Better Plan, Wisconsin

DATES SET FOR WIND LAWSUIT

SOURCE: Huron Daily Tribune, www.michigansthumb.com

October 23 2010

By Kate Hessling, Tribune Staff Writer,

Turbines in Ubly, MichiganBAD AXE — Dates have been set for a case evaluation and jury trial for the lawsuit filed by 20 Huron County residents claiming the Ubly area Michigan Wind I development has harmed their quality of life and lowered property values.

Huron County Circuit Court officials said a case evaluation will be conducted July 21, 2011 and a jury trial has been scheduled for Oct. 4, 2011. The dates were set after a pretrial hearing that was held Thursday.

The case evaluation consists of a panel of three attorneys who will review the case and recommend a case outcome. The plaintiffs and defendants then will have 28 days to either accept or reject the results of the case evaluation. If both accept the recommendation, an order closing the case will be drafted. If one or both parties reject the recommendation, the case goes to a jury trial.

In the lawsuit, which was filed May 11 in Huron County Circuit Court against John Deere Renewables, Deere & Company (John Deere), Noble Environmental Power, LLC, Michigan Wind I, LLC (Noble Thumb Windpark I) and RMT, Inc., the plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $25,000 and an injunctive relief ordering the companies to cease and desist their activities.

The lawsuit consists of four counts: Private nuisance (Count I), public nuisance (Count II), negligent design of a wind farm (Count III) and negligent misrepresentation (Count IV). While the lawsuit names John Deere Renewables, John Deere, Michigan Wind I, LLC and Noble Environmental Power, LLC in all four counts, RMT, Inc. is named only in Count III.

In August, Huron County Circuit Court Judge M. Richard Knoblock dismissed two of four counts against John Deere Renewables, LLC, Deere & Company and Michigan Wind 1, LLC, and one of four counts against Noble Environmental Power, LLC

Knoblock’s ruling left John Deere, John Deere Renewables, Michigan Wind I LLC facing two counts: Count I of private nuisance and Count II of public nuisance. Noble Environmental Power, LLC is left with three counts: Count I of private nuisance, Count II of public nuisance and Count III of negligent design of a wind farm. RMT, Inc. still faces the one count of negligent design of a wind park.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege the actions of the wind companies and Michigan Wind 1 wind farm have caused the plaintiffs substantial damage, including, but not limited to, physical harm and adverse health effects, including the inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea and other physiological cognitive effects.

According to the answer attorneys for RMT, Inc. filed in response to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, RMT denies it is liable to the plaintiffs in any amount of money whatsoever, and is asking the court to dismiss the complaint and grant RMT, Inc. its costs, attorney fees and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate.

Answers filed by attorneys for John Deere, Deere Renewables and Michigan Wind I LLC, and by attorneys for Noble Environmental Power, LLC, also deny the allegations in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in the case are David Peplinski, Marilyn Peplinski, Frank Peplinski, Georgia Peplinski, Terry Peplinski, Christine Peplinski, Curtis Watchowski, Lynda Watchowski, James Czewski, Delphine Czewski, Dennis Mausolf, Darcy Mausolf, Dale Laming, Elaine Laming, Lynn Sweeney, Pam Sweeney, Alger Nowak, Mary Nowak, Randy Weber and Angela Weber, according to court documents from the Huron County Clerk’s Office.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege the actions of the wind companies and Michigan Wind 1 wind farm have caused the plaintiffs substantial damage, including, but not limited to, physical harm and adverse health effects, including the inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea and other physiological cognitive effects.

The lawsuit attributes the adverse health effects to low frequency and sub-audible infrasound and/or impulse noise created by and emitted from turbines in the Ubly area wind park.

Noise and setback issues included in the lawsuit are what many opponents to local wind energy development say are the most contentious issues surrounding the Nov. 2 county Proposals 1 & 2. They believe the county’s standards are too lax and put the public health, safety and welfare at risk.

County officials and wind proponents have countered efforts urging people to vote “No” on the two proposals by noting the two proposals are not about noise and setbacks. The proposals are to amend the county’s wind ordinance to change two areas of the county — McKinley Township and portions of Rubicon, Sigel and Bloomfield townships — from a zoning classification of agriculture to a zoning classification of agriculture with a wind overlay district.

The proposals do not seek to change any of the ordinance’s language or existing noise and setback standards for wind energy developments.

With that said, opponents to wind developments say readers should be informed about these issues from Dr. Malcolm Swinbanks, the expert who wind opponents repeatedly have referenced in literature and public meetings.

Some key points of opponents and proponents in this debate will be featured in Tuesday’s edition of the Huron Daily Tribune.



SECOND FEATURE

OREGON PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICE DECIDES IT'S TIME TO STUDY HEALTH EFFECTS OF WIND TURBINES

By Scott Learn, The Oregonian, www.oregonlive.com 21 October 2010

Oregon has boosted wind energy projects with a vengeance in recent years, adopting a renewable power standard and tax breaks that have helped spread wind farms across the state’s northern reaches and into eastern Oregon.

Now comes the Oregon Public Health office, which announced Thursday that it’s embarking on a public health assessment of wind farms, kicking off with three “listening sessions” next month in LaGrande, Pendleton and Arlington to hear residents’ health concerns tied to the spinning blades.

The health issues are part of a broader backlash in Oregon and nationwide from critics who complain of negative impacts on scenery, property values, wildlife and tourism.

The growing number of wind farms has led to more complaints about their health effects, said Sujata Joshi, an epidemiologist in the environmental public health office. Health concerns raised to date focus on noise and vibration generated by the huge turbines.

