Better Plan, Wisconsin

This new tattoo is only 30% efficient  CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE

STRONG GUST FOR WIND FARMS?

A new rule could make it easier to build wind-energy projects in Wisconsin

READ IT AT THE SOURCE: thonline.com Dubuque IA

January 4, 2010

By Craig Reber

A wind-siting rule that took effect in Wisconsin on Jan. 1 could open the door to wind farms in southwest Wisconsin.

The rule provides a path for obtaining a permit to build a wind farm -- as long as the project developers abide by the guidelines established by the state Public Service Commission. If a township or other municipality opts to regulate a wind-energy power system, its ordinances can't be more restrictive than the PSC's rules.

Basically, the PSC's rules trump any local ordinances.

In southwest Wisconsin, the new rule could pave the way for the development of the proposed White Oak wind project by Wind Capital Group that includes parts of Smel-ser, Hazel Green and Paris townships. The project has been on hold for more than two years.

"We believe that passage of the PSC's rule will certainly set the conditions in place that make development of wind facilities much more possible in Wisconsin," said Tom Green, Wind Capital senior manager of project development. "In reviewing the new rule and applying those rules to their plans for White Oak, they will have a better idea moving into the future of the viability of the project."

Ron Brisbois, Grant County Economic Development director, said the new law will allow communities to plan and give wind developers the freedom to create wind-farm strategies.

"That was what everybody was waiting on," Brisbois said of the White Oak project and another in northern Grant County. "This should allow them to move forward to secure financing and implement the design of the full layout of where the turbines will go."

"It's important," said Joe Alt, of rural Cuba City and a participant in the White Oak project, discussing the new rule. "It's definitely going to help get a wind farm going."

The White Oak project has its opponents, and the Smelser Township supervisors enacted a moratorium on wind farms in 2009. Foes said siting has and always will be the main concern of numerous Smelser Township residents. Some sought an 1,800-foot minimum setback requirement to minimize what they call the "noise, safety and health risks" to their families and their houses. Others cited concerns about falling property values because of the size and location of the towers, usually as high as 400 feet.

"We're just sitting in neutral right now," said Smelser Supervisor Arnie Rawson, who voted for the moratorium and who hadn't seen the new wind-siting rule as of Monday afternoon. "We are very open-minded on it, but we have to be careful to weigh in both sides."

Gabe Loeffelholz, Smelser Township chairman and a former state legislator, said there still are residents in favor of the moratorium. He isn't one of them.

"I don't know what lies ahead," Loeffelholz said, "but whether it's ethanol, solar power, or wind turbines as an alternative source of energy, I say go for it."

That's what former Gov. Jim Doyle and state lawmakers did previously. In October 2009, Doyle signed a bill (2009 Wisconsin Act 40) that called for state regulators to come up with statewide rules for wind farms that specified the conditions a local government entity could impose on the installation or use of a wind-energy system. The state Wind Siting Council formulated the rule after numerous public meetings, hearings, discussions and fine-tuning.

Earlier this month, the commission adjusted the requirements on two issues of critical importance to the wind industry: setback distances and compensation to neighboring residents, called a "Good Neighbor" payment.

Initially, the rule did not specify a definite setback distance between turbines and residences neighboring the host property. Now, municipalities cannot establish a setback distance on non-participating residences that is less than 1,250 feet.

Alt said the new rule allows for the owners of non-participating residences within a half-mile of a wind turbine to receive monetary compensation from the wind system owner.

"It's fair to everybody," he said.

If the wind farms move forward, Brisbois said both the participating townships and Grant County will receive revenue. Participating landowners will receive a new source of farm income from the leases on the wind turbines.

"This is an opportunity that not a lot of townships in Wisconsin have," he said. "It's somewhat unique. You can't just plop down a wind farm anywhere. You have to have the wind and the substations."

THIRD FEATURE

OUR SOURCE: National Wind Watch

Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects: First International Symposium

Author:  Society for Wind Vigilance

Abstracts from the international symposium held October 29-31, 2010, Picton, Ontario, Canada, by courtesy of the Society for Wind Vigilance, Ontario. Click on a title to download the complete presentation. Or click here to download them all in a 16-MB zip file.

FRIDAY 7:00-9:30 pm

Session I: No Rules, No Caution, No Accountability

Orville Walsh
NO GLOBAL STANDARDS
[ view online ]
Abstract: The rapid expansion of the wind energy industry globally has resulted in governmental authorities at different levels responding to opposing pressures to create or modify regulations and planning guidelines for the siting of utility scale wind turbines. Siting guidelines for health, safety, cultural and natural heritage were reviewed and compared. The results indicate wide ranges of siting standards are being adopted. Government authorities have employed a variety of criteria, resulting in significant variation in the spatial separation between wind turbines and sensitive areas as well as the intensity of the development. Separation distances in many jurisdictions are less than those recommended by health professionals suggesting some in the population are at risk. Current trends in government planning and regulations are discussed.

