Entries in Wisconsin public service commission (75)
10/11/11 Show me the study: Wisconsin senator's bill requires health effects of wind turbines to be studied.
SENATOR CALLS FOR MORATORIM AND HEALTH STUDY ON WIND TURBINES
By Kristin Byrne
SOURCE: www.wbay.com
October 10, 2011
A state senator is on a mission to make sure wind turbines don’t hurt peoples’ health.
“We owe it to ourselves as legislators, and as a state and country, to not harm people when new things come down the pike,” Senator Frank Lasee (R-De Pere) said.
Senator Lasee is introducing a bill calling for a health study on wind turbines.
The bill would impose a moratorium on future wind turbine construction until the Public Service Commission receives a study from the Department of Health Services on turbines’ health impact on people and animals in three ways:
The impacts of low-frequency sound
How turbines affect people and animals in different proximity to the systems
Any differences associated with various wind speeds and directions
Senator Lasee was in the Town of Glenmore on Monday promoting the piece of legislation.
“There’s information coming in from around the world where they’ve had windmills longer that there are health effects,” Lasee said.
Lasee says he’s done his research on wind turbines and he’s heard from his constituents.
“I’ve seen enough now in my own district and elsewhere of people actually moving out of their homes it’s gotten so bad,” he said.
Before more turbines are raised, he thinks a study should be done on how they can impact your health.
“I don’t know that it’s going to help us, because we already have the windmills here, but hopefully it will help other families from having to go through,” Darrel Cappelle, who lives in Glenmore, said.
Cappelle and his wife Sarah say ever since eight turbines started running right by their home about a year ago, the constant hum has given them headaches, a good night’s sleep sometimes isn’t an option, and they think that’s why they’re getting sick more often.
“If you get a cold, it’ll last three weeks instead of three days,” Cappelle said.
Cappelle doesn’t know for sure if his family’s health problems are directly related to the turbines, but a study might answer that question.
“We need to have a real scientific study or use data from around the world. There are plenty of other studies out there to prove that this is causing harm to people,” Senator Lasee said.
[video available]

10/10/11 Wisconsin gets serious about getting wind siting right
Fond du Lac County home in Invenergy wind projectPROPOSED BILL WOULD PLACE A MORATORIUM ON WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT
SOURCE: The Fond du Lac Reporter
Expert witnesses have acknowledged that Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) can cause health problems including sleep disturbance, headache, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, irritability, panic episodes, depression and a variety of other ailments, according to a press release from Lasee's office.
Madison, WI –Senator Frank Lasee (R-De Pere) has introduced “Health Study for Wind Turbines” legislation in the State Senate. The proposed bill creates a moratorium on future wind turbines until the Public Service Commission (PSC) receives a report from the Department of Health Services (DHS) regarding the health impacts on people and animals.
[Click here to download the wind turbine health study bill]
Expert witnesses have acknowledged that Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) can cause health problems including sleep disturbance, headache, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, irritability, panic episodes, depression and a variety of other ailments, according to a press release from Lasee's office.
“There are three families that I am aware of who have moved out of their homes to get relief because they are getting so ill. One family’s teenage daughter was hospitalized, and when they moved, she fully recovered. We can’t let this kind of a thing go on,” said Senator Lasee. “It’s plain un-American to have wind turbines twice as tall as the State Capitol right next to someone’s house that they are forced to look at, which makes them dizzy, nauseous and sick.”
“This has been a nightmare, we’ve had to leave our beautiful home in order to get relief from the health issues we believe were caused by the nearby wind turbines,” said Sue Ashley an impacted property owner. Darrel Cappelle, another impacted property owner added, “my wife has been suffering from migraine headaches since the wind turbines were constructed. This has been a horrible impact on my family.”
“This bill will require the PSC to protect people and their property from being harmed by the effects of Industrial Wind Turbines,” said Lasee.
SECOND STORY
WIND SITING RULES STILL STUCK IN LIMBO
By CLAY BARBOUR,
SOURCE madison.com
October 9, 2011
Hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in potential economic development are stuck in limbo as officials continue to argue over new wind siting rules.
The new rules, more than a year in the making, were suspended earlier this year just before they were to go into effect. A legislative committee sent them back to the Public Service Commission, which was tasked with finding a compromise between both sides.
