Better Plan, Wisconsin

VIDEO SOURCE: FOX 11 NEWS

REGULATORY FLUX BLAMED FOR CANCELED WIND FARM

SOURCE: JSONLINE.COM

March 24, 2011

By Thomas Content

Supporters of renewable energy say a We Energies wind farm now under construction might be the last big wind project built in the state in the near future after a Chicago developer canceled a big project near Green Bay.

We Energies is building the $367 million Glacier Hills Wind Park in Columbia County, northeast of Madison.

On Monday, Invenergy LLC canceled its plan to build a wind farm that would have had 100 turbines, 10 more than We Energies is building at Glacier Hills.

The Ledge Wind Energy Center project south of Green Bay would have generated 150 megawatts of electricity, but was the most controversial wind project proposed in the state, as local residents concerned about noise and shadow flicker from wind turbines mobilized in opposition to the project.

Residents in rural Brown County have been the most outspoken group in the state in support of Gov. Scott Walker's property rights bill restricting wind farm development, and in opposition to rules developed last year by state energy regulators for where wind farms can be located.

Alissa Krinsky, an Invenergy spokeswoman, said the local opposition to the project wasn't a factor in the company's decision.

Instead, the company cited uncertainty in Wisconsin over the rules wind power companies must comply with to obtain project permits.

A legislative committee voted along party lines earlier this month to block a new statewide rule governing locations of wind farms from going into effect. The rule was developed by the state PSC in response to a directive from the state Legislature.

In a letter to the PSC, Invenergy said it could not justify further investments in the project "while substantial uncertainty persists regarding relevant project regulations."

The company said it would work with industry and state leaders to forge a regulatory environment that's more conducive to wind development and investment. "At the same time, we'll increase our development efforts outside Wisconsin, in states that offer more regulatory certainty," Invenergy said.

The company has also built natural gas-fired power plants in Wisconsin and the Forward Wind Energy Center near the Horicon Marsh three years ago. It has built wind projects in Canada and across the country, including Illinois, Texas and West Virginia.

In Wisconsin, several smaller wind power developments are still expected to go forward this year, including a seven-turbine project also in southern Brown County.

That project received a building permit last week from the Glenmore Town Board, despite protests from wind power opponents.

Other projects expected to be built include small developments in Monroe and Calumet counties, said Michael Vickerman, executive director of the advocacy group Renew Wisconsin.

But large wind projects are expected to remain stalled as the Legislature and Walker administration shift away from the Doyle administration's support for wind power development.

Vickerman projected that the Ledge Wind project would have provided $600,000 a year in payments to local communities and Brown County. The changing environment surrounding wind energy in Wisconsin is likely to affect companies beyond wind power developers.

At a recent energy conference in Milwaukee, Tom Boldt, chief executive of Boldt Construction, said his firm planned to remain active in wind power development in other states, as prospects for such projects appear to be diminishing in Wisconsin.

Boldt has built several large wind farms and is one of the state contractors hired by We Energies to work on the Glacier Hills development.

Uncertainty about the state's wind power situation comes as the Legislature and Walker administration may consider bills to relax the state's renewable electricity mandate.

Under state law passed with bipartisan support more than five years ago, 10% of Wisconsin's electricity must come from renewable sources - including wind, solar and landfill gas-to-electricity projects - by 2015.



BROWN COUNTY WIND FARM SHELVED

Third story:



Glenmore town board approves turbines: fox11online.com

GLENMORE TOWN BOARD APPROVES TURBINES

SOURCE: FOX11

MARCH 17, 2011

GREEN BAY - Emotions continue to run hot over a wind turbine project in Brown County. The Glenmore town board tonight voted to allow CG Power Solutions to build seven turbines in the community.

The vote happened without public comment.

When the meeting was adjourned soon after the vote, many of those attending shouted down the board members. Law enforcement officers watched the crowd as the board members left.

Tonight's meeting and vote came on the heels of another heated meeting last week. At that time, the board originally approved the permit for the project, but when the crowd became angry then, the board abruptly ended the meeting.

It later reconvened and voted to delay the permit for two months. Then, the turbine company challenged that second vote, saying it violated state open meeting law.

We were not able to speak with board members following tonight's meeting.

Opponents to the plan say they have a number of concerns, including health issues.

Next story

AIRING WIND FARM FEARS

By Erin Somerville, Central Western Daily, www.centralwesterndaily.com.au 18 March 2011

They may look harmless, but the increasing amount of wind turbines freckling hills and skylines around the central west may be doing more harm than good.

Insomnia, nausea and headaches are just some of the health complaints slowly being brought to the surface by people living near wind farms.

Dr Sarah Laurie,who has done extensive research into the health effects of wind turbines in rural communities, spoke to residents around Blayney on Wednesday night about her findings.

Residents and land holders were particularly interested as they face a proposed $200 million wind farm being built in the Flyers Creek area across 16 properties.

“I am not anti-wind, but there’s a problem,” Dr Laurie said. “You can’t ignore the fact that people are getting sick.”

The sudden and unexplained common symptoms presented by those living up to 10 kilometres away from wind farms include nausea, headaches, sleep deprivation, tinnitus, panic attacks and high blood pressure.

Children are also presenting unusual symptoms including waking with night terrors and sudden bed wetting, despite having gone years without wetting the bed.

