Entries in wind farm noise (219)
1/7/11 Calling all wind project residents: Australia wants to hear from you AND Do you hear what I hear? Loud complaints about noise from people who live in wind projects and denials from the wind industry AND How much electricity does it take to run an industrial scale wind turbine? AND Tell it to the Judge: One man's worry becomes a wind developer's nightmare
The purpose of this message is to encourage the international community to actively participate in a full Federal Senate Inquiry into Windfarms. This is a Federal inquiry and it could have a significant impact globally. It includes the social and economic impacts of windfarms and will involve Senators representing all parties in the Australian Parliament.
The Deadline is for submission is February 10, 2011
Comments are welcome on the social and economic impacts of rural wind farms, and in particular:
(a) Any adverse health effects for people living in close proximity to wind farms;
(b) Concerns over the excessive noise and vibrations emitted by wind farms, which are in close proximity to people's homes;
(c) The impact of rural wind farms on property values, employment opportunities and farm income;
(d) The interface between Commonwealth, state and local planning laws as they pertain to wind farms; and
(e) Any other relevant matters.
Why should I make a submission?
It is an unprecedented opportunity to provide evidence and comments to the Senate Inquiry and to support those in Australia , who are at risk from wind energy projects.
International submissions, including submissions from researchers are most welcome.
Submissions can be made on a confidential basis if you wish. Note that Australian citizens are protected Parliamentary Privilege. Senate extension of Parliamentary privilege (guaranteeing confidentiality for those who require it) only extends to residents currently in Australia . Therefore, it will not protect people who wish to give evidence from other countries who are bound by gag agreements.
Let’s support this inquiry and make our submissions. Post on a website or forward this email to others. See suggestions below this message.
How to make a submission
The link to the windfarm Senate Inquiry website is:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/info.htm
For information on how to make a submission, please see the following link:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/info.htm
Submissions are preferred in electronic form submitted online or by email to community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au as an attached Adobe PDF or MS Word format document. The email must include full postal address and contact details.
Alternatively, written submissions may be sent by mail to:
Department of the Senate
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
For additional questions in relation to the inquiry, please do not hesitate to contact:
David Lipshutz
Senior Policy Advisor
Office of the Leader of FAMILY FIRST
Senator Steve Fielding
www.stevefielding.com.au <http://www.stevefielding.com.au/>
Ideas for submissions
Topics could include risks to:
- health
- the environment
- wildlife
- animal life including farm animals and pets
- birds and bird habitat
- marine life
- aquatic life
- endangered species
- economic impact
- cost / benefit
- reliability and viability
- electrical pollution
- social impacts to people and the community
Who should submit:
- researchers, academics in all topics
- experts in all topics
- victim impact statements from those who are suffering symptoms
- concerned residents globally on all topics
“It makes me seasick and nauseous,” said Eaton, who carries a cane. “I take medication for it, but it just keeps it slightly balanced so I’m not vomiting all the time, to be honest with you.”
The constant swoosh-swoosh of wind turbines cutting through a downwind gust can be excruciating for Eaton. For others, like Dan Williams, who live nearby just a few miles south of the Columbia River, the sound is more than just annoying — it keeps him up at night, which causes stress.
“It’s like a train that’s neither coming or going, or a plane that’s constantly hovering, or an ocean that’s not breaking or receding,” said Williams, an otherwise healthy middle-aged man. “I will also sometimes get real tight in the chest and feel like I’m having a panic attack.”
The pair recently told their stories at one of three public meetings the state Office of Public Health held in eastern Oregon to assess the possible health effects from wind turbine noise. How and at what distances sound from these giant turbines affects human beings has triggered a brush war in the search for renewable energy, a war that has seen battles from Denmark to New England to the U.S. Midwest — and Oregon.
So far the issue hasn’t hobbled the nation’s push for wind energy, which currently generates about 2.4 percent of the electricity used in the United States. But the noise issue will likely become more salient as the search for available land brings wind turbines closer to tranquil backyards. The Acoustic Ecology Institute, for instance, describes turbine noise issues as “the exception rather than the rule” except in rural areas with neighbors within a half-mile or so.
(Which is one reason some researchers have suggested placing turbines closer to already noisy roads.)
Eastern Oregon’s high desert plains and notorious winds make it an ideal place for wind projects. And while overall turbine installations are down in 2010, Oregon led the nation in the third quarter, according to the American Wind Energy Association, and is fifth in the nation in its cumulative capacity from installed windmills.
On the ranch land above the Eatons’, about 200 miles east of Portland, Caithness Energy is planning one of the largest wind farms in the world: 845-megawatt Shepherd’s Flat. The site is a giant plateau of dry grassland just beyond the Columbia River Gorge, which funnels wind gusts from the west.
Towns, some with just a few hundred residents, are scattered miles apart, and counties are largely strapped. As ranching and farming get tougher each year, wind projects offer opportunities to both governments and individuals, but they also bring drawbacks.
One of those is noise for people who have to live next to them.
Growing Opposition
Eaton, Williams and two other households along Highway 74 southeast of Arlington have hired lawyers. They want Chicago-based Invenergy LLC, which owns the Willow Creek wind project behind their homes, to compensate them for the noise, which they say exceeds limits set by law. They’re after far more than the typical payment of $3,500 or $5,000 that wind project developers typically pay neighbors that might be affected by noise. They want the company ultimately to buy their homes, which developers have done in some cases.
