Better Plan, Wisconsin

NATIONAL WIND PURSUES MINNESOTA PROJECT

SOURCE: Dolan Media Newswires, dailyreporter.com

December 2, 2010

By Arundhati Parmar,

Minneapolis — Despite being rebuffed twice by state regulators, National Wind is not ready to withdraw from its proposed wind project in Goodhue County.

A frustrated executive said the wind development firm will try to get a speedy resolution within 60 days so National Wind can begin its 78-megawatt project next year.

“We are looking for every way possible to move forward,” said Chuck Burdick, senior wind farm developer at Minneapolis-based National Wind, which is developing the project on behalf of AWA Goodhue LLC. “We also are trying to protect the significant investment that has already been put in the project. Between $5 million and $6 million has already been invested.”

Burdick said he is frustrated the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is not holding other wind projects in the state to the same “unreasonable standard” that AWA Goodhue faces.

The project has run into stiff local opposition from residents worried about the negative health effects of living too close to wind turbines. Goodhue County adopted a strict local ordinance in early October requiring that each of the 50 turbines be at a distance of 10 rotor diameters — in this case, 2,700 feet — from the homes of landowners who have not leased land to the project.

“Last week, the PUC approved two site permits with a 1,000-foot setback,” Burdick said. “There’s a level of absurdity at this point.”

That 10-rotor setback would kill the project, lawyers for AWA have told the PUC, appealing to commissioners to ignore the local ordinance and allow construction.

The PUC commissioners referred the case back to the Office of Administrative Hearings, which this summer compiled volumes of information from both sides on the scientific evidence of whether noise and shadow flicker from the rotating turbines have negative health effects.

Once again, the case is pending.

Burdick said company lawyers are trying to get the contested hearing expedited so the matter is resolved in the next 60 days. Burdick said he is open to a compromise with the county and has contacted some commissioners, but the response has not been encouraging.

One of the points of compromise is to relax the 10-rotor requirement in favor of a stronger noise pollution requirement, Burdick said.

In an October meeting, before the ordinance was approved, many residents said the county should adopt a 10-rotor setback because that was the only way to protect them from the effects of large wind turbines.

Many rejected the notion there was a cost-effective way to measure the sound emitted and enforce the noise requirement.

The County Board had considered strengthening the sound requirement to 40 decibels from 50, the state maximum.

But a county resident said that is not acceptable.

“The World Health Organization recommends 35 decibels or less at nighttime,” said Barb Stussy, a Minneola township resident who has opposed the project. “The 40 decibels, as a compromise, does not address the nighttime noise.”

SECOND FEATURE

COUNTY FACES ANOTHER WIND LAWSUIT

SOURCE: Hays Daily news, www.hdnews.net

December 2010

By Gayle Weber,

More than two dozen landowners in Ellis County and a prospective wind developer have filed a federal lawsuit against the Ellis County Commission over zoning regulations approved in August.

The suit, McClelland et al v. Ellis County Board of Commissioners, was filed Sept. 29 and amended Tuesday. Summonses were issued in the case Tuesday.

The amended complaint alleges the county’s zoning regulations, “if enforced, would prohibit plaintiffs from developing the wind rights on their properties.”

Nearly all of the plaintiffs in the case have entered into agreements to develop wind energy on their properties, according to the lawsuit.

The suit calls the adoption of the regulations “unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.” It also alleges the zoning regulations would deprive landowners of valuable property rights in a potential wind development and violates plaintiffs’ rights as granted in the state and U.S. constitutions.

The plaintiffs, who have requested a jury trial in Wichita, are asking for the U.S. District Court in Wichita to declare the zoning regulations void.

The plaintiffs also have asked for damages of $75,000, but the plaintiff’s attorney declined to clarify this morning if that amount is per plaintiff or a lump sum.

The plaintiffs are being represented by a trio of attorneys at Depew, Gillen, Rathbun and McInteer, Wichita.

The Ellis County Commission adopted new regulations Aug. 30. Those include increased setbacks and notification and protest petition areas in wind developments. A 40-decibel noise limit also was imposed in the wind energy regulations.

Commissioners voted 2-1 to adopt the regulations.

“It wasn’t scientific,” Commission Chairman Perry Henman said in August of setbacks, which were increased from 1,000 feet from residences to 10-times-the-tip-height.

“It was just a compromise of all the stuff that we’ve gone through for two or three years. I thought that would be sufficient for me, the least I could go without having a bunch of noise regulations,” Henman continued.

However, noise regulations were adopted also, and Commissioner Glenn Diehl said he hoped the new regulations would keep Ellis County out of a lawsuit.

“We had a 2,000-foot setback, and we ended up in court,” he said in August. “We already ended up in court. We already know what happens.”

Diehl and Henman voted in favor of the regulations, with Commissioner Dean Haselhorst dissenting.

A group of landowners in Hays Wind LLC’s proposed project southwest of Hays sued Ellis County in district court in 2008 over setbacks in the project. As the result of mediation, setbacks were increased from 1,000 feet to 2,000 feet. The conditions of mediation in the lawsuit were settled earlier this year.