The assessment will start with the listening sessions, but also include a review of health studies and talks with a steering committee that will include wind farm developers, community members, the state Department of Energy and Oregon’s energy facility siting council, which oversees new wind farm locations.

“With any development, you start learning more about potential concerns as more people start experiencing it,” Joshi said. “Our goal now is to hear what people have to say, and see if we can find solutions that work for communities and for the state’s goals.”

Wind farm critics cite work done by New York physician Nina Pierpoint who coined the term “wind turbine syndrome” to describe effects — such as headaches, dizziness and memory loss — of living near the machines. Industry representatives say they haven’t seen solid research linking wind turbines and negative health effects.

In May, Morrow County’s planning commission voted to give owners of the 72-megawatt Willow Creek farm six months to comply with state noise regulations. In November, Union County voters will vote thumbs up or down on the proposed Antelope Ridge Wind farm, though the vote is only advisory to the county commission. Supporters say the projects bring jobs, healthy lease payments to land owners who host the turbines and carbon-free electricity.

Oregon’s renewable power standard requires Portland General Electric and PacifiCorp to obtain 25 percent of their energy from new renewable sources by 2025. A more aggressive standard in California has also driven fast-paced wind farm development in Oregon.

Joshi said she’s not sure yet when the health office will complete its work. Updates will be posted at www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hia/windenergy.shtml, which also includes details of the sessions on Nov. 3 and 4.

THIRD FEATURE:

PANEL: SPREAD WIND'S REWARDS

MAKE UP FOR LOSSES: Cape Vincent team says property value, tourism are at risk  

CAPE VINCENT — The town's wind economics committee, finding risks and rewards of wind farm development, has offered bold recommendations to spread rewards around and compensate nonparticipating landowners for any losses they incur.

The committee, which released its report Oct. 7, saw risks to property values, school district aid and tourism. On the other hand, wind power projects would have payments for landowners and for taxing jurisdictions through payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreements.

The report also briefly pointed to other financial risks, including the failure of the developer to pay agreed payments, the owner terminating operation and the owner not saving enough money for decommissioning costs. The town and residents could incur legal fees from disagreements or disputes.

To limit the possibility of economic harm, the committee recommended that the town:

Butler Ridge Project, Dodge County WIsconsin-- home of the 1000 foot setback

WIND WARS: HOW CLOSE IS TOO CLOSE?

SOURCE: The Republican Eagle, www.republican-eagle.com

October 20n2010

By Eric Ludy,

With high transmission capacity and adequate wind levels, southeastern Minnesota is poised to be one of the next hot spots for wind development, according to wind resource analysts.

“Almost all the way across is very good,” said Dan Turner, an analyst with Windustry, a Minneapolis-based wind advocacy group.

But as large-scale wind development moves from places like the sparsely populated Buffalo Ridge in Minnesota’s southwest corner to more densely settled areas like Goodhue County, what sorts of problems develop? Are people willing to live among wind turbines?

That question has taken on special bearing in Goodhue County, where the proposed Goodhue Wind project has sparked two years of heated public meetings. Opponents of the project say the 50 400-foot tall turbines would be sited too close to many neighboring homes.

Developers have countered that they have voluntarily agreed to 1,500-foot setbacks from homeowners not participating in their project, above the state-mandated 750 feet.

Both supporters and opponents are expected to make one final case to state regulators Thursday in St. Paul as the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission decides on the fate of the project.

Living in the shadow

Among those there will be Rep. Tim Kelly, R-Red Wing, and Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa. In a recent letter, they called on Gov. Tim Pawlenty to speak out against the Goodhue Wind project, arguing that the region’s dense settlement and topography make it unsuitable for large wind development.

Those opposed to the project would be forced to “live within its shadow” against their will, they wrote.

In an interview with the R-E Monday, Kelly argued that the state takes a “cookie cutter” approach to the permitting of large wind projects, ignoring regional differences.

“They’ve already developed on the best areas,” he said. “Now, we’re encroaching on spaces that are maybe higher in population density.”

To correct the issue, he’s seeking legislation that would give increased control over permitting to local government bodies like townships and counties.

But not all area legislators agree.

Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, said that giving too much control to local governments would result in hodgepodge development that limits the state’s ability to meet renewable energy goals. The state adopted a “25 percent by 2025″ green energy goal in 2007.

He argued that under safe setbacks, people in more densely settled areas could and should be able to live near wind turbines.

“I actually think it’s a good thing that we’re trying to develop wind in places where we need the electricity,” he said.

‘Issue of annoyance’

As wind development has accelerated across the state — capacity jumped from 273 megawatts to 1,810 from 1999 to 2009 — state officials have struggled to come up with clear answers to questions about the impacts of wind turbines on people living within their footprint.

In early 2009, the state Office of Energy Security responded to concerns about the proposed Lakeswind Wind Power Plant in northwest Minnesota by commissioning a “white paper” from the Minnesota Department of Health evaluating possible health effects of wind turbines.

The report, titled “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines” and conducted by MDH toxicologists Carl Herbrandson and Rita Messing, found that annoyance from noise levels and “shadow flicker,” caused when turbine blades spin in front of the sun, were the biggest complaints from people living near the towers.

“It really is, in a lot of ways, an issue of complaints, an issue of annoyance,” Herbrandson told the R-E Tuesday.

He said people generall start complaining about noise around 35 to 45 decibels, comparable to a humming refrigerator.

