By law the PSC is required to post the agenda for any open meeting 24 hours before it takes place. However, the official posting place for this agenda is not disclosed. The PSC website states that the calandar of PSC events is not an official posting place, but doesn't say why, and doesn't state where the official posting place can be found.
However, a phone number is provided for those who want to talk about this with a PSC representative. Better Plan urges you to call this number to ask for the the location of the official posting place. That is, if you can find anyone who is willing to tell you.
DisclaimerProposed Schedule & Agendas This is a tentative schedule for planning purposes only and is subject to change. Persons wishing to verify the times of an event should contact Sandy Paske at (608)266-1265.
Current Agenda - Live Broadcast While the PSC attempts to publish the open meeting agendas on this web site at least 24 hours prior to an open meeting, it is not the official posting place for such items and may not contain an agenda until close to the time the meeting convenes. If you are attempting to locate an agenda that has not yet been published on our web site, please contact Sandy Paske at (608)266-1265.
A proposal to construct a wind turbine network in the Town of Forest, east of New Richmond, isn’t being met with universal support.
A number of local residents have been attending Town of Forest Board and Planning Commission meetings over the past few weeks to voice their displeasure with the plan.
The project is being promoted by Emerging Energies of Wisconsin LLC, a Hubertus company that is involved in several wind farm projects across the region.
Emerging Energies has been studying wind speeds in the St. Croix County township for more than two years.
In an earlier interview with the New Richmond News, Bill Rakocy, co-founder and principal of Emerging Energies, said the Forest area is “very favorable” as a site for large wind turbines. The company’s research shows that average wind speeds are about 16 to 17 mph, which is sufficient to turn a large turbine and thus generate electricity.
Emerging Energies hopes to construct up to 40 turbines in the Forest area by 2013 and sell the power to a utility company such as WE Energies or Xcel. A number of local landowners have expressed an interest in having one of the 2.5-megawatt, 350- to 495-foot-tall turbines constructed on their land.
A developer’s agreement was signed in August between the Forest Town Board and Emerging Energies. Under the agreement, landowners within a half mile of each turbine, the Town of Forest and St. Croix County would receive annual direct payments during the life of the turbines.
In response to the town’s agreement action, residents opposed to the proposal formed an advocacy group called “Forest Voice.”
The group has since asked the town board to consider a moratorium on wind turbine installation until an ordinance could be developed regulating such structures in the community.
But after receiving advice from its attorney, the town board noted that any new ordinance wouldn’t apply to the Emerging Energies project because regulations cannot be retroactively changed once something is already approved and a developer’s agreement is signed.
Residents then asked the town board to reconsider its agreement, suggesting that the contract was void because it was “illegal.”
Forest resident Jaime Junker, spokesperson for “Forest Voice,” said there was a “rush” to get the agreement signed and that the appropriate steps were not followed when the wind project was first approved in 2008 and then later solidified on Aug. 12, 2010.
He said the town’s planning commission never voted on a recommendation on the matter, even though later documents suggest that that body voted to recommend the project.
Junker also said that a resolution related to the eventual developer’s agreement may not have been properly signed, leading “Forest Voice” members to conclude that the agreement isn’t yet a legally-binding document.
According to a Notice of Claim filed by “Forest Voice,” opponents of the proposal worry that the wind project will have a negative impact on the health and safety of residents, as well as have a detrimental impact on the quality of life for those living in the township.
Junker said the filed notice is the first step in the group’s potential legal action against local elected officials and Emerging Energies.
Two town board members met in closed session last Thursday to consider the suggestion that the agreement be nullified. Town Chairman Roger Swanepoel has recently abstained from being involved in the wind turbine issue because of a conflict of interest.
No action was taken to rescind the agreement when the town board members recovened in open session Thursday.
Board member Carlton Cress said the the agreement will apparently stand as originally approved.
Cress called the situation “unfortunate,” but noted that concerned residents should have gotten involved in the approval process sooner.
“We’ve had some good meetings on the subject, and a lot of people on both sides of the topic have been there,” Cress said. “But they weren’t at our meetings at the right time.”
He said earlier meetings related to the wind turbines were well publicized and the board was open to any feedback. But when few objections surfaced, the project went through.
Cress added that the wind turbine controversy has been the most contentious debate he’s been involved in during his 24 years on the town board.
A state panel, established by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, approved a new set of standards for wind turbine construction in August. The Forest project likely will not be covered by those new rules because the project was officially approved by the town board in 2008.
HEPPNER, Ore. – An Oregon county is telling the owner of a big wind farm to quiet down so neighbors can sleep at night. The operator of the Willow Creek Energy Center southwest of Boardman objects to the unusual noise enforcement.