* * *

Plaintiffs named in the new federal suit include:

Thomas and Martha McClelland, Kathleen Staab, T. Warren Hall, Stanley and Katrina Staab, Darrell Schmeidler, Kurt and Janel Staab, Gary Deutscher, Francis Staab, Todd and Jody Staab, Brian and Tonya Staab, and Harold and Virginia Kraus, all of Hays; Ernest Pfeifer, Kathy DeSaire, Verlin and Carol Armbrister, Gene and David Bittel dba Bittel Farms Partnership, Honas Farms LLC, Alvin and Margaret Armbrister, and Steven and Jeri Homburg, all of Ellis; Deanna Miller, Victoria; and Invenergy Wind Development LLC, Chicago.

Wind Fight Keeps on in Morrow County

SOURCE: East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com

November 19, 2010

Erin Mills

IRRIGON — Both parties involved in the fight over noise from the Willow Creek Energy Center have again appealed a Morrow County Planning Commission ruling to the Morrow County Court.

The planning commission’s Oct. 26 ruling expanded on its earlier decision — also appealed to the county court — that found the wind project in violation of state noise rules and gave it six months to comply.

The company that owns the 48-turbine project, Invenergy, appealed the ruling because “the planning commission’s decision incorrectly construed the applicable noise standard and was not supported by substantial evidence in the record,” according to its appeal application.

The four neighbors who live near the project appealed the ruling because it did not immediately ensure compliance with the noise rule, particularly at night, and didn’t force Invenergy to pay for the neighbors’ noise study.

The Morrow County Court is scheduled to review the issue Dec. 8 at 10 a.m. at the Riverfront Center at the Port of Morrow.

SECOND FEATURE

BRUCE COUNTY COUNCIL BACKS CALL FOR TURBINE STUDY

SOURCE: The Sun Times, www.owensoundsuntimes.com

 November 18, 2010

By Don Crosby,

Bruce County council is throwing its support behind a request from Huron-Kinloss that the Grey Bruce Health Unit study the health effects of wind turbines close to homes.

"I have a lot of people in my community that have been sick since the turbines [have been] up and working. We hope if we pass this resolution around to other municipalities we'll gain some support. Take this to the health board and hopefully Dr. [Hazel] Lynn will see fit to take it to the next level, whether that's a health study or whether it's getting other health units in other counties involved in this process," Huron-Kinloss Mayor Mitch Twolan said after Thursday's meeting of the county's agriculture, tourism and planning committee.

"I think it's very important that no further turbines are erected until some sort of health study is done."

Twolan said he knows of seven families who left their homes since 38 turbines became operational in the Ripley area.

There are proposals for another 50 turbines in Huron-Kinloss and Twolan said he's hearing of other people who say they are affected but haven't said anything.

"There is a silent majority out there that have not come forward to state their concerns because they don't want it to be public. So in the best interest of all our people in all of our municipalities I think this is very important," he said.

Kincardine Mayor Larry Kraemer, who has long been on the health unit's board of directors, said he doesn't believe the medical officer of health can undertake this kind of study herself, but voted to support the Huron-Kinloss resolution.

Lynn earlier this year called on the provincial government to conduct studies to clear up claims of people who say they are suffering from living too close to wind turbines.

Twolan said there is still too little information available to the general public and municipal leaders, who feel left out of the loop yet take the brunt of complaints.

"We're told in the Green Energy Act that everything is in order and in place, yet we have people sick in our community . . . I think it's incumbent on us as leaders at the municipal level to hear their concerns and take it to the next level," he said.

Twolan said energy companies have tried to solve the problems of the seven families who moved.

"In fairness to them they have tried to rectify the situation, but before we move forward in new proposals let's have all of the answers in place and these concerns addressed," he said.

Although Twolan was acclaimed as mayor in the recent election he says concerns about the effects of wind turbines on residents was uppermost in the minds of the electorate.

Residents have given him and his council a second chance, but expect them to do something about these concern, Twolan said.

"As long as you take the message to the next level people will listen. And I genuinely believe in my people. We have issues and we have concerns. The Green Energy Act and these wind turbines are more than just about green energy. There are people out there that are just not happy with this whole process," Twolan said.

Bruce County councillors voted unanimously to support the Huron-Kinloss resolution.

THIRD FEATURE:

IBERDROLA HALTS PLANS FOR WIND INDUSTRY FARM

SOURCE:  Putnam County Sentinel, putnamsentinel.com

November 18, 2010

Marlena Ballinger, Managing Editor,

OTTAWA – According to an e-mail sent to the Putnam County Commissioners last week by CIC director Martin Kuhlman, the Wind Energy Project in Putnam County has come to a standstill.

Kuhlman stated in the email that Iberdrola is upset because a Sentinel reporter was present during a phone call between Iberdrola representative, Tim Lang and the Commissioners.

Before last Friday’s commissioner’s meeting, Van Buren Township trustee, Denny Schroeder spoke to commissioners, Travis Jerwers and Vince Schroeder regarding the proposed withdraw of Iberdrola. Commissioner John Love was in Columbus. Denny was basically upset because the commissioners refuse to accept the proposed $4200 per megawatt Iberdrola has agreed to pay.

The project would have generated about 150 megawatts resulting in a $630,000 annual payment from Iberdrola.

