"WHAT THE---??!!"

The BPRC is troubled by a current legislative proposal to change the wind power permitting laws in a way that will take away ordinance writing power from local governments and give them to the state.

The proposed legislation is outlined in a document from the Governor's Task Force on Global Warming. We've included it in this posting but you can also read it at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Website by clicking here

It is especially concerning because of the many recent questions being raised about the efficiency of wind energy systems and how much they actually reduce air pollution. (Read a New York Times article about this by clicking here)

At present, our local town governments have the power to write wind-energy ordinances which, among other things, will protect the health and safety of residents who may be affected by siting of wind turbines near their homes or property. These policy reforms will strip our local jurisdiction of that power and hand it over to the state.

You can make a difference by writing or emailing to your state and local representatives to express your concerns about this. (contact information available at the end of this posting)

Here is what the document says: We've emphasized the sections which especially concern us.

Wisconsin Global Warming Task Force Workgroup

Template For Presenting Policy Options

1. Workgroup: Utility Generation Workgroup

2. Policy Name: Windpower Permitting Reform

3. Policy Type: Legislation and PSC rulemaking

4. Affected Sectors, Sub-Sectors and/or Entities: Public Service Commission, utilities, counties, municipalities and towns, wind energy industry.

5. Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Impact: 925,000 tons/yr reduction by 2015, 1.387,500 tons/yr reduction by 2020, and 1.85 million tons/yr by 2025.

6. Estimated Costs: No cost to utilities.
With more project applications to review,an increase in the PSC’s workload is likely, which may result in additional administrative expenses.

However, siting reform is likely to reduce costs borne by developers in dealing with local opposition, including increases in installation costs caused by permitting delays as well as direct litigation costs.

7. Specific Description of Policy Proposal: Legislation would contain the following elements:

(1) definitions of large and small wind energy systems;

(2) a requirement on the PSC to draft uniform standards for siting large and small wind
energy systems;

(3) creation of an optional process for PSC review of projects under 100 MW that have large wind energy systems;

(4) a mechanism for allowing parties to appeal a decision rendered by a local jurisdiction to the PSC;

(5) extending Chapter 227 judicial review provisions to wind projects permitted by local jurisdictions, including the ability to appeal a decision under 100 MW;

(6) a prohibition on local ordinances restricting meteorological test towers.

These provisions would essentially require the PSC to promulgate standards for local review, such as setback distances and sound output, and apply them to both agency-reviewed projects as well as those reviewed by local land use authorities.

The new rules adopted by the Commission for wind projects under 100 MW would be less rigorous than what is required under the CPCN process. The developer should not be required to demonstrate need, nor should the developer be required to present an alternative site as part of the permit application.

8. Timetables, Duration and Stringency Option: Once the legislation is enacted, the PSC would have a specified period of time to adopt emergency rules establishing uniform standards for permitting wind projects. These standards would apply to PSC-reviewed wind projects as well as those reviewed by local jurisdictions. These rules would remain in effect indefinitely.

9. Explanation of Rough Estimate of GHG Reductions: The 2015 estimate is based on the assumption that 4040 MW of windpower would be placed in service in Wisconsin that otherwise would not have been built due to restrictive ordinances adopted by local jurisdictions to placate opponents to a specific wind project.

Between the wind ordinances in Manitowoc, Door and Shawano counties and the Town of Stockbridge (Calumet County) and the moratoria in Calumet and Trempealeau counties and the Town of Glenmore (Brown County), at least 300 MW of wind projects currently under development are subject to local restrictions that prevent them from going forward. Four hundred forty MW of
windpower operating at a capacity factor of 296% should produce one million MWH per annum, which in turn should reduce emissions by 925,000 tons a year. I conservatively estimate that another 4040 MW of windpower will be built on Wisconsin land between 2015 and 2025, with half of that to occur by 2020. I am
optimistic that additional wind capacity will be built in the waters off Wisconsin. However, it is unclear whether the PSC would have permitting authority over generation projects built in the Great Lakes, so I cannot provide attribute GHG reduction savings from offshore wind development to this policy.
Emissions Avoided by Reforming Wind Energy Permitting Process (U.S. tons of CO2-eq) using WI average recent fleetwide emissions of 1850 Lbs CO2- e/MWh and assuming zero emissions from all wind generation. Year Annual Output (in MWH) Emissions Savings
2015 1,000,000 925,000
2020 1,500,000 1,387,500
2025 2,000,000 1,850,000

10. Rough Estimate of Costs for Selected Years: The savings from reduced preconstruction costs should outweigh any additional costs to the PSC from any increase in the number of wind project applications to review.

