Better Plan, Wisconsin

Butler Ridge Project, Dodge County WIsconsin-- home of the 1000 foot setback

WIND WARS: HOW CLOSE IS TOO CLOSE?

SOURCE: The Republican Eagle, www.republican-eagle.com

October 20n2010

By Eric Ludy,

With high transmission capacity and adequate wind levels, southeastern Minnesota is poised to be one of the next hot spots for wind development, according to wind resource analysts.

“Almost all the way across is very good,” said Dan Turner, an analyst with Windustry, a Minneapolis-based wind advocacy group.

But as large-scale wind development moves from places like the sparsely populated Buffalo Ridge in Minnesota’s southwest corner to more densely settled areas like Goodhue County, what sorts of problems develop? Are people willing to live among wind turbines?

That question has taken on special bearing in Goodhue County, where the proposed Goodhue Wind project has sparked two years of heated public meetings. Opponents of the project say the 50 400-foot tall turbines would be sited too close to many neighboring homes.

Developers have countered that they have voluntarily agreed to 1,500-foot setbacks from homeowners not participating in their project, above the state-mandated 750 feet.

Both supporters and opponents are expected to make one final case to state regulators Thursday in St. Paul as the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission decides on the fate of the project.

Living in the shadow

Among those there will be Rep. Tim Kelly, R-Red Wing, and Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa. In a recent letter, they called on Gov. Tim Pawlenty to speak out against the Goodhue Wind project, arguing that the region’s dense settlement and topography make it unsuitable for large wind development.

Those opposed to the project would be forced to “live within its shadow” against their will, they wrote.

In an interview with the R-E Monday, Kelly argued that the state takes a “cookie cutter” approach to the permitting of large wind projects, ignoring regional differences.

“They’ve already developed on the best areas,” he said. “Now, we’re encroaching on spaces that are maybe higher in population density.”

To correct the issue, he’s seeking legislation that would give increased control over permitting to local government bodies like townships and counties.

But not all area legislators agree.

Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, said that giving too much control to local governments would result in hodgepodge development that limits the state’s ability to meet renewable energy goals. The state adopted a “25 percent by 2025″ green energy goal in 2007.

He argued that under safe setbacks, people in more densely settled areas could and should be able to live near wind turbines.

“I actually think it’s a good thing that we’re trying to develop wind in places where we need the electricity,” he said.

‘Issue of annoyance’

As wind development has accelerated across the state — capacity jumped from 273 megawatts to 1,810 from 1999 to 2009 — state officials have struggled to come up with clear answers to questions about the impacts of wind turbines on people living within their footprint.

In early 2009, the state Office of Energy Security responded to concerns about the proposed Lakeswind Wind Power Plant in northwest Minnesota by commissioning a “white paper” from the Minnesota Department of Health evaluating possible health effects of wind turbines.

The report, titled “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines” and conducted by MDH toxicologists Carl Herbrandson and Rita Messing, found that annoyance from noise levels and “shadow flicker,” caused when turbine blades spin in front of the sun, were the biggest complaints from people living near the towers.

“It really is, in a lot of ways, an issue of complaints, an issue of annoyance,” Herbrandson told the R-E Tuesday.

He said people generall start complaining about noise around 35 to 45 decibels, comparable to a humming refrigerator.

According to noise models conducted by National Wind, the company that manages Goodhue Wind, 12 percent of the 482 homes in or near the project area would see noise levels between 40 and 45 decibels under “worst-case” conditions.

Ultimately, Herbrandson said, complaints are subjective and rely on a variety of factors, particularly if an individual is participating in a project or not. He said complaints tend to reduce with distance from turbines.

“As you move away from it, there’s a place where that stops. And that’s going to be a different place for everybody,” he said.

Conflicting opinions

Supporters and opponents of the project are, predictably, divided on the health impacts.

National Wind senior wind developer Chuck Burdick said that annoyances have been reported, but aren’t any more severe than those associated with feedlots or other agricultural uses.

The company develops projects as far east as Ohio and has heard few complaints, he said.

He equated public criticism of the Goodhue Wind project over the past two years to “misinformation and fear.”

“The kinds of worst-case scenarios that opponents present are simply not represented by community’s experiences around the country,” he said.

Opponents, however, have repeatedly argued that Goodhue County’s population is simply too dense to support the scale of wind development Goodhue Wind proposes.

Marie McNamara of Belle Creek Township said the large towers would clearly affect the quality of life of her family and others living throughout the project’s area.

“They do affect people, and people don’t want to live with them,” she said.

SECOND FEATURE:

HOT AIR? WHITE HOUSE TAKES CREDIT FOR BUSH ERA-WIND FARMS

Administration claims 50,000 jobs created, but many projects were completed before funds were handed out

SOURCE: MSNBC.COM

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is crediting its anti-recession stimulus plan with creating up to 50,000 jobs on dozens of wind farms, even though many of those wind farms were built before the stimulus money began to flow or even before President Barack Obama was inaugurated.