According to noise models conducted by National Wind, the company that manages Goodhue Wind, 12 percent of the 482 homes in or near the project area would see noise levels between 40 and 45 decibels under “worst-case” conditions.

Ultimately, Herbrandson said, complaints are subjective and rely on a variety of factors, particularly if an individual is participating in a project or not. He said complaints tend to reduce with distance from turbines.

“As you move away from it, there’s a place where that stops. And that’s going to be a different place for everybody,” he said.

Conflicting opinions

Supporters and opponents of the project are, predictably, divided on the health impacts.

National Wind senior wind developer Chuck Burdick said that annoyances have been reported, but aren’t any more severe than those associated with feedlots or other agricultural uses.

The company develops projects as far east as Ohio and has heard few complaints, he said.

He equated public criticism of the Goodhue Wind project over the past two years to “misinformation and fear.”

“The kinds of worst-case scenarios that opponents present are simply not represented by community’s experiences around the country,” he said.

Opponents, however, have repeatedly argued that Goodhue County’s population is simply too dense to support the scale of wind development Goodhue Wind proposes.

Marie McNamara of Belle Creek Township said the large towers would clearly affect the quality of life of her family and others living throughout the project’s area.

“They do affect people, and people don’t want to live with them,” she said.

SECOND FEATURE:

HOT AIR? WHITE HOUSE TAKES CREDIT FOR BUSH ERA-WIND FARMS

Administration claims 50,000 jobs created, but many projects were completed before funds were handed out

SOURCE: MSNBC.COM

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is crediting its anti-recession stimulus plan with creating up to 50,000 jobs on dozens of wind farms, even though many of those wind farms were built before the stimulus money began to flow or even before President Barack Obama was inaugurated.

Out of 70 major wind farms that received the $4.4 billion in federal energy grants through the stimulus program, public records show that 11, which received a total of $600 million, erected their wind towers during the Bush administration. And a total of 19 wind farms, which received $1.3 billion, were built before any of the stimulus money was distributed. ( See a list of the projects here.)

Yet all the jobs at these wind farms are counted in the administration's figures for jobs created by the stimulus.

In testimony to Congress earlier this year, the Department of Energy's senior adviser on the stimulus plan, Matt Rogers, touted the wind farm program for creating as many as 50,000 jobs. He acknowledges that these figures were provided by a wind industry trade and lobbying group. The trade group, in turn, cites a government study, which found that most of the jobs are short term.

The Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University fact-checked that claim, using the federal government's own documents. Not only were 19 of the wind farms already in place before the first stimulus payments were made, but 14 of them were already sending electricity to the grid.

First comes the project, later the stimulus
Here's how we checked the administration's claim: Wind towers are tall — hundreds of feet tall — making them dangerous to low-flying planes. The Federal Aviation Administration requires every structure over 200 feet to be recorded in a database, including the date each structure was built. We reviewed these records filed by the wind farms that received stimulus grants. We also checked records kept by utility regulators, showing when wind farms began producing electricity.

In western New York, for example, in the hills near the economically hard-hit cities of Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo, the Canandaigua Wind Farm could have created the sort of green-collar jobs that the Obama administration promised would be generated by the stimulus package. The feathery blades of the farm's 88 gigantic turbines reach more than 400 feet in the air. Each turbine contains 8,000 components and is almost as sophisticated as a jet engine. Hundreds of construction workers were needed to haul and erect the steel towers, each weighing hundreds of tons.

The wind farm was built in two phases. The developer, First Wind, received a total of $61.8 million in stimulus grants on Sept. 1, 2009, when the administration began rolling out money for the program. But FAA records indicate both were completed at least 15 months earlier — by May 20, 2008.

There are other examples.

In the coal country of eastern Pennsylvania, FAA records show, the last turbine on the 51-turbine Locust Ridge II wind farm in Mahanoy City, Pa., was erected on Jan. 1, 2009, the first day a project could be eligible for a stimulus grant. But the other 50 turbines were built in 2008 — 31 of them before Obama was elected. The farm's developer, Iberdrola Renewables, the subsidiary of a Spanish utility, collected $59.1 million in stimulus money.

High above the rolling plains southeast of Lubbock, Texas, the 166-turbine Pyron Wind Farm represents the new wave of American wind farm development. In the heart of the country's "wind belt," it's far larger and more labor intensive than the projects in Pennsylvania and New York. German developer E.On Climate and Renewables estimated that 620 construction jobs were created, and on Sept. 22, 2009, the project received $121.9 million in stimulus money. FAA records show the last tower had been built on Dec. 11, 2008.

The program, known as the Section 1603, reimburses developers of renewable energy facilities, such as wind and solar farms, up to 30 percent of the project's cost. Applicants need only prove they built the facility and are automatically awarded the money. Unlike other stimulus programs, the wind farms aren't judged on job creation or required to abide by "Buy American" clauses. The money also comes with virtually no strings, and there is no obligation to reinvest it.

Administration officials and the companies did not dispute that much of the work on the wind farms occurred in late 2008 or early 2009, but said the stimulus money was vital for creating jobs down the line. Even if the wind farms that received the grants had been completed, they said, the money was vital to ensure that the next generation of wind power plants is built.

As the stimulus program continues to be hotly debated on the campaign trail, the Obama administration's record of touting all these grants for creating "real jobs" continues.

"These programs were particularly effective in getting money out the door quickly to put people back to work on great projects that would otherwise have been idled in the face of the Great Recession," Matt Rogers, the Department of Energy's senior adviser on stimulus, testified to Congress in April of this year. At other points in his written testimony, Rogers said the Section 1603 program was responsible for "50,000 additional jobs in 2009."

