Better Plan, Wisconsin

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd:

 The PSC heard from people all over the state during the three days of hearings about the draft wind siting rules. Here is one from a resident of We Energies Blue Sky Green Field Project in Fond du Lac County.

Andy Hesselbach, who is in charge of developing wind projects for We Energies is one of the wind siting council members with a direct financial interest in creating rules that will allow We Energies to continue to site turbines with the same setbacks and noise limits that have caused problems detailed in the letter below.

Questions have been raised regarding similar conflicts of interest for the majority of the Wind Siting Council members.

CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT WHO IS ON THE WIND SITING COUNCIL

CLICK HERE TO READ the red-lined and re-written siting guidelines from wind developer NextEra,formerly Florida Power and Light. Scroll though the document to read what changes they want from the PSC.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE LETTER BELOW

Click on the image below to watch a video at a link submitted to the PSC. Interview with a Blue Sky/Green Field resident

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC took public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules until the July 7th, 2010 deadline.

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

CLICK HERE to go to the PSC website, then type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted.

CLICK ON THE ITEMS BELOW TO DOWNLOAD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS POSTED ON THE DOCKET:

 

Comments from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCAP) regarding aerial application and concerns about the impact on vegetable growers in our state.

 Click here to download testimony submitted to the PSC by Kevin Kawula regarding wind turbines effect on weather radar, birds and bats, CO2 emissons, and more. The PDF includes photos and graphs.

Click here to read why the Wisconsin League of Municipalities is concerned about the draft rules and why rural Wisconsin residents should also be concerned

CLICK HERE to download photos submitted to the PSC of wind turbines built within 1000 and 2000 feet from homes in three Wisconsin wind projects: Blue Sky/Green Field, Forward, Butler Ridge

THIS FROM THE MADISON AUDUBON SOCIETY:

Madison Audubon Society is very disappointed in the draft wind siting rules.

The sole reason we changed our position last year to one of support for SB 185 was because there would be provisions for taking important bird and bat resources into account when siting turbines.

These provisions included mapping areas in the state where wind turbines could have an adverse effect on bird and bat populations and a review of DNR`s statutory authority to adequately protect wildlife and the environment from any adverse effect from the siting, construction, or operation of wind energy systems.

Neither provision is cited in the draft rule other than one reference to "current DNR guidelines" that is buried on page 30.

Whether these two provisions are statutorily required or not, the maps and guidelines are essential for developers, landowners, and municipalities ("political subdivisions" in PSC-speak), to know about as early in the process as possible.

Not only would this help prevent undue harm to important wildlife resources, but it would help all parties involved avoid potential controversy and very-costly delays or denials of projects.

It would be far better to know as much as possible upfront, before the process even begins, about where key migratory bird routes, bat hibernacula, and other important bird and wildlife areas are located. DNR (p. 6) should be notified at least as soon as, if not earlier, than landowners, to help developers avoid problems.

While wind developers should be consulting with DNR as early in the process as possible, prominently including mention of the maps and guidance in the rule would alert municipalities about the existence of the maps and guidance and to ask companies if they have taken those into consideration. These two critical sources of information need to be hot-linked to the appropriate documents on the web.

FROM THE TOWN OF MORRISON:

My name is Timothy J. Harmann and I testified at the 1:00PM meeting on June 28, 2010
in Fond Du Lac in regards to the Wind Siting Rulemaking docket 1-AC-231.

I submit a CD with 5 videos of people that I personally interviewed on May 22, 2010 near Fond Du Lac, WI that were negatively impacted by Industrial Wind Projects but the CD wasn’t able to be accepted in the presented format.

After the hearing I was approached by the judge and was told that I could submit a link to the videos on the PSC ERF system.

Here is the online location of the videos that I presented during my testimony (I had to
split them into 5 separate videos because of the youtube limitations):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIbzYXSM0zs&layer_token=30fd99341a3167cc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzh106w1lRA&layer_token=5422aca72bfde2c2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PvPXU0io_A&layer_token=3affccee951c2680

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34oOPKNJv-E&layer_token=11e52b0a21d359d3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Ro4tZd-B0

These 5 videos are also available at this address (labeled Interview1 – Interview5):
http://www.bccrwe.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60&Itemid=87

They are under this heading: “Interviews with residents of a Wisconsin Wind Farm”

Thank you for your time in this very important matter.

Timothy J. Harmann
Town of Morrison
Brown County
Wisconsin

Click on the image below to watch a video at a link submitted to the PSC. Interview with a Blue Sky/Green Field resident

________

This from Poynette, Wisconsin:

 As a resident who will be living in the middle of the proposed Arlington area wind farm I would like to say this: Large scale industrial wind sites should be zoned as industrial use.

People in close proximity should be compensated under Wisconsin takings law, for the loss of value and degradation of their property. People and/or dwellings should be relocated.

These are industrial scale energy production zones. They are not compatible with human occupancy. These giant multi-million dollar projects should have a concentration of wind towers, not the widely scattered array as proposed in Arlington.

The investors should own the land, pay the local property taxes. Please guarantee the maintenance and future dismantling costs with an adequate escrow account, so that local governments are not saddled with run-down wind farms after their useful life and competitive cost/usefulness has expired.

The energy industry (coal, nuclear, oil, gas etc.) has surely demonstrated the usefulness of government regulation, control, and protection of American taxpayers. The legal strength and lobbying power of the energy industry and its ability to manipulate contracts, politicians and events in its own interest have been demonstrated in the Appalachians, the Rocky Mountains, and on our west coast and in the gulf.

This industry acts in its own interests without regard to American public lands, water and air. As an example, they have installed 30,000 miles of pipeline in the gulf seafloor. Many geologists and other scientists say this may not be prudent.

So, we citizens rely on our elected representatives, our Wisconsin and national lawmakers to apply the necessary counterweight to proposals like industrial wind production siting.

At our town hall meetings in Arlington it was obvious the industry had successfully managed to divide the community.

Absentee landowners, and large scale farms will benefit with tax breaks and secret contracts with the energy industry.

Why have my neighbors signed contracts with a wind investor that they are not allowed to discuss? Why the muzzling?A process that has been conceived in secrecy?

Decision makers on local town boards should not be in the position to personally benefit from a secret contract, a contract that will pad their pockets but one that has the potential to erode local property values and harm their neighbors.

If the property values go down, the tax rolls go down, and soon the deferred maintenance lists for our schools and town roads becomes longer and longer. Will the international investors know or care?

Lastly, I have heard personal testimony from people living in close proximity to wind turbines who say their health and well-being, or their livestock, and their property values, have been severely negatively impacted.

If the PSC does not get this right, there will probably be class action lawsuits, similar to the ones that followed the construction of the Columbia power plant near Portage.

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

Click on the image below to watch a video at a link submitted to the PSC. Interview with a Wisconsin wind project resident.

FROM MANITOWOC COUNTY:

 From Dean Anhalt
Supervisor
Town of Mishicot
Manitowoc County

I have been looking at wind turbine issues for 6 years. Please consider my comments.

We need to do epidemiological studies to find out what is negatively affecting people and animals in current Wisconsin wind farms before any new wind turbines are erected.

Setbacks need to be from property lines, not residences. Turbines should not be casting any unsafe zones over neighboring non-participating properties.

Wind rights need to be protected. Turbines should not be using winds over neighboring non participating lands. When others use winds over neighboring properties they gain control over the property through wind access rights and can control what is done on the neighboring non-participating property. This is a taking of property rights.

Setbacks to roadways need to be large enough that debris from a turbine malfunction will not land on roads. Past wind turbine accidents and mathematical calculations show a 1.1 times the turbine height setback to a road may not be adequate.

