NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Click on the image below to see members of the wind siting council dismiss safety concerns while creating setback guidelines for Wisconsin.

Yesterday, a joint committee that reviews administrative rules suspended the wind rules created by the PSC "on the basis of testimony it received at its February 9, 2011" and on the grounds that the PSC rules "create an emergency relating to public health, safety or welfare"  and are "arbitrary and capricious" and "impose undue hardship on landowners and residents adjacent to wind turbine sites."

 CLICK on image below to watch TV report on the rule suspention SOURCE: FOX 11 NEWS

STATE LAWMAKERS DENY PROPOSAL FOR NEW WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS

SOURCE: The Badger Herald, badgerherald.com

March 1, 2011

By Maggie Sams,

“The purpose of this hearing was not about whether wind is effective but whether this rule by the PSC was reasonable or not.

We are trying to balance the needs of industry workers and health-concerned citizens,” JCRAR co-chair Rep. Jim Ott, R-Mequon, said.

“The biggest issue we heard came from testifiers at the hearing that 1,250 ft. is too close and will result in shadow flicker and noise issues.

The health issue from testimony was the determining factor in my vote.”

To the dismay of wind energy advocates, a state legislative committee suspended enacting a rule that would have implemented statewide wind energy production regulations.

The rule would have standardized regulations concerning the construction of wind turbines in the state of Wisconsin. It also included regulations to address issues like noise level and shadow flicker.

Another part of the rule would mandate setback distances between turbines and adjacent, non-participatory properties to equal three times the maximum length of the turbine blade — roughly 1,250 feet. Turbines would only have to be one blade length away from the property hosting it.

Republicans on the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules said they voted against the rule in the interest of citizen health and well-being.

“The purpose of this hearing was not about whether wind is effective but whether this rule by the PSC was reasonable or not. We are trying to balance the needs of industry workers and health-concerned citizens,” JCRAR co-chair Rep. Jim Ott, R-Mequon, said. “The biggest issue we heard came from testifiers at the hearing that 1,250 ft. is too close and will result in shadow flicker and noise issues. The health issue from testimony was the determining factor in my vote.”

Although the vote to suspend the wind-siting rule pleased many homeowners living near turbines, it upset wind energy activists. Those who were in support of the rule believed it would have provided a boom to the economy and help create jobs.

“Creating uniform regulations for the state of Wisconsin would have brought hundreds, if not thousands, of job opportunities to the state,” Clean Wisconsin Program Director Amber Meyer Smith said. “With the return to local regulation we have jeopardized at least eleven prospective clean energy projects.”

Not only did advocates claim Wisconsin would lose jobs, but many also said they feared Wisconsin’s wind industry would move to surrounding states.

Rep. Gary Hebl, D-Sun Prairie, echoed concerns that the committee’s vote to suspend the rule was a major setback for the wind industry.

“We have developers of alternative energy — in this case wind — that have been given a kick to the gut. These folks who were going to create jobs are now going to have to go to different states,” Hebl said. “Not only would this have created hundreds of jobs, they would have been green jobs. It would have been a win-win.”

The rule would have become effective March 1, but the JCRAR chose to have another hearing to suspend the wind-siting rule after a long and passionate hearing on the rule Feb. 9.

“We heard nearly nine hours of testimony during February’s hearing,” Ott said. “Based on the testimony — some pro and a lot of con — we decided to hold a motion to suspend the rule. This is a situation where the legislature is exercising its oversight of a public agency.”

The committee voted 5-2 along party lines. The committee normally has ten voting members, but two of the 14 Democratic senators in Illinois to prevent a vote on the budget repair bill did not attend, and one Republican was on leave for unknown reasons.

COMMITTEE SUSPENDS RULE GOVERNING PLACEMENT OF WIND TURBINES

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

March 1, 2011

By Thomas Content

A legislative committee voted Tuesday to suspend rules adopted by the state Public Service Commission last year regarding the placement of wind turbines.

The 5-2 vote by the joint committee that reviews administrative rules means there are now no statewide standards in place governing setbacks – the minimum distance between a turbine and a nearby home – and other permitting requirements for wind turbines on small wind projects.

In a debate that has pitted economic development opportunity against concerns about property rights, wind energy supporters argued in favor of the rule while critics of wind power projects contended it was not restrictive enough.

The PSC rule, finalized in December, would have taken effect Tuesday if the vote had failed.

Jennifer Giegerich of the League of Conservation Voters expressed disappointment with the vote, saying it sends the wrong message on job creation at a time when the wind components industry in the state has been expanding.

“Now we’re back to where we were two years ago when wind developers said Wisconsin was an unfriendly place to build,” she said.

The full Legislature must follow up on the committee’s vote by passing a bill to throw out the PSC rule. A bill under consideration would send the matter back to the PSC for revision, giving the agency seven months to complete that work, said Scott Grosz, a state Legislative Council attorney.

Sen. Leah Vukmir (R-Wauwatosa) said the PSC rule was tantamount to “a government-sanctioned taking because it reduced the value of property for nonparticipating landowners without their consent and without compensation.”

