Better Plan, Wisconsin

From the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules:

(Emphasis ours)

Motion on

Ch. PSC 128

That the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules suspend Ch. PSC 128, pursuant to s. 227.26 (2) (d), Stats., effective March 1, 2011, on the basis of testimony received at its February 9, 2011 meeting, and on the grounds that the contents of Ch. PSC 128 create an emergency relating to public health, safety, or welfare; are arbitrary and capricious; and impose an undue hardship on landowners and residents adjacent to wind turbine sites as stated in s. 227.19 (4) (d) 2 and 6.  

COMMITTEE VOTES TO SUSPEND WIND-SITING RULES
SOURCE: WisBusiness.com

March 1, 2011

By Andy Szal

The Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules this morning voted to suspend wind turbine siting regs that were set to take effect today.

The committee voted 5-2 along party lines to suspend PSC rule 128 and now has 30 days to submit a bill repealing the measure to the full Legislature.

Rep. Gary Hebl, D-Sun Prairie, accused the majority of going around the normal legislative process and flip-flopping, since a number of Republicans supported the wind siting bill last session.

"This wasn't a flash in the pan, fly by night rule," Hebl said.

Sen. Leah Vukmir, R-Wauwatosa and the committee co-chair, said the committee had a duty to reconsider the PSC rule after lawmakers voiced concerns about the issue early in the new session. Rep. Dan LeMahieu, R-Cascade, added, "We didn't vote for the rule. We voted to give them the authority to promulgate a rule."

Rep. Fred Kessler, D-Milwaukee, said the bill would have a particularly detrimental effect on the wind turbine industry in Manitowoc.

"These jobs probably will go to other states," Kessler said.

SECOND FEATURE: Different state, same story: The trouble with wind turbines sited too close to homes. Above, shadow flicker in the home of an Illinois family, below stories from more families having trouble.

WIND FARM COMPLAINTS

Source: KWQC-TV6

March 1, 2011

"As the sun comes across the sky, it hits the turbine blades and causes this flicker," she said.

Nearby homeowners say it can go on for hours. "When it first happened, we felt there was something wrong with the electricity because it felt like every light was blinking,"said Barb Draper.

People crowded a meeting in Princeton, Illinois Monday night to express their concerns about wind farms. Residents packed into a meeting with the Bureau County Board of Appeals. Some want to put a stop to the proposed Walnut Ridge wind project. It would build 150 turbines over more than 15,000 acres and affect more than 75 landowners.

Others at the meeting are already surrounded by wind turbines from the Big Sky wind farm. They want the county and the companies to focus on issues caused by the current turbines. They complain that the turbines are noisy, cast flickering shadows that can cause seizures and even block television reception.

The Anderson family in rural Ohio, Illinois says it has turned their quality of life and turned it into living in an industrial park. THe nearest wind turbine is 1,750 feet from their home. Deb Anderson says ever since the turbines started running, their life hasn't been the same.

"As the sun comes across the sky, it hits the turbine blades and causes this flicker," she said.

Nearby homeowners say it can go on for hours. "When it first happened, we felt there was something wrong with the electricity because it felt like every light was blinking,"said Barb Draper.

"On, off, on, off as the blade caught the sun it made a very disturbing motion. It almost made you sick to your stomach." added Bob Draper.

Another problem that came up after the turbines were turned on is with their TV reception. The family says it varies, depending on the direction of the blades. Some days, the family gets 15-20 channels. During our visit, they could only get in two.

On top of that there's the noise that won't go away. These property owners say they understand the benefits of the wind farms. But they'd like the problems fixed before more wind turbines come into the area.

The wind power company has put up two antennas on their house, but the family says they didn't help. They company also offered them money to buy a better delivery system, like satellite TV.

Ryan Light in the Director of Renewable Energy for the Eastern Iowa Community College District. He says those are some of the drawbacks for people living near large wind farms.

"One effect we need to look at a little harder into is the flicker effect, which is the spinning of blades and shadow cast. For people with certain medical concerns it can cause seizures," Light said.

He says there are companies working to alleviate the radio interference with a new kind of blade and there is more research being conducted on noise reduction systems.

SPLIT DECISION FINDS WE ENERGIES DIDN'T EARN TOO MUCH

SOURCE: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

March 1, 2011

By Thomas Content

In a 2-to-1 vote, state regulators ruled Thursday that We Energies won’t have to issue credits to its 1.1 million electricity customers for profit it earned in 2008 and 2009.