Electrical pollution from wind turbines cannot affect our farms.

Allowable noise levels should be set at an amount over ambient background noise. Ambient noise levels are quite low at night in rural areas. People need to be protected from offensive audible and low frequency noise.

Shadow flicker should not fall on neighboring non-participating lands.

Proper funds need to be set aside by wind farm owners to cover all costs of decommissioning. Local municipalities or land owners must not be stuck with removal costs at decommissioning time.

Towns need the ability to recover all costs to repair road damage during the building, operation ,and decommissioning of a wind farm.

Developers should have to give notice to counties of their intent to solicit lands to build a wind farm on before any landowners are contacted. These projects affect all people in their area. There is still too much happening behind the scenes and in secrecy. Local municipalities and all people should be made aware of projects in the very beginning.

In my area we have nuclear plants. I believe it is one of the best places for future nuclear power projects and expansions. Will a proposed wind farm in our area fill the local electrical grid not allowing room for future nuclear expansion without expensive grid updates? If so is this in the best interest of consumers looking for economical base load power.

Sincerely,
Dean Anhalt

 FROM BROWN COUNTY:

July 7, 2010
Sandra Paske
Secretary to the Commission
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
P.O. Box 7854
Madison, WI 53707
Via: ERF
RE: Docket No. 1-AC-231 Wind Siting Rules

Dear Ms. Paske:

I am filing these written comments as a supplement to the comments I made at the public hearing in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin that was held June 28, 2010.

I am a resident of Brown County and have been approached to lease property for the construction of wind turbines, which has caused me to look into the effects of wind turbines on people and property.

With regard to the rules of the siting of wind turbines, I have three principle areas of concern:

• Health and Safety of people who live and work near wind turbines
• Property values in the area of wind factories
• Placing wind turbine factories in areas with sensitive geological features

I. Health and Safety

With regard to health and safety of the people who would live or work within the area of a wind turbine factory, I would first bring to your attention the recommendation of the Brown County Board of Health.

A copy of that recommendation is attached.

I would refer the Public Service Commission to the following reports which were made a part of the record during my comments at the Fond du Lac hearing:

1. World Health Organization “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe”
2. World Health Organization Final Implementation Report for Night Noise Guidelines
3. Report compiled by Dr. Keith Stelling – October, 2009
4. Health Survey Report for the Ontario, Canada Government
5. Dr. Nina Pierpont – March, 2006
6. Vestas Wind Systems of Denmark – Mechanical Operating and Maintenance Manual

Based on the above scientific expert analysis of wind turbine factory noise outputs, I would ask the PSC. to impose setbacks of at least one mile from an adjoining property owner’s property line and to set anaudible noise level of 30 dB at an occupied structure.

II. Property Values

Regarding property values, Appraisal Group One of Oshkosh, Wisconsin studied the sales of property within two wind factories in Wisconsin: Blue Sky Green Field in Fond du Lac County and Forward in Fond du Lac and Dodge County. The Report included a literature review, an opinion Survey and a Sales Study The conclusions from the Sales Study were that “the impact of wind turbines decreased the land values from -12% to -47% with the average being -30%.”

The Wind Energy companies normally rely on a study from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to show no or little effect on property values. This Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study has been debunked in several articles. The statistical methodology used (Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis) by LBL is not appropriate for this type of study.

The authors failed to follow any of the well-developed and tested standards for performing regression analysis on property sales.

This is a significant problem because out of the 7,500 sales in the study, less than 10% had ANY view of turbines, and only 2.1% had a view rated greater than minor. That is 158 homes out of 7,500 nationwide.

Because of the dramatic effect that wind turbines have on adjoining property owners and their land value, the Public Service Commission should establish setback standards from property lines, not occupied structures. By establishing setbacks for wind turbines related to existing homes or other occupied structures, the Public Service Commission will be depriving property owners of the use of their property should the property owners wish to construct a residence or occupied structure within the setback area that encroaches upon adjoining property.

The State – or local government - may ultimately be financially responsible to adjoining landowners who have lost the right to the use and enjoyment of their property.

The legal doctrine of inverse condemnation is recognized in Wisconsin.

The case of Piper vs. Ekern 180 Wis. 586 (1923) recognizes that a State regulation meant for the public good, but which reduces property value, may be a “taking” even though no formal condemnation has been initiated.

In that case, the State was required to compensate the property owner who suffered economic harm as a result of the State regulation. (Related to the height of buildings near the State Capital). Also the case of Zimm vs. State 112 Wis. (2d) 417 (1983) stated that the State was responsible to the land owner for property lost when the DNR raised the water level of a lake and the property became accessible to the public.

In order to protect adjoining property owners and to preserve the rights of property owners to the use of their property, the Public Service Commission should establish setbacks for wind turbines of one mile from property lines.

III. Placing Wind Turbine Factories in Areas With Sensitive Geological Features

My residence is located on the Niagra Escarpment. My water needs are supplied by a private well. Because of that, I am very concerned about the possible effects of ground water contamination from the construction of the foundations for Wind Turbines and the trenching for the necessary cabling to connect the turbines to the electrical grid.

The Niagra Escarpment is a unique geological feature in Northeast Wisconsin. The rock that forms the escarpment has many fractures and in certain areas the bedrock is exposed or very near the surface. The term for that condition is Karst fractures.

It is very important that the Public Service Commission not allow wind farms to be built along the Niagra Escarpment where Karst fractures exist to prevent contamination of the ground water supply in these particularly sensitive areas.

In conclusion, I would urge the State of Wisconsin to fully study the issues that have recently been coming to light. Europe has had wind turbines for decades and is only within the recent past begun to become aware of the negative side effects of wind turbines. There are many other issues that need to be addressed, including the effect of wind turbines on domesticated and wild animals, as well as interference
with communications and television and radio reception.

Do not allow additional residents of Wisconsin to be guinea pigs to be studied after the fact. Let’s fully understand the consequences of locating Wind Turbine Factories in areas where people live and work before the wind turbines are installed.

If wind turbines are to be located in Wisconsin before we study and understand their effects, the setback should be one mile from adjoining property owners’ property line and an audible noise level of 30 dB at an occupied structure.

Very truly yours,
Carl W. Kuehne

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS LETTER AND THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FROM THE BROWN COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH OUTLINING THEIR CONCERNS

 FROM THE WISCONSIN TOWNS ASSOCIATION:

Wisconsin Towns Association
Richard J. Stadelman, Executive Director
W7686 County Road MMM
Shawano, Wis. 54166
Tel. (715) 526-3157
Fax (715) 524-3917
Email: wtowns1@frontiernet.net

To: Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
From: Richard J. Stadelman, Executive Director
Wisconsin Towns Association
Re: Comments on Wind Facility Siting Rules, Docket 1-AC-231
Date: July 7, 2010

On behalf of the board of directors and member towns and villages of Wisconsin Towns Association I submit the following comments on the draft proposed rule for Wind Energy System Siting Rules, Docket 1-AC-231.

Wisconsin Towns Association would ask that the Public Service Commission`s (PSC) final decision in developing and adopting rules as authorized under 2009 Wis. Act 40 should be governed by two overriding principles: (i) protection of public health and safety and (ii) protection of community interests, including protection of private property rights.

In view of the fact that Act 40 provides that local governments may not place any restrictions on installation or use of wind energy systems that are more restrictive than these PSC rules, it is imperative that the rules ensure these two protections.

Many town officers and town residents have expressed concern that there is not sufficient reliable health studies of people living in or near existing wind energy systems.

