Better Plan, Wisconsin

SENATOR FRANK LASEE BACKS UP HIS WIND BILL

SOURCE :www.postcrescent.com

October 25, 2011 

Tom Hallquist of Oshkosh recently wrote a letter to the editor (Oct. 19, “Ban may hurt energy independence”).

It appears that the headline for the letter caused confusion. My bill requires that the Public Service Commission use a scientific study to recommend a safe setback from people’s homes and animal dwellings. Wisconsin residents have told us about their health problems that have started when wind turbines were constructed near their homes.

Families and their children have experienced constant nausea, headaches, dizziness, agitation, inability to sleep and other sickness. Three families in my district have left their homes to preserve their health and safety, with others wanting to, but they are financially unable to abandon their homes or farms. They can’t afford two house payments.

There seem to be real health issues. We ought to get answers before others are harmed. We may find that we could eliminate all of these health problems by increasing the setback requirements. We owe it to Wisconsin homeowners and others negatively affected. It only makes sense to gather health-related information about possible side effects from existing wind turbine farms.

If there are problems, the time to find out about them is now. We shouldn’t take someone’s health in their own home for granted without real information. Once constructed, a 500-foot wind turbine could affect an area and children’s health for a long time. We need real facts, not people for or against turbines making rules that suit their purposes.

This is only fair, and it’s what I expect from good government.

State Sen. Frank Lasee,

De Pere

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

What can you do RIGHT NOW to help people in our state from harm created by turbines sited too close to homes?

Better Plan strongly encourages you to contact your legislators and ask them to support Senator Lasee's bill. Contact information below.

Who Are My Legislators?  To find out, CLICK HERE

Senate | Members | E-Mail Directory

Assembly | Members | E-Mail Directory

NEXT STORY

Wisconsin wind turbine moratorium sought by Sen. Frank Lasee, R-Ledgeview

Research needed to show wind farms are safe, he says

By Doug Schneider
Green Bay Press-Gazette

GLENMORE — The sights and sounds outside her son's window made Sarah Cappelle consider something once unthinkable: Trying to sell the home in which her family has lived for generations.

The two-story house off Glenmore Road has become less dream, more nightmare since wind turbines were erected in 2010 on farmland just to the southeast.

Worries about the effects of the structures prompted Cappelle and husband Dave to stand in support Monday as state Sen. Frank Lasee, R-Ledgeview, proposed a state ban on wind-turbine construction until studies have deemed the turbines don't harm humans and animals.

"It's not fair to put something so noisy and so large so close to people, unless you can be sure it's safe," Lasee said.

A bill he introduced Monday would declare a moratorium on construction of wind farms until the state Public Service Commission is in possession of a report that ensures turbines like those dotting the landscape in this southern Brown County town don't cause health problems. He wasn't sure if the bill would gain the support needed for passage in the chamber, but said proposing it is the right thing to do.

Wind farms have prompted passionate debate, but limited agreement, on their long-term impacts on humans. And lack of regulatory agreement in Wisconsin, particularly on the issue of how far a turbine must be from a property line, has tempered developers' enthusiasm about erecting wind farms. A corporation earlier this year scrapped plans for a 100-turbine development in the Morrison-Glenmore area.

Backers of wind energy say it is a clean, safer alternative to coal and nuclear energy, pointing to the fact that they don't consume fuel and don't produce ash or other waste. They also say wind-development could create thousands of jobs in technology and construction. Opponents say turbines can be noisy, unsightly, problematic for birds and bats and, most important, cause vertigo and sleep disorders. Concerns are growing about a condition labeled "wind-turbine syndrome," and a daylight phenomenon called "shadow flicker."

Regulators say the state's wind developments are safe, and that they fall within noise-emission limits.

The Cappelles believe their toddler son's inability to sleep, their 6-year-old's recurring ear infections and Sarah's never-ending colds are a product of the Shirley Wind development near their home.

They say that family members had never had health problems until the turbine near their house went into service last fall. That prompted consultation with a real estate agent — where they learned that no one likely would pay fair market value for a house with a view of a wind turbine.

"My mother grew up here. My grandmother was here for 50 years," Sarah Cappelle said. "This is where I always wanted to raise our kids. But now, I'm not sure if we should stay."

