Better Plan, Wisconsin

Thinking of leasing your land to a wind developer?

The University of Iowa helps you read the fine print--

SOURCE: "Wind Energy Production: Legal Issues and Related Liability Concerns for Landowners in Iowa and Across the Nation"

University of Iowa, Center for Agricultural Taxation, November 2009

Click here to download entire document.

Legal Issues for Landowners to Consider in Negotiating Wind Energy Easements

A wind energy agreement should never be negotiated without first having the agreement reviewed by legal counsel.

Wind energy agreements are long-term agreements that will impact the land subject to the agreement for many years, likely beyond the lifetime of the landowner who executes the agreement.

The following is a list of questions that landowners should ask when analyzing any wind energy agreement:

Scope Questions:

• How much of the land will be subject to the agreement?

Note: The legal description of the covered property is critical.

• How long will the land subject to the agreement be affected?

• Based on the property rights that are given up, are the proposed payments adequate for the present time and for the life of the agreement?

(Note: The answer to this question requires an understanding of the mechanics and economics of wind energy production.)

Estate Planning Issues

• Is it planned that the farming operation will expand in the future?

If so, how will the placement of wind turbines on the property impact the farm’s potential development
and/or expansion?

• Has the issue of wind turbines development been discussed with the on-farm heirs?

Payment Questions:

• Is the landowner entitled to any or all energy credits related to the project?

• If the agreement offers an up-front lumpsum payment, is the payment representative of a fair amount of the rights involved?

• What are the tax consequences of wind energy payments that will be paid under the agreement?

(Note: The answer to this question depends on tax changes at the federal and state levels – an area which is in an almost constant state of flux.)

• Are payments under the agreement based on revenues generated by the wind turbines? Can the landowner get information as to how the owner’s revenue will be calculated?

• If the wind energy company puts additional equipment on the towers and collects compensation for such placement is the landowner entitled to some of the additional compensation?

• Does the agreement guarantee that a set number of wind energy turbines will be constructed on the land by a specific date and, if not, is the developer willing to guarantee a minimum amount of payments?

What are the developer’s rights?

• Does the developer want to develop the land or simply use a portion of the surface for a term of years?

• Is the developer able to sell or transfer without the landowner’s consent any of the land use rights obtained under the agreement? If so, will the original developer remain liable if the new developer or holder of the easement right does not pay the landowner or otherwise defaults?

• What events trigger the developer’s right to terminate the contract? Can the developer terminate the contract at any time without cause? If so, how are payments due under the agreement to be handled?

Cost Questions:

• Will any portions of the property require gating, fencing or limiting of access in any manner? If so, who pays for the cost or building and/or repairing such measures for restricting access?

• Is there any potential for environmental contamination or the release of hazardous materials onto the premises because of the presence of wind turbines on the property?

If so, how are associated costs to be borne?

• Are any additional costs associated with compliance with governmental regulations of wind turbines, present and in the future, the responsibility of the landowner, developer or wind energy company?

• What is the cost of the landowner becoming an additional insured on the insurance policy of the wind energy company?

• Are there any potential costs of construction liens that might be placed on the property?

• If the agreement limits the ability of the landowner to expand the farm or make improvements (such as installing irrigation equipment, field tile, or additional structures), what are the economic costs to
the overall operation of such limitations?

• The development of the property will require the construction of roads. Does the agreement provide compensation for any damage to existing drainage tile and/or additional costs associated with the change
in the flow of surface water that could negatively impact adjacent property?

• If the development of the property with wind turbines increases the ad valorem real property valuation of the property, must the landowner pay the additional taxes?

• If an adjacent landowner files a lawsuit against the landowner based on nuisance or other tort theories, will the wind energy company pay the landowner's legal costs and any resulting judgment rendered against the landowner directly tied to the presence of the wind turbines?

• When the agreement ends or is otherwise terminated, does the landowner bear the cost of removing wind energy structures? What are the landowner’s rights?

