Better Plan: The Trouble With Industrial Wind Farms in Wisconsin

Entries in Manitowoc County (3)

9/10/11 Why your town needs a moratorium on Big Wind AND More about the noise the wind industry says is all in you head

A Letter from a Wisconsin Farmer

PLACE MORATORIUM ON LARGE WIND TURBINES

September 10, 2011

By Jerome Hlinak, Tisch Mills

Some of you may be aware that the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin appointed a committee of experts to create statewide wind siting rules, but may not know the majority of that committee benefits financially from the wind industry.[Click here to see who is on the Wind Siting Council]

One committee member living in the Fond du Lac County wind turbine nightmare had his health concerns completely ignored by those looking to fill their pockets with government green energy subsidies.

Statewide, legislators have been receiving complaints from wind farm victims who live much farther away than the committee's recommended 1,250-foot setback.

Committee member Bill Rakocy of Emerging Energies was granted a permit by Manitowoc County in 2006 to build eight turbines near Mishicot. A court denied those permits, agreeing with residents that the county should have used its new wind ordinance, not the 2004 ordinance, which was written with assistance from wind developers.

Emerging Energies, aka Shirley Wind LLC, moved on to build the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County.

Families residing up to a mile away from the Shirley turbines have been driven out of their homes due to health issues. Emerging Energies received $13.2 million in grants for this project, benefits from tax credits and double depreciation at your tax dollar expense, and these families get no compensation without legal action.

Please ask your county supervisor to support a moratorium on large wind turbines. The current county ordinance requires only a 1,000-foot setback from a lot line.

Element Power is proposing turbines in northern Manitowoc County that would fall between the county's outdated rules and new state standards that might be as much as 2,640 feet from a lot line.

Several town boards have passed resolutions to support a moratorium. Ask your supervisor to place more value on your health and safety ratherthan financial gain or jobs with Tower Tech.

Jerome Hlinak

Tisch Mills

Next Story

CURE FOR WIND FARM NOISE POLICY GRIDLOCK: BACK OFF BUT ALLOW EASEMENTS

Source: Renewable Energy News

September 10, 2011

By Jim Cummings, Acoustic Ecology Institute

Most wind advocates, including both industry players and regional renewable energy organizations, continue to be in a state of disbelief that the noise of turbines could possibly be a significant issue for nearby neighbors.

While it’s increasingly acknowledged that turbines will be audible much of the time, complaints about noise are too often painted as being unworthy of serious consideration, either because turbines are not all that loud, or because of an insistence that noise complaints are bogus surrogates for a broader opposition to wind energy that is “really” based on visual impacts or economic arguments (driven in some cases by climate change denial).

Perhaps most crucially, wind advocates rarely acknowledge that turbine noise is often 10 dB louder than background sound levels (sometimes even 20 dB or more); acousticians have long known that any increase over 5 dB begins to trigger complaints, with 10dB the threshold for widespread problems.

Meanwhile, many community groups are over-reaching in their approach to reducing noise impacts, by focusing too much of their argument on possible health impacts of wind turbine noise exposure. While there are many reliable anecdotal examples of people having physical reactions to nearby turbines, even the accumulating number of reports of health reactions to new turbines represents a small minority of people who live within a mile or even half-mile of turbines.

The health claims are hard – and perhaps impossible – to prove, though some insist that any health impact is unacceptable. Much more telling are community response rates that affirm – in some types of rural communities – that 25-50 percent of people hearing turbines near the regulatory sound limits feel that their quality of life is severely impacted.

AEI’s new report, Wind Farm Noise 2011, aims to frame the current state of research and policy in a way that can help those trying to find a constructive middle ground that protects rural residents from an intrusive new 24/7 noise source while also encouraging wind development as part of our renewable energy future.

A series of court and environmental tribunal rulings in recent months shed an especially illuminating light on the ambiguous state of our current understanding of wind farm noise impacts. In each case, the ruling rejected some elements of the challenge while affirming the validity of other claimed impacts or stressing the need for continued investigation.

In Australia, a planned wind farm was derailed by an environmental tribunal responding to an appeal from a local farmer who had focused on the possible noise impacts on his family and his livestock. The tribunal rejected evidence related to health effects from noise, but held that the planned layout would impact the “visual amenity” of the area to an unacceptable degree (in Australia and New Zealand, “rural amenity” is a commonly-accepted planning and regulatory consideration). In this case, the tribunal ruled that siting turbines 1km (0.6 miles) from homes, with some homes surrounded by several turbines within 2km (a mile and a quarter), was too close.