Now, some seven months later, PSC officials say they are no closer to a deal than when they started. Meanwhile, wind farm developers such as Midwest Wind Energy and Redwind Consulting are sitting on their hands, and their money.
“Right now, we just don’t have a path forward in Wisconsin,” said Tim Polz, vice president of Midwest Wind Energy, a company that suspended work earlier this year on a large wind farm in Calumet County. “The uncertainty is just too much now.”
Polz said Chicago-based Midwest already spent three years and about $1 million on the Calumet County project. In full, the company expected to spend upward of $200 million on the project, employ 150 to 200 construction workers for up to 18 months and five to eight people full time after that.
The project is one of five major utility wind farms suspended or canceled as a result of the ongoing stalemate, costing the state a relatively quick infusion of about $1.6 billion in economic development and almost 1,000 temporary, full-time jobs.
“In this economy, where jobs are at a premium and people are struggling, this kind of inaction is inexcusable,” said Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha.
Set back by setbacks
The sticking point, according to PSC spokeswoman Kristin Ruesch, is what it has always been: setbacks, noise levels and the effects turbines have on neighboring property owners.
The PSC spent more than a year working out the original rules, which bore the fingerprints of Democrats and Republicans, the wind industry and its critics.
Those rules were scheduled to go into effect in March. But after taking office in January, Republican Gov. Scott Walker introduced a bill to dramatically increase setbacks.
The original rules required wind turbines have a setback from the nearest property line of 1.1 times the height of the turbine, or roughly 450 feet. The rules also required turbines be no closer than 1,250 feet from the nearest residence. Walker’s provision pushed the setback from the property line — not just a house — to 1,800 feet, about six football fields.
That proposal appealed to wind industry critics and the real estate industry, a heavy contributor to Walker’s campaign. Realtors donated more than $400,000 to Walker by October 2010, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, an election watchdog group.
But officials in the wind industry said the governor’s proposal would ruin their business in Wisconsin. Barca said the original rules were the result of a bipartisan agreement and he thinks the governor just doesn’t like the industry.
“It has been a deliberate decision by Gov. Walker,” he said. “They are going to kill wind energy in this state.”
Time pressure
In the end, the legislative committee that reviews agency rules chose not to act on the governor’s bill and instead voted to send the original rules back to the PSC to see if an agreement could be ironed out.
If no changes are made by March, the original rules go into effect. However, two bills sit in Legislative committees designed to kill the original rules and force the state to start from scratch.
“But I don’t think they want to do that,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a Madison nonprofit that promotes clean energy. “They would be immediately vulnerable on the ‘jobs’ issue.”
Walker said he is aware of the stress caused by the delay but feels it is important any rules be fair to both sides, respecting property rights and the future of the wind industry.
Meanwhile, state Sen. Frank Lasee, R-De Pere, plans to introduce a bill Monday to call for a moratorium on wind turbines until the PSC receives a report from the Department of Health Services on possible health effects of wind farms.
“It is more important to fully vet, understand and communicate to the public the potential changes than the specific timing of when they are adopted and enacted.” Walker said. “It is important to note that whatever proposed changes are made, there are effects on a number of different areas of the economy.”

9/10/11 Why your town needs a moratorium on Big Wind AND More about the noise the wind industry says is all in you head
A Letter from a Wisconsin Farmer
PLACE MORATORIUM ON LARGE WIND TURBINES
SOURCE: htrnews.com
September 10, 2011
By Jerome Hlinak, Tisch Mills
Some of you may be aware that the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin appointed a committee of experts to create statewide wind siting rules, but may not know the majority of that committee benefits financially from the wind industry.[Click here to see who is on the Wind Siting Council]
One committee member living in the Fond du Lac County wind turbine nightmare had his health concerns completely ignored by those looking to fill their pockets with government green energy subsidies.
Statewide, legislators have been receiving complaints from wind farm victims who live much farther away than the committee's recommended 1,250-foot setback.
Committee member Bill Rakocy of Emerging Energies was granted a permit by Manitowoc County in 2006 to build eight turbines near Mishicot. A court denied those permits, agreeing with residents that the county should have used its new wind ordinance, not the 2004 ordinance, which was written with assistance from wind developers.
Emerging Energies, aka Shirley Wind LLC, moved on to build the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County.
Families residing up to a mile away from the Shirley turbines have been driven out of their homes due to health issues. Emerging Energies received $13.2 million in grants for this project, benefits from tax credits and double depreciation at your tax dollar expense, and these families get no compensation without legal action.
