Better Plan, Wisconsin

G is for GROUND CURRENT

All photos in this post were taken during construction phase in Fond du Lac county in 2007 and 2008.

Along with setbacks, noise limits, and road damage during the construction phase, a good large wind energy system ordinance should also address less known problems like stray voltage.

Though the issue of stray voltage is a contentious one, there is no getting around the fact industrial wind plants require miles of electrical cable be trenched into the ground. And it could be said this can increase the risk of stray voltage.

(NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Need to know more about why this is such an important issue for farmers? CLICK HERE to read the award-winning series on stray voltage from Wisconsin's own La Crosse Tribune)

Without a town ordinance, what protection do residents have against a potential problem with stray voltage?

The Town of Union's Large Wind Ordinance addresses this issue.

(DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BY CLICKING HERE)

(Page 29) Stray Voltage Assessment and Requirements.

1. An application for a WESF License shall include reports of stray voltage analyses in accordance with this section.

The applicant shall conduct and include a report of a preconstruction stray voltage test on all livestock facilities located within a one-mile radius of the Project Parcels.

The tests shall be performed by a Wisconsin certified stray voltage investigator approved by the Town.

The tests shall be performed according to PSCW Phase II Stray Voltage Testing Protocol.

A report of the tests shall be provided with the WESF License application and shall be provided to the owners of all property included in the study area.

Applicant shall seek written permission from property owners prior to conducting testing on such owners' property.

Applicant shall not be required to perform testing on property where the owners have refused to grant permission to conduct the testing.

2. Following construction of the WESF, the applicant shall conduct a post- construction stray voltage test on all livestock facilities located within a one-mile radius of the Project Parcels.

The tests shall be performed by a Wisconsin certified stray voltage investigator approved by the Town

The tests shall be performed according to PSCW Phase II Stray Voltage Testing Protocol. A report of the tests shall be provided to the Town and to the owners of all property included in the study area.

Applicant shall seek written permission from property owners prior to conducting testing on private property.

Applicant shall not be required to perform testing on property where the owners have refused to grant permission to conduct the testing.

To see what one Wisconsin farmer has to say about how the turbines going on line affected his farm click here:

Here's the transcript from the interview:

Life with Industrial Wind Turbines in Wisconsin Part 8

Scott Smrynka
Diary Farmer
Lincoln Township, WI
April 2008

Scott Smrynka speaking about stray voltage trouble on his farm:

[Video image: an ohm reader with flickering numbers]

Scott: "This is a five hundred ohms resistor here, this wire is hooked to my stall, this white wire is a remote ground rod way across way way away from the buildings. So I can go shut the power off across the road and this will still read the same. So it's coming out of the earth. And I'm four wired. When I shut my power off all four wires are disconnected. So my ground and neutral don't even come to the farm either.

This is coming out of the earth getting on my stalls, and this is where the cows are living.

Q: What kind of impacts are you having?

Low milk production, health issues, reproduction problems, cows dying of cancer and stuff like that. And more of it. More than normal. [pointing to the ohm reader] This before we started was 5000. Before we start, when the windmills went on, that was 5000. And we've got it this low. By doing a lot of different things that I'm going to keep to myself.

The utility has been out on this farm numerous times. Everytime they come in this yard. An hour before they come in this yard [points to ohm meter] this goes to zero. Before they even do anything. And then when they leave, maybe a day or the weekend, it goes back to whatever is coming out of the earth. So they can clean this up. It's just they can't keep it clean, for one thing. Can't keep it low enough for one thing. You're just battling with them all the time.

Another thing, our meter's right there for-- we check the water meter for how much water the cows drink. Cows this size, when we were milking before, we were getting 30-35 gallons of water in these cows. Now we struggle to get over 22 gallons a cow. That's the milk production. You can't get the water in them. You need the water to cleanse their body, their whole system --digest the food.

Every animal that dies on this farm gets autopsied. Calf, cow-- tear it apart, we want to know what's wrong. What'd she die from. What happened? And what we've seen-- the organs-- the heart was inflamed --the kidneys-- the liver blackened and a lot of-- the biggest thing that seems to come out is the (closterum salmonella?) They die from it. It's frustrating. What I'll tell you to make it very simple is it microwaves you from the inside out. That's what it's doing to our cattle.

You say, what human issues does it have? I'm no scientist, but what I see in my cows gotta be affecting me too, and my family. I mean what you're seeing with these cows-- reproduction and production----- they had the Univeristy vets out her from Madison, saying my cows only laid down 8.3 hours a day and a cows supposed lay down 12 to 14 to 16 hours a day-- I'm only getting half that. It's affecting -- that's why they ain't reproducing. The reproduction isn't there, the production isn't there.

