INTRO: A state body recommending the rules for windmills on the Great Lakes met with the public last night near Bay City. The legislature is starting to debate this issue. No other state has offshore wind yet and the race is on. The Granholm Administration considers offshore wind crucial to economic development. But people that own lakefront property have already organized against it. Michigan Now’s Chris McCarus reports.
The Great Lakes Offshore Wind Council was chosen by the governor. About 5 members of it did a presentation last night at Saginaw Valley State University. They’re biggest concern is convincing shoreline home owners that windmills on the water won’t be ugly. James Clift is a lobbyist for the Michigan Environmental Council. He’s also a member of the council.
“The bottom line is the state has to make this decision up front. Do we want to lease this parcel to a wind developer? So we want the best information possible when we’re trying to answer that question. If we see impediments to a wind farm going in we need the information for the state to say you know we think that site has so many problems that we don’t want you to look there any further.”
The council has a new mapping tool. It uses 22 criteria to narrow down the best places to set up windmills on the lakes. Here’s some of what they’re watching out for: shipwrecks, shipping lanes, recreational fish spawning, commercial fishing, bird and bat flyways, coastal airports, buoys and large river mouths. Mike Klepinger is a staff consultant to the council. He had the 80 people in the room vote with little hand held clickers.
“How do you think this project will affect aesthetics of the lake view? We’ve already asked you a little bit about aesthetics. Strongly benefit, benefit, no effect, harm, strongly harm or unsure.”
As the voting was tallied instantly, Klepinger found that most people are worried about how windmills would look on the lake.
“30% no effect. 25% strongly harm and 27% harm.”
This group spends many days of the year on the Great Lakes. They want to support offshore wind. They tend not to like coal, gas or nuclear plants. But they’re concerned about birds, bats, air quality and paying for electricity. It’s not clear what new sources of power they would approve of. Jeff Hoenle is from Sterling Heights. His family owns a vacation home near Pentwater. A Norwegian firm has proposed a wind farm on the lake near there. They would invest $4 billion. I asked Hoenle if he was a NIMBY…someone fighting a new project. Not in my backyard.
Hoenle is heading a property rights group called protectwithpower.org. They’ve poured in thousands of dollars. They’ve hired a Lansing lobbyist and lawyer to stop the project in their area. People on the other side of the issue say a whole new industry is at stake. From the towers, blades, gearboxes, transmission lines, even shipping. Will it be in Michigan or somewhere else?
For Michigan Now I’m Chris McCarus.
Chris -
Our coalition is working to make sure that future development is done responsibly – with an eye towards the future.
The technology is rapidly improving, prototype floating turbines are being tested. Why destroy the priceless Great Lake shoreline when it is possible to harness the resource in a non-destructive way?
The Great Lakes are a national and global treasure. Huge tax incentives are on the table encouraging developers to try to cash in as quickly as possible no matter the permanent consequences. We are working to have a voice for the citizens of the State of Michigan who want to see regulations put into law that protect the Great Lakes – Which are everybody’s backyard.
The GLOW Council identified areas most favorable for wind energy development based on the 22 mapping criteria you reference. The Scandia proposal in Mason and Oceana County is not located in those areas. Our concerns are completely valid.
Hasn’t the issue of property rights of private owners on land bordering state resources such as lakes and forests been decided before? When a few well connected and/or wealthy folks have acted like owners of public property, keeping the rest of the citizenry out of their life. Should we, the more populous group, people in large part that are struggling for a living, yield to these well connected and/or wealthy folks?
Please Mr/MRS deep-pockets, give the little guy a break.JW
John,
What is your stake in this issue?
What an odd comment/question from the brand new Grand Lakes Offshore Wind Council, a state body recommending rules for windmills: “The bottom line is the state has to make this decision up front. Do we want to lease this parcel to a wind developer?” Lease this parcel? First of all, I believe that it is inaccurate to describe any portion of the actual lake itself as a parcel.
More important, the comment is about “leasing” a part of the Great Lakes, not the land contiguous to the water, but the lake itself. I don’t believe this has ever been done before and I question whether this is a slippery slope we wish to start on. And we should not do this without substantial public comment on leasing the Lake to anyone, including foreigners such as the developers for the project at hand.
The Council may have a new mapping tool that allows them to consider 22 criteria but they have not said anything about an overall environmental impact study on whether there is wisdom or folly in locating gigantic windmill systems in one of the world’s largest fresh water lakes.
And the self described little guy above can rail about why he is opposed to supposedly wealthy property owners objecting, but he and his buddies need to understand that the only reason the developer is interested in this job is money, big money. And the developer will be long gone when the damage to the Lakes are discovered and those wealthy property owners have to pay huge taxes to ammeliorate the damage, if it isn’t too late.
If the State or Governor were really interested in wind power, they would have created a Wind Council or even an Alternative Energy Council rather than a Great Lakes Offshore Wind Council. The difference is open mind vs closed mind. They might have started with windmills on land, perhaps alongside airline runways as exist in Europe.
The 8 year track record of closed mindedness may well be the reason that tax credits leave Michigan to Hollywood, why car companies have left Detroit and why Michigan has permanently lost 1 million jobs. I sadly suspect that this may be more of same.
This is not just a shoreline owners issue. Of course, this would be a convenient strategy to pit rich people who live on the lake against everyone else. These wind turbines will be an outrageous eyesore for our millions of visitors and state residents that frequent our shores. These proposals should not get any traction!!
Richard,
Where do you live?
We have had enough oil spills. Anyone heard of Battle Creek/Marshall Embridge or New Orleans BP. What about the nasty mess that has been made for those poor landowners. Or don’t they count. Maybe the people on the shoreline that do not want windpower should go help clean up the oil messes. Some homeowners do not know how close they live to a old rusty pipeline that could spew at any time.
Get with the times, sometimes change is good.
It is time to stop buying oil from countries that want to get rich off our money and kill our young boys, or blow up buildings like in New York, anyone heard of 9-11?
The windmills could be a great sight for tourists on boats traveling from Chicago to Traverse City. Like a lighthouse, or the Mackinaw bidge.
From the shore, they would be so far out in the water it would be hard to see the wind farms. It is not like they would be where families go wadeing.
I would think at night with lights on them, it would be pretty cool to look at and take pictures of.
There should be restrictions on how many towers in 1 area, and how far apart they should be.
The water in the lakes do not belong to the property owners on the shore. So if we need windmills to keep the price of heating homes, or public buildings down, lets start saving money instead of paying higher costs every year.
We have to do something different! That is not that hard to understand.