Residents report they can only solve these problems by leaving the area.

Dr Laurie said that medical practitioners, wind turbine companies, and the government can no longer ignore the evidence linking wind farms with negative health affects.

She believes infrasound waves that are inaudible to humans are responsible for the health problems.

“There’s a stimulation of the nervous system, and I think this is from the infrasound,” she said.

“[People] can’t really protect their homes from it because they are very penetrative.”

Although infrasound waves occur naturally, Dr Laurie believes it’s the pulsating nature of the sound waves as the blade passes the tower that is mainly responsible for the health problems.

The Senate has launched an inquiry on rural wind farms and their health effects.

Over 1000 submissions have been made so far.

Dr Laurie is hoping the inquiry will prompt the government to investigate the issue so it is better understood and preventative strategies can be taken in the future.

“It is acoustic pollution,” she said.

There are no regulations stating how far a wind farm can be from a residence.

Infigen Energy, the company behind the proposed Flyers Creek wind farm, did not provide the Central Western Daily with a comment.

Next story

BOARD OF HEALTH PRESSED TO STUDY EFFECTS OF TURBINES

SOURCE Falmouth Enterprise, (via National Wind Watch)

15 March 2011

By ELISE R. HUGUS,

Falmouth Board of Health will request that health impacts from the town’s wind turbines be studied by the state Department of Public Health, and that a complaint log based on science be established online for residents to report adverse effects from the turbines.

In a meeting last night, the board heard a presentation from Ambleside Road resident J. Malcolm Donald on health effects from a 28-turbine wind farm in Mars Hill, Maine. The controlled study, conducted by Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, found that a large percentage of residents living within 1,100 meters of the turbines experienced symptoms, compared with residents who lived three miles away. According to Mr. Donald, the study found that 77 percent of abutters to the wind farm experienced feelings of anger, and over 50 percent felt feelings of stress, hopelessness, and depression. Over 80 percent reported sleep disturbances, compared with 4 percent in the control group, he said, and 41 percent of abutters experienced headaches.

The study, which was completed in March 2009, has yet to be published in a creditable journal—and, as several board members pointed out, has yet to stand up to the rigors of the scientific method, which include peer review and replication.

Board member John B. Waterbury, a biologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said he had carefully read the study and other documents sent by Mr. Donald over the weekend. “As a scientist, I look and see there isn’t much peer-reviewed literature. Then there are people who are clearly impacted by this thing in a number of ways,” he said. Fellow board member George R. Heufelder said he was not convinced that the physiological symptoms listed in the study are connected to the turbines. “I can’t dismiss your irritation and angst, but my analysis says, show me the facts. It takes someone to do a good, controlled study,” he said. Mr. Donald cited the “precautionary principle,” a legal term that allows policy makers to make decisions that are not based on scientific evidence. “You don’t really need to know why something is happening. If we know it’s happening, we need to take preventive mesures to stop it from happening,” he said. Board member Jared V. Goldstone pointed out that although the principle has been adopted in the European Union, it is not law in the United States. “The legal underpinnings of [Dr. Nissenbaum’s study] just aren’t there. Right now it’s a political issue,” he said.

Mr. Donald also read verbatim a Climatide blog post written, coincidentally, by Dr. Goldstone’s wife, Heather M. Goldstone, a WCAI reporter with a doctorate in ocean science and a background in toxicology. As part of the radio station’s series on “the Falmouth Experience” with turbines, she drew parallels between the debate over the health effects of wind turbine energy and toxic chemical pollutants.

Several residents of Blacksmith Shop Road, where the town-owned turbines are located, spoke about the health and quality-of-life impacts they started experiencing after the fi rst turbine was erected last spring.

John J. Ford, who said he lives 2,745 feet from the Notus Clean Energy turbine at Falmouth Technology Park and 3,740 feet from Wind 1 at the wastewater treatment facility, said he is currently trying to soundproof his bedroom in order to sleep at night. With an elevated heart rate and blood pressure, he said his experiences are similar to those in the Nissenbaum study. “My neighbors and myself would be enthralled, if the board of health took a more active role in this,” Mr. Ford said.

Colin P. Murphy, also of Blacksmith Shop Road, said that he has felt all the effects listed in the study “at some point or other.” He invited board members to spend time in the neighborhood for a full 24-hour period in various wind conditions to feel the effects for themselves. station’s series on “the Falmouth . [sic]

Mark J. Cool, a resident of Fire Tower Road, asked the board to take a proactive approach by approaching state authorities for help and working with other town committees to address the residents grievances. “At the very least, acknowledge that something is going on in our neighborhood. It’s an enormous problem for everybody,” he said.

Chairman Gail A. Harkness said it was clear that residents are affected, but the turbines are related to the town’s finances, over which the board of health does not have jurisdiction. Mr. Murphy said that money should not be a concern for the board of health. “Aren’t I worth more than $178,000? I think I’m worth more than that,” he shouted, referring to the town’s estimate of how much money will be saved through wind energy each year.

Mr. Donald said that those savings should be enough to fund a study.

“Why can’t the board take some milk from those ‘cash cows’ to fund an epidemiological study?” he asked.