• What termination rights does the landowner have? How does the landowner exercise those rights?

Note: Wind energy agreements often contain termination clauses designed to minimize the risk of termination to the developer so as to aid the developer in receiving financing. Accordingly, wind energy agreements typically prevent a landowner from terminating (or taking action against the wind energy company) an agreement due to noise, flicker, vibrations, air turbulence, electromagnetic interference with global positioning systems, and other effects caused by the wind turbines.

• If the agreement is terminated, whether by consent of the parties or otherwise, what happens to the wind energy structures and located facilities erected on the property?

What is the developer required to remove? How soon must structures be removed? Who pays for their removal?

Crafting an Equitable Agreement

When a wind energy agreement is being negotiated, certain issues are critical to the creation of an equitable agreement.

Unfortunately, a common problem with many wind energy agreements is that once they are proposed and submitted to a landowner, the company wanting to execute an agreement tends to refuse to negotiate changes to the terms of the agreement.

The company’s ability to refuse to negotiate terms of the proposed agreement will depend largely on whether a landowner has meaningful options and competent legal representation.

Key provisions to a wind energy agreement that require careful attention by legal counsel for landowners contemplating a wind farm include the following:

• Is the proposed contract a lease or an easement? If a lease is involved, it should be long enough for the developer to recoup its investment (probably at least 20 years).

Does the developer have a right of renewal? If so, does the landowner have the right to renegotiate any of the lease terms?

Any lease should not be perpetual- a violation of the rule against perpetuities might be involved (at least in those states that have retained the rule).

• If an easement is involved, does the easement include turbine sites, substations, air space, buffer areas, vegetation restrictions, building restrictions, transmissions, and associated rights of way?

• Is a sale of the land contemplated? If so,how is the selling price computed? Any sale price should consist of the fair market value of the land plus the wind energy value.

• What are the setback requirements and fees to neighboring landowners?

• What is the amount of compensation to be paid? Take care to ensure that the definition of “gross revenue” is done properly.

Is it defined as the sale of electrons or the sale of green credits, or is it calculated in some other manner?

• Is the revenue to be a flat amount annually, an annual payment per tower, a percentage of gross proceeds, a payment of a certain amount of kilowatt hours generated annually, or an amount based on the selling price of megawatts per year, whichever amount is greater?

• Is an inflationary factor built into the contract payment provisions? To protect the landowner’s interest, there should be.

• Does the agreement cover land that will not be needed for the wind farm and related structures? From the landowner’s perspective, there shouldn’t be such coverage.

• An up-front lump-sum payment has tax consequences- make sure they are understood.

• What are the intentions of the developer concerning the use of the land? That makes understanding the use provisions of the agreement of primary importance. The construction clause should limit the construction of wind energy structures to not more than 3 or 4 years with adequate compensation paid to the landowner for
restricting the use of the land during that time.

• Can the developer assign the agreement? If so, a clause should be inserted that ensures the original developer’s liability if the assignee defaults under the terms of the agreement.

(Note: Developers want the ability to assign the agreement and subordination language.)

• Is the landowner willing to consent to a mortgagee of the developer? If so, a clause should be included that limits the landowner’s obligations to the mortgagee.

• Consider including an indemnification clause that indemnifies the landowner for any liability incurred as a result of permissive activities (such as crop tenants, custom harvesters, and subsurface tenants) on the property subject to the wind energy agreement.

• What are the landowner’s rights concerning usage of the property? For example, will the landowner be able to lease the property for hunting or other recreational activities?

Will the landowner be able to mortgage or insure the property? Can the landowner develop any other potential mineral or renewable energy exploration?

• Consider the use of a clause that requires the landowner to be treated as favorably as neighbors (consider how to define “neighbor”) executing similar agreements.

• Include a clause requiring the removal of all improvements the developer makes upon termination (whether voluntary or otherwise) of the agreement. Relatedly, for developments in the Flint Hills (eastern Kansas), include a provision specifying which party gets the rock that gets excavated to build the wind energy structures.

