Entries in Wisconsin wind farm (69)
7/26/10 TRIPLE FEATURE: From open arms to balled up fists: Wisconsin resident comments on living in a wind project under construction AND Why he left the family farm: Wisconsin resident lays out his first-hand experience with wind development. The majority of the Wind Siting Council looks the other way
PUBLIC COMMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FROM RESIDENT OF PSC APPROVED GLACIER HILLS PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION:
To the landowners in the Ledge Wind Project:
If you believe wind turbines are a good fit for a farm operation, a free source of clean energy, and a benefit to your community, I invite you to come to the Glacier Hills Project and witness the total devastation occuring during construction.
Seeing firsthand what is happening here would turn any responsible landowner's stomach.
Heavy rains have created erosion that will take years to repair.
The number of huge construction equipment and trucks burning fuel is staggering.
Good productive farmland is being ripped apart, and will never be the same.
The level of disgust is even affecting the most loyal supporters of this project.
Hatred of this project is growing worse as each day passes, and we will be forced to live with this for the rest of our lives, all because a few irresponsible landowners, myself included, were taken in by wind developers lies.
All this for chump change.
I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Gary Steinich
Cambria, WI
SECOND FEATURE
TESTIMONY
Comments submitted by Wisconsin resident, Joe Yunk, to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, July 2010
My name is Joe Yunk; I currently reside at the address of N2630 Townhall Rd in Kewaunee County.
My prior address was North 7905 County Trunk P, Algoma, Wisconsin which was in the Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) wind farm by Rio Creek, Wisconsin. I moved from the Algoma address to my current address on or about October 2009 to get away from the effects of the WPS wind farm.
I have been following the current proposed Element Power LLC (EEP) wind farm development that I now find myself living in.
I want you to know what I went through while living in the WPS wind farm. I am hopeful that this information will help you make the right decisions with regard to any PSCW approvals for any other wind farms in Wisconsin.
I would hate to see other peoples’ lives to be as negatively affected as mine has been as a result of living in a wind farm. There is no doubt in my mind that I will relive the awful experience once again if the EEP wind farm for Kewaunee County is approved.
In 1998 the WPS wind farm construction began about 300 yards from my home. I had built this home in 1980 on 6.5 acres of land which was our home farm that I lived on all my life. I was born on November 28, 1954. I had two turbines within one-half mile, one of those turbines was about 1,300 ft from my house and 600 ft from my property line.
In the summer of 2000, the turbines of the WPS wind farm began operation. Inasmuch as I had lived on this farm all my life, I knew the neighbors well, and it wasn’t long after the turbines began operating our lives began to change.
In conversations with my neighbors, I learned, they too were experiencing constant disturbing noise, shadow flicker and just the constant presence of the turbines. By presence I felt uneasy and irritated by the size and closeness of these 220 ft. turbines.
All the people living in this wind farm were guinea pigs/lab rats, no one knew what we were in for. It was in the fall of 2000 when neighbors and families began to divide over the effects of the wind farm. And that continued throughout the time I lived there.
When the turbines began to operate, a hotline was established directly to WPS to report any problems.
I had beef cattle for about two years prior to the turbines operating and never lost any animals. However, shortly after the turbines began to operate, I had beef cattle become ill and die. I reported this on the WPS hotline and nothing was done. I lost ten animals valued at $5,000 [each] over a two year period and couldn’t afford to continue.
Because of noise complaints to WPS, within a year, two families’ homes were purchased by WPS and demolished.
Additionally, at the same time WPS was settling nuisance suits with other neighbors. They were offering to buy out my neighbors but offered prices way below market value to stop the complaints.
However, they never offered me any buyout opportunity and I wanted out! It was hard for me to leave my home place of 54 years. Over time, however, living with the constant sleep deprivation and irritation of the noise and flickering I decided to sue WPS to have them pay me fair market value for my home so I could afford to move.
I knew that I might be risking everything I had worked for all my life, but I didn’t care at this point. I didn’t even try to sell my place outright because I didn’t want anyone else to have to live as I did in this wind farm. I really wanted WPS to buy me out and to demolish the home.
I retained an attorney and filed suit with WPS. Shortly after, WPS offered me $110,000 on my property that appraised for $168,000. I decided not to take their offer, but proceed with the suit.
I gave deposition in the summer of 2008, we were scheduled to go trail in September 2009 and WPS offered me a settlement in August of 2009 for $163,000. With this settlement I was responsible for my attorney fees. My attorney advised me to accept this offer. After paying my attorney fees, I ended up with $158,000.
Later, my home and property were listed with a real estate agency for sale by WPS for 30% below the appraised value.
From my experience in living in this wind farm, it is apparent that setback away from property lines is absolutely necessary. I could hear the turbines a mile away from my house. The PSCW’s standard setback from a property line should be 1.5 miles.
Now, my new home and property on Townhall road is within the confines of the EPP proposed wind farm. I`d like to know what you recommend I do now?
WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS:
Annie Hart Cool of Falmouth said a turbine was erected within 1,500-feet of her home and has disrupted her husband’s sleep so severely he’d forced to sleep in the basement. He is an air-traffic controller, she added, and can’t afford to lose sleep. And the turbine is absolutely adversely impacting property values, she said.
“Wind turbines are like living next to a train or a dump,” Cool said. “These are realities, I’m a real person and this is really happening to me.”
SOURCE: State House News Service, www.wickedlocal.com
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Columbia County, Fond du Lac County, Invenergy, Kewaunee County, Life in a wind farm, Noise, We Energies, Wind developers behaving badly, Wind farm construction, Wind rules PSC, Wisconsin public service commission, Wisconsin wind farm, element energy, health effects, property values, wind developer, wind farm accidents, wind farm contract, wind farm health effects, wind farm lawsuit, wind farm noise, wind farm noise, wind farm ordinances, wind farm property value, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm sleep deprivation, wind farm wildlife, wind siting rules legislation and policy, wisconsin wind farm complaints, wisconsn wind siting council
|
Comments Off
7/24/10 Double Feature: WRITING THE WIND RULES: The World Health Organization says one thing, McFadden says another: Which recommendation carries more weight? AND Is something is rotten in Denmark?