It is evident from some of the studies that do exist, certain individuals are more sensitive to the impacts of wind turbines, such as noise and shadow flicker effect.

Therefore, we respectfully ask the PSC to make your decisions on the side of caution in setting standards until more extensive health studies have been completed in our state and across the nation.

The following specific topics in the draft rule are of particular concern to our Association members:

1. Setbacks and noise standards should be sufficient to protect public health and safety of neighboring residents, particularly non-participating property owners.

a. Noise standards should have both a setback distance and a decibel limit. We would ask that decibel limits be not more than 35 dBA or 40 dBA from non-participating property lines.

b. These setbacks and noise standards should be applied from the property line of non-participating property owner. Applying setbacks and noise standards from the wind turbine to existing non-participating residential structures (as opposed to property line) is a taking of private property rights from these residents (i.e. the distance between their existing structure and their property line which could have been built on).

2. While Sec. 128.02 (2) of the draft rules provides that "Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the commission from giving individual consideration to exceptional or unusual situations and applying requirements to an individual wind energy system that may be lesser, greater, or different from those provided in this chapter," the draft rules as a whole do not give adequate recognition to local comprehensive plans of towns and counties. We believe recognition should be given to local comprehensive plans which allows flexibility in setting standards for certain conditions.

a. The question can be raised, "how would this subsection be applied by a local government in relation to unique natural, cultural archeological, scenic, or environmental resources as identified in local comprehensive plans?"

b. Would the town or county have to appeal to the PSC that in the case of such unique resources greater setback standards or other restrictions should be applied? Or would the local government merely adopt greater standards and then wait for an appeal by an applicant to determine if they are appropriate?

c. Recognition should be given to the local comprehensive plans for future conflicting development, such as residential development.

d. Recognition should be given to local comprehensive plans for future developments such as community buildings, parks, airports, etc.

3. The PSC rules should address the issue of "property value protection" for non-participating neighbors.

a. Act 40 has preempted local governments from setting restrictions in local regulations that would protect both community interests and neighboring properties by establishing maximum setbacks, noise standard, etc. Property values of neighboring properties (both adjoining and in the area) to wind turbines will be affected by the public perception of impacts from these facilities.

b. Without a fair and reasonable "property value protection" plan the permitting by local government (under the PSC rules and standards) of wind turbine facilities, local governments will be subject to possible inverse condemnation claims or "taking" of private property rights of these neighboring properties.

4. The PSC rules should include a "complaint resolution process" which is administered by the local government, including specific details as to subjects of complaints, timelines for resolution, and appeal rights.

a. Without a detailed process established in the rule, possible complaints will result in the threat of more actual civil litigation against the local government as the permitting agency.

b. The complaint resolution process should be funded by the wind turbine facility owner. The costs of administration of this process includes such things as the per diems of board members, consultation with experts in certain cases, etc. The costs of such a process should not be bore by the community as a whole.

5. The PSC rules should allow local governments to establish fees to cover actual and necessary costs of administration of the permit system, or in the alternative establish a fixed maximum dollar fee adequate to cover local government costs.

a. Wis. Statues §66.0628 currently provides that "any fee that is imposed by a political subdivision shall bear a reasonable relationship to the service for which the fee is imposed." This statutory standard should be used to allow local governments to recover the costs of administering wind turbine facility siting, just as in other permitting cases.

b. The fee structure proposed under Sec. 128.32 (5)(d) of the draft rules, based upon a percentage of estimated cost will be very difficult for local governments to apply. As an alternative to "actual and reasonable costs" we believe that a predetermined amount per turbine would be more appropriate and predictable for all parties.

c. Allowing local governments to recover adequate fees for the administration of the permitting of wind turbine facilities will allow the local officials to retain competent professional advisers, which will in the long run facilitate the siting of these facilities and reduce conflict during the process.

6. The PSC rules should provide clear and certain enforcement authority for local governments to ensure that siting and operation standards are being met by permitted facilities.

a. Local governments will be expected to ensure that the actual construction and operation of the wind turbine facilities are meeting the established standards of the local ordinances as restricted by the PSC rules.

b. Clear and certain enforcement authority, such as notice to facility operators, citation authority for non-compliance, and possible court injunctive relief should be spelled out in the PSC rules, so there can be no doubt that compliance of the standards is met. This type of enforcement is normal in any permitting or regulatory process and should be included in these rules.

7. The PSC rules should include decommissioning requirements backed by sufficient bonds.

a. Restoration of the site to conditions prior to initial construction of the wind turbine facility should be required under the rules.

b. Adequate financial security to ensure that these requirements are met should be authorized in the rules, to protect the local communities at the end of the useful life of wind turbines.

We thank the members of the wind siting council for their diligent work to date, and ask that the Public Service Commissioners and staff keep protection of public health and safety and protection of community interests as overriding goals in adopting these rules.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

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

FROM FOND DU LAC COUNTY:

Two general comments: 1) The standards do not provide guidelines for siting wind towers in relation to lands or habitats with bird or bat species which are particularly susceptible to wind tower mortality or where exceptional abundance of these species is present, adjacent to public wildlife areas or parks, or locations in heavily used bird migratory routes; 2) the guidelines do not provide guidelines for siting wind energy systems to minimize visual impacts to rural landscapes or scenic areas such as the Niagara Escarpment, river bluffs and riverways. Standards should be developed to site projects in more concentrated design rather than spreading wind towers out over large landscape areas. Guidelines should require minimizing landscape impact to maintain Wisconsin's rural character. Projects must be required to have sufficient setback from areas such as the Horicon Marsh, Mississippi River or Wisconsin River Riverway to not visually intrude on the wild nature of these areas. Specific Comments: Page 6, line 6-9: require to consult with DNR and incorporate in the design; wildlife concerns other than just threatened and endangered species including bats and birds shall be incorporated in project design. Page 8, line10: Property owner should have at least 5 working days to rescind and executed wind lease Page 10, Table 1: Setback distance from Occupied Community Buildings must be at least 2500 feet; setback distance from non-participating residences must be at least 2500 feet unless the owner waives that requirement in writing; setback distance from non-participating property lines shall be adequate to not restrict future use of the non-participating property owners land unless owner waives that requirement; setback from wetlands, lakes and waterways shall be sufficient to minimize visual, wildlife and property rights of non-participating owners of those lands and the waterways Page 11, line 22: The siting guidelines must have setback requirements for private airports to minimize impacts to a non-participating landowner Page 12, line 1-3: I disagree with this guideline. A wind energy developer should not be allowed to site a wind energy system that would restrict or prevent future land use in a political subdivision against the wishes of the local political subdivision. Page 12, line 18-19: A wind energy system shall operate the wind energy system in a manner that does not exceed 50dBA daytime or 35dBA nighttime at any non-participating residence or occupied community building unless the owner of that residence or building waives that requirement. Page 12, line 23: noise limit shall be 35dBA Page 13, line 3: delete April 1 to September 30. Noise is likely to be a greater problem in cold weather and after leaf fall when sound travels further Page 13, line 12: curtailment of a wind turbine during nighttime hours shall be used Page 14, line 9: manner that prevents shadow flicker Page 14, line 14: a non-participating residence shall experience no shadow flicker unless the owner waives that requirement Page 14, line 16: delete mitigation requirement--line 14 should require no shadow flicker at non-participating I generally agree with other standards in the proposed guidelines. I am very concerned that the weighting of committee membership in favor of the wind energy industry will result in approval of standards that do not protect the non-participating landowner or the Wisconsin landscape. It is the responsibility of the Public Service Commission to protect all citizens and landowners, not just the financial interests of the wind energy developers. The creation and strict application and enforcement of the siting standards is critically important to the character of the Wisconsin landscape. To meet the renewable energy standards established by the legislature an estimated 12,000 to 14,000 turbines will be required. This will desecrate the rural nature of our state, and will not meet but a small fraction of the energy needs of Wisconsin. After we have destroyed the visual beauty and peacefulness of the Wisconsin landscape we will still be building coal-fired or nuclear powered electric generation facilities to meet our energy needs. The emphasis should be placed on reduction of electrical use through efficiency and conservation. Taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize wind energy. Let the true cost be known through rate increases that consumers will then be aware of the impact of their lifestyle. I don't believe for a second that wind energy is the solution to our future energy needs. It is for certain that it will destroy the beauty of the Wisconsin landscape if the energy industry is allowed to run roughshod over the rights of those who don't have turbines on their property. I am very aware of the pro-wind efforts to discredit those experiencing health effects, property value decline and other impacts of wind energy. It is your responsibility to objectively evaluate the information available and create standards that are protective to all persons rights. I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. James and Cheryl Congdon

