WIND FARM PLAN STIRS DEBATE IN BROWN CO.; Developer seeks to build largest operation in state.

By Scott Williams

Green Bay Press-Gazette

CLICK HERE TO READ AT SOURCE

Business has been slow, so dairy farmer Bernie Kozlovsky could use a little extra cash as much as the next guy.

But a developer’s offer of $6,000 annually for access to his property has Kozlovsky — and many of his neighbors — conflicted about whether to welcome a wind farm into southern Brown County.

The proposal by Chicago-based Invenergy LLC would be Brown County’s first major commercial wind farm and would be larger than any currently operating in the state.

Proponents say wind energy protects the environment and provides economic growth, while opponents fear the intrusion of spinning turbines that stand 400 feet tall.

As presented to state regulators, Invenergy’s plan calls for 100 turbines south of Green Bay in the towns of Glenmore, Wrightstown, Morrison and Holland.

Kozlovsky, who farms 80 acres in Glenmore, has made up his mind.

“I said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” he said. “Sure the money’s tempting. But then you’ve got to step back.”

In addition to paying farmers and other landowners $6,000 a year or more to allow turbines on their property, Invenergy is offering the county and local communities a combined $600,000 annually in incentives.

Invenergy spokesman Kevin Parzyck said other Wisconsin locations were considered, but the topography of southern Brown County made it an ideal location.

“There’s good wind that can produce good energy,” he said.

The Chicago developer, which already has 18 wind farms throughout the country, outlined its plans in an application filed last week with the state Public Service Commission.

According to the application, 54 turbines would be erected in Morrison, while 22 would be in Holland, 20 in Wrightstown and four in Glenmore. Known as the Ledge Wind Energy Project, the farm would begin operation in 2011 and would generate enough electricity to power about 40,000 homes.

Wisconsin currently is home to nine commercial wind farms, the largest of which is owned by Milwaukee-based We Energies and includes 88 turbines in Fond du Lac County. Twenty more wind projects are under development statewide, including one in Glenmore that would involve eight turbines.

Another developer in 1998 erected two turbines elsewhere in Glenmore, in what was Brown County’s first commercial wind project.

Invenergy’s proposal for the county’s first large-scale operation is stirring strong reactions.

William Hafs, the county’s director of land and water conservation, said county officials support wind energy development because it is environmentally friendly.

Hafs noted that Gov. Jim Doyle has set a goal of utilizing renewable resources to generate 25 percent of the state’s energy needs by 2025.

“This is the future,” Hafs said. “It’s a clean energy, and it’s the way to go.”

The Public Service Commission will hold public hearings before deciding whether to allow the Invenergy development — a process that could take several months. County and town officials also will have an opportunity to review applications for zoning, building permits and other elements of the development.

Local officials in the development site say they have heard mixed feelings from residents.

Kevin Collins, a Morrison trustee, said some residents favor the project because of the economic boost, but others are opposed to the idea of altering the area’s rural aesthetics.

“I don’t think it’s for everybody,” Collins said.

Glenmore Chairman Don Kittell, on the other hand, called the development a boon to the region both financially and in terms of energy resources.

“We’re going to make some money,” Kittell said, “and we’re not going to run out of electricity."

By Lyn Jerde

Daily Register

CLICK HERE TO READ AT SOURCE

FRIESLAND - Walter Wiersma considered introducing a photo of his children - 5-year-old Spencer and 3-year-old Rianna - into the written record of Wednesday's Public Service Commission of Wisconsin hearing to illustrate his opposition to electricity-generating wind turbines in northeast Columbia County.

Wiersma, of Friesland, was one of many people at the standing-room-only hearings who said worries about the health effects, safety and noise from wind turbines, in a 17,300-acre area in the towns of Scott and Randolph, should lead the commission to reject the We Energies proposal for Glacier Hills Wind Park.

"I'm for green energy," he said, "but I don't want it to hurt my family and friends."

The two hearing sessions, one at 3 p.m. and one at 7 p.m., were moved from the Randolph Town Hall to the Friesland Village Hall next door, in an effort to accommodate the crowds that showed up at both sessions.

All 50 chairs in the village board's meeting room were filled, and attendees spilled into the back of the room, and even into the hall outside.

At the first session, which lasted about an hour and 15 minutes, testimony was fairly divided among proponents and opponents of the wind project, which is expected to generate 207 megawatts of energy (enough to power about 45,000 homes) from 90 turbines, built on about 240 parcels of leased farmland.

Cliff Krentz of the town of Randolph said economics - namely, jobs for builders such as himself - is the strongest argument in favor of the project.

"Glacier Hills Wind Park can do a lot of good for a lot of people in this area," he said.

Several other witnesses, representing construction companies and unions representing workers in the construction business, offered similar testimony.

But at the second session, which lasted about two hours, several of those who testified said they lived near Blue Sky Green Fields, an 88-turbine We Energies wind farm that began operating last year in Fond du Lac County, in the towns of Marshfield and Calumet.

James Mueller of the town of Marshfield said the noise from the turbines is worst in winter, when there are no crops in the field to muffle it.

"It roars above my house like a jet," he said.

James Vollmer, who also lives near Blue Sky Green Fields, said he had to stop raising birds because the noise from the turbines stressed them so much, they stopped laying eggs, they molted in the winter and some of them died.

"Just like anyone else," he said, "if birds can't sleep, they get health problems."

Several other witnesses who live near Blue Sky Green Fields testified about problems with TV and radio reception, a strobe effect from the turbine blades called shadow flicker, and people who are susceptible to motion sickness experiencing queasiness from the turning turbines.

But Art Ondrejkas. who lives in the town of Calumet in Fond du Lac County, said he works for a company that is contracted to service the turbines there - and he has no problems living near them.

"I have a family there," he said, "and if I thought that something would happen to my family because of the wind turbines, I'd be out of there in a minute."

Several residents of the towns of Scott and Randolph said they've tried to sell their homes since hearing of plans for the wind farm, but have had few or no offers because of the possibility of the turbines being built.

Nancy Bump of the town of Scott said she has not leased any of her land for the turbines, but four of them are planned for near her home - the nearest one a little less than 1,200 feet away.

"We will be subjected to sleepless nights and shadow flicker from all four points of the compass," she said.

Carl Vander Galien, Friesland village president, read into the record a village resolution in opposition to the project. If the turbines are built, the resolution asks that We Energies pay the village yearly to compensate for the drop in property values the village is already experiencing just from the anticipation of the project.

