Proposal 3: 25×25 Wind Energy Mandate

By a margin of 63% to 37%, Michigan voters rejected Proposal 3 that would have amended Michigan’s constitution to require that 25 percent of Michigan’s energy come from wind, solar, hydroelectric and biomass sources by 2025. Were this proposal to have passed, it was likely that thousands of wind turbines would have been placed throughout the state of Michigan and that the state would have been forced to pass laws overriding local control of wind turbine siting issues.

101st Michigan House District

In the race for the Michigan House of Representatives’ 101st District, representing Leelanau, Benzie, Manistee, and Mason counties, incumbent Ray Franz defeated Allen “Allan” O’Shea, Duke Energy’s volunteer and founder of the American Wind Energy Association. Mr. O’Shea’s advocated for state control of wind turbine siting issues and for turning portions of our region into an industrial wind generation facility. The final vote was:

Ray Franz 25,195
Allen O’Shea 24,165

Joyfield Township

In Joyfield Township, candidates supported by the Committee for the Future of Joyfield swept all five seats on the Joyfield Township Board. They will be able to continue moving Joyfield towards planning and zoning, and, we hope, responsible regulation of wind turbine siting issues.

The results were as follows:

Supervisor
Matt Emery 227
Chelsie Tanner 214

Clerk
Ted Wood 297

Treasurer
Christine Smith 248
Debra Lindgren 189

Trustee (top 2 vote getters win)
Jim Evans 258
Mark Alan Evans 278
Jodi Lindgren 200

But wait, is that really the case? According to the Michigan Secretary of State’s office, Bernard Allen O’Shea is running for this seat. We do make spelling mistakes, but this is not one of them. Is it Allan, or Allen? From all the available evidence, Mr. O’Shea used the name Allan until sometime between February and April of this year. Then he suddenly changed the spelling of the name he uses in public in connection with his campaign. Why would someone after seventy years of living with one spelling of his middle name suddenly decide to change it by one vowel? And who is this Bernard Allen O’Shea? Is he a registered voter in the state of Michigan?

In referring to Allan O’Shea as Duke’s volunteer, we are being ironic. We do not believe that Mr. O’Shea, founder of the American Wind Energy Association, was a volunteer for Duke Energy, America’s largest publicly traded power company. We believe that he was paid agent of Duke. Or perhaps, he had an expectation of being paid by Duke Energy, and then Duke changed its mind.

To say that Mr. O’Shea has given contradictory answers on his relationship with Duke is putting things charitably. For example, at a panel session that took place in December 2010 to discuss the proposed industrial wind power project, panelists were asked to identify any monetary conflicts of interests they may have had. Mr. O’Shea, who was identified on the panel as Duke’s “Regional Representative”, responded coyly that he expected to receive “over $500” if the wind project went ahead, clearly communicating to all in attendance that he was working for Duke and expected to benefit financially from the project. On other occasions, for example, in testimony before the Benzie County Board of County Commissioners, Mr. O’Shea denied that he had ever been compensated by Duke in any way. Mr. O’Shea has given similar contradictory statements in private conversations of which we are aware. When politicians make two incompatible statements one of them is usually referred  to as a “misstatement”. When normal citizens do this it is called lying. Here is the business card that Mr. O’Shea used while he was representing himself as Duke Energy’s regional representative:

By referring to Mr. O’Shea as Duke’s volunteer we are making a comment about Duke Energy. They are actually enough of a untrustworthy company that they just might have allowed Mr. O’Shea to serve as their “representative”  — leading him on as if he would someday be compensated — without actually ever compensating him. Were this to be the case it would say something about both Mr. O’Shea and Duke. Duke is not beneath screwing over its business partners, even if they are other Fortune 500 companies. Do a Google search for “Duke Progress merger scandal” and read more.

But we digress. Michigan law does not require that Mr. O’Shea disclose his financial arrangement with Duke Energy. We have always said that Mr. O’Shea has had a moral obligation to come clean about his relationship with Duke, especially since he had just stepped down from being the chairman of the Manistee County Board of Commissioners.  If he does choose to make statements about his relationship with Duke Energy, citizens expect him to be honest.