Dr. Harkness, an epidemiologist by training, suggested approaching the schools of public health at Harvard or Boston University to do a controlled study. “One residential study does not give you the truth. Repeated findings do not lead to a cause-effect scenario,” she said.

Mr. Cool asked board members whether they had seen the noise complaint log, which Falmouth Wastewater Superintendent Gerald C. Potamis explained is being kept by a private consultant. Dr. Goldstone said that could be helpful, especially if the log featured “controlled vocabulary” that could be used as scientific data for the sometimes subjective complaints.

Several residents said they had not heard of the log, and had been sending their complaints directly to selectmen or the town manager. Dr. Waterbury suggested posting the log, along with wind turbine data, on the town website so that it would be easily accessible.

Board members questioned whether pending litigation between a group of residents and the town would affect the online log, but they said they would explore the idea, along with the possibility of getting state health authorities to conduct a study in the affected neighborhoods.

The board will follow up on these action items at its next meeting on March 28.

Next story

PLANNERS APPROVE TWO MILE SETBACK

SOURCE East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com

March 16, 2011

By Clinton Reeder,

The Umatilla County Planning Committee has voted unanimously to send a proposed two-mile setback of wind towers from rural homes and from city urban growth boundaries to the Umatilla County Commissioners for approval.

This guarantees both the cities and the rural homeowners the right to say “no” to wind towers encroaching upon their properties against their will. If they say “no,” then no tower can be built closer than two miles from a home, nor will a wind tower be built closer than two miles from a city’s urban growth boundary.

[rest of article available here]

Next story

FLICKER OF HOPE FOR WIND TURBINE VICTIMS

SOURCE: The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk

March 17, 2011

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent,

The misery of shadow flicker, which blights the lives of people living near some wind turbines, could soon be over.

The flickering is caused when rotating turbine blades periodically cast shadows through openings, such as windows.

A report commissioned by the Department for Energy and Climate Change recommended that turbines should be built no closer than 10 rotor diameters from the nearest home.

This means that if the blade had an 80metre (262ft) diameter, it should be at least 800 metres, or half a mile away.

Shadow flicker is worse when the sun is low in the sky in winter, when the wind can also be strong.

Studies cited in the report said that, over the long term, it could cause “a significant nuisance”.

It was also a risk for a small number of people with epilepsy.

Although the report concluded that flicker was not a “significant health risk”, protesters insist the issue can cause headaches and stress–related problems.

Lynn Harlock, who lives almost half a mile from Redtile wind farm in Cambridgeshire, said she was “sick to death” of flicker.

“You cannot sit in any rooms when the sun is setting at certain times of year,” she said.

“It is like flashing strobe lighting. It is quite upsetting not being able to sit in your own home.

“People think you are barmy. They think you are after compensation. But all we want is our home back.”

The report recommended that homes and offices within 500 meters, or a third of a mile, of a turbine should not suffer flicker for more than 30 minutes a day or 30 hours a year.

Developers applying for planning permission where there could be a flicker should put in place measures to stop significant nuisance, it added.

In many cases, problems could be solved by shutting a turbine down for short periods of the year, changing the position slightly or planting vegetation and trees.

The Coalition wants to build up to 6,000 wind turbines onshore over the next 10 years.

Charles Hendry, minister for energy and climate change, welcomed the report. He said new planning laws would ensure turbines were sited where there was plenty of wind rather than near residential areas where they might cause protests. Planning guidance would stick to the “10 diameter rule”.

Lee Moroney, a wind energy expert with the Renewable Energy Foundation, said the rules were not strong enough and wind turbines should not be built within a mile of residential areas.

Birds are not so eagle–eyed after all, according to a study that found that some species crash into wind turbines and power lines because they do not look where they are going.

Professor Graham Martin at the University of Birmingham said large birds of prey and sea birds were particularly vulnerable to crashing into man–made structures. In a study published in the journal Ibis, he suggested the reason was because birds had evolved to look for movement either side and potential prey on the ground rather than straight ahead.

He suggested that wind farms or other structures should have decoys on the ground to try to distract birds, or emit sound to alert them to the danger.

Glenmore residents' outcry sways wind project: fox11online.com

VIDEO SOURCE: FOX 11 GREENBAY

GLENMORE TOWN BOARD POSTPONES WIND TURBINE DECISION

SOURCE GREENBAY PRESS GAZETTE

March 8 2011

By Tony Walter

Residents reacted angrily, chanting, "No permits," then, "change your vote," prompting Kittell to call for police support.

"The people are trying to get out of hand," Kittell said on his cell phone. One Wisconsin State Patrol officer and two Brown County Sheriff's Department officers showed up 15 minutes later.

GLENMORE — The Glenmore Town Board voted Monday to wait 60 days before voting on a permit request to have seven wind turbines built in the town.

In an emotion-filled meeting that at one point had Town Chairman Don Kittell call in police officers when residents began chanting and shouting, the board reversed an earlier vote to approve the permits.

Mark Dick of Cenergy, a subsidiary of Pennsylvania-based CG Power Solutions that is seeking to erect the turbines, said the board's delay on a decision was based on emotion and opinion, not law.

"You're asking the Town Board to violate law," Dick told the more than 100 residents who crowded into the Glenmore Community Center. "You might as well as ask them to outlaw smoking."