In Minnesota, the Public Utilities Commission rejected a half-mile county setback, but required the developer to offer financial compensation to 200 residents within a half-mile, though outside the regulatory limit of 1630 feet.

In Ontario, a major challenge to the Province’s new Green Energy Act was denied, and the 223-page ruling offers a great primer on current research from all sides. The challenge was based on the health impacts argument, and failed on that count, but the tribunal stressed that “risks and uncertainties” remain. While the evidence to date was determined to be “exploratory” rather than “confirmatory,” continued study was urged. The report noted: “The Tribunal accepts that indirect effects are a complex matter and that there is no reason to ignore serious effects that have a psychological component.”

Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, in the UK an appeal of a planned wind farm (based on the claim that the regulations were insufficient) was denied, but the High Court affirmed the validity of an amplitude modulation (AM) condition in the regulations, which is very stringent: whenever sound levels are over 28 dB, AM cannot exceed 3 dB. After years of denying that AM is an issue in UK wind farms, the industry there faces a starkly restrictive standard that would, in effect, preclude wind farm operations when any blade swish is audible, even in distant, barely audible turbines. Renewable UK (formerly BWEA) is scrambling to fund research that can be used to better quantify AM so that new rules providing a reliable dB penalty for AM can be devised.

My experiences around wind farms in Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wyoming has been very consistent: I have always been able to clearly hear any turbines that were within a half mile (faintly, but clearly there); at a quarter to third of a mile, the sound stood out, and as I approached three-quarters of a mile, the sound faded into the background sounds of distant roads or ground breeze. These have been brief experiences, always in daytime with moderate wind.

Adding to these personal observations, the widespread reports of neighbors affected by unexpectedly intrusive levels of noise from turbines up to a half mile or so away as well as ranch-country experience that suggests noise levels of 45-50 dB are often easily accepted, lead to my current perspective that the most constructive and widely beneficial path forward would be a shift toward larger setback requirements (in effect, lowering the maximum noise levels at homes nearly to quiet night time ambient noise levels), combined with easily crafted easement provisions that allow turbines to be built closer to landowners who agree to allow it.

This approach, currently used in Oregon, would protect communities and individuals who have invested their life savings in a quiet rural lifestyle, while acknowledging that there are many people in rural areas who are ready and willing to support wind energy development, even near their homes.

Yes, some locations – in fact many locations with relatively small lot sizes – may be hard or impossible to build in, but these are exactly the locations where the social tradeoffs, and the resulting balancing of costs and benefits, are least clearly favorable to wind development anyway. If the industry can accept that it doesn’t have the right to build anywhere the noise can be kept to 50 dB, and that its future development will be taking place within the fabric of a diverse society, then there is a clear business opportunity emerging for those companies that take the lead by crafting truly responsive community relations programs.

These companies will commit to working with the standards set by local tolerance for new noise sources, rather than pushing local or state authorities to adopt siting standards used elsewhere. These leading edge wind companies may also put their money where their mouth is on property values by establishing programs that compensate landowners for moderate changes in property value (which are likely to be less common than feared), and helping create programs that buy and sell homes, so residents who wish move can do so quickly at fair market value.

These companies will develop reputations as developers that are ready to be good local citizens, and will find that the increases in some costs and a willingness to forsake some locations altogether leads to dramatic benefits in terms of long-term stability and acceptance in the communities where they work – and especially in communities where they propose new projects.

Noise concerns are not obstacles to wind development, if the industry and local and state regulators can move beyond simplistic denial of the problem. Indeed, the continued growth of the wind industry in the U.S. and Canada may depend upon a fundamental shift of attitude, centered on respecting communities that choose lower noise limits, and providing assurances that negative impacts will be addressed if they occur.

9/29/10 Will there be a hearing on the new wind siting rules?

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

MADISON- Although requests for a full public hearing on the Public Service Commission's new wind siting rules have come from state senators and assembly members on both sides of the aisle, Senator Plale and Representative Soletski, the two legislators who will be making the decision, have yet to publicly announce their plans.

An aide to Representative Soletski says the legislators have until October 14th to decide, and a hearing must take place within 30 days of the announcement.

TURBINE TALK

SOURCE: Milwaukee News Buzz, www.milwaukeenewsbuzz.com

September 28, 2010

Two state representatives from Northeast Wisconsin, Bob Ziegelbauer (I-Manitowoc) and Steve Kestell (R-Elkhart Lake), are insisting that the Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities hold a public hearing on rules governing the placement of wind turbines in the state before approving them.