However, as we have now learned, Mr. O’Shea seems to have trouble with more basic questions, like the spelling of his middle name. Is it Allen or Allan? The evidence suggests that the person previously known as Bernard Allan O’Shea suddenly decided in February or March of 2012 to use a different spelling of his middle name, “Allen” instead “Allan”. “Allen” is the name used on his election posters and sign, and is the name that appeared on the August primary ballot and that will appear on the November general election ballot.

However, Mr. O’Shea has run for office previously. From 2006-2010, “Allan” O’Shea served on the Manistee County Board of Commissioners. Previously he served as Supervisor of Marilla Township. On each occasion, he was listed as Allan O’Shea on the ballot, and in all public records, documents and minutes referencing him during his terms that we have been able to find. You can still see “Allan O’Shea” bumper stickers on cars in Manistee and Benzie counties. Here is a picture of an Allan O’Shea placard from one of his previous campaigns:

Note the spelling of “Allan”. Now here is an O’Shea placard from this year’s campaign from a parade this summer:

As you can read in the AWSG’s previous post, Allan O’Shea, Volunteer, when Mr. O’Shea signed the articles incorporating the American Wind Energy Association in 1974, he spelled his name Allan. When Mr. O’Shea was recognized at the June 2012 annual conference of the American Wind Energy Association as its founding president, someone forgot to tell them to spell his name differently, and he was identified as “Allan“. However, by the time a press release was sent to the Record-Patriot, the spelling had been changed to Allen.

We would all like to think that we are at the center of the universe. We can only think of one reason for Mr. O’Shea’s sudden switching out of a vowel. Our guess that Mr. O’Shea started using a different spelling of his middle name in order to make it difficult for citizens to know about his relationship with Duke Energy and his service as its number one volunteer.

Mr. O’Shea registered the domain name allanoshea.com in January of 2012, and on his original campaign website he spelled his name Allan. This was his website. However at some point in the spring, and unfortunately we weren’t taking notes, he changed his primary website address to osheaformi101.com, which was registered in February 2012. However, allanoshea.com still redirects to osheaformi101.com. The contact e-mail for Mr. O’Shea’s campaign is still listed as allan@allanoshea.com.

Allan O’Shea’s personal facebook page used to be public. It is no longer publically accessible, and he has changed the spelling of his name to Allen. However the URL handle for his name is still spelled using what we think is the legal spelling of Mr. O’Shea’s middle name:

https://www.facebook.com/allan.oshea.98

When Allan O’Shea announced his candidacy on February 7, 2012, he was still spelling his name Allan. The press release, with the Allan spelling, was still available on his website as of the time this post was made. Do you want to guess how little time it will be before he changes the spelling in it as well?

On the web page of Mr. O’Shea’s business, Contractors Building Supply, Inc., available at http://windowswindandsolar.com, Mr. O’Shea is identified as Allan. (Watch how quickly it changes.) Here is a screenshot of Mr. O’Shea’s company’s webpage showing a profile of Allan O’Shea:

In all of the public filings for this business, Mr. O’Shea’s middle name is spelled Allan. Mr. O’Shea serves as the resident agent of his business, Contractors Building Supply, Inc., and in the records of the State of Michigan, the Resident Agent is: B. Allan O’Shea. Here is the most recent annual report filed by Allan O’Shea with the State of Michigan. Again, note that he is listed as B. Allan O’Shea:

Note that the above document was dated 4/24/12 and received by the State on 4/27/12.

So Mr. O’Shea just changed a vowel in his middle name. What’s the big deal, you ask? Mr. O’Shea is not just an ordinary citizen. He is running for public office.  When and whether Mr. O’Shea properly changed the spelling of his middle name is a big deal. Here is a question. Is the person who is listed on the November ballot actually a registered voter in Manistee County? If he is not, could the Michigan House of Representatives decline to seat Mr. O’Shea, in the event he is elected in November on the grounds that the person elected does not exist.

Is it legal for a candidate to spell his name differently on the ballot from the legal spelling of his name? Yes, but Mr. O’Shea must do it properly. He still has to properly declare his full legal name in the proper manner. Below are excerpts from the Affadavit of Identity Mr. O’Shea filed with the Secretary of State’s office in April 2012 when he declared his candidacy for the Michigan House of Representatives’ seat:

You can download the whole document here.

