Better Plan, Wisconsin

VIA Energize Vermont

Vermont's Energy Options >> Utility Scale vs. Community Solutions from Energize Vermont on Vimeo.

Vermont’s Energy Options is a documentary work-in-progress being produced by non-profit Energize Vermont. The purpose of the documentary is to examine the different paths Vermont has to a renewable energy future and create a dialogue around their respective impacts and benefits. The final product is intended to be full length 40-60 minute film, and may be adapted as the state’s energy landscape changes. Before the final product is released, we plan to update this space with extended interviews and additional information. The documentary is completely funded by Energize Vermont, which is funded by its members.

Video below from Scotland: Do you call this green? Forest gone, clearcut logs piled to the side, mud roads: what to expect when you are expecting turbines.

Want to watch more? What people living near turbines have to say about it.

Another video:

Click here to view video interviews of Australian wind project residents

Next feature

LEADING BIRD CONSERVATION GROUP FORMALLY PETITIONS FEDS TO REGULATE WIND INDUSTRY

Via American Bird Conservancy

ABC is filing this petition because it’s clear that the voluntary guidelines the government has drafted will neither protect birds nor give the wind industry the regulatory certainty it has been asking for.

(Washington, D.C., December 14, 2011) American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the nation’s leading bird conservation organization, today formally petitioned the U.S. Department of the Interior to protect millions of birds from the negative impacts of wind energy by developing regulations that will safeguard wildlife and reward responsible wind energy development.

The nearly 100-page petition for rulemaking, prepared by ABC and the Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm of Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal (MGC), urges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to  issue regulations establishing a mandatory permitting system for the operation of wind energy projects and mitigation of their impacts on migratory birds. The proposal would provide industry with legal certainty that wind developers in compliance with a permit would not be subject to criminal or civil penalties for violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 

The government estimates that a minimum of 440,000 birds are currently killed each year by collisions with wind turbines. In the absence of clear, legally enforceable regulations, the massive expansion of wind power in the United States will likely result in the deaths of more than one million birds each year by 2020. Further, wind energy projects are also expected to adversely impact almost 20,000 square miles of terrestrial habitat, and another 4,000 square miles of marine habitat.

The petition highlights the particular threat from unregulated wind power to species of conservation concern and demonstrates the legal authority that FWS possesses to enforce MBTA regulations and grant take permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The petition also provides specific regulatory language that would accomplish the petition’s objectives, identifying the factors that would be considered in evaluating a permit for approval, including the extent to which a given project will result in adverse impacts to birds of conservation concern and species that are under consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

ABC is filing this petition because it’s clear that the voluntary guidelines the government has drafted will neither protect birds nor give the wind industry the regulatory certainty it has been asking for. We’ve had voluntary guidelines since 2003, and yet preventable bird deaths at wind farms keep occurring. This includes thousands of Golden Eagles that have died at Altamont Pass in California and multiple mass mortality events that have occurred recently in West Virginia,” said Kelly Fuller, Wind Campaign Coordinator for ABC.

“The status quo is legally as well as environmentally unsustainable.  The federal government is seeking to promote "a smart from the start” energy sector in a manner that is in violation of one of the premier federal wildlife protection statutes. ABC’s petition seeks to bring wind power into harmony with the law as well as with the needs of the migratory bird species that the law is designed to safeguard,” said Shruti Suresh, an attorney at MGC, the law firm that prepared the petition with ABC and that has brought many legal actions enforcing federal wildlife protection laws.

The petition is available online here.

ABC supports wind power when it is “bird-smart”. A coalition of more than 60 groups has called for mandatory standards and bird-smart principles in the siting and operation of wind farms. The coalition represents a broad cross-section of respected national and local groups. In addition, 20,000 scientists, ornithologists, conservationists, and other concerned citizens have shown their support for mandatory standards for the wind industry. 

"ABC’s petition would safeguard more than just birds covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It proposes a model rule that would allow the government to consider impacts of wind farms on all bird species, as well as bats and other wildlife,” said Fuller.

THIRD FEATURE:

Mount Pleasant approves SC Johnson wind turbines

By Kimber Solana

Via Journaltimes.com

December 12, 2011

MOUNT PLEASANT - Amid some opposition from neighbors, SC Johnson is set to build two of the largest wind turbines in Racine County at its Waxdale manufacturing facility, a project expected to supply about 15 percent of the facility's electricity usage.

In a 6-1 vote, the Village Board approved the conditional use petition on Monday to erect the turbines at the facility, 8311 16th St. Trustee Harry Manning dissented, expressing concerns over the size - about 415 feet tall - of the energy facilities.

"The noise is going to be there. There is going to be flickering. You read anywhere, they've had nothing but problems," said Mount Pleasant resident Gail Johnson, 62. Johnson said her home is located on Willow Road, right across from where the turbines are expected to be built.

However, village officials said SCJ has gone "above and beyond" to address concerns by neighbors. Conditions set by the village include ensuring the wind turbines minimize noise decibel levels and shadow flickering.

Any noise would be no louder than traffic heard on Highway 20 or Highway 11, said Christopher Beard, reputation management director at SCJ.

