Better Plan, Wisconsin

DATES SET FOR WIND LAWSUIT

SOURCE: Huron Daily Tribune, www.michigansthumb.com

October 23 2010

By Kate Hessling, Tribune Staff Writer,

Turbines in Ubly, MichiganBAD AXE — Dates have been set for a case evaluation and jury trial for the lawsuit filed by 20 Huron County residents claiming the Ubly area Michigan Wind I development has harmed their quality of life and lowered property values.

Huron County Circuit Court officials said a case evaluation will be conducted July 21, 2011 and a jury trial has been scheduled for Oct. 4, 2011. The dates were set after a pretrial hearing that was held Thursday.

The case evaluation consists of a panel of three attorneys who will review the case and recommend a case outcome. The plaintiffs and defendants then will have 28 days to either accept or reject the results of the case evaluation. If both accept the recommendation, an order closing the case will be drafted. If one or both parties reject the recommendation, the case goes to a jury trial.

In the lawsuit, which was filed May 11 in Huron County Circuit Court against John Deere Renewables, Deere & Company (John Deere), Noble Environmental Power, LLC, Michigan Wind I, LLC (Noble Thumb Windpark I) and RMT, Inc., the plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $25,000 and an injunctive relief ordering the companies to cease and desist their activities.

The lawsuit consists of four counts: Private nuisance (Count I), public nuisance (Count II), negligent design of a wind farm (Count III) and negligent misrepresentation (Count IV). While the lawsuit names John Deere Renewables, John Deere, Michigan Wind I, LLC and Noble Environmental Power, LLC in all four counts, RMT, Inc. is named only in Count III.

In August, Huron County Circuit Court Judge M. Richard Knoblock dismissed two of four counts against John Deere Renewables, LLC, Deere & Company and Michigan Wind 1, LLC, and one of four counts against Noble Environmental Power, LLC

Knoblock’s ruling left John Deere, John Deere Renewables, Michigan Wind I LLC facing two counts: Count I of private nuisance and Count II of public nuisance. Noble Environmental Power, LLC is left with three counts: Count I of private nuisance, Count II of public nuisance and Count III of negligent design of a wind farm. RMT, Inc. still faces the one count of negligent design of a wind park.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege the actions of the wind companies and Michigan Wind 1 wind farm have caused the plaintiffs substantial damage, including, but not limited to, physical harm and adverse health effects, including the inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea and other physiological cognitive effects.

According to the answer attorneys for RMT, Inc. filed in response to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, RMT denies it is liable to the plaintiffs in any amount of money whatsoever, and is asking the court to dismiss the complaint and grant RMT, Inc. its costs, attorney fees and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate.

Answers filed by attorneys for John Deere, Deere Renewables and Michigan Wind I LLC, and by attorneys for Noble Environmental Power, LLC, also deny the allegations in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in the case are David Peplinski, Marilyn Peplinski, Frank Peplinski, Georgia Peplinski, Terry Peplinski, Christine Peplinski, Curtis Watchowski, Lynda Watchowski, James Czewski, Delphine Czewski, Dennis Mausolf, Darcy Mausolf, Dale Laming, Elaine Laming, Lynn Sweeney, Pam Sweeney, Alger Nowak, Mary Nowak, Randy Weber and Angela Weber, according to court documents from the Huron County Clerk’s Office.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege the actions of the wind companies and Michigan Wind 1 wind farm have caused the plaintiffs substantial damage, including, but not limited to, physical harm and adverse health effects, including the inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea and other physiological cognitive effects.

The lawsuit attributes the adverse health effects to low frequency and sub-audible infrasound and/or impulse noise created by and emitted from turbines in the Ubly area wind park.

Noise and setback issues included in the lawsuit are what many opponents to local wind energy development say are the most contentious issues surrounding the Nov. 2 county Proposals 1 & 2. They believe the county’s standards are too lax and put the public health, safety and welfare at risk.

County officials and wind proponents have countered efforts urging people to vote “No” on the two proposals by noting the two proposals are not about noise and setbacks. The proposals are to amend the county’s wind ordinance to change two areas of the county — McKinley Township and portions of Rubicon, Sigel and Bloomfield townships — from a zoning classification of agriculture to a zoning classification of agriculture with a wind overlay district.

The proposals do not seek to change any of the ordinance’s language or existing noise and setback standards for wind energy developments.

With that said, opponents to wind developments say readers should be informed about these issues from Dr. Malcolm Swinbanks, the expert who wind opponents repeatedly have referenced in literature and public meetings.

Some key points of opponents and proponents in this debate will be featured in Tuesday’s edition of the Huron Daily Tribune.



