Better Plan, Wisconsin

WBAY-TV Green Bay-Fox Cities-Northeast Wisconsin News

 

WIND TURBINE OPPOSITION MOUNTS; BROWN COUNTY FAMILY TELLS OF DAUGHTER'S HEATH PROBLEMS

Written by Hannah O’Brien 

Source: Gannett Wisconsin Media  www.postcrescent.com

July 8, 2012

The Ashleys say their daughter Alyssa’s health problems are related to the Shirley Wind Project wind turbines that were built near their home in late 2010, and the only way to stop the headaches, ear pain and sleep deprivation was to move away from turbines.

MORRISON — Sue and Darryl Ashley moved their family out of their Glenmore home last summer and are now working to pay mortgages on two houses so their 16-year-old daughter can find relief from constant headaches, ear pain and sleep deprivation.

The Ashleys say their daughter Alyssa’s health problems are related to the Shirley Wind Project wind turbines that were built near their home in late 2010, and the only way to stop the headaches, ear pain and sleep deprivation was to move away from turbines.

“After staying away from my home for a week and a half, my symptoms started to subside,” Alyssa said, adding that the health problems caused her to struggle with school work. “I could sleep again and my headaches were lessening. The longer I was away, the better I felt.”

Because of health problems experienced by families like the Ashleys, state Sen. Frank Lasee, R-Ledgeview, is pressuring the Public Service Commission to change its rules for the construction of wind turbines.

“This really is about our government not protecting our citizens,” Lasee said Sunday during a news conference at Way-Morr County Park in Morrison, about five miles from wind turbines in Glenmore.

Lasee on Wednesday will present multiple published reports that cite the dangers of wind turbines to each of the members of the Public Service Commission, which is responsible for regulating the rates and safety of electric, natural gas and water utilities. He hopes the commission will suspend the current rules for wind turbines, and that a new commission will be created to write new rules.

The Public Service Commission could not be reached Sunday for comment.

The commission’s Wind Siting Council in 2010 released rules for wind turbines and said there was insufficient proof of negative health effects from wind turbines to support stricter rules.

“The council has concluded that the scientific evidence does not support a conclusion that wind turbines cause adverse health outcomes,” according to the council’s final recommendations to the Public Service Commission, which were released in August 2010.

Dr. Herb Coussons, who also spoke during Sunday’s news conference, said health effects of the audible noise from wind turbines can include sleep deprivation, elevated blood pressure, diabetes, weight gain and an increased risk of heart disease. Wind turbines also can be responsible for stray voltage and groundwater contamination, he said.

“The wind mill is on and off, on and off, on and off and unrelenting,” he said. “The solution though is very, very simple. Puth them where there aren’t people.”

Lasee hopes new rules will be implemented to prevent wind turbines from being built within a mile of residents’ homes, and that property owners’ consent must be given before turbines can be built nearby. The current rules state wind turbines must be 850 feet away from homes, Lasee said.

“I think they’re too close to people’s homes,” Lasee said, adding that Brown County is too densely populated for wind turbines.

“The Ashleys are not the only family who moved out of their homes,” he said.

The Ashleys last year bought a second home, but still have to pay a mortgage on their Glenmore home, “a house that we can’t live in,” Alyssa said.

While the Ashley’s’ new home helps keep Alyssa’s symptoms at bay, moving away has not cured her health problems, she said.

“Last week, when I traveled to Tennessee for a youth rally, the bus drove through large wind farms and I immediately experienced ear pressure and eventually pain, even though I hadn’t been exposed to turbines in months,” she said, adding that she wondered “if this damage and sensitivity would ever leave.”

SECOND FEATURE:

BROWN COUNTY WIND TURBINE BATTLE

By Deandra Corinthios 

Source: WGBA-TV /NBC26 / www.nbc26.com

July 8 2012

GLENMORE, WI –A battle over the effects of wind energy are blowing into Brown County again. Several families who live near the turbines believe it is causing them health problems.

State Senator Fank lasee says he’s taking their concerns to the capitol. Senator Lasee wants the rules for wind turbine placement changed, he wants the turbines farther away from people’s homes.

Several families in the Glenmore-Shirley area say they have been forced to abandon their homes to keep their families safe.

Darrel Cappelle uprooted his wife and two young children from their home a year and a half ago after he says wind turbines made them sick.

“We’re about 7 miles way from the turbines now and within a week sleep patterns returned, my wife is feeling much better my son seems to be doing better,” said Cappelle.

Cappelle says the humming and flicker shadow of the turbines kept them up at night, gave his wife anxiety attacks and their kids suffered from ear infections.

“With the refrigerator running or washing machine going you could just hear this constant buzzing,” said Sarah Cappelle.

Senator Frank Lasee will present a stack of reports on the negative impacts of wind turbines to the agency that oversees wind energy in Wisconsin, the Public Service Commission.

Governor Scott Walker proposed a 1,850 foot set-back but Senator Lasee says that’s not enough. He wants the turbines at least a mile away from homes.

“It is my hope the PSC will look favorably upon my request to suspend the current rules, so that the projects being proposed will not move forward, and reconvene a new wind siting council that will give us better setback rules,” said Lasee.