According to Senate Bill 232 a company wishing to build a wind energy farm is required to pay in lieu of taxes (PILOT) $6,000 to $8,000 per megawatt to the entities involved but not to exceed $9,000.

The entities involved in this project include Leipsic School district, Van Buren Township and the Putnam County Commissioners.

Over 15 years, the proposed $630,000 per year would be divided out via the school district receiving 72.9 percent, Putnam County receiving 15.3 percent and Van Buren township receiving 11.89 percent.

The commissioners stand alone in the fact they feel Iberdrola should have to abide by Senate Bill 232.

Van Buren township trustees and the school board are willing to go along with the offer presented to them from Iberdrola.

FOURTH FEATURE

WIND ENERGY, SOLAR POWER, FACE CLOUDY FUTURE

SOURCE CNNMoney.com, money.cnn.com

November 18 2010

By Steve Hargreaves, senior writer,

After years of rapid growth and darling status among many in Washington, the future of the American renewable energy industry is uncertain.

That’s because the government cash it has come to rely on may dry up on Dec. 31.

Before the Great Recession, renewable energy developments were helped by a tax credit, worth generally 30% of the cost of the project. When the recession hit, the stimulus package replaced those tax credits with direct cash grants of similar value. Cash is considered more beneficial than credit to the industry.

So far, the government has handed out about $5.4 billion, according to the Energy Department.

Congress could vote to extend the grants, but that’s highly unlikely.

If they’re allowed to expire, incentives for renewable energy will revert to the old tax credits.

“This is not a great place to be in,” said Denise Bode, head of the American Wind Energy Association. “It’s an economic opportunity that will be missed.”

The wind industry is already hurting — even with the cash.

The amount of new electricity wind can generate declined 72% in the third quarter compared to the same time last year, according to the wind association.

The wind industry isn’t the only one saying it will suffer.

Without the cash grant, “we’ll grow at a much smaller rate,” said Edward Fenster, CEO of Sunrun, a San Francisco-based company that installs solar panels on people’s homes.

“They’ve ensured that we’re building something new everyday,” he said

Sunrun has 7,000 customers in seven states. The company installs $1.1 million worth of new systems every day, employing 3,000 contractors.

Fenster said the cash grants let him get cheaper loans than the old tax credits, enabling him to reduce the price of the solar energy he sells by up to 25%. He predicts that price reduction would allow him to double his business next year.

But with “cut spending” the mantra on Capitol Hill, slower growth may be the new reality.

“On a gut level, a lot of the conservatives just don’t like to see the government handing out checks to people,” said Kevin Shaw, an energy lawyer at Mayer Brown. “I just don’t see the grant program being extended.”

But the White House does. The Obama administration has proposed a plan: Pay for it by using money left over from the stimulus package. That’s led some analysts to at least give it a shot at passing.

“You have a road map from the White House,” said Whitney Stanco, an energy analyst at the Washington Research Group. “And previously, Republicans have been amenable to using unspent stimulus funds to pay for other priorities.”

A spokesman for presumed Speaker of the House John Boehner wouldn’t get into details about what the incoming house might fund.

He did say that Republicans support all forms of energy development, including renewables and nuclear power, provided that any money for them comes from expanded domestic oil and gas drilling, a prospect that looks dim.

There’s another piece of legislation that could provide support for the renewable industry besides the cash grant — a mandate that would require utilities to buy a certain percent of their power from renewable energy.

About 30 states already have such a mandate, and the industry has been pushing hard for a federal standard of at least 15%.

But most analysts say that while a broader “clean energy” standard that includes nuclear and natural gas may have a slightly better chance of passing, neither idea will gain traction in the next year.

Even absent the cash grants or the requirement to buy renewable power, some analysts say the sector is not doomed.

Michael Hennessy, a wind analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, is predicting wind turbines will add about 8 gigawatts of power in 2011.

That’s up from 5 or 6 gigawatts projected for hard-hit 2010, but below the record breaking 10 gigawatts in 2009.

The country has about 1,100 gigawatts installed from all sources, with wind accounting for the vast majority of what people consider renewable energy.

“It doesn’t bode horribly in our view,” Hennessy said of the cash grants expiring. It’s just not as good as it could be.

WIND FARM BACKERS FACE A LONG, COLD WINTER OF DISCONTENT

SOURCE: WBAY-TV, www.wbay.com

November 10, 2010 By Jeff Alexander,

It could be months before a decision is reached about a controversial plan to build what would be the state’s largest wind farm in southern Brown County.

Tensions are rising in the communities of Morrison, Hollandtown, and Wrightstown. The battle lines are drawn, and have been for a year now, throughout the farm lands.

“The fight is not over in my mind — or in reality. It’s not over,” Jon Morehouse said.

Morehouse leads a group of more than 200 residents opposing a plan by a Chicago-based company to erect 100 wind turbines.

The state’s Public Service Commission and lawmakers will have the final say, but Morehouse says he was told by several lawmakers Wednesday it could be spring before a decision is made.

But that’s not what Roland Klug is hearing. Klug says he’s already receiving money from a contract he signed to have two turbines on his property.

He says a project engineer told him construction will start soon.

“In the winter they’ll start getting the roads in and things, and I hope by next year this time they should be up,” Klug said.

