HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

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

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

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

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

Residents sue wind companies

SOURCE: michigansthumb.com

HURON COUNTY — Citing a loss of property value and quality of life as a result of the Ubly area Michigan Wind I development, 16 Huron County residents filed a lawsuit earlier this month against the wind project’s various companies.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed May 11 in Huron County Circuit Court against John Deere Renewables, Deere & Company (John Deere), Noble Environmental Power, LLC, Michigan Wind I, LLC (Noble Thumb Windpark I) and RMT, Inc., the plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $25,000 and an injunctive relief ordering the companies to cease and desist their activities.

The defendants and plaintiffs

Plaintiffs listed on the lawsuit are David Peplinski, Marilyn Peplinski, Frank Peplinski, Georgia Peplinski, Terry Peplinski, Christine Peplinski, Curtis Watchowski, Lynda Watchowski, James Czewski, Delphine Czewski, Dennis Mausolf, Darcy Mausolf, Dale Laming, Elaine Laming, Lynn Sweeney, Pam Sweeney, Alger Nowak, Mary Nowak, Randy Weber and Angela Weber.

The majority of the plaintiffs previously filed complaints to the county regarding the Michigan Wind I development. Also, over the past year, many of them have attended county board of commissioners and planning commission meetings about this issue.

Though the complaints have been discussed in numerous meetings, there still is no complaint resolution at the county level — something that’s upset many. County officials, however, have said the board of commissioners soon will have a complaint resolution process in place.

Plaintiffs, during previous meetings, also have asked the county to amend its wind zoning ordinance so others in the future are not negatively affected as they say they have been.

According to records from the Huron County Clerk’s Office, all but four of the plaintiffs were part of a petition submitted in October 2005 that contained 1,846 signatures and asked for a review of the wind overlay zoning amendment, which was adopted by the county in the summer of 2005.

“We are simply trying to protect those people without contracts with the wind companies, those people who will not benefit in any way from the wind turbines — but who will have to live with the turbines for years to come,” said Angela Weber in a press release Residents for Sound Economics and Planning (RSEP) issued when the petition was submitted.

At the time RSEP submitted the petition to Huron County Clerk Peggy Koehler, the group claimed it was not an attempt to stop a wind park from being developed in the Ubly area. Instead, it was intended to create “better and more fair zoning for all citizens of Huron County,” according to a statement the group issued in October 2005. The issue ended up in court, as RSEP sued Koehler in November 2005 because she determined the petitions submitted by the group were inadequate. Circuit Court Judge M. Richard Knoblock ruled in favor of the county clerk.

Noble Environmental Power, LLC then proceeded with the development of Michigan Wind I, which consists of 42 turbines and encapsulates more than 150 parcels owned by 96 different landowners.

The project was sold to John Deere Wind Energy in October 2008, and the park officially went into commercial operation a few months later.

That’s when the plaintiffs state the quality of their life and property values began diminishing.

Count I: Private nuisance

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim they have property rights and privileges with respect to the use and enjoyment of their property, and the defendants interfered with those rights by creating, through the operation of the wind farm, “significant and material intrusions upon the plaintiffs’ property.”

Intrusions detailed in the lawsuit include: • Low frequency noise and subaudible infrasound and/or impulse noise created by and emitted from the wind turbines, which range as close as 1,100 and 1,700 feet away from each plaintiff’s home.

• Sustained and highly disturbing audible noise created by the wind turbines.

• Amplitude modulation in both audible and sub-audible frequency ranges emitted from the turbines.

• A flicker/strobe light effect that covers the plaintiffs’ properties when sunlight passes through the rotating turbine blades.

The lawsuit states the interference and invasions caused by the conduct of the wind energy companies was either intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional and negligent conduct.

“The intrusions caused by the turbines in the wind farm cause plaintiffs actual physical discomforts and would cause such physical discomfort to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” the lawsuit states.

Physical harm and negative health effects listed in the lawsuit included: Inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea, and other physiological and cognitive effects.

