Better Plan, Wisconsin

HEALTH WOES FORCE FAMILY TO MOVE AWAY FROM TURBINES

SOURCE The Cap Times, host.madison.com

March 8, 2012 

On May 8, 2011, I left my home in Glenmore due to many health problems that are a result from the Shirley wind project built at the end of 2010. Inside my home, I was able to detect when the turbines were turning on and off by the uncharacteristic sensation in my ears. In early 2011, I started noticing extreme headaches, ear pain and sleep deprivation, all three things that had been either a rarity for me, or nonexistent. This caused me to struggle especially with my high school work. After staying away from my home for a week and a half, my symptoms started to subside. The longer I was away, the better I felt.

Due to these health issues, I spent all summer living in a camper with my family away from the turbines, only returning to the Shirley area when necessary. It would take me around three days after being in the area for my ears to drain and for pressure to release from my head. At the end of August, my family reluctantly purchased another small house away from the wind turbines, leaving us paying two mortgages. Through no fault of our own, this has put a financial burden on my family.

I have not been in the Shirley area since Nov. 19 and I do not experience headaches anymore and I can sleep soundly. My ears, however, are still sensitive to the cold and loud noises and they hurt with every cold I get. I wonder if this damage to my ears will ever go away.

The magnitude of this issue is of utmost importance to me and many other citizens living near the Shirley industrial wind turbines.

Alyssa Ashley

De Pere

Second feature

WINDMILLS VS. BIRDS

By Robert Bryce,

SOURCE The Wall Street Journal, wsj.com

March 7, 2012 

For years, the wind energy industry has had a license to kill golden eagles and lots of other migratory birds. It’s not an official license, mind you.

But as the bird carcasses pile up—two more dead golden eagles were recently found at the Pine Tree wind project in Southern California’s Kern County, bringing the number of eagle carcasses at that site to eight—the wind industry’s unofficial license to kill wildlife is finally getting some serious scrutiny.

Some 77 organizations—led by the American Bird Conservancy, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Endangered Species Coalition and numerous chapters of the Audubon Society—are petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to toughen the rules for the siting, permitting and operation of large-scale wind projects.

It’s about time. Over the past two decades, the federal government has prosecuted hundreds of cases against oil and gas producers and electricity producers for violating some of America’s oldest wildlife-protection laws: the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Eagle Protection Act.

But the Obama administration—like the Bush administration before it—has never prosecuted the wind industry despite myriad examples of widespread, unpermitted bird kills by turbines. A violation of either law can result in a fine of up to $250,000 and imprisonment for two years.

The renewed focus on bird kills is coming at a bad time for the wind industry, which is being hammered by low natural-gas prices and a Congress unwilling to extend the 2.2 cents per-kilowatt-hour production tax credit that has fueled the industry’s growth in recent years.

Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported that about 70 golden eagles are being killed per year by the wind turbines at Altamont Pass, about 20 miles east of Oakland, Calif. A 2008 study funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency estimated that about 2,400 raptors, including burrowing owls, American kestrels, and red-tailed hawks—as well as about 7,500 other birds, nearly all of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act—are being killed every year by the turbines at Altamont.

A pernicious double standard is at work here. And it riles Eric Glitzenstein, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer who wrote the petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He told me, “It’s absolutely clear that there’s been a mandate from the top” echelons of the federal government not to prosecute the wind industry for violating wildlife laws.

Mr. Glitzenstein comes to this issue from the left. Before forming his own law firm, he worked for Public Citizen, an organization created by Ralph Nader. When it comes to wind energy, he says, “Many environmental groups have been claiming that too few people are paying attention to the science of climate change, but some of those same groups are ignoring the science that shows wind energy’s negative impacts on bird and bat populations.”

That willful ignorance may be ending. The Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife recently filed a lawsuit against officials in Kern County, Calif., in an effort to block the construction of two proposed wind projects—North Sky River and Jawbone—due to concerns about their impact on local bird populations. The groups oppose the projects because of their proximity to the deadly Pine Tree facility, which the Fish and Wildlife Service believes is killing 1,595 birds, or about 12 birds per megawatt of installed capacity, per year.

The only time a public entity has pressured the wind industry for killing birds occurred in 2010, when California brokered a $2.5 million settlement with NextEra Energy Resources for bird kills at Altamont. The lawyer on that case: former attorney general and current Gov. Jerry Brown, who’s now pushing the state to get 33% of its electricity from renewables by 2020.

Bats are getting whacked, too. The Pennsylvania Game Commission estimates that wind turbines killed more than 10,000 bats in the state in 2010.

