Better Plan, Wisconsin

FROM CARL JOHNSON, TOWN OF HOLLAND, BROWN COUNTY

            My name is Carl Johnson.  I live in the Township of Holland, inside the boundaries of the proposed industrial wind energy project in southern Brown County. Thank you for this opportunity to speak today.

I oppose the wind siting rules, because they are not based in scientific and medical research and will fail to protect human health and safety.

A letter from Public Service Commissioner Azar accompanied the final siting rules this committee received.  In it she states the following:

“There is substantial evidence that noise from Wind Turbines could negatively impact the health of a small percentage of the population. To better ensure compliance with Act 40’s mandate, I proposed the following safety net: under limited circumstances, the owner of a Wind Turbine must purchase, at fair market value, the home of someone who can prove that a nearby Wind Turbine is directly causing a significant adverse health outcome.

Unfortunately, at this time, we cannot accurately identify the precise line between safe levels of noise from Wind Turbines and those levels that will negatively affect human health. Nor do we know why a small percentage of the population is affected more negatively by Wind Turbines than the rest of the population.  As new information becomes available, the Commission can revise this rule.”

I am thankful to Commissioner Azar for acknowledging that industrial wind turbines cause health problems, but I must condemn the public policy of continuing to expose families to these harmful effects to see how many become sick enough to qualify for a property buyout.  This is tantamount to using people as lab rats.

 The State Division of Public Health has declared that it has reviewed 155 documents and can find no substantial evidence that links wind turbines to human health problems.           

This is confusing.  Are there health problems, or not? 

If the Division of Public Health is of the opinion there are not, who will review the cases in Commissioner Azar’s safety net program?  Who will gather the data Commissioner Azar says is missing and needed to understand turbine related health issues?

 Harvard educated epidemiologist, Dr. Carl Phillips, testified at the Wind Siting Council hearings.  I am submitting a transcript of his oral testimony. 

It was his assessment that the health problems reported by wind facility residents are real and the data is significant enough to warrant study before moving forward.  He said the necessary health studies could be done easily in existing facilities, and that it was not a situation that requires more years of exposure to get the required data. Dr. Phillips states: “The only reason we don’t have better information than we do is that no one with adequate resources has tried to get it.” End quote. 

The Wind Siting Council never reviewed, discussed, or considered Dr. Phillips’ expert testimony.  Why not? 

I think it was because seven of the fifteen members of that panel can be labeled as having financial or organizational interest in the promotion of wind energy systems.  It was counter to their interests to conduct health studies, in spite of the fact that they could have requested the time and resources. 

The voices of the four members of the council, who took their responsibility to protect public health and safety seriously, were drowned out or disregarded during the council process.  I am submitting a copy of the Minority Report they filed with the PSC for your examination.

I am a retired social studies and environmental studies teacher of 31 years, and I never dreamed I would be involved in a fight like this to preserve the health and safety of my community - not in Wisconsin. 

As the Public Service Commission and the State Division of Health have abdicated their responsibilities, and as Act 40 has rescinded the political power of Wisconsin’s rural citizens, and has given it to the wind energy companies, my faith in the governmental institutions charged with protecting us is withering, and my disappointment has given way to anger.

Thank you for your time.

TESTIMONY FROM SANDRA JOHNSON

 I wish to thank the Senate Energy Committee for the opportunity to speak today.

 I am a retired Green Bay Public school teacher. I earned my first degree here at UW - Madison in Natural Science with an emphasis in Biology.

This past summer, my husband, Carl, and I attended five of the Wind Siting Council meetings.  As an observer, I could hear the back and forth discussions, including comments by the pro-wind members  who have a vested interest in promoting and ensuring the construction of turbine projects.  

This makeup of the Council presented problems when trying to read and consider various documents  and take an unbiased look at reported health and safety problems.  On occasion,  I was surprised at the blatant disregard for the current and potential problems reported by wind project residents.  For example, Bill Rakocy stated at one of the early meetings  quite abruptly, “ Yeah . . . we can talk about human health issues, but it better be real illnesses, not those  fake ones you hear about and are hard to prove.”

 Our Brown County Board of Health concluded, after seeing an epidemiological study of the changes in the blood cortisol levels, etc. in a resident in one of the wind projects after the turbines went online, that siting distance may be the cause of these problems.   

They listened to other residents testimonies who were dealing with shadow flicker, low frequency noise  from the moving blades, interrupted sleep, etc.  The gut-wrenching story of the Wirtz family who eventually had to walk away from their $320,000  farm due to sleeping problems,  as well as  lesions in the GI system of their teenage daughter, gave credence to their claims.

  Our Brown Board of Health saw these  symptoms  as  “real”.  The neighboring Kewaunee County Board of Health drew the same conclusion, as did the Manitowoc County Board of Health most recently.

At one of our Brown County Board meetings in early 2010, it was announced by one of the supervisors that the city of Green Bay had hired an acoustical engineer and his firm to do  c-weighted tests to measure and assess the Low Frequency Noise produced by the blades of industrial fans, the airport and the cooling systems  at the mega-grocery stores. 

The city government wanted to see if the LFN’s  might be making some city residents sick who live nearby.  And, if needed,  they would rewrite their city noise ordinance to include new safe standards to include LFN’sand protect their urban residents.

Doesn’t it make sense to have acoustical testing and sleep studies done in current Wisconsin industrial wind projects?  Don’t we as rural residents deserve the same safeguards for our families and farms?

 Last week, I spoke with Mr. Tom Tanton, who is an energy analyst and former member of the California Energy Board for 35 years.   He is President of T2 & Associates providing consulting services to the energy and technology industries.

 He got right to the point in his e-mail to me.  Quote: “Living too close to wind turbines imposes health and safety risks to the public.  . . . noise from wind turbines can cause health effects, as documented by Dr. Nina Pierpont and others.    Dr. Oguz A. Soysal, Professor and Chairman of the Dept. of Physics and Engineering at Frostburg State University in Maryland measured sound levels over half a mile away from the Meyersdale, PA, 20-turbine wind farm. . . audible plus low frequency c-weighted dB were 65-70 range. . .  represents a significant amount of low frequency sound by World Health Organization standards.  Noise-induced sleep disturbances can  result in  fatigue, depressed mood or well-being, decreased performance. . .increased blood pressure and heart rate, changes in breathing pattern,  and cardiac arrhythmias.

  Have you all been listening?  These are only some of the “red flags” that have popped up in Wisconsin wind project areas.  There is not enough time to talk about our overwhelmed electrical grid system and the effect of pulsating non-linear power produced  by these huge wind turbines known to create ground currents,  sometimes called “stray voltage”  by the utilities,  that can travel into homes and barns through wiring  and/or the plumbing.

 The time for studies is now, rather than to blindly proceed with a public policy that could harm the people and wildlife resources of Wisconsin.

