SPECIAL TO BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN: Towns of Morrison, Holland, Wrightswood, and Glenmore

Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy [BCCRWE] is a grassroots organization made up of local residents who are concerned about the impacts of Invenergy's Ledge Wind Project proposed for the Towns of Morrison, Holland, Wrightstown and Glenmore.

If you'd like to learn the latest news about the project, or meet some of your concerned neighbors,

Visit the BCCRWE website by CLICKING HERE

The Public Service Commission is now taking public comment on the project, and maintains a docket containing information about the project.

Visit the docket by CLICKING HERE and entering the case number: 9554-CE-100

Leave a comment on the project on the docket by CLICKING HERE

Below is a map showing the noise level predicted for residents in the project. The yellow dots are homes. THe black dots are wind turbine locations. The blue areas indicate predicted noise levels above 50 dbA. The purple areas indicate noise levels of 50dbA.

Unfortunately noise from turbines that are 40 stories tall doesn't stop at the boundries drawn on this map. The setback proposed for this project is 1000 feet from non participating homes.

The World Health Organization recommends night time noise limits of 35dbA or below for healthful sleep. Loss of sustained sleep because of turbine noise is the most common complaint from Wisconsin wind farm residents.

  Better Plan, Wisconsin has been following the story of our eastern neighbors on the Island of Vinalhaven who are finding it impossible to live with the noise of the turbines they welcomed with open arms.

Unfortunately it's a story that is being told where ever wind turbines are placed too close to people's homes, including our own state of Wisconsin.

WIND POWER OVERPOWERS ITS NEIGHBORS

 Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel,

morningsentinel.mainetoday.com

By Tux Turkel

24 January 2010

VINALHAVEN — Cheryl Lindgren was excited when the three wind turbines down the road began turning in November, but within days her excitement turned to disbelief. The sound at her house, a half-mile or so away, wasn’t what she had expected. As she sat reading in her quiet living room, she could detect a repetitive “whump, whump” coming from outside.

“I can feel this sound,” she recalled thinking. “It’s going right through me. I thought, ‘Is this what’s it’s going to be like for the rest of my life?’ ”

Dedicated two months ago with great fanfare, the Fox Islands Wind Project is producing plenty of power, but also a sense of shock among some neighbors.

They say the noise, which varies with wind speed and direction, ranges from mildly annoying to so intrusive that it disturbs their sleep.

They also say they lament losing the subtle quiet they cherished in living in the middle of Penobscot Bay — the muffled crash of surf on the ledges and the whisper of falling snow.

The folks living around North Haven Road aren’t anti-wind activists. Lindgren and her husband, Art, supported the project as members of the local electric co-op.

Now the Lindgrens are discovering what residents in other communities, including Mars Hill and Freedom, have learned: When large wind turbines are erected, some people living near them will find their lives disrupted.

That wasn’t supposed to happen here. Co-op members on Vinalhaven and in neighboring North Haven endorsed the $15 million project as a way to hold down high electric rates and maintain a sustainable community. The developer, backed by the Rockland-based Island Institute, saw it as a model for other offshore towns.

In the wake of the complaints, the developer is taking extraordinary steps to try to lessen the effect. Several modest fixes are under way, and bigger ones are being considered, including some that could sacrifice energy output.

However, the Vinalhaven experience also is being seen as a cautionary tale. Upon invitation, Art Lindgren and other neighbors have spoken at meetings in mainland towns where new wind farms are being proposed.

Meanwhile, wind power opponents are attempting to change the state noise standards to affect which projects are permitted. All this may complicate Maine’s efforts to use its renewable resources to become more energy independent and create an industry around wind power.

In no-man’s land

The Vinalhaven project consists of three 1.5-megawatt turbines. They are a massive presence on a high point of land at the island’s northwest corner, a 10-minute drive from the ferry terminal. Each unit stands 388 feet high, from ground to blade tip.

The ribbon-cutting in November drew more than 400 people and attracted national media attention. Schoolchildren passed out pinwheels. Visiting dignitaries applauded New England’s largest coastal wind project.

The 15 or so property owners within a half-mile of the turbines watched with special interest.

To get state approval for a wind farm, developers must keep sound levels offsite below 45 decibels, less than the background noise in an average household. Fox Islands Wind purchased a home and two vacant properties that were adjacent to the towers. A fourth owner turned down a buyout offer, seeking more money.

However, the Lindgrens and others suddenly found themselves in no-man’s land: Their homes are technically outside the noise zone, but their ears say otherwise.

The Lindgrens built their home 10 years ago next to Seal Cove. They have goats and ducks and heat with wood. After much travel and a career in software development, the couple looked forward to a peaceful retirement. Instead, they now spend much of their time measuring sound levels, comparing notes with neighbors and learning the details of wind power.

Cheryl Lindgren values quiet. On a recent stormy evening, she recounted when she first came here and stood at the shoreline in the snow.

“All I could hear was the sound of snowflakes falling on my jacket,” she said. “That’s not going to happen again.”

‘Unsettling and unpleasant’

On this evening, the Lindgrens were having cake and coffee with three other neighbors who are troubled by turbine noise. They’ve already developed a vocabulary to describe the shifting sounds.

One sound is like sneakers going around in a dryer. Another mimics an industrial motor. There’s a ripping and pulsing of blades cutting through the air, and the rotational “whump, whump, whump” sound.

Another common sound, which was audible on this evening from the Lindgrens’ front porch, resembles a jet plane that’s preparing to land, but never does. That sound was produced by two turbines spinning in a moderate northeast blow that followed the snowstorm. The third turbine was offline for repairs.

“That’s fairly standard,” Cheryl Lindgren said, “and that’s just with two turbines. Factor in the third and it’s unsettling and unpleasant.”