In an interview in late September, however, Rogers did not dispute the records showing that a large portion of work on many projects was completed before 2009. But he defended the grant program as a vital tool to ensure the recipients continued to invest in wind farms in the United States.

"With the first set of projects that were done before the passage of the Recovery Act — in almost every case, what they did was reinvest in the next set of projects," Rogers said. "Because we now have a set of incentives, project developers and sponsors are reinvesting in the U.S. market, instead of seeing a lot of that money go to other places. That's one of the most exciting parts of the job creation story."

Because of the way the law was written, the Section 1603 grant program has no language requiring that recipients reinvest their grant money in the United States. Rogers said he was basing his claim on the fact that many companies have reported to the administration that they reinvested their grants in future wind projects in the U.S.

Most of the job gains are short term, study finds
Although the administration has described 50,000 new jobs, Rogers, when pressed, speaks of 40,000 to 50,000 jobs being created, saved or supported. He said these figures were provided by the American Wind Energy Association, an industry lobbying group. In February, for example, that group said, "Were it not for the Recovery Act, we estimated a loss of as much as 40,000 jobs."

The association, in turn, cites a study by the Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which estimated that the grant program supported more than 51,600 short-term jobs during the construction phase, the equivalent of that many people working full time for one year, and an additional 3,860 long-term full-time jobs. The study assumed that all the projects finished in the first half of 2009 were not caused by the stimulus. ( Read the study here.)

When the wind association and the Obama administration cite such figures as 50,000 jobs, however, they don't mention that the study found that most were short-term jobs.

Since it gave out its first grants on Sept. 1, 2009, the renewable energy stimulus program has handed out more than $5 billion to more than 1,100 projects, many of them small solar-energy projects. The largest amount of money, $4.4 billion, has gone to big wind farms.

The Investigative Reporting Workshop previously reported that the majority of the money was going to foreign-owned developers, and that the majority of turbines being installed were built by foreign-owned manufacturers. ( Read those stories here.) The Treasury Department has rejected Freedom of Information requests by the Investigative Reporting Workshop seeking grant applications, citing trade secrets.

Only one of the companies identified by the Investigative Reporting Workshop as having finished construction on a project before Jan. 1, 2009, disputed the date its turbines were listed as built. The FAA records show that the final turbine on the Wheat Field wind farm in Gilliam County, Ore., was built on Nov. 10, 2008. But in a statement, Horizon said construction on the project began in September 2008 and the first turbine wasn't "mechanically completed" until Feb. 2, 2009. In the statement, Horizon said the FAA information was filed in February 2008, and the November 2008 date was only an estimate to make sure the FAA had the structure on its maps by the time the tower was built.

Power generated during Bush administration
The Investigative Reporting Workshop also reviewed publicly available data on each wind project's electrical generation. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission keeps records of nearly all commercial energy transactions — recording the time, quantity of power, price and total cost of the transaction.

The records show that at least 11 wind farms were generating at least some electricity and selling it into the grid by March 1, days after the stimulus bill was passed in late February. And 14 wind farms were generating electricity and selling it into the grid by the time the stimulus money was first given out in September 2009.

For example, the Locust Ridge II wind project, in Pennsylvania, first sold electricity to PJM Interconnect on Oct. 24, 2008, at 11 a.m. Between Oct. 24 and Dec. 31, 2008, the holding company that owns the facility sold 687.6 megawatt/hours of electricity to PJM, charging a total of $32,788.

Paul Copelman, a spokesman for Iberdrola, said the Locust Ridge II wind farm wasn't in full commercial operation until March 2009. The electricity generated in 2008 was the result of testing, he said.

How they qualified
These wind farms qualified for the stimulus grants for two reasons.

First, the stimulus bill allowed a wind farm to qualify if it was "placed in service" on or after Jan. 1, 2009. The money didn't start flowing until Sept. 1, 2009, so it was inevitable there would be payments for work previously done, particularly for large wind farms that can take years to develop. To get the money, these companies didn't have to create new jobs; they just filled out an application after the fact.

Second, "placed in service" has a peculiar meaning. Generally, it means a piece of equipment, like a wind turbine, is ready to be used for the purpose it was intended. But, when a developer finishes building the tower and attaching all the parts — the labor intensive part of the process where most jobs are created — there are several more steps, including testing and installing the equipment that regulates the flow of electricity and feeds it into the grid, before it is deemed "in service."

In the operation of other federal incentive programs for wind energy, each turbine in a large wind farm is evaluated individually before being "placed in service." However, under the Section 1603 program, tax attorneys and the companies contacted by the Investigative Reporting Workshop said that developers were allowed to count all of their turbines on a wind farm as one. In other words, what counted was when the last turbine was "placed in service," and the whole farm was ready to operate at full capacity.

Tax attorney Jeffrey G. Davis, a Washington partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, where he specializes in representing renewable energy firms, said it's not uncommon for a wind farm to generate electricity — and even sell it — before being "placed in service." Wind farms may need to start turbines and generate electricity to test them or prove viability for commercial production.

In addition, all the wind farms contacted stressed that the process of qualifying a wind farm as "placed in service" involves a number of steps, like testing and building associated transformers and transmission equipment. Iberdrola also noted that it was required to submit third-party certification of the "placed in service" date.

Rogers, the Energy official, said that some of the wind farms cited by the Investigative Reporting Workshop could have been left half-built during the recession, but that once Obama was elected in November 2008, developers decided to finish the work in hopes of a stimulus package. When pressed for examples, Rogers declined to name any projects.

