Better Plan, Wisconsin

WIND SITING HEARING NOTICE

WEDNESDAY  June 30, 2010, beginning at 1:00 p.m and 6:00 p.m.

Docket 1-AC-231

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

 [Click here for map]

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

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

WIND TURBINE DEBATE SPINS TOWARD SEPTEMBER 1 DEADLINE

SOURCE: The Daily Reporter, dailyreporter.com

 June 29 2010

By Paul Snyder,

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin is sticking to a firm Sept. 1 deadline to propose wind turbine placement rules despite calls from local governments to wait.

“We had a very clear mandate to get work done quickly,” PSC Chairman Eric Callisto said Tuesday.

“Expediency is important in order to have uniformity and ground rules in place for future wind development.”

Callisto and other PSC staff members this week are traveling throughout the state to hold public hearings on wind turbine placement draft rules based on recommendations from the state’s Wind Siting Council. The council’s goal is to recommend rules for turbine placement on wind farms that generate less than 100 megawatts of electricity. Wind farms that generate more than 100 megawatts are subject to PSC approval.

The council first met in March, and Callisto said then he expected recommendations by July. The PSC will then use those recommendations to make rules by Sept. 1 for review and approval by state lawmakers.

Still, local governments argue the process is moving too fast.

Representatives from the towns of Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore in Brown County last week requested the Wind Siting Council first consider a March report by the World Health Organization relating to health problems caused by wind turbines.

Glen Schwalbach, who submitted the request on behalf of the towns, said further review is more important than a year or two delay in setting the turbine placement rules.

“The fact is: We have newer information now that says there are more health implications than some people have believed relating to noise effects,” said Schwalbach, the town supervisor in Rockland, which neighbors the three towns requesting the review. “It’s not just a case of whining or people imagining things.”

Doug Zweizig, the siting council’s co-chairman, said council members do not know why they have to meet the Sept. 1 deadline. He said he thinks itís a mistake to rush a set of recommendations to the PSC.

Zweizig, a Plan Commission member in the town of Union, said his town took about a year and a half to develop a wind farm ordinance.

“It’s clear that they’re trying to pass something as quickly as possible,” he said. “I think the council could have had a much better process, but it went almost immediately to looking at positions of the various members.”

The majority of the 15-member council, Zweizig said, favors wind development, and members who have experience living on wind farms are not being heard.

Callisto said he wants consensus recommendations but will take the majority’s vote if that’s the best he can get.

“It would hold more weight if it was consensus, but I realize how difficult this is,” he said. “It was not unanimous legislation, either.”

The reason for the Sept. 1 deadline, Callisto said, is so Senate and Assembly committees can review and approve the rules before the legislative session ends. Because the turbine placement recommendations would represent rule changes, they would need to be submitted by Sept. 1 during an election year and only would require approval from legislative committees rather than the full Legislature, Callisto said.

He said he wants the same group of lawmakers that formed the council to review the rule change proposals.

If new wind farm studies come along, Callisto said, and groups such as the Brown County towns want more review, there is room for change.

“I think they’re going to be flexible to accommodate new studies,” he said. “Rules get modified all the time. Nothing’s written in stone.”

NEXT FEATURE

TO: Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Docket No. 1-AC-231 Draft Chapter 128--Wind Energy Systems

Request by the Towns of Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore
Brown County, Wisconsin
June 23, 2010

Issue: Request to delay issuing the PSCW wind siting standards until epidemiological studies of health complaints from Wisconsin`s current wind farms are thoroughly completed.

The towns of Morrison, Wrightstown, and Glenmore in Brown County are very concerned about the mounting evidence that there are serious negative impacts on human and animal health caused by wind turbines. It appears it is not only reasonable to delay the issuance of wind siting standards but it would be irresponsible to not do so in light of new studies and ongoing complaints of residents in and near Wisconsin`s existing wind farms.

In general, scientifically and statistically relevant studies have been limited. But, a very important report was published March 2010 by the World Health Organization (WHO) entitled "Night Noise Guidelines for Europe" (available at euro.who.int/en/what-we-publish/abstracts/night-noise-guidelines-for-europe).

The report is based on a six-year evaluation of scientific evidence by thirty-five scientists from medical and acoustical disciplines. WHO indicated that now governments have justifications to regulate noise exposure at night. WHO sets the limit for annual average exposure to not exceed 40 decibels (dB) outside of a residence.