The board voted quickly at the meeting's outset to approve the permits, with Kittell and Supervisor Kriss Schmidt supporting it and Supervisor Ron Nowak opposing it. Kittell argued that the board was simply following the law that required it to honor a conditional use permit that went into effect before the town changed its wind turbine ordinance last year.

But residents reacted angrily, chanting, "No permits," then "change your vote," prompting Kittell to call for police support.

"The people are trying to get out of hand," Kittell said on his cell phone. One Wisconsin State Patrol officer and two Brown County Sheriff's Department officers showed up 15 minutes later.

Residents continued to protest, and Kittell ended the meeting. But the residents continued to argue that the recent decision by a legislative committee to suspend the Public Service Commission's wind-siting rules made it possible for the board to delay its vote.

"I don't understand what your rush is," Cliff Hammond said.

Resident Steve Deslauriers said wind turbine officials wanted the permits approved before the state had a chance to impose new siting rules.

After 90 minutes of debate, the board decided to reconvene the meeting and Schmidt made a motion to delay a decision until more information came from the state. This was approved unanimously but brought Cenergy officials to their feet to protest that the board voted illegally.

"You can't let the minority dissuade you from the law," Dick told board members, ignoring shouts from the residents.

But the board voted unanimously for the delay, bringing applause from the audience.

Glenmore initially had two wind turbines erected in 1997 and last year had seven more built in the Shirley Wind project.

SECOND FEATURE: Wind lobbyists re-writing the news: Chapter 4,567

Note from the BPWI research nerd:

The Green Bay Press Gazette article above has a headline which reads "GLENMORE TOWN BOARD POSTPONES WIND TURBINE DECISION"

RENEW Wisconsin, an organization that lobbys on behalf of the wind industry changes the headline to this on their website:

ANGRY ANTI-WIND CROWD INTIMIDATES TOWN BOARD TO CHANGE VOTE ON T[UR]BINE DECISION

A RESIDENT'S ACCOUNT OF THE MEETING..

LAST NIGHT IN THE TOWN OF GLENMORE.....

The meeting was attended by many residents and also State Representative Andre and John Vander Leest, a representative sent by State Senator Frank Lasee to read a statement from him.

The Glenmore Town Board was to decide on issuing building permits for seven proposed 500' wind turbines on an 80 acre parcel owned by Mike and Sandy  Zirbel, 6013 Morrison Road.

After a speech by Andre Jacques and John Vander Leest, as well as Rick Loppnow (Glenmore Town Supervisor candidate), requesting the Town Board to delay issuing the permits in light of the recent JCRAR suspension of the Wind Siting Rules, the Board made and passed a motion to  approve the building permits.

This action precipitated an immediate widespread expression of outrage by nearly all of the attendees, at which time Chairman Kittel called in the police.

Before the police arrived, the Town Board decided to adjourn the meeting, although most of the agenda items had not yet been covered. This was followed by about 45 minutes of passionate comments from many in attendance, as well as more statements from Representative Jacques and John Vander Leest. The police arrived in the midst of a peaceful open forum, and stayed until the meeting ended.

Following calls from the audience to reopen the meeting and reconsider the earlier motion to approve the building permits, the Board did just that.

The Town Board made a motion to amend their earlier motion and delay a decision on the building permits for 60 days while waiting to see what would happen at Madison.

This created great consternation with the wind developer representatives in attendance who then put tremendous pressure on the Town Board to not delay their decision.

Following consultation with the town attorney, the Board confirmed that they would proceed with the 60 day delay. This decision was met with a standing ovation and round of applause, much to the dismay and anger of the wind developer.
 
The balance of the agenda was dealt with and the  meeting was adjourned. Many congratulations, handshakes, and hugs were exchanged throughout the crowd.

 NEXT FEATURE:

Click on the image above to hear the Falmouth Turbine

Click here for SOURCE

The Falmouth Experience: Sick from the Noise

SOURCE Climatide, climatide.wgbh.org

March 8, 2011

By Jess Bidgood, Reported by Sean Corcoran,

FALMOUTH, Mass. — Last September, under the cover of darkness, Barry Funfar set out on an act of civil disobedience. His target was a wind turbine the town installed about 1,600 feet from his Falmouth home. Funfar used sticky-backed letters and a large poster-board to vandalize a welcome sign near the turbine’s base. When he was done, the new sign read, “The Noise from This Turbine is Killing Me.” And the word “killing” was in red, and he signed his name with a thick black marker.

“I had this huge foam board and covered the whole thing. I used gorilla tape to make it hard to take off. I figured the police would be up to my house the next morning or something. But I heard nothing,” Funfar said.

Dozens of people living near the 1.65-megawatt turbine have reported sleep interruptions, headaches and vertigo since it was turned on last April. Neighbors say it’s like sea sickness — some people feel it, others don’t. But the effects seem to be cumulative in that symptoms appear and increase the longer they’re near the turbine.

What’s not clear is why. A town-commissioned sound study concluded the turbine produces broad spectrum sound at levels within town and state guidelines. But residents say it’s not the volume as much as the type of sound that’s the problem.

“I’ve learned it’s just a different kind of noise. It’s like it gets inside of me and just causes so much stress and anxiety that even when it isn’t going I have this fear of when it is going to start up again,” Funfar said.

