In early March 2011 I invited the Representative of Michigan’s 101st District, Ray Franz to come and speak with my students at Onekama Elementary School about his role in our State’s government, I asked him to speak of current issues in Michigan that would be of interest to a typical third grader, and to answer student questions regarding our natural resources, energy, transportation, and our civil liberties. One may ask, ‘does the typical third grader even contemplate such topics?’ Of Course! The average eight-year-old is very dramatic and inquisitive. They are beginning to accept more responsibility, set personal goals, and understand the relationship between choices and consequences. Many will possess a “know-it-all” attitude.
Franz’s assistant, Jennifer Smeltzer, a Yale graduate, accepted the invitation on his behalf, thus the preparation for his visit began. I prepared my third graders for the visit with two lessons on the purpose for government. We read and discussed a short passage from the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson. “We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” A second quote from Article I of Michigan’s State Constitution was also introduced and discussed. “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security, and protection.”
Through our textbooks and our sacred American Documents, we identified that the purpose of government was to protect the “individual rights of citizens” and to “keep citizens safe.” The students then were introduced to the Bill of Rights and discussed the meaning of Liberty, which included having your own ideas and opinions and to express your ideas in public, and the right for people to meet in groups. Finally, the students were then shown the official website for Rep. Franz, explaining that he was our elected official for the people to express their ideas and concerns about their state and local region. Franz received the students’ ideas days in advance of the visit. The students were concerned with issues pertaining to the quality of our Great Lakes, in particular the issue of invasive species and increased fines for pollution. The students saw the effects of pollution when they picked up nearly 100 pounds of trash (mainly cigarette butts) at the beginning of their school year, along their beloved stretch of Lake Michigan just a few miles north of school.
Representative Franz and his assistant, Ms. Smeltzer arrived promptly at 2 p.m. Introductions were made, and our first topic on the list was announced: the protection of our Great Lakes. Franz stated, “the Great Lakes are our greatest asset. We do everything we can do to protect them. The states that border the Great Lakes have established the Eight-State Compact that forbids drilling for oil in the Great Lakes.” In addition to mentioning the Eight-State compact, Franz also commented on the current situation with the Asian Carp.
Windmills were a hot topic this year, and one of the nation’s largest energy companies, Duke Energy has proposed to build more than 100 turbines on high ridges that run near Manistee and Benzie counties. The students had communicated a reasoned position on whether they were for or against wind farms in their communities. Many students were also concerned with the smoke and pollution that were emitted from coal powered electric plants. The students felt that it was possible for today’s scientists to find a way to make clean energy. Many of the students felt that the windmills should not be in residential areas, but rather in areas that were sparsely populated.
Franz continued, “Where we are with energy is where we are with prosperity. We have to find new ways to produce energy. We need to create energy that is affordable and consistent. Wind and solar panels are too unreliable. We have not developed the technology for it to be consistent. I personally believe that nuclear power is our best option because they provide energy all the time. We will not be building nuclear power plants over tectonic plates like they did in Japan. In Michigan we do not have tidal waves or earthquakes.”
The rising cost of gasoline is something that today’s students hear plenty of at home, especially those who live in a rural area, where public transportation is limited. The students felt that gas prices should be lowered, for many did not quite understand the full realities of the commodity. Several students were savvy to the fact that newer technologies were currently available. “My dad’s friend has a car that runs on vegetable oil,” stated the confident and engaging Ali. Eleanor and Taylor thought that more cars could be made that ran on solar power. Colleen thought that bikes should be ridden more, and Savannah, Ella, and Hanna thought that cars should run on something besides gas. Nickolas liked the idea of returning to horses.
Franz told the students that, “A lot of people think we are running out of oil. The reality is that we are running out of the will to go get it. There is a lot of oil under the Great Lakes. We choose not to get it, because we have not found a safe way to get it. I hope some of you brilliant guys who want to become engineers can show us how to get the oil. That is your future and what you have to work towards. The new slant drilling technique is available. There is a potential that we will never run out of oil. We want to make sure that we have enough. “It is an essential part of the way we live.” This brought the jubilant Dalron to explain the process of slant drilling, to which Mr. Franz was very impressed. With a broad smile, he gave his approval and stated, “You are brilliant!”