Commissioner Lauren Azar sided with customer groups that had called for the commission to vote to return money to customers, saying the commission should decided that the utility earned more than its maximum profit allowed the regulated utility – 10.75% in 2008 and 2009.

But commissioners Eric Callisto and Mark Meyer voted not to require any profits to be returned to customers. Meyer said it was inconsistent for the commission to be seeking to return profits to customers when a utility earns above its maximum profit level since the commission does not allow utilities to raise rates when utilities fail to earn as much in a given year as the profit level, or return on equity, set by the commission.

Over the past 10 years, utilities have more often earned less than their return on equity, Meyer said.

The debate at Thursday's meeting ended up boiling down to how Callisto and Azar interpreted whether management bonuses paid to utility executives should be included in the calculation of a utility’s profit.

Callisto said the commission specifically excludes management bonuses and incentive pay from being collected in utility rates and that the commission staff will be conducting an investigation of utility bonuses in upcoming rate cases.

He said his position in this case was consistent with how the commission interpreted the issue in setting new rules for how utilities can raise rates when fuel prices climb.

Azar, who wanted the issue of bonuses addressed in the new fuel rules last year, said she has not changed her view. She said she considered utility bonuses too high for a regulated utility, given the state of the economy, high poverty rates in the We Energies service territory. The utility's "shareholders are doing quite well," she said.

In filings with the commission, We Energies had argued that the commission was shifting from utility regulator to utility micro-manager if it adopted the proposal of Azar and customer groups. The utility also argued that the commission has not had a consistent definition for utilities to determine what would and would not be included in a PSC calculation of whether a utility earned too much profit.

Callisto agreed. The issue came up in one prior case – in which the commission also ruled in We Energies’ favor – but the commission’s guidance to utilities on this issue has been “ephemeral.”

An analysis by We Energies prepared last week indicated that the utility could have been required to return $53 million to customers. Based on the majority decision Thursday, the commission determined that the utility earned profit of 10.36% in 2008 and 10.52% in 2009, below the 10.75% profit allowed by the PSC.

That means the utility $25.7 million less than the maximum, according to the filing.

Third Feature

FALMOUTH OFFERS PARTIAL TURBINE SHUTDOWN

SOURCE: Cape Cod Times, www.capecodonline.com

March 1, 2011

By Aaron Gouveia,

FALMOUTH — Falmouth officials have offered to turn off the town’s wind turbine for three hours a day, following noise complaints from neighbors.

Acting Town Manager Heather Harper proposed the partial overnight shutdown, calling the offer a “good faith effort toward a mutual resolution of the matter.”

After tracking complaints regarding the 1.65-megawatt turbine off Blacksmith Shop Road, known as Wind I, town officials found residents are most affected during periods of high winds in the late evening and early morning hours, Harper wrote in a Feb. 23 letter.

“We intend to modify the operation of the machine between the hours of midnight and 3 a.m., the times at which the background noise may be lower than the sound emanating from our wind energy equipment,” Harper wrote.

Details of the town’s offer are still unclear, however. Harper’s letter did not specify whether the turbine would be turned off for three hours every night or only during periods of high winds.

When approached by a Times reporter prior to Monday’s selectmen’s meeting, Harper said she did not know the answer and was unable to provide one before the start of the meeting. The meeting was still in progress as of the Times’ deadline.

But Gerald Potamis, the town’s wastewater superintendent who oversees operation of Wind I, said the change will go into effect as soon as the turbine manufacturer, Vestas, sends a technician to reprogram the turbine.

The shutdown is an “interim solution” until town officials and neighbors can work out a permanent solution, Potamis said.

But Christopher Senie, an attorney representing 18 residents who claim they are adversely affected by turbine noise, vibrations and shadow flicker, has said the town’s offer is not good enough.

Senie, who was not available for comment Monday, penned a Feb. 25 letter that stated this is the second time in four months Harper has made the offer to his clients.

Senie called the three-hour reprieve “wholly inadequate” in his letter, and wrote the suffering of neighbors “will not be lessened in any meaningful way.”

The only acceptable interim solution, he wrote, is to shut off Wind I whenever wind speeds reach 23 mph. It is a proposal Harper has repeatedly rejected, according to Senie’s letter.

“This is the only meaningful way to provide my clients some relief while the ultimate solution is developed and implemented,” Senie wrote.

Todd Drummey, who lives approximately 3,000 feet from Wind I, said the town’s offer “completely misses the point” because it assumes residents will be satisfied with three hours of sleep every night.