Despite the toll that wind turbines are taking on wildlife, the wind industry wants to keep its get-out-of-jail-free card. Last May, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed new guidelines for wind-turbine installations. But the American Wind Energy Association quickly panned the proposed rules as “unworkable.”

Given that billions of dollars are at stake, the wind industry’s objections don’t surprise Mr. Glitzenstein. And while the lawyer wants more thorough environmental review of proposed wind projects, what he’s really hoping for is a good federal prosecution. So far, he says, the Interior Department has been telling the wind industry: “‘No matter what you do, you need not worry about being prosecuted.’ To me, that’s appalling public policy.”

GREEN ENERGY HAS RESIDENTS SEEING RED: TURBINE NOISE WORSE THAN NEIGHBORS EXPECTED

By Tisha Thompson,

Source: NBC Washingon, www.nbcwashington.com [Video available]

February 10, 2012

A thick fog has settled in on Green Mountain in Keyser, W.Va.

“I can’t live with this. You can’t sleep.”

All day, people keep pointing into the trees, telling us there’s something in the fog.

“It’s just rumbling the whole mountain.”

And then, just like that, the wind blows and you can see what Don Ashby is talking about.

Ashby contacted the News 4 I-Team after the Pinnacle Wind Farm turned on its turbines for the first time in November.

“We were basically told you would hear a swishing sound like the waves of the ocean,” he said. “Like that which would calm you and put you to sleep.”

But Ashby and his neighbors say the low-frequency rumble is much worse than they expected.

“I think I was misled,” he says.

According to documents obtained by News4, the wind farm presented a noise study to the West Virginia government saying the sound would be quieter than “average speech.”

When News4 visited Ashby and his neighbors, we heard what it sounds like instead. A mix between a train rumbling by and a plane flying high overhead.

But unlike those sounds, the turbine noise never stops.

“I can get out of it from a factory, once in a while, go home,” says Richard Braithwaite. “Get away from it. Here you can’t get away from it.”

Braithwaite lives about a half-mile from the turbines. He bought an inexpensive sound meter to keep a log of readings outside his home: 60 decibels, 68 decibels, 70 decibels.

“They can argue how accurate it is,” he says. “They can bring their thousand-dollar machine and take it.”

Prior to building, the wind farm’s noise study stated “the highest level of predicted operational noise was 56 dBA.”

Jim Cummings runs the Acoustic Ecology Institute, an independent non-profit that studies wind farm noise. He says, “55 decibels or so is very uncommon. So, these folks are dealing with the high end of what’s allowed in other places.”

Cummings says there are no federal guidelines but state and local governments typically impose limits between 40 to 45 decibels. He says Oregon has the lowest limit at 36 decibels.

West Virginia, however, doesn’t have a limit.

“You can go to every neighbor I’ve got right now,” Ashby says. “They’ll tell you they’re unhappy.”

He and his neighbors are circulating a petition asking for the machines to be turned off at night.

Pinnacle’s parent company, Edison Mission Group, tells News4 it can’t do that because it’s contractually obligated to provide two-thirds of its power to the State of Maryland and the remaining third to the University of Maryland.

In a statement, the company says it “takes issues raised by residents seriously” and is “currently testing technology that could reduce noise from the turbines.”

Back on Green Mountain, the sun is starting to set as Ashby points to two other wind farms. He then points across the valley. That, he says, is Western Maryland.

He says there’re plans to build even more wind farms on both sides of the valley.

But before they do, he wants people to know just because it’s clean and green, doesn’t mean it won’t come at a cost.

WIND POWER DOCUMENTARY TAKES A SKEPTICAL TURN

Via National Public Radio

February 2, 2012

By Mark Jenkins

As is often the case, the outside developer's biggest asset was the local elite, which was certain it knew best. Farmer and town council leader Frank Bachler joined the town's attorney in overruling a skeptical planning commission report about the effects of erecting the turbines.

Not even the most ecologically minded are always keen on the prospect of giant wind turbines near their homes. But Meredith, N.Y., welcomed "Big Wind" when it first came whistling through town. That's what makes Windfall so interesting: The documentary is the story of an education.

In some ways, Meredith seems a natural place for a wind farm. Situated in one of New York's poorest counties, it's in an agricultural area whose principal enterprise, dairy farming, has dramatically declined. But the area is mostly home to small landowners, with few large tracts that could be developed without affecting nearby neighbors. And some of those neighbors are refugees from New York City, where they learned to be skeptical and outspoken.

Director Laura Israel is among the Meredith residents who split their time between the town and the big city 160 miles to the southeast, which explains why she was able to follow the controversy over a year or more, as pro-windmill sentiments gradually shifted to anti-.

