Better Plan, Wisconsin

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

 AN EXCEPT FROM A POST TO THE DOCKET FROM A WISCONSIN BIOLOGIST:

I posted a previous comment on the PSC website about concerns of Infrasound generated by of the wind turbines. Since posting that comment, I have been contacted by a woman who lives in Byron.

The wind turbines went up over a year ago there, and she has not had good sleep since. She experiences a constant hum and a vibration in the floors of her house that prevents her from sleeping at night.

She said that between the lack of sleep, flicker and noise from the generators, she might as well be living in downtown Chicago. She is a breast cancer survivor and is worried that all of this will cause her cancer to recur. She also stated that Invenergy sold the wind farm to a utility, WE Energies, who denies responsibility because they did not build the wind farm. They will not even listen to her complaints unless she can put some numbers on the problem.

I was also contacted by Healthy Wind Wisconsin, a group that is trying to get resolution of complaints from people living in wind farms.

They told me of a man near Fond du Lac who raises chickens. Since the turbines went up, his adult chickens are sick, and he has seen deformities in his chicks.

The deformities seen by the farmer are similar to those reported in a study done by the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (Shannon et al, 1994). In this study, fertilized eggs were exposed to different levels and frequencies of whole-body low frequency vibration. The results revealed increased mortality and birth defects caused by the vibration.

As a biologist, I am concerned.

Chick development is used as a model of human embryonic development. Are there implications for people living in the wind farm who want to have children? According to "Excerpts from the Final Report of the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee" people in the Lincoln Township (Kewaunee) wind farm have reported an inability to conceive. There have also been serious birth defects in calves, and cows spontaneously aborting in that wind farm.

Are people in the wind farms experiencing problems with low frequency vibration?

According to G.P. van den Berg (2004) "Although infrasound levels from large turbines at frequencies below 20 Hz are too low to be audible, they may cause structural elements of buildings to vibrate." This is borne out in the wind farms as some people complain of hums and vibrations in the floors and windows of their homes and in other structures. If the floor is vibrating, the residents are experiencing whole body vibration.

Infrasound waves are not readily absorbed by matter, so they pass through us. Some people in wind farms say they can feel the sound waves moving through them. As sound moves through any object, it moves the molecules around it. At appropriate frequencies, the sound waves can set up resonances and cause vibrations.

If the infrasound or low-frequency sound waves can resonate and vibrate windows in a home as they pass through them, it is easy to visualize how they may vibrate membranes, tissues and organs in the human body as they pass into and through the human body.

From Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects (2007) Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (BEST):

"Low-frequency vibration and its effects on humans are not well understood. Sensitivity to such vibration resulting from wind-turbine noise is highly variable among humans.

Although there are opposing views on the subject, it has recently been stated (Pierpont 2006) that "some people feel disturbing amounts of vibration or pulsation from wind turbines, and can count in their bodies, especially their chests, the beats of the blades passing the towers, even when they can`t hear or see them."

More needs to be understood regarding the effects of low-frequency noise on humans." I`ve heard that the vibrations can be felt in one`s body much in the same way as the "deep base" can be felt at a rock concert when standing close to a speaker.

In addition to the acoustic vibrations, the giant spinning wind turbines also produce low-frequency vibrations which travel through the earth, seismic vibrations, in the form of Rayleigh waves.

A study done by P. Styles (2005) reported "We have clearly shown that both fixed speed and variable speed wind turbines generate low frequency vibrations which are multiples of blade passing frequencies and which can be detected on seismometers buried in the ground at significant distances away from the wind farms even in the presence of significant levels of background seismic noise (many kilometers)."

These results were obtained for turbines much smaller than the 400-500 foot giants that will go up in southern Brown County, and for much smaller arrays. The amount of vibration increases by a factor of 10 for every 100 turbines.

From Frey et al., 2007:

"In coursework description of "Whole Body Vibration" Prof Alan Hedge of Cornell University writes: "Vibrations in the frequency range of 0.5 Hz to 80 Hz have significant effects on the human body.

Individual body members and organs have their own resonant frequencies and do not vibrate as a single mass, with its own natural frequency.

This causes amplification or attenuation of input vibrations by certain parts of the body due to their own resonant frequencies.

The most effective resonant frequencies of vertical vibration lie between 4 HZ and 8 Hz. Vibrations between 2.5 and 5 Hz generate strong resonance in the vertebrae of the neck and lumbar region with amplification of up to 240%.

Vibrations between 4 and 6 Hz set up resonances in the trunk with amplification of up to 200%. Vibrations between 20 and 30 Hz set up the strongest resonance between the head and shoulders with amplification of up to 350%. Whole body vibration may create chronic stresses and sometimes even permanent damage to the affected organs or body parts.""

The vibrations residents experience in the wind farms, whether acoustic or seismic in origin, can amplify in internal structures and organs in their bodies. Since some people complain of disturbing amounts of vibration in their bodies in wind farms, and structures vibrating in their homes, there can be no doubt that wind farms create vibration problems.

What might the health effects of this vibration be?

In the study mentioned earlier, increased embryonic mortality was the main outcome of whole-body low frequency vibration of fertilized chicken eggs, but some of the experimental chicks showed deformities.

In biology, agents that cause birth defects are called teratogens. Each teratogen produces a specific range of effects in a species. You can think of the drug thalidomide which had the specific effect of causing people to be born without limbs. The experimental observations of low-frequency vibration teratogenic effects in animals are:

· In chickens: crossed beaks, missing eyeballs and missing bony structures in the skull. Some disorientation and muscular weakness and malformed feet were also seen in experimental chicks (Shannon et al, 1994)

The problems with animal reproduction reported in the wind farms in Wisconsin are lack of egg production, problems calving, spontaneous abortion (embryonic mortality), stillbirth, miscarriage and teratogenic effects:

· In chickens: Crossed beaks, missing eyeballs, deformities of the skull (sunken eyes), joints of feet/legs bent at odd angles (Jim Vollmer, personal communication)

· In cattle: missing eyes and tails (updated Excerpts from the Final Report of the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee)

It is disturbing to me that in chickens and cows in separate wind farms (separated by 50 miles) similar teratogenic effects are being observed, namely missing eyeballs. Based on the correlation of effects seen experimentally and those seen in the wind farm in chickens, these defects may be due to low frequency vibration.

Jim Vollmer, the farmer who owns these chickens, reports that the tin structures on his farm buildings vibrate. If the infrasound/ low- frequency sound is strong enough to vibrate structures on his farm as it passes through, what is it doing to the delicate connections and circulation inside the developing chicken embryos, and inside people, as it passes through them?

Some of the other health effects that have been reported in the Kewaunee wind farm (and other wind farms) could also be explained by low frequency vibration. From updated "Excerpts from the Final Report of the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee " (betterplan.squarespace.com):

Animal health problems in the Srnkas' formerly award-winning herd include cancer deaths, ringworm, mange, lice, parasites, cows not calving properly, dehydration, mutations such as no eyeballs or tails, cows holding pregnancy only 1 to 2 weeks and then aborting, blood from nostrils, black and white hair coats turning brown, mastitis, kidney and liver failure. . . .

Mr. Srnka and neighbors report serious health effects on not just dairy cows. Health problems in residents include
· sleep loss
· diarrhea
· headaches
· frequent urination
· 4 to 5 menstrual periods per month
· bloody noses: Mr. Srnka had cows bleed to death from uncontrollable bleeding from the nostrils
· inability to conceive

According to scientific literature, low frequency vibration could result in the urge to urinate (Frey et al, 2007) , menstrual irregularities, embryonic mortality (Penkov, 2007), which may be interpreted as inability to conceive or spontaneous abortion, birth defects in animals, and kidney problems in animals (Skilianov et al, 2005). All of these effects have been reported in the Kewaunee wind farm.

Many of the remaining health problems in this wind farm could be explained by infrasound/ low- frequency sound exposure or vibroacoustic disease, which is caused exposure to low frequency sound waves over long periods of time.

