Click on the image below to watch Wisconsin wind siting council members discuss the the relative necessity of a safety setback from large wind turbines. Two council members representing groups that lobby on behalf of wind development believe in this case, safety is a relative term. Because they do not believe safety is an issue when it comes to siting turbines, they suggest the term "courtesy setback" instead of "safety setback"

Click on the image below to watch part of a Wisconsin Wind Siting Council Meeting where Council member and wind lobbyist Michael Vickerman claims that community acceptance of wind projects is higher when there are fewer turbines. Council member and UW Professor Emeritus, Dr. Doug Zweizig asks Vickerman for support for his claims and and in the discussion it is revealed that the turbines in the projects cited by Vickerman are much smaller than the 400 to 500 foot turbines now being proposed. Vickerman then claims the size of the turbines doesn't matter.

Where does the wind developers preference for a noise limit of 50dbA come from? A wind lobbyist explains why the type of wind developers interests he represents want the turbine noise limit to be as high as 50daA and what it's based on. The World Health Organization says for restful sleep, 35dbA is the limit for nighttime noise.

WATCH HIGH QUALITY COMPLETE RECORDINGS OF THE WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETINGS AT BY VISITING THE GREAT WISCONSIN EYE

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Wind turbine related bat kills are ten times higher in Wisconsin than anywhere in the nation except Pennsylvania. There is serious concern about the survival of bat populations near Wisconsin wind projects.

WIND TURBINES AND DISEASE CUTTING BAT TOTALS

SOURCE: The Times Leader, www.timesleader.com 

July 19 2010

By Matt Hughes,

WILKES-BARRE — Sue Gallagher of the Carbon County Environmental Center has presented her educational program on bats so many times she could probably do it hanging upside down in the dark.

She ran through much of that program Thursday at Wilkes-Barre’s River Common, going over myths and misconceptions about nature’s only flying mammals. To summarize: Bats aren’t blind, they aren’t flying mice, they won’t get stuck in your hair and, unless you’re vacationing on a South American cattle ranch, they won’t suck your blood either.

A little more than a year ago, things changed, and Gallagher’s message about bats changed with it.

Bats in Pennsylvania are dying, Gallagher said, in such extreme numbers that future generations of Pennsylvanians may never see them in the wild.

“You guys aren’t going to grow up seeing bats the way we grew up seeing bats,” Gallagher told the approximately 10 children who gathered with their parents for the program, which was sponsored by rivercommon.org.

There are two culprits in the disappearance of the state’s bats, Gallagher said.

Hibernating bats, the sort that live in caves, have been affected by white nose syndrome, a fungus-based illness that causes bats to awaken from hibernation early. The bats, which live on a diet of insects, then die of starvation.

The illness, which spread south from New York State last year, kills 85 to 100 percent of bat populations it infiltrates.

Other bats, especially the migratory variety, are being killed by an unlikely source: wind turbines. Bats are attracted to the turbines during mating season, Gallagher said, when they will fly to the highest point above ground. They are then either killed by the large fan blades or by low pressure systems that form near the tips of the blades that cause the bats’ lungs to explode.

A single turbine can kill 50 to 100 bats a year, Gallagher said, adding that it is too early to judge the effect of wind energy on bats because Pennsylvania does not track bat population size.

“We want to get behind wind energy; we want to say wind energy is green, but we’ve got to address its impact on bats,” Gallagher said.

“I feel bad, because I really like bats, and I don’t want them to die,” Bethany Kelsey, 7, of Wilkes-Barre, said after the program.

“I didn’t know that they were dying, which makes me very sad,” Kelsey’s mother, Angel Kelsey, added. “I grew up in the woods watching the bats.”

The bat program was the first in a series of free children’s nature education programs being held at the River Common. The next, a live mammals program, will take place July 23.

Wind farm sows discord among friends

WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE

Monday, June 23, 2010, beginning at 1:30 p.m.

Docket 1-AC-231

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Flambeau River Conference Room (3rd Floor)
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio or video of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 1:30.

CLICK HERE to visit the PSC website, click on the button on the left that says "Live Broadcast". Sometimes the meetings don't begin right on time. The broadcasts begin when the meetings do so keep checking back if you don't hear anything at the appointed start time.

What's on the agenda

1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda

2) Review and adoption of meeting minutes of June 21, 2010

3) Background information on questions raised by Council regarding the draft rules

a. Commission noise measurement protocol

b. Takings

c. Property value protection plans

4) Amendments to straw proposal for Council’s recommendations to Commission regarding
draft rules

a. Discuss proposed amendments to straw proposal

b. Straw poll regarding proposed amendments to straw proposal

5) Next steps/Discussion of next meeting’s time, place and agenda

6) 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:

Better Plan contacted the PSC to ask why today's meeting was not posted on the event calendar until this morning. Notice of open meetings must be given at least 24 hours in advance. We were told the event calendar postings at the PSC website are a courtesy, but not the official posting place for open meetings.

Better Plan is now trying to find out where the official postings can be found.

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules. The deadline for comment is July 7th, 2010.

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

CLICK HERE to get a copy of the draft siting rules approved by the commissioners on May 14th, and to find out more about the Wind Siting Council

CLICK HERE and type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted so far.

CLICK HERE to leave a comment on the Wind Siting Council Docket

What Wind Siting Council Chairman Dan Ebert says about why there is no specific provision for complaint resolution in the draft rules he presented on June 9th, 2010

 "Andy [Hesselbach] I think, I really in particular have valued your expertise and guidance throughout this process because I think that as a company and I think that other council members recognize that, you guys [We Energies] have done a pretty good job of striking this balance and so I was persuaded on the complaint resolution process that that is valuable but I'm also hesitant to prescribe a particular solution because I think every community is different, every developer is different, and it should really be, you know, an honest effort between the local government and the developers to set up that complaint resolution process.

So I think to have the rules say you guys should do this without prescribing a particular solution is the best way to proceed.