In this short clip, Dr. Jevon McFadden pushes for a noise level that may be more beneficial to wind developers than residents of rural Wisconsin.
If the World Health Organization says nighttime noise levels should be 40 decibels or less why is he recommending a louder noise limit?
Does he know something they don't?
Unfortunately for residents of rural Wisconsin, no one is asking the question.
NOTE: TO VIEW HIGH QUALITY VIDEO OF THE COMPLETE WISCONSIN WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETINGS, VISIT THE GREAT WISCONSIN EYE WEBSITE BY CLICKING HERE
SECOND FEATURENEIGHBORS ON THE BARRICADES AGAINST
WIND TURBINES IN DENMARK
SOURCE: Jyllandsposten: http://jp.dk/indland/article2131636.ece
July 24, 2010
By Peter Skeel Hjorth
The postcard image of Denmark in harmony with wind turbines has shattered.
Protests from more and more Danish neighbours of wind turbines on land have stopped wind power projects and made local politicians reluctant to approve licences. This is evident from a front page article in yesterday’s edition of Jyllandsposten which is one of the country’s biggest national newspapers.
Denmark has up till now systematically been highlighted as the good example where the population live in harmony with more than 5000 wind turbines that produce 20 per cent of the country’s electricity. The postcard image of Denmark with Vestas and Siemens as the main producers of wind turbines has shattered.
Several places around the country see acrimonious conflicts between the authorities and neighbours of wind turbines, writes Jyllandsposten.
The case about a national test centre is not the only example of growing resistance. With a broad majority behind it in the Danish parliament the government will build a test centre for seven 250 meter high sea wind turbines in Northern Jutland and clear 5 square kilometres of forest area to create the right wind conditions. For more information click here www.nationalttestcenter.dk.
One of the strongest critics of Danish wind power, the well-known journalist and columnist Claes Kastholm Hansen, calls it a democratic scandal.
“People are thoroughly fed up having their property devalued and their sleep disturbed by big wind turbines 130 and up to 200 meters high” , says the chairperson of a new Danish national association to Jyllandsposten.
The association was started about a year ago. 40 Danish protest groups have already joined, and more are on their way. Several places protests have put a stop to the erection of wind turbines or made the council exercise restraint, writes the newspaper. On Sealand the Swedish energy giant Vattenfal has been forced to abandon the erection of three huge wind turbines. A narrow majority in the local council voted no to two of them after severe pressure from protesting neighbours.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Jevon McFadden, Wisconsin wind farm, Wisconsin wind power, wind farm complaints, wind farm noise, wind farm ordinances, wind farm shadow flciker, wind farm wildlife, wind siting council wisconsin, writing the wind rules
|
Comments Off
7/20/10 TRIPLE FEATURE: Madison, we have a problem: Epidemiologist says ample evidence of turbine related health effects. AND Wisconsin Health Department denies request to do study of local wind project residents AND What's so different about wind turbine noise?
Executive Summary
A summary of the main conclusions of my expert opinion, based on my knowledge of epidemiology and scientific methods, and my reading of the available studies and reports, is as follows:
• There is ample scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbines cause serious health problems for some people living nearby. Some of the most compelling evidence in support of this has been somewhat overlooked in previous analyses, including that the existing evidence fits what is known as the case-crossover study design, one of the most useful studies in epidemiology, and the revealed preference (observed behavior) data of people leaving their homes, etc., which provides objective measures of what would otherwise be subjective phenomena. In general, this is an exposure-disease combination where causation can be inferred from a smaller number of less formal observations than is possible for cases such as chemical exposure and cancer risk.
• The reported health effects, including insomnia, loss of concentration, anxiety, and general psychological distress are as real as physical ailments, and are part of accepted modern definitions of individual and public health. While such ailments are sometimes more difficult to study, they probably account for more of the total burden of morbidity in Western countries than do strictly physical diseases. It is true that there is no bright line between these diseases and less intense similar problems that would not usually be called a disease, this is a case for taking the less intense versions of the problems more seriously in making policy decisions, not to ignore the serious diseases.
• Existing evidence is not sufficient to make several important quantifications, including what portion of the population is susceptible to the health effects from particular exposures, how much total health impact wind turbines have, and the magnitude of exposure needed to cause substantial risk of important health effects. However, these are questions that could be answered if some resources were devoted to finding the answer. It is not necessary to proceed with siting so that more data can accumulate, since there is enough data now if it were gathered and analyzed.
• The reports that claim that there is no evidence of health effects are based on a very simplistic understanding of epidemiology and self-serving definitions of what does not count as evidence. Though those reports probably seem convincing prima facie, they do not represent proper scientific reasoning, and in some cases the conclusions of those reports do not even match their own analysis.
Important editor's note: The last page of Dr. Phillips document, which contained references to his work, was omitted. He has provided us with the missing information as follows:
Roberts M, Roberts J. Evaluation of the scientific literature on the health effects associated with wind turbines and low frequency sound. Exponent Inc. Prepared for Wisconsin Public Service Commission Docket No. 6630-CE-302 (the identity of the actual client for whom this was prepared is not disclosed in the document). October 2009.
Waye K. Effects of low-frequency noise on sleep. Noise and Health 6(23):87-91, 2004.
Dr. Phillips will post any other errata at this link as the need arises.
Download File(s):
phillips WI filed expert report.pdf (206.07 kB)
Second Feature:
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AGAIN SAYS NO TO REQUEST FOR LOCAL STUDY OF HEALTH IMPACTS OF LARGE WIND TURBINES.
State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services
DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH
dhs.wisconsin.gov
Iuly 14,2010
Dear Mr. Marion:
Thank you for your July 12,letter to Secretary Karen E. Timberlake regarding the possible health effects of wind turbine noise.
Secretary Timberlake has asked me to respond to you on her behalf, and I welcome the opportunity to do so.
In your letter of May l3,you asked for confirmation of the Division of Public Health's views regarding the health effects of wind turbine noise.
You shared additional information with us, and requested that the Division of Public Health (DPH) conduct a formal epidemiological study of the health effects of wind turbine noise in Wisconsin.
