Better Plan, Wisconsin

The Public Service Commission is now accepting public comments on this proposed project, its setbacks, noise limits, and other concerns.

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.

Each red square surrounding by a yellow circle in the image above shows a home of a non-participating resident in the proposed Glacier Hills Wind Farm. [Download the full- sized map by clicking here]

The yellow circle that surrounds it is the 1000 foot setback proposed by the developer. The project is located in Columbia County, about 50 miles northeast of Madison in the Towns of Randolph and Scott. [scroll to previous post to see detail images of the project]

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.

RECENT PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE GLACIER HILLS DOCKET:

From a doctor:

It is absolutely clinically irresponsible to allow turbine setbacks of 1000 feet from homes. Abundant clinical research demonstrates that setbacks should be a minimum of 2 km.

Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

Malone, NY

From a resident of the Invenergy Forward Energy Wind Farm:

My name is Larry Wunsch.

I am sure you are going to read a lot of comments about how wind farms will be good for Wisconsin.

When I hear people having a conversation about how great they are I ask them "Do you live in a wind farm"?

The answer is always no. I live in a wind farm and I have a wind turbine 1100 feet from my home.

This mechanical device along with other wind turbines has taken away a quality of my life.

I had conerns early on with the PSC approved wind farm that I now live in but those concerns went unheard.

Go to YouTube ([Click here to see] Shadow Flicker in Byron)and see for yourself what I go through.

I would hope that the PSC staff and commissioners would have been educated to the negative effects when placing a wind turbine so close to a residence, but then again, I don't think anyone from the PSC lives in a wind farm.

You can find all kinds of data about wind farms but nothing should override the testimony of those who live in a wind farm.

There are a number of homes for sale in the wind farm where I live. They have been for sale for over a year and a half.

Try to tell me that wind turbines don't affect property values. We asked for a propery value protection plan early on in the project which was not unreasonable to ask, for but that was denied.

History, is always the best teacher

Larry Wunsch

Brownsville, Wisconsin

From another resident of the Invenergy wind farm:

I live on the northern edge of the 86 wind turbines that are called the "Forward Energy" project in Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties.

These turbines stand 400 feet tall with setbacks from homes of non-participating owners being at 1,000 feet.

That distance is not enough, it is my opinion that 2,000 feet or more should be the setback.

We have had and continue to have complaints from innocent victims of irresponsible placement of the turbines.

The complaints include noise issues, shadow flicker, and headaches.

A number of my friends and others having been trying to sell their homes, with nobody showing any interest because of the turbines.

These hard-working Americans have all been screwed by this project.

Setbacks need to be responsible and determined not by the developer, but by local residents and local governing bodies.

Curt Kindschuh

Brownsville, Wisconsin

From a retired nurse:

Setbacks of 1000 foot from residences and work places are not adequate.

Children live in these homes and if even some of these children experience sleepless nights or other health issues it will be a very cruel experiment.

People are the reason for the need for renewable power. We can not abuse one group of people for the betterment of the rest.

Joan Mitchell

Brodhead, Wisconsin

Filed July 31,2009:

I would like to file a comment about the Glacial Hills Wind Project, Docket no. 6630-CE–302.

I have been working in the areas of land preservation and natural area restoration, prairies, woodlands, and wetlands since 1992, and the scope and scale of an industrial wind generating facility’s potential negative impacts, such as the proposed Glacial Hills Wind Project, are alarming.

Ninety 2.3MW (500 foot tall?) industrial wind turbines, covering an area of 17,300 acres, using an outdated safety setback of 1,000 feet from peoples’ homes, is an excessive taking of any community’s health, safety, and welfare for the benefit of a corporation gambling on an intermittent generating resource.

The PSCW should deny the CPCN for this WEPCO/WE Energies Glacier Hills project (6630) until there is thorough scientific proof that the siting of the 2.3MW wind turbines will cause no harm to those people forced to live in or near the proposed facility.

The Wisconsin Wind Resource Assessment Program (WRAP) Final Report was prepared in part for WEPCO, so they should be well aware that the report states under Figures, pg.2:

“Figure 4 illustrates the diurnal wind speed patterns at the 40 meter level for all sites. As shown in the figure, the diurnal wind speed patterns are similar at all 14 sites. (Including monitoring station site #414 in DeForest) The wind speeds are highest at midday and again late at night to early morning.”

This means that the proposed facility would have a direct impact on peoples’ sleep, but would miss peak energy demand periods.

Human health and safety, like a healthy environment, requires limiting the number and duration of negative impacts.

What will be the negative impacts of the Glacier Hills project on people, wildlife, and the environment?

Loss of sleep and quality of life, if one talks to residents in PSC approved wind projects in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties, fragmented wildlife habitat with overall reduced quality of habitat, and an extensive area, 17,300 acres – 27 square miles of land – hot wired to sporadic electrical generators.

The PSCW needs to learn from its past 1,000 foot setback mistakes, which have created such problems for residents in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties. The lack of protection for citizens and their homes, surrounding the industrial wind industry, needs to be addressed by everyone in government, before more people are hurt.

Kevin A. Kawula

Filed July 31, 2009:

Hi,

I would like to relate my personal encounter with a wind turbine.

