Better Plan, Wisconsin

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

Video courtesy of The Forest Voice-- Residents speak about life with 500 foot turbines in the Shirley wind project, Brown County, Wisconsin.

AID FOR WIND TURBINE VICTIMS SOUGHT

Brown Co. panel: State should pay medical bills for those near wind farm

by Doug Schneider,

via Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

January 26, 2012 

Supervisor Patrick Evans said the government must do more to protect citizens until more is known about potential dangers, saying at least two local families living near wind farms have abandoned their homes and others lost thousands of dollars because livestock died mysteriously. “This problem is very real,” he said.

Wisconsin should pay the medical bills of Brown County residents who were made ill by industrial wind turbines, some county supervisors say.

Saying the state allowed “irresponsible placement” of industrial wind turbines in the Glenmore area, the Brown County Human Services Committee has approved a measure to ask the state to pay emergency aid to families living near the Shirley Wind Farm.

The request, which seeks an unspecified amount until the “hardships are studied and resolved,” could come before the full County Board next month.

It is the latest attempt by county supervisors and other officials to manage an issue in which some residents began experiencing conditions such as anxiety, depression, weight loss and increased cancer risks since the wind farm was erected in 2010.

“There is a 70-year-old woman who lost 20 pounds from not being able to eat,” said Barbara Vanden Boogart, a member of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, an advocacy group. “There are two adults who sleep an average of one and a half hours a night.”

Shirley’s operators insist their facility has been built and operated safely.

Wind farms have been a topic of debate in Wisconsin in the past several years. Advocates say wind pollutes less than coal and is less expensive and less potentially dangerous than nuclear energy.

Officials say the facilities’ record isn’t good enough. The County Board resolution says the state was irresponsible in allowing the Shirley Wind Farm to be built without consulting an expert on the medical consequences of living near wind turbines.

Supervisors said they had no indication Wednesday of how the state would respond to their request. They said the answer would be up to officials in Madison to resolve this spring.

Supervisor Patrick Evans said the government must do more to protect citizens until more is known about potential dangers, saying at least two local families living near wind farms have abandoned their homes and others lost thousands of dollars because livestock died mysteriously.

“This problem is very real,” he said. Being upstairs in a house near the Shirley facility, he said, “felt after 10 or 12 minutes like you were getting carbon-monoxide poisoning.”

Lawmakers also are calling on the state to adopt turbine-siting guidelines approved by citizens groups.

State Sen. Frank Lasee, R-Ledgeview, last week introduced a bill to allow cities, villages, towns and counties to establish the minimum distance between a wind turbine and a home — even if those rules are more restrictive than any the state enacts.

Statewide wind-siting rules, more than a year in the making, were suspended last March. Lawmakers sent those rules, which dealt with farms of less than 100 megawatts, back to the state Public Service Commission, where they have stayed as officials worked to reach a compromise.

Lack of regulatory agreement, particularly on the issue of how far a turbine must be from a property line, has tempered enthusiasm about wind farms. A corporation in 2011 scrapped plans for a 100-turbine development in the Morrison-Glenmore area.

On the net

» Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind-Siting Guidelines: http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wisconsin-citizens-safe-wind-siting-guidelines

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The families having trouble living with the Brown County turbines are not alone: 

CLICK HERE to see photos and read the daily wind turbine noise log kept by a resident living in the Invenergy wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County 

SECOND FEATURE

From Ontario

LOCAL HEALTH EXPERT: LOTS OF ROOM IN CANADA FOR WIND TURBINES

by David Meyer,

Via The Wellington Advertiser, www.wellingtonadvertiser.com

January 27, 2012 

Dr. Jeff Aramini is a public health epidemiologist and former senior scientist with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. He and his family live 2.5km from a proposed wind farm near Belwood.

He has just taken part in a study of the alleged effects of wind turbines on health in two communities in Maine, in the United States, and the results indicate the closer wind turbines are to people’s home, the higher their chance of sleep disruption and their chances of suffering depression.

C. WELLINGTON TWP. – Opponents of industrial wind turbines have been telling the provincial government for several years it needs to do some health studies before approving such machines close to homes.

