Click on the image above to listen to Part One a August 15, 2009 interview with a doctor who is conducting an ongoing a study of wind farm residents. Scroll down to watch Part Two.

Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, a radiologist at the Northern Maine Medical Center, conducted interviews with fifteen people living near the wind energy facility in Mars Hill, Maine. His preliminary data suggests the residents are experiencing medical problems (sleep disturbances, headaches, dizziness, weight changes, possible increases in blood pressure, as well as increased prescription medication use) due to noise emissions from the turbines near their homes. His full presentation can be accessed here: http://www.windaction.org/documents/2... .

Dr. Nissenbaum's research echos the frequent complaints we've heard from residents in Wisconsin wind farms. The issue of setbacks is an immediate and critical issue for those Wisconsin residents whose homes appear on the map of the proposed map of the Glacier Hills Wind farm. Scroll down to the previous post to see a map of just how many homes will be affected, how close the proposed turbines will be, and what you can do to help our state not repeat mistake.

For those who are unable to play the video, a transcript of the interview is provided below

Brian O’ Neil: Welcome to Connections. Brian O’ Neil on the phone this morning with a doctor from Maine who’s done an interesting study on the health effects of wind turbines, Dr. Mike Nissenbaum.

And what makes Dr. Nissenbaum so interesting is that he did a study on the effects of wind turbines. And it’s the exact same company in Maine where he is that has a wind farm in Cohocton. So what Dr. Nissenbaum is talking about is relevant to the people in Steuben County, maybe even more so, because there are more wind turbines in Cohocton than there are in Mars Hill in Maine where Dr. Nissenbaum is, and as I said, it’s the same exact wind company.

Doctor, good morning, and welcome to Connections.

Dr. Nissenbaum: Good Morning.

Brian O’ Neil: Dr. Nissenbaum, here’s the deal. I’m a reporter and the other day I was covering a town meeting and a woman at the people complained that people were getting migraine headaches in Cohocton since the wind turbines went up there, and after that I checked with two Cohocton residents and they told me their wives are getting headaches in Cohocton, one of them is actually a wind farmer.

So, Doctor Nissenbaum, does that surprise you that people are complaining about migraine headaches because of wind turbines?

Dr. Nissenbaum: Well, it doesn’t surprise me that people are complaining about headaches. Migraines, specifically, are a subset of headaches. I can tell you what I’ve found in Mars Hill.

In Mars Hill there are about twenty homes that exist within 3500 feet of a ridgeline arrangement of twenty-eight turbines. I interviewed 15 of the adults, which represents about half of the adults living in that area. All of my findings up to this point are based on that. I can tell you that of those-- headaches, increased headaches---occurred in eight out of those fifteen, which is just over fifty percent.

In six of those eight, these were entirely new onset headaches, in other words, people who never experienced headaches before. And two of those eight described an increase frequency of migraines.

One of those two, attributed increased migraine frequency—she felt that the shadow flicker from the turbines would bring on her migraine in increased frequency.

So that’s the story as far as headaches are concerned in those 15 people that I interviewed up to this point.

Brian O’Neil: What other symptoms did you discover in your study?

Dr. Nissenbaum: Far and away the major symptom that people complained about was sleep disturbance and that was present in fourteen out of the fifteen people who I interviewed.

The fifteenth person, interestingly, was hard of hearing, and that was not an issue for him.

The sleep disturbances ranged from waking up in the middle of the night --and that occurred in 87% of the people ----to difficulty falling asleep initially and that occurred in about half the people.

And the frequencies—where their sleep was disturbed ranged from one or two or times per week to five to seven times a week in about half the people.

I’ll just add that sleep disturbances, interestingly, can lead over time in a chronic situation to a whole host of other negative health effects, including headaches.

Brian O’Neil: Dr. Nissenbaum, what you’re telling me, is something, I have to admit, I pretty much ignored in the beginning when I heard about these sicknesses from wind protesters. Now that was before the turbines went up.

The reason being, I was so focused on the corruption stories relating to wind. You know, I was up to here in stories about politicians that had conflicts of interest and I just didn’t have time to do any work on Wind Turbine Syndrome stories, but now that the wind turbines are here in Steuben County, the stuff that I’m hearing from wind protesters having medical problems, it all seem to be coming true, right here in Steuben County.

Doctor, according to your study, more people who live near wind turbines are turning to prescription drugs because of the symptoms they are getting from wind turbines. Is that right?

Dr. Nissenbaum: Well, what we found was there were 15 new prescriptions among those 15 people since the wind turbines went up. There were an additional ten prescriptions that were offered by medical practitioners that were refused by the people but 15 were accepted, so we do have an increased use of prescription medications in that population.

So we have 12 new prescriptions and three increased prescriptions. And these prescriptions range from anxiolytics and anti-depressants to blood pressure medications.

Brian O’Neil: Anti-depressants? Why would they be going on anti-depressants?

Dr. Nissenbaum: Well, there was—people did complain—I did do functional inquiry for psychiatric symptomatology, and 11 out of 15 described feelings of stress. 13 out of 15 described anger. Six described anxiety, for irritability. Hopelessness was described in eleven out of 14 people, at least bouts of hopelessness. And eight out of 15 considered themselves as having episodes of depression.

And if we look at the medications that were prescribed -- and their local practitioners prescribed these---if we look at the types of medications that were prescribed, it’s certainly consistent with that.

So there is something about their situation there that also results in a lot of negative psychiatric symptomatology.

Brian O’Neil: Doctor, one of the big turning points around here was when Hal Graham stepped forward. Now Hal Graham is now a well known name in the wind world because he’s a wind farmer who has a wind turbine on his land in Cohocton and now he spends a lot of time going around and explaining to people who are interested in bringing wind farms to their area, the negative effects of wind turbines.

Hal says, just as it says in your study, he has trouble sleeping in his own home because of the noise, and Hal says someone he knows has headaches since the wind turbines went up in Cohocton.

Just the other day I was reading on line, an anonymous wind farmer in Wisconsin was advising people the same thing, not to sign up to have a wind farm on their land because this man says it was a big mistake.

I’m guessing that wind farmer had to write what he did anonymously on line because wind farmers, from what I understand, are signing gag orders leases, gag orders in their leases that don’t let them publicly complain if things go wrong.

Dr. Nissenbaum, in your study, have you encountered this gag order that wind companies put in their leases that don’t allow people to complain?

Dr. Nissenbaum: Well look. I did not address contractual issues or things like that in the study. I only looked at the health issues.

I can tell you anecdotally, I’ve seen a couple of contracts including a contract that was circulating up in this area where I live, and there is a paragraph in there that cannot only be termed as a gag clause, but as a clause requires the wind farmer to actively facilitate the plans of the wind turbine company. In other words they can not only not say anything bad, they actually have to write letters say good things and submit those letters in advance to the wind company for approval prior to them going out to any official agency. And that’s there in black and white in the local contract that’s being circulated.