During Wind Siting Council Meetings, Chairman Dan Ebert has continually referred to the success of the complaint resolution process used by We Energies in the Blue Sky/ Green Field project.

While presenting the Siting Council's draft proposal, he uses this 'success' to justify not including provisions for complaint resolution in the draft rules beyond "work with the wind company and the local government".

Here are the minutes of the Wind Turbine Standing Committee which was formed to address the complaints of increasingly frustrated residents who were getting poor response from We Energies.

It's hard to see how this can be called a success. Residents of this project who have contacted Better Plan have made it clear nothing has changed.

The Blue Sky/Green Field project was sited with the almost the same guidelines being proposed by the Wind Siting Council.

"The Wind Turbines are here to stay. They will not be shut off. Noise and property values will not be addressed."

-From the minutes of Wind Turbine Standing Committee meeting

 

TOWN OF MARSHFIELD, FOND DU LAC COUNTY, WISCONSIN

Minutes of Wind Turbine Standing Committee, August 20, 2009, 7:00 pm

Presiding officer, John Bord called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm leading the Pledge of Allegiance. Confirmation of publication is noted.

Those representing the Town of Marshfield were John Bord, Cathy Seibel, Dennis Stenz;

Concerned Citizens representatives include Larry Lamont, James Mueller, John Gierach, and Dick VanderVelde (tardy).

Others present: Tanya Holler-Muench, and Mark Noah representing We Energies

and Sue Schumacher, a biologist, to present information relating to the avian studies.

Also present was Jim Vollmer [resident] and Joe Bauer (tardy).

Jim Vollmer filed a ‘Concerned Citizen Form’ and expressed his concerns:

“Radio Reception, TV Reception, Flicker, Birds dying, Noise and extra cost of electric”.

He has contacted We Energies about these issues and states that We Energy has not made efforts to resolve these concerns.

Jim Vollmer stated that his problems are not adequately addressed. He still has issues
with TV and radio reception. He is not able to receive his usual radio station and even
though he purchased a new TV, it does not work all the time. The flickering is disrupting
his sleep. Blinds have been installed by We Energy.

Jim raises chickens. He states the birds are showing signs of stress. He has asked that
stray voltage to be tested. No one came.

Some birds have gotten Coccidiosis and have died. When sick birds were transferred to another environment away from the towers, they recovered.

The noise from the towers is very annoying especially when trying to sleep. He cannot open windows because of the sound and is forced to use the air conditioner.

Jim stated the solution to his problems is for We Energies to buy his property, “There is
no other way out for me.”

Tanya [From We Energies] stated, “We cannot buy property”. She related that
issues have been addressed. Dish network has been installed and working until Jim
purchased a “top of the line Sony TV”.

We have tried several different radios that are working for other residents. 13 window blinds have been installed.

We do not know that the birds are dying because of the towers. We can get a stray voltage meter and consult with an agricultural specialist. We Energies can enlist the expertise of technicians.

Before the September 17th, 2009 meeting, We Energies will:

1. Test for stray voltage (Jason)
2. Consult with a Farm Management Representative regarding the chickens
3. Consult directly with a Dish Network technician regarding the TV issue
including bring in a different TV set to test
4. Check further on the radio issues. Larry Lamont will also check his radio to
see if he has the capability of the station WIXX
5. Consult with experts regarding insulation for noise as suggested by Dick
VanderVelde.

Biologist, Sue Schumacher presented an interesting talk about avian studies.

The next meeting will be September 17, 2009 at 7:00 pm at the Marshfield Town Hall.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM.

TOWN OF MARSHFIELD FOND DU LAC COUNTY, WISCONSIN
Minutes of Wind Turbine Standing Committee, September 17, 2009, 7:00 pm

Presiding officer, John Bord called the meeting to order leading the Pledge of Allegiance.
Confirmation of ‘Publication’ was noted.

Town officials present: John Bord, Dennis Stenz, Ken Kraus, Cathy Seibel, Connie Pickart;

Concerned Citizen Committee: Jim Mueller, Larry Lamont, Dick VanderVelde. John Gierach was absent.

Tanya-Holler- Muench, Mark Noah and Bob Service represented We Energies.

Also present were Liz and Leander Ebertz, Joe Bauer, Jim Vollmer and Rose Petrie.

John stated that he and Jim Mueller met and agreed that after the last meeting, some
complaints were already being addressed. However, they disagreed regarding noise
issues.

John stated that ‘noise’ would no longer be addressed since We Energies is
following the guidelines of the JDA and the PSC.

Jim replied ‘noise’ issue needs to be addressed. A future noise-study may be initiated to determine if We Energies is complying with the 50dBls.

John noted that the Town taxes have been reduced 11.4%.

Property values are debatable. Recovery-wise, in the future, the towers will probably be
a “non-issue”. TV, radio, flicker are the main three topics.

Old Concerns-Jim Vollmer-Several solutions have been presented to Jim Vollmer regarding TV, radio and flicker problems. Jim states the problems are not resolved.

It is noted that after speaking with a DISH tech, it has been acknowledged that some issue are one with the DISH technology, not related to the turbines.

Regarding radio installation, Jim has indicated that the radio is performing better than the previous model but is still not acceptable. 18 window shades have been applied to Jim’s house.

Stray voltage tests show there is no unusual voltage activity in Jim’s chicken shed. We Energies Ag Representative has referred Jim to the WI DATCP’s Wisconsin Farm Center regarding coccidiosis in the chickens. Jim has not contacted DATCP thus far.

New Concerns-Joe Bauer-Joe has problems with radio and TV reception. Window shades have been applied to Joe’s house.

Shane Baganz- We Energies has contacted Shane and Shane will not pursue concerns at
this time.

Liz Ebertz-still has radio and TV problems.

Darlene Mueller- The Muellers continue to have TV and radio interference. Flickering also is a concern.

It is noted the above all have concerns with noise and noise interfering with sleep.

Also noted, most of the concerned citizens questioned why taxes have not been reduced. Cathy again stated the Town does not have jurisdiction over State, County or School Taxes.
“The Town portion went down by 11.4%.”