According to Alves-Pereira and colleagues (2007), The clinical symptoms of vibroacoustic disease (in people) are:

Stage 1- slight mood swings, indigestion and heartburn, mouth or throat infections and bronchitis.

Stage 2- chest pain, definite mood swings, back pain, fatigue, fungal, viral and parasitic infections, inflammation of the stomach lining, pain and blood in urine, conjunctivitis and allergies.

Stage 3- psychiatric disturbances, small nose bleeds, varicose veins and hemorrhoids, duodenal ulcers, spastic colitis, decrease in visual acuity, headaches, severe joint pain, intense muscular pain and neurological disturbances.

In experiments done on rats, low frequency sound has been shown to cause severe trauma to the cells lining the respiratory tract (Oliveira et al., 2001) and the delicate brush cells lining the respiratory tract fuse together.

Infrasound has been shown to damage numerous systems, including the liver and testes, of laboratory animals under experimental conditions , and some effects on people have been noted at 100 decibels. From Infrasound Toxicology Summary, 2001:

"When male volunteers were exposed to simulated industrial infrasound of 5 and 10 Hz and levels of 100 and 135 dB for 15 minutes, feeling of fatigue, apathy, and depression, pressure in the ears, loss of concentration, drowsiness, and vibration of internal organs were reported.

In addition, effects were found in the central nervous system, the cardiovascular system, and the respiratory system. Synchronization phenomena were enhanced in the left hemisphere.

Visual motor responses to stimuli were prolonged, and the strength of effector response was reduced. Heart rate was increased during the initial minutes of exposure.

Depression of the encephalic hemodynamics with decreased venous flow from the skull cavity and was observed. Heart muscle contraction strength was reduced. Respiration rate was significantly reduced after the first minute of exposure." Reference 29, Karpova et al.,1970.

Given this, it does not surprise me that people in the wind farm complain of malaise, lack of concentration, vibration, and cardiovascular effects, among others. Infrasound at very low frequencies has measured nearly 100 decibels in a 17 turbine wind farm (van den Berg, 2004).

What levels of infrasound have been recorded in the middle of a 100 unit wind farm comprised of GE 1.5 MW turbines? At what threshold are effects of infrasound seen with continuous exposure? We need answers.

Is the level of low- frequency sound in a wind farm sufficient to result in vibroacoustic disease?

An investigation of a home in a wind farm revealed that the home had levels of Infrasound and low- frequency vibration conducive to the formation of vibroacoustic disease (Alvez-Pereira et al 2007, In-Home Wind Turbine Noise is Conducive to Vibroacoustic Disease posted on www.wind-watch.org). More investigations like this need to be done, as not all homes in a wind farm will be affected equally by these agents.

In people with occupational exposure to low frequency sound, it can take 10 years to reach stage 3 vibroacoustic disease. Therefore, to know the full health effects of wind turbines, we need to look at older wind farms as well.

In a complex generating 150 megawatts of electricity, there will be some electrical pollution. Wind turbines create "dirty electricity" which has been implicated in a variety of symptoms (Havas, M. 2006).

David Colling of Ontario, who has studied the dirty electricity created by wind farms, describes the effects on people as being "like living inside a microwave." The effects are reduced with buried cables, but there are still effects, especially around substations. (See David Colling`s You Tube videos on electrical pollution and wind turbines)

If not carefully constructed, electricity from the turbines can overload rural power grids, back up into people`s homes and barns, and into the ground, creating ground currents.

All electricity generated has to complete a circuit and flow back to the site of production through the neutral return wire. There are grounding rods on the neutral return wires, so that some current can constantly flow down the grounding rods and through the earth back to the substation, more when the wire is overloaded or corroded.

A Minnesota study found that up to 70% of the neutral current returns to the substation via the earth, in some areas, in the form of ground current.

Dr. Duane Dahlberg has stated "Dairy operators are frequently required by state codes to construct equipotential planes in their barns as a means of avoiding electric shocks for the cows. Unfortunately the equipotential plane is a good conductor which attracts a greater percentage of the ground currents, causes the cows to be exposed to greater continuous currents, and frequently increases stray voltage effects . . . On dairy farms, current in the ground is associated with behavioral, health and production effects in cows."

These effects have occurred in Mr. Srnkas cattle in the Lincoln Township wind farm.

100 turbines (with dangerous levels of rotor shaft voltages, up to 1200 volts) and 80 miles of cable carrying up to 150 megawatts of electricity will need to be grounded also, resulting in more current in our ground to get into homes.

The electricity generated has to find its way back to the wind farm, a portion of which will travel through the ground in currents and become concentrated in the wind farm as it makes its way back. Ground currents enter our homes through plumbing and other conduits creating magnetic fields.

Wertheimer, Savitz, and Leeper published a paper in 1995 that showed an association between cancer and conductive plumbing in residences, suggesting an increased cancer risk for persons with elevated magnetic fields from ground currents.

The utility can contribute to electrical pollution in another way when they connect the neutral on the primary side of the transformer serving a farm to the neutral on the secondary of the transformer. The National Electrical Code (NEC), which covers farm wiring, requires that the secondary neutral be hard wired to a building`s water system, structure and electrical ground rod. So, if the transmission line neutral is overloaded, more current from the electrical transmission neutral flows into the plumbing and structures on the farm.

Here in Wisconsin currents can be measured flowing through the grounds of the transmission lines, as opposed to California where much larger neutral cables are used and current cannot be measured at the ground.

Electricity from the neutral or from ground currents flowing through plumbing can result in EMF and contact currents. According to a study done by Douglas (1993), the electric current flowing through water pipes and other grounding paths may be the largest magnetic field source in the home other than appliances.

Exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) has been linked to the formation of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrigs disease) and is considered "possibly carcinogenic" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

A study in Turkey demonstrated that men who worked around low frequency EMF had higher levels of genotoxic effects in their lymphocytes. Genotoxic events are mutations which may result in cancers or other adverse outcomes. Children are especially susceptible to the effects of EMF (Kheifets, 2005); exposure above 0.4 µT has been linked to the formation of childhood leukemia (Ahlbom et al, 2001, Angelillo and Villari, 1999).

Rates of childhood cancer have been found to be increased for children living within 600 meters of electrical transmission lines at time of birth (Draper et al, 2005). Experts have argued that we should do all we can to reduce exposure to EMF in children and fetuses (Carpenter and Sage, 2008). Building 150 megawatt electricity generating complex around families seems unwise to me. It would make more sense to put wind farms in unpopulated areas.

Exposure to more than one of these agents at a time, as occurs in wind farms, may result in especially detrimental health effects.

From the research literature it appears that the combination of both whole body vibration and low frequency noise is particularly dangerous. Low frequency sound alone is not genotoxic, but when combined with vibration, chronic occupational exposure has genotoxic effects (Silva et al., 1999, 2002).

This result has been replicated in laboratory animal experiments, demonstrating the mutations are definitely due to the combination of whole body vibration and low frequency noise. Again, genotoxic effects can result in cancer, and cancers have occurred in cattle in the Lincoln Township wind farm. Yet, to my knowledge, no one has studied genotoxic events in wind farms, or even the mortality rates in herds or people in the wind farms.

When I first looked at the list of symptoms being reported from the wind farm in Lincoln Township, I doubted such seemingly disparate symptoms could all be caused by wind turbines. A survey of scientific literature revealed plausible explanations for them based on exposures to infrasound/low frequency sound, vibration and electrical pollution.

We may all be exposed to some of these agents each day, but we know wind farms create these forms of pollution, increasing the dosage (and duration) of exposure for people living inside the wind energy complex.

The scientific literature tells us of detrimental health effects from prolonged occupational exposure to these agents including vibroacoustic disease, genotoxic effects and embryonic mortality. People and animals in the wind farms seem to be suffering the very effects the science would predict for overexposure to these agents.