The company has also offered to put in additional landscaping, if needed, such as trees that may block views of the turbines from residences, he added.

In addition, after meetings between the company and some residents, including those who opposed the project, SCJ has reduced the number of turbines from five to two.

Racine-based SCJ has said the wind turbines are the latest in a series of investments at Waxdale that will enable the site to produce 100 percent of its electrical energy on-site, with about 60 percent from renewable sources.

According to Beard, a groundbreaking date for the project remains unknown. SCJ is awaiting approval for the project from the Federal Aviation Administration due to the turbines' height, and proximity to Sylvania and Batten International airports.

The cost of the project was not available Monday, but returns in electrical savings would take years to recoup.

"But we wouldn't propose this project unless we believed it was a good long-term investment," he said, adding customers concerned over environmentally-friendly products now research how products are made.

Waxdale, the size of 36 football fields, is SCJ's largest manufacturing plant globally and where it makes products such as Glad, Pledge, Raid and Windex.

NEXT FEATURE

MANY DELAYS DRAG WIND CASE INTO 2012

VIA republicaneagle. com

By Regan Carstensen

January 1, 2011

From Minnesota

When the battle over wind development in Goodhue County was the Republican Eagle’s top story at the end of 2010, it was expected that some aspects would stretch into 2011. But it wasn’t quite as expected that the fight would be continuing when 2012 came around.

Just about every bit of controversy possible has been swirling around a 78-megawatt large wind energy conversion system that is planned for Goodhue County by wind developer AWA Goodhue Wind.

Ranging all the way from citizens and the developer disagreeing about eagle activity in the project footprint to lawsuits being filed by project participants, disputes have been abundant.

The AWA Goodhue project has taken several months longer than most wind farms to get to its current stage, which still hasn’t included any construction. A variety of factors contributed to extending the project’s original timeline.

Getting approval

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission had been taking its time ever since the end of 2010 to decide whether to approve the project that would be laid out near Goodhue and Zumbrota.

Ultimately, the PUC holds the authority to permit or deny wind farms in the state, but the commission decided to take into consideration a zoning ordinance created by Goodhue County officials in October 2010.

In order to determine the validity of the ordinance, the PUC asked an administrative law judge to review it, which caused the application to drag into April 2011.

It wasn’t until June 30 at a daylong hearing in St. Paul that the PUC approved the project. However, a state government shutdown stalled progress yet again and kept AWA Goodhue Wind from getting its permit.

Putting up a fight

Citizens developed two different groups — Goodhue Wind Truth and the Coalition for Sensible Siting — to fight the planned project, and a couple of government entities joined in.

With the Coalition for Sensible Siting, Goodhue Wind Truth, Belle Creek Township and Goodhue County all interested in filing for reconsiderations with the PUC, the case slowly inched forward as a second hearing was scheduled for November 2011 in St. Paul.

In what was probably the quickest decision made so far regarding the AWA Goodhue wind farm: It only took commissioners a matter of minutes to decide that the project should move forward as originally approved.

Still, reconsideration wasn’t the end of the road. Each group, except for Goodhue County, decided to appeal.

The Goodhue County Board was primarily opposed to the idea since it was likely to cost at least $10,000 to follow through with an appeal. A 3-2 majority made it official: The county’s fight was over.

“Wind turbines are coming to Goodhue County,” Commissioner Jim Bryant said after voting against an appeal. “I don’t think anything we do today is going to stop that.”

Looking out for eagles

Over the past year, citizens have shown a variety of concerns with wind turbines, including stray voltage, shadow flicker and noise pollution.

Perhaps the most talked about, however, has been the concern over the safety of the avian population — whether local or migratory birds — and their chances of getting struck by the blades of a turbine.

On several occasions, area residents invited representatives from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to view the environment within AWA Goodhue’s project footprint.

“It’s nice to try to use alternative energy, but we are right on the Mississippi Flyway,” Jaime Edwards of the DNR said. “You really have to look hard at whether something like this should be placed on a flyway.”

Moving forward

Belle Creek Township made its official decision Nov. 28 to appeal the PUC’s initial decision to approve a site permit. Not long after, however, AWA Goodhue began a lawsuit claiming that a moratorium put in place by the township is interfering with the developer’s rights.

As the new year begins, having lawsuits and appeals up in the air continues to delay progress of the project. Though AWA Goodhue officials would like to start construction in 2012, only time will tell what gets accomplished during the next year.

A timeline

December 2010

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission debates whether to approve the 78-megawatt project proposed by AWA Goodhue Wind for Goodhue County.

The PUC decides to ask administrative law Judge Kathleen Sheehy whether parts of Goodhue County’s zoning ordinance should be applied to the project.

April 2011

Administrative law Judge Kathleen Sheehy submits facts and findings that recommend the Public Utilities Commission not apply the Goodhue County’s ordinance to the AWA Goodhue Wind project.

May 2011

Goodhue County Attorney Stephen Betcher files a response that provides an exception to nearly half of the administrative law judge’s findings.

June 30, 2011

At a hearing in St. Paul, the Public Utilities Commission votes 4-1 to approve an amended site permit and a certificate of need for the AWA Goodhue Wind project.