But Rep. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) said all energy choices are controversial, including coal, and it’s important for the state to support wind energy.

“This is the next generation of technology,” he said. “Why would we not be supporting this when they say if you suspend these rules they’ll just go to another state.”

The American Wind Energy Association said the PSC rule was restrictive enough, given that it set specific noise limits and restrictions on shadow flicker in addition to turbine distance setbacks.

“These rules were developed collaboratively by the wind energy industry and all major stakeholders in Wisconsin, based on input from six public hearings and two years of information gathering, to protect the interests of all involved parties,” said Jeff Anthony, director of business development at the American Wind Energy Association and a Wisconsin resident.

But Bob Welch, a lobbyist for the Coalition for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship, which represents groups that have been fighting wind projects, said his constituents need a “fair hearing” at the PSC. “As far as those who want to build wind turbines in Wisconsin, all they’ve got to do is treat their neighbors fairly,” Welch said. “Property rights need to be protected.”

SECOND FEATURE:

WHY AREN'T LACKAWANNA WINDMILLS TURNING?

SOURCE: wivb.com

 March 1 2011,

George Richert, 

LACKAWANNA, N.Y. (WIVB) – Have you noticed many of the new windmills along Route 5 are not working?

This isn’t the first time they’ve had mechanical problems, and we managed to dig up some hard numbers on just how much electricity they actually are generating.

In its first year, Steelwinds had to replace all of the gear boxes in the eight turbines. The next year, the blades had to be fixed. And for this entire winter, only half of the Lackawanna windmills have been working at any given time.

So we did some research to see just how much electricity these turbines have actually been producing. According to the numbers filed with the NY Independent System Operator, the eight Lackawanna windmills averaged about 40 Megawatt hours of electricity per year in 2008 and 2009. That’s enough to power almost 6,000 homes, and works out to about 23 percent of its capacity. 100 percent would only be achieved in a constant wind, with turbines that never needed maintenance, so 30 percent is the average capacity for a wind farm.

The bottom line is Steelwinds is putting out less electricity than an average wind farm, partly because of mechanical problems, but it has no effect what Lackawanna gets.

Mayor Norman Polanski said, “We still get our money from them, our $100,000 a year. Uh, but people call about them all the time, they want to know what’s going on.”

At the going rate for electricity, Steelwinds is still making over $2 million a year for the electricity it is generating. On top of that, its investors get an extra two cents a kilowatt for going green. So the investors that helped pay a million bucks to build each one of these turbines get $800,000 every year in federal tax credits.

Steelwinds has plans to build six more, but the company just notified Erie County that plans have been “delayed for several months” until next December because of “delays in completing all of the PILOT agreements, and other circumstances beyond Erie Wind’s control.” You can read the full letter here.

We reached the project manager and a Steelwinds spokesman weeks ago about this story, but they had no comment about any of it.

UPDATE: John Lamontagne of First Wind contacted News 4 Tuesday night with this explanation: “The turbines are currently down due to composite work being completed in the towers. Given the scope of work being done and the the harsh winter conditions, there has been a delay in returning the turbines to service. We expect the turbines to return to service in the near future.”

NEXT FEATURE:

 WIND SHORTFALLS MAKE GRID GUYS NERVOUS

Source: energyBiz: For Leaders in the Global Power Industry

March 2, 2011

By Ken Silverstein

When it comes to integrating wind into the transmission lines, system operators say that they are challenged. While they understand and appreciate the reasoning, they are saying that the networks lack the flexibility to handle wind variation. 

Green energy has a lot of public appeal. But the intermittent nature of wind and solar power coupled with the relatively higher costs put the grid’s traffic cops in an untenable position. Those are the fellows whose job it is to schedule the resources to where they need to be so that the electricity keeps flowing. Their task is to maintain that reliability with the lowest-priced fuels. 
 
“We have to be truthful about what the impact will be,” says Jim Detmers, principal in Power Systems Resources and the former chief operating officer of the California ISO. “The devil is in the details. These new embedded costs will be significant.” Better communication with policymakers is essential. 

In the case of California, it now has 3,000 megawatts of wind. In a few years, that will be 7,000 megawatts. A few years later, it will be 10,000 megawatts. By 2020, the goal is to have 33 percent of electricity generated from renewable energy. “That’s making grid operators nervous,” says Detmers, who spoke at Wartsila’s <http://www.wartsila.com/en_US/about-us/overview>  Flexible Power Symposium in Vail, Colo. 
 
Simply, the wind does not blow on demand. Ditto for the sun. So these resources must be backed up with other, “dispatchable” forms of generation. But such “firming” or “cycling” creates two distinct issues: The first is that the power is not free and the second is that if coal plants are “cycled” up and down, they release more pollutants per unit of output than if they ran full steam ahead. 

No doubt, the price of wind and solar energy is falling while their productivity rates are increasing. But the technologies still have a ways to go. 

