Entries in wind farm contracts (35)
6/21/10 PASSING THE BUCK: Driven from your home by wind turbine noise in a PSC approved wind farm? Who ya gonna call? Not the PSC.
“The PSC has ruled that it won’t do anything to help people who are having problems with wind farms and has basically told them to take their case to civil court”
The former home of Ann and Jason Wirtz now sits abandoned near the Forward Energy Wind Center, which went online in 2008 in Brownsville. (Photo by Dave Wasinger)
CLICK HERE to read about the family who once lived in this home.
PSC REJECTS OAKFIELD FAMILY'S WIND FARM CLAIM
SOURCE: Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com
June 21, 2010 By Colleen Kottke,
The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has rejected a complaint filed by an Oakfield family about the Forward Energy Wind Center.
Jason and Ann Wirtz contended that the Forward Energy Wind Center cost them their alpaca-breeding business and created such significant health problems for the family that they were eventually forced out of their home.
PSC Chairman Eric Callisto said the commission is not the proper forum for personal injury claims.
In the claim, the Wirtzes asked the PSC to reopen the Forward Wind Energy Center proceedings to hold a hearing about prior health claims from residents living within the wind farm. The Wirtzes hoped to convince the PSC at a hearing to require Invenergy to compensate the family for prior damages.
The Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office advised the PSC that it cannot do so.
In a 12-page decision released on June 18, the PSC said that according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the agency has no legal basis to assert jurisdiction over a lawsuit filed in April by the Wirtz family that claims the wind farm caused them personal injury and diminished their property value.
Disappointment
Madison-based attorney Ed Marion, who represents the Wirtzes, said the decision handed down last week was a disappointment.
“The PSC has ruled that it won’t do anything to help people who are having problems with wind farms and has basically told them to take their case to civil court,” Marion said.
The couple purchased the sprawling farmhouse on County Trunk YY in Dodge County in 1996 and said they poured countless hours and money into remodeling the home and upgrading the property.
Before the wind farm went on line, the Wirtz family made the decision to sell their home and eight-acre property appraised at $320,000. With no buyers, the Wirtzes eventually pulled the home off the market in 2008.
The family argued to the PSC that the noise and vibration from the nearby wind turbines caused sleep deprivation, headaches and other physical ailments. In addition, the Wirtzes said their alpaca-breeding herd was adversely affected.
The Wirtzes abandoned their home last year and moved to Oakfield. The home was sold at a sheriff’s sale in May for $106,740.
Ann Wirtz said she wasn’t “shocked” by the PSC’s decision.
“We’re not sure what we’re going to do right now,” she said. “We’re still exploring input for our legal options.”
While the family could file a lawsuit in civil court, they also have the right to appeal the PSC decision.
WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE
Monday, June 21, 2010, beginning at 1:30 p.m.
Docket 1-AC-231
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Flambeau River Conference Room (3rd Floor)
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, WisconsinAudio or video of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 1:30.
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.
FROM WIND SITING COUNCIL MEMBER, MICHAEL VICKERMAN:
“You can’t stop a project in Wisconsin based on the appearance of these turbines,” [Michael Vickerman] says, “so over the past seven years the opposition has refined its arguments and framed them in the realm of protecting public health and safety. Here, as far as I’m concerned, is where they reveal their antiwind bias.
They allege that they can’t sleep, they suffer from nausea—they express their discomfort in the most hysterical terms, and I think they basically work themselves into a very visceral hatred for wind. I don’t even know if they have a philosophical objection to wind. They’re maybe congenitally unhappy people and they needed to project their fears and anxieties and resentments onto something new that comes into the neighborhood and disrupts things.”
-Chicago Reader, May 14, 2009
Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: For those who have not been following the Wirtz family story, we re-post a story written by Lynda Barry after an interview with Ann and Jason Wirtz in June of 2009 before they moved from their home because of wind turbine noise.
Lynda Barry is a Wisconsin writer who is currently doing research for a book about life in Wisconsin's industrial wind projects.
Interview with Ann and Jason Wirtz
N1157 Hwy YY
Oakfield, WI 53065
Dodge County, Wisconsin
Conducted on the evening of May 2, 2009
WIND TURBINE NOISE FORCES WISCONSIN FAMILY TO ABANDON HOME
TOWN OF OAKFIELD- Ann and Jason Wirtz have a pretty Wisconsin farmhouse near the Town of Oakfield. It’s the kind of place that had people stopping by to ask if the family would consider selling it.