Out of 70 major wind farms that received the $4.4 billion in federal energy grants through the stimulus program, public records show that 11, which received a total of $600 million, erected their wind towers during the Bush administration. And a total of 19 wind farms, which received $1.3 billion, were built before any of the stimulus money was distributed. ( See a list of the projects here.)

Yet all the jobs at these wind farms are counted in the administration's figures for jobs created by the stimulus.

In testimony to Congress earlier this year, the Department of Energy's senior adviser on the stimulus plan, Matt Rogers, touted the wind farm program for creating as many as 50,000 jobs. He acknowledges that these figures were provided by a wind industry trade and lobbying group. The trade group, in turn, cites a government study, which found that most of the jobs are short term.

The Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University fact-checked that claim, using the federal government's own documents. Not only were 19 of the wind farms already in place before the first stimulus payments were made, but 14 of them were already sending electricity to the grid.

First comes the project, later the stimulus
Here's how we checked the administration's claim: Wind towers are tall — hundreds of feet tall — making them dangerous to low-flying planes. The Federal Aviation Administration requires every structure over 200 feet to be recorded in a database, including the date each structure was built. We reviewed these records filed by the wind farms that received stimulus grants. We also checked records kept by utility regulators, showing when wind farms began producing electricity.

In western New York, for example, in the hills near the economically hard-hit cities of Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo, the Canandaigua Wind Farm could have created the sort of green-collar jobs that the Obama administration promised would be generated by the stimulus package. The feathery blades of the farm's 88 gigantic turbines reach more than 400 feet in the air. Each turbine contains 8,000 components and is almost as sophisticated as a jet engine. Hundreds of construction workers were needed to haul and erect the steel towers, each weighing hundreds of tons.

The wind farm was built in two phases. The developer, First Wind, received a total of $61.8 million in stimulus grants on Sept. 1, 2009, when the administration began rolling out money for the program. But FAA records indicate both were completed at least 15 months earlier — by May 20, 2008.

There are other examples.

In the coal country of eastern Pennsylvania, FAA records show, the last turbine on the 51-turbine Locust Ridge II wind farm in Mahanoy City, Pa., was erected on Jan. 1, 2009, the first day a project could be eligible for a stimulus grant. But the other 50 turbines were built in 2008 — 31 of them before Obama was elected. The farm's developer, Iberdrola Renewables, the subsidiary of a Spanish utility, collected $59.1 million in stimulus money.

High above the rolling plains southeast of Lubbock, Texas, the 166-turbine Pyron Wind Farm represents the new wave of American wind farm development. In the heart of the country's "wind belt," it's far larger and more labor intensive than the projects in Pennsylvania and New York. German developer E.On Climate and Renewables estimated that 620 construction jobs were created, and on Sept. 22, 2009, the project received $121.9 million in stimulus money. FAA records show the last tower had been built on Dec. 11, 2008.

The program, known as the Section 1603, reimburses developers of renewable energy facilities, such as wind and solar farms, up to 30 percent of the project's cost. Applicants need only prove they built the facility and are automatically awarded the money. Unlike other stimulus programs, the wind farms aren't judged on job creation or required to abide by "Buy American" clauses. The money also comes with virtually no strings, and there is no obligation to reinvest it.

Administration officials and the companies did not dispute that much of the work on the wind farms occurred in late 2008 or early 2009, but said the stimulus money was vital for creating jobs down the line. Even if the wind farms that received the grants had been completed, they said, the money was vital to ensure that the next generation of wind power plants is built.

As the stimulus program continues to be hotly debated on the campaign trail, the Obama administration's record of touting all these grants for creating "real jobs" continues.

"These programs were particularly effective in getting money out the door quickly to put people back to work on great projects that would otherwise have been idled in the face of the Great Recession," Matt Rogers, the Department of Energy's senior adviser on stimulus, testified to Congress in April of this year. At other points in his written testimony, Rogers said the Section 1603 program was responsible for "50,000 additional jobs in 2009."

In an interview in late September, however, Rogers did not dispute the records showing that a large portion of work on many projects was completed before 2009. But he defended the grant program as a vital tool to ensure the recipients continued to invest in wind farms in the United States.

"With the first set of projects that were done before the passage of the Recovery Act — in almost every case, what they did was reinvest in the next set of projects," Rogers said. "Because we now have a set of incentives, project developers and sponsors are reinvesting in the U.S. market, instead of seeing a lot of that money go to other places. That's one of the most exciting parts of the job creation story."

Because of the way the law was written, the Section 1603 grant program has no language requiring that recipients reinvest their grant money in the United States. Rogers said he was basing his claim on the fact that many companies have reported to the administration that they reinvested their grants in future wind projects in the U.S.

Most of the job gains are short term, study finds
Although the administration has described 50,000 new jobs, Rogers, when pressed, speaks of 40,000 to 50,000 jobs being created, saved or supported. He said these figures were provided by the American Wind Energy Association, an industry lobbying group. In February, for example, that group said, "Were it not for the Recovery Act, we estimated a loss of as much as 40,000 jobs."

The association, in turn, cites a study by the Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which estimated that the grant program supported more than 51,600 short-term jobs during the construction phase, the equivalent of that many people working full time for one year, and an additional 3,860 long-term full-time jobs. The study assumed that all the projects finished in the first half of 2009 were not caused by the stimulus. ( Read the study here.)