The day following Franz’s visit, the students were given the opportunity to state their opinions and beliefs, and were reminded that the Bill of Rights guarantees our freedom to disagree with our leaders and policy makers. The protection of our Great Lakes was a theme that transcended all the issues discussed. Lahaila belived that nuclear power was “not our best option” because windmills were better. Ali thought that if an earthquake occurred in the Great Lakes region, she would “not like the possibility that we would be without fresh water.” Taylor thought that nuclear power was not our best choice because if it breaks it can kill people and humans are coming up with things, and he thought we could find better ways. (to produce energy).” Dalron wrote, “NO! I do not think nuclear power is not the best idea we have. We could create a big solar panel somewhere and we could transport it where we want. And if we had nuclear power someone could blow it up and we’d be done.” Justin stated that, “nuclear power could wreck the Great Lakes.”
Savannah thought we could find oil in a different place other than below our fresh water.” Aaron thought it would be a bad idea to “get the oil from the bottom of the lakes” and that “nuclear power should not be in Michigan in case a disaster happens.” Jackson agreed with Mr. Franz in stating that he believed that “nuclear power plants are the way to go because Michigan rarely ever has earthquakes, let alone tsunamis.” Hanna thought is was possible to “work harder to make windmills better.” Hayden said that nuclear power could “destroy America and it could get out of control.” Zackary thought that the “workers that helped make the nuclear plant could make it wrong and poison could get out.” Kelly stated that “nuclear power is not our best option even if it provides energy all the time, and we don’t need energy all the time and we can use the sun for some energy.”
Regarding the use of petrochemicals and how it is “essential for our way of life” as stated by Franz, Ella believed that “we don’t have to use plastic to make everything.” Taylor stated that instead of “working towards getting oil” as stated by Franz, he would work towards being in the NBA and will also do things to help the United States and the World. Jackson and Kolin thought it would be okay to drill for oil under the Great Lakes as long as the “oil pipe was safe and very strong.” Hayden believe that we were “running out of oil and that we can’t drill in the Great Lakes because it would poison them.” Cody believed that “there should not be plastic in the United States of America.”
It was evident that Mr. Franz enjoyed the time spent with the third graders of Onekama. He was impressed with their ability to articulate ideas, their maturity level, and their knowledge of Michigan. I was indeed very grateful that he displayed his honesty and genuine interest in the students’ ideas. He truly engaged the students in active citizenship, in an age where ‘we the people’ must be involved like never before.
Gretchen Eichberger teaches elementary school in the Onekama school district.
Diane Conners of the Great Lakes Bulletin News Service wrote an informative story today about how legislation pushed by State Representative Ray Franz (who represents Leelanau, Benzie and Manistee Counties) and 14 other Republicans in Lansing would privatize food service for school cafeterias, which could hurt popular farm to school programs. Conners writes that school cafeterias could be seen as profit centers instead of as “places to invest in fresher, healthier food for kids.” Many school superintendents in this rural, agricultural region oppose House Bill 4306 because it promotes a one-size-fits-all approach to food service.
Superintendent Joan Groening, of Glen Lake Community Schools, in Leelanau County, said the state shouldn’t dictate whether local districts can invest in food service. Ms. Groening and her school board spent $14,000 from the general fund last year for Glen Lake’s $345,000 school lunch and breakfast program, which features almost all scratch cooking and uses local produce in season. The district also spent $17,000 on fresh fruits and vegetables for snacks after a grant ran out, because of positive student response.
When the district switched from “chicken nuggets and sugary desert” menus, student lunch participation doubled.
Food Service Director and Chef Gene Peyerk serves produce from the school garden, integrates food service with high school culinary curriculum, and prepares healthy food for after-school activities and concessions at sports events, sometimes quadrupling typical concession stand revenue, which goes to the sports teams.
It would be difficult to create a bid for a food service company that includes all of the ways in which Mr. Peyerk affects the school, Ms. Groening said.
“To me this is much more than just putting food on a tray and giving it to a kid to eat at lunch,” she said. “The pride that our students and staff take in our food service program—to throw all that out the window…It is very upsetting to me. These types of carte blanche decisions will be moving some schools backward.”
State Bill Sparks Worries Over Local Farm to School Programs
Privatizing cafeterias could hamper food buying, preparation, innovation
By Diane Conners
Great Lakes Bulletin News Service
TRAVERSE CITY—The Michigan House will vote soon on a bill that could force many schools to privatize their food service, raising questions about the fate of popular farm to school programs and whether school cafeterias should be seen as profit centers or, instead, as places to invest in fresher, healthier food for kids.