So 8.3 hours. That's all these cows lay down. They don't want to lie down. That's why I'm losing the milk production. And another thing we had a university vet come out here and stood right here by the return alley as the cows were being milked and said 33% of our cows are lame. We'll if they ain't laying down, they're going to be lame, right? And then you ask these vets and the utility and that, ok, you had these studies done, and that's what they're saying-- what are we going to do?

They're saying my stall design needs to be changed. I got three layers of rubber mattresses under these cows feet. How can I get it any softer. Stall design. You can see there's nothing in front of them. When they lunge they can get up and do whatever they want. And the other two groups of cows are in sand bedding, so if they're in sand bedding that's as soft as you're going to get. So I told them I wouldn't buy it.

Then the vets asked me, what do you think it is?

I said, "Right here."[pointing to the ohm meter] You get that down and I guarantee these cows will lay down. Because at times we get it low. Really low.

And there's times when I got in trouble here, three four years ago, I clipped a lot of ground rods across the road. Stayed like that for 14 months. This meter went way down. My cows went up twenty pounds of milk, these issues weren't here. Until the utility found it, put it back together.

Q: So you know where it's coming from.

I know where it's coming from. I have no doubt in my mind. And I had a 30,000 pound heard average before those windmills were up. Now I struggle to get 20,000.

So I mean, it' all boils down to stray voltage--- or I'm not going to call this stray voltage-- ground currents or electrical pollution. There's more to this story than they let the people know. There's a lot we don't know. It's amazing. I just came across it while I was catching this stuff, and trying to figure out and solve my problem, using transformers, you name it.

So I mean, what you guys gotta do is do a lot of research. If they're there [the wind developers], pounding on the door, and got permits from landowners and all that, then you're kind of screwed. Because their foot's in the door already. You gotta do this before they get their foot in the door."

FROM THE LA CROSSE STAR TRIBUNE'S AWARD WINNING SERIES ON STRAY VOLTAGE:

(click here to read it at source)

Cows are dying, and farmers think they know why

In lawsuits filed against utilities, some farmers contend stray voltage from overloaded power lines nearby has killed their cattle. Xcel Energy argues the cow deaths could be blamed on other factors.

By H.J. CUMMINS, Star Tribune
January 7, 2008

As dead cow No. 79 lay stiff in a tractor scoop one recent cold morning on Greg Siewert's dairy farm, it was pretty clear in the nearby sick barn which would become No. 80.

Wobbly on three legs, the fourth swollen and kinked at her side, one cow stared out below stooped shoulders, her black and white coat hanging dull and low from a grim row of ribs.

"It's a slow, painful tortuous death, is what it is for them," said Siewert, who with his father, Harlan, owns Siewert Holsteins in Zumbro Falls. "It's like watching someone die of AIDS."

But Siewert contends it's not disease that's killing his cows. It's electricity. Specifically, it's something called "stray voltage" from a nearby Xcel power line. He has filed a $4 million lawsuit in Wabasha County District Court against Xcel.

The utility, in its legal response, argues that bad farming could be at fault, that cows get sick from bad herd management, improper feed, and a general lack of "cow comfort," as it's described in the dairy world.

Xcel also argues this kind of dispute belongs before utility regulators -- in Minnesota, the Public Utilities Commission -- not in court.

The Siewerts' suit is one of at least six in southern Minnesota -- and one of three against Xcel, the first against the utility in Minnesota since 1992, several attorneys said.

The farmers' suits blame overloaded power lines, some strung 70 years ago that now have to carry power to all the refrigerators, clothes dryers and TVs in houses built since. They also claim new science is on their side. And farmers, with bigger operations and smaller margins, have little choice but to protect against losses of cows or milk production.

Stray voltage is a real phenomenon. New York City, with its aging infrastructure and growing electrical needs, sees the problem often. Consolidated Edison recorded 1,214 incidents of stray voltage in 2005. Among the deaths attributed to it was a woman stepping on a metal plate and a dog standing on wet cement.

On or off the farm, the key question is how much stray voltage is enough to hurt.

Completing the circuit

Dairy farmers complain about two kinds of stray voltage. One is extra spillover from overworked power lines onto the farm's own electrical system, where the two connect. The other, more controversial, is ground current. Electricity needs to run in a complete circuit. If it can't return to its source over the utility's lines -- for ill repair or lack of capacity -- it takes to the earth through the lines' grounding rods.

Some estimates say two-thirds of the current runs back that way. And when a dairy farm stands in its path, the mud, metal milk machines and water troughs conduct the current to the cows, shocking them.