This is no first-person piece, though; Israel stays off camera, allowing her neighbors to speak. She doesn't present the views of the wind-power developer, Airtricity (originally Eiretricity, before the Irish firm was sold to Scottish and German interests), but that may be because the company is a low-profile one that didn't address the community collectively, and insisted on confidentiality agreements before it would even enter into negotiations with property owners.

As is often the case, the outside developer's biggest asset was the local elite, which was certain it knew best. Farmer and town council leader Frank Bachler joined the town's attorney in overruling a skeptical planning commission report about the effects of erecting the turbines.

Bachler and other supporters labeled the anti-windmill forces "a vocal minority." But with an election looming, the pro-wind forces had to double-check their math. Even Bachler, one of the principal on-screen proponents of the turbines, would give the whole idea a second thought.

In Meredith, the case against wind turbines turned on their size — about 400 feet high and 600,000 pounds each — not to mention their grinding noise, their bone-shaking vibrations and the flickering shadows they cast, which disrupt light and sleep (and video games). One of the opponents, Ken Jaffe, is a retired doctor who looked into the high-tech windmills' medical side effects.

Also, the turbines sometimes fall over, catch on fire or hurl dangerous ice projectiles. They kill birds and bats in large numbers. And there's more.

To optimize the investment, wind-power developers tend to build a lot more turbines than they initially propose. In Tug Hill, farther north in upstate New York, a proposed 50 high-tech windmills became 195. As skeptics began to investigate, they learned that wind power is too unreliable to replace dirtier forms of generation, and that the wind business is based less on electricity than on tax credits: Big investment companies keep flipping the companies so as to restart the depreciation process.

A veteran film editor making her first feature, Israel emphasizes the area's low-key beauty. She conducted most of the interviews outside to show the landscapes. When the movie finally gets to Tug Hill, the contrast is all the more striking. Meredith, N.Y., may not be paradise, but it's clear why residents didn't want to sacrifice its rustic appeal to the steady whomp of industrial windmills.

 Second Feature

"WINDFALL"

By John Anderson,

Via The Wall Street Journal, wsj.com

February 3, 2012 

Speaking of horror movies, the monsters are 400 feet tall in “Windfall,” easily the more haunting film of this week and a sublimely cinematic documentary by the film editor-cum-director Laura Israel. Her subject is the battle waged over wind power in the tiny upstate New York town of Meredith. What’s so scary? Industrial wind turbines, the fetish objects of the green-minded, those sleek, white, propellered and purportedly eco-friendly energy collectors that one might have seen dotting the desert outside Palm Springs, and which may soon be sprouting out of Nantucket Sound. They’re sustainable, they produce no emissions and they’ll reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil. Right? Not quite. And living next to one seems like a nightmare.

Ms. Israel’s movie proves, once again, that the best nonfiction cinema possesses the same attributes as good fiction: Strong characters, conflict, story arc, visual style. The people of Meredith, be they pro or con the wind-turbine plan being fast-tracked by their town council, are articulate, passionate, likable. The issues are argued with appropriate gravity, and even though Ms. Israel, a Meredith homeowner herself, is clearly antiturbine, the other side gets a chance to speak its piece: Farmers, an endangered species, need income. Turbine leases are a way to it. But not only do the energy and ecological benefits fall short of what they’re cracked up to be, the turbines themselves are an environmental disaster: The monotonous whoosh of the propellers, the constant strobing effect caused by the 180-foot-long propellers, the threat of ice being hurled by the blades, the knowledge that it’s never going to end, all adds up to a recipe for madness. And that’s just during the movie.

“Windfall” is thoroughly engaging, educational and entertaining; the neo-blues music by Hazmat Modine is a real plus. Ms. Israel might deny it out of respect for her collaborators past and future, but documentaries are all about the editing. Many filmmakers might have been able to assemble the parts of “Windfall.” Far fewer would have produced as stylish a result.

TILTING AT WINDMILLS

By ROBERT BRYCE

via New York Post, www.nypost.com

February 4, 2012 

The battle in Meredith (population: 1,500) pitted landowners who stood to profit by putting the wind turbines on their property against those who didn’t. Israel interviews one couple, Ron and Sue Bailey, who took money from a wind company, a move they soon came to regret. The couple said they “were blinded by the money” and “never thought about what our neighbors across the road would think.”

Documentary makers are always hoping that their film will come out at just the right moment, when a favorable news cycle and popular sentiment are converging so that the public is primed for their message.

In 1989, Michael Moore made his career with “Roger & Me,” a documentary that pinned the decline of his hometown — Flint, Mich. — on General Motors. By focusing his fire on GM’s chairman, Roger Smith, Moore tapped into the public’s anger at tone-deaf corporate bosses as well as the growing disenchantment with the American car industry.

