Better Plan, Wisconsin

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF TESTIMONY TO THE PSC FROM EPIDEMIOLOGIST CARL V. PHILLIPS REGARDING HEALTH IMPACTS OF WIND TURBINES

An Analysis of the Epidemiology and Related Evidence on the Health Effects
of Wind Turbines on Local Residents

Executive Summary

A summary of the main conclusions of my expert opinion, based on my knowledge of epidemiology and scientific methods, and my reading of the available studies and reports, is as follows:

• There is ample scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbines cause serious health problems for some people living nearby. Some of the most compelling evidence in support of this has been somewhat overlooked in previous analyses, including that the existing evidence fits what is known as the case-crossover study design, one of the most useful studies in epidemiology, and the revealed preference (observed behavior) data of people leaving their homes, etc., which provides objective measures of what would otherwise be subjective phenomena. In general, this is an exposure-disease combination where causation can be inferred from a smaller number of less formal observations than is possible for cases such as chemical exposure and cancer
risk.

• The reported health effects, including insomnia, loss of concentration, anxiety, and general psychological distress are as real as physical ailments, and are part of accepted modern definitions of individual and public health. While such ailments are sometimes more difficult to study, they probably account for more of the total burden of morbidity in Western countries than do strictly physical diseases. It is true that there is no bright line between these diseases and less intense similar problems that would not usually be called a disease, this is a case for taking the less intense versions of the problems more seriously in making policy decisions, not to ignore the serious diseases.

• Existing evidence is not sufficient to make several important quantifications, including what portion of the population is susceptible to the health effects from particular exposures, how much total health impact wind turbines have, and the magnitude of exposure needed to cause substantial risk of important health effects. However, these are questions that could be answered if some resources were devoted to finding the answer. It is not necessary to proceed with siting so that more data can accumulate, since there is enough data now if it were gathered and analyzed.

• The reports that claim that there is no evidence of health effects are based on a very simplistic understanding of epidemiology and self-serving definitions of what does not count as evidence.Though those reports probably seem convincing prima facie, they do not represent proper scientific reasoning, and in some cases the conclusions of those reports do not even match their own analysis.

WHAT'S THE LATEST? 

IN THE NEWS:

-FARMER SUES WIND DEVELOPER FOR LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUE:

“Now I’m faced with a farm I wanted to buy all my life. I spent all this money restoring, and I’m going to have a wind turbine that will create shadow flicker. It will make noise; it will prevent spraying from east or west — that’s the way this farm runs. It will have an impact on the value of my farm, and nobody asked me for my permission, and my zoning commission didn’t protect my rights.” Click here to read the whole story

- AT 35dbA, NEIGHBORS SAY INVENERGY WIND FARM TOO LOUD FOR COMFORT

"When the turbines began to turn, they said they had trouble sleeping and suffered symptoms such as nausea, anxiety and vertigo. They are convinced the symptoms arise from turbine-generated noise and vibrations. The neighbors and their noise expert say the project routinely violates the state noise standard of 36 adjusted decibels, or dBA, at their homes." Click here to read the whole story

 FROM THE WIND SITING DOCKET:

Click here to download testimony submitted to the PSC by Kevin Kawula regarding wind turbines effect on weather radar, birds and bats, CO2 emissons, and more. The PDF includes photos and graphs.

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC took public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules until the July 7th, 2010 deadline.

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

CLICK HERE to go to the PSC website, then type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted.

Wind Farm Meeting Tonight in Holland

SOURCE: Greenbay Press Gazette

July 8, 2010

By Jon Styf

A group that has opposed a proposal to build a 100-turbine wind farm in southern Brown County will host what it calls an informational meeting tonight in Holland.   

Chicago-based Invenergy LLC has proposed the wind farm in Morrison, Glenmore and Wrightstown. It is waiting to resubmit its application until the guidelines are approved by the PSC.

The Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy has organized tonight's meeting scheduled for 6:30 at Van Abel's of Hollandtown, 8108 Brown County D in the town of Holland.

CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE BCCRWE WEBSITE

CLICK HERE FOR MAP TO VAN ABLES

Click on the image above to hear a sworn statement regarding turbine related impacts to human health. Dr. Herb Coussin's June 30, 2010 testimony to the Public Service Commision, June 30, 2010

TRANSCRIPT

EXAMINER NEWMARK: All right. Let me  swear you in.

 HERB COUSSONS, PUBLIC WITNESS, DULY SWORN

EXAMINER NEWMARK: Have a seat. Just state your name and spell your last name for us.

DR. COUSSONS: It's Herb Coussons, C-O-U-S-S-O-N-S.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: I'm going to start  the timer. Go ahead.

DIRECT TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT

DR. COUSSONS: I'm Herb Coussons, M.D. I'm a physician. I live in the town of  Wrightstown in Brown County and I have been  practicing in Green Bay for eight years, in private practice for 15 years, women's health and  primary care, mainly.