Many research studies demonstrate that the detrimental effects of exposure to these agents increase in severity with increasing time of exposure.

It concerns me that there are no scientifically-established safe levels for continuous exposure to this combination of agents.

In occupational exposures people can go home after 8 hours of work and have 16 hours for their bodies to actively recover from the exposures, 64 hours on the weekend.

People in a wind energy complex don`t get that break from exposure.

Safe levels are likely to be considerably lower for the elderly, those with underlying health problems, pregnant women, children and fetuses.

The standards we have also do not take into consideration the compounding of effects which can result from exposure to multiple agents at one time. Based on the chicken embryo studies, any level of exposure to low frequency vibration may pose some risk to developing embryos, as no threshold effect was observed (Shannon et al., 1994).

We have reports of animals in the wind farms here in Wisconsin with reproductive problems. Scott Srnkas cows suffer spontaneous abortion, problems calving, birth defects such as missing eyeballs and tails - all since the wind turbines.

Jim Vollmer has seen changes in his chicken`s reproduction - lower hatch rates and birth defects such as missing eyeballs and crossed beaks.

Ann Wirtz has reported reproductive problems in her alpacas. Since the wind farm became operational, they have not been able to accomplish a live birth - pregnancy always results in miscarriage or stillbirth. There are other reports of chickens no longer laying eggs, and there may be more reports of reproductive effects of which I am not aware.

People living in the Lincoln Township wind complex have reported an inability to conceive. It appears, from the scientific literature, that vibration is a reproductive hazard which can result in miscarriage, stillbirth and other changes in the reproductive system of women (Balichiyeva, 1993, Marinova, 1976, Penkov, 2007, Seidel, 1993).

In rats it can reduce the blood flow to the reproductive organs (Nakamura 1996). What happens to little girls growing up in the wind farms, experiencing the continual "deep base" type vibration that people feel in their bodies and the microseismic vibrations? Are their reproductive organs affected? What about their egg cells experiencing the low frequency sound and vibration, a combination which could be genotoxic? Girls are born with all the egg cells they will ever have.

To my knowledge, no one has even studied the fertility rates or rates of birth defects in people and animals in wind farms, or in people exposed to wind farms. We need concrete scientific proof that the vibration, acoustic and electrical pollution created by wind farms will not cause disease, birth defects or infertility in anyone, before continuing to build them.

I`ve heard arguments for wind energy stating that it reduces coal emissions and therefore also reduces birth defects caused by those emissions.

Based on the reports out of the wind farms, there could be far worse reproductive consequences in people or animals (infertility, spontaneous abortion or miscarriage, stillbirth, and birth defects) as a result of wind energy than there ever was from coal emissions or nuclear power in this country.

This needs to be studied. In Europe vibration exposure is recognized as a potential reproductive hazard (EU Directive 92/85/EEC), and vibration or EMF exposures can result in reproductive problems in people, or animals under experimental conditions (Al-Akhras, 2008, Brown et al., 1992, Hardell and Sage, 2008, Kim et al, 1999, Lahijani et al, 2007, Penkov , 2007, Seidel, 1993, Uysal et al, 2004).

On many levels wind farming raises concerns, but none more than the health complaints of residents of wind farms.

One cannot read the updated report from Lincoln Township without being concerned. The problems being reported are not just nuisances. When complaints arise in the wind farms, people, homes and farms should be monitored for low frequency sound/infrasound, vibration and electrical pollution.

If this were done on a regular basis, we would know what levels and combinations of these agents may cause health effects, but since health complaints have been ignored, and studies have not been done, those levels are not defined.

People living in the wind farms need rights and protection.

As it stands, complaints are often ignored. There should be requirements for health care practitioners to report all health problems in wind farms, for investigations into complaints and for resolution of problems -not at the resident`s expense.

If neighbors suffer ill effects, turbines should be shut down until the problems are resolved.

It is beyond my comprehension that an individual farmer is allowed to make a decision to put up a power plant with a giant industrial turbine, atop a skyscraping tower, without community approval. The community suffers burdens and hazards because of that decision. It should be a decision of the entire community whom it affects.

If wind turbines are coming to the area, organizations such as Healthy Wind Wisconsin recommend documenting everything - property value, the views from one`s property, the wildlife that frequents one`s home, well water quality, noise levels on a clear calm night, health records, electrical pollution, and more. They recommend this because more problems and more lawsuits are anticipated as this virtually unregulated industry continues to grow.

The residents of a wind farm are not just being "stressed out" by the wind farm, there are physical forces acting on their bodies as a result of the wind farm, physical forces that may do permanent damage. If we were putting up nuclear power plants, and we had reports of animals around them not able to successfully reproduce or being born without eyeballs, and also had some people reporting an inability to conceive, we would halt any new construction until it had been studied. In wind farms, this is exactly what we are seeing.

I realize there may be technical difficulty in ascertaining the amount of vibration set up inside one`s body, but I am asking you to invoke the precautionary principle and suspend wind farm development until the reproductive effects of wind farms, here in Wisconsin, have been studied. If you move forward before studies have been done, people`s reproductive rights may be violated.

In March, when Governor Doyle signed a bill banning BPA in baby bottles and cups for children, he stated "It seems to me that if there is a question of (safety), the balance we should strike is on protecting our children."

I agree with Governor Doyle. I want my children protected. And people in the wind farm want to have children. Elderly people, stay-at-home moms, children, and babies are in these wind farms 24/7 being bathed in low frequency sound/infrasound, vibration and electrical pollution.

If we are going to err in the siting of wind turbines, it should be on the side of safety for the people.

Thank you for your consideration,

Lynne Knuth, Ph.D.

P.S. I attended the recent meeting with the Brown County Board of Health and Board of Human Services.

I wish everyone in this state had been able to hear the testimonials of the people who are suffering in industrial wind projects here in Wisconsin.

We live in the best country in the world, a country that cares about people, founded on the principle that all men are created equal and have equal rights under the law.

Each life is equally valuable.

To hear that the wind siting council referred to people suffering in wind farms as "collateral damage" is disturbing.Collateral damage may be unavoidable in military operations, but it is not acceptable in day to day life.

The life of each person suffering in a wind farm is as valuable as the life of each legislator living in Madison.

I`d like to see them switch places; then we`d get some wind farm legislation that makes sense.

If people are going to suffer because of a new technology, we do not move forward with it, but instead we come up with a better solution. There are better solutions to our country`s problems.

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

Lynne Knuth, PhD

Reedsville, WI

References:

Ahlbom IC, Cardis E, Green A, Linet M, Savitz D and Swerdlow A. ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology. Review of the epidemiologic literature on EMF and Health. Environ Health Perspect. 2001, Dec; 109 Suppl 6:911-33.

Angelillo IF, Villari P. Residential exposure to electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia: a meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ 1999; 77 (11): 906 - 915

Al-Akhras MA Influence of 50 Hz magnetic field on sex hormones and body, uterine, and ovarian weights of adult female rats. Electromagn Biol Med. 2008; 27(2):155-63.

Alves-Pereira M. Castelo Branco NA. Vibroacoustic disease: biological effects of infrasound and low-frequency noise explained by mechanotransduction cellular signalling. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2007 Jan-Apr; 93(1-3):256-79. [Progress in biophysics and molecular biology]

Balichiyeva DV. Vibration in parental occupation as a risk factor in the health and development of offspring. Reprod Toxicol 1993 Sep-Oct;7(5):492-3

Briese V, Fanghänel J, Gasow H. Effect of pure sound and vibration on the embryonic development of the mouse. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1984; 106(6):379-88.

Brown KM, Doynov PG, Barber MK, Litovitz TL, Litovitz TA. Effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields on chicken embryogenesis. Toxicologist 1992 Feb;12(1):100

Carpenter DO, Sage C. Setting prudent public health policy for electromagnetic field exposures. Rev Environ Health. 2008 Apr-Jun;23(2):91-117.

