Better Plan, Wisconsin

IBERDROLA THREATENS TO LEAVE

SOURCE: The Journal, www.ogd.com 

December 8 2010

By Matt McAllister,

HAMMOND – If Hammond adopts a wind law that requires Iberdrola Renewables Inc. to compensate property owners who see drops in their land values, the company says it will scrap plans to build a proposed wind farm.

“They’ve basically said if we pass this agreement, that they will pick up their tinker toys and leave the sandbox,” said Richard K. Champany, the wind committee member responsible for the proposal. Mr. Champany, a real estate attorney with offices in Alexandria Bay and Pulaski, said he didn’t anticipate this reaction from Iberdrola.

“It’s very infuriating,” he said, holding up the letter from Iberdrola. “I’ve attempted to mediate and make everyone happy. This is a very fair proposal. I didn’t expect this kind of reaction.”

“It also says they don’t have any experience with property values dropping,” said Michele W. McQueer, committee tri-chair, “and that they would like to discuss the proposal with us.”

“I could care less what Iberdrola feels about the agreement,” said Ronald R. Papke, tri-chair of the committee appointed by the Hammond town board to draft a law regulating wind turbines. “If there aren’t any negative effects to property values, then they are no worse for wear if this agreement is included. We’re here to protect the citizens of Hammond.”

According to Mr. Champany, his proposal calls for assurances from Iberdrola that if a property owner cannot get the appraised value of his/her home at sale because of the presence of wind turbines, then Iberdrola would be required to make up the difference.

“This agreement must be entered into within 90 days of the conclusion of the permitting process, and is good only for those properties falling within a two-mile range of a windmill,” he said. Additionally, according to Mr. Champany, the proposal calls for a one-time only “buyout clause,” which would give a property owner who was completely opposed to living near a turbine an opportunity to have Iberdrola buy their property outright.

For the purpose of the agreement, Mr. Champany said, a qualified professional appraiser, licensed in New York and not related to the property owner or with a relationship with Iberdrola, must conduct the appraisal. Comparable properties would come from the neighboring town of Alexandria, “where there are no wind farms due to the proximity of the Maxon Air Field.”

If both parties cannot agree upon the asking price of the property, Mr. Champany said, an appraiser with MAI certification must be selected by Iberdrola. He defined MAI certification as “the highest level of professionalism.”

According to Mr. Champany and the wind committee, the proposal was just that – a work in progress.

“These were my thoughts,” he said, “but I’m open to committee suggestion, as well as ideas from community members. I mean, we’re here to serve the best interests of this community, and to work together, right?”

The remainder of Tuesday’s meeting, chaired by Mrs. McQueer, was dedicated to ranking the quality of the committee’s collected documentation on the issues surrounding industrial wind energy development.

“We’re going to go through all of the documentation and rank them on a scale of one to three, with a one being the lowest level, and a three being the highest,” Mrs. McQueer said, revealing a pyramid-visual labeled “Hierarchy of Evidence.”

Mr. Papke objected, questioning the committee’s ability to rank its sources, as well as the usefullness of such an undertaking.

“We’ve all done a lot of research. I have about 10 reams of material I’ve collected during my own. This ranking of documentation is not going to be the sole basis by which we make our recommendations. A lot of it is subjective,” he said.

Dr. Stephen D. Sarfaty agreed with Mrs. McQueer that he felt the exercise would be valuable to the committee’s end result.

“We said we would consider any information from any source. If we rank them, it will undoubtedly help the committee with the charge we have been given,” he said.

“A systematic approach is necessary, otherwise, it’s an opinion-fest. Let’s take a less controversial area, go through the exercise, and see where it brings us.”

Frederick A. Proven pointed out that the committee is “running out of time.”

Mr. Papke lamented on the volume of resources and stated, “There’s an awful lot here, I would be hard pressed to say these are the facts.”

The committee decided to rank their documentation on environmental issues and, after about an hour of labeling the sources as a 1, 2, or 3, Mr. Champany asked, “Why are we doing this?”

“Because we agreed to,” Mrs. McQueer said.

The committee will meet again on Dec. 16 at 7 p.m. in the Village Community Center.

LETTER FROM SENATOR JON ERPENBACH TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

REGARDING WIND SITING RULES

SOURCE: PSC DOCKET # 1-AC-231

November 30, 2010

Public Service Commission

Eric Callisto , Chairperson

Mark Meyer, Commissioner

Lauren Azar, Commissioner

PO Box 7854

Madison WI 53707-7854

Dear Commissioners Callisto, Meyer and Azar:

I am writing to today regarding Clearinghouse Rule # 10-057 – PSC Wind Siting Rules proposed Chapter 128.  Having voted for the rule’s return to the PSC with the majority of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail, I wanted to share some perspective as to why.

In the committee hearing that was held on October 13, 2010, we received a number of suggestions regarding the rules that resonated with committee members.  I am including copies of that testimony for your consideration and will summarily list them in outline fashion for your use.