Laura Israel’s new film, “Windfall,” has the same sort of fortuitous timing. Her documentary — which focuses on the fight over the siting of wind turbines in the small upstate town of Meredith — premieres at the same time that “green energy” stimulus failures fill the news, and the wind-energy industry faces an unprecedented backlash from angry rural residents.

Consider this Nov. 1 story from The Village Market, a news outlet in Staffordshire, England, about 150 miles northwest of London. The paper’s reporter, covering the staunch local opposition to a proposed wind-energy project near the tiny village of Haunton, wrote, “Huge numbers of people in rural areas are rising up against the technology, despite government assuming they would support it.”

Throughout the UK — indeed, all over the world — fights against large-scale wind-energy projects are raging. The European Platform against Windfarms lists 518 signatory organizations from 23 countries. The UK alone now has about 285 anti-wind groups. Last May, some 1,500 protesters descended on the Welsh assembly, the Senedd, demanding that a massive wind project planned for central Wales be stopped.

Although environmental groups like Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace claim that wind energy is the answer when it comes to slowing the rate of growth in carbon dioxide emissions, policymakers from Ontario to Australia are responding to angry landowners who don’t want 100-meter-high wind turbines built near their homes.

Last September, CBC News reported that Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment has logged “hundreds of health complaints” about the thumping noise generated by the province’s growing fleet of wind turbines. In December, government officials in the Australian state of New South Wales issued guidelines that give residents living within two kilometers of a proposed wind project the right to delay, or even stop, the project’s development.

Back here in the States, many communities are passing ordinances that prohibit large-scale wind energy development. On Nov. 8, for instance, residents of Brooksville, Maine, voted by more than 2 to 1 in favor of a measure that bans all wind turbines with towers exceeding 100 feet in height.

Meanwhile, the promoters of Cape Wind, a large offshore wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound, are still hoping to get their project built. But they continue to face lots of well-heeled opposition, including, most notably, environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Well-known for his advocacy of renewable energy, Kennedy opposes the wind project — because it will be built a few miles from his family’s estate in Hyannis Port.

As “Windfall” is premiering this week in New York, wind-energy lobbyists in Washington are desperately hoping to convince Congress to pass a multi-year extension of the 2.2-cent-per-kilowatt-hour subsidy for wind energy. Without it, the domestic wind business, which is already being hammered by falling natural-gas prices, will likely end up becalmed.

Israel’s portrayal of the bitter feuding that happened in Meredith over wind-energy development is similar to fights that have occurred in numerous other rural communities around the world. The battle in Meredith (population: 1,500) pitted landowners who stood to profit by putting the wind turbines on their property against those who didn’t. Israel interviews one couple, Ron and Sue Bailey, who took money from a wind company, a move they soon came to regret. The couple said they “were blinded by the money” and “never thought about what our neighbors across the road would think.”

The landowner faction in Meredith was led by the town’s supervisor, Frank Bachler. Israel portrays him as a well-intentioned man who, in favoring the wind development, is trying to help the area’s struggling farmers. Bachler dismisses the opponents of the wind project as “a minority of people who are very aggressive.”

But Bachler is proven wrong. The anti-wind faction quickly gains momentum and the resulting feud provides a textbook example of small-town democracy. Three wind opponents run for election to the town board with the stated purpose of reversing the existing board’s position on wind. In November 2007, they win, and a few weeks later pass a measure banning large-scale wind development.

Israel’s film also features a colorful interview with Carol Spinelli, a fiery real-estate agent in Bovina, a town of about 600 people located a few miles southeast of Meredith. Bovina passed a ban on wind turbines in March 2007. Spinelli helped lead the opposition, and she nails the controversy over wind by explaining that it’s about “big money, big companies, big politics.” And she angrily denounces wind-energy developers “as modern-day carpetbaggers.”

That’s a brutal assessment. But it accurately portrays the rural-urban divide on the wind-energy issue.

Lots of city-based voters love the concept of renewable energy.

But they are not the ones who have to endure the health-impairing noise that’s created by 45-story-tall wind turbines, nor do they have to see the turbines or look at their red-blinking lights, all night, every night.

So many want to make the world green — so long as it’s not them who have to suffer for it.

NEXT FEATURE

TOPPLING TAX DOLLARS FOR TURBINES

by Marita Noon,

via finance.townhall.com

February 5, 2012 

On February 1, an urgent alert was sent to supporters of wind energy. It stated: “The PTC is the primary policy tool to promote wind energy development and manufacturing in the United States. While it is set to expire at the end of 2012 … the credit has already effectively expired. Congress has a choice to make: extend the PTC this month and keep the wind industry on track…”

The wind energy industry has reason for concern. America’s appetite for subsidies has waned. Congress is looking for any way it can to make cuts and the twenty-year old Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy is in prime position for a cut—it naturally expires at the end of 2012. Without action, it will go away.

