NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Why are more bats being killed in Wisconsin wind projects than anywhere else in the nation? Three recent post construction mortality studies show turbine related kill numbers in our state to be ten times the national average. They are even higher than those mentioned in the article below.

 

Bird, bat deaths prompt call for St. Lawrence Valley wind moratorium.

SOURCE North Country Public Radio, www.northcountrypublicradio.org

August 6  2010

Save the River, an environmental group based in Clayton, NY, wants a three-year delay in development of more wind power along the St. Lawrence River.

A spokesperson for the group says there are proposals for some 400 wind turbines in the Thousand Island region. Preliminary numbers from a study at an 86-turbine wind farm on Wolfe Island, a Canadian island near Kingston, Ontario, show higher than usual mortality among birds and bats. Martha Foley has more.

An environmental group is calling for a three-year moratorium on building more wind turbines in the St Lawrence Valley. Save The River points to recently released data indicating the 86-turbine wind farm on Wolfe Island caused more than a 1800 bird and bat deaths in six months.

The group’s assistant director Stephanie Weiss says that’s more than double the national average. “When we’re comparing these numbers, we’re talking about how many birds are dying in a 12-month period. The national average might be 2 or 3 or even as high as 4. But the numbers we’re seeing out of Wolfe Island are 8 birds per turbine, in a six-month period,” Weiss said.

Wolfe Island is Canadian territory. In Canada, the province decides where wind farms can be built. In New York State, it’s up to local town governments. Weiss says a moratorium would give them time to find out why avian mortality rates are so high on Wolfe Island. It’s the only wind farm on the St Lawrence River and it’s six months into a three-year study on bird and bat deaths caused by turbines.

“There are a lot of reasons why this could happen. Wolfe Island itself is an important bird area, designated by Nature Canada. It’s a part of the fly way, which is really important. We know there’s some really essential grassland habitat here. We know it’s incredibly important over-wintering raptor area,” said Weiss.

Weiss says once a wind farm is built, environmental damage is hard to undue. She says 400 wind turbines have been proposed in the Thousand Islands. And a thorough study at Wolfe Island will help local officials make the best decisions about if, and where, they should be built. “We can’t just guess at what kind of bird and bat mortality we would have. The three years are essential. I don’t think it’s too long. The wind will still be there,” Weiss said.



FOUR NEWS STORIES ABOUT YESTERDAY'S WIND SITING HEARINGS:

PUBLIC VOICES CONCERNS ON WIND SITING RULES

SOURCE:  Bob Nelson-KFIZ,Wisconsin Radio Network, www.wrn.com 29 June 2010Bob Nelson-KFIZ,Wisconsin Radio Network, www.wrn.com  June 29 2010

Landowners, engineers, wind energy advocates, elected officials and others turned out for two public hearings in Fond du Lac Monday on proposed uniform wind siting regulations. Among the speakers was Michael Hutter of Michels Corporation, which has worked on wind farm projects in Calumet, Columbia, Dodge, and Fond du Lac counties. His company believes uniform regulations will “facilitate the responsible development and construction projects in Wisconsin.”

Barnaby Dinges, a member of the American Wind Energy Association, is concerned the rules may be too restrictive and counterproductive to rural development.

The rights of landowners were raised including use of eminent domain. “It is just plain immoral for you to allow this plundering and endangerment of Wisconsin for the greedy gain of a few.” These concerns were echoed by a Town of Wrightstown Supervisor, “Grown men will have tears in their eyes as they sense in effect the taking of their property without due process,” said Jesse Juedes.

The state’s Public Service Commission will use information from the hearings and other public comment before making a final determination on the regulations. The PSC will hold two public hearings in Tomah today and two more in Madison tomorrow.

SECOND STORY:

WIND FARM SITING HEARINGS A BIG DRAW

SOURCE Beaver Dam Daily Citizen, www.wiscnews.com

June 29, 2010

By MEGAN SHERIDAN, Staff Reporter,

FOND DU LAC – Monday was the first day of three in Wisconsin that allowed for the public to make statements to the Public Service Commission regarding rules for the siting of wind farms throughout the state.

Fond du Lac City Hall hosted the first round of open hearings at 1 and 6 p.m. The siting rules pertain to the of turbines and will cover issues from resident’s health and safety to developer requirements. The rules are required through Act 40, created in October 2009.

“We are not here today because of some fantastic new technology that has been developed to produce cheap electricity,” said Jarret Treu of Morrison in Brown County. “We are not here today because of the free market. We are here today because of government fiat and misleading propaganda.”

Treu said wind farms, of which there are nine in the state producing a total of 449 megawatts of electricity on average, will never be able to support the entire state with electricity.

“Wind power can never be the backbone of any modern electrical grid or replace thermo generation plants in any large number,” Treu said. “Wind power fails in fulfilling the two main needs of a modern electrical system. It fails in providing both a continuous base load 24/7 stream of electricity and it can’t be ramped up or down to meet demand.”

Others criticized the lack of protection for Wisconsin citizens from wind farm corporations.

“We want you to stand up and protect the citizens of Wisconsin against big wind industry companies coming here and harming us instead of acting in such a way as to protect wind companies from Wisconsin citizens trying to protect themselves,” said Barbara Vanden Boogart, another Brown County resident.

Industry in general was a concern on many fronts for people speaking to the commission.

“We’re going to wipe out the dairy industry and hurt people,” said Jerome Hlinak, a town of Carlton resident. “Government has to screw up before they fix the problem.”

Hlinak raised the concern of stray voltage from the turbines, stating that such an issue can kill livestock and had taken a number of his cows.

The proposed rules in the siting of wind energy systems would require testing before and after completion of the turbines to determine if stray voltage is present due to the turbines.