11. Barriers to Implementation: The only barrier to adoption would be political will, or lack thereof, at the state level.

12. Other Factors: The wind energy siting reform proposal tracks closely with the
large livestock siting law adopted two years ago.

The public and organizations are invited to submit comments to the Task Force or any of its work groups. We urge you to submit a comment, please e-mail it to DNRGLOBALWARMTFCOMMENTS@Wisconsin.gov.

We agree with and thank the reader who alerted us to this document and wrote us to say
"Regardless of the issue at hand, the people should be able to make
informed local decisions based on facts and reason, and not
mandated State requirements. If this passes, what will be next? What
will the State do next to take away local control ? "

We urge you to contact your legislators and tell them not to take away our local power by adopting this policy reform.

Governor Jim Doyle
Office of the Governor
115 East State Capitol
Madison, WI 53072
wisgov@mail.state.wi.us


* The Honorable Thomas E. Petri
United States House of Representatives
2462 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4906
tom.petri@legis.state.wi.us

* The Honorable Herb Kohl
United States Senate
330 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4903
senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov


* The Honorable Russell Feingold
United States Senate
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4903
russ_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

(Find your local representatives and get their contact information at the Wisconsin State Legislature website by clicking here)

This home in Nova Scotia is now abandoned due to noise from industrial wind turbines the same size as those proposed for our community. There are 17 turbines in all at this wind farm. The closest one is 1000 feet from the house. (Read Full Story Here)

Q. Are there health and safety issues associated with living close to industrial wind turbines which I should be concerned about?

Here is the October 10, 2007 response to this question by Dr. Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, who has conducted some of the most intensive medical studies on the effects of wind turbines on human health and safety:

"Yes, there are indeed medical problems caused by noise and vibration from current, upwind, three bladed industrial wind turbines. I am in the process of preparing a paper for publication in a medical journal documenting the consistency of these problems from family to family, the study subjects being a collection of families in several different English-speaking countries who have been driven from their homes by problems with sleep, headaches, tinnitus, equilibrium, concentration, memory, learning, mood, and child behavior -- problems which started when the turbines went into operation and which resolve when the family is away from the turbines. These problems all occur in proximity to recently built industrial turbines, put into operation in 2005, 2006, and 2007.

The ear is indeed the most sensitive receptor for noise and vibration. This does not mean, however, that if you cannot hear it, it cannot hurt you. The ear does more than hear. A number of the effects of noise and vibration from wind turbines appear to be mediated by the inner ear, which is a complex organ, one of whose functions is detecting certain sorts of vibration as noise. The inner ear also detects movement, acceleration, and position relative to gravity, has direct feedback onto eye movement, and has established linkages with anxiety centers in the brain.

People disturbed by noise and vibration from industrial wind turbines generally can hear the noise when it bothers them, though it may not seem particularly loud. Several people I have interviewed speak favorably of living next to an elevated urban train line, compared to living at their rural home next to wind turbines. They can sleep with traffic or train noise, but not with the wind turbine noise/vibration. They consistently described a penetrating and intrusive quality to the wind turbine noise, several describing in different ways a very disturbing feeling that the noise is somehow inside their bodies. This latter effect suggests detection of vibration in body cavities, especially since people who say this generally localize the feeling to their chest or their head.