1. Wisconsin Towns Association Memo
   1. Setback of large wind turbines from nonparticipating residences – at a minimum having the setback from the property line of a nonparticipating property, not the residence.
   2. Decrease the maximum noise limits from 50 dBA during daytime and 45 dBA during nighttime hours.
   3. Eliminate the authority of PSC to approve lesser standards than the minimum standards to protect the public under PSC 128.02 (4) Individual Consideration
   4. Increase the 25% limit that a local government is allowed to require a large wind turbine  owner to compensate the owner of a nonparticipating residence.  PSC 128.33 (3) Monetary Compensation.
   5. Require the owner of the wind turbine to reimburse the emergency personnel who train them in safety and emergency procedures.  PSC 128.14 (4) (e) under Emergency Procedures
   6. Change of ownership should not be valid until the new owner has shown proof of compliance with all specific requirements of the original owner.

1. Wisconsin Realtor Association
   1. Setback
   2. Attorney review of contracts
   3. Informational brochure for property owners
   4. Clarification that lease negotiators must have a WI Real Estate License
   5. Additional health impact research
   6. Time period for addressing complaints
   7. Define the term “affected” in “affected nonparticipating residence”

1. DATCP 

     Incorporate the use of DATCP guidelines that intend to maintain the productivity of the farmland associated with wind energy projects.

1. Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc.  & WI Potato & Vegetable Growers Assoc. Inc.

Address the concerns regarding aerial application of farmland and compensation for conflict that arises.

1. The concerns raised by countless individuals that the health concerns or wind turbines are not being addressed adequately, that the setbacks need revision, that the “takings” issue needs to be addressed, that dBA levels need to be reduced both day and night, that shadow flicker must be addressed in the rule, that the health aspects of Wind Turbines have to be studied and taken into consideration.   I have not included the reams of paper that was shared with the committee by all of these individuals – I know much of it has already been shared with the PSC.

In closing, I think the above outline gives the Commission a number of particular issues to re-examine within the rule. 

I would be happy to discuss further the return of the rule by the Senate Committee with the Commission.

Sincerely,

JON ERPENBACH

State Senator

27^th District

JE.tk

REPLY FROM ERIC CALLISTO, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

December 3, 2010

Dear Senator Erpenbach,

Thank you for sharing your concerns and comments regarding the wind siting rules. We appreciate the summary you provided us and will take all comments into consideration when deciding upon modifications that the Commission plans to take up at an open commission meeting soon.

Eric Callisto
Chairperson

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Why won't Public Service Commission Chairman Eric Callisto tell Senator Erpenbach exactly when the open meeting regarding the wind siting rules will take place?

Certainly Chairman Callisto knows exactly when this meeting will happen. Why give such a vague reply to a state senator?

For those of us watching this issue, it's important to note that Better Plan has been told that the calendar of events on the PSC website is not an official posting place for such meetings so the PSC website calendar is exempt from the 24 hour notice prior to a public meeting that is required by law.

Better Plan has been unable to find the official posting place for the meetings apart from the entry way of the PSC building in Madison.

For many of us, a daily drive to Madison to check the posting at the PSC isn't possible.

Better Plan is concerned that the PSC is purposefully being vague about the date and time of this meeting and urges you to call the PSC daily to find out when this meeting will take place and ask for an agenda.

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

610 North Whitney Way. P.O. Box 7854

Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7854

Phone:(608)266-5481

General Toll Free:(888)816-3831

TTY:(608)267-1479

Fax:(608)266-3957

URL:http://psc.wi.gov/

SECOND FEATURE:

AN 82-YEAR-OLD GOT TIRED OF SPITTING INTO THE WIND, WENT OUT ON A LIMB

SOURCE: The Portland Press Herald, www.pressherald.com

December 6 2010

Donald Smith,

My name is Donald Smith. I am 82 years old and a native Mainer. I am a veteran and a grandfather. I was arrested and charged with criminal trespass at the Rollins Mountain wind project site in Lincoln on Nov. 8. Five of us formed a human barricade to the site.

Dozens of others braved the cold rainy November day to protest First Wind’s project.

Many people have asked me why I did this. Good question. I hope I give good answers.

The first reason is that nobody seems to be paying attention to the negative aspects of wind power — least of all the complacent and complicit media in Maine.

If we had just stood out there with signs, even the local reporter would likely have overlooked the event. putting myself on the line to dramatize why this project is so wrong, it caught the attention of media far and wide.

It seems that most people understand utility scale (or industrial) wind power superficially, accepting wind power as “green” and “clean” and the panacea for solving energy and climate challenges. It is the result of years of masterful propaganda by the wind industry.

ALL ABOUT SUBSIDIES

Some of us have actually done a lot of research into industrial wind and have found huge negatives. dramatically raising the visibility of the issue with the arrests, we are getting people to discover these negatives as the follow-up dialogue occurs.

