Grease and oil on Fond du Lac County turbine towers.

Home in a Fond du Lac County wind project: February 2010

Morrison residents reject wind farm in 245-18 vote

Vote asks Town Board to block proposal for 54 turbines

SOURCE: Greenbay Press-Gazette

By Tony Walter

March 9, 2010

MORRISON — Town residents voted decisively against wind turbines Monday night. 

Packing the gymnasium at Zion Lutheran School, residents and property owners campaigned against the effort of Chicago-based Invenergy LLC, whose project is in the hands of the Public Service Commission. In all, 20 people spoke, and only one supported the wind turbines. 

The Town Board meets at 7 p.m. today, but Chairman Todd Christensen said the wind turbine issue will not be on the agenda.

He said it will likely be addressed at the annual town meeting in April.

Jon Morehouse, a 20-year-resident of Morrison, proposed the four-part strategy that would:

Concerns about proposed Invenergy project drew capacity crowd to Thursday's BCCRWE meeting

Correction: Better Plan was in error when reporting that residents who spoke out against the Invenergy project proposed for Brown County found dead skunks and deer heads on their mailboxes.

The dead skunks and deer heads were found on the mail boxes of those who spoke out against an Invenergy project in Monroe County

Better Plan regrets the error.

 Concerns about proposed Invenergy wind project draws capacity crowd to meeting in Brown County

Better Plan, Wisconsin

By Lynda Barry

February 20, 2010

KAUKANA-  It was standing room only in Van Able's restaurant after residents quickly filled the five hundred seats in the banquet hall and overflowed into a side room.

Community members came to hear concerns about Chicago-based Invenergy's 100 turbine Ledge Wind project which would occupy the Towns of Morrison, Holland, Wrightstown and Glenmore, making it the largest wind development in the state.

The event was organized by a grassroots community organization called Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy (bccrwe.com) and drew a capacity crowd. 

Along with speakers who addressed the now well-known issues of turbine noise, sleep loss, shadow flicker, loss of property value and impacts on farm animals, local residents had the chance to hear about something rarely spoken about in public.

  Landowners detailed their first hand experiences with the questionable techniques used by Invenergy to convince them to sign onto the project.

They spoke about being lied to by developers who said their neighbors had signed onto the project when in fact they had not. They spoke about the varying amounts of money offered to different landowners even as Invenergy claimed publicly that all landowners were getting the same amount.

Some landowners talked about about what made them decide not to sign on to the project while others expressed deep regrets about having signed the contracts.

There were several discussions about what options landowners had for getting out of contracts and along with concerns about being sued by the wind company.

Speakers also talked about about the negative impact the proposal has had on the community and spoke about the new hostilities between neighbors and family members.

A speaker from Monroe county mentioned that in his community residents who spoke publicly against the project were soon greeted by dead skunks and deer heads on their mailboxes. Some felt the wounds made to this previously strong community would never heal.

Invenergy representatives were in attendance but did not openly identify themselves and remained quiet throughout the meeting.

More on this story to come.

SECOND FEATURE

Wind farm debate divides families

WBAY-TV, www.wbay.com

by Jeff Alexander

February 17  2010

Plans to build the state’s largest wind farm in southern Brown County is dividing several rural communities. It’s even causing turmoil within families.

For almost a year now, Roland Klug has lobbied his neighbors to join him in signing contracts with a Chicago company to build 400-foot wind turbines on their land in Morrison. As Roland sees it, it’s a sign of the times.

“Some people hate them. I love them. I think it’s progressive. It’s a country moving forward,” Roland said.

But just a mile away is another sign with a very different message put up by Roland’s son, Dave.

Like many families in this farming country, the Klugs are at odds with each other.

“It is very, very trying I will say right now,” Dave said.

As Dave sees it, the prospect of 100 turbines towering over the landscape is appalling. The fact that four could be as close as 1,000 feet from his home is scary, he says.

He points to research he says he’s done on other wind farm developments around the country and the impact on nearby residents.

“Every one we read about are having all kinds of health issues, property values drop, and to me I guess it just doesn’t seem like it’s a real good investment for our community,” Dave said.