About two years ago to experience the sounds of wind turbines I drove my wife's convertiblle on a sunny afternoon west to the 300' tall turbines near Monford WI.

I found one located to the west of a quiet side road. I just relaxed, and watched, and listened. The wind was very soft. The blades stopped, and started. The only sound was the hydraulics that seemed to change the pitch of the blades, and change the direction of the hub of the turbine. The sun was getting lower, and I wanted to start home before the bugs came out. I wanted to avoid a car washing at home.

On the drive home I experienced an aura of an epileptic seizure. I pulled off the road to park. All the time hoping the episode would not progress.

I have epilepsy. An aura happens to me before I could go into having a grand mal seizure. I take 1000 mg of Depakote per day. I have not had any problems for years, or any since that afternoon.

I feel this episode was brought on from parking to the east of the turbine in the afternoon. I was in the shadow of the blades. At the time I had no idea that the moving shadow could cause problems.

If I knew of this problem I would never parked in the shadow. To drive in Wisconsin I believe a person must be seizure free for six months.

At a Town meeting I asked a wind turbine sales person about the shadow flash if his turbines were only 1000' from homes. He told me his company would be glad to buy shades for peoples homes. I replied what if people would like to go outside?

We own 56 acres. About 17 years ago we built a very energy efficent home. I'm glad I investigated, and experienced large wind turbines for myself. It took me less than 7 hours on a calm day to find out it would mean an end to living in the home we built if was in the shadow of a large wind turbine.

I don't want to be forced to move.

Thanks,

Dave Olsen

Evansville, Wisconsin

Filed July 31 2009

Please FULLY research the wind turbine issue before making your decision. Numerous cases around the world of hazardous health and safety issues connected with wind turbines have been reported.

If for one moment the participants of the proposed wind project took the $ sign out of the picture, this would be an entirely different battle. It's now a battle which has divided the community I have been a part of for 32 years.

A divide I no longer want to be a part of. The community was made of a safe, traditional, family-orientated, conscientious group of people.

At this point, it's a community divided by greed originating from the wind turbine $. This community is NOT the only and best place in the state of WI for this project. The rural landscape will diminish forever if the project goes through.

I refuse to raise my children in an environment that can be arguably safe. Generation after generation of families stay in the township of Randolph and Scott area for many reasons: safety, traditionalism, family-orientated, beautiful landscape.

The wind turbines are definitely a reason to leave.

PLEASE DON'T RUIN THE COMMUNITY I LOVE WITH AGREEING TO 90+ ELECTRICAL WIND GENERATORS.

I completely understand your position in meeting government statutes and regulations, but please consider this---Would you expose your children or grandchildren as guinea pigs in a proven unsafe environment? I WON"T!!!

Thanks for your consideration

Melanie D. Wiersma

Friesland, Wisconsin

Each red square shows a home of a non-participating resident in the proposed Glacier Hills Wind Farm. [Download full- sized map by clicking here] The yellow circle that surrounds it is the 1000 foot setback proposed by the developer. The project is located in Columbia County, about 50 miles northeast of Madison in the Towns of Randolph and Scott.

The 1000 foot setback was used in wind farms of Fond du Lac and Dodge counties, where residents are complaining about excessive turbine noise, severe shadow-flicker, and homes that will not sell.

While hosting land owners welcome the additional income, the quality of life for their many neighbors has been greatly diminished. Proper setbacks would have made all the difference.

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.

The Public Service Commission is now accepting public comments on this proposed project, its setbacks, noise limits, and other concerns.

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.

BPWI RESEARCH NERD'S EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION OF THE DAY: Why does the State of New York want wind developers to sign an ethics code? And can Wisconsin Have one Please? CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE

SUBMITTED 7/23/09

I would like to file a comment in opposition to the Wind project to be located in the town of Scott and Randolph.

I believe the towers and project will have a major negative impact on the rural nature of our township.

The towers themselves have a negative visual impact and are huge visual polluters.

I will be in direct visual contact with two of the towers from my house. The towers I will have impacting me are located on Jerry and Kathy Cigelski's land.

I find it interesting that the towers are located far from their house but up against my land.

I am also very concerned by the noise generated by these towers and I feel it will have a direct impact on my ability to enjoy and hunt on my land.

We are also in a major waterfowl flyway and I cant see how geese and ducks are suppose to fly through these wind tower projects.

I really feel that government policy is biased to this type of renewal energy and it is being ramm ed down our throats. I also believe that the mandate of 10% renewable energy is poor and expensive public policy that will result in increased energy rates.

In a time of continuing job loss why are we making Wisconsin an expensive place to do business and degrading the quality of life for those of us who live here?

Respectfully yours, Dr. Jim Amstadt

SUBMITTED 7/27/09:

I would like to file a comment concerning the Glacier Hills wind project, docket no. 6630-CE-302.

I have participated in the wind turbine issue in different capacities for over 2 years.

It occurs to me that the simplest way to confront the opposing opinions for siting issues would be to address them.

To say that data is scant or inconclusive concerning the effects of wind turbines on the health of the public may be because all complaints are directed to the wind developer.

Throughout the world we have left regulation, complaint resolution and compliance in the hands of the wind developer, the ultimate violator who is responsible only for their own bottom line.

Continuing a permitting process that appears to support a see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil attitude toward industrial wind turbine projects can only lead to destructive consequences.

