Better Plan, Wisconsin

HOT OFF THE PRESS!!!

CLICK HERE to download Governor Walker's bill which includes a proposal to increase setbacks between wind turbines and property lines.

Click on the images above to hear the sound of wind turbines in DeKalb County, IL. The top video was recorded yesterday.

Who is losing sleep because of wind turbine noise? The video above was shot from the home of this family.

This is the family, these are the children now living with the noise from poorly sited industrial turbines. You can read about what has happened to their lives since the turbines went on line by CLICKING HERE to visit their website

Note from the BPWI research nerd: While the 1800 foot setback from property lines proposed in Governor Walker's bill will not solve the the problem of wind turbine noise or shadow flicker it will provide much more protection for Wisconsin residents than the PSC's recent adoption of wind-developer-friendly rules, and make it more difficult for developers to site projects without the consent of the people who will be living with the turbines.

This is why wind developers and national and local lobbyists are pushing hard to make sure this bill does not pass.

WHAT YOU CAN DO RIGHT NOW TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE BADGER STATE

Please support Governor Walker's effort to increase industrial wind turbine setbacks to 1800 feet from from property lines. This setback will protect your right to build and plant trees on your land.

Current PSC rules allow turbines to be as close as 410 feet from your property line. They also prohibit you from building anything within 1250 feet of a wind turbine located on your neighbor's property. This turns portions of your land into a no-build and no-tree zone even though the turbine is not on your property. Some have long argued that this constitutes a 'taking' of your property.

Without the wind company's permission, one family in the We Energies Blue Sky Green Field wind project in Fond du Lac County can't build a long-planned attached garage onto their home because of wind turbines on their neighbor's farmland. Families who intended to build on their own land or add onto their homes are not be able to do so because of turbines located just 400 feet from their property lines. 

A wind developer prospecting in Rock County expressed his feelings about impact to non participating property owners this way: "There are always winners and losers in any project."

 Better Plan encourages you to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for including a more protective setback in this proposed bill than that created by the Public Service Commission. We also urge you to contact your senator and representative right away to ask them to support this important bill.

 CONTACT Governor Scott Walker govgeneral@wisconsin.gov
115 East Capitol
Madison WI 53702
(608) 266-1212 

CONTACT Legislators  

Who Are My Legislators?  To find out, CLICK HERE

Senate | Members | E-Mail Directory

Assembly | Members | E-Mail Directory

From our "What the ---? department:
 

“This unreasonable proposal is a steamroller driven by anti-wind special interests, like realtors, bent on denying local governments the ability to decide what’s in their best interests,” said Vickerman.-

SOURCE: Alternative Energy Press Releases

Michael Vickerman worked hard to help pass a bill which stipped all local government in our state of the power to enact ordinances regulating wind siting in their communities and also overturned local wind ordinances. He is a PSC appointed member of Wisconsin's Wind Siting Council and in 2010 was a registered and paid lobbyist for RENEW Wisconsin whose clients include Alliant Energy, ATC, We Energies, MG&E, North American Hydro, WPPI, and major wind developers  such as Invenergy, EnXco, Horizon Wind, Emerging Energies and other wind developers with projects pending in our state. [SOURCE]-

UPDATE: Although registered as a lobbyist in the past, Mr. Vickerman's name does not appear on the most recent list of 2011 lobbyists for RENEW Wisconsin. CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE

 Here's the most recent press release written by Michael Vickerman

RENEW Wisconsin: Walker’s wind siting proposal strips local control

1/18/2011

More information
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Mandating by statute an extreme setback distance for commercial wind turbines, Governor Scott Walker’s wind siting proposal would strip local governments of their ability to negotiate lesser setback distances with wind developers, according to RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide renewable energy advocacy group.

Walker’s proposal would require a setback distance between a turbine and neighboring property line of 1,800 feet, which can be shortened only by an agreement between the project owner and owners of adjoining properties, entirely bypassing towns and counties.

Walker’s proposal would eliminate the ability of local governments to attract wind developments that would generate revenues in lieu of taxes to help buffer the expected cuts to local governments in the upcoming state budget.

