Better Plan, Wisconsin

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

These photos show one of the two turbines at the 100.5 MW Grand Ridge Energy wind facility in La Salle County, Illinois, about 80 miles southwest of Chicago, which experienced blade failures on July 23-24, 2010.

Each blade is about 130 feet long-- the equivalent height of a thirteen story building.

A spokeswoman for Invenergy Wind said in the event of high winds the turbines are designed to come to rest with one blade pointing down and parallel to the base of the tower.

According to Invenergy, the winds came so quickly that the safety mechanism did not have time to engage. 

In the video below, Wisconsin wind siting Council members Ryan Schryver and Jennifer Heinzen make it clear they do not believe safety setbacks from wind turbine are warranted, saying "Safety is a relative term"

SECOND FEATURE:

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: 

Like other local groups who are asking hard questions about wind siting in our state, Better Plan, Wisconsin is an all volunteer independent citizens group that accepts no funding from outside sources. Yet Wisconsin groups such as ours are frequently characterized as "well-funded anti-wind organizations."

In an recent Wisconsin State Journal article, reference was made to "well-funded anti-wind organizations" in our state, a statement which is frequently made in Wisconsin media without attribution or support.

Better Plan has been trying to source the statement. A google search of "well-funded anti-wind organization" pointed us to a number of PR and consulting firms often hired by wind developers to build community acceptance of a project.

Barnaby Dinges, who was quoted in the Wisconsin State Journal article but not identified as a public relations consultant, runs an Illinois PR Firm called "The Dinges Gang." Invenergy has hired Dinges to help bring in the Ledge Wind Project in Brown County.

(Scroll down to the end of the post to read more about the Dinges Gang)

PR firms such as the Dinges Gang work hard to discredit local residents who have concerns by categorizing them as "a small but vocal minority" and 'well-funded NIMBYS'. They also employ techniques to turn neighbor against neighbor. The article below, by an employee of a Public Relations firm called "The Saint Group" details how this is done.

Turning anti-wind sentiment into permits requires organization, strategy and plain ol’ grassroots politics.

By Ben Kelahan, North American Windpower, July 2009

Community relations may be the road to reputation, but understanding practical local politics paves the way to permits. Opposition groups are sophisticated, organized and well funded. They have borrowed the highest-priced tactics from corporate public relations and masterfully use the Web to circulate misinformation about the impacts of wind farms.

Understanding how the opposition plans to stop your wind farm may be the first step toward planning for its approval. The truth is that planned wind developments run into local trouble every day. Let’s begin by examining some customary tactics used by the opposition.

Opportunistic opposition

Energy developers, particularly wind developers, expect to face opposition from individual landowners and other residents based on the typical siting concerns, such as shadow flicker, noise impacts and property value arguments, that pop up across the country. However, in some cases the opposition takes on some special interest from known characters. Thus, it also takes special care in managing their impact.

Local politicians are accustomed to the usual suspects showing up at public hearings and in letters to the editor of weekly papers on controversial development projects.

Now, wind companies are beginning to notice a pattern to the cast of opponents appearing before zoning hearing boards, road commissioners and alderman, who oppose wind farms using the locality’s zoning codes and planning restrictions as tools to defeat developments town to town.

In Illinois alone, developers such as Horizon Wind Energy, NextEra Energy Resources and Iberdrola Renewables have been the targets of vociferous anti-wind sentiment.

Turning to the Web

Need talking points for the public hearing tonight? Look no further than the growing number of Web sites that circulate their own “myth versus fact” sheets about wind farms and their impact on local communities. Many of these sites have organized talking points by issue, including public safety concerns, such as wind turbine syndrome, or counter-arguments to wind energy’s effectiveness, such as like intermittency.

There are plenty of anti-wind Web sites online. These sites provide a quick primer should you be motivated to oppose the local wind farm proposed down the road. Further they provide best practices borrowed from wind energy site fights from around the globe, complete with per sonal testimonials of those that have opposed wind turbines and won.