Many school superintendents in this rural, agricultural region of northwest Lower Michigan say House Bill 4306 could do harm by promoting a one-size-fits-all approach to food service while saving little money for the state. And they aren’t happy that their own legislator, state Representative Ray Franz of Onekama, is one of 15 all-Republican sponsors of the bill.
The bill, introduced by Representative Dave Agema, R-Grandville, originally have forced all public schools to privatize food service, busing, and maintenance services. The final version of the bill requires schools to seek food service bids if their program is not making a profit.
Paul Yettaw, food service director at Lakeview Schools, in Battle Creek, and a board member of the School Nutrition Association, said 38 percent of the state’s school food service programs don’t make a profit.
Superintendent Joan Groening, of Glen Lake Community Schools, in Leelanau County, said the state shouldn’t dictate whether local districts can invest in food service. Ms. Groening and her school board spent $14,000 from the general fund last year for Glen Lake’s $345,000 school lunch and breakfast program, which features almost all scratch cooking and uses local produce in season. The district also spent $17,000 on fresh fruits and vegetables for snacks after a grant ran out, because of positive student response.
When the district switched from “chicken nuggets and sugary desert” menus, student lunch participation doubled.
Food Service Director and Chef Gene Peyerk serves produce from the school garden, integrates food service with high school culinary curriculum, and prepares healthy food for after-school activities and concessions at sports events, sometimes quadrupling typical concession stand revenue, which goes to the sports teams.
It would be difficult to create a bid for a food service company that includes all of the ways in which Mr. Peyerk affects the school, Ms. Groening said.
“To me this is much more than just putting food on a tray and giving it to a kid to eat at lunch,” she said. “The pride that our students and staff take in our food service program—to throw all that out the window…It is very upsetting to me. These types of carte blanche decisions will be moving some schools backward.”
Little Savings, Potential Problems
Supporters of HB 4306 say the bill will reduce school costs and protect school boards from backlash over cutting school jobs.
According to the House Fiscal Agency’s legislative analysis, however, “The bill would have no fiscal impact on the State and an indeterminate fiscal impact on school districts.”
The Great Lakes Bulletin News Service was unable to reach Rep. Agema for comment, nor Rep. Franz, who represents Mason, Manistee, Benzie, and Leelanau Counties.
Some school systems, including Mr. Franz’ hometown Onekama Consolidated Schools, have seen their food services go from money-losing to profitable operations after switching from “heat and serve” to scratch cooking with locally grown food. If the bill had been law two years ago, when Onekama wasn’t profitable, the school probably wouldn’t have been able to make such innovative changes, Superintendent Kevin Hughes said.
He believes large food service companies wouldn’t work with as many local, small farmers as his food service staff is doing now. Moreover, he said, he’s already replaced vacant non-instructional positions with employees from management companies—much like “temp” agencies—in order to reduce the district’s employee benefit costs, with poor results.
“I’ve had privatized custodian services before, and it wasn’t good,” he said. “When you lose control, they aren’t your employees any more. You have to go through a whole different management system to get anything done.”
Success Stories
Onekama modeled its program after Frankfort-Elberta Public Schools, in neighboring Benzie County, where food service director Renee DeWindt turned around food service finances, is a major champion of farm to school purchasing, and galvanizes her community in ways that school Superintendent Tom Stobie doubts a private food service company would take the time to do.
An example: Ms. DeWindt recruits volunteers from the local hospital auxiliary to help showcase fresh, local food to students.
After annually “throwing” $70,000 of general fund money into “heat and serve” cafeteria meals before hiring Ms. DeWindt six years ago, Frankfort’s food service now either breaks even or makes or loses a small amount each year, he said.
“I would like to make a profit so I don’t have to dip into my general fund, but I don’t mind subsidizing it as long as the kids are getting a good, healthy meal,” Mr. Stobie said. “I’ve made that commitment. I think we have to try to educate the whole child, and part of that is making sure they are nutritionally cared for.”
Mr. Stobie said the bill could stop innovative farm to school programs before they have a chance to become profitable. In his experience, it takes time to upgrade kitchen equipment, develop cooking skills for fresh food preparation, and forge farmer relationships.
Growing Popularity
The legislation arrives just as interest in farm to schoolprograms is soaring across the country, galvanized by concern over childhood obesity and interest in preserving family farms and local economic investment. Chambers of commerce are recognizing the economic potential: The Northwest Michigan Regional Chamber Alliance last year placed farm to school purchasing on its list of legislative priorities.