The issue was brought to a vote back in May but the senator was one vote short of getting the rules changed. He hopes this time will be different for the sake of families like the Cappelles.

“Our hope is that eventually we can move back home,” said Darrel Cappelle.

NBC26 tried calling Duke Energy, the company that owns the Shirley windpower project about Senator Lasee’s plans but they haven’t returned our calls yet. The Senator will be making his case to the PSC on Wednesday.

Wisconsin small business owner, Jim Bembinster, knows a lot about the complicated subject of wind turbine noise. 

He spent 14 months focusing on noise issues as a member of the Large Turbine Wind Study Committee for the Town of Union (Rock County). He also helped author the Town of Union Large Wind Ordinance, considered by many to be the best in the state.

This ordinance has been adopted by local governments throughout Wisconsin, including five contiguous Towns in Rock County. Local governments from other states have used it for a model in creating their own ordinances.

The Town of Union Ordinance calls for a turbine noise limit of five decibels over the existing noise levels in the community.

The wind siting rules approved by the Public Service Commission, which preempt ordinances like the Town of Union’s, allow a nighttime noise level of 45dba—or an approximate increase of 20 decibels over normal rural noise limits.
 
Here, Mr. Bembinster explains how a 20 decibel increase will impact a rural community, and why masking turbine noise is so difficult.

The general rule for additional noise is this:
 
Adding 5dB is barely noticeable.
Adding 10dB is clearly heard— as it’s twice again as loud.
Adding 15 dB is very loud and this will become the dominant sound.
 
If ambient [existing] noise levels in a rural community are 25dB and turbine noise levels are at 45dB, there will be a problem.  
 
The reason is the turbine, at 20dB louder, will be the dominant sound.  
 
Although developers say noise from the turbine will be masked by other environmental sound, such as the wind blowing through the trees, a noise loud enough to cover the turbine must also be similar in character and at least 15 decibels louder, which puts it at least 60dB.  This would be something like a the noise from a large truck going by or a Harley.  
 
Also, in order to mask the sound, the character of the two types of sound must be the same.  
 
Take the example of a baby crying.  

If you were in a room with people who were all having a conversation at say 50dB and a baby started to cry at 40dB,  the baby’s cry would be clearly heard over the conversation because of the difference of character and the tone of the noise it makes.  

If the baby ramps up the crying to 50dB --the same sound level as the conversation in the room, the baby’s cry will become the dominant sound in the room even though both the crying and the conversation are at the same decibel level.
 
This is why people trapped in wind farms have trouble with the noise even though the turbine is within its noise limits of 45dB. Ambient sounds in a rural area can’t mask the sound of a turbine because the quality of the noise is so different,  much like difference between a baby crying and adult conversation.  
 
Another way to look at is how loud it would need to be inside your home so that a Harley could pass by unnoticed.  That would be really loud, and not the best circumstance for sleeping.  

 There is nothing in a rural community that makes a sound similar enough to a wind turbine to mask it, except perhaps a jet or helicopter passing overhead, which is exactly what wind turbine noise is often compared to by those now living in wind projects.

SECOND STORY

WIND TURBINE RULE CAN BE REVISED, PANEL SAYS;

CHANGE WOULD ADDRESS POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS

SOURCE: Green Bay Press Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

September 16 2010

By Tony Walter

One of the three members of the Public Service Commission who voted for the wind turbine siting rules last month noted in a letter to two top state lawmakers that the panel can revise the rules to address the potentially harmful health effects of the turbines.

“While I support the overall rule because it will promote the development of wind in Wisconsin, the rule fails to provide a much-needed safety net for people whose health declines because of a wind turbine located near their home,” Commissioner Lauren Azar wrote to legislative officials in an Aug. 31 letter.

“As new information becomes available, the Commission can revise this rule.”

Azar wasn’t available this week to comment on her proposal that would require wind turbine owners to purchase the home of anyone who can prove that the turbine has a significant adverse health outcome. An aide in her office said Azar’s letter speaks for itself.

Invenergy LLC wants to build a 100-turbine wind farm in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore, Wrightstown and Holland with turbines that produce more than 100-megawatts of energy. CH Shirley Wind LLC is erecting eight 20-megawatt turbines in Glenmore.

An Invenergy spokesman said last month that the company plans to resubmit its application for the Ledge Wind Farm project, noting that the health issue has been studied by numerous groups that concluded there is insufficient evidence to prove the turbines put people and animals at risk.

That proposal has prompted the creation of a Brown County citizens group speaking out against the wind turbine industry, arguing there hasn’t been sufficient study on health impacts.

Carl Kuehne, a member of the board of directors of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, said the absence of definitive evidence on the health impact of wind turbines is reason enough to conduct more studies.

“No. 1, there is no need to move ahead today with more wind turbines in Wisconsin,” Kuehne said.

“The utilities are currently meeting the energy mandates set by the state government. So let’s study the situation. There’s certainly enough ad hoc evidence that wind turbines do have an impact on people and animals. Let’s study it and find out before we create more destruction on people. We have the opportunity.”

Last month, the PSC adopted rules for projects less than 100 megawatts. The rules can be altered by the state Legislature and lawmakers can ask the PSC to make changes. The issue has been assigned to the Assembly’s Committee on Energy and Utilities, which is led by Jim Soletski, D-Ashwaubenon, but no meeting date has been set.