Brian O’Neil: Wow. That’s a new one on me.

Nissenbaum: But that was not a subject. This is just something anecdotal that I’m telling you, this was in no way part of my health survey.

Brian O’Neil: Sure, sure. You want to stick to the health effects. I understand. We’re talking with Dr. Mike Nissenbaum on Connections on AM 1480 WLEA, and in just a moment we’ll continue our conversation about the negative medical effects of wind energy. It’s coming up on AM 1480, WLEA.

[STATION BREAK]

Brian O’Neil: Welcome back to Connections on AM 1480, WLEA. Brian O’Neil on the phone with a radiologist from Maine, Dr. Michael Nissenbaum.

Dr. Nissenbaum you have a slide show that you do presentations with and I’ve seen that slide show on line. In it – and you discussed this a little bit earlier on the show—the hopelessness that people feel living in a wind farm area. Can you tell us about that?

Dr.Nissenbaum: Well, it turns out I can tell you the quotes—I basically just quoted what people were telling me and these were all different people, the quotes ranged from “Nobody will help us,” to, “No options,” the can’t leave and they can’t live here. Another elderly woman said, “This is an awful thing to have happen to you.”

A lot of people were upset because they feel that people don’t believe them. They feel their complaints fall on deaf ears. One quote was “No one cares, no one listens.” Another quote was “They just tread on us.” And another quote was “It’s very hard watching my child suffer.”

These people here, most of them have put their life savings into their property, into their homes, these are actually nice homes that are nicely situated on a hillside in Mars Hill, a lot of pride of ownership there.

And what they found, what I did inquire in the study, was whether they’d considered moving away and the vast majority had considered moving away, and when they were asked why didn’t you move away, they also said they couldn’t afford to. Eight out of the nine homes that I had spoken with indicated that they had had official appraisals done and the drop in value in their homes was such that it made it prohibitive for them to sell and move away. So they basically were trapped in their homes, and they could not leave and yet they were putting up with this and, I believe that largely contributed to the hopelessness.

Brian O’Neil: I can believe that. I talked with a real estate agent that told me he was unable to sell property, and I talked to a person who lives in Howard – Howard is a local town here, in Stubent County,-- and I talked to a man in Howard who said every time when he tries to sell a piece of property and he tells people about the wind turbines, that’s the end of the deal.

Dr. Nissenbaum: Right. Right.

Brian O’Neil: Doctor, I’m wondering if it’s possible that some of the depression type feelings you discuss in your study are a result not only of the psychological pressures of not being able to sell your home, and dealing with the lack of money you’ll get if you ever are able to sell it, but is it possible that these emotional problems that are going on could be a result of the physical effects of living around wind turbines, possibly from the low frequency noise or the blade flicker? Is there a possibility?

Dr. Nissenbaum: It’s a complex issue, but I think as far as most people are concerned, you have to go no farther than the sleep disturbance.

When you are chronically sleep deprived, that will result in all sorts of negative psychiatric and physical symtomatology over time. It stresses you when you don’t sleep. It has effects on blood pressure, it has effects on mood, you become irritable, you argue, this is not rocket science. This is all known. If you go for weeks and weeks and months and months with not getting the sleep that you require it will have some significant effects.

However, going beyond that, there are some very complex interplays of the nature of wind turbine sound with neurologic system of human beings. There are low frequency sounds —I won’t say specifically that these are sounds that you can’t hear, they’re certainly sounds that you can hear.

There is something about the quality of wind turbine noise that has been shown over and over to be – at an equivalent sound pressure level to be more annoying than other sources of sound, such as highway, or rail yards or even airports.

There is something about wind turbine noise that is more annoying at any given sound level compared to any other source of industrial noise in our environment. So there is something unique about it. It may be the pulsatility, it may be the frequency of the pulsatility, it may be the low frequency components, what ever it is, it travels, and it penetrates homes, and it has much more disruptive effect on human beings than does any other source of noise in our environment. And that is proven.

O’Neil: We have a congressman in our area, and his name is Eric Massa, and he’s been doing a lot of town hall meetings lately and the main topic is, of course, health care, but one subject that has been popping up a lot—because this is a big wind area—is wind energy. And he’s stressed a number of times his concern about the possibility of the turbines causing epileptic seizures in people. Any idea as to how turbines could trigger a seizure, doctor?

Nissenbaum: Well, this wasn’t something that came up in my survey. I read about it. And most people are familiar with the concept of light flickering bringing on seizures, and some physicians have opined that this is a theoretic possibility with the light flicker from the wind turbines when the sun is passing through the blades of the turbine. Either in the morning or the evening, either at sunrise or sunset. But I have not seen that as being a specific complaint from the people I’ve interviewed. People have complained about issues from the flicker but not specifically seizures.

O’Neil: Doctor, when you got into this study, was there anything at the end of it that surprised you. Did you learn anything that you weren’t expecting to find out about in your study?

Nissenbaum: We’ll, I’ll tell you. First of all it’s not done, the study is about half way done. We’ve interviewed about 30 control people who live about two-and-a-half miles away from the turbines.

And the control group is critical, because this allows us to compare a otherwise similar group of people who is not living close to the wind turbines, their frequency of symptoms will be compared with those living close to the turbines so it will allow us to perform statistical analysis and really increase the significance of the findings. So all of that is still underway. So what I’m describing are the preliminary findings, the study will be completed and we’ll have some very hard statistical data within a couple of months.

O’Neil: Do you think there is anything people can do to protect themselves if they start getting headaches or ringing in their ears or any of the other symptoms that pop up when you have wind turbines in your area?

Nissenbaum: With the spirit of the new administration, I would say that prevention is more important than trying to deal with things after the fact.

I think it’s very, very hard, once these things are up and running to mitigate their effects. These are fairly low frequency sounds, they travel both through the air and through the ground, they create rumble, you cannot block their entrance into your home in any way that we know about so, really, the best approach is to take steps to prevent these issues from ever occurring and that means proper setbacks.

O’Neil: And when you say setbacks you mean the distance a wind turbine is from someone’s home or property.

Nissenbaum: Right. Someone’s home, or the buildable portion of their property. Right.

O’Neil: Well Dr. Nissenbaum, thank you for coming on Connections, AM 1480, WLEA. Are there any final thoughts you’d like to share with our listeners?