In northeastern Oregon, where giant windmills marching across the prairie, conflicts such as these are sowing negative opinions about wind energy projects.
In Union County, where Horizon Wind Energy is planning a 300-megawatt project, 52 percent of voters on Nov. 2 rejected the wind farm even though it would bring jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue. Opposition in Oregon and across the country is driven mostly by their appearance on the landscape, effects on wildlife — and fears over noise.
The sound that comes off wind turbines can create a little-known side effect — dubbed wind turbine syndrome by researcher Nina Pierpont — that bothers some people up to a mile or more from the source. Pierpont was among the first to say low-frequency noise is the main culprit, although concerns about the noise are growing. Windfall, a documentary exploring the issue, debuted at several film festivals this year.
The wind farm industry has largely denied any ill health effects from wind turbine noise; the British Wind Energy Association, for example, characterizes Pierpont’s research as “work [that] flies in the face of decades of established medical research. … Bad science is not just misleading; it can be damaging and disruptive.”
A panel of experts hired by the U.S. and Canadian wind energy associations last year said the noise from wind turbines is no more harmful to human health than the average annoying sound. Setbacks less than a mile, they determined, are fine. Noise problems reported by neighbors, they said, are psychological.
What exactly might be happening to people like Eaton and Williams raises questions about the way we hear. It also raises a compelling question about public policy and where to draw the line when it comes to noise.
Sense of Perception
Lawmakers have tried to set the bar on noise ever since the first person complained about a nearby train track or an airport flight path.
Researchers, too, have a good sense of what noise does to people. Most people can handle nighttime noise at about 40 decibels, about the same as suburban background noise. At 55 decibels just outside the home, the World Health Organization estimates a “sizable proportion of the population” could experience sleep disruption or irritability, and there’s “evidence the risk of cardiovascular disease increases,” according to an August 2010 report.
But wind turbine noise is somewhat different, with some research suggesting its palpitating swoosh is exceptionally more irritating than other sounds. One reason could be the low-frequency component. Nighttime tolerance levels for wind turbines, therefore, are generally set at 40 or 45 decibels — found at about 1,000 or 1,500 feet away from the average tower — compared to 65 decibels for airport traffic.
Another study showed how attitudes toward wind turbines affected people’s perception of the sound. Researchers in The Netherlands surveyed 725 people living near turbines and found “annoyance was strongly correlated with a negative attitude toward the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape.
“The study further demonstrates that people who benefit economically from wind turbines have a significantly decreased risk of annoyance, despite exposure to similar sound levels,” according to the paper published last year.
Dennis Wade, another homeowner in Oregon with noise problems, didn’t need a scientific study to observe the obvious. “I don’t know how else to say this,” he told me at the public meeting in Pendleton. “If they’re on the moneymaking end of it, they don’t seem to hear it. They don’t seem to feel it.”
In Arlington, where turbines flank the entire town, few people reported any problem with the noise. Mike Weedman, a Sherman County rancher with 36 turbines on his property, is decidedly on the “moneymaking end of it.” And he doubts people could feel as sick as they say they do from wind turbines.
“People can make themselves sick,” Weedman told me. “And that’s all it is. I’ve been living by them for almost six years, and I don’t even know they’re there except for the lights at night blinking.”
Raising Ear Hairs
A small group of researchers is looking into whether the symptoms of wind turbine noise could be more physical than mental. Leading this area is Alec Salt, who’s been experimenting with the hearing of guinea pigs for about 10 years. The journal Hearing Research in August published Salt’s paper showing that the human ear might have more acute sensitivities to low-frequency sound, like the kind produced by wind turbines, than previously understood.
Salt’s findings could mean that even low-frequency sound, which people can’t hear, could affect them, though more research is needed to say for sure. It could also mean that low-frequency sound has a way of modulating the ear’s ability to hear higher-frequency sounds, which could be one reason wind turbines are more annoying.
“Even when you can’t hear a sound, there are parts of your ear that are responding to it,” Salt said from Washington University in St. Louis. His research essentially found that the outer ear hairs responded to low-frequency sound while the inner hairs did not. “That means sound like wind turbines can affect people or wake them up from sleep or disturb the fluids of the ear, and the levels of sound that cause these things are totally unrelated to what you hear.”
Most government agencies that oversee wind farms don’t consider low-frequency sound when measuring noise levels. But Salt said they most definitely should, adding that based on what he’s learned, it’s insane to site turbines less than 2 kilometers, or about 1.3 miles, from someone’s home.
“The auditory science community has been asleep at the wheel,” he said.
Dr. Robert Dobie, an ear, nose and throat physician and clinical professor at University of California, Davis, doesn’t see it that way. Dobie served on the industry panel that assessed health risks last year. He said the scientific literature is clear about sound’s effect on the ear, and wind turbine noise is no different.
“What debate?” Dobie wrote in an e-mail. “I do not consider it to be a high priority and would not like to see my tax dollars spent on this when there are much more important issues in medical research.”
Combination of Factors
Many government agencies that oversee wind farms allow them up to 1,000 feet from homes. The World Health Organization advises 1,500 feet. But neither measure would do anything to prevent what happened to the Eatons, who live almost a mile from the nearest blades. The wind energy industry, meanwhile, rejects extending this setback to, say, a mile.