 I also have an interest -- a special interest in spatial disorientation because I'm an aerobatic and commercial pilot.

I've studied the literature and listened to the testimony of both affected and non-affected  residents of the wind turbine projects, and I'm  concerned that any setbacks of less than half a  mile will have adverse consequences on the people  that live near them, primarily because of noise --with noises in those shorter setback ranges over 45 and approaching 55 decibels.

I believe that based on currentliterature and testimony of others that any levels  above 40 decibels will cause chronic sleep disturbance in up to 50 percent of the people that live close to them.

By increasing the setback, noise deteriorates over distance, and this would alleviate some of these problems.

 I've heard Dr. McFadden speak from the Wind Siting Council, and I agree that there is no causal evidence now to directly link turbines to  health problems, but I do know that noise such as that measured as audible and dBC will disturb sleep.

And exhaustive literature support shows that extensive disturbed sleep does have an adverse impact on health, primarily in the areas of hypertension, cardiac disease, weight gain, diabetes, lowered immunity, increased problems with falling asleep, accident rates, and maybe  even poor school performance.

 I'm afraid that so far what I've read from the PSC, the Siting Council, and the legislature has been willing to proceed without finding out if there is truly a causal relationship and, if so, what can be done about it.

Sample studies such as home sleep studies, like those done for sleep apnea patients, can provide some direct evidence of people living in wind turbine areas currently. Evaluations such as lab and sleep data on both wind and control patient -- patients that suffer from wind problems as well as those who live outside of turbine areas can also provide much needed information.

Otherwise we're doomed to repeat the same experiment as other wind projects in Wisconsin, around the United States, and the world.

I'm also concerned that by stating that there is no proof of adverse health consequences, as Dr. McFadden has in his presentation, that we give the media, the less informed in the wind industry, license to lie about safety.

In the Brown County Board of Health meeting, Invenergy, a wind developer in the state, stated that due to studies in Wisconsin, wind was safe and beneficial. When paired with Dr. McFadden's conclusions, there seems to be no argument against the industrial wind turbines. But there are no good trials that support their relationship and, if so, what can be done about it.

  In the Brown County Board of Health  meeting, Invenergy, a wind developer in the state, stated that due to studies in Wisconsin, wind was safe and beneficial.

When paired with Dr. McFadden's conclusions, there seems to be no argument against the industrial wind turbines. But there are no good trials that support their statement or the safety of industrial wind turbines.

 It is equally wrong to claim safety  based on the literature. It was misleading and there is more case report data showing deleterious effects than beneficial case reports.

In the drug industry, the manufacturers of drugs are required to provide safety information at their own expense prior to  releasing drugs in the market. The FDA and governmental oversight regulates this, and I think that the same model could be used with the wind industry as well, as the expense to have some of these studies may be overwhelming for our governmental agencies.

Not only do the health issues concern  me, but the economics of wind energy do not make  sense. In Europe, Canada, and now the U.S., government subsidies and increased power rates are the only way to make it a viable industry.  Reports from Europe continue to caution  the U.S. to not go down the road of heavily subsidized alternative energy pathways.

I may disagree with that and I may believe that subsidies are an acceptable cost, but human health is not an acceptable cost.

The effect on adjoining property rights and values is also disturbing. I own 40 acres in Brown County and live there. My sister and brother-in-law put a house on the market in southern Brown County and had an accepted offer on the house pending the sale of another home. As  soon as the groundswell of words about the wind  industry came, they withdraw their offer, and in the past six months, they've had no lookers.

In conclusion, the wind industry itself in the Beech Ridge project said that setbacks up to a mile would mitigate complaints from sound and shadow flicker. The World Health Organization said sound sleep -- on sound sleep and health stress that a plausible biologic model is available with sufficient evidence for the elements of a causal chain. Thank you.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: Judge, I want to ask a few questions. I don't usually do that.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: We haven't been doing  that yet.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: Okay. Then never mind.

DR. COUSSONS: It's fine with me.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: I have been asking a few questions of witnesses, so I can allow that
 for now.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: I just have a question with regards to epidemiological studies, which is what I've been hearing a lot about thus far, and the fact that there's a lack of evidence in epidemiological studies.

DR. COUSSONS: Right.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: If you could describe sort of how -- how do I even ask this question? I would imagine there needs to be a lot of folks that are affected for something to essentially hit on the radar with regards to an epidemiological study.

DR. COUSSONS: Possibly, but not necessarily. I mean -- and you know, it depends on, well, if you have a thousand people in our community, and if I use that for an example -- or I'm not sure how many live in the Fond du Lac area, but that development down there. But if you3 have a thousand people and in self-reported comments or publications or surveys or things like that, if 15 or 35 or 45 percent are self-reported that's still not an epidemiologic, you know, study as far as a cause-and-effect type of thing.
But it's almost impossible to design that kind of study, because how can you sort of blind someone that they're living in this noise environment? You know, it's very impossible. And so from a medical standpoint, you know, after talking with Dr. McFadden, I feel like self-reported is all that we have to go on.