The Assembly committee, along with the Senate Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail Committee, have final review of the rules, which were written this summer by the Public Service Commission and the Wind Siting Council, an advisory board.

The rules would set a statewide standard for regulations restricting the placement of wind turbines. Local governments could create rules less restrictive – but not more restrictive. The state rules would overrule some existing local ones that require longer setback distances from homes, for example.

Proponents say the development of wind energy in the state has become bogged down in local disputes. Opponents, however, say turbines generate relatively loud whooshing sounds and can disturb residents unless government rules prevent developers from placing them too close to homes. The rules passed the Siting Council 11-4 in August. Dissenters argued the rules were too lax.

“I have personally heard from many constituents as there are existing wind turbines in my district,” Kestell writes in a letter to State Rep. James Soletski (D-Green Bay), chairman of the assembly committee. “These are people with actual firsthand experience living with wind turbines and their perspective would be invaluable to committee members in deciding whether changes are warranted.”

In a similar letter, Ziegelbauer writes that the rules “will have lasting effects on many in our state.”

Northeast Wisconsin, particularly the Fond du Lac area, has become a focus for wind development in the state. According to a previous NewsBuzz story, although Wisconsin isn’t known for its wind resources, the state actually has more wind than others that have become leaders in wind power.

Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 07:51AM by

The BPRC Research Nerd in Manitowoc County, PSC wind rules, Representative Soletski, Senator Plale, Wind farm, Wisconsin public service commission, wind farm setbacks, wind siting, wind siting council, wind siting rules legislation and policy | Comments Off

8/26/10 Gone with the wind developer: Family lets the PSC know why they regret signing on with Invenergy AND a resident who has been living in the Invenergy Forward wind project for over two years lets the PSC know he and his family are having trouble.

Home in a wind project, Fond du Lac County

MORE FROM THE DOCKET: What Wisconsin residents are saying to the PSC about recent wind siting discussions

FROM BROWN COUNTY

Dear PSC Members,

My name is Marilyn Nies.

We signed a contract with Invenergy in Brown County.

Boy what a scam this all is. It was like the snake oil salesman in the movies. After two years so much more
information came out concerning turbines.

We also for some dumb reason never put two and two together concerning our daughter. Our youngest child has three separate heart issues. One of them being WPW, which is an electrical impulse disorder.

I am afraid stray voltage and the low frequency noise will harm her. Needless to say we want out of
our contract. They will not let us out.

They outright lied and lied by omission. People do not vacate their houses that they have put their whole adult lives into fixing up for no reason. There is a problem here and no studies have been done. They just keep saying there is no evidence, because nothing has been done!

You are putting the cart before the horse. I and many others feel studies should be done before this goes any further. In addition, in Brown County especially, each turbine should be looked at individually or not at all due to the karst rock features.

My final point is money...... I don't want any money from them.

I don't think many of the other people not signed up want money either. I tried to send the money back that we received direct deposit, they would not cash the check. Since then I have closed the account. Invenergy now mails the checks and I burn them. We want to live here without our land value decreasing and without
health risks.

It is called being responsible. Even 1300 feet is not much if you get a storm like we had Friday. There was a section 1 mile wide by 4 miles long where we had 75 mile an hour winds, come to find out it was a tornado. There are buildings and silos down and damaged all over. How far could a turbine blade or a section of one go? Especially if there was mechanical failure combine with an act of God? Just something to think about.

I sincerely hope you take your time on this issue and get some INDEPENDENT studies done. We
have to live with these the rest of our lives. What is the big deal if it sits another year until we know
for sure?

Marilyn Nies

Greenleaf, WI 54126

FROM FOND DU LAC COUNTY:

Heilman, Alice - PSC
From: Gerry Meyer
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 12:51 PM
Cc: Jones, Krystal - PSC; Paske, Sandra - PSC

Subject: Comments per Commissioners meeting of 8-23-10

Dear Public Service Commissioners Azar, Meyer and Callisto,

My comments are in response to Monday’s meeting concerning the draft rules for wind turbine siting.

I live in the Forward Energy project by Invenergy so I have first hand knowledge of what life in a wind farm it truly like. My statements are not third party or from listening to others.

I have many thoughts based on listening to your meetings last Thursday (August 19) and yesterday (August 23).

Commissioner Azar, you seemed to be concerned for residents living near large industrial wind turbines in that you were looking at sound pressure reading of 40 Dba and a set back that would equal 2200 feet.

Yesterday you relented on your original thoughts.