Late Wednesday afternoon Action 2 News received word from the Public Service Commission that it’s still waiting for the wind farm developer, Invenergy, to complete its application for the project. The PSC says Invenergy withdrew its original application.

While Klug stands to make $18,000 a year for the use of his land, it’s coming at a cost. “My own kids don’t talk to me. It’s really hard.”

The wind turbine debate has become so heated and divisive here in southern Brown County, the principal of Morrison Zion Lutheran School says staff recently imposed a moratorium on students discussing the topic during school.

As residents wait for final word, opinions become stronger and wounds grow deeper.

“I think anything can be healed, but it has to be talked about,” Morehouse said.

But even that hasn’t helped so far.

SECOND FEATURE

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Below, another news story regarding the issue of conflict of interest between members of local government who have the power to push a wind project through and the wind developers who offer them lucrative contracts to help make this happen. This scenario is being played out in communities all over North America, including here in the Badger state.

While creating rules governing the siting of wind turbines, Wisconsin's  Public Service Commission had an opportunity to provide language which would protect communities from such conflicts of interest. The Public Service Commission declined to do so.

TEMPERS FLARE AT MEETING IN CAPE VINCENT: OPPONENT OF WIND CLAIMS BOARD ACTED ILLEGALLY

SOURCE: Watertown Daily Times, www.watertowndailytimes.com

November 11, 2010 

by Nancy Madsen, Times Staff Writer,

CAPE VINCENT — A Planning Board meeting devolved into physical confrontation between an opponent of industrial wind power projects in the town and Chairman Richard J. Edsall.

At the beginning of the meeting Wednesday night, Mr. Edsall asked for approval of the board’s minutes from a previous meeting.

Hester M. Chase, a community wind project supporter but opponent of the two industrial-scale projects, stood and said the board was not acting legally. The board’s bylaws say public comments “shall be received prior to the conduct of the regular business agenda.”

“We have the right to make comment,” she said. “We’re going to start getting our rights straight.”

The board members turned toward each other and spoke, apparently approving the minutes from Oct. 13. It is unclear whether they also approved minutes from an Oct. 27 meeting with Acciona Wind Energy USA, developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm. During the Oct. 27 meeting, the board accepted a list of what remained to be done for a complete site plan from the developer.

That meeting was stopped for an hour by wind power opponents protesting action by the board, which has three members who have conflicts of interest with Acciona or BP Alternative Energy, the other wind developer in the town.

Ms. Chase had a different version of the minutes that included the topic of the protest and said the board had proceeded with the meeting while the audience was unaware of its actions.

“They’re so fraudulent that I just felt they should be corrected,” she said after Wednesday’s meeting. “The bylaws permit the public to speak before regular business is conducted and I wanted to correct those minutes.”

Ms. Chase said frustration at having unanswered questions on setbacks on wind farms and what the board will allow the developers to do led to her actions. The Planning Board has decided on rules to govern the approval process that include allowing two public hearings with comments limited to people who live within one-half mile of the project, she said.

“I was just stunned at how cavalierly or arbitrarily they were making things up,” she said. “I had held onto the hope that they were truly going to do right by their community. I see that they seem to be fulfilling loyalty roles to BP and Acciona, I guess.”

On Wednesday night, Mr. Edsall opened a public hearing on a subdivision without addressing Ms. Chase’s concerns.

“Mr. Edsall, you are out of order,” Ms. Chase said.

The public hearing, he said, was for comments on the subdivision only.

“These people have the right to due process,” Mr. Edsall said.

“How can you make decision on anything if the board is corrupt?” asked Michael R. Bell, Cape Vincent.

Mr. Edsall responded, “These people have followed the rules.”

The board held public hearings and voted on two subdivisions. The three members, Mr. Edsall, Andrew R. Binsley and George A. Mingle, did not have maps available to act on a third subdivision.

Mr. Edsall then told wind opponents that if they wanted to talk about wind power development, the earliest the board would hold a meeting on it would be February.

He then asked to adjourn the meeting.

“You cannot do that,” Ms. Chase spoke up. “You are despicable. You approved the minutes, which are totally, totally false.”

She moved toward the dais and began passing papers to the board members.

Mr. Edsall said, “When we have a wind meeting, you can talk about wind.”

Mr. Bell said, “It’s about procedure — this is about procedure.”

Ms. Chase said, “You just lied to the whole community.”

As Mr. Edsall moved off the dais, she stood between the desk and a table. She appeared to bump into him. Mr. Edsall threatened to call the police if she touched him again.

She said he bumped into her.

“Will you get out of my way?” he asked.

She refused, but eventually let him pass. As the board members left, some members of the public berated them for passing the minutes. About a third of the audience consisted of wind power supporters. Some of them told the vocal opponents to back down.



WIND TURBINE PLAN WHIPS UP CONTROVERSY IN FOREST

SOURCE: New Richmond News, www.newrichmond-news.com

October 29 2010

By Jeff Holmquist,

A proposal to construct a wind turbine network in the Town of Forest, east of New Richmond, isn’t being met with universal support.

A number of local residents have been attending Town of Forest Board and Planning Commission meetings over the past few weeks to voice their displeasure with the plan.