When the wind association and the Obama administration cite such figures as 50,000 jobs, however, they don't mention that the study found that most were short-term jobs.

Since it gave out its first grants on Sept. 1, 2009, the renewable energy stimulus program has handed out more than $5 billion to more than 1,100 projects, many of them small solar-energy projects. The largest amount of money, $4.4 billion, has gone to big wind farms.

The Investigative Reporting Workshop previously reported that the majority of the money was going to foreign-owned developers, and that the majority of turbines being installed were built by foreign-owned manufacturers. ( Read those stories here.) The Treasury Department has rejected Freedom of Information requests by the Investigative Reporting Workshop seeking grant applications, citing trade secrets.

Only one of the companies identified by the Investigative Reporting Workshop as having finished construction on a project before Jan. 1, 2009, disputed the date its turbines were listed as built. The FAA records show that the final turbine on the Wheat Field wind farm in Gilliam County, Ore., was built on Nov. 10, 2008. But in a statement, Horizon said construction on the project began in September 2008 and the first turbine wasn't "mechanically completed" until Feb. 2, 2009. In the statement, Horizon said the FAA information was filed in February 2008, and the November 2008 date was only an estimate to make sure the FAA had the structure on its maps by the time the tower was built.

Power generated during Bush administration
The Investigative Reporting Workshop also reviewed publicly available data on each wind project's electrical generation. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission keeps records of nearly all commercial energy transactions — recording the time, quantity of power, price and total cost of the transaction.

The records show that at least 11 wind farms were generating at least some electricity and selling it into the grid by March 1, days after the stimulus bill was passed in late February. And 14 wind farms were generating electricity and selling it into the grid by the time the stimulus money was first given out in September 2009.

For example, the Locust Ridge II wind project, in Pennsylvania, first sold electricity to PJM Interconnect on Oct. 24, 2008, at 11 a.m. Between Oct. 24 and Dec. 31, 2008, the holding company that owns the facility sold 687.6 megawatt/hours of electricity to PJM, charging a total of $32,788.

Paul Copelman, a spokesman for Iberdrola, said the Locust Ridge II wind farm wasn't in full commercial operation until March 2009. The electricity generated in 2008 was the result of testing, he said.

How they qualified
These wind farms qualified for the stimulus grants for two reasons.

First, the stimulus bill allowed a wind farm to qualify if it was "placed in service" on or after Jan. 1, 2009. The money didn't start flowing until Sept. 1, 2009, so it was inevitable there would be payments for work previously done, particularly for large wind farms that can take years to develop. To get the money, these companies didn't have to create new jobs; they just filled out an application after the fact.

Second, "placed in service" has a peculiar meaning. Generally, it means a piece of equipment, like a wind turbine, is ready to be used for the purpose it was intended. But, when a developer finishes building the tower and attaching all the parts — the labor intensive part of the process where most jobs are created — there are several more steps, including testing and installing the equipment that regulates the flow of electricity and feeds it into the grid, before it is deemed "in service."

In the operation of other federal incentive programs for wind energy, each turbine in a large wind farm is evaluated individually before being "placed in service." However, under the Section 1603 program, tax attorneys and the companies contacted by the Investigative Reporting Workshop said that developers were allowed to count all of their turbines on a wind farm as one. In other words, what counted was when the last turbine was "placed in service," and the whole farm was ready to operate at full capacity.

Tax attorney Jeffrey G. Davis, a Washington partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, where he specializes in representing renewable energy firms, said it's not uncommon for a wind farm to generate electricity — and even sell it — before being "placed in service." Wind farms may need to start turbines and generate electricity to test them or prove viability for commercial production.

In addition, all the wind farms contacted stressed that the process of qualifying a wind farm as "placed in service" involves a number of steps, like testing and building associated transformers and transmission equipment. Iberdrola also noted that it was required to submit third-party certification of the "placed in service" date.

Rogers, the Energy official, said that some of the wind farms cited by the Investigative Reporting Workshop could have been left half-built during the recession, but that once Obama was elected in November 2008, developers decided to finish the work in hopes of a stimulus package. When pressed for examples, Rogers declined to name any projects.

"It's a question you've asked; I've answered. It's an incredibly successful program," Rogers said.

Several of the companies contacted by the Investigative Reporting Workshop said they had considered halting construction during the recession. These include Iberdrola, which considered halting construction on half of its projects, spokesman Paul Copelman said, regardless of how far along they were in the construction process. And E.ON Climate and Renewables said it had considered halting the giant Pyron Wind Farm in Texas, which was substantially constructed in 2008. Neither company ultimately halted construction.

When asked how to reconcile claims from the administration that the jobs associated with these projects were a result of the stimulus — even though the work was done months before the stimulus was passed — Rogers did not offer a direct response.

"I think it's the simplest thing. You can talk to the 40[,000] to 50,000 people who have been working on these projects since they were passed," he said, "and ask if they are pleased."

