Better Plan, Wisconsin

SOURCE: kselected.com

Veteran noise engineer George Kamperman, Board Certified in Noise Control Engineering by the American Institute of Noise Control Engineering, wrote the following commentary after listening to a video clip (above) recorded by Larry Wunsch who lives near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. The closest turbine to his home is 1100 feet away. Wunsch is a firefighter and also happens to be a member of Wisconsin's Wind Siting Council, a fifteen member group who are now at work on creating guidelines for siting turbines in our state.

There is a must-see-and-hear 9 minute DVD by Larry Wunsch at his home in Byron, Wisconsin.  Turn up the volume on your computer and listen either through earphones with good uniform base response, or listen from a full frequency range sound system.

You may be shocked by what you hear. The wind turbines make a roaring sound like a jet aircraft. The wind turbines radiate an excessive amount of low frequency energy, and this is the primary reason for our new approach (see How Loud Is Too Loud?) for determining wind turbine setback from dwellings.

Whenever you read about noise levels in the media, the decibel (dB) numbers are frequency weighted (dBA). The term is the “A-weighted” sound level. This frequency weighting discriminates against low frequency sounds, somewhat similar to human hearing response at low sound levels. The wind turbine industry has taken advantage of the phenomenon to show wind turbines produce sound levels no higher than the sound from “a gentle breeze rustling leaves of a tree” or “a small flowing stream” or “the refrigerator in your kitchen,” to cite just some of the examples argued by the wind turbine lobby. These examples are all plausible, and the industry probably has data to show it to be true.

What’s wrong with this picture? The wind industry examples definitely do not sound like the jet engine noise outside the home of Larry Wunsch! The problem is that wind turbines generate far more low frequency noise than high frequency noise where dBA is most sensitive. This is a dirty little secret the wind turbine industry has been hiding from the public.

To meet this challenge we have added (again, see How Loud Is Too Loud?) a requirement that both dBA and dBC noise data be published by the wind industry. The dBC frequency scale has a flat, uniform response throughout the audible range and thus is a better measure of any noise rich in low frequency sound. We propose wind turbine setbacks must meet both dBA and dBC limits.

I did an actual instrumentation analysis of the Larry Wunsch (YouTube) turbine noise recorded outside his front door. My measured noise characteristics agreed with the manufacturer’s claimed noise emission. Both sets of data show excessive low frequency noise outside the Wunsch home, and they show the dBC (broadband) turbine noise to be 13 dB higher than the dBA (high frequency) turbine noise.

Whenever dBC results exceed dBA results, it is a clear indication that low frequency noise not measured by dBA is in fact present.   Noise engineers know this; the general public does not. The industry example of rustling leaves, above, would necessiate dBC one dB ldBA lower than dBA, which is clearly not the case outside Mr. Wunsch’s front door.

Behold the wind industry chicanery (deceit) when it pretends rustling leaves = whispering turbines. Rubbish!

Think of dBA and dBC as tone controls for listening to your favorite music. The treble control being the dBA, and the bass control being the dBC. A uniform random noise is often referred to as white noise. When you reproduce white noise and turn down the treble control (dBA) for reduced highs, and turn up the base control (dBC) for more “boom,” you end up with sound close to the wind turbine noise spectrum.

Or consider this illustration.  All propellers produce what’s often called a “haystack” spectrum, where the top of the haystack (peak energy in the spectrum) is determined primarily by the diameter of the propeller circle (twice a blade radius). Think of the whining sound of small model airplanes.  Next, think of the engine sound of an ultralight (single-person) aircraft.  In this case the engine sound has a lower frequency than the remote-control model airplane.  Next, think of the engine sound of a standard, single-engine plane.  A Cessna or Piper Cub, let’s say.  The engine sound is lower than the ultralight’s.  Finally, imagine a B-36 bomber aircraft, where the engine pitch is lower yet.

The point being, as the propeller-sweep-circle-diameter increases, the top of the haystack pitch, or frequency, shifts downward.

Now, graduate to wind turbines. The biggest of them all.  Huge propellers sweeping an enormous circle.  Propellers so big that the peak of the haystack (peak sound energy) is in the 10 and 20 Hz range–and the peak is no longer audible.  Even so, turbine propellers generate plenty of sound energy on the high frequency side, sliding down (increasing frequency) the high frequency side of the haystack, with the result that wind turbine sound spectrum continues to be very audible indeed.