Note: Regardless of whether termination is voluntary or involuntary, it is critical to set-forth timing and costs
associated with decommissioning.

• Require the agreement to be recorded (not just a “memorandum of agreement”) to eliminate the necessity of having to locate a copy of the lease in the event of sale or mortgage of the property.

• Never agree to confidentiality clauses concerning the terms and conditions of the agreement.

• Have the contract reviewed by the landowner’s insurance agent for analysis of any additional risks created by the wind energy project.

In addition, consideration should be made as to whether a bonding should be required. Similarly, a landowner should consider being a payee on the developer’s insurance policy.

• Will the agreement violate any USDA landuse restrictions if the subject land is enrolled in a USDA program?

If such a possibility exists, consider including in the agreement a clause requiring the developer to indemnify the landowner for any lost government payments or the imposition of any penalties.

• Will the wind farm development be designed so as to minimize interference with aerial crop dusting activities?

• Can the landowner sell the property, or can portions of the property be sold?

• Evaluate the agreement with an eye toward the risk faced by the landowner. This includes environmental concerns, issues that could be raised by neighbors (i.e., nuisance related concerns), and potential violation of applicable zoning and set-back requirements.

Scroll down to next post to read about the Public Service Commission's Glacier Hills decision.

Patti Lienau said there is no way to escape the hum or flickering shadows from the turbines built by her father’s farm near Elkton, Minn. PHOTO: David Brewster, Star Tribune

Wind power takes a blow around Minnesota

David Brewster

Star Tribune [source]

January 11, 2009

"I'm not against wind. They're going to put them up whether I like it or not," said Katie Troe, leader of Safe Wind for Freeborn County. "What we're asking is that every turbine be looked at and placed correctly."

Rural area not the same

The rising numbers of complaints have taken Minnesota regulators by surprise.

"I've been doing this for 14 years and people are raising issues I've never heard of," said Larry Hartman, manager of permitting in the state's Office of Energy Security.

For the most part, said Hartman, wind farms have been welcomed by struggling farmers and revenue-hungry counties. However, some projects are drawing fire, often from non-farmers who built country homes and commute to nearby cities.

"The rural area isn't what it used to be anymore," said Kevin Hammel, a dairy farmer about 9 miles east of Rochester, where wind developers are active.

Hammel supported wind generators initially, but changed his mind after a developer took him and a busload of neighbors to visit a wind farm. The tour made him feel like he was in an industrial park, he said. Yet others admire the sleek, graceful turbines with towers up to 325 feet tall, topped by generators the size of a bus.

Federal subsidies and state mandates for utilities to produce more electricity from renewable sources are accelerating wind farm development.

The nature of noise

Minnesota regulations require that wind turbines be at least 500 feet away from a residence, and more to make sure sounds do not exceed 50 decibels. In most cases, that amounts to at least 700 to 1,000 feet, depending upon the turbine's size, model and surrounding terrain. Whether 50 decibels is too loud depends upon individuals, who perceive sound differently, but it approximates light auto traffic at 50 feet, according to wind industry reports.



THE BIG IF

Better Plan takes a closer look at some of the expert testimony on the Glacier Hills Docket.

Today's testimony comes from Jerry Mendl who was hired by Clean Wisconsin to evaluate the effectiveness of the Glacier Hills wind farm at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2.

(NOTE: Mr. Mendl served at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission as Director of the Bureau of Environmental and Energy Systems and also as Administrator of the Division of Systems Planning, Environmental Review and Consumer Analysis. Learn more about Mr. Mendl by clicking here)

[download Mr. Mendl's complete testimony by clicking here]

His testimony is frank and full of surprises, the greatest of which is this:

Unless WEPCO fully retires a coal plant, the Glacier Hills wind farm will not reduce Wisconsin's CO2 emissions, and could in fact, increase them. [1] [2] [3] [4][5]

(We were unable to find any indication that WEPCO wishes to completely shut down one of its coal-fired plants, or that they would be obligated by the PSC to do so.)