“If you are a grid operator, you must be dispassionate and follow the engineering,” says David O’Brien, former head of the Vermont’s Department of Public Service and now a consultant for Bridge Energy Group, during a phone call. “The best thing they can do is to provide the data to their stakeholders and to be an honest broker. But they have to ultimately accept the policy mandates.”

Public Demands
 
According to Steve Lefton, director of Intertek Aptek who also spoke at the Wartsila conference, those base-load coal units developed decades ago were never designed to firm-up wind generation. They were made to run at full capacity. So when they are used as such, they create excess emissions. 
 
As wind energy increases its market share, thermal plants can be expected to rev up and down more often. If coal is the main fuel source that is dispatched, it will decrease the emissions savings from wind. 
 
“The actual emissions reduction rates from wind are far less than what the lobbyists are touting,” if system operators do not have the flexibility to use cleaner backup fuels, says Brannin McBee, energy analyst for Bentek Energy <http://www.bentekenergy.com/> , a speaker at the conference. “Thermal plant cycling is also very expensive,” particularly if the older coal plants are used to firm up the wind generation. 
 
With the public demands to increase green energy growing, what might be an optimal firming fuel? The answer could be natural gas. Regulators tend to favor it because it releases far fewer emissions than coal while the price is expected to remain low at $4-$7 per million BTUs. 
 
Coal facilities without carbon capture and sequestration cannot get the permits to operate, says Doug Egan, chief executive of Competitive Power Ventures. And if the plants are built with such capacity they are too costly. Even those with coal gasification that nearly eliminate the sulfur, nitrogen oxide and mercury but which don’t capture and bury the carbon are prohibitively expensive, he adds. 
 
In recent years, developers have abandoned their plans to build 38 coal plants, says the Sierra Club <http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2010/12/this-year-the-outlook-dimmed-for-coal.html> . Meanwhile, it says that 48 more can be expected to be retired. 
 
Natural gas is the most plausible option to firm up wind and solar. More than enough of it exists with the recent discoveries of shale gas, the unconventional source that is extracted from rocks more than a mile beneath the ground using hydraulic fracturing. That withdrawal technique, though, is under fire from some community organizations that say it is polluting their drinking water. 
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants developers to voluntarily disclose the chemicals they are using as a way to ease tensions. Producers are balking for now, saying its exploratory methods are proprietary. 

“Fracking can be dealt with,” says Egan. “Producers will share their secret sauce. It will make it the process slightly less efficient. But a deal with get cut.” 
 
Managing a grid and keeping the lights on is difficult. Green energy’s role will increase but so too will the challenges associated with delivering it -- facts that must be relayed to policymakers and customers alike. Older coal plants present the most issues but the newer gas-fired generation may be more accommodating.

[Note: Illustrations and photos on this post added by the BPWI Research Nerd]

WIND FARMS AND DEADLY SKIES: TURBINES ON TEXAS COAST KILLING  THOUSANDS OF BIRDS AND BATS EACH YEAR

SOURCE: San Antonio Express-News, www.mysanantonio.com

February 27, 2011

By Colin McDonald,

SARITA — The 260-foot-tall wind turbines of the Kenedy Ranch stand like a steel forest along the edge of the Laguna Madre and pump out hundreds of megawatts of emission-free electricity.

The spinning blades, alongside some of the most important habitat in Texas and one of North America’s largest migratory flyways, are killing thousands of birds and bats each year.

How many isn’t publicly known because, unlike California counties, Texas and the federal government don’t require turbine operators to make public reports, according to state and federal officials.

Aside from the quantity of bird and bat deaths, a more complicated question remains unanswered as more wind turbines are put up along the Texas Coast: Have the turbines changed the ecosystem and displaced wildlife?

For the first time, Pattern Energy, which owns 118 turbines on the ranch, and Iberdrola Renewables, which owns 168, voluntarily released results of their first yearlong studies.

Pattern estimates up to 921 birds and 2,309 bats were killed between Aug. 24, 2009, and July 31; Iberdrola’s estimates: 1,812 birds and 3,087 bats for the same period.

While the bird killings match the national average, one researcher found the bat killings much higher than expected.

Those who opposed the wind farms are not convinced the studies are credible or conclusive.

The work was paid for by the companies and not peer-reviewed. In their reports, biologists wrote about the challenges of collecting good data with rattlesnakes biting their search dogs and cows that would not leave. The researchers estimate scavengers removed half of the bird and bat carcasses before they could be found.

They also could not get federal permits to collect the species they did find, so many had to be marked as unknown.

After more than a year of submitting forms, the companies received a collection permit last month, said Rick Greiner of Pattern Energy.

But of the species identified, none were endangered.

“We think there is a low impact to T and E (threatened and endangered species) because we have not found any,” he said.

The reports state the wind farms had a bird mortality rate of three birds per megawatt, which is in the middle for the national average of one to six birds, according to the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group. A national average for bats killed per megawatt is not well-established.

In addition to average bird mortality, the companies point to the high-tech radar systems they voluntarily installed that will trigger a shutdown of the spinning turbines during fog or low visibility when a mass of birds or bats is approaching.

