|
 The meeting was held as a chance for the public to comment on
Relight’s possible revisions for their plan, should they apply for
permission a second time. Prior to the Friday meeting, a similar
presentation was given on Wednesday the 22nd. Wayne Woo, a partner
and co-owner of Relight, was present to provide input on their plans
and listen to public comments.
For the first portion of the meeting, Woo presented on the changes
to the overall plan that Relight has been developing over the last
two months. “One of the key things we learned was that we need a
much deeper interaction with the community,” said Woo. Woo also said
that there was a lot of concern over the speed at which the project
developed. Relight wanted to be sure they would be operational in
time to qualify for federal tax credits, which have since been
extended to the end of 2016.
“We have a lot more time, and we are trying to use that time
productively,” said Woo.
Woo spoke on the physical changes to the project design that Relight
would like to propose. One of the changes would be a decrease in the
size of the turbines built. The revised plan would include towers
that would be a height of somewhere between 430 and 492 feet tall.
The turbines would also generate lower power at 2 mega-watts instead
of 2.8.
“We cannot specify the actual size because we need to have more
detailed conversations with the manufacturer,” said Woo. Woo said
the smaller turbines have already been successfully installed in the
United States by other wind farms, but Relight would be losing
roughly 30% of their productivity.
In addition, the turbine placement was revised. Participating
landowners would still be 1,000 feet away from turbines, but
non-participating landowners would be 1,700 feet away. Woo said this
would reduce noise and visual impact, but further reduce efficiency.
Another revision involved financial contributions to the community.
Previously, Relight had agreed to pay a minimum of $500 to
non-participating landowners in the quarter-mile footprint of the
wind farm. Now their plan would include paying $750 per parcel per
year within the footprint, plus $250 a year per turbine within 3,000
feet of said non-participants.
Related to finances of the project, Woo said that over twenty-five
years Relight would be paying a total amount over $43 million in
property taxes. This figure was calculated using 2013 tax data, and
adjusted at a potential inflation rate of 2.5 percent each
subsequent year.
“We’re proposing to do more than that,” said Woo. Woo spoke on
providing additional funds to Mount Pulaski School District #23. Woo
said that lawyers are currently drafting a legal agreement that
could be presented to the school in the future. “I’m not saying this
is a done deal, but it is my understanding that the school board
knows about it,” said Woo.
“As a result of both the taxes and this additional funding we would
be contributing, the (Mount) Pulaski School District would be fully
funded for its district-wide goals over the next twenty-five years,”
said Woo. Woo said there would also be the potential for
scholarships later on.
Woo also said Relight would propose establishing a Community
Projects fund that would provide $1.5 million total over the life of
the project. Mount Pulaski residents would be responsible for
choosing what the money would be spent on.
“These contributions would start when the wind farm became
operational,” said Woo.
 Woo also spoke on the concern over falling property values. Woo said
that from the data “Relight has collected on wind farms in Illinois,
property values have not dropped because of wind farms, and in some
cases property value has increased. Woo also said that Relight is
prepared to offer a sort of “insurance plan” that would apply to
non-participating landowners in the footprint. “We would need to be
sure it is monitored and not abused,” said Woo. As a result, such a
plan would be limited to $1 million in total each year.
Someone in the audience asked about houses that go not sold for long
periods of time, and whether or not Relight would consider buying
them. Woo said that Relight has never had to work on an agreement
for property values in this way, but that idea could be added to the
brainstorming still to be done.
Another person asked why Relight chose to measure the footprint
at a quarter-mile, and asked about people just outside of that
range. Woo said that it does seem a little unfair to stop at a
quarter-mile, but “some judgment is needed on how far to stand out.”
Woo said Relight will take that under consideration and see how far
they could stretch the footprint.
On the subject of health concerns, Woo said Relight and the
community will have to “agree to disagree.” Woo also said that
Relight has no desire to fight over the issue. “For every piece of
research that says there are no issues, there are other pieces of
research that say there are,” said Woo. Woo said Relight’s approach
would be, to be more conservative than the state regulations on
health issues, such as sound levels.
