When Scott Walker was inaugurated as Wisconsin’s new Governor earlier this month, his first order of business was fully in keeping with his Republican priorities: he called a special session of the state legislature, dubbed the “Wisconsin in Open for Business” session. All bills will be focused on improving the state’s business climate, which in these tough economic times has widespread support.
As part of his job-creation agenda, he submitted a regulatory reform bill, which came with a wild card tucked inside: a new and stricter setback standard for industrial wind farms. While some in the state have attacked the stricter standard as a job-killer, it appears to me that the Governor has his pulse on one of the key avenues that the wind industry should be pursuing in order to gain widespread acceptance in the years to come: strong protections for the private property rights of wind farm neighbors, combined with provisions for mutually agreeable closer siting.
In response to tough local rules that were seen as anti-wind, in 2009 the Wisconsin legislature called for statewide regulations that localities cannot exceed; the state’s PSC recently adopted a new statewide standard of 1250 feet from homes. Governor Walker’s bill would increase setbacks statewide to 1800 feet from property lines.
While this would not protect neighbors from hearing wind turbines, which are often audible at a half mile and can be heard to a mile or more in some situations (some activists and acousticians suggest setbacks in these larger ranges), Walker’s proposal is a substantial increase, and a reasonable middle ground. This sort of approach could well be the clearest path forward for an industry that has been beset by community resistance in recent years, with Wisconsin being one of the most active centers of concern about the effects of wind farm noise.
Critics immediately slammed the change, claiming that it would basically preclude new wind farms in the state. These critiques ignore a key provision of the Governor’s proposal: neighbors closer than 1800 feet can agree to let turbines go up, presumably in exchange for some compensation from the wind company.
It appears that Governor Walker understands that the way to move the wind industry forward is regulations that help local communities to feel more comfortable with the likely impacts of new wind farms, rather than standards designed primarily to ease the placement of turbines. Like it or not, there is increasing concern about noise levels once considered moderate, e.g., 45dB.
Communities nationwide are coming to grips with the fact that wind farms come with some audible noise issues; pushing siting standards too close to homes will only continue to feed the growing stream of “horror stories” that multiply and magnify the problem into ever more communities where wind farms are proposed.
Adopting setbacks that truly do protect the most noise-sensitive community members, while allowing turbines to go up closer to folks who have no problem with them, could well be the smoothest, and fastest, way forward. Governor Walker’s combination of larger setbacks, and provisions for neighbors to sign waivers, is the right direction for growing this industry without threatening the quality of life of rural communities.
See AEINews for ongoing coverage of wind noise issues.
WHAT'S AT ISSUE WITH GOVERNOR WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL:
Pictured Above: Setbacks between 400 foot tall wind turbines and homes in a PSC-approved wind project Fond du Lac County Wisconsin. The yellow circles indicate the 1000 foot safety zone around each turbine.
Pictured Below: PSC approved Glacier Hills Wind Project under constrution in Columbia County. In this map from WeEnergies, red dots are turbine locations. Each yellow circle containing a small red square is a non-participating home.
When they permitted the wind project, the PSC admitted that there were too many turbines around some homes but instead of asking for fewer turbines in those areas they asked the wind company to offer to purchase the homes. They did.
The PSC wind rules allow safety zones to cross property lines and allow a wind company to automatically use a neighbor's land as part of that safety zone. This creates a no-build and no tree planting zone on the property of a non-particpating land owner who must to get permission from the wind company to build a structure or plant a tree on his own land.
Senate Bill 9 helps to correct this problem.
The PSC statewide siting rules are to take effect on March 1st, 2011. They have setbacks of 1250 feet between homes and a 500 foot turbine. The rules allow a wind company to use a non participating landowner's property as a safety setback zone.
Senate Bill 9 increases the setback to 1800 feet between turbines and property lines. If a landowner wants a turbine closer he can enter into an agreement with the wind company. This bill gives some choice and a little more protection to the rural Wisconsin families who have no choice about living beneath the turbines.
PICTURED ABOVE: a map showing the noise level predicted for residents in Invenergy's proposed Ledge Wind Project in Brown County. The yellow dots are homes. The black dots are wind turbine locations. The World Health Organization says nighttime noise should no louder than 35 dbA for healthful sleep. The deep blue areas indicate predicted turbine noise levels above 50 dbA. The purple areas indicate turbine noise levels of 50dbA.
"This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about."
"While similar challenges have been heard in France, Great Britain and the United States, never have so many scientists, doctors and other experts been expected to testify.
“We’re not familiar with any other hearing that has brought the number and breadth of experts,” said Toronto lawyer Ian Gillespie, who will argue for the link between wind and health with the help of a team of 10 experts from as far away as Australian, New Zealand and Great Britain.
“This appears to be the most comprehensive hearing to date looking at the issue of human health,” Gillespie said."
Home in Invenergy windfarm, Fond du Lac County. PSC approved setbacks: 1000 feet from homes
HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS TODAY?
Just a phone call is all it takes to do your part to help give rural Wisconsin an 1800' setback between industrial scale wind turbines and landowner's property lines.
Better Plan encourages you to take a moment right now to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for his wind siting bill, (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE BILL) which provides for a setback of 1800 feet between wind turbines and property lines. Let him know you support this bill.