As of the end of 2010, a shutdown had not occurred.

“At every stage of the project’s life, Iberdrola Renewables has gone above and beyond what has been required by the state of Texas and federal government to conduct extensive studies and monitor the outcomes of our wildlife protection measures,” said Jan Johnson, a spokeswoman for Iberdrola.

More than numbers

One who disagrees the studies have been extensive is David Newstead, an environmental scientist for the Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program in Corpus Christi and president of the Coastal Bend Audubon Society.

He believes mortality rates are an incomplete measurement of the effect of wind farms. The numbers do not reflect how turbines could be changing behavior of birds and bats by forcing them out of their habitat and putting them under greater stress.

“Cumulative effects are practically never discussed by wind developers,” Newstead said. “At the end of the day, the most important numbers, for the sake of the wildlife, is how many of what species of birds and bats are being not only killed, but displaced.”

Newstead is one of most vocal challengers to the construction of wind farms along the Texas Coast and was part of an unsuccessful lawsuit to stop them, funded in large part by the King Ranch, which borders the Kenedy Ranch.

“There is no other place in North America that plays such an important role for so many species during some part of their lives,” Newstead said about the Laguna Madre and surrounding grasslands. “Collision mortality can thus affect any of more than 400 regularly occurring species.”

Newstead’s concerns for the coast only grow as more turbines are built, following the lead of the Kenedy Ranch.

Since the Kenedy turbines came online in 2009, Iberdrola has added more, and the Papalote Creek Wind Farm with 196 units was built outside Corpus Christi, according to AWEA.

When operating at capacity, the Kenedy Ranch turbines in total can generate close to 680 megawatts, or enough electricity to meet the needs of 135,000 to 170,000 homes, according to CPS Energy, which buys power from Iberdrola.

That power is produced during the day when consumer demand is the highest, and it can be delivered via uncongested transmissions lines, said CPS Energy spokeswoman Lisa Lewis, adding that effect on wildlife was not considered when it signed the contract.

Working with wind

For now, wind companies face few consequences for killing wildlife, explained Paul Schmidt, assistant director at the Migratory Bird Program for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

While it’s against federal law to kill or harm any endangered, threatened or migratory bird species, the agency has not prosecuted any wind farm owner.

Instead, the service is working with the wind industry, scientists and conservationists to establish guidelines for how wind companies should place and operate a wind farm, Schmidt said.

A draft of those guidelines was released for comment this month.

Once the guidelines are adopted, the Fish and Wildlife Service will have a basis to decide which companies to investigate, Schmidt said.

“It’s just like you’re driving down the highway and the speed limit is 55,” he said. “You can go 60, probably 62, but at some point you are going to get caught.”

Schmidt said companies that volunteer information will avoid the scrutiny given those that do not.

Pattern and Iberdrola have regular communication with the service. But the reports they send are marked “privileged and confidential,” so they can’t be shared.

When Pattern gave its reports to the San Antonio Express-News, it called them public but then requested it preapprove anyone who saw them and that they not be posted online.

“Clearly we have a problem with transparency with the wind and wildlife issues, and I think we have a ways to go,” said Edward Arnett, director of programs at Bat Conservation International, whom Pattern approved to review its studies.

With wind farms across the country reluctant to share data openly, the understanding of the cumulative effect on wildlife and the best way to minimize it are stunted, Arnett said. This is especially true of bats.

At 150 feet long, the wind turbine blades move between 100 and 180 mph at their tip. The pressure change on the trailing edge is enough to cause internal hemorrhaging in bats, according to Bat Conservation International.

Before the Kenedy wind turbines went in, Arnett had expected low bat mortality, as there were no known concentrations of bats in the area. Since so little is known about bat movements, he is not surprised the numbers turned out to be higher.

Before wind turbines were built, little was known about bat movements.

It isn’t possible to know what is and isn’t working, he said.

“Until we have the information published in a credible fashion that is publicly shared and published in journals, it is going to be unknown,” he said.

 SECOND FEATURE:WIND TURBINE SHADOW FLICKER MAKES DANES MISERABLE

CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE

THIRD FEATURE

WIND TURBINE SHADOW FLICKER MAKES BADGERS MISERABLE

Is this St. Croix County's Future? Fond du Lac County home in the Invenergy wind projectLOCAL COMMUNITES COMING [TOGETHER] AGAINST WIND FARMS

SOURCE: New Richmond News, Pierce County Herald www.piercecountyherald.com

February 24, 2011 By: Chris Hamble - Hudson Star-Observer and Jeff Holmquist -

The question of wind turbine location has roiled communities in St. Croix County. The township board of Forest was recently recalled in the Feb. 15 election and the Town of Troy has passed a moratorium on wind farm development.

At its board meeting Thursday, Feb. 10, the town of Troy passed a resolution putting a temporary moratorium in place for the development of wind-energy turbines in and around the town.

A four-man committee was organized by town chair Ray Knapp to look into the “what and how” of possible turbine energy generators and to make an ordinance for the town regarding the building, regulation and usage of possible turbines in the future.