“It’s the same offer from back in October,” Drummey said. “It was ridiculous then and it’s ridiculous now.”

The ultimate goal, according to Senie and his clients, is to convince the town it was wrong not to require a special permit before the turbine became operational.

Building Commissioner Eladio Gore deemed the turbine a municipal use, and cited zoning bylaws that exempt “all municipal uses” from the special permit process. Senie, on the other hand, cited another local bylaw specifically pertaining to windmills, that requires a special permit in all instances.

Last month, three members of the zoning board of appeals said Gore made a mistake in interpreting the bylaws. But the appeal failed because two ZBA members recused themselves, meaning a 4-0 vote was necessary to uphold the appeal.

But the neighbors are still hopeful because selectmen — acting as the owners of the turbine — can request a special permit at any time.

To that end, several neighbors showed up at Monday’s meeting hoping to persuade selectmen to start the special permit process, which will give neighbors a chance to negotiate some potential compromises. But they were not on the agenda, and as of 9:30 p.m. it was unclear whether they would be allowed to speak.

NEXT FEATURE:

WOLFE ISLAND WIND PLANT STILL HARMING BIRDS IN IMPORTANT BIRD AREA

SOURCE: Nature Canada, www.naturecanada.ca

Last May, Nature Canada’s Ted Cheskey blogged about a report that described how birds and bats have been affected by the TransAlta wind plant on Wolfe Island, a globally significant Important Bird Area in southern Ontario known for its waterfowl, raptors and swallows. He called the numbers of birds and bats being killed by TransAlta’s turbines “shockingly high,” indeed the highest recorded in Canada and one of the highest in North America.

However, since the report only studied a six month period, TransAlta’s spokespeople argued that it was premature to reach conclusions so soon, especially when comparing the Wolfe Island deaths to yearly casualty rates for other wind plants. Besides, TransAlta reasoned, the results appeared to be within the thresholds of acceptable limits set by provincial and federal government regulators.

Then last month, Stantec Consulting, the firm that produced the original report, released its report on the second half of the year: January 1, 2010 to July 1, 2010.

And the results for birds are troubling.

Wolfe Island: Most Deadly Wind Plant in Canada

Though casualty numbers for birds did not skyrocket in the second sixth month period, a time that included the spring migration, they still were high enough to make the Wolfe Island wind plant the most deadly for birds in Canada.

The 13.4 birds per turbine casualty rate is about 7 times the industry average in Canada according to Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) but below the so-called “adaptive management” threshold for TransAlta facility, as set by various government agencies. That level is 11.7 birds per MW which translates to 21 birds per turbine, which just happens to be the highest level ever recorded at any wind facility in North America (Buffalo Mountain, Tennessee). Using the highest level recorded as the threshold before which any mitigation is even considered seems a bit dubious to say the least.

Estimated and actual numbers of birds killed, proportioned by the species actually found, over the entire 12 month period, paints a disturbing picture:

• Tree Swallow 218 (calculation based on 31 corpses)
• Purple Martin 49 (calculation based on 7 corpses)
• Bobolink 73 (calculation based on 9 corpses)
• Wilson’s Snipe 50 (calculation based on 7 corpses)
• Red-tailed Hawk 10 (actual count)

It is important to note that the calculated numbers are arrived at using Stantec’s formula to calculate total casualty rates. A sample of turbines are visited either weekly or twice a week and a search for bird corpses on the ground beneath the blades is conducted. As the method is not intended as a comprehensive search, determining the casualty rate requires taking in factors like the ability of the search team to find carcasses, the percentage of the area searched and the rate of predation between searches. The 31 Tree Swallow corpses, in other words, represent about 15% of the calculated number of tree swallows killed, based on Stantec’s calculations and field testing.

Birds Most Effected are Already in Serious Decline

While the report and the research behind it appear to be quite solid, the authors contend that the casualty rates are quite sustainable and will not have any effect on the species populations. They do this by contrasting the kill numbers from the turbines with the estimated Ontario population of the most affected species – Tree Swallow, numbering about 400,000 and Bobolink, about 800,000. (They do not do this for Red-tailed Hawk, which in fact may not meet their sustainability criteria). They also contrasted the numbers with estimates of birds killed by other human activities or artifices such as tall buildings, vehicles, cell towers, and pets.

While this argument has gained considerable traction among some in the wind industry and even the scientific community, it fails to consider that the turbines at Wolfe Island are killing different species than the tall buildings, cats and cars. Tree Swallow, Purple Martin, Red-tailed Hawk, Turkey Vulture and Bobolink rarely if ever show up on lists of casualties from tall buildings, and are unlikely victims of cats, with the possible exception of the Bobolink. And vehicle collisions, well – while this is a legitimate concern, Turkey Vultures have arguably had a net benefit from the carnage caused by vehicles.