Dairy farmers and utilities have been fighting about stray voltage since the early 1980s, according to Chris Hardie, in the dairy state of Wisconsin, who runs a website on the issue. The first disputes were whether it was even real, and then they became about how much voltage is harmful -- something several government agencies in the mid-1990s set at 1 to 2 volts, Hardie said.

Utilities still cite a 1996 advisory report to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission as the latest, best wisdom. Its authors found "no credible scientific evidence" that ground currents can sicken dairy herds.

As for stray voltage overall, a Minnesota official doesn't see it as a widespread problem.

"Some farmers have experienced stray voltage, but it has also been used for decades as an excuse for issues on the farm," said David Weinand, dairy development grants administrator at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

However, since 2004, two state supreme courts have significantly advanced the farmers' cause. In Wisconsin last month, the court granted farmers a long window to sue a utility, recognizing it takes time to determine if stray voltage is causing a herd's problems. In Idaho in 2004, the court denied an Idaho Power Co. appeal of a $17 million judgment against it in a stray-voltage case involving dairy cows.

Scientific developments are also helping farmers. Immunology has advanced enough to explain the connection between electricity and the immune system, said Siewert's attorney, Will Mahler of Rochester.

And lawyers are getting smarter about the science, going behind government studies and challenging the utilities' on-farm test. Utilities measure at noon, said John Bass, an independent engineer in Minnetonka. But stray voltage peaks during peak electricity demand, because that's when the power lines are carrying the biggest loads, he said. "We always measure at 8 a.m. and 5 p.m."

Still, attorney Barry Hammarback doesn't expect stray voltage cases to pour in, because they take years and farmers need to disprove other culprits for their cows' illnesses.

Five years after dairyman Chuck Untiedt of Lakefield sued Xcel, the case was settled in mediation last month, according to Untiedt's attorney, Richard Diamond of Minnetonka. Terms are confidential.

Persistent disagreements in Minnesota led to the formation in 2005 of the Minnesota Stray Voltage Task Force, a standing group of utilities, state government, and veterinary and dairy industry representatives trying to avoid more lawsuits.

"When most of the litigation comes, it's when the utility has already done what they perceive to be the easiest, clearest fixes, but the farmer says, 'Well, but there's something else going on here,'" Hardie said.

Ruling out other culprits

Greg Siewert filed his suit in 2004.

Siewert, 43, bought his dairy farm in 1990, 5 miles down a country road from the family dairy farm where he grew up.

Over the years, his cows lost weight and gave less milk. They developed chronic mastitis, an infection of the udder. They fell lame, with swollen and tender joints, and they developed ulcers. The herd of about 350 behaved strangely, too. They were jumpy at the milk machines. And Siewert noticed they didn't slurp water, like cows normally do; they lapped it like a dog.

"My nutritionist kept telling me it can't be the ration, and my vet kept saying it's not an infectious disease," Siewert said.

Finally in 2004, someone suggested stray voltage. Xcel's testing measured its level at 2.2 volts. The utility and Siewert installed equipment, which Siewert said reduced his stray voltage but left enough to keep making his cows sick.

Take cow No. 79. "She laid down yesterday, and couldn't get up. I had to shoot her."

Xcel declined to comment specifically on Siewert's case. But in a general statement, the utility said, "Xcel Energy takes these concerns/complaints very seriously. We will work with the farmer/landowner and do testing as needed to determine if a problem exists, and what the cause of the problem is. If, after testing, it is determined a problem exists, one or a combination of solutions may be implemented."

H.J. Cummins • 612-673-4671

Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds stray voltage award

Dec. 6, 2007

(Editor's note: Chris Hardie interviewed James and Grace Gumz in 2000 as the couple battled with stray voltage. To read that story go to Electricity's dirty little secret

By SCOTT BAUER Associated Press Writer

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a nearly $533,000 award to Marathon County dairy farmers who claimed a power company's stray voltage hurt their cows' milk production.

In a 4-to-3 decision, the court rejected arguments made by Northern States Power Co., now doing business as Xcel Energy, that some verdict questions a judge submitted to the jury were in error.

The state's high court said no errors were made.

The court also ruled in favor of Clark County dairy farmers in a stray voltage case, sending it back to lower court for a trial.

In the Marathon County case, James and Michael Gumz of rural Athens said they began noticing physical and behavioral problems in their herd in 1991, 10 years after they bought their parents' dairy farm. The problems included cow deaths and poor milk production.

The problems persisted, and in 1996 they asked Northern States Power to conduct tests for stray voltage.

Stray voltage is electricity that leaks from a utility's electrical distribution system or farm wiring. Some utility companies argue stray voltage isn't a problem, while some farmers claim it hurts cows' health.

The power company said its tests showed the ``cow contact voltage'' was below the ``level of concern.''