And more than 200 organizations, businesses, economic development organizations, schools, farms, health advocates, and others have signedthe Michigan Good Food Charter, whose goals include Michigan farmers profitably supplying 20 percent of all Michigan institutional, retailer, and consumer food by 2020. Its 25 policy recommendations call for an additional 10 cents per meal from the state for schools to purchase locally grown fruits and vegetables, and grants for planning, implementation, and kitchen equipment purchase.
The Michigan Legislature passed a package of three farm to school billsin late 2008 that reduced bureaucratic obstacles to significant public school food purchases, and directed the state Departments of Education and Agriculture to cooperate in promoting farm to school efforts.
During hearings on HB 4306, critics reminded the House Education Committee of the state’s farm to school laws. So the revised bill “encourages” private contractors to use fresh, locally grown foods.
But Leelanau County farmer Jim Bardenhagen, a recently retired MSU Extension director, who sells to area schools, doesn’t think “encouragement” is enough.
“This bill hurts Michigan farm businesses and gives business to privatized companies who will likely not buy from local farms near the schools, and probably will even source food outside of Michigan,” he said. “I hope everyone will write their legislator and tell them to kill this bill. If it passes it could have a major impact on everything we are doing on farm to school. It is such a great movement.”
Farm to School’s Demise?
News of HB 4306 is spreading around the Web; one article, headlined “Meet the Bill that Could Ruin Michigan’s Farm to School Programs,” strongly criticizes corporate food companies.
Other farm to school advocates agree that, generally, schools’ food service departments take the lead in farm to school programs and privatizing does not guarantee savings. But they caution against characterizing all private food service companies as detrimental to farm to school programs.
“We have found that the most effective programs are those where the food service director is interested in sourcing local food regardless of whether the director is an employee of the school district or food service company,” said Jennifer Fike, executive director of Food System Economic Partnership,in southeastern Michigan. “It is the passion and commitment of the food service staff that makes the greatest difference.”
Meanwhile, the Michigan Commission on Agriculture and Rural Development, which oversees the state Department of Agriculture, has asked its staff to monitor the new legislation, but can’t lobby, said Don Coe, its chairman.
The bill, he said, should be understood within a political context: Governor Rick Snyder wants to see more consolidation of school and other government services, something Mr. Coe supports. He does, however, understand the concerns raised by school superintendents and farmers in northwest Michigan, where he lives.
“I understand their concerns, and I share their concerns,” he said.
Mr. Coe said he doesn’t believe HB 4306 necessarily means the demise of farm to school programs, as long as school districts, parents, and others demand farm to school in contracts. He also hopes advocates of farm to school programs speak up and use the bill as an opportunity to raise the profile of the Michigan Good Food Charter with lawmakers as the bill makes its way through the Legislature.
“Ask if this proposed legislation fits in with the Michigan Good Food Charter,” he said. “And if it doesn’t, can it?”
Mr. Stobie, of the Frankfort-Elberta schools, said he will speak up. Mr. Franz did not mention the bill in February when he accepted a special invitation to meet with the joint school boards of Frankfort and Benzie Central Schools, which consolidated their food service administration under Ms. DeWindt. Her staff prepared a special local foods lunch for Mr. Franz to showcase their food service efforts.
“I was upset, when I found out he was one of the sponsors, that he didn’t mention it that day,” Mr. Stobie said. “We talked about a lot of bills that day. My message to him is I am not real happy with him.”
Diane Conners is the Michigan Land Use Institute’s senior policy specialist for its Healthy Food for All program. Reach her at diane@mlui.org.
A newly elected state representative who says he doesn’t believe in man-made climate change and supports building a nuclear power plant in northern Michigan is standing by his recent claims about wind power, despite fact checking that indicates most of his assertions were incorrect.
State Representative Ray Franz spoke in January to approximately 300 people at the Garden Theater, in Frankfort, who were seeking information about Duke Energy’s proposal to erect 112 utility-scale wind turbines in Benzie and Manistee Counties. The audience had just watched the anti-windpower polemic, Windfall.
Representative Franz told the crowd he believes anecdotal evidence that turbines dramatically decrease property values, that wind is not price-competitive with coal power and eliminates jobs, and that subsidizing wind power in Europe has failed.
But the Great Lakes Bulletin News Service found multiple, highly researched studies and reports contradicting Mr. Franz’s assertions. In a subsequent interview with GLBNS, however, Mr. Franz stood by his original comments, discounted manmade climate change, and endorsed building a nuclear power plant along Lake Michigan’s shoreline.