Nissenbaum: I think that whether or not to proceed with wind turbines in an area is a business decision, but I think if they are going to proceed with wind turbines in an area, it should be treated like any other industry. Proper safeguards should be put in place so that people are not stampeded by the good will that—that is-- there is a certain goodwill that exists in the population toward all forms of green energy and getting us off of oil that comes from the mid-east and so on, but that goodwill should not be exploited in a head-long rush to site these things too close to where people live. There’s lots of room in both New York State, as well as in Maine, to place these things well away from from people’s homes. And I believe people to take steps to make sure that’s the way these projects are implemented.

O’Neil: Well, Dr. Michael Nissenbaum. Thanks a lot of coming here on Connections this morning, AM 1480, WLEA. I hope our listeners pay a lot more attention to you than I did to the wind protesters when they complained to me about wind turbine health problems.

Nissenbaum: Well it was my pleasure to be with you and I hope this is useful.

The Public Service Commission is now accepting public comments on the proposed Glacier Hills Wind Project which is located about 50 miles northeast of Madison. Above is a detail of the siting map of project.

[Download the full- sized map by clicking here]

[To learn more about this project and see close-ups of the proposed layout, click here]

Each red square in this image is a non participating home. The yellow circle around it represents the 1000 foot setback.

We hope you'll take a moment to contact the PSC to let them know what you think about the setbacks proposed for this project and urge them to base the siting of wind turbines on scientific and medical data rather than the wind developers need to site as many turbines as possible in the smallest amount of space.

You can post your comment to the PSC by CLICKING HERE

You can also view the entire docket for the Glacier Hills Project at the PSC website [CLICK HERE] Enter docket number 6630-CE-302 in the boxes and click "GO"

Scroll down to read selected public comments from this project. We will be adding them as they become available.

PSC REF#: 118452

Public Comment by Lynda Barry

Docket or Case Concern: 6630- Submission Date: 8/17/2009 11:48:10 AM
 

Comment Detail:
According to the land registry office in Orangeville, Ontario, six homes in Dufferin County have now been purchased by wind developers after serious wind turbine- related complaints; most recently June 26th, 2009 the Ashbee home.

The families were asked to sign gag-orders. The wind company has reportedly spent over $1.75 million buying out these family homes while claiming there have been no complaints from the residents in this wind farm.

This is a list of residents whose homes have been purchased by the wind company according to land registry documents.

Family Name Address

Ashbee PT LT 29 CON 7, PT 1 7R742; Amaranth
Frasers 58234 County Rd 17, Melancthon
Benvenete Pt Lts 284 & 285, Con 4, Melancthon
Brownell Pt Lt 29, Con 5, Pt 1, 7R787, Amaranth
Williams 58232 County Rd, RR 6 Melancthon
Barlows Pt Lt 1, Con 5, Melancthon

Why is this happening?

Industrial Wind Turbines were allowed to be sited too close to these residences. This caused trouble from unexpectedly severe noise and complaints of adverse health affects which include cardiac arrhythmia, sleep disturbance, fatigue, increased stress levels and loss of cognitive function.

The turbines in the proposed Glacier Hills project are sited much to close to homes. For the wind industry to be successful in the long term in our state, siting guidelines must be re-considered.

It seems a uniform standard for setbacks may not be the right answer. Depending on terrain and location of turbines in relation to each individual home itself, the same setback could have completely different consequences.

It's important that the PSC review what is happening in the existing wind farms in our state that have the same setbacks as proposed for the Glacier Hills project. It is critical that a third party be in charge of recording complaints.

I've been told that representatives of the developer of this project wind have repeatedly told residents who will be living in the Glacier Hills project that there have been few complaints from Blue Sky/Green Field.

Until a third party is responsible for recording complaints, and until the PSC investigates these complaints, the PSC will be unable to make a decision on this project based on the first hand experience of residents who are already living with the same setbacks.

More trouble can only come of this.

In the early days of wind development in our state, much was decided based on assumptions. We now have evidence to work from, both in our own state, and the country and indeed throughout the world.

If people and wildlife continue to be harmed, if natural habitat continues to be fragmented and destroyed, this industry will fail. Getting it right from the beginning is critical.

The first thing that has to be addressed in this proposal are the setbacks. The setbacks in this project favor quantity siting over quality siting. Quality siting takes more into account than getting a fixed number of turbines sited in a fixed area in a fixed amount of time.

Please take a look at the map showing two non-participating homes on E. Friesland road near turbines 61 and 120. [Above]

Note the number of turbines surrounding them. Consider what is about to happen to the lives of the families who live in these two homes if the siting goes as planned here.

Will the wind developer also buy out these homes and other homes in this project?

What happens to the future of the wind industry here as the word spreads throughout the state about what families are facing when quantity based wind farm projects come to their area?

PSC REF#: 118423
Public Comment by Douglas Zweizig
Docket or Case Concern: 6630-CE -302
Submission Date: 8/16/2009 5:18:35 PM

Comment Detail:
To the Wisconsin Public Service Commission,

I have viewed the proposed siting of wind turbines for the Glacier Hills project (Figure Vol. 2-2, Setbacks from Non-participating Residences) and believe that the proposing wind developer is suggesting that the Public Service Commission be complicit in an inhuman and potentially criminal act: to place large wind turbines in proximity to existing homes, knowing that they will produce sound and flicker that will threaten the health of the residents.

While once the Public Service Commission could accept the word of a Florida utility that 1000' was a safe and healthful setback from a large wind turbine, the effects of accepting that guideline are now being experienced in Wisconsin wind farms that the PSC has permitted. The PSC can no longer say that it is not aware of the consequences of that unexamined acceptance of the 1000' setback.

As a member of a Plan Commission in a Wisconsin Town that has spent sixteen months and tens of thousands of dollars to develop an turbine-siting ordinance to protect the health and safety of its residents, I have become aware of the experiences of residents located in Wisconsin wind farms and of the increasing research literature that is warning of the effects of siting wind turbines too close to dwellings.

I know that the Public Service Commission has also been informed of these experiences and of the research. We now know that it is unwise to site large wind turbines closer than a half mile to a home.

I think that it is apparent that the Public Service Commission should reject this application to inflict the effects of incorrect siting of wind turbines on Wisconsin residents.

Douglas Zweizig
Plan Commission Member, Town of Union (Rock County)

[Click here to read today's " Turbines in the News" story: Why we need to keep wind turbines out of raptor flight corridors]

UPDATE!!! SCROLL DOWN TO READ TODAY'S SELECTED PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING SHADOW FLICKER AND WHY A FARMER REGRETS SIGNING ON WITH THE WIND DEVELOPERS OF THIS PROJECT. THIS PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE TAKEN FROM THE PSC DOCKET FOR THE GLACIER HILL WIND FARM PROJECT--

HOW CLOSE IS TOO CLOSE?

Each yellow circle below represents a home in the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm about 50 miles northeast of Madison.