August 2011

After several weeks of a government shutdown — preventing AWA Goodhue Wind from moving forward with its wind project — the developer receives its official site permit.

Sept. 6, 2011

Goodhue County commissioners vote 4-1 to allow Goodhue County Attorney Stephen Betcher to file for reconsideration with the Public Utilities Commission, asking it to take a second look at its permit approval.

Belle Creek Township and citizen groups Goodhue Wind Truth and Coalition for Sensible Siting also decide to file reconsiderations.

Sept. 20, 2011

Without getting a response from the Public Utilities Commission regarding reconsideration, the Goodhue County Board reluctantly votes 3-2 to submit an appeal to the PUC’s decision.

The county is told the appeal period expires Sept. 22. If it opts not to appeal, Goodhue County’s battle against the wind project would end if the PUC decides not to reconsider its original approval of a site permit.

November 2011

Goodhue County, Belle Creek Township, Coalition for Sensible Siting and Goodhue Wind Truth are told there was a misunderstanding with filing deadlines for appeals, and their appeals are dismissed.

They are allowed to wait for the Public Utilities Commission’s ruling on reconsideration and can then re-submit their original appeal without additional fees.

Nov. 10, 2011

The Public Utilities Commission votes 4-1 not to reconsider its approval of a permit for AWA Goodhue Wind.

Nov. 15, 2011

With misunderstandings and deadlines cleared up, Goodhue County Attorney Stephen Betcher asks the commissioners once more whether he should appeal the Public Utilities Commission’s decision not to reconsider approval of a permit for the wind project.

The County Board votes 2-2 to file with appeal, but without a majority the motion fails and Betcher is not directed to appeal.

Nov. 28, 2011

The Belle Creek Town Board votes 2-0 to file for appeal in the wind case.

Angry citizens in Goodhue County District 2 — potential home to much of the wind farm — announce a petition to recall Commissioner Richard Samuelson. Since they want to file for appeal in the wind case and Samuelson is opposed to an appeal, they feel he is not representing them.

Samuelson was absent from the Goodhue County Board meeting Nov. 15, but told those at the Belle Creek Town Board meeting he would have voted not to appeal had he been present.

Dec. 1, 2011

Commissioner Richard Samuelson requests an opportunity for the Nov. 15 appeal vote to be re-taken so his opinion can be officially reflected as part of the vote.

Just as he said he would at the Belle Creek Town Board meeting, Samuelson votes no to an appeal, contributing to the 3-2 failure of the motion to appeal.

Dec. 15, 2011

Belle Creek Town Board Chair Chad Ryan is served papers informing him that AWA Goodhue Wind is suing Belle Creek Township because a moratorium put in place by the township is interfering with the wind developer’s rights under the site permit it received from the Public Utilities Commission.

STUDY: FALMOUTH TURBINES HURT ABUTTER'S HEALTH

By SEAN TEEHAN,

Via Cape Cod Times, www.capecodonline.com

December 26, 2011 

FALMOUTH — A study released last week concludes wind turbines in Falmouth negatively affect abutters’ health.

The analysis was partially funded by a grant from Bruce McPherson, who opposes the Falmouth wind project and other turbine projects on Cape Cod. Its results assert that wind turbines cause “visceral” physical reactions and that sound waves from turbines are felt more intensely indoors than outside.

“We did not expect it,” said Stephen E. Ambrose, a Maine environmental sound consultant who co-authored The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study.

Ambrose declined to release the amount he was paid but said he and a partner each spent about 800 hours on the study.

Ambrose and Robert W. Rand, who also specializes in sound studies, conducted their research over three days in April, Ambrose said.

The two former employees of Stone & Webster Inc., a Stoughton engineering firm that designs and builds power plants, have conducted peer reviews on acoustics from turbines for several towns in Massachusetts, Maine and Wyoming.

For this study, Ambrose and Rand lived in a house near Blacksmith Shop Road for three days while measuring pressure originating from infrasound. They documented the intensity of sound frequencies from a privately owned turbine in the Falmouth Technology Park and how their bodies responded to it. The turbine studied is roughly the size of Falmouth’s two municipal turbines.

When the two arrived at the house — located 1,700 feet from the turbine — on April 17, they began feeling effects within 20 minutes, according to the study. Both felt nausea, dizziness and anxiety, among other side effects.

They also reported having difficulty performing “normal activities” associated with the investigation, which included setting up instruments and observing measurements, the report states.

According to a chart included in the study, the discomfort and sick feelings intensified as wind speeds increased and the blades spun faster.

Previous sound studies that showed no negative health effects were done outdoors, Ambrose said. The recent study, which used low-frequency microphones to measure sound waves, showed sounds are more intense indoors than out. Data from this study showed a 10 dbG (a measurement for infrasound) increase outdoors and a 20 dbG increase indoors. The effect is similar to "living in a drum," he said.

An independent review of the acoustics data indicates it is scientifically valid, Nancy S. Timmerman, chairwoman of the Acoustical Society of America's Technical Committee on Noise, said in an email. She added that she can speak only to data on acoustics, not physiological effects reported in the study.