Celikler S, Aydemir N, Vatan O, Kurtuldu S, Bilaloglu R. A biomonitoring study of genotoxic risk to workers of transformers and distribution line stations. Int J Environ Health Res. 2009 Dec;19(6):421-30.

Coleman M, Beral V. A review of epidemiological studies of the health effects of living near or working with electricity generation and transmission equipment. : Int J Epidemiol. 1988, Mar; 17(1):1-13

Dolk H, Busby A, Armstrong BG, Walls PH. Geographical variation in anophthalmia and microphthalmia in England, 1988-94. BMJ. 1998, Oct 3; 317(7163):905-9; discussion 910. [BMJ (Clinical research ed.)]

Douglas, John. 1993. "Survey of residential magnetic field sources". EPRI Journal, April/May 1993, pp 19-25

Duane A. Dahlberg, Ph.D. Ground Currents An Important Factor in Electromagnetic Exposure.

Frey, B.J., and P.J. Haddon. Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effects on Health. www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com. Feb, 2007.

Hardell L. Sage C. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomed Pharmacother. 2008, Feb; 62(2):104-9.

Havas M. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis Electromagn Biol Med. 2006;25(4):259-68.Abstract

Electric Transmission Lines Individual Rights vs Utility Rights of Public Domain
By Donald Hillman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University.2005.

Kheifets L, Repacholi M, Saunders R, van Deventer E. The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic fields. Pediatrics. 2005, Aug; 116(2):e303-13.

Kim YW, Cho JY, Lee JS, Kang SH, Cho MK, Kim YM. Evaluation of fetal abnormalities in mice continuously exposed to 60 Hz electromagnetic fields for 6 months. Teratology 1999 May;59(5):29A-30A

Lahijani MS, Nojooshi SE, Siadat SF. Light and electron microscope studies of effects of 50 Hz electromagnetic fields on preincubated chick embryo. Electromagn Biol Med. 2007; 26(2):83-98. [Electromagnetic biology and medicine]

Li P, McLaughlin J, Infante-Rivard C. Maternal occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields and the risk of brain cancer in the offspring. Cancer Causes Control. 2009, Aug; 20(6):945-55. [Cancer causes & control : CCC]

Luo Q, Yang J, Zeng QL, Zhu XM, Qian YL, Huang HF. 50-Hertz electromagnetic fields induce gammaH2AX foci formation in mouse preimplantation embryos in vitro. Biol Reprod. 2006, Nov; 75(5):673-80.

Marinova G, Svetoslavova E, Mateeva E. Industrial vibrations and their repercussions on the basic functions of the genital system in women Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 1976; 15(1):74-8. [Akusherstvo i ginekologiia]

Nakamura H, Ohsu W, Nagase H, Okazawa T, Yoshida M, Okada A. Uterine circulatory dysfunction induced by whole-body vibration and its endocrine pathogenesis in the pregnant rat. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1996;72(4):292-6.

Oliveira MJ, Pereira AS, Castelo Branco NA, Grande NR, Aguas AP. In utero and postnatal exposure of Wistar rats to low frequency/high intensity noise depletes the tracheal epithelium of ciliated cells. Lung. 2001; 179(4):225-32.

Pearce MS, Hammal DM, Dorak MT, McNally RJ, Parker L. Paternal occupational exposure to electro-magnetic fields as a risk factor for cancer in children and young adults: a case-control study from the North of England.
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007, Sep; 49(3):280-6.

Penkov A. Influence of occupational vibration on the female reproductive system and function.

Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2007; 46(3):44-8. [Akusherstvo i ginekologiia]

Seidel, H. Selected health risks caused by long-term, whole-body vibration. AM J Ind Med. 1993, Apr:23(4):589-604

Silva MJ; Carothers A; Castelo Branco NA; Dias A; Boavida MG. Sister chromatid exchange analysis in workers exposed to noise and vibration. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1999, Mar; 70(3 Pt 2):A40-5.

Silva MJ; Dias A; Barreta A; Nogueira PJ; Castelo-Branco NA; Boavida MG. Low frequency noise and whole-body vibration cause increased levels of sister chromatid exchange in splenocytes of exposed mice. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen. 2002; 22(3):195-203

SAVE THE DATE: The PSC will be holding public hearings for the wind sitting rules on

Monday, June 28 @ 1PM & 6PM in Fond Du Lac at the City Hall on 160 S. Macy Street

Tuesday, June 29 @ 1PM & 6PM at Holiday Inn in Tomah on 1017 E. McCoy Blvd.

Wednesday, June 30 at the PSC in Madison on 610 North Whitney Way, 1pm and 6pm

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has scheduled several hearings throughout the state regarding the creation of statewide wind turbine regulations.

The new regulations apply to wind farms that will generate less than 100 Megawatts of power. Specifics about turbine height, noise and distance setbacks, shadow flicker, signal interference and when residents and government agencies must be notified about proposed projects are included in the 53-page document.

To view the document, go to www.psc.wi.gov, enter docket number 1-AC-231 into the case search bar and download the document titled “Notice of Hearings” with the Public Service Commission reference number 131882.

Comments are due on Wednesday, July 7, 2010 at noon and must be mailed to: Sandra J. Paske, Secretary to the Commission, Public Service Commission, P.O. Box 7854, Madison, Wis., 53707-7854.

Comments can also be faxed to (608) 266-3957 and are due by Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at noon.

Online comments can be submitted at http://psc.wi.gov using docket number 1-AC-231.

Board of Health advises against wind farms in southern Brown County

SOURCE Green Bay Press Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

June 16 2010

By Tony Walter,

Wind turbines pose groundwater, health issues, panel says

Dr. Jay Tibbetts, a member of the Board of Health, said there is ample evidence that wind turbines might cause health and safety issues. He mentioned noise and shadow flickers in addition to the groundwater problem.

“They shouldn’t build here, period,” Tibbetts said.

The Brown County Board of Health, citing the threat to groundwater contamination as its chief reason, has recommended that no wind turbines be built in the county’s southern region where a 100-turbine wind farm has been proposed.

Board Chairwoman Audrey Murphy said the history of well contamination and concerns about the impact of noise and shadow flicker “make this area unsuitable for a wind farm.”

Its recommendation will be sent to the Public Service Commission, which is taking public comments on the wind turbine issue until July 6. The PSC has the authority to decide if wind farms can be constructed and is currently awaiting proposals from a wind siting council.

Invenergy LLC, a Chicago-based company, wants to build wind turbines in the towns of Morrison, Wrightstown, Glenmore and Holland and is awaiting siting rules from the PSC.

The Board of Health was asked to study the potential health and safety risks of wind farms. Its report will be forwarded to the Human Services Committee, with a resolution likely going to the County Board at its July 20 meeting.

The members of the Board of Health also endorsed a proposed resolution from Land and Water Conservation Department Director Bill Hafs that asks the PSC to require Invenergy to pay for a full-time county staff member to monitor the construction and operation of the wind farm, if it’s eventually approved.

Asked if he thinks Morrison — where 54 of the 100 wind turbines are proposed — is a safe place for a wind farm, Hafs said, “Without a staff person there, my opinion is no.”

The region is noted for its karst topography, cracked bedrock that led to the contamination of dozens of wells in Morrison in 2006. The area is used for the spreading of animal and industrial waste, which have been blamed for much of the contamination.

Dr. Jay Tibbetts, a member of the Board of Health, said there is ample evidence that wind turbines might cause health and safety issues. He mentioned noise and shadow flickers in addition to the groundwater problem.

“They shouldn’t build here, period,” Tibbetts said.

In its report to the Human Services Committee, the board is recommending that there be a minimum setback range of 2,640 to 3,168 feet from a turbine to an occupied structure. It also is proposing that the World Health Organization’s maximum 30-decibel standard be adopted.

Three representatives of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy attended the meeting. No Invenergy officials attended.