A story in the Fond du Lac Reporter on January 12 quoted town and county officials as saying the wind project revenue helped save on property taxes by filling the gap between rising municipal expenses and declining state-paid shared revenue dollars.

“We’ve seen five towns in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties enter into joint development agreements specifying reasonable setback distances because town officials wanted to capture the economic benefits of hosting wind projects larger than 50 megawatts,” Vickerman said.

The statewide siting rule, approved by the Public Service Commission (PSC) and set to take effect March 1, preserved local government authority to specify less restrictive conditions. “This unreasonable proposal is a steamroller driven by anti-wind special interests, like realtors, bent on denying local governments the ability to decide what’s in their best interests,” said Vickerman.

SOURCE: http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=223600

How big are those blades again? CLICK ON the image below to see turbine blades being transported by train.

EXTRA CREDIT READING:

Where is Ex-Governor Doyle working now?

CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT

AND.... Extra credit question: WHY ARE GOLDWIND EMPLOYEES DANCING IN A CHINESE WIND FARM?  COULD IT BE THE U.S.  STIMULUS DOLLARS? To read more about it, CLICK HERE

 

"It's a death sentence.

This has everything to do with eliminating wind power. That's why the proposal is so high.

It's a hit job."

- Michael Vickerman, who was a registered lobbyist for RENEW Wisconsin whose clients include Alliant Energy, ATC, We Energies, MG&E, North American Hydro, WPPI, and many wind developers with projects pending in our state. [SOURCE]

REFORM BILL POSES THREAT TO WIND FARMS IN OUR STATE

SOURCE: Wisconsin State Journal

January 15, 2011

By CLAY BARBOUR

Buried in a regulatory reform bill proposed by Gov. Scott Walker earlier this week lies a provision that wind energy insiders say could shut down 12 wind farm projects, cost investors billions and essentially kill the industry in the state.

In the bill announced Tuesday, Walker seeks to quadruple the distance between wind turbines and neighboring property.

The governor said the provision was written to protect homeowners, many of whom have complained about the encroachment of wind turbines in the rural parts of the state. Opponents of wind farms have complained of diminished property values, occasional noise pollution, moving shadows cast by the giant machines and loss of sleep from vibrations.

But critics this week called the provision a job killer and said it would earn Wisconsin a reputation for being hostile to alternative energy sources, such as wind.

"It would in essence shut down wind energy in the state," said Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. "It is one of the most onerous regulations we have seen."

Bode said that, if passed, the measure would shut down 12 wind farm projects worth about $1.8 billion. Those projects, which are in various stages of planning, could produce about 950 full-time jobs for one year, she said.

"This is a shock to those of us in the wind industry," Bode said. "This will cause projects to go to other states."

Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie would not comment on specific criticisms of the bill, instead reiterating what has become the new Republican governor's mantra. "Governor Walker is focused on ensuring Wisconsin has a business climate that allows the private sector to create 250,000 jobs across all economic sectors," he said.

The proposal was met with applause from wind farm critics, like Elizabeth Ebertz. Ebertz, 67, lives in a little valley about a half-mile from a dozen 400-foot-tall wind turbines. The structures are part of the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in northeastern Fond du Lac County, one of the state's largest wind farms, capable of producing energy for about 36,000 homes.

But according to Ebert, the turbines also produce enough noise to chase her from the garden - and, on most nights, disturb her sleep.

"I think it's a terrific idea, and long overdue," she said. "I have a lot of them now and I'd like to get rid of them."

‘Death sentence'

Bode said the wind industry employs about 3,000 people in Wisconsin. The state spends about $1.5 billion on imported energy every year and ranks 16th in the country in available wind.

According to the AWEA, Wisconsin has the capacity to produce up to 449 megawatts of energy from its existing wind farms - enough to power about 110,000 homes. Yet it trails other Midwestern states in wind energy production. Minnesota wind farms produce 1,797 megawatts, Illinois produces 1,848 and Iowa generates 3,670.

Industry insiders hoped new rules approved by former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle would end years of localized fights - often spurred by well-funded anti-wind organizations - that killed at least 10 proposed wind farms in the past eight years and scared off several others.

Supporters hoped the new rules would help the state reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2015. Renewable sources account for 5 percent of the state's energy now.