SECOND FEATURE

OREGON PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICE DECIDES IT'S TIME TO STUDY HEALTH EFFECTS OF WIND TURBINES

By Scott Learn, The Oregonian, www.oregonlive.com 21 October 2010

Oregon has boosted wind energy projects with a vengeance in recent years, adopting a renewable power standard and tax breaks that have helped spread wind farms across the state’s northern reaches and into eastern Oregon.

Now comes the Oregon Public Health office, which announced Thursday that it’s embarking on a public health assessment of wind farms, kicking off with three “listening sessions” next month in LaGrande, Pendleton and Arlington to hear residents’ health concerns tied to the spinning blades.

The health issues are part of a broader backlash in Oregon and nationwide from critics who complain of negative impacts on scenery, property values, wildlife and tourism.

The growing number of wind farms has led to more complaints about their health effects, said Sujata Joshi, an epidemiologist in the environmental public health office. Health concerns raised to date focus on noise and vibration generated by the huge turbines.

The assessment will start with the listening sessions, but also include a review of health studies and talks with a steering committee that will include wind farm developers, community members, the state Department of Energy and Oregon’s energy facility siting council, which oversees new wind farm locations.

“With any development, you start learning more about potential concerns as more people start experiencing it,” Joshi said. “Our goal now is to hear what people have to say, and see if we can find solutions that work for communities and for the state’s goals.”

Wind farm critics cite work done by New York physician Nina Pierpoint who coined the term “wind turbine syndrome” to describe effects — such as headaches, dizziness and memory loss — of living near the machines. Industry representatives say they haven’t seen solid research linking wind turbines and negative health effects.

In May, Morrow County’s planning commission voted to give owners of the 72-megawatt Willow Creek farm six months to comply with state noise regulations. In November, Union County voters will vote thumbs up or down on the proposed Antelope Ridge Wind farm, though the vote is only advisory to the county commission. Supporters say the projects bring jobs, healthy lease payments to land owners who host the turbines and carbon-free electricity.

Oregon’s renewable power standard requires Portland General Electric and PacifiCorp to obtain 25 percent of their energy from new renewable sources by 2025. A more aggressive standard in California has also driven fast-paced wind farm development in Oregon.

Joshi said she’s not sure yet when the health office will complete its work. Updates will be posted at www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hia/windenergy.shtml, which also includes details of the sessions on Nov. 3 and 4.

THIRD FEATURE:

PANEL: SPREAD WIND'S REWARDS

MAKE UP FOR LOSSES: Cape Vincent team says property value, tourism are at risk  

CAPE VINCENT — The town's wind economics committee, finding risks and rewards of wind farm development, has offered bold recommendations to spread rewards around and compensate nonparticipating landowners for any losses they incur.

The committee, which released its report Oct. 7, saw risks to property values, school district aid and tourism. On the other hand, wind power projects would have payments for landowners and for taxing jurisdictions through payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreements.

The report also briefly pointed to other financial risks, including the failure of the developer to pay agreed payments, the owner terminating operation and the owner not saving enough money for decommissioning costs. The town and residents could incur legal fees from disagreements or disputes.

To limit the possibility of economic harm, the committee recommended that the town:

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.

VESTAS USING POTENTIALLY HARMFUL CHEMICALS

SOURCE: Coloradoan.com

 October 17, 2010 

BY DAVID YOUNG

Records show Windsor plant has been cited for violations.

WINDSOR – The international wind turbine company Vestas Wind Systems is using potentially harmful chemicals in its blades factory here that have injured several workers and in some cases led to employees losing their jobs, according to government records and former employees.

A two-month investigation by the Coloradoan shows that a handful of employees working at the Vestas facility, 11140 Eastman Park Drive, have been injured by an epoxy resin used in the blade manufacturing process.

The company has been aware of the dangers since a 2009 settlement in the United Kingdom involving exposure to the same chemical.

The Windsor plant has also been cited by U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, for numerous violations related to the chemicals and lack of training that contributed to workers’ injuries.

According to OSHA records and current and former Vestas employees, some employees exposed to epoxy resin have developed the skin allergy dermatitis, an often painful allergy that causes swollen, red and itchy skin.

Some employees allege the company terminated their employment at the plant based on the dermatitis they contracted while working there.

Vestas officials would not speak to specific incidents, only stating that it works with employees who have chemical allergies to mitigate the issues and in some instances those employees might need to find alternative employment.

The workers

Former Vestas employee Rusty Estes, 29, of Loveland had worked around epoxy resins while doing vehicle restoration before joining the blades facility in January 2008.

Before going to work on the “join-up” team at Vestas, where Estes was tasked with putting the two halves of a blade together, he had never had any reaction to the material.

