Better Plan, Wisconsin

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

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

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

Opponents say 45 decibels is still too loud

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

By Daniel Vasko, Staff Writer, 

March 24, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECOND FEATURE:

Amaranth Substation concerns remain

Orangeville Citizen, www.citizen.on.ca

March 25 2010

By Wes Keller,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE: Bureau County Republican,

www.bcrnews.com

Ann Burkey Brezinski

March 17, 2010

I am writing on behalf of Eileen Burkey’s and the late Willard Burkey’s farm located north of Walnut. My great-grandparents purchased and moved to this property in the 1890s.

Since that time, my family has been devoted and faithful caretakers of this acreage. Further, we intend to continue this stewardship for future generations of our family, not just for the benefit of our family but because it is the right thing to do. We are the beneficiaries of a limited, endangered resource that should not be sacrificed.

We will not sign the Wind Project Lease Agreement for four, irrefutable reasons.

First, we will not diminish our tillable acres — either by area or by productivity. To do otherwise is both short-sighted and irresponsible. A wind turbine and its access roadways would decrease our tillable acres. The productivity of the soil would be diminished by compaction and damage to the farm tile system.

Second, we will not sign a contract that provides unilateral “sole discretion” in a LaSalle Street, Chicago limited liability corporate tenant regarding numerous matters concerning our family farm. We are obviously in this for the long haul and will not let our property be irrevocably abused and controlled by outsiders for their financial gain.

Third, the proposed Wind Project Lease Agreement is extremely protective of the wind turbine company, and it does not afford the farm owner the same legal protections. My professional reservations include the potential 70-year duration of the lease and its ramifications upon future generations.

It is impossible to predict the financial viability of the developer or its successors for that time period, or even to gauge the reasonableness of the terms for such a time period. Also, the lease’s list of easement effects will affect the quality of life of anyone in the vicinity of the turbines; this list includes everything from sound pollution to visual blight to air turbulence to radio-frequency interference, to name a few.

I question whether the proposed payment structure is sufficient to compensate for this open-ended list. Further, the lease terms provide that a landowner cannot construct any structure anywhere on his property without first meeting with the developer in order to determine a site that will not impact the developer’s rights. The overriding theme in the proposed lease is clearly the developer’s rights, not the rights of landowners.

Fourth, we are very concerned about evidence showing farmland values are lowered by the existence of neighboring wind turbines. We will not sign a contract that will detrimentally impact the farmland values of our neighbors and friends, and would hope that our neighbors and friends would have the same consideration for us.

Ann Burkey Brezinski

Current 10% Renewables Mandate Costs Too Much, Creates Unneeded Generation

SOURCE: WIEG.ORG

Wisconsin currently has much more energy supply than it has energy demand – indeed, its excess energy supply is more than twice the amount required by law. 

Unfortunately, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has concluded that Wisconsin’s 10% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) trumps our energy needs, energy costs, and statutory conservation requirements, which effectively renders meaningless those “off ramps” that were intended to serve as a safety valve should the cost of renewable energy become too expensive. 

We currently get about 5% of our statewide needs from renewable generation – and we have a long, expensive way to go to meet even the current 10% RPS.  Yet we have no immediate, or even short term, need for more generation.  Wisconsin is building a lot of unnecessary generation at a premium cost. 

Crane Creek (2008) – Wisconsin Public Service Corporation – $251 million – 99 MW

The Commission concluded that Crane Creek was not needed until at least 2021 and that no new generation was needed until at least 2018.

The Commission models showed that a natural gas turbine was less expensive than a wind farm.

WPSC has a roughly 50% reserve margin - it already has way more energy supply than demand.

Bent Tree (2009) – Wisconsin Power and Light Company – $500 million – 200 MW

The Commission approved Bent Tree with a sales forecast that did not include WPL’s extraordinary loss of electric sales over the past year and more (General Motors, Domtar paper mill and other major energy-intensive companies).