Some of those opponents did not wait for the province. Dr. Jeff Aramini is a public health epidemiologist and former senior scientist with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. He and his family live 2.5km from a proposed wind farm near Belwood.

He has just taken part in a study of the alleged effects of wind turbines on health in two communities in Maine, in the United States, and the results indicate the closer wind turbines are to people’s home, the higher their chance of sleep disruption and their chances of suffering depression.

Aramini said in an interview on Monday people opposed to wind farms in the Belwood area asked him to check health effects because of his expertise in that field.

His partners were Dr. Michael Nissenbaum of the Northern Maine Medical Center in Fort Kent, and Dr. Chris Hanning, of University Hospitals of Leicester, in the United Kingdom.

Aramini said in an interview the two communities studied are “not unlike anything here.”

He said it was “a little surprising the health effect that came across the strongest was depression.”

The study was peer reviewed, which means experts from around the world had an opportunity to comment on it. The study was published last year in the 10th International Congress on Noise as a public health problem in Great Britain.

The peer review is important for those opposing wind turbines.

Janet Vallery, a spokesman for Oppose Belwood Windfarm, highlighted a difference between the study Aramini was involved in and the studies being cited by the provincial government.

“The Ontario provincial government used literature reviews as a basis for determining setbacks,” she said. “This new research deems setbacks less than 1.5km must be regarded as unsafe.”

Aramini said the questionnaire tool used for the research “has been used millions of times around the world.”

The researchers found, “It wasn’t simply close and far … It was, the closer you get, the [more] progressively your risk rises.”

He noted, too, that only adults were considered in the study, and wondered what effects sleep disruption would have on children.

“Losing sleep is a big deal. In kids, it affects their learning,” said Aramini.

There were about 80 adults involved in the Maine study, with about half living 2 to 3km away from a turbine, and others lived farther away than 3km.

The Ontario setbacks from human habitation is 550 metres and Aramini said that increases chances of people suffering from clinical depression by 369%.

“It’s doubling to tripling the chance of you being at risk if living that close,” he said, adding if just one person is affected badly, it is too many. “We’re talking about real people.”

Aramini said people ask him regularly about how close they can live to turbines, and if he would buy a home close to one.

“If you’re within 2km, I’d think twice,” he said about purchasing a home, adding he suggests people talk to their physician prior to turbines going in if they live near where the machines are proposed.

Aramini said it is vexing the provincial government is forcing people to endure turbines when there is plenty of land available that is not anywhere near human habitation.

“The thing that disappoints me is Canada is a big place. Surely we can put them in a place away … For God’s sake, put them out in the middle of nowhere, away from people.”

Unfortunately, he said of the issue, “Clearly there’s a lot of politics and money involved.”

Despite the study’s claims to the contrary, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) maintains there is no “conclusive” correlation between turbines and health issues.

Video courtesy of The Forest Voice-- visit their website by clicking HERE

"At least eight families living in the Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore just south of Green Bay, are reporting health problems and quality of life issues since the Shirley Wind project went online in December of 2010. Six families have come forward, five of them testify on the video, and at this time two of them have vacated their homes. STAND UP to protect people, livestock, pets, and wildlife against negligent and irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines."

-The Forest Voice

Next Feature:

WIND FARM IDEA ZAPPED BACK TO LIFE

By Kevin Murphy,

Via New Richmond News, www.newrichmond-news.com 

December 22, 2011 

MADISON – The clock began ticking Friday on state regulators to review an application to construct a 102.5 mega-watt wind energy farm in the towns of Forest and Cylon.

By statute, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission has 30 days to determine if the application submitted by Highland Wind Farm LCC is complete, and if so, then six months to approve or deny it. If necessary, a circuit court can grant the PSC a six-month extension.

The HWF project has been a controversy in the Town of Forest since the town board approved a wind development agreement with the wind farm developer, Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, in 2008. That agreement was modified in 2010 but proved to be unpopular with residents who removed the board in a recall election in February.

Rick Steinberger, elected in February, said that within a month the new board rescinded previously adopted wind development agreements and in August enacted a wind energy system licensing ordinance that Steinberger said better “protects the town than existing state regulations.”