For Ethan Hall, the sound is more than unpleasant.

Hall is a young carpenter who’s building a small homestead on a height of land past the Lindgrens, roughly 3,000 feet from the nearest turbine. The noise was so annoying on some nights, Hall said, that he couldn’t sleep in the passive-solar, straw-bale structure. Now he’s house-sitting in town.

“I find it maddening,” he said. “It’s a rhythmic, pulsing sound that’s impossible to ignore.”

Art Farnham is trying to ignore the noise, although he can clearly hear it inside his mobile home. A lobsterman who lives 1,300 feet from a turbine, Farnham turned down an offer to buy his 6-acre property. He continues working on a new home and shop that will have a turbine almost in its backyard.

“I think they should shut them down,” he said. “We were here before they were.”

Between Hall and the Lindgrens is the home of David and Sally Wylie. They built in the once-quiet cove, and like their neighbors, did much of the work themselves.

“This has been our dream, our life,” Sally Wylie said from their winter home in Rockland.

Set into the snow on the Wylies’ lawn is a tripod and meter that Fox Islands Wind is using to measure sound levels, but that’s little comfort to Sally Wylie, who believes the computer modeling used to approve the project is wrong. The only solution now, she said, is to turn down the turbines to a point that they are quieter, but still produce an acceptable amount of power.

“It really boils down to what the community is going to accept,” she said.

Reducing sound cuts power

The task of trying to find a remedy for the noise complaints has fallen to George Baker, chief executive officer of Fox Islands Wind LLC.

Baker has spent the past two months taking sound measurements, studying computer models and talking to neighbors and the turbine manufacturer, General Electric. He slept one windy night at a vacant house 1,110 feet from two turbines, to experience the sound. He said he could hear the turbines but they weren’t particularly loud and didn’t prevent him from sleeping.

Baker recently e-mailed neighbors to outline his initial plans. Workers will make small modifications to the equipment. They’ll change the turbines’ gearbox ratio, for instance, and close air vents in the nacelles, the housing that covers components. Baker also is looking at adding sound-dampening insulation to the nacelles.

Another idea is to turn down the turbines, essentially slowing the blades’ rotational speed. Sound measurement in decibels is a logarithmic equation. That means cutting the output from 45 decibels — the state standard — to 42 decibels would cut sound volume in half.

The problem, Baker said, is slowing all three turbine blades that much would reduce power output 20 percent. That would translate into electric rates that are 20 percent higher.

Another approach is to turn down the turbines only when the sound is most annoying. Computers can do this, Baker said, but it’s a complicated calculation. He has begun collecting sound and wind speed data and trying to correlate it to what neighbors observe.

“I am hopeful we can figure out how to turn these things down when the sound is most troubling,” he said.

That’s also the hope of the Island Institute in Rockland, a development group that focuses on Maine’s 15 year-round island communities. It sees renewable energy as critical to maintaining sustainable, offshore communities in the 21st century. With Baker serving as the group’s vice president for community wind, the institute is working with residents on Monhegan, as well as Swans Island and neighboring Frenchboro, on Long Island, on turbine plans.

These islands have fewer residents, so they don’t need as much power, according to Philip Conkling, the group’s president. That means smaller systems.

“I don’t think there’s going to be another three-turbine wind farm on the coast of Maine,” Conkling said.

He said it will take careful study to find a solution on Vinalhaven. Hundreds of people stood near the spinning turbines at the ribbon-cutting, he noted, and no one complained.

“But when you live with them day in and day out, it’s a different experience,” he said.

Bill would change standards

A proposed bill in the Legislature would amend current noise standards to include low-frequency sound. These sounds are emitted by wind turbines and blades, but aren’t addressed by the rules, activists say.

“Maine’s noise regulations do not require the measurement of this low-frequency sound,” Steve Thurston, co-chairman of the Citizen’s Task Force on Wind Power, said in an e-mail. “By using the dBA scale only, it appears that turbine noise diminishes to acceptable levels before it reaches homes nearby.”

Complaints from people living near projects in Mars Hill and Freedom show otherwise, the group says. Now the same pattern is emerging on Vinalhaven.

House Speaker Hannah Pingree, who grew up on North Haven, is following the concerns closely. She’s a big supporter of renewable energy, but has come to recognize that the Vinalhaven project is causing real problems.

“I am in a very active learning mode on this subject,” she said.

Pingree doubts the noise bill will get a hearing in this short legislative session, but the state should examine the issue, she said, perhaps through a special task force.

In the meantime, some towns in Maine are enacting ordinances requiring a mile between turbines and homes. After Art Lindgren and Ethan Hall related their experiences in Buckfield earlier this month, residents overwhelmingly passed a six-month moratorium, aimed at a three-turbine proposal on Streaked Mountain.

This trend worries Baker at Fox Islands Wind. A mile setback makes community wind energy unfeasible, he said.

“Do we want to set rules that makes it impossible to do something that’s really good for a community because 10 percent of the people are bothered by it?” Baker asked.

SECOND FEATURE:

Opposition seek moratoriums on farms; Some landowners have reconsidered allowing turbines

SOURCE: Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

By Scott Williams

January 24, 2010

People who don’t want a wind farm in southern Brown County are organizing, and they’re getting help from a group that has stymied similar projects in nearby Calumet County.

Dozens of homeowners and others in the wind farm development site have joined forces under the name Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy.

The group is urging local officials to impose moratoriums on wind farm construction in an effort to slow or stop Invenergy LLC, a Chicago-based developer planning to erect 100 wind turbines south of Green Bay.

The moratorium approach is credited with blocking wind farm development in Calumet County.