But according to Roland, it’s an investment that will help him keep his farm. He’s signed on for two turbines that will pay him $20,000 a year.

Roland says he “had to sell off 48 acres to make a payment for a couple of years, and we’d have to just keep selling off.”

Roland knows he’s made some neighbors angry. “My son gets very mad.”

Dave said, “My son is 21 and was all set to buy some land right by me which would’ve been my dream, been great, but right now we had to put it all on hold. You cross your fingers, but he’s probably going to end up living somewhere else.”

Roland says, “I just know in time it’ll all straighten out, it always does.”

Dave Klug, though, isn’t so sure. Especially if the wind turbines go in.

There is a meeting scheduled for Thursday night called “Living in an Industrial Wind Turbine Project.”

It’s at Van Abel’s in the Town of Holland. Doors open at 6 P.M. and speakers begin at 7.

NEW!  CLICK HERE to watch a video about wind farm residents in Australia who describe sleep loss, health problems and other complaints identical to those reported by Wisconsin wind farm residents.

For those with slower internet connections CLICK HERE to read the transcript of the interview

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: People who live in Rock County may be interested in the wind company's response to resident's complaints. Spanish owned Acciona is the same company that now owns the leases to land in the Towns of Magnolia and Union. Better Plan, Wisconsin has contacted Acciona several times to ask about their plans for the community. Acciona has not replied.

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

 Industrial scale wind farms, such as the one being proposed in the Columbia County Towns of Randolph and Scott, are supposed to help to solve that problem by replacing our coal plants.

On the surface it seems pretty simple: just replace dirty coal with clean wind.

The problem is not a single coal fired plant has ever been taken off line in exchange for wind power. Not in the US, not anywhere in the world, including Denmark and Germany, two countries that use the most wind power in their energy mix, and yet continue to burn fossil fuels at an unchanged rate.  In fact, during Germany’s expanded use of more renewable energy, they've also built more coal plants.

 The elephant in the room is this: If coal fired plants are not taken off line in exchange for renewable energy, the current level of air pollution remains the same.

Which brings us to the state of Wisconsin, home to about 300 industrial scale wind turbines with hundreds more being proposed.

The question about what actual impact Wisconsin wind farms are having in terms of reducing current levels of air pollution in our state has never been fully addressed by state environmental organizations except in theory. Theoretically they should reduce GHG, but what are the facts?

 Clean Wisconsin decided to step up and ask the hard questions. Their conclusions are presented in the post-hearing brief filed with the Public Service Commission in response to the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm.

QUOTE:"This practice means that approval of Glacier Hills alone would have literally no impact on GHG reductions. On the contrary, WEPCO would have a financial incentive to generate as much electricity as possible from its coal-fired facilities."

 Though Clean Wisconsin supports the project for the economic benefits it may bring, they clearly point out that unless WEPCO retires a coal burning plant, the construction of the Glacier hills wind farm [and Invenergy's alternate proposed wind farm] will have no effect on reduction of green house gasses in our state.  And they clearly lay out the reasons why.

QUOTE: "One could therefore theoretically satisfy the RPS requirement of a specified percentage of electricity generation from renewable resources while undermining the global warming objectives of reducing GHGs emitted into the atmosphere. That is precisely what will happen here if the Commission does not restrain WEPCO’s electricity generation from coal-fired facilities."

QUOTE: "If the Commission allows WEPCO to continue construct [sic] Glacier Hills and operate all of its existing coal-fired capacity, WEPCO’s ratepayers will be paying over $525 million for a new facility that is not needed to satisfy demand and will not result in overall CO2 emission reductions."

QUOTE: “For these reasons approval and implementation of either of the wind power proposals will not achieve their intended effect of reducing GHGs and will result in significant excess capacity unless the Commission also requires WEPCO to reduce its coal-fired generating capacity."

 By their willingness to acknowledge and address the difficult questions head on, Clean Wisconsin proves themselves to be an organization truly committed to protecting Wisconsin's environment and finding real ways to reduce current levels of pollution in our state.