The payroll tax extension will be a hot topic over the next few weeks as it expires on February 29. Wind energy supporters are pushing to get the PTC extension included in the bill. Whether or not it is included will be largely up to public response—after all, regarding the PTC’s inclusion in the payroll tax extension bill, the February 1 alert stated: “our federal legislators heard us loud and clear.” In the December payroll tax bill negotiations, the wind energy PTC was placed on a “short list of provisions to be extended through that bill.” Wind supporters are worried—hence the rallying cry.

Due to a deteriorating market, Vestas, the world’s largest manufacturer of industrial wind turbines, is closing a plant and laying off workers. Everyday citizens, armed with real life information gleaned from the wind energy’s decades-long history, are shocking lobbyists and killing back room deals by successfully blocking the development of industrial wind plants in their communities.

As news of actual wind energy contracts are coming in at three and four times the cost of traditionally generated electricity becomes widespread, and natural gas prices continue to drop due to abundance, states are looking to abandon the renewable energy mandates pushed through in a different economic time and a different political era. American Wind Energy Association spokesman, Peter Kelley, reports: “Industry-wide we are seeing a slowdown in towers and turbines after 2012 that is rippling down the supply chain and the big issue is lack of certainty around the production credit that gives a favorable low tax rate to renewable energy.” All of this spells trouble for the wind energy industry.

The PTC is part of a push for renewables that began in the Carter era. Enacted in 1992, the twenty-year old wind energy PTC was designed to get the fledgling industry going. However, after all this time, wind energy is still not a viable option. Even the industry’s own clarion call acknowledges that government intervention is still needed to keep it “on track.” If the training wheels are removed, it will topple.

Wind energy lobbyists have a plan: HB 3307 will extend the PTC for another four years. If the PTC extension passes, it will add an extra $6 billion to the $20 billion in taxpayer dollars the wind industry has already received over the past 20 years. These are monies we borrow (typically from China) to give to Europe—where most of the wind turbine manufacturers are located.

With advertisements featuring blue skies, green grass, and the warm and fuzzy images of families (and not one shot of a 500-foot wind turbine looming over their home), it is easy for the average person to be taken in and think we should continue to underwrite this “new technology”—after all, there is an energy shortage. “What will we do when we run out of oil?” Wind energy is electricity and electricity doesn’t come from oil—even if it did, we don’t have an oil shortage. Electricity comes from clean-burning natural gas and coal—both of which we have in abundance and know how to use effectively. They don’t need an expensive replacement.

Wind energy supporters often tout turbines because of the misguided belief they will get us off of fossil fuels—when, in fact, they commit us to a fossil fuel future. Optimistically, a wind turbine will generate electricity 30% of the time—and we cannot predict when that time will be. Highly variable wind conditions may mean the turbine generates electricity in the morning on Monday, in the middle of the night on Tuesday, and not at all on Wednesday. A true believer might be willing to do without electricity at the times when the wind is not blowing, but the general population will not. Public utilities and electric co-ops cannot—they are required to provide electricity 24/7 and to have a cushion that allows for usage spikes.

So, during that average 30% of the time that the turbine blades are spinning, the natural gas or coal-fueled power plants continue to burn fossil fuels—though possibly slightly less in an extended period of windy weather, and full-steam-ahead the remaining 70% of the time. (Research shows that turning up the heat on power plants, and then turning it back down, and up again actually increases the CO2 emissions.) Absent a major breakthrough in expensive energy storage, wind can never save enough fossil fuel to make any significant difference. After twenty years of subsidies, wind energy has not replaced one traditional power plant.

Some argue that many new technologies got their start through government support. This might be a good viewpoint if wind energy were “new.” But after twenty years of subsidies it is little better now than it was in the late 1800s. Windmills produced electricity then, and modern industrial wind turbines generate electricity now. It is not that they do not work, they do. They just don’t do so effectively, economically, or 24/7—and they still need Uncle Sam to prop them up.

Those who favor free markets need to seize upon this opportunity to push for the government to get out of the business of picking winners and losers. Clearly the “green” experiment has failed. Billions have been lost in the effort.

If we truly believe in free markets, why stop at just cutting the subsidies to wind energy? Stop the subsidies to all energy! May the strongest survive! The fact is, such a move is afoot. While HB 3307 aims to stretch out the subsidies for wind energy, HB 3308 will stop subsidies for all energy sources—wind and solar, oil and gas. The playing field will be level; billions will be saved!