"Personally," he said, "I don't see why this project is being built here, because of the low amount of wind."

Several attendees also submitted only written testimony, which was not read aloud to the group.

Administrative Law Judge Michael Newmark, who presided at the hearings, said all testimony, oral and written, is taken under oath. All testimony, except any that might be removed later due to objections from attorneys, will be compiled for the three-member Public Service Commission's consideration when it decides, probably sometime in January, whether to approve, deny or approve with modifications the Glacier Hills Wind Park project.

If the commission approves the project, construction will likely start next summer, and the turbines should be operational sometime in 2011.

ljerde@capitalnewspapers.com

745-3587

Lyn Jerde/Daily Register
James Ebert of Friesland, left, expresses adamant opposition to the proposed Glacier Hills Wind Park Wednesday, as Administrative Law Judge Michaal Newmark listens, during a Public Service Commission of Wisconsin hearing at the Friesland Village Hall. Sworn testimony from the hearing will be given to the three-member Public Service Commission, which will decide, probably in January, whether to approve, modify or deny approval to the proposed We Energies wind energy complex in northeast Columbia County.

Lyn Jerde/Daily Register
Every chair was filled, and people stood in the back of the room and even in the hallway, for a Public Service Commission of Wisconsin public hearing on a proposed wind energy complex in the towns of Scott and Randolph. The hearing, originally scheduled for the Randolph Town Hall, was moved to the Friesland Village Hall next door to allow more seating space. At least 100 people attending each of the two hearing sessions Wednesday.

To follow the stimulus money you'll need a passport

A new report finds that only two out of ten dollars in stimulus money granted for wind energy stays in the US. The other 80% heads straight overseas.

CLICK HERE to read the whole story.

Final wind farm hearing Wednesday

By Lyn Jerde, Daily Register 

[CLICK HERE to read at source]

October 28, 2009

Residents will have one last chance to have their say before the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decides the fate of a proposed wind energy farm in northeast Columbia County.

Here are some questions and answers about Wednesday's public hearing on the Glacier Hills Wind Park, proposed by We Energies.

Q. Where and when will the hearing be held?

It will be held Wednesday at the Randolph Town Hall, which is located in the village of Friesland at 109 S. Madison St. (Columbia County Highway EF, just off Highway 33).

Public Service Commission Spokeswoman Teresa Weidemann-Smith said there will be two hearings - one beginning at 3 p.m. and the other at 7 p.m. Either of the hearings could be extended or continued to another day if there are more people wishing to testify than time allows, she said.

Q. Who will preside over the hearings?

Administrative Law Judge Michael Newmark will preside.

Q. Are the hearings like a courtroom proceeding?

In many ways, yes. People who testify will take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Objections can be raised that could lead to testimony not being admitted to the record, with Newmark ruling on whether the objections would be sustained or overruled.

Q. Who can testify?

Anybody with an opinion for or against the proposed wind farm - consisting of 90 wind turbines, to be located on leased land in an area covering 17,300 acres in the towns of Scott and Randolph - can testify at the hearing.

Q. How will the testimony be used?

The testimony will be taken down verbatim by a court reporter and will be compiled for consideration by the members of the Public Service Commission: Chairman Eric Callisto and Commissioners Mark Meyer and Lauren Azar. The commission is expected to decide in January whether it will approve, reject or modify the We Energies application to construct the wind farm.

Q. Why does We Energies want to build a wind farm in Columbia County?

Utility companies operating in Wisconsin are being required by law to produce more and more of their energy from renewable sources such as wind and sun.

Walter "Doc" Musekamp, local affairs director for We Energies, said the proposed Columbia County location offers several advantages. It's located near an existing electric transmission system, and it's in an area that has pockets of reliable wind.

Altogether, the wind farm is expected to generate up to 207 megawatts of energy, enough to power at least 25,000 homes.

Q. Will Columbia County residents get any of the energy that the wind farm is expected to generate?

 Yes and no. We Energies has electric customers in Wisconsin and Michigan but does not offer electric service anywhere in Columbia County. (A small portion of the county gets natural gas service from We Energies.) However, once power gets added to an existing grid, it's impossible to determine exactly where it originated - so, theoretically, some of the energy generated in Columbia County could wind up being used by Columbia County customers of utilities other than We Energies.

Q. Wasn't the public hearing on this project supposed to have been held last summer?

Yes. It was originally scheduled for July 13. But the Public Service Commission requested the delay to allow for the compilation of an environmental impact statement after residents of the towns of Scott and Randolph raised questions not addressed in an environmental assessment that the PSC released - questions about such things as the noise made by the turbines, their effects on flying wildlife such as birds and bats, effects on land use and long-term health effects for people who live near large wind turbines. These questions were addressed in the environmental impact statement, which came out early this month. The environmental impact statement, and other documents relating to the project, can be viewed on the Public Service Commission's Web site by going to www.psc.wi.gov and entering case number 6630-CE-302.

Q, If the commission approves the project, when would the wind farm be up and running?

A. No sooner than spring or summer 2011.

Q. If I can't make it to the hearing, may I express my opinion about the project to the PSC in written form?

A. The deadline for doing so was Wednesday. Any further expressions of opinion would have to be in the form of testimony at the public hearing.

HOME IN A WISCONSIN WIND FARM: What the setbacks from homes look like in the Invenergy Forward Energy Wind Farm near the Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County

FROM THE DOCKET:  If you'd like to review the testimony and public comments for the proposed Glacier Hills project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

To see maps and find out more about this project, CLICK HERE.

The following is included as part of the documents submitted regarding the Glacier Hills project. It was written by James Vollmer, who is a resident of the Blue Sky/Green Field project which is owned by WE Energies. WE Energies will also own the Glacier Hills farm.

Blue Sky/ Green Field wind farm, Towns of Malone and Marshfield, Fond du Lac County. Photo by Gerry MeyerHome in a wind farm with a 1000 foot setback: Fond du Lac County Wisconsin

  "Since the wind turbines have been turning I have had to deal with several different problems and have not had any of my complaints resolved.

I have had problems with TV reception, radio reception, cell phone phone reception, shadow flicker, poultry dying, noise keeping me awake at night and have been forced into selling my property to get away from these problems.

I'm not even able to get anyone to even make an offer on the house since it has been for sale.

When [WE Energies] started the project  we were told that any TV problems would be taken care of.