AND! CALL THE LEGISLATORS ON THE COMMITTEES BELOW
AND! Then call your own legislators.
And then, please accept our thanks and the thanks of many in rural Wisconsin for your help.
Jan. 29--SHABBONA -- A real estate agent says many of her customers don't want to live near wind farms, which has caused home values to drop in those areas.
Beth Einsele of Beth Einsele Real Estate in Shabbona said she has shown her share of properties near Lee County wind farms. She said the houses there can't sell for as much as similar homes in other areas of the county.
Earlier this week, County Assessor Wendy Ryerson presented numbers to the county's ad hoc committee on wind turbines, arguing that the Mendota Hills wind farm, started in 2004, hasn't affected nearby home values.
Einsele, a Realtor, took exception to Ryerson's analysis.
"She doesn't look at comparable sales of similar properties. That's not her job. Her job is to see to it that there are fair prices for the assessments," Einsele said. "She does a good job. But she is being used by the County Board to promote their agenda."
Einsele said she has seen firsthand the effects of turbines on home sales.
For instance, a property on Bingham Road in eastern Lee County is surrounded by turbines. It was put on the market in November 2005, and didn't sell until March 2008 for $265,000, she said. Five similar properties -- a few miles away but not near wind farms -- sold much quicker and for well more than $300,000, according to the Realtors' Multiple Listing Service.
Einsele also said she got a bad reaction when she had an open house for a property near a wind farm.
"Out of nine families that came that day, seven asked, 'What are those things? What do they do? How come they're so noisy?'" she said. "That parcel remains on the market today."
In response to Einsele, Ryerson said she tries to walk a "fine line" in providing information to decision makers.
"I try to make sure the information I give out is based on fact, not emotion," she said. "I personally have nothing to gain whether or not we put in another wind project."
Her analysis focused on the area near the Mendota Hills project, looking at home sales in the townships of Brooklyn, Willow Creek, Viola and Wyoming. According to Ryerson's office, the four townships recorded 45 home sales in 2002, with a median home price of $102,400.
The median price increased over the years to $150,000 by 2007, with annual homes sales ranging from 43 to 72.
But in 2008, the median sales price dropped to $107,500, with only 30 sales. In 2009, the office recorded the same number of sales, with the median price further falling to $101,000.
Ryerson contended that the drop in prices had more to do with the declining home market in the area than wind turbines.
She said she understood the argument that fewer buyers interested in a property likely would impact a home's value. But she said nothing in her data demonstrates any effect from the Mendota Hills project on nearby properties.
John Thompson, president and CEO of the Lee County Industrial Development Association, wouldn't take a position on wind farms' effect on home values.
But he said the turbines have helped Lee County's economy. They bring more property tax revenue to government coffers, employ many people during the construction phase, and give farms that allow turbines extra income, he said.
The county's ad hoc committee is supposed to provide recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals on new wind regulations. In September, the County Board enacted a moratorium on new wind energy development while the zoning board drafted new rules.
The moratorium is set to expire Feb. 15. County Board Chairman Jim Seeberg has said he is opposed to extending it.
Wind farm opponents say the turbines are noisy, bothersome and unsightly.
SECOND FEATURE
FACTS ABOUT GREEN JOBS CREATION ELUSIVE AS THE WIND
Source: MacIver News Service
Although they are touted and promoted by policy makers and opinion leaders across the state, accurately defining and keeping track of ‘green jobs’ has proven nearly impossible in Wisconsin.
Take, for example, ‘green jobs’ associated with the wind industry.
“Clean energy technology and high-end manufacturing are Wisconsin’s future,” Governor Jim Doyle said in his final State of the State address. “We have more than 300 companies and thousands of jobs in the wind industry.”
That statistic is impossible to verify.
The State of Wisconsin does not track those companies nor the jobs within the industry. When contacted, the Office of Energy Independence (an agency created by Governor Doyle in 2007) directed MacIver News to Wisconsin Wind Works, a self-described “consortium of manufacturers representing the wind manufacturing supply chain within Wisconsin.”
The advocacy group maintains an online wind energy-related supply chain database, although a routine examination of the data proved just how unreliable the figures are.
When the online, searchable database was utilized earlier this summer, it listed 340 companies in Wisconsin connected to the wind industry, a fact which, without additional investigation would appear to be in line with the Governor’s statement. However, further examination showed many of those companies were not currently serving the wind industry and were only listed because they someday could serve the wind industry.
For example, the database listed 38 manufacturers, but only 24 of them have anything to actually do with the wind energy sector presently.
Of those 24 Wisconsin manufacturers, only eight were categorized as primary suppliers. Another four companies were listed as both primary and secondary suppliers. A MacIver NewsService reporter contacted all eight primary suppliers and the four companies listed as primary/secondary suppliers in our initial query and what we found further eroded the credibility of Governor Doyle’s claims.
When contacted, the companies listed as both primary and secondary suppliers all described themselves merely as secondary suppliers. That means they produce products that are not exclusive to the wind energy. For example, Bushman Equipment manufactures lifts that move heavy pieces of equipment, which, among many other uses, can be used to handle wind turbines.