“I absolutely agree with clean energy, but mine is different than yours,” Rep. Franz said. “I support nuclear power. I think it is the ultimate clean energy. That is the ultimate future energy source of Michigan.”
Wind Farms and Property Values
Speaking to the crowd at the theater, Representative Franz warned that a major wind farm could harm local property values.
“That is going to have the most dramatic and immediate impact that I can tell,” Mr. Franz said. “In doing some studies and talking to various realtors, I understand that it’s anecdotal, but almost to a person they claim that property values some estimate close to a 40 percent decline.”
Fact Check:
GLBNS found several large-scale studies contradicting Mr. Franz. The studies indicate wind power has little impact on property values and that any effect is usually positive.
The most recent study, released last year by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, analyzed 7,500 home sales within 10 miles of 24 wind facilities in nine states.
Researchers visited all homes to collect on-site information, including whether turbines were visible from the home. They analyzed home sales between 1996 and 2007, starting before each project announcement and ending well after turbine operation began.
“Neither the view of wind energy facilities nor the distance of the home to those facilities was found to have any consistent, measurable, and significant effect on the selling prices of nearby homes,” the report said. “No matter how we looked at the data, the same result kept coming back—no evidence of widespread impacts.”
Even for homes located within a mile of a wind project, the researchers found no persuasive evidence of consistent property value impact.The full report is here.
A 2003 federally funded study by the Renewable Energy Policy Project looked at wind power’s effect on home values within five miles of nine projects in seven states before, during, and after installation. It reached the same conclusion.
“We found that for the great majority of projects the property values actually rose more quickly in the view shed than they did in the comparable community [without a wind farm]. Moreover, values increased faster in the view shed after the projects came on-line than they did before [the project was built]. Finally, after projects came on-line, values increased faster in the view shed than they did in the comparable community.”
In his interview, however, Mr. Franz produced individual reports claiming wind turbines harm property values. They included a Watertown Daily Times news article, a letter from an individual, a blog posted by an upstate New York realtor, and several comments, letters, and summaries by realtors or appraisers on an anti-wind Web site.
Yet Representative Franz indicated that property rights override other considerations.
“My position on wind turbines is this is a private property issue and as long as it meets local zoning, private property trumps just about anything else,” Mr. Franz said.
Clean Energy’s Cost and Jobs
State Representative Franz also said wind power is too expensive, soaks up too many tax dollars, and kills jobs.
“What happens is you have significant subsidies that cost tax dollars that drive down the economy and also drives up the cost of electricity,” Mr. Franz said. “You talk to Wolverine, Consumers, DTE…it’s almost double what it costs to generate regular electricity. So you combine the increased cost of electricity with the taxes to support the subsidies, the overall impact on the economy is so negative that it actually costs jobs for every job created.”
Fact Check:
Wind is now viewed as cost competitive with new coal- and natural gas-fired power plants in many wind-rich situations.
For example, the State of Michigan recently contradicted Mr. Franz’s assertions. A state report found that the contracted price of utility-scale wind power recently installed in Michigan was cheaper than the contracted price of power from new coal plants in other states.
Consumers Energy, the report added, cut its original, $78 million estimate for meeting its clean-energy mandate to $23 million.
John Sarver, formerly of the State of Michigan’s energy office, told GLBNS it’s important to make fair comparisons between clean and fossil energy.
“Well, [wind looks] too expensive when people go out and compare old, existing power plants to new, commercial wind farms,” Mr. Sarver just before the state released its report. “But any new power source is going to be more expensive [than any old one].”
Reuters reports that large-scale wind-turbine generation costs are now as low as 6 to 8 cents a kilowatt-hour in some windy places, while that number is 3 to 7 cents for “old” natural gas and coal power.
And clean energy of any sort—including solar power, the priciest option—is the clear winner, proponents say, when considering all costs of energy production, not just the price to consumers, Mr. Ellis said. Pointing to environmental and health costs, he asked,
What are the real costs of blowing up mountaintops to get at coal seams, which buries valleys and streams with rubble?
“Unless you find a way to consider those costs, it’s sort of nonsense to say this is cheaper than another,” Mr. Ellis said.
Mr. Sarver said wind power is important to Michigan’s energy and economic future.
“It’s a clean power source and it’s a local Michigan resource,” Mr. Sarver said of wind. “Having that diversified resource base is really smart, kind of like having a diversified stock portfolio. It’s worth something to know what your costs will be 15 or 20 years down the road (for wind) while it’s safe to assume the cost of fossil fuels are going up significantly.”