Since then they have made me jump through all kinds of hoops in order to get the dish that was in stalled on the house. The dish still does not work properly. When watching the TV the screen still locks up and the voices  are off from the lip movement and the only thing they tell me is that I have to wait for the technology to get better.

It is coming up on two years and the problems are still not fixed.

Now they are going around and having people sign a contract that will only give them the local channels which consist of four stations. And should we be happy with this?

I will take time and send in more info on this subject as I have time.

(Written by James Vollmer to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin)

Mr. Vollmer was one of the residents interviewed for a book proposal about life in a Wisconsin Wind farm. The interview took place in late June of this year.

This is an early draft of the chapter about his experiences:

      James Vollmer’s home is located inside one of Wisconsin’s more recent wind farms near the town of Malone, in Fond du Lac County. The 88- turbine project known as Blue Sky/Green Field, has been operational for about a year and a half.

The yellow farm house is an old-fashioned four-square and the vintage barn is attractive, solid and has a brand new roof.

 There is a superb mechanic’s workshop large enough to contain a few vintage cars, tractors, huge pieces of farm equipment, work benches and heavy duty tools. It has a fine concrete floor.

  James is a mechanic and he did most of the work on the shop himself, putting everything he had into getting it just the way he wanted it. He intended to be there awhile.

 There is also a nice sized chicken house and from it comes the pleasant sound of roosters crowing and chickens clucking. James also raises poultry. He’s been breeding and showing prize-winning birds for most of his life.

It’s a tidy little farm with a nice feel to it, so the “For Sale” sign in front of this home comes as a surprise.

James lets me know the for sale sign isn’t something he ever wanted to see there, but the reason for it is clear. Scores of wind turbines surround his home—each as tall as a 40-story building. And the multitude of problems that come with them have made life unbearable. The subject of selling his place clearly pained him. We spoke just a few hours before the realtor held the first open house.

The noise from the turbines is much louder and more bothersome than he was told it would be. The shadow flicker is much more severe than he was told it would be.The turbine problems also include loss of radio, TV and cell phone reception. But the most troubling problem of all has to do with his chickens. 

James has been around chickens his whole life. His grandmother and grandfather raised poultry and he says he took to it right away.  “I can’t remember a time in my life when I wasn’t around chickens.” He shows me a photograph taken by his grandmother of Jim as a toddler. He’s lying on his stomach with a half a dozen baby chicks nestled together on his back looking as content as if they were in a nest.

James Vollmer as a toddler with his baby chicks. Photo taken by his grandmother.

Says James, “I’ve always liked them.”

 He joined 4-H and by the age of nine he was showing chickens at the county fair. He handed me one of his earliest 4-H notebooks. Even at an early age he was a meticulous record keeper, a habit he has never lost. He’s been documenting all that has happened since the wind turbines started up.

 When asked about his chickens, a pained look crosses his face. 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?

 We go into the chicken house together. A sick bird huddles against a wire fence. A few birds move about but seem lethargic. “They shouldn’t be hanging their heads and sitting there like that,” says James, “They should be going outside and running around.”

 He tells me he 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.” He lets me know that a full molt in winter is unusual, birds don’t molt in the winter when they need their feathers most to stay warm. And he’d never had a problem with egg production before. “I didn’t know what was going on.”

 The shadow flicker from the turbines was so severe it woke him up in the morning. Like others I spoke to in the Blue Sky/Green Field project, James said the effect is unbearable. Enormous shadows passing rapidly across his entire home, barn, workshop and chicken house are relentless and inescapable. James, along with many others I spoke with, talked about getting headaches caused by the severe shadows and light flashing on and off inside and outside his house.

 When he called WE Energies to complain, he was sent a form on which he was to record the time, location and duration of the shadow flicker. He did just that and sent it in.

 A representative then contacted James and told him that as far as WE Energies was concerned, the shadow flicker he was experiencing was a non-issue and WE Energies had no plans to remedy the problem.

James sent along a copy of a video he’d made of the shadow flicker in his home. A representative later contacted him and offered to provide window blinds for the windows that were in the video, but would not agree to provide blinds for any of the other windows because James had not recorded them. He made yet another video, and after six months and many phone calls, WE Energies finally installed blinds on his home.

 Now he has to have the blinds completely down and his lights on in the morning. He didn’t like having a dark house or having to use electricity to keep lights on during the day, but he can’t stand the shadow flicker so he had no choice.

 His birds, however, were having a harder time. He tells me chickens have an instinctive fear and stress response to rapidly passing shadows. It signals the approach of predators like hawks and owls. Chickens are also very sensitive to changes in light and darkness.

James noticed the chickens didn’t seem to want to go out doors anymore after the turbines were running. Instead of behaving as they always had and getting the benefits of sunshine, fresh greens and insects, they stayed huddled in the chicken house. Their health began to suffer.

 After a lifetime of successfully raising poultry, James Vollmer’s chickens were no longer thriving. Even the young birds were starting to die. When I visited with him he said he’d lost eight more in the last two weeks. “From twenty white hens, I’m down to eight or nine now.”

 The chickens don’t seem to be the only birds that have been affected since the turbines went on line. James mentions the disappearance of the flocks of barn swallows that had been a fixture on the farm for years. “There used to be so many. We had twenty to thirty nests every year. when I’d cut the grass they’d just be swooping all over the place. Now they’re gone,” he says, And the hummingbirds are gone too.”

 He tried everything he could think of to help his chickens but no matter what he did, the chickens continued to weaken. Then some of his chickens were taken to be raised outside of the wind plant. “The guy that took them told me chickens turned around. They got better and then they were completely fine. When they go live elsewhere they do fine.”

 Though he’s certain the problems are caused by the wind turbines, he says he can’t prove anything. And even if he could, over a years worth of dealings with WE Energies has convinced him it would be useless to even try. He holds no hope of WE Energies looking into it or doing anything about it.

 The frustration, worry and anger this has caused him is evident, and the stress of it all has taken its toll. “I don’t know what to do here, but I know I can’t stay.”

 James Vollmer is leaving behind everything he worked so hard for, his home, the old barn he preserved and roofed, the huge mechanic’s workshop he built to last a lifetime, and the chicken house that once held so many healthy active birds.

 He knows that if he can sell his place at all, he’s going to have to sell at a loss, but remaining is no longer an option for him. “I can’t be happy here anymore. I can’t even stand to be outside anymore.”