The Investigative Reporting Workshop is a professional journalism center in the School of Communication at American University in Washington. More about the program.

Russ Choma is a Washington reporter who writes frequently about climate and energy issues, transportation and stimulus spending. His previous articles on the wind farms grant program are here.

Residents in this Ontario Community had problems getting into a public meeting about a proposed wind farm in their community unless they agreed to give their names to wind developers who hired local police to help with enforcement.

Below, a news story on what happened once the meeting got started.

With new wind siting rules in the state of Wisconsin that will overturn local ordinances created to protect residents in rural communities, will scenes like these soon take place in our state?

SECOND FEATURE: WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS

FOR THOSE NEAR, THE MISERABLE HUM OF CLEAN ENERGY

SOURCE: The New York Times

October 5, 2010

By Tom Zeller, Jr

VINALHAVEN, Me. — Like nearly all of the residents on this island in Penobscot Bay, Art Lindgren and his wife, Cheryl, celebrated the arrival of three giant wind turbines late last year. That was before they were turned on.

“In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” Mr. Lindgren said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.”

Now, the Lindgrens, along with a dozen or so neighbors living less than a mile from the $15 million wind facility here, say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life in this otherwise tranquil corner of the island unbearable.

They are among a small but growing number of families and homeowners across the country who say they have learned the hard way that wind power — a clean alternative to electricity from fossil fuels — is not without emissions of its own.

Lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property value have cropped up in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, among other states. In one case in DeKalb County, Ill., at least 38 families have sued to have 100 turbines removed from a wind farm there. A judge rejected a motion to dismiss the case in June.

Like the Lindgrens, many of the people complaining the loudest are reluctant converts to the antiwind movement.

“The quality of life that we came here for was quiet,” Mrs. Lindgren said. “You don’t live in a place where you have to take an hour-and-15-minute ferry ride to live next to an industrial park. And that’s where we are right now.”

The wind industry has long been dogged by a vocal minority bearing all manner of complaints about turbines, from routine claims that they ruin the look of pastoral landscapes to more elaborate allegations that they have direct physiological impacts like rapid heart beat, nausea and blurred vision caused by the machines’ ultra-low-frequency sound and vibrations.

For the most extreme claims, there is little independent backing.

Last year, the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, along with its Canadian counterpart, assembled a panel of doctors and acoustical professionals to examine the potential health impacts of wind turbine noise. In a paper published in December, the panel concluded that “there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.”

A separate study financed by the Energy Department concluded late last year that, in aggregate, property values were unaffected by nearby wind turbines.

Numerous studies also suggest that not everyone will be bothered by turbine noise, and that much depends on the context into which the noise is introduced. A previously quiet setting like Vinalhaven is more likely to produce irritated neighbors than, say, a mixed-use suburban setting where ambient noise is already the norm.

Of the 250 new wind farms that have come online in the United States over the last two years, about dozen or so have generated significant noise complaints, according to Jim Cummings, the founder of the Acoustic Ecology Institute, an online clearinghouse for information on sound-related environmental issues.

In the Vinalhaven case, an audio consultant hired by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection determined last month that the 4.5-megawatt facility was, at least on one evening in mid-July when Mr. Lindgren collected sound data, in excess of the state’s nighttime sound limits. The developer of the project, Fox Island Wind, has contested that finding, and negotiations with state regulators are continuing.

In the moonlit woods behind a neighbor’s property on a recent evening, Mr. Lindgren, a retired software engineer, clenched a small flashlight between his teeth and wrestled with a tangle of cables and audio recording equipment he uses to collect sound samples for filing complaints.

At times, the rustle of leaves was all that could be heard. But when the surface wind settled, a throbbing, vaguely jetlike sound cut through the nighttime air. “Right there,” Mr. Lindgren declared. “That would probably be out of compliance.”

Maine, along with many other states, puts a general limit on nighttime noise at 45 decibels — roughly equivalent to the sound of a humming refrigerator. A normal conversation is in the range of 50 to 60 decibels.

In almost all cases, it is not mechanical noise arising from the central gear box or nacelle of a turbine that residents react to, but rather the sound of the blades, which in modern turbines are mammoth steel appendages well over 100 feet long, as they slice through the air.

Turbine noise can be controlled by reducing the rotational speed of the blades. But the turbines on Vinalhaven already operate that way after 7 p.m., and George Baker, the chief executive of Fox Island Wind — a for-profit arm of the island’s electricity co-operative — said that turning the turbines down came at an economic cost.

“The more we do that, the higher goes the price of electricity on the island,” he said.

A common refrain among homeowners grappling with sound issues, however, is that they were not accurately informed about the noise ahead of time. “They told us we wouldn’t hear it, or that it would be masked by the sound of the wind blowing through the trees,” said Sally Wylie, a former schoolteacher down the road from the Lindgrens. “I feel duped.”

Similar conflicts are arising in Canada, Britain and other countries . An appeals court in Rennes, France, recently ordered an eight-turbine wind farm to shut down between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. so residents could get some sleep.

Richard R. James, an acoustic expert hired by residents of Vinalhaven to help them quantify the noise problem, said there was a simpler solution: do not put the turbines so close to where people live.