If lawmakers imposed 1-mile setbacks in Ontario, Canada, or the U.S. Midwest, wind energy would be nearly impossible, said Erik Nordman, a Grand Valley University assistant professor of biology who led a health assessment by the West Michigan Wind Assessment Project.
Nordman examined scientific studies on sound and human health, concluding that about 1,000 feet on average was sufficient setback for most wind turbines. He also argued that the health benefits from decreased air pollution that wind energy provides outweigh the potential health side effects of the noise.
Geoff Leventhall is a noise and acoustics expert based in the United Kingdom who’s been working for about 40 years with people who complain about low-level noise. Leventhall served on the wind farm industry panel that concluded last year there were no health effects from turbine noise and has been pictured as a wind turbine syndrome denier by some.
“What has been proven is that a person’s response to noise, especially low-level noise, is conditioned by their attitude to the noise source,” Leventhall said.
As for Eaton, he said, “there are a very small number of people with extra sensitivities. He may be one of them. Also it could be what people are expecting to happen. One thing people have been told about wind turbine noise is that it can upset their vestibular systems, which leads to dizziness. Perhaps it’s susceptibility that’s been enhanced by expectation.”
A similar response came from Dobie, who also served on the industry-backed panel.
“At levels far too low to cause hearing loss, any audible sound can, under certain circumstances, be annoying,” Dobie wrote in an e-mail. “Imagine a dripping faucet. Annoyance can also be a stressor that can contribute to illness in vulnerable people, just as other stressors such as job and relationship stress can. If I paint my house bright purple, my neighbor might find that so upsetting that he eventually suffers migraines and high blood pressure. That does not mean that the color purple is toxic.”
Whenever policymakers draw the line on noise, there are going to be a certain percentage of people who may still be harmed. The Federal Aviation Administration assumes 25 percent of people will still be annoyed at the sound of airplanes, despite property setbacks at airports. In the case of wind farms, it may be far fewer.
Try telling that to Mike Eaton, for whom percentages mean nothing.
“If this means we have to move, we have to move,” he said. “What do you do when you live someplace 21 years and you have to move?”
THIRD FEATURE:
He studied the inner workings of a modern wind tower and pondered whether any net energy is produced.
Let's look at some of the devices inside a wind turbine that consume power.
* Rechargeable batteries -- Large wind turbines contain a number of rechargeable batteries to power the electrical systems when the wind is not blowing. These systems include aircraft lights, brakes, blade control devices and weather instrumentation. If the wind doesn't blow for an extended period, these batteries must be recharged with power off the electrical grid.
* Heaters -- Gearboxes in wind turbines contain fluids that must be kept warm in frigid climates. Turbine blades also have built-in heaters to prevent icing, which the author suggested could consume up to 20 percent of the electricity produced by the turbine.
* Motors -- A common misconception is that the blades of a wind tower sit still when the wind is not blowing. In fact, a tower uses its generator in reverse as a motor to spin the blades slowly. The movement of the blades is almost imperceptible to the naked eye. The blades move to prevent brinelling (grooving) of the bearings on the main shaft. This occurs when bearing components rock back and forth without much movement. Consequently, electricity is taken either from the storage batteries or off the grid to power the blades during these periods.
Wind turbine manufacture's don't report how much electricity is consumed internally or must be purchased externally. The amount is likely to be quite variable because system designs vary by manufacturer. Moreover, there likely are both good and bad economics of operation as turbine sizes increase.
So, is this really an issue to be concerned about?
The editor concluded his article by saying, "We've commissioned so many wind turbines that we will need to build new coal-fired power plants to run them."
The question could be solved easily if tower net metering was available. Net metering monitors the quantity of electrical power flowing in both directions.
Overall, the point is rather moot, though, because the editor failed to realize that wind turbine generators are rated on a net power-producing basis. In other words, each turbine has a nameplate with its power rating listed on it.
What is a more important consideration is the power curve that describes the level of electricity produced at various levels of wind speed. Wind speed is highly variable in each geographic area, so that is a more important factor to consider.
FOURTH FEATURE
LEGAL CHALLENGE COULD STALL ONTARIO WIND PROJECTS
SOURCE: Toronto Star, www.thestar.com
January 5, 2011
By John Spears, Business Reporter,
One day in the summer of 2008, Ian Hanna went to an open house in Prince Edward County about the possible health effects on wind turbines on people who live near them.
He came away worried.
His worries grew to the point that later this month his lawyer will be in a Toronto courtroom, arguing a case that could put further wind power development in Ontario on hold.
That could put a crimp in Ontario’s just-announced long term energy plan, which forsees a significant expansion of wind-generated electricity.
Hanna is challenging to a provincial regulation that requires large wind turbines to be set back at least 550 metres from any residence.
“There appears to be significant scientific uncertainty about the question of an appropriate setback distance between industrial wind turbines and peoples’ homes,” says Hanna’s lawyer, Eric Gillespie.
That, he says runs against the “precautionary principle.”
“The precautionary principle simply says: Until that uncertainty is resolved, we should not be proceeding with further development.”
Wind opponents say the turbines can cause sleep disorders, hearing problems and a host of associated health effects.
“The fact that the government is setting these things back already more than half a kilometers demonstrates that the government is aware there is a risk,” says Gillespie.