WHO stated, "Recent research clearly links exposure to night noise with harm to health. Sleep disturbance and annoyance are the first effects of night noise and can lead to mental disorders. Just like air pollution and toxic chemicals, noise is an environmental hazard to health". WHO stated that they hope their new report will prompt governments to invest effort and money in protecting health from this growing hazard.

Our towns ask the PSCW to acquire the WHO report and evaluate its application to setting appropriate sound levels for wind turbines.

The PSCW`s draft rules do not address low frequency noise levels. It is not known whether the WHO report addresses this issue but other studies have described the likely effects. This is another area where epidemiological studies are needed before wind turbine setbacks can be reasonably proposed.

Besides sleep disturbance, there are complaints of other physiological problems. It is not acceptable to ignore or minimize the significance of these impacts as just quirks of human imagination.

Also, there is evidence that existing wind farms in Wisconsin are negatively affecting farm animals. Whether it is noise or some other physical phenomena, studies and testing should be done before setting siting standards.

At a public meeting of the Brown County Health Department and the Brown County Human Services Committee, reputable medical and health experts stressed the importance of epidemiological studies to determine the true nature of health impacts of wind turbines.

The State Board of Health pointed out that the lack of funding is a hurdle. But a conviction to do the right thing should prompt the PSCW to make a case to pursue the money issue with state legislators as well as our U.S. senators and representatives. Certainly, our towns would help in this endeavor. That said, it is even more appropriate for the wind developers and their associations to offer funding for independent studies since such studies should reduce future litigation. Electric utilities should have a stake in this effort as well. This is an opportunity to involve the University of Wisconsin research capabilities in both human health and animal health.

It appears that Act 40 does not set a deadline for completing the siting rules. This week a state senator who was one of the leaders in passing the wind siting law agreed that studies should be done to be sure the rules are adequate. If one or two years were used to study the existing wind farms while delaying any new installations, the developers would still have time to help utilities meet their 15% RPS by 2015. Again, if needed, our towns would help in getting the support of legislators.

Our towns implore the PSCW and the Wind Siting Council to not ignore the evidence of potentially serious health impacts and to not set standards until they have done the obvious and reasonable step of studying the health impacts of existing wind turbine installations in Wisconsin. Professional ethics demands no less. We believe our request aligns with the PSCW`s responsibility to protect the citizens of Wisconsin.

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

FOUR NEWS STORIES ABOUT YESTERDAY'S WIND SITING HEARINGS:

PUBLIC VOICES CONCERNS ON WIND SITING RULES

SOURCE:  Bob Nelson-KFIZ,Wisconsin Radio Network, www.wrn.com 29 June 2010Bob Nelson-KFIZ,Wisconsin Radio Network, www.wrn.com  June 29 2010

Landowners, engineers, wind energy advocates, elected officials and others turned out for two public hearings in Fond du Lac Monday on proposed uniform wind siting regulations. Among the speakers was Michael Hutter of Michels Corporation, which has worked on wind farm projects in Calumet, Columbia, Dodge, and Fond du Lac counties. His company believes uniform regulations will “facilitate the responsible development and construction projects in Wisconsin.”

Barnaby Dinges, a member of the American Wind Energy Association, is concerned the rules may be too restrictive and counterproductive to rural development.

The rights of landowners were raised including use of eminent domain. “It is just plain immoral for you to allow this plundering and endangerment of Wisconsin for the greedy gain of a few.” These concerns were echoed by a Town of Wrightstown Supervisor, “Grown men will have tears in their eyes as they sense in effect the taking of their property without due process,” said Jesse Juedes.

The state’s Public Service Commission will use information from the hearings and other public comment before making a final determination on the regulations. The PSC will hold two public hearings in Tomah today and two more in Madison tomorrow.

SECOND STORY:

WIND FARM SITING HEARINGS A BIG DRAW

SOURCE Beaver Dam Daily Citizen, www.wiscnews.com

June 29, 2010

By MEGAN SHERIDAN, Staff Reporter,

FOND DU LAC – Monday was the first day of three in Wisconsin that allowed for the public to make statements to the Public Service Commission regarding rules for the siting of wind farms throughout the state.