  So the ‘For Sale’ sign is up, and the house he didn’t want to leave is clean and ready for the open house. He’s hoping for just the right buyer. He says it’s going have to be someone “who just doesn’t care”

 Someone who doesn’t care about bad radio, TV, and cell phone reception, isn’t bothered by turbine noise loud enough to drown out the crickets at night and make you keep your windows shut all summer. Someone who doesn’t mind flashing shadows and light severe enough to wake you or force you to keep your blinds down and lights on during the day.

And most of all, it has to be someone who won’t ever miss the crowing of a rooster, the clucking of hens, the peeping of chicks, or the sweet lively song of the barn swallow.

The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills Environmental Impact Statement. If you'd like to comment on the inadequacy of the 1000 foot setback built into this project, CLICK HERE.

To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

The following is a recent submission to the docket concerning setbacks.

To the Commission:

One thing that is not addressed in the EIS for the Glacier Hills project is what residents of the project can do when WE Energies does not respond to the inevitable complaints of noise, shadow flicker, leaking oil, and interrupted television and radio signals. Blue Sky/Green Field residents I have interviewed say the lack of complaint resolution has been a major problem which appears likely to continue if the PSC approves of the 1000 foot setbacks built into this project.

Residents who are desperate for help have approached WE Energies, local government, the county health department, legislators and the PSC with their complaints.

A few days ago a turbine located 1012 feet from the Dalka home near the Town of Malone was finally shut down after well over a year of persistent complaining about noise from a defective blade. WE Energies has denied the problem until just recently. My understanding is that it required PSC intervention to get WE Energies to act. One wonders if WE Energies would have acted at all if they weren't seeking approval from the PSC for this project.

(It's also my understanding that at least five turbines in the BS/GF project were leaking oil into the fields and there have been numerous complaints about this as well. Finally the DNR has come out to investigate.)

In the Oct. 26, 2008 edition of the Milwaukee Journal-Standard, [http://www.jsonline.com/business/65911402.html] Andy Hesselbach, the Glacier Hills project manager for We Energies says this:

“If "the sound or setback standards are modified in any material way, it is unlikely that this project will be developed, and moreover that any large-scale wind project will be built by any entity in the future in the state of Wisconsin," Hesselbach said. "The only option to utilize wind generation would be to develop projects in other states."

Mr. Hesselbach is also featured in a news segment speaking about the BS/GR project which ran on Milwaukees Channel Six. He says, "The very modest or meager impacts to the community of sound or shadow are insignificant in the grand scheme of the upside of the renewable technology" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSpToi982A]

None of the families I've interviewed would say the impact of noise, shadow flicker and other turbine related problems has been modest, meager or insignificant. They feel the wind farm has had a negative impact on their quality of life. They say a larger setback would have made living in this wind farm more bearable. WE Energies 'grand scheme' of renewable technology in this case has resulted in a great deal of anger, frustration, and too many sleepless nights for residents of this wind farm.

I might add that the same complaints are coming from residents of Invenergy's "Forward Energy" wind farm.

Can the residents of Wisconsin rely on the PSC to put our health, safety and welfare first?

Will the PSC knowingly subject the residents of the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm to the same problems by approving this inadequate setback?

Or, now that the PSC is well aware of the problems caused by the 1000 foot setback and 50dbA noise limits (which I understand has been changed to a 50dbA "average" in the BS/GF joint development agreement--) will the commission act to prevent this damage from happening again in the Glacier Hills project?

Only a larger setback can mitigate turbine-related problems. That's the reality of the situation no matter what the 'grand scheme' may be.

Respectfully submitted by

Lynda Barry

(click on image below to see the news segment featuring Andy Hesselbach and residents of the BS/GF project)

PSC to Hold Public Hearings for Glacier Hills Wind Park

MADISON -- The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) will hold public hearings on Wisconsin Electric Power Company’s (WEPCO) application to construct The Glacier Hills Wind Park, a wind electric generation facility in the towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia County.

The public hearings will be held Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. at Randolph Town Hall, 109 South Madison Street in Friesland with Administrative Law Judge Michael Newmark presiding.

WEPCO, doing business as We Energies, filed an application with the PSC on June 18, 2008, for approval to construct the electric generation facility. The project consists of 90 wind turbines with a total capacity of up to 207 megawatts (MW). The turbines would be located in a project area of approximately 17,300 acres and would be connected together by underground electrical cables. The wind farm would be connected to an existing 138 kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line that traverses the project area via a new interconnection substation.

Public comments on WEPCO’s application will be included in the record the Commission will review to make a decision. Citizens are encouraged to attend the public hearings. If you cannot attend the public hearings, but would like to provide comments, you can do so on the PSC’s website through October 28.

LETTERS:

The following letter was written by Jerome Hlinak who is a Tisch Milles, Wisconsin, dairy farmer

Source: www.wisinfo.com

23 October 2009

 When reading articles from pro-wind people, you always find that wind energy is the solution to global warming, the energy crisis, job creation and financial problems for farmers that host the turbines.

Blinded by a feel-good solution for a problem that never existed, legislators are being misled into a belief that something like wind turbines will not have a negative effect on those who are left to live around them.

There is proof that the PSC standards are greatly flawed on wind projects already in operation, yet lawmakers had no problem taking away the power of local zoning on projects less than 100 MW of power.

To understand the problem you needed to be at the hearing in Madison on May 12, held by the Senate and Assembly Energy Committee.

If you were not there you were just like the majority of the committee members.

Out of 19 committee members, only four or five were there at any given time and most never showed up at all.

It was obvious that the pro-wind lobby, paid with your tax money from RENEW Wisconsin, had the minds of legislators on their side long before the hearing.

Several people that live near wind turbines gave first-hand testimony — to empty chairs of the committee — of the negative effects and problems they have. Some broke down in tears as they spoke of negative health effects on their families and their farm animals and that abandoning their homes was the only solution in the near future.

Because of financial situations, most are stuck living in a PSC-regulated hell with nowhere to turn and no one to listen.

There are those who think the PSC is not politically motivated.

With the governor appointing the three-member committee and Senate approving the confirmations, can anyone see no political motive?

The Energy Committee consists of mostly legislators that are from city districts and have no possibility of having turbines placed in their back yards.

Anyone want to bet that there will be no turbines located in lakes around the Capitol in Madison?

Who are the NIMBYs now?

Others will tell you that turbines create jobs and provide wealth for all involved. They don’t tell you that the cost of production of wind electricity will drive up electrical rates three to four times the current cost. How many businesses will be lost because of these added costs? Can our municipalities and homeowners afford these added costs?