A congressman I spoke to fears that, in the current political climate, his colleagues will cave on the wind energy subsidy, as they seem unwilling to take a strong stand on any issue. While wind energy supporters are calling their representatives, free-market advocates and everyone who believes the government-gone-wild spending must stop has to place a call, too.

Call, or e-mail, your Congressman, and as many others as you can take the time for, and tell them to stop subsidizing energy: “Do not include HB 3307 in the payroll tax extension bill. Support HB 3308 which will repeal the PTC and numerous other renewable energy tax incentives including the investment tax credit, the cellulosic biofuel producer credit, the tax credit for electric and fuel cell vehicles, and tax credits for alternative fuels and infrastructure. Additionally, HB 3308 will also repeal the enhanced oil recovery credit for producing oil and gas from marginal wells.”

Instead of propping up energy policy based on politics rather than sound science, we have to prop up our representatives and give them the backbone to do what is right.

Tell them to end energy subsidies.

Photo from Brown County: 500 foot tall turbine in Town of Glenmore wind project developed by Wind Siting Council Member Bill Rakocy's company "Emerging Energies"

Emerging Energies has since sold or 'flipped' the project and is long gone from Brown County.

Two families in this project have abandoned their homes due to noise, vibaration and other complaints after the 500 foot tall turbines went on line. Other families are complaining of serious health impacts.

Who are they supposed to call? The Brown County project is now owned by South Carolina utility giant Duke Energy.

WIND FARM STRONG ARM:

Rakocy's Emerging Energies is now planning a much larger wind project in St. Croix county. When Local government and community members asked for more protective siting guidelines than Emerging Energies (EE) was willing to give them, EE refused. Instead EE simply added another turbine to the project to bring it to 100MW.

This allowed them to override jursidiction of the local government, to dismiss the concerns of local residents and apply directly to Madison's Public Service Commission of Wisconsin for approval. Rakocy currently serves as a PSC Wind Siting Council member.

The PSC has approved every wind project that has come before them.

What about the families who abandoned their homes because they couldn't live with the noise limits and setbacks quite similar to those that big-wind-profiteer Rackocy helped the PSC write?

A few days ago, the Brown County Board of Health stepped in with a request for temporary emergency aid from the state to them relocate.

FULL TEXT Brown County Board of Health Resolution Requesting Emergency State Aid for Families Suffering Around Industrial Wind Turbines

Brown County Board of Health formally requests temporary emergency financial relocation assistance from the State of Wisconsin for those Brown County families that are suffering adverse health effects and undue hardships caused by the irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines around their homes and property.

The State of Wisconsin emergency financial assistance is requested until the conditions that have caused these undue hardships are studied and resolved, allowing these families to once again return safely to their homes and property.

WHEREAS the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin's wind siting rules ('PSC 128') were created without oversight of a medical professional "...who is a University of Wisconsin System faculty member with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems." as mandated in 2009 WISCONSIN ACT 40. Jevon D. McFadden, MD, MPH (the Medical Doctor appointed to this role) publically acknowledged that he did not meet these criteria.

WHEREAS in the May 25, 2010 presentation made by Jevon D. McFadden, MD, MPH to the Brown County Board of Health, on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services - Division of Public Health, the State recognized and acknowledged that "Gaps remain in our knowledge of the impact that wind energy may have on human health..." but has failed to take any action to fill these gaps.

WHEREAS the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin's wind siting rules ('PSC 128') were suspended on March 1, 2011 by the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) stating that its contents "...create an emergency relating to public health, safety, or welfare; are arbitrary and capricious; and impose an undue hardship on landowners and residents adjacent to wind turbine sites."

WHEREAS the State of Wisconsin has failed to remedy this "emergency relating to public health, safety, or welfare" by carrying out the mandate of 2009 WISCONSIN ACT 40 which requires the State to enact wind siting standards that "...include setback requirements that provide reasonable protection from any health effects, including health effects from noise and shadow flicker, associated with wind energy systems..."

WHEREAS the State's inaction to enact wind siting rules that protect human health and safety has allowed development of the industrial wind project known as Shirley Wind LLC to be constructed in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County, Wisconsin (dedicated November 2010).

WHEREAS Shirley Wind LLC has created an environment that has resulted in the very same "undue hardships" that the JCRAR suspension of 'PSC 128' sought to prevent. These "undue hardships" have forced two families to vacate their homes to regain their health and continue to force at least two other families to suffer adverse health effects significant enough that they seek refuge away from their homes but do not have the financial ability to temporarily relocate.

WHEREAS the Brown County Board of Health has attached recent (2009 and newer) references (many peer-reviewed) to this resolution, organized by year of publication, accurately describing the cause, conditions, and adverse health effects being experienced by Brown County families.