But Walker's proposal has many wondering what the future holds for the industry. Currently the state requires turbines have a setback from the nearest property line of 1.1 times the height of the turbine, or roughly 450 feet. The turbines are also required to have a setback of 1,250 feet from a home.

Walker's provision would push the setback from the property line to 1,800 feet (almost six football fields), a distance that industry experts say is unheard of in other states.

"It's a death sentence," said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a Madison nonprofit that promotes clean energy. "This has everything to do with eliminating wind power. That's why the proposal is so high. It's a hit job."

Taking their business elsewhere

Vickerman said the new rules, if approved, would essentially end the industry's growth here. His sentiment is shared by many in the wind industry.

"This regulation goes far beyond what any other state has done," said Tim Polz, vice president of Midwest Wind Energy, a company currently planning a large wind farm in Calumet County. "This will kill our project."

The Chicago-based Midwest has developed seven wind farms in total and has 12 more in the planning stages. The company already built two wind farms in Wisconsin: the 36-turbine Butler Ridge Wind Energy Project in Dodge County and the 41-turbine Cedar Ridge Wind Farm in Fond du Lac County.

Polz said Midwest has already spent three years and about $1 million on the Calumet County project, which would employ between 150 and 200 construction workers for up to 18 months if it moved forward.

"This sends the message to us that Wisconsin does not want our business," he said.

Dean Baumgardner, executive vice president for the St. Louis-based Wind Capital Group, said Walker's proposal was disappointing, especially considering the governor's vow to create jobs.

Wind Capital, which has an office in Madison, has developed six farms and has 20 more in the planning stages - including a 40- to 60-turbine farm in Grant County. Baumgardner said Walker's proposal will likely kill the Grant County farm.

"But we will keep building wind farms," he said. "We will just do it elsewhere."

SECOND FEATURE:

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

The setbacks proposed in the Walker bill will not be the strictest in the nation as stated in the article below. The claim seems to be based on statements from Denise Bode, head of the Amercian Wind Energy Association which is the largest wind lobbying organization in the nation.

EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION: Who is Denise Bode? Scroll down past the RED HANDS to read more about the AWEA and Denise Bode.

PROPOSED WIND RESTRICTIONS WOULD BE STRICTEST IN NATION

 SOURCE Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com 

January 14, 2011

By Thomas Content

The head of a wind industry trade group and a lobbyist for the Wisconsin Realtors Association squared off over Gov. Scott Walker’s wind farm siting proposals.

Denise Bode, chief executive of the American Wind Energy Association weighed in Friday on Wisconsin’s proposed wind-siting rule, calling it “the biggest barrier” to wind development in the country.

“This will be the biggest regulatory barrier in terms of setbacks in the country,” said Denise Bode, chief executive of the AWEA, based in Washington, D.C., in an interview Friday afternoon. “You’re adding a new regulator barrier and putting a ‘closed for business’ sign on Wisconsin for wind development.”

A restrictive environment for wind development will create a chilling effect for companies that manufacture parts for wind turbines to want to open plants in the state, following the lead of firms like TowerTech in Manitowoc and Ingeteam, which is building a factory in the Menomonee River Valley.

Many states have no setback requirements, deferring to local units of government. Of those that do, none has a setback as far as Wisconsin’s proposal, Bode said.

But Tom Larson, chief lobbyist for the Wisconsin Realtors Association, said the proposal is a strong defense for property rights.

“We think that with this bill Wisconsin would be the only state in the country to have an adequate setback for property owners,” said Larson.

He called the rule adopted by the Public Service Commission “the poster child for Scott Walker’s regulatory reform on how administrative rules are made,” noting that the rule was enacted by an agency and not elected government officials.

Developing wind farms in Wisconsin has generated more controversy than in some other states in part because its areas most suitable for wind turbines are more densely populated than rural expanses of Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas that host wind projects.

Opposition to wind farms led some counties to enact wind power moratoriums and other restrictive rules. The patchwork of local rules stalled projects, prompting the state Legislature to pass legislation to set a statewide standard.

Bode said the industry wasn’t pleased with – but could live with – the standard that was adopted by the Public Service Commission last year, Bode said.

Dan Ebert, who chairs the state’s wind siting advisory council, said the end result wasn’t perfect, but it did a better job at balancing the competing interests with this issue.