THIRD STORY:

BANKRUPTCY RAISES WIND TURBINE ISSUES

 SOURCE: www.eastbayri.com

September 16, 2010

By Bruce Burdett

PORTSMOUTH — With its wind turbine supplier bankrupt, Portsmouth is looking for a new company to provide the service it had believed was covered under the equipment’s original warranty.

Bankruptcy proceedings for Canadian firm AAER were completed in July. Pioneer Power Solutions bought some of AAER’s assets ”but appears unwilling to provide warranty coverage or operations and maintenance support,” Finance Director David Faucher wrote in a Sept. 8 memo to the town council.

Mr. Faucher and Assistant Town Planner Gary Crosby, who has overseen much of the town’s wind turbine effort, said they have met with representatives of Templeton Power and Light which has commissioned an AAER wind turbine generator similar to Portsmouth’s in hopes of partnering with the Massachusetts utility for a long term maintenance services contract.

But Mr. Faucher said Templeton is not yet at a point that it can enter into such a partnership.

So for now, Mr. Faucher recommended that the town council enter into an emergency one-year maintenance and service agreement with Solaya, a division of Lumus Constrictoon Inc. of Woburn, Mass. The council was scheduled to discuss and possibly vote on the agreement at its meeting on Wednesday this week (after the Times went to press).

The agreement would include two 6-month scheduled maintenance sessions (the first being this month), around-the-clock monitoring and unscheduled maintenance. At the end of the year, Mr. Faucher said he would ask the council to award a competitively bid contract for a three-year period.

The agreement with Solaya is “very detailed and describes the monitoring , warranty protction and maintenance services we have been seeking.”

Cost of the year’s basic service is $33,000, and the town would be charged additional fees for extra work.

FOURTH STORY

SOURCE: The Independent, www.independent.co.uk

MAFIA'S DIRTY MONEY LINKED TO CLEAN ENERGY

September 16 2010

By Michael Day in Milan,

After decades of drug-running, extortion and prostitution, the Mafia appears to have found a rather more ecological way of laundering their money: green power.

And if the assets of the Italian police’s latest target are any indication, the Mafia is embracing the renewable energy business with an enthusiasm that would make Al Gore look like a dilettante. The surprising revelation of organised crime’s new green streak came as Italian police said yesterday they had made the largest recorded seizure of mob assets – worth €1.5bn (£1.25bn) – from the Mafia-linked Sicilian businessman Vito Nicastri, who had vast holdings in alternative energy concerns, including wind farms.

Organised crime in Italy has previously been notorious for trading in environmental destruction – principally earning billions of euros by illegally dumping toxic waste. But most of the newly seized assets are in the form of land, property and bank accounts in Sicily, the home of Cosa Nostra, and in the neighbouring region of Calabria, the base of the rival ‘Ndrangheta crime syndicate.

Police said the operation was based on a 2,400-page investigative report and followed 54-year-old Mr Nicastri’s arrest last year. He has since been released without charge, and has denied wrongdoing. But General Antonio Girone, the head of the national anti-Mafia agency DIA, said that Mr Nicastri, known as “lord of the winds”, was linked to Matteo Messina Denaro, the fugitive believed to be the Sicilian Mafia’s “boss of bosses”.

Senator Costantino Garraffa, of the parliamentary anti-Mafia committee, said the Mafia was trying to break into the “new economy” of alternative energy as it sought to launder money earned from crime. The seizure of Mr Nicastri’s assets “confirms the interest that organised crime has in renewable energy, which several annual reports on environmental issues have already stressed,” added Beppe Ruggiero, an official with the anti-Mafia association Libera.

Generous subsidies have led to rapid growth in wind power in Italy in recent years. Mr Ruggiero said: “It is very important for this sector to stay far from Mafia activities.” However, he stressed the need for renewable energy to develop in Italy’s poorer South. “Investment in renewable energy should not be discouraged,” he said, adding that the nuclear alternative would be “a losing choice”.

Recent estimates suggest the total annual turnover of Italy’s main organised crime groups is around €100bn (£83bn), or 7 per cent of GDP. Officials, including the Bank of Italy governor, Mario Draghi, have argued that organised crime has perpetuated poverty in the south of the country.

Click on image below to watch a news story about the Brown County Board of Health's recommendation about constructing wind turbines in the area:

PSC Schedules public hearings on proposed wind farm siting rules

SOURCE Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com

June 25, 2010

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) will hold three public hearings next week, including one in Fond du Lac, on proposed uniform wind siting rules.

Once finalized, the uniform rules will set forth consistent standards for the local regulation of wind energy systems in Wisconsin, according to a PSC news release.

The hearings will be held in the Legislative Chambers of the City County Government Center, 160 S. Macy St., in Fond du Lac at 1 and 6 p.m. Monday, June 28; in Tomah on Tuesday, June 29; and in Madison on Wednesday, June 30.

Public comments offered at the public hearings will assist the PSC as it finalizes the rules.

Those attending will be able to provide oral testimony to the administrative law judge presiding at the hearing.

