind is more expensive to integrate, raising the cost of grid management.

Higher costs might be socially acceptable if wind could actually replace coal-fired generation, but it can't. Wind power is unpredictable and will always require backup from a reliable, on-demand, source. The greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program referred to by Volland will provide wind power with yet another undeserved advantage over other forms of generation simply because there is no CO2 produced during its operation – this despite the hundreds of tons of CO2 released during the fabrication, transport and installation of each turbine.

Beyond the direct costs of wind power, we must also factor in the socio-economic and ecological costs. Foremost among these is the loss of property values, which reliable estimates suggest is about 30%, on average, for those unfortunate enough to become wind farm neighbors. Then there are many more costs that are difficult to quantify – the environmental and ecological impacts on vast tracts of land.

What price can we place on thousands of bats and soaring birds of prey destined to be sliced and diced by wind turbines? What monetary value can be assessed for lost quality of life, destruction of rural tranquility, noise pollution, and the unique human health risks associated with wind energy? These costs are all real and must be given due consideration whenever wind energy is compared to less environmentally intrusive forms of generation.

Due to deceptive government legislation, the high costs of wind power are being temporarily concealed from consumers in order to encourage its public acceptance. But don’t be fooled; power bills will rise dramatically in the next few years as government subsidies expire and utilities seek to recover the high maintenance costs associated with wind turbines. Almost half the capital cost of each turbine is the gearbox and current data from Germany indicate that these have a half life of less than five years. Within five years, wind developers will have run for cover with their 'windfall' profits and consumers will be left holding the bag – an industrial wasteland of decrepit monstrosities.

Wind farm is all about the money

The following letter by J.P. Michaud, Ellis County resident, was printed in the Hays Daily News, on June 29, 2007:

Opponents of the wind project have recently been subjected to a series of scathing public allegations from Dana Kraus, whose hope was to retire with the money from his windmills because, “I don’t have a 401(k).”

I publicly challenge Dana to accompany me to the 400-foot met tower on Palmer land with a notary public and measure its shadow so we can triangulate its height. If it is not in excess of 300 feet, I will pay him $1,000 in cash which he can use to start a retirement plan.

To my knowledge, there have been no unlawful actions reported against project proponents. Public shaming with signs, print and the Internet to be sure, but nothing illegal and all based on facts that are matters of common knowledge and public record. Otherwise, I am sure we would all be facing lawsuits by now. In contrast, opponents have had our signs defaced, suffered several costly acts of vandalism on oil leases, and one suspicious fire in a business immediately following a petition drive there. We also have received anonymous threats and “poison pen” letters — we have simply not sought to portray ourselves as victims in the media to the extent that proponents have.

I venture that if the project’s supporters fear harassment, it is fear borne out of guilt for their own selfish greed.

We have heard proponents speak vehemently about the social benefits of wind energy and how we should embrace it to save the planet. It is cleaner electricity than that produced by burning coal. It will help reduce global warming. It will bring economic development to the community. It is the socially responsible course of action. For these reasons, they have established the Ellis County Supporters of Wind to “educate” the community.

So why was this group not formed at the project’s inception? They would have had three years to “educate” us. But regardless of whether one believes these claims, it is hard to accept them as motivation for the project.

The real motive is profit — both corporate and personal. Is anyone naive enough to believe that Disgen/CPV/Iberdrola would push this project simply to benefit our community?

After the demise of Enron, its subsidiary Enron Wind was acquired by General Electric and quickly set the tone for aggressive wind energy development in the USA. Around this time, Disgen began as “single-asset” LLC corporation. The single asset? A pile of leases and easements covertly obtained by Krista Gordon entitling them to conditional land uses. Notably, this single asset will soon be rendered worthless if their application is denied. No wonder Krista is scrambling.

Why would Iberdrola pay $67 million for a collection of land use entitlements? As Kristen Sullivan put it to me, they have the “tax appetite” for this kind of project. They have the large capital expenditures necessary to fully exploit all the federal tax breaks in ways that smaller corporations cannot, tax breaks totaling about $160 million.

Envision your tax dollars going down a pipeline directly to Spain. Iberdrola is also responsible for massive carbon emissions worldwide and is therefore highly motivated to obtain carbon credits however possible, the most attractive being obtained from government-subsidized wind energy developments. You have to be a big international player to trade carbon credits on the world stage and we are poised to become another poker chip in their stack.

Of the 15 or so people who have attended the first few supporters’ meetings, virtually all have a family or corporate interest in the project. I suspect we could learn more from them if they educated us on how to manipulate local politics for personal gain. The local profits go to seven families, and 58 percent go to Dana Kraus’s family (details here in the post “Corruption in Zoning”), while 100 families will have their quality of life destroyed and their properties devalued. Still, they publicly compare opponents to Nazis and expect us to believe that they are doing this for the good of the community and to help save the planet.

We know better. It is all about the money — these are people seeking financial gain with complete disregard for their neighbor’s health, investments and peace of mind.

Submitted by:
J.P. Michaud
1189 180th Ave.
Hays, Kansas

A Mere List of Names Does Not Constitute a Petition

Submitted by J.P. Michaud:

In keeping with its continued sloppy coverage and biased reporting of the wind energy project, the Hays Daily News reported last Wednesday on the submission of a “petition” by supporters of the project. They need to buy Kaley Lyon a dictionary. From Webster’s unabridged: “Petition: A formally drawn request ... to a group of persons in authority ... soliciting some favor, right, mercy, or other benefit.”

Their list of names presented by Krista Gordon (in favor of building the industrial wind complex) cannot be considered a petition in any sense of the word as they are not signatories to any formal request addressed to anyone in authority. Theire prepaid, mail-in responses simply expressed general support for wind energy and the supposed “millions of dollars” it would bring to Ellis County.

This is a zoning issue dealing with the appropriateness of land use in a specific location (despite the apparent inability of zoning board members to grasp this charge).

In the Hays Daily News coverage of their "petition," there was no mention in the proponent’s letter of support regarding this project’s specific location beyond “Ellis County.” That could mean the 20 sections of land in the southwest corner of the county where almost nobody lives — and where I suspect there would be little opposition to siting the project.

Therefore, their list of names is completely irrelevant to the crux of the controversy: the siting of this project on top of 100 families that don’t want to live with it. Proponents have produced a list of supporters of wind energy in the most general of terms, not supporters of this project’s proposed location. Theirs is just one more cheap publicity stunt by Krista Gordon.

Contrast this to our citizen’s petition from our coalition we will be submitting soon. Ours was obtained largely by word-of-mouth, knocking on doors and other personal forms of contact. Ours has a clearly stated request addressed to the county commissioners — a moratorium on wind energy development within the county until an independent and unbiased assessment of all impacts can be performed. So vague is the statement of supporters that it is possible to agree with it and also agree that a moratorium is needed. In fact, a number of their signors subsequently signed our petition — without contradicting themselves in any way.

Closer examination of their list of “supporters” reveals many apartment numbers (most reflecting temporary student housing), apparent names of children, at least one deceased person, and even the name of one of our supporters who cannot understand how his name appeared on the list.

We doubt that more than a tiny fraction of people on their list would be willing to step forward and actively protest any decision to reject this project.

On the other hand, our list represents a large number of people who have already shown they are willing to commit considerable time and financial resources to defending this community against corporate exploitation and creating a sizable political backlash if this project is approved.

Submitted by:
J.P. Michaud
1189 180th Ave.
Hays, Kansas