Woo said that over the past two months, Relight conducted new
studies on sound levels in the area, and how turbines would affect
those levels. They modeled the study using the 169 affected houses
in the area and calculated a worst-case scenario. According to Woo’s
presentation, noise levels would still fall 20% under the state
regulations.
[to top of second column] |
On the topic of shadow flicker, Woo said there are no regulations for shadow
flicker in the state of Illinois. “We don’t have the same kind of guidance that
we would for noise,” said Woo. Relight has concluded that they would attempt to
reduce shadow flicker by transplanting large trees and reducing the operation of
turbines during sunrise and sunset. Woo also said that personally, he would
rather see the turbine operations being reduced, as planting trees may not be
the most effective.
An audience member asked about shadow flicker affecting commuters. Woo said that
a study on that still needs to be done.
Mike Nichols said that he can appreciate Relight’s efforts to regain trust and
address concerns. “You haven’t regained my trust, and my biggest concerns you
haven’t addressed at all,” said Nichols. Nichols said he is still very worried
about the health of people living near wind farms. Nichols said if Relight wants
his trust, Relight should consider only operating wind turbines during the day.
Nichols also said he does not trust any “insurance plan” that does not include
making an offer for homes at fair market value.
“So far all I’ve heard is a lot of money, and you’re not addressing the concerns
in my heart,” said Nichols. Woo said as part of his report to his investors, he
will bring up these concerns and see how the investors respond. “I think what
they may say is ‘we invest our money for renewable energy, not to buy houses,’”
said Woo.
Multiple people in the audience said they want to see proof of the studies that
were done, as well as the contracts before any potential application is made.
Woo said he is trying to find a way to provide copies of these studies and
contracts for the public. “We’re not trying to hide anything,” said Woo.
Another audience member asked where the electricity generated by the turbines
would go. Woo said that the power would go into the grid that connects the
entire country, and, unlike nuclear power, has to be used by the grid.
Chris Cowen said he thinks wind turbines should be built in other open areas in
the country where there are not so many people. Woo said that other areas of the
country have different regulations pertaining to things such as wildlife. As an
example, Cowen suggested building in Kansas, but Relight could not build there
due to legal conservation efforts for prairie chickens.
Cowen also said he was worried about wind energy competing with other energy,
such as coal or nuclear. Woo said that from a business perspective, energy
provision is tricky to balance, but he is not worried about wind energy
overtaking other utilities. “Overall profitability is roughly the same across
all energy, due to the upfront costs,” said Woo.
Several people in the audience asked why the Mount Pulaski area was chosen to
build a wind farm. Woo said that when Relight began looking into US operations,
they spoke to people in Washington DC, who directed them to Illinois.
Additionally, they needed to find a location with grid capacity and good wind
conditions.
“We knew we would be facing this problem wherever we went, and unfortunately
there are no places where there aren’t any communities,” said Woo.
Several people said that Relight representatives have repeatedly commented that
they will not build in a place where they are not welcome. “I’m hoping you’ve
seen that after two meetings like this, you’ve gotten the point that we’re not
welcoming you,” said Lisa Leonard.
Woo said he understands that a lot of people do not want to see a wind farm.
“But from our perspective, we also know a lot of people do,” said Woo. Multiple
people asked where the supporters are, but nobody in the audience responded. “If
they weren’t here, we wouldn’t have been able to sign so many leases,” said Woo.
Several people in the audience said that Relight’s offer of more money sounds
good, but it sounds like an attempt to buy their trust. “I didn’t know we were
for sale,” said one resident. Additionally, many people feel that a better
school would be great, but it would have a much lower population if families
leave because of a wind farm.
As the meeting ended, Logan County Board member Scott Schaffenacher spoke,
saying “These are the people who voted me into office, and they agree to
disagree with you. I have to say, I feel the same way. You’ve been very polite
and obliging in answering as many questions as possible, so I do want to thank
you for your time and patience.”
[Derek Hurley] |