The standard noise meter has had the same two, dBA and dBC, sound weightings since the instrument was invented (around 1940, I believe). The peak in the haystack spectrum for wind turbines is below the frequency range of both human hearing and the range of a standard sound-level meter (10 Hz to 20,000 Hz). In fact, the sound-level meter dBA response becomes increasingly less sensitive to sounds below 500 Hz (2 octaves above middle C on the piano), and has a uniform sensitivity at higher frequencies above 500 Hz. The dBC response, on the other hand, remains uniform thoughout all frequencies above 32 Hz (equivalent to the lowest note on a grand piano) to the upper limit of the instrument (which is 20,000 Hz). The low frequency roll-off below 32 Hz is standardized down to 10 Hz. Thus, this instrument is somewhat useful for near infrasound.

Wind turbines, by the way, do indeed produce infrasound, contrary to misleading statements by some acousticians. Since there is no ANSI (American National Standards Institute) or IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) standard suitable for dealing with wind turbine infrasound, Rick James and I have sidestepped the issue for the time being in our “How To” guide. Rural America will be flooded with wind turbines of questionable value long before a consensus emerges among noise engineers on dealing with wind turbine infrasound. Individuals and communities who are understandably suffering from the infrasound and low frequency noise of turbines cannot wait for ANSI and the IEC to catch up with their dilemma.  That’s why my colleague, Rick James, and I have jumped in and made do with the best off-the-shelf technology, instrumentation, and international noise standards currently available.  When health and homes are under assault, as the research of Dr. Pierpont and many others makes clear they are, it would be unconscionable for someone with my training to look the other way.

Somehow we need to convince government... that wind turbines must be kept away from people’s homes.  That many of these wind farms are in areas of marginal wind energy value makes this even more tragic. 

-George Kamperman

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: For those who had trouble accessing the video of the April 1st Wind Siting Council Meeting, the settings have been changed so they are all now viewable to the public. CLICK HERE for the links.

CLICK HERE for location, time and dates of WSC meetings.   These meetings are open to the public. Better Plan, Wisconsin encourages you to attend.

THIRD Wind Siting Council Meeting Notice

Wednesday, April 7, 2010, beginning at 9:00 a.m.

Docket 1-AC-231

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

Amnicon Falls Conference Room (1st Floor) Public Service Commission Building 610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

[Click here for map]

This meeting is open to the public

Home in a Wisconsin Wind Project

To address the growing number of complaints and health concerns about adverse health effects from wind farm noise and shadow flicker, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA), hired medical doctors, audiologists, and acoustical professionals to review recent literature on the issue. The resulting report,  "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects" was released in December 2009. Their conclusion? 

"There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects." 

Other equally qualified medical doctors, audiologists, and acoustical professionals have reviewed the same literature and have come to the opposite conclusion.

CLICK HERE to visit the Adverse Health Effects page at The Society for Wind Vigilence Website

CLICK HERE to read their review of the AWEA/CanWEA report.

Their advisory panel includes:

Robert Y. McMurtry, M.D., F.R.C.S.(C), F.A.C.S.
Michael A. Nissenbaum, M.D. 
Roy D. Jeffery M.D.,FCFP (Can)
Christopher Hanning, BSc, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD
Carmen Krogh, BScPharm, Secretariat 
Richard R. James, INCE
John Harrison, PhD
David L. White, EET, CMBB

ANOTHER NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: If you are a Wisconsin resident currently having problems with wind turbine noise or shadow flicker, CLICK HERE to Contact Healthy Wind, Wisconsin

"HWW - Healthy Wind, Wisconsin’s mission is to keep active track of wind-related health issues affecting Wisconsin families. We are committed to assisting residents of Wisconsin who have been impacted by poorly sited wind turbines by processing resident’s complaints and monitoring the progress toward complaint resolution."

WHO IS ON THE WIND SITING COUNCIL?

These bios were provided by the BPWI Research Nerd. If there are any errors or inaccuracies, please contact us immediately by CLICKING HERE so we may correct them.

Selected members were announced March 16, 2010. They include by law,

 Two wind energy system representatives:

Tom Green, Wind developer, senior project manager,  Wind Capitol Group, Dane County. 

Wind Capitol Group is developing a project in Columbia County

"But whether the wind farm goes in, [Tom Green] said, will depend on what the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decides, as it sets parameters for wind farms - including setback from neighboring properties - that will apply throughout Wisconsin, and which cannot be made stricter by local authorities.

"You can't have a patchwork of rules throughout the state," Green said...

The rules, when they are adopted, will apply to wind farms such as the one proposed by Wind Capital Group - operations that generate less than 100 megawatts."