Another wind farm developer active in the area has reportedly paid neighbors “hush money” to head off similar trouble. Correspondent Tom Banse has been traveling through eastern Oregon this week for a two part series on how wind power is seen by those closest to it. Here’s his report from Morrow County.
General contractor Dan Williams lives in a hexagonal house designed to let in panoramic views from all directions. Two years ago, this northern Oregon big sky scenery changed dramatically.
Williams: “White sticks and propellers everywhere!”
A wind power developer put up dozens of towering wind turbines on the other side of the Willow Creek valley. The blades spin about three-quarters of a mile away. Retired firefighter Dennis Wade lives even closer to the windmills. Wade drops by the Williams’ place for a chat.
Dennis Wade: “It sounds like a train or a jet that never arrives, that just keeps going in one place.”
Dan Williams: “The sleeplessness…that’s the major thing for us.”
Dennis Wade: “I have woken up at night and it’s like somebody beating on your chest from the whoosh, whoosh, whoosh.”
Sound:
Dan Williams: “For me, it makes me feel uneasy.”
Dennis Wade: “I have migraines. This has kicked the migraines up.”
Tom Banse: Do you get used to it, like if you live on the ocean you get used to the sound of the waves?
Dan Williams: “I haven’t, no. This sound is different. I think it affects my body.”
Dennis Wade: “The feelings that Dan was talking about, once you leave and go away for a day or so, they recede and you feel back to your normal self.”
Sound: (wind turbines return)
Dan Williams acknowledges that the sounds and vibrations bother some people, while others in the area go unaffected. Last year, a small group complained to the county. Many meetings and noise surveys ensued. Finally this week, the Morrow County Planning Commission rendered a decision. It found the wind farm in violation of an obscure Oregon industrial noise limit.
Sound: planning commission votes 5-0 in favor
The county gave the wind farm operator six months to come into compliance.
Neither side of the noise debate is pleased. The wind farm neighbors don’t want to wait six months or more for peace and quiet. The energy company says it intends to keep generating wind power while it pursues its legal options. Alissa Krinsky is a spokesperson for Invenergy based in Chicago.
Alissa Krinsky: “Although we appreciate the time and deliberations of the Morrow County Planning Commission, we are disappointed in its decision and believe there has been a fundamental misreading of the standard under which Oregon law regulates noise emissions.”
At the county seat, Invenergy passed out a fact sheet. It cites a U.S. Department of Energy finding that a “modern wind farm at a distance of 750-1000 feet is no more noisy than a kitchen refrigerator.”
An attorney for the neighbors has suggested the operator idle some turbines at night under certain wind conditions. The company has been silent about what options exist to make a wind farm quieter. Early on, Dennis Wade says Invenergy offered to pay neighbors for a “noise easement” or waiver.
Dennis Wade: “Quiet money, I guess you’d call it.”
Tom: “And you said what?”
Dennis Wade: “No, thank you.”
A different wind energy developer with a project under construction nearby is trying to head off similar problems. That company reportedly is writing $5000 checks to neighbors who agree not to complain about turbine noise. Caithness Energy declined to say how many households took them up on the deal. Caithness’ Shepherd Flats project will be the nation’s biggest wind farm when it is completed in about two years.
Morrow County Planning Commission chair David Sykes says this whole episode provides a hard lesson for his panel and others.
David Sykes: “We’ve talked about how we’re going to approach the next one to avoid this. We don’t want to be in this position. We want it to run smoothly and have the noise issue not be an issue.”
Next time, Sykes says he’ll ask for noise modeling in advance of construction. Other Northwest counties are debating turbine buffers or setbacks.
One other sign of gusty weather ahead for the wind industry: The Oregon Public Health Division has scheduled three “listening sessions” in northeastern Oregon next week (Nov. 3-4). The agency says it wants to look into whether the health concerns about living next to a wind farm have any scientific validity.
Oregon Public Health Division – Health impacts of wind energy assessment:
John Grabski, representing the Jerusalem Preservation Association, brought a seldom explored topic to the subject of wind farms at the Oct. 20 Jerusalem Town Council meeting - economic devaluation.
Public discussions on wind farms usually include noise, flicker, dead birds and discontented cows. Grabski pointed to those briefly, but his main point was to suggest measures to protect against personal property value loss. Instead of looking at the big picture of how much money wind turbines could bring to the town and landowners, he pointed out in a detailed approach how money could be lost long term.
“According to expert organizations such as professional Certified Real Estate Appraisers, industrial wind development adversely impacts land values within the immediate wind-zone and a peripheral area of approximately two miles,” according to Grabski.