Modeled noise projections are submitted by a wind developer’s paid consultant based on criteria biased toward quantity installations.

This conflicts with evaluating the true environmental impact of a wind project on non participating landowners.

Background noise measurement locations for a project are carefully chosen. Samples are taken in the loudest areas of a project, at the loudest times of day.

The modeled project noise projections are compared to noise data from wind turbine model certification following IEC 61400-11 standards. IEC certified wind turbines are tested in a controlled environment under optimum test conditions.

If you read the IEC 61400-11 standards you will find that the most important testing criteria pertaining to environmental noise is not included in this certification test and should be addressed separately by a qualified acoustical engineer.

Following are some important quotes from this document:

Page 7:

“This part of IEC 61400 presents measurement procedures that enable noise emissions of a wind turbine to be characterized. This involves using measurement methods appropriate to noise emission assessment at locations close to the machine, in order to avoid errors due to sound propagation, but far enough away to allow for the finite source size.

The procedures described are different in some respects from those that would be adopted for noise assessment in community noise studies. They are intended to facilitate characterization of wind turbine noise with respect to a range of wind speeds and directions.

Standardization of measurement procedures will also facilitate comparisons between different wind turbines.”

Page 11:

“The measurements are made at locations close to the turbine in order to minimize the influence of terrain effects, atmospheric conditions or wind-induced noise.

To account for the size of the wind turbine under test, a reference distance Ro based on the wind turbine dimensions is used.”

Pages 38 and 39, the most important pages of all.

These are the areas of concern that are causing the impacts to a community; they are not reported in the wind turbines manufacturers’ certification:

“– 38 – 61400-11 © IEC:2002+A1:2006(E)

Annex A

(informative)

Other possible characteristics of wind turbine noise emission and their quantification

A.1 General

In addition to those characteristics of wind turbine noise described in the main text of this standard, the noise emission may also possess some, or all, of the following:

infrasound;

low-frequency noise;

impulsivity;

low-frequency modulation of broad band or tonal noise;

other, such as a whine, hiss, screech or hum, etc., distinct impulses in the noise, such as bangs, clatters, clicks, or thumps, etc.

These areas are described briefly below, and possible quantitative measures discussed.

It should be noted that certain aspects of infrasound, low frequency noise, impulsivity and amplitude modulation are not fully understood at present. Thus it may prove that measurement positions farther away from the wind turbine than those specified in the standard may be preferable for the determination of these characteristics.

A.2 Infrasound

Sound at frequencies below 20 Hz is called infrasound.

Although such sound is barely audible to the human ear, it can still cause problems such as vibration in buildings and, in extreme cases, can cause annoyance. If infrasound is thought to be emitted, an appropriate measure is the G-weighted sound pressure level according to ISO 7196.

A.3 Low frequency noise

A disturbance can be caused by low-frequency noise with frequencies in the range from 20 to 100 Hz.

The annoyance caused by noise dominated by low frequencies is often not adequately described by the A-weighted sound pressure level, with the result that nuisance of such a noise may be underestimated if assessed using only an LAeq value.

It may be possible to decide whether the noise emission can be characterised as having a low-frequency component. This is likely to be the case if the difference between the A and C-weighted sound pressure levels exceeds approximately 20 dB.

In these circumstances, low-frequency noise may be quantified by extending the one-third octave band measurements described in the main body of the text, down to 20 Hz. For one third octave bands, the 20, 25, 31,5 and 40 Hz bands should additionally be determined.

Narrowband spectra for frequencies below 100 Hz should be determined using a bandwidth smaller than one-half the blade passage frequency.

61400-11 © IEC:2002+A1:2006(E) – 39 –

A.4 Impulsivity

An impulsive, thumping sound may be emitted from a wind turbine due, for example, to the interaction of the blade with the disturbed wind around the tower.

Impulsivity is a measure of the degree of this thumping.

A quantification of impulsivity can be obtained from the average of several measurements of the difference between the C-weighted ‘impulse hold’ and maximum C-weighted ‘slow’ sound pressure levels.

The impulsive character can also be displayed by recording the filtered sound pressure signal using a 31,5 Hz octave band filter.

A.5 Amplitude modulation of the broad band noise

In some cases, it is possible that the broadband noise emitted by a wind turbine is modulated by the blade passage frequency giving rise to a characteristic “swishing” or “whooshing” sound.

This modulation can be displayed by recording the measured A-weighted sound pressure level with time weighting F for at least ten blade passes by the turbine.

The characteristics of this modulation can be influenced by local atmospheric conditions (see Annex C), and for this reason such conditions should be recorded during measurements.

A.6 Other noise characteristics

If the noise emission contains a whine, hiss, screech, hum, bang, clatter, click, thump, etc., then this characteristic should be reported.

As full a description as possible of the noise should be given in words, and any measurements that illustrate the nature of the noise should be taken.”

The unique noise characteristics of wind turbines that have been resoundingly reported as the very thing that affects human beings is not being measured in these certification tests.

The sound models used for the wind projects follow this lead. Models work only as well as the information that is inputted. One could say a model is much like a survey, “we will get you the results you need.”

Professional expertise has to compliment the model with additional testing parameters to come to a thorough conclusion.