I have gained insights from my research into industrial wind. The wind industry would not exist without massive government subsidies. For example, the US Energy Information Administration reports that in 2007, wind received $23.37 per megawatt hour in subsidies; the next highest subsidy was $1.59 for nuclear. Those are our tax dollars going into something that doesn’t work.

We are putting up wind turbines in places where there isn’t enough wind to generate electricity. Look at the NREL map of wind potential in Maine. The area around Lincoln Lakes is all white. Look at the color code and white means “poor.”

My guess is wind turbines are not about generating electricity, but about selling a carbon tax in the form of renewable energy certificates, raking in production tax credits, and having the taxpayers pay the cost of construction.

Another reason I got arrested is to protest the proliferation of these industrial wind projects. I retired to live a quiet life on Caribou Pond, with a view of Rollins Mountain. That ridge will have 15 turbines, each 389 feet high. The total number of turbines will be 40 on Rollins Mountain and the ridges of Rocky Dundee.

TOO DESTRUCTIVE TO BE GREEN

An acoustics expert stated that the noise from these turbines will negatively impact hundreds of people on the lakes and nearby country roads, the same well-documented noise problems that have been experienced at Mars Hill, Freedom and Vinalhaven.

I am not a NIMBY. I don’t believe these industrial machines belong anywhere in the rural landscape. Not in anyone’s yard — back, front or side.

The noise issue is just one of many. If you could see the destruction of Rollins Mountain taking place right now, you would never consider this a “green” project. The DEP would fine me if I moved a rock at my home, yet they approved ridges being blasted away and scalped. They will never be the same.

The Rollins project will blast away more than seven miles of ridges and clear-cut more than one thousand acres and install 20 miles of powerlines to tie into the grid.

That is for just one project. Without thinking through the ramifications, the Legislature in 2008 passed LD 2283, a horrible law to give favoritism to wind power. They chose an arbitrary figure of 2,700 megawatts of installed capacity by 2020, which at a generous actual output of 25 percent, ends up being just 675 megawatts of intermittent, unpredictable, unreliable power.

If Rollins is 60 megawatts, then it will mean 45 more projects like this to achieve the goal.

THE PRICE IS WAY TOO STEEP

Do the math. Based on the impact of Rollins, that means at least 315 miles of Maine ridges and mountains blasted away to install 1,800 turbines; 45,000 acres or more of carbon sequestrating forest permanently clear-cut; and 1,000 miles or more of new powerlines.

The price? Rollins’ price tag of $130 million times 45 is a staggering $5.85 billion.

Why did I get arrested? To help bring forth what a folly this is and how damaging it is to Maine’s environment. Wind power is bad economics and bad public policy. It is far from “green.” The negative impacts of these projects on the environment and our quality of place far outweigh the pittance of good they might do for the planet.

THIRD FEATURE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, SENATE, No. 2374, 214th LEGISLATURE

INTRODUCED NOVEMBER 8, 2010

Sponsored by:

Senator SEAN T. KEAN
District 11 (Monmouth)

Senator ANDREW R. CIESLA
District 10 (Monmouth and Ocean)

Co-Sponsored by:

Senator Gill

SYNOPSIS

Prohibits siting of industrial wind turbines within 2,000 feet of any residence or residentially zoned property.

AN ACT concerning wind energy and supplementing Titles 13 and 40 of the Revised Statutes.

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. a. The Legislature finds and declares that industrial-strength wind turbines can be over 400 feet tall and have blades that sweep up to 1.5 acres in area;

that, as a result of their size, these machines have the potential to obstruct scenic vistas, create large community eyesores, and reduce property values for nearby residents unless they are sited at appropriate distances from residential areas;

that recent developments in the area of wind power production have further indicated that the noise and vibration stemming from the operation of large-scale industrial wind turbines may cause nearby residents to suffer from a health condition known as “wind turbine syndrome,” which may result in sleep disturbance, headaches, ringing of the ears, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, racing heartbeat, irritability, problems with memory and concentration, and panic episodes accompanied by internal pulsation or quivering sensations; that people have moved away from their homes to avoid the ill effects associated with “wind turbine syndrome”;

and that medical, noise, and acoustics experts, as well as wind energy organizations, have indicated that incidents of “wind turbine syndrome” can be avoided if industrial-strength wind turbines are sited a considerable distance away from residential property.

b. The Legislature therefore finds that, in order to protect the public health and welfare, and in order to preserve the scenic vistas enjoyed by State residents and protect residents from unnecessary reductions in property value, it is both reasonable and necessary to prohibit the siting of industrial-strength wind turbines in or near residential areas.

2. a. No wind energy structure may be erected or installed in the State at a site that is closer than 2,000 feet from any residence or residentially zoned property.

b. No State entity may approve any plan, proposal, or permit application for a wind energy structure if that wind energy structure will be erected or installed at a site that is closer than 2,000 feet from any residence or residentially zoned property.

c. The provisions of this section shall apply only to wind energy structures erected or installed in the State subsequent to the effective date of this act.

d. As used in this section, “wind energy structure” means any on- or off-shore turbine, facility, farm, or other structure that is designed for the purpose of supplying electrical energy produced from wind technology, but shall not include a “small wind energy system,” as defined by section 1 of P.L.2009, c.244 (C.40:55D-66.12).