However, an independent electrical tester hired by the farmers determined that stray voltage from the power company's distribution system was coming onto the farm.

The Gumzes sued in 2001 and were awarded $332,336 by a Marathon County jury for lost milk production and lost market value of their cows and $200,000 for ``annoyance'' and loss of use and enjoyment of their property.

An appeals court upheld the ruling, which the Supreme Court affirmed Thursday. The high court said the Gumzes' action was not barred under the state's six-year statute of limitations because they showed reasonable diligence in investigating the cause of damage to their herd.

But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Annette Ziegler said evidence suggested the Gumzes should have known about the problem's cause earlier and the statute of limitations applied. She also said the jury should have been allowed to consider more evidence related to whether poor farm management was at least partially to blame for the cows' health.

The Gumzes were pleased with the decision and happy to have the case over with, said Greg Cook, one of their attorneys.

``I'm hoping in the future, the utilities will wake up and realize it's a lot cheaper to fix these problems than fight them in court,'' Cook said.

The power company's attorney, J. Drew Ryberg, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

In the other case, the Supreme Court ruled that a Clark County Circuit Court should have let a lawsuit brought by dairy farmers Ralph and Karline Schmidt proceed to trial.

The Schmidts claimed that stray voltage from Northern States Power was to blame for problems they saw in their dairy cows as far back as the late 1970s. An electrician hired by the farmers concluded there was a stray voltage problem.

The circuit court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations had expired since the Schmidts knew about the stray voltage problem in 1993 but didn't bring the lawsuit until 2001.

The Supreme Court, in upholding an appeals court decision, said it was not clear when the Schmidts knew for certain that stray voltage was the problem and therefore it was wrong for the lower court to rule in favor of the power company before considering evidence at a trial.

Stray voltage has been an issue for dairy farmers statewide since the early 1980s, prompting dozens of lawsuits against power companies.

Four years ago, the state Supreme Court upheld $1.2 million in damages to a New London dairy couple from Milwaukee-based We Energies. The couple claimed stray voltage from an underground cable installed next to their farm in 1977 caused their herd's problems. The utility contended there was no science showing animals can be harmed from ground currents.

F is for FLICKER

Why is Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker a Problem?

If you ask a wind developer, he'll tell you shadow flicker isn't a problem.

If you ask people inside of the 86 turbine wind farm near the town of Byron in Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties, they'll tell you about what they are experiencing. And they'll tell you to bring a video camera.

This video shows the effect of shadow flicker on their homes.

The town of Union's large wind ordinance recommends a setback of at least 2640 feet to minimize the impact of shadow flicker.

(Download the entire ordinance by clicking here)

From the Town of Union Ordinance: Findings on Shadow Flicker:

"Adverse health effects from wind turbine noise can be exacerbated by the rotating blades and shadows from the wind turbines.As wind turbine blades rotate in  sunny conditions, they cast strobe-like shadows on the windows of nearby homes and buildings causing shadow flicker that cannot be avoided by occupants. Shadow flicker can cause some people to become dizzy, nauseated or lose their balance when they see the movement of the shadow. Shadow flicker from wind turbines at greater than 3Hz poses a potential risk of inducing photosensitive seizures. Therefore, wind turbines should be sited such that shadows from wind turbine blades do not fall upon the windows of nearby dwellings or within 100 feet of dwellings for any considerable period. The Wind Energy Handbook recommends a setback of 10 rotor diameters to avoid shadow flicker on occupied structures. (See Acoustic Ecology Institute special report 2008; Burton 2001; UK Noise Association 612006, Graham Harding 2008 and Dr. Nina Pierpont 31212006 andBl112006)

If placed too close to a road, the movement of the wind turbine blades and resulting shadow flicker can distractdrivers and lead to accidents. (See NRC May 2007 report,pg.263) Wind turbines have been known to throw ice and debris from the turbine blades. According to Professor Teny Matilsky from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Rutgers University, ice throws from large wind turbines can reach up to a distance of 1750 feet and blade throws can reach 2500 feet.

E is for EXPLAIN

This photo was taken less than two weeks ago near the town of Byron, Fond du Lac County. Wisconsin's Public Service Commission approved this project with setbacks of 1000 feet from homes. There have been complaints from residents about unexpected noise and shadow flicker since the day the turbines went on line in March of 2008.

As part of their research Town of Union's Large Wind Study Committee contacted the Public Service Commission.

Here are the questions they asked:

Two months later, they finally get a reply.

Here it is.

