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



WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE

Monday, June 23, 2010, beginning at 1:30 p.m.

Docket 1-AC-231

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Flambeau River Conference Room (3rd Floor)
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio or video of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 1:30.

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

What's on the agenda

1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda

2) Review and adoption of meeting minutes of June 21, 2010

3) Background information on questions raised by Council regarding the draft rules

a. Commission noise measurement protocol

b. Takings

c. Property value protection plans

4) Amendments to straw proposal for Council’s recommendations to Commission regarding
draft rules

a. Discuss proposed amendments to straw proposal

b. Straw poll regarding proposed amendments to straw proposal

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

6) Adjourn

This meeting is open to the public.

If you have any questions or need special accommodations, please contact Deborah
Erwin at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin by telephone at (608) 266-3905 or
via e-mail at deborah.erwin@wisconsin.gov.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Better Plan contacted the PSC to ask why today's meeting was not posted on the event calendar until this morning. Notice of open meetings must be given at least 24 hours in advance. We were told the event calendar postings at the PSC website are a courtesy, but not the official posting place for open meetings.

Better Plan is now trying to find out where the official postings can be found.

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

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

 

Dissent delays wind council’s progress

SOURCE: The Daily Reporter

 June 22, 2010

Second Feature:

HEARINGS SET ON WIND PROJECT SITING RULES

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

June 22, 2010

By Thomas Content

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

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

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

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

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

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

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

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

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

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

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

“The PSC has ruled that it won’t do anything to help people who are having problems with wind farms and has basically told them to take their case to civil court”

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)

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

PSC REJECTS OAKFIELD FAMILY'S WIND FARM CLAIM

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

 June 21, 2010 By Colleen Kottke,

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has rejected a complaint filed by an Oakfield family about the Forward Energy Wind Center.

Jason and Ann Wirtz contended that the Forward Energy Wind Center cost them their alpaca-breeding business and created such significant health problems for the family that they were eventually forced out of their home.

PSC Chairman Eric Callisto said the commission is not the proper forum for personal injury claims.

In the claim, the Wirtzes asked the PSC to reopen the Forward Wind Energy Center proceedings to hold a hearing about prior health claims from residents living within the wind farm. The Wirtzes hoped to convince the PSC at a hearing to require Invenergy to compensate the family for prior damages.

The Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office advised the PSC that it cannot do so.

In a 12-page decision released on June 18, the PSC said that according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the agency has no legal basis to assert jurisdiction over a lawsuit filed in April by the Wirtz family that claims the wind farm caused them personal injury and diminished their property value.

Disappointment

Madison-based attorney Ed Marion, who represents the Wirtzes, said the decision handed down last week was a disappointment.

“The PSC has ruled that it won’t do anything to help people who are having problems with wind farms and has basically told them to take their case to civil court,” Marion said.

The couple purchased the sprawling farmhouse on County Trunk YY in Dodge County in 1996 and said they poured countless hours and money into remodeling the home and upgrading the property.

Before the wind farm went on line, the Wirtz family made the decision to sell their home and eight-acre property appraised at $320,000. With no buyers, the Wirtzes eventually pulled the home off the market in 2008.

The family argued to the PSC that the noise and vibration from the nearby wind turbines caused sleep deprivation, headaches and other physical ailments. In addition, the Wirtzes said their alpaca-breeding herd was adversely affected.

The Wirtzes abandoned their home last year and moved to Oakfield. The home was sold at a sheriff’s sale in May for $106,740.

Ann Wirtz said she wasn’t “shocked” by the PSC’s decision.

“We’re not sure what we’re going to do right now,” she said. “We’re still exploring input for our legal options.”

While the family could file a lawsuit in civil court, they also have the right to appeal the PSC decision.

 

WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE

Monday, June 21, 2010, beginning at 1:30 p.m.

Docket 1-AC-231

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Flambeau River Conference Room (3rd Floor)
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio or video of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 1:30.

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



FROM WIND SITING COUNCIL MEMBER, MICHAEL VICKERMAN:

“You can’t stop a project in Wisconsin based on the appearance of these turbines,” [Michael 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.”  

-Chicago Reader, May 14, 2009

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: For those who have not been following the Wirtz family story, we re-post a story written by Lynda Barry after an interview with Ann and Jason Wirtz in June of 2009 before they moved from their home because of wind turbine noise.

Lynda Barry is a Wisconsin writer who is currently doing research for a book about life in Wisconsin's industrial wind projects.

 Interview with Ann and Jason Wirtz

N1157 Hwy YY

Oakfield, WI 53065

Dodge County, Wisconsin

Conducted on the evening of May 2, 2009

 WIND TURBINE NOISE FORCES WISCONSIN FAMILY TO ABANDON HOME

 TOWN OF OAKFIELD- Ann and Jason Wirtz have a pretty Wisconsin farmhouse near the Town of Oakfield.  It’s the kind of place that had people stopping by to ask if the family would consider selling it.

 “They’d just pull into our driveway,” says Ann, a mother of four. “There were people who said if we ever decided to sell it, we should call them.” 

 Although turn-of-the-century house needed a lot of work when they bought it, the Wirtz family didn’t mind. They planned to stay. Both Ann and Jason grew up in the area and wanted to raise their children there.

 “I thought we were going to live here for the rest of our lives.” says Ann. “I thought one of our kids was going to live here after us.”

 This was before 86 industrial wind turbines went up around their home as part of the Chicago based Invenergy's Forward Energy wind project which began operation in March of 2008.  The closest turbine is to the Wirtz home is less than 1300 feet from their door.