The hearings are wheelchair-accessible. Those requiring accommodations to participate should contact Docket Coordinator Deborah Erwin at (608) 266-3905.

Documents associated with the proposed rules can be viewed on the PSC’s Electronic Regulatory Filing System at http://psc.wi.gov/. Enter case number 1-AC-231 in the boxes provided on the PSC homepage, or click on the Electronic Regulatory Filing System button.

SECOND FEATURE:

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

The document below was distributed to Wind Siting Council members at Wednesday's meeting.  As the majority of the council has direct or indirect financial interest in creating rules with as few restrictions as possible on the wind industry, it won't be hard for any of us to guess which boxes they will check on this multiple choice worksheet.

The Wind Siting Council is an advisory group. Ultimately the PSC commissioners will decide the final guidelines.

DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE WORKSHEET BY CLICKING HERE

Wind Siting Council 6.23.10

STRAW PROPOSAL AMENDMENT WORKSHEET

Wind Energy System Sizes – General

1. Should the rules establish rules for community wind energy systems that are different than rules for small wind and large wind?

□ Yes
□ No, community wind should be treated the same as large wind

[BPWI RESEARCH NERD NOTE there was discussion among council members about the term "community wind" and what it means.

The majority of council members seemed to agree that the term "community wind" simply refers to projects of between 10 and 15 industrial scale turbines, like the Town of Glenmore project developed by Council member Bill Rakocy, which consists of several 500 foot tall turbines.

Rakocy has been vocal about wanting as few restrictions as possible on his ability to develop wind projects.

One council member commented that "community wind" was simply a 'cozy term' sometimes used to disguise the fact that these are still projects by private developers who are not obligated to benefit the community in any manner that is different than the larger projects.

Questions have been raised as to why permitting standards should be different for projects with fewer turbines.

 The "community wind" guideline options in this document do nothing to prevent a larger project from breaking itself down in to a number of smaller "community wind LLCs" in order to take advantage of fewer regulations.]

2. If the rules establish a category for community wind, in what areas should the requirements for community wind be different than what is required for a large wind energy system?

□ Notification requirements
□ Application requirements
□ Mitigation requirements
□ Other ____________________________________________________

3. If the rules establish a category for community wind, how should small wind be defined?

□ A wind energy system up to 100 kW in size, whether one or more turbines
□ A wind energy system up to 300 kW in size, made up of one or more turbines each no greater than 100 kW in size
□ A wind energy system up to 500 kW in size, made up of one or more turbines each no greater than 100 kW in size

4. If the rules establish a category for community wind, how should community wind be defined?

□ Up to 2 large wind turbines (over 100 kW) owned by or where the output is used by a local resident, business, school or unit of government
□ One large turbine (over 100 kW) for personal or “community” on-site generation and/or educational purposes
□ Other ________________________________________

[NOTE FROM BPWI: During the discussion, options one and two were not considered. The council discussion about the meaning of community wind clearly concerned full sized industrial scale turbines with a project size of up to 20MW determined by MISO standards.]

5. If the rules establish a category for community wind, how should large wind be defined?

□ A wind energy system that is not a small wind energy system and is not a community wind energy system
□ Large wind should include community wind, except where otherwise specified (all rules for large wind should apply to community wind, except where otherwise noted)

Setbacks, Noise & Shadow Flicker – General

6. The rules should: (choose as many as apply)

□ Set a minimum safety setback
□ Set a noise performance standard
□ Set a shadow flicker standard

7. Should the rules require or allow for (at political subdivision’s discretion) different noise and shadow flicker performance standards for community wind v. large wind?

□ Yes, different requirements
□ Yes, allow at political subdivision’s discretion
□ No

Minimum Safety Setbacks

8. Should the rules establish a minimum safety setback?
□ Yes
□ No

9. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback, from what should the turbine be set back?

□ Nonparticipating landowner’s property line
□ Nonparticipating residence
□ Occupied community building
□ Participating residence
□ Other

10. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback from a property line, should the landowner be able to waive the property line setback?

□ Yes
□ No
□ Yes, but only for small wind turbines (up to 100 kW)

11. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback from a residence, should the landowner be able to waive the setback from the residence?

□ Yes
□ No
□ Yes, but only for small wind turbines (up to 100 kW)

12. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback, should the exact distance of the setback depend on the maximum blade tip height of the wind turbine (how tall the turbine is with its blade extended to the maximum height)?

□ Yes
□ No

13. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback from a property line, what should the distance be for a large wind turbine (over 100 kW), when measured from the center of the turbine?

□ 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height
□ _______ times the maximum blade tip height
□ 2500 feet
□ Other ___________________________________________

14. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback from a nonparticipating residence, what should the distance be for a large wind turbine (over 100 kW) when measured from the center of the turbine?

□ 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height
□ _______ times the maximum blade tip height
□ 2500 feet
□ 2600 feet
□ Other ___________________________________________

15. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback, what should the distance be for small wind turbines (up to 100 kW) when measured from the center of the turbine?

□ 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height
□ 1.0 times the maximum blade tip height
□ _______ times the maximum blade tip height
□ Other ___________________________________________

16. Should the rules require or allow for (at political subdivision’s discretion) different setback requirements for community wind?