However, just a month after working in production at Vestas, Estes developed significant dermatitis on his forearms, according to a November 2009 medical report where a “patch skin test” was planned by Dr. Scott Pace. A year after working at the plant, his body was covered in a painful rash, Estes said.

At least 10 other employees have also been injured by epoxy resins, Estes said.

Dust and fumes from Fiberglas as well as epoxy resins got on his skin despite the protective equipment provided by the company, Estes said. Vestas provides workers with protective clothing, including respirators, and the training on how to properly use it, but he said the equipment was ineffective.

OSHA violations deemed “serious” by the governmental agency confirm that while Vestas provided protective gear, it “did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace.”

Ken Blehm, a professor of environmental health at CSU and an expert in epoxy resins, said the resin can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin, which is why he recommends limiting all contact with the chemicals by using protective clothing.

Included in the April 29 citation, OSHA wrote Vestas “did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee’s ability to use a respirator before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace.”

The respirators were not inspected before each use and during cleaning, according to the report, and Vestas did not provide training prior to requiring the employees to use respirators in the workplace.

A separate citation noted Vestas did not “provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area.”

Those violations have since been abated and the case is now closed, according to OSHA. According to Estes’ worker’s compensation medical records, doctors prescribed a topical agent that did not help with the itching.

During the next year, Estes said the dermatitis progressed to the point that it was “eating his skin away.” Medical records indicate the rash improved when Estes was not working in the facility for a week because of an illness, but the irritation always returned.

After six months of “severe” dermatitis, Estes was reassigned from production to the “webbing area,” according to medical records.

The job reassignment did little to alleviate his rash because the epoxy was in the air, he said.

According to Estes’ medical records, “There is definitely a cause and effect between working at Vestas and developing the contact dermatitis, and having it clear up once he got out of the exposure.”

In March 2010, Vestas fired Estes because of the dermatitis, he said.

“They figured they had no place for me, so they figured they would just get rid of me,” Estes said. “So I was terminated over the dermatitis.”

Since that time, Estes has been unable to find work, in part because of his dermatitis, straining his finances and marriage.

“Vestas pretty much kicked me to the curb, and I am losing everything. It actually hurt my marriage,” Estes said.

Estes pursued legal action but was told there was nothing he could do about the termination considering Colorado is a hire and fire at-will state. He was paid $10,000 in worker’s compensation for his medical bills.

Estes said he has decided to go public with his story in hopes that the injuries at the plant will stop and to empower others who have been injured at the plant by harmful materials.

“It made me pretty upset; they (Vestas) were not willing to work with me or nothing else,” said Estes, who wanted to keep working at the plant despite his injuries. “They caused what happened … I think I was wrongfully terminated, because I think they could have found a place for me.”

Other Vestas employees hurt by the epoxy have fared better than Estes.

Wayne Stolzenberger, a Vestas production assistant, said in an August phone interview that he has been injured by exposure to the epoxy resin at the Windsor plant but was able to keep working.

His reaction to the resin occurred in May, and Stolzenberger said he was reassigned from wood carving and build production to production assistant to mitigate the issue.

Stolzenberger considers himself lucky – the skin irritation cleared up and he has been able to continue working. He said two other workers adversely affected by the epoxy were let go.

Stolzenberger said Vestas told them they lost their jobs because of lack of effort, but he disagrees with what happened.

“Personally, I feel it was handled incorrectly,” Stolzenberger said. “These guys were not allergic prior to working there. They are exposed, and now the company is writing them off and kicking them out the door.”

On Tuesday, Stolzenberger said nothing has changed since August, and he is no longer affected by the epoxy resins.

Another Vestas employee who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution said, like Estes, he was exposed to epoxy resin while working at the Windsor facility between February 2008 and August.

He developed a painful case of dermatitis, causing him to break out in a rash anytime he was working, according to 12 pages of worker compensation forms that detail the employee’s injury in numerous clinical notes from March 19 through Aug. 10. The documents list Vestas Blades America Inc. as the employer, Pinnacol Assurance as the insurer and Dr. Brian Thompson of General Care Medical Clinic as the health-care provider.

The employee had minor outbreaks and treated the rash with a topical steroid cream, according to the documents. In March, the rash spread to the neck and forearms and worsened. By May, the employee was working in a newly constructed paint tunnel where the irritation continued. According to the clinical notes, the Vestas employee was provided protective equipment including a full face mask, but it didn’t fully protect his neck.

During the next few months, the rash appeared to dissipate, however, it recurred and by July 20, the employee had been sent home for two weeks to allow for the rash to clear. Two days after returning to work, the rash flared up again.

At that point, the documents reveal the doctor would not allow him to work at any indoor position at Vestas because of the health and safety risks involved.

The end was swift, according to the employee.

The termination “just completely caught me off guard,” he said. “It was a hell of a blow. There are still repercussions.”