Invenergy submitted its original application to the PSC in 2009, but will resubmit it after the siting rules have been adopted.

In March of 2008 the 86 turbine Invenergy Forward Energy wind project went on line in Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties, Wisconsin. The setback from non-participating homes is 1000 feet. Two months later this home in the project goes up for sale.

LISTED MAY 29, 2008: For Sale: Country home on five wooded acres. 1900 square feet, four bedrooms, 3.5 baths, central air, new roof, sky lights in kitchen, deck, family room with wood burning fireplace, vaulted ceilings, first floor laundry, excercise room, whirlpool tub in master bath, 3.5 car garage, your own nature trail through black walnut woods behind the house

 

MAY 29, 2008: Asking $219,000  No buyers.

WINTER of 2009: Asking Price: $179,900. No buyers.

SPRING of 2010: Asking Price: $158,900. No buyers.

JUNE 4, 2010: After 740 days on the market, SOLD for $129,000

Second Feature

Though the wind industry claims the proximity of wind turbines to a home has no effect on property values, real estate broker and Wind Siting Council member Tom Meyer disagrees. He believes the presence of wind turbines does have a negative impact on property values.

He also believes that wind developers should be licensed before they get you to sign a contract that will tie up your land for the next 40 years.

Here's why:

[The following document can be found on the Wind Siting Council Docket, # 1-AC-231]

Prepared by Tom Meyer For Wind Siting Council Meeting June 9, 2010

Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 452 Real Estate Practice

The State of WI has a history of protecting the consumer of real estate services and holding real estate brokers accountable.

The ability to provide a limited practice of law is afforded to brokers by a 4-3 vote of the 1960 WI Supreme Court (The Dinger Case). This right is closely regulated and serves the public well for 60 years.

The legislature and the real estate industry in WI has worked cooperatively to modify Wisconsin’s agency law over those years to enhance the business models available to the WI consumer and raise the level of service and skill provided to the consumer by the licensee.

The activities of persons employed by, or acting on behalf of Turbine Developers, are substantially real estate brokerage services. The services are provided to the Lessor (the landowner) on behalf of the Lessee, (the wind energy developer).

Sign them up

A term commonly used in describing the door to door approach to obtaining leases where land owners “host” a turbine(s) is “Sign them up”.

While sign them up is not a legally defined term, what is being signed is a legally binding contract: a lease. What happens prior to the land owner signing the lease is “negotiation”, another legally defined term. See subsection 452.01

Atypical Lessee – Lessor Relationship

The lease instrument in Wind Energy Development is drafted by the LESSEE—the developer, not the landowner.

The more familiar practice in everyday real estate experience where a landowner leases property to another party is the reverse of what happens in wind energy development.

In siting wind turbines, the developer goes to the landowner.

The developer comes to the property with a vast amount of knowledge and preparation.

There is virtually no advanced notice and no opportunity to brainstorm with other landowners.(In fact we are told by Wind Siting Council members with wind energy interests that it is not favorable to their profit margins to have owners come together to discuss terms prior to signing contracts.)

The developer arrives with a contract and a sales presentation. The wind energy persons have stated that it is common for a family owned farm operation to be struggling financially in Wisconsin, and the promise of $4000 annual payments is attractive.

Protection for the Wisconsin Citizens who consider wind energy development leases

Providing a seven (7) day window of opportunity for the landowner to have the lease reviewed by legal counsel is a good start to protecting Wisconsin residents.

Considering the practice of soliciting lease agreements is a limited practice of law and not incidental to the work of the wind energy developers, it seems prudent for the wind energy developers to be Wisconsin licensed real estate brokers.

Advantage to the Public of Wind Turbine Developers being licensed real estate brokers:

 An avenue of recourse through the Real Estate Board

 Better disclosure of representation

 Minimum level of competence for persons negotiating real estate transactions

 Statutory defined duties of a broker:Fair and honest treatment. Reasonable Care and skill. Disclosure of material adverse facts. Confidentiality. Provide accurate market conditions. Accounting. Objective presentation of the lease.                                                                             
 Supervision standards for employees limiting who may discuss lease terms with the consumer

Administrative Rules

RL 15: Maintain copies of documents---Assures the public records of agreements and business practices are available for investigation

RL 16 Use of approved forms and legal advice—RL 16.05 prohibits the licensee from giving legal advice concerning rights and obligations. Will help with landowners being coerced into thinking their agreements are confidential.

RL 17 Protects the consumer from receiving real estate service from a non-licensed person.

RL 24 Conduct and ethical practices---Agreements are in writing, accurate representation of interests,

RL 25 Continuing Education—Keep the wind energy developer current with real estate laws

Provided by Tom Meyer, Wisconsin Real Estate Broker

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

 Home in the Invenergy wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County.  

Yesterday, after a presentation and discussion about how wind projects affect property values,  Wind Siting Council Chairman Dan Ebert presented a draft proposal of the council's siting rules.

This was not on the agenda and for many of us it was a complete surprise.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE DRAFT

The draft proposal has the same noise limits the commission used for the Glacier Hills project however there is no numerical setback from homes. Mr. Ebert explained that a specific setback number was not needed for siting wind turbines in our state.

Before presenting the draft, Ebert gave a lengthy preamble about how Wisconsin had developed a national reputation as an anti-wind state, that the state was losing out economically because of this, how we needed wind projects to meet the renewables mandate, preserve the family farms in our state and to encourage manufacturing and job growth.

The transcription below takes it from there.

Dan Ebert is the vice president of policy and external affairs for WPPI Energy. Previously, he served with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission for five years, including three as  Chairman. He is also Chairman of CREWE.

From the CREWE website: "The Coalition for Clean, Responsible Energy for Wisconsin’s Economy (CREWE) has been formed by business stakeholders to partner with the administration, task force members, lawmakers and other businesses and stakeholders as energy policies are developed that transition Wisconsin to a sound economy powered by new green jobs and investment."

Transcript taken from the PSC broadcast of the Wind Siting Council meeting,
June 9, 2010

DAN EBERT: I am struck by the incredible distrust that exists in this state between the various stake holders on this issue.

 I think if we had, five years ago, created this council and had the commission move forward with rules, I think we would be at a very different place in this state.

It is about protecting landowners, it is about the economics of wind, it's about meeting the RPS, it's about health and safety. All of the issues we have been debating and discussing.

Five years ago it was the 'wild west' of wind. You had wind developers coming in, they didn't really have a sense of how to engage with landowners, how to create an environment where you can have a constructive dialog and resolve differences, complaint resolution if you will, we didn't have that.

And because of that--- and on the flip side of that, I think we've also had some bad actors on these issues. I think there are some in this state who have just said "No way, ever never. I don't want to see a wind turbine in my view shed.

And so they have taken the position that, 'We're just going to say no because I own this piece of property and there is going to be an impact, whether it's 1100 feet, in Larry's case, or in the case of the view shed. You know, it could be half mile, it could be a mile away. I'm just going to say no because that's what I want to have happen'

And so developers have been faced with that kind of environment, which I think has spoiled the environment for them. How do you engage constructively when the opponents are raising issues that are not really the issue?

It's not really about sound, it's not really about shadow-flicker, it's really about--- and Larry, the very real impacts that you have shared with all of us, those are real.

And if the motivation had been consistent throughout and your-- the issues that you have brought to this council have been able to be worked on in a constructive environment instead I think a lot of people have used it to say "We're just going to oppose these things and we're going to throw as much against the wall as we can" and I think it's really spoiled the environment.

So I think there's been a fair amount of, you know, mistakes, on many sides of this issue and this debate that have really spoiled the environment. And so as I thought about sort of what's the right framework, one of themes that came through and that I hope I have been able to put in this straw proposal is to level the playing field to allow for constructive dialog between the various stake-holders in this issue where one is not empowered over the other, one cannot just say no, and one can't just say "We're going to put his thing 800 feet from your house."