Published research from Sweden (thesis by Pedersen and published papers incorporated into the thesis) shows that the percentage of annoyed people (which include people who move out or undertake major house renovations to try to do something about the noise) goes up at 37.5-40 dBA. This is probably because A-weighted noise representations are not capturing the parts of the wind turbine noise and vibration spectrum which are disturbing. The Pedersen studies are also based on modeled noise, not actual measurements, though there is a close correlation between actual dBA measurements and the Swedish governmental modeling protocols, the author says. Even if we do not know exactly what parts of the noise and vibration spectrum are bothersome, and to what extent these are represented in a dBA measurement, we have in the Pedersen research clear evidence that when noise is modeled prior to wind turbine construction, the allowed levels of noise should not be over 37.5 to 40 dBA outside of dwellings. Because the noise level is especially important at night, and it is at night that there tends to be a "stable atmosphere," with cool, still air at ground level and a brisk wind at turbine hub height, modeling of noise prior to wind turbine construction should use both a 37.5 to 40 dBA ceiling of tolerability, and van den Berg’s models of noise propagation in a stable atmosphere.

Sincerely,
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

   Although wind developers downplay or even deny there are adverse affects of living too close to wind turbines, there are serious, documented health and safety issues for people living closer than a mile and a half of an industrial wind turbine. There are concerns about effects on livestock. In Wisconsin there is no set back law. An industrial wind turbine could be built 1000 feet of your house or barn whether you want it there or not. The wind developer for our area has said they will not site a turbine closer than 1150 feet from a residence, but they admit they are measuring from the center tower supporting the turbine. The blades are 130 feet each, which means that the distance from the blade tip of the turbine to your door can be 1020 feet

On the issue of setbacks, Dr. Pierpont says, "I consider a 1.5 mile set-back a minimum figure. In hilly or mountainous topographies, where valleys act as natural channels for noise, this 1.5 mile set-back should be extended anywhere from 2-3 miles from homes.
Let me be clear: there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the wind energy proposition that says windmills must be sited next door (often 1000 feet) to people's homes and workplaces. Siting, after all, is the crux of the issue.
Irresponsible siting is what most of the uproar is about. Corporate economics favor building wind turbines in people's backyards; sound clinical medicine, however, does not.(Read the full report here)

 The Townships of Magnolia and Union are in the process of drafting ordinances which will include set back distances. Since a total of 70 turbines are proposed for our area (67 in Magnolia, 3 in Union) nearly everyone stands to be affected. (see a map of Magnolia high ground by clicking here. Though the wind developers say they don't yet have a reliable map of where the turbines may be sited, the high ground of our area is where the turbines will most likely be placed if the proposal goes through) There will be a meeting on Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 7pm for Magnolia Township at the Magnolia Town Hall, west of hiway 213 on County Road A, across from the church. ALL RESIDENTS OF MAGNOLIA, UNION AND SURROUNDING TOWNSHIPS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND! You can also contact us with your concerns and questions and we'll forward them to the zoning board. Contact us by clicking here or by writing to us at Better Plan, Rock County, PO Box 393, Footville, WI 53537. All names and contact information will be kept confidential. We will forward your questions and concerns only. The BPRC will not share your contact information with anyone.

Foreign Firms Envision Wind Farms Dotting the U.S.

 What should you know before you lease your land to a wind developer? You should know you must consult an independent lawyer BEFORE YOU SIGN. You will need someone who can tell you how the contract says the lease holder can use your land before, during and after construction.

This picture shows the construction of a wind turbine project in Kansas.

Let's look closer..... 
You should know how much of your land will be used during the construction phase and for how long, if you have any say at all in where the turbines will be sited, where the cables will be laid, and where the access roads will go.  Only an independent lawyer can tell you what the contract says about this.
Look closer- 

You should know that contracts may give the lease holder the right to go over, under, upon, along, and across your land, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the next 20 to 30 years. You should know what your rights are if changes, disputes or problems arise, and by what means problems may be resolved. An independent lawyer can tell you this.

Look closer.. 