“They’d just pull into our driveway,” says Ann, a mother of four. “There were people who said if we ever decided to sell it, we should call them.”
Although turn-of-the-century house needed a lot of work when they bought it, the Wirtz family didn’t mind. They planned to stay. Both Ann and Jason grew up in the area and wanted to raise their children there.
“I thought we were going to live here for the rest of our lives.” says Ann. “I thought one of our kids was going to live here after us.”
This was before 86 industrial wind turbines went up around their home as part of the Chicago based Invenergy's Forward Energy wind project which began operation in March of 2008. The closest turbine is to the Wirtz home is less than 1300 feet from their door.
“Last night it was whining,” said Ann. “It wasn’t just the whoosh whoosh whoosh or the roaring. It was a high pitched whine. And I don’t just hear them, I can feel them.”
She describes a feeling like a beat in her head, a pulse that matches the turbine’s rhythm. “Last night was really bad,” she said.
She says she knows which nights are going to be loud by which way the turbine blades are facing, and her family dreads the nights when the wind is out of the west. “That’s when they are the loudest.”
Jason said he found out there was a wind farm planned for his area from a neighbor he ran into at the post office. “He asked me if I knew anything about the turbines coming in. I didn’t.” Jason came home and mentioned it to Ann.
“When I first heard about it I wasn’t that alarmed.” says Ann, “People were saying how bad they could be, but I just didn’t believe them at first.”
She assumed the turbines would be sited much further away from her home, unaware of the controversy over the setbacks approved by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin which allows turbines to be sited close as 1000 feet to the homes of people like the Wirtzes.
“All those orange flags they put in were way back there. I was thinking it wouldn’t be too bad. And then when that access road started coming in so close I said, ‘what the heck is going on?’
Meanwhile, Jason had been attending town meetings and learning more about the project. The more he learned, the more worried he became. Five months before the turbines went up, the Wirtz family decided to sell their house.
They called people who had let them know they’d be interested in buying it. “When they found out about the turbines,” said Ann, “They weren’t interested anymore.”
The Wirtz family prepared the house to put on the market. In November of 2007, the home, sitting on eight acres, was appraised for $320,000. But this once sought-after property could find no buyers. “As soon as people found out about the wind farm coming in,” says Ann. “That was it. And once they started building the roads to the turbines, forget it. They’d ask what that road was for, we’d tell them and we’d never hear from them again.”
After the turbines went up, interested buyers stopped showing up altogether.
“We tried to find another realtor,” said Ann, “They’d ask ‘is it near the wind turbines?’ and when they found out it was, they wouldn’t even bother to come out to the house to look at it. One realtor told me it wasn’t worth her marketing dollars to even list it because if it was in the wind farm she knew she couldn’t sell it. I mean have you ever heard of a real estate agent turning down a chance to sell a house?”
Another realtor said they would have to price it under $200,000 to get anyone to even look at it. “At that price we were going to be $50,000 worse than when we started, “ said Ann. “And that didn’t include the 12 years of work we put into the place.”
But the Wirtzes were increasingly anxious to get away from the turbines. While Jason, who works nights, wasn’t having much trouble with the turbine noise, it was keeping Ann and her children from sleeping well at night. They were tired all the time. They were also getting frequent headaches.
And there was trouble with their animals as well. The Wirtz family raise alpaca and have a breeding herd. Ann says the Alpaca became jumpy the first day the turbines went on line. “Normally they are so calm. But the day the towers started up, they seemed to panic. They were on their back legs right away.”
Ann says the herd had always been docile and healthy, with no breeding problems. Since the wind farm started up, their temperament has changed and none of the females have been able to carry a pregnancy to full term. “ They’re nervous all the time now. I can’t prove anything but I do know my animals. And I really felt something was wrong. All the years we’ve had them we’ve never had a problem.”
At night herd shelters in the large metal shed behind the Wirtz home. When the turbines are loud, Ann says the sound echoes inside the shed and the metal vibrates and hums. “The noise in here gets just unbelievable. When the tin starts to vibrate in here, they can’t stand it. I have to find them a better home. This is torture for them.”
The same turbine noise has driven Ann out of her own bedroom “I can’t stand to be in that room anymore. I don’t sleep at all. My sleep has been terrible.” Instead she sleeps on the couch where a fan on their pellet stove helps counter the turbine noise. “My number one complaint is how tired I am all the time,” says Ann, “I never had that before, ever.”
Says Jason, “We don’t have air conditioning, we didn’t want it and we didn’t need it. In the summer we just opened the windows and let cross breezes cool the house. But the first summer with the turbine noise we had to shut the windows and turn on the fan. We couldn’t stand it.”