“Realistically, we’re not protected by the state guidelines,” which is why the town adopted an ordinance with more restrictions than state regulations on turbine setbacks, noise levels and shadow flicker,” he said.

In response, HWF increased the size of the project from 97 to 102.5 megawatts, making it subject to state and not town regulation. How much involvement the town will have in the state’s approval process remains to be seen, said Steinberger.

“I’m just one vote on the board…and I haven’t read through the application yet and I don’t have a comment on it,” Steinberger said Monday.

Town Chairman Jamie Junker also said he would withhold any comment on the wind farm application and what response the town should take until he has reviewed it.

William Rakocy, a founding member of Emerging Energies, now EEW Services LCC, said the project was increased in size in response to an unresponsive town board.

“We would have been pleased to work with the town; we tried to in the past. The previous town board was reasonable to work with, but the new town board has not responded to any attempts to communicate with them so we’re going ahead,” Rakocy said.

Rakocy said the $250 million wind farm represents Wisconsin’s best option for renewable energy and should be approved.

“Every other energy source has a fuel requirement to bring it the state; there’s a fuel cost associated with bringing in coal, uranium for nuclear power and even natural gas. We don’t have any of those energy sources in Wisconsin but we do have wind,” he said.

Rakocy, of Hubertus, Wis., also said the project will need approval from several other state and federal agencies including the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Unlike public utilities, EEW Services LCC won’t have to prove there is a demand for the electricity produced by the project. Rakocy could sell the project once it’s approved but he disputed he was taking a route through the regulatory process that avoids having to prove demand.

“This doesn’t avoid anything. There’s been a clearly defined process in the state of Wisconsin for several years. There are questions to be answered by utilities and questions to be answered by independent power producers. We’ve answered the questions the application has required,” he said.

Rakocy said he hopes the economy recovers in the two to three years it takes to approve and construct the wind farm so there is more electrical demand. If the project is approved he will be look for an investor to fund and build it.

If the project goes according to plan, construction could start in early 2013 and be completed in about a year, Rakocy said.

The PSC retains siting jurisdiction over the HWF project. Although siting regulations approved by the PSC earlier this year have been suspended by the Legislature, the PSC will at least need to consider if the application is consistent with the suspended rules, according to statement the PSC issued Monday.

The PSC welcomes public comment on the project once it determines the application complete. The application has been posted to the PSC’s website: psc.wi.gov. The HWF docket number: 2535-CE-100.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: William Rackocy is the same developer who put together the Shirley Wind project, the subject of the video above. Read more about Mr. Rakocy HERE and HERE

Watch the trailer from the award-winning documentary "Windfall" which includes video from Wisconsin wind projects. "Windfall" will be released nationally in February of 2012

"Wind power... it's sustainable ... it burns no fossil fuels...it produces no air pollution. What's more, it cuts down dependency on foreign oil.

That's what the people of Meredith, NY first thought when a wind developer looked to supplement the rural farm town's failing economy with a farm of their own -- that of 40 industrial wind turbines. But when a group of townspeople discover the impacts that a 400-foot high windmill could bring to their community, Meredith's residents become deeply divided as they fight over the future of their community. With wind development in the United States growing annually at 39 percent, Windfall is an eye-opener for anyone concerned about the environment and the future of renewable energy."

Next Feature:

From Illinois

DISPUTE STILL STANDS AS WIND CAPITAL PAYS UP

by Andrew Gaug, St. Joseph News-Press,

via www.newspressnow.com

December 22, 2011 

What appeared to be an early Christmas present has turned into an unholy mess, as Wind Capital Group dropped off its property tax payment to DeKalb County on Thursday.

Receiving two checks totaling $1,967,572, delivered to the DeKalb County Courthouse by Stephen Bode, Wind Capital Group operations manager, county officials aren’t sure if they can distribute any of it.

Though the attitudes remain heated between the county and wind farm company, which runs the Lost Creek Wind Farm, over a property tax assessment, County Assessor Ruth Ross was originally pleased to see the company pay part of what she said it owes.

While awaiting judgment from the Missouri State Tax Commission concerning property tax assessment, more than $1 million of the paid taxes will be placed in an escrow account. Not disputing the remaining $951,021.62, the amount Wind Capital Group stated it feels is the correct total it should pay, it was expected to go immediately to DeKalb taxing entities such as schools and fire protection.