 You should know that most lease agreements will be legally binding not just to you, but to your kids, any heirs, any future buyers, successors, executors, or assignees of any kind. You should know that most lease agreements require that ANYONE who owns the land after you or wishes to buy the land from you, will be also legally bound by the terms of this contract. Only an independent lawyer can tell you exactly what this means to the future of your property.

(To see more of this series of construction photos taken in Kansas, click here.) 

Law makers are finally starting ask the hard questions.  From the West Virginia Gazette-Mail" November 4, 2007 "Congressman Alan Mollohan sent an 11-page letter to the state Division of Energy officials last week, criticizing a new state plan for developing industrial wind power sites, primarily in the state’s northeastern counties." (Click Here to Read Story at its Source)

 November 04, 2007
Mollohan criticizes wind power plan

By Paul J. Nyden
Staff writer

Congressman Alan Mollohan sent an 11-page letter to the state Division of Energy officials last week, criticizing a new state plan for developing industrial wind power sites, primarily in the state’s northeastern counties.

State plans “entirely disregard the serious environmental concerns” raised by a number of critical studies prepared by the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, said Mollohan, D-W.Va.

Citing state marketing efforts touting the state’s scenic vistas and calm pace, he asked, “How do rows of 400-foot-high industrial and wind turbines, spread out over thousands of acres of ridgelines, fit into that picture?”

A longtime critic of industrial wind farms, Mollohan said state plans should be made widely available for public comments.

Today, West Virginia has four major wind-energy projects. Only one is fully operational: the 44-turbine Mountaineer Project in Tucker County, owned by FPL Energy LLC of Juno Beach, Fla.

The Public Service Commission has approved three other projects: a 200-turbine Shell/NedPower Mount Storm project in Grant County, now under construction; a 166-turbine Mount Storm Wind Force project in Grant County; and a 124-turbine Invenergy Beech Ridge project in Greenbrier County.

Mollohan said the wind-turbine industry is targeting the state and plans to build many more, including eight proposals now under consideration by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other regulatory agencies.

Those projects include a proposal by AES Corp. of Arlington, Va., to build 60 wind turbines on Laurel Mountain on the Randolph-Barbour county line.

The PSC recently rejected a proposal from U.S. WindForce LLC of Wexford, Pa., to build 50 wind turbines on Jack Mountain in Pendleton County. Mollohan said he believes U.S. Windforce will revise its proposal and submit it again.

In his letter, Mollohan also questions the amount of electric power these huge turbine farms actually produce.

James Webb, a University of Virginia research scientist, recently found that the Mountaineer Project in Tucker County operated at only 9 percent of its capacity during the month of August.

Webb calculated it would typically take nearly 3,000 huge wind turbines to match the power output of one conventional electric power plant.

Mollohan also worries about the deadly impact turbines have on bats and migratory birds, especially rare species. And he stresses the negative impact turbines have on scenic mountain views, since they are visible from miles away.

A recent National Academy of Sciences report urges state regulatory agencies to develop standards for evaluating the visual impacts of wind turbines.

But in West Virginia, Mollohan writes, neither the Division of Energy, PSC, nor any other state agency has set any “standards for deciding whether the impacts that a project would have on scenic views — or, for that matter, on wildlife — are acceptable or unacceptable.”

Mollohan said he wants the public to play a major role in making decisions about wind-power development.

“Because these decisions will directly impact the citizens of this state, [state officials should] ensure that the public will have a full opportunity to participate in the consideration and the resolution of these questions.”

Several academic and government studies, Mollohan notes, have raised “extremely serious” questions about the environmental impact of wind energy facilities.

“We ignore their warnings at our own peril, and the peril of future generations of West Virginians,” Mollohan writes. “Sound state policy clearly cannot be based on the wishes of those who want to come here to exploit our state’s resources for their own financial gain.”

One of the hardest things about all of this is having to break the news to people that free renewable energy (wind) isn't free. It comes at an enormous environmental price for increasingly questionable return.  How much is our quality of life in Rock County worth a year? How much is our skyline worth? Our peace and quiet? Our health and safety? Our Farmlands? Our Community? How much would some one have to pay you a year to give up all these things?