Better Plan, Wisconsin

WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS:

WIND TURBINE NOISE, AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT

SOURCE Herald Gazette, knox.villagesoup.com

September 10 2010

By Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand,

Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand are members of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering. In 2009, they became concerned about the negative comments from residents living near wind turbine sites and, the apparent lack of regulatory action to address the potential for adverse health impacts from wind turbine generator noise in Mars Hill. They launched their own evaluation, and came to the following conclusions in a series of guest columns.

Wind turbines larger than one megawatt of rated power have become an unexpected surprise for many nearby residents by being much louder than expected.

The sounds produced by blades, gearing, and generator are significantly louder and more noticeable as wind turbine size increases. Long blades create a distinctive aerodynamic sound as air shears off the trailing edge and tip.

The sound character varies from a “whoosh” at low wind speeds to “a jet plane that never lands” at moderate and higher wind speeds. Blade-induced air vortices spinning off the tip may produce an audible “thump” as each blade sweeps past the mast.

Thumping can become more pronounced at distance, described as “sneakers in a dryer,” when sounds from multiple turbines arrive at a listener’s position simultaneously.

Wind turbines are not synchronized and so thumps may arrive together or separately, creating an unpredictable or chaotic acoustic pattern.

The sounds of large industrial wind turbines have been documented as clearly audible for miles. They are intrusive sounds that are uncharacteristic of a natural soundscape.

Studies have shown that people respond to changes in sound level and sound character in a predictable manner. A noticeable change in sound level of 5 decibels (dB) may result in “no response” to “sporadic complaints.” An increase of 10 dB may yield “widespread complaints,”; a 15 dB increase “threats of legal action.”

The strongest negative community response occurs with an increase of 20 dB or more, resulting in “vigorous objections.”

Audible tones, variability in sound level, and an unnatural sound character can amplify the public response. For a distinctive or unpleasant sound, a small change in sound level, or the sound simply being audible, may provoke a strong community response.

Community response can intensify further if sleep is disturbed and quality of life or property is degraded.

Weather conditions influence the sound level generated and how it travels to nearby homes. Sound waves expand outward from the wind turbine with the higher frequencies attenuating at a faster rate than low frequencies.

Locations beyond a few thousand feet may be dominated by low frequency sounds generated by the wind turbines.

Wind turbulence and icing, both common in New England due to topography and latitude, increase aerodynamic noise from intensified or chaotic dynamic stall conditions along the blade surfaces.

Atmospheric conditions at night and downwind enhance sound propagation toward the ground by increasing levels over longer distances.

Wind turbines are elevated hundreds of feet to receive stronger winds yet winds down on the ground or in nearby valleys may be non-existent with correspondingly low background sound levels, accentuating the impact of the intrusive sounds.

Other professionals have developed thresholds, or criteria, for sound level to protect public health that may be applied to planning for wind turbine permitting.

Recommendations from Hayes McKenzie Partnership in 2006 limited maximum wind turbine sound levels at residences to 38 dBA and no more than 33 dBA when “beating noises” are audible when the turbines spin.

Dan Driscoll presented his analysis in 2009 (Environmental Stakeholder Roundtable on Wind Power, June 16, 2009) with a Composite Noise Rating analysis of 33 dBA to reduce rural community response to the level of “sporadic complaints.”

Michael Nissenbaum issued his findings in 2010 from his medical study at Mars Hill, recommending a 7000-foot setback for public health.

The World Health Organization published sound level thresholds of sleep disturbance and adverse health effects from peer-reviewed medical studies (Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, October 2009).

Our next column will compare our sound level versus distance data with these medical, health, and community response criteria and show what distances are necessary to protect public health.

Currently there is no effective, reliable noise mitigation for wind turbines of this size other than shutdown.

Therefore, at this time it appears appropriate that proposed wind turbine sites should position wind turbines at least one mile away from residential properties and further for sites with more than one wind turbine. Smaller wind turbines (under one megawatt power rating) produce less noise than those currently being marketed and installed for grid power in Maine; these may be an option when distance is an issue.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

The wind farm mentioned in the following story was cited an example of a successful community wind project by Wind Siting Council member Michael Vickerman

State of Maine finds Fox Island Wind Turbines in violation of noise standard

We Energies turbines in Blue Sky Green Field project near Malone, Wisconsin

UNION MAN DETAILS HOW COUNCIL WROTE THE RULES:

 SOURCE: The Janesville Gazette, gazettextra.com

August 15, 2010

By Gina Duwe,

UNION TOWNSHIP — A local man who worked on the state council to write wind siting rules says the slanted make-up of the committee toward the wind industry created a disservice to the process.

The resulting rules likely will increase local dissent and resistance to proposed projects, which he predicts will end up in court, said Doug Zweizig, who co-chaired the wind siting council.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I don’t think it’s going to be pretty,” said Zweizig, who also is vice-chair of the Town of Union Plan Commission and worked on a special committee to write the town’s wind ordinance.

The wind siting council this week released its report that serves as recommendations to the state Public Service Commission.

Zweizig was one of four council members that disagreed with portions of the report and wrote a minority opinion that was attached to the end of it. The minority report states concerns over the failure “to address the realities of the effects of large wind turbines on nearby populations, to bring quality information into critical areas and to explore the economic implications of locating an industrial facility next to a residential area.”

The process

Legislators approved a bill last fall to allow the PSC to create rules to regulate wind projects statewide instead of the patchwork of local ordinances.

The council drafted its report over the last four months, and the three PSC commissioners will consider the report, the full record and all public and stakeholder comments before issuing the final rules, said Lori Sakk, legislative liaison for the PSC.

Then the presiding officer of the state Assembly and Senate will have 10 days to refer the rules to a committee, which would have 30 days to schedule a hearing or request to meet with the agency. If neither action is taken, the rules are promulgated and become law.

The law said the council members needed to be representatives of specific categories, including the energy industry, uncompensated landowners, wind developers, real estate agents, medical and research experts, environmentalists and local government.

But, “that’s not the way the appointments were made,” Zweizig said.

Whenever the PSC had any leeway, someone with ties or a supporting opinion to the wind industry was appointed, he said.

Sakk responded by saying the council members were appointed according to the statutory eligibility requirements established by the state Legislature.

Zweizig said his impression is that wind industry advocates were frustrated with towns such as Union, which has an ordinance for a half-mile turbine setback, so they went to the state to override the local ordinances. They got the legislation, he said, and since the PSC already was supportive, a council was put together to rubber stamp the desired outcome.

“What that did in terms of group process, meant that the majority never really had to explain itself very much … or talk through issues,” Zweizig said. “They didn’t have to do that because they knew they had the votes.”

Council Chairman Dan Ebert said in a letter accompanying the report that the council had “significant discussions” on many recommendations “in the spirit of working toward consensus.” He said the recommendations reflect input from all council members, but acknowledged there were areas that the council did not reach a consensus.

The council’s report states a turbine should be sited so:

– It is set back from homes 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height, which would be 440 feet for the 400 foot turbines, Zweizig said.

– It creates no more than 40 hours of shadow flicker on a home. If it’s more than 20, the operator is required to provide mitigation, which can include putting blinds up in a house, Zweizig said.

– The noise it creates is no more than 45 decibels at night and no more than 50 decibels during the day.

Zweizig said some council members lacked concern for health problems associated with living too close to turbines. He and others tried to point out that people are abandoning their homes because of health problems stemming from the noise and shadow flicker.

That’s why council member Larry Wunsch, who lives within 1,100 feet of a turbine in Fond du Lac County, is trying to sell his property, Zweizig said. Wunsch also was among the four minority opinions on the council.

“He did whatever he could to let those on the council know those are the circumstances,” Zweizig said. “They never asked him a question. They never said, ‘What is this like?’ They just waited him out, knowing that in the end they would just outvote him.”

Local wind projects

The status of proposed projects in Union and Magnolia townships is unclear.

EcoEnergy was developing both projects, including signing on landowners, before it sold the rights for both to Acciona in 2007, said Jason Yates, contract manager with EcoEnergy in Elgin, Ill. The proposed projects back then included three turbines in Union and up to 67 in Magnolia.

Wind measurement towers were put up in both townships: Magnolia’s went up in April 2007 at County B and Highway 213 and Union’s went up in late 2008 at County C and Highway 104.

The Magnolia tower came down this spring at the end of the 36-month contract, landowner Tom Drew said. Since then, Drew said the only thing he heard from the company was that it was waiting to see the results of the state’s new wind siting law.

In Union, the town permit for the tower expired last fall, and Acciona has decided to remove the tower, supervisor George Franklin said. It will be removed this fall after the corn that surrounds it is harvested, he said.

The Acciona North American website does not list any Wisconsin projects under its “In the works” projects. Acciona could not be reached for comment.

Evansville turbine begins operation

The new wind turbine in Evansville should be operational early this week, if not already, after possibly being struck by lightning.

The Northwind 100 arrived at the city’s wastewater treatment plant on Water Street in June. After running for only a couple days, the turbine stopped working late on the night of July 21 or early on July 22, said Eve Frankel, marketing and communications manager at Northern Power Systems.

“We believe that it was potentially due to a lightning strike, but it’s still under an investigation,” she said.

The manufacturer is fixing parts on the turbine and ruling out causes, she said.

The repair shouldn’t cost the city, City Administrator Dan Wietecha said, because it would be covered under the warranty or insurance.

Frankel said lightning striking a turbine is an “unusual occurrence,” though Wisconsin seems to have more lightning strikes than other regions.

The tower height on the 100 kilowatt turbine is 120 feet and each blade is 37 feet. The turbine is part of the $7.2 million effort to upgrade the wastewater treatment facility.

NEIGHBORS: WIND ENERGY HAS ITS PRICE

SOURCE: host.madison.com

August 14 2010

by Clay Barbour

ST. CLOUD, Wis. — Elizabeth Ebertz loves her garden, but the 67-year-old grandmother doesn’t work in it much anymore.

The small vegetable patch, which has produced onions, carrots and tomatoes for many family dinners, sits behind her home, in a little valley, about a half-mile from a dozen 400-foot-tall wind turbines.

The structures are part of the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in northeastern Fond du Lac County, one of the state’s largest wind farms, capable of producing energy for about 36,000 homes.

Unfortunately, said Ebertz, the turbines also produce enough noise to chase her from the garden — and most nights, disturb her sleep.

“Sometimes it sounds like a racetrack, or a plane landing,” she said. “You wouldn’t believe how loud it gets.”

The state Public Service Commission is considering a new set of wind farm regulations that could free up the industry and promote growth in Wisconsin, a state that has lagged behind the rest of the Midwest in using wind as an alternative energy source.

The PSC, which regulates state utilities, is expected to send the proposal to the Legislature by the end of the month.

If passed, the measure could go a long way in helping Wisconsin reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its energy with renewable sources by 2015. Renewable sources account for 5 percent of the state’s energy now.

The measure could also end what has been years of localized fights — often spurred by well-funded anti-wind organizations — that have effectively killed at least 10 proposed wind farms in the past eight years, and scared off several others.

But for people like Ebertz, the new rules mean more people will have to deal with wind turbines and the problems that come with them.

“I wish those things were never built here,” Ebertz said. “They’re just too close to people. I wish they were gone.”

State far behind neighbors

Wisconsin spends about $1.5 billion on imported energy every year and ranks 16th in the country in available wind.

According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Wisconsin has the capacity to produce up to 449 megawatts of energy from its current wind farms — enough to power about 110,000 homes.

Yet the state trails other Midwestern states in wind energy production. Minnesota wind farms produce 1,797 megawatts, Illinois produces 1,848 and Iowa generates 3,670. “It’s not even close,” said Barnaby Dinges, an AWEA member and lobbyist from Illinois. “Wisconsin is danger of falling out of the wind game altogether. It’s getting a reputation as inhospitable to the wind industry.”

Dinges has lobbied for six wind farms in the past five years, three of them in Wisconsin. He said the state has a number of well-organized anti-wind groups that have endangered its 10 percent goal.

“This isn’t like any grass-roots opposition we have seen elsewhere,” he said. “These aren’t just concerned citizens going to meetings. These are mass mailings, billboards, full-page ads. It’s more professional and it costs a lot of money.”

Jenny Heinzen — a professor of wind energy technology at Lakeshore Technical College, which has campuses in Manitowoc, Cleveland and Sheboygan, and a member of the state’s Wind Siting Council — said she has been amazed with the opposition.

“I have my suspicions that they are getting help from some groups from outside the state, but that has never been confirmed,” she said, referencing persistent rumors of coal and natural gas companies helping to kill wind projects here.

There are a lot of people who live near wind farms and never report problems. Still, the state is home to several anti-wind groups, including the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, the WINDCOWS, the Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy, Healthy Wind Wisconsin and the Coalition for Environmental Stewardship.

These groups have some powerful supporters, including several prominent lawyers, lobbyist and former state Sen. Bob Welch and Carl Kuehne, former CEO of American Foods Group.

But officials with the anti-wind groups say most of their members are simply residents who do not like the thought of living near a wind farm.

“We heard that criticism before — that we are a front group for oil and gas companies — but it’s just not true,” said Lynn Korinek, a member of WINDCOWS. “We are a group of about 200 members who hold rummage sales to fund our fight. There are no special interests behind us, believe me.”

Neighbors claim health problems

Most of the state’s anti-wind groups say they have nothing against wind energy, they simply disagree with how it is implemented in the state.

Still, their websites show members either fear the possible side effects of wind energy, or want others to fear them. The concerns include diminished property values, occasional noise pollution, moving shadows cast by the giant windmills along with loss of sleep from vibrations, increased menstrual cycles, high blood pressure, headaches and irritability.

Recently, the state Division of Public Health looked into the issue, studying more than 150 medical reports, interviewing dozens of residents and municipalities and consulting the universities of Wisconsin, Maine and Minnesota, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Their conclusion was that scientific evidence does not support the claim of wind turbine syndrome, an umbrella term for the health problems some have attributed to wind farms. The letter also points out that many of the symptoms associated with the condition — headaches, irritability, loss of sleep — are fairly common and can be attributed to other factors.

“They can explain it anyway they want, but something is different around here and it has been ever since they put those turbines up,” said Allen Hass, a 56-year-old farmer who owns about 600 acres in Malone, northeast of Fond du Lac.

Hass has three Blue Sky Green Field turbines on his property. He said We Energies, which owns the wind farm, pays him about $12,000 a year for the space.

Hass said the money does not make up for his health problems, including headaches and loss of memory.

“I wish I never made that deal,” he said.

Brian Manthey, We Energies spokesman, said the company is aware of Hass’s complaints, but that the scientific evidence does not support them. He said the company works hard to make its neighbors happy.

“You never get 100 percent support for anything, but you will find that a lot of people are happy with the farm,” he said.

New rules trump local ones

The new rules, written by the Wind Siting Council, streamline the state approval process so potential developers know exactly what they face when considering a project in Wisconsin.

Probably the most important aspect of the new regulations deals with state permitting. In the past, the state only had direct authority over wind farms generating more than 100 megawatts.

Under the new rules, the state would deal with all wind farms. Local municipalities would still be involved but would not be allowed to establish regulations stricter than the state’s.

Supporters figure this will open the door for the rapid growth of wind energy in the state by bypassing many of the local fights that have created such a logjam. Wisconsin is home to nine wind farms, with another two under construction, and three in the planning stages.

THIRD FEATURE:

STATE OF MAINE WANTS $36,000 for public records on wind energy

Sun Journal, www.sunjournal.com

 August 16, 2010 By Naomi Shalit,

As part of its reporting on the Wind Energy Act of 2008, the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting filed a state public records request under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act, called a FOAA request.

However, the Center never received much of the material it requested from the state because the cost was prohibitive: $36,239.52.

That’s what the state Public Utilities Commission wanted from the Center to search for e-mails from 2005-2007 between then-PUC Chairman Kurt Adams and any representatives of wind company First Wind (where Adams took a job after leaving the PUC); between Adams and Gov. John Baldacci, for whom Adams had previously worked as legal counsel; and between Adams and several prominent wind power attorneys employed by the law firm of Verrill Dana.

In her response to the Center’s request, Joanne Steneck, general counsel for the PUC, explained that “in order to review any e-mails from 2005 to 2007, it will be necessary to restore Mr. Adams’s mailbox from the mail server back up. According to the Office of Information Technology … it takes approximately 2 1/2 hours to restore a snapshot of each day’s e-mails.”

The Center sought access to the e-mails because Adams’ input had been crucial to the deliberations of the governor’s wind power task force.

Initially, Steneck told the Center that a search of backup discs containing e-mail records for the period prior to January 2008 could be done for a cost upward of $10,000.

The Center then asked for a waiver of the $10,000 cost, under provisions in the state’s FOAA that allow waivers to be granted for noncommercial use of public information.

The PUC refused to grant the waiver and revised its estimate of the cost for the Center to get the information to $36,239.52.

According to Steneck, the increased estimate represents the actual cost for OIT to retrieve and restore 824 backup tapes, at a charge of $21.99 per hour, plus the time it would take for PUC personnel to review the restored e-mail messages and redact confidential information. The process is laborious, she explained, because “the state of Maine’s e-mail system was designed in such a way that the backup and restore process allows for disaster recovery purposes only and does not include duplication or search criteria of an archive retrieval system.”

Click on the image below to watch Wisconsin wind siting council members discuss the the relative necessity of a safety setback from large wind turbines. Two council members representing groups that lobby on behalf of wind development believe in this case, safety is a relative term. Because they do not believe safety is an issue when it comes to siting turbines, they suggest the term "courtesy setback" instead of "safety setback"

Click on the image below to watch part of a Wisconsin Wind Siting Council Meeting where Council member and wind lobbyist Michael Vickerman claims that community acceptance of wind projects is higher when there are fewer turbines. Council member and UW Professor Emeritus, Dr. Doug Zweizig asks Vickerman for support for his claims and and in the discussion it is revealed that the turbines in the projects cited by Vickerman are much smaller than the 400 to 500 foot turbines now being proposed. Vickerman then claims the size of the turbines doesn't matter.

Where does the wind developers preference for a noise limit of 50dbA come from? A wind lobbyist explains why the type of wind developers interests he represents want the turbine noise limit to be as high as 50daA and what it's based on. The World Health Organization says for restful sleep, 35dbA is the limit for nighttime noise.

WATCH HIGH QUALITY COMPLETE RECORDINGS OF THE WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETINGS AT BY VISITING THE GREAT WISCONSIN EYE

WHO IS ON THE WIND SITING COUNCIL?

These bios were provided by the BPWI Research Nerd. If there are any errors or inaccuracies, please contact us immediately by CLICKING HERE so we may correct them.

Selected members were announced March 16, 2010. They include by law,

 Two wind energy system representatives:

Tom Green, Wind developer, senior project manager,  Wind Capitol Group, Dane County. 

Wind Capitol Group is developing a project in Columbia County

"But whether the wind farm goes in, [Tom Green] said, will depend on what the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decides, as it sets parameters for wind farms - including setback from neighboring properties - that will apply throughout Wisconsin, and which cannot be made stricter by local authorities.

"You can't have a patchwork of rules throughout the state," Green said...

The rules, when they are adopted, will apply to wind farms such as the one proposed by Wind Capital Group - operations that generate less than 100 megawatts."

SOURCE: Portage Daily Register, January 28, 2010

In April 2009 Wind Capital Group sold the Bent Tree Wind project in Freeborn County, Minnesota to Wisconsin Power and Light Co. (WPL), a subsidiary of Alliant Energy Corporation. Dane County

Bill Rakocy, Wind developer, parter and founding member of Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, LLC, WASHINGTON COUNTY

Emerging Energies is developing the Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County. The five hundred foot tall turbines, made by German company, Nordex, will be the largest in the state.

UPDATE: We received an email from a Manitowoc County resident who tells us...

"Bill Rakocy with Emerging Energies also has land signed up in the Mishicot area.  This is a 7 turbine project that was stopped in court with the use of the Manitowoc Co. wind ordnance.   Manitowoc Co. gave them the permits under the old ordinance, but was reversed in court.  Land is still under contract and he will benefit from lesser setbacks that the committee will place in the standards."

We invite Emerging Energies to contact us by CLICKING HERE if this information in inaccurate.

“We’re excited to develop as much wind [power] as we can in Wisconsin,” says partner Bill Rakocy."

“The permitting process is a rather long-term effort,” says Rakocy. “A conditional use permit is good for two years, typically, and it may take you all of that two years to get the balance of the project details put in place. And then there’s production tax credits available from the federal government, and if they expire in the midst of the project, all your work is for naught.”

SOURCE: "Wind Power's Wind Fall" Marketplace Magazine

“For the project, called the Shirley Wind Farm, Nordex will supply cold climate models of the N100s, upgraded to operate in temperatures as low as minus 20° Fahrenheit.  

“We looked very carefully at the N80/N90/N100 Nordex turbines and were convinced by their great track record, along with the quality and experience Nordex brings to the market,” said Bill Rakocy, one of three founders of Emerging Energies.

"We selected the N100s because they accomplish two critical project goals – maximizing available land and wind resources by using the largest, tallest turbines available. We’re excited to introduce them in the US and in Wisconsin.”

The project also represents a shift in the US market toward larger turbines with higher efficiencies and yields. In 2008, the average installed turbine was 1.67 megawatts. Nordex built the first 2.5-megawatt turbine in 2000 and has the longest track record for reliability in the multi-megawatt class, with over 1,000 installed worldwide.

SOURCE: Nordex Press Release

One town representative:

Doug Zweizig,  P&Z Commissioner, Union Township, Professor Emeritus, School of Library and Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Served as acting Chairman of the Town of Union P&Z commission during the development of a large wind ordinance. Rock County

"When asked about health and safety effects of wind turbines, EcoEnergy (the company proposing to locate wind turbines in our township) as well as our local utility simply have denied that there are any concerns, using statements such as “The noise from wind turbines is about the same as a refrigerator running in the room. “ or “The noise from wind turbines is masked by the sound of the wind  blowing.”

These often-repeated statements are demonstrably false and would be laughable if they weren’t so disrespectful of the people suffering from sleep deprivation and other chronic health effects resulting from bad placement of wind turbines in Wisconsin. If they believe what they’re saying, they can’t have listened to their own turbines.

They are counting on the ignorance of landowners, editorial writers, and, frankly, legislators to allow them to make such deceitful claims. (Yet, while denying any adverse effects from placement of wind turbines, EcoEnergy uses the word “mitigation” a lot—betraying their recognition of the need to counteract the effects of wind turbines on humans in their vicinity.)"

SOURCE: Submitted testimony, public hearing before the Senate and Assembly Energy Committee regarding turbine siting reform, May 12, 2009

 One county representative:

Lloyd Lueschow, Green County Board Supervisor, District 28, Village of New Glarus trustee, Green County

Former Director, Integrated Science Services, Wisconsin DNR,

Two energy industry representatives:

Andy Hesselbach, Wind project manager, We Energies, managed Blue Sky/Green Field project in Fond du Lac County, project manager for recently approved Glacier Hills project in Columbia county. BS in Industrial Engineering, MBA.

"Hesselbach said he's concerned about proposals to move turbines farther from people's homes, given the need for Wisconsin to add more renewable power to comply with the state's renewable portfolio standard.

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."

"Winds of Change are Blowing" Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 24th 2009

 CLICK on the image below to watch Andy Hesselbach in a news segment about Fond du Lac County wind projects.

Dan Ebert, WPPI Energy; Vice President of Policy and External Affairs, Former Chairman of Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 2005-2008, former executive assistant to PSC Chair Bernie Bridge.  Transition Personnel Director for Governor Doyle 2002.  

Dan Ebert, who chaired the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin for three years between 2005 and 2008, oversees the legislative and regulatory affairs, corporate communicaton and policy development functions for WPPI which serves 49 municipalities and one electric cooperative in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Upper Michigan.

Ebert was appointed to the chairmanship of the PSC in 2005 by Governor Doyle, having been executive assistant at the commission. Current PSC chairman, Eric Callisto, was appointed in 2008 after Ebert vacated his seat. Prior to being a appointed, Callisto had also been executive assistant at the PSC.

Source: New Glarus Utilities, newglarusutilities.com February 2009

Two environmental group representatives:

Michael Vickerman , Executive Director, RENEW Wisconsin, registered lobbyist. RENEW'S "Terawatt Sponsors: include Alliant Energy, American Transmission Company (ATC), Madison Gas & Electric, WE Energies. RENEW also recieves money from Wind developers EcoEnergy, enXco, Horizon Wind Energy, Invenergy LLC, Emerging Energies LLC [SOURCE]

“You can’t stop a project in Wisconsin based on the appearance of these turbines,” [Vickerman] says, “so over the past seven years the opposition has refined its arguments and framed them in the realm of protecting public health and safety.

Here, as far as I’m concerned, is where they reveal their antiwind bias. They allege that they can’t sleep, they suffer from nausea—they express their discomfort in the most hysterical terms, and I think they basically work themselves into a very visceral hatred for wind.

I don’t even know if they have a philosophical objection to wind. They’re maybe congenitally unhappy people and they needed to project their fears and anxieties and resentments onto something new that comes into the neighborhood and disrupts things.”

The Chicago Reader: "There Will Be Wind" May 14, 2009

Ryan Schryver , Global Warming Specialist, Organizer, Advocate: Clean Wisconsin, Madison, Dane County

Click on the image below to hear Ryan Schryver speak about global warming, weather changes in Wisconsin, and the over-use of dirty coal in our state.

Two realtor representatives:

George Krause Jr. Real estate broker: Choice Residential LLC, Manitowoc County. Lifelong resident of the Port Cities area in Manitowoc County, Realtor in Manitowoc area since 1989, he was voted Realtor of the Year by the Manitowoc County Board of REALTORS® Inc. in 2009
 

Tom Meyer, Realtor, Broker, Restaino & Associates, Middleton, Dane County

Tom Meyer has been a realtor since 1989 and a broker since 1993. P resently
Managing Broker for the Middleton office of Restaino & Associates

Click on the image below to watch Tom Meyer speak about real estate issues or CLICK HERE to watch it at its source

Two landowners living adjacent to or in the vicinity of a wind energy system:

Dwight Sattler Landowner, retired diary farmer, Malone, We Energies Blue Sky/Green Field project Fond du Lac County    

Click on the image below to watch a video of Dwight Sattler

Larry Wunsch, Landowner, fire-fighter, Brownsville, Invenergy Forward Energy wind project, Fond du Lac County

Click on the image below to watch a video of Larry Wunsch

"I have a wind turbine located 1100’ from my home and I can almost see all 86 turbines in the project from my back yard. There will be a lot of testimony today stating that there are no ill effects coming from wind turbines. I am here today to tell you that those statements are nothing but lies.

When the PSC permitted project first came to our Town, we had a lot of questions and concerns.  We asked about noise and were told that they make very little noise.  Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many days where the turbine next to me sounds like a jet engine idling on a taxi-way. There have been many nights where I laid awake from noise generated from these wind turbines.

Think about it. This is a huge, high torque generating device fastened to a 300 foot hollow steel tube mounted to an immense concrete foundation, and you are telling me that this device will not make noise. I am not a sound engineer so I can’t ague sound decibel levels. All I can say is that there are times that these turbines are so noisy that they almost drive me out of my home."

 SOURCE: Public testimony given at a public hearing before the Senate and Assembly Energy Committee regarding turbine siting reform, May 12, 2009 

Click on the image below to watch a video created by Larry Wunsh and submitted as part of his testimony

 Two public members:

David Gilles, attorney specializing in energy regulatory law, shareholder, Godfrey & Kahn Attorneys at Law, former general counsel to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 2003-2007, former Assistant Attorney General during Jim Doyle's term as Attorney General, Madison, Dane County.   

Jennifer Heinzen, Wind Energy Technology Instructor, Lakeshore Technical College, President of RENEW Wisconsin, Manitowoc County

Manitowoc County Wind Energy Systems Advisory Committee from 2005-2006

"I have spent many hours on and underneath wind turbines of all sizes, and have never felt sick. Nor have any of the systems’ owners/hosts that I’ve met. What makes me sick is the profound hatred these near-sided, selfish, wind opponents have towards change and progress."

Source: Letter from Heinzen to the Editor of Isthmus, Posted on RENEW Website September 29, 2009

"Please believe our intent is in no way to belittle local communities or imply that anyone is “dumb,” as you stated in the article. But when irrational and unfounded fears are propagated and allowed to infest the minds of our local decision-makers, the madness must be stopped. I honestly don’t understand why the WINDCOWS and their allies hate wind power… Money? Aesthetics? I quit trying to rationalize it long ago because it really doesn’t matter.

State Statute 66.0401 outlines local governments’ authority to restrict wind and solar energy systems. Those opposed to a project must prove legitimate health and safety concerns. That’s hard to do, considering no civilian has ever been physically harmed by a wind turbine. Therefore, anecdotal tales of “wind turbine syndrome” run rampant on anti-wind websites, but the “evidence” is nothing more than a conglomeration of exaggerations, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications.

SOURCE: Letter from Heinzen to Representative Bob Ziegelbauer, January 27 2009, posted on RENEW website

One University of Wisconsin System faculty member with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems:

Jevon McFadden,MD, MPH Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin, School of Medicine & Public Health 

 2009 Senior Assistant Resident and graduate of Johns Hopkins Bayview Internal Medicine Residency Program; Epidemiology Intelligence Service, 2009 Lieutenant, U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, 1998 Andrews University Student Missionary to Micronisian Island of Yap

 The PSC appoints the members for three−year terms.

The PSC is required to obtain the advice of the council in promulgating rules under the substitute amendment. In addition, the council must survey peer−reviewed scientific research on the health impacts of wind energy as well as national and state regulatory developments regarding the siting of wind energy systems, and submit a report to the legislature every five years describing the research and developments and recommending legislation based on the research and developments.

GRIM NEWS ABOUT BATS, BIRDS and TURBINES

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

BAD NEWS ABOUT WISCONSIN BATS, BIRDS and TURBINES 

The high fatality numbers reported in the post construction bird and bat mortality study for Blue Sky/Green Field project in Fond du Lac county have surprised everyone who has seen them.

The report shows that the number of kills in the We Energies project are the highest ever recorded in the Midwest, by as much as ten times the national average.

As far as we can tell, there is no one on the council who has expertise specific to these wildlife and habitat concerns. If you are as disturbed by this as we are, why not contact the PSC and let them know you'd feel better if there was someone on the council who could represent our state's birds and bats and habitat.  

CLICK HERE to download the WEPCO final bird and bat mortality study for Blue Sky/Green Field 

It is also available on Blue Sky/Green Field docket on the the PSC website

Click on the image below to watch a video about the turbines alongside the Horicon Marsh in Fond du Lac County. There is talk of putting turbines even closer to the marsh during Phase Two of hte project.

UPDATE: We have been told that siting council member and Green County supervisor Lloyd Lueschow is a retired biologist and was formerly employed by Wisconsin DNR. 

 Agenda for Monday's meeting:

1) Greetings:

 Overview of process and expectations, time line

 Introduction of Commission staff working with Council

 Open meeting requirements

 Administration of Oath

2) Self-introductions by members of Wind Siting Council

3) Election of officers: Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary

4) Administrative:

 Reimbursement of expenses

 Schedule of Future Meetings

 Designated substitutes

 Instructions regarding use/enrolling in Electronic Regulatory Filing System (ERF)

 Overview of rule-making process and additional Act 40 requirements

5) Review of Draft Rules Outline/topics

 Explain how developed

 Topics/items that are unclear

 Topics/items not in outline which council recommends for inclusion

6) Discussion of how to proceed with future work

7) Next steps/Adjourn

This meeting is open to the public.

Background:

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN STATEMENT OF SCOPE

Wind Siting Rules

SOURCE: PSC Docket 1-AC-231

A. Objective of the Rule:

2009 Wisconsin Act 40 (Act 40) establishes statewide criteria for the installation or use of a wind energy system with a nominal operating capacity of less than 100 megawatts, and helps ensure consistent local procedures for such systems.

Act 40 requires the Commission to promulgate a variety of rules that specify the conditions a city, village, town, or county (political subdivision) may impose on such a system. If a political subdivision chooses to regulate such systems, its ordinances may not be more restrictive than the Commission’s rules.

B. Existing Relevant Policies, New Policies Proposed, and Analysis of Alternatives:

Act 40 identifies several areas that these rules must cover and several areas that they may cover.

It requires that the rules include provisions dealing with the decommissioning of wind energy systems, including restoration of the site, and setback requirements that reasonably protect against health effects that are associated with wind energy systems.

Act 40 also requires rules that specify the information and documentation to be provided in an application for approval, the procedure to be followed by a political subdivision in reviewing the application, the information and documentation to be kept in a political subdivision’s record of its decision, as well as the requirements and procedures for enforcing restrictions included in the rule.

The rules must also require the owner of a wind energy system with a nominal operating capacity of at least one megawatt to maintain proof of financial responsibility ensuring the availability of funds for decommissioning the system.

The rules may also include provisions dealing with issues such as visual appearance, electrical connections to the power grid, interference with radio, telephone or television signals, maximum audible sound levels, and lighting.

Currently, an electric generating facility with a nominal operating capacity of 100 megawatts or more may not be constructed unless the Commission grants a certificate of public convenience and necessity.

Act 40 requires the Commission to consider the restrictions specified in these rules when determining whether to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The rules may also require the Commission to consider the conditions specified in these rules when
determining whether to grant a public utility a certificate of authority for a wind farm smaller than 100 megawatts.

Act 40 also creates a 15-person Wind Siting Council that will, among other things, advise the Commission in the drafting of these rules.

C. Summary and Comparison of Federal Regulation in This Area:

There are a number of federal laws that interact with the issues in this rulemaking, although the Commission is not aware of any that deal with the substance of them; that is, the minimum requirements that a political subdivision may impose.

A few of the federal laws that may inter-relate include the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 4321 et. seq., the Endangered Species Act, 16 USC 1531–1544, and 14 CFR Pt. 77, which requires a Federal Aviation Administration airspace study before constructing certain types of projects.

D. Statutory Authority: 

This rule is authorized under ss. 196.02 (1) and (3), 227.11 and newly-created s. 196.378 (4g), Stats.

E. Time Estimates for Rule Development:

The Commission estimates that approximately 800 hours of Commission staff time will be required in this rulemaking.

F. Entities That May Be Affected:

Affected entities include cities; villages; towns; counties; persons and entities that own, want to construct, or want to host wind energy systems; and landowners near such proposed wind energy systems.