3. a. No municipal agency may approve any plan, proposal, or permit application for a wind energy structure if that wind energy structure will be erected or installed at a site that is closer than 2,000 feet from any residence or residentially zoned property.

b. The provisions of this section shall apply only to wind energy structures erected or installed in the State subsequent to the effective date of this act.

c. As used in this section, “wind energy structure” means any on- or off-shore turbine, facility, farm, or other structure that is designed for the purpose of supplying electrical energy produced from wind technology, but shall not include a “small wind energy system,” as defined by section 1 of P.L.2009, c.244 (C.40:55D-66.12).

4. This act shall take effect immediately.

STATEMENT

This bill would prohibit the siting of any industrial-strength wind energy production system within 2,000 feet of any residence or residentially zoned property. It would further prohibit any State entity or local government unit from approving a plan, proposal, or permit application for any industrial wind energy system that will be so sited.

The bill’s prohibitions are necessary in order to ensure that the increased use of wind energy in the State will not cause a significant obstruction of scenic views or reduction in home values for New Jersey residents, and, more importantly, will not cause New Jersey residents to suffer from the ill health effects associated with “wind turbine syndrome” – a condition that has been connected with the close placement of industrial-scale wind turbines to residential areas. Symptoms of “wind turbine syndrome” include sleep disturbance, headaches, ringing of the ears, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, racing heartbeat, irritability, problems with memory and concentration, and panic episodes accompanied by internal pulsation or quivering.

These symptoms, which are continuing in nature, often force people to move away from their homes. Experts on “wind turbine syndrome,” experts in noise and acoustics, and wind energy associations, however, have all indicated that instances of “wind turbine syndrome” can be avoided if industrial wind energy systems are sited a considerable distance away from residential housing.

Such distant siting would also alleviate potential problems associated with vista obstruction, and would ease the impact of industrial wind energy facilities on property values.

Consequently, in order to protect the public health and welfare, and preserve the State’s scenic vistas and residential property values, it is both reasonable and necessary to prohibit the erection of industrial wind energy facilities within 2,000 feet of any residential property.

It is important to note, however, that this bill would not apply to the siting of small wind energy systems that are used primarily for on-site consumption purposes. “Wind turbine syndrome” has been associated only with the residential placement of large-scale, industrial-strength wind turbines. Moreover, small, personal-use wind energy systems are not likely to cause significant vista obstruction or the reduction of surrounding property values, as is true of their larger, industrial counterparts.

Click here to download entire text of bill

SECOND FEATURE

PRATTSBURGH RESIDNETS UPDATED ON WIND FARM LAWSUIT

SOURCE: Bath Courier, www.steubencourier.com

December 5 2010

By Mary Perham,

Prattsburgh — An informational meeting Tuesday night on the status of a lawsuit between a wind energy company and the town of Prattsburgh drew sharp lines between a divided town and a divided town board.

Ed Hourihan, the attorney defending the town in the lawsuit filed by wind farm developer Ecogen, told a crowd of 100 residents state Supreme Court Justice Ark has given the two groups time to reach an out-of-court agreement.

He said John Calloway, a representative from Ecogen’s largest shareholder, Pattern Energy, has agreed to talk to representatives from Prattsburgh and the neighboring town of Italy. Italy also is being sued by Ecogen on a related wind farm matter.

Ecogen maintains an agreement reached 3-2 by the outgoing pro-wind Prattsburgh town board in December is binding, despite the fact the new town board rescinded the agreement 4-1 the following January.

The majority of the new board believes the December agreement violates a number of laws, including the right to home rule.

Hourihan said the new board’s action prevented Ecogen from going ahead with its plans to build a 16-turbine wind farm in the town.

He said other court decisions support the new board’s action.

“It’s safe to say had the board not rescinded the settlement you could have turbines in your backyards right now,” Hourihan said.

Preventing the construction didn’t please some residents, who said they had wanted the project to go forward this year.

“You came in and stopped something (a lot of us) wanted,” one woman said.

But the cost of the lawsuit – pegged this year at $49,393 – was the chief concern of the meeting, with some angrily charging other legal costs had been hidden.

Hourihan also privately represented councilmen Chuck Shick and Steve Kula in the fall of 2009, and some residents charged those bills were hidden in the town costs.

However, Hourihan said his bill itemized every action taken on behalf of the town after Jan. 1. Any personal – or town — expenses in 2009 had not been charged to the town, he said.

Hourihan said current town Supervisor Al Wordingham told him the new board was not authorized to pay $35,000 for legal services last year.

“Now, would I like the money? Sure,” Hourihan said. “But I’m not getting it.”

