Better Plan, Wisconsin

I am one of the neighbors of the Vinalhaven wind turbines, misled by turbine supporters in 2008 and 2009 that "ambient sounds would mask the noise of the turbines." As I write these words, the noise from the wind turbines churns in the background.

My home is 3,000 feet from the turbines, and my experience is contrary to all the assertions that were made during the permitting process a few years ago. At this hour of the morning, it should be peaceful outside, the quiet interrupted only by the calling crows or osprey circling.

Some locals dismiss the noise complaints, saying that Vinalhaven had a diesel power plant for years. But to live near excessive noise is not the reason I chose to own property here. Also, as I have become familiar with wind turbine noise, it is more and more clear that there is a fundamental difference between turbine noise and other forms of industrial disturbances. Here, it is not just the constant noise, but the pulsing drone that makes the noise particularly hostile that is so disturbing. It is inescapable.

At a recent public hearing on Vinalhaven on turbine noise sponsored by the Island Institute, one neighbor - at the point of tears - said that she had been forced from her house when her chest began vibrating at the same syncopation as the turbines outside.

At that hearing I said I supported wind energy so long as the economic advantages to ratepayers were clear and so long as surrounding property values were not affected. The jury is out on the first point, but not on the second. The constant noise from the turbines, even at 3,000 feet, has taken away a valuable part of my investment and a key part of my family's well-being.

I never imagined my first waking thought would be: where is the wind blowing and how much noise are the wind turbines making now? But that is what happens in this formerly quiet, beautiful place.

At the public meeting in Vinalhaven, I asked a question: when would the natural quiet be restored and when would my property values be protected? There was no answer from the project supporters.

Silence.

Neighbors' complaints about turbine noise rose immediately after the three, 1.5 megawatt GE turbines were turned on, last fall. A year after the Vinalhaven turbines were greeted with wide public acclaim, the turbine neighbors find themselves, through no fault of their own, in an extraordinarily difficult and expensive effort to demonstrate that the wind turbines do exceed state regulations.

The cost of wind turbines has been shifted onto neighbors who never imagined these kinds of burdens when the benefits of wind energy were sold to the public. It is wrong and it is unfair to impose both the noise and the uncertainty of resolution - or if there will ever be resolution - on a few nearby homeowners.

These inequities are predictable. They will multiply wherever wind turbines are placed within a mile-and-a-half of residences, and under the State of Maine's archaic noise regulations.

The State of Maine must provide some relief to neighbors of wind turbines. To start, a fund should be established from a utility fee imposed state-wide that allows citizens to access highly technical and expensive noise and acoustic measurement equipment and data and independent experts.

The collateral damage of wind turbines is the assessment of the noise they make. No one in authority admits this, during the permitting process. They say, "The noise will be minor," or "the sound of the wind blowing in the leaves will cover the sound." That is simply not true.

The Vinalhaven neighbors have already spent tens of thousands of dollars to engage the local utility on the matter of measuring the churning noise. The costs are not trivial, but once turbines are erected in your neighborhood, their noise will be affixed to nearby property.

Be forewarned

SECOND FEATURE:

 

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Yesterday, the Greenbay Press Gazette reported that state health officer and administrator for the state’s Division of Public Health, Seth Foldy concluded there were no health concerns associated with living 1250 feet from wind turbines based on his review available scientific literature.

Would his conclusion be the same if he spoke face to face with wind project residents in our state? Unfortunately he doesn't feel this is necessary.

For the time being this scenario is being played out wherever wind projects are sited near homes. People complain about sleeplessness from the noise and headaches and nausea from the shadow flicker and are repeatedly told there is no evidence in the literature to support their experience.

Since no organized study has been done as a result of the many complaints from wind project residents, it's not surprising the available literature doesn't reflect their experiences. If Health Department officials refuse to speak to those who are suffering, it never will.

North of the border, in Ontario, the story is the same. These letters from a former wind project resident to the director of the Public Health Agency of Canada are very much like ones sent to Seth Foldy at the Wisconsin Division of Public Health, and were met with a similar response.

SOURCE: Wind Concerns Ontario

Letter #1:   From Barbara Ashbee  to Dr. King – January 26th, 2010

Dear Dr. King

I am writing to you today on behalf of residents throughout Ontario, who have become  victims suffering adverse health effects from industrial wind turbines being placed too close to their homes.

This issue has been routinely ignored by all ministries involved in renewable energy at all levels of government. My focus is on our provincial government as it is their policy that is forcing harm to people in their own homes. Many people have been so horribly affected that they have had to abandon their homes. Our public health department is the last potential department that I can think of that should be helping us and yet there has still been no assistance. I have never in my lifetime seen anything so disturbing as the way these people are being treated. It is unconscionable.