NOTE: There is no indication that WEPCO intends to shut down any of its coal fired plants in exchange for wind energy.

 The complete text of the brief is provided below. It can also be downloaded at the Public Service Commission’s website by clicking here and entering docket number 6630-CE-302

[Better Plan has put the more interesting parts of the brief below in bold type]

 BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN
Application for a Certificate of Public )
Convenience and Necessity to Construct )
and Place in Service a Wind Turbine Electric ) Docket No. 6630-CE-302
Generation Facility Known as the Glacier Hills )
Wind Park in Columbia County, Wisconsin )
______________________________________________________________________________
CLEAN WISCONSIN, INC.’S INITIAL POST-HEARING BRIEF
_____________________________________________________________________________ _
INTRODUCTION

Clean Wisconsin, Inc. (“Clean Wisconsin”) strongly supports the development of renewable energy resources in Wisconsin, including wind power.

Renewable energy resources are important components for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (“GHGs”), which are a significant contributor to global warming. In order to meet this principal objective of reducing GHG emissions, however, the added renewable energy facilities must actually displace the primary source of GHG emissions: coal-fired electric generating facilities.

Clean Wisconsin appreciates the efforts by the applicant, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (“WEPCO”), to develop the Glacier Hills proposal. Clean Wisconsin urges the Public Service Commission (“Commission”) to approve the Glacier Hills project or the Ledge Wind purchased power alternative proposed by Invenergy in this docket as economically beneficial alternatives to meeting statutory renewable fuel requirements.

However, the mere approval of a wind facility will not serve the legislative and societal goal of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) unless the Commission also requires a corresponding reduction of coal generating capacity.

The undisputed evidence in the record, neither challenged nor questioned by WEPCO or Commission staff, demonstrates the following:

1. The application is designed to satisfy the RPS standard, but it is not needed to meet demand in WEPCO’s service area. In fact, WEPCO will have excess capacity for several years without any new generating capacity. Even without the new generating capacity necessary to meet the statutory RPS requirement, WEPCO will have excess capacity until at least 2024.

2. The development of an RPS facility does not ensure that it will be operated, or that it will displace high-GHG facilities. Under the regional MISO system, MISO may require the dispatch of any available facility to satisfy demand within the MISO region. MISO dispatches facilities based on cost: it will dispatch the available facility that is lowest cost based on the locational marginal price (“LMP”). If a coal-fired generating facility is available for dispatch, MISO will require that WEPCO dispatch the coal-generated electricity if it represents the LMP.

3. There is concern at the regional level about events in which utilities dispatch coal generated electricity ahead of wind-generated electricity, and the effects of this phenomenon on RPS compliance and costs.

4. Irrespective of whether MISO requires the dispatch of coal-generated electricity, WEPCO intends to sell all of its excess capacity. If there is a market, it will continue to generate electricity from its coal-fired plants regardless of the dispatch from Glacier Hills. This practice means that approval of Glacier Hills alone
would have literally no impact on GHG reductions. On the contrary, WEPCO would have a financial incentive to generate as much electricity as possible from its coal-fired facilities.

For these reasons, approval and implementation of either of the wind power proposals will not achieve their intended effect of reducing GHGs and will result in significant excess capacity unless the Commission also requires WEPCO to reduce its coal-fired generating capacity.

ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE

I. WEPCO HAS PROPOSED GLACIER HILLS TO SATISFY RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE GOAL OF REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

- 3 -
Under Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d) and Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53, a public utility may not begin construction of a new plant, facility or equipment without a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) complying with the applicable rules of the Commission.

The statutory requirements for an application for a CPCN include determinations of need and cost-effectiveness, and specifically include the following:

3. The design and location or route is in the public interest considering alternative sources of supply, alternative locations or routes, individual hardships, engineering, economic, safety, reliability and environmental factors.