The effectiveness of these online anti-wind sites is not necessarily their basis, because impactful opposition doesn’t necessarily need sound science or experience to be effective with local politicians. All it takes is an emotional trigger on a critical local issue to start the flames of opposition to motivate a vocal minority.

If the anti-wind sentiment goes unchecked by a majority of people in the project area who make known their support based on equally passionate arguments that activate locals to take political action on you behalf, you could be in trouble come the day of the permit vote.

Democracy in action

Wind developers are keen on establishing strong relationships within their communities. Community meetings are a popular method of introducing your project to the most people at one time.

An efficient and productive use of time and resources, community meetings provide an educational one-stop shop for answering questions and informing the public about your plans. Although these meetings can allay the concerns of locals, perceptions can change if you let the opposition speak at the gatherings.

So, that raises the question: Why have these meetings if they are not required? Some developers, mindful of being new to the community, do so as a courtesy. But is it helpful?

“It’s one thing if an agency requires a public session – you have to do those,” says Robert Kahn, a 25-year veteran public relations consultant working in wind power, “But it’s rarely a good idea to volunteer to host your own,” he says. “Too often, a public meeting simply provides opponents a chance to identify one another and get better organized. There are much better ways to get the word out.”

When the format for a community forum plays to the positions of opponents, beware.

Here’s how it typically occurs: In an effort to demonstrate transparency and a willingness to consider resident concerns about a wind development plan, the developer begins with a 10-minute presentation of the proposed plan, with specific sound bites reviewing the merits of constructing the wind farm in town. Some of the positives include green jobs, tax revenue, road improvements and donations to local schools. All of those benefits accruing to the community sound wonderful.

After your presentation, undecided residents are satisfied, even though they know it’s in your financial best interest to say so. So even after hearing the pitch, they may not trust you. Then, the outspoken opposition speaks about public safety and health issues. For those attending the hearing, it is a question of taking sides.

If you are fortunate, the undecided members will leave undecided. However, those who have decided may be recruited to speak against you at the next hearing on your special-use permit.

At some point in the approval process, holding an open house allows local residents to see visual simulations, maps and descriptions of construction plans and schedules, along with displays of planned environmental mitigations. An open house is far more relaxed than a community meeting.

Thinking like your opponents may mean acting like them. Several wind power developers have encouraged local citizens to organize support groups around which to rally environmental and property rights activists, business interests and other pro-wind constituencies. Think of these groups as an anti-not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) antidote.

“There’s no substitute for supporters standing up and speaking out on behalf of proposed projects,” Kahn says. “They can say things which a developer, who has one hand tied behind his back, can’t.’

What you can do

However, until such counter-NIMBY organizations expand, developers must n-lake a concerted effort to outnumber the vocal minority and special interest groups that desire a political victory for their own constituencies and members. It can be done, starting with the following basic steps:

Research. Understand the political climate surrounding your project before you go public with your proposal. First, make a list of likely supporters and opponents. Then, do some research. Has this site been the subject of previous controversies? Some sites are considered too troublesome and will never succeed in obtaining change-of-use permits. Knowing the history of the site could impact your decision making.

Time and target your outreach. Never let the news media be the first to describe the impact of your wind project nor be considered the best source of facts about your plans for the site. Inform the politicians and neighbors before they read it in the press.

Persuade. Go door to door informing landowners and residents. Explain the proposal, and attempt to determine who will support it, who will stay neutral and who will oppose. Shortcuts, such as hosting public meetings, will not do the trick in inoculating public opinion over a wind power project.

Get started by scheduling small meetings with key constituencies and community leaders. “These are the people who shape local opinion,” says Kahn. “Their support will be indispensable in countering the opposition.”

Political process. You need to attack this as if you were a local politician running for office, which means identifying, recruiting and organizing. Organize supporters, and then get them to attend meetings, sign petitions and write letters to the editor. Above all, you need to demonstrate public support equal to or greater than that of your opponents.

