Applicants and regulators should have foreseen the negative noise response from neighbors living near wind turbine sites. By their not adequately understanding the sound character generated by wind turbines, appropriate corrections to prevent annoyance were not included in the noise predictions. Wind turbine noise has a unique and visceral sound character, which may be perceived as being twice as loud as measured.
Community noise studies have shown that public annoyance increases substantially when there is a noise source with unpredictable variability and unusual sounds. The Environmental Protection Agency's 1974 "Information On Levels Of Environmental Noise Requisite To Protect Public Health And Welfare With An Adequate Margin Of Safety, 550/9-74-004" presents a community reaction prediction methodology, which includes annoyance correction factors for seasonal operation, background sound level, previous experience to the noise and tone.
In 1989 Maine adopted some of the EPA recommendations and chose the 1-hr Leq (average) in lieu of the Ldn (day-night average), along with corrections for tonal and impulsive sound. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection noise limits are stipulated in the Site Location of Development Chapter 375.10 Noise and are applicable when there is no qualified municipal noise ordinance.
Chapter 375.10 recognizes and establishes the Legislature's intent to control the potential for adverse community reactions in its preamble: "The Board recognizes that the construction, operation and maintenance of developments may cause excessive noise that could degrade the health and welfare of nearby neighbors. It is the intent of the Board to require adequate provision for the control of excessive environmental noise from developments proposed after the effective date of this regulation."
Community reaction to wind turbine noise can be predicted using the EPA methodology and is normalized for quiet areas and the DEP use of Leq. Correction factors include 0 dB for year round operation, 10 dB for being located in a quiet area, 5 dB for no prior experience and, 5 dB for having a tonal or impulsive sound character. The graph showing normalized EPA community reactions is shown in Figure 1. This graph includes the results of 2004 independent wind turbine annoyance research, "Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise: A dose – response relationship," by E. Pedersen and K. Persson Waye, in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Figure 1 clearly shows that there is a predictable adverse community response for wind turbine noise levels above 32 dBA.
Wind turbine noise levels below 35 dBA may be audible, but will result in the community reactions ranging from "no reaction, although noise is generally noticeable" to "sporadic complaints". Whereas from 35 to 45 dBA, there is a predicted adverse community response ranging from "widespread complaints or single threat of legal action" to "severe threats of legal action or strong appeals to local officials to stop the noise". Similarly, the 2004 data predict 6 to 85 percent of the community will be highly annoyed, with the associated adverse health effects of "psychological distress, stress, difficulties to fall asleep and sleep interruption."
Wind turbine noise levels louder than 45 dBA will result in the highest negative community response of “vigorous community action”. In like manner, the 2004 data predict, “100 percent of the community highly annoyed from wind turbine noise” with the associated adverse health effects already noted.
Other researchers have recommended quieter wind turbine noise levels than the DEP’s current 45 dBA. Dan Driscoll, a recognized acoustic professional, recommended 33 dBA in 2009. The Hayes McKenzie Group recommended 33 dBA in 2006 when the impulsive character is audible. Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, of Fort Kent, conducted an independent medical control study for residents living near the Mars Hill wind turbines, with a recommendation for a minimum separation distance of 7,000 feet. This distance was found by the authors to correlate with wind turbine noise level versus distance measurements for noise levels in the mid- to high 30s (dBA) depending on number of wind turbines and other factors.
If the DEP regulators require developers to account for the noise level variability and tonal sound content in wind turbine noise, they would adjust the 45-dBA-night noise limit lower to a maximum of 35 dBA. This 35 dBA would be consistent with the EPA noise level prediction for no more than “sporadic complaints” and, the Pedersen and Waye prediction for community reaction would be reduced to just above the “high annoyance threshold for wind turbine noise."
Figure 1 - Percent of Community Highly Annoyed.
Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand are members of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering. In 2009, they became concerned about the negative comments from residents living near wind turbine sites and, the apparent lack of regulatory action to address the potential for adverse health impacts from wind turbine generator noise in Mars Hill. They launched their own evaluation, and came to the following conclusions in a series of guest columns.
Piece by piece, presentation by presentation, the foundation upon which industrial wind industry and much of Ontario’s Green Energy Act sits was taken apart and dismantled this past weekend.
The industrial wind turbine business was always on shaky ground. It has been promoted by governments eager to be seen to be doing something about the western world’s reliance on fossil fuels—oil, gas and coal. In many respects wind energy policy has been a public relations exercise fuelled by governments’ willingness to spill billions of taxpayer dollars into developer’s pockets. They do so with a mix of wishful thinking and willful blindness in the expectation that technology leaps will fill in the significant operational gaps before most folks realize intermittent generating sources don’t work on a large scale.
