Entries in Columbia County (13)
8/26/10 Gone with the wind developer: Family lets the PSC know why they regret signing on with Invenergy AND a resident who has been living in the Invenergy Forward wind project for over two years lets the PSC know he and his family are having trouble.
Home in a wind project, Fond du Lac County
MORE FROM THE DOCKET: What Wisconsin residents are saying to the PSC about recent wind siting discussions
FROM BROWN COUNTY
Dear PSC Members,
My name is Marilyn Nies.
We signed a contract with Invenergy in Brown County.
Boy what a scam this all is. It was like the snake oil salesman in the movies. After two years so much more
information came out concerning turbines.
We also for some dumb reason never put two and two together concerning our daughter. Our youngest child has three separate heart issues. One of them being WPW, which is an electrical impulse disorder.
I am afraid stray voltage and the low frequency noise will harm her. Needless to say we want out of
our contract. They will not let us out.
They outright lied and lied by omission. People do not vacate their houses that they have put their whole adult lives into fixing up for no reason. There is a problem here and no studies have been done. They just keep saying there is no evidence, because nothing has been done!
You are putting the cart before the horse. I and many others feel studies should be done before this goes any further. In addition, in Brown County especially, each turbine should be looked at individually or not at all due to the karst rock features.
My final point is money...... I don't want any money from them.
I don't think many of the other people not signed up want money either. I tried to send the money back that we received direct deposit, they would not cash the check. Since then I have closed the account. Invenergy now mails the checks and I burn them. We want to live here without our land value decreasing and without
health risks.
It is called being responsible. Even 1300 feet is not much if you get a storm like we had Friday. There was a section 1 mile wide by 4 miles long where we had 75 mile an hour winds, come to find out it was a tornado. There are buildings and silos down and damaged all over. How far could a turbine blade or a section of one go? Especially if there was mechanical failure combine with an act of God? Just something to think about.
I sincerely hope you take your time on this issue and get some INDEPENDENT studies done. We
have to live with these the rest of our lives. What is the big deal if it sits another year until we know
for sure?
Marilyn Nies
Greenleaf, WI 54126
FROM FOND DU LAC COUNTY:
Heilman, Alice - PSC
From: Gerry Meyer
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 12:51 PM
Cc: Jones, Krystal - PSC; Paske, Sandra - PSC
Subject: Comments per Commissioners meeting of 8-23-10
Dear Public Service Commissioners Azar, Meyer and Callisto,
My comments are in response to Monday’s meeting concerning the draft rules for wind turbine siting.
I live in the Forward Energy project by Invenergy so I have first hand knowledge of what life in a wind farm it truly like. My statements are not third party or from listening to others.
I have many thoughts based on listening to your meetings last Thursday (August 19) and yesterday (August 23).
Commissioner Azar, you seemed to be concerned for residents living near large industrial wind turbines in that you were looking at sound pressure reading of 40 Dba and a set back that would equal 2200 feet.
Yesterday you relented on your original thoughts.
At 6:55 this morning I went out with my sound meter to take a reading. The wind was from the SW which in my case is the worst sound. I had a Dba of 42 and a Dbc of 58. The sound was bouncing higher, however I tried to go to the low side with a slight feeling for an average sound pressure reading. The sound was bordering on the sound of a jet to a loud whooshing sound.
I talk to people that are having issues with the sound, however do not pay close attention to wind direction. As I mentioned generally the loudest sound is when the wind is from a westerly direction, however when the wind is from the E, SE and NE I get the least sleep.
I believe even a 40 Dba sound pressure is too loud and the commission needs to lower the sound to 5 Dba above ambient or at the very least 40 Dba. I have found that I do get pretty good sleep when the turbines are turning at 11 rpms or less which I would say is slightly above cut in speed.
Often we do not necessarily hear the wind turbines, yet sleep deprivation is present. The wind energy industry is dismissing the affects of low frequency noise and possibly infra sounds. That is why l listed the Dbc level above.
The commission needs to look at low frequency sound. I must strongly suggest you can not compare airplanes, trains or traffic sounds to large industrial wind turbines. The turbines are in a class by themselves as far as the effects they cause.
I do not receive shadow flicker. Well I do get flicker just briefly only several days a year, however in our case the many trees block out any serious effect it may have. I do know a number of friends and now acquaintances that have a horrendous time with shadow flicker.
One of those affected is siting council member Larry Wunsch. If the commission OK’s 30 hours of flicker a year before curtailment they may not understand that could mean 52 days or more of flicker.