Hanna moved to Prince Edward County from Richmond Hill in 2003 and runs a wine importing business from his home on Big Island, just off the shore.
After he bought his property, a developer proposed a wind project on the island and Hanna started asking questions about the impact on local residents. (The project was ultimately withdrawn because of a nearby military airstrip.)
“It became apparent to me there were a lot of unknowns, and that worried me very much,” he said in an interview.
That Thanksgiving, he started circulating a petition. In his travels, he met Dr. Robert McMurtry, a former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, who also owns property in Prince Edward County.
McMurtry shared Hanna’s concerns and had the professional heft to command attention. McMurtry has given expert evidence on the case, along with two other doctors.
A spokeswoman for Ontario’s environment ministry said the ministry cannot comment on the case because of the imminent court date.
But last May – months after Hanna had filed his challenge – Ontario’s chief medical officer of health Arlene King published a report on wind turbines.
“The scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects,” the report says.
Although the sound may be “annoying,” they are “well below the pressure sound levels at which known health effects occur.”
Hanna is not persuaded. He says he has talked to many people whose health has been ruined by nearby turbines.
“I’ve spent time with people who have suffered unbelievably from living too close to these things,” he said in an interview.
“Their lives have become a living hell. I think maybe sleep deprivation does this to people. They’re in such terrible condition. I could never walk away from it now.”
He figures he needs $250,000 to see the case through, and has about $200,000 now – partly his own money, partly donations. (None of the money, he says, comes from companies competing with wind power producers in the energy market.)
In a written reply to questions, the Canadian Wind Energy Association says Ontario’s 550-metre setback is “clearly among the more stringent setback requirements for wind turbines in North America.”
If Hanna’s action succeeds, it “would increase uncertainty in the wind energy project approval process and potentially have a significant negative impact on the workers and communities currently benefitting and poised to benefit from wind energy development in the province,” the association says.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Noise, Wind farm, health effects, wind energy, wind farm health effects, wind farm ice throw, wind farm lawsuit, wind farm lawsuit, wind farm noise, wind farm noise, wind farm setbacks, wind farm wisconsin
|
Comments Off
1/2/11 Our video of the day: What do wind turbines sound like to you?
Our wind industry video of the day ends with a question: What do these wind turbines sound like to you? Better Plan has listened and the narrator's suggestion of 'waves lapping against the shore' was not our first pick.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, wind developer, wind farm noise, wind farm property values, wind farm wisconsin
|
Comments Off
12/16/10 UPDATE!!!! FOUR COMMITTEE MEMBERS OFFICIALLY REQUEST PLALE TO OBJECT TO RULES! But Where in the world is Senator Plale? Not returning calls, not responding to pleas for objection to the wind rules. All I want for Christmas is an official objection to the PSC's wind rules: Representatives Ott and Zigmunt explain why, and so do the good citizens of Brown County
WHERE OH WHERE HAS SENATOR JEFF PLALE GONE?
IS THERE A SPIDER HOLE IN MADISON?
With the clock running out on objecting to the wind rules, Senator Plale seems to have gone into hiding.
An aide to other senate committee members responsible for approving the wind rules say Plale has "checked out" and is no longer returning phone calls or any other manner of request for objection to the PSC's weakened wind rules.
Those of us who have been following this issue apparently must now begin to beat the bushes, pound on doors and look for spider holes in Madison and Green Bay in order to find the senator who holds the fate of so many of us in his hands.
Letter from Representative Al Ott
To Representative Jim Soletski
Chairman, Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities
To Senator Jeff Plale
Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail
December 10. 2010
Chairmen Soletski and Plale:
I would like to take this opportunity to respectfully request your consideration in promptly scheduling an Executive Session of your respective Committees in order to object to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057.
Upon review of the changes made by the Public Service Commission (PSC) to Clearing House Ril 10-057, it is clear the Commission did virtually nothing to address the serious concerns raised by the numerous citizens who testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail in October.
I sincerely appreciate that the Senate Committee did the right and responsible thing by holding a Public Hearing and ultimately sending the rule back to the PSC for modifications.
I also appreciate that the PSC did make some improvements to the rule; however, I find it unfortunate that the PSC seemingly chose not to listen to the vast majority of concerns brought forward during the October 13th hearing.
Further, I would argue that the modified setback provision s relative to occupied community buildings and non-participating residences show a blatant disregard for the citizens of areas targeted for wind farm developments.
This is an issue that will impact people's lives and is not to be taken lightly. I believe it is absolutely necessary for your respective Committees to utilize the legislative oversight authority proved by law to ensure that the people who stand ot be impacted the most by the siting of wind turbines are afforded every opportunity under the administrative rule process to protect their rights and their communities.
The process for developing this rule has been flawed from the start. I ask that you bring that flawed process to a halt by objecting to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 prior to December 22, 2010 so that it may be taken up by the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules.
Thank you for your consideration of my request. I look forward to your response.
SIncerely,
Al Ott
State Representative
3rd Assembly District
LETTER FROM REPRESENTATIVE ZIGMUNT:
December 16 , 2010
The Honorable Jim Soletski
Chairman, Assembly Committee on Energy & Utilities
307 West, State Capitol
Madison, WI 53702
The Honorable Jeff Plale, Senate Chairperson
Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail
State Capitol, Room 313 South
Madison, WI 53702
Honorable Chairmen Soletski and Plale,
I take this opportunity to respectfully request a public hearing on Public Service Commission Clearinghouse Rule 10-057.