Bernie and Rose Petrie-The Petries are concerned with TV reception or lack thereof. They refuse DISH and want a TV antennae and tripod.

All parties were involved in the discussion that ensued and all were allowed to offer possible solutions to their own and others problems.

 

TOWN OF MARSHFIELDFOND DU LAC COUNTY, WISCONSIN
Minutes of Wind Turbine Standing Committee, September 17, 2009, 7:00 pm

We Energies has offered Jim Vollmer and Joe Bauer a new radio, one that is presently
being tested by Jim Mueller. If it solves Jim’s problems, they will receive that radio also.

Liz has asked for another weather radio for her lower level. We Energies will provide
one. We Energies offered to move her Direct TV monitor to another location. Liz
wishes to wait.

We Energies offered Jim Vollmer a Cirrus radio channel. Jim prefers a radio solution over increasing his TV package.

Jim Mueller would like a better explanation of decibels, and address all noise problems.
He wants long term satisfaction regarding TV issues. The present DISH package is
acceptable, but after the two years are up, We Energies will only provide Green Bay channels.

Jim stated, “That is not what we were told when coming into this.” “It’s not about getting ahead. “It’s about getting us back to where we were. It’s about replacing with equal kind and quality or close.”

Jim stated that “you need to take that back to We Energies and discuss it further because it’s not making us whole.”

Tanya [We Energies] stated they “will take it back.”

Dennis stated, “It’s only fair to replace what they had.”

Mark Noah [We Energies] stated, “We said we will reconsider it. We will reconsider it.”

Jim Mueller stated that Bruce Dalka would like to appear with his concerns, but works
later in the evening and would the committee be willing to meet on a Saturday morning.

After Bruce fills out a ‘Concerned Citizens Form’, a date and time will be set.

John noted the next meeting is Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 7:00 PM. Because the third Thursday in November is hunting season, would there be any objection to holding the meeting November 12, 2009 at 7:00 PM instead. None noted.

Jim Mueller suggested that a longer time frame be allowed after a ‘Concerned Citizen Form’ is received in order give We energies adequate time to address the concern before the citizen appears before the next meeting.

Jim Mueller moved to adjourn and Cathy seconded the motion. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M.

Connie Pickart, recording secretary

 

TOWN OF MARSHFIELD FOND DU LAC COUNTY, WISCONSIN
Minutes of Wind Turbine Standing Committee, October 15, 7:00 pm

Presiding officer, John Bord, called the meeting to order leading the Pledge of Allegiance. Confirmation of Publication was noted.

Town officers present were John Bord, Ken Kraus, Cathy Seibel and Connie Pickart.

We Energies was represented by Tanya Holler Muench, Mark Noah and Bob Servais.

Representing the ‘Concerned Citizens’ were Jim Mueller, and Larry Lamont. John Geriach and Dick VanderVelde were absent.

Jim Vollmer and Joe Bauer were also present.

Connie noted additions/corrections to the September minutes:

We Energies would look into providing Jim Vollmer with a satellite radio. They did not offer Mr. Vollmer a Cirrus radio channel.

Also, Larry Lamont requested that a comment regarding whether the turbines could be turned off when they are not producing be included in the minutes.

Mark Noah [We Energies] replied, “No they could not be turned off.” “There is always power to them.”

Tanya [We Energies] provided a summary of follow-up activities from the September meeting:

1. Jim Vollmer received a new connector. Jim reports this worked. Stray voltage testing
showed no stray electrical activity. Bob Servias reported that audio-visual, lip sync, was off .1 of a second. “This happens in higher definition TV.” Tanya stated a ‘Receiver Switch Out’ may be an alternative. Bob offered to help Jim adjust his TV.

Tanya reported that We Energies will give the local channels including the ‘family package’ to all residents within the wind farm who experience problems with TV reception because of the wind turbines, beyond the contracted two year term. Jim Mueller stated, “We realize it is impossible to give us all we had. You are trying to make us whole and we thank you for that.”

Jim Vollmer stated that regarding radio reception, we’re “at a stand-still”. “Whatever, they have done, it’s been a waste of time.”

A satellite radio system will be installed at different sites to determine if satellite may be
a solution. Tanya stated that We Energies is not opposed to fixing the radio problem, but
“We cannot be taken advantage of. There needs to be justification. We need
documentation.”

2. We Energies has offered to install an antenna at the Rose Petrie residence per Petrie’s
request. If that does not fix their problem, We Energies has offered to install the Dish system.

3. Elizabeth Ebertz received the weather radio. She will contact We Energies if she wishes to pursue repositioning the satellite dish.

4. Joshua Tank received the DISH Network and reported it was working well.

There were no new Concerned Citizen Forms for the month of October. Bruce Dalka has
filed a form and will be addressed at the Thursday, November 12th meeting at 7:00 pm.

Jim Mueller asked if the turbines could be turned off when they are not active. Mark [We Energies] replied, “Our system does not have that capability, to sense and turn off automatically.

Cathy moved to adjourn and Larry Lamont seconded. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm.
Connie Pickart, recording clerk

TOWN OF MARSHFIELDFOND DU LAC COUNTY, WISCONSIN
Minutes of Wind Turbine Standing Committee, November 12, 2009 at 7:00 pm

Presiding Officer, John Bord, called the meeting to order. He led the Pledge of Allegiance. Confirmation of publication was noted.

Committee members, John Bord and Cathy Seibel were present from the Town Board. Town Officers Dennis Stenz and Ken Kraus were also present. ‘

Concerned Citizens’ were represented by Jim Mueller and Richard VanderVelde. Larry Lamont and John Gierach were absent.

We Energies representatives were Tanya Holler-Muench and Mark Noah and Bob Servias, We Energies technician, was also present.

Bruce Dalka was present to address his concerns.

There were approximately 24 members from the public, 8 from the Town of Marshfield.

Comments by Chairman Bord:

Comments from the public will be limited to 3 minutes each. The Wind Turbines
are here to stay. They will not be shut off. Noise and property values will not be
addressed.