None of these folks anticipated, however, that industrial wind turbines would actually make people sick. After the first international symposium in Picton on the weekend, there can be little doubt remaining.
Several analogies were made about how the fight against the harmful effects of smoking tobacco began with just a few voices in the medical and scientific community. It would take decades, however, before governments would listen and begin to take action. The esteemed participants of the Picton gathering fervently hope it doesn’t take as long for governments and the broader public to understand the harm caused by industrial wind turbines.
Dr. Bob McMurtry, a physician and former deputy minister of health in Ontario, gathered doctors, scientists and researchers from around the world to Picton in reveal their findings and share the latest information on the impact of industrial wind turbines in what he termed a “consilience” or unity of knowledge.
WHAT WE LEARNED
Several alarming messages emerged. Every animal with a functioning hearing organ, including humans, is at risk of being affected by the low-frequency pulsating sound emitted by industrial wind turbines. Those most acutely affected tend to be disposed to motion sickness or car sickness— but even those without these symptoms may be responding to the noise, whether they are aware of it or not.
The low-frequency and subsonic (below the hearing range) noise from wind turbines has a demonstrable effect on the ear and hearing mechanisms. The most acute symptoms include nausea, dizziness and sleep disturbance. It is now becoming evident, however, that even those who don’t suffer these particular symptoms are likely realizing some harm. These hearing mechanisms are closely related to language development, learning and cognitive organization— as the fine components of the ear become stressed, learning in children becomes impaired, concentration becomes harder for adults, and sleep is disrupted.
Evidence was presented that people likely don’t “get used to” wind turbine noise. Even those who claim not to hear noise appear to endure physiological stress related to the pulsating low frequency noise.
Among the more worrisome bits of information gleaned from the weekend conference was that current assumptions of safe setbacks are likely wrong. Many opponents of large scale industrial wind factories have pressed for setbacks from homes of at least two kilometres. (Ontario’s Green Energy Act prescribes setbacks of just 550 metres.) But studies done by sound experts John Harrison and Richard James now show that in some conditions— over water and rocky terrain and beneath low cloud cover—the low-frequency noise can travel up to 15 kilometres.
Keynote speaker Dr. Nina Pierpont, the author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, explained that “our brains don’t function well” when subjected to long-term sustained low thumping noise from industrial wind turbines.
According to her research 90 per cent of those in her test sample exposed to the “pulsating tone” of the wind turbines suffered from cognitive performance deficit as compared to a control group. Generally they had more difficulty with reading, spelling, math, memorization and recalling the plots of television shows.
Pierpont’s findings extend beyond cognitive issues. She has also observed that stress to the hearing organ is linked to balance, which has a close relationship to emotions including panic and fear. These are the same triggers that cause in some a paralyzing fear of heights.
She observed that two-thirds of her test group—14 of 21—presented “disturbing symptoms” such as the need to flee, difficulty breathing, and panic.
Dr. Arlene Bronzaft recounted her groundbreaking studies on noise and learning done three decades ago in New York City. In her work she documented how children on one side of a school nearest a busy train line suffered from measurable learning impairment compared with students on the opposite side of the school. Her work led to legislation and changes in the classroom to ensure students has a quiet place to learn, not just in New York, but across the U.S..
She urged the physicians and scientists in the room to continue to produce evidence of the harm of industrial wind turbines.
“You need the studies and the research,” said Dr. Bronzaft. “You need to teach. You need to be political. But I ask you not to give up if you are successful in one area—there are communities in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Maine and across North America with small groups who are fighting these developers. They will continue to need your help.”
Alec Salt heads the Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis. He illustrated that sound emitted from industrial turbines is many times greater than the audible hearing range—prompting him to work through the answer to his own question—does sound that you can’t hear hurt you?
Salt’s research has shown how low-frequency sound affects the transport mechanism of the ear and hearing structure.
“A big part of the sound created by an industrial wind turbine can’t be heard,” explained Salt. “That doesn’t mean it can’t hurt you. When these structures move frequently and dramatically it can have an effect on a range of symptoms.”
He asked the audience to consider this proposition against other human senses.
“Apply this notion to taste, smell, sight and touch,” said Salt. “Does anyone believe that you have to taste something in order for it to be harmful? We know that ultraviolet light (light we can’t see) can have a dramatic effect on skin and other organs. The notion that we can’t be harmed by sounds we can’t hear is nonsense. We need to stop ignoring the effects of infrasound on people.”