I am tired of the false information given by LTC wind energy instructor Jenny Heinzen and Michael Vickerman of RENEW Wisconsin, and others in the wind industry.

Name-plate capacity is not actual generation.

Wind turbines are only 25 percent or lower in efficiency.

A household also uses four times more electricity than their calculations.

As a dairy farmer, I never claim my production is the gallons of capacity of my bulk tank, and that I can feed the world with that milk inside.

Millions of your tax dollars have been spent on the Farmland Preservation Program to preserve farmland from being developed.

The agricultural industry is the backbone of Wisconsin’s economic infrastructure. With the PSC in control of local zoning on wind energy, there will be no way for local governments to protect the land from destruction.

Legislators passed the Working Lands Proposal in the budget to penalize landowners who convert land out of the preservation program, but wind turbine developments are not included. I believe that eminent domain will be used by the PSC to place thousands of turbines.

I also believe funding of these turbines will be cut by lawmakers in future state and federal budgets, leaving those who have turbines on their land penniless and unable to farm.

Better Plan takes a closer look at some of the expert testimony on the Glacier Hills Docket.

Today's testimony comes from Jerry Mendl who was hired by Clean Wisconsin to evaluate the effectiveness of the Glacier Hills wind farm at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2.

(NOTE: Mr. Mendl served at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission as Director of the Bureau of Environmental and Energy Systems and also as Administrator of the Division of Systems Planning, Environmental Review and Consumer Analysis. Learn more about Mr. Mendl by clicking here)

[download Mr. Mendl's complete testimony by clicking here]

His testimony is frank and full of surprises, the greatest of which is this:

Unless WEPCO fully retires a coal plant, the Glacier Hills wind farm will not reduce Wisconsin's CO2 emissions, and could in fact, increase them. [1] [2] [3] [4][5]

(We were unable to find any indication that WEPCO wishes to completely shut down one of its coal-fired plants, or that they would be obligated by the PSC to do so.)

Other findings from Mr. Mendl's testimony:

WEPCO does not need additional capacity until 2024. Regardless of whether it builds Glacier Hills or other RPS facilities, WEPCO will have excess capacity through 2024 which it intends to sell. Additional capacity clearly is not needed to serve the projected load and reserve margin. [1] [2]

 Because WEPCO intends to sell the excess capacity and energy it produces, it is likely that the CO2 emissions will not be reduced from Wisconsin plants. [3]

Unless WEPCO agrees to take a coal-fired plant off line, the net result of building Glacier Hills to comply with Wisconsin RPS requirements and selling the excess capacity will be little to no reduction of CO2 emissions. The Glacier Hills wind farm itself won’t reduce CO2 emissions unless WEPCO retires a coal fired plant. [3]

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Another surprise in this testimony involves  shutting down the Glacier Hills wind turbines in the summer in order to maintain profitability by burning coal instead. On page 18 of the testimony we find this:

 Q. Did your analysis raise any concerns that the Commission should consider?

A. Yes. The analysis suggests that particularly in the summer months, when strongly negative LMPs [locational marginal price] can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence, the way the MISO market works, free energy with environmental benefits is too expensive!

Q. What can the Commission do about that?
A. A Commission requirement to retire one or more coal units would help mitigate this occurrence.

     As far as Better Plan can tell, WEPCO has no intention of retiring a coal-fired plant and every intention of selling the excess energy. This is understandable in terms of a business plan where profit is the goal.

However if reduction of CO2 emmissions in Wisconsin is the goal, our question to the PSC is this:

What is the benefit of the Glacier Hills wind farm in terms of CO2 reduction to our state if WEPCO does not retire a coal plant?  

If there is no CO2 benefit and if WEPCO has excess capacity until 2024 without the Glacier Hills wind farm, how can the PSC justify granting a Certificate of Public Need and Convinience?

The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the lack of reliable CO2 reduction from this project , CLICK HERE To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

References from the testimony document: [download complete testimony by clicking here]

[1] P3:1-13. "Reduction in greenhouse gases, including CO2, is an important purpose of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) law that underlies the Glacier Hills proposal. The effectiveness of Glacier Hills project in reducing greenhouse gases can be best ensured if the Commission requires WEPCO (and other utilities in future RPS projects) to plan for corresponding retirements of  existing coal capacity.

4. The opportunity to retire excess capacity exists because WEPCO, even without Glacier Hills, does not need additional capacity until 2024 under the updated forecasts that WEPCO witnesses relied upon for their supplemental testimony. When one adds Glacier Hills and additional wind generation to meet WEPCO’s RPS standard of 662 MW by 2015, WEPCO will not need additional capacity until at least 2026. Thus, it is clear that WEPCO could retire at least 100 MW of existing coal generation."

[2] P.5: 2-22  Q: Will the operation of Glacier Hills result in WEPCO having excess capacity?
A. Yes. According to its application in this docket, as amended by WEPCO’s updated forecast and supplemental direct testimony, WEPCO will have excess capacity through 2024, regardless of whether it builds Glacier Hills or other RPS facilities.

Q. Does WEPCO plan to sell excess accredited capacity?                                                                            A. Yes. Although WEPCO has not identified specific plans, it has indicated that it intends to sell all capacity over the 14.5% reserve margin prior to each planning year. It has done so for 2009.

[3] P.6:17-20 Q:What effect would WEPCO’s planned sale of excess capacity have on the emission of greenhouse gases from WEPCO’s power plants?

A: If WEPCO sells the excess capacity and energy it produces, it is likely that the CO2emissions will not be reduced from Wisconsin plants. WEPCO’s EGEAS runs show a decrease in CO2 emissions to supply electricity used by WEPCO’s customers. However, if the purchaser of the excess capacity takes energy at levels equivalent to or greater than that forecasted by WEPCO for its own loads without Glacier Hills, the net CO2 emissions from WEPCO plants would not be reduced and may be increased.

[4] p.14:1-15 In concept, Wisconsin utilities may install renewable resources to meet the RPS objectives and to reduce greenhouse gases, and MISO could then dispatch the resources available without reducing the utilization of Wisconsin coal-fired power plants. In this example, Wisconsin’s CO2 emissions would stay the same, although MISO dispatch would reduce the utilization of power plants elsewhere in the MISO 5
footprint.
Q. Should that be a concern to this Commission? 7
A. Yes, for at least two reasons. First, if MISO dispatch displaces a highly efficient natural gas fired combined cycle plant with generation from Glacier Hills, the effectiveness at reducing CO2 emissions will be far less than if MISO displaces a relatively inefficient coal-fired unit with much higher CO2 emissions per kWh.
Second, if CO2 emissions by state are ever used as a benchmark of global climate change performance, Wisconsin would be identified as an underperformer because MISO dispatch produced CO2 in Wisconsin plants, even though the energy was consumed elsewhere.