Negotiate when possible. In some cases, you can offer mitigation, or negotiate in some other way to get opponents to drop their positions. In other cases, the opponents or their backers have an economic interest in defeating your project that will never be overcome by an attempt at compromise.

In those cases, you must marshal sufficient political support to overcome the opposition and be prepared to educate your supporters in the community about what you know about your opposition – where they come from and why you feel they’re involved. Let them be the judge.

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president, energy, at Vienna, Va.-based Saint Consulting Group, a community outreach consultancy.

WHO ARE YOU, BARNABY DINGES?

Now don't us tell a FIB!

Dinges, who calls Wisconsin an "Energy Slacker"  lives in Illinois and is running for mayor of  Evanston, a city located just north of Chicago on Lake Michigan.

 He runs a Public Relations firm called "The Dinges Gang" and has been hired by wind developer giant, Invenergy, to smooth the way for the Ledge wind project in Brown County.

From "THE DINGES GANG" website:

"If your company, group or government agency is facing a challenging issue or project, call in The Dinges Gang."

Who else does the "Dinges Gang" represent?

• Abbott Laboratories
• Chicago Bears
• The Chicago Network
• CMGI
• Chicago Park District
• Draper and Kramer
• Illinois Department of Transportation
• Illinois Department of Public Aid
• Illinois Sports Facilities Authority
• Kraft Foods
• PLS Landscape Architects

Public Relations Team Projects for...

• ComEd
• DTE Energy
• Gateway 2000
• Ghirardelli Chocolate
• Illinois Casino Gaming Association
• Jim Beam
• Lernout & Hauspie Speech Recognition Products
• Monsanto
• Sears
• Starkist
• Trizec Hahn Properties

WHAT HAS THE DINGES GANG DONE FOR WISCONSIN?

From the DINGES GANG website:

ADVOCACY

Case Study: Forward Energy Windmill Farm

 

Generating Green Energy and Public Support

Invenergy developed plans to build Wisconsin’s largest wind farm, a 200-MW project within miles of the Horicon Marsh, a migratory destination for millions of birds and the area’s largest tourist attraction. The wind farm would provide enough power for 70,000 homes and help Wisconsin reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

The Challenge

In a classic case of NIMBY obstructionism, a local group used $50,000 in public funding to organize a group to oppose the project and encourage the Public Service Commission to vote against the project. The opposition group, Horicon Marsh System Advocates, created an opposition web site, and used its 300 members to write letters to regulators and media, and to attend public meetings to rail against the project. The opposition group claimed the wind farm would kill birds, destroy the area’s landscape, endanger local pilots, and harm local tourism.

The Plan

Partnering with local farmers who would host wind turbines on their land, The Dinges Gang educated the group to communicate with local officials and the media.

We placed “Wind Yes!” signs in front of their farmhouses. The group of supporters also included Wisconsin environmental groups and local labor and construction groups.

The Forward Energy team testified at public meetings and emailed letters of support to the Public Service Commission.

Supporters also wrote letters to and conducted interviews with media to underscore the broad benefits of the project (keeps farmers farming, provides $1-million annually in new local taxes for government, creates 250 construction jobs, etc.).

We also refuted each of the opposition’s arguments, showing them to be wild exaggerations and desperate attempts by a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) group to impede progress that will benefit the entire region.

Our Success
On July 8, 2005, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission voted to support the $250-million project, which will erect 133 wind turbines on the Niagara Escarpment, within two miles of the Horicon Marsh.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI NERD:

The "'NIMBY' advocacy group Dinges mentions here turned out to be right about wildlife impact.

Initial post construction mortality studies show the Forward project turbine related bat deaths are among the highest in north America at 41.5 bat kills per turbine per year, or over ten times the national average of 4 bat kills per turbine per year.