He is less clear about whether symptoms persist after exposure to industrial wind turbine infrasound is discontinued.
Sleep expert Dr. Chris Hanning travelled from the U.K. to explain the effect of industrial wind turbines on sleep. He observed that the need for sleep is universal among animals—that poor sleep leads to a range of disorders from obesity to heart disease.
“Disrupted sleep over time leads to heightened states of frustration, anger and feelings of loss of control,” said Hanning. “This noise is viewed as an invasion of the place in which we go to retreat from life, where we go to feel safe.”
He also observed that the pulsating tone when measured on a spectragraph appears very similar in pattern to a fire alarm: “the tone we use to arouse people from sleep and warn them of danger.”
He has found that the persistent low frequency throbbing of industrial wind turbines is more disruptive to sleep than traffic, aircraft and industrial noise. The only thing worse, according to Dr. Hanning, is the rhythmic bass pounding from a loud stereo or “boombox” nearby.
Like Dr. Bronzaft, Hanning urged his colleagues in the room to continue to produce research and studies. He said illconsidered government policies have created thousands of guinea pigs around the world.
“There are enough folks being affected right now that together we can do the work that government and industry should have done in advance,” said Hanning.
MARS HILL
After the physiological mechanics of the effect of industrial wind turbines had been described the conference turned to the victims. Dr. Michael Nissenbaum has conducted a controlled study of effects of industrial wind turbines on residents of Mars Hill in Maine. The subjects in his study live within 1,100 metres of an industrial wind installation consisting of 28 1.5 MW wind turbines. His control group consisted of 27 adults living on average 5,000 metres from the wind turbines.
Eighty-two percent (18 of 22) of those closest to the turbine reported “a new onset or worsened sleep disturbance” since the turbines went online. Only one of the 27 of those five kilometers away reported a new or worsened sleep disturbance. One hundred per cent of those closest to the turbines had considered moving away.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Much of this evidence presented this weekend, will likely be used in January as Ian Hanna of Big Island takes on the Ontario Government in court. Hanna is arguing that the province failed to use the “precautionary principle” when it lowered and removed regulatory hurdles to developers of industrial wind energy through the Green Energy Act. The precautionary principle states that governments or organizations must ensure that its policies do not harm individuals or communities prior to enactment.
It seems clear from this weekend’s Picton conference that the province failed to meet this test.
SECOND FEATURE
Eastern Oregon residents near wind farms express health concerns over noise, lights, stress.
LA GRANDE — If there’s anything that worries Linda Bond, it’s the prospect of living in the shadow of hundreds of wind turbines with their noise and blinking lights.
“I am really concerned about their proximity to the schools,” said Bond, a 59-year-old retired Oregon City teacher who now lives in Union, where a huge wind-energy project is proposed. She attended one of several Oregon Public Health “listening sessions” this week in eastern Oregon.
“There will be some people adversely affected,” she said.
Bond isn’t alone in her nervousness. For scores of residents, the luster of renewable green energy has all but disappeared behind an unwelcome march of gigantic, rolled-steel wind towers.
Oregon is a national leader in wind energy production, ranking fourth behind Texas, Iowa and California — up from sixth place last year, according to the American Wind Energy Association in Washington, D.C. The state boasts more than 1,200 wind turbines on more than a dozen wind farms across central and eastern Oregon, and it produces 2,095 megawatts of wind capacity, enough to power 500,000 houses.
At listening sessions in La Grande and Pendleton, the conversation often turned on fears that wind-energy projects degrade human health, property values, scenic views and wildlife habitat.
Bond’s adopted town of Union, with its frontier-era red-brick storefronts and gracious Queen Anne and Victorian homes, could face a thicket of 182 wind turbines if the 300-megawatt Antelope Ridge Wind Power Project gets a go-ahead. Some of those wind towers, with their blades extended, will reach 520 feet into the sky, nearly equal to the height of Oregon’s tallest building, the Wells Fargo tower in Portland.
Houston-based Horizon Wind Energy has proposed the $600 million project in a semicircle on 47,000 acres above and around Union, with towers as close as 1 1/2 miles to schools, homes and businesses.
Uncertain future
Many of the more than 60 people attending the La Grande meeting admitted they’re unsure what to expect, but they fear that the blinking lights on the towers and the low-frequency roar and whoosh-whoosh-whoosh of giant turbine blades would become an unhealthy and permanent fixture in their lives.