SOURCE: Portage Daily Register, January 28, 2010

In April 2009 Wind Capital Group sold the Bent Tree Wind project in Freeborn County, Minnesota to Wisconsin Power and Light Co. (WPL), a subsidiary of Alliant Energy Corporation. Dane County

Bill Rakocy, Wind developer, parter and founding member of Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, LLC, WASHINGTON COUNTY

Emerging Energies is developing the Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County. The five hundred foot tall turbines, made by German company, Nordex, will be the largest in the state.

UPDATE: We received an email from a Manitowoc County resident who tells us...

"Bill Rakocy with Emerging Energies also has land signed up in the Mishicot area.  This is a 7 turbine project that was stopped in court with the use of the Manitowoc Co. wind ordnance.   Manitowoc Co. gave them the permits under the old ordinance, but was reversed in court.  Land is still under contract and he will benefit from lesser setbacks that the committee will place in the standards."

We invite Emerging Energies to contact us by CLICKING HERE if this information in inaccurate.

“We’re excited to develop as much wind [power] as we can in Wisconsin,” says partner Bill Rakocy."

“The permitting process is a rather long-term effort,” says Rakocy. “A conditional use permit is good for two years, typically, and it may take you all of that two years to get the balance of the project details put in place. And then there’s production tax credits available from the federal government, and if they expire in the midst of the project, all your work is for naught.”

SOURCE: "Wind Power's Wind Fall" Marketplace Magazine

“For the project, called the Shirley Wind Farm, Nordex will supply cold climate models of the N100s, upgraded to operate in temperatures as low as minus 20° Fahrenheit.  

“We looked very carefully at the N80/N90/N100 Nordex turbines and were convinced by their great track record, along with the quality and experience Nordex brings to the market,” said Bill Rakocy, one of three founders of Emerging Energies.

"We selected the N100s because they accomplish two critical project goals – maximizing available land and wind resources by using the largest, tallest turbines available. We’re excited to introduce them in the US and in Wisconsin.”

The project also represents a shift in the US market toward larger turbines with higher efficiencies and yields. In 2008, the average installed turbine was 1.67 megawatts. Nordex built the first 2.5-megawatt turbine in 2000 and has the longest track record for reliability in the multi-megawatt class, with over 1,000 installed worldwide.

SOURCE: Nordex Press Release

One town representative:

Doug Zweizig,  P&Z Commissioner, Union Township, Professor Emeritus, School of Library and Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Served as acting Chairman of the Town of Union P&Z commission during the development of a large wind ordinance. Rock County

"When asked about health and safety effects of wind turbines, EcoEnergy (the company proposing to locate wind turbines in our township) as well as our local utility simply have denied that there are any concerns, using statements such as “The noise from wind turbines is about the same as a refrigerator running in the room. “ or “The noise from wind turbines is masked by the sound of the wind  blowing.”

These often-repeated statements are demonstrably false and would be laughable if they weren’t so disrespectful of the people suffering from sleep deprivation and other chronic health effects resulting from bad placement of wind turbines in Wisconsin. If they believe what they’re saying, they can’t have listened to their own turbines.

They are counting on the ignorance of landowners, editorial writers, and, frankly, legislators to allow them to make such deceitful claims. (Yet, while denying any adverse effects from placement of wind turbines, EcoEnergy uses the word “mitigation” a lot—betraying their recognition of the need to counteract the effects of wind turbines on humans in their vicinity.)"

SOURCE: Submitted testimony, public hearing before the Senate and Assembly Energy Committee regarding turbine siting reform, May 12, 2009

 One county representative:

Lloyd Lueschow, Green County Board Supervisor, District 28, Village of New Glarus trustee, Green County

Former Director, Integrated Science Services, Wisconsin DNR,

Two energy industry representatives:

Andy Hesselbach, Wind project manager, We Energies, managed Blue Sky/Green Field project in Fond du Lac County, project manager for recently approved Glacier Hills project in Columbia county. BS in Industrial Engineering, MBA.

"Hesselbach said he's concerned about proposals to move turbines farther from people's homes, given the need for Wisconsin to add more renewable power to comply with the state's renewable portfolio standard.

If "the sound or setback standards are modified in any material way, it is unlikely that this project will be developed, and moreover that any large-scale wind project will be built by any entity in the future in the state of Wisconsin," Hesselbach said. "The only option to utilize wind generation would be to develop projects in other states."

"Winds of Change are Blowing" Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 24th 2009

 CLICK on the image below to watch Andy Hesselbach in a news segment about Fond du Lac County wind projects.