As you can see, in this document on April 11, 2012, Mr. O’Shea swears under penalty of felony imprisonment that his true legal name is “Bernard Allen O’Shea”, and more importantly, he swears that he has not changed his name for reasons other than marriage during the last 10 years.

Then, on April 27, he filed another document with the State of Michigan — the annual report for his business — indicating that his name was “B. Allan O’Shea”.

As far as we can see, there can be number of explanations:

1. Around February of 2012, Mr. O’Shea legally changed the spelling of his middle name from “Allan” to “Allen”, but on his Affadavit of Identity filed with the Michigan Secretary of State, he made a false statement when he stated that he had not changed his name “in the last 10 years for reasons other than marriage”, potentially subjecting him to a felony prosecution under MCL 186.558, 933, and 936.

2. Mr. O’Shea did not legally change the spelling of his middle name. He used a different spelling of his middle name when filing to run for office. The Michigan Secretary of State’s office failed to verify the proper spelling of Mr. O’Shea’s middle name with the proper spelling of Mr. O’Shea’s name on the voter rolls. The “Bernard Allen O’Shea” running on the Ballot does not actually exist. Can a person who doesn’t exist run for office, be listed on the state ballot, or win an election? Will the Michigan House of Representatives vote to seat Mr. O’Shea in January, if he were to win the election? Would the person who signed Mr. O’Shea’s Affidavit of Identity be subject to felony prosecution under MCL 186.558, 933, and 936?

3. For nearly his entire life, and on numerous official documents, Mr. O’Shea has been using an improper spelling of middle name, and has now only come clean about the proper spelling of his name. What is the statute of limitations for making a false statement to the State of Michigan? If Mr. O’Shea has been lying to us about the spelling of his middle name for nearly his entire life, about what else has he not been telling the truth?

If you have another explanation for Mr. O’Shea’s change in middle names, we are eager to know what it might be. If our analysis is erroneous, we would be happy to correct it.

But if we are correct, and if Mr. O’Shea can’t be straight with us about his relationship with Duke Energy, and he can’t be straight with us about the spelling of his middle name, what else is there that he doesn’t want us to know about him?

RIVERTON TWP. – This used to be a quite, picturesque community in farm country just southeast of Ludington.

That scene has been transformed with the introduction of 56 industrial wind turbines under construction since late last year.

Now the dream of living among “the rolling hills, the nature and serenity… we are blown away,” according to this description captured in a poem written by one of Cary Shineldecker friends, neighbor and fellow Riverton Township resident.

Consumers Energy, the Michigan utility giant and principal subsidiary of Jackson based CMS Energy Corporation, came to Mason County in December 2007 to begin collecting leases from more than 160 property owners on 9,300 acres and easement within the 16,000 acre project area for their $235 million 56 industrial wind turbines in Riverton and neighboring Summit Township.

Mason County’s planning commission approved the project 6-0 in mid 2011, ignoring pleas from surrounding non leasing holding property owners. Construction on the 476 foot tall to the blade tip towers began later that year.

Consumers said it would create 150 jobs during peak construction and eight to 12 full time jobs during operation. Energy generated from the wind turbines would power 25,000 homes.

Direct and indirect spending in Mason County would be $33 million and over the next 20 years, the county, township and school taxing units would get $29 million.

Shineldecker and his wife Karen are “unwilling and extremely unhappy close neighbors of industrial scale wind generators in Consumer Energy’s Lake Winds Energy Development.”

He says Consumers calls it a “park as if to give it an identity of something that it isn’t. Yellowstone National ‘Park,’ Yosemite National ‘Park’ and even New York’s Central ‘Park’ are places of refuge for people to escape from stress and relax. Consumers Energy’s development for many is a place that we hope to escape from.”

The couple moved here because they decided it would be the ideal place to being their life together. They bought a beautiful house set in the country, back off the road, with a small stream, a horse pasture, room for a garden and a front porch to view natures’ wonders with a grand view of the rural countryside.

They were recently married, and with their horses and their dogs proceeded to fit in and to actively become a part of the community.

As they met their neighbors, they learned of the soon to be wind development out their backdoor. Not the realtor, nor the seller, nor the local farmers had mentioned a word. It was a secret concealed and cloaked in darkness and deceit.