Mr. Franz’ claim that renewable energy eliminates jobs is also off the mark. Examples abound in Michigan, which is now the nation’s fourth-largest center for solar power manufacturing. Crain’s Detroit Business cites a report by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation that identifies 25 companies in Michigan as parts manufacturers for wind farms and another 900 as providers of design, engineering, machining, automation, or assembly services.
Mr. Franz said he relied on a study from King Juan Carlos University, in Madrid, for his claim that clean-energy subsidies hurt the economy and eliminate jobs. But an online report from Greenpeace USA points out that the study’s methodology has been widely dismissed—by, among others, the Spanish government, The Wall Street Journal, and, most recently, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which said that the report’s author’s main conclusions simply “were not supported by their work.”
‘European Wind Subsidies’
Representative Franz also said wind projects in Europe are highly subsidized, and that cutting off those subsidies effectively halts windpower development.
“We’ve seen the response of the stop[ping] of subsidies in Denmark and Spain [for renewables], most notably Denmark,” he said. “They’ve quit. The development of renewable energy has almost come to a complete halt. Same way in Denmark. Denmark quit a couple of years ago subsidizing their wind farm…They’ve quit subsidizing and any further developments in Denmark have come to a screeching halt.”
Fact Check:
The European “subsidies” Mr. Franz referred to are more properly called “feed-in tariffs,” or FITs.
FITs, which triggered rapid growth of solar and wind power in Europe, are rates utilities pay to private entrepreneurs who feed their own solar or wind power into the grid. Well-designed FITs avoid government subsidies and investments; instead, they employ private capital and the profit incentive to encourage clean-energy development.
Recently, there have been significant cuts to—or outright elimination of—some FITs in some countries, including, as Mr. Franz said, Denmark and Spain. But FIT advocates say that’s for two reasons they find encouraging.
First, governments regularly lower FIT rates for new projects in order to spur price competition and allow consumers to benefit from wind and solar technology’s steadily falling costs.
Second, so many entrepreneurs are pursing FIT opportunities that they are overwhelming utilities’ ability to keep up. Germany, Spain, and France added unscheduled cuts to their FIT rates last year “to slow a torrent of projects by developers and speculators,” according to Bloomberg News, which, like Mr. Franz, refers to FITs as “subsidies.”
Tony Ellis, a senior research fellow at the University of Massachusetts’ Wind Energy Center, confirmed that European FITs are working well.
“It is effective in the sense they got a very fast build out,” Mr. Ellis said.
For example, according to an Environmental and Energy Study Institute brief, Germany’s pioneering FITs policy, established in 1991, took the country from zero to 22,000 MW of windpower capacity—in peak power the equal of 22 very large coal plants—in 16 years.
“With the help of this policy,” the EESI brief states, “Germany was able to meet its 2010 target of 12.5 percent renewable electricity in 2007, while creating 249,000 jobs in the country’s renewable energy sector. FITs are also a major reason why Germany has the world’s largest photovoltaic solar market.”
The brief also indicates that Denmark’s wind energy production grew from 500 megawatts in 2003, just before FITs began there, to 3,000 MW in 2005, when they ended—a 600-percent increase in 12 years. Denmark now obtains 21 percent of its electricity from wind turbines; individuals or cooperatives own 83 percent of wind capacity.
The brief added that the policy created 21,000 manufacturing jobs in Denmark—whose population is slightly more than half of Michigan’s.
Mr. Ellis explained that Denmark and Spain had good reason to slow down clean energy development.
“Spain and Denmark are pretty much there in terms of how much wind-based electricity they can put into the grid and still keep a stable system,” he said. “It’s largely not a question of costs. It’s a question of [grid] capacity.”
Research by Toby B. Couture, a National Renewable Energy Laboratory economist turned private energy markets analyst, looked closely at claims that Spain’s renewables experience discredits clean energy and feed-in tariffs.
He said Spain, where wind power forms 16 percent of its national energy portfolio, established a solar FITs policy that was fatally flawed because it set tariffs far too high and avoided development caps. That produced a huge solar-energy “bubble” that did require a genuine government subsidy to repair the economic damage.
Spain’s lesson, he said, “is that while policies like feed-in tariffs can fuel a rapid scale-up in renewable energy technologies, they can all too easily exceed policymakers’ expectations if proper adjustment and oversight mechanisms are not in place.”
And Mr. Ellis pointed out that America’s fossil fuel industries have received massive assistance from government programs and tax incentives for many decades.