“You can’t imagine the stress it’s caused,” said Dennis Wilkinson of Cove, organizer of Friends of the Grande Ronde Valley, a political action group that opposes the Antelope Ridge project. He attended the Pendleton listening session, which drew about 30 people.
Due largely to his group’s efforts, Union County voters formally opposed construction of Antelope Ridge by a slim 52 percent to 48 percent vote in Tuesday’s general election. The nonbinding advisory vote capped months of controversy. The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council is evaluating Antelope Ridge, and Wilkinson said his group’s goal is to stall the council’s approval until alternative energy tax incentives dry up and the project goes away. It would power about 72,500 homes.
Serious curtailment
While more than a dozen Oregon wind projects are in the planning stage, “there is a serious curtailment in building wind projects,” said John Audley of Renewable Northwest Energy, a Portland-based coalition of companies and groups that promote renewable energy.
“The state incentives have gone away, the markets of renewable energy are full and the price of fossil fuel is cheap,” he said at the Pendleton meeting.
Nationally, the third quarter of 2010 was the slowest since 2007 for the U.S. wind-energy industry — down 72 percent since last year and a third the rate of China’s wind-energy installation, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
Enthusiasm for wind-energy projects by rural eastern Oregonians who must live with the turbines has waned since the 1998 completion of the Vansycle Ridge Wind Farm Oregon’s first wind project, in Umatilla County.
In 2007, organized resistance helped block the proposed 40-turbine Massachusetts-based First Wind project between The Dalles and Mosier. The following year, a group called the Blue Mountain Alliance set out to ban turbines on the western face of the Blue Mountains in Umatilla County.
Bitter opposition
Near Boardman, opposition to the 2-year-old Willow Creek Wind Energy Project has proved bitter. Nearby homeowners, at the meeting in Pendleton, said the towers’ noise and proximity to their homes disrupts their lives. One, builder Dan Williams, complained of panic attacks, lost sleep and fractures to family relationships caused by stress.
“I don’t want to see what’s happened to our community ever happen to anybody else,” he told members of the state health panel and siting council Chairman W. Bryan Wolfe of Hermiston, who attended the session.
The study of the effects of wind turbines on human health is an emerging and much-debated science whose leader arguably is Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, N.Y. Pierpont coined the phrase “wind-turbine syndrome.” She says low-frequency noise and vibrations from wind turbines can affect the inner ear, triggering a variety of symptoms ranging from headaches and difficulty sleeping to learning and mood disorders, irritability and panic attacks. Her research suggests wind turbines should never be built nearer than two miles from homes.
Jae Douglas, Oregon Public Health’s moderator, said the most frequent wind-farm concern she’s heard is about stress.
Her office is charged with writing an assessment of any health impacts from turbines for consideration by the siting council, Oregon Department of Energy and county commissions — agencies that make the decisions on wind-energy projects. A draft will come in March and the final assessment in June, Douglas said.
A proposal to construct a wind turbine network in the Town of Forest, east of New Richmond, isn’t being met with universal support.
A number of local residents have been attending Town of Forest Board and Planning Commission meetings over the past few weeks to voice their displeasure with the plan.
The project is being promoted by Emerging Energies of Wisconsin LLC, a Hubertus company that is involved in several wind farm projects across the region.
Emerging Energies has been studying wind speeds in the St. Croix County township for more than two years.
In an earlier interview with the New Richmond News, Bill Rakocy, co-founder and principal of Emerging Energies, said the Forest area is “very favorable” as a site for large wind turbines. The company’s research shows that average wind speeds are about 16 to 17 mph, which is sufficient to turn a large turbine and thus generate electricity.
Emerging Energies hopes to construct up to 40 turbines in the Forest area by 2013 and sell the power to a utility company such as WE Energies or Xcel. A number of local landowners have expressed an interest in having one of the 2.5-megawatt, 350- to 495-foot-tall turbines constructed on their land.
A developer’s agreement was signed in August between the Forest Town Board and Emerging Energies. Under the agreement, landowners within a half mile of each turbine, the Town of Forest and St. Croix County would receive annual direct payments during the life of the turbines.
In response to the town’s agreement action, residents opposed to the proposal formed an advocacy group called “Forest Voice.”
The group has since asked the town board to consider a moratorium on wind turbine installation until an ordinance could be developed regulating such structures in the community.
But after receiving advice from its attorney, the town board noted that any new ordinance wouldn’t apply to the Emerging Energies project because regulations cannot be retroactively changed once something is already approved and a developer’s agreement is signed.