Bruce Dalka disagreed that “John Bord is limiting what people say and limiting time”.

Cathy stated some of these things are out of our control. This committee cannot change the JDA.

John Bord read an e-mail he received from [We Energies BS/GF]Project Manager, Walter (Doc) Musekamp. Doc states, ”We have a significant issue…that based on the testimony of Larry Lamont and Jim Mueller at Wednesday nights PSCW hearing…; it is clear from their comments that these monitoring committee meetings over the last four months have had no value in their opinion. I couldn’t get into the room because of the crowd, but Tanya was”.

John stated he had no problems with people speaking their opinions.

According to another source, not We Energies, “You did a pretty good job of ripping on
We Energies”. Tanya related she did not have problems with people stating their opinions, but “it seems the efforts we have taken up the last four months, seem to not make any difference.”

"There are so many people that don’t even want to come here any more because they have been beaten around so much that they have given up. They are not going to bother because it falls on deaf ears. There are still a lot more people out there than you know of.”

Jim replied, “I DID acknowledge that you were working on the satellite. I DID acknowledge that you were going to extend the contract on the family plan. You did not tell us how long.

There are so many people that don’t even want to come here any more because they have been beaten around so much that they have given up. They are not going to bother because it falls on deaf ears. There are still a lot more people out there than you know of.”

Discussions regarding wind Turbine ‘Concerned Citizens Form’-Bruce Dalka:

Bruce is still having TV reception problems. We Energies has contracted Ransom’s Audio Video to address the situation. Bruce notes that Dave Ransom is not reliable and is not allowed on his property. DISH Network has been called.

Bruce related that DISH stated there is absolutely nothing wrong with his system. Yet, DISH has told Tanya, that the Turbines are not causing Bruce’s TV problems. Tanya asked, “What would like us to do?” “My problem is other people are getting paid for it. I’m not. My
problem is, you know what, I could probably live with a glitch, now and again, …pay
something.”

Cathy related that she was having DISH problems and had a technician out. He did some adjusting. The problem was better but not completely resolved.

Per agreement of all parties, Bruce will contact Randy Wagner, a technician from St. Cloud,
who along with Bob Servias will meet at Bruce’s house to assess the situation and resolved the problems.

Bruce has concerns with radio reception. Jim Mueller reported that the Sirius radio provided to Jim Vollmer and Joe Bauer may be an option for Bruce also. Jim noted that Joe Bauer is satisfied with the satellite radio.

Jim Vollmer states he still has some interference. It was agreed to wait until the two parties are satisfied with Sirius radio, then set some guidelines for going further before providing other residents with the Sirius system as a solution.

Regarding noise, Bruce is asking for an independent noise study and asks that the Town contact Fond du Lac Co. Bruce noted that “whistling and screaming” was evident at one of the towers near him and that the problem had not been resolved for several months. Since then, that problem has been resolved.

Dennis asked Mark Noah to comment on the incident about the ‘whistling’ turbine in question. An abnormal sound was noted by residents and verified by repair technicians. The tower was shut down, a crane brought in and the turbine fixed. The sound level is now at an acceptable level.

Jim Mueller would like to see such issues addressed on a timelier basis. Mark noted, “It is not in our interest to have the turbines not working.”

Bruce noted there is health issues associated with the turbines. Bruce requested the Town Board to contact FdL Co Health Nurse, Diane Copazzio, to provide a health study.

Tanya related that We Energies has just went through a very lengthy, technical hearing in Madison, regarding FdL Co.; the epidemiology research and noise and everything that goes along with that as well. It has gone through the State and it is on the record.

Regarding safety issues, Bruce stated, “Three days and nights the wind turbines were shut down, the lights were not on.” Mark stated there was an incident at the substation. We Energies has an FAA permit which tells them which turbines need lighting and what type of light. If there is a problem, we need to send a notice to FAA that there is a problem. Then that notification goes out to all airports.

Bruce stated, “That wasn’t done though.” Mark replied , “Yes it was.” Tanya, “We filed the FAA report.” Bruce received a letter from the FAA stating that the report is on their website. However, the letter did not say FAA did not receive the report as alleged.

Bruce also has concerns about the diminishing bat population, ice slings, shadow flicker, declining property values. He states ‘Flight For Life, (FFL) will not land in the wind farm area. Cathy replied that she has contacted FFL. They stated they have predetermined landing sites and these sites were determined before the turbines were erected. They will not disclose these sites.

Bruce wants the Town to contact FFL and demand they reveal the location of these landing sites. It was suggested that Bruce contact the ambulance service so his unique family medical issues are on file if needed.Mt. Calvary Ambulance Service Director was present and she reported that FFL will land as long as the weather is working with them.

Public Comments:

Liz Ebertz’s reported that noise in the middle of the night is like a jet that is circling and will not land. Her son has noticed this also. “So it’s not just me.”

Jim Vollmer continues to have problems with his new wide-screen HDTV. Tanya stated
they will continue to document and pursue a solution.

A Town of Empire resident stated that these problems are not problems in Marshfield Township alone.

The next meeting will be Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 7:00 pm.

Jim Mueller moved to adjourn and Denis seconded. The meeting adjourned at 9:21 pm.

Connie Pickart, Recording Secretary

TOWN OF MARSHFIELD JANUARY 21, 2010 WIND TURBINE STANDING COMMITTEE

Presiding Town Officer, John Bord called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm leading the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’. Other Town Officers present were Cathy Seibel, Connie Pickart.
Dennis Stenz was tardy.

Committee members present were Jim Mueller and Larry Lamont. Dick VanderVelde and John Gierach were absent.

John Board introduced members representing We Energies: Walter (Doc) Musekamp, Bob Servias and Dale Borusky. Mr. Musekamp and Mr. Borusky replaced Tanya Holler Muench and Mark Noak respectively.

Members from the public included: Leander and Liz Ebertz, Jim Vollmer, Bruce Dalka and Clarence Kraus(Taycheedah Town Board).