But if we do self-reported and try to get some objective data, like home sleep studies in their natural surrounding about people that do report problems, do the same types of studies on people in the area that don't report problems, and then  back up a mile, a quarter -- you know, a half a mile, five miles and do the same studies, you can show some kind of link to noise and sleep disturbance.

 It would take 20 years to show cardiac effect, you know, or hypertension or weight gain or diabetes, and we don't have time for that. We  don't have the time or the money or resources to do it.

 But I think a short-term study based on distance, some objective data with some self-reported data would be -- I think it would be very telling on adding some validity to some of these people's concerns. And maybe even small numbers. Maybe 20 or 40 people in each group.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: Great. Thanks.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: All right. Thank you very much.

DR. COUSSONS: Thank you.

  WHAT'S THE PROBLEM THE WIND INDUSTRY SAYS IS NOT A PROBLEM?

Presentation to the Hammond (NY) Wind Committee

BY NINA PIERPONT, MD (JOHNS HOPKINS)
PHD (PRINCETON: POPULATION BIOLOGY)
MS (PRINCETON: POPULATION BIOLOGY)
BA (YALE: BIOLOGY)
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Former Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, NY

July 5, 2010

My name is Nina Pierpont. I am a physician in Malone, NY, and author of a book called Wind Turbine Syndrome: a Report on a Natural Experiment, published in December 2009.

My M.D. is from the Johns Hopkins University. My PhD, in population biology, is from Princeton University. Population biology has extensive overlap with epidemiology. In fact, one of my doctoral committee members, Robert May, is a prominent theoretical epidemiologist, who subsequently became president of the Royal Society of London and scientific advisor to the Queen of England. He pronounced my Wind Turbine Syndrome study to be "impressive, interesting, and important."

A PhD in science is a research degree. I was specifically trained to do research on free-living, uncontrolled animal populations, including methods for structuring observations to turn the observations into quantitative and analyzable data.

I used this research training in my study of wind turbine health effects, to structure and analyze the information I gathered from affected people. I used my classical medical training from Johns Hopkins to actually gather the information.

A good patient history, we were taught (and my experience has borne out), provides a doctor with about 80% of the information he needs to diagnose a problem. I conducted thorough, structured clinical interviews of all my study subjects, directly interviewing all adults and older teens, and interviewing the parents of all child subjects.

My bachelors degree, also in biology, is from Yale University. I am a board-certified pediatrician and have had postgraduate training in behavioral medicine. I have been a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University School of Physicians and Surgeons.

Wind turbine syndrome.

I introduced this term in testimony before the Energy Committee of the New York State Assembly in 2006. The National Academy of Sciences cited my testimony in their 2007 report, Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, and asked for more information about the physical effects I described.

A syndrome, medically, is a consistent collection of signs and symptoms. This is what I observed in people exposed to large, 1.5 to 3 MW wind turbines constructed since 2004. The first purpose of my study was to document the consistency of symptoms or problems among affected people, and to show, by a simple, practical method, that these symptoms are due to wind turbines.

I will come back to this in a moment. The second purpose was to examine why, given the same exposure, some people are more affected than others.

I did not, and could not given my limited resources, study what proportion of people are affected or how much exposure is needed to affect people. However, I have some preliminary data on proportion of people affected.

I called my study a case series. I knew it was more than a case series, however, and described what else I did with regard to subject selection and data gathering. Recently an interested epidemiologist has provided the terminology for what I actually did. I chose families who had at least one severely affected adult family member, and who had done two things: first, they had gone away from their homes and the wind turbines and seen their symptoms go away, and had come back and seen the symptoms return, generally several times. In epidemiology this is called a "case-crossover" design. It's very useful in situations like this one when both the exposure and the disease are transitory.

Second, I chose families who had spent or lost a lot of money to get away from the turbines, by selling their homes for reduced amounts, renting or buying a second home, renovating their homes in an attempt to keep out the noise, or outright abandoning their homes. I know of active legal cases in at least three states and two provinces in which the homeowner, after home abandonment, is suing either the wind turbine company or a state regulatory agency for recompense. In epidemiology, this is called a "revealed preference measure." The people who are suffering show by their actions that their health problem is worth more than the many thousands of dollars they have lost in trying to escape the exposure, and thus distinguishes their experiences from what might be dismissed as subjective or fakery.

My study had 38 subjects, in 10 families located in the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Italy. I have interviewed further families in the US and Canada and have a larger case-crossover study paper in preparation.

The symptoms caused by turbine exposure are as follows:

1. Sleep disturbance, with a special kind of awakening in a state of high alarm. This applies to both adults and children. Severe sleep deprivation.

2. Headaches. Exacerbations of migraines, brought on by either noise or by light flicker. This refers to the strobe-like effect in rooms when turbine blade shadows repetitively pass over a window. People without a history of migraine also got severe headaches from turbine exposure.

