Wind turbines bring a big change to small midwestern towns.NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Dr. Douglas Zweizig, who authored this letter to the Wisconsin State Journal is Professor Emeritus of Library Sciences and Information, University of Wisconsin. He also serves as Planning Commissioner for the Town of Union in Rock County and is on the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council which has spent several months reviewing data and creating wind siting rules for our state.

Journal, health agency wrong about turbines

Wisconsin State Journal, madison.com 21 August 2010

The State Journal’s editorial Wednesday, “Science says wind power safe,” provides false reassurance to its readers about the dangers of living in the vicinity of large wind turbines.

The “science” trumpeted in your editorial comes from an inadequate literature review conducted by under-qualified staff at the Wisconsin Division of Public Health — a staff that has not conducted a survey of the hundreds of people in Wisconsin now living in the vicinity of large wind turbines. They have not spent one overnight in a wind farm, the time when the most troublesome noise occurs.

Instead of caring for the difficulties of Wisconsin citizens and directly addressing the numerous complaints of sleeplessness and the ailments that result from disturbed sleep, the division has instead prepared a report from its undiscerning reading of the literature. It has told those suffering these effects that they have no complaint, and then the division has promoted this callous position to the press.

Wisconsin deserves better care from its Department of Health Services.

— Douglas Zweizig, Evansville



NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: At a recent Wind Siting Council meeting Vinalhaven was touted as an example of a "community" wind project that was working.

Residents now trying to live with "community" turbine noise have a different view.

 

Noise controversy over Vinalhaven wind turbines heats up

SOURCE: The Free Press, freepressonline.com

 August 12, 2010

Vinalhaven sits 15 miles off the coast and just over an hour’s ferry ride from Rockland, but it has an old-fashioned sense of community rare on the mainland these days. Every driver waves as they pass and it’s common for an islander to leave the keys in the truck in case anyone needs to borrow it.

It was with that sense of community that the islanders welcomed the three wind turbines to Vinalhaven last year. Not only did the turbines promise reliable electrical service, which was something long-term residents did not take for granted, but wind power would lower electric rates for everyone.

Islanders turned out in strength last November to see the turbines started up, watch the 123-foot-long blades sweep the air and watch grade-school children do a windmill dance to the tune of “I’m a Little Tea-Pot.”

Even with some initial start-up glitches, rates have gone down when averaged across the year (the estimated average rate is now five to six cents per kilowatt hour, with variations from month to month, according to Fox Island Electric Cooperative; the national average rate was 11.36 cents per kilowatt hour in 2008).

Most of the 1,200 or so residents on Vinalhaven approve of the turbines. But within days of start-up a handful of Vinalhaven residents who lived within a mile of the wind turbines on the North Haven Road reported noise problems.

Nine months later, people have taken sides. Fingers are being pointed. Frustration levels are rising. There are rumblings about complainers and how they should move off the island if they don’t like it. There are accusations of misinformation and biased noise data collection.

Jeanne Bineau-Ames, whose house is near the swimming quarry in the middle of the island, summed it up.

“It’s an island. We are only as strong as the smallest link. We have to work as a community,” she said. Bineau-Ames lives far enough from the wind turbines not to hear them, has a relative on the board of the electric cooperative who strongly favors them, and sympathizes with those affected by the noise.

“I hate to see this go to mistrust and anxiety,” she said. “We have to work at this. We have to work this out.”

Sound Effects

Bothersome noise related to wind turbines is hardly new.

“Wind turbine noise is becoming a bigger issue in the U.S.,” said Patrick Moriarty, an aeronautical engineer for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado. NREL belongs to the U.S. Department of Energy and is the primary research and development site for energy efficiency and renewable energy, including wind power. Moriarty is a senior engineer at the lab.

“It’s been a big issue in Europe for a while because their wind farms have been up longer and they are in more densely populated areas,” Moriarty said.

In Maine, the Mars Hill wind farm in Aroostook County and the turbines in Freedom in Waldo County have elicited similar complaints by nearby residents who say the repetitive whump, whump, whump sound of the blades turning causes sleeplessness and anxiety. Some research suggests those symptoms could be related to low-frequency sound waves that impact people as a pressure wave.

Sound seems simple enough: you hear it or you don’t; it’s audible or it isn’t. It turns out that sound is far from simple: not only can a noise that is alarmingly loud to one person be a minor note to another, but some people appear to be affected by low-frequency sound-the bass notes-while others aren’t. And the really low frequency sounds (below 20 hertz), the inaudible sound waves, which elephants and whales use to communicate over long distances, can travel hundreds of miles without fading. It’s this silent sound that may make birds and beasts aware of earthquakes and tsunamis ahead of any apparent danger, and it may be the cause of a laundry list of human complaints that include sleeplessness, anxiety, exhaustion and depression.

Or it may not be. The jury is out.

Dora Anne Mills, the medical doctor for the state of Maine, reviewed the medical and acoustics research on wind turbine noise and issued a 2009 report stating that the current research on health effects was inconclusive. Mills concluded there was insufficient evidence to change state noise compliance standards.