The presentation 'Wind Turbines, a Brief Health Overview" by Dr. Jevon McFadden to the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council on May 17,2010, was not a statement about the position of the Wisconsin Division of Public Health.
DPH recognizes that wind turbines create certain exposures; audible sound, low-frequency sound, infrasound and vibration, and shadow flicker.
Certain ranges of intensity or frequency of audible sound, low frequency sound, vibration, and flicker have been associated with some objectively-verifiable human health conditions.
Our review of the scientific literature indicates, exposure levels measured from eontemporary wind turbines at current setback distances do not reach those associated with objective physical conditions, such as hearing loss, high blood pressure, or flicker-induced epilepsy.
Your letter also cites information that many symptoms are reported by some who live near wind turbines. This information is difficult to interpret for a few reasons.
First, symptoms such as sleep disturbance and headache are common, and caused by a wide variety of conditions.
For example, sleep disturbance is a common problem in the general population, and may also be a sign of an underlying medical disorder.
The same is true for symptoms like nausea, headache, problems with equilibrium, and others mentioned in your letter.
Neither individuals, nor investigators should assume that they originate from exposure to wind turbines.
Persistent symptoms, or those that interfere with daily functions, should be evaluated by a medical professional.
Second, as your letter describes, some people experience annoyance at wind turbines, and annoyance has been associated with some of the symptoms you cite.
Unfortunately, we cannot know which may be responsible for the other.
Annoyance is a psychological reaction with a wide range of individual variability and is influenced by multiple personal and situational factors.
Annoyance, per se, is not considered a physical or mental health disorder, but it may influence perception or interpretation.of health-related complaints (or introduce "bias," in scientific terminology).
This makes it very difficult to objectively assess whether or not reported symptoms are indicative of actual physical conditions caused by exposures from wind turbines.
DPH staff previously reviewed the five reports you referenced in your letter.
They also reviewed over 150 reports from the scientifiennd medical literature (published and unpublished) pertinent to the issue of wind turbines and health.
DPH has also taken time to listen to, and respond to concerns voiced by local residents, municipalities, and local health department officials from across the State of Wisconsin.
We have discussed this issue with colleagues at UW School of Medicine and Public Health, the Minnesota and Maine state health departments, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
From this, we conclude that current scientific evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that contemporary wind turbines cause adverse health outcomes to those living nearby.
This is different from saying that future evidence about harms may not emerge, or that wind turbines will not change over time, or that annoyance and other quality-of-life considerations are irrelevant.
DPH does not endorse a specific setback distance or noise threshold level relating to wind turbines.
Nevertheless, in keeping with standard public health practice, DPH favors a conservative approach to setbacks and noise limits that provides adequate protections to those who live or work near wind turbines.
These will help minimize local impacts on quality of life and serve as a buffer against possible unrecognized health effects.
Current draft siting rules limit noise exposures from wind turbines to very modest levels, and we anticipate that the final siting rules will, at the very least, be equally protective.
For this reason, we do not believe there is a compelling reason to perform an epidemiologic investigation in
Wisconsin.
To the extent that gaps remain in current science, DPH favors continued investigations to help advance knowledge and guide future policy development.
The value of these studies will depend on the degree to which subjective corpplaints can be compared with
objective clinical and environmental measurements.
However, complex clinical studies requiring coordination of acoustical engineering efforts with clinical assessments are outside the scope of standard public health investigations.
As additional scientific evidence becomes available, DPH will continue to appraise its relative strength, credibility, and applicability to the issue of wind turbine development in Wisconsin.
As is the case with any major deve[opment undertaking in the State of Wisconsin, it is important that we continue to look for ways to maximize positive impacts and minimize negative impacts to residents.
To the extent that these impacts fall into the public health realm, DPH will continue to seek data and information to guide public policy on this matter.
Sincerely,
Seth Foldy
State Health
Wisconsin Department of Health Services
Division of Public Health
THIRD FEATURE
Different sound sources vary in their sound level, frequency content and temporal character. These differences are most easily described by example. First, there are steady state noise sources. A good example would be an active highway. The sound level at a listener location away from the highway may vary somewhat from moment to moment, but by small amounts. But by and large human observers perceive highway sound as near constant in amplitude.
Second, there are transient sources. These are sources present only for brief periods of time. Good examples are passing trains or aircraft. These sources rise gradually in amplitude as they approach the listener and then decay as they depart.
A third class of sound source is the impulsive one. These sources can be repetitive or random in nature. Repetitive impulse sources would be jackhammers and pile drivers. The basic difference between the two examples is the rate at which the impulses occur. A random impulsive source would be the operations in a machine shop where hammering or metal fabrication takes place. In all of these examples any one impulse lasts for only a very small fraction of a second, and the onset and offset of the impulse is very rapid.
Finally, we come to the wind turbine source. Unlike any of the previous sources described, it is neither steady state in the classic sense, nor is it transient, nor is it impulsive. Instead, it produces a distinctive broadband "swoosh-boom" sound4 with each passing blade of the turbine. Each whoosh effectively modulates the sound level, with a more gradual onset than an impulsive sound, and a less gradual one than the transient sources I mentioned. For the typical three-bladed turbine in the 1-megawatt output range the blade passage rate is nominally one per second. One can sound out the observed sound in the typical second-counting style... "whoosh" one thousand, "whoosh" two thousand, "whoosh" three thousand, and so on. So long as the wind is blowing at sufficient speed to drive the turbine the sound will be generate for lengthy periods of time without interruption.
The hours of operation of wind turbines are not dictated by diurnal patterns of human activity like many other anthropogenic sources. They are able to operate when wind conditions are favorable, day or night. This means they may become a factor during both waking and sleeping hours.
The repetitive sound character is unique and unlike any other source found in residential communities. As such it is easily identifiable. It does not blend in to other background sources that are continuous in nature.
Wind turbine noise is most prevalent in rural areas. By their very nature, large-scale wind turbine installations require vast areas of open land. Hence, any potential sound masking effect from urban and suburban sources is unlikely to be present. This means that their sound will be audible at lower levels in the rural environment. It further means that rural noise standards should be applied to these installations as opposed to suburban or urban ones where nighttime sound levels, for example, can be 15 to 20 decibels higher.