Currently, there is talk at the state capital that the new administration is looking to make strict regulations and standards regarding wind turbine usage, visibility and setbacks. According to Knapp, in a situation such as this, the town may not be “more strict” with its regulations than the state.

Since the state has yet to fully develop a plan, it was suggested that the town issue a moratorium on the building of wind turbines, even though there is currently no plan to build any. The board hopes to keep prospectors and developers from looking into the possibility of constructing turbines until the town can get a hard ordinance on the books. This move was also suggested by the Wisconsin Towns Association.

The moratorium unanimously passed, and is effective until Sept. 26.

“This temporary stay in wind permits will give us time to come up with something right for the town,” said Knapp.

In addition to the moratorium, Knapp also reported that under the current project timeline, the committee would like to draft a possible town ordinance by the regularly scheduled July board meeting, and also compile a list of possible sites for developers to inspect.

_________________________________________________________

The ongoing wind farm controversy has blown the sitting Town of Forest board out of office.

A recall election on Tuesday, Feb. 15, held in conjunction with the Wisconsin primary, went to the three challengers in the contest.

For the chairman position, Jamie Junker gathered 194 votes and incumbent Roger Swanepoel had 123 votes.

For the position of supervisor, challengers Rick Steinberger (207 votes) and Patrick Scepurek (185 votes) were elected. Incumbents Carlton Cress (123 votes) and Douglas Karau (113 votes) were voted out of office.

The recall election was the result of a group of Town of Forest residents who circulated a petition to remove the current board. The petition included the signatures of 93 town residents. A total of 50 signatures was required for a recall election to be conducted.

The group’s main issue with the current board was their approval of a wind project proposed by Emerging Energies LLC, which calls for some 39 turbines to be installed on parcels scattered throughout the township.

Opponents of the plan claim the proposal was approved without appropriate notice and participation from the public.

“The recall election pretty much speaks for itself,” said Junker following his successful run for the chairman post. “The Forest residents have concluded through simply reading a vast number of documents that a number of legal irregularities have taken place. These irregularities are easily understood by anyone that took the time to read the public documents to know what happened in Forest. With great confidence that they had the legal proof, the residents of Forest moved for the rare recall of its officials from office, and to nobody’s surprise they won.”

Junker said the town residents “were never told of the project details until the evening the agreement was actually approved, never knowing of the placement, size, or number at any point during what has repeatedly been said was a public process.”

The towns’ plan commission was also never publicly told of the details, Junker said, yet the formal agreement says the plan commission recommended the agreement.

“Clearly the residents of Forest feel that the previous town board, proven through the records, tried to pull the wool over the residents’ eyes and we’re finding out it didn’t work,” he said.

Junker pledged that the new town board will do “everything legally possible” to stop the wind turbine project now that they’re in office.

He said the chances of the project being stopped are good.

In a phone interview, Steinberger said he was pleased with the results of the recall.

“It was just what I had hoped for,” he said.

Steinberger said he is ready to take on the job of town supervisor and he promised to “represent the people.”

“I want to keep the process open and honest,” he said.

Scepurek was pleased with the outcome as well.

“The citizens of the township decided enough is enough,” he said.

He noted that almost all of the registered voters in the town cast a ballot in the recall, which was an encouraging sign.

“People are waking up and taking notice,” Scepurek said. “People have to start being informed and make sure that things don’t happen under the radar.”

Outgoing supervisor Cress said he didn’t have much to say in the wake of his recall, other than to say he was frustrated by the single-issue focus of the campaign to kick the board out.

“It was unfortunate that it came down to a wind turbine issue and not what it takes to run a township,” he said.

Swanepoel and Karau did not return phone calls to get their reaction to the results of the election.



"Though sound levels of 45-50dB have been taken in stride by many, even most, places where early industrial wind development took place, it’s becoming apparent that for some types of communities, sound levels of even 40dB are triggering high levels of community push-back."

LOOKING FOR WIND INDUSTRY LEADERSHIP IN REDUCING NOISE IMPACTS

SOURCE Acoustic Ecology Institute, www.renewableenergyworld.com

February 22, 2011

By Jim Cummings

The wind industry is at an important fork in the road regarding community noise standards. Although developers have successfully used setbacks of 1200 feet and less in farm and ranch country for many years, they are now facing growing numbers of wind farm neighbors in other regions struggling with turbine noise. This has, in turn, spawned widespread resistance to traditional siting standards around the country.

Though sound levels of 45-50dB have been taken in stride by many, even most, places where early industrial wind development took place, it’s becoming apparent that for some types of communities, sound levels of even 40dB are triggering high levels of community push-back.

The industry’s first responses to this emerging problem have been counterproductive: discounting the prevalence of complaints, vilifying acousticians seeking to understand the shift, and most fundamentally, insisting to county commissions nationwide that “widely accepted” community noise standards that have worked elsewhere are applicable everywhere.