The red dots are the proposed turbine sites.

This proposal has turbines that are 400 feet tall (40 stories) sited as close as 1000 feet-- that's about 350 steps--- from the doors of non participating homeowners.

This distance which was once assumed to be safe by both the wind industry and the PSC is now being called into question.

[Download the full- sized map by clicking here]

[To learn more about this project and see close-ups of the proposed layout, click here]

The yellow circle that surrounds each home is the 1000 foot setback proposed by the developer. Though this setback allows the developer to get as many turbines into the project as possible, serious questions are being raised about the safety of this setback. Developers have not been able to provide any medical and scientific or medical data which supports this setback.

Recent scientific and medical reports find 2640 feet to be the minimum setback beyond which problems with noise and shadow flicker are not a major concern. However, many residents now living amid 400 foot turbines in our state are recommending setbacks that are even further from homes.

Our hope is the Public Service Commission will reconsider the 1000 foot setback and prevent the problems that plague many residents in the PSC-approved wind farms of Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties and require any setback distance to be based on the most current scientific and medical data.

The Public Service Commission is now accepting public comments on this proposed project, its setbacks, noise limits, and other concerns. We hope you'll take a moment to contact them to let them know what you think about the setbacks proposed for this project and urge them to base the siting of wind turbines on scientific and medical data rather than the wind developers need to site as many turbines as posible in the smallest amount of space.

You can post your comment to the PSC by CLICKING HERE

You can also view the entire docket for the Glacier Hills Project at the PSC website [CLICK HERE]

Enter docket number 6630-CE-302 in the boxes and click "GO"

Scroll down to read selected public comments from this project. We will be adding them as they become available.

Home in Invenergy Forward Energy Wind Farm, Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. Summer, 2008

TODAY'S SELECTED PUBLIC COMMENT on WHY FARMER REGRETS SIGNING ON WITH WIND DEVELOPER FOR THE GLACIER HILLS PROJECT:

 In 2004 I signed my farm corporation with Florida Power and Light in a wind farm easement.

At that time the present land values and commodity prices made the turbine lease payments seem very attractive.

I was assured the project would be similar to the straight line configuration near Montfort, WI, with similar sized turbines.

Four years went by and very little was ever mentioned about the project. It was suggested by PFL personnel that the project was ‘dead’ and not going to be built.

Suddenly in 2008 FPL and WE Energies announced the sale of the project and purchase by WE Energies.

Landowners were given no choice in the matter to cancel their agreements.
 

The plan today that WE Energies proposes is not the plan many of us originally signed for.

400 foot turbines, 1000 feet from non-participant homes for 30-40 years was not anticipated by any landowner.

It is now necessary and ethical to consider how our choices and actions impact others.

Credible evidence exists of adverse health effects, devaluation of property values, and irreparable community social damage. Live long friendships have already been severed.

Many outspoken proponents of wind development in this area live miles away from the turbines proposed on their property. Yet they are perfectly willing to allow turbines 1000 feet from non-participating neighbors. One has even said he would not want a turbine next to his house.

WE Energies has personnel “camped out” in the Friesland Village Apartments. They act very pleasant and understanding, yet consider they are highly paid to do so, and when move on to the next community when their job here is done.

I and many others are sick and tired of their presence and wonder how they sleep well knowing so many people in the area oppose the project.

Renewable energy is needed. The enormous tax dollars being spent should be put to use on sustainable sources such as manure or bio-mass digesters, not inefficient, irrational, gigantic turbines that only produce energy when and if the wind blows.

This summer alone, think about how many days meaningful electricity would have been produced. The entire summer the proposed turbines would have used more electricity in the computer controls, lighting beacons at night and operations and management than they would have ever produced.

The electricity they produce is not, and never will be free. Think of the carbon footprint created just in construction and continued maintenance of this project.

Money and greed motivates all of us, but may be a weak justification to the consequences of a project of this magnitude.

It is for these reasons I strongly oppose this project and sincerely regret signing a wind developers contract.
Steinich Farms

Cambria, WI

TODAY'S SELECTED PUBLIC COMMENT on SHADOW FLICKER

From Cathy Bembinster 

Town of Union:

I would like to make a comment about the Shadow Flicker Study.

In the “Shadow Flicker Study for the Glacier Hills Wind Energy Project, CSRP0005-BCONFIDENTIAL October 1, 2008 on page 1, under “Shadow Flicker Overview”, there is a paragraph that states:

“Shadow flicker caused by wind turbines is defined as alternating changes in light intensity due to the moving blade shadows cast on the ground and objects, including windows at residences. The influence of shadow flicker on residences depends on the length and direction of shadows cast by wind turbines and the relative location of wind turbines and windows at the residence”.

On page 2, under “Shadow Flicker Analysis”, we find this paragraph:

“To address shadow flicker generally, theoretical houses have been assumed to be located at eight compass points around a representative turbine, as illustrated in Figure 1. Using the WindFarm software, two separate models were built with houses at distances of 600 ft (183 m) and 1000 ft (305 m) from the turbine, representing the We Energies setback distances to participating and non-participating land owners.

Each house is assumed to have a 1-m square window facing the turbine, centered 2 m above ground level.

The model was run with an 80-m hub height and an approximately 93-m rotor diameter, which is representative of the Siemens S2.3, the largest size turbine under consideration for the Glacier Hills project.

Results will be approximately the same over the range of turbines under consideration for the project. The results assume the turbine is always yawed to face the sun, maximizing the shadow flicker area. The results also assume flat ground and do not take other structures or terrain influences into account.2

2 Specific results that do incorporate the terrain and trees around a particular turbine can be derived; this results in a different pattern for each turbine. The generalized flat terrain provides typical results.”

Let’s recap:

Shadow flicker caused by wind turbines is defined as alternating changes in light intensity due to the moving blade shadows cast on the ground and objects, including windows at residences.

The influence of shadow flicker on residences depends on the length and direction of shadows cast by wind turbines and the relative location of wind turbines and windows at the residence.

The wind developer instructs their consultant to take into consideration the health and safety of the public by ignoring individual non-participating landowner’s properties, the specifics of the ground and objects, and just runs the shadow flicker model against a THEORETICAL 1 meter by 1 meter (3ft. X 3 ft.) window on a THEORETICAL house around a THEORETICAL wind turbine.

This may explain why there’s a problem with shadow flicker in the existing Wisconsin Wind Farm projects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbIe0iUtelQ

The study continues and includes “Possible Mitigation” on page 6:

“DNV-GEC could at additional cost study shadows cast on specific residences. Such an analysis would incorporate elevation differences and yield recommendations for possible mitigation techniques, such as planting a tree in front of a window or installing high opacity blinds.”