Fond du Lac City Hall hosted the first round of open hearings at 1 and 6 p.m. The siting rules pertain to the of turbines and will cover issues from resident’s health and safety to developer requirements. The rules are required through Act 40, created in October 2009.

“We are not here today because of some fantastic new technology that has been developed to produce cheap electricity,” said Jarret Treu of Morrison in Brown County. “We are not here today because of the free market. We are here today because of government fiat and misleading propaganda.”

Treu said wind farms, of which there are nine in the state producing a total of 449 megawatts of electricity on average, will never be able to support the entire state with electricity.

“Wind power can never be the backbone of any modern electrical grid or replace thermo generation plants in any large number,” Treu said. “Wind power fails in fulfilling the two main needs of a modern electrical system. It fails in providing both a continuous base load 24/7 stream of electricity and it can’t be ramped up or down to meet demand.”

Others criticized the lack of protection for Wisconsin citizens from wind farm corporations.

“We want you to stand up and protect the citizens of Wisconsin against big wind industry companies coming here and harming us instead of acting in such a way as to protect wind companies from Wisconsin citizens trying to protect themselves,” said Barbara Vanden Boogart, another Brown County resident.

Industry in general was a concern on many fronts for people speaking to the commission.

“We’re going to wipe out the dairy industry and hurt people,” said Jerome Hlinak, a town of Carlton resident. “Government has to screw up before they fix the problem.”

Hlinak raised the concern of stray voltage from the turbines, stating that such an issue can kill livestock and had taken a number of his cows.

The proposed rules in the siting of wind energy systems would require testing before and after completion of the turbines to determine if stray voltage is present due to the turbines.

Mark Hutter, Vice president of the Michaels Corp. based in Brownsville, said through his knowledge of constructing turbines that he supports a statewide siting rule and that built properly, turbines would not cause stray voltage.

“A properly constructed wind energy project will not produce stray voltage in a rural setting as is common around projects in Wisconsin. The more likely source of stray voltage is from the adjacent properties themselves,” Hutter said.

There were some that lauded the wind farm industry stating that it brings money and jobs into Wisconsin.

“Michaels has 4,000 employees many of whom live in Wisconsin or work across North America,” Hutter said. “We have constructed 3,350 megawatts of wind energy projects in 12 states. Michaels Corporation is in favor of energy independence. We believe this proposed rule will facilitate the responsible development and construction of wind energy projects in Wisconsin.”

Elizabeth Ebertz, a Fond du Lac county woman shared her personal experience of living within the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm. She said she heard a constant hum as if an airplane was constantly flying over the house causing her to lose sleep. Her son also spent a few nights at the home finding the same problem.

“It’s not just me, my whole family is affected,” Ebertz said. “I just want my life back and some sleep.”

The remaining public hearings will be held today at 1 and 6 p.m. at the Holiday Inn 1017 E. McCoy Boulevard in Tomah and Wednesday at 1 and 6 p.m. at 610 N. Whitney Way in Madison.

The PSC is also taking written statements either at the public hearings or online at psc.wi.gov/apps/dockets/comment.aspx docket number 1-AC-231.

Both spoken and written statements hold the same amount of weight to the commission. Written comments will be accepted until noon on July 7. The proposed rules will then be finalized over the summer and sent to the Wisconsin Senate and Assembly where they will be discussed in two separate committees before they become rules.

To view the proposed rules, visit psc.wi.gov/apps/erf_share/view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=131628.

THIRD STORY:

HEARING ON WIND SITING DRAWS A CROWD

SOURCE: Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com

June 29, 2010

By Colleen Kottke,

They came from near and far, packing Legislative Chambers at the City County Government Center in Fond du Lac Monday to voice their opinions about proposed wind farm siting rules to be crafted by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

The proposed rules would ultimately result in uniform wind farm siting standards for local units of government, replacing a patchwork of different rules and moratoriums that have been imposed by counties and towns around the state in relation to small wind power projects.

The public hearings, scheduled around the state this week, were launched by the state Legislature after it passed a uniform siting law in October.

Using citizen input, the PSC will draft legislation touching on controversial issues such as maximum sound levels and setback requirements. Once passed, municipalities considering ordinances for wind farms would not be allowed to make their local ordinance more restrictive than the state model.

Act 40 requires the PSC to conduct the rulemaking with the advice of the Wind Siting Council, an advisory body. The PSC is expected to announce the new guidelines by July.