Review of Tanya Holler-Muench’s Follow Up of Nov. 12, 2009 Meeting

Tanya Holler Muench provided a 5-page ‘Follow-up” to the November meeting.

Doc Musekamp offered information regarding Bruce Dalka’s complaint. Bruce related to Bob Servias that when a tower (17A) was out of commission, He had no issues with TV
reception but when the turbine was restarted, the same issues with TV reception returned.
Since there may be a correlation between the shut-down of the tower and Bruce’s TV issues, Doc stated that We Energies will investigate this further to establish if there is a
correlation.

Bob Servias followed up with Bill Neilson’s complaint regarding declining property values, noise, TV contract for DISH and radio interference. We Energy provided Mr. Nielson with two HD radios. The remaining radios in his home do not provide a consistent signal. Mr. Nielson was provided with an additional HD radio.

Mr. Nielson complained that he has the most trouble with TV reception when the turbines
face his home. Bob offered to have his system liked at, but Mr. Nielson declined at this time. Mr. Nielsen was satisfied with the radio and the timely response to his request.

John Bord contacted FdL County executive, Al Buechel, regarding an independent ‘sound study’. Jim Mueller related that a sound study needs to be honest and impartial.

Regarding Bruce Dalka’s issues: Bruce claimed that the FAA was not notified when the
turbine lights were not working during a site outage in June 2009. Tanya’s follow-up confirms that the FAA was properly notified.

A third party technician, Randy Wagner, inspected Bruce Dalka’s DISH Network system.
Some irregularities were noted. Bob offered to have a DISH Network technician perform
further testing. Bruce declined questioning why Wagner could not perform the tests. Wagner was not a DISH Network technician and Wagner did not have any testing equipment with him. Bruce has asked for Direct TV.

Jim Mueller interjected that perhaps We Energies could contact another source other than Ransom’s since Ransom does not seem to have the capabilities to solve the problems.

Doc stated that we need to focus on this” latest wrinkle”, that the turbine anomaly may be the cause of the problem.

Jim Mueller and Larry Lamont presented letters responding to a statement made by Doc
that was read at the November 2009 meeting. Doc and Tanya both were disappointed by
the speeches Jim and Larry made at the PSC hearing in Friesland, WI.

Doc related, “It is clear from their comments that “these monitoring committee meetings …have had no value in their opinion”. Jim and Larry maintain they have the right to free speech. The meetings are accomplishing things and they wish the meetings to continue. Larry stated, “We cannot go back to where we were, but we should not give up on our attempts to improve where we are.”

Citizen Concern Forms

Liz Ebertz is concerned that her police scanner is not working. Cathy reported that FdL
Co has changed frequency and that possibly is the cause. Bob Servias will be checking
Liz’s equipment.

Bruce Dalka is concerned that the turbines are causing interference with his cell phone
reception and has asked We Energies to install a personal cell phone tower mounted on
his home. We Energies also uses cell phones in the area with no problems. Bob Servias
stated, “From their technical consultants, cell phone signals are not interfered with”.

Doc related that in certain instances satellite radios do work and the committee will have
to set standards as to who should get a satellite radio. Jim Vollmer and Joe Bauer have
received the okay to have the satellite radio installed. At those sites, it has been verified
that the turbines have created signal interference. Eligibility needs to be verified in each
location.

It was stressed that citizens should contact the ‘hotline’ number first, 1-877-380-0522.

Then, if We Energies does not respond, go to the committee and fill out a ‘Concerned
Citizen Form’.

Dale Borusky asked how and why this committee was formed. John Bord related that the
committee was to address issues that weren’t being addressed by We Energies. There
was a need to seek legal counsel as to what the committee is able to do; whether the
Town Board has the authority to order the shut-down of the turbines and whether We
Energies is in compliance with the Joint Development Agreement (JDA).

Attorney John St. Peter was consulted and his memorandum was read by Cathy.
John St. Peter gave a background of the project and the JDA. He noted the formation and
role of the committee. He addressed the authority of the Town Board and the regulatory
power over We Energies.

In summary, Mr. St. Peter stated, “The complaints receive by the Committee would not
justify the Town in declaring We Energies to be in default of the Agreement. As for the
Committee itself, I continue to believe that it has a worthwhile role. However, it cannot
act as a forum to debate the existence of the Wind Farm. Nor can the Committee function as an arbitrator for the purpose of mandating specific remedies, particularly with regard to signal interference complaints.

The PSC is the one entity that has control of the situations. They have control over We Energies and the Town."

A verbal altercation occurred between Bruce Dalka and Dale Borusky. Dale stated he was willing to form a working relationship with Bruce but respect is needed from both
parties.

Jim Vollmer questioned if any procedure would be put in place before his poultry react to
the upcoming seasonal flickering and shadowing. He also noted that TV reception is not
completely resolved. He has filed a complaint with the PSC.

It was agreed that the Wind Turbine Standing Committee meetings should continue. An
educational session, entitled, ‘A General Overview’, will be presented by the We Energies team. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 7:00 pm at the Marshfield Town Hall. There are no Concerned Citizens Forms filed at this time. We Energies will continue to address the present issues and provide a ‘follow-up’ at the March 18th meeting.
There being no further business, John Bord moved to adjourn and Larry Lamont seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 pm.
Connie Pickart
Recording Secretary

TOWN OF MARSHFIELD MARCH 18, 2010 WIND TURBINE STANDING COMMITTEE

Presiding officer, John Bord called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm leading the Pledge of
Allegiance.

Members of the committee present were Jim Mueller, Larry Lamont, Cathy Seibel and John Bord.

Other Town Officials present were Ken Kraus and Connie Pickart.

Dennis Stenz was tardy. Absent were alternates Dick VanderVelde and John Gierach.

Tanya Holler-Muench, Dale Borusky and Bob Servias represented We Energies.