“We shouldn’t have the Realtors Association dictating energy policy in this state,” he said.

The proposed rule is more aggressive than the PSC rule because it would cover large utility-scale wind farm as well as smaller wind farms, said Ebert, a senior vice president with WPPI Energy in Sun Prairie.

Better Plan encourages you to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for including these more protective setbacks 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 

CONTACT Legislators  

Who Are My Legislators?  To find out, CLICK HERE

Senate | Members | E-Mail Directory

Assembly | Members | E-Mail Directory

MORE ON WIND LOBBYISTS:

WANT BIG WIND? CHANGE THE LAW! ALL IT TAKES IS FIVE MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF LOBBYING MONEY

Industry blitzes hill on Schumer bill, renewable mandate

SOURCE: The New York Times, www.nytimes.com

By ANNE C. MULKERN of Greenwire, 

March 9, 2010

"The wind industry over the last year has made a major lobbying push. In 2009, the industry tripled spending on influence efforts from a year earlier. The American Wind Energy Association paid $5 million for lobbying in 2009, compared with $1.7 million the previous year, the highest amount ever for the association and a sixth of the $30.1 million spent by all renewable companies combined. It came in the same year that the wind industry saw its prospects lifted by legislation."

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO A DISCUSSION OF THE NEW WIND RULES AND WIND POWER IN WISCONSIN HOSTED BY WORT 89.9FM, MADISON'S COMMUNITY RADIO STATION.

 EXTRA CREDIT READING: 

CLICK HERE for Clean Wisconsin's 2009 testimony to the Public Service Commission during the Glacier Hills Wind Project hearings--Clean Wisconsin tells the PSC there will no CO2 reduction because of the implementation of the Glacier Hills project unless the PSC also requires a coal fired plant to be shut down.

Result: The PSC approves the project with no requirement that a coal-fired plant to be shut down.

12/7/09 Clean Wisconsin lives up to its name by taking on the dirty elephant in the room.

December 16, 2010

Dear Senator Plale and Representative Soletski,

We are writing to express our concerns regarding Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 which sets state-wide standards for the siting of wind towers.

The Rule pending before your committee should be sent back to the Public Service Commission for modifications.

We appreciate the work of both committees on this proposed rule. Much of the citizen reaction, including that of your constituents raised serious concerns about the effects of the rule. We are grateful for the committee action in October to return the rule to the PSC for modifications.

Unfortunately, the PSC modified Rule sent back to your committee this month does not address the concerns expressed by citizens of members of your committee.

Specifically, we are deeply concerned about the setback provisions and its effect on neighbors to properties containing wind towers. Substantial testimony was provided by citizens describing this setback as completely unacceptable.

 It seems the PSC has entirely disregarded the will of Wisconsin's citizens and elected officials.

We respectfully urge you to consider the will of the people and those whom they have elected. We ask the committee to either return the rule to the PSC for further modifications or act quickly to object to the proposed rule so it can be taken up the Joint Committee on Review of Administrative Rules.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Sincerely,

Kathleen Vinehout
State Senator
31st Senate District

Chris Danou
State Representative
91st Assembly District

LETTER FROM SENATOR JON ERPENBACH TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

REGARDING WIND SITING RULES

SOURCE: PSC DOCKET # 1-AC-231

November 30, 2010

Public Service Commission

Eric Callisto , Chairperson

Mark Meyer, Commissioner

Lauren Azar, Commissioner

PO Box 7854

Madison WI 53707-7854

Dear Commissioners Callisto, Meyer and Azar:

I am writing to today regarding Clearinghouse Rule # 10-057 – PSC Wind Siting Rules proposed Chapter 128.  Having voted for the rule’s return to the PSC with the majority of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail, I wanted to share some perspective as to why.

In the committee hearing that was held on October 13, 2010, we received a number of suggestions regarding the rules that resonated with committee members.  I am including copies of that testimony for your consideration and will summarily list them in outline fashion for your use.