But it is some of these very species – the ones most likely to be harmed by Wolfe Island’s turbines – that are already experiencing declines.

Take swallows, for example. Most species of swallow have declined significantly in Canada over the past 20 years. Adding additional threats to already stressed populations is not prudent. According to trend data on this species from Breeding Bird Survey routes in Ontario, the Tree Swallow has declined by about 6% annually over the past 20 years, a cumulative decline of almost 80%! In other words, the current estimated population of 400,000, was 2 million only 20 years ago. Bobolink, recently added to COSEWIC’s list of threatened species, declined 4.1% over the same period. We should not trivialize the impact of removing dozens, or hundreds of individuals from a population of species that are clearly in trouble.

In the meantime, good documentation of the impacts is essential. While TransAlta had to deliver these studies – they were a condition of the wind project’s approval – the company and Stantec should be recognized for doing good work. Once one takes the spin out of the document, the data and the methodologies are solid. The quality of the monitoring appears to be high, and some weaknesses, such as a potential bias to undercount the number of raptor fatalities, are recognized in the report.

With regard to birds of prey, even if they were not undercounted, the number of casualties is excessively high at .27 per turbine. This was the highest recorded rate for raptor kills outside of California. The victims included:

• 10 Red-tailed Hawks,
• 1 Northern Harrier,
• 1 Osprey,
• 2 American Kestrel,
• 1 Merlin
• 8 Turkey Vulture

This number crossed the “notification threshold” for the project, meaning that the CWS and MNR were notified about the high rates. The report states that TransAlta and MNR have initiated discussions regarding “adaptive management” in response to the raptor deaths. We look forward to hearing what the response might be.

Next Steps to Reduce Bird Deaths

With the plant already in operation, the only option now is to mitigate the risk to wildlife perhaps by slowing down the blades of the turbines at hazardous moments of the year, or turning them off. However, unless the numbers of casualties increase even further in the next two years, it is unclear how far the threshold must be exceeded and how often, before mitigation is implemented. It is reported in the document that four notifications were made by the company to the government for raptors alone, yet none appears to have led to mitigation.

Today, several wind farms are being proposed around the eastern end of Lake Ontario, the most worrying being Gilead’s Ostrander Point wind farm. Ostrander Point is an area that is arguably even more significant for birds than Wolfe Island, because of its specific geography. Ironically, the land on which the Gilead project is being proposed is owned by the Province of Ontario – a Crown forest block.

Opposition to turbines in agricultural areas appears to have persuaded government officials to meet their renewable energy agenda by prioritizing “crown lands” as locations for wind energy plants. While this might be appropriate and acceptable for some properties, when a wind plant is located in an area of great significance to wildlife, as is the case with Ostrander Point, so-called green energy ceases to be green at all. The Ontario government needs to think more carefully about where they allow wind turbines. It is not too late for the Province to design a policy that promotes green energy and also protects key biodiversity sites including Important Bird Areas.

Otherwise, as more of these facilities are built in bad places, wind energy will become a significant contributor to the declines of several species that are already in trouble, and the Green Energy Act will be recognized and remembered for all of the wrong reasons.

About Wolfe Island

Wolfe Island, located in the eastern end of Lake Ontario, a shore distance from Kingston, is about 32 kilometres long and about 11 wide in the widest area covering about 12,140 hectares.  The west end of the island is exposed to the westerly winds blowing across much of the length of Lake Ontario.   The island is a mixture of agricultural land under various regimes of management from annual crops to pasture, natural habitats from woodlands and patches of second-growth forest, to grasslands, wetlands and the residences and farms of the Wolfe Islanders.   TransAlta’s 86 turbines tower 80 metres above the farmland, pasture, and grasslands, and are constructed largely on the western side of the islands where the winds are probably the strongest.   The wind plant has a nameplate capacity of 198 Megawatts, but the average output in its first year of operation was only 48 Megawatts, a quarter of the capacity, due to the variability of winds.  This output number appears to be about average for Ontario’s wind industry. 