It’s high time that forward-looking industry insiders take the lead in forging a more flexible, collaborative relationship with communities, acknowledging that the noise tolerance we are used to is not universal: some rural regions are far less amenable to moderate, yet easily audible, turbine noise. Companies that accept this fact — rather than ignoring or fighting it — will build corporate reputations that could make them the go-to developers across much of rural America.

A few tidbits highlight just how counterproductive the current entrenched “everything is fine” stance has become. In many places, developers have been reduced to spending time and money arguing about whether sound levels monitored at 1-3db above regulatory limits (imperceptible to barely perceptible differences) are caused by turbine noise or ambient noise. We can’t accept or imagine that the problems are rooted in a regulatory limit that may be 10dB too high for local tolerance.

The exceedingly unusual situation in Mars Hill, Maine — where a low ridge shelters many homes within 1200-3000 feet, combined with an exemption allowing noise to 50dB — has become a public-relations disaster. It’s the Altamont of noise issues: a real outlier with its high proportion of nearby residents complaining of noise intrusions and health effects, yet fueling the perception and fear that this is how all wind farms are. Even in “wind-friendly” Europe, the EWEA says that 40% of projects end up in court, with another 30% slowed by local opposition.

If our current approach to siting is supposedly fine, why the widespread resistance?

Many still insist that noise issues are not widespread, a simple case of vocal malcontents. But the few solid surveys that have tracked community response to wind farm noise paint a more troubling picture.

Even the widely-cited Pederson-Waye-van den Berg work from Scandinavia, when vetted to tease out the rural responses from mixed rural-suburban studies, suggests rural annoyance rates of 25% as noise passes 40dB, and 40% at 45dB. (For an overview of the analysis, you can watch this webinar I did last summer, or take a look at this presentation).

Chris Bajdek, in a 2007 paper aimed at helping the industry alleviate noise fears, suggests that 44% of those within about 1900 feet of a typical wind farm would be “highly annoyed,” and that only as sound drops below 40db (at around a half mile), will annoyance drop substantially. He cites a survey from Wisconsin that found similar results, with about 50% of respondents living with in a half mile saying noise is a problem; over a third of those between a quarter and half mile had been awakened by turbines.

While community noise standards never aim to eliminate negative impacts, few would suggest that disrupting a third to half of the nearby population is an acceptable goal. It’s become clear, in both experience and the literature, that modern turbines trigger adverse reactions at lower sound levels than other community noise sources.

A growing number of acoustics professionals have been proactively seeking answers to why this may be, some looking at characteristics of turbine noise for clues, and others at psychoacoustics and rural “place identity.” These researchers appear to be coalescing around recommended wind farm noise standards of 30-35dB, which do in fact come closer to the familiar goal of keeping new noise intrusions to within 5-10dB of existing ambient conditions (rural night ambient is often around 25dB, even when winds aloft trigger turbines into action).

Unfortunately, this work has been relentlessly attacked by many in the industry, despite the fact that these more cautionary acousticians aren’t activist yahoos, but longtime industrial and military consultants with decades in the field of noise control. It’s time to step back from stubborn “lines in the sand” and really assess what they’re finding.

Though some noise issues had cropped up by 2000, and were increasingly a topic of concern by the middle of the decade, George Kamperman and Rick James brought these early observations together and put their reputations on the line with their 2008 “How-to Guide” for wind siting.

Paul Schomer, Director of noise standards for the Acoustical Society of America and Chair of several US and ISO noise committees, has been on the forefront of identifying more effective protocols for assessing pre-existing ambient noise in rural areas. Malcolm Swinbanks, an international figure in infrasound and low-frequency noise, has detailed the ways that turbine sound spectrums, which are heavily weighted with complex low frequency and infrasonic components, will often be perceptible well below the levels suggested by pure-tone perception curves.

Robert Thorne, in New Zealand, has focused his research on the effects of moderate noise, stressing that dB levels are not the only (or even the primary) driver of negative community responses.

Rob Rand has recently pointed out that the EPA’s 1974 “Normalized Ldn” method of community response prediction (which adds adjustments for very rural areas and new noise sources) suggest the likelihood of “Widespread Complaints” in rural areas experiencing turbine noise at 35dBA; at 45 dBA, the predicted community reaction is “Vigorous Community Action.”

And everyone’s favorite lightning rod (for both praise and vilification), Rick James, has done extensive field work at locations where noise complaints have arisen, finding complex and highly modulated infrasound components (often 30-40dB of modulation, several times per second, peaking to 90dB in the lowest frequencies), as well as audible “blade swish” at much higher than normal levels (up to 10-13db). All this work is ongoing, offers useful tools for analysis, and deserves more than the facile brush-offs it often receives.

While there clearly are communities where 50dB has been accepted, there are just as clearly others where 40dB has been problematic. Thorne and Pederson suggest that rural “amenity” or “place identity” may offer some clues: in some rural areas (perhaps where most land is under cultivation, as in Iowa), turbine noise is considered insignificant, while in others (perhaps where there are more small woods and open fields in hay, along with more non-farming residents), any clearly audible noise intrusions, especially at night, can be problematic.