1. Wisconsin Towns Association Memo
   1. Setback of large wind turbines from nonparticipating residences – at a minimum having the setback from the property line of a nonparticipating property, not the residence.
   2. Decrease the maximum noise limits from 50 dBA during daytime and 45 dBA during nighttime hours.
   3. Eliminate the authority of PSC to approve lesser standards than the minimum standards to protect the public under PSC 128.02 (4) Individual Consideration
   4. Increase the 25% limit that a local government is allowed to require a large wind turbine  owner to compensate the owner of a nonparticipating residence.  PSC 128.33 (3) Monetary Compensation.
   5. Require the owner of the wind turbine to reimburse the emergency personnel who train them in safety and emergency procedures.  PSC 128.14 (4) (e) under Emergency Procedures
   6. Change of ownership should not be valid until the new owner has shown proof of compliance with all specific requirements of the original owner.

1. Wisconsin Realtor Association
   1. Setback
   2. Attorney review of contracts
   3. Informational brochure for property owners
   4. Clarification that lease negotiators must have a WI Real Estate License
   5. Additional health impact research
   6. Time period for addressing complaints
   7. Define the term “affected” in “affected nonparticipating residence”

1. DATCP 

     Incorporate the use of DATCP guidelines that intend to maintain the productivity of the farmland associated with wind energy projects.

1. Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc.  & WI Potato & Vegetable Growers Assoc. Inc.

Address the concerns regarding aerial application of farmland and compensation for conflict that arises.

1. The concerns raised by countless individuals that the health concerns or wind turbines are not being addressed adequately, that the setbacks need revision, that the “takings” issue needs to be addressed, that dBA levels need to be reduced both day and night, that shadow flicker must be addressed in the rule, that the health aspects of Wind Turbines have to be studied and taken into consideration.   I have not included the reams of paper that was shared with the committee by all of these individuals – I know much of it has already been shared with the PSC.

In closing, I think the above outline gives the Commission a number of particular issues to re-examine within the rule. 

I would be happy to discuss further the return of the rule by the Senate Committee with the Commission.

Sincerely,

JON ERPENBACH

State Senator

27^th District

JE.tk

REPLY FROM ERIC CALLISTO, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

December 3, 2010

Dear Senator Erpenbach,

Thank you for sharing your concerns and comments regarding the wind siting rules. We appreciate the summary you provided us and will take all comments into consideration when deciding upon modifications that the Commission plans to take up at an open commission meeting soon.

Eric Callisto
Chairperson

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Why won't Public Service Commission Chairman Eric Callisto tell Senator Erpenbach exactly when the open meeting regarding the wind siting rules will take place?

Certainly Chairman Callisto knows exactly when this meeting will happen. Why give such a vague reply to a state senator?

For those of us watching this issue, it's important to note that Better Plan has been told that the calendar of events on the PSC website is not an official posting place for such meetings so the PSC website calendar is exempt from the 24 hour notice prior to a public meeting that is required by law.

Better Plan has been unable to find the official posting place for the meetings apart from the entry way of the PSC building in Madison.

For many of us, a daily drive to Madison to check the posting at the PSC isn't possible.

Better Plan is concerned that the PSC is purposefully being vague about the date and time of this meeting and urges you to call the PSC daily to find out when this meeting will take place and ask for an agenda.

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

610 North Whitney Way. P.O. Box 7854

Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7854

Phone:(608)266-5481

General Toll Free:(888)816-3831

TTY:(608)267-1479

Fax:(608)266-3957

URL:http://psc.wi.gov/

SECOND FEATURE:

AN 82-YEAR-OLD GOT TIRED OF SPITTING INTO THE WIND, WENT OUT ON A LIMB

SOURCE: The Portland Press Herald, www.pressherald.com

December 6 2010

Donald Smith,

My name is Donald Smith. I am 82 years old and a native Mainer. I am a veteran and a grandfather. I was arrested and charged with criminal trespass at the Rollins Mountain wind project site in Lincoln on Nov. 8. Five of us formed a human barricade to the site.

Dozens of others braved the cold rainy November day to protest First Wind’s project.

Many people have asked me why I did this. Good question. I hope I give good answers.

The first reason is that nobody seems to be paying attention to the negative aspects of wind power — least of all the complacent and complicit media in Maine.

If we had just stood out there with signs, even the local reporter would likely have overlooked the event. putting myself on the line to dramatize why this project is so wrong, it caught the attention of media far and wide.