Permitting a project and leaving the regulation, complaint resolution and compliance in the hands of the potential violator is negligent.

If a state agency has the responsibility to evaluate environmental impacts, those environmental studies should be submitted by a 3rd party with fair and balanced testing criteria.

In order to determine whether there are impacts post construction a 3rd party has to be responsible for complaint resolution, not the wind developer.

Regulation to determine compliance for the life of the project has to be done by a 3rd party similar to unannounced visits to a business from the Health Department or Weights and Measures.

You can’t manage what you don’t measure.

Sincerely,

Cathy Bembinster

Town of Union

SUBMITTED JULY 27, 2009:

After viewing the image showing the large number of non-participating homes that will be directly impacted by the Glacier Hills project, I respectfully request the Public Service Commission to revisit the issue of proper setbacks and noise limits.

The setbacks and noise limits proposed for this project are outdated.

Several years ago, when the PSC approved the 1000 foot setback and the 50 dbA noise levels for the Invenergy Forward Energy and Blue Sky/Green Field projects in Dodge and Fond du Lac counties, industrial scale wind development was a new industry in our state. Few Wisconsin residents had the experience of living in large wind farms, and none at all had ever lived among turbines of the 400 foot tall variety.

I’m a Wisconsin writer, cartoonist and writing teacher in the process of putting together a book proposal on what it’s like to live inside of an industrial scale wind farm.

In the course of my interviews with residents of the Blue Sky/Green Field and the Invenergy projects in Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties, I’ve met with people from nearly 20 households. I have been an overnight guest in the homes of residents who are experiencing problems associated with turbine noise, (most commonly interrupted sleep) and problems associated with shadow flicker (headache, nausea and dizziness). I've spent time with affected residents inside and outside of their homes and I've experienced these problems first hand.

Although wind developers use modeling that predicts shadow flicker at 1000 feet will be of short duration, a recent report from the Minnesota Department of Health entitled: "Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines" (2009) found this modeling to be so inadequate the Department of Health created their own modeling and found shadow flicker can last for as long as an hour and a half.

I've witnessed it lasting longer than this. I've also seen the shadows extending at least half a mile and completely encompassing entire homes, outbuildings and yards. These are unlike any shadows most of us have ever seen. They are fast and jarring and make normal activities impossible inside and outside of a home.

The setbacks and noise limits once assumed to be safe are proving to be inadequate and thus are outdated. Ongoing problems are more severe than predicted and are having a damaging effect. I was especially troubled by the problems experienced by of some of the elderly and disabled people I’ve interviewed. I have no doubt that the quality of life for many residents living inside of these two PSC-approved wind farms has been greatly diminished, and that greater setbacks and noise limits would have made all the difference.

The stories I’ve collected from the PSC approved wind farms of Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties are so troubling that I urge the PSC to get together with the Health Department to conduct extensive interviews with residents who have been living in wind farms in our state for the last year and a half.

I've found many who are anxious to speak about their experiences not only living among turbines, but also their experiences with trying to get complaint response and remedy from the wind company or local town board.

Many of them are understandably bitter about the lack of response or concern from the wind companies, local government officials, local health department, state agencies and even the media. They are bitter about not being believed, about being marginalized as "NIMBY"s , and about having their complaints dismissed with no true investigation.

It’s clear to me that there is a disconnect between the PSC and the people living in the wind farms they approved. I’m not sure anyone is at fault in this, but surely we can make things better for those now having trouble, and we must prevent more trouble by re-examining the state's policy on setbacks and noise limits. Setbacks must be based current scientific and medical data and first hand experiences of wind farm residents in our state.

More recent studies and reports from the National Academy of Sciences (2007), Congressional Research Service (2008), Minnesota Department of Health (2009) each identify 2640 feet (half mile) as the minimum setback beyond which noise and shadow-flicker are not a major concern.

Thus, families in homes located closer than 2640 feet from industrial wind turbines, especially when surrounded by multiple turbines may indeed experience major problems with noise and shadow flicker. Terrain, wind direction, locating turbines to the east and west of a residence, and many other variables are now widely recognized to have additional impact and must be carefully considered when siting turbines near homes.

Each home in a wind farm is unique in its relation to the terrain and the turbines located around it. For example, a home with turbines to the south or north is less likely to have shadow flicker problems than homes with turbines to the east or west. Homes downwind from turbines in a valley will experience more noise that homes located up wind and above turbines.

This is an important point. The variety of reported experiences in the same wind farm owes a great deal to these variables. As no two homes are identical in their relation to turbines, no two families living in different homes located in the same wind farm will have the same experiences. The very same turbines that are causing serious problems for one family may cause almost none for another depending on their respective locations.

This is a new and important industry in our state, and I realize in many ways we are all learning as we go. But unless we understand just what the specific problems are and take them seriously enough to change our standards, more trouble will result. And we cannot understand those problems without speaking to the people now living with them.

Based on my own experiences and interviews with wind farm residents living with the same setbacks and noise limits proposed for the Glacier Hills Wind Farm, I believe the project will result in many serious problems for both participating and non-participating residents.

The PSC, as the approving agency, has the power to prevent further trouble by revisiting the issue of setbacks, noise limits and shadow flicker modeling. It also must bear the responsibility of any problems that arise because of that approval.