Please ask your county supervisor to support a moratorium on large wind turbines. The current county ordinance requires only a 1,000-foot setback from a lot line.
Element Power is proposing turbines in northern Manitowoc County that would fall between the county's outdated rules and new state standards that might be as much as 2,640 feet from a lot line.
Several town boards have passed resolutions to support a moratorium. Ask your supervisor to place more value on your health and safety ratherthan financial gain or jobs with Tower Tech.
Jerome Hlinak
Tisch Mills
Next Story
CURE FOR WIND FARM NOISE POLICY GRIDLOCK: BACK OFF BUT ALLOW EASEMENTS
Source: Renewable Energy News
September 10, 2011
By Jim Cummings, Acoustic Ecology Institute
Most wind advocates, including both industry players and regional renewable energy organizations, continue to be in a state of disbelief that the noise of turbines could possibly be a significant issue for nearby neighbors.
While it’s increasingly acknowledged that turbines will be audible much of the time, complaints about noise are too often painted as being unworthy of serious consideration, either because turbines are not all that loud, or because of an insistence that noise complaints are bogus surrogates for a broader opposition to wind energy that is “really” based on visual impacts or economic arguments (driven in some cases by climate change denial).
Perhaps most crucially, wind advocates rarely acknowledge that turbine noise is often 10 dB louder than background sound levels (sometimes even 20 dB or more); acousticians have long known that any increase over 5 dB begins to trigger complaints, with 10dB the threshold for widespread problems.
Meanwhile, many community groups are over-reaching in their approach to reducing noise impacts, by focusing too much of their argument on possible health impacts of wind turbine noise exposure. While there are many reliable anecdotal examples of people having physical reactions to nearby turbines, even the accumulating number of reports of health reactions to new turbines represents a small minority of people who live within a mile or even half-mile of turbines.
The health claims are hard – and perhaps impossible – to prove, though some insist that any health impact is unacceptable. Much more telling are community response rates that affirm – in some types of rural communities – that 25-50 percent of people hearing turbines near the regulatory sound limits feel that their quality of life is severely impacted.
AEI’s new report, Wind Farm Noise 2011, aims to frame the current state of research and policy in a way that can help those trying to find a constructive middle ground that protects rural residents from an intrusive new 24/7 noise source while also encouraging wind development as part of our renewable energy future.
A series of court and environmental tribunal rulings in recent months shed an especially illuminating light on the ambiguous state of our current understanding of wind farm noise impacts. In each case, the ruling rejected some elements of the challenge while affirming the validity of other claimed impacts or stressing the need for continued investigation.
In Australia, a planned wind farm was derailed by an environmental tribunal responding to an appeal from a local farmer who had focused on the possible noise impacts on his family and his livestock. The tribunal rejected evidence related to health effects from noise, but held that the planned layout would impact the “visual amenity” of the area to an unacceptable degree (in Australia and New Zealand, “rural amenity” is a commonly-accepted planning and regulatory consideration). In this case, the tribunal ruled that siting turbines 1km (0.6 miles) from homes, with some homes surrounded by several turbines within 2km (a mile and a quarter), was too close.
In Minnesota, the Public Utilities Commission rejected a half-mile county setback, but required the developer to offer financial compensation to 200 residents within a half-mile, though outside the regulatory limit of 1630 feet.
In Ontario, a major challenge to the Province’s new Green Energy Act was denied, and the 223-page ruling offers a great primer on current research from all sides. The challenge was based on the health impacts argument, and failed on that count, but the tribunal stressed that “risks and uncertainties” remain. While the evidence to date was determined to be “exploratory” rather than “confirmatory,” continued study was urged. The report noted: “The Tribunal accepts that indirect effects are a complex matter and that there is no reason to ignore serious effects that have a psychological component.”
Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, in the UK an appeal of a planned wind farm (based on the claim that the regulations were insufficient) was denied, but the High Court affirmed the validity of an amplitude modulation (AM) condition in the regulations, which is very stringent: whenever sound levels are over 28 dB, AM cannot exceed 3 dB. After years of denying that AM is an issue in UK wind farms, the industry there faces a starkly restrictive standard that would, in effect, preclude wind farm operations when any blade swish is audible, even in distant, barely audible turbines. Renewable UK (formerly BWEA) is scrambling to fund research that can be used to better quantify AM so that new rules providing a reliable dB penalty for AM can be devised.
