Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Spanish wind giant, Acciona, owns easements to land in Rock County for a large wind project that would occupy Magnolia Township. The proposal is for 67 wind turbines to be sited in Magnolia's 36 square miles.

Acciona has not responded to repeated email from Better Plan asking for information about the project.

The contracts held by Acciona for farmland in Rock County were solicited by a "local" wind developer, EcoEnergy, who wooed local residents, held contract signing parties and open houses and then quickly 'flipped' the project to Spanish ownership. How much EcoEnergy made by selling the valuable contracts is unknown, but the farmers who signed away their land won't see any of it.

Like a bad neighbor, Acciona of Spain is there.

Acciona submits 'final' statement; Developer ignores consultant's views on noise analysis

SOURCE: Watertown Daily Times, www.watertowndailytimes.com

August 12, 2010

By Nancy Madsen

CAPE VINCENT — The developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm has eliminated two wind turbines for noise and wetland considerations, but it ignored the conclusions of the town’s consultant on noise analysis in order to maintain a 51-turbine array.

Acciona Wind Energy USA submitted the possible Final Environmental Impact Statement to the town Planning Board on July 28. The board will meet at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Cape Vincent Recreation Park, 602 S. James St., to decide whether to accept the statement and deem it complete.

The developer’s consultant, David M. Hessler of Hessler Associates Inc., Haymarket, Va., maintained that his handling of noise measurements and analysis were proper. But the town’s independent consultants, Gregory C. Tocci and William J. Elliot of Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, Mass., found fault with the analysis.

Mr. Hessler used sound levels that were an average of 44 decibels during the summer and 37 decibels during the winter when the wind is blowing.

According to a state Department of Environmental Conservation guideline, noise exceeding six decibels above ambient is considered intrusive or objectionable. Hessler Associates’ analysis showed the array of turbines would not create noise above six decibels above ambient at any residence.

“All residences, whether participating or not, lie outside of the 42 dBA sound contour line and will be short of the 6 dBA NYSDEC threshold,” the developer wrote in the statement. “However, wind and weather conditions (i.e., temperature inversion and low level jetstreams) may develop from time to time causing Project sound levels to increase, sometimes substantially, over the normal predicted level.”

Those periods should be short, the statement said, although it noted that the cumulative effects if both St. Lawrence Wind Farm and BP Alternative Energy’s Cape Vincent Wind Farm were built would push noise levels above the DEC guideline. The statement predicted higher levels for six participating and 37 nonparticipating residences.

In letters to town engineer Kris D. Dimmick, of Bernier, Carr & Associates, Watertown, Mr. Elliot and Mr. Tocci repeated criticism of the noise analysis Mr. Elliot described to town officials in February. He said then that Hessler’s data did not statistically support the correlation between wind speed and noise. To get a stronger correlation, the wind speed and noise levels would have to be taken at the same location, but they were not, he said.

In a May 14 letter, the two disputed the background noise levels that Mr. Hessler assumed through his regression analysis. Mr. Elliot and Mr. Tocci had measurements that averaged five decibels below the levels Mr. Hessler predicted in his regression analysis. They recorded the sound levels at specific wind speeds.

If ambient noise levels have been overstated in the impact statement, it will allow higher levels of noise from turbines without violating DEC limits.

“Using a regression to associate background sound with wind speed frequently underestimates wind turbine noise impact by permitting frequent conditions where turbine sound significantly exceeds the NYSDEC margin of 6 dBA,” Mr. Elliot and Mr. Tocci wrote.

In a rebuttal letter June 21, Mr. Hessler said the actual measured noise values were too strict.

“Using these overly conservative values in the various wind speed bins as bases for evaluating the nominal impact threshold of a 6 dBA increase would undoubtedly and unrealistically suggest that adverse noise impacts will occur on a widespread basis over the entire project area and beyond,” Mr. Hessler wrote.

In a July 15 letter, Mr. Elliot and Mr. Tocci again argued against using the regression analysis and for the actual measurements from wintertime.

Using the measurements “leads to an impact threshold based on the NYSDEC policy that is approximately 5 dBA lower than the impact threshold estimated by Hessler” at 13.4 miles per hour, they wrote. “It is at this wind speed that Hessler indicates the greatest potential noise impact may occur.”

They reiterated that the Hessler analysis does not show a “conclusive relationship” between sound and wind speed. As a result of the averages used by Hessler, Cavanaugh Tocci suggested instituting a resolution process for noise complaints.