Residents primarily report three different types of turbine noise (all of which we were unable to record on our visits to the turbine). The first and most easily understood noise is a swooshing sound that’s made at regular intervals when the blades spin. Then, there’s another, more erratic sound, which some compare to a sneaker bouncing around in a drier.

Heather Goldstone says both of those noises are called impulse sounds, which scientists know are harder to get used to than constant sounds. But for reasons scientists don’t understand, wind turbine noise seems to be more disturbing than other noises such as airports and highways.

“Many scientists and wind-energy advocates say that while people may become annoyed by turbine noise, annoyance is not considered a health impact from a clinical perspective. That said, chronic annoyance can build into stress, and stress could cause many of the symptoms people are complaining about,” Goldstone.

Goldstone cited the work of Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, a physician who has studied the impacts of two wind farms in Maine on nearby residents. “He told me he thinks there’s a more direct explanation: That sleep deprivation caused by turbine noise is taking a toll on people’s mental and physical health,” she said.

The residents who report being the most severely affected by Wind One blame low-frequency sound, often called infrasound, that is inaudible and controversial. They say it’s like a pulse that gets into their heads and makes their hearts race.

“People have different sensitivities to sound, particularly in the low-frequency range,” Goldstone says. “The question is whether sounds below a person’s hearing threshold can affect the ear in other ways and possibly lead to health impacts. Conventional wisdom says no, but a couple of recent studies say maybe. There’s just not enough science available to sort this out yet.”

Steven Clarke is the top wind expert in Governor Patrick’s administration. Clarke says he won’t downplay residents’ complaints. But it’s important to recognize that Falmouth is only one out of 26 turbines that have been installed in Massachusetts, including a half-dozen turbines similar in size and capacity to Wind One.

“Once you put that context around the Falmouth situation,” he says, “I think it becomes clear that we should look at this as a specific case and not generalize that wind energy in general is problematic.”

State leaders have heard complaints about the lack of science as town boards make decisions, and Clarke says the state is looking to partner with a scientific institution to further study turbine noise.

MORE ON THE FALMOUTH TURBINE:

THE FALMOUTH EXPERIENCE: LIFE UNDER THE BLADES

 SOURCE: Climatide, climatide.wgbh.org

 March 7, 2011

Reported by Sean Corcoran, By Jess Bidgood,

FALMOUTH, Mass. — Standing on his home’s porch, Neil Anderson points through the thicket of trees in his front yard and across Blacksmith Shop Road towards one of his closest neighbors: A wind turbine.

“Right now we are 1,320 feet, which is one-quarter mile south of Wind One, which is Falmouth’s first wind turbine. It’s been online since April. And we’ve been trying to get it stopped since April,” Anderson says.

Wind One, as the turbine is officially called, is owned by the town of Falmouth and is located at the town’s wastewater treatment plant, where it stands 262 feet tall to the turbine’s hub. That’s about 10 feet taller than the Pilgrim Monument in Provincetown. The blades extend just shy of 400 feet, which is about half the height of the John Hancock Building in Boston.

When it was installed last spring, Anderson didn’t think Wind One would cause a problem. For 35 years, he’s owned and operated a passive solar company on Cape Cod.

The energy conservationist in Anderson considered wind power a good principle. He wasn’t alone — before the turbine switched on, Falmouth residents almost universally welcomed Wind One as a symbol of renewable energy and a way to keep taxes down.

“I was proud looking at it from this viewpoint — until it started turning,” Anderson said.

But now, as many as 50 people are complaining about the turbine and the noise it makes at different speeds. A dozen families are retaining a lawyer for that reason.

“It is dangerous. Headaches. Loss of sleep. And the ringing in my ears never goes away. I could look at it all day, and it does not bother me. It’s quite majestic — but it’s way too close,” Anderson said.

Neighbors say this isn’t a debate about a turbine ruining their view, and their goal is not compensation. Some just want it turned off at night.

But Anderson can’t compromise. “This house has been my hobby, my investment, and we love it out here. We will move if we have to. Because we cannot live with (the turbine). No, we cannot,” Anderson said.

Wind One is expected to save the town about $375,000 a year in electricity. Heather Harper, Falmouth’s acting town manager, says Falmouth owes about $5 million on the 1.65-megawatt turbine.

Harper said one of the challenges of running the turbine is that the type of sound some neighbors complain about — that low-level pulse — isn’t regulated by the state. “The times I have been there I do not experience the impact of the effect that the neighbors have expressed that they’ve experienced. But I do believe that they are experiencing something that is very real to them,” Harper said.

David McGlinchey is with the non-partisan Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences in Plymouth, which provides science-based information to policy makers. McGlinchey says that while Wind One has generated complaints, other turbines of similar size, including a 1.8-megawatt turbine in Hull, have been mostly well-received.

“The existing peer-reviewed studies suggest that there are no health effects associated with the sound and noise from wind turbines,” McGlinchey said. “That being said, people clearly experience symptoms. People have headaches, people have their sleep disturbed, people are not living well next to them in some situations. In some situations they are. So, both sides are right.”

Wind advocates say Falmouth’s experience has made it nearly impossible to get other turbines approved on Cape Cod, and potentially across the state. Last week, Falmouth’s selectmen acknowledged the issue and agreed to turn off the turbine when wind speeds exceed 23 miles per hour.