“It would seem to be time for the wind utility developers to rethink their plans for duplicating these errors and to focus on locating wind turbines in areas where there is a large buffer zone of about a mile and one-quarter between the turbines and people’s homes,” said Mr. James, the principal consultant with E-Coustic Solutions, based in Michigan.

Vinalhaven’s wind farm enjoys support among most residents, from ardent supporters of all clean energy to those who simply say the turbines have reduced their power bills. Deckhands running the ferry sport turbine pins on their hats, and bumper stickers seen on the island declare “Spin, Baby, Spin.”

“The majority of us like them,” said Jeannie Conway, who works at the island’s ferry office.

But that is cold comfort for Mrs. Lindgren and her neighbors, who say their corner of the island will never be the same.

“I remember the sound of silence so palpable, so merciless in its depths, that you could almost feel your heart stop in sympathy,” she said. “Now we are prisoners of sonic effluence. I grieve for the past.”

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

MADISON- Although requests for a full public hearing on the Public Service Commission's new wind siting rules have come from state senators and assembly members on both sides of the aisle, Senator Plale and Representative Soletski, the two legislators who will be making the decision, have yet to publicly announce their plans.

 An aide to Representative Soletski says the legislators have until October 14th to decide, and a hearing must take place within 30 days of the announcement.

TURBINE TALK

SOURCE: Milwaukee News Buzz, www.milwaukeenewsbuzz.com

September 28, 2010

Two state representatives from Northeast Wisconsin, Bob Ziegelbauer (I-Manitowoc) and Steve Kestell (R-Elkhart Lake), are insisting that the Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities hold a public hearing on rules governing the placement of wind turbines in the state before approving them.

The Assembly committee, along with the Senate Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail Committee, have final review of the rules, which were written this summer by the Public Service Commission and the Wind Siting Council, an advisory board.

The rules would set a statewide standard for regulations restricting the placement of wind turbines. Local governments could create rules less restrictive – but not more restrictive. The state rules would overrule some existing local ones that require longer setback distances from homes, for example.

Proponents say the development of wind energy in the state has become bogged down in local disputes. Opponents, however, say turbines generate relatively loud whooshing sounds and can disturb residents unless government rules prevent developers from placing them too close to homes. The rules passed the Siting Council 11-4 in August. Dissenters argued the rules were too lax.

“I have personally heard from many constituents as there are existing wind turbines in my district,” Kestell writes in a letter to State Rep. James Soletski (D-Green Bay), chairman of the assembly committee. “These are people with actual firsthand experience living with wind turbines and their perspective would be invaluable to committee members in deciding whether changes are warranted.”

In a similar letter, Ziegelbauer writes that the rules “will have lasting effects on many in our state.”

Northeast Wisconsin, particularly the Fond du Lac area, has become a focus for wind development in the state. According to a previous NewsBuzz story, although Wisconsin isn’t known for its wind resources, the state actually has more wind than others that have become leaders in wind power.

PSC COMMISSIONER'S OPENING REMARKS ON WIND RULES, AUGUST 19, 2010, open public meeting in Madison at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

 COMMISSIONER MEYER: Just on how we proceed with the wind siting question, given that we're going to take it up on Monday-- I guess I could do one of two things as we go on- what I'm prepared to do today was to sort of walk through each section and talk about changes that I think we should consider-- but think I'd like an opportunity sometime, whether it be today or Monday to maybe address more generally things like shadow flicker and setbacks--- I'm just wondering if you think that's more appropriate today or that's more appropriate Monday.

 CHAIRMAN CALLISTO: No, I—what we're talking about here is the wind siting rules- it's the next agenda item so in terms of process -- before we make any opening statements, if any-- this is clearly going to be a multiple day process so I'm comfortable with whatever you're comfortable with-- we can-- we're clearly going to have some discussion today about principles, we may have some discussion about the structure of the rule and I also I do have some red lines that I think are relatively minor or are so important that I think we should start thinking about them today in order to meet our very aggressive time line.

 So I was inclined to start walking through the rule and as major issues arise we can talk about them. If you have a different structure you are more comfortable I can do it that way as well.

MEYER I think-- I think I'm fine with that -- I think my thinking would be to just kind of walk through, see where you're at, see where you're at, you can see where I'm at see where I'm at--- but maybe the more generally speaking to -- you know--shadow flicker, noise or setbacks or things like that I think would want to understand better where I think the rule is going---

 CALLISTO Sure. Sure.

 [Speaking over each other-- inaudible]

 MEYER: ---- a work in progress

 CALLISTO: --- at least one more meeting, I would suspect.

 COMMISSIONER AZAR  Where I am, I've got-- I certainly have sort of discussions of the issues—but I have –again- put my lawyer hat on-- and literally have gone sentence by sentence and done a redline, I’m working with staff on where I think we can improve the rule.  So I’m not sure how you guys want to take those line by lines because that will take a long time and-

 CALLISTO: It will and that’s not—I don’t want to say it’s not workable – I mean—at-- at some level we to have to give the concepts to Deb – we’re going to have the [?] check off on the rule—not check off but after we get all these concepts to staff—which is going to evolve in our own---certainly in our own private space we’ll have walked through each of the lines and then we’re going to come back on that last day and see what’s there but ideally in this next meeting or two we can give them enough very clear guidance so that when we have that final presentation to us and we meet out here then it’s going to be nothing more than at that point, hopefully, fly-specking the rule.