Other findings from Mr. Mendl's testimony:

WEPCO does not need additional capacity until 2024. Regardless of whether it builds Glacier Hills or other RPS facilities, WEPCO will have excess capacity through 2024 which it intends to sell. Additional capacity clearly is not needed to serve the projected load and reserve margin. [1] [2]

 Because WEPCO intends to sell the excess capacity and energy it produces, it is likely that the CO2 emissions will not be reduced from Wisconsin plants. [3]

Unless WEPCO agrees to take a coal-fired plant off line, the net result of building Glacier Hills to comply with Wisconsin RPS requirements and selling the excess capacity will be little to no reduction of CO2 emissions. The Glacier Hills wind farm itself won’t reduce CO2 emissions unless WEPCO retires a coal fired plant. [3]

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Another surprise in this testimony involves  shutting down the Glacier Hills wind turbines in the summer in order to maintain profitability by burning coal instead. On page 18 of the testimony we find this:

 Q. Did your analysis raise any concerns that the Commission should consider?

A. Yes. The analysis suggests that particularly in the summer months, when strongly negative LMPs [locational marginal price] can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence, the way the MISO market works, free energy with environmental benefits is too expensive!

Q. What can the Commission do about that?
A. A Commission requirement to retire one or more coal units would help mitigate this occurrence.

     As far as Better Plan can tell, WEPCO has no intention of retiring a coal-fired plant and every intention of selling the excess energy. This is understandable in terms of a business plan where profit is the goal.

However if reduction of CO2 emmissions in Wisconsin is the goal, our question to the PSC is this:

What is the benefit of the Glacier Hills wind farm in terms of CO2 reduction to our state if WEPCO does not retire a coal plant?  

If there is no CO2 benefit and if WEPCO has excess capacity until 2024 without the Glacier Hills wind farm, how can the PSC justify granting a Certificate of Public Need and Convinience?

The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the lack of reliable CO2 reduction from this project , CLICK HERE To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

References from the testimony document: [download complete testimony by clicking here]

[1] P3:1-13. "Reduction in greenhouse gases, including CO2, is an important purpose of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) law that underlies the Glacier Hills proposal. The effectiveness of Glacier Hills project in reducing greenhouse gases can be best ensured if the Commission requires WEPCO (and other utilities in future RPS projects) to plan for corresponding retirements of  existing coal capacity.

4. The opportunity to retire excess capacity exists because WEPCO, even without Glacier Hills, does not need additional capacity until 2024 under the updated forecasts that WEPCO witnesses relied upon for their supplemental testimony. When one adds Glacier Hills and additional wind generation to meet WEPCO’s RPS standard of 662 MW by 2015, WEPCO will not need additional capacity until at least 2026. Thus, it is clear that WEPCO could retire at least 100 MW of existing coal generation."

[2] P.5: 2-22  Q: Will the operation of Glacier Hills result in WEPCO having excess capacity?
A. Yes. According to its application in this docket, as amended by WEPCO’s updated forecast and supplemental direct testimony, WEPCO will have excess capacity through 2024, regardless of whether it builds Glacier Hills or other RPS facilities.

Q. Does WEPCO plan to sell excess accredited capacity?                                                                            A. Yes. Although WEPCO has not identified specific plans, it has indicated that it intends to sell all capacity over the 14.5% reserve margin prior to each planning year. It has done so for 2009.

[3] P.6:17-20 Q:What effect would WEPCO’s planned sale of excess capacity have on the emission of greenhouse gases from WEPCO’s power plants?

A: If WEPCO sells the excess capacity and energy it produces, it is likely that the CO2emissions will not be reduced from Wisconsin plants. WEPCO’s EGEAS runs show a decrease in CO2 emissions to supply electricity used by WEPCO’s customers. However, if the purchaser of the excess capacity takes energy at levels equivalent to or greater than that forecasted by WEPCO for its own loads without Glacier Hills, the net CO2 emissions from WEPCO plants would not be reduced and may be increased.