The lawsuit notes the symptoms experienced by David and Marilyn Peplinski’s family forced them to rent an apartment away from the wind farm in order to avoid the adverse health effects.

“Despite the conditions caused by the continued operation of the wind farm and the resulting health conditions suffered by the plaintiffs, John Deere, John Deere Renewables and Michigan Wind I continue to operate and/or profit from the wind farm,” the lawsuit states.

Count II: Public nuisance

“Based on the aforementioned allegations, the actions of (the defendants) constitute an unreasonable interference with a common right enjoyed by the general public, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states. “Said actions resulted in the existence or creation of a dangerous condition to plaintiffs and other members of the general public and further resulted in significant harm to plaintiffs.”

In the portion of the lawsuit alleging the local wind park is a public nuisance, the lawsuit states the plaintiffs suffered harm and personal injuries different from the harm suffered by the general public, specifically, the increased harm to their health and well being that resulted from the close proximity of the turbines to their primary residences.

“The actions of (the defendants) further created a nuisance in fact, which was either intentional or negligent, by causing a hazardous or dangerous situation,” the lawsuit states.

Count III: Negligent design of wind farm

The lawsuit claims the wind companies had a duty to use reasonable care in the design and construction of the wind farm, specifically in relation to selecting turbine locations.

That duty was breached by the defendants, the lawsuit claims, because the companies ignored available data regarding the probability of negative health effects associated with placing the turbines in close proximity to the plaintiffs’ homes.

Also, the lawsuit references a noise assessment included in the project’s site plan review application that estimated only audible noise levels within the dBA range, and did not consider low frequency noise or impulse noise.

The lawsuit cites portions of the noise assessment stating, “in general, it is undesirable for any home, particularly that of a non-participant, to be on or inside a 45 dBA contour,” and “the probability of complaints from any project opponent exposed to this project noise level would be extremely high.”

Turbine noise measured at four of the plaintiffs’ homes ranged from 45 to 51 dBA, according to results from a noise study paid for by John Deere last fall that are included in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims the wind companies “negligently, carelessly and recklessly” sited the wind turbines in a way that increased the negative health effects and other damages. Other allegations state the wind companies negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed to construct the turbines at a safe distance from the plaintiffs’ residences, and to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unsafe condition and unreasonable risk of harm.

Count IV: Negligent misrepresentation

The lawsuit claims the wind companies made false representations in board of commissioner and planning commissioner meetings and public hearings when company representatives said the wind farm’s operations would not result in a noise nuisance or cause adverse health effects to adjacent landowners.

“(The defendants) were negligent in making these misrepresentations because, as the parties seeking approval to construct a wind turbine farm in Huron County, they had a duty to use reasonable care to provide Huron County and its citizens with both accurate and complete information,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs claim the wind companies provided inaccurate and/or incomplete information about the audible turbine noise levels, and no information about low frequency noise, infrasound and/or impulse noise emitted from the turbines.

Huron County relied on the information from the wind companies when approving the project, the lawsuit states.

“(The defendants) should have known that the information it supplied to Huron County would directly impact the residents of Huron County, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit adds.

Suit does not name any government entity

According to the Huron County Clerk’s Office, there have been no lawsuits filed against any government entities relating to any Thumb area wind park.

In the lawsuit against the wind companies, the plaintiffs are being represented by Craig W. Horn, of Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner, P.L.C. in Saginaw. Despite numerous attempts, Horn was unavailable for comment as of press time.

Ken Golden, Deere & Company Strategic Public Relations director, on Friday told the Tribune: “By company policy, Deere & Company does not make comment on pending litigation.”

The defendants have 28 days from the May 11 filing date to respond to the complaint, and then a hearing date will be scheduled, according to the Huron County Circuit Court Office.

The lawsuit states the plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.