Wisconsin Wind Works’ database is not only generous with the number of companies within their supply chain it associates as being primary suppliers, there are issues with the actual job numbers listed for each company as well. Many of the figures are either inflated, the jobs are not located in Wisconsin, or they cannot be tied to wind energy.
For example, Rexnord Industries was one of the eight Wisconsin manufacturers listed in our query as directly serving the wind energy industry. The database shows the company has 6,000 employees. Yet a Rexnord official told the MacIver News Service that the company only has 1,500 employees in Wisconsin, and only five of those have jobs which are directly tied to the wind industry.
Wisconsin Wind Works’ database says Orchid International has 600 employees, but a company spokesperson told MacIver it only has 150. Amsoil Inc. in Superior has 236 employees listed in the Wisconsin Wind Works database, but a company representative told the MacIver NewsService that only 6 of them work on wind energy-related products.
In all, at the time of our search, the database claimed 7,632 jobs among the eight manufacturers that were current primary suppliers to the wind industry. Yet, the MacIver News Service was only able to identify 31 jobs at those companies which were specifically tied to wind energy related products.
Manufacturers told MacIver News that other employees might work on wind-related products occasionally, but it does not represent the bulk of their workload.
Another 1,077 workers are listed among the secondary suppliers and we did not investigate that claim.
VAL-FAB, one of the companies listed as both a primary and secondary supplier, explained to MacIver News that it initially had high hopes for the wind energy industry that never materialized. The company specializes in fabrication for the energy sector.
William Capelle, Director of Business Development at VAL-FAB, said “At first we thought we might be able to manufacture the actual towers, but it turns out 90 percent of those are imported from Spain.”
Since the MacIver News Service first examined the Wisconsin Wind Works database, the number of companies listed has increased to 360. A reporter attempted to contact the organization for comment about the veracity of their data, but Wisconsin wind Works, which solicits members by selling itself as the “preferred partner of wind energy professionals,” did not respond.
Meanwhile the Office of Energy Independence continues to pursue the Doyle Administration’s green energy policies. As Doyle said during his final State of the State address, “anyone who says there aren’t jobs in the clean energy economy had better open their eyes.”
There is no doubt that some jobs in the wind industry exist in Wisconsin. The accurate number of these ‘green jobs’ is proving to be, at best, elusive
Representatives of Doyle’s office did not respond to repeated request for comments regarding the information contained within this article.
NOTE: THIS ARTICLE ORIGINALLY RAN IN SEPTEMBER OF 2010
By Bill Osmulski MacIver News Service Investigative Reporter
In Thursday’s Journal Sentinel, I talk with the neighbors of some wind projects. Frankly, I think wind turbines are pretty atop the ridge south of Fond du Lac, but I don’t live near them. Gerry Meyer does, and he recounts just how loud they are — like a jet plane flying over, or like boots in the clothes dryer.
That’s why, he tells me, he thinks the 1,800-foot line specified in Gov. Scott Walker’s bill on wind turbine siting makes sense. It isn’t a setback — rather, the bill simply requires that anyone putting a wind turbine closer than 1,800 feet to a property line get the permission of the owner on the other side.
Wind advocates say that will kill wind power in Wisconsin. It’s “highly unlikely,” said Clean Wisconsin’s Keith Reopelle, that developers would want to negotiate with neighbors, much less pay them compensation, the likely means by which such permission would be gained.
Besides, said Reopelle, it’s not as if wind turbines are the only noisy thing out there. He mentioned how he used to live along the edge of Interstate 90 south of Madison.
“We’ve never talked about monetary compensation for people who live near highways,” he said.
True enough, but there’s a critical difference: I-90 was a freeway long before Reopelle ever moved next to it. By comparison, rural southern Fond du Lac County was field and wood until about two years ago. Characteristic noises would include the footfalls of deer. “I have not seen a deer here since construction began,” said Meyer, and the owls and hawks that used to frequent his woodlot are gone, too. While someone choosing to live near a freeway is moving next to the noise nowadays (since we’re not building new freeways), in the case of wind farms, the noise is moving in.
FAIR AND OPEN PROCESS? MORE LIKE OUTNUMBERED AND IGNORED SAY TURBINES' NEIGHBORS
If you look at my column in Thursday’s Journal Sentinel about wind turbines, you’ll notice one of the people I talked to is Larry Wunsch, who lives 1,100 feet from a turbine near Brownsville.
Wunsch was on the panel that the Public Service Commission assembled to advise it on wind turbine siting rules. The PSC was told by the Doyle administration to trump town and county rules on how far turbines should be from houses, and it picked a number, 1,250 feet, that wind advocates say is plenty far enough.
In fact, say advocates, the number is a compromise — tougher than they wanted but less than what wind farm critics sought. “A fair decision arrived at,” said Denise Bode, head of the American Wind Energy Association. The number was arrived at via an open process involving all kinds of stakeholders, she said.
It’s true that wind turbine critics wanted a farther setback — one figure that gets thrown around is a 2-kilometersetback, or more than 6,000 feet. But that the PSC’s figure is less than critics wanted and more than developers did proves nothing about the process that produced the PSC’s rule.