Questions Posed to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

Reference: Large Wind Energy Systems related to a variety of issues, specifically addressing HEALTH & SAFETY
By: Town of Union Wind Turbine Study Committee
Date: November 6, 2007

To: Paul Helgeson, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
From: Town of Union Wind Turbine Study Committee
November 6, 2007
Re: Health & Safety Research Questionnaire

Questions

1) The Townships get mixed messages from wind developers and Renew Wisconsin on the weight of the Draft Model Wind Ordinance for Wisconsin.

Is the Draft Model Wind Ordinance for Wisconsin a law?

Response from Paul C. Helgeson, Senior Engineer Public Service Commission of Wisconsin answer received 1-2-07 at 12:41pm:

1. The draft Model Ordinance is a model that can be used by towns and counties as they see fit. It is not law.

2) In the Draft Model Wind Ordinance it states:
PURPOSE The purpose of the Ordinance is to provide a regulatory scheme for the construction and operation of Wind Energy Facilities in the [Town/County], subject to reasonable restrictions, which will preserve the public health and safety.

Who defines what a reasonable restriction is? Is it a law?

PSC/Paul Helgeson:

2. What is reasonable would be defined by local governments and the courts.

3) In regard to Wisconsin Statute 66.0401 item (a):
Wisconsin Stat. § 66.0401(1) provides:
(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 solar energy system, as defined in s. 13.48(2)(h)1.g., or a wind energy system, as defined in . . . [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.


We have been given the impression that public health or safety must be supported by “peer-reviewed” and “credible” documentation. Is that a state law?

PSC/Paul Helgeson: NO ANSWER

4) Were “peer-reviewed” and “credible” documentation used in the Draft Model Wind Ordinance concerning safety and noise?

PSC/Paul Helgeson: NO ANSWER

5) What other State Statutes concerning public health and safety require “peer-reviewed” and “credible” documentation?

PSC/Paul Helgeson: NO ANSWER

6) In keeping with abiding with the legal requirements in the Wisconsin Statute 66.0401 we asked a Legislative Attorney what the State of Wisconsin’s definition of Public Health and Safety was, and the answer was, “I think it is safe to say that "public health and safety" is an
intentionally ambiguous term”.
He went on to say,
”The reason these terms are intentionally ambiguous is that they involve judgments. They apply to situations either too various or too detailed as to be anticipated and dealt with specifically in laws. Where they apply to governmental bodies, such as the development of a wind ordinance by the Board of the Town of Union, they provide general guidance but intentionally leave the hands of the board members free to design an ordinance that meets the needs of that community, so long as the ordinance is reasonable.("Reasonable" is another ambiguous term, but it is the primary consideration in reviewing many kinds of governmental actions.).”

Wouldn’t this clearly say that the Town of Union Board and any other local government has the right to write an ordinance that protects their resident’s health and safety without intimidation?

PSC/Paul Helgeson: NO ANSWER

7) In reading the Mission/Vision Statement for the Public Service Commission the last sentence states,
“In all of the above, we consider and balance diverse perspectives and we endeavor to protect the environment, and the public interest and the public health and welfare.”

How do you feel you balance big business interests in Wind Development with the public health and welfare?

PSC/Paul Helgeson: NO ANSWER

Questions Specific to the Draft Model Wind Ordinance

8) Can you advise the process in creating the 2003 Draft Model Wind Ordinance?

PSC/Paul Helgeson:  Process for creating the Draft Model Wind Ordinance is described in the Model Wind Ordinance Reference Guide and in documents that your group has obtained from the Commission.

9) Can you advise the process in creating the 2007 Draft Model Wind Ordinance?

PSC/Paul Helgeson:  The Only significant changes are in section 5.3 and were made to be clearer and consistent with the PSCW sound measurement protocol for electric power plants. Some parts of the ordinance language were moved to the Reference Guide.

10) In the 2007 DRAFT Model Wind Ordinance it states: “the model ordinance was developed by agency staff and stakeholders.” Please identify who these persons are.

PSC/Paul Helgeson: NO ANSWER

11) Why was the 2007 DRAFT Model Wind Ordinance put on the Department of Administration website ; then taken off; then put back on? This all occurred in the past 6 months.

PSC/Paul Helgeson: NO ANSWER

12) When was the 2007 DRAFT Model Wind Ordinance put the DOA website the first time; when was it taken off; when was it put back on the second time?

PSC/Paul Helgeson: NO ANSWER

13) What medical, scientific, and/or clinic data was utilized in the creation of each DRAFT ordinance? Please be specific.

PSC/Paul Helgeson: NO ANSWER

14) We understand that you and a female colleague at the Department of Administration were the co-authors of the 2007 DRAFT ordinance. Please identify other the co-author.

PSC/Paul Helgeson: NO ANSWER

15) Why were significant changes made to the noise portions of the 2007 Draft Ordinance?