The project is being promoted by Emerging Energies of Wisconsin LLC, a Hubertus company that is involved in several wind farm projects across the region.

Emerging Energies has been studying wind speeds in the St. Croix County township for more than two years.

In an earlier interview with the New Richmond News, Bill Rakocy, co-founder and principal of Emerging Energies, said the Forest area is “very favorable” as a site for large wind turbines. The company’s research shows that average wind speeds are about 16 to 17 mph, which is sufficient to turn a large turbine and thus generate electricity.

Emerging Energies hopes to construct up to 40 turbines in the Forest area by 2013 and sell the power to a utility company such as WE Energies or Xcel. A number of local landowners have expressed an interest in having one of the 2.5-megawatt, 350- to 495-foot-tall turbines constructed on their land.

A developer’s agreement was signed in August between the Forest Town Board and Emerging Energies. Under the agreement, landowners within a half mile of each turbine, the Town of Forest and St. Croix County would receive annual direct payments during the life of the turbines.

In response to the town’s agreement action, residents opposed to the proposal formed an advocacy group called “Forest Voice.”

The group has since asked the town board to consider a moratorium on wind turbine installation until an ordinance could be developed regulating such structures in the community.

But after receiving advice from its attorney, the town board noted that any new ordinance wouldn’t apply to the Emerging Energies project because regulations cannot be retroactively changed once something is already approved and a developer’s agreement is signed.

Residents then asked the town board to reconsider its agreement, suggesting that the contract was void because it was “illegal.”

Forest resident Jaime Junker, spokesperson for “Forest Voice,” said there was a “rush” to get the agreement signed and that the appropriate steps were not followed when the wind project was first approved in 2008 and then later solidified on Aug. 12, 2010.

He said the town’s planning commission never voted on a recommendation on the matter, even though later documents suggest that that body voted to recommend the project.

Junker also said that a resolution related to the eventual developer’s agreement may not have been properly signed, leading “Forest Voice” members to conclude that the agreement isn’t yet a legally-binding document.

According to a Notice of Claim filed by “Forest Voice,” opponents of the proposal worry that the wind project will have a negative impact on the health and safety of residents, as well as have a detrimental impact on the quality of life for those living in the township.

Junker said the filed notice is the first step in the group’s potential legal action against local elected officials and Emerging Energies.

Two town board members met in closed session last Thursday to consider the suggestion that the agreement be nullified. Town Chairman Roger Swanepoel has recently abstained from being involved in the wind turbine issue because of a conflict of interest.

No action was taken to rescind the agreement when the town board members recovened in open session Thursday.

Board member Carlton Cress said the the agreement will apparently stand as originally approved.

Cress called the situation “unfortunate,” but noted that concerned residents should have gotten involved in the approval process sooner.

“We’ve had some good meetings on the subject, and a lot of people on both sides of the topic have been there,” Cress said. “But they weren’t at our meetings at the right time.”

He said earlier meetings related to the wind turbines were well publicized and the board was open to any feedback. But when few objections surfaced, the project went through.

Cress added that the wind turbine controversy has been the most contentious debate he’s been involved in during his 24 years on the town board.

A state panel, established by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, approved a new set of standards for wind turbine construction in August. The Forest project likely will not be covered by those new rules because the project was officially approved by the town board in 2008.

OREGON COUNTY TELLS WIND FARM TO QUIET DOWN

 SOURCE: NPR, www.npr.org

October 28 2010

By Tom Banse

HEPPNER, Ore. – An Oregon county is telling the owner of a big wind farm to quiet down so neighbors can sleep at night. The operator of the Willow Creek Energy Center southwest of Boardman objects to the unusual noise enforcement.

Another wind farm developer active in the area has reportedly paid neighbors “hush money” to head off similar trouble. Correspondent Tom Banse has been traveling through eastern Oregon this week for a two part series on how wind power is seen by those closest to it. Here’s his report from Morrow County.

General contractor Dan Williams lives in a hexagonal house designed to let in panoramic views from all directions. Two years ago, this northern Oregon big sky scenery changed dramatically.

Williams: “White sticks and propellers everywhere!”

A wind power developer put up dozens of towering wind turbines on the other side of the Willow Creek valley. The blades spin about three-quarters of a mile away. Retired firefighter Dennis Wade lives even closer to the windmills. Wade drops by the Williams’ place for a chat.

Dennis Wade: “It sounds like a train or a jet that never arrives, that just keeps going in one place.”

Dan Williams: “The sleeplessness…that’s the major thing for us.”

Dennis Wade: “I have woken up at night and it’s like somebody beating on your chest from the whoosh, whoosh, whoosh.”

Sound:

Dan Williams: “For me, it makes me feel uneasy.”

Dennis Wade: “I have migraines. This has kicked the migraines up.”

Tom Banse: Do you get used to it, like if you live on the ocean you get used to the sound of the waves?

Dan Williams: “I haven’t, no. This sound is different. I think it affects my body.”

Dennis Wade: “The feelings that Dan was talking about, once you leave and go away for a day or so, they recede and you feel back to your normal self.”