Their mortgage is signed for 30 years and they have committed everything they possess including their hearts and souls into their news beginning.

Now with the construction of the scattered industrial site things have changed for the Shineldeckers.

“It has transformed our rural, country setting into an industrial setting, with visually dominating, acoustically obtrusive 476 feet tall wind turbines with 328 feet blade spans.”

As readers can see with the picture Shineldecker took of his home, one turbine is right next to his house. “This turbine is 1,139 feet from our front yard property line and about 1,200 feet from our bedroom window.” This describes the one close to the house with other wind turbines surrounding them.

He says, “My home used to be a place of sanctuary for my family, a safe place, where we could come home and rest and find peace. Now it is a place that creates anger and inspires disillusion in man and government.

“Many will become wealthy from this push for renewable energy, others will be collateral damage, accepted and ignored by the government and zoning laws that are suppose to be in place to protect them.”

Flicker, the shadows the blades create when the sun is behind them, is inside his home. Something left out of a report of how it would impact Shineldeckers’ home.

He owns about 250 acres which is almost exclusively set aside for wildlife and nature. “Wind energy does nothing to protect these places or the animals who inhabit them.”

Upset the way things have turned out, Shineldecker says, “Michigan deserves better than what it is getting from the wind industry, Michigan utilities, and the Michigan state government.”

If the government is willing to change a rural residential neighborhood into an industrial area, and according to a number of studies, reduce the value of home and property, should the owner be compensated by either the industry of the government? Shouldn’t there be a Property Value Guarantee (PVG) so if a utility grade wind turbine is located within two miles of a residence and the home can not be sold for the pre-project market value, the property owner is compensated.

“I asked Consumers Energy to me my home at fair market value. Consumers Energy, public relations specialist, Dennis McKee told me Consumers Energy is not in the real estate business. However Consumers Energy purchased several properties essential to the project including at least two homes and part of an orchard.

“The bottom line is the were able to get away with it by Mason County Planning Commission and Mason County Board of Commissioners being so permissive to Consumers and ignoring the wishes and rights of their citizens.

“This project changes everything about where I live and what I enjoyed about being here. I want absolutely no compensation for the inconveniences and intrusiveness of this highly industrial project.

“This is home invasion and my family and I along with many, many neighbors now just simply want out. We want to leave and we want our lives back,” says Shineldecker.

What did that industrial wind turbine do to the value of your home and property?

It depends who people ask. Some studies indicate a drop in value of anywhere between 30 and 40 percent, and in some cases higher.

Canadians in Ontario are facing the same problem. One property owner on Lake Erie put her two acre, waterfront property up for sale before the turbines appeared for what three agents said was a reasonable price of $270,000. Two years after the turbines went up, she took $175,000, and felt lucky to do that.

On average, from 2007 to 2010, properties adjacent to turbines in this area of Ontario sold between 20 to 40 percent less than comparable properties that were out of sight from wind turbines. And homes were taking longer periods of time to sell.

Shineldecker said he “hired real estate expert appraiser, Mike McCann to evaluate my home and the project area. He estimated that due to the extreme view of the turbines and the nuisance stigma associated that I would lose a minimum of 30 percent value, if I can sell my home at all.

“He provided a full appraisal of my property which includes 2,700 square foot fully remodeled home with high efficiency forced air and central air, a 40×60 pole barn, 30×40 detached insulated work shop, two car garage, green house, sprinkler system, paved driveway, all on 16 acres for $257,000. He estimated my loss of $77,000 minimum.

“He also appraised other homes, one of which just sold for exactly what he predicted at 25 percent under current market.”

Shineldecker said the U.S. Deptment of Energy paid $500,000 for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories to evaluate property value loss near wind farms. This report concluded no loss attributable to turbines however significantly less than one percent of the homes in the study were within the nuisance stigma zone or with an extreme view of turbines.

In fact, 56 percent of the 7,500 home sales in the DOE/LBNL study were five miles away and had absolutely no view of turbines.

Consumers started their Mason County project in the fall of 2011.

“On Dec. 16, 2011 they moved a bulldozer in and began a turbine driveway which took up our entire front yard. The huge bulldozer and compacter shook the house. The pipes in the walls, the plates in the cupboards were rattling like crazy. Quite unbelievable.