PSC/Paul Helgeson: See the answer to #9, above

16) The World Health Organization recommends noise levels much different than your two DRAFT ordinances. Can you explain why you would not utilize their expertise and make your recommendation consistent to those recommended by the World Health Organization for community noise?

PSC/Paul Helgeson: NO ANSWER

17) When a wind project is proposed, often times the developers suggest to local government, that they may receive revenue based on a variety of factors (PILOT Program; Shared revenue). Can you explain how the payments are determined for counties/townships based on incentives/megawatts produced or whatever criteria is used? Who actually pays this money out? How much has been paid out since 2000?

PSC/ Paul Helgeson, 17) Shared Revenue formulas are specified in Wis. Stat. § 79.04(6)(c) 1 and §79.04(7)(c)1. The formula is based on the nameplate capacity of the generators and the fact that a renewable resource is used. If the generators are in an unincorporated town, the town receives $1667 per MW per year and the county receives $2333 per MW per year. These are annual payments in place of property taxes. If you have further questions on the Shared Revenue program you should contact the Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue.

18) We have documented facts of the following: pending lawsuits worldwide, settled lawsuits right here in Wisconsin, neighbor easement agreements, bulldozed properties, property de-valuations, abandoned properties, nuisance payments, sound easements & payments, significant medical problems, quality of life issues, people relocating away from turbines, etc.

With all these documented problems worldwide, it is clear to see that setbacks are the key to a successful wind project. The National Research Council recommends setbacks be at least ½ mile or so from residences. Many physicians are now recommending setbacks be at least 1 mile.

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (“PSCW”) has determined that it is important to site wind energy facilities carefully. The PSCW has also concluded that there is the potential for adverse environmental impacts when wind energy facilities are sited improperly (Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Advance Plan 7 Findings of Fact, pp. 22 – 23).

As seen in Invenergy’s Beech Ridge Wind Farm located in West Virginia, turbines are setback between one and four miles from residences. The project manager was quoted as follows: “At a distance of 1,000 feet, most potential negative impacts of wind turbines are significantly reduced. At a distance of one mile, these impacts are no longer a legitimate concern.” Yet in Wisconsin we continue to see a recommendation from the DOA/Public Service Commission of 1,000 feet setback from residential housing.

If your role is to protect the people and the environment of Wisconsin, why would you not recommend larger setbacks when you created your new 2007 DRAFT ordinance, knowing the problems that are documented worldwide related to insufficient setbacks? Please explain thoroughly.

PSC/ Paul Helgeson: NO ANSWER

PSC/Paul Helgeson:

I have answered the questions that I can.

I hope my answers are helpful.

A NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Dear Paul Helgeson,

Were your answers helpful? Let's ask these people. They can't sell their house.

 TO DOWNLOAD A PRINTABLE COPY OF TODAY'S SPECIAL FEATURE, CLICK HERE

December 8th, 2008 near the town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, WI

UPDATE: JANUARY 2009: Email, phone calls and visits to your legislators will help you know just how informed they are about this issue and where they stand on the upcoming turbine siting reform bill.

Who are your legislators: Click here to find out who they are and how to contact them.

This letter was written shortly after an editorial appeared in the Wisconsin State Journal in support of giving the PSC siting control.

D is for Dear Legislator

Dear Legislator,

   We hope you were as disturbed as we were by the recent editorial in the Wisconsin State Journal which dismisses the hard work done by the local governments in your district to create and adopt large wind ordinances to protect the health and safety of our residents.

The Wisconsin State Journal's characterization of work done in the County of Trempealeau and in six Wisconsin townships as a product of the "disease of NIMBYism" is unfortunate.

NIMBY is an acronym for Not In My Back Yard, and is a name often used by the wind industry and lobbyists for anyone who brings up the known health and safety issues associated siting industrial scale wind turbines too close to homes. It's a tiresome word, but there are worse words for those who put profit and political concerns over those of human health, safety, and welfare.

We need a renewable energy plan, but not one that endangers our most important non-renewables, our health, our families, and our homes. Setbacks and noise limits are the issue here. 400 foot tall turbines sited 1000 feet from our homes is just too close.

As you know, there will soon be a push for wind turbine siting reform which may supersede all local wind ordinances and mandate the unsafe 1000 foot setback endorsed by the Public Service Commission.

There is concern among residents in your district that you may support this reform.

There is concern that when it comes to this issue, you may support over-turning ordinances created and adopted by our local elected officials and handing this power to the unelected officials at the Public Service Commission.

Six Wisconsin townships have adopted ordinances with a setback of 2640 feet which provides much better protection for the health and safety of residents than the state’s recommendation of 1000 feet.These rdinances allow neighbors and landowners to sign a waiver and have turbines sited closer if they wish, but it provides protection for those who want it..