“I think this is a wonderful thing that Wind Capital is doing. They’re not disputing it all, and the taxing entities of Missouri will benefit greatly from that money … being dispersed before the first of the year,” she said.

That may not be the case, County Treasurer Jody Pearl stated, as she considered Ms. Ross’ information conflicting with what she was told — that all of the money, including the undisputed amount, would go into the escrow account.

“According to my attorney, (it will) not (be distributed) without an order from the State Tax Commission instructing me how to distribute it,” she said.

Citing Missouri State Statute 139.031, concerning disbursement of tax money during a dispute, Ms. Ross said the undisputed money should be ready to be sent out. In the meantime, she will be contacting her attorney to see what can be done.

Though Ms. Ross was smiling when talking about the schools, fire and police receiving money, she made it clear that issues with the company are anything but dashed.

In a release, Wind Capital stated its pride in paying what it felt was a fair share of the property tax and doing so in a timely manner. “Wind Capital Group believes very strongly in paying our fair share of property taxes in DeKalb County and has now done so,” Mr. Bode said. “For the Lost Creek Project, we have now paid more in property taxes than has ever been paid on a wind energy project in the state of Missouri.”

Considering the company’s statement a misnomer, Ms. Ross said the reason they’re paying more is because they have three times the wind turbines as any other wind farm in the state, and they’re still asking to pay less.

“I always take exception to the fact that they’re paying a lot more taxes to DeKalb County than they are to other counties,” she said. “That’s like you buying a new car and me buying three new cars and I’m expecting my taxes to be the same as yours.”

The company is disputing Ms. Ross’ assessed property tax value of about $297,000 per wind turbine, an amount she came to when using a formula created by former Wind Capital Group CEO Tom Carnahan. Assessors in several other counties in Northwest Missouri with wind farms have told the News-Press they used the same formula as Holt County, without conflict.

Protesting the proposed tax assessment, Wind Capital stated Ms. Ross’ formula is overblown and should be about $142,000. The case awaits a decision from the tax commission.

“We’re still a long ways from being settled, but I want to commend Wind Capital for letting us at least distribute that amount,” Ms. Ross said.

“It will be a huge benefit. Not as much as we would like, but it’s a step.”

The video above shows wind turbine shadow flicker affecting homes in Fond du Lac County. Filmed by Invenergy wind project resident, Gerry Meyer

GET THE FACTS BEFORE MAKING SITING DECISIONS

By State Sen. Frank Lasee,

SOURCE Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

October 27 2011

How would you feel if you or your kids started feeling sick? What if you or your kids suddenly started having headaches, ear aches, nausea, dizziness or couldn’t sleep well anymore in your own home and you knew it wouldn’t ever go away?

This is happening right now in Wisconsin. Families who had happy, healthy lives found themselves suffering illnesses that started after wind turbines were built near their homes. Scientific evidence indicates that there are health impacts that are associated with large wind turbines, many as tall as 500 feet. A bill that I introduced requires new safety setback rules based on health studies.

We aren’t sure why wind turbines seem to cause illnesses. Is it electrical pollution, radio waves, sound waves that are too low to hear, vibrations, shadow-flicker or noise?

We know some adults and children who live near turbines feel nausea, headaches, dizziness, insomnia, ear aches, agitation, and other symptoms – and their illnesses clear up when they are away from home.

Two families whom I represent have moved out of their homes because of illnesses they felt after eight wind turbines were built nearby; others want to move but can’t afford to. A Fond du Lac family abandoned their $300,000 remodeled farm house because their 16-year-old daughter developed intestinal lesions and was hospitalized for them. After they moved away, she recovered. Others have said that deer and birds they feed in their backyards disappear when the turbines turn, and they return when the turbines stop.

This problem isn’t confined to Wisconsin. There are studies coming from other countries and states that report health issues for those who are too near large wind turbines. These new wind turbines are nearly 500 feet tall, taller than 40-story buildings, and nearly twice as tall as the state Capitol.