In a recent white paper from the Minnesota Department of Health, Public Impacts of Wind Turbines, May 2009, http://legalectric.org/f/2009/06/mndepthealth-windwhitepaper.pdf, the health department decided to run their own shadow flicker model. Here are their conclusions.

“Shadow Flicker

Rhythmic light flicker from the blades of a wind turbine casting intermittent shadows has been reported to be annoying in many locations (NRC, 2007; Large Wind Turbine Citizens Committee, 2008). (Note: Flashing light at frequencies around 1 Hz is too slow to trigger an epileptic response.)

Modeling conducted by the Minnesota Department of Health suggests that a receptor 300 meters perpendicular to, and in the shadow of the blades of a wind turbine, can be in the flicker shadow of the rotating blade for almost 1½ hour a day.

At this distance a blade may completely obscure the sun each time it passes between the receptor and the sun. With current wind turbine designs, flicker should not be an issue at distances over 10 rotational diameters (~1000 meters or 1 km (0.6 mi) for most current wind turbines).

This distance has been recommended by the Wind Energy Handbook (Burton et al., 2001) as a minimum setback distance in directions that flicker may occur, and has been noted in the Bent Tree Permit Application (WPL, 2008).

Shadow flicker is a potential issue in the mornings and evenings, when turbine noise may be masked by ambient sounds. While low frequency noise is typically an issue indoors, shadow flicker can be an issue both indoors and outdoors when the sun is low in the sky. Therefore, shadow flicker may be an issue in locations other than the home.

Ireland recommends wind turbines setbacks of at least 300 meters from a road to decrease driver distraction (Michigan State University, 2004). The NRC (2007) recommends that shadow flicker is addressed during the preliminary planning stages of a wind turbine project.”

[click on the image below to watch a video of shadow flicker problems in homes in Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties]

Filed 8/11/09 by Nic Ludwig, Sauk City, WI:

The #1 problem with industrial size wind turbines, which are 400 feet tall or taller, is that they are placed too close to people's homes.

Research has proven that industrial wind turbines should be placed at least 2,640 feet away from people's homes to minimize the health and safety issues that are associated with them.

I am not saying wind farms can't or shouldn't exist, but I am saying industrial wind turbines need to be placed at least 2,640 feet away from people's homes.

The concerns of people who currently live in or near an industrial wind farm (and people who will be affected by wind farms in the future) NEED TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! You can not let the propaganda of wind developers and lobbyists for wind influence your decisions.

Due to improper placement, many people living in or near an industrial wind farm are experiencing health and safety problems.

Living too close to an industrial wind turbine has caused health problems among people due too much noise and shadow flicker, which is a strobe-like flashing of light flickering into homes.

It has also hurt property values. People living in or near an industrial wind farm can no longer sell their homes. This is why within the last year several Wisconsin towns and counties have developed ordinances after conducting countless hours of extensive research into problems arising from industrial wind farms that are being reported on an international scale.

The research clearly demonstrates that industrial size wind turbines that are placed closer than 2,640 feet setback from people's homes result in a multitude of health problems not to mention safety issues from ice throws, splintered blades and tower collapse from lightning strikes.

There have been several lightning strikes already documented at the Blue Sky, Green Field project in northern Fond du Lac County which recently went on line. Thankfully the incidents were not catastrophic yet. I am asking you to please stop allowing industrial wind turbines 1,000 feet from people's homes.

Calumet County, Wi has an ordinance that was developed by an Ad hoc Committee, which was composed of 12 members (4 members for, 4 against, and 4 unbiased members). County Board members used this committee's research over several months to come up with a County ordinace, which includes a sound ordinance.

Wind developers are not happy with the ordinaces because they feel it is too strict and has slowed projects.

Why is the in-depth research of local towns and counties being questioned and not the wind companies for wanting to push these projects through? When it comes to the health and safety of local residents shouldn't ordinances be strict? Addressing the HEALTH AND SAFETY OF LOCAL RESIDENTS SHOULD BE THE#1 PRIORITY and everything else should come second.

The Blue Sky Green Field Wind Farm located in Fond du Lac County borders Calumet County. This project has caused major issues amongst local residents. I would strongly encourage you to take a drive up to this wind farm and experience first hand what it would be like to live in or near an industrial wind farm.

Talk with some of the local residents regarding their concerns. First-hand knowledge is way better than hear-say. I would also encourage you to talk with Senator Joe Leibham who has visited this wind farm and has talked with local residents about their concerns.

This project, along with other projects in the state have on-going issues with wind turbines being too close to people's homes causing many health and safety issues. I strongly recommend you check out this website: http://betterplan.squarespace.com/, which explains very well the many issues with industrial size wind turbines being too close to people's homes.

While legally ordinances can only address health and safety concerns, there are other issues including interference of radio, television, and broad band reception.

Why are wind developers able to create vast areas of ‘dead zones’? Are not the people living in these areas entitled to the same rights and privileges as the rest of the population?Shouldn’t they have access to the same sources of media that everyone else has?

Shouldn’t they have access to "Flight for Life” like everyone else? Why should they have to transport an accident victim to a ‘safe zone’ so the victim can then be transported via air to a near-by hospital? One elderly woman in the Johnsburg area tearfully stated at a recent town hall meeting that she and her husband have been given ‘a life sentence’ to have to live in this project. They are too old to move and have no desire to sell their house even if they could.

The concerns of people who currently live in or near an industrial wind farm (and people who will be affected by wind farms in the future) NEED TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! PLEASE KEEP INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES AT LEAST 2,640 FEET OR MORE AWAY FROM PEOPLE'S HOMES.

PSC REF#: 118213
Public Comment by Lynda Barry
Docket or Case Concern: 6630- -0
Submission Date: 8/11/2009 8:28:22 PM
Comment Detail:

RE: Wind Turbines and EMS helicopters in Wisconsin

This interview with retired EMS pilot Ray Slavik, was submitted to the Calumet County Ad Hoc Committee researching proposed ordinances governing the placement of wind turbines in the county.

The interview provides important insight into controlling an aircraft in the vicinity of utility-scale turbines.

Ray Slavik is a retired EMS Pilot who has flown for 20 Years as a pilot before retirement.

He is currently working as instructor for new helicopter pilots, checks pilot flight capabilities for insurance companies and completes pilot certification. He has also has a fixed wing pilots rating for both private and commercial aircraft.

He was employed as an EMS pilot in Buffalo New York for about 2 years, than transferred to work as a relief pilot throughout WI.

Mr. Slavik worked for Theda Clark Hospital as an EMS pilot for over 16 years making numerous EMS flights into and out of Calumet County before retirement. He has also served as a pilot for the search and rescue helicopter service in Green Bay and the surrounding counties.