We hope you and your staff will take a moment to review the wind ordinance recently adopted by the Town of Union.

(CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE)

The findings regarding Health and Safety are right up front.

After 22 months of work and over $40,000 in legal fees, the Union ordinance is considered by many to be the best in the state. Its 2640 foot setback is solidly researched and grounded in scientific and medical data.

Unfortunately, an open records request to the PSC revealed there was not a single piece of medical or scientific data to support it or explain the states recommendation of the 1000 foot setback.

The state’s setback may be quite profitable for wind developers and help the state meet the mandated RPS standards faster, but our local elected officials have found it's unsafe for residents.

Recently, the draft model wind ordinance was pulled from the Wisconsin.gov website. No one at the PSC seems able to say who pulled it and why and when this decision was made. At this time, it does not appear that the state of Wisconsin has any large wind model ordinance at all.

If you support wind turbine siting reform, can you tell your constituents exactly what you are supporting?

Can you tell us what to expect in terms of setbacks, noise limits, shadow flicker, ice and blade throw?

And can you direct us to any scientific or medical data which supports the safety of the state’s siting guidelines?

Even turbine manufactures ask workers and operators to maintain a distance of 1300 unless absolutely necessary. (Click Here To Download Vesta's Manual for workers and operators of large wind turbines)

Our concern is that in the rush to meet the Renewable Portfolio Standards, the health and safety of residents in rural areas will be threatened and the power of local government will be overturned.

Please do not support turbine siting reform without being able to tell us exactly what you are supporting.

We do not want to endure the misery that residents in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties are now experiencing due to industrial turbines sited less than 2640 feet from homes. The PSC approved that project.

Please take the time to read the Town of Union Large Wind Ordinance, adopted November 18, 2008.

If there should be any wind turbine siting reform, it should be based upon this ordinance.

Thank you for reading this.
We hope you’ll reply.

Click here to find your District and Senator and send them the photo posted below

It was taken Monday, December 8, 2008 in the Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County by one of the wind farm residents. The the setback in that PSC approved wind farm is 1000 feet.

C is for CONSTRUCTION:

Road Rules

These photos were taken in Fond du Lac, County, Wisconsin, 2008 during the construction phase of the 86 turbine industrial wind plant near the town of Byron. The large equipment required for industrial scale turbine construction can cause serious damage to rural roads.

Then what?

The Town of Union’s large wind ordinance does more than just set noise limits or setback distances between homes and industrial scale turbines. It also addresses the issue of responsibility for damage done to Town roads during the construction phase of the project.

Why is the construction phase so hard on rural roads?

Most rural roads aren’t ready for the size, weight, number of loads and vibration caused by heavy machinery and equipment required for such a project, and most communities aren’t prepared for the disruption and damage they leave behind.

What kind of equipment and machinery are we talking about?

For the construction of the 88 turbine Blue Sky, Green Field Industrial wind plant in Fond du Lac County, the construction period was estimated to last up to ten months. And during that ten months, was estimated that residents would have to share the road with over 9,000 trucks and other heavy equipment.

They included

Excavators
Bulldozers
Graders
Water Trucks
Concrete pumps
Cranes
Forklifts
Trailers
Plows
Trenchers
5,000 Gravel Trucks,
2,750 Cement trucks
Nearly 200 low boy and flat bed semis
For a total of over 8,200 trucks for construction materials.

Add onto that 880 oversized truck loads for the turbine parts--

You get 9,000 heavy trucks coming in and 9,000 trucks rolling out.

The trucks carrying the turbine parts are larger and weigh more than standard size.
Now add the weight of the turbine components:

The tower weight over 140 tons
Hub assembly over 15 tons
Blades over 6 tons each
Nacelle containing gearbox and generator over 53 tons.

To accommodate such loads, roads need to be widened, culverts filled in, traffic signs removed, electrical lines taken down, and new driveways have to be created, as each turbine needs its own permanent access road.

Who is responsible for restoring the roads to pre-construction condition?

It seems like a simple question, but the answer is anything but simple.

Small towns across the country have reported being left with considerable road damage from large scale wind turbine construction or poorly done repairs using substandard materials.

The question of who is responsible can get tossed between wind developer, contractor, town, county, and state for months without resolution. In the meantime, residents are stuck with damaged roads.

The Town of Union’s large wind ordinance directly addresses this problem.

(CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE UNION ORDINANCE)

It requires a road use and risk assessment plan from the developer which must include

-a map of all public roads in the town that will be used during construction.

-a description of how and when the roads will be used.

-a description of the type and length of vehicle and type, weight and length of loads
to be carried on town roads.