My experiences around wind farms in Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wyoming has been very consistent: I have always been able to clearly hear any turbines that were within a half mile (faintly, but clearly there); at a quarter to third of a mile, the sound stood out, and as I approached three-quarters of a mile, the sound faded into the background sounds of distant roads or ground breeze. These have been brief experiences, always in daytime with moderate wind.
Adding to these personal observations, the widespread reports of neighbors affected by unexpectedly intrusive levels of noise from turbines up to a half mile or so away as well as ranch-country experience that suggests noise levels of 45-50 dB are often easily accepted, lead to my current perspective that the most constructive and widely beneficial path forward would be a shift toward larger setback requirements (in effect, lowering the maximum noise levels at homes nearly to quiet night time ambient noise levels), combined with easily crafted easement provisions that allow turbines to be built closer to landowners who agree to allow it.
This approach, currently used in Oregon, would protect communities and individuals who have invested their life savings in a quiet rural lifestyle, while acknowledging that there are many people in rural areas who are ready and willing to support wind energy development, even near their homes.
Yes, some locations – in fact many locations with relatively small lot sizes – may be hard or impossible to build in, but these are exactly the locations where the social tradeoffs, and the resulting balancing of costs and benefits, are least clearly favorable to wind development anyway. If the industry can accept that it doesn’t have the right to build anywhere the noise can be kept to 50 dB, and that its future development will be taking place within the fabric of a diverse society, then there is a clear business opportunity emerging for those companies that take the lead by crafting truly responsive community relations programs.
These companies will commit to working with the standards set by local tolerance for new noise sources, rather than pushing local or state authorities to adopt siting standards used elsewhere. These leading edge wind companies may also put their money where their mouth is on property values by establishing programs that compensate landowners for moderate changes in property value (which are likely to be less common than feared), and helping create programs that buy and sell homes, so residents who wish move can do so quickly at fair market value.
These companies will develop reputations as developers that are ready to be good local citizens, and will find that the increases in some costs and a willingness to forsake some locations altogether leads to dramatic benefits in terms of long-term stability and acceptance in the communities where they work – and especially in communities where they propose new projects.
Noise concerns are not obstacles to wind development, if the industry and local and state regulators can move beyond simplistic denial of the problem. Indeed, the continued growth of the wind industry in the U.S. and Canada may depend upon a fundamental shift of attitude, centered on respecting communities that choose lower noise limits, and providing assurances that negative impacts will be addressed if they occur.

8/22/11 Turbines cause trouble for another farmer AND more complaints about the noise problem the wind industry says does not exist
Last week Better Plan learned of a dairy farmer named Kevin Ashenbrenner whose farm is in the Shirley Wind project (Town of Glenmore, Brown County WI) From an email to Better Plan:
"He has lost 17 calves and 15 cows since the Shirley turbines started spinning, that's more than he loses in 5 years of farming and breeding. The closest turbine to his house is 9/10 mile away as the crow flies. There are six turbines total around his property. His family is also suffering badly with headaches, anxiety, and insomnia."
He's not alone. This video interview with Kewanee County dairy farmer Scott Srnka describes similar problems after turbines went on line near his farm
Another Wisconsin farmer, Joe Yunk, talks about what happened to his beef cattle after the turbines went on line near the farm that was in his family for generations:
He says "I had beef cattle for about two years prior to the turbines operating and never lost any animals. However, shortly after the turbines began to operate, I had beef cattle become ill and die. I reported this on the WPS hotline and nothing was done. I lost ten animals valued at $5,000 [each] over a two year period and couldn’t afford to continue."
(Source: Read Yunks full testimony to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin HERE)
After turbines in the Blue Sky/Green Field project went on line near the Town of Marshall in Fond Du Lac county, James Vollmer's chickens began to fail. His hatch rate plummeted and there were a high number of unusual deformities in the chicks that did hatch, including missing eyes, crossed beaks and missing leg bones.
Vollmer has been around chickens his whole life. His grandmother and grandfather raised poultry and he says he took to it right away. He has photograph taken by his grandmother of himself as a toddler in the chicken house with baby chicks nesting on his back. He says, “I can’t remember a time in my life when I wasn’t around chickens.”