Sound: (wind turbines return)

Dan Williams acknowledges that the sounds and vibrations bother some people, while others in the area go unaffected. Last year, a small group complained to the county. Many meetings and noise surveys ensued. Finally this week, the Morrow County Planning Commission rendered a decision. It found the wind farm in violation of an obscure Oregon industrial noise limit.

Sound: planning commission votes 5-0 in favor

The county gave the wind farm operator six months to come into compliance.

Neither side of the noise debate is pleased. The wind farm neighbors don’t want to wait six months or more for peace and quiet. The energy company says it intends to keep generating wind power while it pursues its legal options. Alissa Krinsky is a spokesperson for Invenergy based in Chicago.

Alissa Krinsky: “Although we appreciate the time and deliberations of the Morrow County Planning Commission, we are disappointed in its decision and believe there has been a fundamental misreading of the standard under which Oregon law regulates noise emissions.”

At the county seat, Invenergy passed out a fact sheet. It cites a U.S. Department of Energy finding that a “modern wind farm at a distance of 750-1000 feet is no more noisy than a kitchen refrigerator.”

An attorney for the neighbors has suggested the operator idle some turbines at night under certain wind conditions. The company has been silent about what options exist to make a wind farm quieter. Early on, Dennis Wade says Invenergy offered to pay neighbors for a “noise easement” or waiver.

Dennis Wade: “Quiet money, I guess you’d call it.”

Tom: “And you said what?”

Dennis Wade: “No, thank you.”

A different wind energy developer with a project under construction nearby is trying to head off similar problems. That company reportedly is writing $5000 checks to neighbors who agree not to complain about turbine noise. Caithness Energy declined to say how many households took them up on the deal. Caithness’ Shepherd Flats project will be the nation’s biggest wind farm when it is completed in about two years.

Morrow County Planning Commission chair David Sykes says this whole episode provides a hard lesson for his panel and others.

David Sykes: “We’ve talked about how we’re going to approach the next one to avoid this. We don’t want to be in this position. We want it to run smoothly and have the noise issue not be an issue.”

Next time, Sykes says he’ll ask for noise modeling in advance of construction. Other Northwest counties are debating turbine buffers or setbacks.

One other sign of gusty weather ahead for the wind industry: The Oregon Public Health Division has scheduled three “listening sessions” in northeastern Oregon next week (Nov. 3-4). The agency says it wants to look into whether the health concerns about living next to a wind farm have any scientific validity.

Oregon Public Health Division – Health impacts of wind energy assessment:

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hia/windenergy.shtml

A NEW SLANT ON WIND FARMS

SOURCE: Chronicle-express.com

October 26, 2010

Loujane Johns

SAVE THE DATE!!!

On Tuesday, November 9th the Assembly Committee on Commerce, Utilites, Energy and Rail will hold a full public hearing at the capitol because of questions raised regarding the  Public Service Commission's new wind siting rules for the state of Wisconsin.

The public is encouraged to attend and to provide testimony regarding specific concerns about the rules.

Tuesday, November 9th at 10:30 a.m. in Room 417 North at the State Capitol Building: Hearing relating to  Clearinghouse Rule 10-057

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD CLEARING HOUSE RULE 10-057

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Concerns now being raised about the new wind siting rules created by the Public Service Commission were clearly outlined in this request from members of local government in three towns in Brown County. This document was submitted to the PSC on June 23, 2010.

TO: Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Docket No. 1-AC-231 Draft Chapter 128--Wind Energy Systems

Request by the Towns of Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore
Brown County, Wisconsin
June 23, 2010

Issue: Request to delay issuing the PSCW wind siting standards until epidemiological studies of health complaints from Wisconsin`s current wind farms are thoroughly completed.

The towns of Morrison, Wrightstown, and Glenmore in Brown County are very concerned about the mounting evidence that there are serious negative impacts on human and animal health caused by wind turbines. It appears it is not only reasonable to delay the issuance of wind siting standards but it would be irresponsible to not do so in light of new studies and ongoing complaints of residents in and near Wisconsin`s existing wind farms.

In general, scientifically and statistically relevant studies have been limited. But, a very important report was published March 2010 by the World Health Organization (WHO) entitled "Night Noise Guidelines for Europe" (available at euro.who.int/en/what-we-publish/abstracts/night-noise-guidelines-for-europe).

The report is based on a six-year evaluation of scientific evidence by thirty-five scientists from medical and acoustical disciplines. WHO indicated that now governments have justifications to regulate noise exposure at night. WHO sets the limit for annual average exposure to not exceed 40 decibels (dB) outside of a residence.

WHO stated, "Recent research clearly links exposure to night noise with harm to health. Sleep disturbance and annoyance are the first effects of night noise and can lead to mental disorders. Just like air pollution and toxic chemicals, noise is an environmental hazard to health". WHO stated that they hope their new report will prompt governments to invest effort and money in protecting health from this growing hazard.

Our towns ask the PSCW to acquire the WHO report and evaluate its application to setting appropriate sound levels for wind turbines.

The PSCW`s draft rules do not address low frequency noise levels. It is not known whether the WHO report addresses this issue but other studies have described the likely effects. This is another area where epidemiological studies are needed before wind turbine setbacks can be reasonably proposed.

Besides sleep disturbance, there are complaints of other physiological problems. It is not acceptable to ignore or minimize the significance of these impacts as just quirks of human imagination.