Click on the image above to hear a sworn statement regarding turbine related impacts to human health. Dr. Herb Coussin's June 30, 2010 testimony to the Public Service Commision, June 30, 2010

TRANSCRIPT

EXAMINER NEWMARK: All right. Let me  swear you in.

 HERB COUSSONS, PUBLIC WITNESS, DULY SWORN

EXAMINER NEWMARK: Have a seat. Just state your name and spell your last name for us.

DR. COUSSONS: It's Herb Coussons, C-O-U-S-S-O-N-S.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: I'm going to start  the timer. Go ahead.

DIRECT TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT

DR. COUSSONS: I'm Herb Coussons, M.D. I'm a physician. I live in the town of  Wrightstown in Brown County and I have been  practicing in Green Bay for eight years, in private practice for 15 years, women's health and  primary care, mainly.

 I also have an interest -- a special interest in spatial disorientation because I'm an aerobatic and commercial pilot.

I've studied the literature and listened to the testimony of both affected and non-affected  residents of the wind turbine projects, and I'm  concerned that any setbacks of less than half a  mile will have adverse consequences on the people  that live near them, primarily because of noise --with noises in those shorter setback ranges over 45 and approaching 55 decibels.

I believe that based on currentliterature and testimony of others that any levels  above 40 decibels will cause chronic sleep disturbance in up to 50 percent of the people that live close to them.

By increasing the setback, noise deteriorates over distance, and this would alleviate some of these problems.

 I've heard Dr. McFadden speak from the Wind Siting Council, and I agree that there is no causal evidence now to directly link turbines to  health problems, but I do know that noise such as that measured as audible and dBC will disturb sleep.

And exhaustive literature support shows that extensive disturbed sleep does have an adverse impact on health, primarily in the areas of hypertension, cardiac disease, weight gain, diabetes, lowered immunity, increased problems with falling asleep, accident rates, and maybe  even poor school performance.

 I'm afraid that so far what I've read from the PSC, the Siting Council, and the legislature has been willing to proceed without finding out if there is truly a causal relationship and, if so, what can be done about it.

Sample studies such as home sleep studies, like those done for sleep apnea patients, can provide some direct evidence of people living in wind turbine areas currently. Evaluations such as lab and sleep data on both wind and control patient -- patients that suffer from wind problems as well as those who live outside of turbine areas can also provide much needed information.

Otherwise we're doomed to repeat the same experiment as other wind projects in Wisconsin, around the United States, and the world.

I'm also concerned that by stating that there is no proof of adverse health consequences, as Dr. McFadden has in his presentation, that we give the media, the less informed in the wind industry, license to lie about safety.

In the Brown County Board of Health meeting, Invenergy, a wind developer in the state, stated that due to studies in Wisconsin, wind was safe and beneficial. When paired with Dr. McFadden's conclusions, there seems to be no argument against the industrial wind turbines. But there are no good trials that support their relationship and, if so, what can be done about it.

  In the Brown County Board of Health  meeting, Invenergy, a wind developer in the state, stated that due to studies in Wisconsin, wind was safe and beneficial.

When paired with Dr. McFadden's conclusions, there seems to be no argument against the industrial wind turbines. But there are no good trials that support their statement or the safety of industrial wind turbines.

 It is equally wrong to claim safety  based on the literature. It was misleading and there is more case report data showing deleterious effects than beneficial case reports.

In the drug industry, the manufacturers of drugs are required to provide safety information at their own expense prior to  releasing drugs in the market. The FDA and governmental oversight regulates this, and I think that the same model could be used with the wind industry as well, as the expense to have some of these studies may be overwhelming for our governmental agencies.

Not only do the health issues concern  me, but the economics of wind energy do not make  sense. In Europe, Canada, and now the U.S., government subsidies and increased power rates are the only way to make it a viable industry.  Reports from Europe continue to caution  the U.S. to not go down the road of heavily subsidized alternative energy pathways.

I may disagree with that and I may believe that subsidies are an acceptable cost, but human health is not an acceptable cost.

The effect on adjoining property rights and values is also disturbing. I own 40 acres in Brown County and live there. My sister and brother-in-law put a house on the market in southern Brown County and had an accepted offer on the house pending the sale of another home. As  soon as the groundswell of words about the wind  industry came, they withdraw their offer, and in the past six months, they've had no lookers.

In conclusion, the wind industry itself in the Beech Ridge project said that setbacks up to a mile would mitigate complaints from sound and shadow flicker. The World Health Organization said sound sleep -- on sound sleep and health stress that a plausible biologic model is available with sufficient evidence for the elements of a causal chain. Thank you.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: Judge, I want to ask a few questions. I don't usually do that.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: We haven't been doing  that yet.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: Okay. Then never mind.

DR. COUSSONS: It's fine with me.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: I have been asking a few questions of witnesses, so I can allow that
 for now.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: I just have a question with regards to epidemiological studies, which is what I've been hearing a lot about thus far, and the fact that there's a lack of evidence in epidemiological studies.

DR. COUSSONS: Right.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: If you could describe sort of how -- how do I even ask this question? I would imagine there needs to be a lot of folks that are affected for something to essentially hit on the radar with regards to an epidemiological study.

DR. COUSSONS: Possibly, but not necessarily. I mean -- and you know, it depends on, well, if you have a thousand people in our community, and if I use that for an example -- or I'm not sure how many live in the Fond du Lac area, but that development down there. But if you3 have a thousand people and in self-reported comments or publications or surveys or things like that, if 15 or 35 or 45 percent are self-reported that's still not an epidemiologic, you know, study as far as a cause-and-effect type of thing.
But it's almost impossible to design that kind of study, because how can you sort of blind someone that they're living in this noise environment? You know, it's very impossible. And so from a medical standpoint, you know, after talking with Dr. McFadden, I feel like self-reported is all that we have to go on.

But if we do self-reported and try to get some objective data, like home sleep studies in their natural surrounding about people that do report problems, do the same types of studies on people in the area that don't report problems, and then  back up a mile, a quarter -- you know, a half a mile, five miles and do the same studies, you can show some kind of link to noise and sleep disturbance.

 It would take 20 years to show cardiac effect, you know, or hypertension or weight gain or diabetes, and we don't have time for that. We  don't have the time or the money or resources to do it.

 But I think a short-term study based on distance, some objective data with some self-reported data would be -- I think it would be very telling on adding some validity to some of these people's concerns. And maybe even small numbers. Maybe 20 or 40 people in each group.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: Great. Thanks.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: All right. Thank you very much.