To be fair to people who live in rural areas where turbines are being built, we need to find out what is “too close” and what distance is acceptable for the health of adults, children and animals. Right now, we don’t know. Right now, it depends on whether you are pushing for or against wind turbines or have to live near them.

The purpose of my bill is to get the facts before others are harmed. It requires that a “peer reviewed” health study address these health effects and be used by the state Public Service Commission to establish a safe distance for wind turbine setback rules.

People should be secure in their homes; they shouldn’t be forced to move because they are being made ill by something built near them. In Wisconsin, we owe our citizens more than someone’s opinion on whether their home is safe -whether their children are safe.

Wind turbines are causing real hardship for real people. Some can’t afford to move to preserve their or their kids’ health. Could you? Our government has a duty to know the facts and protect our citizens regardless of whether we are “for” wind energy or “against” wind energy.

State Sen. Frank Lasee, of De Pere, represents Wisconsin’s 1st Senate District.

The video above was recorded by Larry Wunsch, a resident of the Invenergy wind project in Fond du Lac County. Wunsch is also a firefighter and a member of the Public Service Commission's wind siting council. His recommendations for setbacks and noise limits were shot down by other members of the council who had a direct or indirect financial interest in creating less restrictive siting guidelines.

NEXT STORY: FROM VERMONT

PROTESTERS AND BLASTERS CONTINUE LOWELL STANDOFF

by Chris Braithwaite, The Chronicle, 26 October 2011 ~~

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, the old question goes, does it make a sound?

Here’s a more timely variation on the question: If you hold a demonstration in one of the most inaccessible places in the Northeast Kingdom, have you demonstrated anything?

There was a certain brilliance in the idea, dreamed up by opponents of the industrial wind project on Lowell Mountain, of planting a campsite on the western edge of Doug and Shirley Nelson’s farm, too close to the wind project to permit safe blasting.

But there was also a weakness inherent in the plan. It’s so hard to get to the campsite that almost nobody knows what goes on up there.

There’s great drama in the idea of determined demonstrators standing up to the high explosives that, as this is being written, are reducing four miles of remote ridgeline to a nice, level, 34-foot-wide gravel road.

But drama demands an audience. Without one, even the most daring and determined resistance risks becoming an exercise in futility.

Some of the demonstrators who climbed the mile-long trail to their campsite on Wednesday morning, October 19, were prepared to go down the mountain in police custody.

The stage, it seemed, was finally set for the confrontation with authority they were braced for.

It had been set up the Friday before by the wind project’s developer, Green Mountain Power (GMP). The big utility had gone to court and quickly obtained a temporary restraining order against the Nelsons and their guests. It ordered them to be 1,000 feet from the property line for an hour before, and an hour after, high explosives were detonated near the farm.

Blasting had proceeded on Monday and Tuesday, but at a safe distance that didn’t provoke any confrontation between GMP and the handful of demonstrators on hand.

But the mood was different Wednesday. GMP had called the Nelsons to say there would be blasting from 2 to 4 p.m.

On top of the mountain, the demonstrators got their first clear view of two big drill rigs, poking holes in the rock about 800 feet from the campsite.

With binoculars, they could watch workmen carry boxes of high explosive from a cubical white body mounted on tracks to the drill holes. Then they could watch as a large backhoe dragged massive mats of steel and rubber over the blast site, while other massive machines made a ponderous retreat.

All that clatter aside, the place was remarkably quiet. The demonstrators exchanged a bit of small talk, did a bit of planning, but didn’t talk much about their concern for Lowell Mountain, or their despair at what GMP was doing to it. Their presence in that high, steeply sloped forest said those things for them.

Nor did the demonstrators have anything to say to two GMP workers who passed within a few feet of them, putting yet more yellow warning signs on trees along the disputed line that separates the Nelson property from the project.

They numbered each sign with a marker, photographed it, and moved on out of sight to the north.

The four demonstrators who were prepared to be arrested gathered up their gear and tossed it into one of the tents. If necessary, it would be carried down the trail by the people who were there to support them.

Two more GMP workers approached the protesters as they moved as close as they could get to the blast site, just after 3 o’clock.

The one who wore a blue hard hat, Dave Coriell, is community outreach manager for Kingdom Community Wind, which is the name GMP gave to its project.