Like Estes, he has been unable to find another job because of his new sensitivity to epoxy resins.

Rather than being let go, the employee said Vestas should have found a position that worked for him, even if that meant transferring him to another one of Vestas’ Colorado facilities such as the new plant in Brighton.

“I don’t think they can do this thing to employees and not have their own repercussions,” he said. “I didn’t bring this upon myself. All I asked for was to be taken care of … I just wanted them to acknowledge this is their fault and here is severance pay.”

Aside from workers’ compensation for his medical bills, he got no compensation for his injuries and opted not to pursue legal action, assuming it would accomplish little.

It is unknown exactly how many other similar incidents occurred at the plant.

Jim McMillen, director of risk management with Pinnacol Assurance, declined to comment directly on how many claims he has received from Vestas, but he said epoxy resin exposure is a fairly common claim throughout the U.S.

In terms of dermatitis, McMillen said anyone regularly handling the material should be using protective equipment to keep the chemical off their skin.

Thompson, with General Care Medical Center, who treated both Estes and the unnamed employee, did not return multiple calls seeking comment.

Vestas tight-lipped

Vestas officials declined to comment on specific cases at their blades facility in Windsor, in turn, e-mailing a prepared statement.

“Under certain conditions, chemical allergies can occur in manufacturing environments that do not allow some employees to continue working in their positions. In such cases, Vestas works with the employee to determine whether exposure to the cause of the allergy can be mitigated. If mitigation is not possible, we try to locate another open position for which the employee is qualified,” said Andrew Longeteig, Vestas communications specialist, in an e-mail.

“We invest significant resources in hiring, training and retaining our employees. As a result, in the case of an epoxy allergy, we look at many options to retain an employee. We manage these options with the health and safety of the employee first and foremost. In cases where an allergy prevents an employee from performing his or her position, and in which an employee’s condition cannot be reasonably accommodated, an employee may need to find alternative employment.”

Kevin Cory, human resources director at the Windsor blade factory, did not return numerous phone calls and e-mails seeking comment. According to Vestas, the company meets regulatory standards and conducts safety training before employees take their jobs on the factory floor. That training emphasizes proper use of protective equipment and how to safely handle epoxy resin.

Employees who follow proper procedures can avoid skin allergies, according to Longeteig.

Stolzenberger said Vestas does provide protective equipment including full body suits and respirators, but they don’t always work.

OSHA fined Vestas $1,500 and cited the company twice with eight separate violations for failure to train employees how to properly use respirators as well as a failure to complete incident report forms for injuries at the facility.

These violations are directly linked with dermatitis and illnesses recorded at the plant, according to Herb Gibson, area director for the Denver OSHA office.

“I think there were probably dermatitis cases dealing with skin contact with this material,” Gibson said in a voicemail. He said he could not disclose details of injuries and illnesses at Vestas’ Windsor facility.

More than a year ago across the Atlantic, Vestas found itself in a similar situation. In June 2009, the Isle of Wight County Press newspaper in the U.K. reported that Vestas Blades Newport turbine factory, which has since closed, was fined almost $800,000 for health and safety violations pertaining to 13 employees who suffered dermatitis after exposure to epoxy resin between 2005 and 2007.

According to that newspaper’s report, Health and Safety Executive Inspector Roger Upfold said, “Dermatitis is not a trivial condition. Epoxy resins are hazardous substances with well-known ill-health effects.”

Like the Windsor plant, employees at the U.K. plant reported symptoms that included swelling, itching and rashes on the skin, with the effects lasting for days in some cases. As a result, some had to stop working for Vestas Blades UK Ltd, according to the news report.

The employees were injured as a result of improper use of or defective protective equipment, according to the report.

“The company was aware but failed to act properly on the reports of ill-health,” Upfold said in the newspaper.

Epoxy resins

The term epoxy resin encompasses a wide range of chemicals; everything from materials used to construct a B-2 stealth bomber to a hockey puck.

Depending on the chemicals used, epoxies can be inert and harmless or cause severe long-term injuries including infertility and kidney damage.

It isn’t entirely clear what chemicals are used by Vestas in the construction of its blades, however, medical reports for injured workers along with OSHA citations note: epoxy, resins, hardeners, aerosol, carbon fibers and Fiberglas dust.

The exposure is such that in some cases employees must wear full-body protective suits as well as respirators to ensure there is no contact with the chemicals.

Blehm, the Colorado State University professor, said health risks and dangers involved with the material depends on the chemicals used, but common health risks include dermatitis, dizziness, sleepiness, liver damage, kidney damage, blisters, chemical burns and potential reproductive effects.