□ Yes, different requirements: ___________________________
□ Yes, allow at political subdivision’s discretion
□ No, community wind should have the same setback requirements as large wind
□ No, community wind should have the same setback requirements as small wind

Noise – General

17. If the rules establish noise performance standards, should the rules have the same noise performance standards for all wind energy systems, small, community and large?

□ Yes
□ No

18. What type(s) of noise standards should the rules specify?

□ Setback distances only
□ Both setback distances and decibel limits
□ Decibel limits only

19. If the noise standards include decibel limits, should the decibel limits be absolute (i.e., xx dBA) or relative (i.e., ambient + yy dBA)?

□ Absolute
□ Relative
□ Both

20. If the noise standards include decibel limits, should the limits vary seasonally?

□ Yes
□ No

21. If the noise standards include decibel limits, to what should the limits apply?

□ Nonparticipating residences and occupied community buildings
□ Anywhere on a nonparticipating property
□ Other ______________________________________

22. If the noise standards include absolute decibel limits, what should the limits be?

□ 55 dBA
□ 50 dBA
□ 45 dBA on summer nights, 50 dBA at all other times
□ 45 dBA at night (year round), 50 dBA during day
□ 30 - 35 dBA
□ Other

23. If the noise standards include absolute decibel limits, should they provide for the instance when the ambient noise exceeds the absolute decibel limit imposed on the wind energy system?

□ Yes, in that case the standard should be ambient dBA plus 5 dBA

□ Yes, in that case the standard should be: __________________________________

□ No, the rules do not need to address this

24. If the noise standards include relative decibel limits, what should the limits be?

□ 5 dBA above ambient
□ 10 dBA above ambient
□ Other

25. If the noise standards include a setback distance, what should the distance be?

□ 1000 feet
□ 2500 feet
□ 2600 feet
□ Other _______________________________

26. Should the rules require use of a standard noise measurement protocol?

□ Yes, the PSC protocol
□ Yes, the PSC protocol and additional standards
□ Yes, but not the PSC protocol, instead: ___________________________
□ No

27. Should the rule require pre-construction noise testing at typical ambient sound levels?

□ Yes
□ No

28. Should the rule require post-construction noise testing at full turbine power [if this is possible]?

□ Yes
□ No

29. Should the rule require noise measurement readings in winter as well as summer?

□ Yes
□ No

Shadow Flicker – General

30. Should the Council recommend a shadow flicker performance standard as a best practice?

□ Yes

□ No

31. Should the rules require a standalone shadow flicker performance standard (performance standard only; no setback specifically designed to address shadow flicker)?

□ Yes, shadow flicker should be addressed solely by a performance standard
□ No, shadow flicker should be address by something other than just a performance standard

32. If the rules do not require a standalone shadow flicker performance standard, how should shadow flicker be addressed?

□ Shadow flicker-related setback requirement only
□ Combination shadow flicker-related setback and performance standard
□ Other _________________________________________

33. If the shadow flicker standards include a setback distance, what should the distance be?

□ 1000 feet
□ 1100 feet
□ 2500 feet
□ 2600 feet
□ Other _______________________________

34. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, what type of wind energy systems should it apply to?

□ Large wind energy systems
□ Community wind energy systems
□ Small wind energy systems

35. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, what must a developer do to plan to comply with the standard?

□ Existing computer modeling offers a satisfactory method of measurement at this time.
□ Existing computer modeling needs to be improved via set, uniform standards
□ Other ____________________________________________

36. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, what should the standard take into account?

□ All nonparticipating landowners (whether or not a residence exists)

□ Nonparticipating residences existing at the time of the wind energy system application

□ Nonparticipating residences existing at the time of the wind energy system approval

□ Nonparticipating residences not yet constructed at the time of the application but for which a building permit has been filed prior to the wind energy system application

□ Nonparticipating residences not yet constructed at the time of the approval but for which a building permit has been filed prior to the wind energy system approval

□ Nonparticipating residences constructed after the wind energy system receives approval for which no building permit was filed prior to the wind energy system approval

□ Other _______________________________________________

37. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, what should it include?

□ Properties (which would include existing and potential residences and outbuildings)
□ Existing residences only
□ Existing residences and outbuildings only

38. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, what should the standard be?

□ No shadow flicker may occur on affected areas
□ Shadow flicker may not exceed 25 hours per year
□ Shadow flicker may not exceed 40 hours per year
□ Shadow flicker may not exceed 45 hours per year
□ Shadow flicker may not exceed 50 hours per year
□ Other ____________________________________

39. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, can the requirement be waived by an affected landowner (i.e. for compensation)?

□ Yes
□ No

40. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, to what extent should mitigation of shadow flicker be required?

□ No mitigation required; mitigation at developer’s/owner’s discretion
□ Mitigation required for exceeding ______ hours per year
□ Other __________________________________________

Siting – Other

41. Should the rules treat private airports at medical facilities used for air ambulance purposes as a public airport for purposes of establishing siting criteria around the private airport?
□ Yes
□ No

42. Should the rules require that siting requirements be science-based?
□ Yes
□ No

Mitigation – General

43. Should the rules establish requirements that apply to new residences or buildings not yet constructed?

□ Yes
□ Yes, but only for which a building permit has been filed prior to the wind energy system application filing
□ Yes, but only for which a building permit has been filed prior to the wind energy system receiving approval
□ No

44. Should the rules address other future potential (not construction-related) uses of leased properties and non-participating properties?