The apparent fact is that “widely accepted” community noise standards of 45-50dB are not applicable everywhere; those companies that begin working with these differences will be rewarded by community acceptance and eased permitting. Despite protestations to the contrary, it’s clear that lower noise standards (or the accompanying larger setbacks) won’t kill the US or Canadian wind industries, especially when combined with provisions for waivers when neighbors agree to closer siting. Look at Oregon, with its effective 36dB limit, which is in the midst of a wind boom.

A few years back, the Alberta oil and gas industry went through a similar transformation, when coalbed methane compressors became the first 24/7 noise source in rural areas that were well-accustomed to the industry’s presence. At first, companies were caught by surprise at the complaints. Then, most aimed to do the least noise-control necessary to meet the province’s noise standard; slightly faulty noise models led to many costly retrofits. But eventually, some companies became proactive and committed to always using state-of-the-art noise control enclosures from the start.

The added costs, though significant, paid off when concerned locals could visit nearby installations that truly did keep noise at minimal, usually inaudible, levels at homes. These companies found themselves able to move new projects forward with much less local resistance.

This is where we are with wind farm noise. It’s time to get creative, and become constructive citizens by working with, rather than against, regional differences in how communities define the local quality of life.

Author Jim Cummings can be contacted at the Acoustic Ecology Institute. He is attending the AWEA Project Siting Workshop in Kansas City next week, where he looks forward to meeting other attendees, and sharing some friendly discussions and exasperated responses to these themes.



Source: OUR LIFE WITH DEKALB WIND TURBINES: the latest from a family struggling to live with turbines sited too close to their home

icing conditions again

we just called the nextera hotline to report that the noise level is high (~55 dba) from the turbines. there is icing conditions out right now and the sound is at a 6 [loudest]. we can hear it from the inside of our home. we hear the repetitive aggressive chopping sound and low droning (rumbling sound).

it sounds as if a highway is just outside our front door. it is disturbing and we feel a heavy air pressure around us. nextera energy says that the sound is virtually undetectable. well, it is detectable. here is a video [ABOVE] just taken from our back porch door tonight. of course the video camera can't give you the heavy air pressure feeling, but you can get a glimpse of the sound. Source

Next Feature:

WHY DID THE COUNTY OF TIPPICANOE AGREE TO RAISE TURBINE NOISE LIMITS WELL ABOVE THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION LIMITS FOR HEALTHFUL SLEEP?

“It was to accommodate the wind turbine people,”

County Commissioner John Knochel

SOURCE: Many upset with turbine decibel limit: wlfi.com

 CLICK on image above to see why Tippicanoe County residents are so upset about wind company Invenergy's victory in pushing up wind turbine noise limits. Why 2 of the 3 commissioners voted to protect the wind developers interests over the interests of the residents they represent is unknown.

WIND INDUSTRY WANTS SAFETY LAW CHANGED; GROUP SAYS IT IS TOO COSTLY TO ALTER EXISTING TOWERS

SOURCE: The Argus Leader, www.argusleader.com

By Cody Winchester

A state law designed to protect low-flying aircraft from air hazards could inadvertently hinder efforts to expand South Dakota’s wind industry, a wind-energy advocate said Monday.

“This will severely hurt wind development in South Dakota,” said Steve Wegman, director of the South Dakota Wind Energy Association.

At issue is a year-old statute that requires anemometer towers – known as met towers – to be striped in alternating colors, and to have sleeves and visibility balls mounted on their guy wires. There also are new requirements for perimeter fencing.

The law is meant to protect low-altitude aircraft, mainly crop dusters and helicopter pilots.

The problem with the law, Wegman said, is that existing towers weren’t grandfathered in. As a result, developers who own met towers are being required to take them down and retrofit them, which can cost $5,000 or more – a prohibitively expensive proposition for many.

“Towers are going to come down. They’re not going to go back up,” Wegman said.

Met towers range from 30 to 100 meters tall. They’re used to measure wind speeds before building new projects. They first started popping up in South Dakota in the early 1990s, and the 200 or so that now dot the state are crucial to future development, Wegman said.

“Without good data – collecting data takes anywhere between five to nine years – you can’t get financing,” he said.

Another problem with the law is that visibility balls add weight and collect ice, making tower failures more likely. That possibility has led some met tower manufacturers to stop providing warranties for products that require visibility balls, he said.

Rod Bowar, president of Kennebec Telephone Co., which installs met towers, said he understands the need for the rules but worries it could keep the smaller players out of the wind business.

“And I don’t think that’s probably healthy, long term,” he said.

Add it all up, Wegman said, and it’s one more reason to develop wind projects elsewhere.

But pilots and aviation regulators say the marking rules are necessary to keep pilots safe.

“We think they’re a good thing,” said Bruce Lindholm, program manager for the South Dakota Office of Aeronautics. “They’re helpful for aviation safety.”

John Barney, president of the South Dakota Pilots Association, said his organization isn’t opposed to the towers, but making them more visible “is just common sense.”