After one of the children was recently diagnosed with a severe stress-related illness, the Wirtzes decided they’d had enough. They decided the health of their family was more important than keeping their home, and they are abandoning it.
“Now, after all the trouble we’ve had living here” said Ann, “ If a family showed up and wanted to buy the place and they had kids, I don’t think I could sell it to them. Knowing what I know about living here, I just don’t think I could put another family through this.”
They are now looking for a place in a nearby village. “We were born and raised in the country but we’re thinking of moving to Oakfield because they aren’t going to plop a 400 foot turbine in the middle of the village, says Jason. “And I know I’m going to have to drive by this place every day on my way to work. It’s going to make me sick to see it, but I can’t stay here anymore.”
Ann adds, “I say we move near whoever it is that decides on the setbacks because you know they’ll never have a turbine by their place”
Jason and Ann sit at the dining room table and point out the elaborate woodwork they’d stripped and re-finished by hand. Jason holds a picture of the farmhouse from happier times. Earlier that day they’d met with the people at the bank to let them know they were giving up their home.
Jason says, “At least we’re young enough to start over. My mom, she doesn’t have much money and now she has turbines around her house. She said, ‘This house was my retirement,’ Her and my dad put everything into that house. Now I don’t know what she’s going to do.”
Jason says, “ The quality of life we had here is just gone. I grew up here and I loved it here. But I don’t anymore. ”
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Invenergy, Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, wind farm PSC, wind farm complaints, wind farm contracts, wind farm noise, wind farm property values, wind farm shadow flicker
|
Comments Off
6/17/10 When there is so much money to be made, who cares about the neighbors? Who wants to listen to the Brown County Board of Health?
HEALTH OFFICIALS WEIGH IN ON WIND FARM
SOURCE www.fox11online.com
June 16, 2010
By Becky DeVries
BROWN COUNTY – A Brown County committee makes a recommendation against an area wind farm because of worries it may be unhealthy for people nearby.
Brown County’s Board of Health says it believes the risk is too high, and is recommending a proposed wind farm not be built.
Invenergy is the Chicago-based company, planning to build 100 wind turbines in southern Brown County. The wind farm is not a done deal yet. The state Public Service Commission is still taking public comments on the topic, and has yet to give final approval.
“Behind me there would be at least three of them I believe, possibly more, and there will be some on this side also,” Jeff VanRossum explained near his Town of Wrightstown home.
The view from VanRossum’s front yard could soon change if plans are approved to put up 100 wind turbines in southern Brown County.
“There’s too many variables, too many health issues,” said VanRossum.
VanRossum does not want the wind farm in the area, his main concern is health.
“We’re saying that this is not a safe place to cite a wind farm,” said Audrey Murphy, chair of the Brown County Board of Health.
The board is formally recommending the wind farm not be built. Murphy says the main concern is the risk of water contamination that could happen as a result of an underground system that would connect the windmills.
“The greatest threat to this wind farm is the ground water situation,” said Murphy. “This is an area that has a historical record of having ground contamination.”
However, Invenergy, the company proposing the project, says it has addressed ground water contamination concerns in the past, and has not had problems.
“We’re confident that it will be shown that our project is a safe and reliable facility that is going to generate great economic benefits,” said Kevin Parzyck, development manager for Invenergy.
The Wisconsin Public Service Commission says its three commissioners will review all the information regarding the wind farm and make a decision based on that. The recommendation from the Brown County Board of Health is just one piece of information the commission will review. It doesn’t necessarily hold any more or less weight than any other piece of information.
“We have to start making a step toward cleaner air,” said Dave Bining.
Bining lives just down the street from Jeff VanRossum, and welcomes the windmills.
“I’m for it,” said Bining. “We can’t keep pumping pollution into the air. At some point there’s got to be an alternative. Wind mills may not be the answer, but right now they’re available.”
Just which neighbor gets his way remains to be seen.
The Wisconsin Public Service Commission is still accepting public comments. It will review them, and other information and then make a decision, on allowing the plans to go forward. Invenergy hopes to start construction on the Brown County wind farm next year.
SECOND STORY:
BROWN COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH OPPOSES WIND TURBINE PROJECT
SOURCE: www.wbay.com
June 17 2010
By Marcie Kobriger
Plans in motion to build a 100-wind turbine farm in southern Brown County will be at a standstill if the Public Service Commission accepts a recommendation from the county board of health.