□ Yes, to address these issues: ______________________________________
□ No

Mitigation – Noise & Shadow Flicker

45. Should the rules require specific mitigation measures when shadow flicker or noise standards are exceeded?

□ Yes, shut down the turbine as needed to prevent exceeding performance standards
□ Yes, other _________________________________________________
□ No

46. When mitigation is required for a residence, what residences qualify for mitigation?

□ All residences
□ Only those in existence when the wind energy system requested approval
□ Only those in existence when the wind energy system received approval
□ Only those in existence when the wind energy system was constructed
□ Other ________________________________________________________

47. Should the rules address potential tax liability of a landowner relating to mitigation measures received by the landowner?

□ Yes, the rules should: _____________________________________
□ No, the rules should not address this

48. Should the rules require wind energy system applications to include a [minimum?] plan for mitigating shadow flicker?

□ Yes
□ No

Mitigation – Signal Interference

49. Should the rules provide a definition of what constitutes “reasonable effort” to mitigate signal interference?

□ Yes, it should be defined as: ________________________________________
□ No

Complaint Resolution

50. Should the Council recommend complaint resolution process best practices?

□ Yes
□ No

51. Should the rules define the types of complaints that will be considered by the entity responsible for complaint resolution?

□ Yes
□ No

52. Should the rules require political subdivisions to establish a complaint resolution procedure pursuant to a protocol to be established by the Public Service Commission?

□ Yes
□ No

53. Should the rules require that a complaint must be resolved within 90 days?

□ Yes
□ No, the rules should not place a hard time limit on complaint resolution
□ No, the rules should impose a different time limit of: ____________________

54. Should the rules require dismissal of complaints if the complaint stems from an activity or condition that is clearly allowed pursuant to the political subdivision’s approval?

□ Yes
□ No
□ Other _________________________________________

55. Should the rules require that complaints be overseen by the political subdivision granting the approval for a wind energy system?

□ Yes
□ No

56. Should the rules require that complaints be handled by the political subdivision in the first instance?

□ Yes, the political subdivision itself should deal with complaints

□ Yes, but if the political subdivision does not have sufficient resources, the developer/owner should be responsible for responding to complaints according to a standardized protocol, and the political subdivision may review complaint records at any time

□ No, the political subdivision should be able to establish a committee to deal with complaints

□ No, the political subdivision should be required to establish a committee to deal with complaints

□ No, complaints should be handled directly by the Public Service Commission with no political subdivision involvement

57. Should the rules clarify the Public Service Commission’s authority to review complaints?

□ Yes, the rules should be clarified regarding: _______________________________
□ No

58. Should the rules clarify how stakeholders will engage in the Public Service Commission’s review of complaints?

□ Yes, stakeholder should be able to: ______________________________
□ No, the draft rules are sufficient on this issue

Property Value Protection Plan

59. Should the Council recommend a property value protection plan as a best practice?

□ Yes
□ No

60. Should the rules require developers to offer a property value protection plan?

□ Yes
□ No

61. If the rules require developers to offer a property value protection plan, what wind energy systems should it apply to?

□ Large wind energy systems
□ Community wind energy systems
□ Small wind energy systems

62. If the rules require developers to offer a property value protection plan, who should it be offered to?

□ Landowners adjacent to turbine host properties
□ Landowners within ______ feet of a turbine
□ Other _______________________________________________

Wind Leases & Easements

63. Should the Council establish a list of items to include in a lease or easement as part of a best practices document?

□ Yes
□ No

64. Should the rules address items that must be included and may not be included in a lease or easement?

□ Yes, with as much detail as possible
□ Yes, for certain limited topics
□ No

65. Should the language in the draft rules requiring the developer, owner and operator of the wind energy system to comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to the wind energy system be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

66. Should the language in the draft rules requiring a lease to permit the property owner to terminate the wind lease if the portion of the wind energy system located on the property has not operated for a period of at least 18 months unless the property owner receives the normal minimum payments be removed?

□ Yes
□ No, it should stay as is
□ No, but it should be modified to state: _______________________________________

67. Should the language in the draft rules requiring a lease to specify the circumstances under which the developer, owner or operator of the wind energy system may withhold payments from the property owner be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

68. Should the language in the draft rules requiring a lease to permit the property owner to rescind an executed wind lease within 3 business days of signing the wind lease be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

69. Should the language in the draft rules stating that a lease, except for compensation terms, may not be required to be confidential be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

70. Should the language in the draft rules stating that a lease may not make the property owner liable for any property tax associated with the wind energy system or other equipment related to the production of electricity by the wind energy system be removed?

□ Yes
□ No, it should stay as is
□ No, but it should be modified to state: ____________________________________

71. Should the language in the draft rules stating that a lease may not make the property owner liable for any violation of federal, state or local laws and regulations by the developer, owner or operator of the wind energy system be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

72. Should the language in the draft rules stating that a lease may not make the property owner liable for any damages caused by the wind energy system or the operation of the wind energy system, including liability or damage to the property owner or to third parties be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

73. Should the language in the draft rules stating that a developer, owner or operator may not, as a condition of accepting any benefit to settle a noise, signal interference, stray voltage or shadow flicker mitigation issue, require a property owner to keep the settlement confidential or require the property owner to waive any right to make a future claim about an unrelated issue be removed?