Was, in fact, the process fair? Not really, says Wunsch. For one thing, the PSC’s panel was heavy with advocates of wind, he notes. By law, it had to include two wind-farm developers, two utility representatives (utilities favor easier wind-farm siting), one university expert, one township official, one county official, two real estate reps (who generally want tighter limits), two wind-farm neighbors, and two members of the general public. In this case, one of the members of the public was a former Doyle functionary; the other was Jennifer Heinzen, who happened to be an offical with RENEW Wisconsin, a pro-wind group. It mean RENEW had two people on the council.
“A member of the public should be Joe down at the bait shop,” said Wunsch, and while you might think so, state law made no such specification.
As for whether the council did much listening, again, Wunsch contends it didn’t. He contends he tried playing recordingshe madeoutside his home of turbine sounds — along with sound-meter readings of between 50 and 60 decibels — and was turned down. He says he later suggested just playing an hour of turbine noise he recorded in his backyard during the proceedings as a show of what neighbors endure. “I was told by chair that I could not do that. Any experiment I tried to bring to them they weren’t interested.”
Obviously, a majority of the council disagreed with Wunsch, but that doesn’t lessen the fact that, however lawful and public the process, the neighbors of wind farms felt they weren’t consulted so much as outnumbered and trumped.
Click on the video above to hear what wind turbines sound like. Video recorded by Gerry Meyer who lives in the Invenergy Forward Energy Wind Project. Video camera microphones aren't sensitive enough to fully record wind turbine noise. Even so, the distinct quality of wind turbine noise is very clear here.
If anyone had to ask Gerry Meyer for permission to install a wind turbine 1,560 feet from his house, it isn’t clear he’d have said no.
“At one time, I supported this, because I didn’t know any better,” said Meyer, who lives amid the 86-turbine wind farm south of Fond du Lac, near Brownsville. “I was naive.”
But no one had to ask Meyer anything. As turbines and their neighbors are back in the news, with wind proponents saying Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed change to siting rules will kill wind power in Wisconsin, one thing is becoming clear: Wind backers aren’t doing enough asking or listening to neighbors.
Neighbors are listening, whether they want to or not, to the turbines. Builders say they’re quiet, and Meyer said he believed that – until he stepped outside and looked up for the jet flying over. It was the new turbine nearby. Depending on wind and humidity, any of the five turbines within a mile of his house obtrude on the quiet, whining or thumping “like boots in the dryer.”
Within weeks, his wife and son started having chronic headaches. His wife now suffers constant ringing in her ears. It vanished on vacation. Meyer no longer sleeps much – “The only time I dream is when we go to our cabin,” he said – and he says his blood chemistry’s now a mess. His cortisol returned to normal, and he lost 21 excess pounds when the turbines were off for three weeks. “That should raise a red flag,” he said.
A mail carrier, Meyer talks of dogs grown surly and neighbors who have abandoned farms. One neighbor, Larry Wunsch, 1,100 feet from a turbine, cites “shadow flicker,” when sunlight shines through the blades. “It looks like someone is turning the lights on and off,” he said. The state “says you should be able to put up with that for 40 hours a year.” He can’t. He’s been trying to sell for more than a year.
Elsewhere near Fond du Lac, turbines’ neighbors mention the jet-like noise. “Sometimes it sounds like a racetrack or a plane landing,” Elizabeth Ebertz, 67, of St. Cloud, told the Wisconsin State Journal in August. “They’re just too close to people.” Allen Hass, 56, a Malone farmer, told the paper the rent he got for hosting a turbine couldn’t make up for headaches. “I wish I never made that deal,” he said.
Distance is at issue now that Walker proposes changing the uniform setback the state adopted last year. The Public Service Commission overrode stricter local rules, saying turbines had to be at least 1,250 feet from homes. Walker proposes 1,800 feet from property lines, a distance backers say will kill the wind industry. The existing standard is strict enough, says Denise Bode, head of the American Wind Energy Association, and changing it leaves little room for turbines.
Except Walker’s bill doesn’t say turbines must be 1,800 feet from anything – only that if they’re closer, the neighboring owner must grant permission.
Wind backers feel that’s not workable, says Keith Reopelle of Clean Wisconsin, a group favoring turbines. Neighbors would demand payment, “raising the price of wind power and making wind power less competitive,” he said.
Well, yes, neighbors do complicate things. So do lawsuits, like the one Clean Wisconsin joined to try stopping We Energies’ new low-pollution Oak Creek power plant; the settlement will raise your power bills by $100 million. There are lots of trade-offs in generating electricity, and wind is no exception.
The difference is that with wind, the burden falls heavily on people right next door. It lowers theirproperty value, it affects their health in ways not yet understood and it can be alleviated by paying neighbors for their trouble, a deal that Walker’s bill encourages.
But wind backers aren’t inclined to bargain or even acknowledge a problem. “We live with lots of noises,” such as from roads, said Reopelle. Bode, asked about complaints, replied, “There are always going to be some folks who don’t want development.”
Nothing wrong with development, said Meyer, “but what about our health?” The wind farm, he said, “has completely taken away our quality of life.” Of such complaints, wind’s proponents hear nothing.
SUPPORT SENATE BILL 9: WALKER'S WIND SITING REFORM
Better Plan encourages you to take a moment right now to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for the provisions in Senate Bill 9, (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE BILL) which provides for a setback of 1800 feet between wind turbines and property lines. Let him know you support this bill.