John Harrison, PhD
IT’S PURE PHYSICS
[ view online ]
Abstract: The setback of wind turbines from homes and other sensitive receptors is determined by national and local regulations. These regulations specify a maximum noise level at the receptor and make use of sound propagation models. The models account for spherical spreading of the sound generated by the turbine, refraction of sound by wind speed and temperature gradients, absorption of sound energy by the atmosphere and the ground, and reflection of sound by the ground. In practice, the resulting setbacks result in considerable annoyance, sleep deprivation and consequent health problems for a significant proportion of people living among the turbines. The talk will review deficiencies in the regulations and limitations in the modelling.

Rick James, INCE
HOW WE GOT HERE
[ view online ]
Abstract: What was learned in the 1980′s was forgotten in the 1990′s and set the stage for the Wind Turbine Boom of the 2000′s. But the pillars of the position, that wind turbines are safe for use near people’s homes, are falling. An overview of the key arguments presented by the wind industry’s trade associations and their representatives who support their position will be discussed.

SATURDAY 8:30-10:00 am

Session II: What Clinicians Need to Know

KEY NOTE SPEAKER:
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD
DEFINING A SYNDROME
[ view online ]
Abstract: Wind Turbine Syndrome. Consider that no government, and certainly no health agency, anywhere on the face of the earth believes in it. Nor does the wind energy industry, which ridicules it as preposterous, telling sufferers they’re hysterical and making up their symptoms. Primary care physicians generally look the other way and plead ignorance or indifference. The media, meanwhile, treats it as an entertaining sideshow. How does one perform credible clinical research in the face of such massive and systematic denial, cover-up, and apathy? Where the research population is often silenced by “confidentiality clauses” or the fear of alienating neighbors and relatives — and potential buyers — should they reveal that their homes are acoustically toxic and, frankly, uninhabitable. Welcome to the past six years of my life. This morning I’m going to explain how I navigated this surreal landscape, employing the instruments of population biology, clinical medicine, and ethnography — along with the services of a first rate guardian angel.

Alec Salt, PhD Cochlear Physiology, MSc, BSc Biology
INFRASOUND: YOUR EARS HEAR IT BUT THEY DON’T TELL YOUR BRAIN
[ view online ]
Abstract: The ear is far more complex than a microphone. It actively amplifies high frequency sounds, so you hear them better, and likely works to actively cancel out infrasonic sounds, so that you don’t hear them. So, it is wrong to regard the ear as insensitive to infrasound. Indeed, measured electrical responses from the ear with infrasound can be larger than those for sounds in the acoustic range and these responses may alter function in a variety of ways. They may also be transmitted to the brain by subconscious pathways that do not represent “hearing”, but affect some people in other ways, such as by causing the sensation of “fullness” or perhaps disturbing sleep. It is therefore physiologically possible that prolonged exposure to the moderate levels of infrasound generated by wind turbines could have detrimental effects on people, mediated by unheard physiological changes in the ear. This work supported by NIDCD/NIH, grant number DC01368, 2005-2010.

SATURDAY 10:30-12:00 am

Session III: Cause and Effect

Arline Bronzaft, BA, MA, PhD
CHILDREN: CANARIES IN THE COAL MINE
[ view online ]
Abstract: Research linking loud sound to hearing loss in youngsters is now widespread, resulting in the issuance of warnings to protect children’s hearing. However, studies attesting to the adverse effects of intrusive sounds and noise on children’s overall health and psychological well-being have not received similar attention. This, despite the fact, that many studies have demonstrated that intrusive noises, e.g., from passing traffic or overhead aircraft, adversely affect children’s cardiovascular system, memory, language development and learning acquisition. While some American schools have received funds to abate noises from intrusive aircraft, many schools still expose children to the noises from passing traffic and overhead aircraft. Additionally, homes and schools expose youngsters to the impacts of interior noises as well. Discussion will center on the harmful effects of noise on children, what has been done to remedy the problem, and what needs to be done further to lessen the impacts of noise, including low-level vibrations.

Christopher Hanning, BSc, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD
THE TORMENT OF SLEEP DISTURBANCE
[ view online ]
Abstract: The most common complaint of those exposed to industrial wind turbine noise (WTN) is sleep disturbance. Many of the other symptoms, fatigue, headache, nausea, memory problems and tiredness are probably secondary to sleep disturbance. Sleep is by the brain and for the brain. It’s principal purpose seems to be the consolidation of memory. Loss of sleep, in the short term, causes daytime sleepiness, fatigue, problems with memory and thought processes and, in the longer term an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. There is now a large body of evidence proving beyond any reasonable doubt that sleep is disturbed and health impaired by wind turbines at distances up to 2km, at noise levels claimed to be safe by the industry.