But the thing to understand, said Moriarty, is that the sound coming from the wind turbines is broadband noise; that is, it has all frequencies mixed together. It appears not to be the volume of the turbines, but the rythmic nature of the noise, the whomp, whomp or whoosh, whoosh, whoosh-what Moriarity refers to as the modulation-that is problematic, but no one is really sure.

“Noise ordinances are now based on amplitude [volume],” said Moriarty. “Some people think modulation noise [repetitive, rhythmic noise] could be more annoying.”

“It’s an open question if noise regulations should be adjusted for modulation. It’s at the bleeding edge of research at the moment and it’s where technology and sociology overlap,” said Moriarty.

That’s cold comfort to some residents who live close to the wind turbines.

Britta Lindgren lives about a half mile down the Northhaven Road from the turbines.

“Initially, the animals went off their feed when the turbines started up. During the first few days after they started, I found an eider duck hiding in the corner of the porch, cowering. You never see eider ducks out of the cove. I’ve never seen that. During the first two or three weeks, it was really loud.”

“The animals don’t do that now. Truthfully, most of the time it’s not a problem,” said Lindgren, referring to the volume. “There are trees between us and the sound varies in intensity. It’s a whomp, whomp, whomp sound.”

They may not be so loud, but the sound pulses rythmically. Lindgren believes the repetitive noise is what is creating sleep problems in her family and, she says, it isn’t something that you just get used to, as some islanders have suggested.

“It feels like a constant wearing down,” she said. “It’s like when you have an itch. It’s nothing to scratch it, but then it keeps itching and you keep scratching and before you know it you have a hard, raw spot. It hurts. You’re always aware of it.”

A half mile in the other direction, Erin Creelman and her family are more acutely aware of the wind turbines. Their house sits on high ground across from them and all but one of the family members are having problems sleeping.

“We left our storm windows in this summer, and we have thermal panes,” said Creelman. “We didn’t put in the screens. We have a well-insulated house with wood panels and sheetrock. We have blown-in fiberglass. You can still hear them. You can feel them, really. It’s a pressure thing more than a noise. It’s like a whomp, whomp, whomp.”

Creelman said she supported construction of the windmills and doesn’t want them taken down; she wants the sound issues solved.

Lindgren agreed, but shook her head at the possibility of a solution.

“It’s gotten quite divisive,” said Lindgren. “How do you deal with that? I don’t know.”

Sally Wylie, another neighbor of the wind farm who lives less than a mile away from the turbines, didn’t parse her words. She was thoroughly frustrated.

“They said it would sound like the humming of a refrigerator. That didn’t seem so bad,” said Wylie.

But Wylie said it isn’t like a refrigerator.

“It sounds like a jetport,” said Wylie, referring to the noise in the windy winter months. “It’s unbelievable. It vibrates right through the house. It ricochets off the neighbors and comes back. It echoes.”

The Neighbors & The Man Behind the Machines

“There are about 15 to 20 year-round houses located within three quarters of a mile of the turbines,” said George Baker, who is the CEO of Fox Island Wind, a private enterprise that is a subsidiary of the Fox Island Electric Cooperative (FIEC) and that was formed to allow the wind turbines to be built.

Notably, the wind turbines have overwhelming support from Vinalhaven residents; only a handful of people are affected by the noise.

“I live with 4 a.m. lobster boats,” said Donna Payne, who owns the Payne Homestead bed-and-breakfast in town. “These are the sounds of people going to work. That’s what it takes to live on an island.”

The wind turbines can’t be heard in town.

“What noise?” said Pete Gasperini, when asked what he thought about the wind turbine noise. “We love them.”

Carla Harris, who sat next to Gasperini at a public forum, agreed.

“We’ve gone up close to hear them and we’ve gone further away,” said Harris. “This is not unbearable noise. It’s like ambient sound.”

Annette Philbrook also agreed.

“The old power plant made ten times more noise than these,” said Philbrook.

Nans Case, a 20-year resident of Vinalhaven who lives in town, said she’s a fan of the lower electric rates.

“My rates have gone down 25 to 30 percent,” said Case. “That’s something for someone on a fixed income.”

But those who are bothered are really bothered. Some of those who live close to the turbines sought legal advice, citing bad faith on the part of Fox Island Wind in adhering to a tolerable noise level and in not addressing their concerns as a serious community issue.

Wylie is one of the neighbors who became vocal about the need to address the noise problem.

“We were big supporters of the project, but we were told the ambient noise would mask the sound of the turbines, so when the turbines were turned on, I was completely in shock,” said Wylie. “I called George Baker and said, please, can you turn them down?”

“He said ‘I can’t do that. We have to study the sound

issue,’ ” said Wylie, who thought the impacts of the nearby neighbors were part of the equation for how the turbines should operate.

“We believed what they told us,” said Wylie.

Now she thinks Fox Island Wind considers the neighbors a nuisance.

“We were totally naive,” she said.

Wylie and others bothered by the turbine noise formed Fox Island Wind Neighbors (FIWN) and launched a website to share information.

“During the first two and a half months after the start-up, I spent hours every week talking to the neighbors,” said Baker, who in addition to being the face of Fox Island Wind is a professor at Harvard Business School who has been on an extended leave of absence so he could serve as the vice president of Community Wind at the Island Institute in Rockland.