Thank you for your time.

Sandra L. Johnson

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Better Plan would like to thank the Johnsons for providing us with a copy of their testimony so we can share it here.

CLICK HERE  to watch Wisconsin Eye video of the Senate Committee wind rules hearing. After you click on the link, click "Watch" under 10.13.10 Senate committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail.

Better Plan would also like to thank Wisconsin Eye for making this video available to the public.



WATCH YESTERDAY'S HEARING ON WISCONSIN EYE

CLICK HERE  to watch Wisconsin Eye video of the Senate Committee wind rules hearing yesterday. 

After you click on the link, click "Watch" under 10.13.10 Senate committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail

BELOW: Video testimony of Dr. Herb Coussons on the wind siting rules. Unfortunately video testimony was not accepted at the hearing. It has been accepted in the past. No reason was given for the change.

Click on the image above to hear Doug Zwiezig ask the Wind Siting Council a simple question about the rules they were approving. It was a simple question no one was able to answer correctly.

Residents from the counties of Rock, Manitowoc, Calumet, Kewaunee, Brown, St. Croix, Fond du Lac, Dodge,  Grant and more who turned out in force at the Capitol to testify against the new wind siting rules created by the Public Service Commission, were surprised that Senator Plale gave the Vice Chair of the Wind Siting Council just three minutes for his testimony about what went wrong on the council.

This critical testimony (below) from Wind siting council Vice Chair Doug Zweizig was cut short at the senate hearing yesterday by the three minute rule.

We are glad to present it here

To Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail

From: Douglas Zweizig, Ph.D., Vice Chair, Wind Siting Council

Re: Clearinghouse Rule #10-057; PSC Wind Siting Rules proposed Chapter 128

Date: October 13, 2010

Good afternoon. My name is Douglas Zweizig. I am retired from teaching at the UW—Madison School of Library and Information Studies where I taught in the areas of management and research methods. I am also a member of the Town of Union (Rock County) Plan Commission, and I chaired that Plan Commission through a sixteen-month process as it developed a licensing ordinance for wind energy systems.

I am an advocate for alternative energy use and have installed geothermal and solar photovoltaic systems at my home. I am speaking today from my experience as Vice Chair of the Public Service Commission-appointed Wind Siting Council.

At the formation of the Wind Siting Council, I was hopeful that this broadly representative group could work together to recommend responsible uniform rules for the siting of wind turbines, but I came to see that the process being followed was flawed, and I was one of the authors of the Council’s minority report.

It seems appropriate for your committee to be holding a hearing on the Public Service Commission-proposed rules as there is considerable evidence that the Public Service Commission did not take seriously the directives in Act 40, the legislation that directed the PSC to appoint the Council and that instructed it in the work that the Council was to carry out. I know that there were a lot of statements made in support of the legislation about the intentions for the Wind Siting Council, and there are descriptions in the Council report of the working of the Wind Siting Council that sound like it worked the way it should have, but the behaviors do not fit that description.

Others will present concerns with the substance of the rules proposed by the Public Service Commission. I want, as a member and Vice-Chair of the Wind Siting Council to report to you on the process of the Council and the ways in which that process did not match the requirements of Act 40.

When the members appointed to the Council were announced, there was widespread objection to the appointments. The minority report of the Wind Siting Council (selection appended on pages 9-14) details some of these concerns, but in brief, even though Act 40 was clear in specifying a balance of interests in the Council, the appointments heavily favored persons with financial interests in the development of large wind energy systems in Wisconsin. I am aware that the Commissioners believe that the legislature desires increased development of wind energy systems, but I don't believe that the legislature desired a bias in the Council that would pre-determine rules favorable to the wind industry and harmful to the health and home values of Wisconsin residents.

I’m going to touch on several aspects of what Act 40 called for the PSC to do with the Wind Siting Council and report on what, in my view, happened. For example, in Act 40, you clearly specified the make-up of this critical committee, the Wind Siting Council. You asked for a balanced Council that would address the concerns of the various parties and that would provide recommendations that accommodated those concerns to the degree possible. What you got was a Council front-loaded in support of wind development, that contained an imbalance of those with financial interests in the development of wind energy systems, and that did not seek to evolve creative solutions to the tensions, only to override any opposition. In choosing a Chair for the Council, the Public Service Commission could have used its opportunity of appointing two public members to appoint someone with stature, skills, and neutrality who could serve as Chair—someone who could help the different interests in the Council listen to each other and craft recommendations that the Public Service Commission and you could move forward with. The appointments of public members that the PSC made squandered that opportunity. Instead, the PSC put forth as Chair someone who was an executive with an electric utility, who had previously issued permits for wind farms as a PSC chair, and who was chair of CREWE (Clean, Responsible Energy for Wisconsin's Economy), an organization even at that time lobbying for an extended and increased Renewable Portfolio Standard. While the Chair did make some efforts to urge members to work toward solutions, there was no effort made by the wind industry block to negotiate solutions that would have begun to adequately address non-industry concerns.

Even though you sought a Council that would contain knowledge and experience from a variety of perspectives, this knowledge and experience was either missing or for the most part unused and sometimes misused. Fortunately, there is an almost complete record of the over 30 hours of Wind Siting Council meetings, from observers' videos and, from midway through the process, on Wisconsin Eye (wiseye.org), so observations about the conduct of the Council can be verified.

 Here are some examples of how the knowledge and professionalism of Council members was neglected.

One would only have to look at a randomly-selected hour of video of a meeting to see the lack of critical thinking that was operating, and this is the process that produced the recommendations of the Council.

You also directed the Council to inform itself about local government regulations, about health impacts, and about regulation in other states and countries. For example, you asked in Act 40 that there be "one member representing towns and one member representing counties," (15.797 (1) (b) 2.) and said that "the initial member of the wind siting council [appointed as a town or county representative] shall represent a town or county that has in effect . . . an ordinance regulating wind energy systems." (Section  14 (2) (b).) It seems clear from this requirement that you wanted the Council to consider and benefit from the local ordinances that had been developed for the regulation of wind siting. Since the major argument made for the need for state-level uniform standards for wind turbine siting was the existing “patchwork” or “hodgepodge” of local ordinances and since the statute stipulated that a member of the Wind Siting Council should have direct experience with such an ordinance, it may be surprising to you that no examination or consideration of these local ordinances occurred. I had provided copies of my Town of Union’s ordinance to members of the Council, but it was never taken up in a meeting. While it was easy for frustrated wind developers to rail against having to understand and comply with local government concerns, the fact is that local governments spent considerable time and resources to carry out their responsibilities to their constituents. In the case of my small township, sixteen months and an estimated $40,000. was spent preparing a licensing ordinance for wind energy systems. We did not take this task lightly, and we believe that our investigations and work resulted in an ordinance that would allow wind development in our township while being protective of our citizens, but our experience and the experience of other local jurisdictions were not considered as anything other than impediments.