It seems that most people understand utility scale (or industrial) wind power superficially, accepting wind power as “green” and “clean” and the panacea for solving energy and climate challenges. It is the result of years of masterful propaganda by the wind industry.

ALL ABOUT SUBSIDIES

Some of us have actually done a lot of research into industrial wind and have found huge negatives. dramatically raising the visibility of the issue with the arrests, we are getting people to discover these negatives as the follow-up dialogue occurs.

I have gained insights from my research into industrial wind. The wind industry would not exist without massive government subsidies. For example, the US Energy Information Administration reports that in 2007, wind received $23.37 per megawatt hour in subsidies; the next highest subsidy was $1.59 for nuclear. Those are our tax dollars going into something that doesn’t work.

We are putting up wind turbines in places where there isn’t enough wind to generate electricity. Look at the NREL map of wind potential in Maine. The area around Lincoln Lakes is all white. Look at the color code and white means “poor.”

My guess is wind turbines are not about generating electricity, but about selling a carbon tax in the form of renewable energy certificates, raking in production tax credits, and having the taxpayers pay the cost of construction.

Another reason I got arrested is to protest the proliferation of these industrial wind projects. I retired to live a quiet life on Caribou Pond, with a view of Rollins Mountain. That ridge will have 15 turbines, each 389 feet high. The total number of turbines will be 40 on Rollins Mountain and the ridges of Rocky Dundee.

TOO DESTRUCTIVE TO BE GREEN

An acoustics expert stated that the noise from these turbines will negatively impact hundreds of people on the lakes and nearby country roads, the same well-documented noise problems that have been experienced at Mars Hill, Freedom and Vinalhaven.

I am not a NIMBY. I don’t believe these industrial machines belong anywhere in the rural landscape. Not in anyone’s yard — back, front or side.

The noise issue is just one of many. If you could see the destruction of Rollins Mountain taking place right now, you would never consider this a “green” project. The DEP would fine me if I moved a rock at my home, yet they approved ridges being blasted away and scalped. They will never be the same.

The Rollins project will blast away more than seven miles of ridges and clear-cut more than one thousand acres and install 20 miles of powerlines to tie into the grid.

That is for just one project. Without thinking through the ramifications, the Legislature in 2008 passed LD 2283, a horrible law to give favoritism to wind power. They chose an arbitrary figure of 2,700 megawatts of installed capacity by 2020, which at a generous actual output of 25 percent, ends up being just 675 megawatts of intermittent, unpredictable, unreliable power.

If Rollins is 60 megawatts, then it will mean 45 more projects like this to achieve the goal.

THE PRICE IS WAY TOO STEEP

Do the math. Based on the impact of Rollins, that means at least 315 miles of Maine ridges and mountains blasted away to install 1,800 turbines; 45,000 acres or more of carbon sequestrating forest permanently clear-cut; and 1,000 miles or more of new powerlines.

The price? Rollins’ price tag of $130 million times 45 is a staggering $5.85 billion.

Why did I get arrested? To help bring forth what a folly this is and how damaging it is to Maine’s environment. Wind power is bad economics and bad public policy. It is far from “green.” The negative impacts of these projects on the environment and our quality of place far outweigh the pittance of good they might do for the planet.

THIRD FEATURE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, SENATE, No. 2374, 214th LEGISLATURE

INTRODUCED NOVEMBER 8, 2010

Sponsored by:

Senator SEAN T. KEAN
District 11 (Monmouth)

Senator ANDREW R. CIESLA
District 10 (Monmouth and Ocean)

Co-Sponsored by:

Senator Gill

SYNOPSIS

Prohibits siting of industrial wind turbines within 2,000 feet of any residence or residentially zoned property.

AN ACT concerning wind energy and supplementing Titles 13 and 40 of the Revised Statutes.