WEPCO does not seek approval of Glacier Hills based on need and cost-effectiveness of satisfying demand in its service area. Rather, WEPCO has applied for a CPCN to satisfy the RPS requirements under Wis. Stat. § 196.378 (also referred to as “Act 141”). See, e.g., Application (Exhibit 1) at 1-2; Hesselbach Direct Testimony at 107-108; Elver Direct Testimony at 125-128. The application therefore must be reviewed in the context of satisfying the RPS goals and requirements.

The principal goal of Act 141 is to increase the use of renewable resources, which are defined by statute to include renewable fuel cells, tidal/wave action, solar, wind, geothermal and biomass. Wis. Stat. 196.378(1)(h)1.  A primary purpose of this statute is to reduce Wisconsin’s reliance on and generation of electricity using fossil fuels (especially coal) that result in significant GHG emissions (especially CO2). See Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.5-P.1

The RPS targets for percentage of electricity generation from renewable resources focus on “electric energy consumed in the state.” Wis. Stat. § 196.378(2)(a). That is, the RPS does not account for generation of electricity in Wisconsin from non-renewable resources.

One could therefore theoretically satisfy the RPS requirement of a specified percentage of electricity generation from renewable resources while undermining the global warming objectives of reducing GHGs emitted into the atmosphere.

That is precisely what will happen here if the Commission does not restrain WEPCO’s electricity generation from coal-fired facilities.

II. RETIREMENT OR OTHER REDUCTION IN COAL-FIRED GENERATING CAPACITY IS NECESSARY FOR GLACIER HILLS TO SERVE ITS GHG-REDUCTION PURPOSE.

A. Glacier Hills or Ledge Wind Are Not Necessary to Satisfy Demand in WEPCO’s Service Area and Would Result in Excess Capacity for at least 12-14 Years.

There is no dispute that Glacier Hills is not necessary to satisfy demand in WEPCO’s service area, the conventional “need” requirement for a CPCN. WEPCO’s application acknowledges that if the application is approved, it would have excess capacity until at least 2019. See, e.g., Exhibit 1, § 1.3 at 2.

In its supplemental direct testimony based on revised forecasts and modeling, WEPCO testified that it would have excess capacity until at least 2024. See,Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.3-P; D4.5-P.

If one accounts for all additional capacity necessary to satisfy its RPS requirement, it is undisputed that WEPCO will have excess capacity until at least 2026. Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.3-P; D4.5-P.

B. Under the MISO System, WEPCO’s Coal-Fired Facilities May Be Required to Operate Notwithstanding the Availability of Renewable Resource Facilities.

WEPCO’s EGEAS modeling and testimony was based on its expected cost and dispatch of electric generating units within its own system, accounting for only its own resources. Exhibit 305; Mendl D4.13-P.

The modeling and assumptions do not reflect the reality of how units are dispatched because they ignore the fact that dispatch is directed on a regional basis by MISO.

Exhibit 307 is WEPCO’s response to discovery request 2-CWI-7. In that exhibit, WEPCO explained that under the MISO tariff, all WEPCO plants must be offered in the MISO Energy Market; and that MISO will dispatch units across the system based on cost. See also, Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.13-P.

The significance of the MISO Energy Market is profound. If a WEPCO coal-fired plant is available and within the price margin, it will be selected for dispatch irrespective of the availability of Glacier Hills or other facilities with a lower GHG profile. That is, MISO could dictate that WEPCO operate Pleasant Prairie or another coal-fired plant because of its low marginal cost, when it would otherwise select Glacier Hills or Port Washington. Id. at D4.13-P to D4.14-P.

The end result would be that, notwithstanding the construction and use of Glacier Hills, Wisconsin would be an underperforming state in terms of CO2 emissions reductions. Id.

Another unintended consequence is that the utility could operate (or be required to operate) a coal-fired facility in lieu of wind even though the cost of wind generation is logically lower. As Mr. Mendl explained, price is based on the locational marginal price (“LMP”) at the location of the vicinity. His evaluation of the LMPs at Columbia, in the vicinity of Glacier Hills, showed that there have been periodic negative LMPs (i.e., the utility pays MISO to take its energy production). Id. at D4.16-P. When price is set on a negative LMP, the utility’s interest is to shut down that resource. As Mr. Mendl explained in his testimony: The analysis suggests that particularly in summer months, when strongly negative LMPs can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence the way the MISO market works, free energy with the environmental benefits is too expensive!