“Every [American] source of energy is subsidized,” he said. “The subsidies that wind has gotten…were specifically mentioned as being needed to counterbalance what oil and gas get.”
Glenn Puit is a policy specialist for the Michigan Land Use Institute; reach him at glenn (AT) mlui.org. Jim Dulzo is the Institute’s managing editor. Reach him at jimdulzo (AT) mlui.org.
A proposal by the nation’s largest energy company to erect more than 100 utility-scale wind turbines in Benzie and Manistee Counties holds the promise for an economic boost to the rural region, experts say, and will further the state’s efforts to become a leader in the nation’s emerging clean energy sector.
Many residents in the two counties are receiving the proposal, known as the Gail Windpower Project—and its potential economic impact—very enthusiastically.
“We are majorly supportive of this,” said Pam Harris Kaiser, whose family owns property in Arcadia, which is in northern Manistee County, along the Lake Michigan coastline. “Northern Michigan needs this; America needs this. We need clean energy …and we say bring it on. It’s a total win-win.”
Others, however, are raising concerns.
Chuck Beale, a leader of a group called Citizens for Responsible Wind Development, which opposes the project, told about 300 people gathered at the Garden Theater, in Frankfort, earlier this month that he’s urging a cautious approach due to some claims that wind turbines can harm human health. Others worry that the wind turbines will lower property values in the tourism-dependent economy.
“We are not trying to be exclusionary in any way,” said Mr. Beale, who owns a construction company in Frankfort. “I don’t think there is anybody here who doesn’t believe in renewable energy. It has to be done responsibly.”
Duke Energy, a Fortune 500 company based in Charlotte, N.C, is proposing the wind project. The utility has regular operations in North Carolina, South Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky. It just announced a merger with Progress Energy, making it the largest regulated utility in the country.
When the wind blows, Duke’s Gail Windpower Project would generate 200 megawatts of power—the output of a small coal plant—without coal-burning’s polluting, climate-changing emissions. The 485-ft. windmills would be placed in various locations within a 12,000 to 16,000 acre footprint largely consisting of orchards and farmland.
The company estimates that building the wind farm would create 150 construction jobs, while operating and maintaining it would produce about 25 permanent, full-time positions. It would, Duke says, represent a $360 million investment that would generate about $1.6 million a year in additional property taxes within each county.
Duke representatives say that area residents have been largely enthusiastic. The Gail Windpower Project Expo, a day-long open house at Benzie Central High School’s gymnasium, attracted close to 400 people, according to one company spokesman. Duke has already reached tentative wind royalty lease agreements with more than 100 landowners, representing about 10,000 acres.
Because wind royalty leases are private contracts, Duke does not disclosed how much it will pay landowners to allow wind turbines on their property. However, estimates by people who have seen leases signed by some local landowners indicate that they could earn between $12,000 and $15,000 per year, per turbine located on their property.
Duke also indicates that a “pooling” arrangement would provide income to others living within the project’s borders who, for various reasons—such as not enough wind or not enough space for the big machines on their property—cannot have windmills on their land.
The company proposes a minimum 1,000-ft. setback from residences; but the two local groups opposing the project insist that setbacks of 1.25 miles are necessary—a zoning regulation that would likely make the project very difficult if not impossible to build.
One farmer who has signed a lease with Duke, thereby agreeing to permit a turbine on his property to harvest wind power, is Jim March, of Arcadia Township, in Manistee County. Mr. March, who is the fourth generation of his family to operate the 263-acre beef-cattle farm, said it’s too early to know whether, how many, and where turbines would be erected on his property.
However, he said, if the project does come to fruition, the revenue will help him and his wife keep the farm in operation so their children can take it over in the coming decades.
“It would definitely pay the taxes and make some badly needed repairs that farm buildings are going without,” said Mr. March. He added that he supports a clean approach to energy generation.
“That’s one of the things discussed around the dining room table from the very beginning,” he said. “On a nice clear day, we are hoping our grandchildren’s children will be breathing…good air…because of these wind turbines being put up.”
Others, however, say they are very concerned about the proposal. The Citizens for Responsible Wind Development, along with the Arcadia Wind Study Group, sponsored the gathering at the Garden Theatre where Mr. Beale spoke, and showed the strongly anti-wind movie “Windfall.”
The movie presents a largely one-sided view of a proposal to build a wind farm in Meredith, N.Y.