It's very important that you contact these key legislative committee members and urge them to support this bill and vote to move it forward. Every phone call and email to these committee members matters.
Members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations.
The fate of Ontario’s Green Energy Act (GEA), as it relates to wind turbines, might hinge on whether a Divisional Court panel of three Superior Court judges rules that the government should have sought proof that there are no harmful health effects from turbines or rules that the government considered adequately whether a standard setback of 550 metres is safe.
An application for a judicial review, brought by lawyer Eric Gillespie representing Prince Edward County resident Ian Hannah, was heard Monday in Toronto over objections from government lawyer Sara Blake, who argued that the court had no jurisdiction as it involves a wind farm proposal that should be subject to the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process.
The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) is a party to the hearing but only as “a friend of the court” and so far only apparently to the extent of submitting information. But its position reflects that of the government.
“In our view this application has no merit and should not be before the court. The proper forum for issues related to setbacks for wind turbine projects is through the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process. The REA is designed to ensure that renewable energy projects are developed in a way that is protective of human health, the environment, and Ontario’s cultural and natural heritage,” said CanWEA’s media relations officer, Ulrike Kucera in an email response.
The judges have reserved their decision to allow time to review the complex submissions from both sides, but Wind Concerns Ontario is considering that a victory. It says essentially that to have had the case heard at all was a win, and cites three hurdles that it consider it has overcome.
First hurdle: having the case heard;
Second hurdle: the court heard evidence from experts whom the government side said were unqualified;
Third hurdle: the fact of the reserved judgment, as an indication that the panel is reviewing all submissions – including those of the turbine opponent.
Mr. Gillespie’s submissions generally were that the provincial ministry did not consult doctors and did not follow what is known as “the precautionary principle” by which a proposal should be rejected if there is uncertainty about its effects.
Ms. Blake defended the process of the GEA drafting as, she said, the minister reviewed scientific studies. She said the doctors cited by Mr. Gillespie lacked the (expert) qualifications required, and described one of them as “an advocate against wind farms” because an area near his home is being considered for a possible wind farm.
On Tuesday, Mono council unanimously passed a motion by Councillor Fred Nix, asking the provincial government undertake independent third-party clinical research on the health effects of low-frequency noise from wind turbines on nearby residents.
In an interview, Mr. Nix said the motion was largely symbolic, since municipalities have limited authority under the Ontario Green Energy Act.
“This says to the government what a rural municipality thinks,” said Mr. Nix. “They say a safe setback for turbines is 550 metres.
“Do we have a research that says this is safe? I say we don’t.”
While he admitted a motion passed by a single, relatively small municipality bears practically no weight, Mr. Nix was hopeful the message would bring other towns and cities on side and they could make their collective case through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) or the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA).
“There is strength in numbers, he said,” he said. “We will have a lot more powers if we can get more municipalities on our side.”
The outcome of the court hearing is of vital interest to the Whittington Coalition for Our Right to a Healthy Living Environment, the group opposing a 6.9 megawatt wind turbine installation at Mono- Amaranth Townline and 15 Sideroad, in large part because they believe the 550-metre setbacks are inadequate.
But it is of critical interest to the Ontario government itself as it has been relying on a deal with Samsung and a South Korean turbine service proponent to create thousands of industrial jobs while bolstering Ontario’s production of green wind energy.
Art Lindgren, a leader of the effort opposing excessive noise from Vinalhaven wind turbines, suffered a heart attack last night at a board meeting of the Fox Island Electric Cooperative.
Lindgren had been in the midst of an evening presentation about the reporting by Fox Island Electric to ratepayers and ongoing complaints about violations of state noise standards. The informal entity Mr. Lindgren leads—Fox Islands Wind Neighbors—has urged the State of Maine to enforce the law against Fox Islands Wind, the turbine operator.
At considerable effort, cost, and often under severe weather conditions, Mr. Lindgren mastered complex acoustic measurements, providing data from wind turbines from this rural, quiet area in Maine.
Lindgren was airlifted from Vinalhaven, ten miles from the Maine coast, by LifeFlight helicopter last night after being resuscitated by observers.
He is under treatment at Eastern Maine Medical Center in Bangor, ME.
Art Lindgren, Vinalhaven, ME
Below, a view of a wind turbine from the Lindgren home
Municipality of Kincardine had an education on the effects of stray voltage and electrical pollution caused by area wind power projects last week.
Ripley's David Colling, an expert and electrical pollution tester, has tested over 300 homes and farms within four Ontario wind projects over the last five years.
After working with stray voltage issues on dairy farms, the added issue of wind turbines was a surprise to him when he discovered electrical pollution in nearby homes.
"I never would have believed this would have happened," said Colling regarding the "wind victims" he has come to know.
Working with other experts in Canada and the United States, Colling is convinced many of the issues surrounding wind power health issues stem from either electrical pollution caused by turbines through their distribution system, or the low frequency noise that comes off the blades. He said people from Ripley, Bruce Township and Shelburne have fallen ill to what he called 'Wind Turbine Syndrome' and 'Electrohypersensitivity' caused inaudible noise and "dirty electricity" polluting the electrical systems of homes within range of wind turbines.
He said people have had to shut their power off, or in worst cases move from their homes. In many of these cases those people have been unable to sell their homes.