Members from the public included, Richard and Dolli-Jo Jordan, Liz Ebertz, Jim Vollmer, Diane/Kim Kraus, Bruce Dalka and Chuck Kiefenheim. Also present was FdL County Executive, Allen Buechel, Gloria Smedema of FdL Co. Public Health Department, and Art Ondrejka operations manager from Vestes American Wind.

Review of January 21, 2010 meeting

Regarding Bruce Dalka’s situation-Dale Borusky stated that a letter has been sent to Bruce informing him that We Energies will hire COMSEARCH, an engineering consulting firm who has the expertise in areas of signal interference, to perform tests to evaluate wind turbine interference pertaining to his TV reception.

Bruce has 7-10 days to respond.

Tanya stated we have dealt with this problem for two years and it is time “to get to the bottom and move on”. “If the problem is related to the turbine, we will fix it.”

Dennis Stenz, will represent the Town in the evaluation process. Questions pertaining to
COMSEARCH’s credentials were directed to their website.

“They will give We Energies the answers they want. I don’t trust them”. Bruce has asked for an independent company. Bruce will respond to We Energies’ offer in a “timely manner”. We Energies replied, “If you don’t want to accept our offer, we are done”.

We Energies replied, “If you don’t want to accept our offer, we are done”.

Regarding Sirius satellite radio-Jim Mueller stated he received Sirius radio and “turned out well”. Larry Lamont still has problems with his and Joe Bauer’s works. Bruce stated We Energies promised him a Sirius radio. Bob Servias stated that if he did, he was wrong to do so at that time. Only three has been approved thus far. Protocol and eligibility issues need to be verified.

Concerned Citizens Form

Chuck Kiefenheim-Chuck is concerned about “noise, TV reception, environmental concerns and cell phone roaming”. He reported that “Ransom’s (TV) is unresponsive to his calls, do not return calls”. Chuck is concerned that if We Energies fixes his present concerns and he “signs off”, will We Energies be responsive to any future concerns.

Tanya responded, “We Energies will fix your problems for however long”.

Kris Meixensperger- has continuing concerns about “shadow flicker on my house/property”. Tanya reported that Kris refuses window treatments and wants the turbine shut down. “The Towers cannot be shut down.”

Rickard and Dolli-Jo Jordan-The Jordans are concerned about “health issues for humans
and animals, water contamination, fires because they attract lightening strikes”. They are
also concerned about shadow flickering, lowered property values, poor radio and TV reception, increased property taxes and increased electric bills. They do not want window treatments; property values can be directed to the assessors; We Energies will consult with them regarding radio;

Cathy explained property taxes in the Town of Marshfield have gone down, largely due to the shared revenue the Town has received because of the turbines.

Rickard asked why the towers were put up in any residential area. Tanya [We Energies] replied because of the “low density” and availability of wind. The Public Service Commission (PSC) has set the standards. We Energies is required by Wisconsin law to create green energy.

John Bord stated, “Probably the best thing in the long run, is to put all your issues together and go to your legislatures. They are the ones who forced power companies to go to ‘green power’.

Jim Vollmer-We energies has dealt with Jim’s concerns. Tanya stated, “We have addressed your issues and made recommendations. You have notified [The Public Service Commission], “mitigation is in the State’s hand”. Jim asked if the Town can help. The Town does not have the power to do anything, unless the conditions of the Amended Joint Development Agreement are not followed.

A five minute break followed. Bruce Dalka left and the Jordans left about half way through the presentation by Art Ondrejka.

Power Point by Dale Borusky and Art Ondrejka

Art Ondrejka introduced himself as operations manager for Vestes American Wind, manufacturer of the generator for the turbines. There was a concern of grease on the
outside of the turbines. This is due to a seal problem and it is fixed. The turbines will be
cleaned. The DNR has been notified and they are satisfied that there is no contamination
from the grease.

Art described the general construction and maintenance of the turbines. The turbines are
completely computer driven. Maintenance is performed on each turbine every six months minimum. “They run well. They run safe.” A “phenomenal” crew of 13, all local residents, is a top-rated team, no accidents and they keep the turbines running 99% of the time.

John introduced Allen Buechel, FdL Co. executive. Allen commented that a County funded ‘sound study’ was not feasible. There are approximately 200 turbines in FdL County. Health issues might be coordinated with the Public Health Department.

Gloria Smedema, FdL Co Public health office, nodded in agreement.

The next meeting will be May 20, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.
Cathy Seibel moved to adjourn and Jim Mueller seconded. The meeting adjourned at
9:25 p.m.
Connie Pickart, Town Clerk

Town of Marshfield Wind Turbines Standing Committee Citizen Concern Form
Meetings will be held the 3rd Thursday of each month at 7:00 PM at the Marshfield Town Hall, 999 Fond du Lac St., Mt. Calvary, WI.

A completed copy of this form should be submitted 10 days prior to the meeting to:
Town of Marshfield Wind Turbines Standing Committee
c\o Jim Mueller
N8710 Pine Rd
St. Cloud, WI 53079.
Name: _____________________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________________
Phone: __________________________ E-mail _________________________________
Please describe your concerns: (Use back of this form if more room is needed)
Have you contacted We Energies about this issue? Yes No
Has We Energies made efforts to resolve your concerns? Yes No
Please explain any details regarding efforts undertaken by We Energies to resolve this concern. Are
the steps being made in a timely manner?
What solutions are you seeking?
Have the concerns been resolved? Yes No
Please sign below. By signing this form you give the Committee permission to discuss this
information with We Energies regarding contacts and interactions with you and it gives We Energies
permission to release information regarding contacts with you and any efforts taken to mitigate your
concerns.
Signature: _______________________________________ Date: __________________
PSC REF#:132436
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
RECEIVED: 06/01/10, 10:49:19 AM

 Home in the Invenergy wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County.  

Yesterday, after a presentation and discussion about how wind projects affect property values,  Wind Siting Council Chairman Dan Ebert presented a draft proposal of the council's siting rules.

This was not on the agenda and for many of us it was a complete surprise.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE DRAFT

The draft proposal has the same noise limits the commission used for the Glacier Hills project however there is no numerical setback from homes. Mr. Ebert explained that a specific setback number was not needed for siting wind turbines in our state.