Download File(s):
HorojeffReportFinal.pdf (275.71 kB)
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wisconsin wind farm, wind farm complaints, wind farm noise, wind farm property values, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm wildlife, wind health effects
|
Comments Off
7/19/10 Sow the wind, reap dead bats AND The sport of pitting neighbor against neighbor: Wind developers won't hesitate to tear communities apart AND an interview with a wind project resident who had to leave her home once the wind turbines went on line
Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Wind turbine related bat kills are ten times higher in Wisconsin than anywhere in the nation except Pennsylvania. There is serious concern about the survival of bat populations near Wisconsin wind projects.
WIND TURBINES AND DISEASE CUTTING BAT TOTALS
SOURCE: The Times Leader, www.timesleader.com
July 19 2010
By Matt Hughes,
WILKES-BARRE — Sue Gallagher of the Carbon County Environmental Center has presented her educational program on bats so many times she could probably do it hanging upside down in the dark.
She ran through much of that program Thursday at Wilkes-Barre’s River Common, going over myths and misconceptions about nature’s only flying mammals. To summarize: Bats aren’t blind, they aren’t flying mice, they won’t get stuck in your hair and, unless you’re vacationing on a South American cattle ranch, they won’t suck your blood either.
A little more than a year ago, things changed, and Gallagher’s message about bats changed with it.
Bats in Pennsylvania are dying, Gallagher said, in such extreme numbers that future generations of Pennsylvanians may never see them in the wild.
“You guys aren’t going to grow up seeing bats the way we grew up seeing bats,” Gallagher told the approximately 10 children who gathered with their parents for the program, which was sponsored by rivercommon.org.
There are two culprits in the disappearance of the state’s bats, Gallagher said.
Hibernating bats, the sort that live in caves, have been affected by white nose syndrome, a fungus-based illness that causes bats to awaken from hibernation early. The bats, which live on a diet of insects, then die of starvation.
The illness, which spread south from New York State last year, kills 85 to 100 percent of bat populations it infiltrates.
Other bats, especially the migratory variety, are being killed by an unlikely source: wind turbines. Bats are attracted to the turbines during mating season, Gallagher said, when they will fly to the highest point above ground. They are then either killed by the large fan blades or by low pressure systems that form near the tips of the blades that cause the bats’ lungs to explode.
A single turbine can kill 50 to 100 bats a year, Gallagher said, adding that it is too early to judge the effect of wind energy on bats because Pennsylvania does not track bat population size.
“We want to get behind wind energy; we want to say wind energy is green, but we’ve got to address its impact on bats,” Gallagher said.
“I feel bad, because I really like bats, and I don’t want them to die,” Bethany Kelsey, 7, of Wilkes-Barre, said after the program.
“I didn’t know that they were dying, which makes me very sad,” Kelsey’s mother, Angel Kelsey, added. “I grew up in the woods watching the bats.”
The bat program was the first in a series of free children’s nature education programs being held at the River Common. The next, a live mammals program, will take place July 23.
Wind farm sows discord among friends
URBANA, Ohio - One need not drive too far into Champaign County to recognize that 2010 will be a bumper year for corn and soybeans. As for harvesting the wind, the jury is still out.
Last week, the Ohio Power Siting Board essentially reaffirmed its decision to allow 53 wind turbines to be erected near here, despite the persistent objections of residents who are not convinced that the turbines - some of them approaching the height of the Washington Monument - will do any more than set longtime county residents at one another's throats.
"One woman told me she couldn't go to church anymore because she couldn't stand to look at one of the people who has sold out" by leasing land for the turbines, Julia Johnson, one of those longtime residents, said last week.
These once were Champaign County farmers who shared a tremendous kinship as stewards of the land. If one were injured or fell ill, his friends would bring in his crops. They attended Grange meetings and social gatherings together. Their children signed up for 4-H and the Future Farmers of America.
The atmosphere has become so acrimonious that merchants who must sell to all community members have avoided any signs at their businesses suggesting favoritism to either side of the issue.
"There are certainly some people I will never trust again, and any friendship we might have had in the past is now gone," said Diane McConnell, who, with her husband, Robert, owns farmland. "We will have five turbines right out the north window 700 feet from our property line."
Those who want the windmills say they produce electricity without pollution, fit in with farming because crops can be planted around them and cattle can graze underneath, and will bring jobs to the county. But neither the McConnells nor Johnson believe that the quality of life in the Urbana area will be enhanced.
"Eighty percent of the revenue for those turbines will go overseas and will not benefit our economy at all," Johnson said. EverPower Wind Holdings, the company developing the wind farm, is owned by Terra Firma, a British private-equity firm.
"It is not about energy. It is about money," Johnson said.
The McConnells and Johnson also worry about safety. People living near wind turbines in other places have complained about headaches, sleeplessness and anxiety from the humming.
Could it be that in some now-forgotten, long-ago debate, some energy whiz proposed going after crude oil not only with land-based drilling but by employing offshore oil platforms as well? Surely, the question of safety arose.
If offshore oil drilling were scrutinized no more carefully than wind turbines have been, it was only going to be a matter of time before something happened.
It might be time for a good, ol' Bible-thumping homily preached in a rural Champaign County church from Hosea 8:7: "They have planted the wind and will harvest the whirlwind. The stalks of grain wither and produce nothing to eat. And even if there is grain, foreigners will eat it."
Retired columnist Mike Harden writes Wednesday and Sunday Metro columns.
SECOND FEATURE:
Click on the image below to find out why a family in a wind project left their home once the wind turbines went on line
In this interview by Save Our Skyline Renfrew County (sosrenfrewcounty.wordpress.com), Helen Fraser talks about health issues she suffered after the Melancthon wind energy facility near Shelburne, Ontario, began operation in the spring of 2006.
Her home, where she had lived for more than 30 years, ended up in the middle of the facility.
Her fibromyalgia seriously deteriorated shortly after the wind turbines were active, yet improved just as drastically every time she was outside the vicinity of the facility.