DR. COUSSONS: Thank you.

  WHAT'S THE PROBLEM THE WIND INDUSTRY SAYS IS NOT A PROBLEM?

Presentation to the Hammond (NY) Wind Committee

BY NINA PIERPONT, MD (JOHNS HOPKINS)
PHD (PRINCETON: POPULATION BIOLOGY)
MS (PRINCETON: POPULATION BIOLOGY)
BA (YALE: BIOLOGY)
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Former Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, NY

July 5, 2010

My name is Nina Pierpont. I am a physician in Malone, NY, and author of a book called Wind Turbine Syndrome: a Report on a Natural Experiment, published in December 2009.

My M.D. is from the Johns Hopkins University. My PhD, in population biology, is from Princeton University. Population biology has extensive overlap with epidemiology. In fact, one of my doctoral committee members, Robert May, is a prominent theoretical epidemiologist, who subsequently became president of the Royal Society of London and scientific advisor to the Queen of England. He pronounced my Wind Turbine Syndrome study to be "impressive, interesting, and important."

A PhD in science is a research degree. I was specifically trained to do research on free-living, uncontrolled animal populations, including methods for structuring observations to turn the observations into quantitative and analyzable data.

I used this research training in my study of wind turbine health effects, to structure and analyze the information I gathered from affected people. I used my classical medical training from Johns Hopkins to actually gather the information.

A good patient history, we were taught (and my experience has borne out), provides a doctor with about 80% of the information he needs to diagnose a problem. I conducted thorough, structured clinical interviews of all my study subjects, directly interviewing all adults and older teens, and interviewing the parents of all child subjects.

My bachelors degree, also in biology, is from Yale University. I am a board-certified pediatrician and have had postgraduate training in behavioral medicine. I have been a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University School of Physicians and Surgeons.

Wind turbine syndrome.

I introduced this term in testimony before the Energy Committee of the New York State Assembly in 2006. The National Academy of Sciences cited my testimony in their 2007 report, Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, and asked for more information about the physical effects I described.

A syndrome, medically, is a consistent collection of signs and symptoms. This is what I observed in people exposed to large, 1.5 to 3 MW wind turbines constructed since 2004. The first purpose of my study was to document the consistency of symptoms or problems among affected people, and to show, by a simple, practical method, that these symptoms are due to wind turbines.

I will come back to this in a moment. The second purpose was to examine why, given the same exposure, some people are more affected than others.

I did not, and could not given my limited resources, study what proportion of people are affected or how much exposure is needed to affect people. However, I have some preliminary data on proportion of people affected.

I called my study a case series. I knew it was more than a case series, however, and described what else I did with regard to subject selection and data gathering. Recently an interested epidemiologist has provided the terminology for what I actually did. I chose families who had at least one severely affected adult family member, and who had done two things: first, they had gone away from their homes and the wind turbines and seen their symptoms go away, and had come back and seen the symptoms return, generally several times. In epidemiology this is called a "case-crossover" design. It's very useful in situations like this one when both the exposure and the disease are transitory.

Second, I chose families who had spent or lost a lot of money to get away from the turbines, by selling their homes for reduced amounts, renting or buying a second home, renovating their homes in an attempt to keep out the noise, or outright abandoning their homes. I know of active legal cases in at least three states and two provinces in which the homeowner, after home abandonment, is suing either the wind turbine company or a state regulatory agency for recompense. In epidemiology, this is called a "revealed preference measure." The people who are suffering show by their actions that their health problem is worth more than the many thousands of dollars they have lost in trying to escape the exposure, and thus distinguishes their experiences from what might be dismissed as subjective or fakery.

My study had 38 subjects, in 10 families located in the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Italy. I have interviewed further families in the US and Canada and have a larger case-crossover study paper in preparation.

The symptoms caused by turbine exposure are as follows:

1. Sleep disturbance, with a special kind of awakening in a state of high alarm. This applies to both adults and children. Severe sleep deprivation.

2. Headaches. Exacerbations of migraines, brought on by either noise or by light flicker. This refers to the strobe-like effect in rooms when turbine blade shadows repetitively pass over a window. People without a history of migraine also got severe headaches from turbine exposure.

3. Pressure and pain in ears and eyes. Tinnitus or ringing in the ears. Distortions of hearing. Buzzing inside the head.

4. Dizziness, vertigo, unsteadiness, and nausea, essentially seasickness on land.
Pierpont to Hammond (NY) Wind Committee July 5, 2010 Page 2 of 4

5. Sensations of internal pulsation or movement, in the chest or abdomen, associated with panic-like episodes, in people who had no previous episodes of panic. These episodes occurred while awake or asleep, awakening the affected people from sleep.

6. Problems with memory and concentration. Irritability and loss of energy and motivation. School and behavior problems in children. Increased aggression in both adults and children.

In the book, I document these symptoms for all study subjects, in 66 pages of structured, before-during-after accounts divided for each subject into organ systems or functions, such as sleep, headache, cognition, mood, balance and equilibrium, ears and hearing, eyes and vision, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory, etc.—before-during-after for each category.

It is critical that I interviewed people as much about their past medical history as about their current symptoms, to distinguish which symptoms were actually due to the exposure, and to identify the subjects’ risk factors for experiencing certain symptoms.

I then examined the relationships between medical factors before exposure and the tendency of subjects to have certain symptoms during the exposure, using simple and straightforward statistics. This was one of the reasons that I collected information on all family members, not just the most affected, so that I would have some equally exposed but less affected people in the sample, who had been gathered according to a consistent rule (collect data on all family members without regard to symptoms present or absent).

I found strong and statistically significant relationships:

1. Between the panic-internal pulsation symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity,
2. Between severe headaches during exposure and pre-existing migraine disorder, and
3. Between tinnitus during exposure and previous inner ear damage from noise or chemotherapy.

Equally as significant, I found no statistical association between pre-existing mental health disorder and the tendency to get panic-like episodes during exposure.

From these results I hypothesize about physiologic mechanisms for the effects, using an extensive review of the literature on low-frequency noise effects and on the neurophysiology of the balance system. This part, on how the wind turbines may be exerting their effects, is hypothetical. It is a proposal that inner ear specialists find it very interesting, but it is still hypothetical.

What is not hypothetical is that the turbines cause the symptoms (case-crossover design) and that the degree of illness caused is of such magnitude that people spend or forfeit many thousands of dollars to avoid the exposure (revealed preference data).

To get a preliminary idea of the proportion of people who may be affected, local affected residents around the Waubra wind farm in Victoria, Australia counted the numbers of households with affected people who had made their symptoms publicly known, the numbers of households that had abandoned their homes, and the total number of households within a radius of 3.5 km, the maximum distance at which there were affected people in this setting.

There were 153 total households. Two households had moved completely and a third was staying elsewhere because of their symptoms, or about 2% of households moved. An additional 19 households, another 12%, were affected but remained in their homes despite their chronic insomnia, etc.
Pierpont to Hammond (NY) Wind Committee July 5, 2010 Page 3 of 4

My study has attracted attention. The American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations published a critique without reading the study, since its paper was released within days of my book’s publication. The British Wind Energy Association has also issued a critique.

Carl V. Phillips, a Harvard-trained PhD in public policy and epidemiology, states that these and other industry-commissioned critiques "don’t represent proper scientific reading" of the evidence that there is a problem, my study among them.