When councilwoman Stacey Bottoni pointed out the town had apparently paid Kula’s and Shick’s final account, they said they would check out the $200 fee, and repay it if a mistake had occurred.

Bottoni, who supports Ecogen, also complained she had been “kept in the dark” about the bills. Hourihan said the information has always been available to here.

But Bottoni said she relied on frequent calls to Ecogen representatives for her information.

“Well, and that concerns me, Stacey,” Hourihan said, adding her contacts with Ecogen seemed to violation of client-attorney confidentiality.”

Other concerns were raised about the proposed talks with Calloway. Prattsburgh officials have suggested the developer use its original 100-site map to find other locations and reduce noise levels.

One resident asked if property owners in those other locations had been contacted to see if they wanted the 400-foot tall turbines on their land.

Kula questioned whether the town government could approach owners, but said it might be possible to form a citizens’ committee.

Bottoni angrily countered Ecogen already has spent millions on the project and doesn’t want to spend more money for new studies.

However, Shick pointed out the basic environmental studies for all the sites have been completed.

Some residents were worried because action on another ruling by Arkhas been put on hold while the parties try to work out a compromise.

Arksupported the town’s request for sworn statements from the previous town board and other officials on the events that led to the December agreement. The deadline for the statements was Nov. 24.

Hourihan said he notified Arkthe sworn statements would be delayed because of the proposed talks.

Hourihan said it would cost the town $25,000 to get the statements – and might be unnecessary if a compromise was reached.

Bottoni told the group the town was trying to prove the town illegally sided with the developer. She said there had been no illegal collusion.

“We wanted it,” she said. “We’ve wanted it for three years.”

SECOND FEATURE

WIND MILL NOISE LIMIT STILL UP IN THE AIR

 SOURCE: Journal and Courier, www.jconline.com

December 4 2010

By Dorothy Schneider,

As wind energy farms prepare to sprout in Tippecanoe County, some residents are fighting a proposal that would allow for more noise — and they fear nuisance — from the developments.

“This is not just a ‘I can’t stand that mosquito’ kind of noise,” said county resident Julie Peretin. “This is about quality of life.”

Peretin and other concerned neighbors are fighting a move being considered by the Tippecanoe County commissioners that would allow turbine noise to be as loud as 50 decibels any time of day, up from the current 45-decibel limit.

That’s the allowable noise level — about the sound of quiet dishwasher — as measured 25 feet from the dwelling of a non-participating landowner.

A non-participating landowner is one who has not permitted construction of a wind turbine on his or her property and who has not contractually granted rights to a wind farm developer, under the ordinance.

The board was due to vote on the proposal Monday, but the decision is being pushed back to the Dec. 20 meeting while further research is done on the issue. Commissioner Tom Murtaugh said the county is getting additional input from an acoustic consultant out of Chicago.

That extra consideration is one of the steps residents like Peretin have been pushing for.

The commissioners approved an ordinance in August that set the wind turbine noise limit at 45 decibels. Peretin said she and others had wanted the limit set at 35 decibels.

Lobbied for change

After the 45-decibel limit was set in August, representatives of wind energy companies sought the change to 50 decibels. Commissioners said even at 50 decibels the county’s wind ordinance would remain one of the strictest in the state.

Murtaugh hopes the consultant review will help decide if the county’s sound limit is still in an OK range “so we can put this issue to bed.” The commissioner said ordinances often need to be changed after the fact, but he doesn’t expect the county would have to make many substantive changes beyond the ones being considered.

Official plans for Tippecanoe County’s first wind farm were announced in early September.

Carmel-based Performance Services plans to build a 25-turbine wind farm on about 2,500 acres in the northwest part of the county.

In the southwestern part of Tippecanoe County, Invenergy Wind LLC of Chicago is planning a wind farm with 133 turbines.

Greg Leuchtmann, development manager for Invenergy’s project, spoke in support of the proposed noise limit changes at last month’s meeting.

Comparable noise

According to Purdue’s audiology department, 50 decibels of sound equates to the noise of soft talking, a washing machine, a quiet air conditioner or an electric toothbrush.

But the sound levels are not the only issue in play, according to Carmen Krogh.

Krogh, a board member with The Society for Wind Vigilance in Canada, is helping collect information from people worldwide who’ve reported adverse health impacts from living close to wind turbines.

Krogh is a retired pharmacist who used to work with a group that monitored symptoms and reports after new drugs were released on the market. Now she’s trying to carry that practice into the study of wind energy developments, which she and others believe merit further scrutiny.

“We’re finding the number one issue (being reported) is sleep disturbance,” Krogh said. “If it’s chronic, that can lead to sleep deprivation, and medically it can lead to a lot of other conditions,” such as anxiety, stress and cognitive issues.

Debra Preitkis-Jones, a spokeswoman with the American Wind Energy Association, said wind plants are generally quiet and that developers try to be good neighbors.

And she pointed to a report from the chief medical officer of health in Ontario — where Krogh and others are collecting information — that found no scientific evidence demonstrating a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.