3. Pressure and pain in ears and eyes. Tinnitus or ringing in the ears. Distortions of hearing. Buzzing inside the head.

4. Dizziness, vertigo, unsteadiness, and nausea, essentially seasickness on land.
Pierpont to Hammond (NY) Wind Committee July 5, 2010 Page 2 of 4

5. Sensations of internal pulsation or movement, in the chest or abdomen, associated with panic-like episodes, in people who had no previous episodes of panic. These episodes occurred while awake or asleep, awakening the affected people from sleep.

6. Problems with memory and concentration. Irritability and loss of energy and motivation. School and behavior problems in children. Increased aggression in both adults and children.

In the book, I document these symptoms for all study subjects, in 66 pages of structured, before-during-after accounts divided for each subject into organ systems or functions, such as sleep, headache, cognition, mood, balance and equilibrium, ears and hearing, eyes and vision, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory, etc.—before-during-after for each category.

It is critical that I interviewed people as much about their past medical history as about their current symptoms, to distinguish which symptoms were actually due to the exposure, and to identify the subjects’ risk factors for experiencing certain symptoms.

I then examined the relationships between medical factors before exposure and the tendency of subjects to have certain symptoms during the exposure, using simple and straightforward statistics. This was one of the reasons that I collected information on all family members, not just the most affected, so that I would have some equally exposed but less affected people in the sample, who had been gathered according to a consistent rule (collect data on all family members without regard to symptoms present or absent).

I found strong and statistically significant relationships:

1. Between the panic-internal pulsation symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity,
2. Between severe headaches during exposure and pre-existing migraine disorder, and
3. Between tinnitus during exposure and previous inner ear damage from noise or chemotherapy.

Equally as significant, I found no statistical association between pre-existing mental health disorder and the tendency to get panic-like episodes during exposure.

From these results I hypothesize about physiologic mechanisms for the effects, using an extensive review of the literature on low-frequency noise effects and on the neurophysiology of the balance system. This part, on how the wind turbines may be exerting their effects, is hypothetical. It is a proposal that inner ear specialists find it very interesting, but it is still hypothetical.

What is not hypothetical is that the turbines cause the symptoms (case-crossover design) and that the degree of illness caused is of such magnitude that people spend or forfeit many thousands of dollars to avoid the exposure (revealed preference data).

To get a preliminary idea of the proportion of people who may be affected, local affected residents around the Waubra wind farm in Victoria, Australia counted the numbers of households with affected people who had made their symptoms publicly known, the numbers of households that had abandoned their homes, and the total number of households within a radius of 3.5 km, the maximum distance at which there were affected people in this setting.

There were 153 total households. Two households had moved completely and a third was staying elsewhere because of their symptoms, or about 2% of households moved. An additional 19 households, another 12%, were affected but remained in their homes despite their chronic insomnia, etc.
Pierpont to Hammond (NY) Wind Committee July 5, 2010 Page 3 of 4

My study has attracted attention. The American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations published a critique without reading the study, since its paper was released within days of my book’s publication. The British Wind Energy Association has also issued a critique.

Carl V. Phillips, a Harvard-trained PhD in public policy and epidemiology, states that these and other industry-commissioned critiques "don’t represent proper scientific reading" of the evidence that there is a problem, my study among them.

Quoting from his testimony last week before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, "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." He explains in a more detailed written report "why these claims, which probably seem convincing to most readers" at first glance, "don’t represent proper scientific reading." He points out that "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."

One industry critiques states that people become ill around wind turbines by power of suggestion, and that I was the person doing the suggesting. I was not: people became ill, made their decisions, and temporarily left their homes or moved out or renovated their houses before I ever found them. I found them because they had in some way made public what they had done.

When I found myself interviewing people who had not connected certain symptoms to the turbines and had not spent significant time away from their homes, I did not offer interpretations or advice or persist in questioning in those areas, nor did I include these families in the study.

The adults in the 10 families in my study are all practical, regular people. There are three fishermen, two teachers, two nurses, a physician, a home health aide, a farmer, a professional gardener, a computer programmer, a milk truck driver, and a number of homemakers. There were several retired disabled people. People like this don't disrupt their lives and spend or forfeit thousands of dollars for imaginary illness.

Again, the “revealed preference measure” shows us what is not purely subjective or fakery in the accounts of illness.

With regard to my mechanistic proposals, these have been taken up by the cochlear physiology laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis, MO. Professors Alec Salt and Timothy Hullar have just published a paper in the journal Hearing Research regarding physiologic mechanisms by which the low-frequency noise affects the inner ear, both the cochlea (hearing organ) and the vestibular (balance) organs.