-an assessment of a road’s ability to carry these loads without damage, adequate room for making wide turns, the need to remove signs, trees, utilities, or anything else.

-an assessment of any foreseeable damage to roads or other property.

-any foreseeable costs the Town many incur in connection with the use of Town roads, including costs relating to traffic control, public safely, damage to roads or property.

-a traffic control and safety plan relating to use of Town roads.

-any other information the Town may need in connection with use of Town roads during the construction phase.

The Town will then evaluate the road use and risk assessment plan, using consultants if needed.

-The Town may document the conditions of the road prior to construction.

-The Town may require changes in the road use plan it deems appropriate to protect public safety, to protect town roads, and to address anticipated costs to the Town associated with the use of town roads during the construction phase.

-The Town may enter into an agreement with the developers relating to the use Town roads, and require a deposit or letter of credit in the amount the Town determines is appropriate to secure any obligations under the agreement, such as alterations or improvements to roads and the reimbursement of the Town for any costs the road use and risk assessment indicates the Town may incur.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Stories of road damage during turbine construction are common.

Unless your town has a good ordinance in place that directly addresses this issue, getting the roads back to the shape they were in before construction began can be difficult.

This video shows road damage done during construction of a 50 turbine project.

This video shows a truck hauling a section of turbine tower turning a corner. Notice how much room this truck needs to make that turn. Rural roads can't accomodate this kind of turn without filling in culverts and widening roads.

This video shows the size of the truck required to carry a single turbine blade. This truck didn't quite make the turn.

This video shows trucks hauling turbine blades moving through an intersection.

This video documents other sorts of wind turbine related damage done to roads, land near by waterways, including fish kills--

IN THE NEWS:

Wind Farm Developer to Fix Roads

December 7, 2008

BATH, New York --It will cost energy developer First Wind more than $1.1 million to repair roads used in the construction of two wind farms in the hills surrounding the town of Cohocton.

Steuben County Public Works Commissioner Vincent Spagnoletti said the company, formerly known as UPC, will pay the county to restore several county roads to the same shape they were in before construction began. The two projects in the Dutch Hill and Lent Hill regions total 51 turbines.

Seven miles of county Route 35, listed in fair condition before construction began, will need extensive repairs, including four miles of rebuilding, Spagnoletti said.

(CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE STORY AT SOURCE)

Cohocton Residents Complain about County Roads

Cohocton, NY, -

Big trucks carrying thousands of pounds on dirt roads can cause big road problems, as Cohocton highway Superintendent Tom Simons knows well.

At this week’s Cohocton town board meeting, several residents complained about the conditions of the roads to Simons.

Repairing the roads, however, has been an on-going process for wind turbine contractor Mortenson Construction, Simons said. Mortenson is the main contractor on the 50-turbine industrial wind development on Pine, Lent and Dutch hills by UPC Wind Management.

(CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE STORY AT SOURCE)

Steel Slag Used as Fill in wind turbine roads

 December 1, 2008

“Slag” — the remains of more than 100 years of steel production and pollution on the Lackawanna waterfront — was used as fill in the roads being constructed for the wind energy facility going up in the Sheldon, N.Y., area. Sheldon Council members were apparently not told that “slag” would be used instead of gravel.

In a letter dated Sept. 13, 2008, the N.Y. Department of Agriculture and Markets responded to an inquiry by High Sheldon Wind Farm about the use of “iron slag” in the beds of almost 20 miles of new roads needed for the project:

“It appears that the use of this industrial by-product may be acceptable as ’structural fill’ in an urban or industrial setting; however, the Department does not support the use of any adulterated industrial by-product matrial (such as steel slag) as road base on, or adjacent to, agricultural lands used for the productionof food and/or forage crops.”

By the time of that letter, and by the time townspeople found out and started asking questions, most of the slag — of which 45,000 tons appears to have been ordered — had already been dumped.

The N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation tested soil near the road fill for heavy metals in response to complaints of a foul odor, but did not do further testing to determine the source of the smell.

Glenn Cramer, Councilman, Sheldon, N.Y.

Download complete article: “Steel slag used as fill in wind turbine roads”

Wind farm road controversy: Slag concerns Ag and Markets

November 21, 2008 by Matt Surtel in The Daily News

Although the DEC has cleared the use of slag on wind farm access roads, the state Department of Agriculture and Markets has concerns. In a Sept. 8 letter to Invenergy regarding the High Sheldon Wind Farm, Agriculture Specialist Michael J. Saviola said ...the Department does not support the use of any adulterated industrial byproduct material (such as steel slag) as road base on, or adjacent to, structural lands used for the production of food and/or forage crops," Saviola wrote.

(CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE STORY)