The interview was conducted by Daniel Hedrich, the Co-Chairman for the Township of Chilton's Wind Energy Systems advisory committee:

Dan Hendrich: We opened our conversation with Ray asking, “Why is this information important to you and who has asked to get this information?”

I explained to Ray that I am a Co-Chairman for the Township of Chilton's WES advisory committee and also a member of the Calumet County Ad Hoc committee appointed to help the county review and come up with information and recommendations on proposed Ordnances and any changes that may need to be made. I have been appointed by the Chairman of the Calumet County Board and
also Chairman of the Ad Hoc committee to research the EMS flight information.

Q: Do you feel that an EMS pilot would be able to land near a Large Wind Turbine if they shut them off?

Ray Slavik: Don't kid yourself, they will most likely not land anywhere in the County where these turbines are located, I have arrived at many accident scenes before the
sheriffs dept. We (helicopter and crew) are often ¾ of the way to an accident scene before the sheriff's Department or other people in authority arrive on the scene.

The 1st responders often make the first call and we are on the way. Time is the important issue and that is the reason for the EMS flights. The sooner we arrive for transport the better the chance of saving that life.

Remember the reason we are there is to be able to transport the patient to the nearest Trauma Center as quickly as possible. If the patient needs to be transported by ground to
a location free of Turbines or to the Calumet Medical Center instead of direct pick up from the accident scene valuable time is lost and that is what the EMS helicopter program is all about.

Q: What are the EMS flight regulations for maximum altitude when flying into Calumet County because of all of the current air traffic?

A: EMS ceiling for Flight: they may go as high as 10,000 ft. Above that oxygen isneeded, which is not carried on board. Current part 135 of the FAA regulations require ½ mile of ground visibility and a 300 foot ceiling. However the operation specifications for each flight program is usually higher than FAA minimums. If the visibility or ceiling falls below the operational specifications for that flight program the pilot cannot legally accept the flight.

A pilot would need a minimum of 500 feet above a known object to fly safely over it. So if an object is 500 feet tall an EMS helicopter would need to be 1,000 feet off the ground to fly over it. This would limit flights to days when there is a cloud ceiling of 1,000 feet or greater.

The FAA regulations allow for flight with a ceiling of 300 feet, this would greatly limit the available days for Flights into and out of the Chilton Hospital.

Pilots are more comfortable flying over areas that they know obstruction heights day and night, however they are limited by their operation specifications on how low they can fly. Other factors depend on the type of weather such as low cloud ceiling verse rain, sleet or snow.

When flying VFR (Visual Flight Rules) in a helicopter it is important to have visual clues at all times. The books say that if you lose control of the helicopter because of clouds or visibility you would have about 20 seconds to gain control and fly by the instruments.

The flight weather reports are only good for 5 nautical mile radius of the airport which is giving out that information. As a pilot you don't know what may be out further in your route. You may leave knowing you have good flight data but the weather may change and push you closer and closer to the ground as you are flying.

I have often left my home base when the weather is ok but had to spend 3 to 5 hours on the ground waiting for a baby with health problems to be born so I can transport them to a neonatal center. Do you want to be the one who has to tell the parents why their child is going to die? Because you can't fly into an area anymore to safely pick them up.

Q: What type of effect would this turbulence have on a helicopter?

A: Being that the lift is provided by the large overhead rotor, the tail rotor counteracts the torque of the main rotor which keep the aircraft flying straight Any interference with the tail rotor system could cause the aircraft to yaw left or right or even spin. Since it would be most affected by turbulence from the side of the aircraft, your corridor must be wide enough so that any turbulence side would not have any adverse affect on the tail rotor.

If the turbulence did affect it, your aircraft would start to spin in rotation with the large overhead rotor causing a major loss of flight control. Turbulence will also affect the main rotor. It is this large rotor that provides the lift, but it does not do this by rotating on a level plan. The rotors flap as they rotate around the center or hub. It is this flapping that causes the lift that allows the helicopter to fly.

If turbulence interferes with this it would cause the helicopter to lose it's lift and it's ability to remain in the air. Enough turbulence will cause you to lose control of the aircraft.

Q: What distance is needed to make a safe normal speed turn?

A: That would depend on several factors, on a clear day with very little wind a 30 degree bank turn may require only ¼ to ½ mile to make. But when you are affected by low visibility from a low cloud ceiling or it is night time you would be required to make a more gentle turn to keep from losing altitude and your visible horizon location.

This would require that a maximum 20 degree banked turn be made. This turn would require at least a ½ mile of safe clearance to safely turn the aircraft around. Other factors such as bad weather conditions may require an even larger area.

If you get disorientated due to low visibility, low ceiling height and/or turbulenceand you lose the horizon you have 20 seconds to get your craft under control or it will crash.

Q: What other problems would these turbines present to an EMS pilot?

A: I have often used the (Night Sun light) on my helicopter to locate an obstacle or tower to be able to fly in close to make a safe landing or have safe passage around it.

The problem with the Wind Turbine is the turbulence would not allow you to fly in close enough to use the (Night Sun light) to properly navigate and protect your own life, as well as those you are responsible for aboard your aircraft.

Q: What about the way that the warning lights are designed on the Wind Turbines?

A: I have studied how these are placed in the FAA manuals and have a great concern about how these lights are place. They are placed at the top of the tower on the generator housing and than a blade can extend 100 to 200 feet beyond this without any lighting showing their maximum height. It would be impossible to make a safe passage through an area where there could be 50 or 100 of these
Wind Turbines.

So it could become a no fly zone for on the scene EMS helicopter services. This would limit EMS helicopter transports through such an area. This same problem would happen if a low cloud ceiling height did not provide enough safe clearance over the rotor tips. I would say this would require at least 500 to 600 feet of clearance above the rotor tips...

Q: What would be your perspective on this issue?

A: I would compare this to my experience of many on site EMS helicopter transports from rural car accidents scenes.

Often when you have an uncontrolled intersection in the country and there are a series of accidents there, you will then turn around and put up a stop sign to solve the problem. I have been unable to find any data that supports the fact that these Turbines would not cause any problems, so think about putting up that stop sign before the accident happens.
Look at protecting what you currently have as far as the EMS services are concerned.

Q: With the information that you have been provided with on the current size and type of wind turbine, what would you consider to be a safe travel
corridor width needed to allow for the EMS helicopter service to safely fly to and from Calumet Memorial Hospital?

A: One Nautical Mile would be to narrow. It would not allow for safe flight path even down the middle because of the influence of turbulence created by the Wind Turbines on either side. Even without the influence that air turbulence would have on the aircraft. You must provide room for safe travel, as well as to allow for a safe normal speed turn to be made. I would say that a clear flight path corridorshould be a minimum of 1 ½ nautical miles, with 2 miles being the preferred distance.