Wolfe Island is a Globally significant Important Bird Area, (IBA) recognized for its significance for waterfowl primarily, but also for its importance to raptors (birds of prey including hawks and owls) and Tree Swallows.  Being at the eastern end of Lake Ontario, the island’s habitats are also important stop-over destinations for migrating birds and bats.  Nature Canada believes that industrial wind plants should be excluded from IBAs, and other sites that are known to be highly significant for wildlife, particularly birds.   No wind plant, even the notorious Altamont plant in California, has ever, to our knowledge been decommissioned because of impacts on wildlife.   Once these things are built, then are not turned off until they stop working or break down.   For us at Nature Canada, this a strong incentive to encourage provincial policies to exclude wind plants from IBAs and important migratory corridors and fight the few existing proposals within IBAs.   However, the Wolfe Island plant is built and operating, so its impacts on birds and bats will be instructive for other projects being proposed or considered in areas that are significant for birds. 

"On, off, on, off as the blade caught the sun it made a very disturbing motion. It almost made you sick to your stomach." added Bob Draper.

WHAT'S AT ISSUE WITH GOVERNOR WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL:

 Pictured Above: Setbacks between 400 foot tall wind turbines and homes in a PSC-approved wind project Fond du Lac County Wisconsin. The yellow circles indicate the 1000 foot safety zone around each turbine.

Pictured Below: PSC approved Glacier Hills Wind Project under constrution in Columbia County. In this map from WeEnergies, red dots are turbine locations.  Each yellow circle containing a small red square is a non-participating home.

When they permitted the wind project, the PSC admitted that there were too many turbines around some homes but instead of asking for fewer turbines in those areas they asked the wind company to offer to purchase the homes. They did.

The PSC wind rules allow safety zones to cross property lines and allow a wind company to automatically use a neighbor's land as part of that safety zone. This creates a no-build and no tree planting zone on the property of a non-particpating land owner who must to get permission from the wind company to build a structure or plant a tree on his own land.

Senate Bill 9 helps to correct this problem.

The PSC statewide siting rules are to take effect on March 1st, 2011. They have setbacks of 1250 feet between homes and a 500 foot turbine. The rules allow a wind company to use a non participating landowner's property as a safety setback zone.

Senate Bill 9 increases the setback to 1800 feet between turbines and property lines. If a landowner wants a turbine closer he can enter into an agreement with the wind company. This bill gives some choice and a little more protection to the rural Wisconsin families who have no choice about living beneath the turbines.

PICTURED ABOVE: a map showing the noise level predicted for residents in Invenergy's proposed Ledge Wind Project in Brown County.  The yellow dots are homes. The black dots are wind turbine locations. The World Health Organization says nighttime noise should no louder than 35 dbA for healthful sleep. The deep blue areas indicate predicted turbine noise levels above 50 dbA. The purple areas indicate turbine noise levels of 50dbA.  

EXTRA CREDIT READING LIST

THE DIRTY COST OF CLEAN WIND

 Source: THE DAILY MAIL

CLICK HERE to read the whole story

"This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about."

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO A DISCUSSION OF THE NEW WIND RULES AND WIND POWER IN WISCONSIN HOSTED BY WORT 89.9FM, MADISON'S COMMUNITY RADIO STATION.

 EXTRA CREDIT READING: 

CLICK HERE for Clean Wisconsin's 2009 testimony to the Public Service Commission during the Glacier Hills Wind Project hearings--Clean Wisconsin tells the PSC there will no CO2 reduction because of the implementation of the Glacier Hills project unless the PSC also requires a coal fired plant to be shut down.

Result: The PSC approves the project with no requirement that a coal-fired plant to be shut down.

12/7/09 Clean Wisconsin lives up to its name by taking on the dirty elephant in the room.

December 16, 2010

Dear Senator Plale and Representative Soletski,

We are writing to express our concerns regarding Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 which sets state-wide standards for the siting of wind towers.

The Rule pending before your committee should be sent back to the Public Service Commission for modifications.

We appreciate the work of both committees on this proposed rule. Much of the citizen reaction, including that of your constituents raised serious concerns about the effects of the rule. We are grateful for the committee action in October to return the rule to the PSC for modifications.

Unfortunately, the PSC modified Rule sent back to your committee this month does not address the concerns expressed by citizens of members of your committee.

Specifically, we are deeply concerned about the setback provisions and its effect on neighbors to properties containing wind towers. Substantial testimony was provided by citizens describing this setback as completely unacceptable.

 It seems the PSC has entirely disregarded the will of Wisconsin's citizens and elected officials.