The developer proposed a complaint resolution procedure. A written complaint from a resident or business would go first to the developer. Acciona would have five days to respond and if the developer couldn’t fix it, the complaint would be sent to a town designee for investigation.

Any testing would begin within 10 days of the report from Acciona. Test results would go to the plaintiff and town within 30 days. If the town Planning Board agreed the turbine violates permit conditions, the developer would mitigate it. If the plaintiff wasn’t happy with the resolution or it had been longer than 30 days and there had been no resolution, an appeal could be made to the complaint resolution board.

The board will have a member from the developer and the town and an independent consultant agreed upon by the developer and town. That member can change depending on the nature of the complaint.

The board has 30 days to hear the complaint and 30 days to render a binding decision.

Repeated complaints will trigger additional investigations only if the town determines the operational characteristics have changed since the first complaint.

The final statement also proposes eliminating two turbines for noise and wetland concerns, moving a turbine 2.9 miles and adjusting 10 turbines to decrease wind turbulence. It includes additional well, wetland and wildlife studies. Five segments of roads and 23 intersections will need improvements to handle the construction, and 31 of the 51 turbines will be lit with simultaneously flashing beacons, according to Federal Aviation Administration standards.

The statement also responds to all comments made by agencies and the public on the draft and supplemental environmental impact statements.

The statement is available at the Cape Vincent Public Library, 157 N. Real St.; Lyme Free Library, 12165 Main St., Chaumont, and Cape Vincent town clerk’s office, 1964 Route 12E. If it is accepted as complete, it will be available on Acciona’s website as well.

If the board deems the statement complete, it can complete its findings and end the environmental review after 10 days. The board has indicated that could happen Sept. 15. Other involved agencies, but not the public, also will weigh in with findings.

SECOND FEATURE:

WIND POWER LAW HASN'T RESOLVED DEVELOPMENT CONFLICTS

 SOURCE: Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting, bangordailynews.com,

 By Naomi Schalit, Senior Reporter

AUGUSTA, Maine — After proposing major changes to state law that would speed up the review of wind power projects, Gov. John Baldacci’s wind power task force members went one step further: They made a map.

Without the map, the law would just be a set of rules. The map was essential because it showed where wind turbines could go to get fast-track consideration.

The map designated all the organized towns and about a third of the unorganized territory as the state’s “expedited wind zone” where that speedy consideration of projects would take place. The task force also proposed to allow the Land Use Regulation Commission to expand the areas if applicants met certain standards.

How that map got drawn is not clear from the official record of the task force’s meetings. That’s because summaries for the last two meetings don’t exist, said task force chair Alec Giffen’s secretary, Rondi Doiron.

“Everyone was working straight out on getting the report done and no one had time to get the summaries done,” Doiron wrote in an email to the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting.

But Giffen and others freely describe the map’s genesis: First, Giffen consulted with the developers’ representatives one-by-one, as they were loathe to share proprietary information with competitors. Then he went to the environmental groups and asked what areas they wanted to protect.

Then he came up with a proposed map designating expedited wind development areas.

“I integrated, based on what I knew about what areas were important for what kinds of uses, presented it to the task force and got concurrence that the way in which it was outlined made sense,” Giffen said.

Others describe the map-drawing process as a last-minute rush to get the task force’s report done in time for legislators to consider as they neared the end of a short session.

“There was a lot of ‘Here, here, here and here’ and ‘No, no, no and no,” during the map debate, said task force member Rep. Stacey Fitts, R-Pittsfield. “It changed several times.” Maine Audubon’s Jody Jones described the process as “I want this in, I want this out.”

Whatever the process looked and sounded like is lost to the public record because no minutes were taken or recorded.

And that, says Sun Journal managing editor Judy Meyer, who’s also vice president of the Maine Freedom of Information Coalition, is “shocking.”

Maine law doesn’t require groups like the governor’s wind task force to memorialize deliberations, says Meyer.

“There’s no requirement that they record their meetings or produce minutes,” she says. “What smells particularly about this is that there are some summaries and not others. That’s a real eyebrow raiser. You’d think a governor’s task force would have the ability to keep minutes of its proceedings.”

Giffen says the map — which was approved by the full Legislature — is only the first step in deciding whether a project should be built in a specific place.

“It’s a coarse filter to try to get wind power development guided to parts of the landscape where it’s already partially developed and you already have infrastructure,” he said. “Then you have the finer filters of the regulatory process.”