Id. at D4.18-P. It bears reiteration that no party disputed this evidence and analysis: not WEPCO, not Invenergy, not the Commission staff.

C. Unless Required to Be Retired by the Commission, WEPCO Intends to Operate its Coal Fired Plants Irrespective of Need, and Sell Its Excess Generation.

There is no dispute that WEPCO intends to sell its excess capacity on the open market.
Exhibit 302 is a discovery response from WEPCO to 2-CWI-14, which identifies the amount of excess capacity that WEPCO expects to sell over the next ten years. That amount was based on its original forecast. Under its updated forecast reflected in its supplemental testimony, WEPCO would have more excess capacity available for sale. See also, Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.5-P to D4.6-P.

It is also undisputed that if WEPCO sells its excess capacity as planned, there will be little or no reduction in CO2 emissions from its electric generating fleet. Id. at D4.6-P.

As Mr. Mendl observed: The net result of building Glacier Hills to comply with Wisconsin RPS requirements and then selling the excess capacity may be to improve the economics, but it would lessen the reduction in CO2 emissions relative to WEPCO’s analysis. Id. at D4.7-P.

If the Commission allows WEPCO to continue construct Glacier Hills and operate all of its existing coal-fired capacity, WEPCO’s ratepayers will be paying over $525 million for a new facility that is not needed to satisfy demand and will not result in overall CO2 emission reductions.

II. COMMISSION SHOULD REQUIRE WEPCO TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL FOR RETIREMENT OF 100 MEGAWATTS OF COAL-FIRED GENERATING CAPACITY.

The obvious and logical solution to the potential negative consequences described above is for WEPCO reduce the amount of coal-fired capacity that is available for dispatch in the MISO Energy Market. The only effective way to achieve this result is to retire existing coalfired facilities.

WEPCO has requested to increase its electric generating portfolio by Glacier Hills, with a rated capacity of 162 MW, part of the 662 mw of wind generation it predicts it will need to meet its RPS requirements. Ex.1, p. 2.

Glacier Hills has an accredited capacity of approximately 100 MW, as it operates intermittently based on the availability of wind. The evidence also indicates that WEPCO has excess capacity of 212-347 MW over the next decade. Id. at D4.6-P.

Accordingly, WEPCO can retire at least 100 MW of coal-fired capacity without jeopardizing reliability or its ability to satisfy demand within its service area, and it would still have excess capacity well into the 2020s.

CONCLUSION

Clean Wisconsin recognizes and agrees with the importance of the RPS requirement, the economic and environmental benefits of wind power, and the need for WEPCO to develop or purchase electricity generated from renewable resources.

While Clean Wisconsin has taken no position on the relative benefits of Glacier Hills versus Ledge Wind, Clean Wisconsin strongly urges the Commission to approve one of these facilities to partially satisfy WEPCO’s RPS
requirements in a cost-effective manner.

Clean Wisconsin also submits that the mere approval of one of the proposed wind power alternatives will not satisfy the statutory goal of reducing GHG emissions in Wisconsin. In order
to effectuate this goal, the Commission must also require that facilities with high CO2 and other GHG emissions be retired, so that those facilities cannot be operated to satisfy demand outside of Wisconsin while effectively placing the GHG emissions burden, with its expected CO2 costs, squarely on the shoulders of Wisconsin’s ratepayers and our environment.

Clean Wisconsin therefore asks that the Commission require, as a condition of approval, that WEPCO develop a proposal, on an aggressive schedule, to retire at least 100 MW of existing coal-fired capacity.