The Wind Siting Council ignored the work that had been done by local governments across the state because it seems the focus of the Council was on the needs of the wind industry and not on the equally legitimate concerns of local jurisdictions.

In a specific case, when I tried to address the issue of complaint resolution and provided language from our ordinance that described our approach (appended pages 15-17), it was not taken as a motion or seriously discussed. Instead, the Chair repeatedly asserted that the approach used by WE Energies should be taken as a model to be used throughout the state.

You asked that "one member who is a University of Wisconsin System faculty member with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems" (15.797 (1) (b) 8.) be on the Council.

It is pretty clear that you were asking for the best qualified person to be found in public higher education in Wisconsin to inform the recommendations of the Wind Siting Council on this issue of central concern. We now have hundreds of Wisconsin families who are living adjacent to large wind turbines, we have reports of serious health concerns and suspected consequences among these families, we have households abandoning their unlivable homes in order to avoid the effects of wind turbines—it is important to be as sure as we can be that policy decisions on wind turbine siting will not result in compromising the health of wind farm hosts or neighbors. This is why you specified clearly that you wanted to be guided by the highest quality of information.

What you got was not a University of Wisconsin System faculty member but someone who had been hired to teach a course in the medical school, someone whose highest research qualification is a masters degree, someone who had begun to investigate the literature on the "health impacts of wind energy systems" just a few months before being appointed to the Wind Siting Council, and someone who had done no independent investigation of the health impacts of exposure to wind energy systems. It is difficult to understand how this appointment came about, but it is clear that the Public Service Commission did not, as was asked for, look throughout the UW System, but only at the UW—Madison and then, finally, in the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

To further underscore your concern with health impacts, you specified that the Wind Siting Council "shall survey the peer-reviewed scientific research regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems" (Section 12,  (e).)

The Wind Siting Council did not conduct any such survey. One member of the Wind Siting Council, having a masters degree in Public Health and working for a state agency that had already taken a position denying the health impacts of wind energy systems, was asked to prepare a presentation to be given to the Wind Siting Council. Immediately following the PowerPoint-assisted presentation, there was a limited time for questions. The written text of the presentation was initially promised to be provided, but then was withheld. It is now taking a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain a copy of this paper prepared by a state employee as part of his work. Without this text, the basis for the presentation cannot be evaluated. The Wind Siting Council was not provided access to any of the research studies by either copies or links, and the section on Noise in the report of the Wind Siting Council cites studies that were not part of the presentation and that were unknown to the Council. This critical part of your direction was simply not carried out.

In addition, you required that the Wind Siting Council "shall . . . study state and national regulatory developments regarding the siting of wind energy systems." (Section 12,  (e).) How did that go? I don't believe that state or national regulations ever appeared on an agenda for the Wind Siting Council. There were no briefing materials prepared or provided to WSC members. When I provided information on New Zealand's reconfirmed and revised noise standard of 5 decibels over background sound levels (appended pages 18-19), a standard that they have found workable and that is supported by both the government and the industry-based New Zealand Wind Energy Association, consideration of it was dismissed by a wind developer by saying that we should not consider any standards from other countries.  The Chair, and other industry supporters, thought that was an adequate response.

The only report on regulation from any other states that I have seen from the PSC was appended to the Rules sent to you at the end of August as Attachment A1, "Comparison with Similar Rules in Surrounding States." This information was not provided to the Wind Siting Council. So, for example, we never learned that Michigan PSC has recommended that "setback requirements and noise limitations should continue to be decided at the local level where feasible so that the needs of local citizens can be appropriately considered." We never learned about the Michigan PSC’s recommendation that the noise standard should be measured from the property line, not the residence. We never learned that in Minnesota "a county may adopt standards for large wind systems that are more stringent than those in Minnesota PUC rules or permit standards." And given these differences found in neighboring states, there is a good chance that we could learn a great deal from an unbiased survey of state and national regulatory siting regulation, but that survey was apparently never conducted or at least was not shared with the Council.

While I have been impressed with the professionalism and diligence of the PSC staff, it is clear that the PSC-directed process of the Wind Siting Council has failed to comply with the requirements you included in Act 40

• in making appointments to the Council,
• in learning from local government experiences with regulation of wind energy systems,
• in responsibly investigating the concerns with health impacts, and

 This outcome is not what Chairman Callisto promised this committee in May of last year when he said, "I pledge to you a rule-making process that will be open and inclusive. I have no desire to send you a rule that gives you heartburn. My job is to get the rule done right the first time."

I think that you and I would agree that the health and property of Wisconsin citizens and the energy future of the state are all important issues and deserve better attention than they received in the Wind Siting Council. It is sad that the Public Service Commission was not able to make better use of the opportunity provided by Act 40 to develop rules that would promote sustainable wind development for Wisconsin, that would be fair to all parties, that would be workable, and that would promote community acceptance of wind energy systems.

I respectfully request that the rules be sent back to the Public Service Commission to improve the Council membership and process and to carry out the charge contained in Act 40.

 Thank-you for this opportunity to report to you. I would be glad to respond if you have any questions at this or any other time.

SECOND FEATURE:

FIGHTING WIND FARMS AT THE CAPITOL

SOURCE: Wisconsin Radio Network, www.wrn.com

October 14 2010

by Andrew Beckett,

Critics of proposed statewide rules of permitting wind farms in Wisconsin unloaded complaints on legislators, during a hearing at the Capitol Wednesday. A state Senate committee is reviewing the rules from the Public Service Commission, which would create statewide standards for the construction of wind farms.

Larry Wunsch, who served on the PSC advisory panel, says proposed setbacks for wind turbines still leave them too close to homes. Wunsch was also critical of the process the Commission used in crafting the rules, arguing that the panel was stacked with pro-wind advocates who ignored opposing viewpoints.

Tamas Houlihan with the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association voiced concerns about restrictions on aerial crop spraying, warning it could cause delays in treating plants. Houlihan was joined by several other farmers who say they need to react quickly to potential pest threats, and only aerial spraying allows them to do that.

Lawmakers also heard from supporters of the rules, who argue that clear guidelines are needed to keep local governments from creating conflicting standards.

Michael Arndt of Element Power says setback guidelines that are too strict could severely limit where wind farms can be built. Arndt says there’s a misconception that there are large strips of land out there waiting for wind development. However, he says forcing turbines to be built a half mile or more from neighboring properties quickly reduces the amount of land available.

State Senator Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee), who chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail, told dozens of people who turned out to testify Wednesday that lawmakers will likely send the proposed rules back to the PSC for changes.