At 6:55 this morning I went out with my sound meter to take a reading. The wind was from the SW which in my case is the worst sound. I had a Dba of 42 and a Dbc of 58. The sound was bouncing higher, however I tried to go to the low side with a slight feeling for an average sound pressure reading. The sound was bordering on the sound of a jet to a loud whooshing sound.

I talk to people that are having issues with the sound, however do not pay close attention to wind direction. As I mentioned generally the loudest sound is when the wind is from a westerly direction, however when the wind is from the E, SE and NE I get the least sleep.

I believe even a 40 Dba sound pressure is too loud and the commission needs to lower the sound to 5 Dba above ambient or at the very least 40 Dba. I have found that I do get pretty good sleep when the turbines are turning at 11 rpms or less which I would say is slightly above cut in speed.

Often we do not necessarily hear the wind turbines, yet sleep deprivation is present. The wind energy industry is dismissing the affects of low frequency noise and possibly infra sounds. That is why l listed the Dbc level above.

The commission needs to look at low frequency sound. I must strongly suggest you can not compare airplanes, trains or traffic sounds to large industrial wind turbines. The turbines are in a class by themselves as far as the effects they cause.

I do not receive shadow flicker. Well I do get flicker just briefly only several days a year, however in our case the many trees block out any serious effect it may have. I do know a number of friends and now acquaintances that have a horrendous time with shadow flicker.

One of those affected is siting council member Larry Wunsch. If the commission OK’s 30 hours of flicker a year before curtailment they may not understand that could mean 52 days or more of flicker.

Some of the council members felt that a non participant’s property should not be invaded by shadow flicker (the minority). I would tend to agree with that thought. Turn your lights on and off once per second for 40
minutes to see if that would be more than just annoying or a disturbance.

I am the one that submitted my cortisol levels to the docket. Briefly I was gaining weight in 6 to 7 pound increments while trying to eat less. I consulted with a Dr. who suggested I have my cortisol checked. During the time of high sleep deprivation from the 5 turbines with 5/8 of a mile of our house I had it checked. My cortisol level was 254.

After the Forward project was shut down for 21 days last October I found I had lost 17 pounds of the 30+ pounds I had gained. I had my cortisol level checked that very next day after the turbines began turning and the level was 35. It should be less than 100.

Yes, everyone seems to have stress, but I feel the high level was due to the turbines being irresponsibly placed too close to our home.

In my case I have one (turbine) 1560 feet away, one 2480 feet, and three at 3300 feet away. The first two are measured the later three are estimates based on maps. Even a half a mile set back would be a very conservative compromise. One of those at 3300 feet away are as loud as those 1560 and 2480 feet away

I feel the commission needs to enact a property value guarantee. I have seen properties list
for $219,000 and sell for $129,000. I have seen one property be abandoned, I have seen houses go
up for sale and never sell.

I know of homes that have been for sale since the project went up and have failed to sell. I feel prior to large wind turbine constructions my property of 6+ acres, a large farm house completely remodeled, the former dairy barn of 40’ X 92’ and a new 26’ X60’ garage/shop was worth $500,000. I would now estimate it to be worth about $200,000. Those estimates are based on being a carpenter in a previous life.

Wind energy companies constantly state that there is no loss in property value. If so why not be willing to guarantee that statement with a property value protection.

I do not trust modeling as a way to avoid shadow flicker and noise. An example would be mileage standards for cars. Do you get the mileage that is on the window sticker? Industrial turbine manufacturers can manipulate statistics to meet the needs of buyers and builders. Shadow flicker modeling takes into account variables that may not be there. Those models should take in to account the worst case scenario not the least case scenario.

I am offended by I believe Commissioner Meyer’s comment that some of these issues are needed for the good of the whole. Those may not be the exact words, but close.

I don’t believe my family or I or many others that are victims of wind energy should have to make this sacrifice. I know this is not part of the issue, yet on the other hand it is. Wind energy and the electricity it produces is very costly and wind energy is very inefficient. It is not causing any reduction on traditional energy use and is doubtful if it is reducing any carbon dioxide emissions after all the considerations are
factored in.

Part of the draft rule addresses allowing political subdivisions to allow compensation for adjacent land owners up to the amount the hosting farmer is receiving. (Page 36 of 44 128.33 sub 3) Wind energy is not accepted currently because of being improperly sited and the effects it causes.

If there is to be an increased acceptance of the wind industry this would be a great way to achieve it. I have often thought about if I had property value protection and receive the same compensation as my hosting neighbor I might be able to accept some of the disadvantages of this project.