“Right now the proposed rules are just a draft; that’s why the public comments are very important. There are a lot of interested parties and we want to make sure this is a balanced process,” said Deborah Erwin, renewable energy policy analyst for the PSC.

Energy slacker

Barnaby Dinges, owner of a public relations firm and member of the American Wind Energy Association, warned that more restrictive rules for siting wind farms would further harm the state’s quest to build its alternative energy portfolio.

“Wisconsin is already an energy slacker. We’re the only Midwest state that doesn’t currently have a major wind energy project under construction,” Dinges said. “New restrictions will make the state even less desirable for development of wind projects.”

He pointed out that the Wisconsin PSC already has a rigorous wind farm approval process in place for wind farms over 100 mega watts.

“New regulations will only make it more extremely unlikely that Wisconsin will come anywhere close to meeting its legislative goal of reaching 10 percent of renewable energy by 2015. It’s currently less than 5 percent,” Dinges said. “The unnecessary costs and uncertainties of proposed harsh new restrictions on turbine setbacks, sound levels and shadow flicker will create too much risk for developers, who will likely build elsewhere.”

Green jobs

In an industry that has felt the soft economy the most, jobs stemming from the construction of wind farms are welcomed by members of the union Travis Martzahl represents.

“Without the legislators setting up reasonable local regulations, it’s our fear that these construction jobs would be lost to our neighbors in Iowa and Minnesota. Keeping jobs here is vital to our membership of International Union of Operating Engineers Local 139, which represents thousands of workers,” Martzahl said.

Without the uniform rules in place, Martzahl fears that townships and counties would work to block development of wind farms.

“While building wind farms isn’t as good of work as building coal-fired plants, it’s still good paying work that supports families,” Martzahl said.

Michels Corporation of Brownsville has profited from the green energy boom, constructing more than 3,350 megawatts of wind energy projects in 12 states, including work on the Forward Wind Energy Center and the Blue Sky Green Field projects in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties.

“We believe the proposed rule will facilitate responsible construction of wind energy projects in Wisconsin. If the state is mandating that renewable energy be part of the energy mix…then it’s important to get this rule right,” said Mark Hutter, vice president at Michels Corporation.

Ledge Wind opponents

Many of those in attendance at the hearing in Fond du Lac hailed from the four townships in Brown County where citizen groups are rallying against Invenergy’s proposed 100-turbine Ledge Wind Energy Project. The project is spread across four townships, including Morrison, Wrightstown, Glenmore and Holland.

Wrightstown Supervisor Ronald Diny said town officials have worked together diligently to craft an ordinance to protect citizens.

“There is no effective process in (Act 40) to ensure proper installation and operation of wind turbines after the approval process. (Currently) when towns recognize potential problems, they can act and stop a bad project,” Diny said.

“On one hand, standard state rules will help, but they also set the stage for some bad projects since the (proposed) requirements to stop a bad project before construction are more restrictive and complicated,” Diny added.

Former dairy farmer Jerome Hlinak of Two Rivers said the PSC is slow to react when problems arise from utility projects. By wresting the control away from the local level, Hlinak said the PSC is taking away the municipalities’ rights to protect its citizens.

“There are problems at the national and state level, and even at the local level. But at least at the town level we can fix things quickly because it’s a neighbor. Here, nobody listens,” Hlinak said.

Want my life back

Barbara VandenBoogart and her husband searched for years to find a home in the rolling hills near Greenleaf in Brown County. Today, they spend their time and money speaking out against the Ledge Wind Energy Project.

“Everyone tells us that you’re (PSC) the one that will make a difference because you’re the ones that make the rules. We want you to stand up and protect the citizens of Wisconsin against big wind industry companies coming here and harming us, instead of acting in a way to protect those companies from us who are trying to protect ourselves,” VandenBoogart said.

While VandenBoogart can only imagine the impact a wind farm would have on her life, Fond du Lac County resident Elizabeth Ewerdt has lived with the reality of wind turbines towering over her home for the past few years. The noise from the turning blades from the We Energy turbines has robbed her of countless nights of sleep, she said.

“Can’t we hold these companies somewhat responsible for what they have taken from us?” she testified. “I don’t want any money. I just want my life back.”

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

WHO ARE YOU, BARNABY DINGES?