WPL requested and received $30 million in its last rate case (Docket 6680-UR-117) for the up-front construction costs of the wind farm that has not yet put any iron in the ground.

Bent Tree was the biggest line item in a rate increase request of roughly $100 million or 10%.

Blue Sky Green Field (2007) – WE Energies – over $300 million – 145 MW

The Commission approved Blue Sky Green Field even though it expressly concluded that the energy would not be needed until around 2015 - eight years after it approved the project.

The Commission recognized that the Project was more expensive than fossil fuel generation. 

The Commission approved the Project because of WE Energies need to meet its RPS mandate.

Glacier Hills (2010) – WE Energies – up to $452 million – 200 MW

The Commission concluded that WE Energies needed Glacier Hills in order to meet its RPS mandate, not because it needed more generation.

In her concurring opinion, Commission Azar recognized that WE Energies - and the state as a whole - may soon be exporting energy that it does not itself need, given “the current excess of capacity in Wisconsin.”  And yet, the PSC still approved this project.

WE Energies still plans to spend over $1 billion in new projects to comply with the 10% RPS law.

A decade ago Wisconsin’s electric rates were among the lowest in the country; now, its rates are among the highest in the Midwest.  These four wind projects alone will cost ratepayers at minimum $1.5 billion and they are or will soon be producing energy that Wisconsin does not currently need.  The reason the Commission approved these projects was to meet the current 10% RPS mandate, and we are only at 5% statewide right now. 

The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming recommends boosting the RPS to 25 percent by 2025.  Imagine what a 150% increase in RPS requirement will do to customer bills, at a time when the generation simply is not needed.  We will be generation rich, yes.  But cash poor. 

WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS"

Home for sale, Fond du Lac County, WI February 2010

BROWN COUNTY TO STUDY WIND FARMS' IMPACT

SOURCE: Greenbay Press-Gazette

By Tony Walter

March 3, 2010

A Brown County Board committee voted Tuesday to form a special committee to gather information about the health, safety and economic impact of wind turbines on county residents. 

A Chicago-based developer is seeking state approval to build the first major commercial wind farm in Brown County, a project that would put 100 wind turbines in the towns of Morrison, Holland, Wrightstown and Glenmore.

The issue came to a head Tuesday because wind turbine opponents said there is evidence that they could interfere with emergency radio communications. But several of the approximately 50 wind farm opponents who attended the meeting said they are as concerned for health reasons.

“This whole thing is being jammed down our throats,” said Marilyn Nies of Greenleaf, whose 5-year-old daughter has a heart disease. Some wind turbine opponents say the turbines can cause a variety of health issues that could affect people like her daughter. “Is it going to hurt us to wait a year or two so real studies can be accomplished?”

Carl Johnson of Greenleaf said the turbines add the turbines will bring low frequency noise, which he called “a new type of pollution.”

Steve Deslauriers of Greenleaf urged the committee to consider a wind diversion ordinance.

“The county’s voice needs to be heard,” he said.

Carl Kuehne of Ledgeview cited university studies in Spain, Germany and Denmark that he said showed wind turbines to be “total, complete and utter failures” in those countries. He said other studies have shown property values decreased 25-40 percent on property adjacent to wind farms.

He asked the committee to recommend a moratorium on wind turbines until a thorough investigation can be completed.

Oil splatters on a Fond du Lac County wind turbine, February 2010 

SECOND FEATURE:

The following commentary comes to Better Plan from a resident living in a Fond du Lac County wind project who wishes to remain anonymous.

You have an attitude problem.

That’s the wind industry’s latest explanation for the growing number of complaints from people living in industrial wind projects.  They say, “You people just don’t like these things.”
 
The implication is that if you just changed your attitude, the problems you're having with turbine noise, sleep disruption, shadow flicker, and homes that will not sell--- all of these problems will go away.
 