But Krogh said there’s simply too many unknowns. In the absence of human health studies, she said, companies have been relying on computer models to determine proper setbacks and noise levels.

“We would never put out a new drug without figuring out the impact to the human body,” she said. “Our position (on wind turbines) is we really need to pause and conduct the human health studies that correlate.”

Tippecanoe County officials dismissed a request residents made earlier this year to put a moratorium on wind farm developments here.

But Peretin said she’s still optimistic that the county will work with acoustic professionals through this process to make sure the quality of life for residents is protected.

Want to comment?

The Tippecanoe County commissioners will discuss and vote on the wind energy ordinance when they meet at 10 a.m. on Dec. 20.

The board also will meet at 10 a.m. Monday, and it takes public comment at all commissioners meetings.

The meetings are held in the Tippecanoe Room of the County Office Building, 20 N. Third St. in Lafayette.

Symptoms

Some of the symptoms that have been linked to living in close proximity to wind turbines include:
# Sleep disturbance
# Headache
# Dizziness, vertigo
# Ear pressure or pain
# Memory and concentration deficits
# Irritability, anger
# Fatigue, loss of motivation

Source: Audiology Today

NATIONAL WIND PURSUES MINNESOTA PROJECT

SOURCE: Dolan Media Newswires, dailyreporter.com

December 2, 2010

By Arundhati Parmar,

Minneapolis — Despite being rebuffed twice by state regulators, National Wind is not ready to withdraw from its proposed wind project in Goodhue County.

A frustrated executive said the wind development firm will try to get a speedy resolution within 60 days so National Wind can begin its 78-megawatt project next year.

“We are looking for every way possible to move forward,” said Chuck Burdick, senior wind farm developer at Minneapolis-based National Wind, which is developing the project on behalf of AWA Goodhue LLC. “We also are trying to protect the significant investment that has already been put in the project. Between $5 million and $6 million has already been invested.”

Burdick said he is frustrated the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is not holding other wind projects in the state to the same “unreasonable standard” that AWA Goodhue faces.

The project has run into stiff local opposition from residents worried about the negative health effects of living too close to wind turbines. Goodhue County adopted a strict local ordinance in early October requiring that each of the 50 turbines be at a distance of 10 rotor diameters — in this case, 2,700 feet — from the homes of landowners who have not leased land to the project.

“Last week, the PUC approved two site permits with a 1,000-foot setback,” Burdick said. “There’s a level of absurdity at this point.”

That 10-rotor setback would kill the project, lawyers for AWA have told the PUC, appealing to commissioners to ignore the local ordinance and allow construction.

The PUC commissioners referred the case back to the Office of Administrative Hearings, which this summer compiled volumes of information from both sides on the scientific evidence of whether noise and shadow flicker from the rotating turbines have negative health effects.

Once again, the case is pending.

Burdick said company lawyers are trying to get the contested hearing expedited so the matter is resolved in the next 60 days. Burdick said he is open to a compromise with the county and has contacted some commissioners, but the response has not been encouraging.

One of the points of compromise is to relax the 10-rotor requirement in favor of a stronger noise pollution requirement, Burdick said.

In an October meeting, before the ordinance was approved, many residents said the county should adopt a 10-rotor setback because that was the only way to protect them from the effects of large wind turbines.

Many rejected the notion there was a cost-effective way to measure the sound emitted and enforce the noise requirement.

The County Board had considered strengthening the sound requirement to 40 decibels from 50, the state maximum.

But a county resident said that is not acceptable.

“The World Health Organization recommends 35 decibels or less at nighttime,” said Barb Stussy, a Minneola township resident who has opposed the project. “The 40 decibels, as a compromise, does not address the nighttime noise.”

SECOND FEATURE

COUNTY FACES ANOTHER WIND LAWSUIT

SOURCE: Hays Daily news, www.hdnews.net

December 2010

By Gayle Weber,

More than two dozen landowners in Ellis County and a prospective wind developer have filed a federal lawsuit against the Ellis County Commission over zoning regulations approved in August.

The suit, McClelland et al v. Ellis County Board of Commissioners, was filed Sept. 29 and amended Tuesday. Summonses were issued in the case Tuesday.

The amended complaint alleges the county’s zoning regulations, “if enforced, would prohibit plaintiffs from developing the wind rights on their properties.”

Nearly all of the plaintiffs in the case have entered into agreements to develop wind energy on their properties, according to the lawsuit.

The suit calls the adoption of the regulations “unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.” It also alleges the zoning regulations would deprive landowners of valuable property rights in a potential wind development and violates plaintiffs’ rights as granted in the state and U.S. constitutions.

The plaintiffs, who have requested a jury trial in Wichita, are asking for the U.S. District Court in Wichita to declare the zoning regulations void.

The plaintiffs also have asked for damages of $75,000, but the plaintiff’s attorney declined to clarify this morning if that amount is per plaintiff or a lump sum.