“Their semis drove in our yard making wide turns and smashed some of our sprinkler heads. We ended up having a leak in our water line to the house and our septic tank settled and pipes cracked at the same time.

“We made official complaints at that time for noise, vibration, and smashed sprinkler heads, but nothing was done. I dug up and repaired the irrigation, my well piping, and my septic system on my own. We actually had flag men at the end of our driveway,” said Shineldecker.

The first turbine was completed this June.

It is possible some property owners, non lease holders, may receive some compensation. A $2 million fund was set up.

“Consumers calls the ‘Good Neighbor Fund.’ We call it the ‘The Bad Neighbor Fund.’ I will not accept a trivial amount of compensation for the hardships that Consumers Energy has placed on my family over the past two years and then extending into the future until we are able to leave. They have taken everything away that I enjoyed about living here.

“Money cannot replace what is lost. We just want out,” said Shineldecker.

“I am president of Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Renewable Energy. We fought for safe setbacks and safe zoning. We do not believe that good, honest, innocent citizens should be victims and collateral damage in the obscure quest for unreliable and expensive renewable in this country.

“Many, many people will become extremely wealthy on the backs of U.S. taxpayers while others are unwillingly forced to forfeit their homes and their lives. It is just not right,” he said.

“We spent over $75,000 in research expenses, zoning amendment expenses, and attorney fees to try to protect the citizens of Mason County. I have spent the last several years tirelessly communicating our findings statewide.

“We have educated countless people and have networked worldwide. In a sense our loss has prevented others from loss. It is somewhat satisfying knowing that I have helped others, but then each night when I return home to my own reality, it can be much less comforting.”

Recently Mr. Voss of the Michigan Land Use Institute (MLUI) wrote an article in support of Proposal 3, the ballot initiative to amend Michigan’s constitution to require 25 percent renewable energy.

In this article, Mr. Voss was speaking from an expensive and now shopworn script assembled by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and their “Big Fossil”-heavy leadership board. And that is the first red flag: this 25×25 effort is almost exclusively funded by out-of-state interests.

Michigan campaign disclosures reveal that $1.3 million for this ballot initiative came from the GreenTech Action Fund of San Francisco, CA. Another $450,000 came from the Natural Resources Defense Council of New York, NY. $250,000 came from the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, $100,000 from the Regeneration Project, San Francisco, CA. and $50,000 from AWEA, the wind industry activist group.

In total, nearly 90 percent of the funding for this effort came from outside Michigan.

Interestingly enough, GreenTech Action Fund’s sole benefactor is a group called “The Energy Foundation.” tinyurl.com/2dgpcau They are also listed as benefactors of MLUI: tinyurl.com/8ja2y7a

Among these closely related environmental and green energy advocacy groups, Sierra Club and AWEA have both decided to place a bull’s-eye on Michigan. They are using Michigan as a test case for ballot initiative-driven renewable energy mandates.

At their Chicago wind energy seminar earlier this year, AWEA presenters championed a drive for more state-level mandates as the lavish federal Production Tax Credit (PTC), roughly equal to the wholesale price of electricity, is set to expire. Absent the price support of the PTC, AWEA believes state mandates like 25×25 would create a market for wind energy irrespective of price.

In essence, Michigan is a test case for constitutional RPS mandates because large out-of-state political/industrial forces see an advantage to them and their constituents, not because they have the best interest of Michigan ratepayers/taxpayers at heart.

Mr. Voss and MLUI are working in lockstep with them.

Will 25×25 create some jobs?

Any activity that is both mandated and paid for by governmental fiat will produces jobs. Legislating that we produce electricity from incinerating baby ducks would also create many jobs. But would that justify mass “duck-icide?” Certainly not.

Jobs creation alone does not give economic justification to the underlying activity. And if one looks closely at the modeling used to measure green job creation we see that only projected jobs gained are counted. Job losses in other sectors due to increased energy costs and state-mandated reallocation of finite capital are not counted.

So rather than asking “Will 25×25 create jobs?,” the more relevant question is whether it will create more jobs than it eliminates through its economic ill effects? The best evidence suggests it will not.