I believe that any serious look into the issue reach the same conclusion as have the National Academy of Sciences, the Congressional Research Service and the Minnesota Department of Health: 2640 feet is the minimum setback needed to prevent major problems with noise and shadow flicker and thus preserve and protect the health and safety of residents who are asked to live inside of the industrial wind farms in our state.

Bucky says it's the least we can do for the residents of our beloved state of Wisconsin.

Submitted by Lynda Barry

Town of Spring Valley

RECENT REPORT TIES WIND TURBINE NOISE TO POTENTIAL HEALTH PROBLEMS

By Lynda Barry

July 22, 2009

[Download full report by clicking here]

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

Founder of the Leicester Sleep Disorders Service, which is the longest standing and largest service of its kind in Great Britain, Dr. Christopher Hanning's work in the area of sleep disorders has spanned thirty years. He currently chairs the advisory panel of the SOMNIA study, a major project investigating sleep quality in the elderly.

Dr. Hanning writes, "Sleep disturbance and impairment of the ability to return to sleep is not trivial, as almost all of us can testify."

He finds that wind turbine noise, even at levels that don’t fully awaken us, may nevertheless take us out of the most restful stage of sleep and disrupt critical sleep cycles. Hanning says, "This sleep, because it is broken, is unrefreshing, resulting in sleepiness, fatigue, headaches, poor memory and concentration."

These are the most common complaints from residents of industrial wind farms and Dr. Hanning believes they are tied to disrupted sleep.

He states that current government and industry-sponsored research on wind turbine noise and sleep disruption have only used recalled and reported full awakenings as an index of the effects of turbine noise on sleep.

Because most of the sleep disturbance does not result in full awakening and is not recalled, it can’t be reported. Dr. Hanning writes, "This approach seriously underestimates the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep."

Along with expected symptoms of fatigue, sleepiness and cognitive impairment, Dr. Hanning points to recent studies linking disrupted sleep to impaired glucose tolerance, increased risk of diabetes, increased risk of obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer and depression. He adds, “Sleepy people also have an increased risk of traffic accidents.”

He cites research which found people are more easily annoyed by wind turbine noise at lower levels than that of aircraft, traffic or trains. "The noise of wind turbines has been likened to 'a passing train, which never passes,’ “ writes Hanning, “Which may explain why wind turbine noise is prone to cause sleep disruption,"

Hanning believes current research strongly indicates people can be negatively impacted by wind turbine noise at distances thought by the wind industry to be safe.

He cites a recent peer-reviewed study which follows ten families who have been so affected by wind turbine noise that they had to leave their homes, nine of them permanently.

"Of particular concern," writes Dr. Hanning, "were the observed effects on children, including toddlers and school and college aged children." The study found changes in sleep pattern, behavior and academic performance. Seven out of ten children in the study had a decline in school performance while exposed to wind turbine noise. School performance recovered after exposure ceased.

Dr. Hanning notes, "In total, 20 of 34 study subjects reported problems with concentration or memory".

American pediatrician, Dr. Nina Pierpont, who conducted the peer-reviewed study, now recommends a minimum setback of two kilometers or (about 1.25 miles) from homes, schools, and other inhabited structures.

George Kamperman, a distinguished American noise engineer and an industrial noise consultant with fifty years of experience, also identifies this setback. Says Kamperman, "The magnitude of the impact [of wind turbine noise] is far above anything I have seen before at such relatively low sound levels... we desperately need noise exposure level criteria."

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

He writes, "In my expert opinion, from my knowledge of sleep physiology and a review of available research, I have no doubt that wind turbine noise emissions cause sleep disturbances and ill health, “

Rather than relying on theoretical approaches to calculating distance, Dr. Hanning recommends setbacks based on observations of the effects on real people who are now living in or near operating wind farms.

He says, "...The only mitigation for wind turbine noise is to place a sufficient distance between the turbines and places of human habitation."

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

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Wind developers in Wisconsin often deny there are negative health impacts for those living in windfarms in our state. They claim the state and local health departments have received no complaints from wind farm residents in our state.

The following is an email from a Wisconsin wind farm resident who comments on why this in an answer to a question about changes in her health since the 86 turbines in her project went on line. The closest turbine to her home is four hundred feet tall and 1640 feet from her door.

July 20, 2009

"My name is [withheld]

I was at my doctor yesterday.

In January she told me that my blood pressure was up and that I should watch it. I have. And lately noted it’s higher, so I went to see her yesterday again about it.

Also I have gained about 15 pound since the first of the year. My doctor told me lack of sleep will cause both of these issues. Now I must take a sleep aid to see if this will help first.

If not then I will need to go on bloodpressure meds.

Also she said that lack of sleep can cause fibromyalgia . I know some people who have fibromyalgia and I certainly do not want this.

All of this is so new, WHY would a doctor report it to the county or state? It is not a communicable disease. I can't give it to anyone.

I am so tired of people not believing us.

When all these new turbines are up and more people have problems, then they will say and “Do something!”

But by then it will be too late. I feel sorry for those people who think this is soooo great.

I also have a constant ringing in my ears and some times a pressure like
feeling like I might have an ear infection. Hope this helps you.