Although the Calumet County opposition group organized before landowners had agreed to allow wind turbines on their property, Invenergy already has signed contracts with many landowners in the Brown County towns of Glenmore, Wrightstown, Morrison and Holland.

But opposition being generated by the newly organized group is prompting some landowners to reconsider their participation in the $300 million Invenergy project.

Wayside Dairy Farm owner Paul Natzke said he and his partners have been impressed by the opposition, and now they are rethinking a deal to allow six Invenergy turbines on their 1,000-acre farm.

“Our biggest concern is splitting the community,” Natzke said. “That’s the last thing we want to do.”

Invenergy spokesman Kevin Parzyck said the company is aware that organized opposition has surfaced in Brown County. Calling some wind farm criticisms “myths,” Parzyck said the company would respond to such concerns during the state licensing process, which includes public hearings.

The developers also will talk individually with property owners who have heard opposition and are having second thoughts about being part of the project, Parzyck said.

“We can put them at ease,” he said. “We are very straightforward and honest with people.”

The developer has supporters in Brown County, too, partly because it is offering property owners at least $7,000 a year to allow one of the wind turbines on their property.

Roland Klug, a participating landowner, is so excited about the project that he has recruited other property owners to get involved.

Referring to opponents’ concerns about health and safety risks, Klug said, “That’s all a lot of baloney.”

Invenergy submitted an application Oct. 28 to the state Public Service Commission for permission to develop the Ledge Wind Energy Project in southern Brown County. The plan calls for 54 wind turbines in Morrison, 22 in Holland, 20 in Wrightstown and four in Glenmore.

With the capacity to generate enough electricity to power about 40,000 homes, it would be the Brown County’s first major commercial wind farm. It also would be larger than any wind farm currently operating in Wisconsin.

Supporters say the project would bring economic development and clean energy to the area, while opponents fear the intrusion and potential health hazards of the 400-foot-tall turbines.

Jon Morehouse, a leading organizer of Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, said opposition has grown as more people learn of Invenergy’s plan.

Considering that the developers already have contracts with many landowners, Morehouse said he expects an uphill fight. But he said 100 people are involved in the group.

“It’s growing every day,” he said. “People are starting to see what’s happening.”

Members of Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy have approached town officials in Morrison and Wrightstown to request wind farm moratoriums.

It is a strategy that worked in Calumet County, where the County Board last year approved a countywide moratorium that has prevented any wind turbines from going up.

Ron Dietrich, spokesman for Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy, said a major wind farm likely would be operating in the county if his group had not organized and taken action. Although the success might be only temporary, Dietrich said it has allowed residents to study and debate the merits of wind energy.

“The process has slowed down,” he said, “and people are taking a second look at it.”

Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy plans a public forum on wind farms at 6:30 p.m. Feb. 18 at Van Abel’s of Hollandtown, 8108 Brown County D, town of Holland. For more information about the group, go to www.bccrwe.com.

THIRD FEATURE:

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd:

Click on the image below to watch a video about the wind farm mentioned in the following story and its proximity to the Horicon Marsh.

Better Plan has added underlined bold type to indicate direct links with interviews and videos featuring people mentioned in this article, for those who would like to know more.

 Francis Ferguson  is Chariman of the Town of Byron. In this interview, Chairman Ferguson is open about receiving money for hosting a turbine in the project, that his neighbor has repeatedly complained and made "a hell of a stink" about the nosie, and that the turbines sound like a jet plane. From a 2008 interview [Click here to watch video and read transcript]

Q. Do you think -- I guess in your opinion, do is a 1000 feet is a good setback?

Chairman Ferguson: It isn't any too much. Because my tower up here on the hill is a thousand feet from Hickory road here. A guy built a new home there in the woods. And he's made a hell of a stink.  He's filed a written complaint and he's really fighting it right now.

Q Is he a thousand feet away?

Chairman Ferguson: Yeah. And he claims it's noisy and it aggravates him.

Q Do you notice any noise here?

Chairman Ferguson: You can hear it.

Q What does it sound like?

Chairman Ferguson: Sounds like a jet plane.

Scroll to the bottom of this post to watch the full interview with Chairman Ferguson

Wind farms cause controversy among community

SOURCE: Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

By Scott Williams

January 24, 2010

BYRON — Looking south from the home his father built, Francis Ferguson can see two generations of energy production in vivid convergence.

Locomotives chugging through this section of Fond du Lac County carry shipments of coal along the Canadian National Railway to be incinerated at nearby electric power plants.

Just beyond the train tracks, enormous wind turbines rotate on the horizon, working to harness a blustery winter day and convert that energy, too, into electricity.Ferguson, who was born here during the Great Depression and now serves as Byron town chairman, is philosophical about the old-style trains crossing through the shadows of a wind farm that sprang up just two years ago.

“It is a change,” he said. “You can’t sit and wait for the future to be the same as the past — it isn’t going to happen.”

Across town, Larry Wunsch stands beneath a 400-foot wind turbine towering over the home that he and his wife bought seven years ago because they wanted to live in the country.

Situated about 500 feet from Wunsch’s property line, the spinning giant casts a flickering shadow at certain times of day. It also occasionally emits a noise that Wunsch likens to a jet airplane.

At least a dozen other turbines dot the surrounding countryside.

Wunsch and his wife, Sharon, have stopped trying to live with the disruptions. They are getting ready to put their home up for sale.

“This is not for me,” he said. “It’s an invasion.”

For Tom Byl and Rose Vanderzwan, wind turbines are not only welcome, they are like home.

The young couple came to Wisconsin nine years ago from their native Netherlands, where wind energy has been part of the culture for generations. When developers needed locations in Fond du Lac County to erect wind turbines, Byl and Vanderzwan were happy to accommodate.

The couple, who have four small children, collect $17,500 a year for permitting three turbines on their Oak Lane Road dairy farm.