"It's a question you've asked; I've answered. It's an incredibly successful program," Rogers said.

Several of the companies contacted by the Investigative Reporting Workshop said they had considered halting construction during the recession. These include Iberdrola, which considered halting construction on half of its projects, spokesman Paul Copelman said, regardless of how far along they were in the construction process. And E.ON Climate and Renewables said it had considered halting the giant Pyron Wind Farm in Texas, which was substantially constructed in 2008. Neither company ultimately halted construction.

When asked how to reconcile claims from the administration that the jobs associated with these projects were a result of the stimulus — even though the work was done months before the stimulus was passed — Rogers did not offer a direct response.

"I think it's the simplest thing. You can talk to the 40[,000] to 50,000 people who have been working on these projects since they were passed," he said, "and ask if they are pleased."

The Investigative Reporting Workshop is a professional journalism center in the School of Communication at American University in Washington. More about the program.

Russ Choma is a Washington reporter who writes frequently about climate and energy issues, transportation and stimulus spending. His previous articles on the wind farms grant program are here.

SAVE THE DATE:

PUBLIC HEARING
Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail

The Senate Committee on Utilities, Energy and Rail will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:00 AM, 411 South at the State Capitol in Madison relating to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 siting of wind energy systems.

Senator Jeffry Plale, Chair

CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD CLEARING HOUSE RULE 10-057

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD PSC WIND SITING RULES

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The public is encouraged to attend and and speak at the hearing regarding the PSC's wind siting rules. Get there early to get a good seat!

ARCADIA COUPLE SUING OVER WIND ENERGY RULES

SOURCE: RENEWABLES BIZ 

McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Joe Knight The Leader-Telegram, Eau Claire, Wis.

October 9, 2010

An Eau Claire attorney is suing the Wisconsin Public Service Commission on behalf of a rural Arcadia family for failing to conduct an environmental review of proposed wind energy siting rules.

Attorney Glen Stoddard said the rules favor the wind energy industry at the expense of property owners living near wind turbines. He is representing David and Delores Vind, who own a farm near Arcadia. It's an area, they say, that has been considered for wind energy development.

"My wife and I decided to file the lawsuit after the PSC adopted the rules in their current form without doing an environmental assessment on the rules or evaluating the adverse environmental impacts of wind energy projects," David Vind said in a news release.

Stoddard said the commission violated the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act and the state's smart growth law by not conducting an environmental analysis.

Earlier this year the Legislature passed a law to establish uniform statewide rules for wind turbine siting. It was an attempt to simplify the current patchwork of local wind turbine rules.

The regulations, adopted by the PSC in late August, set specific requirements for wind turbine siting, including restrictions on noise, setbacks and "shadow flicker" -- a strobe light-like effect caused by rotating turbines. The rules also would allow local governments to require "good neighbor payments" to residents who live within a half-mile of wind turbines.

The state Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail has scheduled a public hearing for next week about the issue.

PSC spokeswoman Lori Sakk said the organization stands by the existing rule.

"The commission has approved this rule consistent with it's statutory obligations," she said. "It will vigorously defend it against this lawsuit."

The rule was based largely on recommendations from the state Wind Siting Advisory Committee. The committee, as required by the Legislature, was comprised of two wind energy developers, one town representative, one county representative, two representatives from utilities, two environmentalists, two real estate agents, two landowners living near wind turbines who have not received compensation for the turbines, two public members and one UW System faculty member with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems.

Ryan Schryver of the environmental group Clean Wisconsin, an advisory committee member, said the panel presented the PSC a good set of recommendations that were reached through compromise and public input. However, the commissioners made the siting rules more restrictive, getting away from the Legislature's intent, he said.

"We're hoping that after the hearings the PSC gets the message that they're not following the intent of the law," Schryver said. "The intent of the law, it was pretty clear, was to open up the door for renewable energy, not shut it."

An Assembly committee is likely to hold a hearing on the siting rules after the elections, he said.

Stoddard said he hopes the combined result of the lawsuit and the upcoming Senate hearing would result in changes to the rules establishing longer setbacks, stronger noise restrictions and better protection of property rights.

CLICK ON THE VIDEOS BELOW TO SEE HOW THE RULES WERE CREATED



BELOW:

Dr. Michael Nissenbaum reports on

Wind Turbines, Health, Ridgelines, and Valleys
Montpelier, VT, May 7 2010

It is a medical fact that sleep disturbance and perceived stress result in ill effects, including and especially cardiovascular disease, but also chronic feelings of depression, anger, helplessness, and, in the aggregate, the banishment of happiness and reduced quality of life.

Cardiovascular disease, as we all now, leads to reduced life expectancy. Try and get reasonably priced life insurance if you are hypertensive or have suffered a heart attack.

If industrial wind turbines installed in close proximity to human habitation result in sleep disturbance and stress, then it follows as surely as day follows night that wind turbines will, over the long term, result in these serious health effects and reduced quality of life.

The question is, then, do they?

In my investigation of Mars Hill, Maine, 22 out of about 30 adults (‘exposed’) who live within 3500 feet of a ridgeline arrangement of 28 1.5 MW wind turbines were evaluated to date, and compared with 27 people of otherwise similar age and occupation living about 3 miles away (Not Exposed).

Here is what was found:

82% (18/22) of exposed subjects reported new or worsened chronic sleep deprivation, versus 4% (1 person) in the non-exposed group.

41% of exposed people reported new chronic headaches vs 4% in the control group.

59% (13/22) of the exposed reported ‘stress’ versus none in the control group, and 77% (17/22) persistent anger versus none in the people living 3 miles away.