Q: With your experience as an EMS Helicopter pilot for almost 20 years in Calumet County, where would be the best area to establish a clear flight path for EMS Helicopter service to and from Calumet Memorial Medical Center?

A: Since most of your flights are coming from and then returning to Theda Clark Hospital in Neenah you should look at establishing this path around the North end of Lake Winnebago to the hospital in Chilton. Since a large portion of your county could be removed from the accident scene pickup. You should also look at establishing alternate sites where the patient can be ground transported to and
then airlifted to the Trauma Center at Theda Clark hospital or Milwaukee.

These Sites would require that a safe flight corridor either extending from the one at Calumet Hospital or others be set aside.

Q: What about establishing a safe flight path from Chilton to the South county line to provide for EMS transportation to Milwaukee, such as Froedert Hospital or St Mary's Burn Center as is currently done?

A: Since the flight would be longer the pilot would need much better flying conditions and than what is needed on a flight to and from Theda Clark the need for a safe corridor is reduced. If anything you could establish this safe flight path to New Holstein and the pilots could use it if needed. This could also provide for a safe flight path to be used when establishing alternate EMS pickup sites.
Then patients could be ground transported there and picked up by EMS helicopter for transport.

Q: Why does it seem that the whole EMS helicopter program has had a gag order and no information is now available to us to make a safe and knowledgeable decision on the safe flight corridor issue?

A: The problem is these hospitals make a lot of money from these flights and the pilots and crews are contracted from outside service providers. The hospitals do not want to lose any revenue, so they will not say anything. The company that provides the pilots and crews will not say anything, because they do not want the hospital to look for another EMS provider. This leaves everyone including the
pilots who have to do the flying with a gag order or they could lose their job.

My experience with flying as an EMS pilot is: If you as a pilot had a problem with flight or landing zones, the hospital will turn a deaf ear to you and will be angry about any complaints because you are paid to fly. The money comes in when you fly your aircraft.
Respectfully submitted,

Ray Slavik
EMS Helicopter pilot retired

Daniel Hedrich
Calumet County Ad Hoc Committee

November 5, 2007

Home in Wisconsin's Butler Ridge WInd Farm, May 2009

[FOR MORE NEWS ABOUT UNINDENDED IMPACTS OF WIND TURBINES, CLICK HERE]

Wind turbine noise concerns prompt investigation

by Dan Gunderson,

Minnesota Public Radio

August 4, 2009

[CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE]

Click below to listen

Valley City, ND — Wind farms are rapidly expanding across the Midwest, and a growing number of residents who live near the wind turbines are complaining about noise.

In Minnesota, those complaints prompted the Public Utilities Commission to investigate.

When Dennis and Cathryn Stillings chose a place to retire, they were looking for solitude and quiet. So a couple of years ago, they bought a farmstead in the rolling hills of eastern North Dakota.

Soon after they moved in, dozens of wind turbines sprouted in a neighbor's nearby field.

Dennis Stillings said he wasn't bothered at first because he supported wind energy and he was told the turbines were quiet, no louder than 55 decibels.

"Which is about the same level as your refrigerator running, or the same level as my conversation right now," Stillings said. "Well, if I was holding a conversation with someone in my living room and someone in the corner was sitting there going bop, bop, bop at 55 decibels, it would drive me nuts and I'd kick him out."

The Stillings said what bothers them is the pulsating, low-frequency sound. They say it's like a giant dishwasher, or a helicopter in the distance. Cathryn Stillings said there's no escaping the sound and that she's having trouble sleeping.

"It's a duller sound in the house but it's still out there," she said. "You can hear it through the walls. It just kind of gets in your bones."

Dennis Stillings says wind turbine noise is a constant background sound in their yard and home. (MPR Photo/Dan Gunderson)The Stillings' complaints are similar to cases popping up around the country in the past couple of years, as wind farm expansion moves closer to populated areas. Complaints include headaches, dizziness and trouble sleeping.

In Minnesota, a handful of groups have organized to demand tougher regulation. They want the state to require more distance between wind turbines and homes. A report by the Minnesota Department of Health concluded there are potential health concerns.

The Minnesota Department of Health issued a white paper earlier this year which reviewed available research and concluded noise might be underestimated when planning wind farms and that better evaluation of low frequency sounds is needed. MDH also concluded cumulative sound from multiple turbines should be considered.

The Public Utilities Commission is considering changing the rules for wind turbines.

Bob Cupit, a permit manager with the Public Utilities Commission, said concerns about turbine noise are increasingly coming up in public comments about wind projects.

"We thought we needed an answer to the questions and if we didn't have a science-based answer, then we get uncomfortable about that," Cupit said.

Minnesota now requires wind turbines to meet a 50 decibel sound limit. That means most turbines are sited 1,000 feet or more from homes.

Some contend the minimum setback should be increased to about 2,000 feet or more. The National Research Council of the National Academies found there are few noise complaints beyond a half mile from a wind turbine.

Cupit said the PUC will take public comment and expect the wind industry to fund additional research.

"We're going to see what we get and we're going to rely on the industry to be responsive," he said. "Then we're going to put the facts on the table and see if we have enough to adequately shape an adjustment to setbacks that are appropriate and in the public interest."

Changing those setbacks could make placing wind farms more complicated and more expensive.

Leon Steinberg is CEO of Minneapolis-based National Wind. He said most wind farm developers already use setbacks that exceed state regulations.

"I don't think the industry believes it's a significant problem," Steinberg said. "But I believe the industry is concerned with the perception that it may be a problem."

Steinberg said a negative public perception could stall wind projects in the future, or make wind energy development more expensive, so he supports the state review of regulations.

"I can tell you that as far as I'm aware we have never had a complaint on one of our wind farms," Steinberg said. "But as you start developing in more urban areas or areas that have hobby farms and higher population densities, I think a higher level of scrutiny is needed."

Steinberg said he is confident research will prove there are no negative health effects from wind farms.

Wind developers are moving closer to populated areas because that's where transmission lines are located. Many isolated rural areas don't have enough transmission capacity to carry the electricity generated by wind farms back to urban areas where it's needed.

That's happening in Clay County where plans to erect hundreds of wind turbines are on the drawing board. The county recently passed an ordinance to control small wind developments of less than 5 MW, but the state still regulates larger wind developments.

Clay County Planner Tim Magnusson said most of the wind development is planned in the fastest growing area of the county. People are building homes because of hills, trees and wildlife. Magnusson hopes the state will establish standards that eliminate any dispute about health effects.

"It would be nice if the state agencies got together and used that white paper as a stepping off point to do some of that research to ensure that what's going to be a big business in the future is a safe business in the future," Magnusson said.