In a little more than two years, the Invenergy Forward project along side the Horicon Marsh is estimated to have killed over 7,000 bats. The bird kill rates for this project are also much higher than the national average

 The current setback from the Horicon Marsh is two miles. Invenergy is pushing to site turbines in Phase Two of this project a mile from the marsh.

Wind farms and wildlife: The heartbreak of the Horicon

Wind farms and Bats:

How are bats being killed in wind farms?

WIND FARM CONSTRUCTION VIDEOS

Video of what kind of changes a wind turbine brings to a farmer's fields.

Trenching and electrical cables

Access roads and soil disturbance

Torn up roads and compacted soil

Heavy equipment and cranes compact soil

How big are the shadows cast by industrial scale turbines? What do they look like? Why are they a problem?

What is shadow flicker like on houses in Wisconsin wind projects?

 SECOND FEATURE

RESIDENTS SAY STATE RULES FOR WIND FARMS LACKING

SOURCE: Sun Journal, www.sunjournal.com

August 19 2010

By Eileen M. Adams

DIXFIELD — Panelists and townspeople at a public hearing Wednesday night blasted what they believe are insufficient state regulations to govern the half-dozen or so wind farms proposed for western Maine.

The hearing was sponsored by the River Valley Alliance and the Friends of Maine’s Mountains, groups that oppose such developments. Other groups, such as the Friends of Spruce Mountain in Woodstock, were also at the hearing.

Among the panelists was Robert Rand, an acoustical engineer from Brunswick, who described the potential effects on people of the sounds made by the blades and generators of turbines.

During much of his talk, he played a recording of a turbine operation he said was made at a small operation in Freedom.

Such noise, he said, has the potential to adversely affect people living as close as 2 miles from an operating turbine. He said the frequency and decibel levels could result in the inability to sleep, high blood pressure and other maladies.

Paul Druan, chairman of the Weld Windpower Committee that is charged with developing a wind farm ordinance, said that when he attended a similar forum with the sound of turbines turning, one man became nauseated.

Sean DuBois, whose residence was not immediately available, said he believed more studies should be conducted on the possible adverse health effects.

“Don’t you think it’s too early to judge health effects?” he said.

Rand said he didn’t think so.

“There are people in Mars Hill, Freedom and an island on the coast who definitely have problems,” he said. “I’m concerned about the lack of peer-reviewed studies by the companies.”

He said that sounds from turning turbines do not decrease as quickly over water as they do over land.

A home should not be located less than 2 miles from a turbine, and even then, the sounds could affect people, he said.

Also speaking was Karen Pease, a resident of Lexington Township which is next to the state’s largest proposed wind turbine project in Highland Plantation. Independence Wind LLC, whose principals are former Gov. Angus King and Rob Gardiner, have proposed construction of 48 turbines.

She spoke of the effect the siting of wind turbines could have on real estate. She said Maine doesn’t have a sufficient number of houses on the market to do comparable studies, but one done in Illinois showed at least a 25 to 40 percent drop in value for homes about 2 miles from a wind project.

“Some are a total loss,” she said.

Also, she said, wind developers are not being required to provide a bond for decommissioning turbines so that they could be taken down and the land reclaimed.

Dan McKay, a major player in the organization of the hearing, said that with the number of people who live in the River Valley area, building what he estimated to be about 100 turbines made little sense.

“Turbines are a chance to shut down the recreational opportunities in the area,” he said.

Nearly 200 proposed turbines are in various stages of development from the Rumford area to Highland Plantation. First Wind LLC of Newton, Mass., has proposed siting up to 19 turbines in Rumford and Roxbury; Independent Wind LLC is proposing the Highland Plantation project and 22 turbines in Roxbury; and Patriot Renewables LLC of Quincy, Mass., has proposed a total of about 50 turbines in Carthage, Dixfield, Canton and Woodstock.

McKay said signatures were being gathered on a petition asking the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to change the acceptable decibel level produced by turbines to 5 decibels above the ambient level in an area currently without turbines.