□ Yes
□ No
□ No, but it should be modified to state: _____________________________________

74. Should the rules require the lease to state that a person negotiating or presenting a wind lease or easement on behalf of a developer represents the developer and not the landowner?

□ Yes
□ No

75. Should the rules require the lease to state that the lease is a contract?

□ Yes
□ No

76. Should the rules require the lease to include plans and specifications regarding the specific wind turbine that may be constructed?

□ Yes
□ No

77. Should the rules invalidate any wind lease or easement signed prior to the developer giving general public notice of the planned wind energy system?

□ Yes

□ No

78. If the rules invalidate any lease or easement signed prior to general public notice, should the rules allow a letter of intent to be signed in lieu of a lease [without requiring general public notice first]?

□ Yes
□ No

79. Should the rules require any person negotiating or presenting a wind lease or easement on behalf of a developer to hold a license to conduct real estate activities and be under the supervision of a real estate broker?

□ Yes
□ No

80. Should the rules require any person negotiating or presenting a wind lease or easement on behalf of a developer to hold a real estate broker license?

□ Yes
□ No

81. Should the rules require wind leases and easements to comply with existing precedents and state laws relating to other types of construction?

□ Yes
□ No

Decommissioning

82. For how long should a wind energy system be allowed to stand continuously without operating before decommissioning is required?

□ 18 continuous months, with limited exceptions
□ 24 months, with a rebuttable presumption if the system will be reused
□ Other ______________________________________

83. Should the rules require removal of the turbine foundation and other underground structures?

□ Yes, they should be completely removed
□ Yes, they should be removed to at least four feet below grade
□ Yes, they should be removed to _________________________________
□ No

84. If the rules require removal of below ground improvements, should the rules require wind energy system applications to include plans and estimated costs for excavating and removing the below grade improvements?

□ Yes
□ No

85. To what condition should the rules require restoration of the land upon decommissioning?

□ Pre-construction condition, to the extent feasible

□ The same general topography that existed just prior to construction and with topsoil re-spread over the disturbed areas at a depth similar to that in existence prior to the disturbance. Areas disturbed by the construction of the facility and decommissioning activities must be graded, top-soiled, and re-seeded according to NRCS technical guide recommendations and other agency recommendations, unless the landowner requests in writing that the access roads or other land surface areas be retained.

□ Other _____________________________________

86. What should the rules require developers/owners to provide in terms of financial assurances related to decommissioning?

□ Proof of financial ability to decommission in a form and amount based on a cost estimate by a mutually agreeable third-party
□ Bonds or monies up front to guarantee decommissioning
□ Other _____________________________________

87. Should the language in the draft rule requiring owners of wind energy systems to file a notice upon completion of decommissioning be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

88. Should the rules stipulate penalties if decommissioning requirements are not followed?
□ Yes
□ No

89. If the rules stipulate penalties if decommissioning requirements are not followed, what should these penalties be?

□ Penalties imposed by political subdivision using political subdivision’s general authority
□ Specific financial forfeiture in the amount of ____________
□ Other _____________________________________

90. Should the State assume ultimate responsibility for decommissioning wind energy systems approved by political subdivisions?

□ Yes
□ No

Construction and Operation Standards – General

91. Should the language in the draft rules establishing requirements relating to turbine appearance be removed or modified?

□ Yes, they should be removed
□ Yes, they should be modified
□ No, the language should stay as is

92. If the language in the draft rules establishing requirements relating to turbine appearance should be removed or modified, should the rules require wind turbines to have a neutral finish?

□ Yes
□ No, there should be no requirements about the finish
□ No, there should be a different requirement about the finish _____________________

93. If the language in the draft rules establishing requirements relating to turbine appearance should be removed or modified, should the rules prohibit displaying advertising material or signage on a wind turbine, other than warnings, equipment information or indicia of ownership?

□ Yes
□ No

□ Yes, advertising material and signage on a turbine should be prohibited, but with different/additional exceptions: ____________________________________________

94. If the language in the draft rules establishing requirements relating to turbine appearance should be removed or modified, should the rules prohibit attaching any flag, decorative sign, streamers, pennants, ribbons, spinners, fluttering, or revolving devices except for safety features or wind monitoring devices?

□ Yes
□ No
□ Yes, these should be prohibited, but with different/additional exceptions: ______________

95. Should the rules require the wind energy system owner to provide as-built specifications for the wind energy system?

□ Yes, to the political subdivision granting the approval
□ Yes, to the Public Service Commission
□ Yes, to some other entity: ______________________________________
□ No

Construction and Operation Standards – Emergency Procedures

96. Should the rules set forth default areas of responsibility for emergency services provision at the wind energy system (what is the developer/owner responsible for, what is the local service provider responsible for)?
□ Yes
□ No

97. If the rules set forth default areas of responsibility for emergency services provision at the wind energy system, should the developer/owner be responsible for services starting at the base of the turbine?

