How much is free?

From Penny Davis, Ellis County resident:

As I was reflecting on Iberdrola’s offer of “free electricity” to the many landowners living with the effects of but not profiting from the proposed turbines, I was reminded of a saying I once heard, “when it sounds too good to be true, the cost is hidden”. We all know there is no such thing as a free lunch. Likewise, I wonder how much this “free” electricity going to cost my family?

To begin with, I must point out that the offer really isn't for free electricity. Consistent with our experience of Iberdrola’s behavior in this project, there is much more to know than they are publicly disclosing. The offer is actually based on the month’s electricity bill prior to signing the contract. For instance, if we sign in October, we will be paid a set amount per month, based on our bill in September. This, of course, will not work out to “free” electricity. This year has been a particularly cool year and we didn’t run our air conditioning in September at all. Even in more normal years, the months of May through August typically dwarf the bills of September through April. Therefore the actual reimbursement will be far less than our annual electricity cost.

More to the issue at hand, when they finally delivered this offer (months after announcing it and after the commission vote), they had not discussed it with us or other landowners in the area. If they had taken the time to actually work with us, they would have discovered we don’t want their money. As it stands, even a genuine offer of free electricity will cost us more than we can afford to pay.

What we want from Iberdrola is assurance they will stand by their word. We need assurance that the turbines will not harm our children. We want assurance that they will not devastate our finances by making our largest singe investment (our home) less valuable or desirable on the market. We want assurance that we will not be subjected to daily annoyances that have driven others living with turbines out of their homes. We need assurance that they will not destroy the quality of life for which we paid a premium and searched for years to be able to acquire. This assurance, however, is something they refuse to offer. Instead, Iberdrola asks us to do the opposite by signing away all our assurance in order to receive the “free electricity”.

They tell everyone that all of the things we fear, things such as health effects, noise, flicker, property devaluation, etc, are not real concerns. Meanwhile, they ask us to sign a document giving them the right to do these things (and more) to us in exchange for “free electricity”. All we want is a guarantee that what they tell everyone is true. Instead, they make us an offer we can’t possibly afford to take and present it as being neighborly.

If Iberdola is trustworthy, they should simply do what most manufacturers do when selling a quality product, offer a guarantee. If everything they are telling the community about the project and the turbines is true, they can keep their “free electricity”, increase their profits and offer more money to the county. The residents living with the turbines will have assurance they will not be destroyed by the project. Everyone wins.

Of course, if the Commissioners are wise, they will ask Iberdrola for a similar guarantee that this choice of location will not harm the County or the city of Hays . If they do, my bet is that Iberdrola will refuse, as they have refused to assure the people living with their proposed project. Instead, they’ll encourage the county to waive what legal protections they have, all in exchange for “free” money. Then if the project is approved, we’ll all pay the long term cost of what was sold to us as “free”.

Submitted by:
Penny Davis
Hays, KS

All projects should well-placed & thoroughly collaborated with everyone affected

This letter was submitted by Ellis County resident, Penny Davis:

The Hays Daily News reporting of CPV’s compensation offer to those living in the project area begs further reporting of the facts and requires much clarification.

My husband and I are property owners in the proposed project area. We have not received one visit, telephone call or letter, offering us any sort of compensation. I can’t say they haven’t approached anyone, but ask many of the landowners opposed to the project location, and they will likely tell you of an experience similar to ours.

We have attempted to host conversations with the CPV and leasing landowners in the area. We began by sending a letter to all of the individuals living in the project area and those who had signed leases with CPV shortly after we found out about the project.

Interestingly, we were made aware of the project when a friend emailed us the map submitted by CPV, with our house in the middle of around 10 turbines. Yes, that’s right, no disclosure when we bought our home several months before the application, and no effort by CPV or leasing landowners to work with us or even inform us of the application.

In response to our letter to request dialogue with our neighbors regarding our questions and concerns, we received many civil phone calls from neighbors opposed to the location of the project.

We only received one phone call from a leasing landowner. During this call, we were threatened, peppered with insults, and told in no uncertain terms to mind our own business. The project manager did call us after being told we were sending letters to the community. She met with my husband one time. During that conversation she informed him that there was no money in the project budget for any sort of compensation to offset our losses.

In our attempts to visit face to face with other landowners supportive of the project they insisted that this discussion take place after the issue has been resolved by the county. Further, a few of our neighbors also opposed to this location, have described to us their experience of being harassed by CPV or their representatives on Memorial Day weekend.

This distasteful behavior prompted many of us in the area to seek legal protection and request that future communication originated by CPV include our legal counsel.

It continues to be very disturbing to me that CPV makes statements to the press that are so different from our experience with this project. Even more disturbing is that the HDN will take the word of the project manager and print it as if it were absolute fact.

CPV has not made the good faith effort to genuinely work through the multitude of issues inherent in placing this project so close to so many homes before (or for that matter even after) the project was proposed.

Proximity to transmission lines is no excuse for the bad location. Transmission lines transmit, which means they run great distances across unpopulated land.

Other wind projects recognize this fact, and place their turbines in isolated rural areas, not close to cities.

It is vital that the Commissioners take the step to deny this application.

This will allow appropriate and much-needed revisions to be made to the zoning regulations before consideration of another application. Perhaps it will also send the message to CPV-Iberdrola and future applicants, that the citizens of Ellis County will not be manipulated or divided.

We will only support a project well founded, well placed and thoroughly collaborated with everyone affected.

Submitted by:
Penny Davis
1083 210th Ave.
Hays, KS 67601