Dated this 24th day of November, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
CLEAN WISCONSIN, INC.
/s/ Katie Nekola
_______________________________
Katie Nekola
State Bar No. 1053203
ADDRESS:
122 State Street, Suite 200
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 251-7020 x 14 (direct)
(608) 212-8751 (cell)
E-mail: knekola@cleanwisconsin.org
AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP
/s/ Carl Sinderbrand
____________________________
Carl A. Sinderbrand
State Bar No. 1018593
Attorneys for Clean Wisconsin, Inc.
ADDRESS
2 E. Mifflin St., Suite 200
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 257-5661
(608) 260-2472 (direct)
(608) 257-5444 (fax)
csinderbrand@axley.com
F:\EAFDATA\13687\63487\00620069.DOC

Home in Butler Ridge wind farm, near Iron Ridge, Wisconsin 2009

What's all the noise about wind turbine noise?

By Lynda Barry

"There can be no doubt that groups of industrial wind turbines ("wind farms") generate sufficient noise to disturb the sleep and impair the health of those living nearby," states Dr. Christopher Hanning in a recent report titled "Sleep Disturbance and Wind Turbine Noise." [Click here to download full report]

 For those of us who have stood directly beneath an industrial wind turbine on a clear afternoon, this statement will come as a surprise. What noise could Dr. Hanning be referring to? The only noise most of us hear at the base of a turbine is the swooshing of the blades above us.

 Life in an industrial wind farm is something very few of us have experienced. Most of us don’t know that the quietest place near a turbine is directly beneath it. It’s a bit like standing beneath a speaker placed 40 stories above you. Step out about 1000 feet downwind from the turbine and you will have a different experience, especially after sundown. Though we may not know the physics behind the phenomenon, most us notice sound carries further at night, especially in open rural areas. This turns out to be especially true for wind turbine noise. The noise Dr. Hanning writes about is nighttime turbine noise.

 Interestingly, very few (if any) of those responsible for creating the setback distances and turbine noise limits have spent any nights in homes near wind turbines. Nor have they sat through an hour of severe shadow flicker inside of a home.

 Why should they? The modeling software used for siting virtual turbines near virtual homes assures them that they’ve gotten their calculations right. So if real people are having problems with real noise and real flashing shadows they must be making it all up.

 But are they?

 Daniel Haas, a Wisconsin wind farm resident who has been living with turbine noise for nearly two years put it this way in one of his many letters of complaint to the wind company. The setback from homes in this project is 1000 feet.

 “I really do not know much about noise levels but what is the noise level of a commercial jet coming through the middle of your house at 2:00 in the morning?

 I really am getting tired of the misinformation given to anyone with a complaint. There are different noise levels and you only talk about one.

 The low level noise that I am concerned about is extremely loud and actually shakes the whole house. It wakes the whole family up at night. It also spooks our horses so bad that we can't even ride them on our trails anymore. Our dogs won't even come out of their kennel because they’re afraid of the noise.

 As for the shadow flicker it is terrible. It affects all of my 100 acres. Yes all 100 acres. That is my home.”

 In May of 2009, the Minnesota Department of Health issued a white paper that identified half a mile as the setback beyond which turbine noise and shadow flicker were not a major concern.

This setback is unacceptable to wind developers because it restricts the number of turbines they can profitably site in more populated rural areas which are also more likely to have the transmission lines they need nearby. Profits (and government subsidies) rely on being able to site the greatest number of turbines in the smallest amount of space. Their eyes are on a prize other than protecting the environment or protecting the health of those who will live inside of their wind farms. From a business standpoint this may make sense, but from a human standpoint it’s a formula for trouble.

 Our legislature may also find safer setbacks unacceptable because our renewable energy mandates.  Setbacks that are better for families mean fewer turbines for the state to make that goal. And though wind energy isn’t the only renewable energy choice, most consider wind to be the cheapest way of getting there, even if it means harming people in the process.

 This is made much easier by a general misunderstanding about what the real problems are when wind turbines are sited too close to homes. How close is too close?  If you go with a wind developers recommendations, 500 feet from your home is not considered too close. If you go with the National Academy of Sciences, the Congressional Research Service, The World Health Organization, the peer-reviewed study of wind farm residents by Dr. Nina Pierpoint, and Minnesota Department of Health, you’ll get a minimum setback of 2640 feet out to 1.5 miles.