The one in the unpainted tin hat, John Stamatov, manages the construction project for GMP.

Mr. Coriell, who used to do public relations work for Governor Jim Douglas, looked a little out of his element. That wasn’t true of Mr. Stamatov, though he looked like he’d be more comfortable running a bulldozer than a video camera.

Mr. Coriell stopped within easy earshot of the protesters. Behind him, Mr. Stamatov started recording the proceedings on his camera.

“I’m going to have to ask people to please move back,” Mr. Coriell said. Nobody moved.

If the demonstrators didn’t move 1,000 feet down the mountain, Mr. Coriell continued, they would be in violation of the temporary restraining order.

Copies of the order were nailed to a scattering of nearby trees.

“I ask you to please move back,” Mr. Coriell said. “I’m not going to force you physically to move.” Nobody moved.

“If you’re not going to move, I’d ask you for your name or some identification,” Mr. Coriell said.

Nobody said anything.

“That’s a cute dog,” Mr. Coriell said of Koyo. A handsome yellow lab who’d carried a backpack up the mountain for his owners, Koyo was the only demonstrator who used his real name. If he was flattered, Koyo didn’t say so.

I identified myself to the GMP twosome, and said I planned to stick around and see what happened next.

“By standing there you’re risking serious injury or death,” Mr. Stamatov said.

Knowing that, I asked, was GMP still going to touch off the explosives?

“We’re hoping people move,” said Mr. Coriell.

They withdrew across the wide orange ribbon that divides the construction site from the forest.

But they came back a few minutes later. Stepping up to a tree, Mr. Coriell read the entire text of the restraining order aloud to the silent demonstrators, while Mr. Stamatov recorded the event.

The two withdrew again, but remained in the clearcut that GMP’s logging crew had created where the crane path will run along the top of the ridgeline. They were not significantly further from the blast site than the demonstrators.

Everybody waited. It became quiet, an ominous silence that settled as the last machines withdrew.

The demonstrators were there, of course, in the belief that their presence would stop the blasting.

They had been warned that they were standing in harm’s way, and they had every reason to believe it.

What Mr. Coriell hadn’t told them was that the contractor, Maine Drilling and Blasting, had carefully laid a much smaller charge than it hopes to use in the near future, and covered it with particular care with particularly large blasting mats.

At 3:26 the silence was broken by three loud horn blasts. According to the yellow signs on so many nearby trees, that signified five minutes until the explosion.

Two horns sounded four minutes later, the one-minute warning. Still nobody moved, nobody talked. One demonstrator, a young woman sitting legs crossed in a lotus position, closed her eyes.

The words “fire in the hole” carried through the silent forest from somebody’s radio and the explosives went off, sending a cloud of gray dust into the sky. There were no casualties.

The demonstrators had stood their ground, a they had pledged to do. And GMP had blown up another piece of Lowell Mountain, as it was so determined to do.

If there’s a moral victory to be claimed, it clearly goes to the protestors. But that may only serve as consolation, a year or so from now, as they contemplate the wind towers on Lowell Mountain.

Fond du Lac County home in Invenergy wind projectPROPOSED BILL WOULD PLACE A MORATORIUM ON WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT

SOURCE: The Fond du Lac Reporter

Expert witnesses have acknowledged that Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) can cause health problems including sleep disturbance, headache, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, irritability, panic episodes, depression and a variety of other ailments, according to a press release from Lasee's office.

Madison, WI –Senator Frank Lasee (R-De Pere) has introduced “Health Study for Wind Turbines” legislation in the State Senate. The proposed bill creates a moratorium on future wind turbines until the Public Service Commission (PSC) receives a report from the Department of Health Services (DHS) regarding the health impacts on people and animals.

[Click here to download the wind turbine health study bill]

Expert witnesses have acknowledged that Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) can cause health problems including sleep disturbance, headache, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, irritability, panic episodes, depression and a variety of other ailments, according to a press release from Lasee's office.

“There are three families that I am aware of who have moved out of their homes to get relief because they are getting so ill. One family’s teenage daughter was hospitalized, and when they moved, she fully recovered. We can’t let this kind of a thing go on,” said Senator Lasee. “It’s plain un-American to have wind turbines twice as tall as the State Capitol right next to someone’s house that they are forced to look at, which makes them dizzy, nauseous and sick.”