“I gave them a whole bunch of detailed financial information and technical information,” said Baker. “Probably stuff I shouldn’t have given. I told them I wasn’t talking to my lawyers, because I knew if I did, my lawyers would say: ‘Don’t talk to them.’ I didn’t want it to be like that.”

“I did tell them if they retained a lawyer, I’d have to talk to my lawyers and I knew what they would say,” said Baker. Fox Island Wind’s lawyers said what Baker expected: stop talking to the neighbors who retained legal counsel.

“There is no lawsuit. I desperately hope there isn’t one. but we got into that lawyer thing and I hate it,” said Baker. “So, no, I won’t talk to them.”

Wylie sees it differently. She says there is no intention to sue, nor was there, ever.

“We needed legal advice. Our lawyer advised us to keep working with the DEP and the community,” she said. “To keep talking.”

“There’s an ethical question here,” said Wylie. “Do you sacrifice the small part of the population or just focus on what the majority wants? Why didn’t they just say, ‘Guess what? This isn’t really working. This is a lot louder than we thought and it’s not a good thing.’?”

“We need to make it work,” she said. “We’re a community. We have a problem, but we’re part of the community package. It’s not like you can throw us out with the laundry.”

Baker, whose unbounded enthusiasm for the Fox Island Wind project comes across without restraint, reined in when it came to talking about the noise controversy.

“I can’t tell you how frustrated I am. I have an enormous stake in this. I’m not making a dime on this project, I hope that is clear,” said Baker, who does not get a salary for being CEO of Fox Island Wind. Baker’s Harvard Business School scholarship recently focused on negotiating and contracts that are built on trust and secured by the reputation of those involved, not on legal enforcement.

“I care deeply about getting this issue resolved, with community involvement,” Baker said. “My reputation is at stake.”

Compliance with State Sound Standards

The state of Maine has noise compliance standards that are pretty straightforward for windmills. When it comes to frequencies and decibels, they take their measurements from the middle range, with attempts to correct for the low-frequency part of the range.

Under Maine state law (Title 38, Sec. 343), wind turbines sited in a quiet location like Vinalhaven cannot operate any higher than 45 decibels at the property line of abutting landowners. Communities like Vinalhaven can adopt more restrictive local ordinances. Vinalhaven had a more restrictive noise ordinance, but voted it out in favor of the state standards.

“Sound is measured between May 1 and August 31, during the inversion period,” said Becky Blais of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Blais monitors compliance for the Fox Island Wind site. Inversion is the term for when there is wind aloft and it is calm near the ground. The premise is that sound will carry farther during the summer inversion period; though, on the island, wind blows much harder in the winter.

“All we are measuring is state compliance,” said Blais. The DEP asks Fox Island Wind to collect data using a DEP- approved method. That raw data and initial analysis is sent to DEP for further checking of accuracy and analysis. Complaints from neighbors, with specific time frames attached to the complaints so they can be correlated to sound collection data, also go into the mix for analysis.

The state, in essence, is measuring volume using a standard approach used by federal agencies for measuring industrial noise. They are not measuring low frequencies, which tend to travel farther and in lots of directions. Higher frequencies, in contrast, tend to travel in one direction for much shorter distances.

Fox Island Wind Neighbors takes issue with the state compliance standards of 45 decibels at the property line of an abutting property. They think it should be lower. Even so, FIWN wanted to determine for themselves if the turbines complied with existing state sound standards, so they took the intiative to collect their own sound data from an abutting property, starting this past April. It’s a nonscientific study, but it does indicate that the turbines routinely exceed 45 decibels. FIWN shared their information with the Maine DEP in an effort to bolster their position that the turbines are louder than they should be.

Several sound studies have been done on Vinalhaven or are in the process of being conducted.

Study #1: Turning the Turbines Down

The Noise Reduction Operations (NRO) studies, which were undertaken at the request of Fox Island Wind last spring, included randomly turning down the turbines to see if there was any effect on nearby residents. Only nine participants submitted logbooks noting when they heard turbine noise and how they felt; but 200 responses came from those people.

Ben Hoen of the Berkeley Naitonal Laboratory at the Department of Energy was the principal researcher.

Hoen said the small sample size was, to some extent, offset by the number of responses received.

“There is no silver bullet when it comes to a solution here. It’s all shades of grey,” said Hoen. What the study did do was indicate that the complaints of sound effects, which were recorded with a date and a time, were correlated with wind speeds at the wind turbine site and at a buoy 10-15 miles away.

“The study method worked,” said Hoen. “We hope to come back a second time. Ideally, you want every single person to participate.”

Study #2: Cancelling Out the Noise

Conquest Innovations, an acoustics consulting firm based in Washington state, approached Baker of Fox Island Wind to see if they could set up an experimental study to attempt to fine-tune existing technology so it would work to cancel out the sound of the wind turbines.

Baker secured a $12,000 matching grant from the Maine Technology Institute to kick off the experiment to explore the use of noise-cancellation technology on wind turbine sound.

“We’ve been looking at the full sound spectrum, with the focus below 250 hertz,” said Steven Bradbury of Conquest Innovations. Active Noise Cancellation is based on recognized principles. Bose has used it in its noise-cancellation headphones and Honda has used it inside the cabin of some of its models to cancel out engine noise.

Bradbury explained how noise cancellation works.