"We have four empty homes in Ripley due to this," he said, adding the wind company has attempted to resolve the issue by burying power lines but with limited effects.
Colling gave a detailed presentation with photos and figures to back up his claims, along with examples of his electrical tests in the area. He said "Harmonic Distortion' is something that has been acknowledged by wind companies, although they dismiss the other impacts, he said.
"And I know more people out there who are sick," he said. "I didn't ask for this. I just happened to be dropped into an area where it's happening."
Counc. Ron Coristine said he found the presentation "deeply troubling" and said the data should be used to continue the wind power debate in the area.
"As long as there is a debate, it's our responsibility to engage in it," said Coristine. "It's not good enough for us to ignore this. We shouldn't have to be an electrical engineer to protect ourselves from electricity."
Colling said the issues will continue and for council to be mindful, as the area is on an "outdated, overloaded (electrical) system," where this is bound to continue, he said.
Is Governor Scott Walker picking a fight with the state’s wind energy industry? It may be shaping up that way. The governor wants a second look at the process for placing wind turbines in Wisconsin, citing the concerns of adjoining property owners and businesses. Walker said this week that such concerns “had not been addressed.” The current Public Service Commission rules were finalized in September of 2010, after a nearly year long public process that began with the passage of enabling legislation which drew bipartisan support. “We thought it was more important to address that through the legislative and executive branches,” Walker said.
“The legislature was engaged in this issue for more than two years,” said Keith Reopelle with Wisconsin Environment. “They passed a bill, which like most complex pieces of legislation left the details up to a state agency which actually has expertise in that area.” Reopelle noted that the Public Service Commission held a lengthy series of public hearings in order to develop the rules.
Walker, who emphasized jobs creation during the campaign for governor, and who has called a special legislative session on jobs and the economy, said the intent in changing the setback rules for wind turbines is not to cost the state more jobs. “Certainly, we don’t want to do things that have an economic impact. By the same token, I think for adjoining property owners there’s some serious concerns out there, and we’re trying to balance the two,” the governor said.
Wisconsin Environment’s Reopelle said that changing those rules would “bring to a screeching halt” up to ten projects around the state. And he noted, there jobs at stake, as manufacturers in communities around the state are now producing components for wind turbines.
Under current law, (ACT 40) the Public Service Commission (PSC), with the advice of the wind siting council, must promulgate rules specifying the restrictions that a city, village, town, or county may impose on the installation or use of a “wind energy system,” which is defined as equipment and associated facilities that convert andthen store or transfer wind energy into usable forms of energy.
The restrictions must satisfy certain conditions, including preserving or protecting the public health or safety and not significantly increasing the cost of a wind energy system or significantly decreasing its efficiency.
In addition, the subject matter of the rules must include setback requirements and decommissioning, and may include any of the following:
visual appearance
lighting
electrical connections to the power grid
maximum audible sound levels
shadow flicker
proper means of measuring noise
interference with radio, telephone, or television signals
or other matters.
Current law prohibits a city, village, town, or county from placing a restriction on the installation or use of a wind energy system that is more restrictive than the PSC’s rules.
This bill imposes additional requirements on the PSC’s rules.
The bill requires that, if a PSC rule involves a person who is affected by a wind energy system, including a rule that requires written notice, the rule must ensure that such a person includes an “affected owner,” which the bill defines as the owner of property located within one−half mile of property on which a wind energy system is installed or proposed to be installed.
In addition, the rules must allow an affected owner who has entered into an agreement with an owner or operator of a wind energy system regarding the installation or use of the wind energy system to terminate the agreement upon giving written notice of the termination no later than 10 working days after entering into the agreement.
Also, the rules must requireany individual who negotiates an agreement with an affected owner on behalf of an owner or operator regarding an interest in real estate related to the installation or use of a wind energy system to make a written disclosure that the individual is licensed as a real estate broker or is exempt from such licensure.
The rules must also require inclusion of the written disclosure as an addendum to such an agreement.
Additionally, the rules must require an owner or operator to provide a copy of a brochure prepared by the PSC to an affected owner prior to entering into an agreement with the affected owner regarding the installation or use of the wind energy system.
The brochure must describe wind energy systems, requirements under state law applicable to wind energy systems, including any provisions of the PSC’s rules that allow for waiver of any such requirements, and the possible impacts of wind energy systems on property owners, including affected owners.
In addition, the bill eliminates the requirement for the PSC to promulgate rules regarding setback requirements, and requires instead that the owners of certain wind energy systems comply with setback requirements specified in the bill.
The bill’s setback requirements apply to the owner of a “large wind energy system,” which the bill defines as a wind energy system that has a total installed nameplate capacity of more than 300 kilowatts and that consists of individual wind turbines that have an installed nameplate capacity of more than 100 kilowatts.
The bill defines the owner of a large wind energy system as any of the following:
1) a person with a direct ownership interest in such a system, regardless of whether the person was involved in acquiring the necessary rights, permits, and approvals or otherwise planning for the construction and operation of the system; or
2) a person acting as a developer of a large wind energy system by acquiring the necessary rights, permits, and approvals for or by planning for the construction and operation of the system, regardless of whether the person will own or operate the system.
The foregoing definition is similar to a definition in rules promulgated by the PSC.