Mrs. Fraser also notes that they no longer saw the abundance of wildlife that they had before. There were 12 turbines visible on three sides of her home, the closest only 423 meters away. Eight of the turbines had an obvious direct impact on the home, with noise or shadow flicker.
“I could tell if the turbines were running if I had a headache,” she says. When the towers were erected, she began having severe head and body aches, ringing in her ears, digestive issues, and chronic fatigue, which led to a whole host of other issues, including depression and not being able to concentrate.
“And they all cleared up after 24 hours [of being away from home], and when we’d come back the symptoms would be there 24 hours later.”
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin wind farm, wind developer lies, wind farm complaints, wind farm contract, wind farm headaches, wind farm noise, wind farm ringing in ears, wind farm shadow flicker, wind turbine noise, wisconsin wind farm property values, wisconsin wind farms
|
Comments Off
July 11-17: What's on the docket? No need to read between the lines: A handwritten letter from a Wisconsin wind farm resident to the PSC--- AND--- A wind developer by any other name would smell as....Florida Power & Light tells PSC what should be in the Wisconsin wind siting guidelines AND much much more!
Note from the BPWI Research Nerd:
The PSC heard from people all over the state during the three days of hearings about the draft wind siting rules. Here is one from a resident of We Energies Blue Sky Green Field Project in Fond du Lac County.
Andy Hesselbach, who is in charge of developing wind projects for We Energies is one of the wind siting council members with a direct financial interest in creating rules that will allow We Energies to continue to site turbines with the same setbacks and noise limits that have caused problems detailed in the letter below.
Questions have been raised regarding similar conflicts of interest for the majority of the Wind Siting Council members.
CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT WHO IS ON THE WIND SITING COUNCIL
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE LETTER BELOW
Click on the image below to watch a video at a link submitted to the PSC. Interview with a Blue Sky/Green Field resident
HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?
The PSC took public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules until the July 7th, 2010 deadline.
The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes, 500 feet from property lines.
CLICK HERE to go to the PSC website, then type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted.
CLICK ON THE ITEMS BELOW TO DOWNLOAD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS POSTED ON THE DOCKET:
Click here to download testimony submitted to the PSC by Kevin Kawula regarding wind turbines effect on weather radar, birds and bats, CO2 emissons, and more. The PDF includes photos and graphs.
THIS FROM THE MADISON AUDUBON SOCIETY:
Madison Audubon Society is very disappointed in the draft wind siting rules.
The sole reason we changed our position last year to one of support for SB 185 was because there would be provisions for taking important bird and bat resources into account when siting turbines.
These provisions included mapping areas in the state where wind turbines could have an adverse effect on bird and bat populations and a review of DNR`s statutory authority to adequately protect wildlife and the environment from any adverse effect from the siting, construction, or operation of wind energy systems.
Neither provision is cited in the draft rule other than one reference to "current DNR guidelines" that is buried on page 30.
Whether these two provisions are statutorily required or not, the maps and guidelines are essential for developers, landowners, and municipalities ("political subdivisions" in PSC-speak), to know about as early in the process as possible.Not only would this help prevent undue harm to important wildlife resources, but it would help all parties involved avoid potential controversy and very-costly delays or denials of projects.
It would be far better to know as much as possible upfront, before the process even begins, about where key migratory bird routes, bat hibernacula, and other important bird and wildlife areas are located. DNR (p. 6) should be notified at least as soon as, if not earlier, than landowners, to help developers avoid problems.
While wind developers should be consulting with DNR as early in the process as possible, prominently including mention of the maps and guidance in the rule would alert municipalities about the existence of the maps and guidance and to ask companies if they have taken those into consideration. These two critical sources of information need to be hot-linked to the appropriate documents on the web.FROM THE TOWN OF MORRISON:
My name is Timothy J. Harmann and I testified at the 1:00PM meeting on June 28, 2010
in Fond Du Lac in regards to the Wind Siting Rulemaking docket 1-AC-231.I submit a CD with 5 videos of people that I personally interviewed on May 22, 2010 near Fond Du Lac, WI that were negatively impacted by Industrial Wind Projects but the CD wasn’t able to be accepted in the presented format.
After the hearing I was approached by the judge and was told that I could submit a link to the videos on the PSC ERF system.
Here is the online location of the videos that I presented during my testimony (I had to
split them into 5 separate videos because of the youtube limitations):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIbzYXSM0zs&layer_token=30fd99341a3167cc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzh106w1lRA&layer_token=5422aca72bfde2c2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PvPXU0io_A&layer_token=3affccee951c2680
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34oOPKNJv-E&layer_token=11e52b0a21d359d3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Ro4tZd-B0
These 5 videos are also available at this address (labeled Interview1 – Interview5):
http://www.bccrwe.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60&Itemid=87They are under this heading: “Interviews with residents of a Wisconsin Wind Farm”
Thank you for your time in this very important matter.
Timothy J. Harmann
Town of Morrison
Brown County
WisconsinClick on the image below to watch a video at a link submitted to the PSC. Interview with a Blue Sky/Green Field resident
________
This from Poynette, Wisconsin:
As a resident who will be living in the middle of the proposed Arlington area wind farm I would like to say this: Large scale industrial wind sites should be zoned as industrial use.
People in close proximity should be compensated under Wisconsin takings law, for the loss of value and degradation of their property. People and/or dwellings should be relocated.
These are industrial scale energy production zones. They are not compatible with human occupancy. These giant multi-million dollar projects should have a concentration of wind towers, not the widely scattered array as proposed in Arlington.
The investors should own the land, pay the local property taxes. Please guarantee the maintenance and future dismantling costs with an adequate escrow account, so that local governments are not saddled with run-down wind farms after their useful life and competitive cost/usefulness has expired.
The energy industry (coal, nuclear, oil, gas etc.) has surely demonstrated the usefulness of government regulation, control, and protection of American taxpayers. The legal strength and lobbying power of the energy industry and its ability to manipulate contracts, politicians and events in its own interest have been demonstrated in the Appalachians, the Rocky Mountains, and on our west coast and in the gulf.
This industry acts in its own interests without regard to American public lands, water and air. As an example, they have installed 30,000 miles of pipeline in the gulf seafloor. Many geologists and other scientists say this may not be prudent.