Some neighbors opposed to the wind farm are so upset that they no longer speak with Byl and Vanderzwan. But the couple makes no apologies.

“I really like them,” Vanderzwan said of the turbines. “I think they’re beautiful. And I think it’s a good idea to get some cheaper energy.”

Hardly anyone around here, it seems, is lacking in a strong opinion about wind farms, whether favorable or critical. Living on the cutting edge of energy policy reform does not lend itself to feelings of ambivalence.

Long after it began operating south of Fond du Lac with more than 80 wind turbines, the Forward Wind Energy Center divides residents as sharply as it did when the project was announced five years ago.

Opponents of the operations insist that wind turbines are jeopardizing people’s health and destroying the area’s peaceful aesthetics. Supporters, meanwhile, remain equally certain that wind energy is liberating the United States from both air pollution and dependence on foreign oil.

As state leaders push mandates for alternative energy sources, the debate that has absorbed neighbors here could soon reach a growing number of town halls. At least 20 other commercial wind farms are being planned or developed in Manitowoc County, Outagamie County and elsewhere.

One project proposed south of Green Bay in the towns of Glenmore, Morrison, Holland and Wrightstown would include 100 turbines, making it Wisconsin’s largest wind farm. Known as the Ledge Wind Energy Park, it would be built by Invenergy LLC, the same Chicago-based group that developed and operates the Forward project in southern Fond du Lac County and northern Dodge County.

With state public hearings expected later this year on the $300 million Brown County project, opponents are beginning to organize.

Invenergy vice president Bryan Schueler, however, said his company has found support for the project, which he said would be virtually identical to the Forward wind farm.

The company offers landowners compensation — typically $5,000 to $7,000 a year — for allowing a wind turbine on their property.

Schuler said wind farms draw public support not only because of the thousands of dollars paid to landowners, but because of economic activity resulting from the capital investment, construction activity and job creation. Residents also generally take pride in knowing that they are contributing to the growth of a clean energy alternative, he said.

“Every project will have some opposition, as with anything that is new to a community,” he said. “For every opponent, there’s usually many, many more supporters.”

When the Forward project was proposed in the summer of 2004, much of the opposition stemmed from its proximity to the Horicon Marsh, a wildlife refuge known for its populations of geese, herons and other birds. The 32,000-acre marsh is about two miles from the wind turbines.

Despite environmental concerns, the state’s Public Service Commission approved the project in 2005, and the turbines were up and running by 2008 in the towns of Byron, Oakfield, Leroy and Lomira.

The operation has the capacity to generate enough electricity to power some 35,000 homes.

Since the turbines started spinning, the state Department of Natural Resources says it has recorded bird and other wildlife deaths attributed to the wind farm at a higher-than-average rate.

Dave Siebert, director of the DNR’s energy office, said the national average for wind farms is slightly more than two bird deaths annually per wind turbine. As many as 10 deaths per turbine have been recorded at Forward. While his agency is not alarmed about the data, Siebert said officials hope to raise the issue when the Ledge Wind project comes up for regulatory review.

“Every next project, we learn a little bit more,” he said.

For many residents in and around the Forward Wind Energy Center, the biggest concern is how the turbines are affecting their quality of life.

Some residents complain that the spinning turbines are noisy, that they create annoying sunlight flicker, that they disrupt TV reception and that they destroy the area’s appearance.

“I think it’s ugly and noisy,” said Maureen Hanke, who lives in Mayville just west of the wind farm.

Gerry Meyer, a retired Byron postal carrier, is certain that turbines near his property have contributed to sleeplessness, headaches and other health problems for him and his family.

Saying that he turned down Invenergy’s offer of compensation, Meyer said: “I consider it bribe money.”

Others find the wind farm easy to tolerate — and even enjoy.

Alton Rosenkranz, who operates an apple orchard in Brownsville, said turbines positioned about 300 feet from his property generate the slightest “woof, woof, woof” sound. Rosenkranz said the noise does not bother him or his customers. In fact, he suspects the novelty of the wind farm is good for business.

“People come out to look at it,” he said. “And they buy apples.”

Many property owners receive payments of $500 a year from Invenergy if one of their neighbors has allowed a turbine to be erected too close for comfort.

Glenn Kalkhoff Jr., who lives in Byron, said the company also is providing him with free satellite dish service because he complained that turbines were disrupting his TV reception. Kalkhoff said he has no other complaints.

“You get a little whooshing sound once in a while,” he said. “That doesn’t bother me.”

Homeowners who have permitted Invenergy onto their property said the company is easy to work with and that the compensation has helped their families endure tough economic times.

But supporting the developers also has exacted a price for some in the form of lost friendships with wind farm opponents.

Byron farmer Lyle Hefter said he gets $10,000 a year for allowing two turbines on his dairy farm. He also received another payment — he will not say how much — to lease seven acres for a substation where Invenergy employees work.

Each of the turbines uses about one-third of an acre. Hefter said he has no problem working around the obstacles, and whatever noise they generate normally is drowned out by farm equipment, passing trains or other outdoor sounds.

“You don’t even know they’re here,” he said.

An organized group of opponents, known as Horicon Marsh Advocates, fought diligently to block the Forward project. The group no longer is active, but individual members remain vocal about their opposition.

Some opponents have made videos and kept other records to document what they consider the intrusive and unhealthy effects of living near a wind farm.

Curt Kindschuh, a former leader of the opposition group, said lingering disagreement has created lasting ill will among friends and neighbors. Kindschuh said he no longer is on speaking terms with a cousin who joined other landowners in welcoming Invenergy into the community.

Even at a family funeral long after the wind farm was approved, Kindschuh said, he did not share a word with his cousin.