SATURDAY 12:30-1:30 pm

Session Working Luncheon

Robert Bryce
A JOURNEY OF DISCOVERY
[ view online ]
Abstract: Over the past decade, the global wind sector has experienced phenomenal growth thanks largely to the industry’s ability to portray itself as “green.” But that growth will be difficult to sustain for several reasons: the industry has overstated its ability to deliver meaningful savings with regard to carbon dioxide emissions; it faces a growing backlash from landowners irritated by noise and flicker caused by the turbines as well as from ratepayers who are learning the high costs of “green” energy; and finally, the industry must compete, particularly in the US and Canada, with low natural gas prices for the foreseeable future.

SATURDAY 2:00-3:30 pm

Session IV: Research and Motion

Michael A. Nissenbaum, MD
DELETERIOUS HEALTH EFFECTS ARE UNDENIABLE
[ view online ]
Abstract: In the Real World: Adverse Health Effects Related to Industrial Wind Turbines – Controlled Studies at Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, Maine. Following reports of adverse health complaints among residents of Mars Hill, Maine, a pilot study was undertaken to provide information to the Public Health Subcommittee of the Maine Medical Association in the first half of 2009. This represented the world’s first controlled study of adverse health effects related to industrial wind turbines. Adverse effects are real, and significant. The findings from this pilot study will be discussed. Since the pilot study was completed, a larger, more detailed and standardized controlled study has been undertaken at Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, Maine, utilizing validated questionnaires. Preliminary findings from these will be presented.

Carl V. Phillips, PhD
THE ABSENCE OF HEALTH STUDIES PROVES NOTHING
[ view online ]
Abstract: The claim that there is no evidence of negative health effects from wind turbines near residences is clearly false since there are ample credible reports of people experiencing problems. Many of these offer compelling case- crossover data, with individuals experiencing changes in symptoms when changing the exposure. But to the extent that we do not have as much data as would be ideal – which is certainly the situation – the problem is the failure to carry out the optimal studies. Obviously the lack of evidence resulting from the lack of studies is not informative. We should demand affirmative evidence about what risk exists, and make decisions that admit and consider whatever is found. Industry should pay for independent research but failing that, creative solutions are called for. I hope to develop a self-administered research tool for collecting case-crossover data that could be used by any interested community.

SATURDAY 4:00-5:30 pm

Session V: The Consequences – Violation of Social Justice

Carmen Krogh, BSc Pharmacy
A GROSS INJUSTICE
[ view online ]
Abstract: “I trusted the wind energy companies.” “I can’t believe the government is doing this to me.” Those experiencing symptoms feel victimized by the very systems that would normally protect them. The lack of social justice hurts deeply. Many families are affected by the industrial wind turbines sited too close to their homes. In some cases Ontario families have abandoned their homes to protect their health. Some have had to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of a buy out of their homes by the wind developer. Their grief is exacerbated by the emotional toll, disturbed living conditions, loss of enjoyment of their homes and property, and financial loss and the negative impact to the health of their families.

Eric K. Gillespie, LLB
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE LAW
[ view online ]
Abstract: The advent of large-scale industrial wind turbine (IWT) projects has brought with it many legal challenges but also opportunities. Families, communities and municipalities are more aware of the risks posed by IWTs. At the same time, legal options are starting to be pursued that may lead to local resolutions of issues, or potentially provincial, national or even international changes. These legal strategies include (i) private litigation brought by individuals, (ii) public interest litigation raising broader issues; (iii) by-laws, resolutions and other steps taken by local government, and (iv) administrative hearings outside of the court system. All of these areas will be reviewed, using Ontario as a case study but with examples of how communities around the world are also responding.

SUNDAY 8:30-10:00 am

Session VI: Social Marketing – Disinformation

Dale Goldhawk, Broadcaster
MEDIA AND PRE-EMPTIVE STEREOTYPING
[ view online ]
Abstract: I believe that advocacy journalism, used sensibly and carefully, backed up by proven facts and presented with passionate conviction, can influence and even change public policy. I am in my 43rd year as a journalist and have seen it happen countless times. And it happens at any stage in a war against policy, dumb laws and stubborn champions of bad ideas. Advocacy journalism was a major triggering factory that stopped a dump site project, even after the hole had been dug, getting ready for the garbage that never came. And this was a project where we were told it was a “done deal” and that nothing could be done to stop it. There are no done deals with projects that are counter to the best interests of people — and that includes wind turbines. Advocacy journalists would do well to remember the prescriptive words of Mohandas Gandhi: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Ross McKitrick, PhD
COAL KILLS: WHERE ARE THE BODIES?
[ view online ]
Abstract: This presentation will look at the evidence regarding the health effects of coal-fired power generation in Ontario. The Ontario government maintains that the risk is large enough to necessitate shutting down the two major coal-fired generating stations in Southern Ontario and replacing them with, among other things, wind turbine installations. I will explain the nature of the Lambton and Nanticoke generating facilities and the network of thermal power plants in the northeast corridor of which they are a part. I will also explain their air pollution control features and the potential effects on Southern Ontario air quality from eliminating these plants, as estimated in the province’s own cost- benefit analysis. I will then discuss observed air pollution trends in Ontario since the 1960s and show that the claims that current air pollution levels result in thousands of cases of illness and death are not supported in up-to- date, peer-reviewed literature.