[4] p.14:1-15 In concept, Wisconsin utilities may install renewable resources to meet the RPS objectives and to reduce greenhouse gases, and MISO could then dispatch the resources available without reducing the utilization of Wisconsin coal-fired power plants. In this example, Wisconsin’s CO2 emissions would stay the same, although MISO dispatch would reduce the utilization of power plants elsewhere in the MISO 5
footprint.
Q. Should that be a concern to this Commission? 7
A. Yes, for at least two reasons. First, if MISO dispatch displaces a highly efficient natural gas fired combined cycle plant with generation from Glacier Hills, the effectiveness at reducing CO2 emissions will be far less than if MISO displaces a relatively inefficient coal-fired unit with much higher CO2 emissions per kWh.
Second, if CO2 emissions by state are ever used as a benchmark of global climate change performance, Wisconsin would be identified as an underperformer because MISO dispatch produced CO2 in Wisconsin plants, even though the energy was consumed elsewhere.

[5] P.18: 8-16 Q. Did your analysis raise any concerns that the Commission should consider?
A. Yes. The analysis suggests that particularly in the summer months, when strongly negative LMPs can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence, the way the MISO market works, free energy with environmental benefits is too expensive!

Q. What can the Commission do about that?
A. A Commission requirement to retire one or more coal units would help mitigate this occurrence.

Click on the image above to see photos of Wisconsin windfarm homes taken by Gerry Meyer, who is a resident of the 86 turbine Invenergy Forward Energy Wind Farm in Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties. The PSC-approved setback from no- participating homes in Wisconsin wind farms is 1,000 feet.

Where did the 1,000-foot setback come from?

The PSC says they didn't come up with that number.

If they didn't, who did?

And who decided it was safe?

Wind turbines generate health, farming concerns

Farm Country September 30-October 6, 2009

[Click here for source]

By Judy Brown
 jlbrown@vbe.com

Johnsburg—Allen Hass, an eastern Fond du Lac County grain farmer, agreed to host three wind turbines when the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm was developed about three years ago.
 
With 88 turbines producing 145 megawatts of electricity for WE Energies, Blue Sky Green Field is Wisconsin’s largest wind farm. Utilities are under a state mandate to provide 10 percent of their power from renewable-energy sources by 2015.
 
Yet Hass, 55 is feeling something similar to buyers remorse. “We were told we could farm up to the base of the turbine.” Hass said. “Now I have three too many.”

(Click on the image below to see a news story which shows what the wind company did to Al Hass's land.)
 
Hass is concerned about how the ground near the turbine was left after construction. Topsoil wasn’t replaced to his satisfaction. Near the base of a 400-foot turbine, a layer of small stone was left that damages his combine’s head.
 
Beyond that the soil at a radius at about 75 feet from the turbine’s base is less productive than it once was, he said.
 
On an early September day, that part of the cornfield yielded nubbins of cobs. The rest of the stalks stood at least two feet taller than those surrounding the turbine.
 
Hass complained to WE Energies in Milwaukee which operates the wind farm. He hired a lawyer and has filed a lawsuit in an effort to recover normal use of the land surrounded the three wind turbines.
 
He receives $5200 a year, for each of the three turbines on his farm.
 
Under the standard contract with developers, landowners are prohibited from talking negatively about the wind farm. Otherwise, Hass said he believes there would be more public complaints from farmers who regret allowing turbines on their land.
 
Other farmers complain about buried cables that transport electricity to the grid, while others worry about the potential effect of stray voltage on dairy cattle. For many fields, aerial spraying is no longer and option.
 
Others are concerned about health issues they say are related to the wind turbines.
 
Brian Manthey, WE Energies spokesman, said that since Blue Sky Green Field was built, the utility has received numerous calls from people who want turbines on their property.
 
“We get more calls like that than people who are upset with the wind turbines,” he said.
 