“You ever been out on a boat? You know when two boat wakes come from two different directions… say, each wave is six inches high. When the crest of the two waves meet, they double and the peak is about 12 inches high. Now take the same two waves, but instead of the crest of one wave hitting the crest of an oncoming wave, it hits the trough.”

Anyone who has crossed to Vinalhaven has seen it. When the crest of one wave hits the trough of an oncoming wave, the water briefly flattens out. The waves essentially cancel each other out, creating a momentary calm.

Sound waves are not exactly like water waves.

“But this is a great way to visualize what we are trying to do,” said Bradbury.

Lower-frequency sound waves have crests that are farther apart than high-frequency waves; simply, they are less frequent. Think of the sound of the bass on the subwoofers coming out of a car passing on the road in the summer, with the music turned up high. The low-frequency sound comes right through the walls. It goes in all directions; the thumpa, thumpa, thumpa of the bass, until someone says out loud, “Jeez, can’t that kid turn that down?”

The crests of the low-frequency waves are farther apart, thus giving Active Noise Cancellation (ANC) technology room to emit a sound that will flatten the wave. To cancel out three windmills will take three carefully calibrated speakers that are programmed to respond. The result: no more thumpa, thumpa, thumpa. ANC doesn’t mask the sound wave; it meets it and gives the thumpa right back to it.

“We’re pretty excited about this,” said Bradbury. “The principles of active noise cancellation are proven. We know it works.”

According to Bradbury, the direction and speed of the wind shouldn’t make much difference in the effectiveness of noise cancellation.

“What isn’t clear is whether the sound that is bothering people is just low frequency,” said Bradbury. Noise cancellation won’t work on high-frequency sound as effectively: the sound waves are too close together to flatten out across large areas. They are also directional and don’t go through house walls as effectively as low-frequency sound.

So, what happens if the bothersome noise is partially low-frequency and partially high-frequency sound waves? Or even a resonance effect created by extremely low frequency sounds essentially shaking the walls of a house and creating new sounds.

“It may not work,” said Bradbury. It won’t take much longer to find out. The sound data has been analyzed, a sound profile is being created, and Bradbury said a bench-top demo model will be ready in under two months.

Study #3: The Colorado Department of Energy Lab

On March 1 of this year, Baker requested that the National Research Energy Lab come out to Vinalhaven because he thought the lab could help FIW better understand the sound issues. NREL agreed and committed an initial $30,000 to pay for the studies.

Moriarty of the NREL/DOE lab in Colorado and Ben Hoen of the Berkeley DOE lab in California have been looking into the effects of the wind turbines and trying to tie them to specific sound signatures. The data from the Noise Reduction Operation are their starting points, but they got a more complete assessment of impacts than the survey done by Fox Island Wind, said Moriarty.

“The idea was to be independent from Fox Island Wind and to maintain objectivity, ” he said. “Of course, we wouldn’t identify the people who spoke to us.”

Moriarty stressed, again, that the turbines create broad- band noise across low to high frequencies.

“The noise is definitely related to speed. The dominant noise comes from the blades. The faster they spin, the louder they are, but the faster they spin, the more electricity they produce,” said Moriarty, noting there will be a trade-off between reduced noise and electricity generation.

What NREL is looking for is specific symptoms or noise irritation (sleeplessness, irritation from loudness, etc.) at specific times, so they can tie them to the sound data. The NREL team plans to correlate that social data with a variety of other factors, including wind speed, turbine volume, humidity, inversions, and modulation.

What they found in their initial data collection on Vinalhaven was that noise annoyance didn’t necessarily correlate with proximity to the turbines.

“There may be lots of sociological factors, from not wanting to be perceived as a bad guy in the community, to some people working away from home during the day while others are at home gardening. I think that was a big factor,” said Moriarty.

Some other research questions have come up. How does proximity to the ocean, where the atmosphere almost traps the noise, come into play? Another is the base rock the turbines are built on top of.

“One question that came up at Vinalhaven is that the turbines are connected to granite. That’s not very common anywhere in the world. It’s a solid connection and it may be a more efficient transmitter of noise. Here in Colorado, we have the exact same turbine that is on Vinalhaven. You can hardly hear it. But the soil is very different here.”

The next step will be to break down the sound signature and try to isolate the cause of the noise that annoys people at specific times.

“Is it the blades, the rotor? Is the reduced noise operation working the way it should? That’s what we’ll be looking at,” said Moriarty. “Then we’ll brainstorm mitigation potential, and costs and effectiveness. We may recommend reducing speed; even more expensive is a new blade design. They may be able to reduce the operation so much and pay so much more for electric. Then we present it back to the community: Here’s what we found. It’s your island. What would you like to do?”

But what about the sounds that are so low they can’t be heard? Called infrasound, the super low frequency sounds that register below 20 hertz.

Moriarty launched into a cautionary tale. A large experimental windmill was built in Boone, North Carolina, in the 1970s, with the wind at its back in order to maximize energy generation. But the low-frequency noise created pressure waves that were amplified by a number of factors.

“It created a pressure pulse low enough that you couldn’t hear it, but it was similar to the resonance frequency of houses and the sound wave shook the houses and increased the amplitude. Body cavities have a similar resonance frequency, too, so people were getting seasick and dishes were falling off the walls.”