He joined 4-H and by the age of nine he was showing chickens at the county fair. 4-H taught him to be ameticulous record keeper, a habit he has never lost. He’s been documenting all that has happened with his chickens since the wind turbines started up.
How could someone who has raised healthy prize-winning poultry his whole life find himself in a situation where he is unable to keep them alive?
When Better Plan visited Mr. Vollmer in 2010, the chickens were not doing well.
“They shouldn’t be hanging their heads and sitting there like that,” said Vollmer, “They should be going outside and running around.”
Vollmer knew there was trouble when his birds went into a full molt the first winter the turbines were on line.
“Then they pretty much quit laying eggs.”
A full molt in winter is unusual. Birds don’t spontaneously molt in the winter when they need their feathers most to stay warm. And he’d never had a problem with egg production before, but his hatch rate plummeted to 11% He said, “I didn’t know what was going on.”
Dr. Lynn Knuth, a biologist from Reedsville, has an idea. In 2010 testimony to the Public Service Commission Dr. Knuth says
"The deformities seen by the farmer are similar to those reported in a study done by the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (Shannon et al, 1994). In this study, fertilized eggs were exposed to different levels and frequencies of whole-body low frequency vibration. The results revealed increased mortality and birth defects caused by the vibration.
As a biologist, I am concerned. Chick development is used as a model of human embryonic development."
(SOURCE: PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DOCKET, GLACIER HILLS PROJECT)
To Better Plan's knowledge, the effect of wind turbine noise on domestic animals has not been specifically studied, but there are studies on the effects of aircraft noise on domestic animals.
"Sudden or unfamiliar sound is believed to act as an alarm, activating the sympathetic nervous system. The short-term physiological stress reactions, referred to as "fight-or-flight," are similar for many vertebrate species (Holler 1978).
Various stimuli can produce similar physiological effects. Different stressors have their own unique effects, however, and reactions to stress can vary between species and also among individuals of the same species.
0nly laboratory studies have been able to eliminate these variables and show that noise produces certain physiological effects.
The general pattern of response to stress includes activation of the neural and endocrine systems, causing changes such as increased blood pressure, available glucose, and blood levels of corticosteroids.
The effect of sympathetic activation on circulation also is believed to have an effect on hearing (Holler 1978).
A correlation has been shown to exist between the reaction on the peripheral circulation and the temporary threshold shift caused by noise exposure.
Prolonged exposure to severe stress may exhaust an animal's resources and result in death.
IN TODAY'S NEWS:
From California
Can chickens provide early warnings of wind turbine health dangers?
SOURCE http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/6999
By Miriam Raftery
August 21, 2011 (San Diego’s East County) – Like those proverbial canaries in the coal mine, chickens near wind farms may provide early clues to potential harm to health of humans and animals. That’s the contention of Hamish Cumming, a farmer battling proposed wind turbines near his home in New Zealand.
He has written a letter to East County Magazine seeking help from people living near wind farms locally (and in other locations) to document cases of shell-less eggs, dead chickens, or other animals that suffer internal hemmorrhaging.
The “humble chicken” is common in rural areas near wind farms and can be easily monitored, Cumming says. Chickens under stress may produce a soft-shelled or shell-less egg that can’t be laid, killing the chicken. Such incidents have been documented near wind farms, says Cumming, who has also collected examples of livestock and a dog that died from internal hemorrhaging near wind farms.
“There are reports from many wind farm locations that chickens within a 3 km distance from turbines exhibit shell-less eggs during some weather conditions,” he stated. “Some locations have reported shell-less eggs or dead chickens that coincide with residents’ complaints about “noisy nights” from turbines.”
In fact, shell-less eggs are also known as “wind eggs.” According to Broad Leys Publishing, which specializes in books for poultry owners, a yolk-less wind egg may occur in a young pullet, but “wind eggs can also occur in older hens if they are subject to sudden shock.”
Chickens aren’t the only species suffering ill health effects from living near wind farms, Hamish says.
“So far there are several records of dairy cattle in Canada and Australia reducing milk output by as much as 30%,” he wrote.
The Discovery Channel ran a report on massive deaths among bats that suffered lung hemorrhaging when flying near wind turbines:
Goats in Taiwan, verified by the Taiwanese Department of Agriculture, have reportedly died due to stress-induced conditions within 2 km of turbines. “I have had reports of high levels of stillborn lambs and calves (up to 10%)…and stillborn horses in Australia and overseas, only after wind farms commenced operations,” he claims.