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. a. The Legislature finds and declares that industrial-strength wind turbines can be over 400 feet tall and have blades that sweep up to 1.5 acres in area;

that, as a result of their size, these machines have the potential to obstruct scenic vistas, create large community eyesores, and reduce property values for nearby residents unless they are sited at appropriate distances from residential areas;

that recent developments in the area of wind power production have further indicated that the noise and vibration stemming from the operation of large-scale industrial wind turbines may cause nearby residents to suffer from a health condition known as “wind turbine syndrome,” which may result in sleep disturbance, headaches, ringing of the ears, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, racing heartbeat, irritability, problems with memory and concentration, and panic episodes accompanied by internal pulsation or quivering sensations; that people have moved away from their homes to avoid the ill effects associated with “wind turbine syndrome”;

and that medical, noise, and acoustics experts, as well as wind energy organizations, have indicated that incidents of “wind turbine syndrome” can be avoided if industrial-strength wind turbines are sited a considerable distance away from residential property.

b. The Legislature therefore finds that, in order to protect the public health and welfare, and in order to preserve the scenic vistas enjoyed by State residents and protect residents from unnecessary reductions in property value, it is both reasonable and necessary to prohibit the siting of industrial-strength wind turbines in or near residential areas.

2. a. No wind energy structure may be erected or installed in the State at a site that is closer than 2,000 feet from any residence or residentially zoned property.

b. No State entity may approve any plan, proposal, or permit application for a wind energy structure if that wind energy structure will be erected or installed at a site that is closer than 2,000 feet from any residence or residentially zoned property.

c. The provisions of this section shall apply only to wind energy structures erected or installed in the State subsequent to the effective date of this act.

d. As used in this section, “wind energy structure” means any on- or off-shore turbine, facility, farm, or other structure that is designed for the purpose of supplying electrical energy produced from wind technology, but shall not include a “small wind energy system,” as defined by section 1 of P.L.2009, c.244 (C.40:55D-66.12).

3. a. No municipal agency may approve any plan, proposal, or permit application for a wind energy structure if that wind energy structure will be erected or installed at a site that is closer than 2,000 feet from any residence or residentially zoned property.

b. The provisions of this section shall apply only to wind energy structures erected or installed in the State subsequent to the effective date of this act.

c. As used in this section, “wind energy structure” means any on- or off-shore turbine, facility, farm, or other structure that is designed for the purpose of supplying electrical energy produced from wind technology, but shall not include a “small wind energy system,” as defined by section 1 of P.L.2009, c.244 (C.40:55D-66.12).

4. This act shall take effect immediately.

STATEMENT

This bill would prohibit the siting of any industrial-strength wind energy production system within 2,000 feet of any residence or residentially zoned property. It would further prohibit any State entity or local government unit from approving a plan, proposal, or permit application for any industrial wind energy system that will be so sited.

The bill’s prohibitions are necessary in order to ensure that the increased use of wind energy in the State will not cause a significant obstruction of scenic views or reduction in home values for New Jersey residents, and, more importantly, will not cause New Jersey residents to suffer from the ill health effects associated with “wind turbine syndrome” – a condition that has been connected with the close placement of industrial-scale wind turbines to residential areas. Symptoms of “wind turbine syndrome” include sleep disturbance, headaches, ringing of the ears, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, racing heartbeat, irritability, problems with memory and concentration, and panic episodes accompanied by internal pulsation or quivering.

These symptoms, which are continuing in nature, often force people to move away from their homes. Experts on “wind turbine syndrome,” experts in noise and acoustics, and wind energy associations, however, have all indicated that instances of “wind turbine syndrome” can be avoided if industrial wind energy systems are sited a considerable distance away from residential housing.

Such distant siting would also alleviate potential problems associated with vista obstruction, and would ease the impact of industrial wind energy facilities on property values.

Consequently, in order to protect the public health and welfare, and preserve the State’s scenic vistas and residential property values, it is both reasonable and necessary to prohibit the erection of industrial wind energy facilities within 2,000 feet of any residential property.

It is important to note, however, that this bill would not apply to the siting of small wind energy systems that are used primarily for on-site consumption purposes. “Wind turbine syndrome” has been associated only with the residential placement of large-scale, industrial-strength wind turbines. Moreover, small, personal-use wind energy systems are not likely to cause significant vista obstruction or the reduction of surrounding property values, as is true of their larger, industrial counterparts.

Click here to download entire text of bill

CLICK HERE TO VIEW astonishing video of what is being called "the drunken windmill". What happens when a blade falls off an industrial scale wind turbine but it keeps on turning?