□ Yes
□ Yes, and the developer/owner should also be responsible for _____________________
□ No, the developer/owner should only be responsible for ___________________________

98. Should the rules require the applicant to provide a copy of the project summary and site plan to the local emergency services provider, as designated by the political subdivision reviewing the application?

□ Yes
□ No

99. Should the rules require the applicant to cooperate with local emergency services in developing an emergency response plan upon the request [of the political subdivision]?

□ Yes
□ No

100. If the rules require the applicant to cooperate with local emergency services in developing an emergency response plan upon request, what area should this plan cover?

□ The wind energy system
□ The area within ______ feet of the wind energy system
□ Other _________________________________________________________________

Conflict of Interest

101. Should the rules require that no member of the political subdivision reviewing an application, or any of the political subdivision’s involved committees, may derive any personal profit or gain, directly or indirectly, by reason of his or her acting on an application for a wind energy system?

□ Yes
□ No, the rules should not address political subdivision conflicts of interest
□ No, the rules should address conflicts of interests differently: ____________________

102. Should the rules require any member of the political subdivision reviewing an application to disclose to the political subdivision any personal interest that he or she may have in any wind energy system matter pending before the local jurisdiction?

□ Yes
□ No

103. Should the rules require any member of the political subdivision reviewing an application to refrain from participating in any wind energy system matter pending before the local jurisdiction in which the political subdivision member has a personal interest?

□ Yes
□ No

General Notification Requirements

104. What should the general public notification period be for large wind energy systems?

□ 270 days before filing a construction application or 180 days before planned start of construction, whichever is earlier
□ 90 days before filing a construction application
□ 60 days before filing a construction application
□ 30 days before filing a construction application or 60 days before planned start of construction, whichever is earlier
□ Other _________________________________________________

105. What should the notification period be for small wind energy systems?

□ 270 days before filing a construction application or 180 days before planned start of construction, whichever is earlier
□ 90 days before filing a construction application
□ 60 days before filing a construction application
□ 30 days before filing a construction application or the planned start of construction, whichever is earlier
□ Other

106. Should the rules require developers to provide general public notification prior to signing any binding leases or easements?

□ Yes
□ No

107. Should the rules require small wind energy systems to notify only adjacent landowners?

□ Yes
□ No, they should notify the same people as large wind
□ No, they should notify: _______________________________

108. [Regarding the form of notification to be given,] should the rules require notification using “commercially reasonable efforts” only?

□ Yes
□ No

Application Process Requirements

109. Should the rules require that wind energy system applications include plans and specifications for the turbines being built?

□ Yes
□ No

110. Should the rules allow a political subdivision to request only additional information required under the rules?

□ Yes
□ No

111. Should the language in the draft rules allowing political subdivisions to request information in an application pursuant to detailed application filing requirements specified by the Commission be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

112. Should the language in the draft rules allowing political subdivisions to request any other information necessary to understand the proposed wind energy system be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

113. Should the language in the draft rules allowing political subdivisions to request information related to the wind energy system be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

Political Subdivision Process

114. Should the rules prohibit a political subdivision from placing any condition or regulation on a wind energy system except as specifically authorized by the rules?

□ Yes
□ No

Additional questions from Commission staff:

115. Should the rules specify numerical limits on the amount of reasonable fees that a political subdivision can charge?

□ Yes
□ No

116. If the rules specify numerical limits on the amount of reasonable fees that a political subdivision can charge, what should the limits be?

□ Fee capped at 1.0% of estimated wind energy system cost
□ Fee capped at 0.5% of estimated wind energy system cost
□ Fee capped at 0.3% of estimated wind energy system cost
□ Other ____________________________________________

Stray Voltage

117. Should the rules establish required standards for pre-construction and post-construction stray voltage testing?

□ Yes
□ No

118. If the rules establish required standards for pre-construction and post-construction stray voltage testing, what should the rules require?

□ Parties must follow the PSC’s Phase 2 stray voltage protocol
□ Facility should be tested by a licensed engineer before the utility gets involved
□ Utilities should be required to install neutral isolation devices on all transformers serving dairies and other livestock operation.
□ Other __________________________________________________________

119. Should the rules address who (developer/owner v. utility) is responsible for ensuring that required pre-construction and post-construction stray voltage testing is conducted?

□ Yes
□ No

120. Should the rules address who (developer/owner v. utility) is financially responsible for what portions of pre-construction and post-construction stray voltage testing?

□ Yes
□ No

Commission Review
(No amendments suggested)

About this document:
This Straw Proposal Amendment Worksheet was prepared by Commission staff based on written responses to the Straw Proposal of June 9, 2010 that were submitted by Wind Siting Council members as of June 21, 2010, and based on discussions at the Wind Siting Council meetings June 15 and June 21, 2010.
Wind Siting Council members are encouraged to contact Commission staff as soon as possible regarding any errors in or omissions from this Worksheet.

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules. The deadline for comment is July 7th, 2010.

The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes, 500 feet from property lines.

CLICK HERE to get a copy of the draft siting rules approved by the commissioners on May 14th, and to find out more about the Wind Siting Council

CLICK HERE and type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted so far.

CLICK HERE to leave a comment on the Wind Siting Council Docket



CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE