Entries in wind (3)

10/22/11 Wisconsin Wind Siting Issues Continue

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The newest wind turbines in our state are 500 feet tall. The reporter was in error when he gave the height as 'up to 300 feet'.

WIND POWER AMENDMENT SHOT DOWN

SOURCE: Cap Times

By Mike Ivey

October 21, 2011

An effort to push forward with new rules for siting wind towers in Wisconsin has failed.

On a largely party-line 60-30 vote, the Republican-controlled Assembly on Thursday voted down an amendment  that would have cleared the way for an expansion of wind generated electricity here.

The rules for siting of wind turbines were approved by the state Public Service Commission under former Gov. Jim Doyle. But implementation of those rules has been suspended under a directive from Gov. Scott Walker.

Walker and others, including Rep. Frank Lasee, R-Ledgeview, have said the rules should be reviewed again, with more consideration given to those living near wind farms. Some residents have complained of noise and visual impacts from wind turbines, which can be up to 300 feet tall.

Rep. Gary Hebl, D-Sun Prairie, had co-sponsored the wind amendment that was attached to a bill that allowed for larger trucks on Wisconsin highways, including trucks that carry equipment for electric transmission lines.

In a statement, Hebl said it was ironic that the wind amendment was shot down just as new figures showed Wisconsin lost more jobs in September.

"On a day when we learned Wisconsin lost 12,400 jobs last month, it is unacceptable that Republicans would reject a Democratic amendment that would have helped create hundreds or possibly thousands of jobs in wind energy," he said.

The bill and proposed amendent are available here.

Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 07:24AM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd in , , | Comments Off

6/2/10 Wind siting council finally discusses setbacks and immediately gets pushback from Rep. Soletski of Green Bay who does not like what he is seeing.

Wind council adds variables to turbine debate

SOURCE: The Daily Reporter

June 2, 2010

By Paul Snyder

A Wisconsin lawmaker has some advice for the council charged with developing rules for small wind farms: Keep things simple.

Members of the state’s Wind Siting Council on Wednesday said noise and shadow flicker limits need to be considered to help determine how far wind turbines should be placed from residences. But State Rep. Jim Soletski, D-Green Bay, chairman of the Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities, said trying to determine turbine setback distances by incorporating decibel standards for noise and hour limits for shadow flicker presents too many variables for statewide rules.

“The more variables you throw in,” he said, “the less likely you’ll have wind power in Wisconsin.”

Still, Dan Ebert, the Wind Siting Council’s chairman, said after presentations on noise and setback distances that the council could focus on factors besides distance measurements from residences or property lines.

“I do believe there is a compromise and consensus that can be reached,” he said.

Other members said the council will have to establish a setback distance before it gives its final recommendation to the state Public Service Commission. That recommendation is expected this summer.

“We’re going to have to have a number,” said Larry Wunsch, a Brownsville landowner. “I don’t want to leave that open.”

But Wunsch said the council needs to have more discussion about issues relating to noise, shadow flicker and real estate effects of turbine development before determining an appropriate distance.

Nevertheless, Wunsch suggested a setback distance of 2,500 feet from property lines.

Tom Meyer, a Realtor with Madison-based Restaino & Associates Inc., also suggested a setback distance of up to 2,600 feet from property lines.

But anything more than 1,000 feet would be excessive, Soletski said, and leave too little room for developers to build wind farms.

The council’s discussion Wednesday was the first of what could be many debates in determining an appropriate setback distance, Ebert said.

The council was formed by state law passed last session that mandated the state provide turbine placement standards for wind farms that generate less than 100 megawatts of electricity.

Wind farms that generate more than 100 megawatts are subject to PSC approval, but until the new law passed, local governments had control over turbine placement standards for any projects generating up to 99 megawatts of electricity.

Trying to determine placement standards on sound and shadow flicker setback leaves too much room for ambiguity, Soletski said.

“I think we just need a distance,” he said. “Otherwise what’s the purpose of having the council?”



Posted on Wednesday, June 2, 2010 at 09:40PM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd in , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

4/2/10 DOUBLE FEATURE: Wisconsin family driven from home by wind turbine noise takes it to court AND Couldn't make it to the April 1, 2010 Wind Siting Council Meeting? Watch it here!

Click on the image above to hear what wind turbines sound like in the Invenergy Forward Energy Project in Fond du lac and Dodge Counties
NOISE COMPLAINTS GENERATE WIND FARM FEARS

SOURCE: The Daily Reporter

April  2, 2010 by Paul Snyder in The Daily Reporter

A family's noise complaint against Invenergy LLC and its Forward Energy Wind Center in Brownsville is spooking wind farm developers trying to do business in the state.

"I think it would have a devastating effect in Wisconsin," said Jim Naleid, managing director of Holmen-based AgWind Energy Partners LLC. "People are already avoiding the state because of the political trouble you can face getting a wind farm approved, and now this could just deter them further."

In a complaint filed with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Ann and Jason Wirtz argue the 86-turbine Forward Energy Wind Center cost them their home and their alpaca-breeding business and created health problems for the family. The project went online in 2008.

The Wirtzes want the PSC to require Invenergy compensate them for their losses, although the complaint does not specify how much the family wants.

"They couldn't stand to live there anymore," said Edward Marion, the Madison attorney representing the Wirtzes, who moved from Brownsville to nearby Oakfield in 2009.

"And the PSC has a lot more evidence now about noise standards and county ordinances than it did when it approved this project."

The Wirtzes, in their complaint, claim their daughter Megan developed serious stomach and intestinal problems as well as chronic fatigue and headaches as a result of the noise. According to the complaint, two baby alpacas were aborted and one was stillborn after the wind farm went online.

John Shenot, PSC policy adviser, said Friday the commission's attorneys are reviewing the complaint and determining the next step.

Chicago-based Invenergy will not comment specifically on the complaint, said Joe Condo, the company's vice president and general counsel. But he said forcing companies to pay damages years late could threaten future projects.

"If it's decided in the face of studies showing no link between the sounds produced by a wind farm and a person's health that developers nonetheless have to compensate owners, then, yeah, of course it would be a problem for developers," Condo said. "It also flies in the face of what the state and nation are trying to do in developing the renewable industry."

Condo referred to a 2009 study commissioned by the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations that concluded sounds from wind turbines cannot produce adverse physical or health effects.

Marion said he does not know of any other cases in which property owners filed complaints against a wind farm developer after the project began operating. But with more wind farm projects going up in Wisconsin, he said, landowners are more aggressive in protecting their property.

"This is the first of what may be more," Marion said of the Wirtzes' complaint.

That is exactly what scares Naleid and other developers, Naleid said. He said developers cannot be expected to pitch new projects if they must live in fear of penalties years after project approval.

Yet Naleid agreed the Wirtzes' complaint could be the first of many.

"Then what kind of thoughts do you have about developing any kind of power, whether it's coal-fired, nuclear, solar?" he said. "If the plan is approved but you can still be sued later, why would anyone want to?"

Web link: http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2010/04/02/landowner...

  

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Better Plan will be uploading video the entire April 1, 2010 WSC meeting to YouTube in ten minute segments over the next few days.

CLICK HERE to find the links

Posted on Friday, April 2, 2010 at 01:11PM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd in , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off