Mark Hutter, Vice president of the Michaels Corp. based in Brownsville, said through his knowledge of constructing turbines that he supports a statewide siting rule and that built properly, turbines would not cause stray voltage.

“A properly constructed wind energy project will not produce stray voltage in a rural setting as is common around projects in Wisconsin. The more likely source of stray voltage is from the adjacent properties themselves,” Hutter said.

There were some that lauded the wind farm industry stating that it brings money and jobs into Wisconsin.

“Michaels has 4,000 employees many of whom live in Wisconsin or work across North America,” Hutter said. “We have constructed 3,350 megawatts of wind energy projects in 12 states. Michaels Corporation is in favor of energy independence. We believe this proposed rule will facilitate the responsible development and construction of wind energy projects in Wisconsin.”

Elizabeth Ebertz, a Fond du Lac county woman shared her personal experience of living within the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm. She said she heard a constant hum as if an airplane was constantly flying over the house causing her to lose sleep. Her son also spent a few nights at the home finding the same problem.

“It’s not just me, my whole family is affected,” Ebertz said. “I just want my life back and some sleep.”

The remaining public hearings will be held today at 1 and 6 p.m. at the Holiday Inn 1017 E. McCoy Boulevard in Tomah and Wednesday at 1 and 6 p.m. at 610 N. Whitney Way in Madison.

The PSC is also taking written statements either at the public hearings or online at psc.wi.gov/apps/dockets/comment.aspx docket number 1-AC-231.

Both spoken and written statements hold the same amount of weight to the commission. Written comments will be accepted until noon on July 7. The proposed rules will then be finalized over the summer and sent to the Wisconsin Senate and Assembly where they will be discussed in two separate committees before they become rules.

To view the proposed rules, visit psc.wi.gov/apps/erf_share/view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=131628.

THIRD STORY:

HEARING ON WIND SITING DRAWS A CROWD

SOURCE: Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com

June 29, 2010

By Colleen Kottke,

They came from near and far, packing Legislative Chambers at the City County Government Center in Fond du Lac Monday to voice their opinions about proposed wind farm siting rules to be crafted by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

The proposed rules would ultimately result in uniform wind farm siting standards for local units of government, replacing a patchwork of different rules and moratoriums that have been imposed by counties and towns around the state in relation to small wind power projects.

The public hearings, scheduled around the state this week, were launched by the state Legislature after it passed a uniform siting law in October.

Using citizen input, the PSC will draft legislation touching on controversial issues such as maximum sound levels and setback requirements. Once passed, municipalities considering ordinances for wind farms would not be allowed to make their local ordinance more restrictive than the state model.

Act 40 requires the PSC to conduct the rulemaking with the advice of the Wind Siting Council, an advisory body. The PSC is expected to announce the new guidelines by July.

“Right now the proposed rules are just a draft; that’s why the public comments are very important. There are a lot of interested parties and we want to make sure this is a balanced process,” said Deborah Erwin, renewable energy policy analyst for the PSC.

Energy slacker

Barnaby Dinges, owner of a public relations firm and member of the American Wind Energy Association, warned that more restrictive rules for siting wind farms would further harm the state’s quest to build its alternative energy portfolio.

“Wisconsin is already an energy slacker. We’re the only Midwest state that doesn’t currently have a major wind energy project under construction,” Dinges said. “New restrictions will make the state even less desirable for development of wind projects.”

He pointed out that the Wisconsin PSC already has a rigorous wind farm approval process in place for wind farms over 100 mega watts.

“New regulations will only make it more extremely unlikely that Wisconsin will come anywhere close to meeting its legislative goal of reaching 10 percent of renewable energy by 2015. It’s currently less than 5 percent,” Dinges said. “The unnecessary costs and uncertainties of proposed harsh new restrictions on turbine setbacks, sound levels and shadow flicker will create too much risk for developers, who will likely build elsewhere.”

Green jobs

In an industry that has felt the soft economy the most, jobs stemming from the construction of wind farms are welcomed by members of the union Travis Martzahl represents.

“Without the legislators setting up reasonable local regulations, it’s our fear that these construction jobs would be lost to our neighbors in Iowa and Minnesota. Keeping jobs here is vital to our membership of International Union of Operating Engineers Local 139, which represents thousands of workers,” Martzahl said.

Without the uniform rules in place, Martzahl fears that townships and counties would work to block development of wind farms.

“While building wind farms isn’t as good of work as building coal-fired plants, it’s still good paying work that supports families,” Martzahl said.

Michels Corporation of Brownsville has profited from the green energy boom, constructing more than 3,350 megawatts of wind energy projects in 12 states, including work on the Forward Wind Energy Center and the Blue Sky Green Field projects in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties.

“We believe the proposed rule will facilitate responsible construction of wind energy projects in Wisconsin. If the state is mandating that renewable energy be part of the energy mix…then it’s important to get this rule right,” said Mark Hutter, vice president at Michels Corporation.

Ledge Wind opponents

Many of those in attendance at the hearing in Fond du Lac hailed from the four townships in Brown County where citizen groups are rallying against Invenergy’s proposed 100-turbine Ledge Wind Energy Project. The project is spread across four townships, including Morrison, Wrightstown, Glenmore and Holland.

Wrightstown Supervisor Ronald Diny said town officials have worked together diligently to craft an ordinance to protect citizens.

“There is no effective process in (Act 40) to ensure proper installation and operation of wind turbines after the approval process. (Currently) when towns recognize potential problems, they can act and stop a bad project,” Diny said.

“On one hand, standard state rules will help, but they also set the stage for some bad projects since the (proposed) requirements to stop a bad project before construction are more restrictive and complicated,” Diny added.

Former dairy farmer Jerome Hlinak of Two Rivers said the PSC is slow to react when problems arise from utility projects. By wresting the control away from the local level, Hlinak said the PSC is taking away the municipalities’ rights to protect its citizens.