Jim Cummings, executive director of Acoustic Ecology Institute, another expert who looked at the study, said in an email the results could be a red flag on the correlation between infrasound and negative health effects, but more data are needed to establish proof.

"This is an indication, for sure, but a short sampling to base large claims on," Cummings wrote. "This and one other recent paper from the Association for Noise Control Engineers conference, Noise-Con, are both good indications that infrasound could be more problematic than generally assumed."

Falmouth Selectman Mary Pat Flynn, chairman of the board, said the study is one of many the board has received about wind turbines. Others show little or no harm caused by turbines, she said.

"We've had a number of studies sent to us, and they all have different points of view, and they all have different outcomes," Flynn said.

Ambrose and Rand's study comes as the state Department of Environmental Protection prepares itself for a sound study of the Falmouth-owned Wind 1 turbine. Environmental regulators agreed in September to conduct the study after Falmouth selectmen reached out to the department in September.

"It's still in the works, still under review," said Ed Coletta, a DEP spokesman. "We're hoping to get it done soon."

Last month selectmen announced the town would shut down the 1.64-megawatt Wind 1 — except during the tests — until April's town meeting. The town also plans to start up the Wind 2 turbine for 60 days, during which time officials plan to log complaints from residents.

The announcement came as a compromise after Wind 1 abutters filed a nonbinding town meeting article that asked selectmen to keep both turbines off until "mitigation options are fully explored and the existence of injurious conditions upon nearby residents can be qualified."

Wind 2, which has sat idle for about a year, could begin spinning for its trial period before mid-January, said Gerald Potamis, Falmouth's wastewater superintendent, who oversees the two municipal turbines.

Next month, Falmouth selectmen will choose a consultant to help advise the town on minimizing the impact of wind turbines on neighbors, Flynn said. Four firms were presented to selectmen during a meeting Dec. 19. The board will accept suggestions from residents until Jan. 4 and plans to choose one Jan. 9, Flynn said.

[Click here for Ambrose and Rand's study.]

Next Feature:

GROUP TARGETS WIND FARMS: ADVOCATES WANT STRICTER RULES TO PREVENT BIRD DEATHS

by Cody Winchester,

VIA www.argusleader.com 

December 26, 2011 

“Developers typically build at the site they’ve chosen, regardless of wildlife concerns,” she said. “We’ve written letters stating the proposed location is likely to have high wildlife impacts … but the projects were constructed (anyway).”

As the Obama administration moves on a plan to speed permitting of wind projects in the Great Plains, a major bird conservation group is asking the government to enact stricter standards for wind energy development.

The American Bird Conservancy has formally petitioned the Department of the Interior to develop mandatory siting rules for wind projects, claiming that existing guidelines, which are voluntary, constitute a “counterproductive and almost certainly unlawful approach” to enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

“Most wind energy projects that are already in operation are in ongoing violation” of the act, since most birds killed at wind farms are protected, the petition says. The conservancy group alleges a “systemic failure” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enforce the law.

The conflict highlights an ongoing tension between conservationists and a rapidly expanding industry seen as the linchpin of a clean energy future – although the petitioners also note that climate change driven by the combustion of fossil fuels “indisputably poses an unprecedented threat to species and ecosystems.”

Fueling the conflict is territory overlap: Windy corridors that are prime candidates for energy projects also tend to be migratory flyways. With the growth of the industry in wind-rich states such as South Dakota, conservationists are worried not only about collisions with turbines and power lines but further fragmentation of a habitat already under pressure from urban and agricultural expansion.

“There are impacts beyond the towers sticking up out there,” said K.C. Jensen, an associate professor of wildlife management at South Dakota State University.

Federal officials have worked for years to develop siting standards for wind projects and earlier this year released a set of draft guidelines. As the guidelines evolved, the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, accused Fish and Wildlife of trying to “impose new guidelines that are not based on sound science.” But the American Bird Conservancy says the guidelines were in fact crippled by pressure from a federal advisory board dominated by industry.

“At first we were optimistic,” said Kelly Fuller, the conservancy’s wind campaign coordinator. “But over the last year, our view has changed. We have seen drafts of the guidelines repeatedly weakened under industry pressure. We’ve seen Fish and Wildlife Service abandon much of what its own scientific experts wrote, and so we felt that we now have to respond to this worsening situation.”

The group wants the rules strengthened and made mandatory, so wind developers would have to obtain a permit that specifically considers the project’s effects on migratory birds before beginning construction.

Such a permitting scheme would give the industry greater certainty, since wind developers are technically in violation of federal law every time a migratory bird is killed at a wind installation, said Shruti Sharesh, an environmental lawyer who filed the petition on behalf of the conservancy.

“On the one hand, we have the federal government promoting wind industry,” Sharesh said. “And on the other hand, we have a situation where both the government and the industry is well aware … (of) widespread violation of federal wildlife law.”

But Ron Rebenitsch, executive director of the South Dakota Wind Energy Association, argued that the opposite is true. He said new regulations would create greater uncertainty and make it more difficult to plan wind projects, which already require significant up-front financing and can take years to approve.

“This is not a good thing for wind,” he said. “I would be very cautious about how the rules are developed.”

The industry takes pains to minimize harm to wildlife, Rebenitsch said, adding that concerns about bird strikes are overblown.