 The wind industry has not been able to provide any scientific or medical data which supports setbacks any closer than this, but they have been very good at dismissing and ridiculing those with complaints. For those of us who have witnessed well known instances of organized corporate denial of negative health effects caused by their product, this marginalization of wind farm residents who tell us their families are suffering raises red flags.

 The general public knows very little about life in a wind farm. Most don’t know about the serious problems wind turbines cause when placed too close to our homes, or within ecologically sensitive areas such as migration corridors. For now, wind industry is enjoying its image of being a benign industrial-scale source of clean energy. Anyone who dares to challenge this Green Goliath should beware. The David who asks the hard questions about proper setbacks will be shouted down as an anti-wind, anti-environment, anti-green, NIMBY.

 But the problem is not going away. As more families are forced to suffer because unsafe setbacks for the sake of wind industry profits and renewable energy deadlines, more Davids will appear. In the meantime, how many lives will be made miserable before we get this right?

 In his report on turbine noise and sleep disturbance, Dr. Hanning finds current calculated measures of wind turbine noise “woefully inadequate” and says he is unconvinced by what he terms, "badly designed industry and government reports which seek to show there is no problem.

  "Calculations cannot measure annoyance and sleep disturbance,” he writes,  “Only humans can do so."

 How close is too close? Wind farm residents now living in the wind farms in our state are trying to tell us,-- but right now, who’s listening?

Wind developers have proposed 67 wind turbines for the Town of Magnolia, and have included the Town of Spring Valley in their target map.

The turbines will be at least 40 stories tall. The developers would like to site them as close as 1000 feet to non-participating homes. Five Rock County Towns have created ordinances with setbacks of at least 2640 feet. None of these ordinances has ever been challenged on their merits.

The developers who plan to put 67 turbines in the Town of Magnolia will not provide a map of where the turbines will be.

We made our own map, just to show what that many turbines would look like if they were distrubuted evenly across the township. Each orange dot equals one turbine. There are only 66 in this picture. We couldn't figure out where to put the 67th.

At present, the state of Wisconsin has just over 300 industrial sized wind turbines in operation. 14,000 more will need to be sited to meet the state's renewable energy goals.

Towns Plan for a new wind siting law

By GINA DUWE

Janesville Gazette

3 October 2009

JANESVILLE — Officials in Union and Magnolia townships consider moratoriums on wind turbines to be the temporary answer in response to a new state law.

Wind developer EcoEnergy has proposed projects in both communities.

Local residents are concerned the new process on siting wind energy systems signed into law this week will erase their work to protect themselves from negative effects.

Moratorium action includes:

– Union Plan Commission last month recommended the town board start a one-year moratorium. On Thursday night, the town board approved the moratorium, which will expire on Oct. 7, 2010.

Union officials feel confident in their ordinance if it were challenged on its merits, but with uncertainties about the state writing new laws, “we just thought (the moratorium) was the prudent thing to do,” plan commission co-chair Doug Zweizig said.

– Magnolia Planning and Zoning will discuss and likely make a recommendation to the town board on a moratorium at its meeting at 7 p.m. Thursday. The town board will consider the moratorium at a meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 13.

“We just really want to see where we stand with the state,” Magnolia town board member Dave Olsen said. “It seems as though they want to take the rights away to site the turbines, but they don’t want the responsibility that goes with it—to monitor the low-frequency sound, to look after the local residents.”

On Thursday, Gov. Jim Doyle signed into law Senate Bill 185, which puts the siting of wind projects under 100 megawatts into the hands of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Once the statewide siting rules are written, they will overturn local ordinances.

Projects 100 megawatts or more already go through the PSC.

PSC officials will appoint a committee to advise them on siting rules. No timeline has been established, a PSC spokeswoman said.

People suggested to Zweizig, the Union Plan Commission co-chair, that he should be on the committee, so he sent a letter of interest to the PSC and Doyle’s office. He hasn’t received a response.

The committee will comprise representatives of wind energy system developers, political subdivisions, the public, energy and environmental groups, realtors and land owners who live adjacent to or in the vicinity of wind energy systems and who have not receive compensation by or on behalf of owners, operators or developers of wind energy systems.