AUDIO: Andrew Beckett reports (1:16)

THIRD FEATURE:

SOME FARMERS RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT WIND FARM SITES:

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

October 13 2010

By Thomas Content of the

Wind farms built in certain areas of the state could end up preventing farms growing potatoes and beans from using airplanes to spray their fields with pesticides and insecticides, agricultural representatives told a state Senate hearing in Madison on Wednesday.

“If large-scale wind energy plants would be sited in areas of intense vegetable production, the result could be devastating crop losses,” said Tamas Houlihan of the state Potato and Vegetable Growers Association.

The group is seeking “some kind of system for compensation in the event of losses due to siting of wind energy facilities that prevent the use of aerial application,” he said.

At issue is a set of rules that the state Public Service Commission developed this summer after a series of public hearings and recommendations by a wind siting advisory council.

Developers are concerned that some of the restrictions may force them to develop wind projects out of state instead of here. And they left opponents of wind farms critical that the PSC didn’t go far enough to restrict how close wind turbines can be built to nearby homes.

Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee), chair of the Senate commerce, energy and utilities committee, said he wants to see the rules sent back to the PSC for more work. Plale was the author of a bill that led to the rules created by the PSC. If the Legislature does not send the rules back, the rules would take effect.

Nick George of the Midwest Food Processors Association, said sending the rules back would help the agency incorporate a compensation system that the farm groups have developed in consultation with other stakeholders.

Wind developers object that setback rules will make it impossible to build some projects, and deprive the state of economic development opportunities.

Michael Arndt of Oregon-based Element Power said his company is proposing a $300 million project that would create 150 construction jobs and 15 maintenance jobs as well as $2 million in revenue for local landowners.

“And the project may not be viable if the proposed rules are adopted as they stand today. It will force us to basically deploy our development dollars in neighboring states.”

TESTIMONY FROM

 Bob Ziegelbauer, County Executive

 Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail

Senator Jeff Plale, Chair

Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 11:00 AM

411 South, State Capitol

RE: Opposition to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057, relating to the siting of wind

energy systems.

Dear Senator Plale & Committee Members:

As I testified at the public hearing held over a year ago on SB 185/AB 256, I was opposed to the wind siting bills then, and am opposed to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 now.

I continue to strongly support that the siting of wind towers must be made by the local units of government where wind towers will be located.

I strongly encourage the Committee to send the rule back to require local input and decisions.

In the Manitowoc County area we are very interested in efficient new energy technologies. We host two valuable highly efficient nuclear plants (and if you’re really serious about producing low cost electricity for a long time we would love to put one more between those two).

Our workers manufacture the towers that support the wind turbines. And, the City of Manitowoc operates a new clean coal power plant in the middle of town, a block from my house, three blocks from the Courthouse.

We are “all in” on the energy economy.

The issue here is actually a fairly simple one. “Do you trust people in their local communities to make serious land use decisions on important issues?”

Nearly five years ago when it became clear that the demand for wind power sites would include our area, Town and County government embarked on the intense process of trying to make the difficult land use policy decisions contemplated under existing state law.

After a failed first attempt to create a suitable county wind power ordinance, the County Board took a “time out” by declaring a moratorium on projects while it convened a special study committee to write a new ordinance.

That committee, a balanced mix of citizen and elected officials encompassing all the principal points of view, took significant public input and agonized over the implications of making wind tower siting decisions.

After more than a year of serious deliberation their work product, a comprehensive wind power ordinance was overwhelmingly passed into law by the Manitowoc County Board in 2006.

That both sides of the debate came away from the process a little unhappy with the results speaks highly of the quality of the work they did.

It continues to be tested, defined, and refined according to the appropriate due process that is available at the local level for these issues.

This would throw all that work away.

I encourage you to stand up for those local officials and the process of making local decisions throughout the State.

Their work and the work of similar groups of local officials, who took their

responsibilities seriously and in good faith waded in to try address controversial issues in their communities should stand; not be washed away because “Monday morning quarterbacks” from 150 miles away don’t like the result.

This proposal tells local people to get out of the way, tells local officials to dodge the tough issues, and because people in Madison know better, you’ll decide.

I urge you to not support the rule and send it back for modifications.

 Bob Ziegelbauer

Manitowoc County Courthouse 

1010 S. 8th Street

Manitowoc WI 54220

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

For some reason the Senate committee yesterday did not allow short video clips to be shown as part of testimony. In the past this option has always been available for citizens. No reason was given for the change. This is one of the videos that was not allowed to be presented which is unfortunate because it clearly illustrates a key problem with then new rules.

After listening to 6 hours of testimony, including very moving and upsetting testimony from residents now living in wind projects in our state, out-going senator Plale, who was quite jovial during the proceedings, ended the hearing by saying he would send the rules back to the PSC which was not surprising. What is surpising is, given all he heard during the hearing, he will send the rules back with no recommendations.

BADGERS PACK SENATE HEARING ON WIND SITING RULES

October 13, 2010

By Lynda Barry for Better Plan, Wisconsin

MADISON- The fourth floor hearing room at the capitol building was filled to over-flowing as Wisconsin residents from the counties of Rock, Manitowoc, Calumet, Kewaunee, Brown, St. Croix, Fond du Lac, Dodge, Grant and more turned out in force  to testify against the new wind siting rules created by the Public Service Commission. The vast majority testified against the new rules during the hearing which ran over six hours.

Strong testimony against the rules came from county supervisors, many members of town government, the Vegetable Growers Association, Wisconsin Towns Association, the state's airspace manager, real estate appraisers, and the Brown County Board of Health and Human Services.

The most moving testimony came from current residents in Wisconsin wind projects who repeatedly testified that they were suffering and were getting no help. Several broke down in tears during their testimony, trying to explain to the senate committee exactly how their lives have been affected by turbines that have been sited with the same guidelines the PSC is now recommending.

Below, live blogging from the hearing by the BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: I'm writing to you live from hearing room 411 south atipi the Capitol building in Madison.

Please forgive typos and spelling errors!

The hearing is about to begin and the room is packed to over-flowing. Senator Plale announced they were waiting for another senator and the hearing would begin shortly.

Considering the number of people here, the room is surprisingly quiet and the mood is pretty serious. People who live in wind projects are here to testify, people who have wind projects proposed for their area are here to testify, and people like me are here, people who are really concerned that the new rules from the PSC don't protect enough protection for residents, wildlife, property values, and rural roads.

The wind industry folks are here too. All the seats are taken and the people are starting to stack up.

11:08 Plale opens the hearing

Roll is being called. All but Senator Kedzie are present. There is feedback on the microphone and a joke was made that 'it was the wind'

This hearing is being broadcast on Wisconsin Eye. If you can access their website you can watch this live.

Here's the link: http://www.wiseye.org/wisEye_stream/wisEye_StreamAir_Video.html

 11:22 The first part of the hearing is not about the wind rules.

