Local officials and Consumers Energy are at odds over whether a wind plant located south of Ludington meets safety standards.

Those living close to the wind plant continue to be exposed daily to the turbines and their apparent negative impact on health and quality of life.

Allegations that Lake Winds Energy Plant has significant safety issues are not new. On April 1, area residents filed a lawsuit claiming noise, vibrations and flickering lights generated by the 56 turbine facility are adversely impacting their health. Dizziness, sleeplessness and headaches are among the symptoms noted in the lawsuit.

Less than six months later, on Sept. 12, Mason County's Planning Commission determined that the wind plant is not in compliance with safety guidelines. That decision is being appealed to the Mason County Board of Appeals by Consumers Energy, which has a huge investment in the $250 million wind facility.

Two separate reviews support the planning commission's contention that the wind plant is out of compliance.

One study was conducted by Rand Acoustics of New Brunswick, Maine, in June 2011, which was more than a year before the wind plant went into operation. It was prepared at the request of Cary Shineldecker, who lives near the wind farm with his family. Shineldecker is now among the Mason County residents involved in the lawsuit. He and his wife said they sleep in the basement of their house to escape from the turbine noise.

Based on a review of Lake Wind Energy Park documentation and his experience and training, Robert Rand, of Rand Acoustics, made predictions about would happen at the facility once it started up, if the plans for project weren't altered. Those predictions were that the wind plant:

• Would likely exceed the existing regulatory noise limits at numerous locations on a regular basis due to omission of uncertainties in the prediction algorithm, omission of increases from night wind shear, and omission of facility design margin;
• Would likely generate adverse health and welfare impacts from sleep and activity interference and has potential for vestibular disturbance including nausea, dizziness, headache, inability to concentrate, anxiety and other adverse medical symptoms for the population within an area of over 22 square miles;
• Did not appear to comply with the Mason County zoning ordinance; and
• Did not appear compatible with the Mason County comprehensive plan.

"People respond to noise levels when they increase above what's normal," Rand said. "In a rural setting, people are used to about 20 decibels of background noise at night. So the bottom line is that when the turbine noise comes in at 40 or 45, you're going to have a significant portion of people complaining. This is well-known … it's established."

After seeing Rand's review, the Mason County Planning Board reduced the maximum noise level for the project to 40 decibels. However, Consumers Energy objected to the lower level and convinced the board to change it back to 45.

Kevon Martis, director of the Interstate Informed Citizen's Coalition, said he thought the reason the utility company wanted the limit at 45 was because at 40 decibels the wind plant would be too inefficient.

"Michigan's population density is too high for wind power," Martis said. "The only way you can build wind power in Michigan is to inflict harmful noise levels on people."

In his review, Rand found that the wind plant was designed with no margin of error, which would virtually guarantee that the turbines would periodically exceed even the 45 decibel minimum. His review concluded: "The likelihood of the proposed facility exceeding the existing sound limits at multiple locations on a regular basis is beyond question."

Rand said as many as a quarter of the people within a certain area near the turbines are probably suffering ill effects because of the noise level.

"When one or two people complain, they are really representing many others," Rand said. "Some people won't complain because someone in their family may be involved with the project, things like that. Also, when these projects get started wind developers go around and get people to sign 'hold-harmless' agreements. They accept money ahead of time not to complain. Of course when they do that they don't really know what they're going to be dealing with."

HGC Engineering of Mississauga, Ontario, was then brought in to do a review and reported that the wind turbines were in "general compliance with sound level criteria." This conclusion was not helpful to Consumers Energy or Tech Environmental, the firm that did the acoustical assessment for the wind plant. The reason it wasn't helpful was that if the wind plant was only in "general compliance," that meant at times it was out of compliance.

In a Nov. 7, letter to Mary Reilly, zoning and building director of Mason County, Brian Howe of HGC Engineering, stated that the wind plant is not fully in compliance with the Mason County sound limits and the wind plant design did not have a sufficient safety margin.

Howe wrote: "As the County is expecting that the 45 [decibel] criteria should not be exceeded by the sound due solely to the turbines in any 10 minute period, then I can assure the County that competent, material and substantive evidence supports the conclusion that the turbines are not in compliance at certain residences on occasion."

Rand, whose profession takes him from coast to coast, said wind plants are causing similar health and annoyance problems throughout the nation.

"The problems are all the result of putting large industrial wind turbines too close to where people live," Rand said. "The only real solution to the noise problem is distance. Turbines have to be placed where they won't do harm to people."

Brian Wheeler, spokesman for Consumers Energy, did not respond to a request for comment.

For equitable economic growth over the long-term, it's essential to take a no-favors approach. This promotes a fair playing field for everyone, not simply the lucky few. 

The first few years of Gov. Rick Snyder's administration characterized this viewpoint. Policymakers eliminated the state's complex and favor-laden Michigan Business Tax and replaced it with a flat corporate income tax with few credits. In addition, the burden of business taxes was lightened, allowing job creators to keep more of their money.

Legislators also eliminated a multitude of credits, including the state's flagship incentive program, the Michigan Economic Growth Authority. Unfortunately, these were replaced by discretionary cash payments to business expansions.

Direct cash grants do have some merit compared to refundable tax credits — the Legislature can stop them at any time. Now is that time.  

Consider that the state awarded $253 million in tax credits in 2004 and the last of these officially expire in 2024. The costs of these tax credits were pushed onto tomorrow's taxpayers.

Just because the new cash disbursement program is different, however, that does not mean it has been used less often. Far from it. In the first two years of the Snyder administration, the Michigan Economic Development Corp. awarded incentives to 92 projects under MEGA and its successor program, the Michigan Business Development Program. To put this in perspective, there were 64 MEGA deals made during the first two years of the Granholm administration. 

There have also been more deals announced, though they have been smaller on average. There were 329 jobs announced in the average deal in the first two years of Gov. Granholm's deals. For the Snyder administration the average is 224 jobs announced.

These announcements rarely pan out as predicted. For every 1,000 jobs they proclaim will be created by the projects they incentivize, only 294 ever materialize. Even then, the costs of the incentives mean that its economic impacts are unclear. Economic incentive literature remains mixed and a 2009 analysis of the MEGA program shows a negative connection.

Outside of the Michigan Business Development Program, there are still numerous other economic development programs that continue to be used. An attempt to eliminate state film incentives only capped the program and made it less generous. These favors to large film companies are an unjustified use of taxpayer money, whether they're $100 million or $50 million. 

While these industrial expansion projects are large, and certainly someone will benefit from locating or retaining a footloose business project, they're economically insubstantial.

Monthly announcements amount to 402 jobs per month — and, again, only a fraction of these announcements ever arrive. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 831,179 jobs created from businesses opening and expanding in Michigan in 2012, an average of 69,000 a month. (The net job creation is much less because the state also lost 759,680 jobs due to companies closing and contracting.) 

We should applaud the immense number of jobs created without needing to reach into taxpayer pockets to bring them here. That some expansions get taxpayer money and others don't is patently unfair.

While improvements have been made to the business climate, politicians still feel the need to bestow favors upon selected companies. They should simply end the game.

#####

James Hohman is assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center are properly cited