Also, there is evidence that existing wind farms in Wisconsin are negatively affecting farm animals. Whether it is noise or some other physical phenomena, studies and testing should be done before setting siting standards.

At a public meeting of the Brown County Health Department and the Brown County Human Services Committee, reputable medical and health experts stressed the importance of epidemiological studies to determine the true nature of health impacts of wind turbines.

The State Board of Health pointed out that the lack of funding is a hurdle. But a conviction to do the right thing should prompt the PSCW to make a case to pursue the money issue with state legislators as well as our U.S. senators and representatives. Certainly, our towns would help in this endeavor. That said, it is even more appropriate for the wind developers and their associations to offer funding for independent studies since such studies should reduce future litigation. Electric utilities should have a stake in this effort as well. This is an opportunity to involve the University of Wisconsin research capabilities in both human health and animal health.

It appears that Act 40 does not set a deadline for completing the siting rules. This week a state senator who was one of the leaders in passing the wind siting law agreed that studies should be done to be sure the rules are adequate. If one or two years were used to study the existing wind farms while delaying any new installations, the developers would still have time to help utilities meet their 15% RPS by 2015. Again, if needed, our towns would help in getting the support of legislators.

Our towns implore the PSCW and the Wind Siting Council to not ignore the evidence of potentially serious health impacts and to not set standards until they have done the obvious and reasonable step of studying the health impacts of existing wind turbine installations in Wisconsin. Professional ethics demands no less. We believe our request aligns with the PSCW`s responsibility to protect the citizens of Wisconsin.

Submitted for the towns by Glen R. Schwalbach, P.E. 

SECOND FEATURE:

OREGON STATE TO STUDY WIND TURBINE RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS

SOURCE: STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS:

Massive Protest Greets Wind Turbine Developers

FERGUS — A massive protest greeted officials from WPD Canada in Fergus Tuesday evening, and flowed into the renewable energy developer’s open house on the proposed Springwood Wind Project (formerly known as Belwood Wind Farm), a four turbine wind energy system planned for agricultural land in the northwest corner of Centre Wellington. Upwards of 1,000 people, several horses and a wagon filled with manure occupied the front parking lot of the Centre Wellington Sportsplex on Belsyde Ave E.

CONTINUE...

 

A NEW SLANT ON WIND FARMS

SOURCE: www.chronicle-express.com

Jerusalem, N.Y. — John Grabski, representing the Jerusalem Preservation Association, brought a seldom explored topic to the subject of wind farms at the Oct. 20 Jerusalem Town Council meeting – economic devaluation.

Public discussions on wind farms usually include noise, flicker, dead birds and discontented cows. Grabski pointed to those briefly, but his main point was to suggest measures to protect against personal property value loss.
Instead of looking at the big picture of how much money wind turbines could bring to the town and landowners, he pointed out in a detailed approach how money could be lost long term.

“According to expert organizations such as professional Certified Real Estate Appraisers, industrial wind development adversely impacts land values within the immediate wind-zone and a peripheral area of approximately two miles,” according to Grabski.

CONTINUE......

 

THIRD FEATURE

Three reports, created specifically to guide legislators in wind turbine siting decisions, and alert them to areas of concern, all identify a half mile as the minimum setback needed to mitigate major problems from turbine noise and shadow flicker.

The Reports include:

The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies of Science Report "Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects". (2007) [Download Document]

The Congressional Research Service Report prepared for Members and Committees of Congress "Wind Power in the United States: Technology, Economic, and Policy Issues (2008) [Download document]

The Minnesota Department of Health, Environmental Health Division In response to a request from: Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security: "Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines" (2009) [Download Document]

IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS WHICH SUPPORT A SET BACK OF 2640 FEET FROM HOMES

The Noise Heard Round the World - the trouble with industrial wind turbines
1/2 mile more or more setback
www.wind-watch.org/alerts/?p=591

Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks
George W. Kamperman, INCE Bd. Cert. Emeritus Kamperman Associates, Inc. george@kamperman.com
Richard R. James, INCE E-Coustic Solutions rickjames@e-coustic.com
1km (3280 feet) or more setback
www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=1650

French Academy of Medicine warns of wind turbine noise
1.5km (.9-mile) setback
kirbymtn.blogspot.com/2006/03/french-academy-of-medicine-warns-of.html

National Wind Watch
1-mile setback
www.wind-watch.org/press-070402.php

U.K. Noise Association
1-mile setback
U.K. Noise Association: 1 mile setback needed for wind turbines
kirbymtn.blogspot.com/2006/08/uk-noise-association-1-mile-setback.html

UK Noise Association - Wind Farms are Causing Noise Problems
www.windaction.org/news/4230

Beech Ridge Wind Farm, West Virginia
1 to 4 miles setback
www.beechridgewind.com/Docs/1-25-06_Beech_Ridge_Wind_Fa_Sheet.pdf

Deal reached in wind turbine dispute - Fayette County
6000 foot setback
www.windaction.org/news/16447
www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_573705.html

Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed New Homes: Effects o Health
2km (1.2 mile) setback
www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/wtnhhr_june2007.pdf