POSTER SESSIONS

Brett Horner, BA, CMA
ANNOYANCE: A CLINICAL MISNOMER?

Barbara Ashbee
VOW (VICTIMS OF WIND)
Conclusion: Government Policy for Renewable Energy implementation overrides adverse health concerns. Until 3rd-party human health research is conducted to determine safe setbacks and noise levels from industrial wind turbine facilities, including risks of electrical pollution, further development should cease and existing sites mitigated or decommissioned.

Barbara Ashbee and contributors globally
POLICY AND POLITICAL PROCESS: The Consequences
These comments are a compilation drawn from personal communications and interviews of those suffering ill health from the onset of industrial wind turbine operations. Their frustration and loss of social justice is apparent. Any compassionate member of society cannot help but be moved.

Elizabeth E. Wheatley, PhD
AN INTEGRATIVE CURRICULUM FOR THE WINDS OF CHANGE: Advancing Critical Thinking About the Michigan Wind Rush
[ view online ]
The Global wind industry is colonizing more and more of rural, wild, and coastal America with its expansive fleet of colossal, propeller-style wind turbines. Michigan has emerged as a favored target among wind developers for further deployment of industrial wind zones, given its legislative mandates for ever-increasing production of “renewable” energy, its vast swaths of agricultural land, extensive coastlines, and the absence of statewide health or safety regulations pertaining to wind energy generation. This presentation summarizes a university-level integrative curriculum designed to inspire and encourage undergraduate students’ critical thinking about the implications of wind energy development for Michigan citizens and communities. The curriculum addresses cultural, political and economic forces shaping wind energy development in Michigan, compares various forms of electricity generation methods and their impacts on humans, animals, and ecosystems; and reviews the emerging evidence of adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines in light of sociological theories of reflexive modernization as well as “popular” epidemiological struggles over socially contested environmental disease. The curriculum is a work in progress and is offered in two parts. Each part of the curriculum is offered as one of several themes addressed in two courses I teach: Part I: Social Problems; and Part II: Sociology of Health Care.

Lorrie Gillis, Protocol Administrator, and Carmen Krogh, BScPharm
THE RELATIONSHIP OF INCREASED MOOD ALTERATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES: Implications and Social Justice (WindVOiCe – Wind Vigilance for Ontario Communities)
[ view online ]
Industrial wind turbine projects became operational in rural Ontario, Canada, in 2005. Within a short period of time, residents near the projects reported noticing adverse health effects. By 2008, reports of health problems became more common and had been associated with the advent of Industrial Wind Turbines. In some cases Ontario families have abandoned their homes to protect their health. Government vigilance and long term surveillance programs for industrial wind turbines do not exist in Canada. Volunteers in various affected communities organized and funded an Ontario-based vigilance health survey to capture and document the array of adverse health effects being reported. Reports are now being received from other jurisdictions. Wind Vigilance for Ontario Communities (WindVOiCe) is a community-based self-reporting health survey based on the principles of Health Canada’s Canada Vigilance Program designed to monitor suspected drug reactions. This survey is ongoing. WindVOiCe respondents report altered quality of life. Sleep disturbance is the most common health complaint. Other symptoms include but are not limited to inner ear problems, cardiac concerns, and headaches. Respondents report in the comments section of the survey, anger, frustration, and loss of cognitive functions such as inability to concentrate, ‘foggy thinking’ and short term memory loss. Depression anxiety and stress are common. The symptoms of adverse health effects reported are consistent with other surveys and research conducted by clinicians such as Harry, Pierpont, Nissenbaum. Parents have responded on behalf of their children and indicated adverse reactions such as vomiting, nausea, nose bleeds and headaches. In the comments section of the survey, some respondents describe their emotional toll. They describe disturbed living conditions, loss of enjoyment of their homes and property, and financial loss due to the negative impact to the health of their families which further contributes to increased stress levels. Informal discussions with respondents indicate some family members grieve deeply. These include those who suffer adverse health effects, those who had to abandon their homes, and those who had to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of a buy out of their homes by the wind developer. They feel victimized by the very systems that normally would protect them. The lack of social justice hurts deeply.