  “Last night it was whining,” said Ann. “It wasn’t just the whoosh whoosh whoosh or the roaring. It was a high pitched whine. And I don’t just hear them, I can feel them.”

She describes a feeling like a beat in her head, a pulse that matches the turbine’s rhythm. “Last night was really bad,” she said.

 She says she knows which nights are going to be loud by which way the turbine blades are facing, and her family dreads the nights when the wind is out of the west. “That’s when they are the loudest.”

 Jason said he found out there was a wind farm planned for his area from a neighbor he ran into at the post office. “He asked me if I knew anything about the turbines coming in. I didn’t.” Jason came home and mentioned it to Ann.

  “When I first heard about it I wasn’t that alarmed.” says Ann, “People were saying how bad they could be, but I just didn’t believe them at first.”

 She assumed the turbines would be sited much further away from her home, unaware of the controversy over the setbacks approved by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin which allows turbines to be sited close as 1000 feet to the homes of people like the Wirtzes.

 “All those orange flags they put in were way back there. I was thinking it wouldn’t be too bad. And then when that access road started coming in so close I said, ‘what the heck is going on?’

 Meanwhile, Jason had been attending town meetings and learning more about the project. The more he learned, the more worried he became. Five months before the turbines went up, the Wirtz family decided to sell their house. 

 They called people who had let them know they’d be interested in buying it. “When they found out about the turbines,” said Ann, “They weren’t interested anymore.”

 The Wirtz family prepared the house to put on the market. In November of 2007, the home, sitting on eight acres, was appraised for $320,000.  But this once sought-after property could find no buyers. “As soon as people found out about the wind farm coming in,” says Ann.  “That was it. And once they started building the roads to the turbines, forget it. They’d ask what that road was for, we’d tell them and we’d never hear from them again.”

 After the turbines went up, interested buyers stopped showing up altogether.

 “We tried to find another realtor,” said Ann,  “They’d ask ‘is it near the wind turbines?’ and when they found out it was, they wouldn’t even bother to come out to the house to look at it. One realtor told me it wasn’t worth her marketing dollars to even list it because if it was in the wind farm she knew she couldn’t sell it. I mean have you ever heard of a real estate agent turning down a chance to sell a house?”

 Another realtor said they would have to price it under $200,000 to get anyone to even look at it. “At that price we were going to be $50,000 worse than when we started, “ said Ann. “And that didn’t include the 12 years of work we put into the place.”

 But the Wirtzes were increasingly anxious to get away from the turbines. While Jason, who works nights, wasn’t having much trouble with the turbine noise, it was keeping Ann and her children from sleeping well at night. They were tired all the time. They were also getting frequent headaches.

 And there was trouble with their animals as well. The Wirtz family raise alpaca and have a breeding herd. Ann says the Alpaca became jumpy the first day the turbines went on line. “Normally they are so calm. But the day the towers started up, they seemed to panic. They were on their back legs right away.”

 Ann says the herd had always been docile and healthy, with no breeding problems. Since the wind farm started up, their temperament has changed and none of the females have been able to carry a pregnancy to full term. “ They’re nervous all the time now. I can’t prove anything but I do know my animals. And I really felt something was wrong. All the years we’ve had them we’ve never had a problem.”

 At night herd shelters in the large metal shed behind the Wirtz home. When the turbines are loud, Ann says the sound echoes inside the shed and the metal vibrates and hums. “The noise in here gets just unbelievable. When the tin starts to vibrate in here, they can’t stand it. I have to find them a better home. This is torture for them.”

 The same turbine noise has driven Ann out of her own bedroom “I can’t stand to be in that room anymore. I don’t sleep at all. My sleep has been terrible.” Instead she sleeps on the couch where a fan on their pellet stove helps counter the turbine noise. “My number one complaint is how tired I am all the time,” says Ann, “I never had that before, ever.”

 Says Jason, “We don’t have air conditioning, we didn’t want it and we didn’t need it. In the summer we just opened the windows and let cross breezes cool the house. But the first summer with the turbine noise we had to shut the windows and turn on the fan. We couldn’t stand it.”

 After one of the children was recently diagnosed with a severe stress-related illness, the Wirtzes decided they’d had enough. They decided the health of their family was more important than keeping their home, and they are abandoning it.

 “Now, after all the trouble we’ve had living here” said Ann, “ If a family showed up and wanted to buy the place and they had kids, I don’t think I could sell it to them. Knowing what I know about living here, I just don’t think I could put another family through this.”

  They are now looking for a place in a nearby village. “We were born and raised in the country but we’re thinking of moving to Oakfield because they aren’t going to plop a 400 foot turbine in the middle of the village, says Jason. “And I know I’m going to have to drive by this place every day on my way to work.  It’s going to make me sick to see it, but I can’t stay here anymore.”

 Ann adds, “I say we move near whoever it is that decides on the setbacks because you know they’ll never have a turbine by their place”

 Jason and Ann sit at the dining room table and point out the elaborate woodwork they’d stripped and re-finished by hand. Jason holds a picture of the farmhouse from happier times. Earlier that day they’d met with the people at the bank to let them know they were giving up their home.

 Jason says, “At least we’re young enough to start over. My mom, she doesn’t have much money and now she has turbines around her house. She said, ‘This house was my retirement,’ Her and my dad put everything into that house.  Now I don’t know what she’s going to do.”

Jason says, “ The quality of life we had here is just gone. I grew up here and I loved it here. But I don’t anymore. ”