The board says digging in to put up the turbines could put the public’s health at risk.
Whether the complaints are that they’re noisy, ugly, or emit stray voltage, the arguments against building wind turbines in Brown County have been stacked high.
But it’s what’s beneath the ground that’s convinced the Brown County Board of Health that this type of green energy is not the way to go in the southern part of the county.
Well water in the Town of Morrison and other southern Brown County communities has been plagued for years.
“Over 30 percent of our wells in the Town of Morrison right now are over the drinking water standard for nitrates,” Bill Hafs of the Brown County Land and Water Conservation Department said.
E. coli and other bacteria have also been found in the wells.
The project would require digging 81 miles of trenches to bury cable to carry power from the wind turbines to the electrical grid.
With farms as far as the eye can see — providing plenty of manure to spread– conservation experts say the Town of Morrison, with less than one foot of top soil above bedrock in places, is susceptible to well contamination.
“Once you’ve disturbed that and hit the bedrock, then if you land apply any waste over the top it’ll hit that cable and go down into the bedrock and cause a ground water contamination,” Hafs said. “We’ve created a conduit to bedrock, a conduit to ground water.”
But the board of health’s recommendation has done little to reconcile friends and families who’ve been at odds over the issue of wind turbines since the wind farm was first proposed.
“We till fields, we till swamp holes, we till sink holes, we till frog holes, and none if it affects the ground water. How could a wire?” neighbor Harvey Hafeman responds. “How could that affect groundwater? That’s a myth.
Hafeman believes the recommendation has less to do with water concerns than the concerns of his neighbors who oppose wind turbines.
“It’s all because these people don’t want a tower in their back yards.”
Hafeman says he has the acreage to put many wind turbines on his property.
He doesn’t believe the four-foot cable trenches would pose any additional threat of well contamination.
“If they did go nine feet, the basement of this house is nine feet deep and they don’t go that far even if they don’t have to,” Hafeman said.
Conservationists disagree.
“You typically don’t spread animal waste or industrial waste close to buildings,” Hafs responded.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: To read more about Wisconsin wind issues and the latest on what is happening in Brown County, visit the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy (BCCRWE) website by CLICKING HERE
HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?
The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules. The deadline for comment is July 7th, 2010.
The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes, 500 feet from property lines.
CLICK HERE 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
SAVE THE DATE: The PSC will be holding public hearings for the wind sitting rules on
Monday, June 28 @ 1PM & 6PM in Fond Du Lac at the City Hall on 160 S. Macy Street
Tuesday, June 29 @ 1PM & 6PM at Holiday Inn in Tomah on 1017 E. McCoy Blvd.
Wednesday, June 30 at the PSC in Madison on 610 North Whitney Way, 1pm and 6pm
The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has scheduled several hearings throughout the state regarding the creation of statewide wind turbine regulations.
The new regulations apply to wind farms that will generate less than 100 Megawatts of power. Specifics about turbine height, noise and distance setbacks, shadow flicker, signal interference and when residents and government agencies must be notified about proposed projects are included in the 53-page document.
To view the document, go to www.psc.wi.gov, enter docket number 1-AC-231 into the case search bar and download the document titled “Notice of Hearings” with the Public Service Commission reference number 131882.
Comments are due on Wednesday, July 7, 2010 at noon and must be mailed to: Sandra J. Paske, Secretary to the Commission, Public Service Commission, P.O. Box 7854, Madison, Wis., 53707-7854.
Comments can also be faxed to (608) 266-3957 and are due by Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at noon.
Online comments can be submitted at http://psc.wi.gov using docket number 1-AC-231.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in BCCRWE, Brown county board of health, Wind farm health effects, wind farm bats, wind farm complaints, wind farm contracts, wind farm ground water, wind farm noise, wind farm shadow flicker, wind siting council
|
Comments Off
6/8/10 Wednesday's wind siting council meeting and what's on the docket? What's the difference between what the wind developer tells you and what the easement you signed says? It's not a good surprise. AND a Rock County prairie conservationist weighs in on the draft siting rules.
WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING TOMORROW
Wednesday, June 9, 2010, at starting at 9AM
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way
Madison, Wisconsin
Audio or video of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 9:00. 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.
WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA?