He based his data on research conducted by the Certified Real Estate Appraisers in various states for property within two miles of wind turbines. He then applied this formula to the 346 homes and land affected by wind development, as defined by the Town of Jerusalem as a possible site. He then narrowed it down to 180 parcels located in the immediate vicinity or High Impact Area.
According to the findings, the property value of the 180 parcels is $18,674,000 which generates $356,000 in school and property taxes annually.
Based on CREA studies, property value declines from 20 to 43 percent can be expected in parcels within two miles of turbine sites. Assuming an average of this estimate, the taxable loss would be $5,602,200 for the 180 homes.
Over the term of a 20 year wind project, the tax revenue loss could be $2,780,571 to $5,561,014, according to calculations, based on the formula.
Grabski said a bondposated by the wind developer would help with lost tax revenue, and added, “People would start to sell and others would ask for lower assessments. It’s happening all over the country.”
“If what developers say is true, and there is no desire on the part of landowners to exit the development area, and that newcomers will continue to seek and purchase property in the wind zone, then there should be no negative impact on property values. If this is true, wind developers should be both willing and able to provide a property value guaranty to landowners with no economic risk on their part. Conversely, if property values indeed decline, then neither the wind company nor the town at large should profit at the expense of the home and land owners,” said Grabski in his address to the board.
The Jerusalem Preservation Association recommends putting a Property Value Bond requirement into the Wind Ordinance to protect both the citizens of Jerusalem from personal loss and the Town from citizens seeking remedy or remuneration for damage or economic loss from wind farm development.
The organization also presented the board with three pages of other recommendations for the wind turbine law dealing with setbacks, noise, health and other issues.
The Jerusalem Preservation Association was formed in the summer of 2009, when some residents learned areas near their properties were being proposed as possible wind farm sites. The group is also discussing the risks of Marcellus Shale drilling.
The Jerusalem Town Board has been exploring the possibility of wind turbines in the town for a few years. A committee was formed and several public meetings have been held, but there has been no action. Councilman Neil Simmons, who was active in the public meetings, thanked Grabski for bringing to light a different approach that the town hadn’t looked at before.
Councilman Ray Stewart asked people in the audience of about 40, how many were there in regard to this topic. About 30 raised their hands. Grabski said the association could have filled the parking lot, “But the topic is too important to make a circus of it.”
The Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) is proposing new regulations relating to the location of wind turbines and wind farms (a large number of wind turbines located in close proximity to one another) that could have a significant impact on the value of thousands of acres of Wisconsin property.
These regulations will determine, among other things, how far wind turbines can be located from neighboring homes, buildings and property lines. Given that wind turbines can be over 500 feet high and the new state regulations will override all local zoning ordinances, REALTORS® and property owners should pay close attention to these regulations.
Background
During the 1970s, the United States experienced an energy crisis due to a decrease oil production in the Middle East. To encourage the use of alternative energy sources, Wisconsin enacted a law prohibiting local governments (counties, cities, villages and towns) from placing any restrictions on the installation or use of solar or wind energy systems unless the restriction is necessary to protect public health or safety. For approximately 40 years, this law has not been a significant problem for property owners.
In recent years, thousands of large wind turbines have been located in Wisconsin and other states to utilize the energy from winds blowing across the landscape. While these turbines are intended to reduce dependence on fossil-based energy sources, they have generated a lot of controversy and complaints from nearby property owners. Some of the complaints from property owners include the following:
Health problems. After wind turbines have been placed nearby, some residents have complained of insomnia, anxiety, headaches and nausea. They have blamed their health problems on the pulsing noise coming from spinning turbines near their homes.
Destruction of natural viewscapes. Turbines can be over 500 feet tall and can be seen from miles away. (As a comparison, the Wisconsin Capitol is 284 feet tall.) Some feel that these turbines detract from the natural beauty of Wisconsin’s farms and rolling landscape.
Noise. Depending on the turbine model and wind speed, wind turbines can create a constant "whooshing" or pulsating noise that can be heard both inside and outside a home (day and night), if located too close. Studies have shown that an average-size turbine (2 megawatts, 100 meters high) located 1,000 feet away can produce the same amount of noise as a suburban area during the day (51 decibels).
Excessive shadows on neighboring property. Depending upon the number of clouds and angle of the sun, wind turbines can create a "shadow flicker" (a term used to describe the shadow of the turning blades as it hits a surface) on nearby property. Some property owners have described the shadow effect on their home as being like "someone turning lights on and off inside the house at a rate of 80 times a minute" and lasting for almost an hour on sunny days.
Property values. A recent study of three Wisconsin wind farms showed that prospective buyers had a negative perception of nearby wind turbines. While the exact impact is difficult to quantify, the study indicated an average decrease in vacant residential property values ranging from 12% to 40%, depending on the size of the lot and the distance from the wind turbine.