He wasn’t aware of any litigation the company was involved in, although there were some out-of-court settlements when turbines were sited too close to houses, he said.
 
Manthey said some people have expressed concern about low-frequency sounds emitted by the turbines.
 
“It’s another case of whether there’s really an issue there or not. We have requirements as to how many decibels a wind turbine can produce,” he said.
 
Irv Selk, a member of the Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy, was among those who fought for an ordinance in that county to regulate wind farms. He said the 1,000 foot setback allowed in the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm isn’t enough. He favors a minimum of 1800 feet.
 
A survey of residents in the Johnsburg area living within a half-mile of wind turbines concluded that 30 percent of respondents were awakened at least once a week because of sound from the wind turbines, Selk said.
 
There is no scientific basis for the 50- decibel setback, Selk said. “One thousand feet is unquestionably too close to people’ houses.”
 
Selk, 65, said many residents have problems trying to describe their health symptoms.
 
“They are more subtle,” he said. “It’s almost easy to dismiss that as you as you are getting old. Some people are more sensitive.”
 
Teresa Weidermann-Smith, a spokeswoman for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, said the 1000 foot setback is not a PSC requirement.
 
For each of the major wind projects the PSC authorized, a requirement already existed at the local level that specified the 1000-foot setback, she said in an e-mail.
 
The project was laid out by the developer on that basis.
In none of those cases did the PSC specify the setback, rather it authorized the project to be constructed (more or less) as it was designed and the 1000 foot setback was a design criterion,” Weidemann-Smith said.
 
The biggest complaints associated with the wind farm east of Lake Winnebago have been about TV reception and shadow flicker, Manthey said.
 
He said WE Energies has dealt with a couple of dozen residents individually to fiz the TV reception either by provided satellite service to obtain Green Bay channels or by adjusting individual antennas.
 
For those who complain about shadow flicker when the turbine is in line with the sun and the house, the utility hires specialists who recommend blinds or some other remedy.
 
In the southern part of Fond du Lac County, Ralph Mittlestadt of Oakfield grows more than 1000 acres of corn, soybeans, alfalfa and other crops on his dairy farm. His land is in Dodge and Fond du Lac counties.
 
This year he expects to take an $8,000 loss because of the inability to obtain aerial spraying to combat fungus, corn rootworm and plant diseases.
 
“We were told by the utility that they would have enough room to fly,” Mittelstadt said. “But they plunked them right at the end of the runways.”
 
A spraying service formerly used the farm as a staging area, but since the wind farm was construction that has stopped,” he said.
 
Mittelstadt understands why pilots don’t want to fly in the area.
 
“They don’t light every tower, which is something I don’t understand, because the (Federal Aviation Administration) requires every turbine to be lit if higher than 100 feet,” Mittlestadt said.
 
Helicopters are also subject to the wind coming off the blades, he said.
 
Spraying crops with ground machinery also becomes problematic, he said.
 
“Crop sprayers may get around to it in four to five days, and by that time it’s too late,” MIttelstadt said.
 
Spraying corn with fungicides in the past has garnered Mittelstadt 15 to 30 bushels more per acre, he said.  
He doesn’t have any wind turbines on his land although he hosted a test windmill. “We found out it wasn’t financially feasible” he said.
 
Landowners receive $5,200 per year per turbine in the Forward Wind Energy wind farm.
 
Mittlestadt said that when the turbines were being built he believed about half of the people favored them and half were against the project.
 
“I think now it’s less,” he said. “A lot of people who put them p on their land wouldn’t do it again.”
 
Mittelstadt said he also has a problem with the noise produced by the wind turbines.  
 
“It sounds like a jet engine at times with a woof every time the blade moves. At night, it’s worse.
 
However, he didn’t say his sleep was interrupted by the turbines.
 
“I’m tired. I farm,” Mittlestadt said.