While some people might be born with an aversion to epoxies, it is possible to develop a sensitivity to the chemicals over time. And once a person becomes sensitive to an epoxy resin, there is no way to desensitize them, Blehm said.

“To the best of my knowledge, I do not know anyone who is able to reverse a chemical sensitization once they become sensitized,” Blehm said.

In tandem with limiting contact, Blehm said it is important to practice good hygiene and keep protective equipment and work spaces clean.

If a person were to come into contact with an epoxy resin, he said the first measure is to wash the skin as soon as possible.

Depending on the individual, reactions can be fairly mild, such as a minor rash, to something as severe as anaphylactic shock.

Doug Bjorlo, air quality specialist with the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment, said he primarily encounters epoxy resins in the manufacturing sector.

While Bjorlo couldn’t speak to health risks involved with the chemicals, he said it is important to wear protective gear such as goggles, gloves and aprons to protect from skin contact.

WATCH YESTERDAY'S HEARING ON WISCONSIN EYE

CLICK HERE  to watch Wisconsin Eye video of the Senate Committee wind rules hearing yesterday. 

After you click on the link, click "Watch" under 10.13.10 Senate committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail

BELOW: Video testimony of Dr. Herb Coussons on the wind siting rules. Unfortunately video testimony was not accepted at the hearing. It has been accepted in the past. No reason was given for the change.

Click on the image above to hear Doug Zwiezig ask the Wind Siting Council a simple question about the rules they were approving. It was a simple question no one was able to answer correctly.

Residents from the counties of Rock, Manitowoc, Calumet, Kewaunee, Brown, St. Croix, Fond du Lac, Dodge,  Grant and more who turned out in force at the Capitol to testify against the new wind siting rules created by the Public Service Commission, were surprised that Senator Plale gave the Vice Chair of the Wind Siting Council just three minutes for his testimony about what went wrong on the council.

This critical testimony (below) from Wind siting council Vice Chair Doug Zweizig was cut short at the senate hearing yesterday by the three minute rule.

We are glad to present it here

To Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail

From: Douglas Zweizig, Ph.D., Vice Chair, Wind Siting Council

Re: Clearinghouse Rule #10-057; PSC Wind Siting Rules proposed Chapter 128

Date: October 13, 2010

Good afternoon. My name is Douglas Zweizig. I am retired from teaching at the UW—Madison School of Library and Information Studies where I taught in the areas of management and research methods. I am also a member of the Town of Union (Rock County) Plan Commission, and I chaired that Plan Commission through a sixteen-month process as it developed a licensing ordinance for wind energy systems.

I am an advocate for alternative energy use and have installed geothermal and solar photovoltaic systems at my home. I am speaking today from my experience as Vice Chair of the Public Service Commission-appointed Wind Siting Council.

At the formation of the Wind Siting Council, I was hopeful that this broadly representative group could work together to recommend responsible uniform rules for the siting of wind turbines, but I came to see that the process being followed was flawed, and I was one of the authors of the Council’s minority report.

It seems appropriate for your committee to be holding a hearing on the Public Service Commission-proposed rules as there is considerable evidence that the Public Service Commission did not take seriously the directives in Act 40, the legislation that directed the PSC to appoint the Council and that instructed it in the work that the Council was to carry out. I know that there were a lot of statements made in support of the legislation about the intentions for the Wind Siting Council, and there are descriptions in the Council report of the working of the Wind Siting Council that sound like it worked the way it should have, but the behaviors do not fit that description.

Others will present concerns with the substance of the rules proposed by the Public Service Commission. I want, as a member and Vice-Chair of the Wind Siting Council to report to you on the process of the Council and the ways in which that process did not match the requirements of Act 40.

When the members appointed to the Council were announced, there was widespread objection to the appointments. The minority report of the Wind Siting Council (selection appended on pages 9-14) details some of these concerns, but in brief, even though Act 40 was clear in specifying a balance of interests in the Council, the appointments heavily favored persons with financial interests in the development of large wind energy systems in Wisconsin. I am aware that the Commissioners believe that the legislature desires increased development of wind energy systems, but I don't believe that the legislature desired a bias in the Council that would pre-determine rules favorable to the wind industry and harmful to the health and home values of Wisconsin residents.