Proposed PSC Regulations
In 2009, Wisconsin enacted a wind turbine siting law that directs the PSC to develop specific standards for, among other things, wind turbine setbacks from neighboring homes and property lines. The PSC formed a 15-member wind siting council, consisting of representatives from wind farm companies, local governments, environmental organizations, private property owners and REALTORS®.
After two months of regular meetings, the wind siting council recently completed a report containing various recommendations and submitted it to the PSC for approval. The report is controversial and many critics maintain that the interests of neighboring property owners are not adequately protected due to the makeup of the council, which was weighted in favor of wind energy interests.
The PSC has used this report to create new administrative rules, which are also controversial. Some of the specific concerns with the proposed rules include the following:
Setbacks are too small. The proposed setback from neighboring residences and buildings is 3.1 times the maximum blade tip height of the turbine. For example, if a wind turbine is 300 feet, the setback is 930 feet from a structure. This distance was chosen for safety considerations (in case the turbine falls over) and ignores possible health risks to humans and animals and the potential impact of turbines on neighboring property values. Critics suggest that a setback of 2,640 feet is more appropriate.
Noise standards are insufficient. The proposed rules allow wind turbines to create noise up to 45 decibels at night or 50 decibels during the day, as measured from the outside of a neighboring residence.
Shadow flicker limits are inadequate. The proposed rules allow wind turbines to create a shadow flicker on neighboring residences up to 40 hours per year. If shadow flicker exceeds 20 hours per year, developers must offer mitigation to property owners.
Why This Is Important for REALTORS®
Without question, the number one reason REALTORS® should care about the proposed wind farm regulations is the impact of wind turbines on property values. Numerous studies have shown that wind turbines can have a negative impact on neighboring property values and sometimes that impact can be significant. According to a survey of REALTORS® working in a wind turbine area, the impact on neighboring vacant land ranges from a 43% decrease if the wind turbine is located very close (within 600 feet) to 29% if the turbine is located in near proximity (½ mile away). With respect to the impact on improved property, the impacts are believed to be similar, but slightly lower (39% and 24%, respectively).
While wind turbines are often seen in more rural settings, these regulations do not prevent wind turbines from being located in more urban or suburban settings. Because these regulations override local zoning ordinances, wind turbines can be located almost anywhere there is adequate wind, including next to residential subdivisions and office parkss.
While developing alternative energy sources is important, so too is protecting property values. Without adequate setbacks in place, property values could suffer and property owners could face tremendous uncertainty about whether the neighboring property that is used for open space or farmland today will be used for a wind farm with large wind turbines tomorrow.
What’s Next
The PSC recently approved the proposed administrative rules and now the rules must be reviewed and approved by the Wisconsin Legislature. The PSC rules will likely be completed within the next several weeks, with legislative review occurring shortly thereafter. The legislature will likely hold public hearings within the next several weeks.
The WRA will be meeting with key legislators in an effort to make changes to the rules to ensure that the interests of property owners are adequately protected.
For more information, please contact Tom Larson (tlarson@wra.org) at (608) 240-8254.
Tom Larson is Chief Lobbyist and Director of Legal and Public Affairs for the WRA.
A few years back, a column I wrote recounting a successful effort by an alliance of citizens to beat back wind-turbine interests in Andes, N.Y., provoked a massively negative response.
I was accused (a) of elevating the views I enjoyed from the windows of my second home above the interests of the society in encouraging green energy, (b) of displaying the usual latecomer’s indifference to the needs of the locals who had been living in Andes forever and (c) of not knowing what I was talking about when I described the construction (massively disruptive), effects (awful on land, animals and people), contribution to the grid (minimal) and financing (tax credits and accelerated depreciation rates) of the 400-foot-high towers with a 52-foot circumference base and blades 130 feet wide whooshing through the air at 178 m.p.h.
At the time of that earlier column, Meredith, another small town in Delaware County, seemed to be going in the other direction; the prediction was that the wind companies would succeed there.
But it didn’t turn out that way, and a new film by Laura Israel that premiered at the Toronto Film Festival on Sept. 10 tells the story of what happened. The film is called “Windfall,” a pun on the fate of the wind project (it fell) and on the initial hope of some of Meredith’s residents that unanticipated revenue had fallen into their laps along with the opportunity to do the right environmental thing.
As the film opens, opponents of the turbines are recalling their early enthusiasm: “I saw one and it was beautiful.” “We felt we were helping the world.” But when a farmer signed an agreement and a test tower was erected on his land, a neighbor looked out the window and said to himself, “What’s that?”