AZAR: So Mr. Chairman are you recommending that I just give my word changes to staff and not raise them here?

CALLISTO If its--- I think we should discuss issues that are large here. If you have suggestions to staff I don’t think that violates any of our standing rules or obligations on minor word tweaks. That’s fine. I don’t know how you feel, Chairman Meyer.

MEYER Fine with that. My goal today would be to walk out of the room understanding the big changes that either of you want and you understand sort of the bigger changes that I would want, if there are smaller grammar kinds of things [inaudible] I’m not sure today’s the day for that.

CALLISTO Yeah, let’s see how far we get on that. It’s been a slow slog as I’ve gone through—and I’m sure you have so it may take us--   we may not get through the entire wind rule today.

 "There will be individuals who live close to exisiting and future wind farms who will disagree with these standards we set.  As I do in all siting decisions, I feel for these people, but I believe we will treat them fairly and balance their concerns with the state’s real and important drive to advance clean energy projects."

-PSC Chairman Eric Callisto

CALLISTO: [Reading] Opening statement. We are taking up the wind siting rules as I’ve noted in anticipation of approval and moving them to the legislature for review. 

 This has already been a wild ride and the commission hasn’t even weighed in. I want to thank all of those who helped to get us to this spot. First and foremost the wind siting council led by its Chair Dan Ebert and Vice Chair Doug Zweizig.

 The Council has met over 20 times during its short existence. It has debated all the relevant topics and from my perspective has provided a very valuable recommendation to the commission.

 My thanks as well to the hundreds of commentors who have shared their views with us.

 This rule making is unlike any I’ve every been involved with and the critical eye brought to its promulgation by citizens across the state and the country will make it a better product.

 Finally, my thanks to commission staff who have worked tirelessly in support of meeting the aggressive timeline I laid out for them. They have earned some rest but given how our discussion is going to go, they are not going to get it for a couple of days.

 [Laugher]

 CALLISTO: That the final Wind Council report was not a concensus document in every regard is not surprising. Nor has it diminished the value of their product. Were these issues so easy we would not have needed the passage of Act 40, a critically important mandate that took two legislative sessions and many modifications to pass.

 Were these issues so susceptible to easy resolution we would not see them recurring in every instance when wind siting is discussed regardless of the forum.

 They have been front and center and highly contested in decisions the commissioners made in every wind farm CPCN or CA.

 And were these issues so easy we would not have now before us a substantial amount of credible evidence that supports balance as we move forward.

 That balanced approach is often the hallmark of our best work here at the commission, and it surely will play a central role as we promulgate this rule.

 My balancing of the real issues at stake will be guided appropriately by the enabling statute. Act 40 laid out a clear mandate to this commission. It requires us to set statewide standards for these smaller projects to insure statewide uniformity and to insure that clean, valuable wind projects continue to be built in Wisconsin.

 The act puts a difficult but very important obligation on this commission. We are to create standards that by legislative design limit local government’s discretion. That is no easy pill for Wisconsin communities to swallow and I don’t take the responsibility lightly.

 But the legislature has determined, and I completely agree, this is an issue of statewide importance.

 In setting these standards we are not going to go as far as the wind advocates want, and we certainly will go farther than those who want to dramatically limit wind farm siting.

 There will be individuals who live close to exisiting and future wind farms who will disagree with these standards we set.  As I do in all siting decisions, I feel for these people, but I believe we will treat them fairly and balance their concerns with the state’s real and important drive to advance clean energy projects.

 Commissioner Meyer?

" Our goal is to promulgate uniform wind siting rules that will allow the wind development community to successfully and responsibly propose and develop wind projects in Wisconsin to take advantage of favorable wind regimes."

PSC Commissioner Mark Meyer

 MEYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 [Reading] First and foremost thank you. There were so many of you that came together to get this work done in a timely way. The number of participants, council, particularly I want to thank the council, Dan Ebert and Doug Zweizig, chair and respectively for insuring meetings ran smoothly and the meetings were curteous and productive in the face of strong opposing positions.

 I want to thank the members, Dave Gilles, Tom Green, Jennifer Heinzen, Andy Hesselbach, George Krause Jr. Lloyd Lueschow, Jevon McFadden, Tom Meyer, Bill Rakocy, Dwight Sattler, Ryan Schryver, Michael Vickerman and Larry Wunsch.

 I want to make a special comment about Mr. Wunsch’s participation in the process, he’s a landowner who currently lives near a wind energy system, the promulgation of these rules will have no effect on his property but his input has been formative regarding the process and effects of siting decisions on individual properties and landowners.

 Together the council represents over 900 hours of volunteer time that has be spent insuring these rules represent the interests of the stake-holders and Wisconsin citizens.