“That’s the number-one reason wind turbines are now designed to work upwind. Infrasound is much less of an issue. Recent measurements on infrasound of GE turbines on Vinalhaven found there isn’t much infrasound coming from those turbines and they satisfy national standards,” he said.

Moriarty said that everything he has seen on infrasound seems to indicate that the noise-related problems are not due to infrasound.

But noise problems are real and the industry is paying attention.

“Sound is a focus across the wind industry,” said Melissa Rocker, the global communications manager for General Electric, who manufactured the wind turbines on Vinalhaven.

“We’ve been talking to Fox Island Wind since last November on how to reduce noise,” said Rocker.

“Every site is unique, with different geographic conditions, weather conditions and ambient sound levels,” she said. “GE is working on various technologies….When those technologies are ready, Fox Island would be a strong candidate for testing.”

The Sculptor at the End of the Lane: Kitty Wales

Fred Granger, who works at a small quarry cutting granite for countertops and benches using a diamond-bit granite saw, hasn’t been drawn into the conflict or paid much attention to the studies.

“I love them,” he said of the wind turbines. He works in the shadow of the windmill blades and the sound of his granite saw is loud enough to drown out any turbine noise.

“They’re beautiful machines that take air and make electricity,” he said. “But I don’t live on the island.”

And then he walked past the numbered blocks of fine-grained granite to the edge of the North Haven Road and pointed down a long lane bordered by hay-scented fern and bayberry bushes.

“There’s a sculptor lives down there,” he said. “Close enough, but a little further away than the rest. She might be one to talk to. I don’t know what she thinks of them. I don’t know that she’s been asked.”

I started walking down the sunny lane, breathing in the summer island scent of sweet fern, hay-scented fern and wild roses. Jim Cogswell was clearing brush on the side of the lane a quarter mile in and stopped for a chat. Cogswell lives on the Peaquot Road on the other side of the island.

“What do I think of them? Anything to get us to use less oil from the Arabs, I’m for them,” said Cogswell. “It’s funny, though. You can hear them from farther away than you can when you are right up close to them.”

The sculptor at the end of the mile-long lane turned out to be Kitty Wales, who is on the island for five months. It’s where she gets her sculpting work done; the rest of the year she teaches in Boston.

No one had asked her what she thought.

“The sound varies wildly,” said Wales. “Some days I can’t hear it at all. Other days it’s this engine sound, whomp, whomp, and a rattling sound on a really bad day. Sometimes there is this low vibration. But I’m three quarters to a mile away and it’s only when we are in the lee of the wind that I hear it.”

“It’s basically too close to residential, too close to homes…and it’s done. For me, it’s tolerable. I don’t want it to affect my work, so I put it out of my mind as much as I can. I don’t think they will be able to make it quieter, but they seem to be trying.”

“Have you gone up the lane, with the pristine look of the bayberries and the hay-scented fern and there they are?” asked Wales. “Rising up in front of you? They are so beautiful. As a sculptor, I think they’re amazingly cool.”

Second Feature:

State probing officials at Cape: Misconduct alleged in wind development

 SOURCE Watertown Daily Times, www.watertowndailytimes.com

August 14, 2010

By Brian Kelly, Times Staff Writer,

CAPE VINCENT — The state attorney general’s office is investigating allegations of misconduct by “certain” town officials in connection with the development of wind farms.

John T. Milgrim, spokesman for the attorney general, confirmed that a letter was sent to the town and its attorney Friday afternoon informing them an investigation had been launched.

Mr. Milgrim also confirmed that two senior members of Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo’s staff, Deputy Chief of Staff John B. Howard and Henry M. Greenberg, executive division counsel, were in Cape Vincent about two weeks ago conducting interviews of “parties interested in wind power.”

Mr. Milgrim declined comment on details of the investigation, including what prompted it or which town officials may be its focus.

According to the letter, obtained by the Times, the attorney general has told the town it must preserve all town documents, including those of the Town Council and Planning Board, and the town is not to delete or purge any records until the investigation is complete.

The attorney general’s office is specifically requesting information about any present, past or future wind farm development or siting of the farms, as well as all information regarding wind turbines, wind power and related facilities or wind power projects.

The office wants all information about wind farm development compiled since Jan. 1, 2005, “whether considered, planned, attempted or completed, including, but not limited to permitting, licensing, construction and energy production.”

By Aug. 28, the attorney general’s office wants:

■ All documents relating to town action on wind farm development, including, but not limited to, board minutes, board packages, resolutions, voting records, communications, permits, applications and licenses.

■ All communications between or among town officials and any company engaged in wind farm development.

■ All documents concerning any financial relationship between a town official, or their relatives, and a company engaged in wind farm development, including, but not limited to, any financial disclosures filed with the town and any board minutes reflecting any such disclosures.

The attorney general’s office is asking that town Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey and Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall, as well as members of the Town Council and Planning Board, be made available for interviews. The office also wants to talk to anyone else who served on either board since Jan. 1, 2005.

Acciona Wind Energy USA has proposed a 51-turbine St. Lawrence Wind Farm for the town and BP Alternative Energy has an active application for the 62-turbine Cape Vincent Wind Farm. The proposed projects have caused controversies between pro- and anti-wind advocates, including allegations of conflicts of interest among town officials.