Task force member Pete Didisheim of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, who was one of the group’s strongest proponents of wind power development, says the map provided an essential tool by taking a lot of uncertainty out of the process of siting wind farms. That’s because he says that the designation of expedited zones announced, by implication, where developers shouldn’t go.

“I don’t think that any other state has drawn a map that says to developers, ‘Don’t go here,’” said Didisheim.

Attorney Chip Ahrens, who attended task force meetings on behalf of two clients, a large wind power developer and an installer of small wind turbines in commercial and residential sites, said that approach turned state regulation on its head — appropriately:

“There had always been on the table the state saying where wind power should go,” said Ahrens, who stressed he was not speaking on behalf of his clients. “I said, ‘let’s say where it should not go.’”

And just because a site is in the expedited permit zone doesn’t mean it’s an automatic approval once a wind power project applies for a permit to build.

“The law specifically says that the permitting agency shall not compromise its regulatory review criteria,” says LURC director Catherine Carroll. “It’s not a slam dunk.”

Law tested, angering some

That point was made acutely clear this year in one of the first tests of the new law, an application by TransCanada to build turbines in the expedited wind zone near its western Maine Kibby Mountain project.

At a meeting on July 7 in Bangor, LURC commissioners — all of whom were nominated or renominated by Gov. John Baldacci — indicated by straw vote they’d deny TransCanada’s request to construct the turbines.

Several environmental organizations, including the three groups who were on the governor’s wind power task force, testified against portions of the project. Objections ranged from damage to wildlife to degradation of the scenically valuable high mountain site. Many of the commissioners likewise expressed concerns about the potential harm the project would do to the site.

Commissioners struggled to weigh the new law’s goals for wind power development against the environmental problems posed by the project.

“I’m terribly conflicted here,” said Commissioner Steve Schaefer.

He and other commissioners said they were unclear whether the law’s goals for wind power were binding on them and would force them to approve a project they didn’t feel protected the landscape they were legally obligated to protect.

“The Wind Power Act looms large here,” said Commissioner Ed Laverty.

“We’re all going to reduce global warming and our carbon footprint,” continued Laverty, “but most of the immediate benefits of projects like these do not accrue to the people of Maine, they’re exported through the grid elsewhere.

“What stays with us in the state of Maine are the environmental impacts.”

A few days after the LURC meeting, TransCanada’s project manager Nick DiDomenico was outraged at the meeting’s outcome. The environmental groups that had participated in the task force and then opposed TransCanada’s proposal drew his special wrath:

“The [environmental groups] were at the table when the map was drawn up,” he said. “That to me means these areas are acceptable for visual impacts. Maybe we were a little naive in drawing that conclusion.

“We thought the Wind Power Act meant something.”

Within eight days, construction company Cianbro’s chairman Peter Vigue had published a column in the Bangor Daily News criticizing LURC. Cianbro has done construction work on TransCanada’s wind power projects as well as others in the state.

“This unpredictable regulatory environment will discourage investment in Maine,” wrote Vigue.

On Aug. 1, retired law professor Orlando Delogu published a similarly sharp-toned column in the Maine Sunday Telegram.

“Reading a transcript of the recent LURC hearing on TransCanada’s proposed Kibby No. 2 wind energy project, a 45-megawatt expansion of an existing facility in Chain of Ponds Township, makes you want to cry for Maine’s economy and energy future,” wrote Delogu.

“And then it makes you mad.”

But state Sen. Peter Mills isn’t mad at LURC. Instead, he calls the LURC commissioners “victims” of a new state policy that isn’t clear enough about if, and how, competing values can be resolved.

“No one wanted to be bothered with the details,” said Mills. “We’ll just leave it up to LURC to figure out what we mean. We passed this thing, but we never gave them the tools to deal with this.”

LURC Commissioner Sally Farrand mirrored Mills’ frustration, when she remarked during the July 7 hearing, “Boy, I sure hope we can tighten up some of this stuff because I see it as a skating rink with some very dull skates.”

Other problems

There are other problems created by the legislation. One unintended consequence is that Maine mountain ridgelines, once available at relatively cheap prices to those who wanted to preserve them, have become coveted – and expensive – pieces of land.

“Were it not for the wind-power market, alpine land has fairly limited value,” said Alan Stearns, deputy director of the Bureau of Parks and Lands. “Right now the mathematics is land with wind power potential is not for sale for conservation.

“As long as the market for wind power is dynamic,” said Stearns, “most landowners with wind-power potential are working with wind power developers, not conservation groups, for that land.”