1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda
2) Review and adoption of meeting minutes of June 2, 2010
3) Presentations: Property Values
a. Kurt Kielisch, Appraisal Group One
b. Eric Corroy, Zoning Administrator, Red River Township
c. Joe Jerabek, Zoning Administrator & Assessor, Lincoln Township (invited)
d. Representative, Action Appraisers (invited)
4) Background information on questions raised by Council regarding the draft rules
a. Statutory interpretation
b. Enforcement
c. Commission rulemaking authority
d. Notice requirements
e. Emergency services
f. Vestas manual reference
g. Decommissioning
h. Stray voltage
i. Complaint resolution
j. Commission noise measurement protocol
5) Discuss Council’s recommendations on topics covered by the draft rules
6) Next steps/Discussion of next meeting’s time, place and agenda
7) Adjourn
This meeting is open to the public.
If you have any questions or need special accommodations, please contact Deborah
Erwin at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin by telephone at (608) 266-3905 or
via e-mail at deborah.erwin@wisconsin.gov.
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 and type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted so far.
CLICK HERE to leave a comment on the Wind Siting Council Docket
WHAT'S ON THE DOCKET?
This from a resident of Brown County
I do completely agree with the realtors on the counsel that the developers need to be licensed and there needs to be a "truth in wind development" requirement.
We agreed to run a buried cable, not a turbine. It was never disclosed that by signing a cable easement we were also allowing a turbine to be placed right up to our property line, and that a turbine could be placed 500 feet from our home.
We would have never agreed to this if it was truthfully disclosed.
-- Curt Hilgenberg, Greenleaf Wisconsin
Dear PSC Commissioners and Wind Siting Counsel members;
I`d like to share my experience with a wind developer in hopes of helping future land owners.
My wife and I looked into small wind turbines for several years, but could never cost justify buying one. The payback period was always longer that the life expectancy of the turbines. When I read about a proposed wind project in my area, I called the developer to find out about hosting a turbine on our land. I though, this is great, I can do my part for renewable energy.
When we learned about the size of the turbines, we realized that there was no where on our 35 acres where I could host a turbine and not impact my neighbors, so we decided against it. We also were worried about how a 400 foot turbine would negatively affect property values and the ability to sell our home if needed.
After over a year of hearing almost nothing about the project we got a call about running a buried collector cable through our land. We again decided against it. After several more phone calls, we reluctantly agreed to sign a buried cable easement.
We were given the pitch that they are going to be built with or without our participation so we may as well benefit financially from it. We were promised that the cable would be run along the lot line where it would have minimal impact.
Again we did this to help the project and to do our part for renewable energy.
After another year hearing nothing from the developer (we did attend the only public information session hosted by the developer but were told everything is still being designed yet, they have don`t have any details) we learned what the plan was for our property.
We found out about it on the PSC application, the developer never discussed anything with us. The plan was to run a high voltage cable through our front yard between our house and barn which are about 100 feet apart. This high voltage line was going to run right through our electric supply line, our well water line and our septic system.
It was going to cross 3 fence lines, take a right turn in the middle of our horse pasture and then cross another fence line. Hardly the low impact we were promised.
The really baffling part of this is that there was an alternate path between the 2 turbines they are trying to connect that was almost a straight line on vacant land. This path was not through our property, but was through other properties already under easement. Instead the developer chose a path that was about twice as long and had much more negative impact.
Once you sign an easement agreement, the developer holds all the cards.
They can legally place turbines, collector lines, and access roads anywhere on the property under easement.
I would like to see the process changed to require landowner approval after the land usage is determined. The contract agreement should be a separate event from the easement filing with the county.
If the developer`s plan is materially different from what was discussed and promised, the easement could not be filed and the contract would be voided. This would ensure that the developer would keep their promises and keep the land owner involved in any changes, or the land owner could opt out.
In our case, the developer did not do what was promised. They have since verbally said they would move the line, but we have seen no evidence of it.
We have become so disgusted at the misstatements, omissions, and lack of communication that we no longer want to be part of the project. We returned our un-cashed easement check (we were waiting to cash it until we saw that the plan for our land was acceptable and as discussed) to the developer and asked to be released from the contract and easement.
They simply said no.
We hired an attorney to work out a release. They again said no and reminded us of that our contract had a confidentiality clause.
I`m not implying that all wind developers will look you in the eye and lie to you. I`m sure that some work with the landowners for the benefit of both parties. These reputable developers should not have an issue with a 2 step easement because they are treating the land owner as a partner.
I do completely agree with the realtors on the counsel that the developers need to be licensed and there needs to be a "truth in wind development" requirement. We agreed to run a buried cable, not a turbine.
It was never disclosed that by signing a cable easement we were also allowing a turbine to be placed right up to our property line, and that a turbine could be placed 500 feet from our home. We would have never agreed to this if it was truthfully disclosed. This is plain and simply WRONG!