We respectfully urge you to consider the will of the people and those whom they have elected. We ask the committee to either return the rule to the PSC for further modifications or act quickly to object to the proposed rule so it can be taken up the Joint Committee on Review of Administrative Rules.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Sincerely,

Kathleen Vinehout
State Senator
31st Senate District

Chris Danou
State Representative
91st Assembly District

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

MADISON- Although requests for a full public hearing on the Public Service Commission's new wind siting rules have come from state senators and assembly members on both sides of the aisle, Senator Plale and Representative Soletski, the two legislators who will be making the decision, have yet to publicly announce their plans.

 An aide to Representative Soletski says the legislators have until October 14th to decide, and a hearing must take place within 30 days of the announcement.

TURBINE TALK

SOURCE: Milwaukee News Buzz, www.milwaukeenewsbuzz.com

September 28, 2010

Two state representatives from Northeast Wisconsin, Bob Ziegelbauer (I-Manitowoc) and Steve Kestell (R-Elkhart Lake), are insisting that the Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities hold a public hearing on rules governing the placement of wind turbines in the state before approving them.

The Assembly committee, along with the Senate Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail Committee, have final review of the rules, which were written this summer by the Public Service Commission and the Wind Siting Council, an advisory board.

The rules would set a statewide standard for regulations restricting the placement of wind turbines. Local governments could create rules less restrictive – but not more restrictive. The state rules would overrule some existing local ones that require longer setback distances from homes, for example.

Proponents say the development of wind energy in the state has become bogged down in local disputes. Opponents, however, say turbines generate relatively loud whooshing sounds and can disturb residents unless government rules prevent developers from placing them too close to homes. The rules passed the Siting Council 11-4 in August. Dissenters argued the rules were too lax.

“I have personally heard from many constituents as there are existing wind turbines in my district,” Kestell writes in a letter to State Rep. James Soletski (D-Green Bay), chairman of the assembly committee. “These are people with actual firsthand experience living with wind turbines and their perspective would be invaluable to committee members in deciding whether changes are warranted.”

In a similar letter, Ziegelbauer writes that the rules “will have lasting effects on many in our state.”

Northeast Wisconsin, particularly the Fond du Lac area, has become a focus for wind development in the state. According to a previous NewsBuzz story, although Wisconsin isn’t known for its wind resources, the state actually has more wind than others that have become leaders in wind power.

Home in a wind project, Fond du Lac County

MORE FROM THE DOCKET: What Wisconsin residents are saying to the PSC about recent wind siting discussions

FROM BROWN COUNTY

Dear PSC Members,

My name is Marilyn Nies.

We signed a contract with Invenergy in Brown County.

Boy what a scam this all is. It was like the snake oil salesman in the movies. After two years so much more
information came out concerning turbines.

We also for some dumb reason never put two and two together concerning our daughter. Our youngest child has three separate heart issues. One of them being WPW, which is an electrical impulse disorder.

I am afraid stray voltage and the low frequency noise will harm her. Needless to say we want out of
our contract. They will not let us out.

They outright lied and lied by omission. People do not vacate their houses that they have put their whole adult lives into fixing up for no reason. There is a problem here and no studies have been done. They just keep saying there is no evidence, because nothing has been done!

You are putting the cart before the horse. I and many others feel studies should be done before this goes any further. In addition, in Brown County especially, each turbine should be looked at individually or not at all due to the karst rock features.

My final point is money...... I don't want any money from them.

I don't think many of the other people not signed up want money either. I tried to send the money back that we received direct deposit, they would not cash the check. Since then I have closed the account. Invenergy now mails the checks and I burn them. We want to live here without our land value decreasing and without
health risks.

It is called being responsible. Even 1300 feet is not much if you get a storm like we had Friday. There was a section 1 mile wide by 4 miles long where we had 75 mile an hour winds, come to find out it was a tornado. There are buildings and silos down and damaged all over. How far could a turbine blade or a section of one go? Especially if there was mechanical failure combine with an act of God? Just something to think about.

I sincerely hope you take your time on this issue and get some INDEPENDENT studies done. We
have to live with these the rest of our lives. What is the big deal if it sits another year until we know
for sure?

Marilyn Nies

Greenleaf, WI 54126

FROM FOND DU LAC COUNTY:

Heilman, Alice - PSC
From: Gerry Meyer
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 12:51 PM
Cc: Jones, Krystal - PSC; Paske, Sandra - PSC

Subject: Comments per Commissioners meeting of 8-23-10

Dear Public Service Commissioners Azar, Meyer and Callisto,

My comments are in response to Monday’s meeting concerning the draft rules for wind turbine siting.