“Windfall” chronicles how the proposal divided the rural community. It claims that wind turbines can make people sick, harm property values, cause fires, make shadows “flicker” across homes in a strobe-like effect, and create other problems.
The movie, which presents no views or facts either supporting or contradicting the claims made by the worried residents it interviews, clearly influenced the opinions of many in attendance, including Beulah resident Alice Mummey. Ms. Mummey says she is sympathetic to environmental causes and that she was involved in the successful campaign to stop a proposed new coal plant in Manistee five years ago.
But she said the movie gave her pause when it comes to building a wind farm in her own county.
“The more I find out, the less enthused I am,” Ms. Mummey said. “Even though I helped fight the coal plant and believe in renewables, the impacts I don’t think have been studied enough, and I’m grateful for a moratorium. We just need to carefully plan.”
Ms. Mummey is referring to temporary moratoriums on processing zoning applications for wind turbine permits recently enacted by Benzie’s Blain and Manistee’s Pleasanton Townships, which faced strong pressure from the two citizen groups. In their arguments to the board, the groups cited many of the objections that “Windfall” raises.
The American Wind Energy Association, meanwhile, calls “Windfall” badly biased, anti-wind propaganda that contains anti-wind groups’ “Greatest Hits of Misinformation” about wind power.
After viewing the movie, this reporter visited the Duke expo to ask company representatives about the claims made in the movie concerning the sounds wind turbines make, their effect on property values, and other effects, such as shadow “flicker.”
Milton Howard is vice president of wind development for Duke. In an extended interview, he promised that the project would be carried out with the utmost concern for local residents and their quality of life, and pointed to the nine wind farms his company has already built in other parts of the country in the past few years.
Both Mr. Howard claims that their projects gain strong community acceptance, particularly once they are operating and people better understand the actual effects of properly designed and sited wind farms.
He also said Duke will work with local townships on zoning issues and that placement of wind turbines would be done in a professional, respectful manner that takes into account and addresses the issues raised in the movie.
“It’s been very positive,” Mr. Howard said of the general reception to his company’s proposal. “A lot of people just want to learn about this and what the facts are.”
Glenn Puit, a veteran investigative journalist, is a policy specialist for the Michigan Land Use Institute. Reach him at glenn(AT)mlui.org. MLUI is planning extensive coverage of the Gail Windpower Proposal, and currently is investigating claims made by its opponents about noise, property values, and other perceived effects of windpower development on local communities.
State representative-elect Ray Franz favors cutting “Pure Michigan” funding by as much as 80 percent, the soon-to-be legislator from the 101st District told the Leelanau Enterprise last week. Franz said he would reduce funding from $25 to $30 million down to $5 to $6 million, while comparing Michigan’s tourism economy to keeping the books at the Onekema grocery store he owns.
“I figured my budget for marketing at my grocery store in Onekama should be about one-percent of sales, and that should be about right in this case as well.”
The Midwest-wide advertising campaign, which has been a big hit here in tourism-dependent Leelanau County, reportedly generated $2.23 in revenues for Michigan for every $1 spent. And a newly released Michigan State University research project credits Pure Michigan ads as being partly responsible for occupancy rates increasing at double the national average for the summer of 2010.
The Detroit Free Press reported Fridaythat the award-winning campaign was to go dark in January because the state had approved only $5.4 million for the coming year — not enough for a widespread TV ad campaign, according to officials at Travel Michigan, the state agency that runs Pure Michigan.
But in the 11th hour the “lame duck” legislature came through. Wrapping up a marathon session that began Thursday morning, Lansing lawmakers allocated $10 million for the Pure Michigan TV campaign to advertise the state’s winter and spring tourism activities in other states — far less than the $25 million Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Travel Michigan officials had requested, but enough money to keep the ad campaign alive.
“Many people have commented to us that they’ve seen the Pure Michigan campaign. It makes you want to come here,” said Patricia, who spends most of the year in Evanston, Ill., near Chicago, and sees the ad campaign on Illinois television. “The ads have a great look and feel, whether you want to go out on the golf course or to the beach,” Larry chimed in.
Actor and comedian, and a summer resident of nearby Northport, Tim Allen provides the voiceover for Pure Michigan’s ads, with poetic and compelling messages like this one: “Fall colors begin with a slow dance of turning leaves, and crescendo in a trillion trees aflame. Experience the entire state of Michigan in its annual blaze of glory. Find out what Pure Michigan fall colors feel like. Your trip begins at Michigan.org.”
By Gretchen Eichberger