It’s unclear how much relief this will bring or how long it will last, since selectmen said more permanent mitigation efforts still must be negotiated.

One looming concern of neighbors is a second turbine, one of the same size and make that has gone up not far from the first. Falmouth’s Wind Two is scheduled to be turned on sometime this spring.

MORE NEWS:

WYOMING LEGISLATURE FAILS TO SETTLE EMINENT DOMAIN ISSUE

SOURCE Associated Press, trib.com 8 March 2011

CHEYENNE — The state Legislature failed to settle the sensitive issue of whether wind farm developers can forcibly take land so they can stretch power lines to their turbines.

Instead, lawmakers who ended their 2011 session last week extended a moratorium banning private wind developers from using eminent domain for another two years, meaning the issue will be back again.

“I hope, in some form, somebody will come up with some idea that can satisfy all sides to the problem,” said Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

[rest of article available at source]

WHAT'S AT ISSUE WITH GOVERNOR WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL:

 Pictured Above: Setbacks between 400 foot tall wind turbines and homes in a PSC-approved wind project Fond du Lac County Wisconsin. The yellow circles indicate the 1000 foot safety zone around each turbine.

Pictured Below: PSC approved Glacier Hills Wind Project under constrution in Columbia County. In this map from WeEnergies, red dots are turbine locations.  Each yellow circle containing a small red square is a non-participating home.

When they permitted the wind project, the PSC admitted that there were too many turbines around some homes but instead of asking for fewer turbines in those areas they asked the wind company to offer to purchase the homes. They did.

The PSC wind rules allow safety zones to cross property lines and allow a wind company to automatically use a neighbor's land as part of that safety zone. This creates a no-build and no tree planting zone on the property of a non-particpating land owner who must to get permission from the wind company to build a structure or plant a tree on his own land.

Senate Bill 9 helps to correct this problem.

The PSC statewide siting rules are to take effect on March 1st, 2011. They have setbacks of 1250 feet between homes and a 500 foot turbine. The rules allow a wind company to use a non participating landowner's property as a safety setback zone.

Senate Bill 9 increases the setback to 1800 feet between turbines and property lines. If a landowner wants a turbine closer he can enter into an agreement with the wind company. This bill gives some choice and a little more protection to the rural Wisconsin families who have no choice about living beneath the turbines.

PICTURED ABOVE: a map showing the noise level predicted for residents in Invenergy's proposed Ledge Wind Project in Brown County.  The yellow dots are homes. The black dots are wind turbine locations. The World Health Organization says nighttime noise should no louder than 35 dbA for healthful sleep. The deep blue areas indicate predicted turbine noise levels above 50 dbA. The purple areas indicate turbine noise levels of 50dbA.  

SUPPORT SENATE BILL 9: WALKER'S WIND SITING REFORM

Better Plan encourages you to take a moment right now to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for the provisions in Senate Bill 9, (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE BILL) which provides for a setback of 1800 feet between wind turbines and property lines. Let him know you support this bill.

 CONTACT Governor Scott Walker govgeneral@wisconsin.gov
115 East Capitol
Madison WI 53702
(608) 266-1212 

RED ALERT!

It's very important that you contact these key legislative committee members and urge them to support this bill and vote to move it forward. Every phone call and email to these committee members matters.

 Members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations.

-Chairman Senator Rich Zipperer (R) Sen.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-9174   Capitol 323 South

-Vice Chair Senator Neal Kedzie (R)  Sen.kedzie@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-2635   Capitol 313 South

-Senator Pam Galloway(R)

Sen.Galloway@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-2502   Capitol 409 South

Senator Fred Risser (D)  Sen.risser@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-1627   Capitol 130 South

Senator Jon Erpenbach (D)  Sen.erpenbach@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-6670   Capitol 106 South

 Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities
 
Representative Mark Honadel (Chair)

(888) 534-0021 (414) 764-9921 (South Milwaukee)
Rep.Honadel@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative John Klenke (Vice-Chair)

(888) 534-0088 (Green Bay) new
Rep.Klenke@legis.wi.gov

Representative Kevin Petersen

(888) 947-0040 (Waupaca)
Rep.Petersen@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Gary Tauchen

(608) 266-3097 (Bonduel)
Rep.Tauchen@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Thomas Larson

(888) 534-0067 (Colfax) new
Rep.Larson@legis.wi.gov

Representative Erik Severson

(888) 529-0028 (Star Prairie) new
Rep.Severson@legis.wi.gov

Representative Chad Weininger

(888) 534-0004 (Green Bay) new
Rep.Weininger@legis.wi.gov

Representative Josh Zepnick

(608) 266-1707 (414) 727-0841 (Milwaukee)
Rep.Zepnick@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative John Steinbrink

(608) 266-0455 (262) 694-5863 (Pleasant Prairie)
Rep.Steinbrink@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Anthony Staskunas

(888) 534-0015 (414) 541-9440 (West Allis)
Rep.Staskunas@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Brett Hulsey

(608) 266-7521 (Madison)
Rep.Hulsey@legis.wi.gov

And be sure to contact your own legislators and encourage them to support the bill.