“There are problems at the national and state level, and even at the local level. But at least at the town level we can fix things quickly because it’s a neighbor. Here, nobody listens,” Hlinak said.

Want my life back

Barbara VandenBoogart and her husband searched for years to find a home in the rolling hills near Greenleaf in Brown County. Today, they spend their time and money speaking out against the Ledge Wind Energy Project.

“Everyone tells us that you’re (PSC) the one that will make a difference because you’re the ones that make the rules. We want you to stand up and protect the citizens of Wisconsin against big wind industry companies coming here and harming us, instead of acting in a way to protect those companies from us who are trying to protect ourselves,” VandenBoogart said.

While VandenBoogart can only imagine the impact a wind farm would have on her life, Fond du Lac County resident Elizabeth Ewerdt has lived with the reality of wind turbines towering over her home for the past few years. The noise from the turning blades from the We Energy turbines has robbed her of countless nights of sleep, she said.

“Can’t we hold these companies somewhat responsible for what they have taken from us?” she testified. “I don’t want any money. I just want my life back.”

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

WHO ARE YOU, BARNABY DINGES?

Now don't us tell a FIB!

Dinges, who calls Wisconsin an "Energy Slacker" in the previous article lives in Illinois and is running for mayor of  Evanston, a city located just north of Chicago on Lake Michigan.

 He runs a Public Relations firm called "The Dinges Gang" and has been hired by wind developer giant, Invenergy, to smooth the way for the Ledge wind project in Brown County.

From "THE DINGES GANG" website: "If your company, group or government agency is facing a challenging issue or project, call in The Dinges Gang."

Who else does the "Dinges Gang" represent?

• Abbott Laboratories
• Chicago Bears
• The Chicago Network
• CMGI
• Chicago Park District
• Draper and Kramer
• Illinois Department of Transportation
• Illinois Department of Public Aid
• Illinois Sports Facilities Authority
• Kraft Foods
• PLS Landscape Architects

Public Relations Team Projects for...

• ComEd
• DTE Energy
• Gateway 2000
• Ghirardelli Chocolate
• Illinois Casino Gaming Association
• Jim Beam
• Lernout & Hauspie Speech Recognition Products
• Monsanto
• Sears
• Starkist
• Trizec Hahn Properties

WHAT HAS THE DINGES GANG DONE FOR WISCONSIN?

From the DINGES GANG website:

 ADVOCACY

Case Study: Forward Energy Windmill Farm

 

Generating Green Energy and Public Support

Invenergy developed plans to build Wisconsin’s largest wind farm, a 200-MW project within miles of the Horicon Marsh, a migratory destination for millions of birds and the area’s largest tourist attraction. The wind farm would provide enough power for 70,000 homes and help Wisconsin reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

The Challenge

In a classic case of NIMBY obstructionism, a local group used $50,000 in public funding to organize a group to oppose the project and encourage the Public Service Commission to vote against the project. The opposition group, Horicon Marsh System Advocates, created an opposition web site, and used its 300 members to write letters to regulators and media, and to attend public meetings to rail against the project. The opposition group claimed the wind farm would kill birds, destroy the area’s landscape, endanger local pilots, and harm local tourism.

[NOTE FROM THE NERD: The advocacy group he mentions here turned out to be right about wildlife impact. Initial post construction mortality studies show the Forward project turbine related bat deaths are among the highest in north america.

The national figure is about 4 bat kills per turbine per year. In the project advocated by the Dinges Gang the rate is 41.5 bat kills per turbine per year, or over ten times the national average.

In a little more than two years, this project along side the Horicon Marsh is estimated to have killed over 3,500 bats. The bird kill rates for this project are also much higher than the national average]

The Plan

Partnering with local farmers who would host wind turbines on their land, The Dinges Gang educated the group to communicate with local officials and the media.

We placed “Wind Yes!” signs in front of their farmhouses. The group of supporters also included Wisconsin environmental groups and local labor and construction groups.

The Forward Energy team testified at public meetings and emailed letters of support to the Public Service Commission.

Supporters also wrote letters to and conducted interviews with media to underscore the broad benefits of the project (keeps farmers farming, provides $1-million annually in new local taxes for government, creates 250 construction jobs, etc.).

We also refuted each of the opposition’s arguments, showing them to be wild exaggerations and desperate attempts by a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) group to impede progress that will benefit the entire region.

Our Success
On July 8, 2005, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission voted to support the $250-million project, which will erect 133 wind turbines on the Niagara Escarpment, within two miles of the Horicon Marsh.

Here is his profile from evanstonnow.com

About me

My name is Barnaby Dinges. I am a teacher and issue advocate with more than 25 years of experience in politics, public relations, and community activism.

I own a small business in Evanston – The Dinges Gang – an issue advocacy consultancy.

Among my clients is Invenergy, a Chicago wind developer building wind farms throughout Central Illinois.

I am an adjunct professor of marketing at Columbia College in downtown Chicago.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE BELOW TO WATCH A VIDEO ABOUT THE INVENERGY WIND PROJECT ALONGSIDE THE HORICON MARSH

 

FOURTH STORY

ELECTRIC DEBATE ABOUT WIND TURBINES BEFORE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

SOURCE: www.fox11online.com

June 28 2010

Ryan Dietz,

FOND DU LAC – Dozens spoke their minds before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission on proposed rules on wind turbines in Fond du Lac.

Opinions on the controversial topic varied. Many don’t want wind turbines near their homes, saying their property values will go down and their health will decline.

“Someone who doesn’t sign a contract for those wind turbines shouldn’t have their lifestyle changed,” said Jarret Treu of Morrison.

The Public Service Commission created a draft of the rules last month. From now until July 7, it is asking for public comment on the proposed rules. While some side with the state creating laws, others think municipalities should be in charge of rules.