One possible mechanism is by low-frequency noise inducing endolymphatic hydrops, or increased pressure and distortion of membrane positions and tension within the inner ear (as in Meniere’s disease). There are also differences in the functioning of inner and outer hair cells in the cochlea that may prevent us from hearing low-frequency noise that is indeed having a physiological effect on the ear.

Dr. Salt had already found effects of low-frequency noise on the inner ear experimentally, and explicitly incorporates references to wind turbine low-frequency noise and to my research in his paper.

This being an area of active research and new findings, one cannot rely on the out-of-date assumption that if people can’t hear a sound, it cannot have any other effect on them—one of the premises wind industry consultants rely on to assert that the low frequency noise produced by wind turbines is at too low a level to have any physiological effects. This premise is out of date.

WIND SITING HEARING NOTICE

Tuesday  July 6, 2010, beginning at 1:00 p.m and 6:00 p.m.

Docket 1-AC-231

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
First Floor, Amnicon Falls Room
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio and video of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 1:00.

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.

MEETING NOTICE
Wind Siting Council
Docket 1-AC-231

Agenda

1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda
2) Review and adoption of meeting minutes of June 21, 2010 & June 23, 2010
3) Straw proposal amendment ballot results
4) Straw proposal revisions based on ballot results
5) Additional revisions to straw proposal prior to end of public comment period
6) Next steps/Discussion of next meeting’s time, place and agenda
7) Adjourn

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE WIND SITING COUNCIL STRAW PROPOSAL

NEW! CLICK HERE WATCH A SHORT ANIMATION ABOUT SHADOW FLICKER AND SETBACKS

COURTESY OF THE GREAT EVANSVILLE OBSERVER (Click here to visit the Evansville Observer Website)

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

A copy of the finalized ballot for voting on Wind Siting Council issues has been made public today by the PSC and can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE.

Anyone who wishes to fill out this ballot and submit it to the PSC as public comment for the Wind Siting Council Docket may do so.

Because this copy is a Word Document format, you must

A: Fill in the ballot and then copy and paste the entire document into the comment box for Docket 1-AC-231 by CLICKING HERE. (This link will get you directly to the comment page for the Wind Siting Council Docket There is no limit on the number of comments you may make to the docket.)

B: You may also save your completed copy of the document as a PDF and upload it to the docket if you are registered with the PSC's ERF system.

C: You can fill it in and mail it directly to the PSC. It must be there before July 6th, 2010. You'll need to provide your name and address and make it clear that it is to be included on docket 1-AC-231

Send it to The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

610 N Whitney Way

Madison, WI 53705

Scroll down to the previous post to read a draft version of this document which was released last week.

Click on links below for times and locations of hearings taking place in Fond du Lac, Tomah and Madison this week. 

• Public Hearing: PSC Wind Siting Rules
  June 28, 2010 (6:00 PM)
• Public Hearing: PSC Wind Siting Rules
  June 29, 2010 (1:00 PM)
• Public Hearing: PSC Wind Siting Rules
  June 29, 2010 (6:00 PM)
• Public Hearing: PSC Wind Siting Rules
  June 30, 2010 (1:00 PM)

WHAT'S THE WORD FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?

Here is what the Towns of Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore in Brown County submitted to the wind siting council docket.

If you would like your Town Board to read this and consider submitting a comment, download this document by CLICKING HERE

Although the timing may not allow for Town Boards to officially decide to comment as a group, any of Town board member or other local government officials may comment individually as citizens, and identify themselves as members of local government.

Submitted to: Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Docket No. 1-AC-231 Draft Chapter 128—Wind Energy Systems
Comments by the Towns of Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore
Brown County, Wisconsin
June 24, 2010

The towns of Morrison, Wrightstown, and Glenmore in Brown County respectfully submit our comments and concerns in regard to the May 14, 2010 draft of the Chapter 128 rules for wind energy systems.

This submittal reflects many hours of research, participation in county meetings involving wind energy and health experts, consultation with licensed Professional Engineers, seven town meetings for citizens’ input including two joint meetings of all three towns and a thorough review process of this submittal.

The overall objectives of the towns are as follows:

1. To help the PSCW develop rules for Wind Energy Systems (WES) so that public safety and health are preserved.

2. To provide credible and reasonable suggestions.

3. To base suggestions on current state law, recent wind turbine and health studies, expert publications, and citizens’ input and experiences with existing WES.

4. To ensure citizens’ input from the towns of Glenmore, Morrison, and Wrightstown into the rule-making process.

The towns appreciate the efforts of the PSCW and the Wind Siting Council. The comments will follow the order of the draft rules but first some critical points are presented.

First, attention is requested to another submittal of these towns cautioning about the potential danger to human and animal health by rushing the promulgation of these rules.

The PSCW with the University of Wisconsin, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection should be involved to be sure that health and safety are not compromised.

Wisconsin has existing wind turbine installations which provide the opportunity to measure health effects and also a responsibility to not build more wind projects until health complaints are studied and resolved. If not done, such requirements as setbacks and sound levels must be set very conservatively.