Town board members from the Rock County Towns of Union, Magnolia, Center and Spring Valley are here today. Each of these Towns adopted an ordinance that will be overturned by the new rules from the PSC. The Town of Union spent 16 months creating their ordinance at a cost of $40,000.

11:28 The hearing on the Wind Rules begins. Senator Plale says this not a re-hash of act 40. He's asking the PSC members to come up first.

Senator Plale says he shares a lot of the concerns and wants to see the rule go back to the PSC. He wanted to say that up front.

Testimony will be limited to 3 minutes per person after Public Service Commission testimony.

Zolnick [spelling] PSC staff: Speaking about the history of and the necessity of Act 40. Says some ordinances were adopted to stop wind development.

He says the new rules still give a lot of power to local government. (This provoked a response from some people in the audience who clearly don't agree.)

 He's discussing the history of the PSC rule making, letting us know what a good and thorough job was done by the PSC on this.

He's quoting Dr. Jevon McFadden who has found no health and safety impacts associated with wind turbines.

Talking about setbacks, noise, shadow flicker limits. Letting us know that there is scientific basis (per Dr. McFadden)  for the standards set by the rules.

Now the committee members have a chance to ask them questions. They have none.

11:39 Representative Bys [spelling]

Asks the rules be set aside until there is more information about the health impacts. Said there are people here living with turbine today that will help the committee understand the issue. He hopes the state will set the rule aside and do more research.

11:41 Matt Bromley testifies- he is complaining that the setbacks in the new rules will be hard on wind developers. Wants less restriction.

11:45 Representatives of Food growers and vegetable growers in Wisconsin: Concerned about impact of rules on vegetable growers in the state. Fruit and vegetable industry is 6.5 billion dollar industry in the state.

Discussing how wind farms will affect fruit and vegetable growing. How arial application is critical for protecting crops.  Arial application is the only way to stop sudden pests. If wind farms are placed in vegetable growing areas there could be massive losses of crops. Suggests compensation for farmers.

Says neighbors of those who are hosting turbines who may be growing vegetables could lose their crops.

Discussing the critical importance of timely application of pesticides in the event of a pest outbreak to prevent. catastrophic crop lost.

Asks for the rules to include protections for growers who may lose crops because of wind turbines.

Arial applicator explains why they can't fly in wind projects. Industry standard is to not fly in wind projects.

Asks the committee to sent the rule back to the PSC for consideration and to come up with a workable compensation system. Would prefer not to work with Wind Siting Council because there is no ag representative on the council.

Plale jokes that in his area there aren't a lot of sprayers flying around.

More discussion about compensation system.

Plale: "All the more reason to send (the rule) back"

Now Wind siting council members Doug Zweizig and Larry Wunsch;

Wunsch is member that lives in wind farm. Turbine 1100 feet from home. Accepted the challange to serve on the council. Thought he's bring his experience to the council. Realized that is time on the council was in vain.

Says wind turbines are noisey. They wake him up. Says 45 db is loud. Wanted property value protection plan in rules. House is for sale for a year and a half, no offers because of turbines.

It's all about proper setback. 3000 feet will do it. Most people giving testimony in favor of these rules don't live in wind farm.

Tried to play recording of the turbine noise for the council. The council rejected this request.

Send the rule back.

Doug Zweizig: Professor emeritus, Town of Union P&Z member, Vice chair of Wind sitiing council.

Plale cuts him off- says hurry up.

Zweizig hurries up.

[UPDATE: Scroll down to read Zweizig's full testimony.]

SORRY! The nerd had to run around a little bit.

Now a guy from Cuba City is testifying that the rules are too restrictive. Send it back to PSC.

Wind developer from "Element" is testifying. Says he grew up in a farm in Rock County. Says he's working on a big project in eastern Wisconsin. Says the rules could make his project not viable. Says unless the rules are changed his company is going to not going to stay.

Dislikes the good neighbor payments, dislikes the 1500 foot setback. Says sound and shadow standards are too strict and that curtailment requirements are going to make things hard.

Senator Cowles asks what setback he wants.

He says 1250 feet was workable.

Element rep says there have been no complaints from his other projects. This causes laughter in the room.

Erpenbach asks about the wind in Wisconsin.

Element rep says poor wind in Wisconsin, but there are transmission lines here.

Erpenbach: What's windiest part of state?

Someone says "Right here"

Laughter.

Element says east and west of the state.

12:25 Rick James Accoustician. Time limited. Discuss 45dbA noise limit and 3.1 setback. The problems that are producing complaints are not unique, should not be unexpected. All have similar problems and complaints at 45 dbA. All states where I have clients, problems reported. 2200 feet 3 or more turbines can produce 45 dba. Setbacks do not provide enough protection for people, especially down wind of turbines.

These setbacks will cause harm to people. Chronic sleep distrubances impact health.

It is not right to use standards that will hurt people.

ERPENBACH: What is 45 like?

James: 30 dbA is the level for healthy sleep.

ERPENBACH: So 45 is talking?

James: Yes.

PLALE: Not nearly as loud as a Springsteen concert.

12:31 Wind Developer speaking: Wants rule sent back. Doesn't want to pay good neighbor agreements. Says the contracts with landowners are confidential. Says there should be 40 hours of shadow flicker instead of 35.

12:33 Representing Town of Morrison. The rules should be based on scientific data not opinion. Peer reviewed studies that say there is evidence of negative impacts and turbines are harmful. There are no controlled scientific studies. Wisconsin can do a study. We ask the industry to help fund such studies. Engineers have an ethical responsibility. Brown county has ground water issues.

12:38 David Vind: Process has not been set up to get fair and balanced result. Council weighted toward support of wind. Did not protect public. Need setback of half mile, allow developers to buy rights closer.

Drop in property values for non participating neighbors. Uncompensated taking from neighbors. People should be compensated. PSC authorized good neighbor payments.

Support noise standard that will protect people. 45 dbA won't do it. It makes no sense to build turbines first and wait for study.

Proposed rules don't protect health safety and property rights. Act to create balance. Sent it back.

Bembinster: Wind rules don't protect us enough. Goodhue County in MN set half mile setback. Too much emphasis to mitigate after the problem starts. Complaint resolution should not make it so complainers have to go to the wind company. Clear proceedure for enforcement. Wind has are large impact on community.

12:45 Jeff from "Wind for Wisconsin" thank you for holding this hearing, thanks for your leadership for passing act 40. I agree that we're not here to argue act 40. Do the rules meet the requirements of act 40.

Act 40 said PSC should create the rules but they should only regulate health and safety issues. The issue of mandatory neighbor payments might not be part of Act 40. It will increase the cost of the system. Setbacks. The wind siting council considered the safety setback of 1.1 times turbine height. That's the setback he'd like.