 

SECOND FEATURE: ANOTHER CHAPTER OF "WIND DEVELOPERS BEHAVING BADLY"

The following is a candid quote from an article in Renewable Energy World Magazine which outlines current difficulties faced by wind developers.

 Wind Farms: Are All the Best Spots Taken?

 “Another problem is that landowners have become increasingly savvy about the value of their property.

Farmers are driving harder bargains with wind developers for purchase or lease of their land.

A decade ago 'nobody knew what a fair price was, but as long it was not a dollar less than the guy down the road, they thought it was fair.

Now with the internet and more awareness of what these terms and conditions are, it has leveled the playing field', said Jim Tynion, a partner with the law firm Foley & Lardner, where he is chair of the Energy Industry Team.”

READ FULL TEXT HERE

"Evidence does not support the conclusion that wind turbines cause or are associated with adverse health outcomes" 

"Gaps remain in our knowledge of the impact that wind energy may have on human health"

-Dr. Jevon McFadden, "Wind Turbines, a Brief Health Overview", slide 76 Prepared for the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council. Dr. McFadden delivered a shorter version of this presentation to the council on May 17th, 2010

 

Ontario Health and Environmental Officials Agree: On-the-ground sound measurement is needed near wind farms.

SOURCE: The Acoustic Ecology Institute, aeinews.org

 May 28 2010

Over the past week or so, two reports from Ontario have spurred a fair amount of notice and comment among those following wind development issues.  

First, the provincial health office responded to the public’s concerns about health problems reported by some wind farm neighbors, framing its answer carefully and narrowly:  ”According to the scientific evidence, there isn’t any direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects,” said Dr. Arlene King, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer, as reported by the Vancouver Sun.

 It is no real surprise that the sound levels near wind farms aren’t loud enough to directly cause physiological damage or effects, though it seems clear that annoyance and sleep disruption may well contribute to health effects; the report acknowledges the likelihood of some annoyance, and notes too that while low-frequency sound is below generally perceptible levels, some people who hear these frequencies better than most may be bothered.

 While the report itself is brief and lacks the detail of the recent industry-funded AWEA/CanWEA report, which reached the similar conclusions in the same narrowly-focused task, King’s report frames the results with two crucial but under-reported observations:

 

By way of introduction, the report explicitly states a simple fact that is rarely acknowledged: “Little information is available on actual measurements of sound levels generated from wind turbines and other environmental sources.

Since there is no widely accepted protocol for the measurement of noise from wind turbines, current regulatory requirements are based on modelling.”  Indeed, sound models are used to determine what distance a turbine needs to be from nearby homes in order to meet local statutory noise limits (which stand at 40dB in Ontario).

And in its final words, the report stresses the corollary to this observation: “The review also identified that sound measurements at residential areas around wind turbines and comparisons with sound levels around other rural and urban areas, to assess actual ambient noise levels prevalent in Ontario, is a key data gap that could be addressed.

An assessment of noise levels around wind power developments and other residential environments, including monitoring for sound level compliance, is an important prerequisite to making an informed decision on whether epidemiological studies looking at health outcomes will be useful.”

Actual rural ambient noise levels are often very low, so that wind farm noise becomes bothersome at lower levels than industrial or transportation noises prevalent in urban and suburban areas; and, as noted in the body of the report, most of the case studies and other reports of health effects lack any clear information on how loud the turbine sounds are in the homes of those being affected.  

So while this report is in large part another seemingly definitive, yet stubbornly partial, assessment of the health effects reported near wind farms, it also lays the groundwork for much-needed on the ground assessment of noise patterns around wind farms.

On a similar note, Ontario Ministry of Environment officials confirmed this week that they do not have the capability to record or assess the noise near wind farms where noise complaints arise.

 According to the Windsor Star, “Although hundreds of wind turbines have already been built in Ontario, Michael Parker, district manager for the environment ministry, said staff have not yet been given noise-monitoring equipment. The ministry is responsible for ensuring that wind turbine noise reaching a residence doesn’t exceed 40 decibels, he said.