Dan Ebert, WPPI Energy; Vice President of Policy and External Affairs, Former Chairman of Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 2005-2008, former executive assistant to PSC Chair Bernie Bridge.  Transition Personnel Director for Governor Doyle 2002.  

Dan Ebert, who chaired the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin for three years between 2005 and 2008, oversees the legislative and regulatory affairs, corporate communicaton and policy development functions for WPPI which serves 49 municipalities and one electric cooperative in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Upper Michigan.

Ebert was appointed to the chairmanship of the PSC in 2005 by Governor Doyle, having been executive assistant at the commission. Current PSC chairman, Eric Callisto, was appointed in 2008 after Ebert vacated his seat. Prior to being a appointed, Callisto had also been executive assistant at the PSC.

Source: New Glarus Utilities, newglarusutilities.com February 2009

Two environmental group representatives:

Michael Vickerman , Executive Director, RENEW Wisconsin, registered lobbyist. RENEW'S "Terawatt Sponsors: include Alliant Energy, American Transmission Company (ATC), Madison Gas & Electric, WE Energies. RENEW also recieves money from Wind developers EcoEnergy, enXco, Horizon Wind Energy, Invenergy LLC, Emerging Energies LLC [SOURCE]

“You can’t stop a project in Wisconsin based on the appearance of these turbines,” [Vickerman] says, “so over the past seven years the opposition has refined its arguments and framed them in the realm of protecting public health and safety.

Here, as far as I’m concerned, is where they reveal their antiwind bias. They allege that they can’t sleep, they suffer from nausea—they express their discomfort in the most hysterical terms, and I think they basically work themselves into a very visceral hatred for wind.

I don’t even know if they have a philosophical objection to wind. They’re maybe congenitally unhappy people and they needed to project their fears and anxieties and resentments onto something new that comes into the neighborhood and disrupts things.”

The Chicago Reader: "There Will Be Wind" May 14, 2009

Ryan Schryver , Global Warming Specialist, Organizer, Advocate: Clean Wisconsin, Madison, Dane County

Click on the image below to hear Ryan Schryver speak about global warming, weather changes in Wisconsin, and the over-use of dirty coal in our state.

Two realtor representatives:

George Krause Jr. Real estate broker: Choice Residential LLC, Manitowoc County. Lifelong resident of the Port Cities area in Manitowoc County, Realtor in Manitowoc area since 1989, he was voted Realtor of the Year by the Manitowoc County Board of REALTORS® Inc. in 2009
 

Tom Meyer, Realtor, Broker, Restaino & Associates, Middleton, Dane County

Tom Meyer has been a realtor since 1989 and a broker since 1993. P resently
Managing Broker for the Middleton office of Restaino & Associates

Click on the image below to watch Tom Meyer speak about real estate issues or CLICK HERE to watch it at its source

Two landowners living adjacent to or in the vicinity of a wind energy system:

Dwight Sattler Landowner, retired diary farmer, Malone, We Energies Blue Sky/Green Field project Fond du Lac County    

Click on the image below to watch a video of Dwight Sattler

Larry Wunsch, Landowner, fire-fighter, Brownsville, Invenergy Forward Energy wind project, Fond du Lac County

Click on the image below to watch a video of Larry Wunsch

"I have a wind turbine located 1100’ from my home and I can almost see all 86 turbines in the project from my back yard. There will be a lot of testimony today stating that there are no ill effects coming from wind turbines. I am here today to tell you that those statements are nothing but lies.

When the PSC permitted project first came to our Town, we had a lot of questions and concerns.  We asked about noise and were told that they make very little noise.  Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many days where the turbine next to me sounds like a jet engine idling on a taxi-way. There have been many nights where I laid awake from noise generated from these wind turbines.

Think about it. This is a huge, high torque generating device fastened to a 300 foot hollow steel tube mounted to an immense concrete foundation, and you are telling me that this device will not make noise. I am not a sound engineer so I can’t ague sound decibel levels. All I can say is that there are times that these turbines are so noisy that they almost drive me out of my home."

 SOURCE: Public testimony given at a public hearing before the Senate and Assembly Energy Committee regarding turbine siting reform, May 12, 2009 

Click on the image below to watch a video created by Larry Wunsh and submitted as part of his testimony

 Two public members:

David Gilles, attorney specializing in energy regulatory law, shareholder, Godfrey & Kahn Attorneys at Law, former general counsel to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 2003-2007, former Assistant Attorney General during Jim Doyle's term as Attorney General, Madison, Dane County.   