I understand you have been busy with H1N1 and I respect the overload of work you must be wading through, but I tell you these people that are being affected by wind turbines have been suffering longer than this flu outbreak has been in our midst. They have been routinely ignored and called names by our Ministers, the developers and by the Premier himself. We need help Dr. King and we need it now! These people do not have time to wait for another literature review to be done. There is ample evidence that these people are being harmed and I am getting extremely tired of being pushed off and ignored.

We need these turbines decommissioned now and no new turbines erected until there is a proper 3rd party independant health study completed. How can anyone that is supposed to be looking out for us continue to do their job and ignore this?

These victims have been forced to abandon their homes to live with relatives, have been billeted in motels, forced to pay rent for a safe house, forced to move into trailers and tents and sleep in their cars. What more do you need to acknowledge we have an urgent problem here?

These same people have followed every protocol under very debillitating conditions by contributing to the EBR registry, attending and presenting at the standing committee hearings,  attending and speaking at green energy workshops held in the province, attending and speaking at green energy act public input meetings across the province, attending and speaking at 2 Grey-Bruce Public Health open houses in Owen Sound and Walkerton in the presence of Dr. Hazel Lynn, Dr. Ray Copes and the MOE officer. They have written countless letters to the Ministers of Environment, Energy and to the Premier himself. As well as 100′s of messages and requests made to, and through their MPPs and local councils.

Nothing has happened.

I do not know what anyone expects of these people. The depth of distress these people feel by being hurt by the very systems and people that should be helping them, has created an overwhelming sense of injustice and they have lost trust in everyone.

I speak with these people almost daily and I am at a loss as to what to tell them Dr. King.

I await your response.

Sincerely,
Barbara Ashbee, RR1 Orangeville

Click here to read the response from Dr. King dated February 16 2010

Letter #2:   From Barbara Ashbee  to Dr. David C. Williams, Associate Chief Medical Officer of Health – February 28, 2010

Dear Dr. Williams,

Thank you for your letter dated February 16th in response to my letter to Dr. King, regarding the wind turbine health issues. I appreciate your response but am disappointed when you say you are reviewing existing information. Are you speaking of another literature review? I believe there is enough compelling information that a study on people should be in order. 

It is very difficult for me to be pleased with the recent appointment of the research chair from our Ontario government. As I understand it, this gentleman is an electrical engineer with experience in renewable energy technology, but with no expertise in wind turbine technology.  He is not a health professional and so to hear you suggest he will “provide expert advice on potential health effects of renewable energy technologies” does not provide any degree of comfort.  

Are you able to give me a better time frame of how long these residents must continue to suffer in their own homes without any government support while you are reviewing things? Why aren’t these installations being shut down while this ongoing research is being done? 

This imbalance of power is overwhelming, and it is bewildering; why the lack of response from government since they received the very first complaints and why the continuing delays? Canadians expect our health ministries to be responsive to people who are experiencing adverse health effects, especially by a policy forced upon them by their government. Please keep in mind these people are powerless to shut these things off and our Ministry of Environment, who governs these projects, has not been able to monitor, control or assist in any way. The fact that Minister of Environment, John Gerretsen uses the term NIMBY to describe victims is befitting of the attitude from this government. The victims and their families have lost faith and trust, and who could blame them?

The quote below is from just one the many victims. 

“I am angry, helpless, and disappointed our government would let something like this happen. I am appalled at their ignorance and lack of compassion. It saddens me to watch my family and friends suffer from the same [health] effects of the turbines. “I spend as much time as I can away from my home, away from my son who is also sleep deprived. We are exhausted and miserable. I often seek refuge with friends, often falling asleep minutes after I arrive. I feel like a gypsy.“What was once a beautiful place to live has been destroyed.”

 – Tracy Whitworth, schoolteacher (Clear Creek, Ont.)

The victims need these wind installations decommissioned immediately so they can return to living in a healthy environment in their own homes while the various ministries and “experts” do their research.

If you do not agree with that, then a statement explaining your position is requested. 

It is astonishing that our provincial government is proceeding with new wind installations with the knowledge of the adverse health effects associated with them. Perhaps sustainable energy resources are their mandate, but your mandate is to protect and prevent harm to our health. With all due respect, so far I have not seen any evidence of protection or prevention, or this would not continue to carry on as long as it has.

Sincerely, 

Barbara Ashbee, RR 1, Orangeville, Ontario

Click on the image below to hear testimony from an epidemiologist whose conclusion is that improperly sited wind turbines have a negative impact on human health.

This is contrary to the findings of Dr. Jevon McFadden who assured the Wind Siting Council that turbine related health impacts were nothing to be concerned about.

Transcript of this testimony which was given on June 30 at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin is posted below.

PSC: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Carl V. Phillips: Yes, I do.

PSC: OK, spell your name.

PHILLIPS: Carl V. Phillips, C-A-R-L, initial V as in Vincent- Phillips- P-H-I-double L-I-P-S

PSC: All right, go ahead.

I’m an epidemiologist and policy researcher.  I’m specifically expert in how to optimally derive knowledge for decision making from epidemiologic data.