WHEREAS the Brown County Board of Health has in the past, and continues to, advocate for the health and safety of Brown County families.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Brown County Board of Health formally requests temporary emergency financial relocation assistance from the State of Wisconsin for those Brown County families that are suffering adverse health effects and undue hardships caused by the irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines around their homes and property. The State of Wisconsin emergency financial assistance is requested until the conditions that have caused these undue hardships are studied and resolved, allowing these families to once again return safely to their homes and property.

Brown County Board of Health Industrial Wind Turbine Health Impact Supporting References

The following recent (2009 and newer) references (many peer-reviewed), organized by year of publication, accurately describe the cause, conditions, and adverse health effects being experienced by Brown County families.

2012:

Barbara J Frey, BA, MA (University of Minnesota), Peter J Hadden, BSc (Est Man) FRICS, Wind Turbines And Proximity To Homes: The Impact Of Wind Turbine Noise On Health, January, 2012. http://docs.wind-watch.org/Frey_Hadden_WT_noise_health_01Jan2012.pdf

2011:

Stephen E. Ambrose, INCE (Brd. Cert.), Robert W. Rand, INCE Member, The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study - Adverse Health Effects Produced By Large Industrial Wind Turbines Confirmed, December 14, 2011. http://randacoustics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-Bruce-McPherson-ILFN-Study.pdf

Carmen M.E. Krogh, BScPharm, Brett S. Horner, BA, CMA, “A summary of new evidence: Adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines”, August 2011. http://www.windaction.org/documents/32829

Krogh, C. M. E., “Industrial wind turbine development and loss of social justice?” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 321-333. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/321

Daniel Shepherd, David McBride, David Welch, Kim N. Dirks, Erin M. Hill, “Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life,” Noise & Health, September 2011 vol. 13 issue 54 pages 333-339. http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2011;volume=13;issue=54;spage=333;epage=339;aulast=Shepherd

Bronzaft, A. L., “The Noise from wind turbines: Potential adverse impacts on children's well-being,”
Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 291-295. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/291

McMurtry, R. Y. ,“Toward a case definition of adverse health effects in the environs of industrial wind turbines: Facilitating a clinical diagnosis,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August
2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 316-320. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/316

Environmental Review Tribunal, Case Nos.: 10-121/10-122 Erickson v. Director, Ministry of the
Environment, Jerry V. DeMarco, Panel Chair and Paul Muldoon, Vice-Chair, July 2011 http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/files/201108/00000300-AKT5757C7CO026-BHH51C7A7SO026.pdf

Harrison, J. P., “Wind turbine noise,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol.31 no. 4 pages 256-261. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/256

INCE/Europe, Wind Turbine Noise 2011— Post conference report, April 2011. http://www.confweb.org/wtn2011/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:report&catid=35:information

Michael Nissenbaum MD, Jeff Aramini PhD, Chris Hanning MD, “Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines: a preliminary report,” 10th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, July 2011. http://www.healthywindwisconsin.com/Nissenbaum%20et%20al%20ICBEN2011_0158_final.pdf
2011 (continued):

Krogh, C. M. E., Gillis, L., Kouwen, N., and Aramini, J., “WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring,” Bulletin of
Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 334-345. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/334

Laurie, S., “Submission to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry on rural wind farms,” by Dr. Sarah
Laurie, BMBS, Medical Director Waubra Foundation, February 2011. http://docs.wind-watch.org/Laurie-Australia-Senate-submission-final.pdf

Møller, H. & C. S. Pedersen, “Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, June 2011 vol. 129 no. 6 pages 3727-3744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3543957

Phillips, C. V., “Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011, vol. 31 no. 4, pages 303-315. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/303

Richarz, W., Richarz, H., and Gambino, T., “Correlating very low frequency sound pulse to audible
wind turbine sound,” INCE/Europe Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome Italy, 12-14 April 2011. Cited in: http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/presentation-from-the-fourthinternational- meeting-on-wind-turbine-noise/

Salt, A. N. & Kaltenbach, J. A., “Infrasound From wind turbines could affect humans,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 296-302. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/296

Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs (Parliament of Australia), “The social and economic impact of rural wind farms,” 2011. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/index.htm

Shain, M., “Public health ethics, legitimacy, and the challenges of industrial wind turbines: The
Case of Ontario, Canada,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 346-353. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/346

Shepherd, D., McBride, D., Welch, D., Dirks, K., Hill, E., Wind turbine noise and health-related quality of life nearby residents: a cross-sectional study in New Zealand. Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise. Rome Italy April 2011 http://www.maine.gov/dep/ftp/bep/ch375citizen_petition/pre-hearing/AR- 30%20chapter%20375%20-%20r%20brown%20hearing%20submission%20- %20Shepherd%20et%20al%20Wind%20turbine%20noise%20%20Quality%20of%20LIfe%20Rome %202011.pdf