Alarmed, he began to do research and spread what he took to be the bad news. One couple had gotten on board almost immediately, but then the wife went to look at a turbine and was horrified by the sounds it made. “Not that they were so loud; it was the idea that it was forever, for 25 or 28 years, for the rest of my life.” They got out of the contract, wrote a letter to their neighbors and became warriors in the wind wars.
The battle was fought politically in response to the tactics the wind energy companies always employ. First a few large landowners, usually farmers who have been in the area forever, are approached about signing up.
At the same time, town supervisors and members of the town planning board, who are often landowners themselves, are targeted. Those who are approached are asked to sign a confidentiality agreement that prevents them from telling their neighbors what is going on.
The result is that when the news does get out, an aura of inevitability has already been established; the feeling is “this is so big and so far advanced that there’s nothing we can do.”
Another result is the splitting of the town into two factions; the long-time “locals” and the “downstaters” or “outsiders” or “latecomers” (you’re a latecomer of you’ve lived there 20 years) who more often than not have the numbers but are weak politically because they are registered to vote in another state.
Former friends and once-friendly neighbors no longer talk to each other. Nasty signs and even nastier words pop up everywhere.
That’s just what the wind-energy forces planned. They look for relatively poor areas that display the desired population demographic — farmers with large landholdings and newcomers with large incomes — and then they pit the two constituencies against each other.
You get more than a hint of the strategy in a presentation made at at least one meeting sponsored by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). The attendees were alerted to the nature of the enemy by an overhead depicting an armored man on a horse rushing forward with his lance pointed at a windmill. The caption read “When Don Quixote Attacks.”
The identification of the wind-turbine opponents with Cervantes’s unhinged hero made the point that they are (a) crazy), (b) delusional and (c) doomed to fail.
The next overhead was more analytic; it characterized the deranged tilters-at-windmills as “often affluent” and “politically sophisticated.”
The message is clear: Do you want those uppity types from the city telling you what you can do with land that has been in your family for generations?
So the wind interests inflict a triple injury — on the landscape, on the quality of life and on the social fabric of the community — and then, after a while, they depart, leaving behind what one resident of a turbine-infested town called a “giant junk yard.” (Yes, I know about decommissioning promises and bonds, but if you think the developers won’t devise several escape hatches when the time comes, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.)
All of this was avoided in Meredith when the “uppity types” organized, campaigned, had meetings, held rallies and turned the town officers out by a substantial margin. Happy ending, at least from the perspective of those who feared they would have to leave the rural paradise they prized so much.
Of course not everyone is mobile enough to be able to leave; and had the wind hucksters succeeded, many would have been in the position of the residents of another New York small town, Tug Hill, where an initial proposal of 50 turbines ballooned into 200.
“Windfall” devotes 20 chilling minutes to Tug Hill. Filmmaker Laura Israel took her cameras there thinking that perhaps the reality would not bear out the Meredith naysayers’ fears. But, she reports, it did: “When you look out the window in the Flat Rock Inn, you see turbines; when you look in the rear view window of your car, you see turbines; when you look at a reflection in a puddle, you see turbines; when I closed my eyes to go to sleep I saw turbines spinning; they did start to take on the characteristics of the creatures from ‘War of the Worlds.’”
A native of the town (“I’ve been here my whole life”) stands in front of his property and asks the camera, “Would you consider retiring in my home?”
This man’s plaintive plea gives a new meaning to the acronym NIMBY (not in my back yard). When innumerable posters hurled the phrase at me in response to my earlier column, they were using it metaphorically.
But for this poor guy (and all his neighbors), the phrase is quite literal. These towering monsters are in their back yards, and in their front yards, and in their lines of vision and hearing no matter where they happen to be.
So the question is, why should they say yes to the destruction of everything they value about their way of life? Why should they submit to being beaten over the head with a moral club — “you are just selfish elitists” —that has behind it almost nothing at all?
There’s no benefit to the individual, who often ends up paying higher energy bills; little benefit to the town besides (sometimes) an initial cash payment; a questionable benefit to the grid, especially when you calculate the energy costs of installing these behemoths and the necessity of fallback energy when the wind doesn’t blow; but lots of benefits to the developers who are described by voices in the film as carpetbaggers, pod people and traveling salesman for whom the only green that counts is the color of money.
We all choose where to live (if we have the luxury of choice) for reasons that mean something to us. Are those reasons — rehearsed again and again by the citizens of Meredith and Tug Hill — negligible and dismissible? Do they count as nothing before the rhetoric of global warming (a real danger, but not one that’s going to be kept at bay by ruining small towns in Delaware County) and the naked greed of the large companies that put these things up? For the residents of the town of Cape Vincent, N.Y., these questions may be moot; just last week members of their town board and planning board — several of whom had lease agreements with the wind companies — gave the go-ahead to a turbine project despite considerable opposition (the estimate I’ve heard is by a ratio of 4-1) from property owners.