In Monday’s meeting consideration was given to farm animals, domestic animals and wildlife.

My first reaction to that statement is “What about people” “Don’t we have some value?”. We should be at the top of the list.

We used to see deer at least once a week and 16 to 20 turkeys every few days from our house. Since construction of the turbines began (winter of 2007) we have not seen even one deer and only 2 turkeys.

Signal interference was touched on. We do have a satellite dish however we still have our old fashioned TV antenna. We need that to get Green Bay stations. If the wind is in a certain direction we can not get Green Bay.

There are people that rely on TV antennas that need protection from wind turbine interference with out having to fill out a W9 and receive a 1099 at the end of the year. For my internet I have a private company with a free standing tower 5 miles from my home. It is not affected; however other residents may be and need protection from losing their service. There needs to be set backs from emergency frequency beams.

I am concerned about community wind. Community wind needs to be treated the same as regular or large wind. If not what would happen is a community wind project of up to 15 MB would bebuilt. Let’s go 5 miles away and build another community wind project.. Now let’s connect the two and soon there could be 50 turbines that were intended to be a community wind project.

Don’t say that won’t happen. It did in Washington or Oregon.

If you read and research you know that world wide wherever there are large industrial wind turbines there are concerns and complaints about health issues.

Also of concern is decommissioning. Wind energy companies can sell the project, go bankrupt or flee the country. The money needs to be upfront. I believe the wind energy company representatives on the wind siting council grossly underestimated the decommissioning costs.

Standing turbines or even disassembled turbines lying on the ground are not in recyclable condition. They would need to be cut up in small pieces. I doubt that round 1” steel can be conveniently sheered.

I read over and over that Wisconsin’s past laws were a “patchwork” of rules and discouraged wind development in Wisconsin. Let’s leave wind out of this next statement.

If you take my township’s (Byron) building ordinance and compare it to Town of Fond du Lac’s or the Town of Union (Rock County) those building ordinances would be different. Does that curtail building or barns, silos or
homes? Should all building codes be controlled by the state?

There are town and county wind ordinances that are good with months or even over a year of research before their enactment. Those ordinances were never even discussed by the wind siting council.

That needs to be looked in to and the value of those existing ordinances evaluated. The Town of Union, Magnolia and Trempealeau Counties are great ordinances.

Commissioner Azar, it was me that got your attention at the wind siting council meeting asking for a brief conversation after the meeting when Jevon McFadden was giving his presentation. I later talked with Crystal Jones attempting to set up an appointment with you.

I did later receive a call from possibly Brian letting me know a visit together was not going to be possible. My thoughts at the time were for you to visit so that I could give my first hand account of the effects on my family from actually seeing my property for yourself.

I would have showed you around the project pointing our the many others with issues shadow flicker, noise, health issues and homes that are not selling or selling much below their market value.

I based my thought on the fact that in a previous meeting (May 14?) you expressed a concern about shadow flicker. I am disappointed this visit did not seem necessary.

As a tax paying citizen of the great state of Wisconsin I am not in favor of the subsidies, production credits and other incentives to wind energy companies and utilities for wind development.

Enough incentives have been paid over the years to develop wind. I don’t believe those incentives have worked to prove wind energy a viable source of electricity generation. If it was a feasible source of electricity it would have proved itself. I would rather see my tax dollars go to the state buying a house in a wind project and for the commissioners to spend a few weeks at a time living in that house and commuting to Madison so that they can learn for themselves what life in a wind project is really like.

I don’t believe Wisconsin should be promoting the financial interests of wind energy companies and utilities. I strongly believe the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and the State Health Department should be most concerned about the health affects large wind turbines cause that are irresponsibly placed too close to the residents of Wisconsin citizens.

In summary 50 dba is too high. 45 dba is too high. I believe 40 dba can be too high. 5 dba above ambient should be the standard. Why should a non participant put up with any shadow flicker? Set backs need to be ½ mile or more. Property value protection is a must. Signal interference needs
to be corrected and for the life of the project.

Thank you for considering my comments,

Gerry Meyer

Brownsville WI

Better Plan, Wisconsin

Entries in Manitowoc County (3)

9/10/11 Why your town needs a moratorium on Big Wind AND More about the noise the wind industry says is all in you head

9/29/10 Will there be a hearing on the new wind siting rules?

8/26/10 Gone with the wind developer: Family lets the PSC know why they regret signing on with Invenergy AND a resident who has been living in the Invenergy Forward wind project for over two years lets the PSC know he and his family are having trouble.