Residents then asked the town board to reconsider its agreement, suggesting that the contract was void because it was “illegal.”
Forest resident Jaime Junker, spokesperson for “Forest Voice,” said there was a “rush” to get the agreement signed and that the appropriate steps were not followed when the wind project was first approved in 2008 and then later solidified on Aug. 12, 2010.
He said the town’s planning commission never voted on a recommendation on the matter, even though later documents suggest that that body voted to recommend the project.
Junker also said that a resolution related to the eventual developer’s agreement may not have been properly signed, leading “Forest Voice” members to conclude that the agreement isn’t yet a legally-binding document.
According to a Notice of Claim filed by “Forest Voice,” opponents of the proposal worry that the wind project will have a negative impact on the health and safety of residents, as well as have a detrimental impact on the quality of life for those living in the township.
Junker said the filed notice is the first step in the group’s potential legal action against local elected officials and Emerging Energies.
Two town board members met in closed session last Thursday to consider the suggestion that the agreement be nullified. Town Chairman Roger Swanepoel has recently abstained from being involved in the wind turbine issue because of a conflict of interest.
No action was taken to rescind the agreement when the town board members recovened in open session Thursday.
Board member Carlton Cress said the the agreement will apparently stand as originally approved.
Cress called the situation “unfortunate,” but noted that concerned residents should have gotten involved in the approval process sooner.
“We’ve had some good meetings on the subject, and a lot of people on both sides of the topic have been there,” Cress said. “But they weren’t at our meetings at the right time.”
He said earlier meetings related to the wind turbines were well publicized and the board was open to any feedback. But when few objections surfaced, the project went through.
Cress added that the wind turbine controversy has been the most contentious debate he’s been involved in during his 24 years on the town board.
A state panel, established by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, approved a new set of standards for wind turbine construction in August. The Forest project likely will not be covered by those new rules because the project was officially approved by the town board in 2008.
HEPPNER, Ore. – An Oregon county is telling the owner of a big wind farm to quiet down so neighbors can sleep at night. The operator of the Willow Creek Energy Center southwest of Boardman objects to the unusual noise enforcement.
Another wind farm developer active in the area has reportedly paid neighbors “hush money” to head off similar trouble. Correspondent Tom Banse has been traveling through eastern Oregon this week for a two part series on how wind power is seen by those closest to it. Here’s his report from Morrow County.
General contractor Dan Williams lives in a hexagonal house designed to let in panoramic views from all directions. Two years ago, this northern Oregon big sky scenery changed dramatically.
Williams: “White sticks and propellers everywhere!”
A wind power developer put up dozens of towering wind turbines on the other side of the Willow Creek valley. The blades spin about three-quarters of a mile away. Retired firefighter Dennis Wade lives even closer to the windmills. Wade drops by the Williams’ place for a chat.
Dennis Wade: “It sounds like a train or a jet that never arrives, that just keeps going in one place.”
Dan Williams: “The sleeplessness…that’s the major thing for us.”
Dennis Wade: “I have woken up at night and it’s like somebody beating on your chest from the whoosh, whoosh, whoosh.”
Sound:
Dan Williams: “For me, it makes me feel uneasy.”
Dennis Wade: “I have migraines. This has kicked the migraines up.”
Tom Banse: Do you get used to it, like if you live on the ocean you get used to the sound of the waves?
Dan Williams: “I haven’t, no. This sound is different. I think it affects my body.”
Dennis Wade: “The feelings that Dan was talking about, once you leave and go away for a day or so, they recede and you feel back to your normal self.”
Sound: (wind turbines return)
Dan Williams acknowledges that the sounds and vibrations bother some people, while others in the area go unaffected. Last year, a small group complained to the county. Many meetings and noise surveys ensued. Finally this week, the Morrow County Planning Commission rendered a decision. It found the wind farm in violation of an obscure Oregon industrial noise limit.
Sound: planning commission votes 5-0 in favor
The county gave the wind farm operator six months to come into compliance.
Neither side of the noise debate is pleased. The wind farm neighbors don’t want to wait six months or more for peace and quiet. The energy company says it intends to keep generating wind power while it pursues its legal options. Alissa Krinsky is a spokesperson for Invenergy based in Chicago.
Alissa Krinsky: “Although we appreciate the time and deliberations of the Morrow County Planning Commission, we are disappointed in its decision and believe there has been a fundamental misreading of the standard under which Oregon law regulates noise emissions.”