Some of the council members felt that a non participant’s property should not be invaded by shadow flicker (the minority). I would tend to agree with that thought. Turn your lights on and off once per second for 40
minutes to see if that would be more than just annoying or a disturbance.
I am the one that submitted my cortisol levels to the docket. Briefly I was gaining weight in 6 to 7 pound increments while trying to eat less. I consulted with a Dr. who suggested I have my cortisol checked. During the time of high sleep deprivation from the 5 turbines with 5/8 of a mile of our house I had it checked. My cortisol level was 254.
After the Forward project was shut down for 21 days last October I found I had lost 17 pounds of the 30+ pounds I had gained. I had my cortisol level checked that very next day after the turbines began turning and the level was 35. It should be less than 100.
Yes, everyone seems to have stress, but I feel the high level was due to the turbines being irresponsibly placed too close to our home.
In my case I have one (turbine) 1560 feet away, one 2480 feet, and three at 3300 feet away. The first two are measured the later three are estimates based on maps. Even a half a mile set back would be a very conservative compromise. One of those at 3300 feet away are as loud as those 1560 and 2480 feet away
I feel the commission needs to enact a property value guarantee. I have seen properties list
for $219,000 and sell for $129,000. I have seen one property be abandoned, I have seen houses go
up for sale and never sell.
I know of homes that have been for sale since the project went up and have failed to sell. I feel prior to large wind turbine constructions my property of 6+ acres, a large farm house completely remodeled, the former dairy barn of 40’ X 92’ and a new 26’ X60’ garage/shop was worth $500,000. I would now estimate it to be worth about $200,000. Those estimates are based on being a carpenter in a previous life.
Wind energy companies constantly state that there is no loss in property value. If so why not be willing to guarantee that statement with a property value protection.
I do not trust modeling as a way to avoid shadow flicker and noise. An example would be mileage standards for cars. Do you get the mileage that is on the window sticker? Industrial turbine manufacturers can manipulate statistics to meet the needs of buyers and builders. Shadow flicker modeling takes into account variables that may not be there. Those models should take in to account the worst case scenario not the least case scenario.
I am offended by I believe Commissioner Meyer’s comment that some of these issues are needed for the good of the whole. Those may not be the exact words, but close.
I don’t believe my family or I or many others that are victims of wind energy should have to make this sacrifice. I know this is not part of the issue, yet on the other hand it is. Wind energy and the electricity it produces is very costly and wind energy is very inefficient. It is not causing any reduction on traditional energy use and is doubtful if it is reducing any carbon dioxide emissions after all the considerations are
factored in.
Part of the draft rule addresses allowing political subdivisions to allow compensation for adjacent land owners up to the amount the hosting farmer is receiving. (Page 36 of 44 128.33 sub 3) Wind energy is not accepted currently because of being improperly sited and the effects it causes.
If there is to be an increased acceptance of the wind industry this would be a great way to achieve it. I have often thought about if I had property value protection and receive the same compensation as my hosting neighbor I might be able to accept some of the disadvantages of this project.
In Monday’s meeting consideration was given to farm animals, domestic animals and wildlife.
My first reaction to that statement is “What about people” “Don’t we have some value?”. We should be at the top of the list.
We used to see deer at least once a week and 16 to 20 turkeys every few days from our house. Since construction of the turbines began (winter of 2007) we have not seen even one deer and only 2 turkeys.
Signal interference was touched on. We do have a satellite dish however we still have our old fashioned TV antenna. We need that to get Green Bay stations. If the wind is in a certain direction we can not get Green Bay.
There are people that rely on TV antennas that need protection from wind turbine interference with out having to fill out a W9 and receive a 1099 at the end of the year. For my internet I have a private company with a free standing tower 5 miles from my home. It is not affected; however other residents may be and need protection from losing their service. There needs to be set backs from emergency frequency beams.
I am concerned about community wind. Community wind needs to be treated the same as regular or large wind. If not what would happen is a community wind project of up to 15 MB would bebuilt. Let’s go 5 miles away and build another community wind project.. Now let’s connect the two and soon there could be 50 turbines that were intended to be a community wind project.
Don’t say that won’t happen. It did in Washington or Oregon.
If you read and research you know that world wide wherever there are large industrial wind turbines there are concerns and complaints about health issues.
Also of concern is decommissioning. Wind energy companies can sell the project, go bankrupt or flee the country. The money needs to be upfront. I believe the wind energy company representatives on the wind siting council grossly underestimated the decommissioning costs.