He said the signatures collected in several River Valley towns and Woodstock would be sent to the Citizens Task Force, which is circulating a petition statewide calling for more regulations on wind development.

SCIENTIST CHALLENGES THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM THAT WHAT YOU CAN'T HEAR WON'T HURT YOU

SOURCE: National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health,

July 28, 2010

A wind turbine is a rotary device with a gigantic propeller as big as a football field that turns in the wind to generate electricity. Although wind turbines are more often found in Europe than in the United States, they’re rapidly becoming more popular here as a “green” energy source. Most people consider that a good thing, except the rotors of wind turbines also generate noise, particularly in the infrasound range, that some people claim makes them feel sick.

Since frequencies that low can’t be heard, many scientists who study hearing have assumed they can’t have any effect on the function of the ear. But a little known phenomenon related to the infrasound generated by wind turbines is making some scientists challenge the common wisdom that what we can’t hear won’t hurt us.

Infrasound is a subset of sound broadly defined as any sound lower than 20 Hertz (Hz), which is the lowest pitch that most people can hear. It’s all around us, even though we might only be barely able to hear a lot of it. The whoosh of wind in the trees, the pounding of surf, and the deep rumble of thunder are natural sources of infrasound. Whales and other animals use infrasound calls to communicate across long distances. There is also a wide range of manmade infrasounds, for example, the noise generated by industrial machinery, traffic, and heating and cooling systems in buildings.

Alec Salt, Ph.D., is an NIDCD-supported researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who studies the inner ear. For years, he and his group have been using infrasound as a way to slowly displace the structures of the inner ear so that their movement can be observed. In their experiments, infrasound levels as low as 5Hz had an impact on the inner ears of guinea pigs.

“We were doing lots of work with low-frequency tones,” says Salt, “and we were getting big responses.” What they were observing in the lab, however, didn’t jibe with the scientific literature about hearing sensitivity, which was in general agreement that the human ear doesn’t respond to anything as low as 5Hz. Since human ears are even more sensitive to low frequencies than guinea pig ears, that didn’t make sense.

Salt and a colleague conducted a literature search, focusing not on papers about hearing sensitivity, but on the basic physiology of the inner ear and how it responds to low-frequency sounds. During the search, Salt found anecdotal reports of a group of symptoms commonly called “wind turbine syndrome” that affect people who live close to wind turbines.

“The biggest problem people complain about is lack of sleep,” says Salt, but they can also develop headaches, difficulty concentrating, irritability and fatigue, dizziness, and pain and pressure in the ear.

Continuing his search, Salt began to see a way in which infrasound could impact the function of the inner ear, by the differences in how inner ear cells respond to low frequencies. In function, our ear acts like a microphone, converting sound waves into electrical signals that are sent to the brain. It does this in the cochlea, the snail-shaped organ in the inner ear that contains two types of sensory cells, inner hair cells (IHCs) and outer hair cells (OHCs). Three rows of OHCs and one row of IHCs run the length of the cochlea. When OHCs are stimulated by sound, special proteins contract and expand within their walls to amplify the vibrations. These vibrations cause hairlike structures (called stereocilia) on the tips of the IHCs to ripple and bend. These movements are then translated into electrical signals that travel to the brain through nerve fibers and are interpreted as sound.

Only IHCs can transmit this sound signal to the brain. The OHCs act more like mediators between sound frequencies and the IHCs. This wouldn’t matter if the OHC behaved the same way for all frequencies—the IHCs would respond to what the OHC amplified—but they don’t. It turns out that OHCs are highly sensitive to infrasound, but when they encounter it, their proteins don’t flex their muscles like they do for sound frequencies in the acoustic range. Instead they actively work to prevent IHC movement so that the sound is not detected. So, while the brain may not hear the sound, the OHC responses to it could influence function of the inner ear and cause unfamiliar sensations in some people.