Who Are My Legislators?  To find out, CLICK HERE

Senate E-Mail Directory

Assembly  E-Mail Directory

THE LATEST ON THE ONTARIO WIND LAWSUIT:

UPDATED JANUARY 24, 2011

ONTARIO LAWYER CHALLENGES CREDIBILITY OF LEADING WITNESSES IN CHALLENGE TO WIND FARM LAW

Read it at the Source: Ottawa Citizen

January 24, 2010

By Lee Greenberg

TORONTO — An Ontario government lawyer attacked the credibility of three star witnesses in a key legal challenge to the province’s new green energy legislation.

Sara Blake said Dr. Robert McMurtry and two other physicians, who cast doubt on the safety of wind turbines, are not reliable witnesses.

The three are named as experts in the case brought against the government by Prince Edward County property owner Ian Hanna. Hanna and his fellow anti-wind campaigners believe turbines emit low-frequency noise that lead to a range of health problems, including sleep deprivation, stress, chronic depression and even cardiovascular disease.

The case is the first major test of new regulations introduced in September 2009, four months after the province passed its Green Energy Legislation. According to those new rules, wind turbines will have to be placed a minimum of 550 meters from the nearest home.

That “setback” is at the centre of Monday’s court challenge.

Hanna and his backers say the government failed to fully examine the medical studies on the health affects of turbines. The government denies the claim.

Blake says McMurtry, an orthopedic surgeon and former medical school dean who also has advised the federal government on health policy, is neither an expert on the issue of noise emissions nor is he impartial.

He and the other two doctors cited in the court challenge all took an interest in wind turbines because they were being built near their homes, the prosecutor said. (McMurtry, who is the brother of former Ontario chief justice and attorney general Roy McMurtry, owns property in Prince Edward County and is the founding member of an anti-wind group there).

Blake said McMurtry expresses opinions in a deposition that he is not qualified to give.

“This is pure advocacy,” she told a three-member panel at Osgoode Hall in Toronto Monday. “He is not an expert ... It is the belief of a passionate person.”

She also cast aspersions on the study of Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, who concluded people living within 1.1 kilometres of a wind farm in Maine suffered numerous health affects, including hearing problems, increased psychiatric symptoms and overall increased use of prescription medication.

The study is not published and is not peer reviewed, she said.

Eric Gillespie, the lawyer for Hanna and the anti-wind advocacy group behind him, contends that the rule placing turbines 550 meters from the nearest house was made without sufficient scientific evidence.

But under questioning from the three judges hearing the case, Gillespie acknowledged the science is inconclusive on the health effects of turbines.

He also takes issue with the fact that a planning expert — and not a public health expert — reviewed the science on the impacts of turbines.

“On a matter of human health it is not enough to have a land use planner say we considered it,” he said in court.

Gillespie also withdrew a request for an injunction on all new wind farms in Ontario. He is asking the court to strike down regulations laying out the 550-meter setback. It is unclear what sort of temporary regulations would emerge if he is successful in the request.

It is unknown when — if at all — the court will issue a decision on Monday’s one-day hearing.

While the three judges listened to arguments, they are also considering an argument by the attorney general that the case should be sent to an environmental tribunal.

Previous story:

The Green Challange

SOURCE: Owen Sound Sun Times

January 24, 2011

Jonathan Sher

Ian Hanna has asked an Ontario court to strike down part of the province's Green Energy Act, enlisting doctors who argue human health was compromised when the act created a buffer of only 550 metres between wind turbines and homes.

* If Hanna prevails, the burgeoning wind industry could grind to a halt until medical studies are done.

* The lobby group for the wind industry has intervened in the case.

* The Ontario government dismisses medical claims as irrelevant and says Hanna doesn't have a legal basis for a challenge.

* Three judges in Toronto will hear evidence Monday and Tuesday.

- - -

Health effects

Several doctors are saying turbines emit low-pitched sounds that disrupt the body's normal rhythms and cause ailments including:

* Headaches

* Irritability

* Problems with concentration and memory

* Dizziness

* Tinnitus

* Rapid heart rate

* Nausea

- - -

'The right thing to do'

Last week Free Press Reporter Jonathan Sher spoke with the Prince Edward County man who sought the judicial review, Ian Hanna, and his Toronto lawyer, Eric Gillespie. Below are excerpts of their conversation:

Q Prior to getting involved with wind turbines had you been involved with environmental issues or activism?

Hanna: No to both questions.

Q You never led petitions before, subscribed to newsletters on environmental issues or tried to interject yourself into public debate?

That's absolutely correct.

Q What things attracted you to move to Big Island from the GTA?

The idea of a more rural atmosphere appealed to us. The openness, the stars, the birds. You have to come here sometime and walk outside on a summer's afternoon. It's just unbelievable.

Q What about adverse health effects of wind turbines?

People appear to be emotionally drained, unable to really function on a calm, natural basis. We know people can't sleep properly at all when they are close to industrial wind turbines . . . They appeared to be very tortured by the effects.

Q Why did you continue to pursue the case even though your home and Big Island no longer in harm's way?

Because it's the right thing to do. I have three children who if I gave them nothing else . . . I think I at least gave them the strength or assisted them with gaining the strength to stand up for what they believe in and for what's right.

Q How has the legal action been financed?

We put every cent we could put in to it so far and if we have to put more, we'll find it . . . 100% of the money that's been contributed has come from people just like us, other families all over Ontario . . .