Jennifer Heinzen, Wind Energy Technology Instructor, Lakeshore Technical College, President of RENEW Wisconsin, Manitowoc County

Manitowoc County Wind Energy Systems Advisory Committee from 2005-2006

"I have spent many hours on and underneath wind turbines of all sizes, and have never felt sick. Nor have any of the systems’ owners/hosts that I’ve met. What makes me sick is the profound hatred these near-sided, selfish, wind opponents have towards change and progress."

Source: Letter from Heinzen to the Editor of Isthmus, Posted on RENEW Website September 29, 2009

"Please believe our intent is in no way to belittle local communities or imply that anyone is “dumb,” as you stated in the article. But when irrational and unfounded fears are propagated and allowed to infest the minds of our local decision-makers, the madness must be stopped. I honestly don’t understand why the WINDCOWS and their allies hate wind power… Money? Aesthetics? I quit trying to rationalize it long ago because it really doesn’t matter.

State Statute 66.0401 outlines local governments’ authority to restrict wind and solar energy systems. Those opposed to a project must prove legitimate health and safety concerns. That’s hard to do, considering no civilian has ever been physically harmed by a wind turbine. Therefore, anecdotal tales of “wind turbine syndrome” run rampant on anti-wind websites, but the “evidence” is nothing more than a conglomeration of exaggerations, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications.

SOURCE: Letter from Heinzen to Representative Bob Ziegelbauer, January 27 2009, posted on RENEW website

One University of Wisconsin System faculty member with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems:

Jevon McFadden,MD, MPH Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin, School of Medicine & Public Health 

 2009 Senior Assistant Resident and graduate of Johns Hopkins Bayview Internal Medicine Residency Program; Epidemiology Intelligence Service, 2009 Lieutenant, U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, 1998 Andrews University Student Missionary to Micronisian Island of Yap

 The PSC appoints the members for three−year terms.

The PSC is required to obtain the advice of the council in promulgating rules under the substitute amendment. In addition, the council must survey peer−reviewed scientific research on the health impacts of wind energy as well as national and state regulatory developments regarding the siting of wind energy systems, and submit a report to the legislature every five years describing the research and developments and recommending legislation based on the research and developments.

GRIM NEWS ABOUT BATS, BIRDS and TURBINES

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

BAD NEWS ABOUT WISCONSIN BATS, BIRDS and TURBINES 

The high fatality numbers reported in the post construction bird and bat mortality study for Blue Sky/Green Field project in Fond du Lac county have surprised everyone who has seen them.

The report shows that the number of kills in the We Energies project are the highest ever recorded in the Midwest, by as much as ten times the national average.

As far as we can tell, there is no one on the council who has expertise specific to these wildlife and habitat concerns. If you are as disturbed by this as we are, why not contact the PSC and let them know you'd feel better if there was someone on the council who could represent our state's birds and bats and habitat.  

CLICK HERE to download the WEPCO final bird and bat mortality study for Blue Sky/Green Field 

It is also available on Blue Sky/Green Field docket on the the PSC website

Click on the image below to watch a video about the turbines alongside the Horicon Marsh in Fond du Lac County. There is talk of putting turbines even closer to the marsh during Phase Two of hte project.

UPDATE: We have been told that siting council member and Green County supervisor Lloyd Lueschow is a retired biologist and was formerly employed by Wisconsin DNR. 

 Agenda for Monday's meeting:

1) Greetings:

 Overview of process and expectations, time line

 Introduction of Commission staff working with Council

 Open meeting requirements

 Administration of Oath

2) Self-introductions by members of Wind Siting Council

3) Election of officers: Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary

4) Administrative:

 Reimbursement of expenses

 Schedule of Future Meetings

 Designated substitutes

 Instructions regarding use/enrolling in Electronic Regulatory Filing System (ERF)

 Overview of rule-making process and additional Act 40 requirements

5) Review of Draft Rules Outline/topics

 Explain how developed

 Topics/items that are unclear

 Topics/items not in outline which council recommends for inclusion

6) Discussion of how to proceed with future work

7) Next steps/Adjourn

This meeting is open to the public.

Background:

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN STATEMENT OF SCOPE

Wind Siting Rules

SOURCE: PSC Docket 1-AC-231

A. Objective of the Rule:

2009 Wisconsin Act 40 (Act 40) establishes statewide criteria for the installation or use of a wind energy system with a nominal operating capacity of less than 100 megawatts, and helps ensure consistent local procedures for such systems.