Written by a resident of Invenergy’s Forward Energy Wind Farm
86 Turbines, on line since March of 2008, located Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties, Wisconsin

Invenergy Forward Energy Wind Farm, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, 2008

What made the PSC decide it needed more time to study environmental impacts of a proposed wind farm? Are wind turbine siting concerns being given a closer look?

And-- What does a recent court ruling mean for local wind ordinances across the state? Wind developers and lobbyists hope it means the end of local control. But does it? Click here to download the entire District 2 Court of Appeals ruling

Home in PSC-approved wind farm near the Town of Marshfield, Fond du Lac County, June 2009

Hearing on Wind Farm Delayed

By Lyn Jerde

Portage daily Register

20 July 2009

A public hearing on a wind energy project proposed for northeast Columbia County that had been scheduled for last week has been delayed to late October or early November, to give the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin more time to study the project’s potential environmental effects.

The delay means that the proposed We Energies wind farm in the towns of Scott and Randolph – including up to 90 wind turbines, capable of generating up to 207 megawatts of electrical power – won’t come to the PSC for final approval any sooner than January 2010.

The project, called Glacier Hills Wind Park, includes a proposal to locate up to 65 turbines in the town of Randolph and 35 in the town of Scott. About 250 parcels of land would be leased from about 45 different owners.

PSC spokeswoman Teresa Smith said the commission requested the delay, and later requested an in-depth environmental impact study, after concerns were raised about a PSC environmental assessment released in May that concluded the project posed “no significant impact.”

According to an addition to the environmental assessment, added in June, some of the other issues that require further exploration include:

• Noise created by the wind turbines and its possible health effects.
• The effects of the turbines on flying wildlife, including bats and various species of birds.
• The patterns of land use and population in the area, including small pockets of residential development in the 17,300 acres encompassed by the project.
• The effect of “shadow flicker” – a strobe-like flashing of light experienced by some who live near wind turbines.
• The aesthetic effects of numerous turbine towers, which can be several hundred feet tall.

“Based on experience with recently constructed wind farms,” the addendum to the environmental assessment said, “there is a wide range in how non-participating landowners react to nearby new turbines. To some the turbines are an inconsequential change on the landscape; others believe that the turbines greatly degrade their lives. Many have feelings that range somewhere in between.”

Smith said an environmental impact statement can address concerns in more depth than an environmental assessment can give.

Brian Manthey, spokesman for We Energies, said the PSC first asked to delay a decision on Glacier Hills Wind Park for 180 days. Later, the PSC decided that the environmental impact statement was among the pieces of additional information it needed to make the decision.

Manthey said the delay would slow the company’s construction plans. Originally, We Energies had hoped to start building the wind farm before the end of the year or in early 2010, with 2012 as the first full year of operation. Now, he said, if the PSC approves the project, construction can start no sooner than next spring.

“That makes things a little tighter,” Manthey said. “But it makes for a more thorough process.”

A public hearing was supposed to have been held last Monday at the Randolph Town Hall in Friesland.

Town Board Chairman David Hughes of rural Cambria said the PSC posted several announcements in and around the community that the hearing had been delayed.

As a farmer, Hughes said, he isn’t happy about the rescheduling.

“I said way back a year ago that I didn’t want this hearing in the spring when farmers are planting or in the fall when farmers are harvesting,” he said.

Interest in the Glacier Hills proposal remains high, Hughes said. Starting early this spring, signs in opposition to Glacier Hills Wind Park, and to possible other wind turbines not affiliated with We Energies, began cropping up in the area.

Hughes said he fielded more than 100 phone calls about the issue. What he typically tells callers, he said, is that the PSC, and not the town board, is the entity to which people should direct their opinions and concerns.

“There is nothing the town can do to encourage or discourage this,” he said.

However, Hughes noted, the town of Randolph has appointed a six-member citizens’ committee – composed of three proponents and three opponents of wind turbines – to make recommendations for a joint development agreement between the town and We Energies, addressing issues such as setback and noise levels. This group’s recommendations would be passed on to the PSC when the hearing is held, Hughes said.

In the public hearing, participants testify under oath before an administrative law judge. The record of the hearing is compiled and submitted to the three-member PSC for consideration in the final decision.

Between now and the hearing, the PSC will begin work on the environmental impact statement.

Timothy Le Monds, the PSC’s director of government relations and public affairs, said the draft environmental impact statement will be issued sometime in the next two weeks, followed by a 45-day period in which anyone may submit comments on the draft.

To comment on the project or to follow its progress, anyone may go to the PSC’s Web site, www.psc.wi.gov, and enter the docket number, 6630-CE-302. People also may write to Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, 610 N. Whitney Way, Box 7854 , Madison, WI 53707-7854, or call (608) 266-5481 or toll-free (888) 816-3831.

SECOND STORY:

State court tosses local wind turbine regulations

Ryan J. Foley Associated Press — 7/16/2009 6:21 am

[Click Here for source]

A Wisconsin appeals court on Wednesday effectively struck down numerous municipal ordinances that have slowed the development of wind energy, lawyers said.

Local governments cannot pass broad rules dictating how far wind turbines must be from other buildings, how tall they can be or how much noise they can produce, the Waukesha-based District 2 Court of Appeals ruled.

Instead, municipalities must consider each project on a case-by-case basis and only restrict them to protect public health or in a way that does not affect a system's cost or efficiency, the court said.