“The state has taken control over these large impact projects from the towns that our homes reside in and basically negating any unique characteristics of the communities,” said Steve Deslauriers of Holland.

People in favor of the growing wind energy say Wisconsin needs wind power to create jobs and expand renewable energy sources.

“If Wisconsin opts out of this industry, it will be conceding billions in economic benefits to neighboring Midwest states,” said Barnaby Dinges, a wind energy advocate.

The state wants ten percent of all energy produced in Wisconsin to be renewable by 2015. Many believe wind energy doesn’t actually save money. Contractors say people need to realize alternatives.

“Unless people are willing to make a conscious decision that they’re going to use a lot less power, we need that energy from somewhere,” said Mark Hutter, Vice President of Michels Coproration.

The Public Service Commission says it has received an outpouring of public comment on the issue.

“We will be redrafting these rules into a final version and there definitely will be changes so public comments are important,” said Deborah Erwin.

The Public Service Commission expects to finalize the rules by the end of the summer.

For more on the Public Service Commission and the wind turbine rules, click here .

 

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

 

WHAT'S ON THE DOCKET?

Today we're posting recent selected documents from the wind siting council docket beginning with this post from the Town of Mishicot concerning wind siting council member Bill Rakocy.

There have been serious questions raised about the make-up of the council. Of the 15 members, at least eight of them have direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the rules.

From the TOWN OF MISHICOT
Office of the Town Clerk
618 Tisch Mills Road
Mishicot, WI 54228
Phone: 920-776-1597
e-mail address: mishicottown@charter.net

POSTED TO THE DOCKET ON JUNE 28, 2010

To whom it may concern:

At the annual meeting of the Town of Mishicot, on April 13th, 2010, it was brought to the attention of the people in attendance that the appointment of Bill Rakocy of Emerging Energies to the State Wind Siting Council should be terminated due to conflict of interest.

Emerging Energies has land under contract for seven wind turbines in the Town of Mishicot that has been denied by the Manitowoc County Wind Ordinance. By Bill Rakocy's own admission he has stated that he would benefit from a lesser setback on the standards. The standards of the PSC should be created to address health and safety with the back of engineering standards and not personal profit of wind developers.

This letter is sent in response to a majority vote of those in attendance at said annual meeting.

Sincerely,

The Mishicot Town Board

NOTE FROM THE PBWI RESEARCH NERD:

At WSC meetings, Bill Rakocy has been vocal about wanting as few restrictions on his wind development business as possible.

“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 <http://www.marketplacemagazine.com/content/357_1.php>

WHAT ARE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WITH FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE SITING RULES SAYING?

From Wind Siting Council Member Tom Green, Wind Developer, Wind Capitol Group:

"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 <http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/article_d4c01888-2c92-5efe-8e73-136809126a79.html>

From Wind Siting Council Member Andy Hesselbach, wind project developer for WE Energies:

"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."
SOURCE "Winds of  Change are Blowing" Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 24th 2009 <http://www.jsonline.com/business/65911402.html>

From Council member Michael Vickerman, registered lobbyist and Executive director of RENEW Wisconsin

“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.”

SOURCE: The Chicago Reader: "There Will Be Wind" May 14, 2009 <http://www1.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/theseparts09/wisconsin-wind-turbines/>

From council member Jenny Heinzen, President of RENEW Wisconsin

 "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 [sic] selfish, wind opponents have towards change and progress."

Source: Letter from Heinzen to the Editor of Isthmus, Posted on RENEW  Website  September 29, 2009 <http://renewwisconsinblog.org/2009/09/29/isthmus-article-should-have-been-labeled-opinon/>

 

PUBLIC COMMENT FROM A RESIDENT OF THE CEDAR RIDGE WIND PROJECT IN FOND DU LAC COUNTY:

 I live in the middle of Alliant Energy's Cedar Ridge wind farm in Fond Du Lac, WI. I have lived in this location for over 20 years. I feel the turbines were placed to close to mine and my neighbors houses.

I live in a valley and the turbines were placed all around me on the highest hills. So a 400' wind tower now became a 500' tower which seems like they are on top of me standing on my own lawn.

I emailed the town to complain and asked what ordinance the wind mills had to operate under and what was the setback requirements and noise levels they had to abide by. I was told there wasn't an ordinance and therefore no setbacks and noise restrictions.

We never were notified about any town meetings or where the turbines were to be located until after they were approved to be installed. As a result we are paying the price.

The noise and vibrations they make has taken the quiet country my house used to be located in and turned it into an industrial park setting with noise that is never ending.

The vibrations they create get you sick to your stomach and keep us awake at night.

There isn't any quiet get togethers outside on our deck and patio anymore. We have been forced to keep the windows closed and the air conditioner on which increases our electric bill and security.

At certain times of the year the flicker they create turns my family room and bed room into a disco. They have ruined our over the air television and Radio reception with the promise that they would fix the problem.

It has almost been 1 1/2 years now and my over the air antenna still gets no signal when they are turning.

Our property values have been decimated. I have been told that my property is probably unsellable now. We have to put up with all this without any mention of any compensation that I feel Alliant should owe us.

I have called Allient on numerous occasions to complain, but just get a run around. I was told that the wind turbines aren't going anywhere so I just better get used to it!

The turbines should not be placed near homes unless owners of the surrounding land all agree to their placement. They should respect the property line and have the set back from that and not the house.

I feel a 1 mile setback from any inhabited house would eliminate a lot of problems with noise and flicker and TV reception. Please contact me if you would like more comments.

I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
 

Mark Rademann

Town of Eden, Wisconsin

FROM A RESIDENT IN INVENERGY'S PROPOSED LEDGE WIND PROJECT IN BROWN COUNTY

Hello, I am writing about an issue I have with the siting of wind turbine #21.