“There has never been a recorded instance of a whooping crane impacting a turbine,” he said. “A whooping crane could fly into a building. … Do you shut down the industry (for the sake of birds)? That’s a very real concern.”

Rebenitsch said the number of birds killed at wind farms is inconsequential compared with the number killed by cats, windows and other causes related to human activity.

Fish and Wildlife already has a mechanism for permitting “take” of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws, but not for migratory birds.

The conservancy group says this “legal anomaly,” coupled with the lack of enforcement by Fish and Wildlife, is unfair: Oil companies are prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act when birds fly into oil sump pits and die, the group argues. Why should wind energy be exempt?

Developers ‘build where they want’

On its website, the South Dakota Wind Energy Association urges developers to “consult the environmental and cultural offices in the state as early as possible” and provides contact information for each office.

But this doesn’t always happen, said Natalie Gates, a biologist in the migratory bird program at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ecological services field office in Pierre.

Sometimes, developers contact Gates about a new wind project as a courtesy. Most of the time, however, she hears about proposals from other federal agencies that need input on how the project would affect endangered species.

“Some developers are more conscientious than others,” she said. “Some work with us a little and some ignore us entirely. All tend to build where they want.”

Once her office knows where the company intends to build the project, Gates sends a comment letter outlining the agency’s concerns about habitat and wildlife populations, and typically she requests that the company undertake a baseline study of birds and bats in the area.

“Sometimes when I write a letter like that, I never hear back from the company,” she said.

Some companies hire consultants to collect pre- and postconstruction figures on bird and bat mortality, and this data can be helpful to wildlife agencies, Gates said. But a suggestion to avoid sensitive habitat “seems to get no traction with developers,” she said.

“Developers typically build at the site they’ve chosen, regardless of wildlife concerns,” she said. “We’ve written letters stating the proposed location is likely to have high wildlife impacts … but the projects were constructed (anyway).”

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks also has guidelines for wind projects, and the agency’s wildlife biologists have provided expert testimony at hearings before the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, which issues siting permits for wind projects.

The commission carefully considers the input of wildlife experts when issuing rulings and crafting permit conditions, PUC Chairman Gary Hanson said.

Hanson, who has served on the governing board of the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, is concerned about whooping crane numbers and would not necessarily oppose stricter federal guidelines for siting.

Fed’s plan would fast-track projects

The Interior Department, meanwhile, is developing a plan to fast-track wind projects in the Great Plains by allowing developers to go through the federal permitting process en masse.

The 200-mile-wide development corridor would follow the central flyway of the endangered whooping crane, which has a wild population in the low hundreds, from Canada to the Texas coast.

A consortium of wind energy companies, including Iberdrola Renewables and NextEra Energy Resources, which operate wind farms in South Dakota, would be granted incidental take permits in exchange for offsetting the losses with conservation efforts elsewhere. Fish and Wildlife still is hammering out the details.

—

Determining bird kill numbers a tough task

Estimates of birds killed at wind installations vary, and federal field agents face numerous obstacles in gathering accurate numbers.
“The (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) has no way of obtaining on a regular basis crucial information about birds and bats being killed at these projects,” said Shruti Sharesh, a lawyer at Meyer, Glitzenstein and Crystal, an environmental law firm .
The conservancy group partly blames this problem on confidentiality agreements between wind developers and private wildlife consultants, which can can make data sharing problematic.
In September, the Argus Leader submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Fish and Wildlife asking for records of migratory birds killed by power lines or wind energy projects in South Dakota.
The agency returned a packet of investigative reports detailing 15 bird kills in North and South Dakota since 2008, all of them power line strikes.
This doesn’t mean there were no bird strikes or electrocutions prior to 2008, just that they weren’t necessarily entered into the agency’s computer system, said Rich Grosz, the resident agent in charge of the Office of Law Enforcement for the Dakotas.
Until recently, South Dakota had only one or two field agents, and Grosz said the agency is “completely dependent on the public” to notify it of bird electrocutions. In any case, further investigation may show that the bird died from other means, in which case the agency would not pursue an investigation.

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.”

 ILLINOIS DATA SHOWS INDUSTRIAL WIND PROJECTS FAIL TO MEET JOB CREATION PROMISES

by Steve Deslauriers

VIA Brown County Citizens for Responsible Renewable Energy

Email:     info@bccrwe.com

(DENMARK, WI)  Industrial wind project developers claim they create jobs wherever the turbines are built, but recent studies show the jobs—mostly temporary—come at enormous cost to taxpayers.
 
In Illinois, each job created by construction of industrial wind turbines cost taxpayers an estimated $8 million, according to a comprehensive new analysis of enterprise zone reports from the Illinois Department of Economic Opportunity (Illinois DECO).  Based on the information reported to DECO, taxpayers are paying the mostly foreign-owned wind companies $7.8-$9.6 million for each temporary primary job created.
 
In addition, industrial wind projects created very few local jobs in Illinois, according to the analysis by Illinois attorney Carolyn K. Gerwin. Of the 15 industrial wind projects reported by the Illinois Wind Energy Association, only eight of them appear on the DECO data. Those eight projects totaled $1.95 billion in project costs—and, as a group, created a total of 61 to75 jobs.
 