Under the bill, the owner of a large wind energy system must design and construct the Under the bill, the owner of a large wind energy system must design and construct the system so that the setback distance is at least 1,800 feet.
However, the bill allows for a setback distance of less than 1,800 feet if the owners of all of the following agree in writing:
1) properties adjoining the property on which the large wind energy system is located; and
2) properties separated only by a right−of−way from the property on which the large wind energy system is located.
The bill also specifies that setback distance must be measured as a straight line from the vertical center line of the wind turbine tower of the large wind energy system to the nearest point on the property line of the property on which the large wind energy system is located.
This requirement is similar to a requirement in rules promulgated by the PSC.
Current law requires the wind siting council to submit a report to the legislature every five years that describes the following:
1) peer−reviewed scientific research regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems; and
2) state and national regulatory developments regarding the siting of wind energy systems. The report must also include any recommendations for legislation.
The bill requires the wind siting council to study the impacts of wind energy systems on property values and to include the results of its study in the report.
SUPPORT SENATE BILL 9: WALKER'S WIND SITING REFORM
Better Plan encourages you to take a moment right now to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for including these more protective requirements in this bill and to also contact your senator and representative to encourage them to support it.
CONTACT Governor Scott Walker govgeneral@wisconsin.gov 115 East Capitol Madison WI 53702 (608) 266-1212
SAMPLE LETTER TO A SENATOR FROM A RESIDENT OF ROCK COUNTY
Dear Senator Cullen,
I’m writing to ask you to support Senate Bill 9, concerning wind siting issues in our state.
Five Towns in Rock County lawfully passed wind siting ordinances which were overturned by Act 40 — legislation which stripped local government of the power to regulate wind energy systems in their communities.
Other towns in your district were also considering wind ordinances before Act 40 took away that right.
Rock County Towns with lawfully adopted ordinances include
Town of Janesville,
Town of Center, Town of Spring Valley
Town of Magnolia
Town of Union
The ordinances were a product of over a years worth of work and expense. All four towns would like to see their ordinances restored, all of them call for a health and safety setback of 2640 feet from homes unless a homeowner agrees to have a turbine closer and also a more protective turbine noise limit than that provided by the state.
Although Governor Walker’s bill doesn’t address these health and safety issues directly, his bill does help to protect property rights and certainly provides greater setback protection than the PSC’s wind-developer-friendly guidelines.
This bill is also clear about allowing individual homeowners the choice to have turbines closer to their property line if they wish to enter into an agreement with the developer.
The jobs that wind farms will bring to Wisconsin are for the most part short-term construction jobs which are frequently done by construction workers called in from out of state. After the turbines are up, the jobs that remain are few.
Many Wisconsin residents now living in wind projects desperately want to move away because of turbines sited too close to their residences, but cannot sell their homes because few buyers want to live so close to turbines that are 40 to 50 stories tall.
Current PSC setbacks are just too close to homes. Wind project residents sleep is disrupted because of nighttime turbine noise. TV, radio and cell phone reception has been disrupted by the turbines as well.
Although not perfect, Governor Walker’s bill is an important step toward protecting Wisconsin residents by requiring more responsible siting guidelines. I urge you to support it.
To see how close the turbines are to homes in PSC approved wind projects in Wisconsin, please watch this very short video. It contains photos of Wisconsin homes in wind projects.
This one, shot in Fond du Lac County by a wind project resident clearly shows why living with wind turbine shadow flicker is such a nightmare for so many families.
Last February, some residents in the area of the proposed industrial wind facility in southern Brown County began posting signs expressing concerns for the potential impacts the project would have on their health, environment and property rights and values.
Individuals displaying signs have conformed to town ordinances. Now, signs in the towns of Holland, Morrison and Glenmore are being vandalized, raising objection to a more serious level.
Someone in the community is willing to violate private property laws to intimidate neighbors and limit their freedom of speech.
Did the signers of turbine contracts have any concern for what effects their actions would potentially have on the lives of their neighbors?
Do they now feel any responsibility for the backlash of community reaction?
At a Holland town meeting last summer, a contract signer who demanded removal of signs with “contentious messages,” sadly put the issue into perspective declaring, “Last year those people were my friends.”
Of the many messages expressed on the placards posted by Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, one prophetically states, “Wind energy projects destroy communities.” The acts of vandalism are ample proof of that.
The wind setback issue is no longer part of Governor Walkers bill.
Following a five to three party-line vote to remove this provision from the bill, the Assembly Rules Committee approved the calendar for Thursday's floor session, which includes special session bills on tort reform, a tax credit for health savings accounts, increased economic development tax credits and a tax credit for businesses relocating to Wisconsin.
The wind setback issue may be taken up as a separate issue later in the session.
LAWMAKERS TO TAKE UP REGULATORY REFORMS SEPARATELY
Madison — Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said Friday he wants to deal with all the issues Gov. Scott Walker has included in a regulatory reform bill, but not as one package.
That means the three issues in the package will be dealt with as separate legislation.
Walker's bill would change rules on siting wind turbines, make it easier to build on wetlands in Brown County and give the governor more power in writing administrative rules.
Fitzgerald said he supported all those ideas but thought they should be dealt with separately.
The wetlands language in Walker's bill would allow a retail development near Lambeau Field to proceed. Fitzgerald called the development a project "that clearly should be built in Green Bay."