And turbine noise that irritates neighbors has proven to be especially problematic, with residents who live near towers complaining of sleep disturbance and other health problems.

But a comparison of the task force’s report with the governor’s legislation that became the Wind Power Act reveals a significant omission: The recommendation that the environmental protection commissioner be given the power to modify the noise aspects of a project’s permit never made it into the legislation.

Gov. Baldacci supplied the following answer in writing when asked why that provision had been left out of his wind power legislation:

“I relied on the Task Force members’ review of the draft legislation as a complete and accurate reflection of all the recommendations in their Report. If one or more of their recommendations was not included, I was not aware of that nor was any omission or deletion done at my request or direction.”

Task Force Chairman Giffen likewise had no idea how the omission occurred, and told the Center he knew of no plans to correct it.

Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.

“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine — oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines — that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.”

Uncertain future

What’s significant for the state’s wind power policy is that Mills, who wasn’t on the task force, isn’t the only one who now doubts whether the state can — or should — meet the goals promoted by the governor and enshrined in his Wind Energy Act.

Members of Baldacci’s hand-picked task force are dubious as well about whether there really are enough suitable — and politically acceptable — sites to build turbines to meet the goal of 2,000 megawatts by 2015 and 3,000 megawatts by 2020.

“We have to look at whether we have the land base to meet them,” said Jones.

Reaching 3,000 megawatts “is dependent on whether the political consensus holds up,” said task force member and DEP Commissioner David Littell.

“I think it’s a stretch to reach 2,000 by 2015,” said the NRCM’s Pete Didisheim.

But Giffen said he still believes that promoting wind power is an essential response to global warming.

“So big picture here, the way that I look at this, is to say, the idea that there’s not going to be any change in the state of Maine as regards our natural resources or how we generate energy, that’s not a possibility,” said Giffen.

”If we don’t do anyting, we’re going to see massive changes just in our natural resources. The changing climate conditions are going to mean that in 100 years the area around Portland is going to be suitable for loblolly pine (a southern tree species). What does that mean for our existing soils, our existing ecosystems?

“Is no change something that is even possible?” asks Giffen. “No, it’s not. Do we have significant problems with our energy supply and dependence on fossil fuels in terms of climate change? Yes.

“So is Maine well served by having looked at its regulatory system to see how it can deal in a rational way with this kind of development? Is it perfect? I doubt it. Will we learn as we go along? Yes.”

LURC Commissioner Laverty takes another perspective:

“I think we need to take into consideration, there aren’t a lot of these 2,700 plus foot mountains in the state of Maine … I think that we have to pay special attention to the impact on significant resources in these areas, because,” he said, “once you invade these resources, the chances of re-establishing them over time, at least in our lifetimes, probably are fairly slim.”

In the end, the law that was supposed to put conflict to rest has not, and for a host of reasons, both procedural and substantive. Harvard University professor Henry Lee, who teaches energy and international development at the Kennedy School of Government, said the conflict in values that wasn’t resolved by Maine’s Wind Energy Act — where those who want to act against the threats of global warming fight land conservationists — is one that’s playing out across the nation and globe.

“I think that this pits to some extent environmental organizations against each other,” said Lee. “Some are focused on pollution issues and see wind and solar and other renewables as a significant improvement in terms of reduced pollution — and it is.

“On the other hand if you’re worried about land use, in a world where … you have a finite quantity of land, there will continue to be significant disputes,” said Lee. “Wind sites tend to be slightly better along the coast and at higher altitudes, exactly where you have sign conflicts with esthetics.

“These disputes are going to get more intense, not less,” Lee said.

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.

BROWN COUNTY TOWNS URGE MORE STUDY OF WIND FARM SITES

SOURCE: Greenbay Press Gazette

June 24, 2010

By Tony Walter

 The elected officials of three southern Brown County towns will ask the Public Service Commission to take more time to study possible health and safety issues before approving wind turbine siting rules.

Comments from town supervisors and residents in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore and Wrightstown will be delivered to the PSC's Wind Siting Council next week. A joint meeting of the three town boards was held Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the county's Human Services Committee unanimously approved a resolution supporting the Board of Health's recommendations that turbines not be built in areas where the fractured bedrock and thin soil could lead to groundwater contamination. The resolution will be considered by the County Board at its July 21 meeting.

Invenergy LLC, a Chicago-based company, has proposed to build a 100-turbine wind farm in Morrison, Glenmore and Wrightstown. It is waiting to resubmit its application until the guidelines are approved by the PSC.