Third Feature:

Open Access to Paperless Records

SOURCE: The Times Record, www.timesrecord.com

August 13, 2010

Maine’s Freedom of Access Act is based on the principle that government best serves the public when it operates in the most open manner possible. Without open meetings and access to public records citizens won’t know what their government is up to — and democracy can’t function properly.

So it should be a matter of grave concern to all Maine citizens — not just the press — that the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting essentially had a roadblock thrown in its path this spring when it requested documents from the Maine Public Utilities Commission as part of its research into the 2008 law to fast-track wind turbine development in the state.

As reported by the center’s Naomi Schalit in the three-part series that ran this week in The Times Record and several other Maine newspapers, the Wind Energy Act of 2008 implements a set of recommendations made unanimously by a task force named by Gov. John Baldacci in 2007.

The resulting legislation wasn’t even debated when it was approved unanimously by the Maine House and Senate. As Schalit notes in her first article, it “was a special interest bill justified at the time in the name of jobs, energy independence and climate change.”

Not surprisingly, given the lack of debate and scrutiny as the bill flew through the Legislature in 2008, it took time for the public to grasp what the Wind Energy Act’s ambitious goals of constructing 1,000 to 2,000 turbines by 2020 actually means … and the impact that might have on Maine’s western mountains.

What Schalit has done is raise important questions about the process by which this major piece of legislation became law. Key among them is how the governor’s task force created a map showing where wind turbines could go to receive fast-track consideration. What she discovered is that it’s not clear from the official record, largely because summaries for the task force’s last two meetings don’t exist.

The lack of a paper trail is an obvious red flag, and dogged reporter that she is, Schalit used the obvious tool for any Maine citizen curious about how laws and policies come about: She filed an FOAA request with the Maine Public Utilities Commission, whose former chairman, Kurt Adams, had accepted a job with the wind power company First Wind in April 2008.

Schalit sought e-mails from 2005 to 2007 between Adams and First Wind, between Adams and Baldacci (for whom he had previously worked as legal counsel), and between Adams and several wind power attorneys employed by Verrill Dana. Given Adams’ role as PUC chairman, his close ties to Baldacci and subsequent employment with First Wind, the requested documents would seem germane to the public’s interest in the deliberations of the governor’s wind power task force.

How germane? We might never know. That’s because Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting initially was told it would cost upwards of $10,000 for the PUC to search for the requested information on backup discs of its e-mail records.

The center asked for a waiver, as allowed in the FOAA. The state refused and amended its cost estimate to $36,239.52.

Clearly, that’s “access” in theory only.

If the state’s computer archiving system is so inefficient that it cannot retrieve requested electronic records easily or at minimal expense, the public loses its ability to keep track of what’s going on. Government becomes, then, less accountable.

It’s not likely that this is an isolated failure, given the push for “paperless” records at all levels of government.

Maine’s Freedom of Access Act needs to be brought into the 21st century, with provisions added that would prevent state, county and local governments from creating de facto barriers of difficulty and cost when the records being sought are only available in electronic form.



 PUBLIC COMMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FROM RESIDENT OF PSC APPROVED GLACIER HILLS PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION:

To the landowners in the Ledge Wind Project:

If you believe wind turbines are a good fit for a farm operation, a free source of clean energy, and a benefit to your community, I invite you to come to the Glacier Hills Project and witness  the total devastation occuring during construction.

Seeing firsthand what is happening here would turn any responsible landowner's stomach.

Heavy rains have created erosion that will take years to repair.

The number of huge construction equipment and trucks burning fuel is staggering.

Good productive farmland is being ripped apart, and will never be the same.

The level of disgust is even affecting the most loyal supporters of this project.

Hatred of this project is growing worse as each day passes, and we will be forced to live with this for the rest of our lives, all because a few irresponsible landowners, myself included, were taken in by wind developers lies.

All this for chump change.

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

Gary Steinich

Cambria, WI

 SECOND FEATURE

TESTIMONY

Comments submitted by Wisconsin resident, Joe Yunk, to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, July 2010

My name is Joe Yunk; I currently reside at the address of N2630 Townhall Rd in Kewaunee County.

My prior address was North 7905 County Trunk P, Algoma, Wisconsin which was in the Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) wind farm by Rio Creek, Wisconsin. I moved from the Algoma address to my current address on or about October 2009 to get away from the effects of the WPS wind farm.

I have been following the current proposed Element Power LLC (EEP) wind farm development that I now find myself living in.

I want you to know what I went through while living in the WPS wind farm. I am hopeful that this information will help you make the right decisions with regard to any PSCW approvals for any other wind farms in Wisconsin.

I would hate to see other peoples’ lives to be as negatively affected as mine has been as a result of living in a wind farm. There is no doubt in my mind that I will relive the awful experience once again if the EEP wind farm for Kewaunee County is approved.

In 1998 the WPS wind farm construction began about 300 yards from my home. I had built this home in 1980 on 6.5 acres of land which was our home farm that I lived on all my life. I was born on November 28, 1954. I had two turbines within one-half mile, one of those turbines was about 1,300 ft from my house and 600 ft from my property line.