Click to see an interview with Ralph Mittlestadt and his son Kevin as they speak about living in the Invenergy Forward Energy wind farm

The configuration of turbines in Forward Wind Energy’s wind farm in Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties led Flight for Life, which operates a helicopter service, to send out a memo last year saying that accident victims have to be transported to pre-determined sites away from the wind farm instead of having the helicopter fly directly to the scene of an accident.

[Click here to downloadwind farm  memo from Flight for Life]

Diane Cappozzo, Fond du Lac County health officer, said her office has received complaints from a bout a half dozen people who live within the three wind farms in the county.
 
She said sleep disturbances are the top complaint. Many of the concerns are hard to document, she said, granting that for those affected it’s an issue because of the noise and vibrations from the wind turbines.
 
“For some people, it started as soon as the turbines started turning,” she said.
 
The county has forwarded concerns to the state epidemiologist.
 
“An epidemiological study will tell us if people here have more issues than just the general population,” Cappozzo said, “With wind turbines, the issues are very real for the individual making the complaints.”
 
The long-term impact of how residents react to wind farms is still unknown, she said.
 
“If the state is going to be involved in expanding wind farms, maybe this is something they should be aware of,” Capezzo said.
 
Gerry Meyer, of rural Brownsville has taken 1,600 pictures and written a diary since the Forward Wind Energy wind farm was established. The dairy can be accessed [by clicking here]

“I was neutral when it started,” Meyer said, “ didn’t help the people who were fighting it. I trusted the town board and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin that they would do the right thing.”
 
With several wind turbines surrounding his 6-acre property, Meyer and his wife Cheryl, find their quality of life diminished and report reactions such as loss of sleep from wind turbine noise.
 
“My wife has ringing in her ears, and one night at choir she was asked why she can’t get the pitch right,” Meyer said.
 
Low-pitched sounds may account for their sleep disorders, ringing in the ears and crackling noises they hear, he said. Once they leave their property their symptoms subside about three days later.
 
Meyer said he’s gained 37 pounds since the turbines were built.
 
“I was told my cortisol level was moderately high and that I should consult an endocrinologist,” Meyer said. “What I’m talking about is something new. I’m not about to blame the wind farm for pre-existing conditions.”
 
Meyer didn’t have a baseline cortisol number established before the wind farm was built.
 
“Almost every time I’ve heard from someone who has issues it’s mostly sleep deprivation and headaches,” Meyer said. He said he gets about two hours of sleep each night.
 
“We’re fortunate we have trees surrounding us to reduce the noise level,” he said.

(Click on the image below to see a video shot last winter by Invenergy wind farm resident Gerry Meyer. The video shows the turbines that are closest to his home. The second video shows shadow flicker affecting several homes in his community)

Nina Pierpont, a New York pediatrician, wrote a study in which she describes about a dozen health issues – such as sleep deprivation, anxiety and loss of motivation—as “wind turbine syndrome.”
 
Critics point out that the study involved 38 people, too few to draw conclusions about wind farms.
 
Others who support Pierpont’s conclusions say they experienced those same symptoms and were glad to see a description identified.
 
Curt Kindschuh, a resident near the Forward Wind Energy wind farm in southern Fond du Lac County, led efforts to keep wind turbines from being sited close to Horicon Marsh, which has hundreds of species of birds flying by on a regular basis.
 
“I personally know a lot of people who host a wind turbine who cannot speak out publicly about turbines,” Kindschuh said.
 
Some people express regret to him that they agreed to host wind turbines; Kindschuh said.
 
“They can’t speak out publicly because the fear legal consequences from the company,” Kindschuh said.
 
Calls to the legal department at Invenergy Wind in Chicago, the developer of Forward Wind Energy, were not returned.
 
Kindschuh said the quality of life is spiraling downward for many people, especially those who have tried to sell their rural homes.
 
He knows of seven or eight people who have put their homes up for sale.
 
“None have received offers,” he said.
 
He agreed the state of Wisconsin should embark on an epidemiological study on the three wind farms in Fond du Lac County because it appears the study isn’t going to be conducted locally.
 