Supporting Invenergy's plans are those who say sustainable energy must be encouraged.

The Wind Siting Council released a draft of rules in May and is holding meetings statewide to hear public comments.

Glen Schwalbach, a supervisor for Rockland, has been hired by the three towns to present the comments to the PSC. He isn't addressing the Invenergy proposal specifically but wind turbines in general.

Comments from town supervisors and residents in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore and Wrightstown will be delivered to the PSC's Wind Siting Council next week. A joint meeting of the three town boards was held Wednesday.

In his presentation to about 35 area residents Wednesday, Schwalbach cited three major points: 

 SECOND FEATURE

The letter below was submitted by a resident of the Ashtabula wind project to Jerry Lien a staff analyst for the North Dakota Public Service Commission. It details how NextEra (formerly Florida Power and Light Energy) opted to address the problems of noise and shadow flicker caused by the Ashtabula Wind Energy facility.     

Wind project residents in Wisconsin have been telling similar stories about what happens when they complain to wind project developer/owners about noise and shadow flicker. Also included here is the contract offered by NextEra to the non participating landowners.

[TO] Jerry Lien
North Dakota Public Service Commission

Greetings Jerry,

I appreciate your attention to this matter of the effects of living next to wind turbines. As was discussed in our phone conversation, Next Era Energy is not offering to repair the damage or fix the problem of the noise and shadow flicker imposed on our home, business and property.

They merely want to pay us to accept it. They say we can use the payment to fix the problem ourselves. In order to receive the payment, we must accept this contract as offered, which I have attached to this letter [below]. This contract, as you can see, is a release for the company to negatively affect us.

Furthermore, this contract has more wording in it about keeping quiet about the whole issue than solving the problem. Also you can see that it will be binding on us and our property in any future issues.

$15,000 as a payment is not going to fix this problem. We did not ask for money from this company but requested a relief to the problem at hand.

Scott Scovill from Next Era, suggested for us to buy trees with the money. Trees will not block the effects because they are not tall enough and may take up to twenty years before they would grow even fifty ft. tall.

One solution we suggested was to turn the offending turbines off only during the time they cause shadows. That suggestion was answered by Scott bluntly saying "we're not shutting them off".

Since then Scott or any other Next Era representative has not returned our phone calls.

Mary Ann and I cannot sign on to a contract of this nature. Our attorney advises against it as well. We are not willing to release to the company our property and enjoyment of our home so they can cause noise, shadow flicker, interference, diminishment of property value and the effects acknowledged in their contracts.

We are now suffering from these problems as a result of the decision to allow this irresponsible siting of wind towers too close to our farm.

By reviewing the project you can see there are about four or five turbines to the east of our farm that are causing blinking shadows up to and hour and a half per day for at least 12 weeks of the year. The shadow effects across the windows of our offices are severely disruptive to our business.

How does the Public Service Commission plan to deal with our issue?

 Is this going to be allowed in every wind farm project in the future? Is it going to be allowed that a large out-of-state company negatively impact a local business? Are the residents of this state expected to sell - (quoted from the contract) "the ability to use or enjoy your property, nuisance, injury or harm to persons, anxiety, suffering, mental anguish and loss of ability to enjoy life"?

I would like a response to these questions.

It has been brought to my attention that Next Era representatives have been spreading a lie that we knew this wind farm project was planned before we purchased our property here in Griggs County. This is a false statement and can be proven. We were living on our farm when we were invited to the first meeting of this project.

I request that you make this contract and my letter part of the public record.

Sincerely,
Jim Miller

RELEASE

THIS RELEASE ("Release") is made as of the _____ day of _____________, 2010 by and between Ashtabula Wind II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Company") and __________________________________, ("Owner") (hereinafter collectively the "Parties") upon the terms and conditions set forth below:

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of a certain tract of land located in Griggs County, North Dakota legally described on the attached Exhibit A ("Property") and incorporated herein; and

WHEREAS, Company owns and operates the Ashtabula Wind Energy Center ("Wind Farm"), a wind farm which is adjacent to the Property; and

WHEREAS, Owner notified Company that they are experiencing problems with shadow flicker at their residence on the Property.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth herein, the Parties hereby agree, as follows:

The recitals are true and correct and are incorporated in this Release by reference.