Now don't us tell a FIB!

Dinges, who calls Wisconsin an "Energy Slacker" in the previous article lives in Illinois and is running for mayor of  Evanston, a city located just north of Chicago on Lake Michigan.

 He runs a Public Relations firm called "The Dinges Gang" and has been hired by wind developer giant, Invenergy, to smooth the way for the Ledge wind project in Brown County.

From "THE DINGES GANG" website: "If your company, group or government agency is facing a challenging issue or project, call in The Dinges Gang."

Who else does the "Dinges Gang" represent?

• Abbott Laboratories
• Chicago Bears
• The Chicago Network
• CMGI
• Chicago Park District
• Draper and Kramer
• Illinois Department of Transportation
• Illinois Department of Public Aid
• Illinois Sports Facilities Authority
• Kraft Foods
• PLS Landscape Architects

Public Relations Team Projects for...

• ComEd
• DTE Energy
• Gateway 2000
• Ghirardelli Chocolate
• Illinois Casino Gaming Association
• Jim Beam
• Lernout & Hauspie Speech Recognition Products
• Monsanto
• Sears
• Starkist
• Trizec Hahn Properties

WHAT HAS THE DINGES GANG DONE FOR WISCONSIN?

From the DINGES GANG website:

 ADVOCACY

Case Study: Forward Energy Windmill Farm

 

Generating Green Energy and Public Support

Invenergy developed plans to build Wisconsin’s largest wind farm, a 200-MW project within miles of the Horicon Marsh, a migratory destination for millions of birds and the area’s largest tourist attraction. The wind farm would provide enough power for 70,000 homes and help Wisconsin reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

The Challenge

In a classic case of NIMBY obstructionism, a local group used $50,000 in public funding to organize a group to oppose the project and encourage the Public Service Commission to vote against the project. The opposition group, Horicon Marsh System Advocates, created an opposition web site, and used its 300 members to write letters to regulators and media, and to attend public meetings to rail against the project. The opposition group claimed the wind farm would kill birds, destroy the area’s landscape, endanger local pilots, and harm local tourism.

[NOTE FROM THE NERD: The advocacy group he mentions here turned out to be right about wildlife impact. Initial post construction mortality studies show the Forward project turbine related bat deaths are among the highest in north america.

The national figure is about 4 bat kills per turbine per year. In the project advocated by the Dinges Gang the rate is 41.5 bat kills per turbine per year, or over ten times the national average.

In a little more than two years, this project along side the Horicon Marsh is estimated to have killed over 3,500 bats. The bird kill rates for this project are also much higher than the national average]

The Plan

Partnering with local farmers who would host wind turbines on their land, The Dinges Gang educated the group to communicate with local officials and the media.

We placed “Wind Yes!” signs in front of their farmhouses. The group of supporters also included Wisconsin environmental groups and local labor and construction groups.

The Forward Energy team testified at public meetings and emailed letters of support to the Public Service Commission.

Supporters also wrote letters to and conducted interviews with media to underscore the broad benefits of the project (keeps farmers farming, provides $1-million annually in new local taxes for government, creates 250 construction jobs, etc.).

We also refuted each of the opposition’s arguments, showing them to be wild exaggerations and desperate attempts by a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) group to impede progress that will benefit the entire region.

Our Success
On July 8, 2005, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission voted to support the $250-million project, which will erect 133 wind turbines on the Niagara Escarpment, within two miles of the Horicon Marsh.

Here is his profile from evanstonnow.com

About me

My name is Barnaby Dinges. I am a teacher and issue advocate with more than 25 years of experience in politics, public relations, and community activism.

I own a small business in Evanston – The Dinges Gang – an issue advocacy consultancy.

Among my clients is Invenergy, a Chicago wind developer building wind farms throughout Central Illinois.

I am an adjunct professor of marketing at Columbia College in downtown Chicago.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE BELOW TO WATCH A VIDEO ABOUT THE INVENERGY WIND PROJECT ALONGSIDE THE HORICON MARSH

 

FOURTH STORY

ELECTRIC DEBATE ABOUT WIND TURBINES BEFORE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

SOURCE: www.fox11online.com

June 28 2010

Ryan Dietz,

FOND DU LAC – Dozens spoke their minds before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission on proposed rules on wind turbines in Fond du Lac.