A developer has an unfair advantage. They work with these contracts on a regular basis. The land owner, probably only once in a lifetime.
The process is broken. It needs to be fixed and regulated.
Curt Hilgenberg
Greenleaf, Wisconsin.
This from Kevin Kawula, a prairie conservationist from Rock County, Wisconsin
To the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Commission Staff, and Wind Siting Council Members,
I ask that no CPCN be granted by the PSCW for any Industrial Wind Facility, or Industrial Wind Project, until health and safety standards for people and wildlife can be established by the Wind Siting Council, and a more responsible, ethical, and equitable joint development model can be created for a state natural resource, the wind.
The Commission`s draft safety setback of 1,250 feet, from a non-participating residence, and a nighttime noise level of 45 Dba, are insufficient to protect Wisconsin citizens` health. These setbacks put rural Wisconsin citizens at risk from unsafe industrial wind development.
Wind developers are in Wisconsin to do business, and make money. They are offering the minimum in cooperation, compassion, and compensation, and are expecting the greatest of windfalls. The electric utilities by law are guaranteed a profit.The question is how much are the utilities allowed to profit over a community's health and safety from a "free" resource. A "greater benefit" to society, the state, is often the justification. The wind developers hope it is so. It is the PSCW`s responsibility to prove the case for such a takings from the commons.
I, as a tax-paying citizen, am asking the PSCW, as an appointed government body, to tell wind developers and the utilities, that Wisconsin and its citizens deserve better. Better safety setbacks, better operating parameters, and better cost and profit sharing for the exploitation of a state natural resource.
It is alarming that the PSCW would consider and approve a CPCN for WEPCO`s Glacier Hills with the same inadequate safety setbacks, before it has established the rules for siting wind facilities in Wisconsin through the Wind Siting Council, as required by the recently passed Wind Siting Reform Law.There are known and admitted problems with industrial scale wind turbines. Nighttime noise and sleep deprivation are the prime concerns for Wisconsin`s rural residents.
The need for nighttime industrial wind generation profits, over a citizens right to healthful sleep, needs to be addressed by the PSCW prior to granting of any CPCN any industrial wind facility.
Bat deaths and wildlife displacement also need to be addressed responsibly.
Wind developers and utilities are trying to side-step the very real health concerns (Dr. McFadden`s `partial overview` presentation to the Wind Siting Council fits in here!), community, and environmental impacts of industrial wind facilities by dazzling the Wind Siting Council, Commission, and citizenry with RPS claims, shared revenue numbers, and promised jobs.
RPS CLAIMS
Wind developers and utilities can assure the PSCW of an industrial wind facility`s RPS qualifications when it resolves to close down an appropriate coal burning facility.The PSCW can determine the value of an industrial wind facility either through the CPCN permit (x amount MW coal facility), the installed nameplate capacity of an industrial wind facility (1-200 MW, as proposed, of coal generation), or actual industrial wind facility generation.
(The Governor`s Task Force on Global Warming is hoping that Wisconsin wind facilities will achieve 29% of their nameplate capacity, but numbers in Wisconsin wind facilities are currently lower at 25% of nameplate capacity) This would help the PSCW achieve true RPS goals of reduced fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
If the inclusion of industrial wind nameplate capacity is allowed by the PSCW factoring towards achieving Wisconsin`s utilities RPS goals without tying that industrial wind nameplate to the equivalent reduction of coal generation, then the RPS is hollow and without value.
All understand the intermittency of industrial wind generation. All understand the responsibilities of base load generation towards the dependability of a transmission/distribution electrical grid.
If industrial wind facilities do not reduce the need for nighttime base load generation, due to their intermittency or lack of need for additional generation, then are industrial wind facilities reducing CO2 emissions?
The answer is no.
If the economic benefits of nighttime generation are necessary to the wind industry, despite the lack of emission reductions, then why is the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPS) so intent on building additional transmission lines up to Manitoba Hydro reservoirs north of Winnipeg Canada?
According to Roy Thilly (WPPI), the Co-Chairperson of The Governor`s Task Force on Global Warming, transmission lines built up to Manitoba Hydro reservoirs would allow WPS to store the nighttime wind generation it currently has to sell at a loss to get it on the grid at night.Manitoba Hydro would charge for this service, but it would prevent WPS from having to sell nighttime wind generation at a loss.
SHARED REVENUES?