Quoting from his testimony last week before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, "The reports that I have read that claim there is no evidence that there is a problem seem to be based on a very simplistic understanding of epidemiology and self-serving definitions of what does and what does not count as evidence." He explains in a more detailed written report "why these claims, which probably seem convincing to most readers" at first glance, "don’t represent proper scientific reading." He points out that "the conclusions of the reports don’t even match their own analyses. The reports themselves actually concede that there are problems, and then somehow manage to reach the conclusion that there is no evidence that there are problems."

One industry critiques states that people become ill around wind turbines by power of suggestion, and that I was the person doing the suggesting. I was not: people became ill, made their decisions, and temporarily left their homes or moved out or renovated their houses before I ever found them. I found them because they had in some way made public what they had done.

When I found myself interviewing people who had not connected certain symptoms to the turbines and had not spent significant time away from their homes, I did not offer interpretations or advice or persist in questioning in those areas, nor did I include these families in the study.

The adults in the 10 families in my study are all practical, regular people. There are three fishermen, two teachers, two nurses, a physician, a home health aide, a farmer, a professional gardener, a computer programmer, a milk truck driver, and a number of homemakers. There were several retired disabled people. People like this don't disrupt their lives and spend or forfeit thousands of dollars for imaginary illness.

Again, the “revealed preference measure” shows us what is not purely subjective or fakery in the accounts of illness.

With regard to my mechanistic proposals, these have been taken up by the cochlear physiology laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis, MO. Professors Alec Salt and Timothy Hullar have just published a paper in the journal Hearing Research regarding physiologic mechanisms by which the low-frequency noise affects the inner ear, both the cochlea (hearing organ) and the vestibular (balance) organs.

One possible mechanism is by low-frequency noise inducing endolymphatic hydrops, or increased pressure and distortion of membrane positions and tension within the inner ear (as in Meniere’s disease). There are also differences in the functioning of inner and outer hair cells in the cochlea that may prevent us from hearing low-frequency noise that is indeed having a physiological effect on the ear.

Dr. Salt had already found effects of low-frequency noise on the inner ear experimentally, and explicitly incorporates references to wind turbine low-frequency noise and to my research in his paper.

This being an area of active research and new findings, one cannot rely on the out-of-date assumption that if people can’t hear a sound, it cannot have any other effect on them—one of the premises wind industry consultants rely on to assert that the low frequency noise produced by wind turbines is at too low a level to have any physiological effects. This premise is out of date.

WIND SITING HEARING NOTICE

Tuesday  July 6, 2010, beginning at 1:00 p.m and 6:00 p.m.

Docket 1-AC-231

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
First Floor, Amnicon Falls Room
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio and video of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 1:00.

CLICK HERE to visit the PSC website, click on the button on the left that says "Live Broadcast". Sometimes the meetings don't begin right on time. The broadcasts begin when the meetings do so keep checking back if you don't hear anything at the appointed start time.

MEETING NOTICE
Wind Siting Council
Docket 1-AC-231

Agenda

1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda
2) Review and adoption of meeting minutes of June 21, 2010 & June 23, 2010
3) Straw proposal amendment ballot results
4) Straw proposal revisions based on ballot results
5) Additional revisions to straw proposal prior to end of public comment period
6) Next steps/Discussion of next meeting’s time, place and agenda
7) Adjourn

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE WIND SITING COUNCIL STRAW PROPOSAL

NEW! CLICK HERE WATCH A SHORT ANIMATION ABOUT SHADOW FLICKER AND SETBACKS

COURTESY OF THE GREAT EVANSVILLE OBSERVER (Click here to visit the Evansville Observer Website)

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

A copy of the finalized ballot for voting on Wind Siting Council issues has been made public today by the PSC and can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE.

Anyone who wishes to fill out this ballot and submit it to the PSC as public comment for the Wind Siting Council Docket may do so.

Because this copy is a Word Document format, you must

A: Fill in the ballot and then copy and paste the entire document into the comment box for Docket 1-AC-231 by CLICKING HERE. (This link will get you directly to the comment page for the Wind Siting Council Docket There is no limit on the number of comments you may make to the docket.)

B: You may also save your completed copy of the document as a PDF and upload it to the docket if you are registered with the PSC's ERF system.

C: You can fill it in and mail it directly to the PSC. It must be there before July 6th, 2010. You'll need to provide your name and address and make it clear that it is to be included on docket 1-AC-231

Send it to The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

610 N Whitney Way

Madison, WI 53705

Scroll down to the previous post to read a draft version of this document which was released last week.

Click on links below for times and locations of hearings taking place in Fond du Lac, Tomah and Madison this week. 

• Public Hearing: PSC Wind Siting Rules
  June 28, 2010 (6:00 PM)
• Public Hearing: PSC Wind Siting Rules
  June 29, 2010 (1:00 PM)
• Public Hearing: PSC Wind Siting Rules
  June 29, 2010 (6:00 PM)
• Public Hearing: PSC Wind Siting Rules
  June 30, 2010 (1:00 PM)

 

WHAT'S THE WORD FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?

Here is what the Towns of Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore in Brown County submitted to the wind siting council docket.

If you would like your Town Board to read this and consider submitting a comment, download this document by CLICKING HERE

Although the timing may not allow for Town Boards to officially decide to comment as a group, any of Town board member or other local government officials may comment individually as citizens, and identify themselves as members of local government.

Submitted to: Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Docket No. 1-AC-231 Draft Chapter 128—Wind Energy Systems
Comments by the Towns of Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore
Brown County, Wisconsin
June 24, 2010

The towns of Morrison, Wrightstown, and Glenmore in Brown County respectfully submit our comments and concerns in regard to the May 14, 2010 draft of the Chapter 128 rules for wind energy systems.

This submittal reflects many hours of research, participation in county meetings involving wind energy and health experts, consultation with licensed Professional Engineers, seven town meetings for citizens’ input including two joint meetings of all three towns and a thorough review process of this submittal.

The overall objectives of the towns are as follows:

1. To help the PSCW develop rules for Wind Energy Systems (WES) so that public safety and health are preserved.

2. To provide credible and reasonable suggestions.

3. To base suggestions on current state law, recent wind turbine and health studies, expert publications, and citizens’ input and experiences with existing WES.

4. To ensure citizens’ input from the towns of Glenmore, Morrison, and Wrightstown into the rule-making process.

The towns appreciate the efforts of the PSCW and the Wind Siting Council. The comments will follow the order of the draft rules but first some critical points are presented.

First, attention is requested to another submittal of these towns cautioning about the potential danger to human and animal health by rushing the promulgation of these rules.

The PSCW with the University of Wisconsin, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection should be involved to be sure that health and safety are not compromised.

Wisconsin has existing wind turbine installations which provide the opportunity to measure health effects and also a responsibility to not build more wind projects until health complaints are studied and resolved. If not done, such requirements as setbacks and sound levels must be set very conservatively.

It appears that Act 40 has no deadline for promulgating these siting rules. Just this week, a state senator who was one of the leaders in the wind siting legislation agreed that these rules should not be rushed. He supports scientific studies of Wisconsin’s existing wind turbine complexes.

Second, the draft rules require the developer to involve the DNR for the usual permitting requirements.

The rules must require the DNR to include groundwater impacts in their review and to require construction and operation techniques which will protect water quality.

Brown County has experienced how easy and widespread groundwater can become contaminated. The rules need to allow for the DNR to identify geological areas in which wind turbines are not to be constructed because the risk of contamination is too high.

If statutory authority is needed, the towns would work to accomplish that.

Third, the rules are only as good as their implementation. Most towns, counties, and state agencies are not able to inspect the whole construction process for wind turbines. The rules should require the use of qualified, third-party engineering/environmental inspectors reporting to the DNR, county land conservation, and local political subdivisions and paid for by the wind developer/owner.