[5] P.18: 8-16 Q. Did your analysis raise any concerns that the Commission should consider?
A. Yes. The analysis suggests that particularly in the summer months, when strongly negative LMPs can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence, the way the MISO market works, free energy with environmental benefits is too expensive!

Q. What can the Commission do about that?
A. A Commission requirement to retire one or more coal units would help mitigate this occurrence.

Better Plan will continue with our look at the PSC's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Glacier Hills Wind Farm proposed for the Towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia county. 

BUT FIRST--- a quick look at the similarity of response between Big Wind and Big Tobacco when it comes growing concerns about negative public health impacts caused by their products.

 In 1954, as the public was first becoming aware of evidence linking cigarette smoke with cancer, Big Tobacco was already mobilizing a public relations campain that included a full page advertisement published nationally called "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" [Click here to read entire text]

Exerpt:

Distinguished authorities point out:

• That medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer.

• That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is.

• That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes.

• That statistics purporting to link cigarette smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern life. Indeed the validity of the statistics themselves is questioned by numerous scientists.

The signators to this statement are:

THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC.
BURLEY TOBACCO GROWERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
PHILLIP MORRIS & CO. LTD., INC.
BENSON & HEDGES
LARUS & BROTHER COMPANY, INC.
R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY
BRIGHT BELT WAREHOUSE ASSOCIATION
P. LORILLARD COMPANY
STEPHANO BROTHERS, INC.
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION
MARLYAND TOBACCO GROWERS ASSOCIATION
TOBACCO ASSOCIATES, INC..
BURLEY AUCTION WAREHOUSE ASSOCIATION
UNITED STATES TOBACCO COMPANY

As negative health effects of living too close to industrial wind turbines are being reported by wind farm residents world wide, wind developers are following in Big Tobacco's footsteps by denying that problems exist.

NOTE: THIS NOT A SCALE MODEL. Modern wind turbines are 40 to 50 stories tall

Recently, a spokes person for Acciona, one of the largest wind developers in the world made this statement regarding questions about wind turbine impacts on public health:

"Acciona Energy is not aware of any investigation but would willingly participate with confidence, knowing there is no clear, consistent scientific data, nor a peer-reviewed scientific consensus, to confirm a connection between modern wind turbines and health concerns." [source]

(Incidentally, Acciona claims to own exclusive rights to develop industrial wind farms in Rock County, Wisconsin. These rights were sold to them by EcoEnergy, LLC [source])

 And what do wind developers have to say about concerns raised by a recent report from the Minnesota Department of health regarding public health impacts of industrial wind turbines?

This report identifies 2640 feet as the setback beyond which wind turbine noise and shadow flicker were not a major concern.

Wind developers insist on a 500 to 1000 foot setback for reasons of profit, no matter what the impact may be to public health. The ability to continue with these setbacks relies on the consistant industry-wide denial of any negative health impacts cased by siting industrial wind turbines too close to home.

[click here for the entire Minnesota Department of Health report]

[click here for the entire developer's response]

Wind developers response:

"....We believe that the best evidence available indicates that wind turbines do not cause adverse health effects from low-frequency sound or infra sound and compliance with existing noise standards and setback requirements is protective of health and safety.

Signators to this document include:

CPV RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPANY, LLC
ELEMENT POWER, LLC
ENXCO INC.
GERONIMO WIND ENERGY LLC
GOODHUE WIND LLC
HALF MOOK POWER LLC
HIGH COUNTRY ENERGY LLC
LAKE COUNTY WIND ENERGY LLC
LITTLE ROCK WIND LLC
NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES LLC
NORFOLK WIND ENERGY LLC
PROJECTS RESOURCES CORP.
RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS AMERICAS, INC
TURNING POINT MANAGEMENT, INC
WIND CAPITOL GROUP, LLC

The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the impact of 90 wind turbines on residents forced to live with the proposed 1000 foot setbacks, CLICK HERE To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

WHAT'S THE LATEST? Click here to read about why pilots of emergency medical helicopters can't rescue people who live in wind farms

Better Plan continues with our look at the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Glacier Hills Wind Farm proposed for the Towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia county.

Click on the icon below to listen to a Minnesota Public Radio report on the use of eminent domain to force a wind farm onto a community that doesn't want it. (Text article appears below)

New Ulm Bullying its way to Wind Energy, Landowners say

Think it can't happen in Wisconsin?

On Page 29 of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Glacier Hils wind farm prepared by the Public Service Commission we read:

WEPCO needs long-term easements for the land used by the wind turbines, access roads, and collector circuits. WEPCO has stated it intends to obtain easements from willing landowners. However, WEPCO could use the power of eminent domain if it is granted a CPCN by the Commission.

[Click here to download complete EIS document]

  Let’s stop right there:

What is Eminent Domain?

[click here for source of our definition]

 Eminent domain refers to the power possessed by the state over all property within the state, specifically its power to appropriate property for a public use.

The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the impact of 90 wind turbines on residents forced to live with the proposed 1000 foot setbacks, CLICK HERE

 To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

New Ulm 'bullying' its way to wind energy, landowners say

by Mark Steil, Minnesota Public Radio

[Click here to read at source]

Lafayette, Minn. — For the first time in Minnesota, the powerful government tool known as eminent domain could be used to take property rights in a wind energy project.

There's been a growing public backlash against wind energy; complaints about noise, visual pollution and even bird kills.

The city of New Ulm, as other cities around Minnesota have, wants to put up five wind turbines as a power source. The proposal has angered a group of landowners just across the Minnesota River from the southern Minnesota city.

Among them is Jeff Franta. The proposed site is surrounded by fields of corn and soybeans. He said most landowners here opposed the project from the start.

"We feel like that it will very likely grow into something a lot larger than just a few turbines," he said.

Franta said it is wasteful to convert even small amounts of highly-productive farmland to wind turbine sites, but that's not all that's fueling the opposition. The farmers are also upset with how New Ulm has pursued the project.

Jeff Franta

Franta's neighbor, Clete Goblirsch, said the city is bullying landowners. He said opposition to the project is so strong there's no way it could be built under normal circumstances. Goblirsch said the city is threatening to use brute force.