As a Wisconsin resident who has been living in a wind project for nearly two years, I have to ask what it is that the industry wants you to like? What is there to like about having your home surrounded by 400 foot wind turbines?  I can’t think of a thing …
 
-Unless you like constant audible and low frequency noise, from whooshing and thumping to grinding mechanical noises and transformer hum.    
 
-Unless you enjoy chronic sleep disruption and associated health problems for you and your family.

-Unless you enjoy signal interference on your radio, TV, and cell phone.   

-Unless you want to live in an area where Flight for Life emergency transport helicopters can no longer land.

-Unless you enjoy the strobe flashing of turbine shadow flicker inside and outside of your home on sunny days and moonlit nights.
 
-Unless you are glad the birds and bats are gone along and other wildlife once so common before the turbines went  up.
 
-Unless you think it’s beautiful to be surrounded by scores of red lights flashing in unison from the turbines at night, or regard leaking oil on the towers and land below as decorative.

-Unless you want to live in a place where wind developers pitted neighbor against neighbor and tore the community apart in a way that will never be repaired.
 
-Unless you appreciate your peace of mind and family relationships disintegrating because of the stress of no sleep and uncertainty about being able to sell your house, because you’ve seen how the houses in your project just sit with no buyers, because you know how few people want to buy a home so near turbines and you can’t blame them—because you wouldn’t want to live so close to wind turbines either.

Except, now, of course, you do.  

This new “blame the victim” PR move underscores the wind industry's own attitude problem, one of insensitivity and an inability to understand and be compassionate toward the people whose problems began only after the wind turbines went up.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: 

There have been a number of reasons why residents of wind projects in our state have asked for anonymity when contacting Better Plan.  Some have family members who work for companies associated with construction of the turbines. Some have family members or neighbors who are hosting turbines. Some are hosting turbines themselves and regretting it, but are fearful of being sued by the wind company for violating the gag order in their contract.

Better Plan is glad to insure anonymity to any wind project resident who contacts us, but we always confirm the identity of anyone who submits material for us to post.

We'd like to thank the family who sent us this commentary.

THIRD FEATURE

Wind turbines stir up controversy in Brown County

SOURCE: WFRV-TV Channel 5 News

BROWN COUNTY (WFRV) – Some Brown County residents say they’re worried about plans to put a 100 turbine wind farm in southern Brown County.

Invenergy wants to build 400-foot wind turbines on 72-square miles of land.
Residents enumerated a host of issues they have with the build at a Brown County Committee meeting Tuesday evening.

Home owners say they're worried about well contamination, noise pollution and potential unseen health issues. A concerned parent speaking from the podium at Tuesday’s meeting said she’s worried the project could worsen her 5-year-old’s heart condition. She wants to delay the project a year or two for a comprehensive study. “I feel like this whole thing is being jammed down our throats.”

Steve Deslauriers, a Town of Morrison firefighter, says he’s worried 9-1-1 calls could be interrupted by the wind turbine’s blades. “If it impacts even one accident scene, it’s one too many” Deslauries tells Channel 5’s Jenna Sachs.

Deslauriers also says he’s worried history shows rescue choppers might not fly near the turbines. “We can look to Fond du Lac County as a guide for how flight rescue would be handled” Deslauriers says. “There they will not fly into a wind farm at night or into a cluster of wind turbines.”

Sachs spoke with representatives from Invenergy and Brown County Public Safety about the 9-1-1 issue. Both parties say they can work together to make sure 9-1-1 signals aren’t interrupted, since the new radio towers haven’t been built yet.

During a recent visit to the We Energies Blue Sky/Green Field wind project near the Town of Johnsburg in Fond du Lac County, at least seven turbines appeared to be leaking oil.

Residents pointed out the leaks and stated the problem seems to be increasing throughout the project.

Our camera wasn't capable of long range shots of turbines in the field, but oil leaking from a turbine sited nearer to the road is visible in this video.

The photos in the second video were sent to us by residents of the Cedar Ridge wind project near the Town of Empire in Fond du Lac County.