There can be no meaningful discussion of renewable energy without evaluating electricity rate impacts. Mr. Voss mentions Proposal 3’s one percent annual cost cap. But there is a high likelihood that such a cost cap is illegal and would be severed from the amendment.

Some even argue that it is only included for cynical reasons, knowing it will be struck down under judicial scrutiny while giving the false appearance of cost control. But the fact that a rate cap is necessary (even if only a PR tool) tells us the 25×25 promoters recognize a ratepayer impact that cannot be ignored.

By using their own one percent number we realize that in eight to nine years (with compounding of interest) our electrical rates will rise another 10 percent. (Using DTE’s projections of four to five percent a year makes it far worse.)

How would that affect Michigan residents?

The University of Michigan spends $60 million annually for electricity. A 10 percent hike in UM’s electric rates is essentially a tuition increase of $146 per student.

And what would a similar 10 percent rate increase mean nationwide? The U.S. steel industry consumes $18 billion of electricity per year. A 10 percent increase in power rates is a surcharge of $18,000 per year per employee. That money would no longer be available for union wages, fringes, healthcare or pensions. And it certainly will not make Big Steel more competitive globally.

Does Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs computer modeling take these impacts into account? Certainly not.

And is producing wind energy in Michigan getting cheaper?

Not according to Appendix F of Feb 2012 Report on the Implementation of PA295. Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) contracts approved by MPSC in 2010 were all in the $94-100 Megawatt Hour (MWh) range. 2011 saw the much ballyhooed $61/MWh PPA for the DTE/Tuscola Bay project.

But the next three PPAs in 2012 are all back to the $98 to $106/Mwh range.

This coincides with the Berkeley National Lab’s 2011 report on wind turbines costs. Since 1997 turbine prices have varied from $1,600/kW in 1997 to a low of $750 in 2000-2001. It then doubled to $1,500 through 2008. And in low wind resource regions like Michigan, current turbine pricing is near that peak at $1,400/kW. So the equipment itself has not grown cheaper in Michigan.

The federal Energy Information Agency now reports that the cost of purchasing and installing wind turbines is $2,400.kW.

If we use the wind industry’s projected 20 year lifespan for turbines, include a modest cost of capital and then adjust for Michigan’s 2012 measured wind capacity factor of 25 percent, the true cost of producing wind energy exceeds $120/MWh. Yet the wind developers are selling it for as little as $61/MWh.

How is this possible? The only way one can sell $120/Mwh energy into the grid at $60-110/MWh is by hiding the taxpayer subsidies and Renewable Energy Credits (RECS) necessary to make that possible.

But irrespective of this accounting legerdemain, ratepayers and taxpayers are still paying in excess of $120/MWh for wind energy, either in taxes, utility fees or increased cost of goods and services that depend upon electricity to be delivered.

But even the extraordinarily low $61 Tuscola Bay PPA is 1.5 to 3x typical wholesale electricity pricing, a substantial premium. These expensive wind contracts have not yet had a significant impact on electric rates because Michigan’s wind production is less than one percent of all production. But at 25 percent, the rate implications of such expensive wind energy are obvious.

And what of the so called $10 billion “investment” needed to make this happen?

Leaving aside the question of whether constitutionally-mandated spending is properly called an investment, $10 billion is too low. It is based on a very conservative projected turbine count of 3,100 turbines to reach the 25 percent mandate. But reaching 25 percent with only 3,100 turbines would require Michigan turbines to produce wind energy at a rate never seen.

A more sober assessment of the number of turbines needed based on 2011 production data from EIA is in excess of 4,000 units and perhaps 5,000. And when we understand that several thousand square mile of land would be required to reach this number, wind developers will be forced to build in less windy regions, thereby depressing already low capacity factors.

With so many turbines required, turbine costs alone could reach $20 billion. And this figure does not include the huge cost of new transmission lines, the necessary natural gas fired balancing plants, the loss of revenue from conventional plants due to increased cycling and the cost of stranded conventional assets.

A $20 billion dollar price tag (more than the market cap of DTE Energy and CMS Energy combined) amounts to a $8,000 per Michigan household of four in addition to the increased energy costs the renewable mandate will create.