“That’s the sad part,” he said. “There’s so many people out here with so many hard feelings.”

Turbines at dusk near Dexter, MNTurbines rise, residents worry about adverse effects

The Post-Bulletin, Austin MN

January 23, 2009

ROSE CREEK — To Carol Lantow, it feels like her home is slowly becoming enveloped by wind farms.

On a clear day, she can see the whirling blades of turbines on two distant wind farms from her home in rural Rose Creek.

And even closer to home, a neighboring farmer is planning to erect a single wind turbine on his property about a quarter mile from the home Lantow shares with her husband, Jim.

"I'm not against green energy or windmills," Lantow said. "I just believe these projects need to be carefully planned with lots of citizen input."

As wind turbines become more pervasive in southeastern Minnesota with the growing number of wind farms in Mower, Fillmore and Dodge counties, complaints are cropping up about the noise and shadow flicker they cause.

However, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has only received three such complaints so far.

"Minnesota wind projects have been full of comments from people who are concerned about these effects, but typically they are not issues once the project is in place," said Tricia DeBleeckere, an energy facility planner for the Public Utilities Commission.

Brian Huggenvik and his wife built their home in rural Harmony just a few years ago after being away from Fillmore County for about 20 years.

But now a 300-acre field behind Huggenvik's house could have as many as six turbines, as his property borders the proposed 200-megawatt EcoEnergy wind farm west of Harmony.

"It's not going to be country anymore," he said. "It's going to be an industrial wind farm that we'll be living under. With those flashing red lights, I'm afraid it will look like a spaceship has landed."

Lantow is fighting the wind turbine planned near her house. Late last year, she organized a petition with 17 signatures from surrounding neighbors opposed to the wind turbine. However, the Mower County Board ultimately decided to approve a conditional-use permit allowing the turbine to go up as long as it's 750 feet from surrounding homes.

Lantow doesn't think that not far enough away.

The turbine's platform has already been built and the tower will likely be put up this spring.

While some people who live near wind turbines are bothered by the noise and flickering shadows wind turbines can cause, Lantow's main concern is the effect the turbine might have on waterfowl that flock to a pond at the back of her property.

"We've kept the pond as a small wildlife preserve and have been trying to keep a natural habitat," Lantow said. "We've read about instances where wildlife have been killed by those rotors."

She's also concerned that the tower's blinking red lights will further contaminate the countryside.

Lantow believes the neighbors should put the wind turbine closer to their own home.

SECOND STORY:

Turbine complaints focus on noise

The Post-Bulletin, Austin MN

The most common complaint from neighbors or prospective neighbors of wind turbines seems to be the noise.

"My biggest concern is the noise," said Goodhue resident Rick Conrad said. "I don't mind looking at them, but I worry that if I'm out in my yard I will be hearing these things."

Conrad owns 80 acres, works in town and rents his farm land to a neighboring farmer.

"I'm not against wind energy at all," Conrad said. "I'm for alternative energies, but it doesn't need to be done with industrial turbines. I think we should be looking at solar facilities."

When Conrad was offered a wind lease, he chose not to sign because he didn't want to "give up rights" to his property.

Several residents in Goodhue County formed a group called Goodhue Wind Truth in reaction to proposed wind farms near Goodhue.

Conrad said developers have told people the wind turbines will sound similar to refrigerator, but Conrad describes the sound as a "modulated power hum."

"When you live out in the country, you live there because you want to get away from noise. You expect it to be quiet," Conrad said.

All three complaints filed to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission about wind turbines statewide concerned noise, said Tricia DeBleeckere, an energy facility planner for the Public Utilities Commission.

In two of the cases, mechanical gears needed to be repaired, DeBleeckere said.

The third complaint also involved noise, but the state found that the turbine was compliant with the state standards, she said.

State noise requirements vary depending on the time of day and the location of the turbine, but DeBleeckere said most developments are held to a 50-decibel standard at a maximum, DeBleeckere said.

Rural Harmony resident Brian Huggenvik believes the PUC should consider putting limits on low frequency sound emitted by wind turbines.

Huggenvik's property borders the proposed 200-megawatt EcoEnergy wind farm west of Harmony.

A study called "Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines" prepared by the Minnesota Department of Health Environmental Division has concluded that low-frequency noise from turbines does affect some people.

According to the study, common complaints have been annoyance, sleeplessness and headaches.

The study said most available evidence suggests that reported health effects are related to audible low frequency noise and complaints appear to rise with increasing outside noise levels above 35 decibels.

The study found that low frequency noise from a wind turbine generally is not easily perceived beyond one half mile and that shadow flicker isn't an issue at most distances over three-fourths of a mile for most turbines.

Huggenvik has attended several public hearings in both the Harmony area and the Twin Cities regarding the project.

"Our claim is that the setbacks just aren't enough," Huggenvik said. "We think a 2,000-foot setback, similar to what has been adopted in Wisconsin, would mitigate almost all the problems with flicker and sound."

He's also concerned that the wind farm could be unstable because it will be constructed in an area littered with sink holes.

He plans to ask for an environmental review of the project during an upcoming hearing.

"We're not out to stop the project," Huggenvik said. "We just want to make sure it's safe."



Home in a wind farm. Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. Photo by Gerry Meyer 2009

Government of Ontario requests 'Expert Advice' on Wind Turbine Noise

From THE SOCIETY FOR WIND VIGILANCE

www.windvigilance.com

 January 20, 2010

 TORONTO- The government of Ontario admitted this week that it does not know 'how or whether' to measure for low frequency sound at wind turbine installations.

Two Requests for Proposal www.merx.com were issued yesterday by the Ontario Ministry of Environment to help the  ministry in "determining how or whether to regulate low frequency noise emissions from wind turbines".