To get an idea of the scale of this turbine, note the height of the tree line.

Below:

Video from a public meeting in the rural Ontario towns of Fergus and Belwood where residents confront wind developers and hired PR people about a proposed project.

In the past, developers held open public meetings where they addressed the public directly. Now the approach is to hold an 'open house' --- no direct statements to the residents, but rather developers and hired PR people answer questions from residents one on one.

 THIRD FEATURE:

LANDOWNERS: EDUCATION IS THE KEY TO WIND POWER BENEFITS

SOURCE: Kearney Hub, www.kearneyhub.com

November 13, 2010

By LORI POTTER

KEARNEY — There’s a steep learning curve for landowners interested in attracting wind power projects, landowner group leaders said at this week’s Nebraska Wind Power 2010 Conference in Kearney.

“You’re gonna have to have persistence to go on,” said David Vavra of the Saline County Wind Association.

Landowners from six Saline County precincts joined his group. Vavra said developers are interested in contiguous properties, so significant numbers of participants are need to support a project.

An early question for group members was: “Do we want to look at these windmills the rest of our lives and our children’s lives?”

“That can be seriously tying up your property for a long time,” Vavra said.

The most important missions are to protect landowners from unscrupulous developers and make sure that everyone understands that wind energy benefits come with issues such as construction of access roads and the work required to negotiate equitable land leases.

“You can have one developer come in and hit all the high spots. That’s checkerboarding,” Vavra explained. Or two each can tie up enough easements to prevent either from developing a project, leaving things at a standstill.

“So you go en masse, rather than getting picked off one at a time, even though that’s counterintuitive for developers,” he said, telling landowners not to believe developers who say they won’t talk to organizations.

Vavra emphasized the need to raise the money necessary to hire an attorney specializing in wind projects. “This is too important,” he said. “You’re dealing with multimillion dollar companies. They’re like a 747, and you’re like a mosquito.”

Groups should get their own wind quality data and not depend only on developers’ studies, he added.

Jim Young and other members of the Banner County Wind Energy Association organized with the knowledge of what has happed during the past 50 years of oil development in the southern Panhandle. “Some people got taken advantage of,” he said. “We wanted to form an association so we didn’t have problems like what Dave (Vavra) was talking about.”

The Banner County group has involved landowners, the county board and Panhandle Resource Conservation and Development. Leaders talked to landowners in areas where wind projects have been developed.

Initially, letters were sent to county residents and landowner meetings were scheduled at the school gym. Eventually, the Banner County group formed a limited liability corporation.

“As Sen. Nelson said, ‘You need to hit this like a full-court press,’” Young said, adding that nothing gets done if everyone is bickering. “You’ve gotta respect what everybody else is saying and work together.”

There can be hundreds of questions to answer just in the fine print of a wind contract. Vavra said the issues include insurance, liability, decommissionings or defaults, crop or other damage, payment allocations, taxes, effects on Conservation Reserve Program contracts, and audit rights.

“If you don’t know (the answers), you’re gonna get taken,” Young said.

Nebraska Farmers Union Public Affairs Director Graham Christensen said one of the first wind project contracts he saw when he started with NFU was for one payment of $1,000 for a 55-year-lease. “That is totally unacceptable,” he said.

Lincoln attorney Andy Pollock of the Nebraska Energy Export Association said, “There are different cultures in every county … so you really need to explore that as a local organization. What’s right for you?”

That means finding the right developer and determining the necessary lease terms. “You’re in the driver’s seat,” Pollock said. “You have options. …. Developers want to be here.”

It also means choosing a way to fund the local group.

Young said Banner County used $100 one-time dues. Vavra said Saline County started with a $50 minimum plus 50 cents per acre with a promise to pay back any contributor who never gets any money from a wind project or related development.

Pollock cautioned landowners that public power districts control the transportation and sale of wind energy in Nebraska.

“Don’t get any notion in your head that you can go and sell (electricity) to the ethanol plant down the road,” he said. “That’s public power’s job.”

Vavra said local leaders must put the group’s needs ahead of any personal interests. “If you’re looking at dollars, this is not a get-rich-quick scheme … this is long term,” he said.