So, we citizens rely on our elected representatives, our Wisconsin and national lawmakers to apply the necessary counterweight to proposals like industrial wind production siting.
At our town hall meetings in Arlington it was obvious the industry had successfully managed to divide the community.
Absentee landowners, and large scale farms will benefit with tax breaks and secret contracts with the energy industry.
Why have my neighbors signed contracts with a wind investor that they are not allowed to discuss? Why the muzzling?A process that has been conceived in secrecy?
Decision makers on local town boards should not be in the position to personally benefit from a secret contract, a contract that will pad their pockets but one that has the potential to erode local property values and harm their neighbors.
If the property values go down, the tax rolls go down, and soon the deferred maintenance lists for our schools and town roads becomes longer and longer. Will the international investors know or care?
Lastly, I have heard personal testimony from people living in close proximity to wind turbines who say their health and well-being, or their livestock, and their property values, have been severely negatively impacted.
If the PSC does not get this right, there will probably be class action lawsuits, similar to the ones that followed the construction of the Columbia power plant near Portage.
I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Shane VondraClick on the image below to watch a video at a link submitted to the PSC. Interview with a Wisconsin wind project resident.
FROM MANITOWOC COUNTY:
From Dean Anhalt
Supervisor
Town of Mishicot
Manitowoc County
I have been looking at wind turbine issues for 6 years. Please consider my comments.
We need to do epidemiological studies to find out what is negatively affecting people and animals in current Wisconsin wind farms before any new wind turbines are erected.
Setbacks need to be from property lines, not residences. Turbines should not be casting any unsafe zones over neighboring non-participating properties.
Wind rights need to be protected. Turbines should not be using winds over neighboring non participating lands. When others use winds over neighboring properties they gain control over the property through wind access rights and can control what is done on the neighboring non-participating property. This is a taking of property rights.
Setbacks to roadways need to be large enough that debris from a turbine malfunction will not land on roads. Past wind turbine accidents and mathematical calculations show a 1.1 times the turbine height setback to a road may not be adequate.
Electrical pollution from wind turbines cannot affect our farms.
Allowable noise levels should be set at an amount over ambient background noise. Ambient noise levels are quite low at night in rural areas. People need to be protected from offensive audible and low frequency noise.
Shadow flicker should not fall on neighboring non-participating lands.
Proper funds need to be set aside by wind farm owners to cover all costs of decommissioning. Local municipalities or land owners must not be stuck with removal costs at decommissioning time.
Towns need the ability to recover all costs to repair road damage during the building, operation ,and decommissioning of a wind farm.
Developers should have to give notice to counties of their intent to solicit lands to build a wind farm on before any landowners are contacted. These projects affect all people in their area. There is still too much happening behind the scenes and in secrecy. Local municipalities and all people should be made aware of projects in the very beginning.
In my area we have nuclear plants. I believe it is one of the best places for future nuclear power projects and expansions. Will a proposed wind farm in our area fill the local electrical grid not allowing room for future nuclear expansion without expensive grid updates? If so is this in the best interest of consumers looking for economical base load power.
Sincerely,
Dean AnhaltFROM BROWN COUNTY:
July 7, 2010
Sandra Paske
Secretary to the Commission
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
P.O. Box 7854
Madison, WI 53707
Via: ERF
RE: Docket No. 1-AC-231 Wind Siting RulesDear Ms. Paske:
I am filing these written comments as a supplement to the comments I made at the public hearing in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin that was held June 28, 2010.
I am a resident of Brown County and have been approached to lease property for the construction of wind turbines, which has caused me to look into the effects of wind turbines on people and property.
With regard to the rules of the siting of wind turbines, I have three principle areas of concern:
• Health and Safety of people who live and work near wind turbines
• Property values in the area of wind factories
• Placing wind turbine factories in areas with sensitive geological featuresI. Health and Safety
With regard to health and safety of the people who would live or work within the area of a wind turbine factory, I would first bring to your attention the recommendation of the Brown County Board of Health.
A copy of that recommendation is attached.
I would refer the Public Service Commission to the following reports which were made a part of the record during my comments at the Fond du Lac hearing:
1. World Health Organization “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe”
2. World Health Organization Final Implementation Report for Night Noise Guidelines
3. Report compiled by Dr. Keith Stelling – October, 2009
4. Health Survey Report for the Ontario, Canada Government
5. Dr. Nina Pierpont – March, 2006
6. Vestas Wind Systems of Denmark – Mechanical Operating and Maintenance ManualBased on the above scientific expert analysis of wind turbine factory noise outputs, I would ask the PSC. to impose setbacks of at least one mile from an adjoining property owner’s property line and to set anaudible noise level of 30 dB at an occupied structure.
II. Property Values
Regarding property values, Appraisal Group One of Oshkosh, Wisconsin studied the sales of property within two wind factories in Wisconsin: Blue Sky Green Field in Fond du Lac County and Forward in Fond du Lac and Dodge County. The Report included a literature review, an opinion Survey and a Sales Study The conclusions from the Sales Study were that “the impact of wind turbines decreased the land values from -12% to -47% with the average being -30%.”
The Wind Energy companies normally rely on a study from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to show no or little effect on property values. This Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study has been debunked in several articles. The statistical methodology used (Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis) by LBL is not appropriate for this type of study.
The authors failed to follow any of the well-developed and tested standards for performing regression analysis on property sales.
This is a significant problem because out of the 7,500 sales in the study, less than 10% had ANY view of turbines, and only 2.1% had a view rated greater than minor. That is 158 homes out of 7,500 nationwide.
Because of the dramatic effect that wind turbines have on adjoining property owners and their land value, the Public Service Commission should establish setback standards from property lines, not occupied structures. By establishing setbacks for wind turbines related to existing homes or other occupied structures, the Public Service Commission will be depriving property owners of the use of their property should the property owners wish to construct a residence or occupied structure within the setback area that encroaches upon adjoining property.
The State – or local government - may ultimately be financially responsible to adjoining landowners who have lost the right to the use and enjoyment of their property.
The legal doctrine of inverse condemnation is recognized in Wisconsin.