But rather to create an environment where an honest dialog and discussion can occur and that there are tools that developers have and that landowners have, property owners, local governments, tools in the toolbox, to help make sure that this debate can in fact happen in a constructive way, to work through and resolve issues.

I think if our motivation is those people who just want to say no and that there's ever ever going to be another wind turbine built anywhere that impacts them, this council is not going to get there.

But if we want to talk about how we level the playing field and allow for and give both the developers, utilities, landowners, local government the tools I think we can get there based on last weeks conversation.

And I have been significantly influenced by the people around this table. Tom and George on the real estate issue, I don't agree with you, uh, all the way. I don't think the case has been made about real estate impacts. But I do think the issue of real estate is on that I have a much greater sensitivity than before this wind siting council started.

You know, Bill, I've listened to your passionate description of the personal stake that you have put into building a business, and that's really what you are doing, is you're building a business and you put your own personal family finances on the line because you're committed to building a business and you're trying to do it the right way.

You know, Larry, you have been an effective spokesperson for the impacts. I am not convinced that they-- that we have the evidence to say that there are health impacts.

I am convinced that there are clear impacts for landowners and that in the early days certainly there have been mistakes made in how you deal with landowners and how you resolve conflicts and up to a point empower landowners to protect what they have.

The decision that you made to locate where you did for the reasons you did, you know it could have been handled better and it could have been resolved in a better way.

Jevon's not here but I found, you know, the work that he put in I think has been invaluable to the group. Again, I know there's some folks who don't necessarily agree with some of the conclusions that he made but I think his process and the serious approach that he took has really provided a valuable amount of information for this group.

Jennifer, you're the one person here, maybe not the only one but clearly focussed on economic impacts and what you're trying to do is to create a workforce to support an industry and that is what, quite frankly, one of the driving forces for the legislation.

The legislature wants to create an environment in the state where we can build wind turbines within reason, within a regulatory framework, but we can also then go and create some jobs and economic development around this burgeoning industry.

So, having said all of that, I have taken, uh, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, I've put together a framework, it is a straw proposal, it is not going to be the final product of this group, but what I've tried to do is capture what I think I heard last week.

And I will tell you that everybody around this table will find something that they disagree with and somethings that you disagree with vehemently. What I tried to do is listen carefully and understand where the council members are and put together a framework that we can shoot at.

I hope you don't shoot at me. You can shoot at the proposal. Because what I'm really trying to do is move the debate forward. We've struggled for the last couple of weeks about how to move forward.

And I think as a group we need to, you know, roll up our sleeves and let's start taking a look at the issues and figure out where this council is.

I would suspect that there will be--- we'll have to have some votes. Just listening to the conversation I think we're going to have to have the group-- I think we're going to have to make some votes.

I also believe-- and you will see in what I'm going to hand out here-- that there's a lot that there's already relative consensus. A tweak here and there but there are some aspects of this rule that already have a significant amount of consensus.

But there are going to be those areas, primarily the areas that we talked about last week and this week where there's going to be a difference of opinion and as a group we're going to have to work through those.

So, having said that, I'm going to hand this out and put on my bullet proof vest.

[Pause while Ebert goes around the room to hand the straw rules to each council member]

What I would suggest is that we spend, that I spend just a few minutes going through it. And I'm going to jump over the areas of consensus pretty quickly but I think if council members could look a that and just identify those areas where they are concerned that there may not be consensus and let me know. Actually, probably let Deb know just to make sure we're complying with all of our rules and guidelines for us.

But what I tried to do is, based on all of the issues in the draft rule, identify those areas where I think, you know, again, there might be a tweak here or there but there is general consensus of the group. And part of that is just driven by focus and attention of the council members so there might be some here where I have, where we haven't had a chance to get to it yet or other things, so I just ask you to look through that and let Deb know if in fact those areas are in fact pretty close to consensus.

And then it's actually on page three [AUDIO DROPS OUT OF PSC BROADCAST]

[RESUMES SOME MOMENTS LATER] Have on-going responsibility. Just based on what we have before us today I think the setback is 1.1 times the height. But I also, and Larry, in deference to the possibility [AUDIO DROPS OUT]

[RESUMES] I think the council should revisit the 1.1 [AUDIO DROPS OUT]

[RESUMES] the conversation that this group has had but there is a clear difference around the issues related to those small projects and the larger projects and so I would propose that that's where this group start the debate and the discussion.

On noise standard I am persuaded that setting a numeric target is the right protection for particularly non participating landowners. You set it at 1200 feet or 1500 feet you may or may not capture the decibel levels. So I am suggesting what this group do is focus on a policy framework not a setback number around a noise.

And I'm persuaded by what we have heard and the conversation we have had that 45 decibels on a summer night, 50 decibels on a day and non summer night -- and I have to say I was very persuaded by our sound engineer, I mean we all wanted to hear from him.

And the impacts obviously will vary based on the house and insulation and topology and all those sort of things but 10 to 15 decibels below something measured outside is the right standard to end up with.

I would like to highlight at this point connection between the noise and I would also put shadow flicker in there with compensation.

I believe that part of the problem, and we heard it again today, with one of our folks, one of our witnesses here today, that the issue of non-compensation for non-participating landowners has been a significant contributor to the controversy around wind.

And I think for non-participating landowners and I would define that not as the entire area of a project but really those landowners that are adjacent to, and next to, and impacted by the placement of turbines,  that if--- I believe that one of the ways to level the playing field and to allow-- to not give-- to give a non-participating landowner more influence in the debate is to allow them to receive some compensation. And to allow a developer to negotiate with a non participating landowner in return for compensation. And I believe that will resolve many- the majority of the issues. It's not going to resolve them all, I recognize that, but I think tying-- setting what in effect are impacts that are more on the annoyance and impacting the value of a landowner.

Again, I'm not persuaded that the record supports health impacts the way that a health professional would define it.  So as I think about setting the setbacks and the perimeters it's really about what is the minimal protection for particularly non participating landowners.

To set clear standards, to set what I believe are reasonable standards, they are not perfect and they are not going to resolve every single one of the issues but I think they are clear and I think they set the benchmark and then allow a developer the ability to negotiate with that person and to compensate that person to waive some of these frameworks.

Around shadow-flicker, I think the maximum shadow flicker experience at a non-participating residence should be set at 25 hours per year. We should use computer modeling to really try to as best we can estimate that. And that any non-participating residence who can show that they get more than 20 hours of shadow flicker per year automatically are eligible for mitigation.

I think, again, what we want to do is set up a transparent process. You, as a non-participating landowner may receive up to 25 hours per year. If you get more than 20 you do get mitigation, that is your right.

Again, I think individual landowners can waive those for compensation.

On signal interference, I'm persuaded that you're impacting the quality of life, you're not impacting them for a year, your impacting them for the duration that they are there. So I am persuaded that the developer should remedy television, radio, and cellular telephone interference for the life of the wind energy system. I'm open to for the life of the wind energy system and for the duration that they are at that residence.

I think, you know, a new-- somebody buying the property, coming in, probably would have the-- would understand that goes with it--- I think that's open to debate and conversation.

On the notification requirements, I really sort of struggled with this because I understand Tom and other's point about , you know, we should really let the community know as soon as possible.

But I think the balance that I tried to strike here is we should also allow the free enterprise system and an entrepenuer to have some conversations, develop a project, start developing a project, but once that entity understands that there is going to be a project that they give 180 days before the application goes in or before construction begins as the case may be.

I believe that's the right balance that should be struck on the notification requirements. And again, on a small wind energy system, I think 90 days before a project-- as a practical matter, if I'm going to put up a small project on my property I'm probably going to be talking to my neighbors before I get to that point.

I also struggled quite a bit on complaint resolution because I am inclined in this area to be a little bit more prescriptive. But, in-- I mentioned in the beginning the balance, leveling the playing field. I think reasonable efforts on the part of the developer to establish a complaint resolution process and to work with the local government to work through these.