 If a complaint about turbine noise is made to the ministry, two environment officers are sent to the area to listen for the noise and contact the turbine owner, Parker said, noting that the ministry could still intercede with turbine owners even without hard data on the noise levels.

In some cases, turbine speeds have been scaled back or the turbine shut down completely.”  

In January, the Ministry of Environment issued two Requests for Proposals seeking advice and technical standards to use in assessing wind farm noise.

The RFPs said that “The Ministry requires a consultant to assist in the development of a measurement procedure to assess noise compliance of existing wind farms with the applicable sound level limits,” noting that ”Unlike typical industrial noise sources, measurement of audible noise from wind turbines in general raises technical challenges.”

At that time, the Ministry acknowledged that its “Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms…do not contain a measurement method for assessing the actual noise impact.”

SECOND FEATURE:

When is a conflict of interest not a conflict of interest?

When an official who stands to make some money says it is not and just 'leaves it at that'

Click on the images below to watch news stories about what happens when those who make the rules anticipate financial gain.

For those of us following the proceedings of Wisconsin's Wind Siting Council, this is an issue very much on our minds. It is impossible not to notice a clear majority of the council members have direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the siting guidelines they are helping to create. CLICK HERE TO SEE WHO IS ON THE COUNCIL

VIDEO SOURCE: http://www.wnem.com

Shadow Flicker: "Similar to flicker experienced when driving"

-Dr. Jevon McFadden, slide 15, 5/17/10 presentation to Wind Siting Council.

Click on image below to see Wind turbine shadow flicker video taken in a PSC approved wind project Fond du Lac County home at 6:30 am on Tuesday April 28th,

More shadow flicker from Fond du Lac County

Click on the image below to watch Better Plan's audio interpretation of shadow flicker

Click on the image below to see shadow flicker in a home in DeKalb County

The family living in this home is keeping a diary about their life with wind turbines.  CLICK HERE TO VISIT THEIR WEBPAGE

Not a good neighbor

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Irresponsible Wind Company

last night there was no sound from turbines. slept through the night and woke up rested. this morning it was a good day to be outside, beautiful weather and some turbines off and some lightly spinning. the winds are picking up (winds from the S, 11mph) this afternoon and the blades are starting to feather out which is creating the low droning. one moment there is peace and the next is filled with this annoying background chopping/low frequency sound. these turbines are too close to our home. how irresponsible of the wind companies to erect these machines so close...this is happening all over. so many people have to suffer. this could be solved by placing the turbines at least a mile away.

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: The Fond du Lac County home in the photo below appraised for $320,000 in 2007, the year before the Invenergy turbines went on line.

In 2009 the family abandoned the home because of turbine noise and vibration.

A few weeks ago it was sold at a sheriff's sale. The opening bid was $107,000. There were no takers.

A New York bank paid less than the opening bid and now owns the empty house.

CLICK to read about the family who once lived in this home.

The former home of Ann and Jason Wirtz now sits abandoned near the Forward Energy Wind Center, which went online in 2008 in Brownsville. (Photo by Dave Wasinger)

 STATE PANEL DISMISSES WIND FAMILY'S WIND FARM COMPLAINT

Source: The Daily Reporter

By Paul Snyder

May 27, 2010

A family seeking payback for health, business and property losses allegedly caused by a wind farm suffered a setback Thursday when the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin rejected the complaint.

PSC Chairman Eric Callisto said the commission is not the proper forum for personal injury claims and said Ann and Jason Wirtz, who now live in Oakfield, should take their case to circuit court.

The Wirtzes in April filed their complaint arguing the Forward Wind Energy Center in Dodge County, which went online in 2008, caused sleep deprivation, headaches and stomach problems as well as the loss of an alpaca-breeding business and a decline in their property value. The Wirtzes moved from their home in Brownsville in September 2009 without selling it.

The family directed its complaint at wind farm developer Invenergy LLC, Chicago, though the Wirtzes have not specified how much money they want from Invenergy. The Wirtzes did not comment on the project prior to PSC approval in 2005.