My office has received numerous contacts from my constituents requesting this hearing before the rule goes into effect. Concerns have been raised over health and environmental impacts that could stem from the wind turbines and my constituents feel these concerns have not been properly addressed.. As such, I consider it necessary that the people be given the opportunity to make their case regarding this ruling directly to the legislature.
Thank you for your serious consideration of my request.
Sincerely
Ted Zigmunt
State Representative
2nd Assembly District
PRESS RELEASE FROM BROWN COUNTY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE RENEWABLE ENERGY
BCCRWE says PSC Action is “Dirty Politics”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 13, 2010
(Denmark, WI) Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy says the latest maneuver by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin regarding wind turbine siting rules is the embodiment of "dirty politics."
The three PSC Commissioners, Eric Callisto, Lauren Azar, and Mark Meyer, voted unanimously on December 9, 2010 to send updated wind turbine siting rules back to the legislature.
These updated rules were crafted after the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail sent the rules back to the PSC for changes following an October 13, 2010 public hearing in Madison, WI.
The intent of the Senate committee that returned the rules to the PSC was summarized by Senator Jon Erpenbach in a November 30, 2010 letter to the PSC (letter below).
We are thankful that Senator Erpenbach called for larger setbacks to residences, lower noise levels, and setbacks measured from property lines. Perhaps most important, was his request for further study of the health impacts to people living in close proximity to industrial wind turbines. The PSC acknowledged receipt of his letter, and then blatantly ignored most of Senator Erpenbach's key requests.
The PSC rule changes reduce the setback requirement for large turbines (a reduction of 300 feet for turbines the size of those recently erected in the Town of Glenmore), and significantly reduce payments to non-participating neighboring landowners.
While that alone is disturbing, more so is the timing for the submission of the rules.
The PSC chose to submit the rules during the last month of a lame duck legislature; at a time when offices are being vacated in Madison, staff is moving, and legislators are preparing for the holidays. In the midst of all this change, legislators who are members of the House and Senate energy committees have only 10 working days to study and fully understand the changes the PSC made.
They can express their opinion on the new rules, but only the Committee Chairmen (Senator Plale or Representative Soletski) can formally 'object' to them. We were thankful that Senator Plale called for a public hearing in October and are hopeful that he and Representative Soletski will object to these new rules.
Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy believe these rules directly threaten the health, safety, and financial well-being of countless rural Wisconsin communities, as well as place a huge tax burden on all Wisconsin residents.
These rules will raise all utility customers' rates, making Wisconsin an even more difficult place to do businesses. These new rules directly contradict the stand taken, and recommendations made, by following organizations:
* The Wisconsin Towns Association
* The Brown County Public Health Department
* The Brown County Land Conservation Department
* The Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association
As well as numerous town ordinances across the state that protect residents' health and safety.
Worst of all, the PSC wholeheartedly ignored the voice of nearly all the citizens that spoke at the Wisconsin Senate public hearing in October, and the countless residents that submitted public comments at the PSC website. This is governing by and for special interests at the expense of Wisconsin families and taxpayers.
Media Contact:
Steve Deslauriers
BCCRWE
PO Box 703
Denmark 54208
Phone: 920-785-1837
LETTER FROM SENATOR JON ERPENBACH TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REGARDING WIND SITING RULES
November 30, 2010
Public Service Commission
Eric Callisto , Chairperson
Mark Meyer, Commissioner
Lauren Azar, Commissioner
PO Box 7854
Madison WI 53707-7854
Dear Commissioners Callisto, Meyer and Azar:
I am writing to today regarding Clearinghouse Rule # 10-057 – PSC Wind Siting Rules proposed Chapter 128. Having voted for the rule’s return to the PSC with the majority of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail, I wanted to share some perspective as to why.
In the committee hearing that was held on October 13, 2010, we received a number of suggestions regarding the rules that resonated with committee members. I am including copies of that testimony for your consideration and will summarily list them in outline fashion for your use.
- Wisconsin Towns Association Memo
- Setback of large wind turbines from nonparticipating residences – at a minimum having the setback from the property line of a nonparticipating property, not the residence.
- Decrease the maximum noise limits from 50 dBA during daytime and 45 dBA during nighttime hours.
- Eliminate the authority of PSC to approve lesser standards than the minimum standards to protect the public under PSC 128.02 (4) Individual Consideration
- Increase the 25% limit that a local government is allowed to require a large wind turbine owner to compensate the owner of a nonparticipating residence. PSC 128.33 (3) Monetary Compensation.
- Require the owner of the wind turbine to reimburse the emergency personnel who train them in safety and emergency procedures. PSC 128.14 (4) (e) under Emergency Procedures
- Change of ownership should not be valid until the new owner has shown proof of compliance with all specific requirements of the original owner.
- Wisconsin Realtor Association
- Setback
- Attorney review of contracts
- Informational brochure for property owners
- Clarification that lease negotiators must have a WI Real Estate License
- Additional health impact research
- Time period for addressing complaints
- Define the term “affected” in “affected nonparticipating residence”
- DATCP
Incorporate the use of DATCP guidelines that intend to maintain the productivity of the farmland associated with wind energy projects.
- Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc. & WI Potato & Vegetable Growers Assoc. Inc.
Address the concerns regarding aerial application of farmland and compensation for conflict that arises.
- The concerns raised by countless individuals that the health concerns or wind turbines are not being addressed adequately, that the setbacks need revision, that the “takings” issue needs to be addressed, that dBA levels need to be reduced both day and night, that shadow flicker must be addressed in the rule, that the health aspects of Wind Turbines have to be studied and taken into consideration. I have not included the reams of paper that was shared with the committee by all of these individuals – I know much of it has already been shared with the PSC.
In closing, I think the above outline gives the Commission a number of particular issues to re-examine within the rule.
I would be happy to discuss further the return of the rule by the Senate Committee with the Commission.
Sincerely,
JON ERPENBACH
State Senator
27th District
JE.tk
REPLY FROM ERIC CALLISTO, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
December 3, 2010
Dear Senator Erpenbach,
Thank you for sharing your concerns and comments regarding the wind siting rules. We appreciate the summary you provided us and will take all comments into consideration when deciding upon modifications that the Commission plans to take up at an open commission meeting soon.
Eric Callisto
Chairperson
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
Why won't Public Service Commission Chairman Eric Callisto tell Senator Erpenbach exactly when the open meeting regarding the wind siting rules will take place?
Certainly Chairman Callisto knows exactly when this meeting will happen. Why give such a vague reply to a state senator?
For those of us watching this issue, it's important to note that Better Plan has been told that the calendar of events on the PSC website is not an official posting place for such meetings so the PSC website calendar is exempt from the 24 hour notice prior to a public meeting that is required by law.
Better Plan has been unable to find the official posting place for the meetings apart from the entry way of the PSC building in Madison.
For many of us, a daily drive to Madison to check the posting at the PSC isn't possible.
Better Plan is concerned that the PSC is purposefully being vague about the date and time of this meeting and urges you to call the PSC daily to find out when this meeting will take place and ask for an agenda.
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 610 North Whitney Way. P.O. Box 7854 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7854 Phone:(608)266-5481 General Toll Free:(888)816-3831 TTY:(608)267-1479 Fax:(608)266-3957 URL:http://psc.wi.gov/
LETTER FROM SENATOR JON ERPENBACH TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REGARDING WIND SITING RULES
November 30, 2010
Public Service Commission
Eric Callisto , Chairperson
Mark Meyer, Commissioner
Lauren Azar, Commissioner
PO Box 7854
Madison WI 53707-7854
Dear Commissioners Callisto, Meyer and Azar:
I am writing to today regarding Clearinghouse Rule # 10-057 – PSC Wind Siting Rules proposed Chapter 128. Having voted for the rule’s return to the PSC with the majority of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail, I wanted to share some perspective as to why.
In the committee hearing that was held on October 13, 2010, we received a number of suggestions regarding the rules that resonated with committee members. I am including copies of that testimony for your consideration and will summarily list them in outline fashion for your use.
- Wisconsin Towns Association Memo
- Setback of large wind turbines from nonparticipating residences – at a minimum having the setback from the property line of a nonparticipating property, not the residence.
- Decrease the maximum noise limits from 50 dBA during daytime and 45 dBA during nighttime hours.
- Eliminate the authority of PSC to approve lesser standards than the minimum standards to protect the public under PSC 128.02 (4) Individual Consideration
- Increase the 25% limit that a local government is allowed to require a large wind turbine owner to compensate the owner of a nonparticipating residence. PSC 128.33 (3) Monetary Compensation.
- Require the owner of the wind turbine to reimburse the emergency personnel who train them in safety and emergency procedures. PSC 128.14 (4) (e) under Emergency Procedures
- Change of ownership should not be valid until the new owner has shown proof of compliance with all specific requirements of the original owner.
- Wisconsin Realtor Association
- Setback
- Attorney review of contracts
- Informational brochure for property owners
- Clarification that lease negotiators must have a WI Real Estate License
- Additional health impact research
- Time period for addressing complaints
- Define the term “affected” in “affected nonparticipating residence”
- DATCP
Incorporate the use of DATCP guidelines that intend to maintain the productivity of the farmland associated with wind energy projects.
- Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc. & WI Potato & Vegetable Growers Assoc. Inc.
Address the concerns regarding aerial application of farmland and compensation for conflict that arises.
- The concerns raised by countless individuals that the health concerns or wind turbines are not being addressed adequately, that the setbacks need revision, that the “takings” issue needs to be addressed, that dBA levels need to be reduced both day and night, that shadow flicker must be addressed in the rule, that the health aspects of Wind Turbines have to be studied and taken into consideration. I have not included the reams of paper that was shared with the committee by all of these individuals – I know much of it has already been shared with the PSC.
In closing, I think the above outline gives the Commission a number of particular issues to re-examine within the rule.
I would be happy to discuss further the return of the rule by the Senate Committee with the Commission.
Sincerely,
JON ERPENBACH
State Senator
27th District
JE.tk
REPLY FROM ERIC CALLISTO, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
December 3, 2010
Dear Senator Erpenbach,
Thank you for sharing your concerns and comments regarding the wind siting rules. We appreciate the summary you provided us and will take all comments into consideration when deciding upon modifications that the Commission plans to take up at an open commission meeting soon.