12:50 Appraisor: My opinion of turbines effect on property values. Studied for two years. Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties. Two areas in particular of interest. Realtor survey: they are sensitive to thing that impact values. Half had already had experiences trying to sell property. Overwhelming majority agreed major impact on property values. Emperical study supported this. 11%-59% loss of value in BS/GF project. Negative influence. $200,000 home would have a $24,000 to $50,000 loss.

12:53 Gary Dikkers. State airspace manager. Job to protect airspace. No one on WSC represent airspace concerns. The height of the structure itself, wind turbulence like that of a 747. Turbulence is a concern. I want to protect airports in our state. Catagory of airports in the state with no protection. Privately owned airports. Private use airports get permission from local government. My concern is that the rules take away the local goverments ability to protect private airport. Rule is 2500-3000 feet from airport to allow turbulance to die down. The current 3.1 setback is not enough.

12:58 George Krause: Property owners should be able to enjoy their whole property. Council divided on property value impacts from wind turbine. Close proximity to turbines clearly has an impact. The study the developers use is flawed. The minority found credible the Appraisal One.

Plale and Erpenbach are gone. 1:01 Plale comes back. Misses Krauses testimony.

1:02 Brown County Supervisor: sound public health policy, responsible for health and well being on people. Reject rules. Concern about proposed wind farm. Strong, formal and public stance against wind farms. Not against wind farms. Has worked with turbines. Reject rules and sent them back. Southern Brown county wind farm will create a problem with drinking water. Trenching will create direct conduit into ground water. This will cause problems. It's not if or when. Don't put them by people. Don't let them ruin the water.

Reads resolution from Brown County Board of Health and Supervisors: 2460 feet setback and 35 dbA limit.

Important you sent this back the people of Brown County have spoken unanimously.

1:07 Stadelman: Towns Association: Sent it back. Setback does not protect residents, noise limit doesn't protect residents. Draft rule provides lesser greater or different standards. There has to be language clarification. Monetary compensation. It's good to have neighbor payments. 25% cap on non-participating resident should be lifted. The wind company must provide emergency service training. The rule says the wind company can change ownership with 30 days notice. Local government should be able to approve the sale.

1:10 James Mueller. Living with turbines. Jet noise. Waked at night. Go to basement to get away from noise. We should have the right for a good sleep. If a complaint is received the wind owner has two years to do it. There is no enforcement. We are awakened at night even at wind speeds that too low.  We Energies has not been responsive. Allowed a screeching turbine to go on for 6 months.

1:14 Elizabeth Eberts--Marshfield. Turbines 2000 feet from my home woke me up. Sept 18 noise complaint was not on WeEnergies list. I know of other people reporting the turbines making noise. How can you make the correct decision about noise levels if you do not receive information. My son had major surgery and stayed with me. He couldn't sleep because of the noise. Granddaughers can't stay over because of noise. I have a garden I can't go out because of pressure builds in my head. Those are a few of the noise issues my family has experienced. I feel like I'm at the edge of a cliff and nobody cares.

NOTE: This testimony was very upsetting. Crying in the room because of it. I'm going to stop for a little bit here.

1:24 Representing Town of Brown County: Issue unique to my community is ground water protection. Rules don't consider terrain. Dangers of well contamination, proceeding without protections. 9 of 15 members of wind siting council had financial interest. Rules are not based on science. Place health and safety of entire community.

1:28 Kristin Morehouse, licesned engineer. Done a lot of research looking at this. Siting rules are inadequate. Driven more by desire for development. Siting turbines agressively, shaving off factors of safety. If i design a building you can save money by taking out factors of safety but they don't protect people. We call that negligence. Factors of safety removed. 1.1 is not a safety setback. Major flaw is self policing, having developers do their own modeling. 

1:32 Lynn Korinek: Thank you. Issue of takings was discussed by WSC. But staff said unless 100% is taken it's not a taking. Low frequency not addressed. Safety setbacks 2460 at property line.--

(It's hard to type this because her testimony is good and I'm listening!)

Good testimony!

1:36 Dean Anholt (spelling): supervisor, ability to use my land affected, developer has wind rights on my land. Latest wind developer has guidelines I'm going to have to live by. Nuclear power works for our area. 200 megawatts wind farm proposed for our area. Do we need more power production in our state? Wisconsin has significant excess capacity. Leaders should use commons sense. Setbacks should be from property line.

(Plale is eating)

(Erpenbach still gone)

(Cowles gone)

[The research nerd is tired now and needs a break}

Video testimony Dr. Herb Coussons (below) was not accepted today at the hearing. In the past video tesimony has been accepted. This hearing did not provide an opportunity. This testimony is powerful and Better Plan urges all who are interested in health issues related to wind turbines to take the time to view it.

MORE TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT THE HEARING TODAY WILL BE POSTED AS IT BECOMES Available

My name is Lynda Barry-Kawula and I live in the Town of Spring Valley in Rock County. I’m a writer and a cartoonist. I’ve written 17 books and my last one received the Wisconsin Library Association’s 2009 Book of the year award. I am currently working on a book about residents of wind farms in Wisconsin.
 
My interest began right here, at a hearing like this about two years ago. That’s where I first saw wind farm residents testify about the problems they were having with shadow flicker and nighttime turbine noise. They were asking for help, asking for someone to just come and spend the night in their homes to experience what they were going through.

 After the hearing I went up to a few residents and said, “I’ll come stay at your house.”
And they said, “Who are you?”
I said, “Um, I’m a cartoonist?”

  It must have been like someone calling for an ambulance and then a clown car shows up. But they were so desperate that a clown car was fine.

I’ve spent about ten nights in three homes in two different wind farms in Fond du Lac County and I’ve interviewed people from 20 households and have been following their stories over the last two years.

I now can tell you from first hand experience, no family should have to live with the nighttime noise, vibration and shadow flicker these families live with. These rules are nearly the same as the ones used to site those projects. They don’t fix the problem. They don’t even acknowledge a problem exists.

The standards in this rule are deemed safe based on a review of available medical literature that finds no direct link to negative health effects.
 
But how can the literature identify a problem unless someone talks to the people who are living with turbines. So far no one in the state is willing to do that. Not the health department, not the PSC, not even the doctor appointed to the wind-siting council. Dr. Jevon McFadden said he would not speak to wind farm residents. He said self-reported complaints and symptoms are not reliable and speaking to these people could bias his findings. He also refused to provide anyone with a written copy of the report he prepared and read to the council. Why?

His report found, not surprisingly, that the current literature indicates there are no problems.
 
To me this is like walking past someone who has been beaten and robbed on the side of the road and they are asking you for help and you say, “Don’t worry, I’ve done a thorough review of the literature and it indicates there is no crime on this road, so the good news is you’re fine.”
 
Dr. McFadden did not explain why his recommendation for nighttime noise limits is louder than the standards of the World Health Organization.
 
The World Health organization has also reviewed the literature, and their conclusion is 40dbA is the top nighttime noise limit for healthy sleep.