The proposed wind farms in Clay County prompted some area residents to ask for a review of state regulations.

Moorhead resident Per Anderson is one of the Minnesotans who asked the PUC to evaluate wind turbine setbacks.

Anderson said he supports wind energy; in fact he pays extra on his electric bill each month to support the city of Moorhead wind energy program. He owns land near a proposed wind farm and says any health issues are very important to the small number of people who experience them.

"Do they matter? They do, and we have to find a way to protect their interests because the stories they tell about the disruption of their lives strike me as very significant and indefensible," Anderson said. "But they are very small numbers against an overwhelming demand to create a very robust renewable energy system for this country."

Anderson said he's pleased the public has a chance to weigh in on turbine noise. He said he'll accept whatever the utilities commission decides after a complete analysis.

The Public Utilities Commission will take comment through mid September.

[NOTE: To read more about the Stillings' life with wind turbines, click here]

[THIS JUST IN: Click here to read the latest on wind turbines in the news]

What does the appeals court ruling on the Calumet County wind ordinance really mean?

To some it means all local ordinances have been "wiped out".

To others it means that ordinances enacted to protect health and safety still stand.

The answer may be somewhere in the middle.

[Download the entire decision by clicking here]

One view of the ruling goes like this:

Local Wind Ordinances Stand:

Appeals Court ruling expressly allows local control for reasons of health and safety.

Local Wind Ordinances were not struck down by last months appeals court ruling on the Calumet County wind ordinance.

Although initial media reports stated all local wind ordinances in the state were nullified by this ruling, a closer reading of the decision now has brought this into question.

From the language in the decision on this case:

Pages 6-7

"¶10 Now we can get to the substantive issue, which concerns the scope of the State’s delegation of authority to its political subdivisions to restrict wind energy systems.

WISCONSIN STAT. § 66.0401(1) is the primary statute governing this issue. This statute is a state legislative restriction that expressly forbids political subdivisions from regulating solar and wind energy systems. State ex rel.

Numrich v. City of Mequon Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2001 WI App 88, ¶17, 242 Wis. 2d 677, 626 N.W.2d 366.3

The scope of this preemption, however, expressly allows some local control insofar as they satisfy one of three conditions.

(1) AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT SYSTEMS LIMITED. No county, city, town, or village may place any restriction, either directly or in effect, on the installation or use of a … wind energy system, as defined in s. 66.0403 (1) (m), unless the restriction satisfies one of the following conditions:

(a) Serves to preserve or protect the public health or safety.

(b) Does not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency.

(c) Allows for an alternative system of comparable cost and efficiency.

Thus, a political subdivision’s consideration of a wind energy system must be in light of the conditions placed on local regulation by this section. Numrich, 242 Wis. 2d 677, ¶17."

The ruling introduces nothing new, but rather follows the state statute as written. Only ordinances by this which contain arbitrary restrictions are affected by this ruling.

Local wind ordinances which follow the letter of the law and regulate only for reasons of health and safety still stand.

“The council for Calumet County may have failed to make the link between their setback and health and safety, but that failure does not mean all local wind ordinances are negated by this ruling,” said Jim Bembinster at the Town of Union’s Plan and Zoning Commission Meeting on Thursday. Mr. Bembinster was a member of the Town of Union wind ordinance study committee.

The Town of Union spent 14 months creating a wind ordinance, which adheres strictly to the restrictions of the state statute and regulates only for reasons of health and safety. All restrictions in the Town of Union ordinance are supported by the most recent medical and scientific data. Similar ordinances have been adopted in at least 10 Wisconsin Towns.

An early press release stating ordinances are overturned by this decision appears to be the source of the misunderstanding.

Spring Valley resident Kevin Kawula believes the confusion was a result of a lobbying group’s continued efforts to overturn local ordinances, “They took an out of bounds ball and ran it into the end zone, and yelled, “touchdown!”, he said, “They just hoped nobody would notice. Well, they were wrong.”

ANOTHER VIEW OF THE RULING:

Court Ruling Wipes Out Local Wind Ordinances

[Click Here to read at source]

By GINA DUWE

Janesville Gazette

Sunday, Aug. 2, 2009

A recent Wisconsin appeals court ruling wipes away ordinances written in Union and Magnolia townships to regulate wind energy systems, experts say.

But the court ruling would be trumped if the state Legislature approves a bill to develop statewide siting standards.

“Even though we apparently wasted $40,000 coming up with an ordinance, I don’t think the money was completely wasted because I think we have solid, scientific facts that will give our community and the Union Town Board the basis for evaluating these proposals on a case-by-case basis,” said Tom Alisankus, who chaired Union’s wind study committee.

Although the ruling by the District 2 Court of Appeals in Ecker Brothers versus Calumet County applies statewide, the opinion is based on current law. If the proposed wind siting statute is approved, it would override the court ruling, experts say.

Meanwhile, Calumet County and the Wisconsin Counties Association plan to continue the fight in court with an appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, said John Reinemann, legislative director of the counties association.

The judges said Calumet County could not use an ordinance to apply setback, height and other restrictions to all wind energy systems, he said.

The opinion reads: “We hold that this ‘one size fits all’ scheme violates the legislative idea that localities must look at each wind system on its own merits and decide, in each specific case, whether the wind system conflicts with public health or safety.”

Alisankus, a lawyer and municipal judge, said the ruling is misguided because it invalidates ordinances, which is typically how things are regulated.

“Oftentimes, the whole reason you put out an ordinance is so everyone knows ahead of time what the standards are,” he said. “More importantly, everyone is treated the same way.”

Vote on Tuesday

A bill working its way through the Legislature would have the state Public Service Commission develop statewide permitting standards. Now, wind projects of 100 megawatts and more go through the PSC for permitting, and smaller projects are permitted through local municipalities.

That’s created a patchwork of ordinances that make permitting difficult or impossible, the wind industry says.

Officials at the counties association think statewide standards probably are on the way, so they’ve been in contact with those “framing the law in an effort to preserve as much local control as possible,” Reinemann said.

The Senate Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail committee is scheduled to vote on the wind siting bill Tuesday, said Kevin Brady, a spokesman for Sen. Jeff Plale, D-South Milwaukee, a co-sponsor of the bill.

The Assembly version of the bill already has passed the Assembly Utilities Committee and is ready for a vote on the Assembly floor, he said.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

 Is the answer somewhere in the middle?

Journalist Gina Duwe was kind enough to provide some clarification for us when we contacted her about this story.

She told us that from what she'd gathered, the ruling means instead of one municipal ordinance regulating everything, a municipality has to evaluate projects individually but they can still use all the research and findings that went into developing their ordinances when evaluating specific cases.

We thank Ms. Duwe for this clarification!