The decision struck down a Calumet County ordinance that set height, noise and setback requirements for turbines, but lawyers said its impact would be felt statewide.

Curt Pawlisch, a Madison lawyer who lobbies on behalf of wind energy advocates, said the ruling effectively invalidates roughly a dozen different ordinances adopted by counties, towns and other municipalities.

"All the ordinances that tried to adopt standards of general applicability are out the window," he said.

Wind energy advocates say the local rules have stalled numerous projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars, slowing investment in a renewable energy and killing potential jobs. Supporters say they have protected nearby properties from a negative effects such as loud noise.

State lawmakers are considering a bill that would require the Public Service Commission to set uniform rules for the projects statewide and prohibit municipalities from adopting stricter regulations. Right now, the commission only approves the largest projects, those capable of producing more than 100 megawatts of electricity.

The Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities voted 10-2 last month for the bill, which is backed by business, labor, environmental and farm groups.

Rep. Jim Soletski, D-Green Bay and a bill sponsor, said he hoped it would pass both houses of the Legislature later this year and Wednesday's ruling gives it more momentum. Some lawmakers from areas with restrictive ordinances had opposed the bill but now may have reason to support it, he said.

Uniform rules are still needed statewide because it's unclear how each municipality will apply Wednesday's decision, Pawlisch said.

A group called the Coalition for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship has formed to oppose a statewide standard. The group says improperly sited wind farms can hurt property values, create too much noise and even send constantly flickering shadows into homes.

Wednesday's ruling involved farmers who wanted to add a few wind turbines to their farm so they could sell power back to a utility to generate income.

When Calumet County learned of the proposal in 2004, it put a moratorium on new wind turbines and then adopted an ordinance restricting them. The farmers filed a lawsuit claiming the county exceeded its authority.

The appeals court agreed, saying state law promotes alternative energy sources such as wind and discourages restrictive local regulations.

"The court got it right," said Elizabeth Rich, a lawyer for the farmers. "There is a strong policy favoring renewable energy sources like wind in Wisconsin and not favoring a crazy quilt of local ordinances trying to regulate wind in different ways in each municipality."

The wind turbines can't be built just yet in Calumet County. The case now goes back to a lower court for additional proceedings.

A is for "assume"

Near the town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, fall, 2008

The state of Wisconsin allows industrial wind turbines to be sited just 1000 feet in all directions from any home of unwilling residents unless the county or town board creates an ordinance that requires greater setbacks in the interest of protecting residents health and safety.

Several counties and towns have done just that, after realizing the 1000 foot setback recommended by the state is inadequate.

First hand reports from residents of four of Wisconsin's newest wind farms let us know that the noise from the wind turbines, especially at night, is far louder than predicted, and that shadow flicker from the turbines is much more severe and of longer duration than predicted.

Though the state does not allow the consideration of loss of property value in regulating siting of wind turbines, those who have been trying to sell their homes in our state's newest wind farms can find few buyers, or even realtors willing to represent them.

As pending legislation and legal challenges threaten to overturn the ordinances which were adopted following the letter of state law, Better Plan, Wisconsin takes another look at the origin of the 1000 foot setback, and what it's based on.

We begin here:

"[Industrial wind turbine] noise, on which the ordinance is silent,

was assumed to be captured by the 1000 foot setback"

--Alex DePillis

From the Minutes of the November 4, 1999 Guidelines and Model Ordinance Ad Hoc Subcommittee meeting.

At the time, DePillis was a state worker employed by the Wisconsin Energy Bureau, Department of Administration.

He now works as a wind developer for EcoEnergy LLC

What are the results of this "assumption" about the 1000 foot setback?

Gerry Meyer carried mail in his community for 30 years.

He lives inside the Invenergy Forward Energy wind farm near the town of Byron in Wisconsin's Fond du Lac County. When the turbines went on line near his home in March of 2008, he was surprised by the amount of noise that they made. He began keeping a noise log. (The entire turbine noise log can be downloaded by clicking here)

Let's look at the noise log for September 1, 2008

6:20 AM Loud motor running or humming sound.

7:05 AM I’m hearing turbine #4 in the barn, shop, and at the computer.

[ Turbine #4 is less than 1600 feet from the house]

11:15 AM Wind SW Loud.

4:15 PM Turbine 4 and 6 are making loud jet flying over sounds, ripping the sky apart. It has been loud all day.

9:40 PM This is the loudest night in a long time.

I hear #4, 6, 73, 74a, 3a and and possibly more.

I can hear them at the computer in the front of the house and in the family room in the back of the house with the TV on.

Keep in mind turbine 6 is ¾ mile away. # 73 is 2480’ and 74a 5/8 mile away.

It is very sad our town officials and PSC have allowed this turbine project to affect the health of residents in this area and it will continue in other areas.

11:40 PM I hear turbine jet flying over sound while watching TV in our family room.

This assumption about wind turbine noise made by Alex DePillis and other members of the Model Ordinance Ad Hoc Subcommitee helped the state create guidelines which allowed Chicago-based wind developer Invenergy to site turbines as close as 1000 feet from unwilling participants homes in Fond du Lac and Dodge County.

The result?

Residents in Dodge and Fond du Lac are having trouble sleeping at night due to noise from industrial turbines, and when they want to sell their homes, no one seems interested in buying them.