The case of Piper vs. Ekern 180 Wis. 586 (1923) recognizes that a State regulation meant for the public good, but which reduces property value, may be a “taking” even though no formal condemnation has been initiated.
In that case, the State was required to compensate the property owner who suffered economic harm as a result of the State regulation. (Related to the height of buildings near the State Capital). Also the case of Zimm vs. State 112 Wis. (2d) 417 (1983) stated that the State was responsible to the land owner for property lost when the DNR raised the water level of a lake and the property became accessible to the public.
In order to protect adjoining property owners and to preserve the rights of property owners to the use of their property, the Public Service Commission should establish setbacks for wind turbines of one mile from property lines.
III. Placing Wind Turbine Factories in Areas With Sensitive Geological FeaturesMy residence is located on the Niagra Escarpment. My water needs are supplied by a private well. Because of that, I am very concerned about the possible effects of ground water contamination from the construction of the foundations for Wind Turbines and the trenching for the necessary cabling to connect the turbines to the electrical grid.
The Niagra Escarpment is a unique geological feature in Northeast Wisconsin. The rock that forms the escarpment has many fractures and in certain areas the bedrock is exposed or very near the surface. The term for that condition is Karst fractures.
It is very important that the Public Service Commission not allow wind farms to be built along the Niagra Escarpment where Karst fractures exist to prevent contamination of the ground water supply in these particularly sensitive areas.
In conclusion, I would urge the State of Wisconsin to fully study the issues that have recently been coming to light. Europe has had wind turbines for decades and is only within the recent past begun to become aware of the negative side effects of wind turbines. There are many other issues that need to be addressed, including the effect of wind turbines on domesticated and wild animals, as well as interference
with communications and television and radio reception.Do not allow additional residents of Wisconsin to be guinea pigs to be studied after the fact. Let’s fully understand the consequences of locating Wind Turbine Factories in areas where people live and work before the wind turbines are installed.
If wind turbines are to be located in Wisconsin before we study and understand their effects, the setback should be one mile from adjoining property owners’ property line and an audible noise level of 30 dB at an occupied structure.
Very truly yours,
Carl W. KuehneFROM THE WISCONSIN TOWNS ASSOCIATION:
Wisconsin Towns Association
Richard J. Stadelman, Executive Director
W7686 County Road MMM
Shawano, Wis. 54166
Tel. (715) 526-3157
Fax (715) 524-3917
Email: wtowns1@frontiernet.net
To: Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
From: Richard J. Stadelman, Executive Director
Wisconsin Towns Association
Re: Comments on Wind Facility Siting Rules, Docket 1-AC-231
Date: July 7, 2010
On behalf of the board of directors and member towns and villages of Wisconsin Towns Association I submit the following comments on the draft proposed rule for Wind Energy System Siting Rules, Docket 1-AC-231.
Wisconsin Towns Association would ask that the Public Service Commission`s (PSC) final decision in developing and adopting rules as authorized under 2009 Wis. Act 40 should be governed by two overriding principles: (i) protection of public health and safety and (ii) protection of community interests, including protection of private property rights.In view of the fact that Act 40 provides that local governments may not place any restrictions on installation or use of wind energy systems that are more restrictive than these PSC rules, it is imperative that the rules ensure these two protections.
Many town officers and town residents have expressed concern that there is not sufficient reliable health studies of people living in or near existing wind energy systems.It is evident from some of the studies that do exist, certain individuals are more sensitive to the impacts of wind turbines, such as noise and shadow flicker effect.
Therefore, we respectfully ask the PSC to make your decisions on the side of caution in setting standards until more extensive health studies have been completed in our state and across the nation.
The following specific topics in the draft rule are of particular concern to our Association members:
1. Setbacks and noise standards should be sufficient to protect public health and safety of neighboring residents, particularly non-participating property owners.
a. Noise standards should have both a setback distance and a decibel limit. We would ask that decibel limits be not more than 35 dBA or 40 dBA from non-participating property lines.
b. These setbacks and noise standards should be applied from the property line of non-participating property owner. Applying setbacks and noise standards from the wind turbine to existing non-participating residential structures (as opposed to property line) is a taking of private property rights from these residents (i.e. the distance between their existing structure and their property line which could have been built on).
2. While Sec. 128.02 (2) of the draft rules provides that "Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the commission from giving individual consideration to exceptional or unusual situations and applying requirements to an individual wind energy system that may be lesser, greater, or different from those provided in this chapter," the draft rules as a whole do not give adequate recognition to local comprehensive plans of towns and counties. We believe recognition should be given to local comprehensive plans which allows flexibility in setting standards for certain conditions.
a. The question can be raised, "how would this subsection be applied by a local government in relation to unique natural, cultural archeological, scenic, or environmental resources as identified in local comprehensive plans?"
b. Would the town or county have to appeal to the PSC that in the case of such unique resources greater setback standards or other restrictions should be applied? Or would the local government merely adopt greater standards and then wait for an appeal by an applicant to determine if they are appropriate?
c. Recognition should be given to the local comprehensive plans for future conflicting development, such as residential development.
d. Recognition should be given to local comprehensive plans for future developments such as community buildings, parks, airports, etc.
3. The PSC rules should address the issue of "property value protection" for non-participating neighbors.
a. Act 40 has preempted local governments from setting restrictions in local regulations that would protect both community interests and neighboring properties by establishing maximum setbacks, noise standard, etc. Property values of neighboring properties (both adjoining and in the area) to wind turbines will be affected by the public perception of impacts from these facilities.
b. Without a fair and reasonable "property value protection" plan the permitting by local government (under the PSC rules and standards) of wind turbine facilities, local governments will be subject to possible inverse condemnation claims or "taking" of private property rights of these neighboring properties.
4. The PSC rules should include a "complaint resolution process" which is administered by the local government, including specific details as to subjects of complaints, timelines for resolution, and appeal rights.
a. Without a detailed process established in the rule, possible complaints will result in the threat of more actual civil litigation against the local government as the permitting agency.
b. The complaint resolution process should be funded by the wind turbine facility owner. The costs of administration of this process includes such things as the per diems of board members, consultation with experts in certain cases, etc. The costs of such a process should not be bore by the community as a whole.