Standing turbines or even disassembled turbines lying on the ground are not in recyclable condition. They would need to be cut up in small pieces. I doubt that round 1” steel can be conveniently sheered.
I read over and over that Wisconsin’s past laws were a “patchwork” of rules and discouraged wind development in Wisconsin. Let’s leave wind out of this next statement.
If you take my township’s (Byron) building ordinance and compare it to Town of Fond du Lac’s or the Town of Union (Rock County) those building ordinances would be different. Does that curtail building or barns, silos or
homes? Should all building codes be controlled by the state?
There are town and county wind ordinances that are good with months or even over a year of research before their enactment. Those ordinances were never even discussed by the wind siting council.
That needs to be looked in to and the value of those existing ordinances evaluated. The Town of Union, Magnolia and Trempealeau Counties are great ordinances.
Commissioner Azar, it was me that got your attention at the wind siting council meeting asking for a brief conversation after the meeting when Jevon McFadden was giving his presentation. I later talked with Crystal Jones attempting to set up an appointment with you.
I did later receive a call from possibly Brian letting me know a visit together was not going to be possible. My thoughts at the time were for you to visit so that I could give my first hand account of the effects on my family from actually seeing my property for yourself.
I would have showed you around the project pointing our the many others with issues shadow flicker, noise, health issues and homes that are not selling or selling much below their market value.
I based my thought on the fact that in a previous meeting (May 14?) you expressed a concern about shadow flicker. I am disappointed this visit did not seem necessary.
As a tax paying citizen of the great state of Wisconsin I am not in favor of the subsidies, production credits and other incentives to wind energy companies and utilities for wind development.
Enough incentives have been paid over the years to develop wind. I don’t believe those incentives have worked to prove wind energy a viable source of electricity generation. If it was a feasible source of electricity it would have proved itself. I would rather see my tax dollars go to the state buying a house in a wind project and for the commissioners to spend a few weeks at a time living in that house and commuting to Madison so that they can learn for themselves what life in a wind project is really like.
I don’t believe Wisconsin should be promoting the financial interests of wind energy companies and utilities. I strongly believe the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and the State Health Department should be most concerned about the health affects large wind turbines cause that are irresponsibly placed too close to the residents of Wisconsin citizens.
In summary 50 dba is too high. 45 dba is too high. I believe 40 dba can be too high. 5 dba above ambient should be the standard. Why should a non participant put up with any shadow flicker? Set backs need to be ½ mile or more. Property value protection is a must. Signal interference needs
to be corrected and for the life of the project.
Thank you for considering my comments,
Gerry Meyer
Brownsville WI

7/26/10 TRIPLE FEATURE: From open arms to balled up fists: Wisconsin resident comments on living in a wind project under construction AND Why he left the family farm: Wisconsin resident lays out his first-hand experience with wind development. The majority of the Wind Siting Council looks the other way
PUBLIC COMMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FROM RESIDENT OF PSC APPROVED GLACIER HILLS PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION:
To the landowners in the Ledge Wind Project:
If you believe wind turbines are a good fit for a farm operation, a free source of clean energy, and a benefit to your community, I invite you to come to the Glacier Hills Project and witness the total devastation occuring during construction.
Seeing firsthand what is happening here would turn any responsible landowner's stomach.
Heavy rains have created erosion that will take years to repair.
The number of huge construction equipment and trucks burning fuel is staggering.
Good productive farmland is being ripped apart, and will never be the same.
The level of disgust is even affecting the most loyal supporters of this project.
Hatred of this project is growing worse as each day passes, and we will be forced to live with this for the rest of our lives, all because a few irresponsible landowners, myself included, were taken in by wind developers lies.
All this for chump change.
I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Gary Steinich
Cambria, WI
SECOND FEATURE
TESTIMONY
Comments submitted by Wisconsin resident, Joe Yunk, to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, July 2010
My name is Joe Yunk; I currently reside at the address of N2630 Townhall Rd in Kewaunee County.
My prior address was North 7905 County Trunk P, Algoma, Wisconsin which was in the Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) wind farm by Rio Creek, Wisconsin. I moved from the Algoma address to my current address on or about October 2009 to get away from the effects of the WPS wind farm.
I have been following the current proposed Element Power LLC (EEP) wind farm development that I now find myself living in.
I want you to know what I went through while living in the WPS wind farm. I am hopeful that this information will help you make the right decisions with regard to any PSCW approvals for any other wind farms in Wisconsin.
I would hate to see other peoples’ lives to be as negatively affected as mine has been as a result of living in a wind farm. There is no doubt in my mind that I will relive the awful experience once again if the EEP wind farm for Kewaunee County is approved.