"It's eminent domain. The power of eminent domain," he said.

Most people think of eminent domain as government taking ownership of private land for a public project. That apparently will not happen here. The city has already gotten access to the land it needs from several farmers.

Those landowners aren't talking.

But eminent domain can be used to seize something other than land.

Clete Goblirsch

In this case, Goblirsch said the government can also use it to acquire wind rights -- the right to use the wind on hundreds of acres owned by Goblirsch and other farmers.

"If outsiders tell you that's it's a money issue, it's not a money issue," Goblirsch said. "It's who's got the power over us, and the people with eminent domain got the power."

Before New Ulm can build turbines, the city is required to obtain the wind rights on nearby farmland. The farmers would still own the land, but would lose some control. For example, they couldn't build their own wind turbines if they wanted to.

"The issue of controlling wind rights is the stumbling block," said Hugh Nierengarten, a New Ulm City Attorney.

He said the city needs to lock in a source of power, and developing wind energy is the right way to do it.

"How do we undertake the acquisition of the necessary wind rights in order to build and operate the five wind turbines that we propose for Nicollet County," he said.

Hugh Nierengarten

Nierengarten said the state requires wind farms to obtain the right to winds a certain distance from each turbine. That's to insure the machines are spaced far enough apart to have sufficient wind to operate efficiently. He said, even though the city is offering twice what he calls the going rate for wind rights, landowners have been reluctant to sign.

"We've already got approximately 55 percent of the area we need under control via leases with affected landowners that we negotiated over a year ago," Nierengarten said. "And there remain about 235 acres of wind rights that we have not yet secured control of."

Nierengarten said the city may use eminent domain to get those rights, although he calls it a last resort. That threat really irks landowners like Clete Goblirsch. He said it's a case of government trampling on individual rights.

"Taking your freedom of deciding what you want to do with your land," he said.

The entire wind industry may have a stake in this dispute about a relatively small wind project. A report from the state Energy Security Office predicts the use of eminent domain could have "severe adverse consequences" on other wind projects.

The report says the public may be less willing to even consider wind projects knowing they could lead to forcible loss of land or wind rights.

Broadcast Dates

• Morning Edition, 10/14/2009, 7:25 a.m.

Click on the image above to see photos of Wisconsin windfarm homes taken by Gerry Meyer, who is a resident of the 86 turbine Invenergy Forward Energy Wind Farm in Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties. The PSC-approved setback from no- participating homes in Wisconsin wind farms is 1,000 feet.

Where did the 1,000-foot setback come from?

The PSC says they didn't come up with that number.

If they didn't, who did?

And who decided it was safe?

Wind turbines generate health, farming concerns

Farm Country September 30-October 6, 2009

[Click here for source]

By Judy Brown
 jlbrown@vbe.com

Johnsburg—Allen Hass, an eastern Fond du Lac County grain farmer, agreed to host three wind turbines when the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm was developed about three years ago.
 
With 88 turbines producing 145 megawatts of electricity for WE Energies, Blue Sky Green Field is Wisconsin’s largest wind farm. Utilities are under a state mandate to provide 10 percent of their power from renewable-energy sources by 2015.
 
Yet Hass, 55 is feeling something similar to buyers remorse. “We were told we could farm up to the base of the turbine.” Hass said. “Now I have three too many.”

(Click on the image below to see a news story which shows what the wind company did to Al Hass's land.)
 
Hass is concerned about how the ground near the turbine was left after construction. Topsoil wasn’t replaced to his satisfaction. Near the base of a 400-foot turbine, a layer of small stone was left that damages his combine’s head.
 
Beyond that the soil at a radius at about 75 feet from the turbine’s base is less productive than it once was, he said.
 
On an early September day, that part of the cornfield yielded nubbins of cobs. The rest of the stalks stood at least two feet taller than those surrounding the turbine.
 
Hass complained to WE Energies in Milwaukee which operates the wind farm. He hired a lawyer and has filed a lawsuit in an effort to recover normal use of the land surrounded the three wind turbines.
 
He receives $5200 a year, for each of the three turbines on his farm.
 
Under the standard contract with developers, landowners are prohibited from talking negatively about the wind farm. Otherwise, Hass said he believes there would be more public complaints from farmers who regret allowing turbines on their land.
 
Other farmers complain about buried cables that transport electricity to the grid, while others worry about the potential effect of stray voltage on dairy cattle. For many fields, aerial spraying is no longer and option.
 
Others are concerned about health issues they say are related to the wind turbines.
 
Brian Manthey, WE Energies spokesman, said that since Blue Sky Green Field was built, the utility has received numerous calls from people who want turbines on their property.
 
“We get more calls like that than people who are upset with the wind turbines,” he said.
 
He wasn’t aware of any litigation the company was involved in, although there were some out-of-court settlements when turbines were sited too close to houses, he said.
 
Manthey said some people have expressed concern about low-frequency sounds emitted by the turbines.
 
“It’s another case of whether there’s really an issue there or not. We have requirements as to how many decibels a wind turbine can produce,” he said.
 
Irv Selk, a member of the Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy, was among those who fought for an ordinance in that county to regulate wind farms. He said the 1,000 foot setback allowed in the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm isn’t enough. He favors a minimum of 1800 feet.
 
A survey of residents in the Johnsburg area living within a half-mile of wind turbines concluded that 30 percent of respondents were awakened at least once a week because of sound from the wind turbines, Selk said.
 
There is no scientific basis for the 50- decibel setback, Selk said. “One thousand feet is unquestionably too close to people’ houses.”
 
Selk, 65, said many residents have problems trying to describe their health symptoms.
 
“They are more subtle,” he said. “It’s almost easy to dismiss that as you as you are getting old. Some people are more sensitive.”
 
Teresa Weidermann-Smith, a spokeswoman for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, said the 1000 foot setback is not a PSC requirement.
 
For each of the major wind projects the PSC authorized, a requirement already existed at the local level that specified the 1000-foot setback, she said in an e-mail.
 
The project was laid out by the developer on that basis.
In none of those cases did the PSC specify the setback, rather it authorized the project to be constructed (more or less) as it was designed and the 1000 foot setback was a design criterion,” Weidemann-Smith said.
 
The biggest complaints associated with the wind farm east of Lake Winnebago have been about TV reception and shadow flicker, Manthey said.
 