5. The PSC rules should allow local governments to establish fees to cover actual and necessary costs of administration of the permit system, or in the alternative establish a fixed maximum dollar fee adequate to cover local government costs.
a. Wis. Statues §66.0628 currently provides that "any fee that is imposed by a political subdivision shall bear a reasonable relationship to the service for which the fee is imposed." This statutory standard should be used to allow local governments to recover the costs of administering wind turbine facility siting, just as in other permitting cases.
b. The fee structure proposed under Sec. 128.32 (5)(d) of the draft rules, based upon a percentage of estimated cost will be very difficult for local governments to apply. As an alternative to "actual and reasonable costs" we believe that a predetermined amount per turbine would be more appropriate and predictable for all parties.
c. Allowing local governments to recover adequate fees for the administration of the permitting of wind turbine facilities will allow the local officials to retain competent professional advisers, which will in the long run facilitate the siting of these facilities and reduce conflict during the process.
6. The PSC rules should provide clear and certain enforcement authority for local governments to ensure that siting and operation standards are being met by permitted facilities.
a. Local governments will be expected to ensure that the actual construction and operation of the wind turbine facilities are meeting the established standards of the local ordinances as restricted by the PSC rules.
b. Clear and certain enforcement authority, such as notice to facility operators, citation authority for non-compliance, and possible court injunctive relief should be spelled out in the PSC rules, so there can be no doubt that compliance of the standards is met. This type of enforcement is normal in any permitting or regulatory process and should be included in these rules.
7. The PSC rules should include decommissioning requirements backed by sufficient bonds.
a. Restoration of the site to conditions prior to initial construction of the wind turbine facility should be required under the rules.
b. Adequate financial security to ensure that these requirements are met should be authorized in the rules, to protect the local communities at the end of the useful life of wind turbines.
We thank the members of the wind siting council for their diligent work to date, and ask that the Public Service Commissioners and staff keep protection of public health and safety and protection of community interests as overriding goals in adopting these rules.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Richard J. StadelmanFROM FOND DU LAC COUNTY:
Two general comments:
1) The standards do not provide guidelines for siting wind towers in relation to lands or habitats with bird or bat species which are particularly susceptible to wind tower mortality or where exceptional abundance of these species is present, adjacent to public wildlife areas or parks, or locations in heavily used bird migratory routes;
2) the guidelines do not provide guidelines for siting wind energy systems to minimize visual impacts to rural landscapes or scenic areas such as the Niagara Escarpment, river bluffs and riverways. Standards should be developed to site projects in more concentrated design rather than spreading wind towers out over large landscape areas.
Guidelines should require minimizing landscape impact to maintain Wisconsin's rural character. Projects must be required to have sufficient setback from areas such as the Horicon Marsh, Mississippi River or Wisconsin River Riverway to not visually intrude on the wild nature of these areas.
Specific Comments:
Page 6, line 6-9: require to consult with DNR and incorporate in the design; wildlife concerns other than just threatened and endangered species including bats and birds shall be incorporated in project design.
Page 8, line10: Property owner should have at least 5 working days to rescind and executed wind lease
Page 10, Table 1: Setback distance from Occupied Community Buildings must be at least 2500 feet; setback distance from non-participating residences must be at least 2500 feet unless the owner waives that requirement in writing; setback distance from non-participating property lines shall be adequate to not restrict future use of the non-participating property owners land unless owner waives that requirement; setback from wetlands, lakes and waterways shall be sufficient to minimize visual, wildlife and property rights of non-participating owners of those lands and the waterways
Page 11, line 22: The siting guidelines must have setback requirements for private airports to minimize impacts to a non-participating landowner
Page 12, line 1-3: I disagree with this guideline. A wind energy developer should not be allowed to site a wind energy system that would restrict or prevent future land use in a political subdivision against the wishes of the local political subdivision.
Page 12, line 18-19: A wind energy system shall operate the wind energy system in a manner that does not exceed 50dBA daytime or 35dBA nighttime at any non-participating residence or occupied community building unless the owner of that residence or building waives that requirement.
Page 12, line 23: noise limit shall be 35dBA
Page 13, line 3: delete April 1 to September 30. Noise is likely to be a greater problem in cold weather and after leaf fall when sound travels further
Page 13, line 12: curtailment of a wind turbine during nighttime hours shall be used
Page 14, line 9: manner that prevents shadow flicker
Page 14, line 14: a non-participating residence shall experience no shadow flicker unless the owner waives that requirement
Page 14, line 16: delete mitigation requirement--line 14 should require no shadow flicker at non-participating
I generally agree with other standards in the proposed guidelines.
I am very concerned that the weighting of committee membership in favor of the wind energy industry will result in approval of standards that do not protect the non-participating landowner or the Wisconsin landscape.It is the responsibility of the Public Service Commission to protect all citizens and landowners, not just the financial interests of the wind energy developers.
The creation and strict application and enforcement of the siting standards is critically important to the character of the Wisconsin landscape.To meet the renewable energy standards established by the legislature an estimated 12,000 to 14,000 turbines will be required. This will desecrate the rural nature of our state, and will not meet but a small fraction of the energy needs of Wisconsin.
After we have destroyed the visual beauty and peacefulness of the Wisconsin landscape we will still be building coal-fired or nuclear powered electric generation facilities to meet our energy needs.
The emphasis should be placed on reduction of electrical use through efficiency and conservation. Taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize wind energy.
Let the true cost be known through rate increases that consumers will then be aware of the impact of their lifestyle. I don't believe for a second that wind energy is the solution to our future energy needs.
It is for certain that it will destroy the beauty of the Wisconsin landscape if the energy industry is allowed to run roughshod over the rights of those who don't have turbines on their property.
I am very aware of the pro-wind efforts to discredit those experiencing health effects, property value decline and other impacts of wind energy. It is your responsibility to objectively evaluate the information available and create standards that are protective to all persons rights.
I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
James and Cheryl Congdon
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Blue Sky Green Field, We Energies, Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin wind farm, wind farm complaints, wind farm contracts, wind farm setbacks, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm wildlife, wind siting, wind siting council
|
Comments Off