 While I may not agree with all the recommendations of the council, I’m grateful and well informed by the work they have put into this effort.

 I’d also like to applaud staff’s work on these rules. They’ve been tireless and committed to this process in a way that demonstrates the professionalism and dedication that this staff [inaudible] around the country on many important issues. Their work, commitment and professionalism is what allowed us and the council to reach concensus on many issues and develop a draft that captures the concerns and input of those stake holders.  Deb Erwin, Dan Sage, Joyce Dingman [inaudible] and John [inaudible] Thank you.

 While the chair has already gone through the processing path these rules have taken I want to highlight that it was a very open and inclusive process that started in 2009 with Wisconsin act 40 in September of 2009, statement of scope the following November, followed by public hearings in Fond du Lac, Tomah and Madison,a written comment period that ended July 7^th 2010, which I should note we got over 1800 comments, which I have to say is more than I’ve ever seen in an individual case here at the commission in my six years.

Following that there were council meetings, 21 in all, that started in March of 2010 and ended on August 16^th, 2010.

Going to the legislature, if you look at the newly created statutes it’s clear the legislature intended this to be an on going discussion.

The wind siting council is now a long standing body with an obligation to inform the commission on the promulgation of this rule as well as on an ongoing basis as we gather more information and learn more about wind siting and its effects on the people and communities [in] which they are sited.

Now not up for debate is whether there are sufficient wind resources in Wisconsin, whether wind should be considered as part of the states generation portfolio and whether the state or municipalities should create the rules for wind siting. These questions have been asked and answered.

 Our goal is to promulgate uniform wind siting rules that will allow the wind development community to successfully and responsibly propose and develop wind projects in Wisconsin to take advantage of favorable wind regimes.

 Our goal is to also identify how and when political subdivisions can create its own rules with respect to the siting of wind energy systems.

 Wisconsin is heavily coal dependent and allowing the possibility of wind development is essential in diversifying the energy resources in our state.

 We also have to balance the interests of wind developers with those of landowners. Both participating and non participating landowners. In particular, Act [40] requires us to specify the restrictions a political subdivision may impose on the installation or use of wind energy system, provide setbacks for reasonable protection from any health effects from noise or shadow flicker and to address decommissioning.

 In addition the commission may address issues of visual appearance, lighting, electrical connections, the power grid, setback distances, maximum audible sound levels, shadow flicker and the proper means of measuring noise, interference with radio, telephone, television, as well as other matters.

 Based on the comments received, the recommendations of the council and staff input, we’ll be addressing all the issues specifically as mandatory in discretionary issues outlined in Act 40 as well as notice compliance, stray voltage testing, compliance with electrical standards, emergency procedures, complaint process, political subdivision procedure, and commission procedure.

 In addressing the Act 40 requirements, comments, council process of recommendations all propose what rule language thus meets all those issues.

 Let me say at the outset this is meant to be and has been an open process and I’m open to discussion with my colleagues on this issues on how each of you think the language of the rule will best serve the interest we’re tasked with balancing.

 Finally I want to acknowledge in setting these rules and making individual decisions in individual cases we ask people to make sacrifices for the good of the whole.

 I’m comforted by the ongoing nature of this process as well as the commissions authority under proposed rule 128.02 to deviate from the rules in exceptional and unusual circumstances.

  CALLISTO: Commissioner Azar?

  "While reviewing the proposal rule, I was keenly aware of the distinctions between preventing the potential harm and mitigating that harm.
 
My recommendations seek to prevent the harm for the vast majority of the general public."

-PSC Commissioner Lauren Azar

AZAR: This is one of the most difficult decisions I’ve made during my tenure as commissioner. While some issues that need to be resolved are easy, others are not.

 Before I begin I’d like to thank the members of the wind siting council who worked hard to develop the recommendations before us, and the commission staff, they’ve done a stellar job with drafting this rule and staffing the council.

 Let me say from the start, based on the record of this case, I believe the health of a small portion of the population could be adversely affected by wind turbines, primarily through noise and vibration.

Frankly there is a strong suggestion that these adverse effects could be serious for a small percentage of folks.

Unfortunately we don’t know precisely why these people are affected, we don’t know what percentage of the population is affected and we don’t have a correlation between the levels between the emissions and the adverse affects.

 In short, there are a lot of unknowns. I will be recommending that we ask the wind siting council to investigate and make recommendations on several issues. Though our information is not currently complete, I believe there is a good reason to pass a rule now, recognizing it will be a work in progress.

 My goal today is two fold; protect the public while simultaneously removing barriers for wind development. While some may think this balance is impossible, I do not.

 Indeed the more information that we as a commission obtain, the greater likelihood that we can meet both ends of that goal. Accordingly, as we gather more information, I believe the commission can and should refine these rules.

 Make no mistake. As wind energy is developed in Wisconsin, it will affect the residents  living around the turbines. This commission cannot eliminate all of those effects. All of us bear burdens for the good of our society, but some bear burdens greater than others.

 It’s sobering to have to determine the amount of burden that may be placed on a community. Based on our dialog today it may seem that we make these decisions with ease. Let me assure you that these are heart wrenching decisions. We make these decisions recognizing the sacrifices that will follow.