  The requests go on to state, "The Ministry requires a consultant to assist in the development of ameasurement procedure to assess noise compliance of existing wind farms with the applicable sound level limits"

"Unlike typical industrial noise sources, measurement of audible noise from wind turbines in general raises technical challenges."

 The request adds, "the MOE Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms, October 2008 do not contain a measurement method for assessing the actual noise impact."

  Questions arise:

  If  the government does not have a method for measuring noise impact, why are  they moving ahead with more wind developments before proper studies and science are completed?

 How did the Ministry of Environment arrive at an arbitrary distance of 550m from industrial wind turbines to protect from noise?

 Reports of adverse health effects experienced by people living too close to industrial wind turbines have been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Environment for more than two years.

 Nothing has been done to mitigate the suffering and many have been forced to abandon their homes or be bought out by a wind developer. Hundreds of requests for mitigation of the issue have not been dealt with yet industrial wind turbines continue to be erected.

  The Society for Wind Vigilance, an International Federation of Physicians and other professionals, repeats its appeal to all governments including the Government of Ontario to place a moratorium on all wind development until a third party health study is conducted into the impact of industrial wind turbines on human health.

At the minimum, current turbines should be turned off at night as a French court ruled and new industrial wind turbines should be set  back a minimum of 2000 meters from residences. Ongoing monitoring for adverse health effects must be conducted.

 SECOND FEATURE:

 Note from the BPWI Research nerd: The Oregon State noise limit for the Invenergy wind farm mentioned in the following story is 36 dbA

The current turbine noise limit for Invenergy in the State of Wisconsin is 50 dbA

The "too loud" referred to in the story below is under 38dbA

 Study says wind farm is too loud

East Oregonian, eastoregonian.com

January 21, 2010

 The Willow Creek Energy Center is in violation of state noise standards for at least three nearby homes, its acoustical expert revealed at a planning commission meeting Tuesday night. Still up for debate, according to the other experts in attendance, is how much and how often.

 The meeting amounted to a day in court for the neighbors of the wind farm – Dan Williams, Mike and Sherry Eaton and Dennis Wade – who began complaining about farm’s noise and other effects last year.

 According to Oregon Administrative Rule, energy-generating facilities can be as loud as 36 decibels at adjacent homes – that’s 26 decibels for background noise plus 10 for the facility. In the analysis of the acoustical expert that Invenergy hired, Michael Theriault of Portland, Maine, the noise at the Wade residence was usually less than 36 decibels. At the Eaton residence, it was usually less than 37 decibels. At the Williams residence, the noise “moderately” exceeded the noise code about 10 percent of the time, Theriault said.

 Theriault also conducted a noise study at the home of another neighbor, Dave Mingo, and found that the noise was usually less than 37 decibels. “On overview, the facility is substantially in compliance with state rules,” he said.

Kelly Hossainin – a lawyer for Invenergy, the company that runs Willow Creek Energy Center – argued that the amount by which the wind farm exceeded the noise limit at the Eaton and Mingo residences, one decibel, is not perceptible outside a laboratory environment.

She said the times the wind farm exceeded the noise standards were unusual events, which would qualify for an exception under the rules.

 Theriault explained some of his methods to the planning commission. For example, he did not analyze the noise data that was generated while the wind was blowing more than 9 meters per second (about 18 miles per hour). According to General Electric, the company that made the turbines, turbine noise does not increase after that point, he said.

 Commissioner Pam Docken asked Theriault if he could speak to the health effects of turbine noise.

 “Annoyance is a very complex phenomena,” he said, referring to a recent wind-industry study that found no negative health effects of wind turbines except annoyance. “We know that in some cases, annoyance isn’t even related to noise level. It can be related to whether they see the noise source and can change with the subject’s attitude to the noise source.”

 Then Kerrie Standlee, a prominent acoustical expert – he works for the Oregon Department of Energy doing site certification reviews and was even hired by Morrow County to analyze the racetrack issue – began to speak for the Eatons, Williams and Wade. He presented his own noise study, which showed that the noise at the Eaton’s residence hovered just above the noise standard on a regular basis, and at the Williams residence it regularly went above 40 decibels.

 Standlee also analyzed Theriault’s study. He pointed out that the wind farm consistently broke the noise rule at precisely the time when Theriault decided not to use the data – when wind speeds exceeded 9 meters per second.

 When the data is analyzed in a wider range of wind speeds, he said, the wind farm was in violation of the rule 22 out of 37 nights.

 “I’m not sure how someone can say this is an unusual, infrequent event,” he said. “To me, 59 percent is not occasional or unusual.”

 Standlee’s noise study also went beyond Theriault’s in that he gave the residents a sheet of paper to log their experiences with time and date. He then overlaid those comments on the data and showed that when the residents reported high noise, the wind was blowing from a particular direction or at a particular speed.

 Another acoustical expert, Jerry Lilly, spoke for Dave Mingo. He came up with results similar to Standlee’s, but noted that the Theriault study was also flawed because it did not measure noise at the residence’s property line – as required by Morrow County noise ordinance – and it did not measure the noise inside the homes.

 The commission also heard heartfelt testimony from the residents themselves, who said that their lives had been completely changed since the wind farm came.

 “A basic right in my life is to live in my beautiful home with my peace and quiet, and now I can’t do that,” Dan Williams said.

 When the testimony ended, the planning commission agreed to wait until their next meeting to make a decision about whether – and how – the Willow Creek wind farm must mitigate the noise problem.

The Cost of Green Energy

State Representative Mike Huebsch

January 22, 2010  E-update

On Wednesday, legislative attorneys briefed 18 lawmakers who serve on the special committees charged with reviewing Governor Doyle’s global warming legislation  (Assembly Bill 649   and Senate Bill 450) about its contents.  