Wind farms may even be damaging to the family pet, he believes. “A dog was verified by Werribee Veterinary Hospital as dying from multiple organ fibrosis, believed to be stress-induced—and it was also within 2 km of turbines.”
Animals grazing near wind farms have also exhibited fibrosis, or hemorrhaging of major organs, when butchered, he observed. He believes this may explain why some native birds abandon habitat and cease breeding close to wind turbines.
That’s of serious concern to Cumming, who has endangered bird species nesting on wetlands at his New Zealand farm.
There have also been claims around the world of human health impacts in some communities near wind farms. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine trained physician and Princeton University PhD, has authored a book titled Wind Turbine Syndrome documenting serious health effects in people living near wind turbines due to low-frequency sound waves: . The wind industry has disputed her findings.
Cumming seeks residents in East County and elsewhere around the world who live within 5 km of wind turbines to create a large data pool. Participants may already own chickens, or be willing to acquire them for the study. Cutting open a dead hen will expose the shell-less egg, if that is the cause of death, he said.
He seeks the following data:
1. How close the nearest turbines are to your chickens or slaughtered animals
2. How many turbines are within 5 km
3. Brand and size of the turbines
4. Name of the wind farm
5. Your country
Data may be sent to Hamish.cumming@bigpond.com
East County Magazine is also interested in hearing about local cases of animal hemmorrhaging, wind eggs, or human health issues from people living near wind farms in San Diego's East County: contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.
FROM AUSTRALIA
LEONARD'S HILL COUPLE 'UNDER SIEGE' DUE TO WIND FARM NOISE
SOURCE: The Courier, thecourier.com.au
August 19, 2011
By BRENDAN GULLIFER,
Trevor and Maree Frost say they are under siege in their Leonards Hill home of 30 years because of noise from the Hepburn wind farm.
Mrs Frost, a part-time cleaner at Daylesford District Hospital, said she had suffered extreme sleep deprivation since the two turbines began operating earlier this year.
“I’ve had enough,” Mrs Frost, 57, said this week. “I want something done. I want my life back. That’s all I want.”
Mr Frost, a 65-year-old firewood supplier, said he was not so badly impacted but had witnessed the deterioration of his wife over recent months.
“She makes a lot of mistakes because of a lack of sleep,” he said.
Mrs Frost said the noise varied from a low whoosh to like a jet engine, depending on wind velocity and direction.
She said she was forced to wear earplugs while working outside.
“It’s not acceptable for country life,” she said.
“What we’ve worked for in the last 20 or 30 years, it feels like it’s all been for nothing.
“This is our place. I’ve never had anything that has interrupted my sleep like this, even when you’ve lost someone in your family. The stress is there all the time.”
And the couple say their daughter, Jenna, 22, was forced to move away from home because of noise from the turbines, about 520 metres from their house.
“She couldn’t hack it,” Mr Frost said. The situation is complex for the tightly-knit Leonards Hill and Korweinguboora communities around the wind farm.
The turbines are located on land owned by Mr Frost’s cousin, Ron Liversidge. The two men haven’t spoken in recent months.
Mr Frost said he and his wife had made an official complaint to Hepburn Wind and were keeping a diary of the noise impact.

6/2/11 Wisconsin Wind Siting Legislation AND Golden Goose vs. Golden Eagle AND Wanna buy a house in a wind farm? Why not? AND Electrical pollution and other delights
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Ted Weissman is a wind developer for NextEra (formerly Florida Power & Light) who has been inquiring about putting up a met tower in the Town of Spring Valley (Rock County).
Better Plan has been told he is the same developer that signed up a number of landowners for the Glacier Hills project currently under construction in Columbia County and now owned by WeEnergies.
For those in the Spring Valley community who are interested in what kinds of terms might be in a wind lease from Ted Weissman on behalf of NextEra, a preview may be had by looking over the leases Weissman reportedly used to sign up Columbia county landowners. Download a copy of the wind lease by clicking here, or visit the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, and search docket #6630-CE-302
In upcoming days Better Plan will be taking a closer look at the wind lease that at least a few landowners in Columbia county now openly regret signing, why they regret signing it and where things stand with the project today.