SUBMITTED PAPERS

Bob Thorne
THE PROBLEMS WITH ‘NOISE NUMBERS’ FOR WIND FARM NOISE ASSESSMENT
[ view online ]
Conclusions: Personal perception of a sound is investigated through assessment of personal noise sensitivity, personal perception of the characteristics of the sound and observable adverse health effects. Noise includes vibration in any form that can be “felt” by a person. There is, in my opinion and despite the differences in opinion as to cause, considerable agreement between the parties – residents, clinicians and acousticians – as to observable health effects from unwanted sound. There are clear and definable markers for adverse health effects before and after the establishment of a wind farm and clear and agreed health effects due to stress after a wind farm has started operation. It is the mechanism of the physical or mental process from one to the other that is not yet defined or agreed between affected persons, clinicians and psychoacousticians. There has, however, been considerable work recently (May-June 2010) on the possible mechanism between infrasound and adverse health effects.

Christopher Hanning, BSc, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD
WIND TURBINE NOISE, SLEEP AND HEALTH
[ view online ]
Summary: Section 1 sets out my expertise in sleep medicine and physiology, my brief from CFA, the scope of the report and source material. Section 2 reviews the basic physiology of sleep. Noise can disturb sleep by causing awakenings, which are remembered and arousals, which are not recalled but are more likely. Both disrupt sleep making it unrefreshing. Research on the effects of wind turbine noise has concentrated on remembered awakenings and has thus underestimated the effects. Inadequate or poor quality sleep has many health consequences apart from daytime sleepiness and fatigue. These include obesity, poor memory, increased risk of diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly may be at greater risk. Section 3 reviews research on wind turbine noise, sleep disturbance and health. These include the major contributions of van den Berg and Pedersen and the dose-response relationship derived from their data. Also considered are the Salford study and the Hayes McKenzie Partnership study commissioned by the DTI. Recent major reports by WHO and RIVM are reviewed, both of which mandate lower night time noise levels than are permitted by ETSU-R-97. Predicted external turbine noise should not exceed 35dB to avoid disturbance to sleep and 40dB to avoid risks to health. Experience of existing wind farms mandates a setback of at least 1.5km in order to avoid disturbance to sleep. It is concluded that there is compelling evidence that wind turbine noise can and does disturb sleep and impair the health of those living too close and that current guidance is inadequate protection. Section 4 reviews the means of mitigating wind turbine noise to prevent sleep disturbance. It is concluded that external turbine noise levels of less than 35dB(A) or a setback of at least 1.5km of the turbines is necessary to prevent unacceptable levels of sleep disturbance and potential risk to health. Section 5 reviews UK planning guidance and argues that the evidence presented constitute material considerations. Section 6 presents the conclusions of the report. Section 7 lists the documents cited in support of this paper.

SUBMITTED SLIDE SHOW

Bob Thorne
ASSESSING NOISE FROM WIND FARMS
[ view online ]

Date added:  November 23, 2010
Health, U.S. •

Sleep Disorders and Sleep Deprivation: An Unmet Public Health Problem

Author:  U.S. Institute of Medicine Committee on Sleep Medicine and Research

It is estimated that 50 to 70 million Americans chronically suffer from a disorder of sleep and wakefulness, hindering daily functioning and adversely affecting health and longevity. The cumulative long-term effects of sleep deprivation and sleep disorders have been associated with a wide range of deleterious health consequences including an increased risk of hypertension, diabetes, obesity, depression, heart attack, and stroke. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on Sleep Medicine and Research concluded that although clinical activities and scientific opportunities in the field are expanding, awareness among the general public and health care professionals is low, given the magnitude of the burden. The available human resources and capacity are insufficient to further develop the science and to diagnose and treat individuals with sleep disorders. Therefore, the current situation necessitates a larger and more interdisciplinary workforce. Traditional scientific and medical disciplines need to be attracted into the somnology and sleep medicine field. Renewed and revitalized commitments to the field from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), academic health centers, private foundations, and professional societies are essential to ensure appropriate public and professional awareness, education and training, basic and clinical research, and patient care. Finally, the fragmentation of research and clinical care currently present in most academic institutions requires the creation of accredited interdisciplinary sleep programs in academic institutions.

Contents

• The National Academies
• Committee on Sleep Medicine and Research
• Board on Health Sciences Policy
• Independent Report Reviewers
• Preface
• Organization of Academic Health Centers
• Acknowledgments
• Summary
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Sleep Physiology
• 3. Extent and Health Consequences of Chronic Sleep Loss and Sleep Disorders
• 4. Functional and Economic Impact of Sleep Loss and Sleep-Related Disorders
• 5. Improving Awareness, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Sleep Disorders
• 6. Ensuring Adequate Diagnosis and Treatment: Access, Capacity, and Technology Development
• 7. Opportunities to Improve Career Development in Somnology
• 8. Bolstering Somnology and Sleep Disorders Research Programs
• 9. Building Sleep Programs in Academic Health Centers
• Appendixes

Download original document: “Sleep Disorders and Sleep Deprivation”

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

 EXTRA CREDIT READING: 

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

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

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

December 16, 2010

Dear Senator Plale and Representative Soletski,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Sincerely,

Kathleen Vinehout
State Senator
31st Senate District

Chris Danou
State Representative
91st Assembly District

WHERE OH WHERE HAS SENATOR JEFF PLALE GONE?