In 1998 the WPS wind farm construction began about 300 yards from my home. I had built this home in 1980 on 6.5 acres of land which was our home farm that I lived on all my life. I was born on November 28, 1954. I had two turbines within one-half mile, one of those turbines was about 1,300 ft from my house and 600 ft from my property line.
In the summer of 2000, the turbines of the WPS wind farm began operation. Inasmuch as I had lived on this farm all my life, I knew the neighbors well, and it wasn’t long after the turbines began operating our lives began to change.
In conversations with my neighbors, I learned, they too were experiencing constant disturbing noise, shadow flicker and just the constant presence of the turbines. By presence I felt uneasy and irritated by the size and closeness of these 220 ft. turbines.
All the people living in this wind farm were guinea pigs/lab rats, no one knew what we were in for. It was in the fall of 2000 when neighbors and families began to divide over the effects of the wind farm. And that continued throughout the time I lived there.
When the turbines began to operate, a hotline was established directly to WPS to report any problems.
I had beef cattle for about two years prior to the turbines operating and never lost any animals. However, shortly after the turbines began to operate, I had beef cattle become ill and die. I reported this on the WPS hotline and nothing was done. I lost ten animals valued at $5,000 [each] over a two year period and couldn’t afford to continue.
Because of noise complaints to WPS, within a year, two families’ homes were purchased by WPS and demolished.
Additionally, at the same time WPS was settling nuisance suits with other neighbors. They were offering to buy out my neighbors but offered prices way below market value to stop the complaints.
However, they never offered me any buyout opportunity and I wanted out! It was hard for me to leave my home place of 54 years. Over time, however, living with the constant sleep deprivation and irritation of the noise and flickering I decided to sue WPS to have them pay me fair market value for my home so I could afford to move.
I knew that I might be risking everything I had worked for all my life, but I didn’t care at this point. I didn’t even try to sell my place outright because I didn’t want anyone else to have to live as I did in this wind farm. I really wanted WPS to buy me out and to demolish the home.
I retained an attorney and filed suit with WPS. Shortly after, WPS offered me $110,000 on my property that appraised for $168,000. I decided not to take their offer, but proceed with the suit.
I gave deposition in the summer of 2008, we were scheduled to go trail in September 2009 and WPS offered me a settlement in August of 2009 for $163,000. With this settlement I was responsible for my attorney fees. My attorney advised me to accept this offer. After paying my attorney fees, I ended up with $158,000.
Later, my home and property were listed with a real estate agency for sale by WPS for 30% below the appraised value.
From my experience in living in this wind farm, it is apparent that setback away from property lines is absolutely necessary. I could hear the turbines a mile away from my house. The PSCW’s standard setback from a property line should be 1.5 miles.
Now, my new home and property on Townhall road is within the confines of the EPP proposed wind farm. I`d like to know what you recommend I do now?
WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS:
Annie Hart Cool of Falmouth said a turbine was erected within 1,500-feet of her home and has disrupted her husband’s sleep so severely he’d forced to sleep in the basement. He is an air-traffic controller, she added, and can’t afford to lose sleep. And the turbine is absolutely adversely impacting property values, she said.
“Wind turbines are like living next to a train or a dump,” Cool said. “These are realities, I’m a real person and this is really happening to me.”
SOURCE: State House News Service, www.wickedlocal.com

1/29/10 How many is too many? Columbia County learns of yet another wind developers plans AND Glacier Hill's 18 turbine "Country Cousin" wind project has no plans to 'buy American'

Officials of the Madison-based Wind Capital Group came to County Board's planning and zoning committee almost 18 months ago. They asked for, and got, a conditional use permit for two test towers, each about 197 feet high, to measure wind velocity and direction, to determine if southern Columbia County has adequate wind to sustain a 25- to 33-turbine wind farm capable of generating up to 50 megawatts of electricity.
So far, the data collected at the test towers indicates that southern Columbia County's wind seems sufficient to sustain a wind energy operation, said Tom Green of Wind Capital Group. The planned two-year testing period is scheduled to end in August.
Green said he continues to think that southern Columbia County would be a good location for what would be the company's first Wisconsin wind farm, although it has operations in other states such as Iowa.
Wind Capital Group would sell the wind farm's electricity to utilities.
But whether the wind farm goes in, he said, will depend on what the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decides, as it sets parameters for wind farms - including setback from neighboring properties - that will apply throughout Wisconsin, and which cannot be made stricter by local authorities.