Company shall pay to Owner the one-time amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00), payable on or before March 31, 2010, for any and all shadow flicker related to the Property, caused or alleged to be caused by the Wind Farm stemming from, related to or attendant to the operation of the Wind Farm by Company, its parent companies, affiliates, successors, assigns, related companies including but not limited to interference with glare, shadow flicker, diminishment of the value of the Property, the ability to use or enjoy the Property, nuisance, and any injury or harm to persons, including but not limited to anxiety, suffering, mental anguish, loss of the ability to enjoy life, or any other harm or wrong, tort, intentional or negligent conduct stemming from, related to or consequent to shadow flicker from the Wind Farm whether claimed or not claimed, including all claims that could have been brought, or which hereafter might be brought by Owner or any of their successors and assigns.

The matters settled and released pursuant to this Release include all matters, claims, causes of action, and disputes of any nature whatsoever within the authority of the Parties (including third-party claims, indemnity claims, contribution claims, direct and derivative claims, and any other claims held in any capacity) whether or not fully accrued, relating to or arising out of the interference on the Property. The foregoing matters described in paragraph 2 are referred to hereinafter in this Release as the "Released Matters."

The Parties, each for itself and its directors, officers, agents, and/or representatives, hereby expressly and unconditionally release and discharge one another, and their respective directors, officers, agents, representatives, employees, agents, successors and/or assigns, from any and all obligation, liability or responsibility arising from or as a result of the Released Matters.

The execution of this Release shall not be construed as an admission by any Party as to the validity or invalidity of any other Party's position with reference to the issues resolved in this Release and neither party shall, directly or indirectly, seek to take or advance any position before any court, agency, or administrative tribunal, predicated in whole or in part on any term or condition of this Release except in connection with an action to enforce this Release or the terms or conditions thereof.

The fact of settlement, the amount, nature of terms of the Release, and this Release are to are to remain strictly, totally and completely confidential and any breach of the terms of this Release shall entitle the non-breaching Party to seek all equitable relief as well as monetary damages from Owner.

The Parties agree not to make any statements, written or verbal, or cause or encourage others to make any statements, written or verbal, that defame, disparage or in any way criticize the personal or business reputation, practices, or conduct of the other party, its employees, directors, and officers.

The Parties acknowledge and agree that this prohibition extends to statements, written or verbal, made to anyone, including but not limited to, the news media, investors, potential investors, any board of directors or advisory board or directors, industry analysts, competitors, strategic partners, vendors, employees (past and present), and clients.

Either Party, if approached, has the right to state "we had an issue and that the issue has been resolved to our satisfaction."

The Release may not be modified or amended except by a written instrument signed by all the Parties hereto.

In the event of litigation arising out of or in connection with the enforcement of this Release or any dispute arising out of this Release, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and incidental expenses incurred in connection with such litigation proceeding, including all costs or fees incurred on appeal.

The provisions of this Release shall be governed by North Dakota law.

This Release shall be binding upon the predecessors, heirs, successors, and assigns of each Party.

EXECUTED on the dates appearing below their signatures by the Parties' undersigned officers, duly authorized.

Company:
Ashtabula Wind II LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company

By: ________________________________________
Name: Dean R. Gosselin, Vice President
Date: ________________________________________

Owner: ________________________________________
Name: ________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________
 



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

Click on the images above to hear nighttime turbine noise and see what shadow flicker looks like. The Wind Siting Council draft rules say 20-25 hours of this each year is permissible on non-participating homes. If there is more than this, the developer or operator will give you window blinds.

Read the daily diary of the family that lives in this house by clicking here.

 

Dissent delays wind council’s progress

SOURCE: The Daily Reporter

 June 22, 2010

Second Feature:

HEARINGS SET ON WIND PROJECT SITING RULES

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

June 22, 2010

By Thomas Content

Public hearings are planned next week on a proposal aimed at adopting uniform siting rules for wind power projects in the state.

The public hearings and a rulemaking are part of a process launched by the state Legislature when it passed a uniform siting law last year. The legislation essentially delegated to the Public Service Commission decisions on the thorny and controversial questions raised by supporters and opponents of wind power projects at hearings in the Legislature last year.

Questions that must be resolved include how far a wind turbine must be placed from a nearby property or home, and what maximum noise standards should be. The PSC has released an initial proposal for public comment, and an advisory council created by the legislation is also studying the issue.

Public hearings will take place Monday in Fond du Lac, Tuesday, June 29 in Tomah and Wednesday in Madison. Hearings will begin at 1 and 6 p.m. each day. More details about the hearings can be found here.

The legislation was aimed at replacing a patchwork of different rules and moratoriums that have been imposed by counties and towns around the state for small wind power projects.

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