Lasee said he knows of at least three Glenmore-area families who have left their homes because of health problems that, while not formally diagnosed, didn't appear until nearby turbines went on-line.

—dschneid@greenbaypressgazette.com

WIND TURBINE ISSUE TURNS SLOWLY

Credit:  By Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

October 23, 2011

In Columbia County, the biggest wind farm in the state is nearly complete.

Ninety turbines are being erected by Wisconsin contractors including the Boldt Co., Edgerton Contractors and Michels Corp., in a $367 million project. On a typical day this year, about 175 workers have been on the job, pouring foundations, constructing towers and hoisting turbines and blades into place.

The activity comes despite a stalemate on wind turbine siting that wind power supporters say threatens to make the We Energies Glacier Hills Wind Park not only the largest but the last major wind farm to go up in the state.

But wind developers are expressing hope that a logjam can be broken, after recent conversations between the governor and several wind development firms.

Since this year, wind industry representatives say five companies have suspended or canceled work on projects in Wisconsin.

At issue is the Walker administration’s work to address pressure from opponents of wind farms, including the Wisconsin Realtors Association, who say that wind projects are interfering with private property rights of homeowners who live near turbines – and the effects of noise and shadow flicker from the turbines.

Gov. Scott Walker was backed by wind farm opponents in his 2010 election campaign and included a bill to restrict wind farm development in the jobs package he unveiled in his first weeks in office.

But concern about stalling all development and business for Wisconsin firms resulted in pushback against the Walker bill, which ended up being the only piece of legislation that was left to die out of the initial jobs special session.

Criticism of wind turbine siting persists, with state Sen. Frank Lasee, a possible candidate for U.S. Senate, recently unveiling a bill calling for a statewide moratorium on wind turbine construction until more research is done on the health effects of the devices.

“We met with Gov. Walker to discuss how we can work together to allow the economic benefits of wind energy to help boost Wisconsin’s economy,” said Mike Arndt, a Wisconsin native who now is vice president of Element Power, a company developing projects around the country. Arndt was one of the wind industry representatives who met with Walker two weeks ago.

Among Element’s projects is $300 million to $400 million wind farm in Manitowoc and Kewaunee counties.

The Walker administration is now sending signals that it’s seeking middle ground on the wind controversy.

“Gov. Walker is committed to finding a resolution to this issue,” said Cullen Werwie, the governor’s spokesman. “We are hopeful that moving forward we’ll be able to find a reasonable compromise that protects property rights while allowing appropriate wind farm development.”

Now under the leadership of former Republican state Rep. Phil Montgomery, the Public Service Commission has been taking the lead in trying to forge a compromise – holding discussions with wind developers and wind critics, said utility spokeswoman Kristin Ruesch.

“Negotiations between the parties are still going on, and the PSC is trying to help find consensus,” Ruesch said.

Details of a possible compromise aren’t known, and it’s too early to tell if the parties can come to an agreement. Realtors and landowner representatives who sat on the PSC’s wind siting task force in 2010 dissented from the final rules developed by the agency.

Meanwhile, wind development activity continues apace around the country, with some of the most active states being Wisconsin’s nearest neighbors.

When state policies stymied wind farm development in Wisconsin, the Illinois Wind Energy Association touted his state as a land of opportunity for developers to pursue projects.

“Illinois is open for business,” the group’s executive director said earlier this year, seeking to capitalize on Walker’s new state slogan. “In light of Wisconsin’s War on Wind,” the group said, “we introduce a call for wind developers to ‘Escape to Illinois.’ ”

In 2010, nearly 500 megawatts of wind capacity went online in Illinois, far more than the 20 megawatts built in Wisconsin. According to an Illinois State University study, wind development in Illinois has generated $18 million in property taxes, $8.3 million in income for landowners and created nearly 500 permanent jobs.

So far this year, no wind projects have gone online in Wisconsin, while another 390 megawatts have been installed in Illinois, with a comparable amount developed in Minnesota as well. Together, the two states have built more wind projects this year than Wisconsin has built in the 12 years since the first turbine was erected here.