It is currently drafted as being located about 1.1 times the height or about 500 feet from my property line.

I have been raising alternative livestock (Elk) for the past 11-12 years and I am very concerned for the health, safety and welfare of my animals. With them being in pens and unable to leave the area, there is a great concern how the turbine will affect them.

I have talked with people from the FonDuLac area that have had problems with their animals after the wind turbines in their area started up. One family had all of their Alpaca's abort their young within 1 month of the turbines starting up.

After hearing of different problems with animals and wind turbines, I called and spoke with Invenergy engineer Matt Thornton. I told him of my concerns and asked if they would consider moving the turbine further up the hill and away from my animals.

He said they would be unlikely to move the turbine because their are 3 more of them located over the hill and they didn't want the air flow to affect the other turbines.

Now mind you that those turbines are located 10 rotor diameters (over 2000 feet) upwind and that the wind blows from the Southwest on a very limited time frame.

I asked why they would put that ahead of my animals health and well being, but all he would say is that it is the most effecient design from a wind perspective.

I am a mechanical engineer by trade and have designed many air systems and of all the training I have had has taught me that 3 to 5 duct diameters is usually very adequate to get back to laminar air flow, but yet he feels they would like to have 10 diameters over the health and well fare of my animals.

This response does not sit well with me and I would like the PSC to please consider this case as it makes it's final wind siting rules.

Please consider making the set backs of a minimum of 2000 feet from any property lines, not 1250 feet from a residence. It is my property and my right to raise animals and that right shouldn't be taken from me.

Thank you,

Troy Verheyen

Greenleaf, Wisconsin 

I am commencing a campaign for mayor of Evanston and I will update residents on the progress of the campaign, both here and on my blog at www.dingesgang.com.

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft rules for siting wind turbines in our state. The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes.

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

Residents sue wind companies

SOURCE: michigansthumb.com

HURON COUNTY — Citing a loss of property value and quality of life as a result of the Ubly area Michigan Wind I development, 16 Huron County residents filed a lawsuit earlier this month against the wind project’s various companies.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed May 11 in Huron County Circuit Court against John Deere Renewables, Deere & Company (John Deere), Noble Environmental Power, LLC, Michigan Wind I, LLC (Noble Thumb Windpark I) and RMT, Inc., the plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $25,000 and an injunctive relief ordering the companies to cease and desist their activities.

The defendants and plaintiffs

Plaintiffs listed on the lawsuit are David Peplinski, Marilyn Peplinski, Frank Peplinski, Georgia Peplinski, Terry Peplinski, Christine Peplinski, Curtis Watchowski, Lynda Watchowski, James Czewski, Delphine Czewski, Dennis Mausolf, Darcy Mausolf, Dale Laming, Elaine Laming, Lynn Sweeney, Pam Sweeney, Alger Nowak, Mary Nowak, Randy Weber and Angela Weber.

The majority of the plaintiffs previously filed complaints to the county regarding the Michigan Wind I development. Also, over the past year, many of them have attended county board of commissioners and planning commission meetings about this issue.

Though the complaints have been discussed in numerous meetings, there still is no complaint resolution at the county level — something that’s upset many. County officials, however, have said the board of commissioners soon will have a complaint resolution process in place.

Plaintiffs, during previous meetings, also have asked the county to amend its wind zoning ordinance so others in the future are not negatively affected as they say they have been.

According to records from the Huron County Clerk’s Office, all but four of the plaintiffs were part of a petition submitted in October 2005 that contained 1,846 signatures and asked for a review of the wind overlay zoning amendment, which was adopted by the county in the summer of 2005.

“We are simply trying to protect those people without contracts with the wind companies, those people who will not benefit in any way from the wind turbines — but who will have to live with the turbines for years to come,” said Angela Weber in a press release Residents for Sound Economics and Planning (RSEP) issued when the petition was submitted.

At the time RSEP submitted the petition to Huron County Clerk Peggy Koehler, the group claimed it was not an attempt to stop a wind park from being developed in the Ubly area. Instead, it was intended to create “better and more fair zoning for all citizens of Huron County,” according to a statement the group issued in October 2005. The issue ended up in court, as RSEP sued Koehler in November 2005 because she determined the petitions submitted by the group were inadequate. Circuit Court Judge M. Richard Knoblock ruled in favor of the county clerk.

Noble Environmental Power, LLC then proceeded with the development of Michigan Wind I, which consists of 42 turbines and encapsulates more than 150 parcels owned by 96 different landowners.

The project was sold to John Deere Wind Energy in October 2008, and the park officially went into commercial operation a few months later.

That’s when the plaintiffs state the quality of their life and property values began diminishing.

Count I: Private nuisance

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim they have property rights and privileges with respect to the use and enjoyment of their property, and the defendants interfered with those rights by creating, through the operation of the wind farm, “significant and material intrusions upon the plaintiffs’ property.”

Intrusions detailed in the lawsuit include: • Low frequency noise and subaudible infrasound and/or impulse noise created by and emitted from the wind turbines, which range as close as 1,100 and 1,700 feet away from each plaintiff’s home.

• Sustained and highly disturbing audible noise created by the wind turbines.

• Amplitude modulation in both audible and sub-audible frequency ranges emitted from the turbines.

• A flicker/strobe light effect that covers the plaintiffs’ properties when sunlight passes through the rotating turbine blades.

The lawsuit states the interference and invasions caused by the conduct of the wind energy companies was either intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional and negligent conduct.

“The intrusions caused by the turbines in the wind farm cause plaintiffs actual physical discomforts and would cause such physical discomfort to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” the lawsuit states.

Physical harm and negative health effects listed in the lawsuit included: Inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea, and other physiological and cognitive effects.

The lawsuit notes the symptoms experienced by David and Marilyn Peplinski’s family forced them to rent an apartment away from the wind farm in order to avoid the adverse health effects.