IS THERE A SPIDER HOLE IN MADISON?

With the clock running out on objecting to the wind rules, Senator Plale seems to have gone into hiding.

An aide to other senate committee members responsible for approving the wind rules say Plale has "checked out" and is no longer returning phone calls or any other manner of request for objection to the PSC's weakened wind rules.

Those of us who have been following this issue apparently must now begin to beat the bushes, pound on doors and look for spider holes in Madison and Green Bay in order to find the senator who holds the fate of so many of us in his hands.

 Letter from Representative Al Ott

To Representative Jim Soletski
Chairman, Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities

To Senator Jeff Plale
Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail

December 10. 2010

Chairmen Soletski and Plale:

I would like to take this opportunity to respectfully request your consideration in promptly scheduling an Executive Session of your respective Committees in order to object to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057.

Upon review of the changes made by the Public Service Commission (PSC) to Clearing House Ril 10-057, it is clear the Commission did virtually nothing to address the serious concerns raised by the numerous citizens who testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail in October.

I sincerely appreciate that the Senate Committee did the right and responsible thing by holding a Public Hearing and ultimately sending the rule back to the PSC for modifications.

I also appreciate that the PSC did make some improvements to the rule; however, I find it unfortunate that the PSC seemingly chose not to listen to the vast majority of concerns brought forward during the October 13th hearing.

Further, I would argue that the modified setback provision s relative to occupied community buildings and non-participating residences show a blatant disregard for the citizens of areas targeted for wind farm developments.

This is an issue that will impact people's lives and is not to be taken lightly. I believe it is absolutely necessary for your respective Committees to utilize the legislative oversight authority proved by law to ensure that the people who stand ot be impacted the most by the siting of wind turbines are afforded every opportunity under the administrative rule process to protect their rights and their communities.

The process for developing this rule has been flawed from the start. I ask that you bring that flawed process to a halt by objecting to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 prior to December 22, 2010 so that it may be taken up by the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules.

Thank you for your consideration of my request. I look forward to your response.

SIncerely,

Al Ott
State Representative
3rd Assembly District

LETTER FROM REPRESENTATIVE ZIGMUNT:

December 16 , 2010

The Honorable Jim Soletski

Chairman, Assembly Committee on Energy & Utilities

307 West, State Capitol

Madison, WI   53702

The Honorable Jeff Plale, Senate Chairperson

Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail

State Capitol, Room 313 South

Madison, WI 53702

Honorable Chairmen Soletski and Plale,

 I take this opportunity to respectfully request a public hearing on Public Service Commission Clearinghouse Rule 10-057.

My office has received numerous contacts from my constituents requesting this hearing before the rule goes into effect. Concerns have been raised over health and environmental impacts that could stem from the wind turbines and my constituents feel these concerns have not been properly addressed.. As such, I consider it necessary that the people be given the opportunity to make their case regarding this ruling directly to the legislature.

Thank you for your serious consideration of my request.

Sincerely

Ted Zigmunt

State Representative

2^nd Assembly District

PRESS RELEASE FROM BROWN COUNTY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE RENEWABLE ENERGY

BCCRWE says PSC Action is “Dirty Politics”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 13, 2010

(Denmark, WI) Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy says the latest maneuver by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin regarding wind turbine siting rules is the embodiment of "dirty politics."

The three PSC Commissioners, Eric Callisto, Lauren Azar, and Mark Meyer, voted unanimously on December 9, 2010 to send updated wind turbine siting rules back to the legislature.

These updated rules were crafted after the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail sent the rules back to the PSC for changes following an October 13, 2010 public hearing in Madison, WI.

The intent of the Senate committee that returned the rules to the PSC was summarized by Senator Jon Erpenbach in a November 30, 2010 letter to the PSC (letter below).

We are thankful that Senator Erpenbach called for larger setbacks to residences, lower noise levels, and setbacks measured from property lines. Perhaps most important, was his request for further study of the health impacts to people living in close proximity to industrial wind turbines. The PSC acknowledged receipt of his letter, and then blatantly ignored most of Senator Erpenbach's key requests.

The PSC rule changes reduce the setback requirement for large turbines (a reduction of 300 feet for turbines the size of those recently erected in the Town of Glenmore), and significantly reduce payments to non-participating neighboring landowners.

While that alone is disturbing, more so is the timing for the submission of the rules.

The PSC chose to submit the rules during the last month of a lame duck legislature; at a time when offices are being vacated in Madison, staff is moving, and legislators are preparing for the holidays. In the midst of all this change, legislators who are members of the House and Senate energy committees have only 10 working days to study and fully understand the changes the PSC made.