In the summer of 2000, the turbines of the WPS wind farm began operation. Inasmuch as I had lived on this farm all my life, I knew the neighbors well, and it wasn’t long after the turbines began operating our lives began to change.

In conversations with my neighbors, I learned, they too were experiencing constant disturbing noise, shadow flicker and just the constant presence of the turbines. By presence I felt uneasy and irritated by the size and closeness of these 220 ft. turbines.

All the people living in this wind farm were guinea pigs/lab rats, no one knew what we were in for. It was in the fall of 2000 when neighbors and families began to divide over the effects of the wind farm. And that continued throughout the time I lived there.

When the turbines began to operate, a hotline was established directly to WPS to report any problems.

I had beef cattle for about two years prior to the turbines operating and never lost any animals. However, shortly after the turbines began to operate, I had beef cattle become ill and die. I reported this on the WPS hotline and nothing was done. I lost ten animals valued at $5,000 [each] over a two year period and couldn’t afford to continue.

Because of noise complaints to WPS, within a year, two families’ homes were purchased by WPS and demolished.

Additionally, at the same time WPS was settling nuisance suits with other neighbors. They were offering to buy out my neighbors but offered prices way below market value to stop the complaints.

However, they never offered me any buyout opportunity and I wanted out! It was hard for me to leave my home place of 54 years. Over time, however, living with the constant sleep deprivation and irritation of the noise and flickering I decided to sue WPS to have them pay me fair market value for my home so I could afford to move.

I knew that I might be risking everything I had worked for all my life, but I didn’t care at this point. I didn’t even try to sell my place outright because I didn’t want anyone else to have to live as I did in this wind farm. I really wanted WPS to buy me out and to demolish the home.

I retained an attorney and filed suit with WPS. Shortly after, WPS offered me $110,000 on my property that appraised for $168,000. I decided not to take their offer, but proceed with the suit.

I gave deposition in the summer of 2008, we were scheduled to go trail in September 2009 and WPS offered me a settlement in August of 2009 for $163,000. With this settlement I was responsible for my attorney fees. My attorney advised me to accept this offer. After paying my attorney fees, I ended up with $158,000.

Later, my home and property were listed with a real estate agency for sale by WPS for 30% below the appraised value.

From my experience in living in this wind farm, it is apparent that setback away from property lines is absolutely necessary. I could hear the turbines a mile away from my house. The PSCW’s standard setback from a property line should be 1.5 miles.

Now, my new home and property on Townhall road is within the confines of the EPP proposed wind farm. I`d like to know what you recommend I do now?

WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS:

Annie Hart Cool of Falmouth said a turbine was erected within 1,500-feet of her home and has disrupted her husband’s sleep so severely he’d forced to sleep in the basement. He is an air-traffic controller, she added, and can’t afford to lose sleep. And the turbine is absolutely adversely impacting property values, she said.

“Wind turbines are like living next to a train or a dump,” Cool said. “These are realities, I’m a real person and this is really happening to me.”

 SOURCE: State House News Service, www.wickedlocal.com

Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com  June 20 2010

Wind farm development has been a hotly debated issue in Northeastern Wisconsin, and the Green Bay Press-Gazette has received numerous letters to the editor, for and against.

Drawing the most response from readers has been a proposal by Invenergy LLC, a Chicago-based company, to build wind turbines in the Brown County towns of Morrison, Wrightstown, Glenmore and Holland. The 100-turbine wind farm would be the first major commercial operation of its kind in Brown County and the largest in the state. It has signed contracts for about $8,000 a year with numerous property owners permitting 400-foot turbines on their properties.

Many property owners and residents in the southern Brown County communities have spoken out against the project, citing negative health effects and the potential loss in property values.

Just last week, the Brown County Board of Health recommended that no wind turbines be built in the area of the proposed wind farm in southern Brown County, citing a potential threat to the groundwater. The area has a history of well contamination because of the porous bedrock peculiar to that region.

Invenergy is awaiting siting rules from the Public Service Commission, which is taking public comments on the wind turbine issue until July 6.

Uncomfortable with proposed turbines

 DENMARK — In the Press-Gazette article, "Wind company tries to woo Brown County" (May 11), Kevin Parzyck, the project manager for the proposed 100-turbine Ledge Wind project in Brown County, is quoted as saying "(T)here is a high level of comfort … it's a benefit to the community." This is a misleading statement. 

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, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio 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.

Agenda

1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda

2) Review and adoption of meeting minutes of June 15, 2010

3) 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

4) Discuss proposed amendments to straw proposal for Council’s recommendations to
Commission regarding draft rules

5) Next steps/Discussion of next meeting’s time, place and agenda

6) 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.

WIND FARM WILL BE INVASIVE TO FARMS

SOURCE Wisconsin State Journal, host.madison.com

June 3, 2010

Regarding the State Journal editorial on May 25 titled “Wind turbines fit with farms”: As a resident of the town of Scott in northeast Columbia County, I can tell you the Glacier Hills Energy Park is not like the wind project at Montfort in Iowa County, which you featured in a photograph.

When Florida Power and Light first proposed a wind farm to our family, the idea was to place a row of turbines on an area we call the high line. This sounded like an idea worth pursuing. Seven years later, with WE Energies in control, the project has 90 very large turbines in a scattered pattern that are invasive to everyone’s environment in this area.