He said WE Energies has dealt with a couple of dozen residents individually to fiz the TV reception either by provided satellite service to obtain Green Bay channels or by adjusting individual antennas.
 
For those who complain about shadow flicker when the turbine is in line with the sun and the house, the utility hires specialists who recommend blinds or some other remedy.
 
In the southern part of Fond du Lac County, Ralph Mittlestadt of Oakfield grows more than 1000 acres of corn, soybeans, alfalfa and other crops on his dairy farm. His land is in Dodge and Fond du Lac counties.
 
This year he expects to take an $8,000 loss because of the inability to obtain aerial spraying to combat fungus, corn rootworm and plant diseases.
 
“We were told by the utility that they would have enough room to fly,” Mittelstadt said. “But they plunked them right at the end of the runways.”
 
A spraying service formerly used the farm as a staging area, but since the wind farm was construction that has stopped,” he said.
 
Mittelstadt understands why pilots don’t want to fly in the area.
 
“They don’t light every tower, which is something I don’t understand, because the (Federal Aviation Administration) requires every turbine to be lit if higher than 100 feet,” Mittlestadt said.
 
Helicopters are also subject to the wind coming off the blades, he said.
 
Spraying crops with ground machinery also becomes problematic, he said.
 
“Crop sprayers may get around to it in four to five days, and by that time it’s too late,” MIttelstadt said.
 
Spraying corn with fungicides in the past has garnered Mittelstadt 15 to 30 bushels more per acre, he said.  
He doesn’t have any wind turbines on his land although he hosted a test windmill. “We found out it wasn’t financially feasible” he said.
 
Landowners receive $5,200 per year per turbine in the Forward Wind Energy wind farm.
 
Mittlestadt said that when the turbines were being built he believed about half of the people favored them and half were against the project.
 
“I think now it’s less,” he said. “A lot of people who put them p on their land wouldn’t do it again.”
 
Mittelstadt said he also has a problem with the noise produced by the wind turbines.  
 
“It sounds like a jet engine at times with a woof every time the blade moves. At night, it’s worse.
 
However, he didn’t say his sleep was interrupted by the turbines.
 
“I’m tired. I farm,” Mittlestadt said.

Click to see an interview with Ralph Mittlestadt and his son Kevin as they speak about living in the Invenergy Forward Energy wind farm

The configuration of turbines in Forward Wind Energy’s wind farm in Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties led Flight for Life, which operates a helicopter service, to send out a memo last year saying that accident victims have to be transported to pre-determined sites away from the wind farm instead of having the helicopter fly directly to the scene of an accident.

[Click here to downloadwind farm  memo from Flight for Life]

Diane Cappozzo, Fond du Lac County health officer, said her office has received complaints from a bout a half dozen people who live within the three wind farms in the county.
 
She said sleep disturbances are the top complaint. Many of the concerns are hard to document, she said, granting that for those affected it’s an issue because of the noise and vibrations from the wind turbines.
 
“For some people, it started as soon as the turbines started turning,” she said.
 
The county has forwarded concerns to the state epidemiologist.
 
“An epidemiological study will tell us if people here have more issues than just the general population,” Cappozzo said, “With wind turbines, the issues are very real for the individual making the complaints.”
 
The long-term impact of how residents react to wind farms is still unknown, she said.
 
“If the state is going to be involved in expanding wind farms, maybe this is something they should be aware of,” Capezzo said.
 
Gerry Meyer, of rural Brownsville has taken 1,600 pictures and written a diary since the Forward Wind Energy wind farm was established. The dairy can be accessed [by clicking here]

“I was neutral when it started,” Meyer said, “ didn’t help the people who were fighting it. I trusted the town board and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin that they would do the right thing.”
 
With several wind turbines surrounding his 6-acre property, Meyer and his wife Cheryl, find their quality of life diminished and report reactions such as loss of sleep from wind turbine noise.
 
“My wife has ringing in her ears, and one night at choir she was asked why she can’t get the pitch right,” Meyer said.
 
Low-pitched sounds may account for their sleep disorders, ringing in the ears and crackling noises they hear, he said. Once they leave their property their symptoms subside about three days later.
 
Meyer said he’s gained 37 pounds since the turbines were built.
 
“I was told my cortisol level was moderately high and that I should consult an endocrinologist,” Meyer said. “What I’m talking about is something new. I’m not about to blame the wind farm for pre-existing conditions.”
 
Meyer didn’t have a baseline cortisol number established before the wind farm was built.
 
“Almost every time I’ve heard from someone who has issues it’s mostly sleep deprivation and headaches,” Meyer said. He said he gets about two hours of sleep each night.
 
“We’re fortunate we have trees surrounding us to reduce the noise level,” he said.

(Click on the image below to see a video shot last winter by Invenergy wind farm resident Gerry Meyer. The video shows the turbines that are closest to his home. The second video shows shadow flicker affecting several homes in his community)

Nina Pierpont, a New York pediatrician, wrote a study in which she describes about a dozen health issues – such as sleep deprivation, anxiety and loss of motivation—as “wind turbine syndrome.”
 
Critics point out that the study involved 38 people, too few to draw conclusions about wind farms.
 
Others who support Pierpont’s conclusions say they experienced those same symptoms and were glad to see a description identified.
 
Curt Kindschuh, a resident near the Forward Wind Energy wind farm in southern Fond du Lac County, led efforts to keep wind turbines from being sited close to Horicon Marsh, which has hundreds of species of birds flying by on a regular basis.
 
“I personally know a lot of people who host a wind turbine who cannot speak out publicly about turbines,” Kindschuh said.
 
Some people express regret to him that they agreed to host wind turbines; Kindschuh said.
 
“They can’t speak out publicly because the fear legal consequences from the company,” Kindschuh said.
 
Calls to the legal department at Invenergy Wind in Chicago, the developer of Forward Wind Energy, were not returned.
 
Kindschuh said the quality of life is spiraling downward for many people, especially those who have tried to sell their rural homes.
 
He knows of seven or eight people who have put their homes up for sale.
 
“None have received offers,” he said.
 
He agreed the state of Wisconsin should embark on an epidemiological study on the three wind farms in Fond du Lac County because it appears the study isn’t going to be conducted locally.
 
However, he noted that the wind farm issue which has split neighborhoods and families, has produced some positive residual effects.
 
“You meet your neighbors, even though longtime neighbors don’t talk to each other,” he said. “It’s forever split the community.”
 

(Click on the image below to watch an interview with Curt Kindschuh about the changes the wind farm has brought to his community)