Eric Callisto
Chairperson
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, Wisconsin public service commission, wind farm noise, wind farm property values., wind farm setbacks, wind farm wisconsin, wind siting rules legislation and policy
|
Comments Off
12/10/10 PSC TO DISCUSS WIND SITING RULES: AND Less than transparent: It's a 'open meeting' but good luck finding an official posting of the PSC's agenda
PSC TO DISCUSS WIND SITING RULES AT THE 10:30 AM OPEN MEETING ON DECEMBER 9TH
CLICK HERE FOR COPY OF THE AGENDA
The meeting will be broadcast live from the PSC website.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
By law the PSC is required to post the agenda for any open meeting 24 hours before it takes place. However, the official posting place for this agenda is not disclosed. The PSC website states that the calandar of PSC events is not an official posting place, but doesn't say why, and doesn't state where the official posting place can be found.
However, a phone number is provided for those who want to talk about this with a PSC representative. Better Plan urges you to call this number to ask for the the location of the official posting place. That is, if you can find anyone who is willing to tell you.
See their disclaimer below:
SOURCE: Public Service Commission Event Calendar
Disclaimer Proposed Schedule & Agendas
This is a tentative schedule for planning purposes only and is subject to change. Persons wishing to verify the times of an event should contact Sandy Paske at (608)266-1265.
Current Agenda - Live Broadcast
While the PSC attempts to publish the open meeting agendas on this web site at least 24 hours prior to an open meeting, it is not the official posting place for such items and may not contain an agenda until close to the time the meeting convenes. If you are attempting to locate an agenda that has not yet been published on our web site, please contact Sandy Paske at (608)266-1265.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, Wisconsin public service commission, Wisconsin wind farm, wind farm noise, wind farm ordinance, wind farm setback, wind siting rules legislation and policy, wind siting rules public service commission
|
Comments Off
12/5/10 Bats VS Wind Turbines: Don't bet on the bats AND Here comes Windy-Sue: lawsuits against small towns who say no wind developers AND Wind turbine noise, what's the big deal?
SECOND FEATURE
PRATTSBURGH RESIDNETS UPDATED ON WIND FARM LAWSUIT
SOURCE: Bath Courier, www.steubencourier.com
December 5 2010
By Mary Perham,
Prattsburgh — An informational meeting Tuesday night on the status of a lawsuit between a wind energy company and the town of Prattsburgh drew sharp lines between a divided town and a divided town board.
Ed Hourihan, the attorney defending the town in the lawsuit filed by wind farm developer Ecogen, told a crowd of 100 residents state Supreme Court Justice Ark has given the two groups time to reach an out-of-court agreement.
He said John Calloway, a representative from Ecogen’s largest shareholder, Pattern Energy, has agreed to talk to representatives from Prattsburgh and the neighboring town of Italy. Italy also is being sued by Ecogen on a related wind farm matter.
Ecogen maintains an agreement reached 3-2 by the outgoing pro-wind Prattsburgh town board in December is binding, despite the fact the new town board rescinded the agreement 4-1 the following January.
The majority of the new board believes the December agreement violates a number of laws, including the right to home rule.
Hourihan said the new board’s action prevented Ecogen from going ahead with its plans to build a 16-turbine wind farm in the town.
He said other court decisions support the new board’s action.
“It’s safe to say had the board not rescinded the settlement you could have turbines in your backyards right now,” Hourihan said.
Preventing the construction didn’t please some residents, who said they had wanted the project to go forward this year.
“You came in and stopped something (a lot of us) wanted,” one woman said.
But the cost of the lawsuit – pegged this year at $49,393 – was the chief concern of the meeting, with some angrily charging other legal costs had been hidden.
Hourihan also privately represented councilmen Chuck Shick and Steve Kula in the fall of 2009, and some residents charged those bills were hidden in the town costs.
However, Hourihan said his bill itemized every action taken on behalf of the town after Jan. 1. Any personal – or town — expenses in 2009 had not been charged to the town, he said.
Hourihan said current town Supervisor Al Wordingham told him the new board was not authorized to pay $35,000 for legal services last year.
“Now, would I like the money? Sure,” Hourihan said. “But I’m not getting it.”
When councilwoman Stacey Bottoni pointed out the town had apparently paid Kula’s and Shick’s final account, they said they would check out the $200 fee, and repay it if a mistake had occurred.
Bottoni, who supports Ecogen, also complained she had been “kept in the dark” about the bills. Hourihan said the information has always been available to here.
But Bottoni said she relied on frequent calls to Ecogen representatives for her information.
“Well, and that concerns me, Stacey,” Hourihan said, adding her contacts with Ecogen seemed to violation of client-attorney confidentiality.”
Other concerns were raised about the proposed talks with Calloway. Prattsburgh officials have suggested the developer use its original 100-site map to find other locations and reduce noise levels.
One resident asked if property owners in those other locations had been contacted to see if they wanted the 400-foot tall turbines on their land.
Kula questioned whether the town government could approach owners, but said it might be possible to form a citizens’ committee.
Bottoni angrily countered Ecogen already has spent millions on the project and doesn’t want to spend more money for new studies.
However, Shick pointed out the basic environmental studies for all the sites have been completed.
Some residents were worried because action on another ruling by Arkhas been put on hold while the parties try to work out a compromise.