But after nearly two hours and 92 PowerPoint slides, a series of important questions were left unanswered, most notably - how much will the so-called Clean Energy Jobs Act  cost Wisconsin consumers?
 
Senate author of the measure and co-chair of the Senate Select Committee on Clean Energy Mark Miller (D-Monona) advised the members of his committee and those of us serving on the Assembly Special Committee on Clean Energy Jobs to review the 2008 report of the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force   for cost data.

 What he didn’t tell us was that we wouldn’t find much there.   The report contains only rudimentary cost estimates for a fraction of the proposals in AB 649 and SB 450.  And it lacks a comprehensive analysis of anticipated electricity rate hikes and price increases for consumer goods.   
 
  Legislative Council attorneys identified 10 major policy areas within the legislation and dozens of proposals within each area, many of which diverge from the original task force recommendations.  

Central to the 174-page bill is the requirement that 25% of the electricity used by Wisconsin consumers originate from renewable sources by 2025.  Known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), it requires a massive investment in the construction of renewable generation facilities, most likely wind farms.  
 
This one proposal alone will cost electric customers more than $15 billion according to Public Service Commission (PSC) data.  Economists at the Boston-based Beacon Hill Institute  put the cost at $16.2 billion  Authors of the task force report had this to offer on the topic: “A detailed analysis of the costs associated with this policy has not been completed.”
 
  In anticipation of this week’s hearing, I joined fellow committee members Reps. Phil Montgomery (R-Ashwaubenon) and Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford) to request that the meeting be devoted to a cost-benefit analysis .  We did not receive a response from committee co-chairs Reps. Spencer Black (D-Madison) and Jim Soletski (D-Green Bay) and our questions were not addressed during the hearing.   
 
 Global Warming Task Force co-chairs Tia Nelson of the Board of Commissioners of Public Lands and Roy Thilly of Wisconsin Public Power, Inc. spent a year writing the legislation in secret with Doyle Administration officials, Sen. Miller, Rep. Black and other Democrats. Yet when Ms. Nelson and Mr. Thilly testified at this week’s hearing, committee members were not permitted to ask them any questions.  Sen. Miller advised lawmakers that we could discuss costs at a later date before tossing out that “the cost of doing nothing” is higher anyway.
 
Of course, there’s no cost estimate for “doing nothing” as he called it.  But the argument goes that by protecting the financial well-being of families today, I’m somehow sacrificing the future of our grandchildren. In fact, my future grandchildren are in more danger from misguided policies that are pushing Wisconsin toward an unprecedented economic collapse.  We can’t ask them to pay for policies when we don’t even know their price and I won’t ask them to pay for today’s mistakes.  
 
The 25% by 2025 RPS means we’ll be paying for new generation we don’t need and that won’t significantly impact greenhouse gas emissions.  According to the PSC, Wisconsin has an excess generation capacity of 30% meaning we have substantially more electricity available than we use.  

Supporters of the RPS argue that renewable generation isn’t in addition to existing generation but instead of it.  Yet, the task force’s own modeling indicates that this isn’t true.

 The report shows that the 25% by '25 RPS won’t lower greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels when it is fully implemented because today’s renewables can’t decrease the need for base load (always available) generation.

 Wind turbines generate electricity only 25-30 percent of the time and can’t be depended on to meet the 24/7/365 energy needs currently met in Wisconsin by fossil fuel and nuclear power.  
 
The RPS also erases the current requirement that electric utilities identify the least cost alternatives when providing electricity according to the Legislative Council.  Based on data in its most recent Strategic Energy Assessment, the PSC estimates that 400 megawatts of new renewable generation must come on-line every year for 16 years to meet the 25 by ‘25 mandate regardless of the cost or the need.  

The PSC has identified wind as the best method for complying with the RPS and it’s likely to be where the vast majority of investments are made.  With a price tag of $3.2 million per megawatt according to PSC data, wind power will cost electric customers $15 billion.  If the state looks to other renewable sources, the cost will likely go up.
 
 To date, most investment in wind energy has been made in other states more suited to this type of generation.  If that continues, Wisconsin utility customers will be sending $15 billion to create temporary jobs in a handful of lucky states such as Iowa, South Dakota and Nebraska, but not in Wisconsin.
 
Neither Wisconsin families nor our state’s battered manufacturing base can afford this.  For manufacturers, energy bills may account for as much as 25% of operating costs.  Industrial electric rates rose 50% between 2000 and 2007 and soon it will be too much financial pressure to bear.  They will have few choices: move their operations, cut their workforces, raise prices or devise some combination of the three.  Wisconsin has lost 160,000 high wage manufacturing jobs since 2000 and 62,000 since the recession began.  The Beacon Hill study found that the task force recommendations will cost us another 43,000 jobs.  That is the wrong direction for the 232,000 Wisconsinites who are looking for work.  
 
But, again, the 25 by ‘25 RPS is just one of dozens of provisions in the bill that also includes the adoption of California car emission standards, the creation of low carbon fuel standards and stricter energy efficiency mandates for appliances, houses and buildings.  Adopting the California emissions standards increases the costs of cars and dictates what types will be sold in our state.  Even worse, we turn our fate over to California since every time that state adopts new standards, they take will effect in Wisconsin without legislative action.  
 
  The low carbon fuel standard is designed to limit the use of 500 million gallons of biofuel currently produced here and of Canadian crude oil, which accounts for 50% of the oil used in Wisconsin.  These fuel sources are critical to Wisconsin and to the Midwest.  According to the Beacon Hill study, the new standards will cost Wisconsin consumers $ 3.2 billion overall or 61 cents per gallon in higher gas prices.  
 