The plaintiffs are being represented by a trio of attorneys at Depew, Gillen, Rathbun and McInteer, Wichita.

The Ellis County Commission adopted new regulations Aug. 30. Those include increased setbacks and notification and protest petition areas in wind developments. A 40-decibel noise limit also was imposed in the wind energy regulations.

Commissioners voted 2-1 to adopt the regulations.

“It wasn’t scientific,” Commission Chairman Perry Henman said in August of setbacks, which were increased from 1,000 feet from residences to 10-times-the-tip-height.

“It was just a compromise of all the stuff that we’ve gone through for two or three years. I thought that would be sufficient for me, the least I could go without having a bunch of noise regulations,” Henman continued.

However, noise regulations were adopted also, and Commissioner Glenn Diehl said he hoped the new regulations would keep Ellis County out of a lawsuit.

“We had a 2,000-foot setback, and we ended up in court,” he said in August. “We already ended up in court. We already know what happens.”

Diehl and Henman voted in favor of the regulations, with Commissioner Dean Haselhorst dissenting.

A group of landowners in Hays Wind LLC’s proposed project southwest of Hays sued Ellis County in district court in 2008 over setbacks in the project. As the result of mediation, setbacks were increased from 1,000 feet to 2,000 feet. The conditions of mediation in the lawsuit were settled earlier this year.

* * *

Plaintiffs named in the new federal suit include:

Thomas and Martha McClelland, Kathleen Staab, T. Warren Hall, Stanley and Katrina Staab, Darrell Schmeidler, Kurt and Janel Staab, Gary Deutscher, Francis Staab, Todd and Jody Staab, Brian and Tonya Staab, and Harold and Virginia Kraus, all of Hays; Ernest Pfeifer, Kathy DeSaire, Verlin and Carol Armbrister, Gene and David Bittel dba Bittel Farms Partnership, Honas Farms LLC, Alvin and Margaret Armbrister, and Steven and Jeri Homburg, all of Ellis; Deanna Miller, Victoria; and Invenergy Wind Development LLC, Chicago.

TURN DOWN THE NOISE!!

Source Fox Islands Wind Neighbors, www.fiwn.org

 November 29 2010

Last week, the State of Maine affirmed that the Vinalhaven wind turbine farm violates state standards for noise. Neighbors afflicted by the turbine noise are hoping it is a turning point in the year-long dispute between the operation of three 1.5 megawatt GE turbines.
Since the commissioning of the wind turbine project a year ago, the local utility—Fox Islands Electric Coop and Fox Islands Wind—had denied noise violations. During this time, neighbors endured excessive noise on a regular and frequent basis. In its finding, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection calls this a “very serious matter”.

The agency undertook a rigorous analysis to determine its position, based on a July 18th complaint filed by the neighbors. Fox Islands Wind has until December 3rd to outline exactly what its intentions for addressing the problems. Within 60 days, the utility is required to implement a noise mitigation plan. On Nov. 6th, the neighbors filed a second official complaint and have more than a dozen additional complaints cued up for submittal.
From its commissioning in November 2009, neighbors were shocked by high noise levels produced by the turbines. Their efforts to validate noise complaints and the ensuing disagreement with the wind turbine operator has attracted national attention including front page stories in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and AP.

The Vinalhaven neighbors set out to make sure that the utility conformed to state law. This required a significant effort and investment in understanding acoustics and measurement metrics and technologies. The efforts of the neighbors prompted the DEP to reexamine the adequacy of wind turbine compliance procedures. There had been no regulatory mechanism to detect and validate noise complaints from wind turbines. If the Vinalhaven neighbors had not undertaken their own costly efforts, the local operator— Fox Islands Wind, LLC– could have continued to operate in violation of their license conditions.

After filing numerous complaints between April and June 2010, the state, the neighbors and the local utility finally established a formal protocol requiring acoustical proof of violation. On July 18, 2010, the neighbors met the newly established requirements with a single complaint that was representative of excessive noise that could be measured on a regular basis.

The controversy has also triggered harassment against the neighbors, some of which has been encouraged by the local utility. For example, in a mailing to rate payers, Fox Island Electric Coop highlighted the cost of defending against complaints from neighbors, implying that their objections rather than the utility’s violations will increase electric bills. George Baker, the Fox Islands Wind principal, has continued to blame the controversy on a “small minority” despite evidence that he and the utility ignored its own consultant during the development phase of the project that stated wind turbine noise would likely be an issue due to the compact size of the wind farm site and its close proximity to property owners.

In a Bangor Daily News report, Baker also said that the state would allow the turbines to run at faster speeds during storms—creating more noise—if FIW did not contest efforts to slow down turbine speeds during wind shear conditions with the wind coming from the south west. According to the neighbors after meeting with DEP officials, Baker’s claim is pulled from thin air: the State of Maine made no “deal” with FIW. In fact, the state told neighbors that it is receptive to opening its inquiry to all times and under all weather conditions.