Act 40 requires the Commission to promulgate a variety of rules that specify the conditions a city, village, town, or county (political subdivision) may impose on such a system. If a political subdivision chooses to regulate such systems, its ordinances may not be more restrictive than the Commission’s rules.

B. Existing Relevant Policies, New Policies Proposed, and Analysis of Alternatives:

Act 40 identifies several areas that these rules must cover and several areas that they may cover.

It requires that the rules include provisions dealing with the decommissioning of wind energy systems, including restoration of the site, and setback requirements that reasonably protect against health effects that are associated with wind energy systems.

Act 40 also requires rules that specify the information and documentation to be provided in an application for approval, the procedure to be followed by a political subdivision in reviewing the application, the information and documentation to be kept in a political subdivision’s record of its decision, as well as the requirements and procedures for enforcing restrictions included in the rule.

The rules must also require the owner of a wind energy system with a nominal operating capacity of at least one megawatt to maintain proof of financial responsibility ensuring the availability of funds for decommissioning the system.

The rules may also include provisions dealing with issues such as visual appearance, electrical connections to the power grid, interference with radio, telephone or television signals, maximum audible sound levels, and lighting.

Currently, an electric generating facility with a nominal operating capacity of 100 megawatts or more may not be constructed unless the Commission grants a certificate of public convenience and necessity.

Act 40 requires the Commission to consider the restrictions specified in these rules when determining whether to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The rules may also require the Commission to consider the conditions specified in these rules when
determining whether to grant a public utility a certificate of authority for a wind farm smaller than 100 megawatts.

Act 40 also creates a 15-person Wind Siting Council that will, among other things, advise the Commission in the drafting of these rules.

C. Summary and Comparison of Federal Regulation in This Area:

There are a number of federal laws that interact with the issues in this rulemaking, although the Commission is not aware of any that deal with the substance of them; that is, the minimum requirements that a political subdivision may impose.

A few of the federal laws that may inter-relate include the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 4321 et. seq., the Endangered Species Act, 16 USC 1531–1544, and 14 CFR Pt. 77, which requires a Federal Aviation Administration airspace study before constructing certain types of projects.

D. Statutory Authority: 

This rule is authorized under ss. 196.02 (1) and (3), 227.11 and newly-created s. 196.378 (4g), Stats.

E. Time Estimates for Rule Development:

The Commission estimates that approximately 800 hours of Commission staff time will be required in this rulemaking.

F. Entities That May Be Affected:

Affected entities include cities; villages; towns; counties; persons and entities that own, want to construct, or want to host wind energy systems; and landowners near such proposed wind energy systems.

Butler Ridge Wind Farm in Dodge County

We Energies picks builders for Glacier Hills
 
SOURCE: The Daily Reporter

March 25, 2010

We Energies has selected The Boldt Co., Appleton; Michels Corp., Brownsville; and Edgerton Contractors Inc., Oak Creek, to build the Glacier Hills Wind Park in Columbia County. (Photo by Joe Yovino)

We Energies has selected three Wisconsin contractors to build the Glacier Hills Wind Park.

The three contractors are The Boldt Co., Appleton; Michels Corp., Brownsville; and Edgerton Contractors Inc., Oak Creek. The project to build a wind farm in Columbia County is scheduled to begin in May or June.

VISIT THE DAILY REPORTER’S PROJECT PROFILE PAGE ON THE GLACIER HILLS WIND PARK <http://dailyreporter.com/glacier-hills-wind-park/>

The project’s construction budget will be between $335 million and $413.5 million, depending on which type of turbines is used and the number of turbines in the farm, said We Energies spokesman Brian Manthey.

In April, the utility will nail down the number of turbines and their locations, he said.

SECOND FEATURE

SOURCE: Public Service Commission

Docket # 1-AC-231

MEETING NOTICE

Wind Siting Council 1-AC-231

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Pecatonica River Conference Room (Lower Floor)
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

[Click here for map]

Monday, March 29, 2010, beginning at 9:00 a.m.

Agenda

1) Greetings:

 Overview of process and expectations, time line

 Introduction of Commission staff working with Council

 Open meeting requirements

 Administration of Oath

2) Self-introductions by members of Wind Siting Council

3) Election of officers: Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary

4) Administrative:

 Reimbursement of expenses

 Schedule of Future Meetings

 Designated substitutes

 Instructions regarding use/enrolling in Electronic Regulatory Filing System (ERF)

 Overview of rule-making process and additional Act 40 requirements

5) Review of Draft Rules Outline/topics

 Explain how developed

 Topics/items that are unclear

 Topics/items not in outline which council recommends for inclusion

6) Discussion of how to proceed with future work

7) Next steps/Adjourn

This meeting is open to the public.