Salt and his colleagues still aren’t sure why some people are sensitive to infrasound and others aren’t. It could be the result of anatomical differences among individual ears, or it could be the result of underlying medical conditions in the ear that cause the OHCs to be ultrasensitive to infrasound.

Regardless, it might not be enough to place wind turbines further away from human populations to keep them from being bothersome, since infrasound has the ability to cover long distances with little dissipation. Instead, Salt suggests wind turbine manufacturers may be able to re-engineer the machines to minimize infrasound production. According to Salt, this wouldn’t be difficult. “Infrasound is a product of how close the rotor is to the pole,” he says, “which could be addressed by spacing the rotor further away.”

Salt, AN and Hullar, TE, “Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines.” Hearing Research online 16 June 2010

COUNTY BOARD APPROVES WIND TURBINE ORDINANCE

SOURCE: Kewaunee County News, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

July 28 2010

By Kurt Rentmeester,

A week after the Kewaunee County Board approved a wind power resolution, some leaders question why it’s being done if a state Public Service Commission that sets such requirements is only weeks away.

In addition to new PSC requirements, Kewaunee County Supervisor Chuck Wagner said the county can’t regulate town zoning.

“The county rule is a recommendation. My problem is it’s all irrational hype. These people are making recommendations without having any significant data to back them up,” Wagner said.

The resolution addresses the same concerns that the towns of Carlton, West Kewaunee, Two Creeks, Mishicot and Two Rivers approved last month, as they are part of a proposed area for 111 wind turbines established by Oregon-based Element Power.

Wagner suggested tabling the resolution until July 18, but the board adopted the resolution on a 17-3 vote, with support from County Supervisors Jim Abrahamson and Bruce Heidmann. County Supervisor Jan Swoboda moved to adopt the resolution and Donald Delebreau seconded it.

“My intention was to give the support to town of Carlton and I felt there was no reason we don’t support other communities,” Swoboda said. “The PSC obviously will do what they think is best for the state.”

County Supervisor Linda Sinkula supported the measure in a Health Board resolution July 13 before bringing it to the board.

“At least it’s letting our legislators know there’s a concern and that we’d just like them to look at this,” Sinkula said. “We’d like them to look at the PSC rulings before they’re approved.”

Wagner said supporters have not investigated where the state and the municipalities are on these issues. He also said the state comment period is over and the state Legislature this year will not be back in session.

Supervisor Bruce Heidman said the measure needed to be rewritten.

“It was poorly written. That was my main problem with it,” Heidmann said. “There’s was nothing specific about the setbacks and other aspects of the resolution.”

County Supervisor Jim Barlow said the county needed to act on the resolution to make its case to state legislators.

“In part, if the PSC is going to have a ruling by the end of August, we can’t wait because they’re going to have something by the end of the month,” Barlow said. “We need to do what we can. Unfortunately, all we can do is end a resolution expressing some of our wishes.”

Residents speak

Andy Knipp, a town of West Kewaunee resident, said his greatest concern about wind turbines involve is the health impact on residents and on land values.

“Before anyone allows this to be built, the residents want to know what impact it will have on property values,” Knipp said.

Tina Steffen, a town of West Kewaunee resident, asked the county board to fight on her behalf to establish a policy to protect residents from the impact of wind turbine expansion.

“We have a Smart Growth Plan in the township,” Steffen said. “I’m not allowed to put a 50-story building up. These towers are 50 stories high and they’d be going up in an agricultural zone.”

Mike Paral of Kewaunee said costs for renewable energy were handed down from Madison, but local governments are nearly broke. The state can’t use taxes anymore, he said.

“Now I’m not against wind power,” Paral said. “You can have all the wind power you want — where it belongs. There are a lot of areas in the United States that have wide-open areas that have a thousand of these. Wisconsin is not one of them, much less Kewaunee.”

SECOND FEATURE

Download the resolution from the Brown County board of health and human services by CLICKING HERE

 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