It is believed the PSCW has done similar in the past for energy projects. PSC REF#:133746
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin


Comments on specific sections of draft rules: (“D/O” means “developer/owner”)

II. Developer Requirements

.10(1) Notification Requirements and .11 Real Property Provisions

1. Consider pre-qualifying of D/O (or state licensing) for one MW or larger projects to minimize unqualified D/Os who waste time and money of local towns and counties, contact landowners without any accountability and, most importantly, are likely to construct poorer quality facilities.

2. Create a process to assign a temporary franchise area to D/O while contacting landowners but require public announcement before contacting landowners for an easement or lease. This should satisfy developers who do not want confusion by alerting a second developer of their activities. But, since competition is good, PSCW may consider issuing two temporary franchises with full disclosure to landowners who could sign options with each developer. PSCW would then choose the best project to move forward.

3. Require a PSCW-published “Truth-In-Negotiating” brochure to be sent to landowners one month before contact. A few references are available such as www.flaginc.org. One disclosure which should be included is that, it appears, in Wisconsin if the turbine or cable trenches create pathways for manure to contaminate the groundwater, it is still the farmer who is responsible for the contamination unless the easement/lease can transfer that liability to the developer.

4. Require that lease/easement agreements allow for an option to terminate the contract at some point early in the process if landowner wishes.
.
12 Existing Property Uses

1. This requirement is helpful but “reasonable” needs some definition or examples.

.13 Siting Criteria

1. With more and more evidence that setbacks which have been used in the past are not adequate, it is disturbing to see the setbacks proposed in the PSCW draft.

2. Determining the correct setback has to be driven by what is necessary to ensure safety and health, not by the fact that someone wants to invest in wind energy.

3. Since human stress causes health problems, the stress of “taking of property (value and use options) without due process” from neighbors of wind turbine installations must be considered. The PSCW understands the value of options when evaluating energy projects. Therefore, it must be understood that since a neighbor to a wind turbine project loses options for future use of their property when setbacks are inadequate, they lose real value. Lost options include not being able to build a residence, sell the property for residential development or even build their own wind turbine. Setbacks should not create “no-build” zones for future residences on nonparticipating parcels. Such action is, in fact, the “taking of property without due process”.

4. Setbacks should be established to protect safety and health of both participating and nonparticipating residents. The draft rules with different setbacks for different residents suggest a degree of ambiguity as to what setback is needed for health and safety for any person. The draft rules which include setback differences as well as the short setbacks reinforce the need for studies in the field so that science and statistical analysis provide the answers.

5. Setbacks should be determined for each wind structure to meet standards for maximum allowable sound levels and shadow flickering and to provide safe distances from ice shedding and structural failure or turbine blade breakage and throw-off. The draft seems to use some unknown criteria.

6. Since modeling predictions have a degree of error, minimum setbacks are still needed. But when modeling shows greater setbacks, those should be used.

7. Also, the option for residents to waive the setbacks drafted in Table 1 suggests a lack of a sound scientific basis for setting the setbacks in the first place. In addition, when the PSCW cannot determine the right setback for everyone’s safety and health, as it seems, it is not appropriate to allow a waiver process.

8. There is a body of studies and experiences which suggests “1/2 mile from residences” is needed for safety and health reasons. Even older publications suggested “1/4 mile” will solve the majority of issues which means the draft rules are ignoring the trend of evidence suggesting that greater setback distances are needed. From 2007 through 2009, seven experts or expert groups have recommended setbacks of 1.5 to 2.4 kilometers which is 0.93 to 1.5 miles. Again, conducting studies at Wisconsin’s existing wind turbine complexes is the only responsible path before setting setback criteria.

9. A health effect similar to motion sickness which affects some people and not others also needs studying to determine setback criteria.

.14 Noise Criteria

1. The towns are not recommending a specific sound level because the establishment of such standard needs to be based on thorough epidemiological studies. The towns suggest considering different sound levels for daytime and nighttime and the suitability of an ambient plus 5dB standard. Sound levels in the draft rules are set much higher than recommended by many recent studies.

The following references are offer.
Document ETSU-R-97 used as a standard for years in the United Kingdom specifies no greater than 35-40dB LA90 or background + 5dB for evening hours and 43dB LA90 or background + 5dB for nighttime. A new peer-reviewed report dated April 2010 by Dr. Hanning reviews a number of recent studies and standards. Some experts are now pointing out that ETSU-R-97 has proven inadequate and one suggestion is to lower the nighttime to 33-38dBA.
Stigwood in 2008 states that sound levels established for smaller turbines (less than 330 feet) are not accounting for noise phenomena of larger turbines which cause excessive amplitude modulation, more low frequency noise and greater disturbance inside buildings.

New Zealand’s new standard published March 2010 limits sound levels to the greater of 40dB LA90(10min) or 5dB above background with certain conditions requiring 35dB LA90(10min) or 5dB above background.

As referenced in another filing by our towns, the World Health Organization (WHO) has just published a very significant report entitled “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe”. WHO indicated that now governments have justifications to regulate noise exposure during nighttime. The report does not address the specific sound phenomena of wind turbines so Wisconsin needs to do those types of studies. WHO sets the limit for annual average nighttime exposure to not exceed 40dB outside at a residence.

Experts, Thorne and van den Berg (2010), wrote, “We believe annoyance and loss of amenity will be protected when the wind turbine noise limit would be 30dBA L95 in conditions of low wind speed at the dwellings and modulation restricted to 3dB.
Dr. Hanning concludes that to protect receptors from annoyance and sleep disturbance, a level of 35dBA is appropriate with the absence of excessive modulation.

2. Based on evolving evidence and the gap between the PSCW’s draft rules and updated standards in other jurisdictions with more wind turbine history, scientific field studies on human effects in Wisconsin’s existing wind complexes are essential before setting standards. If not done now, the PSCW must error on the safe side to not put people at risk.

3. Sound level limits are needed to protect participating residents as well as non-participating residents. Higher limits for participating residents will set the stage for even more difficulty for those homeowners to sell or even rent their properties and potentially lead to rural blight.

4. Standards need to address low frequency noise and infrasound which are beginning to be better understood and appear to have significant roles in sleep disturbance and negative health impacts. These sound types appear to be even more of an issue in stable air conditions.

A new peer-reviewed study by Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis was announced on June 9, 2010 and will be available soon. The authors indicate that infrasounds which are not audible cause physiological effects on humans. They point out that the A-weighting measurements of wind turbine noise underestimate the influence of this noise on the inner ear. They stress their study does not conclude that infrasound causes people’s symptoms but they call for scientific studies because of the likelihood of a causal effect.

5. In January 2010, the UK National Health Services, the world’s largest publicly funded health service, stresses the urgent need for studies on wind turbine noise effects which use control groups. They were reacting to a joint report by the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations and were concerned about the report’s deficiencies.
In 2007, a report came out of the New University of Lisbon and the Center for Human Performance which stated, “These results irrefutably demonstrate that wind turbines in the proximity of residential areas produce acoustical environments what can lead to the development of vibro-acoustic disease (VAD) in nearby home dwellers”. VAD can be a disabling disease.

6. Multiple wind turbines can synchronize sound waves and create stronger impulses to rattle windows and metal sheds. High levels of infrasound can also cause this. Sound levels of 60dBA at frequencies below 10 HZ have been measured at distances of ½ mile and greater. It appears that modeling tools are not predicting such accurately.