It appears that Act 40 has no deadline for promulgating these siting rules. Just this week, a state senator who was one of the leaders in the wind siting legislation agreed that these rules should not be rushed. He supports scientific studies of Wisconsin’s existing wind turbine complexes.

Second, the draft rules require the developer to involve the DNR for the usual permitting requirements.

The rules must require the DNR to include groundwater impacts in their review and to require construction and operation techniques which will protect water quality.

Brown County has experienced how easy and widespread groundwater can become contaminated. The rules need to allow for the DNR to identify geological areas in which wind turbines are not to be constructed because the risk of contamination is too high.

If statutory authority is needed, the towns would work to accomplish that.

Third, the rules are only as good as their implementation. Most towns, counties, and state agencies are not able to inspect the whole construction process for wind turbines. The rules should require the use of qualified, third-party engineering/environmental inspectors reporting to the DNR, county land conservation, and local political subdivisions and paid for by the wind developer/owner.

It is believed the PSCW has done similar in the past for energy projects. PSC REF#:133746
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin


Comments on specific sections of draft rules: (“D/O” means “developer/owner”)

II. Developer Requirements

.10(1) Notification Requirements and .11 Real Property Provisions

1. Consider pre-qualifying of D/O (or state licensing) for one MW or larger projects to minimize unqualified D/Os who waste time and money of local towns and counties, contact landowners without any accountability and, most importantly, are likely to construct poorer quality facilities.

2. Create a process to assign a temporary franchise area to D/O while contacting landowners but require public announcement before contacting landowners for an easement or lease. This should satisfy developers who do not want confusion by alerting a second developer of their activities. But, since competition is good, PSCW may consider issuing two temporary franchises with full disclosure to landowners who could sign options with each developer. PSCW would then choose the best project to move forward.

3. Require a PSCW-published “Truth-In-Negotiating” brochure to be sent to landowners one month before contact. A few references are available such as www.flaginc.org. One disclosure which should be included is that, it appears, in Wisconsin if the turbine or cable trenches create pathways for manure to contaminate the groundwater, it is still the farmer who is responsible for the contamination unless the easement/lease can transfer that liability to the developer.

4. Require that lease/easement agreements allow for an option to terminate the contract at some point early in the process if landowner wishes.
.
12 Existing Property Uses

1. This requirement is helpful but “reasonable” needs some definition or examples.

.13 Siting Criteria

1. With more and more evidence that setbacks which have been used in the past are not adequate, it is disturbing to see the setbacks proposed in the PSCW draft.

2. Determining the correct setback has to be driven by what is necessary to ensure safety and health, not by the fact that someone wants to invest in wind energy.

3. Since human stress causes health problems, the stress of “taking of property (value and use options) without due process” from neighbors of wind turbine installations must be considered. The PSCW understands the value of options when evaluating energy projects. Therefore, it must be understood that since a neighbor to a wind turbine project loses options for future use of their property when setbacks are inadequate, they lose real value. Lost options include not being able to build a residence, sell the property for residential development or even build their own wind turbine. Setbacks should not create “no-build” zones for future residences on nonparticipating parcels. Such action is, in fact, the “taking of property without due process”.

4. Setbacks should be established to protect safety and health of both participating and nonparticipating residents. The draft rules with different setbacks for different residents suggest a degree of ambiguity as to what setback is needed for health and safety for any person. The draft rules which include setback differences as well as the short setbacks reinforce the need for studies in the field so that science and statistical analysis provide the answers.

5. Setbacks should be determined for each wind structure to meet standards for maximum allowable sound levels and shadow flickering and to provide safe distances from ice shedding and structural failure or turbine blade breakage and throw-off. The draft seems to use some unknown criteria.

6. Since modeling predictions have a degree of error, minimum setbacks are still needed. But when modeling shows greater setbacks, those should be used.

7. Also, the option for residents to waive the setbacks drafted in Table 1 suggests a lack of a sound scientific basis for setting the setbacks in the first place. In addition, when the PSCW cannot determine the right setback for everyone’s safety and health, as it seems, it is not appropriate to allow a waiver process.

8. There is a body of studies and experiences which suggests “1/2 mile from residences” is needed for safety and health reasons. Even older publications suggested “1/4 mile” will solve the majority of issues which means the draft rules are ignoring the trend of evidence suggesting that greater setback distances are needed. From 2007 through 2009, seven experts or expert groups have recommended setbacks of 1.5 to 2.4 kilometers which is 0.93 to 1.5 miles. Again, conducting studies at Wisconsin’s existing wind turbine complexes is the only responsible path before setting setback criteria.

9. A health effect similar to motion sickness which affects some people and not others also needs studying to determine setback criteria.

.14 Noise Criteria

1. The towns are not recommending a specific sound level because the establishment of such standard needs to be based on thorough epidemiological studies. The towns suggest considering different sound levels for daytime and nighttime and the suitability of an ambient plus 5dB standard. Sound levels in the draft rules are set much higher than recommended by many recent studies.