I live in the Forward Energy project by Invenergy so I have first hand knowledge of what life in a wind farm it truly like. My statements are not third party or from listening to others.

I have many thoughts based on listening to your meetings last Thursday (August 19) and yesterday (August 23).

Commissioner Azar, you seemed to be concerned for residents living near large industrial wind turbines in that you were looking at sound pressure reading of 40 Dba and a set back that would equal 2200 feet.

Yesterday you relented on your original thoughts.

At 6:55 this morning I went out with my sound meter to take a reading. The wind was from the SW which in my case is the worst sound. I had a Dba of 42 and a Dbc of 58. The sound was bouncing higher, however I tried to go to the low side with a slight feeling for an average sound pressure reading. The sound was bordering on the sound of a jet to a loud whooshing sound.

I talk to people that are having issues with the sound, however do not pay close attention to wind direction. As I mentioned generally the loudest sound is when the wind is from a westerly direction, however when the wind is from the E, SE and NE I get the least sleep.

I believe even a 40 Dba sound pressure is too loud and the commission needs to lower the sound to 5 Dba above ambient or at the very least 40 Dba. I have found that I do get pretty good sleep when the turbines are turning at 11 rpms or less which I would say is slightly above cut in speed.

Often we do not necessarily hear the wind turbines, yet sleep deprivation is present. The wind energy industry is dismissing the affects of low frequency noise and possibly infra sounds. That is why l listed the Dbc level above.

The commission needs to look at low frequency sound. I must strongly suggest you can not compare airplanes, trains or traffic sounds to large industrial wind turbines. The turbines are in a class by themselves as far as the effects they cause.

I do not receive shadow flicker. Well I do get flicker just briefly only several days a year, however in our case the many trees block out any serious effect it may have. I do know a number of friends and now acquaintances that have a horrendous time with shadow flicker.

One of those affected is siting council member Larry Wunsch. If the commission OK’s 30 hours of flicker a year before curtailment they may not understand that could mean 52 days or more of flicker.

Some of the council members felt that a non participant’s property should not be invaded by shadow flicker (the minority). I would tend to agree with that thought. Turn your lights on and off once per second for 40
minutes to see if that would be more than just annoying or a disturbance.

I am the one that submitted my cortisol levels to the docket. Briefly I was gaining weight in 6 to 7 pound increments while trying to eat less. I consulted with a Dr. who suggested I have my cortisol checked. During the time of high sleep deprivation from the 5 turbines with 5/8 of a mile of our house I had it checked. My cortisol level was 254.

After the Forward project was shut down for 21 days last October I found I had lost 17 pounds of the 30+ pounds I had gained. I had my cortisol level checked that very next day after the turbines began turning and the level was 35. It should be less than 100.

Yes, everyone seems to have stress, but I feel the high level was due to the turbines being irresponsibly placed too close to our home.

In my case I have one (turbine) 1560 feet away, one 2480 feet, and three at 3300 feet away. The first two are measured the later three are estimates based on maps. Even a half a mile set back would be a very conservative compromise. One of those at 3300 feet away are as loud as those 1560 and 2480 feet away

I feel the commission needs to enact a property value guarantee. I have seen properties list
for $219,000 and sell for $129,000. I have seen one property be abandoned, I have seen houses go
up for sale and never sell.

I know of homes that have been for sale since the project went up and have failed to sell. I feel prior to large wind turbine constructions my property of 6+ acres, a large farm house completely remodeled, the former dairy barn of 40’ X 92’ and a new 26’ X60’ garage/shop was worth $500,000. I would now estimate it to be worth about $200,000. Those estimates are based on being a carpenter in a previous life.

Wind energy companies constantly state that there is no loss in property value. If so why not be willing to guarantee that statement with a property value protection.

I do not trust modeling as a way to avoid shadow flicker and noise. An example would be mileage standards for cars. Do you get the mileage that is on the window sticker? Industrial turbine manufacturers can manipulate statistics to meet the needs of buyers and builders. Shadow flicker modeling takes into account variables that may not be there. Those models should take in to account the worst case scenario not the least case scenario.

I am offended by I believe Commissioner Meyer’s comment that some of these issues are needed for the good of the whole. Those may not be the exact words, but close.

I don’t believe my family or I or many others that are victims of wind energy should have to make this sacrifice. I know this is not part of the issue, yet on the other hand it is. Wind energy and the electricity it produces is very costly and wind energy is very inefficient. It is not causing any reduction on traditional energy use and is doubtful if it is reducing any carbon dioxide emissions after all the considerations are
factored in.