Lets look at some of the revenue numbers surrounding the WEPCO, Glacier Hills Wind Facility.WEPCO plans to construct 90 1.8MW wind turbines for an installed capacity of 162MW of renewable energy, Columbia County would receive $378,000 per year, the Town of Scott $108,000, and the Town of Randolph $180,000, for a total of $666,000 per year, or $4,111 per MW of installed nameplate capacity.
Not bad? What is the source of these shared revenues? WEPCO income, profits, or a rate tax mechanism?
How much profit does WEPCO hope to make? A bunch.In July 2009, the U.S. Treasury Department began to accept applications for renewable energy projects cash grants of up to 30% in lieu of Investment Tax Credits (ITCs).
Regardless of the price tag WEPCO is certain to write off the cost of the project against its earnings over the next 5 to 6 years. So the cost, $335 million to $413 million, is shouldered by the taxpayers.
Up to 30% up front, the remainder through annual depreciation written off against WEPCO Glacier Hill earnings, and any depreciation balance transferable to other WEPCO earnings.
WEPCO potential earnings at Glacier Hills can be calculated as follows: Each 1.8MW wind turbine, generating at 29% efficiency, and selling the generation at 7 cents a kilowatt hour (kwh), would earn WEPCO $365,400 per turbine per year.Green tags/Green credits, sold at 2 cents a kwh, would generate an additional $104,400 per turbine per year. There is also the Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC), at 2 cents per kwh that would also be worth $104,400 per turbine per year in additional write offs.
The 90 turbines of Glacier Hills together could earn $42,282,000 per year, with a PTC worth $9,396,000.
So to recap WEPCO through Glacier Hills could see $42,282,000 in gross income per year, while Columbia County, and the Towns of Randolph and Scott could see $666,000 per year. Fair? Just? Equitable?
How much will the State of Wisconsin generate in tax revenues from Glacier Hills?
Another case study of industrial wind facility shared revenues can be found with MG&E and Wave Wind LLC. Wave Wind LLC was recently in the papers seeking 8 cents per kwh for it`s proposed industrial wind project`s generation, but MG&E was only offering 2.9 cents per kwh, due to having met it`s RPS requirements.If Wave Wind LLC were to get 8 cents per kwh along with green credits at 2 cents per kwh, that means a 1.5 MW wind turbine operating at 29% efficiency would generate $435,000, $375,000 at 25% efficiency, while the county would receive $4,000 and township $2,000.
JOBS
We as a state or nation can subsidize any industry we choose. For an industry to try to hold a community, state, or country hostage over the promise of `JOBS` is ridiculous in this day and age. We see it all the time however, as community`s vie for the worse business deal to lure a temporary industry. Choose any green industry and the `Jobs` argument fades quickly.
CONCLUSION:
STATE NATURAL RESOURCE ALLOCATION REQUIREMENT FOR CPCN
Since we, Wisconsin citizens, are paying for these industrial wind projects, and that profits made from our shared natural resources must be distributed equitably, wind project developers need to be more open and generous with its profit sharing potential of our shared natural resources.The PSCW needs to provide improved oversight so that the industrial wind industry`s business drive does not jeopardize any Wisconsin citizens` quality of life.
Wind proponents like to stress that the wind is "free". Utilities, like WEPCO, MG&E, etc. stand to profit exorbitantly from a "free" Wisconsin natural resource ($42,282,000 with Glacier Hills at 29% efficiency, $36,450,000 at 25% efficiency vs. $666,000 for Columbia County and the towns of Randolph and Scott regardless of generation efficiency) if our appointed government bodies, like the PSCW, do not allocate the natural resource, and its benefits, more equitably.
The primary PSCW CPCN reallocation requirement, for any industrial scale wind project, is the nighttime curtailment of industrial scale wind turbine operations, when the demand for electrical generation is low and covered by base load operations, and human health and safety impacts are high.Nighttime curtailment will also eliminate unnecessary bat, and nocturnal migrating bird mortalities.
Industrial scale wind developers, in the Glacier Hills case WEPCO, often make payments in lieu of taxes, to communities and governments. Nighttime curtailment, as a CPCN required reallocation of a state natural resource, is an improvement on this model, and would benefit the hosting communities by removing an unnecessary health impact at no expense to WEPCO.If the wind is truly free then the PSCW should not hold Wisconsin communities, homes, and citizens accountable for profit forecasts made to WEPCO shareholders for a natural resource they do not own.