I’m going to touch on several aspects of what Act 40 called for the PSC to do with the Wind Siting Council and report on what, in my view, happened. For example, in Act 40, you clearly specified the make-up of this critical committee, the Wind Siting Council. You asked for a balanced Council that would address the concerns of the various parties and that would provide recommendations that accommodated those concerns to the degree possible. What you got was a Council front-loaded in support of wind development, that contained an imbalance of those with financial interests in the development of wind energy systems, and that did not seek to evolve creative solutions to the tensions, only to override any opposition. In choosing a Chair for the Council, the Public Service Commission could have used its opportunity of appointing two public members to appoint someone with stature, skills, and neutrality who could serve as Chair—someone who could help the different interests in the Council listen to each other and craft recommendations that the Public Service Commission and you could move forward with. The appointments of public members that the PSC made squandered that opportunity. Instead, the PSC put forth as Chair someone who was an executive with an electric utility, who had previously issued permits for wind farms as a PSC chair, and who was chair of CREWE (Clean, Responsible Energy for Wisconsin's Economy), an organization even at that time lobbying for an extended and increased Renewable Portfolio Standard. While the Chair did make some efforts to urge members to work toward solutions, there was no effort made by the wind industry block to negotiate solutions that would have begun to adequately address non-industry concerns.

Even though you sought a Council that would contain knowledge and experience from a variety of perspectives, this knowledge and experience was either missing or for the most part unused and sometimes misused. Fortunately, there is an almost complete record of the over 30 hours of Wind Siting Council meetings, from observers' videos and, from midway through the process, on Wisconsin Eye (wiseye.org), so observations about the conduct of the Council can be verified.

 Here are some examples of how the knowledge and professionalism of Council members was neglected.

One would only have to look at a randomly-selected hour of video of a meeting to see the lack of critical thinking that was operating, and this is the process that produced the recommendations of the Council.

You also directed the Council to inform itself about local government regulations, about health impacts, and about regulation in other states and countries. For example, you asked in Act 40 that there be "one member representing towns and one member representing counties," (15.797 (1) (b) 2.) and said that "the initial member of the wind siting council [appointed as a town or county representative] shall represent a town or county that has in effect . . . an ordinance regulating wind energy systems." (Section  14 (2) (b).) It seems clear from this requirement that you wanted the Council to consider and benefit from the local ordinances that had been developed for the regulation of wind siting. Since the major argument made for the need for state-level uniform standards for wind turbine siting was the existing “patchwork” or “hodgepodge” of local ordinances and since the statute stipulated that a member of the Wind Siting Council should have direct experience with such an ordinance, it may be surprising to you that no examination or consideration of these local ordinances occurred. I had provided copies of my Town of Union’s ordinance to members of the Council, but it was never taken up in a meeting. While it was easy for frustrated wind developers to rail against having to understand and comply with local government concerns, the fact is that local governments spent considerable time and resources to carry out their responsibilities to their constituents. In the case of my small township, sixteen months and an estimated $40,000. was spent preparing a licensing ordinance for wind energy systems. We did not take this task lightly, and we believe that our investigations and work resulted in an ordinance that would allow wind development in our township while being protective of our citizens, but our experience and the experience of other local jurisdictions were not considered as anything other than impediments.

The Wind Siting Council ignored the work that had been done by local governments across the state because it seems the focus of the Council was on the needs of the wind industry and not on the equally legitimate concerns of local jurisdictions.

In a specific case, when I tried to address the issue of complaint resolution and provided language from our ordinance that described our approach (appended pages 15-17), it was not taken as a motion or seriously discussed. Instead, the Chair repeatedly asserted that the approach used by WE Energies should be taken as a model to be used throughout the state.

You asked that "one member who is a University of Wisconsin System faculty member with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems" (15.797 (1) (b) 8.) be on the Council.

It is pretty clear that you were asking for the best qualified person to be found in public higher education in Wisconsin to inform the recommendations of the Wind Siting Council on this issue of central concern. We now have hundreds of Wisconsin families who are living adjacent to large wind turbines, we have reports of serious health concerns and suspected consequences among these families, we have households abandoning their unlivable homes in order to avoid the effects of wind turbines—it is important to be as sure as we can be that policy decisions on wind turbine siting will not result in compromising the health of wind farm hosts or neighbors. This is why you specified clearly that you wanted to be guided by the highest quality of information.

What you got was not a University of Wisconsin System faculty member but someone who had been hired to teach a course in the medical school, someone whose highest research qualification is a masters degree, someone who had begun to investigate the literature on the "health impacts of wind energy systems" just a few months before being appointed to the Wind Siting Council, and someone who had done no independent investigation of the health impacts of exposure to wind energy systems. It is difficult to understand how this appointment came about, but it is clear that the Public Service Commission did not, as was asked for, look throughout the UW System, but only at the UW—Madison and then, finally, in the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

To further underscore your concern with health impacts, you specified that the Wind Siting Council "shall survey the peer-reviewed scientific research regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems" (Section 12,  (e).)