There is no immediate pressure on utilities to build more wind farms after Glacier Hills goes online this year, because they are all on track to comply with the state’s renewable energy standard. That requires utilities to secure 10% of Wisconsin’s electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

But the Wisconsin renewable mandate will grow after 2015, along with rising demand for electricity. We Energies, which supports the siting rule developed by the PSC, will need more renewable energy by 2017, utility spokesman Brian Manthey said.

Whether a compromise can be reached is unclear.

In addition to backlash from wind energy companies that are seeking to invest in the state, voters in public opinion surveys have expressed support for wind power.

But with the specter of a recall election looming, Walker may seek to return to his supporters, including the Realtors – one of the governor’s biggest backers in terms of campaign donations last year.

During last year’s campaign, Walker was more strident in his opposition to wind power, documents released to the Journal Sentinel under the state’s open records law show.

“I will fight government policies that further infringe on the rights of property owners,” Walker said in a campaign letter last summer. “Wind turbines have proved to be an expensive, inefficient source of electricity and thus any further construction of turbines simply is not a policy goal or objective that should be pursued further.”

With the administration now talking compromise, one of the wind industry executives who recently met with Walker is now sounding an upbeat tone.

Construction of the two We Energies wind farms led to creation of 22 permanent jobs for Vestas, said Art Ondrejka, site manager in Wisconsin for Vestas, the world’s leading turbine supplier. Nationwide, Vestas says it’s created 2,000 jobs since 2008.

“We hire our people from nearby,” he said. “It’s by design. It gets the community more involved with them and gets local people to take some ownership in the long-term viability of the project.”

Susan Innis, Vestas senior manager of government relations, said she is hopeful a compromise can be reached, based on the recent discussions she, Arndt and others had with Walker.

“Wisconsin’s been a great state to do business, and we’d really love to do more,” she said.

OPPOSITION TO WIND TURBINES NEAR RACINE

By Janet Hoff,

Source WRJN, www.wrn.com

October 24 2011

Residents in the Village of Mount Pleasant, located near Racine, are speaking out against plans to build three wind turbines at an SC Johnson facility there.

The company is seeking approval from the Village to build the turbines, which would generate up to 10 million kilowatt hours of electricity. It’s enough to provide the company’s Waxdale facility with about 15-percent of its energy needs.

Resident Tom Joy says the noise would be like having a lawn mower running all the time, and he believes residents will end up subsidizing the project with falling property values. Joy says there are also health concerns about the turbines being so close to homes.

Gail Johnson is urging the company to continue being a good neighbor and scrap this idea. She says the noise is a real concern and other alternatives should be considered.

Mount Pleasant Community Development Planner Logan Martin says SC Johnson is following the PSC’s wind turbine guidelines from earlier this year, which may not be the permanent rules the state enacts. The permanent rules have been delayed because of debate in the state Legislature.

From Illinois

WIND ENERGY GROUP WANTS FURTHER SETBACK DISTANCE IN ADAMS COUNTY

SOURCE KTIV.COM

October 11, 2011

From Massachusetts

HEALTH BOARD CONDITIONALLY SUPPORTS TURBINE ARTICLE

By B Runyon,

SOURCE Falmouth Enterprise,

October 18, 2011

Falmouth Board of Health decided last night to recommend changing the operations of the town-owned wind turbines to ease negative health effects on neighbors when Falmouth Town Meeting will consider shutting down the turbines next month.

The board made the unanimous decision last night to support the spirit of the petitioners article, but not the exact wording. Article 9 asks Town Meeting to suspend operations of Wind 1 and Wind 2 until research can show that no harm is being done to nearby residents by the Falmouth turbines. Wind 1 is currently operational, but shuts down when wind speeds exceed 23 miles per hour. Wind 2 is completed, but not yet operational.

Board of health members said they could not support the exact wording of the article because it would be almost impossible to prove that no harm is being done. The board decided instead to endorse the intent of the article after nine neighbors implored the board to respond to their complaints. “A couple of us are pretty much toast,” said Neil P. Andersen of Blacksmith Shop Road, one of the closest abutters to the town turbine. “We recognize there’s a problem in the wording [of the Town Meeting article], but there’s a moratorium on wind turbines in this town that serves everybody except us. We’re just asking you to back us.”