At the county seat, Invenergy passed out a fact sheet. It cites a U.S. Department of Energy finding that a “modern wind farm at a distance of 750-1000 feet is no more noisy than a kitchen refrigerator.”
An attorney for the neighbors has suggested the operator idle some turbines at night under certain wind conditions. The company has been silent about what options exist to make a wind farm quieter. Early on, Dennis Wade says Invenergy offered to pay neighbors for a “noise easement” or waiver.
Dennis Wade: “Quiet money, I guess you’d call it.”
Tom: “And you said what?”
Dennis Wade: “No, thank you.”
A different wind energy developer with a project under construction nearby is trying to head off similar problems. That company reportedly is writing $5000 checks to neighbors who agree not to complain about turbine noise. Caithness Energy declined to say how many households took them up on the deal. Caithness’ Shepherd Flats project will be the nation’s biggest wind farm when it is completed in about two years.
Morrow County Planning Commission chair David Sykes says this whole episode provides a hard lesson for his panel and others.
David Sykes: “We’ve talked about how we’re going to approach the next one to avoid this. We don’t want to be in this position. We want it to run smoothly and have the noise issue not be an issue.”
Next time, Sykes says he’ll ask for noise modeling in advance of construction. Other Northwest counties are debating turbine buffers or setbacks.
One other sign of gusty weather ahead for the wind industry: The Oregon Public Health Division has scheduled three “listening sessions” in northeastern Oregon next week (Nov. 3-4). The agency says it wants to look into whether the health concerns about living next to a wind farm have any scientific validity.
Oregon Public Health Division – Health impacts of wind energy assessment:
John Grabski, representing the Jerusalem Preservation Association, brought a seldom explored topic to the subject of wind farms at the Oct. 20 Jerusalem Town Council meeting - economic devaluation.
Public discussions on wind farms usually include noise, flicker, dead birds and discontented cows. Grabski pointed to those briefly, but his main point was to suggest measures to protect against personal property value loss. Instead of looking at the big picture of how much money wind turbines could bring to the town and landowners, he pointed out in a detailed approach how money could be lost long term.
“According to expert organizations such as professional Certified Real Estate Appraisers, industrial wind development adversely impacts land values within the immediate wind-zone and a peripheral area of approximately two miles,” according to Grabski.
He based his data on research conducted by the Certified Real Estate Appraisers in various states for property within two miles of wind turbines. He then applied this formula to the 346 homes and land affected by wind development, as defined by the Town of Jerusalem as a possible site. He then narrowed it down to 180 parcels located in the immediate vicinity or High Impact Area.
According to the findings, the property value of the 180 parcels is $18,674,000 which generates $356,000 in school and property taxes annually.
Based on CREA studies, property value declines from 20 to 43 percent can be expected in parcels within two miles of turbine sites. Assuming an average of this estimate, the taxable loss would be $5,602,200 for the 180 homes.
Over the term of a 20 year wind project, the tax revenue loss could be $2,780,571 to $5,561,014, according to calculations, based on the formula.
Grabski said a bondposated by the wind developer would help with lost tax revenue, and added, “People would start to sell and others would ask for lower assessments. It’s happening all over the country.”
“If what developers say is true, and there is no desire on the part of landowners to exit the development area, and that newcomers will continue to seek and purchase property in the wind zone, then there should be no negative impact on property values. If this is true, wind developers should be both willing and able to provide a property value guaranty to landowners with no economic risk on their part. Conversely, if property values indeed decline, then neither the wind company nor the town at large should profit at the expense of the home and land owners,” said Grabski in his address to the board.
The Jerusalem Preservation Association recommends putting a Property Value Bond requirement into the Wind Ordinance to protect both the citizens of Jerusalem from personal loss and the Town from citizens seeking remedy or remuneration for damage or economic loss from wind farm development.
The organization also presented the board with three pages of other recommendations for the wind turbine law dealing with setbacks, noise, health and other issues.
The Jerusalem Preservation Association was formed in the summer of 2009, when some residents learned areas near their properties were being proposed as possible wind farm sites. The group is also discussing the risks of Marcellus Shale drilling.
The Jerusalem Town Board has been exploring the possibility of wind turbines in the town for a few years. A committee was formed and several public meetings have been held, but there has been no action. Councilman Neil Simmons, who was active in the public meetings, thanked Grabski for bringing to light a different approach that the town hadn’t looked at before.
Councilman Ray Stewart asked people in the audience of about 40, how many were there in regard to this topic. About 30 raised their hands. Grabski said the association could have filled the parking lot, “But the topic is too important to make a circus of it.”
Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Concerns now being raised about the new wind siting rules created by the Public Service Commission were clearly outlined in this request from members of local government in three towns in Brown County. This document was submitted to the PSC on June 23, 2010.
TO: Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Docket No. 1-AC-231 Draft Chapter 128--Wind Energy Systems
Request by the Towns of Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore Brown County, Wisconsin June 23, 2010
Issue: Request to delay issuing the PSCW wind siting standards until epidemiological studies of health complaints from Wisconsin`s current wind farms are thoroughly completed.
The towns of Morrison, Wrightstown, and Glenmore in Brown County are very concerned about the mounting evidence that there are serious negative impacts on human and animal health caused by wind turbines. It appears it is not only reasonable to delay the issuance of wind siting standards but it would be irresponsible to not do so in light of new studies and ongoing complaints of residents in and near Wisconsin`s existing wind farms.
In general, scientifically and statistically relevant studies have been limited. But, a very important report was published March 2010 by the World Health Organization (WHO) entitled "Night Noise Guidelines for Europe" (available at euro.who.int/en/what-we-publish/abstracts/night-noise-guidelines-for-europe).
The report is based on a six-year evaluation of scientific evidence by thirty-five scientists from medical and acoustical disciplines. WHO indicated that now governments have justifications to regulate noise exposure at night. WHO sets the limit for annual average exposure to not exceed 40 decibels (dB) outside of a residence.
WHO stated, "Recent research clearly links exposure to night noise with harm to health. Sleep disturbance and annoyance are the first effects of night noise and can lead to mental disorders. Just like air pollution and toxic chemicals, noise is an environmental hazard to health". WHO stated that they hope their new report will prompt governments to invest effort and money in protecting health from this growing hazard.
Our towns ask the PSCW to acquire the WHO report and evaluate its application to setting appropriate sound levels for wind turbines.
The PSCW`s draft rules do not address low frequency noise levels. It is not known whether the WHO report addresses this issue but other studies have described the likely effects. This is another area where epidemiological studies are needed before wind turbine setbacks can be reasonably proposed.
Besides sleep disturbance, there are complaints of other physiological problems. It is not acceptable to ignore or minimize the significance of these impacts as just quirks of human imagination.
Also, there is evidence that existing wind farms in Wisconsin are negatively affecting farm animals. Whether it is noise or some other physical phenomena, studies and testing should be done before setting siting standards.
At a public meeting of the Brown County Health Department and the Brown County Human Services Committee, reputable medical and health experts stressed the importance of epidemiological studies to determine the true nature of health impacts of wind turbines.
The State Board of Health pointed out that the lack of funding is a hurdle. But a conviction to do the right thing should prompt the PSCW to make a case to pursue the money issue with state legislators as well as our U.S. senators and representatives. Certainly, our towns would help in this endeavor. That said, it is even more appropriate for the wind developers and their associations to offer funding for independent studies since such studies should reduce future litigation. Electric utilities should have a stake in this effort as well. This is an opportunity to involve the University of Wisconsin research capabilities in both human health and animal health.
It appears that Act 40 does not set a deadline for completing the siting rules. This week a state senator who was one of the leaders in passing the wind siting law agreed that studies should be done to be sure the rules are adequate. If one or two years were used to study the existing wind farms while delaying any new installations, the developers would still have time to help utilities meet their 15% RPS by 2015. Again, if needed, our towns would help in getting the support of legislators.
Our towns implore the PSCW and the Wind Siting Council to not ignore the evidence of potentially serious health impacts and to not set standards until they have done the obvious and reasonable step of studying the health impacts of existing wind turbine installations in Wisconsin. Professional ethics demands no less. We believe our request aligns with the PSCW`s responsibility to protect the citizens of Wisconsin.
Submitted for the towns by Glen R. Schwalbach, P.E.
SECOND FEATURE:
OREGON STATE TO STUDY WIND TURBINE RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS
The Oregon Public Health Division is responding to concerns about the health impacts of wind energy facilities on Oregon communities. We are working with a broad range of stakeholders to:
identify and document the major health concerns related to wind energy facilities
use the best available science to evaluate potential health risks
work with partners and decision-makers to ensure health is considered during the siting process
provide community members with timely and useful information, and opportunities to be involved in our work
A steering committee is being formed to oversee our work in this area. This committee will include representatives from communities near wind energy facilities, local and state government agencies and decision-makers, and renewable energy developers.
Spotlight
Get Involved
The Office of Environmental Public Health is conducting general Health Impact Assessment (HIA) on the siting of wind farms in Oregon. HIA provides decision-makers with information about how a policy, program or project may affect people’s health.