“Despite the conditions caused by the continued operation of the wind farm and the resulting health conditions suffered by the plaintiffs, John Deere, John Deere Renewables and Michigan Wind I continue to operate and/or profit from the wind farm,” the lawsuit states.

Count II: Public nuisance

“Based on the aforementioned allegations, the actions of (the defendants) constitute an unreasonable interference with a common right enjoyed by the general public, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states. “Said actions resulted in the existence or creation of a dangerous condition to plaintiffs and other members of the general public and further resulted in significant harm to plaintiffs.”

In the portion of the lawsuit alleging the local wind park is a public nuisance, the lawsuit states the plaintiffs suffered harm and personal injuries different from the harm suffered by the general public, specifically, the increased harm to their health and well being that resulted from the close proximity of the turbines to their primary residences.

“The actions of (the defendants) further created a nuisance in fact, which was either intentional or negligent, by causing a hazardous or dangerous situation,” the lawsuit states.

Count III: Negligent design of wind farm

The lawsuit claims the wind companies had a duty to use reasonable care in the design and construction of the wind farm, specifically in relation to selecting turbine locations.

That duty was breached by the defendants, the lawsuit claims, because the companies ignored available data regarding the probability of negative health effects associated with placing the turbines in close proximity to the plaintiffs’ homes.

Also, the lawsuit references a noise assessment included in the project’s site plan review application that estimated only audible noise levels within the dBA range, and did not consider low frequency noise or impulse noise.

The lawsuit cites portions of the noise assessment stating, “in general, it is undesirable for any home, particularly that of a non-participant, to be on or inside a 45 dBA contour,” and “the probability of complaints from any project opponent exposed to this project noise level would be extremely high.”

Turbine noise measured at four of the plaintiffs’ homes ranged from 45 to 51 dBA, according to results from a noise study paid for by John Deere last fall that are included in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims the wind companies “negligently, carelessly and recklessly” sited the wind turbines in a way that increased the negative health effects and other damages. Other allegations state the wind companies negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed to construct the turbines at a safe distance from the plaintiffs’ residences, and to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unsafe condition and unreasonable risk of harm.

Count IV: Negligent misrepresentation

The lawsuit claims the wind companies made false representations in board of commissioner and planning commissioner meetings and public hearings when company representatives said the wind farm’s operations would not result in a noise nuisance or cause adverse health effects to adjacent landowners.

“(The defendants) were negligent in making these misrepresentations because, as the parties seeking approval to construct a wind turbine farm in Huron County, they had a duty to use reasonable care to provide Huron County and its citizens with both accurate and complete information,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs claim the wind companies provided inaccurate and/or incomplete information about the audible turbine noise levels, and no information about low frequency noise, infrasound and/or impulse noise emitted from the turbines.

Huron County relied on the information from the wind companies when approving the project, the lawsuit states.

“(The defendants) should have known that the information it supplied to Huron County would directly impact the residents of Huron County, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit adds.

Suit does not name any government entity

According to the Huron County Clerk’s Office, there have been no lawsuits filed against any government entities relating to any Thumb area wind park.

In the lawsuit against the wind companies, the plaintiffs are being represented by Craig W. Horn, of Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner, P.L.C. in Saginaw. Despite numerous attempts, Horn was unavailable for comment as of press time.

Ken Golden, Deere & Company Strategic Public Relations director, on Friday told the Tribune: “By company policy, Deere & Company does not make comment on pending litigation.”

The defendants have 28 days from the May 11 filing date to respond to the complaint, and then a hearing date will be scheduled, according to the Huron County Circuit Court Office.

The lawsuit states the plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.

 

SECOND FEATURE: ANOTHER CHAPTER OF "WIND DEVELOPERS BEHAVING BADLY"

The following is a candid quote from an article in Renewable Energy World Magazine which outlines current difficulties faced by wind developers.

 Wind Farms: Are All the Best Spots Taken?

 “Another problem is that landowners have become increasingly savvy about the value of their property.

Farmers are driving harder bargains with wind developers for purchase or lease of their land.

A decade ago 'nobody knew what a fair price was, but as long it was not a dollar less than the guy down the road, they thought it was fair.

Now with the internet and more awareness of what these terms and conditions are, it has leveled the playing field', said Jim Tynion, a partner with the law firm Foley & Lardner, where he is chair of the Energy Industry Team.”

READ FULL TEXT HERE

Click on the images below to watch wind turbine shadow flicker in the 36 turbine Butler Ridge project in Dodge County, Wisconsin. Each turbine in this video is 400 feet tall. Filmed on the morning of May 4th, 2010 en route to a Wind Siting Council meeting hosted at the home of council member Larry Wusch who lives in the Invenergy Forward Energy project located about twenty miles north of Butler Ridge.

This turbine in this video emitted a high pitched whistle as well as low pulsing jet sounds.

This video shows how long the turbine shadows are, and what shadow flicker looks like when it covers a field, a house and a barn

 

THE NEXT WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING IS CANCELLED FOR 9AM WEDNESDAY MAY 12 2010 AT THE PSC

Public Service Commission Building

610 North Whitney Way

Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: For some, watching a Wind Siting Council Meeting is like watching paint dry. For others it's like watching people toss your future around in their hands. For the BPWI Research Nerd (who is working on a book about the experiences of wind farm residents in our state) it's a front row seat on the creation of siting standards that will either protect the people and avian species of our state, or protect the interests of wind developers, utilities and wind lobbyists.

Will residents of Wisconsin wind projects be heard?

SPOILER ALERT: Because of the composition of the WSC , the Research Nerd predicts the interests of the wind developers, utilities, and wind lobbyists will win out over the protection of the people and bats and birds of rural Wisconsin who will be living with the fallout of wind development.