 Indeed, I have heard from people living in existing wind energy developments who have—who state they have been adversely affected and we hope that these rules will address the issues that they have raised in future developments.

 While reviewing the proposal rule, I was keenly aware of the distinctions between preventing the potential harm and mitigating that harm.

 My recommendations seek to prevent the harm for the vast majority of the general public.

 First, these rules will establish standards that must be complied with or there will be consequences. Additionally my hope is we develop rules that recognize that some people are particularly sensitive to the emissions from wind turbines. In these cases, the developer must mitigate that harm, or at least I believe so.

 Should these mitigation techniques fail in these rare circumstances I believe we should pass rules that protect these particularly sensitive residents.

 If after mitigation the wind energy system is causing significant and verifiable adverse health [inaudible] I will be proposing that the developer be required to purchase the protected party’s home at market value.

 In conclusion I want to address two critiques that have been made about the process of this rule making.

 First, there are allegations that the council members that were appointed do not fit the profile mandated by the legislature. Simply, I disagree with that allegation.

 Second, several parties have asked the commission to delay promulgating these rules so that further information can be developed. I found there is a dearth of information on some of these issues which makes policy making on those issues difficult.

 However, according to one of the briefs, there is around 600 megawatts of wind waiting to be developed and development is halted until this rule is completed.

 While I like to make decisions based on complete information, it is unclear when we will receive that information, hence, I think we need to develop the rules that include safeguards addressing some of the unknowns while simultaneously allowing responsible wind projects to be developed.

 I believe we can develop rules that accomplish both.

ABOUT THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONERS

FROM THE PSC WEBSITE:

The PSC is composed of three full-time Commissioners who decide the cases brought to the PSC for changes in utility operations, rates and for construction projects after a complete and thorough review of all the records compiled in the case, including public comments.

Commissioners are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate for staggered, six-year terms.

One of these Commissioners is appointed chairperson by the Governor for a two-year term. The Commissioners Office, under the direction of the Chairperson, has oversight of all PSC staff related activities.

This interview was conducted by Tim Harmann who is with the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy (Link: BCCRWE.com)

Elizabeth Eberts is a resident of the We Energies Blue Sky/Green Field wind project. Click on the image below to hear what she has to say about living with wind turbines. For those whose internet connection isn't fast enough to watch video, a transcript is provided below.

Transcript of Interview with  Elizabeth Eberts

I'm a non participant of the wind turbines but I have them to the north, west and south of me. We live down in this hollow part and they just come straight above by our house and we hear all the noise.

And sleeping at night, if they don't turn at night, I sleep great. Like last night I had a terrific nights sleep but this week, Wednesday they were really going and just like that in the middle of the night I'll just jump up and there's nothing I can do.

It just does something. I don't know what the noise is that wakes me up or what it is but I can sleep through thunderstorms, anything. But I cannot sleep through this. I've tried different things but I just can't.

And I complained to them about the noise and they said they can do nothing about the noise. It's the way it is, etc. etc.

Well I had my son over here because he had to have major surgery. And you know, because we could leave from here I thought it was real nice.

Well then he told me, he said he couldn't sleep all night because it sounded like an airplane hovering over his bedroom all night long. So he couldn't sleep.

And I thought it was just me, you know? I never gave it a thought.

In our township, noise means nothing. That's exactly what they told me. They say it at every meeting you go to. "We're not going to discuss the noise."

Well, it's a big problem here. Especially for me with [turbine noise ] coming down at me.

And they just don't acknowledge it at all.

So in addition to your noise and your sleep, you had some problems with your TV?

Well we have problems with the TV, the scanner and the FM radio.

The TV was the worst of them all. It took a good year, and I just told them after all that they did I said that this is it. Take it out. I don't care what you give me. I can't stand it any more.

It would go out. You'd be listening to a program, you'd see half of it, and all of a sudden it's gone. Then it would come back again. Well. It was just totally out of control. I was just plain frustrated. You just turned the TV off and just let it off for awhile.

And you said you visit your daughter who is in the wind farm too and she has other issues?

Yes. She has bad shadow flicker. Over the complete house. Because the wind turbine to the east of her is on a very high hill, so it covers their whole house.

She can't go anyplace in her house where she does not see shadow flicker.

Well, [the wind developer] offered the blinds and that. Well, [the flicker will] go through the top part of your window. You can put them up as good as you want, it still goes through.

I was putting up-- we made curtains for her--- and I was putting them up and I seen this flickering going in there, and I said, "Oh my gosh," I had to get down from the ladder and turn away from it.

And she says, "Oh, this isn't bad, mom."

Well, to me it was. That was very bad.

But they will put blinds up for you or whatever
 But what do you put windows in your house for?

[This wind farm] they just put it up and that was it. They didn't work with us at all.

And what they say to you, don't believe them.

I had this guy from We Energies coming into my house and telling me he'd give me back everything he took away.

And then he shook my hand.

And you know what? To this day yet I haven't gotten everything back they took away, They can't give me  it back. There is no way. Unless they stop these turbines.