The state attorney general’s office is investigating the possibility of a conflict of interest (do you think?) and so the battle may not be over.
Meanwhile, another battle, even larger, is being waged around the practice of “fracking,” the extraction of natural gas by the high-pressure pumping of chemical-laden fluids into rock formations.
Rather than going up, as turbines do, fracking goes down, so the blight is, at least apparently, less visible. But the environmental worries are even greater, for there is evidence — especially in Pennsylvania where a well-blowout (sound familiar?) has led to the suspension by the state of the drilling projects of one company — that there is significant danger of water contamination and seismic activity.
The industry of course denies these dangers and argues that a link between fracking and the pollution of ground water in Pennsylvania and Colorado is unproven. (Tobacco scientists, anyone?) Incidentally, the gas drillers decline to reveal the specific contents of the fluids used in the process. Not a confidence-inducer.
Like the turbine salesmen, the frackers work by stealth and turn communities into opposing camps engaged in class warfare, and they are now out in force in Delaware County, even as the turbine wars recede into history.
On Sept. 8 in Delhi, the county seat, just down the road from Meredith, 340 people — a large number in these parts — rallied in the rain, carried signs and spoke against “multinational companies willing to poison us for profit” and against the Delaware County Board of Supervisors, which, they say, voted in favor of the gas industry without giving the other side a hearing. A seven-minute video captured their protest and an award-winning documentary, “Gasland,” provides the details (such as tap water ignited by a match) of what is happening nationally in a narrative the industry vigorously rebuts.
Maybe the next step will be a Hollywood treatment in the tradition of “Erin Brockovich,” “A Civil Affair” and “The Insider.” Unfortunately, however, these movies are stories of heroes who bring dangers to light after they have materialized. The damage has already been done and many people end up living with it.
There is a David and Goliath aspect to these battles between heavily funded corporate interests and citizen activists who come out and stand in the rain with home-made signs. Will the NIMBY’s — a designation one should wear with pride — really be able to do something, as they did in Meredith, or will the forces of darkness masking as environmental crusaders prevail? Tune in.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
The Documentary, Windfall, includes footage and photographs taken by Wisconsin wind project residents Gerry Meyer and Larry Wunsch, of Fond Du Lac County, along with photos by Jim Bembinster and Lynda Barry, both of Rock County.
First to take to the podium was Dr. Robert McMurtry, a former Dean of Medicine of the University of Western Ontario, who has been an outspoken proponent of an epidemiological study being conducted before large-scale industrial turbine projects are allowed to move forward.
Indeed, McMurtry, whose home County of Prince Edward is being developed for wind projects, says the Province of Ontario is not following the rule of its own “precautionary principle” of “do no harm” by allowing these projects to move forward.
McMurtry’s journey with wind farms began in January 2008, when he first heard of a project slated for his home territory. He decided to embark on some research after being told the turbine projects were positive because they provide ‘green’ energy and are income generators.
“I did some research and became concerned,” he says. “The concern led to alarm.”
McMurtry then found out about health problems wind farm area residents were having as a result of Low Frequency Noise. The claim could not be easily dismissed, notes McMurtry, because, “so many around the world have described it as a problem.”
McMurtry made a formal deputation to Prince Edward County Council about the adverse health affects associated with wind farms.
To McMurtry’s surprise, the Ontario Government denied the LFN claim, though his home county passed a resolution requesting the government undertake a health study before allowing wind developments.
In August 2009, McMurty made a presentation to a government standing committee on good governance with regard to the Green Energy Act, where LFN was highlighted as a concern. His report included statistics showing 53 Ontarians were already reporting adverse health affects from wind farms.
“I asked them to do the health studies again,” he says. “Once again, it was a matter of waiting, delay and denial.”
McMurtry says that, so far, the province’s only concession to health concerns is the appointment of a commissioner who has five years to review reports. The problem, say McMurtry, is the study should be conducted before large-scale wind projects are erected.
Eleven current or past officials are listed as benefiting from the 195-turbine Maple Ridge Wind Farm, which was built primarily in 2005 in the towns of Martinsburg, Harrisburg and Lowville. Of those, six may have had voting influence on the project. They include:
■ Stephen N. Bernat, who has served as Harrisburg town supervisor from 1990 to 2003 and from 2008 to the present, has an agreement worth $1 million or more.
■ William J. Burke, a long-time member of the Lowville Zoning Board of Appeals and Lowville Academy and Central School District Board and Lewis County legislator since 2008, has agreements worth $1 million or more. Mr. Burke and some of his family members are also employed by Iberdrola Renewables, and he has in recent years abstained or recused himself from voting on wind matters.