Opinions on the controversial topic varied. Many don’t want wind turbines near their homes, saying their property values will go down and their health will decline.

“Someone who doesn’t sign a contract for those wind turbines shouldn’t have their lifestyle changed,” said Jarret Treu of Morrison.

The Public Service Commission created a draft of the rules last month. From now until July 7, it is asking for public comment on the proposed rules. While some side with the state creating laws, others think municipalities should be in charge of rules.

“The state has taken control over these large impact projects from the towns that our homes reside in and basically negating any unique characteristics of the communities,” said Steve Deslauriers of Holland.

People in favor of the growing wind energy say Wisconsin needs wind power to create jobs and expand renewable energy sources.

“If Wisconsin opts out of this industry, it will be conceding billions in economic benefits to neighboring Midwest states,” said Barnaby Dinges, a wind energy advocate.

The state wants ten percent of all energy produced in Wisconsin to be renewable by 2015. Many believe wind energy doesn’t actually save money. Contractors say people need to realize alternatives.

“Unless people are willing to make a conscious decision that they’re going to use a lot less power, we need that energy from somewhere,” said Mark Hutter, Vice President of Michels Coproration.

The Public Service Commission says it has received an outpouring of public comment on the issue.

“We will be redrafting these rules into a final version and there definitely will be changes so public comments are important,” said Deborah Erwin.

The Public Service Commission expects to finalize the rules by the end of the summer.

For more on the Public Service Commission and the wind turbine rules, click here .

 

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

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

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

CLICK HERE 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

 

WHAT'S ON THE DOCKET?

Today we're posting recent selected documents from the wind siting council docket beginning with this post from the Town of Mishicot concerning wind siting council member Bill Rakocy.

There have been serious questions raised about the make-up of the council. Of the 15 members, at least eight of them have direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the rules.

From the TOWN OF MISHICOT
Office of the Town Clerk
618 Tisch Mills Road
Mishicot, WI 54228
Phone: 920-776-1597
e-mail address: mishicottown@charter.net

POSTED TO THE DOCKET ON JUNE 28, 2010

To whom it may concern:

At the annual meeting of the Town of Mishicot, on April 13th, 2010, it was brought to the attention of the people in attendance that the appointment of Bill Rakocy of Emerging Energies to the State Wind Siting Council should be terminated due to conflict of interest.

Emerging Energies has land under contract for seven wind turbines in the Town of Mishicot that has been denied by the Manitowoc County Wind Ordinance. By Bill Rakocy's own admission he has stated that he would benefit from a lesser setback on the standards. The standards of the PSC should be created to address health and safety with the back of engineering standards and not personal profit of wind developers.

This letter is sent in response to a majority vote of those in attendance at said annual meeting.

Sincerely,

The Mishicot Town Board

NOTE FROM THE PBWI RESEARCH NERD:

At WSC meetings, Bill Rakocy has been vocal about wanting as few restrictions on his wind development business as possible.

“We’re  excited to develop as much wind [power] as we can in Wisconsin,”  says partner Bill Rakocy."

“The  permitting process is a rather long-term effort,” says Rakocy. “A   conditional use permit is good for two years, typically, and it may take   you all of that two years to get the balance of the project details  put  in place. And then there’s production tax credits available from  the  federal government, and if they expire in the midst of the project,  all  your work is for naught.”

SOURCE:  "Wind Power's Wind Fall" Marketplace Magazine <http://www.marketplacemagazine.com/content/357_1.php>

WHAT ARE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WITH FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE SITING RULES SAYING?

From Wind Siting Council Member Tom Green, Wind Developer, Wind Capitol Group:

"But whether the wind farm goes in, [Tom Green] said, will depend on what the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decides, as it sets parameters for wind farms - including setback from neighboring properties - that will apply throughout Wisconsin, and which cannot be made stricter by local authorities.

"You can't have a patchwork of rules throughout the state," Green said...

The rules, when they are adopted, will apply to wind farms such as the  one  proposed by Wind Capital Group - operations that generate less than  100  megawatts."

SOURCE: Portage Daily Register, January 28, 2010 <http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/article_d4c01888-2c92-5efe-8e73-136809126a79.html>

From Wind Siting Council Member Andy Hesselbach, wind project developer for WE Energies:

"Hesselbach said he's concerned about proposals to move turbines  farther from people's homes, given the need for Wisconsin to add more  renewable power to comply with the state's renewable portfolio standard.