“This has been a nightmare, we’ve had to leave our beautiful home in order to get relief from the health issues we believe were caused by the nearby wind turbines,” said Sue Ashley an impacted property owner. Darrel Cappelle, another impacted property owner added, “my wife has been suffering from migraine headaches since the wind turbines were constructed. This has been a horrible impact on my family.”

“This bill will require the PSC to protect people and their property from being harmed by the effects of Industrial Wind Turbines,” said Lasee.

SECOND STORY

WIND SITING RULES STILL STUCK IN LIMBO

By CLAY BARBOUR,

SOURCE madison.com

October 9, 2011

Hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in potential economic development are stuck in limbo as officials continue to argue over new wind siting rules.

The new rules, more than a year in the making, were suspended earlier this year just before they were to go into effect. A legislative committee sent them back to the Public Service Commission, which was tasked with finding a compromise between both sides.

Now, some seven months later, PSC officials say they are no closer to a deal than when they started. Meanwhile, wind farm developers such as Midwest Wind Energy and Redwind Consulting are sitting on their hands, and their money.

“Right now, we just don’t have a path forward in Wisconsin,” said Tim Polz, vice president of Midwest Wind Energy, a company that suspended work earlier this year on a large wind farm in Calumet County. “The uncertainty is just too much now.”

Polz said Chicago-based Midwest already spent three years and about $1 million on the Calumet County project. In full, the company expected to spend upward of $200 million on the project, employ 150 to 200 construction workers for up to 18 months and five to eight people full time after that.

The project is one of five major utility wind farms suspended or canceled as a result of the ongoing stalemate, costing the state a relatively quick infusion of about $1.6 billion in economic development and almost 1,000 temporary, full-time jobs.

“In this economy, where jobs are at a premium and people are struggling, this kind of inaction is inexcusable,” said Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha.

Set back by setbacks

The sticking point, according to PSC spokeswoman Kristin Ruesch, is what it has always been: setbacks, noise levels and the effects turbines have on neighboring property owners.

The PSC spent more than a year working out the original rules, which bore the fingerprints of Democrats and Republicans, the wind industry and its critics.

Those rules were scheduled to go into effect in March. But after taking office in January, Republican Gov. Scott Walker introduced a bill to dramatically increase setbacks.

The original rules required wind turbines have a setback from the nearest property line of 1.1 times the height of the turbine, or roughly 450 feet. The rules also required turbines be no closer than 1,250 feet from the nearest residence. Walker’s provision pushed the setback from the property line — not just a house — to 1,800 feet, about six football fields.

That proposal appealed to wind industry critics and the real estate industry, a heavy contributor to Walker’s campaign. Realtors donated more than $400,000 to Walker by October 2010, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, an election watchdog group.

But officials in the wind industry said the governor’s proposal would ruin their business in Wisconsin. Barca said the original rules were the result of a bipartisan agreement and he thinks the governor just doesn’t like the industry.

“It has been a deliberate decision by Gov. Walker,” he said. “They are going to kill wind energy in this state.”

Time pressure

In the end, the legislative committee that reviews agency rules chose not to act on the governor’s bill and instead voted to send the original rules back to the PSC to see if an agreement could be ironed out.

If no changes are made by March, the original rules go into effect. However, two bills sit in Legislative committees designed to kill the original rules and force the state to start from scratch.

“But I don’t think they want to do that,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a Madison nonprofit that promotes clean energy. “They would be immediately vulnerable on the ‘jobs’ issue.”

Walker said he is aware of the stress caused by the delay but feels it is important any rules be fair to both sides, respecting property rights and the future of the wind industry.

Meanwhile, state Sen. Frank Lasee, R-De Pere, plans to introduce a bill Monday to call for a moratorium on wind turbines until the PSC receives a report from the Department of Health Services on possible health effects of wind farms.

“It is more important to fully vet, understand and communicate to the public the potential changes than the specific timing of when they are adopted and enacted.” Walker said. “It is important to note that whatever proposed changes are made, there are effects on a number of different areas of the economy.”