The following references are offer.
Document ETSU-R-97 used as a standard for years in the United Kingdom specifies no greater than 35-40dB LA90 or background + 5dB for evening hours and 43dB LA90 or background + 5dB for nighttime. A new peer-reviewed report dated April 2010 by Dr. Hanning reviews a number of recent studies and standards. Some experts are now pointing out that ETSU-R-97 has proven inadequate and one suggestion is to lower the nighttime to 33-38dBA.
Stigwood in 2008 states that sound levels established for smaller turbines (less than 330 feet) are not accounting for noise phenomena of larger turbines which cause excessive amplitude modulation, more low frequency noise and greater disturbance inside buildings.

New Zealand’s new standard published March 2010 limits sound levels to the greater of 40dB LA90(10min) or 5dB above background with certain conditions requiring 35dB LA90(10min) or 5dB above background.

As referenced in another filing by our towns, the World Health Organization (WHO) has just published a very significant report entitled “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe”. WHO indicated that now governments have justifications to regulate noise exposure during nighttime. The report does not address the specific sound phenomena of wind turbines so Wisconsin needs to do those types of studies. WHO sets the limit for annual average nighttime exposure to not exceed 40dB outside at a residence.

Experts, Thorne and van den Berg (2010), wrote, “We believe annoyance and loss of amenity will be protected when the wind turbine noise limit would be 30dBA L95 in conditions of low wind speed at the dwellings and modulation restricted to 3dB.
Dr. Hanning concludes that to protect receptors from annoyance and sleep disturbance, a level of 35dBA is appropriate with the absence of excessive modulation.

2. Based on evolving evidence and the gap between the PSCW’s draft rules and updated standards in other jurisdictions with more wind turbine history, scientific field studies on human effects in Wisconsin’s existing wind complexes are essential before setting standards. If not done now, the PSCW must error on the safe side to not put people at risk.

3. Sound level limits are needed to protect participating residents as well as non-participating residents. Higher limits for participating residents will set the stage for even more difficulty for those homeowners to sell or even rent their properties and potentially lead to rural blight.

4. Standards need to address low frequency noise and infrasound which are beginning to be better understood and appear to have significant roles in sleep disturbance and negative health impacts. These sound types appear to be even more of an issue in stable air conditions.

A new peer-reviewed study by Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis was announced on June 9, 2010 and will be available soon. The authors indicate that infrasounds which are not audible cause physiological effects on humans. They point out that the A-weighting measurements of wind turbine noise underestimate the influence of this noise on the inner ear. They stress their study does not conclude that infrasound causes people’s symptoms but they call for scientific studies because of the likelihood of a causal effect.

5. In January 2010, the UK National Health Services, the world’s largest publicly funded health service, stresses the urgent need for studies on wind turbine noise effects which use control groups. They were reacting to a joint report by the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations and were concerned about the report’s deficiencies.
In 2007, a report came out of the New University of Lisbon and the Center for Human Performance which stated, “These results irrefutably demonstrate that wind turbines in the proximity of residential areas produce acoustical environments what can lead to the development of vibro-acoustic disease (VAD) in nearby home dwellers”. VAD can be a disabling disease.

6. Multiple wind turbines can synchronize sound waves and create stronger impulses to rattle windows and metal sheds. High levels of infrasound can also cause this. Sound levels of 60dBA at frequencies below 10 HZ have been measured at distances of ½ mile and greater. It appears that modeling tools are not predicting such accurately.

7. It is not known by the towns whether any D/O of an existing wind turbine complex in Wisconsin has done post-construction verification of their sound level models beyond just doing spot comparisons at locations where they have resident complaints. Recent studies suggest some modeling has proven to grossly underestimate sound levels. Again, a need to take the time to conduct field studies is required for credible decision-making for siting standards.

8. Properly set standards for health and safety should not be able to be waived. There may be minors and other occupants in the affected residence who need protection. Evidence shows different people often vary in their sensitivity to the health issues from noise. Also, a layperson is usually not capable to waive a safety standard for future occupants.

.15 Shadow Flicker

1. Landowners don’t want any shadow flicker on non-participating residences. Some object to it on their yard because of the amount of time they spend outside.

2. Using existing residences as impact targets for shadow flicker modeling potentially could create large “no-build/no-sell” zones on non-participating parcels.

3. Mitigation after the fact is a necessary provision but still is not a satisfactory solution. Mitigation by providing blinds or planting trees to block the view are not considered satisfactory by those affected. Again, D/O’s must be required to field test their models now in existing wind turbine complexes and make the appropriate corrections to the models if they have not done so.

.16 Signal Interference

1. Over-the-air internet services should be included in the siting rules. Such commercial systems using unlicensed (but legal) radio spectrum are in service today.

2. Requirements to mitigate interference are not adequate especially in these days of digital transmissions. The requirement must be to eliminate interference.