"My concern about it is the Department of Natural Resources has absolutely messed this up from the beginning," Fitzgerald said.
The Legislature had the Public Service Commission develop rules on wind turbines, but lawmakers need to revisit the issue, Fitzgerald said. "I think that it is something that the Legislature should go back and look at again," he said.
He said he was sensitive to concerns raised both by property rights groups as well as the wind industry. They say the rules Walker is proposing would kill jobs.
The Legislature is controlled by Walker's fellow Republicans, and they have been broadly supportive of his efforts to boost the economy through tax cuts and regulatory reform. But lawmakers from both parties have raised concerns about ceding too much power to the executive branch on administrative rules.
Rules are written to implement new legislation, and lawmakers must sign off on any rules. Walker wants the rules to go through the governor's office as well.
Fitzgerald spoke to reporters after a committee of Senate leaders voted to take up a tort reform bill Tuesday on the Senate floor. Republicans say the measure will help business, while Democrats say it will make it harder for victims to find justice.
SECOND FEATURE:
TOWN OF MORRISON LOOKS AT CHANGING RULES FOR WIND TURBINES
Amid ongoing debate at the state Capitol, the Town of Morrison in Brown County continues discussion on expanding or creating another ordinance for wind turbines.
A group of residents opposes a proposed wind farm project in southern Brown County that would build 100 turbines.
Currently that project is on hold since its application to the state Public Service Commission is incomplete.
It’s a debate that has united and divided communities across southern Brown County.
Tuesday night, more than 60 town residents united in hopes of creating another ordinance restricting what wind companies can do — restricted themselves by the state Legislature.
“If you have an ordinance that doesn’t comply with state law, you’re illegal,” Town of Morrison consultant Glen Schwalbach said.
Soon-to-be enacted rules by the Public Service Commission change setback rules for neighboring properties and how much nearby residents can be paid.
But already Governor Walker has introduced legislation as part of the special session that would impose even tighter guidelines for wind companies.
“I think they are going to extend the setbacks, and they well should be. They should be much greater than originally planned,” Morrison resident Gerald Cornelissen said.
Yet others, like the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, say the proposal would lose the state nearly $2 billion in new wind power investments.
If no further legislative action is taken, the Public Service Commission says the new changes are expected to take effect March 1st.
For now the debate continues — from town halls to the state Capitol.
THIRD FEATURE
Pilot might not have seen met tower before fatal Delta crash
OAKLEY -- A crop duster pilot killed last week may not have seen the weather tower that his plane clipped, causing him to crash on a remote island in the Delta, according to a preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board.
Stephen Allen, 58, died in the crash reported about 11 a.m. Jan. 10 on Webb Tract Island, located about two miles north of Bethel Island. Allen was a resident of Courtland, a town about 20 miles south of Sacramento.
Allen was the only person on board the Rockwell International S-2R Thrush Commander crop duster, which according to Federal Aviation Administration records was built in 1975 and registered to Walnut Grove-based Alexander Ag Flying Service.
According to the NTSB, Allen was applying seed when he crashed. He appears to have struck a 200-foot meteorological tower -- constructed of galvanized tubing and designed to collect wind information -- that was installed on the island in 2009.
The NTSB wrote in its report that "the fact that these towers are narrow, unmarked and gray in color makes for a structure that is nearly invisible under some atmospheric conditions."
A final report about the crash is not expected to be completed for several months.
BETTER PLAN'S EXTRA CREDIT READING ASSIGNMENT:
What happens when wind developers come to town?
---KEEP WIND TURBINE DEBATE RESPECTFUL (WI)
"Obviously, the community has been torn apart because of this project," [Morrison Town Chairman] Christensen said.
"You have brothers not talking to brothers, fathers and sons not talking. It's sad. … Everybody has all the right to debate (an) opinion with fact, but do it with respect. That hasn't been happening."
HE'S BAA-ACK: PRO-WIND PLALE LANDS JOB IN WALKER ADMINISTRATION
Former Democratic Sen. Jeff Plale has joined the administration of Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
Plale sponsored and fought for the bill which stripped local governments of their power to regulate the siting of wind turbines in our state and gave this power to the appointed members of the Public Service Commission.
Plale wil earn $90,000 a year as the administrator of the Division of State Facilities, Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said.
In Wisconsin wind turbine noise limits are 50 dbA during the day and 45 dbA during the night. How does this compare with other states?
RESIDENTS RAISE NOISE ON WINDMILLS (NY)
" A 29-turbine commercial wind farm has been proposed for the town by New York City-based EverPower Renewables. EverPower officials have requested that the noise level emitted by the wind turbines be raised to 40 decibels. The current town law allows for the noise level to be raised 3 decibels above the ambient level of 25 decibels."
COUNTY TO DISCUSS HOW CLOSE WIND TURBINES SHOULD BE TO HOMES (MI)
Developers of wind farms say 1,000 foot setbacks are enough. They say problems with windmills are greatly exaggerated by people who want to ban them altogether.
Tonight planning commissioners in Mason County will review a proposal to require setbacks of 1.25 miles. Under the proposed rule windmills could be closer to a home if the homeowner was part of the project, meaning he or she makes a deal with the energy company.
The BPRC Research Nerd