Senate Bill 98, Changing Setback Limits and other Regulations Applicable to Wind Energy Systems.
This bill imposes additional requirements on the PSC's rules governing local regulation of wind turbines.
The bill requires the restrictions under the rules to provide reasonable protection from any health effects associated with wind energy systems, including health effects from noise and shadow flicker.
The bill eliminates the requirement for the PSC to promulgate rules regarding setback requirements, and requires instead that the owners of certain wind energy systems comply with distance requirements specified in the bill.
The bill's requirements apply to the owner of a "large wind energy system," which the bill defines as a wind energy system that has a total installed nameplate capacity of more than 300 kilowatts and that consists of individual wind turbines that have an installed nameplate capacity of more than 100 kilowatts.
Under the bill, the owner of a large wind energy system must design and construct the system so that the straight line distance from the vertical center line of any wind turbine tower of the system to the nearest point on the property line of the property on which the wind turbine tower is located is at least one-half mile.
The bill allows a lesser distance if there is a written agreement between the owner of the large wind energy system and the owners of all property within one-half mile of the property on which the system is located.
The bill also requires that the straight line distance from the vertical center line of any wind turbine tower of the system to the nearest point on the permanent foundation of any building must be at least 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height of the wind turbine tower, unless the owners of the system and the building agree in writing to a lesser distance.
In addition, the bill requires that the straight line distance from the vertical center line of any wind turbine tower of the system to the nearest point on any public road right-of-way or overhead communication or electric transmission or distribution line must be at least 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height of the wind turbine tower. By Sen. Lasee (R-De Pere) Comment on this bill.
FROM WASHINGTON DC
HOUSE REPUBLICANS PRESS FOR FASTER ACTION ON RENEWABLE ENERGY
READ THE ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com
June 1, 2011
By Jim Snyder,
Susan Reilly, chief executive officer of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., of Broomfield, Colorado, said Interior Department protection from wind turbines for golden eagles will “make financing projects more difficult.”
U.S. House Republicans, who have sought to expedite offshore oil- and gas-drilling permits, pressed the Obama administration to act faster on renewable energy projects.
Federal hurdles are slowing growth of solar and wind companies, industry executives said today at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing in Washington. The witnesses also advocated tax incentives and production mandates criticized by Republicans, who control the House.
“Bureaucratic delays, unnecessary lawsuits and burdensome environmental regulations” are hampering expansion of renewable energy, as they have for oil and gas producers, said Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, a Republican from Washington state.
Hastings’s panel has already passed legislation designed to expand oil and gas production offshore, including an accelerated approval process for drilling permits. The bills passed the House before being blocked in the Senate, where Democrats hold a majority.
Susan Reilly, chief executive officer of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., of Broomfield, Colorado, said Interior Department protection from wind turbines for golden eagles will “make financing projects more difficult.”
The Obama administration proposed guidelines in February to help wind-energy developers identify sites that pose the least risks to birds and wildlife.
Collisions with wind turbines are a “major source of mortality” for golden eagles in regions of the U.S. West, according to a department fact sheet.
Developing Public Lands
Hastings asked witnesses if the Interior Department had an efficient and effective process for reviewing permits for developing public lands.
While most responded no, executives also praised the Obama administration for improving the procedures and focusing more attention on renewable energy.
They commended policies like a Treasury Department grant program for renewable developers set to expire later this year and an Obama plan to generate 80 percent of U.S. electricity from low-polluting sources by 2035.
The Interior Department is “picking up the pace” on offshore wind, said Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition.
Reilly said clean-energy mandates and a predictable tax policy would promote investment.
From Ontario
HOME VALUES VS. WIND TURBINES
READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca
June 1, 2011
by Travis Pedwell
McMurray tells Bayshore Broadcasting News it’s hard to put a value on house depreciation but says it can bring down a home’s value by 25 to 40 per cent.
He says the depreciation stays at 25 to 40 per cent as far as two miles away from the house.
McMurray adds if a home is in an area where people are looking for recreational or desirable residential property the house may not have any market value.
Wind Turbines are having a serious effect on house values in Grey County and would do the same in Huron County.
This from Grey County realtor Mike McMurray at the Community Forum on Wind Development in Goderich held on Monday.
McMurray tells Bayshore Broadcasting News it’s hard to put a value on house depreciation but says it can bring down a home’s value by 25 to 40 per cent.