McFadden’s recommendation for rural Wisconsin is 50% louder. Why?

I mean, bless his heart, but Dr. McFadden just graduated from medical school a year ago and he openly admits he is not an expert on wind turbine noise. Yet the PSC is taking his recommendation over that of the World Health Organization. Why?

I was bothered that during council meetings Dr. McFadden had no questions for council member Larry Wunsch, who lives with a wind turbine 1100 feet from his door. I was bothered that the majority of the council expressed no interest in what Mr. Wunch has to say about his first hand experience and ignored his recommendations. I was especially bothered that the council would not allow Mr. Wunsch to play a recording he made of the turbine noise outside his door at 4AM.  Why?
 
I am very concerned that while we are all in the middle of this rule making, there are Wisconsin wind farm families who are suffering right now because of pour siting and they are getting no help. They are told by the state to go to the wind company for relief and the wind company tells them state standards allow the noise and shadow flicker.
 
 The new rules say the same thing: If you have a problem, call the wind company, talk to their answering machine. Make an appointment and take time off of work so they can come to your house and tell you that according to state standards you have no problem.
 
Over the past two years I’ve seen families whose general health is declining because of lack of sleep. There is more stress in the home, more worry about loss of property value, and no way to get out because of homes that won’t sell. And there is an increasing feeling of bitterness and anger. These rules will make for more of the same.
 
You know, the beginning of these hearings feel like a big wind power parade. At the front is the brass band: The PSC, the utility guys, wind developers, lobbyists, union guys, construction guys all saying rah rah jobs power money rah rah, wind power is the best! That’s the front of the parade. And I feel like I’m following behind it, seeing the mess that’s left behind-- sort of like—what do you call it, the honey bucket crew?  The guy that follows at the end the parade with the pail and shovel? I’ve seen what’s left behind.
 
I’ve seen the damage done by siting standards like these and my hope is not only you all back up and take another look at this, but you’ll find a way to send help to the wind farm families who are suffering right now because of standards like these. They are in this situation through no fault of their own and they deserve whole lot more than a clown car.

HEAR YE! HEAR YE!

PUBLIC HEARING
Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail

The Senate Committee on Utilities, Energy and Rail will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:00 AM, 411 South at the State Capitol in Madison relating to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 siting of wind energy systems.

Senator Jeffry Plale, Chair

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD CLEARING HOUSE RULE 10-057

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD PSC WIND SITING RULES

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The public is encouraged to attend and and speak at the hearing regarding the PSC's wind siting rules. Get there early to get a good seat!

EDITORIAL: TURBINE RULES SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE:

SOURCE: Appleton Post Crescent, www.postcrescent.com

October 12, 2010

There’s a lot we don’t know about the possible negative health effects of wind turbines.

We know there are studies that show few problems related to living near a turbine. We know there are studies that show more problems related to living near a turbine.

We know some people who live near a turbine say they have no problems. We know some people who live near a turbine say they have serious problems.

What we don’t know is a true conclusion — a definitive answer. Perhaps it’s because some wind turbines pose a problem, while others don’t. Perhaps it’s because some people are more susceptible to health problems while living near a turbine, and others aren’t.

We just don’t know for sure.

That’s why we agree with a statement by a member of the state’s Public Service Commission, which approved new wind turbine siting rules last month. Lauren Azar said that the PSC has the ability to revise the siting rules, if information about health effects arises.

In a letter to a legislative committee that also has to approve the rules, Azar wrote, “While I support the overall rule because it will promote the development of wind in Wisconsin, the rule fails to provide a much-needed safety net for people whose health declines because of a wind turbine located near their home. As new information becomes available, the Commission can revise this rule.”

The siting rules, developed by a task force stacked with wind-energy proponents, create uniform standards for where turbines can be placed. The goal was to establish a statewide standard, rather than patchwork rules determined by counties or other municipalities.

The goal should also be to protect public health. Given how much we don’t know, Azar’s statement makes sense.

SAVE THE DATE:

PUBLIC HEARING
Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail

The Senate Committee on Utilities, Energy and Rail will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:00 AM, 411 South at the State Capitol in Madison relating to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 siting of wind energy systems.

Senator Jeffry Plale, Chair

CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD CLEARING HOUSE RULE 10-057

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD PSC WIND SITING RULES

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The public is encouraged to attend and and speak at the hearing regarding the PSC's wind siting rules. Get there early to get a good seat!

ARCADIA COUPLE SUING OVER WIND ENERGY RULES

SOURCE: RENEWABLES BIZ 

McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Joe Knight The Leader-Telegram, Eau Claire, Wis.

October 9, 2010

An Eau Claire attorney is suing the Wisconsin Public Service Commission on behalf of a rural Arcadia family for failing to conduct an environmental review of proposed wind energy siting rules.

Attorney Glen Stoddard said the rules favor the wind energy industry at the expense of property owners living near wind turbines. He is representing David and Delores Vind, who own a farm near Arcadia. It's an area, they say, that has been considered for wind energy development.

"My wife and I decided to file the lawsuit after the PSC adopted the rules in their current form without doing an environmental assessment on the rules or evaluating the adverse environmental impacts of wind energy projects," David Vind said in a news release.

Stoddard said the commission violated the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act and the state's smart growth law by not conducting an environmental analysis.

Earlier this year the Legislature passed a law to establish uniform statewide rules for wind turbine siting. It was an attempt to simplify the current patchwork of local wind turbine rules.

The regulations, adopted by the PSC in late August, set specific requirements for wind turbine siting, including restrictions on noise, setbacks and "shadow flicker" -- a strobe light-like effect caused by rotating turbines. The rules also would allow local governments to require "good neighbor payments" to residents who live within a half-mile of wind turbines.

The state Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail has scheduled a public hearing for next week about the issue.

PSC spokeswoman Lori Sakk said the organization stands by the existing rule.

"The commission has approved this rule consistent with it's statutory obligations," she said. "It will vigorously defend it against this lawsuit."

The rule was based largely on recommendations from the state Wind Siting Advisory Committee. The committee, as required by the Legislature, was comprised of two wind energy developers, one town representative, one county representative, two representatives from utilities, two environmentalists, two real estate agents, two landowners living near wind turbines who have not received compensation for the turbines, two public members and one UW System faculty member with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems.

Ryan Schryver of the environmental group Clean Wisconsin, an advisory committee member, said the panel presented the PSC a good set of recommendations that were reached through compromise and public input. However, the commissioners made the siting rules more restrictive, getting away from the Legislature's intent, he said.

"We're hoping that after the hearings the PSC gets the message that they're not following the intent of the law," Schryver said. "The intent of the law, it was pretty clear, was to open up the door for renewable energy, not shut it."

An Assembly committee is likely to hold a hearing on the siting rules after the elections, he said.