If you have any questions or need special accommodations, please contact Deborah Erwin at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin by telephone at (608) 266-3905 or via e-mail at deborah.erwin@wisconsin.gov.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Do Your Homework:

Visit the PSC docket for the siting council frequently to see the latest posts, and add comments of your own for PSC staff members to read and consider as they prepare summaries for the Commissioners.

If you want to be sure your comments are read by the commissioners themselves you'll have post your comments again during the later hearing phase so they will be considered testimony.  

Visit the siting council docket by CLICKING HERE to get to the PSC website In the box that says "Link Directly to a Case", type in this docket number 1-AC-231

REQUIRED READING:

For those who are following the creation of the PSC siting guidelines, we'll be posting a series of documents and news stories for review.

Officials cover up wind farm noise report

Want more? CLICK HERE to read Today's 'Wind Turbines in the News' 

OR on the links below to read the stories at their source

3/25/10 Ice, big winds hobble wind farm

SOURCE: Nova Scotia News- The Chronicle Herald

"Extreme winds, along with cold temperatures and a buildup of ice, crashed three test towers and halted power production at RMSenergy’s wind farm in Pictou County, said company president Reuben Burge in an interview in Halifax on Wednesday.

The heavy ice conditions stopped the blades from turning, resulting in a 20 per cent loss of production in January and February, he said.

 

Disease and wind turbines menace bat populations

SOURCE: Orangeville Citizen, Ontario

" A University of Calgary bat mortality study, conducted between 2006 and 2008, determined that the vast majority of bats found dead below turbines near Pincher Creek, Alberta, suffered severe injuries to their respiratory systems consistent with a sudden drop in air pressure – called barotrauma – that occurred when the animals got close to turbine blades.

The study showed that 90 per cent of the bats examined after death showed signs of internal hemorrhaging consistent with barotraumas, while only about half of the bats showed any evidence of direct contact with the blades."

CLICK HERE TO READ THE WHOLE STORY



“It’s been an ongoing disaster since they started to turn in 2008,” Marilyn said. “Sometimes (the sound) can be compared to a helicopter; it’s not something we are able to get used to.”

According to the couple, David began experiencing sleeplessness and fatigue, which caused them to move into an apartment.

“The turbines chased us from our home and we don’t want what happened to our family happening to yours,” Marilyn said.

Opponents say 45 decibels is still too loud

SOURCE: The Allegan County News, www.allegannews.com

By Daniel Vasko, Staff Writer, 

March 24, 2010

More than 100 Monterey Township residents attended a presentation at Hopkins Middle School by the Citizens for Responsible Green Energy Saturday, March 20. The event was designed to explain the harmful effects of industrial wind turbines that are planned for Monterey Township.

The township has been considering modifying an ordinance regulating their placement since August 2009.

“The purpose of the presentation is to teach people about the turbines and how they will affect and impact their lives and quality of life,” Citizens for Responsible Green Energy member Laura Roys said.

According to another citizens group member, and Western Michigan University senior Nevin Cooper-Keels, township officials have been inefficient with drafting a safe and acceptable ordinance.

“The majority of the board on the planning commission have signed leases with the energy companies,” Cooper-Keels said. “My impression is that it has affected their judgment, and the board seems more concerned with an ordinance that will allow as many wind turbines as possible instead of protecting the community first.”

Township planning commission member Karon Knobloch, who owns an option for an easement with GE along with her husband, said in an interview there was no conflict of interest.

“It’s not a conflict of interest to write rules for (the companies); if it were to affect my home alone in some way then it would be,” Knobloch said. “Nobody wants to be awake all night because of noise; it’s our job to make it as safe and comfortable as possible.”

A major concern in drafting the wind energy ordinance has consistently been the sound levels produced by the wind turbines, and opponents have said the 45-decibel limit on all non-associated dwellings is too high.

Marilyn and David Peplinsky, who reside near wind turbines in Huron County traveled to Hopkins to speak about their experiences living near a wind farm.

“It’s been an ongoing disaster since they started to turn in 2008,” Marilyn said. “Sometimes (the sound) can be compared to a helicopter; it’s not something we are able to get used to.”

According to the couple, David began experiencing sleeplessness and fatigue, which caused them to move into an apartment.