Before presenting the draft, Ebert gave a lengthy preamble about how Wisconsin had developed a national reputation as an anti-wind state, that the state was losing out economically because of this, how we needed wind projects to meet the renewables mandate, preserve the family farms in our state and to encourage manufacturing and job growth.

The transcription below takes it from there.

Dan Ebert is the vice president of policy and external affairs for WPPI Energy. Previously, he served with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission for five years, including three as  Chairman. He is also Chairman of CREWE.

From the CREWE website: "The Coalition for Clean, Responsible Energy for Wisconsin’s Economy (CREWE) has been formed by business stakeholders to partner with the administration, task force members, lawmakers and other businesses and stakeholders as energy policies are developed that transition Wisconsin to a sound economy powered by new green jobs and investment."

 

Transcript taken from the PSC broadcast of the Wind Siting Council meeting,
June 9, 2010

DAN EBERT: I am struck by the incredible distrust that exists in this state between the various stake holders on this issue.

 I think if we had, five years ago, created this council and had the commission move forward with rules, I think we would be at a very different place in this state.

It is about protecting landowners, it is about the economics of wind, it's about meeting the RPS, it's about health and safety. All of the issues we have been debating and discussing.

Five years ago it was the 'wild west' of wind. You had wind developers coming in, they didn't really have a sense of how to engage with landowners, how to create an environment where you can have a constructive dialog and resolve differences, complaint resolution if you will, we didn't have that.

And because of that--- and on the flip side of that, I think we've also had some bad actors on these issues. I think there are some in this state who have just said "No way, ever never. I don't want to see a wind turbine in my view shed.

And so they have taken the position that, 'We're just going to say no because I own this piece of property and there is going to be an impact, whether it's 1100 feet, in Larry's case, or in the case of the view shed. You know, it could be half mile, it could be a mile away. I'm just going to say no because that's what I want to have happen'

And so developers have been faced with that kind of environment, which I think has spoiled the environment for them. How do you engage constructively when the opponents are raising issues that are not really the issue?

It's not really about sound, it's not really about shadow-flicker, it's really about--- and Larry, the very real impacts that you have shared with all of us, those are real.

And if the motivation had been consistent throughout and your-- the issues that you have brought to this council have been able to be worked on in a constructive environment instead I think a lot of people have used it to say "We're just going to oppose these things and we're going to throw as much against the wall as we can" and I think it's really spoiled the environment.

So I think there's been a fair amount of, you know, mistakes, on many sides of this issue and this debate that have really spoiled the environment. And so as I thought about sort of what's the right framework, one of themes that came through and that I hope I have been able to put in this straw proposal is to level the playing field to allow for constructive dialog between the various stake-holders in this issue where one is not empowered over the other, one cannot just say no, and one can't just say "We're going to put his thing 800 feet from your house."

But rather to create an environment where an honest dialog and discussion can occur and that there are tools that developers have and that landowners have, property owners, local governments, tools in the toolbox, to help make sure that this debate can in fact happen in a constructive way, to work through and resolve issues.

I think if our motivation is those people who just want to say no and that there's ever ever going to be another wind turbine built anywhere that impacts them, this council is not going to get there.

But if we want to talk about how we level the playing field and allow for and give both the developers, utilities, landowners, local government the tools I think we can get there based on last weeks conversation.

And I have been significantly influenced by the people around this table. Tom and George on the real estate issue, I don't agree with you, uh, all the way. I don't think the case has been made about real estate impacts. But I do think the issue of real estate is on that I have a much greater sensitivity than before this wind siting council started.

You know, Bill, I've listened to your passionate description of the personal stake that you have put into building a business, and that's really what you are doing, is you're building a business and you put your own personal family finances on the line because you're committed to building a business and you're trying to do it the right way.

You know, Larry, you have been an effective spokesperson for the impacts. I am not convinced that they-- that we have the evidence to say that there are health impacts.

I am convinced that there are clear impacts for landowners and that in the early days certainly there have been mistakes made in how you deal with landowners and how you resolve conflicts and up to a point empower landowners to protect what they have.

The decision that you made to locate where you did for the reasons you did, you know it could have been handled better and it could have been resolved in a better way.

Jevon's not here but I found, you know, the work that he put in I think has been invaluable to the group. Again, I know there's some folks who don't necessarily agree with some of the conclusions that he made but I think his process and the serious approach that he took has really provided a valuable amount of information for this group.

Jennifer, you're the one person here, maybe not the only one but clearly focussed on economic impacts and what you're trying to do is to create a workforce to support an industry and that is what, quite frankly, one of the driving forces for the legislation.

The legislature wants to create an environment in the state where we can build wind turbines within reason, within a regulatory framework, but we can also then go and create some jobs and economic development around this burgeoning industry.

So, having said all of that, I have taken, uh, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, I've put together a framework, it is a straw proposal, it is not going to be the final product of this group, but what I've tried to do is capture what I think I heard last week.

And I will tell you that everybody around this table will find something that they disagree with and somethings that you disagree with vehemently. What I tried to do is listen carefully and understand where the council members are and put together a framework that we can shoot at.

I hope you don't shoot at me. You can shoot at the proposal. Because what I'm really trying to do is move the debate forward. We've struggled for the last couple of weeks about how to move forward.

And I think as a group we need to, you know, roll up our sleeves and let's start taking a look at the issues and figure out where this council is.

I would suspect that there will be--- we'll have to have some votes. Just listening to the conversation I think we're going to have to have the group-- I think we're going to have to make some votes.

I also believe-- and you will see in what I'm going to hand out here-- that there's a lot that there's already relative consensus. A tweak here and there but there are some aspects of this rule that already have a significant amount of consensus.

But there are going to be those areas, primarily the areas that we talked about last week and this week where there's going to be a difference of opinion and as a group we're going to have to work through those.

So, having said that, I'm going to hand this out and put on my bullet proof vest.