The analysis was reported to Wisconsin legislators on December 9th by the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy (BCCRWE). The BCCRWE, together with a coalition of citizen groups from across the State, has developed science-based guidelines for safe industrial wind turbine siting that will, if followed, assure that health, safety, and economic factors are fully vetted in the PSCW wind turbine siting rules process.

 These Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind Siting Guidelines, which should be used to determine the appropriate set-back distance from the property line, recommend 2,640 feet if the noise standards in the Guidelines are met.

  See the Guidelines the Wisconsin Public Service Commission website by CLICKING HERE 
 
The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has the job of deciding how far wind turbines should be set back from a person’s property. If the suspension of the arbitrary and outdated PSC wind siting rules (PSC 128) is allowed to expire at the end of the legislative session, then the State of Wisconsin will knowingly impose the economic ‘undue hardships’ and ‘public health emergency’ on Wisconsin families that the JCRAR suspension sought to prevent.  

Steve Deslauriers
BCCRWE
PO Box 703
Denmark, WI 54208
Email:     info@bccrwe.com

 NEXT FEATURE
 

NO EXTENSION OF US PTC OR TREASURY GRANT IN SIGHT THIS YEAR

by Benjamin Romano,

www.rechargenews.com

December 20, 2011 

Neither the Production Tax Credit (PTC), which the US wind industry needs to avoid a collapse in 2013, nor the Treasury grant programme – key for the nation’s solar industry – would be extended under a tenuous year-end legislative package.

Despite an all-out lobbying push, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) could not convince lawmakers to include the PTC in year-end legislation to extend tax provisions, such as a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits, that expire on 31 December without Congressional action.

The top priority of the US wind industry is an extension of the PTC, which is worth $0.022/kWh for a project’s first 10 years in operation.

It is only available to projects that begin operation by 31 December 2012. Uncertainty about its continuation is already having a deleterious impact on the industry as developers scale-back project development for 2013 and beyond, slowing the flow of orders into wind equipment manufacturers.

The US solar industry mounted a campaign for a second one-year extension of the Treasury grant, which expires 31 December, and pays up to 30% of eligible renewable energy project costs. Last year, Congress extended the grant, given in lieu of tax credits, just as it was about to expire.

“We are disappointed that an extension of wind energy’s key federal tax incentive was not included in this bill,” AWEA chief executive Denise Bode said in a statement over the weekend. “The clock is ticking, business decisions are being made and some damage is certain.”

The industry had identified the year-end legislation as one of at least three possible opportunities to advance a PTC extension before the end of 2012.

Bode and the US wind industry now look ahead to Congressional action on tax extenders after the holidays.

“When Congress addresses extenders next year, we are very confident that continuing the wind manufacturing success story will be a prominent objective,” Bode says. “Tens of thousands of wind energy manufacturing jobs can still be saved if Congress addresses extenders early in 2012.”

The industry hopes that it can continue to build momentum behind a PTC extension into the new year.

The circumstances under which tax extenders legislation would be addressed in 2012 will be shaped by whether the House and Senate can come to an agreement now.

That looked increasingly unlikely Monday as Republicans in the House refused to support a bill passed by the Senate on Saturday to extend the payroll tax cut for two months, and the Senate appeared unwilling to return to work to take on the full-year extension proposed in the House.

NEXT FEATURE:

From Massachussetts
 

The Bruce McPherson infrasound and low frequency noise study

December 14, 2011

by Stephen E. Ambrose, INCE (Brd. Cert.) and Robert W. Rand, INCE Member

SOURCE: Windaction.org: documents

Summary:
This study investigated the possible presence of infrasonic and low frequency noise emissions (ILFN) from the “WIND 1”, a municipally-owned Vestas V82 industrial wind turbine in the town of Falmouth, Massachusetts.
CONCLUSIONS

Noise and Pressure Pulsations

The acoustic energy from the wind turbine was found to be:

1) Greater than or uniquely distinguishable from the ambient background levels, and
2) Capable of exceeding human detection thresholds.

This research revealed dynamically modulated low frequency and infrasonic energy from the nearby wind turbine occurring at the blade pass rate; energy which was found to be amplified indoors below 10 Hz. These dynamic infrasonic modulations were absent when the wind turbine was off. The wind turbine has tonal energy at 22.9 and 129 Hz. The wind turbine acoustic emissions were strongly coupled to the indoor environment at very low infrasonic pulsations and at the 22.9 and 129 Hz tones.

The dBA levels were inversely correlated to adverse health effects experienced; effects were more severe indoors where dBA levels were much lower (around 20 dBA). However the dBL (un-weighted) and dBG (infrasonic-weighting) levels were more strongly modulated indoors.

This increase in modulation indoors was consistent with the stronger adverse health effects indoors. The increase in total sound pressure indoors appears related to a "whole-house" cavity response; the outside pressure pulsations exciting the interior acoustic pressure much like a stick hitting a drum. Especially, the degree of negative pressure increased significantly indoors compared to outdoors.