7. It is not known by the towns whether any D/O of an existing wind turbine complex in Wisconsin has done post-construction verification of their sound level models beyond just doing spot comparisons at locations where they have resident complaints. Recent studies suggest some modeling has proven to grossly underestimate sound levels. Again, a need to take the time to conduct field studies is required for credible decision-making for siting standards.

8. Properly set standards for health and safety should not be able to be waived. There may be minors and other occupants in the affected residence who need protection. Evidence shows different people often vary in their sensitivity to the health issues from noise. Also, a layperson is usually not capable to waive a safety standard for future occupants.

.15 Shadow Flicker

1. Landowners don’t want any shadow flicker on non-participating residences. Some object to it on their yard because of the amount of time they spend outside.

2. Using existing residences as impact targets for shadow flicker modeling potentially could create large “no-build/no-sell” zones on non-participating parcels.

3. Mitigation after the fact is a necessary provision but still is not a satisfactory solution. Mitigation by providing blinds or planting trees to block the view are not considered satisfactory by those affected. Again, D/O’s must be required to field test their models now in existing wind turbine complexes and make the appropriate corrections to the models if they have not done so.

.16 Signal Interference

1. Over-the-air internet services should be included in the siting rules. Such commercial systems using unlicensed (but legal) radio spectrum are in service today.

2. Requirements to mitigate interference are not adequate especially in these days of digital transmissions. The requirement must be to eliminate interference.

3. The towns’ farmers want to know what consideration has been given to whether wind turbines will impact global positioning systems used for different farm operations.

.17 Stray Voltage

1. The requirement to “work to rectify” opens the door for dragging out the solving of any problems indefinitely. Language needs to require a timely solution.

2. More technical requirements should be included as a minimum such as filter devices to prevent existing harmonics on the electric distribution or transmission system from transferring to the wind turbines’ cable connector installations. Bare neutrals should not be allowed as part of these cable connector systems.

3. If it is necessary to involve the electric distribution utility, the D/O should reimburse the utility for their time and expenses. Utility ratepayers should not have to pay to accommodate wind developers anymore than they do.
.18 Construction and Operation

1. Under paragraph (3), the turbine foundation design shall be reviewed by a licensed Professional Engineer with certified soil testing results to verify adequacy. This has been an issue with inexperienced or small developers who thought it was adequate to use a “typical foundation” picture in a manufacturer’s marketing brochure.

2. In certain geological areas, consideration and evaluation of risks to groundwater are essential. Not only the foundations but, more importantly, the cable connector trenches can create pathways for contamination from farm operations. Some sites will not be appropriate for turbine structures or connector trenches. The rules must support professional expert decision-making in these cases where risks to health and safety are best known locally. Attempts to write rules for general situations will ignore serious threats.

3. In sensitive areas, such as southern Brown County, trenches will likely intercept karsts, sinkholes and shallow bedrock which will create new no-spreading zones for manure, a process essential for farmers. If D/O’s run trenches across farm fields, the whole trench line could create new pathways to groundwater. There is some discussion that it may be necessary to prohibit manure spreading within 200 feet of cable trenches in geologically sensitive areas which could essentially take much farm land out of production. The state rules must accommodate such complex situations and allow requirements specified by experts. A requirement to route cables along tree lines or fence lines of participating landowners should be permitted. But this would not be a solution if the tree lines or fence lines are adjacent to non-participating properties.

4. Similarly, certain geological situations require knowing the depth and nature of the soil under the bottom of the trench. The rules must allow for requiring soil borings in trench lines as appropriate.

5. The DNR has proposed new restrictions for towns and landowners to reduce non-point pollution and storm water control. The wind siting rules need to allow for protections for methods used to satisfy the DNR requirements. Sometimes, this may be as simple as restoring road ditches and their grasses. Related to this, the rules need to specify procedures for locating and repairing drain tile systems in use by many farmers. D/O’s should be required to pay for any damage to the tile system whenever discovered.

6. If not done, there should be consideration for standards when a turbine foundation will be near or in bedrock. It is anecdotal but it has been indicated that a number of feet of backfill, i.e. 8-11 feet, should separate the foundation from the bedrock to prevent vibrations from transmitting through the bedrock to nearby structures.

7. A minimum amount of general liability insurance should be specified since usually the D/O uses a limited liability company to limit assets at risk.

8. Under paragraph (5), there should be a requirement for the D/O to send an acknowledgement of receipt of a complaint to the complainant.

III. Political Subdivision Procedure

.32 Political Subdivision Review of a Wind Energy System

1. Towns should be able to require compliance to their existing ordinance procedures for construction projects such as road damage bonds, building permits, etc.

2. A cap on town fees or reimbursements could potentially result in an inadequate review process. As drafted, the fee would be only $50 on a $50,000 project and $3,000 on a $10,000,000 project.

3. It should be clear that a town may require the D/O to pay for an independent third-party engineering/environmental inspector to be on-site for any excavation, blasting, backfilling and sensitive construction procedures. The inspector would report to the town, county, landowners and, if desired, the DNR and PSCW. This is especially necessary in certain geological areas.

.33 Political Subdivision Provisions

1. A question arises with the provision whereby a town may require the D/O to offer agreements to nonparticipating residence owners. If compensation is offered and the residence owners then become participating owners because of the receipt of compensation, would then the reduced setbacks apply to those residences if the final rules still had different setbacks for participating residences and nonparticipating residences?

2. It should be made clear that requiring an escrow in an interest-bearing account is considered to be reasonable for proof of financial responsibility.

3. Post-construction filing requirements in (3) should include maps showing the underground facilities, not just the turbine structures.

4. A political subdivision should be allowed to require the D/O to use an “on-demand” lighting system approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. These new systems eliminate light pollution from aircraft warning lights by turning the lights on only when an aircraft is detected heading towards the wind turbine installations.

IV. Commission Procedure

.40 Detailed Application Requirements

1. There appears to be a typo where “s. PSC 128.30(1)(j)” is referenced in the first paragraph.
.41 Commission Review

1. Under (8), the political subdivision is required to enter a decision within 20 business days. That may be difficult with town notice and quorum requirements and may require a special meeting. Thirty business days would be reasonable.

Submitted for the towns by Glen R. Schwalbach, P.E.

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

PSC Schedules public hearings on proposed wind farm siting rules

SOURCE Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com

June 25, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECOND FEATURE:

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

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

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

DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE WORKSHEET BY CLICKING HERE

Wind Siting Council 6.23.10

STRAW PROPOSAL AMENDMENT WORKSHEET

Wind Energy System Sizes – General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Setbacks, Noise & Shadow Flicker – General

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

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

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

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

Minimum Safety Setbacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noise – General

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Absolute
□ Relative
□ Both

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

□ No, the rules do not need to address this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

Shadow Flicker – General

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

□ Yes

□ No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

□ Other _______________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

Siting – Other

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

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

Mitigation – General

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

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

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

□ Yes, to address these issues: ______________________________________
□ No

Mitigation – Noise & Shadow Flicker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

Mitigation – Signal Interference

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

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

Complaint Resolution

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No
□ Other _________________________________________

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes, the political subdivision itself should deal with complaints

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Property Value Protection Plan

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

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

Wind Leases & Easements

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes

□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

Decommissioning

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Pre-construction condition, to the extent feasible

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

□ Other _____________________________________

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

Construction and Operation Standards – General

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

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

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

Construction and Operation Standards – Emergency Procedures

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

Conflict of Interest

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

General Notification Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

Application Process Requirements

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

Political Subdivision Process

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

□ Yes
□ No

Additional questions from Commission staff:

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

Stray Voltage

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

Commission Review
(No amendments suggested)

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

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

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

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

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

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

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