More than a third of the study subjects had new or worsened depression, with none in the control group.

95% (21/22) of the exposed subjects perceived reduced quality of life, versus 0% in the control group.

Underlining these findings, there were 26 new prescription medications offered to the exposed subjects, of which 15 were accepted, compared to 4 new or increased prescriptions in the control group.

The prescriptions ranged from anti-hypertensives and antidepressants to anti migraine medications among the exposed.

The new medications for the non exposed group were anti-hypertensives and anti-arthritics.

The Mars Hill study will soon be completed and is being prepared for publication. Preliminary findings have been presented to the Chief Medical Officer for Ontario, and have been presented to Health Canada, by invitation.

Earlier partial results were presented to the Maine Medical Association, which passed a Resolution calling for caution, further study, and appropriate modification of siting regulations, at its annual meeting in 2009.

There is absolutely no doubt that people living within 3500 feet of a ridgeline arrangement of turbines 1.5 MW or larger turbines in a rural environment will suffer negative effects.

The study was undertaken as a pilot project to evaluate for a cluster of symptoms after numerous media reports, in order to present data to the Maine Medical Association, after the Maine CDC failed to more fully investigate.

While the study is not perfect, it does suggest a real problem that warrants not only further more detailed investigation, but the tenderest caution, in the meantime, when decisions on how to site industrial wind turbines are made.

What is it about northeast USA ridgelines that contribute to these ill effects, and how can they be avoided?

Consider, the Northeast is prone to icing conditions. Icing will increase the sound coming off of turbines by up to 6 dbA. As the icing occurs symmetrically on all blades, imbalance detectors do not kick on, and the blades keep turning, contrary to wind industry claims.

Sound is amplified coming off of ridgelines into valleys. This is because the background noise in rural valleys is low to begin with, increasing the sensitivity to changes, particularly the beating, pulsatile nature of wind turbine noise, and sound sources at elevation do not undergo the same attenuation that occurs from groundcover when noise sources are at ground level.

The noise travels farther and hits homes and people at greater amplitude that it would from a lower elevation. Even though this is not rocket science, it was conclusively proven in a NASA funded study in 1990.

Snow pack and ice contribute to increased noise transmission. Vermont valleys have both, I believe.

Preconstruction sound modeling fails to take the tendency of the homes that people live in to respond and vibrate perceptibly to sound at frequencies that the occupants of the dwellings cannot necessarily hear. They hear, and feel, the walls and windows rattle, and the floors vibrate, in a pulsing manner at a frequency or the turbine rpm.

When pre construction modeling fails to take the pulsatile nature, propensity for icing, and ridgeline elevation into account, as well as a linear as opposed to point source of noise, problems can be expected.

What distance is safe? It depends on the terrain, the climate, the size of the project and the turbines themselves. Accurate preconstruction modeling with safe targets in mind is critical.

The WHO says that 30dbA is ideal, and noise levels of above 40dbA have definite health consequences.

At Mars Hill, where affected homes are present at 3500 feet, sound levels have been measured at over 52.5dbA. The fiasco there has been acknowledged by the local wind energy company, and by a former Maine governor.

Vermont would do well to learn from the affected people in Mars Hill.

I have seen the preliminary plans for the planned Deerfield Wind Facility, and have particular concerns regarding the dwellings to the north and northeast of the northernmost extension of the turbine layout.

These homes are well within a mile, generally downwind, and downhill from what I am told may well be 2 MW turbines (or larger?), in a snowy and icy part of the Northeast.

The parallels to Mars Hill are striking.

We know that preconstruction sound modeling failed at Mars Hill. No matter what the preconstruction modeling at Deerfield shows, the real world experiment at Mars Hill suggests that there will be problems for homes at the setbacks that seem to be planned for Deerfield on the attached image.

The people who live within 3500 feet at Mars Hill are truly suffering. Learn from Mars Hill. It is not a matter of not having wind turbines. It is a matter of putting them where they will not affect people’s health.

Newer technology to accurately measure sound at a quantum level improvement in temporal, frequency and amplitude resolution over commonly used acoustician’s equipment now exists, though it is costly and not readily available.

But it will be widespread, soon, well within the tenure of the individuals responsible for making siting decisions today.

Avail yourselves of these findings and familiarize yourselves with the new technologies. You will not only be future proofing your current decisions, you will also be helping people who would otherwise end up too close to industrial wind turbines escape the fate of the exposed residents of Mars Hill, and many other sites in North America (Mars Hill, Maine, merely represents the first small ‘controlled’ study).

I have seen the results of this cutting edge equipment, and how it has revealed drastic short duration excesses over allowed sound levels, levels that set homes vibrating and rendering them unlivable, but also levels of lower frequency transient noise at the audible level, that demonstrates not only failure of preconstruction sound modeling as currently practiced, but also the inadequacy of the measuring tools in the toolkit of the everyday practicing acoustician-consultant who generates reports for industry and local government.

Michael A. Nissenbaum, MD
University of Toronto (MD), McGill University (Specialty Diagnostic Imaging),
University of California (Fellowship)
Harvard University Medical School (junior faculty, Associate Director of MRI, BIH)
Currently, Radiologist, NMMC, Ft. Kent, Maine

Residents in this Ontario Community had problems getting into a public meeting about a proposed wind farm in their community unless they agreed to give their names to wind developers who hired local police to help with enforcement.

Below, a news story on what happened once the meeting got started.

With new wind siting rules in the state of Wisconsin that will overturn local ordinances created to protect residents in rural communities, will scenes like these soon take place in our state?