And I think it's a common sense. And Andy I think, I really in particular have valued your expertise and guidance throughout this process because I think that as a company and I think that other council members recognize that, you guys have done a pretty good job of striking this balance and so I was persuaded on the complaint resolution process that that is valuable but I'm also hesitant to prescribe a particular solution because I think every community is different, every developer is different, and it should really be, you know, an honest effort between the local government and the developers to set up that complaint resolution process.

So I think to have the rules say you guys should do this without prescribing a particular solution is the best way to proceed.

Again, this is an area where the wind siting council on an ongoing basis could revisit this and wether or not there are good faith efforts being made by developers and by local governments to try to resolve-- to create a process to resolve and work through these complaints.

Again I think, similar to the compensation, I think this process, if developers had used this process I believe an overwhelming majority of the complaints could have been resolved and could have been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. But there wasn't a tradition. There wasn't a history of doing this.

So, on the wind lease and easements, and decommissioning, you will note that I tracked pretty closely to the draft rule. I believe the rules probably came out pretty close in that area.

This is a straw proposal. It's designed to prompt what I am confident will be a vigorous debate and discussion. Just to have a framework out there to shoot at.

WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING TOMORROW

Wednesday, June 9, 2010, at starting at 9AM

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 9:00. CLICK HERE to visit the PSC website, click on the button on the left that says "Live Broadcast". Sometimes the meetings don't begin right on time. The broadcasts begin when the meetings do so keep checking back if you don't hear anything at the appointed start time.

WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA?

1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda

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

3) Presentations: Property Values

a. Kurt Kielisch, Appraisal Group One
b. Eric Corroy, Zoning Administrator, Red River Township
c. Joe Jerabek, Zoning Administrator & Assessor, Lincoln Township (invited)
d. Representative, Action Appraisers (invited)

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

a. Statutory interpretation
b. Enforcement
c. Commission rulemaking authority
d. Notice requirements
e. Emergency services
f. Vestas manual reference
g. Decommissioning
h. Stray voltage
i. Complaint resolution
j. Commission noise measurement protocol
5) Discuss Council’s recommendations on topics covered by the draft rules
6) Next steps/Discussion of next meeting’s time, place and agenda

7) 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.

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT'S ON THE DOCKET?

This from a resident of Brown County

I do completely agree with the realtors on the counsel that the developers need to be licensed and there needs to be a "truth in wind development" requirement.

We agreed to run a buried cable, not a turbine. It was never disclosed that by signing a cable easement we were also allowing a turbine to be placed right up to our property line, and that a turbine could be placed 500 feet from our home.

We would have never agreed to this if it was truthfully disclosed.

-- Curt Hilgenberg, Greenleaf Wisconsin

Dear PSC Commissioners and Wind Siting Counsel members;

I`d like to share my experience with a wind developer in hopes of helping future land owners.

My wife and I looked into small wind turbines for several years, but could never cost justify buying one. The payback period was always longer that the life expectancy of the turbines. When I read about a proposed wind project in my area, I called the developer to find out about hosting a turbine on our land. I though, this is great, I can do my part for renewable energy.

When we learned about the size of the turbines, we realized that there was no where on our 35 acres where I could host a turbine and not impact my neighbors, so we decided against it. We also were worried about how a 400 foot turbine would negatively affect property values and the ability to sell our home if needed.

After over a year of hearing almost nothing about the project we got a call about running a buried collector cable through our land. We again decided against it. After several more phone calls, we reluctantly agreed to sign a buried cable easement.

We were given the pitch that they are going to be built with or without our participation so we may as well benefit financially from it. We were promised that the cable would be run along the lot line where it would have minimal impact.

Again we did this to help the project and to do our part for renewable energy.

After another year hearing nothing from the developer (we did attend the only public information session hosted by the developer but were told everything is still being designed yet, they have don`t have any details) we learned what the plan was for our property.

We found out about it on the PSC application, the developer never discussed anything with us. The plan was to run a high voltage cable through our front yard between our house and barn which are about 100 feet apart. This high voltage line was going to run right through our electric supply line, our well water line and our septic system.

It was going to cross 3 fence lines, take a right turn in the middle of our horse pasture and then cross another fence line. Hardly the low impact we were promised.

The really baffling part of this is that there was an alternate path between the 2 turbines they are trying to connect that was almost a straight line on vacant land. This path was not through our property, but was through other properties already under easement. Instead the developer chose a path that was about twice as long and had much more negative impact.

Once you sign an easement agreement, the developer holds all the cards.

They can legally place turbines, collector lines, and access roads anywhere on the property under easement.

I would like to see the process changed to require landowner approval after the land usage is determined. The contract agreement should be a separate event from the easement filing with the county.

If the developer`s plan is materially different from what was discussed and promised, the easement could not be filed and the contract would be voided. This would ensure that the developer would keep their promises and keep the land owner involved in any changes, or the land owner could opt out.

In our case, the developer did not do what was promised. They have since verbally said they would move the line, but we have seen no evidence of it.

We have become so disgusted at the misstatements, omissions, and lack of communication that we no longer want to be part of the project. We returned our un-cashed easement check (we were waiting to cash it until we saw that the plan for our land was acceptable and as discussed) to the developer and asked to be released from the contract and easement.

They simply said no.

We hired an attorney to work out a release. They again said no and reminded us of that our contract had a confidentiality clause.

I`m not implying that all wind developers will look you in the eye and lie to you. I`m sure that some work with the landowners for the benefit of both parties. These reputable developers should not have an issue with a 2 step easement because they are treating the land owner as a partner.

I do completely agree with the realtors on the counsel that the developers need to be licensed and there needs to be a "truth in wind development" requirement. We agreed to run a buried cable, not a turbine.

It was never disclosed that by signing a cable easement we were also allowing a turbine to be placed right up to our property line, and that a turbine could be placed 500 feet from our home. We would have never agreed to this if it was truthfully disclosed. This is plain and simply WRONG!

A developer has an unfair advantage. They work with these contracts on a regular basis. The land owner, probably only once in a lifetime.

The process is broken. It needs to be fixed and regulated.

 Curt Hilgenberg

Greenleaf, Wisconsin.

This from Kevin Kawula, a prairie conservationist from Rock County, Wisconsin

To the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Commission Staff, and Wind Siting Council Members,

I ask that no CPCN be granted by the PSCW for any Industrial Wind Facility, or Industrial Wind Project, until health and safety standards for people and wildlife can be established by the Wind Siting Council, and a more responsible, ethical, and equitable joint development model can be created for a state natural resource, the wind.

The Commission`s draft safety setback of 1,250 feet, from a non-participating residence, and a nighttime noise level of 45 Dba, are insufficient to protect Wisconsin citizens` health. These setbacks put rural Wisconsin citizens at risk from unsafe industrial wind development.

Wind developers are in Wisconsin to do business, and make money. They are offering the minimum in cooperation, compassion, and compensation, and are expecting the greatest of windfalls. The electric utilities by law are guaranteed a profit.

The question is how much are the utilities allowed to profit over a community's health and safety from a "free" resource. A "greater benefit" to society, the state, is often the justification. The wind developers hope it is so. It is the PSCW`s responsibility to prove the case for such a takings from the commons.

I, as a tax-paying citizen, am asking the PSCW, as an appointed government body, to tell wind developers and the utilities, that Wisconsin and its citizens deserve better. Better safety setbacks, better operating parameters, and better cost and profit sharing for the exploitation of a state natural resource.

It is alarming that the PSCW would consider and approve a CPCN for WEPCO`s Glacier Hills with the same inadequate safety setbacks, before it has established the rules for siting wind facilities in Wisconsin through the Wind Siting Council, as required by the recently passed Wind Siting Reform Law.

There are known and admitted problems with industrial scale wind turbines. Nighttime noise and sleep deprivation are the prime concerns for Wisconsin`s rural residents.