If "the sound or setback standards are modified in any material way, it is  unlikely that this project will be developed, and moreover that any  large-scale wind  project will be built by any entity in the future in  the state of  Wisconsin," Hesselbach said. "The only option to utilize  wind generation would be to develop projects in other states."
SOURCE "Winds of  Change are Blowing" Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 24th 2009 <http://www.jsonline.com/business/65911402.html>

From Council member Michael Vickerman, registered lobbyist and Executive director of RENEW Wisconsin

“You can’t stop a project in Wisconsin based on the appearance of these   turbines,” [Vickerman] says, “so over the past seven years the  opposition has  refined its arguments and framed them in the realm of   protecting public health and safety.

Here, as  far as I’m concerned, is  where they reveal their antiwind bias. They  allege that they  can’t sleep, they suffer from nausea—they express  their discomfort in  the most hysterical terms, and I think they  basically  work themselves into a very visceral hatred for wind.

 I don’t  even know  if they have a philosophical objection to wind. They’re   maybe congenitally unhappy people and they needed to project their fears   and anxieties and resentments onto something new that comes into the   neighborhood and disrupts things.”

SOURCE: The Chicago Reader: "There Will Be Wind" May 14, 2009 <http://www1.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/theseparts09/wisconsin-wind-turbines/>

From council member Jenny Heinzen, President of RENEW Wisconsin

 "I have spent many hours on and underneath wind turbines of all sizes, and have never felt sick.

Nor have any of the systems’ owners/hosts that I’ve met.

What makes me sick is the profound hatred these near-sided [sic] selfish, wind opponents have towards change and progress."

Source: Letter from Heinzen to the Editor of Isthmus, Posted on RENEW  Website  September 29, 2009 <http://renewwisconsinblog.org/2009/09/29/isthmus-article-should-have-been-labeled-opinon/>

 

PUBLIC COMMENT FROM A RESIDENT OF THE CEDAR RIDGE WIND PROJECT IN FOND DU LAC COUNTY:

 I live in the middle of Alliant Energy's Cedar Ridge wind farm in Fond Du Lac, WI. I have lived in this location for over 20 years. I feel the turbines were placed to close to mine and my neighbors houses.

I live in a valley and the turbines were placed all around me on the highest hills. So a 400' wind tower now became a 500' tower which seems like they are on top of me standing on my own lawn.

I emailed the town to complain and asked what ordinance the wind mills had to operate under and what was the setback requirements and noise levels they had to abide by. I was told there wasn't an ordinance and therefore no setbacks and noise restrictions.

We never were notified about any town meetings or where the turbines were to be located until after they were approved to be installed. As a result we are paying the price.

The noise and vibrations they make has taken the quiet country my house used to be located in and turned it into an industrial park setting with noise that is never ending.

The vibrations they create get you sick to your stomach and keep us awake at night.

There isn't any quiet get togethers outside on our deck and patio anymore. We have been forced to keep the windows closed and the air conditioner on which increases our electric bill and security.

At certain times of the year the flicker they create turns my family room and bed room into a disco. They have ruined our over the air television and Radio reception with the promise that they would fix the problem.

It has almost been 1 1/2 years now and my over the air antenna still gets no signal when they are turning.

Our property values have been decimated. I have been told that my property is probably unsellable now. We have to put up with all this without any mention of any compensation that I feel Alliant should owe us.

I have called Allient on numerous occasions to complain, but just get a run around. I was told that the wind turbines aren't going anywhere so I just better get used to it!

The turbines should not be placed near homes unless owners of the surrounding land all agree to their placement. They should respect the property line and have the set back from that and not the house.

I feel a 1 mile setback from any inhabited house would eliminate a lot of problems with noise and flicker and TV reception. Please contact me if you would like more comments.

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

Mark Rademann

Town of Eden, Wisconsin

FROM A RESIDENT IN INVENERGY'S PROPOSED LEDGE WIND PROJECT IN BROWN COUNTY

Hello, I am writing about an issue I have with the siting of wind turbine #21.

It is currently drafted as being located about 1.1 times the height or about 500 feet from my property line.