To force that much money out of the pockets of ratepayers and taxpayers and into the coffers of European turbine manufacturers and Big Fossil/Wind companies like Duke, NextEra and Exelon is folly. But to call such an action an “investment in Michigan’s economy” is beyond absurd.

And finally, will 25×25 make electricity rates more stable? Yes. But only by creating fixed long term contracts for energy at two to four times the current wholesale pricing.

We could do the same with cars. Would GM be glad to “stabilize” the cost of a new car by getting you to sign a 10 year purchase contract at four times the current retail price? I am sure they would. And would it create some jobs? Of course. Would GM prosper? Absolutely. But such economic foolishness, like 25×25, would be an absolute disaster for the end consumer.

The IICC, Inc. is a bi-partisan renewable energy citizen’s watchdog group based in Blissfield, MI. The IICC is completely independent and receives no funding from any environmental or industry interests.

According to a July 22, 2012 article in the Traverse City Record Eagle (Click Here), the wind turbine is situated on a 159 acre parcel which the Tribe is trying to place into trust for a “potential winery”, solar facility, biomass facility or a wind farm. By placing the land in trust, local government would no longer receive $19,500 in property taxes on the property. Placing in the land in trust also has the effect of eliminating local planning and building regulations, which would be helpful if someone wanted to erect a 492-foot high industrial wind turbine.

Here is the turbine location:

The Band received a $160,500 federal grant in 2009 to “enhance their Renewable Energy Strategic Plan and develop a plan to implement wind energy for Tribal facilities.” According to the US Government’s stimulus website, recovery.gov, the plan is more than 50% completed as of June 30, 2012. The project was expected to create 0.04 jobs. (That’s four-hundredths of a job.)

The transfer of the lands to the tribe requires the permission of the U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. It seems as if the Department has not yet made a decision on this matter.

For some background on the transfer of this parcel of land, download a packet of materials prepared for August’s Acme township meeting.

A make-up session for Pleasanton, Bear Lake township and the Village of Bear Lake will be held at 6:00 p.m. on August 16, 2012 at Bear Lake School in Bear Lake.

Here are the township-by-township summaries of the participants’ answers to the following questions:

1. What one word would you use to describe your community?
2. What has your community done well?
3. What could your community have done better?
4. What are the barriers to achieving our community goals?
5. Who should be in the sandbox? (i.e., who/what should participate in the planning process?)
6. What are the three most important goals for the community’s future?
7. How can these goals be accomplished?

Finally the goals in question 6 were prioritized by all participants in the session.

Arcadia Township
Blaine Township
Crystal Lake Township
Gilmore Township
Joyfield Township
Pleasanton Township
Springdale Township

Mr. O’Shea is the founding president of the American Wind Energy Association. (It recently honored him at its annual meeting in June in Atlanta.) His lifelong dream is to turn areas of Manistee and Benzie counties into an industrial wind generation facility. Mr. O’Shea was the principal local cheer leader for Duke Energy’s Gail Wind project. Mr. O’Shea also gave inconsistent, conflicting explanations of his financial relationship with Duke Energy.

Read more about Mr. O’Shea, Duke’s volunteer, here.

PLEASE NOTE THE TIME CORRECTION. THE HEARING IS AT 7:00 PM, NOT 8:00 PM.

Supervisor
Matt Emery – 170
Tom Hart – 157

Clerk
Ted Wood – 185
Susan Zenker – 144

Treasurer
Deb Gatrell – 160
Christine Smith – 174

Trustee (top two vote getters win)
Jim Evans – 186
Mark Evans – 153
Guy Sauer – 136
John Nugent – 136

Question – Shall the Planning Commission Ordinance be adopted?
YES – 190
NO – 131

Democratic Primary
101st District — Michigan House
Derek Bailey – 22
Allen O’Shea – 10

Joyfield – Township Board – Wednesday, June 6 – 7:00 p.m.

Arcadia – Planning Commission – Wednesday, June 6 – 7:00 p.m.

Pleasanton – Planning Commission – Monday, June 4 – 7:00 p.m.

Pleasanton – Township Board – Tuesday, June 12 – 7:00 p.m. (DATE CHANGE)

Arcadia – Township Board – Thursday, June 14 – 7:00 p.m.

Blaine – Planning Commission – Thursday, June 21, 2012 – 7:00 p.m.