They can express their opinion on the new rules, but only the Committee Chairmen (Senator Plale or Representative Soletski) can formally 'object' to them. We were thankful that Senator Plale called for a public hearing in October and are hopeful that he and Representative Soletski will object to these new rules.

Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy believe these rules directly threaten the health, safety, and financial well-being of countless rural Wisconsin communities, as well as place a huge tax burden on all Wisconsin residents.

These rules will raise all utility customers' rates, making Wisconsin an even more difficult place to do businesses. These new rules directly contradict the stand taken, and recommendations made, by following organizations:

* The Wisconsin Towns Association
* The Brown County Public Health Department
* The Brown County Land Conservation Department
* The Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association

As well as numerous town ordinances across the state that protect residents' health and safety.

Worst of all, the PSC wholeheartedly ignored the voice of nearly all the citizens that spoke at the Wisconsin Senate public hearing in October, and the countless residents that submitted public comments at the PSC website. This is governing by and for special interests at the expense of Wisconsin families and taxpayers.

Media Contact:
Steve Deslauriers
BCCRWE
PO Box 703
Denmark 54208
Phone: 920-785-1837

LETTER FROM SENATOR JON ERPENBACH TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

REGARDING WIND SITING RULES

SOURCE: PSC DOCKET # 1-AC-231

November 30, 2010

Public Service Commission

Eric Callisto , Chairperson

Mark Meyer, Commissioner

Lauren Azar, Commissioner

PO Box 7854

Madison WI 53707-7854

Dear Commissioners Callisto, Meyer and Azar:

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

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

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

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

1. DATCP 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

JON ERPENBACH

State Senator

27^th District

JE.tk

REPLY FROM ERIC CALLISTO, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

December 3, 2010

Dear Senator Erpenbach,

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

Eric Callisto
Chairperson

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

610 North Whitney Way. P.O. Box 7854

Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7854

Phone:(608)266-5481

General Toll Free:(888)816-3831

TTY:(608)267-1479

Fax:(608)266-3957

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

LETTER FROM SENATOR JON ERPENBACH TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

REGARDING WIND SITING RULES

SOURCE: PSC DOCKET # 1-AC-231

November 30, 2010

Public Service Commission

Eric Callisto , Chairperson

Mark Meyer, Commissioner

Lauren Azar, Commissioner

PO Box 7854

Madison WI 53707-7854

Dear Commissioners Callisto, Meyer and Azar:

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

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

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

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

1. DATCP 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

JON ERPENBACH

State Senator

27^th District

JE.tk

REPLY FROM ERIC CALLISTO, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

December 3, 2010

Dear Senator Erpenbach,

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

Eric Callisto
Chairperson

A letter from Representative Bies regarding the wind rules:

December 9, 2010

The Honorable Jeff Plale, Senate Chairperson
Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail
State Capitol, Room 313 South
Madison, WI 53702
 
The Honorable James Soletski, Assembly Chairperson
Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities
State Capitol, Room 21 North
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, WI 53708
 
Chairmen Plale and Soletski,
 
I am writing to you today to request that you formally object to Clearinghouse Rule 08-070.  I have reviewed the changes made by the Public Service Commission and it appears the changes that were made did nothing to address the serious concerns raised by many people including me about the effects of these rules.
 
Among these concerns are the potentially unconstitutional takings of land rights from property owners adjacent to wind projects who will be unable to use or develop significant portions of their property, the reduction of local home values, the possible detrimental health effects from noise and shadow flicker, and the removal of any substantive local control over these projects.  
 
For these and other reasons I am requesting that you object to the proposed rule prior to December 22, 2010 so that it may be taken up by the Joint Committee on Review of Administrative Rules.  

Thank you,
 
GAREY BIES
State Representative
1st Assembly District

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

The PSC delivered a multi-million dollar gift to wind developers by unanimously approving rules which made siting turbines even easier than they first proposed, shocking many rural Badgers whose lives will be directly affected once these rules are adopted.

Changes include decreasing setbacks from homes from 1500 feet to a setback distance that will be  3.1 the turbine height or 1250 feet which ever is the lesser. So a 500 foot tall turbine gets the same setback as a 400 foot turbine.

Chairman Callisto was convinced that a turbine that is 100 feet taller with a wider blade span than the current 400 foot turbines will somehow be quieter, thus eliminating the need for a longer setback.

What he based this assumption on is unknown. Better Plan believes it's based on the assurances from wind developers who need to place turbines that are 50 stories tall no more than 1250 feet from non-participating homes to insure a profitable project.

He did not address the issue of the how the new setbacks will increase hours of shadow flicker on a residence. Nor did he seem to care.

 The new rules also pamper wind developers by lowering payments to non-participating neighbors.

Sources tell Better Plan that the rules were immediately sent to the legislative committees who have ten business days to make a decision. If the committees do nothing, the rules will become automatically become law.