Adverse Health Effects

This research revealed that persons without a pre-existing sleep deprivation condition, not tied to the location nor invested in the property, can experience within a few minutes the same debilitating health effects described and testified to by neighbors living near the wind turbines.

The debilitating health effects were judged to be visceral (proceeding from instinct, not intellect) and related to as yet unidentified discordant physical inputs or stimulation to the vestibular system. The dBG levels indoors were dynamically modulated at the blade pass rate and tonal frequencies and exceeded the vestibular physiological threshold guideline of 60 dBG provided by Dr. Salt.

Health effects moderated when dBG levels fell well below the 60 dBG guideline when the wind turbine was OFF. Wind turbine tonal energy at 22.9 Hz lies in the brain's "Beta" range which is associated with alert mental activity and anxiety; antithetical to sleep. The dynamic 0.7 Hz modulations of inflow turbulence and tonal energy lie in the deep Delta range associated with deep sleep. Clinical evidence of frequency following response (FFR) in the brain suggests that entrainment with wind turbine modulations, pulsations and tones may pose conflict for the brain's natural rhythms,
leading to stress when the conflicting signals (the wind turbine) cannot be turned off.

Other physiological mechanisms may be in play. Medical epidemiological field and laboratory investigation is needed. The study confirms that large industrial wind turbines can produce real and adverse health impacts and suggests that this is due to acoustic pressure pulsations, not related to the audible frequency spectrum, by affecting the vestibular system especially at low ambient sound levels.

The study results emphasize the need for epidemiological and laboratory research by medical health professionals and acousticians concerned with public health and well-being. This study underscores the need for more effective and precautionary setback distances for industrial wind turbines. It is especially important to include a margin of safety sufficient to prevent inaudible low-frequency wind turbine noise from being detected by the human vestibular system.

Next Feature

From Ontario:

ONTARIO WIND POWER BRINGING DOWN PROPERTY VALUES 

by John Nicol and Dave Seglins 

Via CBC NEWS

October 1 2011 

Canadian Hydro Developers bought out four different owners for $500,000, $350,000, $305,000 and $302,670. The company then resold each property, respectively, for $288,400, $175,000, $278,000 and $215,000.

In total, Canadian Hydro absorbed just over half a million dollars in losses on those four properties.

The new buyers were required to sign agreements acknowledging that the wind turbine facilities may affect the buyer's "living environment" and that the power company will not be responsible for or liable from any of the buyer's "complaints, claims, demands, suits, actions or causes of action of every kind known or unknown which may arise directly or indirectly from the Transferee's wind turbine facilities."

The energy company admits the impacts may include "heat, sound, vibration, shadow flickering of light, noise (including grey noise) or any other adverse effect or combination thereof resulting directly or indirectly from the operation."

Ontario's rapid expansion in wind power projects has provoked a backlash from rural residents living near industrial wind turbines who say their property values are plummeting and they are unable to sell their homes, a CBC News investigation has found.

The government and the wind energy industry have long maintained turbines have no adverse effects on property values, health or the environment.

The CBC has documented scores of families who've discovered their property values are not only going downward, but also some who are unable to sell and have even abandoned their homes because of concerns nearby turbines are affecting their health.

"I have to tell you not a soul has come to look at it," says Stephana Johnston, 81, of Clear Creek, a hamlet in Haldimand County on the north shore of Lake Erie, about 60 kilometres southeast of London.

Johnston, a retired Toronto teacher, moved here six years ago to build what she thought would be her dream home. But in 2008, 18 industrial wind turbines sprung up near her property and she put the one-floor, wheelchair-accessible home up for sale.

"My hunch is that people look at them and say: 'As nice as the property is going south, looking at the lake, we don't want to be surrounded by those turbines.' Can't say that I blame them."

P.O.V.:

Johnston says she has suffered so many ill health effects, including an inability to sleep — which she believes stem from the noise and vibration of the turbines— that she now sleeps on a couch in her son's trailer, 12 kilometres away, and only returns to her house to eat breakfast and dinner and use the internet.

Industry rejects claims of lower land values

Meanwhile, the industry rejects claims of lower land values.

"Multiple studies, and particularly some very comprehensive ones from the United States have consistently shown the presence of wind turbines does not have any statistically significant impact on property values," says Robert Hornung of the Ottawa-based Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA).

While acknowledging a lack of peer-reviewed studies in Ontario, Hornung says CANWEA commissioned a study of the Chatham-Kent area, where new wind turbines are appearing, and found no evidence of any impact on property values.

"In fact," says Hornung, "we've recently seen evidence coming from Re/Max indicating that we're seeing farm values throughout Ontario, including the Chatham-Kent area, increasing significantly this year as wind energy is being developed in the area at the same time."

However, Ron VandenBussche, a Re/Max agent along the Lake Erie shore, said the reality is that the wind turbines reduce the pool of interested buyers, and ultimately the price of properties.

"It's going to make my life more difficult," says VandenBussche, who has been a realtor for 38 years. "There's going to be people that would love to buy this particular place, but because the turbines are there, it's going to make it more difficult, no doubt."

 

Kay Armstrong says she felt fortunate to sell her two-acre property listed at $270,000 for $175,000.  