This is much more equitable than a response to non-hosting residents found in a partial review of the PSCW`s EIS on Glacier Hills states in, Property Values, 5.10.2, p.85, "Another method that could mitigate potential impacts to non-host residences is a property value protection plan.This type of a plan provides property owners with certain assurance that they will receive "fair market value" for their eligible properties upon sale. Since 1997, this type of agreement has been implemented between the Onyx Glacier Ridge Landfill and the town of Williamstown, city of Mayville, and Dodge County. Fair market value is determined by a state-licensed appraiser. The plan identifies the properties covered by the agreement, the party responsible for paying for the property appraisals, and the method for compensating affected property owners."
The fact that the PSCW uses landfill mitigation as a way of addressing wind project impacts, should raise concerns with every rural land owner, and state politician.
Wind Turbine Projects = Sanitary Landfills ...as far as home and property values are concerned.
The PSCW can correct these errors. Wisconsin deserves responsible policy makers who care about all of Wisconsin`s citizens, not just those who are paid to shape public policy, and create short sighted legislation.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin A. Kawula,
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wisconsin wind power, wind farm bats, wind farm contracts, wind farm noise, wind farm property values, wind farm setbacks, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm sleep, wind siting, wind siting council, wind turbine noise, wisconsin wind energy
|
Comments Off
6/1/10 Talking about turbine noise and setbacks and property values: just a few of the things that will be discussed in the longest Wind Siting Council Meeting Yet AND How Bad Could Shadow Flicker Be?
EXTENDED WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING TOMORROW
Wednesday, June 2, 2010, at starting at 9AM
Flambeau Room, third floor
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way
Madison, Wisconsin
Audio of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 9:00. 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.
WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA?
1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda
2) Review and adoption of meeting minutes of May 17, 2010
3) Presentation: Noise/Sound
James Cowan, Bd. Cert. INCE, URS Corporation
Additional presenters invited but not confirmed as of date of notice posting
4) Presentation: Property Values
Ben Hoen, Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (previously recorded)
5) Presentation: Setbacks
Council member Andy Hesselbach, We Energies
6) BREAK – Lunch will be provided for Wind Siting Council Members
7) Background information on questions raised by Council regarding the draft rules
a. Statutory interpretation
b. Enforcement
c. Commission rulemaking authority
d. Notice requirements
e. Emergency services
f. Vestas manual reference
g. Decommissioning
h. Stray voltage
i. Complaint resolution
8) Discuss formulating the Council’s recommendations on topics covered by the draft rules
9) Next steps/Discussion of next meeting’s time, place and agenda
10) Adjourn
This meeting is open to the public.
If you have any questions or need special accommodations, please contact Deborah Erwin at the
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin by telephone at (608) 266-3905 or via e-mail at
deborah.erwin@wisconsin.gov.
Shadow Flicker: "Similar to flicker experienced when driving"
-Dr. Jevon McFadden, slide 15, 5/17/10 presentation to Wind Siting Council.
Click on the image below to see if you agree.
Read about the family that lives in this home by [CLICKING HERE]
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Jevon McFaddon, Wisconsins wind siting council, wind farm contracts, wind farm noise, wind farm shadow flicker, wind turbine noise
|
Comments Off
5/28/10 On Shadow Flicker and Wind Turbines
Shadow Flicker: "Similar to flicker experienced when driving"
-Dr. Jevon McFadden, slide 15, 5/17/10 presentation to Wind Siting Council.
Click on image below to see Wind turbine shadow flicker video taken in a PSC approved wind project Fond du Lac County home at 6:30 am on Tuesday April 28th,
More shadow flicker from Fond du Lac County
Click on the image below to watch Better Plan's audio interpretation of shadow flicker
Click on the image below to see shadow flicker in a home in DeKalb County
The family living in this home is keeping a diary about their life with wind turbines. CLICK HERE TO VISIT THEIR WEBPAGE
Not a good neighbor
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Sound is horrible today
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Irresponsible Wind Company
last night there was no sound from turbines. slept through the night and woke up rested. this morning it was a good day to be outside, beautiful weather and some turbines off and some lightly spinning. the winds are picking up (winds from the S, 11mph) this afternoon and the blades are starting to feather out which is creating the low droning. one moment there is peace and the next is filled with this annoying background chopping/low frequency sound. these turbines are too close to our home. how irresponsible of the wind companies to erect these machines so close...this is happening all over. so many people have to suffer. this could be solved by placing the turbines at least a mile away.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in fond du lac county wind, wind farm complaints, wind farm contracts, wind farm noise, wind farm shadow flicker, wind shadow flicker
|
Comments Off