I have been raising alternative livestock (Elk) for the past 11-12 years and I am very concerned for the health, safety and welfare of my animals. With them being in pens and unable to leave the area, there is a great concern how the turbine will affect them.

I have talked with people from the FonDuLac area that have had problems with their animals after the wind turbines in their area started up. One family had all of their Alpaca's abort their young within 1 month of the turbines starting up.

After hearing of different problems with animals and wind turbines, I called and spoke with Invenergy engineer Matt Thornton. I told him of my concerns and asked if they would consider moving the turbine further up the hill and away from my animals.

He said they would be unlikely to move the turbine because their are 3 more of them located over the hill and they didn't want the air flow to affect the other turbines.

Now mind you that those turbines are located 10 rotor diameters (over 2000 feet) upwind and that the wind blows from the Southwest on a very limited time frame.

I asked why they would put that ahead of my animals health and well being, but all he would say is that it is the most effecient design from a wind perspective.

I am a mechanical engineer by trade and have designed many air systems and of all the training I have had has taught me that 3 to 5 duct diameters is usually very adequate to get back to laminar air flow, but yet he feels they would like to have 10 diameters over the health and well fare of my animals.

This response does not sit well with me and I would like the PSC to please consider this case as it makes it's final wind siting rules.

Please consider making the set backs of a minimum of 2000 feet from any property lines, not 1250 feet from a residence. It is my property and my right to raise animals and that right shouldn't be taken from me.

Thank you,

Troy Verheyen

Greenleaf, Wisconsin 

I am commencing a campaign for mayor of Evanston and I will update residents on the progress of the campaign, both here and on my blog at www.dingesgang.com.

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

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

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

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

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

Because this copy is a Word Document format, you must

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

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

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

Send it to The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

610 N Whitney Way

Madison, WI 53705

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

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

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

 

WHAT'S THE WORD FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The overall objectives of the towns are as follows:

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

2. To provide credible and reasonable suggestions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

II. Developer Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

.13 Siting Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.14 Noise Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.15 Shadow Flicker

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

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

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

.16 Signal Interference

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

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

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

.17 Stray Voltage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Political Subdivision Procedure

.32 Political Subdivision Review of a Wind Energy System

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

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

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

.33 Political Subdivision Provisions

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

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

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

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

IV. Commission Procedure

.40 Detailed Application Requirements

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

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

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

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

PSC Schedules public hearings on proposed wind farm siting rules

SOURCE Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com

June 25, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECOND FEATURE:

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

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

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

DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE WORKSHEET BY CLICKING HERE

Wind Siting Council 6.23.10

STRAW PROPOSAL AMENDMENT WORKSHEET

Wind Energy System Sizes – General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Setbacks, Noise & Shadow Flicker – General

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

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

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

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

Minimum Safety Setbacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noise – General

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Absolute
□ Relative
□ Both

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

□ No, the rules do not need to address this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

Shadow Flicker – General

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

□ Yes

□ No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

□ Other _______________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

Siting – Other

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

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

Mitigation – General

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

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

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

□ Yes, to address these issues: ______________________________________
□ No

Mitigation – Noise & Shadow Flicker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

Mitigation – Signal Interference

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

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

Complaint Resolution

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No
□ Other _________________________________________

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes, the political subdivision itself should deal with complaints

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Property Value Protection Plan

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

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

Wind Leases & Easements

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes

□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

Decommissioning

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Pre-construction condition, to the extent feasible

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

□ Other _____________________________________

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

Construction and Operation Standards – General

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

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

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

Construction and Operation Standards – Emergency Procedures

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

Conflict of Interest

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

General Notification Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

Application Process Requirements

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

Political Subdivision Process

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

□ Yes
□ No

Additional questions from Commission staff:

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

Stray Voltage

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

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

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

□ Yes
□ No

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

□ Yes
□ No

Commission Review
(No amendments suggested)

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

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

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

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

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

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

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



BROWN COUNTY TOWNS URGE MORE STUDY OF WIND FARM SITES

SOURCE: Greenbay Press Gazette

June 24, 2010

By Tony Walter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 SECOND FEATURE

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

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

[TO] Jerry Lien
North Dakota Public Service Commission

Greetings Jerry,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like a response to these questions.

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

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

Sincerely,
Jim Miller

RELEASE

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

RECITALS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Owner: ________________________________________
Name: ________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________
 



HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

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

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

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

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

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