"You can't have a patchwork of rules throughout the state," Green said.
A new state law directed the PSC to set the statewide rules, which would guide municipalities, such as towns and villages, in regulating wind farms, said PSC spokeswoman Deborah Erwin.
The rules, when they are adopted, will apply to wind farms such as the one proposed by Wind Capital Group - operations that generate less than 100 megawatts.
Larger projects, such as the recently approved We Energies Glacier Hills Wind Park in the Columbia County towns of Scott and Randolph, require direct approval from the PSC. Smaller projects don't need the commission's approval, but would be subject to local regulations, provided that those regulations comply with the rules that the PSC soon will set.
But George Plenty, chairman of the town of Arlington, said officials in his town hope that an ordinance adopted last spring, requiring wind turbines to be at least 2,640 feet from buildings, still will be in place once the PSC establishes the statewide rules.
That ordinance, Plenty said, was in direct response to the proposed wind farm.
Given the density of housing in the town of Arlington, it's unlikely there would be any place in the town where a turbine could be built that would conform to a 2,640-foot setback.
"But I don't know what will happen to this ordinance when the PSC gets involved," Plenty said.
The pending PSC rules were the reason why the town of Leeds didn't adopt any ordinances regulating the placement of wind turbines, said James Foley, Leeds town chairman.
One of the Leeds town supervisors, Alan Kaltenberg, has leased some of his land for one of the test towers. Foley said Kaltenberg would abstain from voting on any matter related to the regulation of wind turbines.
For some town of Leeds residents, Foley said, a wind farm would offer an opportunity to make money from land that might not be particularly productive for farming.
"All these turbines would have to be sited on a high knoll," he said. "High knolls are usually rocky, and farmers can't farm rocks."
Plenty said he's heard of few landowners in the town of Arlington who would be willing to lease their land for a wind turbine location.
One reason for that: Town of Arlington resident Lori McIlrath, who opposes locating a wind farm in the town, has shared her concerns with area farmers.
McIlrath and her husband, Joel, have organized opposition to the project, she said, mainly because they have visited people who live near We Energies' 88-turbine Blue Sky Green Field wind farm in northeast Fond du Lac County.
McIlrath said she thinks a wind farm would cause health problems such as sleeplessness, reduce property values and create around-the-clock noise in what has been a quiet rural area.
"I ask landowners if it's truly worth whatever they'd get for their land, to do this to the community," she said.
Wisconsin utilities already are required to produce a percentage of their power from renewable resources such as wind or solar power. Those requirements might become even more stringent with a bill, backed by Gov. Jim Doyle, that's pending in the Wisconsin Legislature. One of the provisions of the Clean Energy Jobs Act is a proposal to require utilities to use renewable resources for 20 percent of their power by 2020 and 25 percent by 2025.
Wind farms are likely to become more common in Wisconsin, Green said.
That's why, he said, he has made himself available to the public, at Leeds and Arlington town meetings and at small-group sessions with southern Columbia County residents, to answer questions about the effects of a wind farm.
"It's our job," he said, "to present to the public accurate, scientific information, so they can better understand the facts about wind energy."
January 27 2010
Wisconsin regulators have approved plans to startup company E Wind to build a 30 megawatt wind farm northeaset of the State Capial of Madison at a cost of $60 million dollars. Talks are underway to buy 18 turbines fro Hyundai Heavy Industries, E-wind tells Recharge.
If the deal is finalized, it would represent the largest known US order thus far for South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy.
Wes Slaymaker, who heads a company that provides engineering services for the wind industry and is a partner in E Wind, says the next project step is to negotiate a long-term power purchase agreement with a utility.
“This is our biggest challenge because electricity prices and demand are soft,” he says in a telephone interview. “Utilities are not excited about buying more power at the moment.”
Even so, they must comply with Wisconsin’s renewable portfolio standard that requires publicly-held utilities to produce 10% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2015.
Governor Jim Doyle is also calling on lawmakers to pass his proposed Green Energy Jobs Act, which would update the RPS to 25% by 2025.
“I think the bill has a decent chance of getting passed,” says Slaymaker.
Once a power purchase agreement is in place, Slaymaker believes he and two local partners will obtain project financing. One of them owns part of the 1,800 acres where the turbines will be sited near the town of Randolph.
Slaymaker describes the proposed wind farm as a community project because it has local owners and operators, and most of the investment for site preparation and wind project development will stay in the region.
“This type of community wind project, while common in Minnesota, is unique to Wisconsin,” says Slaymaker.