 
The energy efficiency standards mean the price of kitchen appliances, TVs and personal electronics will be higher than other states.  It means paying more or crossing the border in search of deals while Wisconsin retailers suffer the consequences.  It also increases the costs of new home construction at a time when home buyers can least afford it.
 
  Before Wednesday’s hearing concluded, Legislative Council pointed out that the bill requires a review of the legislation’s goals and progress in reaching them once every four years.  While the new law wouldn’t require it, the attorneys noted that the review might contain details about costs…four years after the bill becomes law.  No lawmaker – no matter their hometown or their party affiliation – can be expected to vote on AB 649 and SB 450 before those costs are revealed.  Committing Wisconsin families to policy changes that will impact generations to come without knowledge of the cost or economic impact is, in fact, worse than “doing nothing.” 

PSC STILL SORTING OUT DETAILS OF COLUMBIA COUNTY WIND FARM

By Lyn Jerde, Daily Register, portagedailyregister.com

January 21 2010

Within days, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin will finalize its list of conditions for the construction of a wind farm in northeast Columbia County.

But officials of We Energies already are planning where the turbines will go and determining whether the PSC’s conditions will allow erecting all 90 of them.

On Jan. 11, the PSC approved a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the wind farm, called Glacier Hills Wind Park, on about 17,300 acres of farmland in the towns of Scott and Randolph.

The proposal called for 90 turbines, each about 400 feet tall, capable of generating up to 207 megawatts of electricity.

The commission met again Wednesday, this time to draft the specifics of conditions that the commissioners had discussed Jan. 11 before granting approval for the project.

PSC spokeswoman Teresa Smith said Monday is the deadline for the formal list of conditions to be in the hands of We officials. The list is undergoing final editing, based on the discussion of the commission at its meeting in Madison on Wednesday.

We Energies spokesman Brian Manthey said he listened to the live electronic broadcast of Wednesday’s meeting and has heard nothing in the proposed conditions that could stall or stop the utility’s plans to start construction late this spring.

The most challenging condition, however, is a minimum 1,250-foot setback between each turbine and the property of landowners who are not leasing any land for the turbines, Manthey said.

The original proposal, with 90 preferred turbine sites and 28 alternate sites, included a minimum setback of 1,000 feet from nonparticipating landowners, he said.

The hope, he added, is that “preferred sites” that are closer than 1,250 feet can be replaced with alternate sites that meet the setback requirement, thus allowing all 90 turbines to be built. It’s too early, however, to determine whether the setback rules will result in fewer turbines going up, he said.

“Hopefully, we’ll be up to that number of 90,” he said, “but it might be a different 90 than we’d planned.”

The PSC’s condition limiting the noise of the turbines also is a factor, Manthey said – not only in where they are located, but also in the type of turbines eventually used in Glacier Hills.

The commissioners set noise limits of 50 decibels day and night during colder months and 50 decibels by day and 45 decibels by night during the warmer months when people often like to sleep with their windows open.

Minimizing noise is one reason why We Energies is considering turbines capable of generating 1.8 megawatts each, for a total of 162 megawatts. Manthey noted that these turbines would be about as tall as the ones that would, all together, generate the 207-megawatt maximum allowed by the PSC. The difference in the turbines, which accounts for the difference in the noise they create, is the size of the attached generators.

No final decision has been made regarding the generation capacity of the turbines that soon will be part of Columbia County’s skyline.

But even if the project were to generate the maximum power allowed, Manthey said, We Energies still would need other renewable energy projects to meet the state requirement of generating 10 percent of its electricity from renewable resources by 2015. (Those standards might go up. There’s legislation pending in Wisconsin to raise the renewable energy standards for utilities to 20 percent by 2020 and 25 percent by 2025.)

We Energies has another renewable project pending – a power plant built on the premises of a paper mill near Rothschild, south of Wausau, that would burn waste wood left over from the paper-making process.

Meanwhile, Manthey said, it’s not certain when Columbia County residents can look for trucks carrying the huge wind turbine components down the country roads. The initial construction work will entail site preparation and foundation building. Glacier Hills is expected to be up and running by late 2011.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: According to following press release, the 90 turbine Glacier Hills wind farm mentioned above has an 18 turbine "country cousin."

New 30-Megawatt Wind Project in Columbia County Approved

E Wind LLC is the country cousin to the larger Glacier Hills project, being developed by some local landowners and entrepreneurs who are determined to not let all renewable energy (and money) go to the big companies. Bob Lange, an E Wind member who farms near Columbus remarked, "I was involved in the development of the UWGP ethanol plant in Friesland and saw all these wind measurement towers being installed in the area by several large wind developers; that got me thinking that wind energy might be the next renewable energy of choice for the area." Bob found a few others to join him and off they set to put together a wind project. It included finding willing landowners to lease their property for turbines, paying the transmission owners to study the electrical connection of their project, installing a 200-foot tall wind measurement tower, and approaching the Town of Randolph about receiving permission to build the project.

Wes Slaymaker, P.E., of WES Engineering LLC, a Madison-based wind energy consulting company who is acting as the E Wind LLC project engineer, commented, "We staked some possible turbine locations in the winter of 2008 and spent the next year moving those locations around to address all the concerns of the landowners and community members." Later E Wind hired Cullen Weston Pines and Bach LLP, a Madison law firm, to assist the project with negotiating a development agreement with the Town of Randolph.

Unfortunately, E Wind’s timing was poor as the Glacier Hills project had recently been announced by We Energies and the local area was inflamed with concerns regarding how that large wind project would affect their homes and communities. The E Wind members spent plenty of their evenings attending town and village meetings. They hoped to get some sympathy from the area residents as the local project and eventually convinced the town to vote to approve the E Wind project, contingent upon the approval of the larger Glacier Hills project.