SECOND FEATURE: WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS

FOR THOSE NEAR, THE MISERABLE HUM OF CLEAN ENERGY

SOURCE: The New York Times

October 5, 2010

By Tom Zeller, Jr

VINALHAVEN, Me. — Like nearly all of the residents on this island in Penobscot Bay, Art Lindgren and his wife, Cheryl, celebrated the arrival of three giant wind turbines late last year. That was before they were turned on.

“In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” Mr. Lindgren said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.”

Now, the Lindgrens, along with a dozen or so neighbors living less than a mile from the $15 million wind facility here, say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life in this otherwise tranquil corner of the island unbearable.

They are among a small but growing number of families and homeowners across the country who say they have learned the hard way that wind power — a clean alternative to electricity from fossil fuels — is not without emissions of its own.

Lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property value have cropped up in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, among other states. In one case in DeKalb County, Ill., at least 38 families have sued to have 100 turbines removed from a wind farm there. A judge rejected a motion to dismiss the case in June.

Like the Lindgrens, many of the people complaining the loudest are reluctant converts to the antiwind movement.

“The quality of life that we came here for was quiet,” Mrs. Lindgren said. “You don’t live in a place where you have to take an hour-and-15-minute ferry ride to live next to an industrial park. And that’s where we are right now.”

The wind industry has long been dogged by a vocal minority bearing all manner of complaints about turbines, from routine claims that they ruin the look of pastoral landscapes to more elaborate allegations that they have direct physiological impacts like rapid heart beat, nausea and blurred vision caused by the machines’ ultra-low-frequency sound and vibrations.

For the most extreme claims, there is little independent backing.

Last year, the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, along with its Canadian counterpart, assembled a panel of doctors and acoustical professionals to examine the potential health impacts of wind turbine noise. In a paper published in December, the panel concluded that “there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.”

A separate study financed by the Energy Department concluded late last year that, in aggregate, property values were unaffected by nearby wind turbines.

Numerous studies also suggest that not everyone will be bothered by turbine noise, and that much depends on the context into which the noise is introduced. A previously quiet setting like Vinalhaven is more likely to produce irritated neighbors than, say, a mixed-use suburban setting where ambient noise is already the norm.

Of the 250 new wind farms that have come online in the United States over the last two years, about dozen or so have generated significant noise complaints, according to Jim Cummings, the founder of the Acoustic Ecology Institute, an online clearinghouse for information on sound-related environmental issues.

In the Vinalhaven case, an audio consultant hired by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection determined last month that the 4.5-megawatt facility was, at least on one evening in mid-July when Mr. Lindgren collected sound data, in excess of the state’s nighttime sound limits. The developer of the project, Fox Island Wind, has contested that finding, and negotiations with state regulators are continuing.

In the moonlit woods behind a neighbor’s property on a recent evening, Mr. Lindgren, a retired software engineer, clenched a small flashlight between his teeth and wrestled with a tangle of cables and audio recording equipment he uses to collect sound samples for filing complaints.

At times, the rustle of leaves was all that could be heard. But when the surface wind settled, a throbbing, vaguely jetlike sound cut through the nighttime air. “Right there,” Mr. Lindgren declared. “That would probably be out of compliance.”

Maine, along with many other states, puts a general limit on nighttime noise at 45 decibels — roughly equivalent to the sound of a humming refrigerator. A normal conversation is in the range of 50 to 60 decibels.

In almost all cases, it is not mechanical noise arising from the central gear box or nacelle of a turbine that residents react to, but rather the sound of the blades, which in modern turbines are mammoth steel appendages well over 100 feet long, as they slice through the air.

Turbine noise can be controlled by reducing the rotational speed of the blades. But the turbines on Vinalhaven already operate that way after 7 p.m., and George Baker, the chief executive of Fox Island Wind — a for-profit arm of the island’s electricity co-operative — said that turning the turbines down came at an economic cost.

“The more we do that, the higher goes the price of electricity on the island,” he said.

A common refrain among homeowners grappling with sound issues, however, is that they were not accurately informed about the noise ahead of time. “They told us we wouldn’t hear it, or that it would be masked by the sound of the wind blowing through the trees,” said Sally Wylie, a former schoolteacher down the road from the Lindgrens. “I feel duped.”

Similar conflicts are arising in Canada, Britain and other countries . An appeals court in Rennes, France, recently ordered an eight-turbine wind farm to shut down between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. so residents could get some sleep.

Richard R. James, an acoustic expert hired by residents of Vinalhaven to help them quantify the noise problem, said there was a simpler solution: do not put the turbines so close to where people live.

“It would seem to be time for the wind utility developers to rethink their plans for duplicating these errors and to focus on locating wind turbines in areas where there is a large buffer zone of about a mile and one-quarter between the turbines and people’s homes,” said Mr. James, the principal consultant with E-Coustic Solutions, based in Michigan.

Vinalhaven’s wind farm enjoys support among most residents, from ardent supporters of all clean energy to those who simply say the turbines have reduced their power bills. Deckhands running the ferry sport turbine pins on their hats, and bumper stickers seen on the island declare “Spin, Baby, Spin.”

“The majority of us like them,” said Jeannie Conway, who works at the island’s ferry office.

But that is cold comfort for Mrs. Lindgren and her neighbors, who say their corner of the island will never be the same.

“I remember the sound of silence so palpable, so merciless in its depths, that you could almost feel your heart stop in sympathy,” she said. “Now we are prisoners of sonic effluence. I grieve for the past.”