This photo, taken December 8, 2008 is of a home near the town of Byron that has been on the market for a long time. The price has been reduced but still no offers.

Can you guess why?

Why would the state put so many residents at risk by allowing a committee to set guidelines based on an assumption that a 1000 foot setback would take care of noise problems?

Local governments who recognized the inadequacy of the state's guidelines for siting turbines have created large wind ordinances intended to protect the health and safety of residents. Within the last year several Wisconsin towns have adopted ordinances with a 2640 foot setback. They didn't just pull that figure out of the air. And they didn't base it on an assumption. So what is it based on?

Here's what we learned from the findings section from the Town of Union's large wind ordinance regarding wind turbine noise.

The complete text of the findings and all documents used to support these findings are cited in the ordinance. (Download the entire Town of Union ordinance by clicking here)

This is just a summary:

The state's current wind turbine noise limit of 50dBA does not adequately protect residents from the adverse health effects associated with large wind turbine noise.

The town of Union limits large wind turbine noise to a maximum of 35dBA or 5dBA over ambient, whichever is lower, in order to protect residents from adverse health effects associated with large wind turbine noise based on the following findings:

Large wind turbines are significant sources of noise, which , if improperly sited, can negatively impact the health of residents, particularly in areas of low ambient noise levels.

Large wind turbines emit two types of noise-- 1) Aerodynamic noise from the blades passing through the air, which can generate broadband noise, tonal noise and low frequency noise; and 2) Mechanical noise from the interaction of the turbine components.

A dBA scale is commonly used to measure audible wind turbine noise.

Low frequency noise from large wind turbines is not adequately measured by the state's use of dBA weighting.

Noise is an annoyance that can negatively impact health, producing negative effects such as sleep disturbance and deprivation, stress, anxiety, and fatigue.

Large wind turbines create a noise annoyance that can hinder physical and mental healing and can cause adverse health effects associated with sleep disturbance and deprivation, psychological distress, stress, anxiety, depression, headaches, fatigue, tinnitus and hypertension.

Wind turbine noise can affect each person differently. Some people are unaffected by wind turbine noise, while others may develop adverse health effects from the same noise.

At low frequencies, wind turbine noise may not be heard but rather is felt as a vibration. Medical research reported complaints from people who felt the noise from large wind turbines, similar to symptoms that can be associated with vibroacoustic disease.

The risk for adverse health effects resulting from noise annoyance such as headaches, stress, anxiety, fatigue, depression, pain and stiffness, and decreased cognitive ability associated with sleep deprivation from wind turbine noise increases with increasing A-weighted sound pressures. According to wind turbine noise studies, few respondents were disturbed in their sleep by wind turbine noise at less than 35dBA. Respondents were increasingly disturbed in their sleep by wind turbine noise greater than 35dBA.

Wind turbine noise greater than 5dBA over ambient increases the risk for health effects because a change of 5dB is clearly noticeable.

Studies show prolonged exposure to wind turbine noise resulted in adverse health effects at sound levels below those from other sources of community noise, such as road traffic noise. Sound generated by wind turbines has particular characteristics and creates a different type of noise having different health impacts than compared to urban, industrial or commercial noise.

Living in a rural environment in comparison with a suburban area increases the risk of residents being impacted by noise from nearby large wind turbines because of the low ambient noise in rural environments. The International Standards Organization recommends community noise limits for rural areas be set at 35dBA during the day, 30 dBA during the evening, and 25dBA at night.

Eye-witnesses living near newly-constructed large wind turbines in the Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, WI, testified at the public hearing held by the Town of Union Plan Commission that they currently experience adverse health effects from the wind turbine noise such as sleep deprivation and disturbance, headaches, nausea and dizziness. Th noise from the wind turbines in the Town of Byron is greater than 45dBA at their residences and can be heard inside of their houses and outside in their yards.

Two Plan Commissioners from the Town of Union visited the newly constructed wind turbines in the Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, WI in June 2008 and confirmed the wind turbines were a significant source of noise. One described the quality and intensity of the noise as sounding like a jet airplane. The other spoke with residents, farmers and a sheriff's deputy in the area who all stated that the turbines were noisy. He also took sound measurements from the home of a resident with a turbine less than 1500 feet from his home. The sound measured between 57 to 67 dBA on June 6-7, 2008.

However, experiences vary. Two other plan commissioners visited wind turbine sites. One visited sites in Byron Township, Lincoln Township and Montfort and found that overall, people were satisfied with the turbines. Two issues noted by this Plan commissioner were tensions between landowners profiting from the wind turbines and those landowners who did not, and poor conditions of roads following the installation of the turbines.

The other commissioner visited wind farms in Iowa. He estimated that approximately 60% of the people he spoke with had positive opinions of the wind turbines and approximately 40% of the people he spoke with had negative opinions of wind turbines.

A fifth plan commission member went to a wind farm south of Rockford, IL. No one was available to talk so he walked around the area. It was a nice day, and windy. He noticed that the windows in the homes surrounding the site were all closed and no one was outside. He stated the noise was similar to a plane going overhead. He stood under a tower and did not feel any unease.

(For the complete text of the Town of Union's findings regarding Wind Turbine Noise Impacts, please download the complete ordinance by clicking here)