This initial HIA on wind energy is not focused on a specific facility or community. It will focus more broadly on what is currently known about the health impacts from wind farms, and the policies and standards used to site wind facilities in Oregon.
Survey
We will have a survey available for you to share your input and experiences with us. This survey is completely confidential, and your individual responses and personal information will not be shared with anyone.
The survey will be available on November 10, 2010.
Please email us if you would like to be notified when the survey is available wind.hia@state.or.us
An important part of the health impact assessment process is ensuring that the people most likely to be impacted by a development, such as a wind energy facility, have the opportunity to participate in decisions and to express their concerns about how the facility may impact their health and well being.
Community Listening Sessions
We are hosting three community listening sessions to learn about people’s experiences and health concerns about wind energy in their community.
Our reports will be available for public review and comment. Please check back for updates on our reports, or email us to get on our mailing list for notifications and updates.
FERGUS — A massive protest greeted officials from WPD Canada in Fergus Tuesday evening, and flowed into the renewable energy developer’s open house on the proposed Springwood Wind Project (formerly known as Belwood Wind Farm), a four turbine wind energy system planned for agricultural land in the northwest corner of Centre Wellington. Upwards of 1,000 people, several horses and a wagon filled with manure occupied the front parking lot of the Centre Wellington Sportsplex on Belsyde Ave E.
Jerusalem, N.Y. — John Grabski, representing the Jerusalem Preservation Association, brought a seldom explored topic to the subject of wind farms at the Oct. 20 Jerusalem Town Council meeting – economic devaluation.
Public discussions on wind farms usually include noise, flicker, dead birds and discontented cows. Grabski pointed to those briefly, but his main point was to suggest measures to protect against personal property value loss. Instead of looking at the big picture of how much money wind turbines could bring to the town and landowners, he pointed out in a detailed approach how money could be lost long term.
“According to expert organizations such as professional Certified Real Estate Appraisers, industrial wind development adversely impacts land values within the immediate wind-zone and a peripheral area of approximately two miles,” according to Grabski.
Three reports, created specifically to guide legislators in wind turbine siting decisions, and alert them to areas of concern, all identify a half mile as the minimum setback needed to mitigate major problems from turbine noise and shadow flicker.
The Reports include:
The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies of Science Report "Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects". (2007) [Download Document]
The Congressional Research Service Report prepared for Members and Committees of Congress "Wind Power in the United States: Technology, Economic, and Policy Issues (2008) [Download document]
The Minnesota Department of Health, Environmental Health Division In response to a request from: Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security: "Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines" (2009)[Download Document]
The Noise Heard Round the World - the trouble with industrial wind turbines 1/2 mile more or more setback www.wind-watch.org/alerts/?p=591
Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks George W. Kamperman, INCE Bd. Cert. Emeritus Kamperman Associates, Inc. george@kamperman.com Richard R. James, INCE E-Coustic Solutions rickjames@e-coustic.com 1km (3280 feet) or more setback www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=1650
Location, Location, Location. An investigation into wind farms and noise by the Noise Association 1 to 1.5 mile setback www.windaction.org/documents/4281
Marjolaine Villey-Migraine Docteur en sciences de l’information et de la communication, Université Paris II-Panthéon-Assas, Spècialiste de l’Information Scientifique et Technique (IST) 5 km (3.1 miles) www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=588
“Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effects on Health.” with an annotated review of the research and related issues by Barbara J Frey, BA, MA and Peter J Hadden, BSc, FRICS www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/wtnhhr_june2007.pdf
This is a list of publications from the Acoustics Laboratory and the Department of Acoustics from the period from 1974 until now. The list is sorted in chronological order starting with the most recent papers. acoustics.aau.dk/publications/pubframe.html
“Noisy Wind and Hot Air,” Nina Pierpoint, MD, PhD www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=69 (extract) “There need to be funds to cover damages to the health, property values, and quality of life of nearby residents, should these occur.”
Excerpts from the Final Report on the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee www.aweo.org/windlincoln.html (extract) “As a result of so many noise complaints, The Moratorium Committee ordered WPS to conduct a noise study. . . . [T]he study established that the turbines added 5-20 dB(A) to the ambient sound. A 10-dB increase is perceived as a doubling of noise level. As soon as the noise study was published in 2001, WPS conceded that these homes were rendered uninhabitable by the noise of the turbines and made buyout offers for the neighboring homes.”
The BPRC Research Nerd