At 500 feet, the turbines going up in the Town of Glenmore in Brown County are the tallest in the state. Those in the wind industry continue to insist the presence of wind turbines has no effect on property values. 

ACCIONA ENDS PLANS FOR WIND FARM IN MAGNOLIA

SOURCE: Janesville Gazette

October 4, 2010

By Gina Duwe

MAGNOLIA TOWNSHIP — Plans that once called for up to 67 wind turbines dotting the countryside of Magnolia Township have ended.

An official with Acciona, a global energy company, confirmed that it has decided not to develop the EcoMagnolia project.

“That’s a case where I think … it was not an adequate wind resource for us to commit our full development for the project area,” said Chip Readling, lead developer for projects in several states, including Wisconsin.

Data gathered from a meteorological tower that stood for about three years at County B and Highway 213 showed “the project did not align well with our business goals,” he said.

“(It was) just a matter of wind,” he said.

Acciona still owns the project rights.

Plans are not as certain to the north.

The met tower that’s been up for nearly two years in Union Township will be taken down after the corn surrounding it is harvested.

The company’s meteorological team will analyze the data gathered from that tower—at County C and Highway 103—and decide whether to pursue a project, Readling said.

“We think it’s certainly a site we want to continue to watch,” he said.

If the company decides to move forward, the next step would be putting up a taller met tower—262 feet tall—to record wind speeds at the height of a turbine hub.

Readling said the company had no timeline and was not to the point of having landowners sign contracts.

He also said he could not release any of the wind speeds from either of the met towers.

In 2008, EcoEnergy said the average wind speed was 14.7 mph, measured at 197 feet on the Magnolia tower. The average was for a year starting in April 2007.

EcoEnergy first started the development of the Union project to include three turbines west of Evansville with Wisconsin Public Power buying the power produced for sale to Evansville Water and Light customers.

Acciona bought the rights for the Union and Magnolia projects from EcoEnergy in 2007.

Lost in the shuffle of the sale was the town permit for the Union met tower. The permit expired last fall, and Acciona failed to renew it. The town and company settled on a $6,000 fine for being out of compliance. Acciona officials are finalizing paperwork to make the payment, Readling said.

Reaction

Tom Drew, the landowner who hosted the met tower in Magnolia, said he hadn’t heard anything from the company since spring.

The plan to end the project was news to him.

He had not signed any contracts beyond the met tower, he said, and wasn’t really disappointed about the project not moving forward.

“To me, it was just nice clean energy,” Drew said. “That part is what I looked at. I never thought it would be any big windfall for anybody.”

When the project first started, his wife, Laurie, worked part time for about 18 months for EcoEnergy, setting up the company booth at events. She said she did it “to get a pulse on the company.”

Spring Valley resident Lynda Kawula doesn’t find relief in Acciona’s plan for Magnolia. Kawula and her husband, Kevin, live on the township border and feared having to move if turbines went up too close to their house.

“I don’t think it’s over yet,” she said.

Her research about wind turbines led her to start a website, betterplan.squarespace .com, advocating against wind farms that are sited too close to residents.

“If they could get these things sited correctly, everybody would come out happy,” she said.

Since the development plans emerged, the Kawulas have become engrossed in local and state government, have followed and taped the meetings of the state wind siting council’s rule-making process and visited with residents living on wind farms.

She plans to write a book about the wind industry in Wisconsin.

She has spent 10 nights in three different locations among two wind projects in the state.

“The relief part is funny,” she said. “Because I’m so tied up with people who are living with the turbine (problems) now, even if it’s not coming here right now, I’m still concerned about them and the little help they’re getting.”

WIND FARMS CAN CHANGE THE WEATHER

SOURCE: USA TODAY

October 4, 2010

By Doyle Rice

Large wind farms can influence local air temperatures, according to a new study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The data was collected over seven weeks in the summer of 1989 at the San Gorgonio wind farm near Palm Springs, Calif.

The study revealed that the wind farm caused the local area to cool down during the day and warm up at night, according to authors Somnath Baidya Roy and Justin J. Traiteur of the University of Illinois.

For instance, on one day of the study, the temperature at 1:00 p.m. upwind of the wind farm was about 100 degrees, but was about 93 degrees downwind, due to the effects of the windfarm.

The authors theorize that the turbulence generated by the turbine rotors, which can enhance the vertical mixing of warm and cold air, led to the temperature changes.

"To the best of our knowledge, this is the only meteorological field campaign conducted in an operational wind farm," the authors write in the study. "The wind farm consisted of 23-meter-tall turbines with 8.5-meter-long rotor blades arranged in 41 rows that were spaced 120 m apart."

Because many wind farms are located on agricultural land, the scientists say, local weather changes can affect crop productivity.

And what can be done? "The impacts of wind farms on local weather can be minimized by changing rotor design or by siting wind farms in regions with high natural turbulence," the study found. "Using a 25-year-long climate dataset, we identified such regions in the world. Many of these regions, such as the Midwest and Great Plains in the United States, are also rich in wind resources, making them ideal candidates for low-impact wind farms."

The authors add that "wind power is on the verge of explosive growth, most of it being in the industrial sector consisting of large wind farms."

As USA TODAY reported last year, wind projects are being proposed near the Texas Gulf, the Atlantic Coast, the Great Plains and Upper Midwest.

President Obama said in April 2009 that he would allow turbines along the Atlantic as one way to help meet a goal by environmentalists and the industry of generating 20% of the nation's electricity through wind by 2030. Currently about 1% of U.S. power comes from wind, according to the American Wind Energy Association.