[Pause while Ebert goes around the room to hand the straw rules to each council member]

What I would suggest is that we spend, that I spend just a few minutes going through it. And I'm going to jump over the areas of consensus pretty quickly but I think if council members could look a that and just identify those areas where they are concerned that there may not be consensus and let me know. Actually, probably let Deb know just to make sure we're complying with all of our rules and guidelines for us.

But what I tried to do is, based on all of the issues in the draft rule, identify those areas where I think, you know, again, there might be a tweak here or there but there is general consensus of the group. And part of that is just driven by focus and attention of the council members so there might be some here where I have, where we haven't had a chance to get to it yet or other things, so I just ask you to look through that and let Deb know if in fact those areas are in fact pretty close to consensus.

And then it's actually on page three [AUDIO DROPS OUT OF PSC BROADCAST]

[RESUMES SOME MOMENTS LATER] Have on-going responsibility. Just based on what we have before us today I think the setback is 1.1 times the height. But I also, and Larry, in deference to the possibility [AUDIO DROPS OUT]

[RESUMES] I think the council should revisit the 1.1 [AUDIO DROPS OUT]

[RESUMES] the conversation that this group has had but there is a clear difference around the issues related to those small projects and the larger projects and so I would propose that that's where this group start the debate and the discussion.

On noise standard I am persuaded that setting a numeric target is the right protection for particularly non participating landowners. You set it at 1200 feet or 1500 feet you may or may not capture the decibel levels. So I am suggesting what this group do is focus on a policy framework not a setback number around a noise.

And I'm persuaded by what we have heard and the conversation we have had that 45 decibels on a summer night, 50 decibels on a day and non summer night -- and I have to say I was very persuaded by our sound engineer, I mean we all wanted to hear from him.

And the impacts obviously will vary based on the house and insulation and topology and all those sort of things but 10 to 15 decibels below something measured outside is the right standard to end up with.

I would like to highlight at this point connection between the noise and I would also put shadow flicker in there with compensation.

I believe that part of the problem, and we heard it again today, with one of our folks, one of our witnesses here today, that the issue of non-compensation for non-participating landowners has been a significant contributor to the controversy around wind.

And I think for non-participating landowners and I would define that not as the entire area of a project but really those landowners that are adjacent to, and next to, and impacted by the placement of turbines,  that if--- I believe that one of the ways to level the playing field and to allow-- to not give-- to give a non-participating landowner more influence in the debate is to allow them to receive some compensation. And to allow a developer to negotiate with a non participating landowner in return for compensation. And I believe that will resolve many- the majority of the issues. It's not going to resolve them all, I recognize that, but I think tying-- setting what in effect are impacts that are more on the annoyance and impacting the value of a landowner.

Again, I'm not persuaded that the record supports health impacts the way that a health professional would define it.  So as I think about setting the setbacks and the perimeters it's really about what is the minimal protection for particularly non participating landowners.

To set clear standards, to set what I believe are reasonable standards, they are not perfect and they are not going to resolve every single one of the issues but I think they are clear and I think they set the benchmark and then allow a developer the ability to negotiate with that person and to compensate that person to waive some of these frameworks.

Around shadow-flicker, I think the maximum shadow flicker experience at a non-participating residence should be set at 25 hours per year. We should use computer modeling to really try to as best we can estimate that. And that any non-participating residence who can show that they get more than 20 hours of shadow flicker per year automatically are eligible for mitigation.

I think, again, what we want to do is set up a transparent process. You, as a non-participating landowner may receive up to 25 hours per year. If you get more than 20 you do get mitigation, that is your right.

Again, I think individual landowners can waive those for compensation.

On signal interference, I'm persuaded that you're impacting the quality of life, you're not impacting them for a year, your impacting them for the duration that they are there. So I am persuaded that the developer should remedy television, radio, and cellular telephone interference for the life of the wind energy system. I'm open to for the life of the wind energy system and for the duration that they are at that residence.

I think, you know, a new-- somebody buying the property, coming in, probably would have the-- would understand that goes with it--- I think that's open to debate and conversation.

On the notification requirements, I really sort of struggled with this because I understand Tom and other's point about , you know, we should really let the community know as soon as possible.

But I think the balance that I tried to strike here is we should also allow the free enterprise system and an entrepenuer to have some conversations, develop a project, start developing a project, but once that entity understands that there is going to be a project that they give 180 days before the application goes in or before construction begins as the case may be.

I believe that's the right balance that should be struck on the notification requirements. And again, on a small wind energy system, I think 90 days before a project-- as a practical matter, if I'm going to put up a small project on my property I'm probably going to be talking to my neighbors before I get to that point.

I also struggled quite a bit on complaint resolution because I am inclined in this area to be a little bit more prescriptive. But, in-- I mentioned in the beginning the balance, leveling the playing field. I think reasonable efforts on the part of the developer to establish a complaint resolution process and to work with the local government to work through these.

And I think it's a common sense. And Andy I think, I really in particular have valued your expertise and guidance throughout this process because I think that as a company and I think that other council members recognize that, you guys have done a pretty good job of striking this balance and so I was persuaded on the complaint resolution process that that is valuable but I'm also hesitant to prescribe a particular solution because I think every community is different, every developer is different, and it should really be, you know, an honest effort between the local government and the developers to set up that complaint resolution process.

So I think to have the rules say you guys should do this without prescribing a particular solution is the best way to proceed.

Again, this is an area where the wind siting council on an ongoing basis could revisit this and wether or not there are good faith efforts being made by developers and by local governments to try to resolve-- to create a process to resolve and work through these complaints.

Again I think, similar to the compensation, I think this process, if developers had used this process I believe an overwhelming majority of the complaints could have been resolved and could have been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. But there wasn't a tradition. There wasn't a history of doing this.

So, on the wind lease and easements, and decommissioning, you will note that I tracked pretty closely to the draft rule. I believe the rules probably came out pretty close in that area.

This is a straw proposal. It's designed to prompt what I am confident will be a vigorous debate and discussion. Just to have a framework out there to shoot at.