The need for nighttime industrial wind generation profits, over a citizens right to healthful sleep, needs to be addressed by the PSCW prior to granting of any CPCN any industrial wind facility.

Bat deaths and wildlife displacement also need to be addressed responsibly.

Wind developers and utilities are trying to side-step the very real health concerns (Dr. McFadden`s `partial overview` presentation to the Wind Siting Council fits in here!), community, and environmental impacts of industrial wind facilities by dazzling the Wind Siting Council, Commission, and citizenry with RPS claims, shared revenue numbers, and promised jobs.

RPS CLAIMS

Wind developers and utilities can assure the PSCW of an industrial wind facility`s RPS qualifications when it resolves to close down an appropriate coal burning facility.

The PSCW can determine the value of an industrial wind facility either through the CPCN permit (x amount MW coal facility), the installed nameplate capacity of an industrial wind facility (1-200 MW, as proposed, of coal generation), or actual industrial wind facility generation.

(The Governor`s Task Force on Global Warming is hoping that Wisconsin wind facilities will achieve 29% of their nameplate capacity, but numbers in Wisconsin wind facilities are currently lower at 25% of nameplate capacity) This would help the PSCW achieve true RPS goals of reduced fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

If the inclusion of industrial wind nameplate capacity is allowed by the PSCW factoring towards achieving Wisconsin`s utilities RPS goals without tying that industrial wind nameplate to the equivalent reduction of coal generation, then the RPS is hollow and without value.

All understand the intermittency of industrial wind generation. All understand the responsibilities of base load generation towards the dependability of a transmission/distribution electrical grid.

If industrial wind facilities do not reduce the need for nighttime base load generation, due to their intermittency or lack of need for additional generation, then are industrial wind facilities reducing CO2 emissions?

The answer is no.

If the economic benefits of nighttime generation are necessary to the wind industry, despite the lack of emission reductions, then why is the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPS) so intent on building additional transmission lines up to Manitoba Hydro reservoirs north of Winnipeg Canada?

According to Roy Thilly (WPPI), the Co-Chairperson of The Governor`s Task Force on Global Warming, transmission lines built up to Manitoba Hydro reservoirs would allow WPS to store the nighttime wind generation it currently has to sell at a loss to get it on the grid at night.

Manitoba Hydro would charge for this service, but it would prevent WPS from having to sell nighttime wind generation at a loss.

SHARED REVENUES?

Lets look at some of the revenue numbers surrounding the WEPCO, Glacier Hills Wind Facility.

WEPCO plans to construct 90 1.8MW wind turbines for an installed capacity of 162MW of renewable energy, Columbia County would receive $378,000 per year, the Town of Scott $108,000, and the Town of Randolph $180,000, for a total of $666,000 per year, or $4,111 per MW of installed nameplate capacity.

Not bad? What is the source of these shared revenues? WEPCO income, profits, or a rate tax mechanism?

How much profit does WEPCO hope to make? A bunch.

In July 2009, the U.S. Treasury Department began to accept applications for renewable energy projects cash grants of up to 30% in lieu of Investment Tax Credits (ITCs).

Regardless of the price tag WEPCO is certain to write off the cost of the project against its earnings over the next 5 to 6 years. So the cost, $335 million to $413 million, is shouldered by the taxpayers.

Up to 30% up front, the remainder through annual depreciation written off against WEPCO Glacier Hill earnings, and any depreciation balance transferable to other WEPCO earnings.

WEPCO potential earnings at Glacier Hills can be calculated as follows: Each 1.8MW wind turbine, generating at 29% efficiency, and selling the generation at 7 cents a kilowatt hour (kwh), would earn WEPCO $365,400 per turbine per year.

Green tags/Green credits, sold at 2 cents a kwh, would generate an additional $104,400 per turbine per year. There is also the Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC), at 2 cents per kwh that would also be worth $104,400 per turbine per year in additional write offs.

The 90 turbines of Glacier Hills together could earn $42,282,000 per year, with a PTC worth $9,396,000.

So to recap WEPCO through Glacier Hills could see $42,282,000 in gross income per year, while Columbia County, and the Towns of Randolph and Scott could see $666,000 per year. Fair? Just? Equitable?

How much will the State of Wisconsin generate in tax revenues from Glacier Hills?

Another case study of industrial wind facility shared revenues can be found with MG&E and Wave Wind LLC. Wave Wind LLC was recently in the papers seeking 8 cents per kwh for it`s proposed industrial wind project`s generation, but MG&E was only offering 2.9 cents per kwh, due to having met it`s RPS requirements.

If Wave Wind LLC were to get 8 cents per kwh along with green credits at 2 cents per kwh, that means a 1.5 MW wind turbine operating at 29% efficiency would generate $435,000, $375,000 at 25% efficiency, while the county would receive $4,000 and township $2,000.

JOBS

We as a state or nation can subsidize any industry we choose. For an industry to try to hold a community, state, or country hostage over the promise of `JOBS` is ridiculous in this day and age. We see it all the time however, as community`s vie for the worse business deal to lure a temporary industry. Choose any green industry and the `Jobs` argument fades quickly.


CONCLUSION:

STATE NATURAL RESOURCE ALLOCATION REQUIREMENT FOR CPCN

Since we, Wisconsin citizens, are paying for these industrial wind projects, and that profits made from our shared natural resources must be distributed equitably, wind project developers need to be more open and generous with its profit sharing potential of our shared natural resources.

The PSCW needs to provide improved oversight so that the industrial wind industry`s business drive does not jeopardize any Wisconsin citizens` quality of life.

Wind proponents like to stress that the wind is "free". Utilities, like WEPCO, MG&E, etc. stand to profit exorbitantly from a "free" Wisconsin natural resource ($42,282,000 with Glacier Hills at 29% efficiency, $36,450,000 at 25% efficiency vs. $666,000 for Columbia County and the towns of Randolph and Scott regardless of generation efficiency) if our appointed government bodies, like the PSCW, do not allocate the natural resource, and its benefits, more equitably.

The primary PSCW CPCN reallocation requirement, for any industrial scale wind project, is the nighttime curtailment of industrial scale wind turbine operations, when the demand for electrical generation is low and covered by base load operations, and human health and safety impacts are high.

Nighttime curtailment will also eliminate unnecessary bat, and nocturnal migrating bird mortalities.

Industrial scale wind developers, in the Glacier Hills case WEPCO, often make payments in lieu of taxes, to communities and governments. Nighttime curtailment, as a CPCN required reallocation of a state natural resource, is an improvement on this model, and would benefit the hosting communities by removing an unnecessary health impact at no expense to WEPCO.

If the wind is truly free then the PSCW should not hold Wisconsin communities, homes, and citizens accountable for profit forecasts made to WEPCO shareholders for a natural resource they do not own.

This is much more equitable than a response to non-hosting residents found in a partial review of the PSCW`s EIS on Glacier Hills states in, Property Values, 5.10.2, p.85, "Another method that could mitigate potential impacts to non-host residences is a property value protection plan.

This type of a plan provides property owners with certain assurance that they will receive "fair market value" for their eligible properties upon sale. Since 1997, this type of agreement has been implemented between the Onyx Glacier Ridge Landfill and the town of Williamstown, city of Mayville, and Dodge County. Fair market value is determined by a state-licensed appraiser. The plan identifies the properties covered by the agreement, the party responsible for paying for the property appraisals, and the method for compensating affected property owners."

The fact that the PSCW uses landfill mitigation as a way of addressing wind project impacts, should raise concerns with every rural land owner, and state politician.

Wind Turbine Projects = Sanitary Landfills ...as far as home and property values are concerned.

The PSCW can correct these errors. Wisconsin deserves responsible policy makers who care about all of Wisconsin`s citizens, not just those who are paid to shape public policy, and create short sighted legislation.

Respectfully submitted,

Kevin A. Kawula,