The Wind Siting Council did not conduct any such survey. One member of the Wind Siting Council, having a masters degree in Public Health and working for a state agency that had already taken a position denying the health impacts of wind energy systems, was asked to prepare a presentation to be given to the Wind Siting Council. Immediately following the PowerPoint-assisted presentation, there was a limited time for questions. The written text of the presentation was initially promised to be provided, but then was withheld. It is now taking a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain a copy of this paper prepared by a state employee as part of his work. Without this text, the basis for the presentation cannot be evaluated. The Wind Siting Council was not provided access to any of the research studies by either copies or links, and the section on Noise in the report of the Wind Siting Council cites studies that were not part of the presentation and that were unknown to the Council. This critical part of your direction was simply not carried out.

In addition, you required that the Wind Siting Council "shall . . . study state and national regulatory developments regarding the siting of wind energy systems." (Section 12,  (e).) How did that go? I don't believe that state or national regulations ever appeared on an agenda for the Wind Siting Council. There were no briefing materials prepared or provided to WSC members. When I provided information on New Zealand's reconfirmed and revised noise standard of 5 decibels over background sound levels (appended pages 18-19), a standard that they have found workable and that is supported by both the government and the industry-based New Zealand Wind Energy Association, consideration of it was dismissed by a wind developer by saying that we should not consider any standards from other countries.  The Chair, and other industry supporters, thought that was an adequate response.

The only report on regulation from any other states that I have seen from the PSC was appended to the Rules sent to you at the end of August as Attachment A1, "Comparison with Similar Rules in Surrounding States." This information was not provided to the Wind Siting Council. So, for example, we never learned that Michigan PSC has recommended that "setback requirements and noise limitations should continue to be decided at the local level where feasible so that the needs of local citizens can be appropriately considered." We never learned about the Michigan PSC’s recommendation that the noise standard should be measured from the property line, not the residence. We never learned that in Minnesota "a county may adopt standards for large wind systems that are more stringent than those in Minnesota PUC rules or permit standards." And given these differences found in neighboring states, there is a good chance that we could learn a great deal from an unbiased survey of state and national regulatory siting regulation, but that survey was apparently never conducted or at least was not shared with the Council.

While I have been impressed with the professionalism and diligence of the PSC staff, it is clear that the PSC-directed process of the Wind Siting Council has failed to comply with the requirements you included in Act 40

• in making appointments to the Council,
• in learning from local government experiences with regulation of wind energy systems,
• in responsibly investigating the concerns with health impacts, and

 This outcome is not what Chairman Callisto promised this committee in May of last year when he said, "I pledge to you a rule-making process that will be open and inclusive. I have no desire to send you a rule that gives you heartburn. My job is to get the rule done right the first time."

I think that you and I would agree that the health and property of Wisconsin citizens and the energy future of the state are all important issues and deserve better attention than they received in the Wind Siting Council. It is sad that the Public Service Commission was not able to make better use of the opportunity provided by Act 40 to develop rules that would promote sustainable wind development for Wisconsin, that would be fair to all parties, that would be workable, and that would promote community acceptance of wind energy systems.

I respectfully request that the rules be sent back to the Public Service Commission to improve the Council membership and process and to carry out the charge contained in Act 40.

 Thank-you for this opportunity to report to you. I would be glad to respond if you have any questions at this or any other time.

SECOND FEATURE:

FIGHTING WIND FARMS AT THE CAPITOL

SOURCE: Wisconsin Radio Network, www.wrn.com

October 14 2010

by Andrew Beckett,

Critics of proposed statewide rules of permitting wind farms in Wisconsin unloaded complaints on legislators, during a hearing at the Capitol Wednesday. A state Senate committee is reviewing the rules from the Public Service Commission, which would create statewide standards for the construction of wind farms.

Larry Wunsch, who served on the PSC advisory panel, says proposed setbacks for wind turbines still leave them too close to homes. Wunsch was also critical of the process the Commission used in crafting the rules, arguing that the panel was stacked with pro-wind advocates who ignored opposing viewpoints.

Tamas Houlihan with the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association voiced concerns about restrictions on aerial crop spraying, warning it could cause delays in treating plants. Houlihan was joined by several other farmers who say they need to react quickly to potential pest threats, and only aerial spraying allows them to do that.

Lawmakers also heard from supporters of the rules, who argue that clear guidelines are needed to keep local governments from creating conflicting standards.

Michael Arndt of Element Power says setback guidelines that are too strict could severely limit where wind farms can be built. Arndt says there’s a misconception that there are large strips of land out there waiting for wind development. However, he says forcing turbines to be built a half mile or more from neighboring properties quickly reduces the amount of land available.

State Senator Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee), who chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail, told dozens of people who turned out to testify Wednesday that lawmakers will likely send the proposed rules back to the PSC for changes.