Mr. Andersen’s comments turned the board’s focus away from the wording of the article, and instead to its intent. The comment came toward the end of an hour and a half of testimony from neighbors, and discussion by the board. “Is the sense of the board that turbine operations should be suspended or modified?” asked board member Stephen R. Rafferty. “Do we support that something needs to be done?” “Something has to be done.

Yeah, I’m there,” said board member George F. Heufelder. He said he might be able to support suspending the operation of the turbine, if the article was amended so that it could be turned on again. But board member Jared V. Goldstone said he would not support the suspension of the turbine operation, but he would support further modification of its operations. As an example of a modification, Dr. Goldstone said, “We could shut it off at night and let it crank during the day.” The neighbors in the audience voiced their opposition to that idea, and Dr. Goldstone responded. “It was just an example.”

Board member John B. Waterbury said he did not support suspending the turbine operation, but he did support further modifications that could include changing the operation of the turbines during certain wind speeds, times of day and wind directions. Chairman Gail Harkness said she might be able to support the suspension of the turbine if there was an end date to the suspension.

Even if Town Meeting approves the petitioners article, it may not actually change the operations of the turbines, said Todd A. Drummey of Blacksmith Shop Road, who wrote the text of the petitioners article. The turbine operations are under control of the board of selectmen, he told the board of health.

Two weeks ago, Falmouth Board of Selectmen had a discussion about the petitioners article, and selectmen said the board could shut the turbines down whenever it wanted. But selectmen decided to hold its recommendation until Town Meeting, until further information is available about the costs of making changes to the wind turbines.

At the beginning of the discussion last night, one of the petitioners, Barry A. Funfar of Ridgeview Drive, West Falmouth, asked the board to declare that the turbines have created a health emergency in Falmouth. Mr. Funfar said that he and others who live in the area have experienced depression and suicidal tendencies as a result of the turbines.

Board members declined to take that action, but Mr. Heufelder said it has been personally difficult for him to respond to the turbine complaints, because many residents have symptoms, but the science supporting their claims is not definitive. “Is there harm being done and we’re not doing anything about it?” asked Mr. Heufelder, who is also the director of the Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment. He said, as a public health official, he is used to responding to complaints, but he is not sure how many complaints about wind turbines require a response. “What’s that number for wind? I don’t know. I don’t even know where to begin with wind turbines,” he said. There are people in the Falmouth community who have both psychological and physical symptoms from the turbines, he said. “There are symptoms. They are there,” Mr. Heufelder said. “The bottom line is that we’re the board of health and we have to be concerned about the health of the community.” Residents who live near the turbines did not have the symptoms before the turbines were built, but they do have symptoms now, he said.

Mr. Heufelder said he is not sure how many people have to be affected before the board of health responds. “I don’t know what that number is. I know that it’s not one, but don’t know it’s not 10,” he said. Dr. Waterbury said that as a scientist he needs to see credible peer-reviewed literature about the health effects of turbines. There is no peer-reviewed literature that shows direct health effects are caused by wind turbines, he said.

Board members directed their frustration at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, because it has not responded to a request for guidance about the sound measurements of wind turbines. Different sound measurements can yield different results, and the neighbors of the turbines say that the measurements used by the state are inadequate for measuring turbine sounds. “Wind turbine noise is so different than any other kind of noise,” Mr. Funfar said. The nearby highway does not drown out the noise, he said, and the noise and annoyance get worse over time. “We don’t get used to this sound. It makes us crazier and crazier,” Mr. Funfar said.

Dr. Goldstone said the health effects from wind turbines have to be studied before the causes can be known for sure. He likened it to figuring out that cigarettes are a direct cause for cancer. It took hundreds of years of people smoking, he said, to determine that cancer is caused by smoking. After proof was presented in the 1950s, it still took another 50 years before smoking was banned in public places. With wind turbines, the health effects are still being determined, he said.

From Ontario

FAMILY SUES WIND FARM, ALLEGING HEALTH DAMAGES

SOURCE CTVNews.ca Staff, www.ctv.ca (WATCH VIDEO HERE)

October 16 2011 

A rural family in southwestern Ontario has launched a lawsuit against a nearby wind farm, claiming the turbines are damaging their health. They are demanding the farm be shut down.