“The turbines chased us from our home and we don’t want what happened to our family happening to yours,” Marilyn said.

Dr. Malcolm Swinbanks, who has worked for 23 years as an engineering consultant in the area of sound and vibration mitigation, said the Peplinskys live near turbines that have a 45-decibel limit—the same limit discussed by the Monterey Township planning commission.

Swinbanks also said wind turbines are known to produce low-frequency sounds that many people will find a disturbance. He also said low frequency sounds will penetrate structures and are amplified the more the background, or ambient, noise is shut out.

“It’s not something you get used to,” Swinbanks said. “(Some people) actually become more and more sensitive to it.”

He also said wind power was not as cost effective as people think, and that turbines have a greater “carbon footprint” and produce more pollution than other methods like nuclear power.

He said wind turbines each contain 20 gallons of gasoline and that the turbines run at only 20 percent efficiency.

The planning commission will meet April 12 to discuss further amendments to the ordinance.

SECOND FEATURE:

Amaranth Substation concerns remain

Orangeville Citizen, www.citizen.on.ca

March 25 2010

By Wes Keller,

A TransAlta Corp. executive said last Wednesday there are no plans to expand the Melancthon wind farm northward into Grey County and, in the meantime, the company would listen to anyone who can offer advice on how to deal with complaints of noise from the transformer substation in Amaranth.

Calgary-based Transalta is the successor to Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. (CHD), and now the owner of Canada’s two largest wind farms with a combined capacity of roughly 400 megawatts – at Melancthon/Amaranth and on Wolfe Island.

Jason Edworthy, Trans- Alta’s director of communications, told Melancthon council last Thursday that CHD is “a jewel in the crown (of TransAlta’s generation network).”

He said the township staff had “done a tremendous job” of accounting for the company’s taxes (segregating the amount to be paid by TransAlta to participating landowners), and said it was “exciting to see the areas” on which the township was spending its amenities payments.

He said the only change likely to be seen in the transition from CHD would be signage. (The sign at the CHD office is still the original.)

Mr. Edworthy did have one concern: the township’s reasoning in its call for a moratorium on wind turbine development.

Mayor Debbie Fawcett responded that “people are wary of health implications,” but Deputy Mayor Bill Hill referred to the reduction of assessments near the transformer substation, and said the township “didn’t want others to come in and potentially reduce all tax assessments in half.”

Mr. Edworthy said the “process (of reassessment) did not consider scientific evidence available publicly.”

In an interview earlier last Thursday, Mr. Edworthy said the CHD substation in Amaranth has had “the most investment in the TransAlta fleet.” He said the company has done everything it could measure to satisfy neighbouring concerns.

He said the substation is in compliance with Ministry of Environment guidelines and has sound barriers plus a new transformer. “We don’t know what to fix. We can’t measure any more. If anyone can tell us how to measure (the problem), we would follow through.”

The substation has two 100-megawatt transformers, adequate for the 200- MW capacity of the Melancthon/ Amaranth (Melancthon EcoEnergy Centre) wind farm.

TransAlta is a giant in the industry by comparison with CHD. It has roughly 80 plants in Canada, the U.S., including Hawaii, and in Australia. Why did it make its hostile takeover bid for CHD?

In a nutshell, it needed CHD’s “green energy” plants and future developments to reduce its carbon footprint.

“We have a lot of coalfired plants,” said Mr. Edworthy. “There’s lots of coal in Alberta. The company recognizes it’s got to go green going forward. CHD was a logical target – hostile at the start but friendly at the end.”

Even with the addition of CHD, TransAlta generation is heavily weighted with coal: 4,967 MW capacity with an added 271 MW under development. It has 893 MW hydro with 18 MW in development, 1,843 MW in gas-fired, 950 MW wind power with another 1,123 in development stages, 164 MW in geo-thermal, and 25 in biomass.

At the moment, 57% of capacity is in coal-fired, and 20% in natural gas. Between them, wind and hydro account for 22% of capacity. On location, 75% of capacity is in Canada, 22% in the U.S., and 3% in Australia.

At the time of the hostile bid last summer, CHD had announced plans to expand its operations by 100 megawatts annually in wind, hydroelectric and biomass as well as, possibly, solar.

Going green, TransAlta also needed the expertise of CHD personnel in wind, water, solar and biomass. So the entire staff complement was simply transferred to TransAlta.

Locally, Mr. Edworthy wasn’t entirely certain of the number stationed at the CHD operations centre, but did say there would likely be a dozen involved, which would be an increase from seven permanent a year or so ago.