I have a PhD in public policy from Harvard University, and I did a post doctoral fellowship in public health policy and the philosophy of science.

I’ve spent most of my career as a professor of public health and medicine, most recently at the University of Alberta and I currently direct an independent research institute.

I reviewed the literature on health effects of wind turbines on local residents, including the reports that have been prepared by industry consultants and the references therein, and I have reached the following conclusions which I present in detail in a written report that I believe will be submitted [to the commission].

First, there is ample evidence that some people suffer a collection of health problems, including insomnia, anxiety, loss of concentration, general psychological distress, as a result of being exposed to turbines near their home.

The type of studies that have been done are not adequate to estimate what portion of the population is susceptible to the effect, the magnitude of the effects, or exactly how much exposure is needed before the risks become substantial, but all of these could be determined with fairly simple additional research.

What is clear is there is a problem of some magnitude.  The evidence may or may not be enough to meet the burden of a tort claim about a specific disease, but in my opinion it’s clearly enough to suggest that our public policy should not just be to blindly move forward without more knowledge.

The best evidence we have—which has been somewhat downplayed in previous discussion—is what’s known as “case cross-over data,” which is one of the most useful forms of epidemiologic study when both the exposure and the disease are transitory.  That is, it’s possible to remove the exposure and see if the disease goes away, then reinstate it and see if the disease recurs, which is exactly the pattern that has been observed for some of the sufferers who physically moved away and sometimes back again.

With that study design in mind, we actually have very substantial amounts of data in a structured form, contrary to some of the claims that have been made.  And more data of this nature could easily be gathered if an effort was made.

Moreover, people’s avoidance behavior—their moving from their homes, and so forth—is a clear (what’s called) “revealed preference measure” of their suffering.  Such evidence transforms something that might be dismissed as a subjective experience or perhaps even fakery, to an objective observation that someone’s health problems are worth more than the many thousands of dollars they’ve lost trying to escape the exposure.

My second observation . . . is that these health effects that people are suffering are very real.  The psychologically mediated diseases that we’ve observed, and in fact overall mental well being, are included in all modern accepted definitions of either individual health or public health.  It’s true that they are more difficult to study than certain other diseases, but they probably account for more of the total morbidity burden in the United States than do purely physical diseases.  Therefore [they] should not be in any way dismissed.

Third, the reports that I have read that claim there is no evidence that there is a problem seem to be based on a very simplistic understanding of epidemiology and self-serving definitions of what does and what does not count as evidence.  I don’t think I can cover too much of this in the available time right now, but I explain it in detail in my report—why these claims, which probably seem convincing to most readers prima facie [at first glance], don’t represent proper scientific reading.  Moreover, the conclusions of the reports don’t even match their own analyses.  The reports themselves actually concede that there are problems, and then somehow manage to reach the conclusion that there is no evidence that there are problems.

And my final point, as I’ve already alluded to, is it’s quite possible to do the studies it would take to resolve the outstanding questions, and they could actually be done very quickly by studying people who are already exposed.

This isn’t the type of circumstance where we cannot really know more until we move forward and wait for years of additional exposure.  The only reason we don’t have better information than we do is that no one with adequate resources has tried to get it.

That’s the conclusion of my points.

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

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

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

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

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

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

WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING 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, 

Home for sale, Blue Sky/ Green Field project, Fond du Lac County, WI Photo: Jim Bembinster

On May 6th, 2010 two doctors gave presentations about wind turbine noise at the Rutland Regional Medical Center in Rutland, Vermont.

Robert J. McCunney, M.D. was one of the doctors hired by both the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association to review existing peer-reviewed literature about possible negative health effects from wind turbines noise. He is credited as being one of the seven authors of a white paper called "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review" which found no negative health effects from wind turbine noise.

Michael Nissenbaum, M.D. is specialist in diagnostic imaging, whose training and work involves developing and utilizing an understanding of the effects of energy deposition, including sound, on human tissues. He is a former Associate Director of MRI at a major Harvard hospital, a former junior faculty member at Harvard University. He conducted medical interviews with residents of the Mars Hill wind project in Maine, and with a control group of residents who live three miles from the project. His conclusions were quite different than those of the AWEA/CANWEA funded study.

The findings of these two medical professionals are detailed in a presentation which has been posted on YouTube in ten minute segments.

Click on the links below to watch

Part One: Introduction and opening remarks by Dr. McCunney

Part Two: Dr. McCunney

Part Three; Dr. McCunney

Part Four: Conclusion by Dr. McCunney, Opening remarks by Dr. Nissenbaum

Part Five: Dr. Nissenbaum

Part Six: Dr. Nissenbaum

Part Seven: Dr. Nissenbaum concluding remarks and questions for Dr. Nissenbaum and Dr. McCunney

Part Eight: questions for Dr. Nissenbaum and Dr. McCunney

Part Nine: questions for Dr. Nissenbaum and Dr. McCunney