Lisa and Michel Michaud, and their two adult children, say they have no intention of moving away from their home and want an injunction to shut down the Kent Breeze wind farm, developed by a Suncor Energy Services unit.

They also want to be compensated for damages to the tune of $1.5 million, plus other costs.

The Michaud family says their peaceful lives at the 12.5-acre farm, near Chatham, changed in early May when the eight turbines on the nearby wind farms started turning.

First, Lisa Michaud, 46, says she got sick with vertigo.

“It is like when you have the flu or something and you have a chill. It is similar to that going through your skin all the time,” she tells CTV News.

Then, her husband Michel, 53, began having symptoms.

“There’s ringing in the ears. At night, you have trouble sleeping. You feel a vibration in the chest,” he says.

Not long after, their son Joshua, 21, complained of vertigo and balance problems.

“It’s constant there is no reprieve,” he says.

They’re suing Suncor, claiming the turbines triggered their now non-stop health problems.

“It’s not a question of money. We want our health back. We want to keep our place. We just want these things gone,” Michel says.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

This is not the first time that people have described complaints from living near wind turbines. But most studies to date say the sounds and vibrations coming from these units simply can’t be linked to health problems.

“There is no science to implicate wind turbine noise in adverse health effects and there is no credible epidemiological data to implicate this,” says Dr. David Colby, the Medical Officer of Health for Chatham-Kent.

Suncor says it engaged “in a comprehensive regulatory process to obtain an Ontario renewable energy approval to build and operate the Kent Breeze wind power facility” and “operates Kent Breeze with strict compliance to established regulations.”

It also notes that the Environmental Review Tribunal in a lengthy appeal examined health issues related to this wind farm and found “the evidence did not demonstrate that the Kent Breeze project, as approved, causes serious harm to human health.”

“We are confident that the large body of scientific and medical research presented at the tribunal from scientific experts around the world has not shown a direct correlation and should not defer from wind development,” the company said in a statement to CTV News.

Can WEA, the Canadian Wind Energy Association, says it doesn’t want to comment on the lawsuit while it is still before the courts, but says it too is confident that wind turbines have no direct effect on health.

“The balance of scientific and medical reviews around the world have concluded that sounds or vibrations emitted from wind turbines are not unique and have no direct adverse effect on human health,” the group said in a statement to CTV News.

“This is backed in Ontario by the findings of Chief Medical Officer of Health Arlene King in a May 2010 report.”

They added that they will continue to review new information on the subject as it is made available.

The family’s lawyer says other families in the area are coming forward with similar complaints. They say they plan to stay rooted to their farm, while the legal battle decides whether the turbines stay or go.

“I’m not against being green, but when you are sick all the time, it’s not fun,” says Michel.

With a report from CTV medical specialist Avis Favaro and producer Elizabeth St. Philip

From Vermont

A FALSE CHOICE

by Justin Cook,

The Manchester Journal, www.manchesterjournal.com

October 10, 2011

The small, but stately Lowell Mountain range, rising above the Black River in Vermont’s northeast kingdom, spans a region that has been called one of the most pristine geo-tourism sites on Earth by National Geographic.

The range will be destroyed this fall with an estimated 700,000 pounds of explosives by the Green Mountain Power Company, a Canadian-owned subsidiary of Gaz Metro. Green Mountain Power received approval to install an industrial wind “farm” on top of the range, and the building cost will be subsidized by U.S. taxpayers by $51 million.

One of the largest highways in the state will cut across the top of the flattened range, and 150 acres are already being clear-cut for the 21 wind turbines that stand 469 feet tall, higher than the Statue of Liberty, and which will decimate migrating birds and raptors in the region, presently home to a concentration of bald eagles.

Vermont’s Public Service Board, a three-person panel, approved the Kingdom Community Wind (KCW) project on May 31, 2011. The PSB’s stated mission is to protect the public’s interest, but in an almost comic disregard for due process, it has permitted all GMP appeals, while refusing all appeals raised by groups opposed to KCW, including for hearings on stormwater-runoff issues, particularly in the wake of extreme weather; a conventional two-year bird study by a neutral third party; and the effect of fragmenting the Lowell range habitat corridor on the black bear and moose populations.