Kay Armstrong is one example. She put her two-acre, waterfront property up for sale before the turbines appeared in Clear Creek, for what three agents said was a reasonable price of $270,000.

Two years after the turbines appeared, she took $175,000, and she felt lucky to do that — the property went to someone who only wanted to grow marijuana there for legal uses.

"I had to get out," said Armstrong. "It was getting so, so bad. And I had to disclose the health issues I had. I was told by two prominent lawyers that I would be sued if the ensuing purchasers were to develop health problems."

Realtor association finds 20 to 40 per cent drops in value

Armstrong's experience is backed up in a study by Brampton-based realtor Chris Luxemburger. The president of the Brampton Real Estate Board examined real estate listings and sales figures for the Melancthon-Amaranth area, home to 133 turbines in what is Ontario's first and largest industrial wind farm.

"Homes inside the windmill zones were selling for less and taking longer to sell than the homes outside the windmill zones," said Luxemburger.

On average, from 2007 to 2010, he says properties adjacent to turbines sold for between 20 and 40 per cent less than comparable properties that were out of sight from the windmills.

Power company sells at a loss

Land registry documents obtained by CBC News show that some property owners who complained about noise and health issues and threatened legal action did well if they convinced the turbine companies to buy them out.

Canadian Hydro Developers bought out four different owners for $500,000, $350,000, $305,000 and $302,670. The company then resold each property, respectively, for $288,400, $175,000, $278,000 and $215,000.

In total, Canadian Hydro absorbed just over half a million dollars in losses on those four properties.

The new buyers were required to sign agreements acknowledging that the wind turbine facilities may affect the buyer's "living environment" and that the power company will not be responsible for or liable from any of the buyer's "complaints, claims, demands, suits, actions or causes of action of every kind known or unknown which may arise directly or indirectly from the Transferee's wind turbine facilities."

The energy company admits the impacts may include "heat, sound, vibration, shadow flickering of light, noise (including grey noise) or any other adverse effect or combination thereof resulting directly or indirectly from the operation."

TransAlta, the company that took over for Canadian Hydro, refused to discuss the specific properties it bought and then resold at a loss in Melancthon. But in an email to CBC, spokesman Glen Whelan cited the recession and other "business considerations" that "influence the cost at which we buy or sell properties, and to attribute purchase or sale prices to any one factor would be impossible."

Province says no change to tax base

Ontario's ministers of Energy, Municipal Affairs and Finance, all in the midst of an election campaign, declined requests for an interview.

'That's what makes them sick is that, you know, they'll get less money for their properties, and that's what's causing all this annoyance and frustration.'—Environment Ministry lawyer Frederika Rotter

A spokesperson for Municipal Affairs says his ministry has no studies or information about the potential impact wind turbines are having on rural property values.

However, last February, before an environmental review tribunal in Chatham, Environment Ministry lawyer Frederika Rotter said: "We will see in the course of this hearing that lots of people are worried about windmills. They may not like the noise, they may think the noise makes them sick, but really what makes them sick is just the windmills being on the land because it does impact their property values.

"That's what makes them sick is that, you know, they'll get less money for their properties, and that's what's causing all this annoyance and frustration and all of that."

When Energy Minister Brad Duguid declined comment, his staff referred CBC News to the Ministry of Finance, which oversees MPAC (the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation), which sets values on land for taxation purposes. They indicated that MPAC has no evidence wind turbines are driving down assessed values.

However, CBC found one household in Melancthon was awarded a 50-per-cent reduction in property tax because the house sat next to a transformer station for the turbines.

Losing the rural life

Almost all the people interviewed by the CBC rue the division between neighbours for and against the turbines, and said what they have lost is a sense of home and the idyllic life of living in the countryside.

Tracy Whitworth refuses to sell her historic home in Clear Creek. CBC

Tracy Whitworth, who has a historic home in Clear Creek, refuses to sell it and instead has become a nomad, renting from place to place with her son, to avoid the ill effects of the turbines.

"My house sits empty — it's been vandalized," says Whitworth, a Clear Creek resident who teaches high school in Delhi. "I've had a couple of 'Stop the wind turbine' signs knocked down, mailbox broken off.

"I lived out there for a reason. It was out in the country. School's very busy. When I come home, I like peace and quiet. Now, we have the turbines and the noise. Absolutely no wildlife. I used to go out in the morning, tend to my dogs, let my dogs run, and I'd hear the geese go over.

"And ugh! Now there's no deer, no geese, no wild turkeys. Nothing."

For the octogenarian Johnston, the fight is all more than she bargained for. She sank all her life savings, about $500,000, into the house, and she says she does not have the money to be able to hire a lawyer to fight for a buyout. But she is coming to the conclusion she must get a mortgage to try the legal route.

"I love being near the water and I thought, what a way to spend the rest of my days — every view is precious," she said, as tears filled her eyes. "And I would not have that any more.

"And that is hard to reconcile and accept."

Getting a mortgage on her house might not be that easy. CBC News has learned that already one bank in the Melancthon area is not allowing lines of credit to be secured by houses situated near wind turbines. In a letter to one family situated close to the turbines, the bank wrote, "we find your property a high risk and its future marketability may be jeopardized."

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.