He says the depreciation stays at 25 to 40 per cent as far as two miles away from the house.
McMurray adds if a home is in an area where people are looking for recreational or desirable residential property the house may not have any market value.
McMurray notes he sympathizes with those who have built homes and have had turbines placed in their backyards.
He tells us most people he deals with wish they had never got involved with turbines.
McMurray tells us there have been several cases when someone from Toronto wants to relocate and must look elsewhere because of potential wind development.
He says his experience shows wind development pits neighbour against neighbour.
McMurray notes among other things – the biggest concern he hears from potential buyers are the health effects.
He says nobody wants to look out at the turbines all day and have flashing lights come through the windows at night.
McMurray adds many potential buyers will stay away from areas of wind development.
He says he has encountered residents who don’t mind turbines but adds only farmers on marginal properties see them as a way of survival.
From Ontario
LIKE LIVING IN A MICROWAVE OVEN
READ THE WHOLE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Orangeville Citizen, www.citizen.on.ca
June 2, 2011
By WES KELLER
If the independent findings and conclusions of an electrical engineer are correct, Theresa Kidd and her family were living “inside a microwave oven environment” near the TransAlta transformer substation in Amaranth until forced out by ill health.
Because they had lived on their horse farm across from the Hydro One grid near 15 Sideroad and the 10th Line of Amaranth for more than a half dozen years with no adverse health effects prior to the installation of transformers but have experienced severe ill health since then, the Kidds blame the substation – and the electrical study would appear to confirm that as the cause.
However, the Ministry of Recreational Environment (MoE) hasn’t indicated an interest in anything other than noise-level compliance at the site, and Theresa says TransAlta has never www. sent its own electrical engineers to investigate the source of her family’s complaints.
Her electrical engineer is David Copping of Ripley, who says some industry and MoE officials have agreed with his findings – but only “off the record.”
Mr. Copping, who lives in the area of the Suncor wind farm, said in a telephone interview that the proximity of the turbines to his home has nothing to do with his opposition to the transmission of wind power.
In fact, the Ryerson-trained electrician at first poohpoohed the idea that electric contamination from wind farms could affect human health. He did, however, have an interest in examining the effects on dairy herds.
Someone talked him into examining a home near Ripley where the occupants had become ill. Since then, he says, he has examined more
200 homes of which there are now five vacant at Ripley, the two at the local substation, and one more near Kincardine, where Enbridge has a wind farm.
Mr. Copping’s reports are technical, and appear to be at least partially based on analyses of power quality and frequency, using specialized equipment.
His “microwave” conclusion is from a measurement of a 10 kiloHertz (Kz) frequency of electricity on a wire connected between the kitchen sink and an EKG patch on the floor of the Kidd home when the main power line to the house had been shut off.
That frequency is otherwise expressed as 10,000 cycles per second, but the frequency of “clean” electrical transmission would be 60 cycles per second, he says.
Where is the energy coming from when the power line to the house has been shut off? Mr. Colling said it could be “coming through the walls.”
“You have 10 kHz micro surges being introduced into your home, therefore it compares to living inside microwave oven environment. I hope this helps in understanding what has happened to your health,” he says in concluding note to the Kidds.
Ms. Kidd said she met TransAlta representative Jason Edworthy at Amaranth Council in January 2010 when the council urged him to speak with the affected residents (Kidds and Whitworths).
Then, in March, she described symptoms of headaches, vomiting and sleep deprivation among other things to Mr. Edworthy, as happening since February 2009 – forcing the family to vacate in April of that year.
“For the record, this was the second time we spoke with TransAlta – and the last,” she said.
“TransAlta has done absolutely nothing to investigate our concerns; they are fully aware of the health issues we have incurred due to their substation.”
She notes that acoustical barriers and landscaping around the substation were completed before TransAlta purchased Canadian Hydro in a hostile takeover, and those were done “to bring the noise levels into compliance.”
“Neither the Kidd nor Whitworth family health has been made a priority by TransAlta. This company’s response in addressing our concerns due to their electrical transformer substation was to give us three options: sell and move; stay and adapt; or take action against the company.
“These options were given to us in March 2010,” she said.
In addition to their physical health problems, the Kidds generally have lost their horse-training business as they have been forced to dispose of their herd, evidently because they can’t live there but also because of the electromagnetic effects on the animals.