Stoddard said he hopes the combined result of the lawsuit and the upcoming Senate hearing would result in changes to the rules establishing longer setbacks, stronger noise restrictions and better protection of property rights.

CLICK ON THE VIDEOS BELOW TO SEE HOW THE RULES WERE CREATED



BELOW:

Dr. Michael Nissenbaum reports on

Wind Turbines, Health, Ridgelines, and Valleys
Montpelier, VT, May 7 2010

It is a medical fact that sleep disturbance and perceived stress result in ill effects, including and especially cardiovascular disease, but also chronic feelings of depression, anger, helplessness, and, in the aggregate, the banishment of happiness and reduced quality of life.

Cardiovascular disease, as we all now, leads to reduced life expectancy. Try and get reasonably priced life insurance if you are hypertensive or have suffered a heart attack.

If industrial wind turbines installed in close proximity to human habitation result in sleep disturbance and stress, then it follows as surely as day follows night that wind turbines will, over the long term, result in these serious health effects and reduced quality of life.

The question is, then, do they?

In my investigation of Mars Hill, Maine, 22 out of about 30 adults (‘exposed’) who live within 3500 feet of a ridgeline arrangement of 28 1.5 MW wind turbines were evaluated to date, and compared with 27 people of otherwise similar age and occupation living about 3 miles away (Not Exposed).

Here is what was found:

82% (18/22) of exposed subjects reported new or worsened chronic sleep deprivation, versus 4% (1 person) in the non-exposed group.

41% of exposed people reported new chronic headaches vs 4% in the control group.

59% (13/22) of the exposed reported ‘stress’ versus none in the control group, and 77% (17/22) persistent anger versus none in the people living 3 miles away.

More than a third of the study subjects had new or worsened depression, with none in the control group.

95% (21/22) of the exposed subjects perceived reduced quality of life, versus 0% in the control group.

Underlining these findings, there were 26 new prescription medications offered to the exposed subjects, of which 15 were accepted, compared to 4 new or increased prescriptions in the control group.

The prescriptions ranged from anti-hypertensives and antidepressants to anti migraine medications among the exposed.

The new medications for the non exposed group were anti-hypertensives and anti-arthritics.

The Mars Hill study will soon be completed and is being prepared for publication. Preliminary findings have been presented to the Chief Medical Officer for Ontario, and have been presented to Health Canada, by invitation.

Earlier partial results were presented to the Maine Medical Association, which passed a Resolution calling for caution, further study, and appropriate modification of siting regulations, at its annual meeting in 2009.

There is absolutely no doubt that people living within 3500 feet of a ridgeline arrangement of turbines 1.5 MW or larger turbines in a rural environment will suffer negative effects.

The study was undertaken as a pilot project to evaluate for a cluster of symptoms after numerous media reports, in order to present data to the Maine Medical Association, after the Maine CDC failed to more fully investigate.

While the study is not perfect, it does suggest a real problem that warrants not only further more detailed investigation, but the tenderest caution, in the meantime, when decisions on how to site industrial wind turbines are made.

What is it about northeast USA ridgelines that contribute to these ill effects, and how can they be avoided?

Consider, the Northeast is prone to icing conditions. Icing will increase the sound coming off of turbines by up to 6 dbA. As the icing occurs symmetrically on all blades, imbalance detectors do not kick on, and the blades keep turning, contrary to wind industry claims.

Sound is amplified coming off of ridgelines into valleys. This is because the background noise in rural valleys is low to begin with, increasing the sensitivity to changes, particularly the beating, pulsatile nature of wind turbine noise, and sound sources at elevation do not undergo the same attenuation that occurs from groundcover when noise sources are at ground level.

The noise travels farther and hits homes and people at greater amplitude that it would from a lower elevation. Even though this is not rocket science, it was conclusively proven in a NASA funded study in 1990.

Snow pack and ice contribute to increased noise transmission. Vermont valleys have both, I believe.

Preconstruction sound modeling fails to take the tendency of the homes that people live in to respond and vibrate perceptibly to sound at frequencies that the occupants of the dwellings cannot necessarily hear. They hear, and feel, the walls and windows rattle, and the floors vibrate, in a pulsing manner at a frequency or the turbine rpm.

When pre construction modeling fails to take the pulsatile nature, propensity for icing, and ridgeline elevation into account, as well as a linear as opposed to point source of noise, problems can be expected.

What distance is safe? It depends on the terrain, the climate, the size of the project and the turbines themselves. Accurate preconstruction modeling with safe targets in mind is critical.

The WHO says that 30dbA is ideal, and noise levels of above 40dbA have definite health consequences.

At Mars Hill, where affected homes are present at 3500 feet, sound levels have been measured at over 52.5dbA. The fiasco there has been acknowledged by the local wind energy company, and by a former Maine governor.

Vermont would do well to learn from the affected people in Mars Hill.

I have seen the preliminary plans for the planned Deerfield Wind Facility, and have particular concerns regarding the dwellings to the north and northeast of the northernmost extension of the turbine layout.

These homes are well within a mile, generally downwind, and downhill from what I am told may well be 2 MW turbines (or larger?), in a snowy and icy part of the Northeast.

The parallels to Mars Hill are striking.

We know that preconstruction sound modeling failed at Mars Hill. No matter what the preconstruction modeling at Deerfield shows, the real world experiment at Mars Hill suggests that there will be problems for homes at the setbacks that seem to be planned for Deerfield on the attached image.

The people who live within 3500 feet at Mars Hill are truly suffering. Learn from Mars Hill. It is not a matter of not having wind turbines. It is a matter of putting them where they will not affect people’s health.

Newer technology to accurately measure sound at a quantum level improvement in temporal, frequency and amplitude resolution over commonly used acoustician’s equipment now exists, though it is costly and not readily available.

But it will be widespread, soon, well within the tenure of the individuals responsible for making siting decisions today.

Avail yourselves of these findings and familiarize yourselves with the new technologies. You will not only be future proofing your current decisions, you will also be helping people who would otherwise end up too close to industrial wind turbines escape the fate of the exposed residents of Mars Hill, and many other sites in North America (Mars Hill, Maine, merely represents the first small ‘controlled’ study).

I have seen the results of this cutting edge equipment, and how it has revealed drastic short duration excesses over allowed sound levels, levels that set homes vibrating and rendering them unlivable, but also levels of lower frequency transient noise at the audible level, that demonstrates not only failure of preconstruction sound modeling as currently practiced, but also the inadequacy of the measuring tools in the toolkit of the everyday practicing acoustician-consultant who generates reports for industry and local government.

Michael A. Nissenbaum, MD
University of Toronto (MD), McGill University (Specialty Diagnostic Imaging),
University of California (Fellowship)
Harvard University Medical School (junior faculty, Associate Director of MRI, BIH)
Currently, Radiologist, NMMC, Ft. Kent, Maine