In an effort to accommodate GMP, which will receive an additional federal giveaway in the form of Production Tax Credits (2.2 Cents per KWH) if the project is completed by Dec. 31, 2012, the PSB simply fast-tracked the permitting process with waivers and mitigation agreements or extensions for anything that might hold it up. (GMP has said publicly that it won’t build the project without those tax credits, therefore, the pressure is on).

The panel has ignored the many compelling arguments against Lowell, including Vermont’s paltry wind resources (fifth from last in the nation), and the obvious point that because the turbines only spin 20 percent of the time they will require 100 percent conventional energy as backup, thereby actually increasing Vermont’s carbon footprint.

The roughly 20,000 homes dependent on Lowell will still need another source of energy on-call when the wind isn’t blowing and conventional energy costs more to ramp up and ramp down than if the wind farm were not even connected to the grid. This is a technical reality that no amount of public relations can change. Worst of all, GMP admits it could purchase green, hydro power directly from Hydro Quebec for less than half what it will cost to generate it at the Lowell facility, but because of the Federal subsidy money and the tax credits – our money – it’s pure profit for them, and worth destroying the mountain range.

In a cynical manipulation of the well-meaning public, which is desperate for progress with renewable energy, gov. Peter Shumlin and GMP are justifying the destruction of the Lowell Mountains as “green” and “local.” Shumlin argues that he is diversifying Vermont’s energy portfolio, and that this mountain range must be sacrificed because Vermont Yankee is closing. He is giving Vermonters a false choice.

That same Federal subsidy money could dramatically increase energy conservation by employing local contractors to upgrade homes and businesses. That money could also defray the cost of solar arrays and allow individuals to feed energy back into the grid. Because solar power isn’t as intermittent as wind, a conventional energy backup source can operate efficiently. Interestingly, in the Northeast Kingdom, among renewable energy choices, solar is more popular than wind power, but that reality is being ignored.

Shumlin has deeply disappointed his green supporters by ignoring the troublesome facts about wind power in Vermont. Our one existing facility in Searsburg has an average capacity factor over 13 years of 22.4 percent, meaning that’s how much of the time the turbines actually produce energy. What GMP refuses to reveal, however, is the energy required to run the turbines themselves – the electronics, hydraulic brakes, blade-pitch control, blade de-icing heater, etc.

The best estimate, done by the Royal Academy of Engineers, puts it at 12.5 percent, reducing actual energy produced by an industrial wind installation to a mere 9.9 percent. To put this into perspective, three miniature hydro-electric dams equivalent in length to the dam at Dufresne pond would produce the same energy as the entire Lowell Community Kingdom project with none of the environmental devastation.

As for Shumlin and GMP’s final sleight of hand, presenting the Lowell industrial wind project as helping Vermont’s “local” economy, the truth is the opposite. The Vestas turbines are being manufactured in Denmark; the crews which will blast the mountains, build the highway, and install the turbines are coming from Maine; and the $51 million in U.S. subsidy money will be going straight to Canada. The one local job we’ll be able to count on, like the one typically advertised by other New England wind-power companies, will be to pick up the dead birds before school children arrive on their field trips to see the wind “farm” – a patently Orwellian misuse of the word – to describe a place that grows nothing and destroys nature in order to “save” it.

This tragedy is likely to be heading our way under the present administration which is committed to promoting industrial wind on Vermont’s ridgelines. The Agency of Natural Resources in the past did not support industrial wind for environmental reasons. Now, under Deb Markowitz, the ANR has not only reversed its own precedent, but is actively working with wind developers before their applications reach the PSB to ensure the permits go through. Sites like Little Equinox and Glebe Mountain which have been protected by their communities in the past are again vulnerable. With Little Equinox mountain, the PSB approved Endless Energy Corporation’s meteorological tower through 2010, and it appears to still be there, ensuring one less step in any future permitting process.

Write to Governor Shumlin and your representatives in Montpelier and insist that Vermont’s energy be smart and green. Industrial wind projects have no place here. We cannot afford boondoggles to erect showpieces of “renewable” energy at the expense of our state.

Justine Cook lives in Dorset.