Unless--- by some miracle---the PSC Horton Hears a Rural Wisconsin Who.

If you'd like to make your voice heard, CLICK HERE to leave a public comment on the Wind Siting Council Docket. What you post will become public record. There is no limit to the number of posts you can make. You are free to post opinion, articles, documents, and video links. Anything that you would like the wind siting council to consider.

It's Better Plan's understanding that though some of the council members do pay attention to the docket, there is no requirement that the council read any of the posts.

WHAT'S ON THE WSC DOCKET TODAY?

This "energy sprawl" of giant turbines and pylons will require far greater amounts of concrete and steel than conventional power plants—figure on anywhere from 870 to 956 cubic feet of concrete per megawatt of electricity and 460 tons of steel (32 times more concrete and 139 times as much steel as a gas-fired plant).

From a review of "Power Hungry" by Robert Bryce  SOURCE: The Wall Street Journal

ON THE WSC DOCKET: Better Plan thanks Curt Hilgenberg and Julie Bixby-Wendt for taking the time to post to the docket.

This Post from Curt Hilgenberg, Town of Holland, Brown County includes an article about wind power By Robert Bryce in the Wall Street Journal. The quote above is from Bruce's book, "Power Hungry", released in April.

March 1, 2010 by Robert Bryce in Wall Street Journal

People living near turbines increasingly report sleep deprivation, headaches and vertigo. The wind lobby says there's no proof

Imagine this scenario: The oil and gas industry launches an aggressive global drilling program with a new type of well. Thousands of these new wells, once operational, emit a noxious odor so offensive that many of the people living within a mile of them are kept awake at night. Some are even forced to move out of their homes. It's easy to predict the reaction: denunciations of the industry, countless lawsuits, and congressional investigations.

Now substitute wind for oil and gas and consider the noise complaints being lodged against wind projects around the world.

The Obama administration has made the increased use of wind power to generate electricity a top priority. In 2009 alone, U.S. wind generation capacity increased by 39%. But more wind power means more giant turbines closer to more people. And if current trends continue, that spells trouble.

In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter's property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. "We tried everything-earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night." Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.

Mr. Porter's story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation.

Dozens of news stories-most of them published in rural newspapers-have documented the problem.

I've spoken to nine other people in New York, Wisconsin, Ontario, New Zealand, Nova Scotia and England who live, or lived, near wind turbines. All complained of the noise, with sleep deprivation being the most common complaint. For example, Janet Warren, who raises sheep near Makara, New Zealand, told me via email that the turbines near her home emit "continuous noise and vibration," which disturb her sleep and are causing "loss of concentration, irritability, and short-term memory effects."

Complaints about sleep disruption-as well as the deleterious health effects caused by the pulsing, low-frequency noise emitted by the giant turbines-are a central element of an emerging citizen backlash against the booming global wind industry.

Lawsuits that focus on noise pollution are now pending in Maine, Pennsylvania and New Zealand. In New Zealand, more than 750 complaints have been lodged against a large wind project near Makara since it began operating last April. The European Platform Against Windfarms lists 388 groups in 20 European countries. Canada has more than two dozen antiwind groups. In the U.S. there are about 100 such groups, and state legislators in Vermont recently introduced a bill that will require wind turbines be located no closer than 1.25 miles from any residence.

In theory, big wind projects should only be built in desolate areas. But the reality is that many turbines are being installed close to homes. Wind developers put a turbine within 550 meters of Mr. Porter's house. Hal Graham, a retired office manager in Cohocton, N.Y., complains about the noise pollution caused by a turbine 300 meters from his home. Tony Moyer, a plumbing superintendent in Eden, Wis., grumbles about the noise generated by three turbines built within 425 meters of his house.

Doctors and acoustics experts from the U.S. to Australia report a raft of symptoms that they blame on wind turbine noise, including sleep disturbance, headaches and vertigo. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., has studied 36 people affected by wind turbine noise since 2004 at her own expense.

The people she interviewed were widely dispersed; they lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland and Italy. She found that the collection of symptoms she calls "wind turbine syndrome" disappeared as soon as people moved out of their noise-affected homes and into new locations at least five miles from any turbines.

Across the border, Ontario-based orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert McMurtry has been researching wind turbine noise for the past 18 months. Dr. McMurtry, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, counts more than 100 people in Ontario he believes are experiencing adverse effects from turbine noise. "It has compromised their health," he says.

The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel."

It declared: "There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects." It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are "too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans."

Yet the report also noted that in "the area of wind turbine health effects, no case-control or cohort studies have been conducted as of this date." True enough-but it means there are no studies to prove or disprove the case. It also says that "a small number of sensitive people" may be "stressed" by wind turbine noise and suffer sleep deprivation. But who gets to define "sensitive" and "small number"? And if turbine noise and sleep disturbance aren't problems, then why are people in so many different locations complaining in almost identical ways? Such questions are only going to be pressed with more urgency in the future.

By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, an eightfold increase over current levels. Installing tens of thousands of new turbines inevitably means they'll be located closer to populated areas.

The health effects of low-frequency noise on humans are not well understood. The noise in question often occurs at, or below, decibel levels that are commonly considered a public nuisance. And detecting low-frequency noise requires sophisticated acoustic gear. For all of these reasons, this issue should be investigated. If policy makers are serious about considering all of the impacts of "green" energy, then an impartial, international study of the effects of wind turbine noise should be undertaken without delay.

Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His fourth book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future," will be published in April by PublicAffairs.

Web link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487042... 

POST TO THE WSC DOCKET FROM

Julie Bixby-Wendt

Greenleaf, Wisconsin

Submitted May 8, 2010

 Below are my comments that I emailed to Fox 11 and other news stations, newspapers and State representatives:

I watched your story about the "Wind Wars" going on in the Town of Morrison. I am a resident of the town and wondered if you are aware that property owners who have vacant land next to a property owner who has signed an easement for a wind turbine are receiving absolutely no compensation, even though they are basically taking away 500 feet of our land at every side where a turbine will be placed, because the 1,000-foot setback is from a dwelling rather than the property line.