3. The towns’ farmers want to know what consideration has been given to whether wind turbines will impact global positioning systems used for different farm operations.

.17 Stray Voltage

1. The requirement to “work to rectify” opens the door for dragging out the solving of any problems indefinitely. Language needs to require a timely solution.

2. More technical requirements should be included as a minimum such as filter devices to prevent existing harmonics on the electric distribution or transmission system from transferring to the wind turbines’ cable connector installations. Bare neutrals should not be allowed as part of these cable connector systems.

3. If it is necessary to involve the electric distribution utility, the D/O should reimburse the utility for their time and expenses. Utility ratepayers should not have to pay to accommodate wind developers anymore than they do.
.18 Construction and Operation

1. Under paragraph (3), the turbine foundation design shall be reviewed by a licensed Professional Engineer with certified soil testing results to verify adequacy. This has been an issue with inexperienced or small developers who thought it was adequate to use a “typical foundation” picture in a manufacturer’s marketing brochure.

2. In certain geological areas, consideration and evaluation of risks to groundwater are essential. Not only the foundations but, more importantly, the cable connector trenches can create pathways for contamination from farm operations. Some sites will not be appropriate for turbine structures or connector trenches. The rules must support professional expert decision-making in these cases where risks to health and safety are best known locally. Attempts to write rules for general situations will ignore serious threats.

3. In sensitive areas, such as southern Brown County, trenches will likely intercept karsts, sinkholes and shallow bedrock which will create new no-spreading zones for manure, a process essential for farmers. If D/O’s run trenches across farm fields, the whole trench line could create new pathways to groundwater. There is some discussion that it may be necessary to prohibit manure spreading within 200 feet of cable trenches in geologically sensitive areas which could essentially take much farm land out of production. The state rules must accommodate such complex situations and allow requirements specified by experts. A requirement to route cables along tree lines or fence lines of participating landowners should be permitted. But this would not be a solution if the tree lines or fence lines are adjacent to non-participating properties.

4. Similarly, certain geological situations require knowing the depth and nature of the soil under the bottom of the trench. The rules must allow for requiring soil borings in trench lines as appropriate.

5. The DNR has proposed new restrictions for towns and landowners to reduce non-point pollution and storm water control. The wind siting rules need to allow for protections for methods used to satisfy the DNR requirements. Sometimes, this may be as simple as restoring road ditches and their grasses. Related to this, the rules need to specify procedures for locating and repairing drain tile systems in use by many farmers. D/O’s should be required to pay for any damage to the tile system whenever discovered.

6. If not done, there should be consideration for standards when a turbine foundation will be near or in bedrock. It is anecdotal but it has been indicated that a number of feet of backfill, i.e. 8-11 feet, should separate the foundation from the bedrock to prevent vibrations from transmitting through the bedrock to nearby structures.

7. A minimum amount of general liability insurance should be specified since usually the D/O uses a limited liability company to limit assets at risk.

8. Under paragraph (5), there should be a requirement for the D/O to send an acknowledgement of receipt of a complaint to the complainant.

III. Political Subdivision Procedure

.32 Political Subdivision Review of a Wind Energy System

1. Towns should be able to require compliance to their existing ordinance procedures for construction projects such as road damage bonds, building permits, etc.

2. A cap on town fees or reimbursements could potentially result in an inadequate review process. As drafted, the fee would be only $50 on a $50,000 project and $3,000 on a $10,000,000 project.

3. It should be clear that a town may require the D/O to pay for an independent third-party engineering/environmental inspector to be on-site for any excavation, blasting, backfilling and sensitive construction procedures. The inspector would report to the town, county, landowners and, if desired, the DNR and PSCW. This is especially necessary in certain geological areas.

.33 Political Subdivision Provisions

1. A question arises with the provision whereby a town may require the D/O to offer agreements to nonparticipating residence owners. If compensation is offered and the residence owners then become participating owners because of the receipt of compensation, would then the reduced setbacks apply to those residences if the final rules still had different setbacks for participating residences and nonparticipating residences?

2. It should be made clear that requiring an escrow in an interest-bearing account is considered to be reasonable for proof of financial responsibility.

3. Post-construction filing requirements in (3) should include maps showing the underground facilities, not just the turbine structures.

4. A political subdivision should be allowed to require the D/O to use an “on-demand” lighting system approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. These new systems eliminate light pollution from aircraft warning lights by turning the lights on only when an aircraft is detected heading towards the wind turbine installations.

IV. Commission Procedure

.40 Detailed Application Requirements

1. There appears to be a typo where “s. PSC 128.30(1)(j)” is referenced in the first paragraph.
.41 Commission Review

1. Under (8), the political subdivision is required to enter a decision within 20 business days. That may be difficult with town notice and quorum requirements and may require a special meeting. Thirty business days would be reasonable.

Submitted for the towns by Glen R. Schwalbach, P.E.