“We have lobbied the FAA about making it mandatory that these towers are marked or lit in a way that would not pose a hazard,” he said. “Unfortunately, up to the present, anything under 200 feet in altitude doesn’t fall under current regulations.”

He’s optimistic the FAA will change its policy, pointing to the case of a crop sprayer in California who was killed last month when he clipped a met tower and his plane went down. This is why grandfathering in existing towers simply won’t do, Barney said.

“Quite frankly, those are the towers that are going to kill somebody,” he said.

At the national level, the Federal Aviation Administration has opened a docket to examine the issue.

“When you have a crop duster out there flying in the fields, making steep descents and abrupt turns, seeing one of these pop up out of the middle of nowhere can be a challenge,” FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory said. “We’re very concerned about them,” she added.

Lobbyists for the state wind industry, meanwhile, are pushing House Bill 1128, which would grandfather in existing towers. The original bill was defeated, but lawmakers stripped out the language and created a new bill – a process known as hog housing. The new version passed out of committee Thursday.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Just a month ago...

Pilot might not have seen met tower before fatal Delta crash

SOURCE Contra Costa Times

January 19, 2011

 By Robert Salonga

OAKLEY -- A crop duster pilot killed last week may not have seen the weather tower that his plane clipped, causing him to crash on a remote island in the Delta, according to a preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Stephen Allen, 58, died in the crash reported about 11 a.m. Jan. 10 on Webb Tract Island, located about two miles north of Bethel Island. Allen was a resident of Courtland, a town about 20 miles south of Sacramento. Continue reading.....

FILE UNDER OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD BE TOO COSTLY TO THE WIND INDUSTRY TO CONSIDER:

Protecting birds...

WIND INDUSTRY GROUP OPPOSES FEDERAL GUIDELINES TO PROTECT BIRDS

The American Wind Energy Association Industry said it will oppose plans by a federal agency to adopt voluntary regulations on wind developers to protect birds and other wildlife.

AWEA said in a release that more than 34,000 MW of potential wind power development, $68 billion in investment and 27,000 jobs are at risk due to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policies on golden eagles.

Read entire article: www.pennenergy.com

Allowing moratoriums to give local government time to create ordinances....

HEARING HELD ON WIND TOWERS

Source: countytimes.com

"Christopher Phelps, the executive director of environmental advocacy group Environment Connecticut, said the moratorium would send the wrong message to companies like BNE. Along with the Connecticut Fund for the Environment and Environment Northeast, who also spoke at the hearing last Thursday, Mr. Phelps said that his group was opposed to the moratorium.

“One of the core reasons we oppose a moratorium is it would send a chilling message to the wind industry, that Connecticut is not open for business,” he said.

Increasing setbacks to protect property rights....

"It's a death sentence.

This has everything to do with eliminating wind power. That's why the proposal is so high.

It's a hit job."

- Michael Vickerman on increasing setbacks to 1800 feet from property lines

Vickerman is a registered lobbyist for RENEW Wisconsin: "Our modus operandi is to identify barriers to renewable energy development, and come up with strategies for overcoming those problems, whether they be low buyback rates, permitting challenges, or regulatory roadblocks."

RENEW'S clients include whose clients include Alliant Energy, ATC, We Energies, MG&E, North American Hydro, WPPI, Invenergy, Emerging Energies, Michels and many wind developers with projects pending in our state. [SOURCE]

Adopting the World Health Organizations recommendation of 40dbA as top noise limit for healthy sleep...

COUNTY SIGNS OFF ON NOISIER TURBINES:

Accompanied by his two young children, Tippecanoe County resident Robert Brooks issued an emotional plea to the commissioners to protect his family from loud nuisance noise that he worries will disrupt their sleep. After the commissioners voted, Brooks asked them, “How can I sell my house right now? … I don’t know why the ordinance had to change. You’ve given (the developers) a free ticket.”

During the debate at the commissioners meeting, the majority of those in attendance spoke against the changes. As it is now amended, the ordinance allows for large wind turbines to generate an average sound output of 50 decibels per hour.

"....Greg Leuchtmann, development manager for Invenergy’s project, said Monday that the changes to the county’s ordinance are balancing protections for residents with the needs of the developers. (It’s about) what will allow a development and what will cancel a development,” he said.

 READ ENTIRE ARTICLE: Journal and Courier, www.jconline.com

More....

MANY UPSET BY TURBINE DECIBEL LIMIT

“My question is, why has this one company so much allowance to come back and ask for changes to a regulation?” Sarah Tyler asked the commissioners.

Commissioner John Knochel voted against the change in decibels.

“It was to accommodate the wind turbine people,” he said.

Invenergy representative Greg Leuchtmann spoke to the commissioners during the meeting.

“We are trying to get to something that is very objective and measurable that will protect residents as well as allow for this project to happen,” he said.

The commissioners got a sound consultant firm’s opinion on the county’s noise amendments.

“Feedback we got from the consultant was mainly negative on the amendments that were being proposed,” Knochel explained. “In other words, he thought they were a little too high.”

 READ ENTIRE ARTICLE:WLFI, www.wlfi.com