Thorne, B., “The Problems with ‘noise numbers’ for wind farm noise assessment,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 262-290. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/262

Vanderburg, W. H., “Assessing our ability to design and plan green energy technologies,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 251-255 http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/251

Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Public Health Division, Office of Environmental Public Health, “Health impacts of wind energy facilities,” 2011. http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironment /TrackingAssessment/HealthImpactAssessmen t/Pages/windenergy.aspx

2010:

Chief Medical Officer of Health (of Ontario), Report: “The potential health impact of wind turbines,”May 2010. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry_reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdf

Hanning, C., “Wind turbine noise, sleep And health”—Summary paper prepared by Dr. Christopher
Hanning. BSc, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD, November 2010. http://www.acousticecology.or /wind/winddocs/health/Hanning%202010_Wind%20turbine%20noise%20sleep%20and%20health%20November%202010.pdf

Ito, A. & T. Takeda, “Sickness claims prompt study of wind turbines [by the The Environment Ministry of Japan],” The Asahi Simbun, January 2010. http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201001180410.html

National Health and Medical Research Council (of Australia). “Wind turbines and health: a rapid review of the evidence,” 2010 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/new0048.htm

Nissenbaum, M., Press conference by Michael Nissenbaum, MD Radiologist in Vermont's State
House, May 7, 2010, (video). http://vimeo.com/11577982

Pierpont, N., Letter to the Vermont State House of Representatives from Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Co-signed by the following: George Kamperman, PE, President, Kamperman Associates, Inc., Board-Certified Memberof Institute of Noise Control Engineers, Fellow Member of Acoustical Society of America, Member of National Council of Acoustical Consultants, F. Owen Black, MD, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, Board-Certified Otolaryngologist, Senior Scientist, Director of Neurotology Research Balance & Hearing Center North West, Legacy Health System  Joel F. Lehrer, MD, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, Board-Certified Otolaryngologist and Head and Neck Surgeon, Served on Hearing and Equilibrium Subcommittee of the American Academy of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Clinical Professor of Otolaryngology, University of Medicine & Dentistry of NJ,  Stanley M. Shapiro, MD, Fellow of the American College of Cardiology, Board-Certified
Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Diseases, and Nuclear Cardiology, Champlain Valley Cardiovascular Associates,February 2010. http://docs.wind-watch.org/Pierpont-et-al.-to-Klein-2-10-10.pdf

Punch, J., James, R., & Pabst, D., (2010), “Wind-turbine noise: What audiologists should know,”
Audiology Today, July-August 2010. http://www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=2047

Salt, A., “Infrasound: Your ears ‘hear’ it but they don't tell your brain”—Powerpoint presentation by
Alec N. Salt, Ph.D., Department of Otolaryngology, (2010), Washington University School of Medicine, First International Symposium on Adverse Health and Wind Turbines, Sept 2010. http://windvigilance.com/downloads/symposium2010/swv_symposium_presentation_infrasound_your_ears_hear_it_2.pdf

Salt, A. N. & Hullar, T. E., “Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines,” Hearing Research, September 2010 vol. 268 nos. 1-2 pages 12-21. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20561575 2010 (continued):

Thorne, R., “Assessing noise from wind farms,”—Powerpoint presentation by Robert Thorne, PhD in Health Science from Massey University, New Zealand for The Society for Wind Vigilence, First International Symposium, October 2010. http://acousticecology.org/wind/winddocs/nois/swv_symposium_paper_thorne%20slides_assessin g_noise_from_wind_farms%20copy.pdf

Thorne, R. (Noise Measurement Services), “Noise impact assessment report - Waubra Wind Farm,”
prepared by Robert Thorne, PhD in Health Science from Massey University, New Zealand, July 2010. http://docs.wind-watch.org/Dean-Waubra-Noise-Impact-July-20101.pdf

2009:
Minnesota Department of Health, “Public health impacts of wind turbines” http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/windturbines.pdf

World Health Organization, “Night noise guidelines for Europe.”
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf

In terms of safety, how close should an industrial scale wind turbine be to a home?

Is it OK to waive the safety setback--- also known as the collapse zone-- in order to help a wind developer get his project up and running?

Watch as the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin's Wind Siting Council discuss not just waiving the safety setback but also changing the term to "courtesy setback".

According to some council members, when it comes to wind turbines, 'safety' is a relative term. Several council members make it clear they don't believe there are safety issues.

The majority of the members of the Wind Siting Council had direct or indirect financial interest in creating rules that allow turbines to be sited as close as possible to Wisconsin homes. The rules they created are set to go into effect in March of 2012 unless legislators step in.