However, he noted that the wind farm issue which has split neighborhoods and families, has produced some positive residual effects.
 
“You meet your neighbors, even though longtime neighbors don’t talk to each other,” he said. “It’s forever split the community.”
 

(Click on the image below to watch an interview with Curt Kindschuh about the changes the wind farm has brought to his community)

Wind developers talk a good line. They tell us there will be no negative health impacts for the residents of the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm. With a setback of 1000 feet, noise won't be a problem, shadow flicker won't be a problem, there will be no loss of value to your home.

Wind developers will tell you that the experts agree....

Many residents of wind farms in our state have pointed out that studies have been done on the effect of wind turbines on birds and bats, but none have been done on the effect wind turbines have on the people who are forced to live with them.

If you would like to contact our health department to ask them to investigate  the issue of wind turbine impacts on public health in our state, Click here to visit the Wisconsin Department of Health Services webstite, and Click here to send e-mail

In light of the many questions being raised about negative health effects resulting from inadequate setbacks from wind turbines, we need our health department to step in and research this issue, speak to the hundreds of residents in wind farms in our state and issue a report like the one recently done by the Minnesota Department of Health. Our state has a goal of siting 14,000 wind turbines by 2024. This is an issue that must be taken seriously now.

Click here to download a copy of the report from Minnesota Department of Health, entitled "Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines"

Better Plan continues with our look at the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Glacier Hills Wind Farm proposed for the Towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia county.

 The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the impact of 90 wind turbines on residents forced to live with the proposed 1000 foot setbacks, CLICK HERE

 To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

 The purpose of the final EIS is to provide the decision makers, the public, and other stakeholders with an analysis of the economic, social, cultural, and environmental impacts that could result from the construction and operation of the new wind electric generation facility.

 It was prepared prepared by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Commission or PSC) with input from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP).

 This final EIS will be a subject of the hearing to be held for the Glacier Hills project. The Commission’s decision to approve, modify, or deny ATC’s application for this project will be based on the record of the technical and public portions of the hearing.

SAVE THE DATE:

The public hearing will be held at 3:00 and 7:00 p.m. on November 4, 2009, at the Randolph Town Hall, 109 South Madison Street, Friesland, Wisconsin.

At the hearing, members of the public may testify about the project or the final EIS. In addition, written comments may be submitted in any of the following ways:

• Written comments submitted at the public hearing.

• Written comments submitted via the Commission’s ERF system by October 28, 2009. The form used to file comments electronically can be found on the Commission’s web page, http://psc.wi.gov/, by selecting the Public Comments button, then selecting Wisconsin Electric PowerCompany (WEPCO) Glacier Hills Wind Park, docket 6630-CE-302 from the list provided.

• Written comments may be submitted by mail by October 28, 2009, addressed to:

Docket 6630-CE-302 Comments

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

P.O. Box 7854

Madison, WI 53707-7854

 Members of the public who submit comments should understand that those comments will be included in the record on which the Commission will base its decision to approve, modify, or deny Wisconsin Electric Power Company’s application. As such, the comments are subject to objection during the hearing.

If objected to, the comments might not be admitted into the hearing record. Members of the public who have doubts about the admissibility of their comments should plan to provide oral testimony at the public hearing. All comments and a transcript of oral testimony will be posted to the Commission’s website as an open public record.

 The public and technical portions of the hearing will satisfy the WEPA requirements of both the Commission and DNR. A Commission decision on the proposed project is expected January 2009.

Specific questions on the final EIS should be addressed to:

Michael John Jaeger

Public Service Commission

(608) 267-2546

michaeljohn.jaeger@psc.state.wi.us

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: You can help by reading over the EIS [download it by clicking here] and commenting on specific parts of it is one way for the PSC to understand what the concerns are of rural residents in our state. There is no limit to how many comments you can file. Supporting documents are always welcome.

 Better Plan will continue to look closer at the Glacier Hills EIS in the up-coming days.

Download the entire EIS by clicking here