Contrary to what you think, there will be a large amount of very productive farm land out of production, or production will be compromised.

I heard very compelling testimony at a PSC hearing against this turbine arrangement. After the hearing, I felt the PSC would never allow this project. The evidence appears to have been disregarded.

It is alarming what a large company with government support can do to ordinary people. As a farming family, we could have turbines on our property in the future, but we now doubt if the money is worth the cost.

Sharon Prochnow, Cambria

SECOND FEATURE

COUPLE SETTLE LAWSUIT ON WIND TURBINE NOISE

SOURCE: Altoona Mirror

By Kay Stephens and David Hurst

June 4, 2010

HOLLIDAYSBURG - The lawsuit between a Blair County couple and a company that operates Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm has been settled.

"All I can say about the resolution is that it's confidential," Pittsburgh attorney Bradley S. Tupi said Thursday. "I can't talk about the settlement."

Tupi represented Todd and Jill Stull, the Portage RD couple who sued in May 2008, complaining that the wind turbine noise had destroyed their quality of life.

They moved to the Juniata Township farm in 1992, and the turbine farm, which borders their property and spans five townships, went into operation in 2007.

The court case between the Stulls and Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm LLC was on track for a jury trial in July before Blair County Judge Daniel Milliron.

Tupi recently filed the decision on the settlement, with no details, at the Blair County Courthouse.

Allegheny Ridge attorney Jason Richey, who has been contesting the complaints and challenging the Stulls' requests for information, filed nothing at the courthouse regarding the settlement.

Richey and the Stulls did not return phone calls for comment.

Everyone involved in the case has agreed to the confidentiality clause, Tupi said.

The Portage Township supervisors were aware of the settlement and its confidentiality clause.

"The township didn't have to pay anything," Supervisor Kenneth Trimbath said. "This was between [Allegheny Ridge] and the Stulls."

The township paid about $420 in legal fees to attorney Walter Wall in connection with the lawsuit. It called the money well spent.

"We had our lawyers involved to keep us out of it," township Manager Bruce Brunett said, "And it worked."

Juniata Township supervisors previously tried to help resolve the Stulls' complaint by working with the wind farm operators and then by hiring an independent company to measure the turbine noise.

But after the study came back showing the wind turbine noise lower than levels permitted by ordinance, solicitor Michael Routch advised supervisors that the township was not in a position to do more.

Other Juniata Township residents, in addition to the Stulls, have complained about turbine noise from the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm.

"Tell them to contact me," Tupi said.

SOME BACKGROUND ON THE LAWSUIT:

Wind experts duped local officials, Blue Knob couple’s lawsuit claims

SOURCE The Tribune Democrat 

December 24, 2008

By KATHY MELLOTT

HOLLIDAYSBURG — New documents filed in an ongoing civil lawsuit by a Portage-area couple against the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm say that wind energy experts duped local officials into believing the turbine sound was insignificant.

Todd and Jill Stull of the Blue Knob area say that developer Gamesa Energy USA and owner Babcock & Brown misled local officials by supporting development of an ordinance addressing higher noise levels.

The Stulls filed an amended suit Tuesday. The ordinance establishes a maximum sound level of 45 decibels and does not address the lower frequency noises, including turbine vibration that is said to cause health and other problems suffered by the Stulls.

Mrs. Stull, holding a bottle of water inside her home, can feel the turbines’ vibrations throughout her hand, their lawyer said.

Nine of the 40 windmills in Phase One of the planned three-phase wind farm are within a mile of the Stulls’ home, which is situated where the Portage, Juniata and Greenfield township lines converge.

Three years ago, ordinances established that turbines must be a minimum 2,000 feet from residences and not exceed a noise level of 45 decibels. They were adopted by Portage, Washington and Cresson townships, Cambria County, and Juniata and Greenfield townships, Blair County.

The Stulls filed the civil suit in April and, earlier this month, while a Blair judge kept the lawsuit intact, he dismissed several counts, including one claim that Gamesa created a public nuisance.

He allowed to stand a claim that Allegheny Ridge created a private nuisance.

But Pittsburgh Bradley Tupi, representing the Stulls, was told by Judge Daniel Milliron to provide additional evidence in order for a fraudulent misrepresentation claim to stand.

In the amendment, Tupi claimed the companies knew the turbines would be noisy and failed to tell local officials – whom he said were depending on the wind companies for guidance in developing local laws.

“Brian Lammers and/or other Allegheny representatives told the Portage Township officials that the wind turbines would be quiet,” Tupi said in the lawsuit, referring to a May 2005 conversation with then-Supervisors James Decort and Richard Olshavsky.

“Lammers told Portage Township officials that there would be no noise or minimal noise from the wind turbines,” Tupi said in the document.

The Stulls said the turbines have had a significantly negative impact on their sleep, health, quality of life and enjoyment of their 100-acre property purchased in 1992.

They describe the sound from the equipment as a “whooshing” and “screeching.’’

Lammers told officials the windmill noise would be equivalent to a refrigerator.

Representatives from Babcock & Brown and Gamesa could not be immediately reached for comment Wednesday. In the past, Gamesa officials have said they would not comment on the lawsuit.

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

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

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

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

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