AUDIO: Andrew Beckett reports (1:16)

THIRD FEATURE:

SOME FARMERS RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT WIND FARM SITES:

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

October 13 2010

By Thomas Content of the

Wind farms built in certain areas of the state could end up preventing farms growing potatoes and beans from using airplanes to spray their fields with pesticides and insecticides, agricultural representatives told a state Senate hearing in Madison on Wednesday.

“If large-scale wind energy plants would be sited in areas of intense vegetable production, the result could be devastating crop losses,” said Tamas Houlihan of the state Potato and Vegetable Growers Association.

The group is seeking “some kind of system for compensation in the event of losses due to siting of wind energy facilities that prevent the use of aerial application,” he said.

At issue is a set of rules that the state Public Service Commission developed this summer after a series of public hearings and recommendations by a wind siting advisory council.

Developers are concerned that some of the restrictions may force them to develop wind projects out of state instead of here. And they left opponents of wind farms critical that the PSC didn’t go far enough to restrict how close wind turbines can be built to nearby homes.

Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee), chair of the Senate commerce, energy and utilities committee, said he wants to see the rules sent back to the PSC for more work. Plale was the author of a bill that led to the rules created by the PSC. If the Legislature does not send the rules back, the rules would take effect.

Nick George of the Midwest Food Processors Association, said sending the rules back would help the agency incorporate a compensation system that the farm groups have developed in consultation with other stakeholders.

Wind developers object that setback rules will make it impossible to build some projects, and deprive the state of economic development opportunities.

Michael Arndt of Oregon-based Element Power said his company is proposing a $300 million project that would create 150 construction jobs and 15 maintenance jobs as well as $2 million in revenue for local landowners.

“And the project may not be viable if the proposed rules are adopted as they stand today. It will force us to basically deploy our development dollars in neighboring states.”

TESTIMONY FROM

 Bob Ziegelbauer, County Executive

 Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail

Senator Jeff Plale, Chair

Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 11:00 AM

411 South, State Capitol

RE: Opposition to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057, relating to the siting of wind

energy systems.

Dear Senator Plale & Committee Members:

As I testified at the public hearing held over a year ago on SB 185/AB 256, I was opposed to the wind siting bills then, and am opposed to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 now.

I continue to strongly support that the siting of wind towers must be made by the local units of government where wind towers will be located.

I strongly encourage the Committee to send the rule back to require local input and decisions.

In the Manitowoc County area we are very interested in efficient new energy technologies. We host two valuable highly efficient nuclear plants (and if you’re really serious about producing low cost electricity for a long time we would love to put one more between those two).

Our workers manufacture the towers that support the wind turbines. And, the City of Manitowoc operates a new clean coal power plant in the middle of town, a block from my house, three blocks from the Courthouse.

We are “all in” on the energy economy.

The issue here is actually a fairly simple one. “Do you trust people in their local communities to make serious land use decisions on important issues?”

Nearly five years ago when it became clear that the demand for wind power sites would include our area, Town and County government embarked on the intense process of trying to make the difficult land use policy decisions contemplated under existing state law.

After a failed first attempt to create a suitable county wind power ordinance, the County Board took a “time out” by declaring a moratorium on projects while it convened a special study committee to write a new ordinance.

That committee, a balanced mix of citizen and elected officials encompassing all the principal points of view, took significant public input and agonized over the implications of making wind tower siting decisions.

After more than a year of serious deliberation their work product, a comprehensive wind power ordinance was overwhelmingly passed into law by the Manitowoc County Board in 2006.

That both sides of the debate came away from the process a little unhappy with the results speaks highly of the quality of the work they did.

It continues to be tested, defined, and refined according to the appropriate due process that is available at the local level for these issues.

This would throw all that work away.

I encourage you to stand up for those local officials and the process of making local decisions throughout the State.

Their work and the work of similar groups of local officials, who took their

responsibilities seriously and in good faith waded in to try address controversial issues in their communities should stand; not be washed away because “Monday morning quarterbacks” from 150 miles away don’t like the result.

This proposal tells local people to get out of the way, tells local officials to dodge the tough issues, and because people in Madison know better, you’ll decide.

I urge you to not support the rule and send it back for modifications.

 Bob Ziegelbauer

Manitowoc County Courthouse 

1010 S. 8th Street

Manitowoc WI 54220

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

For some reason the Senate committee yesterday did not allow short video clips to be shown as part of testimony. In the past this option has always been available for citizens. No reason was given for the change. This is one of the videos that was not allowed to be presented which is unfortunate because it clearly illustrates a key problem with then new rules.

After listening to 6 hours of testimony, including very moving and upsetting testimony from residents now living in wind projects in our state, out-going senator Plale, who was quite jovial during the proceedings, ended the hearing by saying he would send the rules back to the PSC which was not surprising. What is surpising is, given all he heard during the hearing, he will send the rules back with no recommendations.

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.”