Arksupported the town’s request for sworn statements from the previous town board and other officials on the events that led to the December agreement. The deadline for the statements was Nov. 24.
Hourihan said he notified Arkthe sworn statements would be delayed because of the proposed talks.
Hourihan said it would cost the town $25,000 to get the statements – and might be unnecessary if a compromise was reached.
Bottoni told the group the town was trying to prove the town illegally sided with the developer. She said there had been no illegal collusion.
“We wanted it,” she said. “We’ve wanted it for three years.”
SECOND FEATURE
WIND MILL NOISE LIMIT STILL UP IN THE AIR
SOURCE: Journal and Courier, www.jconline.com
December 4 2010
By Dorothy Schneider,
As wind energy farms prepare to sprout in Tippecanoe County, some residents are fighting a proposal that would allow for more noise — and they fear nuisance — from the developments.
“This is not just a ‘I can’t stand that mosquito’ kind of noise,” said county resident Julie Peretin. “This is about quality of life.”
Peretin and other concerned neighbors are fighting a move being considered by the Tippecanoe County commissioners that would allow turbine noise to be as loud as 50 decibels any time of day, up from the current 45-decibel limit.
That’s the allowable noise level — about the sound of quiet dishwasher — as measured 25 feet from the dwelling of a non-participating landowner.
A non-participating landowner is one who has not permitted construction of a wind turbine on his or her property and who has not contractually granted rights to a wind farm developer, under the ordinance.
The board was due to vote on the proposal Monday, but the decision is being pushed back to the Dec. 20 meeting while further research is done on the issue. Commissioner Tom Murtaugh said the county is getting additional input from an acoustic consultant out of Chicago.
That extra consideration is one of the steps residents like Peretin have been pushing for.
The commissioners approved an ordinance in August that set the wind turbine noise limit at 45 decibels. Peretin said she and others had wanted the limit set at 35 decibels.
Lobbied for change
After the 45-decibel limit was set in August, representatives of wind energy companies sought the change to 50 decibels. Commissioners said even at 50 decibels the county’s wind ordinance would remain one of the strictest in the state.
Murtaugh hopes the consultant review will help decide if the county’s sound limit is still in an OK range “so we can put this issue to bed.” The commissioner said ordinances often need to be changed after the fact, but he doesn’t expect the county would have to make many substantive changes beyond the ones being considered.
Official plans for Tippecanoe County’s first wind farm were announced in early September.
Carmel-based Performance Services plans to build a 25-turbine wind farm on about 2,500 acres in the northwest part of the county.
In the southwestern part of Tippecanoe County, Invenergy Wind LLC of Chicago is planning a wind farm with 133 turbines.
Greg Leuchtmann, development manager for Invenergy’s project, spoke in support of the proposed noise limit changes at last month’s meeting.
Comparable noise
According to Purdue’s audiology department, 50 decibels of sound equates to the noise of soft talking, a washing machine, a quiet air conditioner or an electric toothbrush.
But the sound levels are not the only issue in play, according to Carmen Krogh.
Krogh, a board member with The Society for Wind Vigilance in Canada, is helping collect information from people worldwide who’ve reported adverse health impacts from living close to wind turbines.
Krogh is a retired pharmacist who used to work with a group that monitored symptoms and reports after new drugs were released on the market. Now she’s trying to carry that practice into the study of wind energy developments, which she and others believe merit further scrutiny.
“We’re finding the number one issue (being reported) is sleep disturbance,” Krogh said. “If it’s chronic, that can lead to sleep deprivation, and medically it can lead to a lot of other conditions,” such as anxiety, stress and cognitive issues.
Debra Preitkis-Jones, a spokeswoman with the American Wind Energy Association, said wind plants are generally quiet and that developers try to be good neighbors.
And she pointed to a report from the chief medical officer of health in Ontario — where Krogh and others are collecting information — that found no scientific evidence demonstrating a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.
But Krogh said there’s simply too many unknowns. In the absence of human health studies, she said, companies have been relying on computer models to determine proper setbacks and noise levels.
“We would never put out a new drug without figuring out the impact to the human body,” she said. “Our position (on wind turbines) is we really need to pause and conduct the human health studies that correlate.”
Tippecanoe County officials dismissed a request residents made earlier this year to put a moratorium on wind farm developments here.
But Peretin said she’s still optimistic that the county will work with acoustic professionals through this process to make sure the quality of life for residents is protected.
Want to comment?
The Tippecanoe County commissioners will discuss and vote on the wind energy ordinance when they meet at 10 a.m. on Dec. 20.
The board also will meet at 10 a.m. Monday, and it takes public comment at all commissioners meetings.
The meetings are held in the Tippecanoe Room of the County Office Building, 20 N. Third St. in Lafayette.
Symptoms
Some of the symptoms that have been linked to living in close proximity to wind turbines include:
# Sleep disturbance
# Headache
# Dizziness, vertigo
# Ear pressure or pain
# Memory and concentration deficits
# Irritability, anger
# Fatigue, loss of motivation
Source: Audiology Today
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Invenergy, Noise, Wind developers behaving badly, Wind farm, wind developers, wind farm lawsuit, wind farm lawsuit, wind farm noise, wind farm noise, wind farm property value, wind farm shadow flicker
|
Comments Off