■ Paul Widrick, who was on the Harrisburg Zoning Board of Appeals in 2004 and 2009, has an agreement worth $1 million or more.
■ Edward Yancey, who was on the Harrisburg Zoning Board of Appeals from 2004 through 2008, has a financial interest through the Yancey Family Trust of $1 million or more.
■ Robert Delaplain, who was on the Harrisburg Planning Board from 2001 through 2005, has a financial interest of $1 million or more.
■ Loren D. Lyndaker, who was on the Harrisburg Planning Board from 2002 through 2006 and a member of the Town Council since 2007, has a neighbor agreement worth $20,000 to $60,000.
The methodology used in Iberdrola’s calculations for Maple Ridge — including length of leases and whether extension options were figured in — was not immediately available Monday afternoon, according to a company spokesman.
Wisconsin small business owner, Jim Bembinster, knows a lot about the complicated subject of wind turbine noise.
He spent 14 months focusing on noise issues as a member of the Large Turbine Wind Study Committee for the Town of Union (Rock County). He also helped author the Town of Union Large Wind Ordinance, considered by many to be the best in the state.
This ordinance has been adopted by local governments throughout Wisconsin, including five contiguous Towns in Rock County. Local governments from other states have used it for a model in creating their own ordinances.
The Town of Union Ordinance calls for a turbine noise limit of five decibels over the existing noise levels in the community.
The wind siting rules approved by the Public Service Commission, which preempt ordinances like the Town of Union’s, allow a nighttime noise level of 45dba—or an approximate increase of 20 decibels over normal rural noise limits.
Here, Mr. Bembinster explains how a 20 decibel increase will impact a rural community, and why masking turbine noise is so difficult.
The general rule for additional noise is this:
Adding 5dB is barely noticeable. Adding 10dB is clearly heard— as it’s twice again as loud. Adding 15 dB is very loud and this will become the dominant sound.
If ambient [existing] noise levels in a rural community are 25dB and turbine noise levels are at 45dB, there will be a problem.
The reason is the turbine, at 20dB louder, will be the dominant sound.
Although developers say noise from the turbine will be masked by other environmental sound, such as the wind blowing through the trees, a noise loud enough to cover the turbine must also be similar in character and at least 15 decibels louder, which puts it at least 60dB. This would be something like a the noise from a large truck going by or a Harley.
Also, in order to mask the sound, the character of the two types of sound must be the same.
Take the example of a baby crying.
If you were in a room with people who were all having a conversation at say 50dB and a baby started to cry at 40dB, the baby’s cry would be clearly heard over the conversation because of the difference of character and the tone of the noise it makes.
If the baby ramps up the crying to 50dB --the same sound level as the conversation in the room, the baby’s cry will become the dominant sound in the room even though both the crying and the conversation are at the same decibel level.
This is why people trapped in wind farms have trouble with the noise even though the turbine is within its noise limits of 45dB. Ambient sounds in a rural area can’t mask the sound of a turbine because the quality of the noise is so different, much like difference between a baby crying and adult conversation.
Another way to look at is how loud it would need to be inside your home so that a Harley could pass by unnoticed. That would be really loud, and not the best circumstance for sleeping.
There is nothing in a rural community that makes a sound similar enough to a wind turbine to mask it, except perhaps a jet or helicopter passing overhead, which is exactly what wind turbine noise is often compared to by those now living in wind projects.
One of the three members of the Public Service Commission who voted for the wind turbine siting rules last month noted in a letter to two top state lawmakers that the panel can revise the rules to address the potentially harmful health effects of the turbines.
“While I support the overall rule because it will promote the development of wind in Wisconsin, the rule fails to provide a much-needed safety net for people whose health declines because of a wind turbine located near their home,” Commissioner Lauren Azar wrote to legislative officials in an Aug. 31 letter.
“As new information becomes available, the Commission can revise this rule.”
Azar wasn’t available this week to comment on her proposal that would require wind turbine owners to purchase the home of anyone who can prove that the turbine has a significant adverse health outcome. An aide in her office said Azar’s letter speaks for itself.
Invenergy LLC wants to build a 100-turbine wind farm in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore, Wrightstown and Holland with turbines that produce more than 100-megawatts of energy. CH Shirley Wind LLC is erecting eight 20-megawatt turbines in Glenmore.
An Invenergy spokesman said last month that the company plans to resubmit its application for the Ledge Wind Farm project, noting that the health issue has been studied by numerous groups that concluded there is insufficient evidence to prove the turbines put people and animals at risk.
That proposal has prompted the creation of a Brown County citizens group speaking out against the wind turbine industry, arguing there hasn’t been sufficient study on health impacts.