Location, Location, Location. An investigation into wind farms and noise by the Noise Association
1 to 1.5 mile setback
www.windaction.org/documents/4281

Are wind farm turbines making people sick? Some say yes.
1.5 mile setback
www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/04/17/news/doc4807500d59725857996033.txt

Dr. Nina Pierport
1.5 mile setback, more for mountainous geography
Health Effects of Wind Turbine Noise
www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=76
Noisy Wind and Hot Air
www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=69
Wind Turbine Syndrome - testimony before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee
www.savewesternny.org/docs/pierpont_testimony.html
except from rebuttal to Noble Environmental’s draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding noise, shadow flicker, and health
www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=100

Wind Turbines, Noise and Health
Dr. Amanda Harry
1.5 mile setback
www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/wtnoise_health_2007_a_barry.pdf

Riverside County, California
2-mile setback
www.rcip.org/documents/general_plan/gen_plan/03_d_16.pdf

Marjolaine Villey-Migraine
Docteur en sciences de l’information et de la communication, Université Paris II-Panthéon-Assas, Sp&egravecialiste de l’Information Scientifique et Technique (IST)
5 km (3.1 miles)
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=588

Microseismic and Infrasound Monitoring of Low Frequency Noise and Vibrations from Windfarms
10km (6.2-mile) setback
www.esci.keele.ac.uk/geophysics/dunlaw/Final_Report.pdf

NOISE RESEARCH

Facts About Wind Energy and Noise
www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WE_Noise.pdf

“Anti-noise” Silences Wind Turbines, publication date August 2008
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080811095500.htm

New England Wind Forum: Wind Turbine Sound
US Department of Energy
www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/ne_issues_sound.asp

“Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effects on Health.”
with an annotated review of the research and related issues
by Barbara J Frey, BA, MA and Peter J Hadden, BSc, FRICS
www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/wtnhhr_june2007.pdf

Noise pollution from wind turbines
September 20, 2007 by Julian Davis and S. Jane Davis
www.windaction.org/documents/13040

This is a list of publications from the Acoustics Laboratory and the Department of Acoustics from the period from 1974 until now. The list is sorted in chronological order starting with the most recent papers.
acoustics.aau.dk/publications/pubframe.html

George W. Kamperman, INCE Bd. Cert. Emeritus Kamperman Associates, Inc. george@kamperman.com
Richard R. James, INCE E-Coustic Solutions rickjames@e-coustic.com
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/simple-guidelines-for-siting-wind-turbines-to-prevent-health-risks.pdf

The “How To” Guide to Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks from Sound
George W. Kamperman PE and Richard R. James INCE
batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/08-08-26%20Kamperman-James,%20(WindAction.org)%20Ver.%201.5%20Noise%20Criteria%20for%20Siting%20Wind%20Turbines.pdf

Low Frequency Noise from Large Wind Turbines
Delta Project EFP-06. Client: Danish Energy Authority
www.deltainspire.dk/C1256ED60045E95F/sysOakFil/Lavfrekvens_publ_2/$File/EFP06-LF%20Noise-Evaluation%20of%20audibility%20and%20literature%20study%20AV%201098%2008.pdf

Abstracts
Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise
Lyon, France. September 20-21, 2007
www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/wtn2007_abstracts.pdf

“Noisy Wind and Hot Air,” Nina Pierpoint, MD, PhD
www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=69
(extract) “There need to be funds to cover damages to the health, property values, and quality of life of nearby residents, should these occur.”

Excerpts from the Final Report on the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee
www.aweo.org/windlincoln.html
(extract) “As a result of so many noise complaints, The Moratorium Committee ordered WPS to conduct a noise study. . . . [T]he study established that the turbines added 5-20 dB(A) to the ambient sound. A 10-dB increase is perceived as a doubling of noise level. As soon as the noise study was published in 2001, WPS conceded that these homes were rendered uninhabitable by the noise of the turbines and made buyout offers for the neighboring homes.”

Wind Farm Noise and Regulations in the Eastern United States
Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise
www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-farm-noise-and-regulations-in-the-eastern-united-states/

Acoustic Trauma: Bioeffects of Sound
Alex Davies BFS Honours
www.dartdorset.org/noise/AlexDavies_AcousticTrauma.pdf

A Review of Published Resarch on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects
Report for Defra by Dr. Geoff Leventhall
www.dartdorset.org/noise/GLlowfreqnoise.pdf

Noise Background
DART (Dorest Against Rural Turbines)
www.dartdorset.org/html/noise.shtml

Project WINDFARMperception
Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents
www.windaction.org/documents/16255
Wind turbines more annoying than expected
www.windaction.org/documents/16245

G.P. van den Berg
Wind turbines at night: acoustical practice and sound research
Science Shop for Physics, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
www.viewsofscotland.org/library/docs/Wind_turbines_at_night_Van_Den_Berg_Mar03.pdf
Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound
Journal of Sound and Vibration
www.nowap.co.uk/docs/windnoise.pdf

Vibroacoustic Disease
N.A.A. Castelo Branco and M. Alves-Pereira
www.noisefree.org/monitor.pdf

Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise
Renewable Energy Research Laboratory
www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/whitepapers/Wind_Turbine_Acoustic_Noise_Rev2006.pdf