My husband and I own 40 acres of vacant land. There are proposed wind turbines on property next to at least two sides of our land, and they only have to be 500 feet away from our property.

We have kept this property with the intention that our children might someday build their homes on this land. Because any dwelling will have to be placed 1,000 feet away from a turbine, they are effectively taking away at least 500 feet of our land without any compensation to us.

If they make the setbacks from a dwelling larger, that will mean more of our property will be stolen from us. What happened to our encroachment rights?

Every time I hear someone say how much money this wind farm could bring to property owners, it makes me very upset!

I would like to hear someone reporting on how our state and the power companies are stealing from property owners and shoving these wind turbines down our throats! They should have to get a vote from a town as to whether or not they would like to host a wind farm before they can even come into a town and sneak around getting easements from anyone who will sign up.

Also, even though the people in our town have to live with the wind turbines, the town will receive less money than the county for having them here (town gets 1/3, county gets 2/3).

Even their sneaking around is underhanded.

We were approached to host a wind turbine and were told all of our neighbors were signing up so we might as well get in on the action. They even mentioned names of our neighboring property owners who had signed up, so we were somewhat interested...until I took the contract to an attorney who told me it was a terrible contract.

So now, because we are not hosting a turbine we are not receiving any money, and they are taking some of our land anyway because the setbacks are not the same from the property line as from a dwelling. This just isn't right!

Besides the actions our town is taking (apparently the state has made it impossible for a town to do much against wind turbines), we just don`t know who to contact who can help us, and others like us, who are being robbed.

I don`t know when alternative energy became more important than people, but our government is definitely not standing up for the people. If you have any suggestions as to where we can get help with this, it would be deeply appreciated!

 I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
 

Julie Bixby-Wendt

Want to keep up with what's going on with the wind siting council? For some it's like watching paint dry, for others it's watching people toss your future around in their hands

Remember to check the docket

Click here to visit the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin website

Type in Docket number 1-AC-231

WHAT'S THE LATEST ON THE DOCKET?

EXTRA CREDIT: Click on the image above to hear another wind turbine that whistles because of a faulty blade.

Wind developers talk a good line. They tell us there will be no negative health impacts for the residents of the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm. With a setback of 1000 feet, noise won't be a problem, shadow flicker won't be a problem, there will be no loss of value to your home.

Wind developers will tell you that the experts agree....

Many residents of wind farms in our state have pointed out that studies have been done on the effect of wind turbines on birds and bats, but none have been done on the effect wind turbines have on the people who are forced to live with them.

If you would like to contact our health department to ask them to investigate  the issue of wind turbine impacts on public health in our state, Click here to visit the Wisconsin Department of Health Services webstite, and Click here to send e-mail

In light of the many questions being raised about negative health effects resulting from inadequate setbacks from wind turbines, we need our health department to step in and research this issue, speak to the hundreds of residents in wind farms in our state and issue a report like the one recently done by the Minnesota Department of Health. Our state has a goal of siting 14,000 wind turbines by 2024. This is an issue that must be taken seriously now.

Click here to download a copy of the report from Minnesota Department of Health, entitled "Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines"

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

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

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

 The purpose of the final EIS is to provide the decision makers, the public, and other stakeholders with an analysis of the economic, social, cultural, and environmental impacts that could result from the construction and operation of the new wind electric generation facility.

 It was prepared prepared by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Commission or PSC) with input from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP).

 This final EIS will be a subject of the hearing to be held for the Glacier Hills project. The Commission’s decision to approve, modify, or deny ATC’s application for this project will be based on the record of the technical and public portions of the hearing.

SAVE THE DATE:

The public hearing will be held at 3:00 and 7:00 p.m. on November 4, 2009, at the Randolph Town Hall, 109 South Madison Street, Friesland, Wisconsin.

At the hearing, members of the public may testify about the project or the final EIS. In addition, written comments may be submitted in any of the following ways:

• Written comments submitted at the public hearing.

• Written comments submitted via the Commission’s ERF system by October 28, 2009. The form used to file comments electronically can be found on the Commission’s web page, http://psc.wi.gov/, by selecting the Public Comments button, then selecting Wisconsin Electric PowerCompany (WEPCO) Glacier Hills Wind Park, docket 6630-CE-302 from the list provided.

• Written comments may be submitted by mail by October 28, 2009, addressed to:

Docket 6630-CE-302 Comments

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

P.O. Box 7854

Madison, WI 53707-7854

 Members of the public who submit comments should understand that those comments will be included in the record on which the Commission will base its decision to approve, modify, or deny Wisconsin Electric Power Company’s application. As such, the comments are subject to objection during the hearing.

If objected to, the comments might not be admitted into the hearing record. Members of the public who have doubts about the admissibility of their comments should plan to provide oral testimony at the public hearing. All comments and a transcript of oral testimony will be posted to the Commission’s website as an open public record.

 The public and technical portions of the hearing will satisfy the WEPA requirements of both the Commission and DNR. A Commission decision on the proposed project is expected January 2009.

Specific questions on the final EIS should be addressed to:

Michael John Jaeger

Public Service Commission

(608) 267-2546

michaeljohn.jaeger@psc.state.wi.us

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: You can help by reading over the EIS [download it by clicking here] and commenting on specific parts of it is one way for the PSC to understand what the concerns are of rural residents in our state. There is no limit to how many comments you can file. Supporting documents are always welcome.

 Better Plan will continue to look closer at the Glacier Hills EIS in the up-coming days.

 

Download the entire EIS by clicking here