Q How much has been raised so far? Ballpark?

Close to $200,000

Q How are you feeling as you head toward the hearing in Toronto?

I'm excited, I'm confident, I'm grateful for the incredible capable way it's been handled . . . and to be really fair I'm exceedingly sad and disappointed . . . It's all been based on facts and realities and truths coming from just regular people like myself who have no axe to grind with anybody beyond the fact that we're frightened by the potential of this, yet, the other side has done one thing and one thing only: They've circled their wagons.

WIND ON TRIAL

A burgeoning billion-dollar industry and the political fortunes of Dalton McGuinty's Liberals may turn on a legal challenge by a single man whose day in court arrives Monday.

Ian Hanna lives far away from the corridors of power in Queens Park and Bay Street in a century-old farmhouse on Big Island in Prince Edward County. But Monday he finds himself in the epicentre of a debate that could shape the economic future of the province and the political fate of the ruling Liberals.

It's a fight over wind turbines that have been rising across Ontario with ever greater frequency, an industry the Liberal government has subsidized with plans to double its energy capacity in this year alone.

But those plans in Queens Park -- really the heart of the Green Energy Act -- were placed in judicial crosshairs 15 months ago. That's when Hanna, 58, challenged a provision that creates a buffer of only 550 metres between turbines and homes.

Several doctors have lined up behind Hanna's challenge, saying turbines emit low-pitched sounds that disrupt the body's normal rhythms and cause ailments including headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, rapid heart rate, irritability and problems with concentration and memory.

Those concerns have been dismissed as irrelevant by lawyers representing the Ontario government, who instead will try to convince three judges in Toronto that Hanna doesn't have a legal basis for his claim -- that there is no provision in the Green Energy Act itself or elsewhere that allows a citizen to challenge a regulation.

The dismissive approach concerns Hanna's lawyer Eric Gillespie.

"That's been a significant concern for all the experts that are part of this process on behalf of Mr. Hanna. These are medical doctors from Ontario, the United States and England, all of whom have seen what they believe to be first-hand sufficient evidence to say that industrial wind turbines do pose a very real risk to residents," Gillespie said.

Gillespie is an environmental lawyer who cases include one that landed a $36-million award since appealed.

The government's decision to object solely on procedural grounds worries the wind industry that over the next 20 years has planned about $20 billion in investments that would be subsidized by Ontario taxpayers.

A lawyer for the Canadian Wind Energy Association declined to comment about Hanna's case but did provide a copy of its written arguments.

An Ontario Environment Ministry spokesperson defended the Green Energy Act.

"Our process is based on science, modelling and jurisdictional comparisons. It will be protective of public health and the environment," Kate Jordan said.

Read more about the Ian Hanna Legal Challenge:

Application for Judicial Review against the Ontario government goes to court Jan. 24-25

CLICK HERE for Donation Information

Second Feature:

JUDGE SETS ECOGEN, PRATTSBURGH HEARING

SOURCE Bath Courier, www.steubencourier.com

January 23, 2011

By Mary Perham,

Prattsburgh, NY — A court hearing has been set for Jan. 27 to learn more details about the events behind a year-long lawsuit between the town of Prattsburgh and a wind farm developer.

The hearing will resolve some issues and lead to a final decision in the dispute between the town and the developer, Ecogen, according to state Supreme Court Justice John Ark.

Ark wants sworn testimony from former town officials, including Attorney John Leyden and Supervisor Harold McConnell, Ecogen representatives and other town officials.

Questions appear to pinpoint Ecogen’s contention that it has been ready to set up 16 turbines for more than two years and questions Ecogen’s claim it had “vested rights” by late 2008.

Ecogen also claims board members have stymied the builder’s efforts to proceed with the project.

“Which is funny, when they’re on record telling the Town of Italy, Prattsburgh has been very cooperative throughout,” said Prattsburgh’s attorney Ed Hourihan.

Hourihan said the town is pleased to see the judge has narrowed the issues to “specifically pin down Ecogen’s ever changing position. Since this litigation has started, Ecogen had changed its position so many times its hard to tell what is the truth.”

Hourihan said he will question the witnesses and can present evidence proving any testimony is incorrect.
Last fall Ark said he was close to a decision in the case, but urged Ecogen and the town to meet and find an out-of-court compromise.

Town officials offered to provide other sites for the proposed turbines, but Ecogen maintained the December 2009 agreement was binding and refused to compromise.

An offer to meet with Prattsburgh by Ecogen’s parent company, Pattern, apparently fell through last month, current town Supervisor Al Wordingham said.

Wordingham said he called Pattern representative John Galloway just before Christmas to follow up on several phone conferences and a plan to meet.

“He told me he had some internal issues to resolve,” Wordingham said.

Galloway has not returned his final call, Wordingham told residents at the town board meeting Monday night.

“And we still don’t have their final site map,” Wordingham said.

In related action, the board held a public hearing on extending their moratorium on tower construction another six months. Several residents said they supported the moratorium, although they thought six months was too long.

The board will vote on the moratorium during their regular Feb. 22 meeting.

FROM OUR 'WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?' VIDEO FILE-- Or Why aren't those turbines turning?

AND: What they're finding out about big wind in Taiwan