Madison-based attorney Ed Marion, who represents the Wirtzes, said they chose to go to the PSC first instead of suing because the commission regulates energy companies and is charged with protecting the rights and interests of the public.

“We’re disappointed by the decision,” he said, “but not entirely surprised.”

Marion said he does not know what the family will do next. He said a lawsuit is the likely option, though the family could appeal the PSC decision.

The PSC’s decision Thursday was good news to wind developers. Joe Condo, Invenergy’s vice president and general counsel, said the PSC was right to stay out of a personal injury claim filed by a family.

“I’m not going to speculate on what they’re going to do or how we’re going to respond,” he said. “This is not a normal course of action for us.”

Jim Naleid, a managing partner for Holmen-based AgWind Energy Partners LLC, which was not involved in the Forward Wind Energy project, said allegations of health problems, such as those claimed by the Wirtzes, simply were not an issue in 2005 when the PSC approved the Forward project. He said he doubts such allegations will attract attention from state wind farm regulators.

“The claims of physical impacts are a recent phenomenon and something that comes from the anti-wind folks in particular,” he said. “If there was merit on a wide-scale basis, I don’t think the PSC would issue these permits.”

The Wirtzes’ complaints came too late to merit PSC consideration, said Commissioner Mark Meyer. The family, he said, has the right to make its statement for PSC consideration of an upcoming 100-turbine wind farm Invenergy proposes for Brown County, but he said the PSC’s review of Forward ended a long time ago.

“The commission,” he said, “is not in the business of handling private causes of action against utilities.”

 "Evidence does not support the conclusion that wind turbines cause or are associated with adverse health outcomes" 

-Dr. Jevon McFadden, Extended Report, Page 74

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

 As we begin our closer look at Wind Siting Council member Dr. McFadden's presentation regarding wind turbine impacts on human health, we note a reference to this paper authored by Wolfgang Babisch (among others) about annoyance and noise:

  Annoyance due to aircraft noise has increased over the years–results of the HYENA study. Environ Intl. 2009;35:1169-1176.

It is interesting to note that Dr. McFadden does not reference any of the following papers by the same author regarding noise and human health. Babisch is a senior research officer at the German Federal Environmental Agency. His research focus is on noise epidemiology, particularly the auditory and nonauditory health effects of noise. He is a member of the International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise.

Our source for papers authored or co-authored by Babisch

 

Click on each of the following titles to read the reports

Transportation noise and cardiovascular risk: updated review and synthesis of epidemiological studies indicate that the evidence has increased.

Acute effects of night-time noise exposure on blood pressure in populations living near airports.

Noise-Induced Endocrine Effects and Cardiovascular Risk.

Road traffic noise and cardiovascular risk

Traffic Noise and Cardiovascular Disease: Epidemiological Review and Synthesis.

Exposure-response relationship of the association between aircraft noise and the risk of hypertension.

Hypertension and exposure to noise near airports: the HYENA study.

Saliva cortisol and exposure to aircraft noise in six European countries.

Blood pressure of 8-14 year old children in relation to traffic noise at home--results of the German Environmental Survey for Children (GerES IV).

The environmental health of children: priorities in Europe.

PINCHE's policy recommendations on noise: how to prevent noise from adversely affecting children.

Noise and health.

Health aspects of extra-aural noise research.

Health status as a potential effect modifier of the relation between noise annoyance and incidence of ischaemic heart disease.

Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects of noise.

The Noise/Stress Concept, Risk Assessment and Research Needs.

[Health-related aspects of research on noise effects other than on the ear]

Increased catecholamine levels in urine in subjects exposed to road traffic noise: the role of stress hormones in noise research.

Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk: the Caerphilly and Speedwell studies, third phase--10-year follow up.

Subjective work noise: a major risk factor in myocardial infarction.

Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk: the Speedwell study, first phase. Outdoor noise levels and risk factors.