Part of the draft rule addresses allowing political subdivisions to allow compensation for adjacent land owners up to the amount the hosting farmer is receiving. (Page 36 of 44 128.33 sub 3) Wind energy is not accepted currently because of being improperly sited and the effects it causes.

If there is to be an increased acceptance of the wind industry this would be a great way to achieve it. I have often thought about if I had property value protection and receive the same compensation as my hosting neighbor I might be able to accept some of the disadvantages of this project.

In Monday’s meeting consideration was given to farm animals, domestic animals and wildlife.

My first reaction to that statement is “What about people” “Don’t we have some value?”. We should be at the top of the list.

We used to see deer at least once a week and 16 to 20 turkeys every few days from our house. Since construction of the turbines began (winter of 2007) we have not seen even one deer and only 2 turkeys.

Signal interference was touched on. We do have a satellite dish however we still have our old fashioned TV antenna. We need that to get Green Bay stations. If the wind is in a certain direction we can not get Green Bay.

There are people that rely on TV antennas that need protection from wind turbine interference with out having to fill out a W9 and receive a 1099 at the end of the year. For my internet I have a private company with a free standing tower 5 miles from my home. It is not affected; however other residents may be and need protection from losing their service. There needs to be set backs from emergency frequency beams.

I am concerned about community wind. Community wind needs to be treated the same as regular or large wind. If not what would happen is a community wind project of up to 15 MB would bebuilt. Let’s go 5 miles away and build another community wind project.. Now let’s connect the two and soon there could be 50 turbines that were intended to be a community wind project.

Don’t say that won’t happen. It did in Washington or Oregon.

If you read and research you know that world wide wherever there are large industrial wind turbines there are concerns and complaints about health issues.

Also of concern is decommissioning. Wind energy companies can sell the project, go bankrupt or flee the country. The money needs to be upfront. I believe the wind energy company representatives on the wind siting council grossly underestimated the decommissioning costs.

Standing turbines or even disassembled turbines lying on the ground are not in recyclable condition. They would need to be cut up in small pieces. I doubt that round 1” steel can be conveniently sheered.

I read over and over that Wisconsin’s past laws were a “patchwork” of rules and discouraged wind development in Wisconsin. Let’s leave wind out of this next statement.

If you take my township’s (Byron) building ordinance and compare it to Town of Fond du Lac’s or the Town of Union (Rock County) those building ordinances would be different. Does that curtail building or barns, silos or
homes? Should all building codes be controlled by the state?

There are town and county wind ordinances that are good with months or even over a year of research before their enactment. Those ordinances were never even discussed by the wind siting council.

That needs to be looked in to and the value of those existing ordinances evaluated. The Town of Union, Magnolia and Trempealeau Counties are great ordinances.

Commissioner Azar, it was me that got your attention at the wind siting council meeting asking for a brief conversation after the meeting when Jevon McFadden was giving his presentation. I later talked with Crystal Jones attempting to set up an appointment with you.

I did later receive a call from possibly Brian letting me know a visit together was not going to be possible. My thoughts at the time were for you to visit so that I could give my first hand account of the effects on my family from actually seeing my property for yourself.

I would have showed you around the project pointing our the many others with issues shadow flicker, noise, health issues and homes that are not selling or selling much below their market value.

I based my thought on the fact that in a previous meeting (May 14?) you expressed a concern about shadow flicker. I am disappointed this visit did not seem necessary.

As a tax paying citizen of the great state of Wisconsin I am not in favor of the subsidies, production credits and other incentives to wind energy companies and utilities for wind development.

Enough incentives have been paid over the years to develop wind. I don’t believe those incentives have worked to prove wind energy a viable source of electricity generation. If it was a feasible source of electricity it would have proved itself. I would rather see my tax dollars go to the state buying a house in a wind project and for the commissioners to spend a few weeks at a time living in that house and commuting to Madison so that they can learn for themselves what life in a wind project is really like.

I don’t believe Wisconsin should be promoting the financial interests of wind energy companies and utilities. I strongly believe the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and the State Health Department should be most concerned about the health affects large wind turbines cause that are irresponsibly placed too close to the residents of Wisconsin citizens.

In summary 50 dba is too high. 45 dba is too high. I believe 40 dba can be too high. 5 dba above ambient should be the standard. Why should a non participant put up with any shadow flicker? Set backs need to be ½ mile or more. Property value protection is a must. Signal interference needs
to be corrected and for the life of the project.

Thank you for considering my comments,

Gerry Meyer

Brownsville WI