Carl Kuehne, a member of the board of directors of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, said the absence of definitive evidence on the health impact of wind turbines is reason enough to conduct more studies.
“No. 1, there is no need to move ahead today with more wind turbines in Wisconsin,” Kuehne said.
“The utilities are currently meeting the energy mandates set by the state government. So let’s study the situation. There’s certainly enough ad hoc evidence that wind turbines do have an impact on people and animals. Let’s study it and find out before we create more destruction on people. We have the opportunity.”
Last month, the PSC adopted rules for projects less than 100 megawatts. The rules can be altered by the state Legislature and lawmakers can ask the PSC to make changes. The issue has been assigned to the Assembly’s Committee on Energy and Utilities, which is led by Jim Soletski, D-Ashwaubenon, but no meeting date has been set.
PORTSMOUTH — With its wind turbine supplier bankrupt, Portsmouth is looking for a new company to provide the service it had believed was covered under the equipment’s original warranty.
Bankruptcy proceedings for Canadian firm AAER were completed in July. Pioneer Power Solutions bought some of AAER’s assets ”but appears unwilling to provide warranty coverage or operations and maintenance support,” Finance Director David Faucher wrote in a Sept. 8 memo to the town council.
Mr. Faucher and Assistant Town Planner Gary Crosby, who has overseen much of the town’s wind turbine effort, said they have met with representatives of Templeton Power and Light which has commissioned an AAER wind turbine generator similar to Portsmouth’s in hopes of partnering with the Massachusetts utility for a long term maintenance services contract.
But Mr. Faucher said Templeton is not yet at a point that it can enter into such a partnership.
So for now, Mr. Faucher recommended that the town council enter into an emergency one-year maintenance and service agreement with Solaya, a division of Lumus Constrictoon Inc. of Woburn, Mass. The council was scheduled to discuss and possibly vote on the agreement at its meeting on Wednesday this week (after the Times went to press).
The agreement would include two 6-month scheduled maintenance sessions (the first being this month), around-the-clock monitoring and unscheduled maintenance. At the end of the year, Mr. Faucher said he would ask the council to award a competitively bid contract for a three-year period.
The agreement with Solaya is “very detailed and describes the monitoring , warranty protction and maintenance services we have been seeking.”
Cost of the year’s basic service is $33,000, and the town would be charged additional fees for extra work.
After decades of drug-running, extortion and prostitution, the Mafia appears to have found a rather more ecological way of laundering their money: green power.
And if the assets of the Italian police’s latest target are any indication, the Mafia is embracing the renewable energy business with an enthusiasm that would make Al Gore look like a dilettante. The surprising revelation of organised crime’s new green streak came as Italian police said yesterday they had made the largest recorded seizure of mob assets – worth €1.5bn (£1.25bn) – from the Mafia-linked Sicilian businessman Vito Nicastri, who had vast holdings in alternative energy concerns, including wind farms.
Organised crime in Italy has previously been notorious for trading in environmental destruction – principally earning billions of euros by illegally dumping toxic waste. But most of the newly seized assets are in the form of land, property and bank accounts in Sicily, the home of Cosa Nostra, and in the neighbouring region of Calabria, the base of the rival ‘Ndrangheta crime syndicate.
Police said the operation was based on a 2,400-page investigative report and followed 54-year-old Mr Nicastri’s arrest last year. He has since been released without charge, and has denied wrongdoing. But General Antonio Girone, the head of the national anti-Mafia agency DIA, said that Mr Nicastri, known as “lord of the winds”, was linked to Matteo Messina Denaro, the fugitive believed to be the Sicilian Mafia’s “boss of bosses”.
Senator Costantino Garraffa, of the parliamentary anti-Mafia committee, said the Mafia was trying to break into the “new economy” of alternative energy as it sought to launder money earned from crime. The seizure of Mr Nicastri’s assets “confirms the interest that organised crime has in renewable energy, which several annual reports on environmental issues have already stressed,” added Beppe Ruggiero, an official with the anti-Mafia association Libera.
Generous subsidies have led to rapid growth in wind power in Italy in recent years. Mr Ruggiero said: “It is very important for this sector to stay far from Mafia activities.” However, he stressed the need for renewable energy to develop in Italy’s poorer South. “Investment in renewable energy should not be discouraged,” he said, adding that the nuclear alternative would be “a losing choice”.
Recent estimates suggest the total annual turnover of Italy’s main organised crime groups is around €100bn (£83bn), or 7 per cent of GDP. Officials, including the Bank of Italy governor, Mario Draghi, have argued that organised crime has perpetuated poverty in the south of the country.
The BPRC Research Nerd