If the committee members object to the rules, they will be sent to a rules over-sight committee which could call for a hearing and then introduce a bill to stop the rules from being adopted.

According to our source, out-going Committee chairman Senator Jeff Plale (D), who heads the senate committee made it clear an objection of this sort unlikely.

However, we've also been told that committee member Senator Robert Cowles (R) has been frustrated with his interaction with the PSC regarding this matter. Sources say the PSC has been unresponsive to Senator Cowles concerns.

Senator Erpenbach (D) sent a detailed letter outlining the ways he'd like to see the rules strengthened to protect residents of wind projects in our state. This too was ignored by teh PSC.

The Wisconsin Towns Association also made it clear to the PSC that the original rules were not strong enough to protect rural residents and suggested changes.

Once again, ignored by the PSC.

The three Doyle-appointed members of the PSC not only paid no attention to these requests, they also ignored the hundreds of residents of our state who testified over the course of the rule-making process, and asked for more protection. The PSC also ignored local ordinances adopted by rural Towns which sought to protect its residents.

What the PSC did not ignore were wind developers wishes. By weakening the rules they have handed developers exactly what they wanted. The cost? No cost to the PSC but for rural Wisconsin residents the cost is health, safety and property values.

WHAT YOU CAN DO RIGHT NOW

You can call the committee members listed below and ask what their plans are regarding the new PSC rules.

Let them know the new rules are even less protective than the ones origially proposed and must be rejected because they will endanger the health, safety and property values of rural Wisconsin residents.

YOUR PHONE CALLS ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

Call early and call daily. Committee legislators need to hear from you, and you need to know what they intend to do about the new rules.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail:

Jeff Plale (D) Chair  608-266-7505   or 414-694-7379

Robert Wirch (D)  608-267-8979  or 262-694-7379

Jon Erpenbach (D) 608-266-6670  or 888-549-0027

Pat Kreitlow (D) 608-266-7511     

Robert Cowles (R) 608-266-0484 or 920-448-5092

Sheila Harsdorf (R) 608-266-7745                        

Neal Kedzie (R) 608-266-2635 or 262-742-2025

The Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities:

James Soletski  (D)  Chair  608-266-0485              

Josh Zepnick  (D)   608-266-1707  or 414-727-0841 

Anthony Staskunas  (D) 608-266-0620   414-541-9440

Jon Richards  (D)  608-266-0650    414-270-9898

John Steinbrink  (D) 608-266-0455     262-694-5863

Joe Parisi  (D) 608-266-5342                          

Ted Zigmunt (D) 608-266-9870                  

Michael Huebsch  (R) 608-266-0631                            

Phil Montgomery  (R) 608-266-5840  or 920-496-5953 

Mark Honadel  (R)  608-266-0610 or  414-764-9921 

Kevin Peterson (R)  608-266-3794                 

Rich Zipperer  (R)  608-266-5120                            

YOU CAN ALSO SEND AN EMAIL TO EACH OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

SENATE:

Sen.Plale@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Wirch@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Erpenbach@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Kreitlow@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Cowles@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Harsdorf@legiswisconsin.gov

Sen.Kedzie@legis.wisconsin.gov

ASSEMBLY

Rep.Zepnick@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Staskunas@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Richards@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Steinbrink@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Parisi@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Zigmunt@legis.wisconsin.gov,

Rep.Huebsch@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Montgomery@legis.wisconsin.gov,

Rep.Honadel@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Petersen@legis.wisconsin.gov,

Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov

PSC TO DISCUSS WIND SITING RULES AT THE 10:30 AM OPEN MEETING ON DECEMBER 9TH

CLICK HERE FOR COPY OF THE AGENDA

The meeting will be broadcast live from the PSC website.

CLICK HERE to visit the PSC website, then click the "LIVE BROADCAST" button. The meetings don't always begin right on time so keep checking back.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: 

By law the PSC is required to post the agenda for any open meeting 24 hours before it takes place. However, the official posting place for this agenda is not disclosed. The PSC website states that the calandar of PSC events is not an official posting place, but doesn't say why, and doesn't state where the official posting place can be found.

However, a phone number is provided for those who want to talk about this with a PSC representative. Better Plan urges you to call this number to ask for the the location of the official posting place. That is, if you can find anyone who is willing to tell you.

See their disclaimer below:

SOURCE: Public Service Commission Event Calendar

Disclaimer Proposed Schedule & Agendas
This is a tentative schedule for planning purposes only and is subject to change. Persons wishing to verify the times of an event should contact Sandy Paske at (608)266-1265.

Current Agenda - Live Broadcast
While the PSC attempts to publish the open meeting agendas on this web site at least 24 hours prior to an open meeting, it is not the official posting place for such items and may not contain an agenda until close to the time the meeting convenes. If you are attempting to locate an agenda that has not yet been published on our web site, please contact Sandy Paske at (608)266-1265.