The Department of Environmental Protection takes its mandate very seriously and if FIW does not comply in a timely or effective manner, it has a number of methods of enforcement including interim relief, reopening the utilities license application, and issuance of violation notice. If evidence appears that there is any violation of regulatory limits at any time or in any meteorological conditions, FIW is required to comply.

These residents have been attempting to analyze the economics of the wind turbine operation, to discover if the turbines are responsible for lowering the cost of electricity as claimed. But Baker, FIW and the board of Fox Islands Electric Co-op have refused to open their books.

After a long year, neighbors of the Vinalhaven wind turbines are heartened by this movement from the State of Maine to verify their complaint.

From the Maine Department of Environmental Protection

November 23, 2010

Re: DLRR Request for a Revised Operation Protocol, Fox Islands Wind, LLC, Department Order # L-24564-ES-A-N;

Dear Mr. Baker:

On July 23, 2010 the Department received a complaint alleging that the Fox Islands Wind, LLC wind power facility in Vinalhaven, Maine had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the small-scale wind energy facility certification issued in Department Order #L-24564-ES-A-N on June 5, 2009. The complaint alleged that the facility was operating out of compliance with the 45 dBA nighttime noise standard set forth in department regulations and permit conditions during a nighttime period on both July 17, 2010 and July 18, 2010.

The Department has reviewed the complaint in accordance with the noise complaint protocol, which was agreed to by the permit holder, and Department regulations governing noise Chapter (375 § 10). Based on this review, the Department has determined that during the time period between 11 p.m. and 12:10 a.m. on July 17, 2010 and July 18, 2010, at a minimum, the Fox Island Wind facility was operating with a sound power output of 47 dBA. The Department’s analysis confirms that, as required by the terms and conditions of the permit, the conditions that existed during this time period were most favorable for sound propagation and maximum amplitude modulation, and therefore were optimal for determining wind turbine sound. Further analysis of the operational, sound, and meteorological data collected during the complaint period, as well as other data collected during the period of May 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010, indicate that, at current operation levels, the facility is likely to exceed the required sound compliance level of 45 dBA when there is significant vertical and directional wind shear.

In order to resolve this matter in a manner that ensures that the project can operate in compliance with existing noise regulations and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Department Order #L-24564-ES-A-N, the Department requests that Fox Island Wind, LLC submit, within 60 days of this notice, a revised operation protocol that demonstrates that the development will be in compliance at all protected locations surrounding the development at all times, including under the specific condition identified above. This revised operation protocol must include a time frame for implementation. As discussed at our meeting on November 18, 2010, Fox Island Wind, LLC will submit a preliminary outline of a revised operation protocol by December 3, 2010. The Department will review your December 3rd submission and offer feedback by December 15, 2010 in order to facilitate your further preparation of the revised operation protocol for submission by January 23, 2011. The revised operation protocol must be submitted as a condition compliance application pursuant to special condition #8 of Department Order #L-25664-ES-A-N.

The Department views the compliance issues identified at this facility as a serious matter. Provided that Fox Island Wind, LLC submits a revised operation protocol to the Department for review and approval no later than January 23, 2011, and further provided that the revised operation protocol approved by the Department is fully implemented by Fox Island Wind LLC in a manner that ensures compliance with Department noise standards and permit conditions, the Department can resolve this matter without further action.

If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at 592-1864.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

James Cassida, Director
Division of Land Resource Regulation
Bureau of Land & Water Quality

WIND FARM HEALTH FEARS GROW

SOURCE: The Courier, www.thecourier.com.au

December 2, 2010

BRENDAN GULLIFER,

Self-testing by a small group of Waubra residents could reveal a link between wind turbines and health.

South Australian doctor Sarah Laurie, director of the Waubra Foundation, says early indications suggest a possible link between turbine operation and early-morning blood pressure problems.

“It appears for some people that their blood pressure first thing in the morning is elevated if the turbines are going, and is not elevated if the turbine have been off overnight and early in the morning,” Dr Laurie said.

Dr Laurie said early-morning blood pressure elevation was a known risk factor for heart attacks.

She said eight people were checking their blood pressure north of the Waubra wind farm, within four kilometres of the nearest turbine, and some in the group had no knowledge of when the turbines were operating. All test participants were between one and four kilometres from the nearest turbine. Dr Laurie said not all in the test group had been affected.

“It’s very early days but there does appear to be something going on,” Dr Laurie said.

Dr Laurie urged anyone living within five kilometres of a wind farm to purchase their own blood-pressure monitoring equipment and see a doctor if their blood pressure was over 140/80.

The Waubra Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation formed to foster independent research into wind farms and health. Earlier this year the National Health and Medical Research Council concluded there was no published scientific evidence to link turbines with adverse health effects.

The Clean Energy Council – representing 400 companies with clean-energy interests – released a report last month indicating that there was no evidence that noise levels as allowed under planning guidelines have an adverse effect on health.