EXTENDED WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING TOMORROW

Wednesday, June 2, 2010, at starting at 9AM

Flambeau Room, third floor

Public Service Commission Building

610 North Whitney Way

Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 9:00. CLICK HERE to visit the PSC website, click on the button on the left that says "Live Broadcast". Sometimes the meetings don't begin right on time. The broadcasts begin when the meetings do so keep checking back if you don't hear anything at the appointed start time.

WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA?

1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda

2) Review and adoption of meeting minutes of May 17, 2010

3) Presentation: Noise/Sound
James Cowan, Bd. Cert. INCE, URS Corporation
Additional presenters invited but not confirmed as of date of notice posting

4) Presentation: Property Values
Ben Hoen, Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (previously recorded)

5) Presentation: Setbacks
Council member Andy Hesselbach, We Energies

6) BREAK – Lunch will be provided for Wind Siting Council Members

7) Background information on questions raised by Council regarding the draft rules

a. Statutory interpretation
b. Enforcement
c. Commission rulemaking authority
d. Notice requirements
e. Emergency services
f. Vestas manual reference
g. Decommissioning
h. Stray voltage
i. Complaint resolution

8) Discuss formulating the Council’s recommendations on topics covered by the draft rules

9) Next steps/Discussion of next meeting’s time, place and agenda

10) Adjourn

This meeting is open to the public.
If you have any questions or need special accommodations, please contact Deborah Erwin at the
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin by telephone at (608) 266-3905 or via e-mail at
deborah.erwin@wisconsin.gov.

 

Shadow Flicker: "Similar to flicker experienced when driving"

-Dr. Jevon McFadden, slide 15, 5/17/10 presentation to Wind Siting Council.

Click on the image below to see if you agree.

Read about the family that lives in this home by [CLICKING HERE]

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft rules for siting wind turbines in our state. The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes.

CLICK HERE to get a copy of the draft siting rules approved by the commissioners on May 14th, and to find out more about the Wind Siting Council

CLICK HERE and type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted so far.

CLICK HERE to leave a comment on the Wind Siting Council Docket

Residents sue wind companies

SOURCE: michigansthumb.com

HURON COUNTY — Citing a loss of property value and quality of life as a result of the Ubly area Michigan Wind I development, 16 Huron County residents filed a lawsuit earlier this month against the wind project’s various companies.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed May 11 in Huron County Circuit Court against John Deere Renewables, Deere & Company (John Deere), Noble Environmental Power, LLC, Michigan Wind I, LLC (Noble Thumb Windpark I) and RMT, Inc., the plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $25,000 and an injunctive relief ordering the companies to cease and desist their activities.

The defendants and plaintiffs

Plaintiffs listed on the lawsuit are David Peplinski, Marilyn Peplinski, Frank Peplinski, Georgia Peplinski, Terry Peplinski, Christine Peplinski, Curtis Watchowski, Lynda Watchowski, James Czewski, Delphine Czewski, Dennis Mausolf, Darcy Mausolf, Dale Laming, Elaine Laming, Lynn Sweeney, Pam Sweeney, Alger Nowak, Mary Nowak, Randy Weber and Angela Weber.

The majority of the plaintiffs previously filed complaints to the county regarding the Michigan Wind I development. Also, over the past year, many of them have attended county board of commissioners and planning commission meetings about this issue.

Though the complaints have been discussed in numerous meetings, there still is no complaint resolution at the county level — something that’s upset many. County officials, however, have said the board of commissioners soon will have a complaint resolution process in place.

Plaintiffs, during previous meetings, also have asked the county to amend its wind zoning ordinance so others in the future are not negatively affected as they say they have been.

According to records from the Huron County Clerk’s Office, all but four of the plaintiffs were part of a petition submitted in October 2005 that contained 1,846 signatures and asked for a review of the wind overlay zoning amendment, which was adopted by the county in the summer of 2005.

“We are simply trying to protect those people without contracts with the wind companies, those people who will not benefit in any way from the wind turbines — but who will have to live with the turbines for years to come,” said Angela Weber in a press release Residents for Sound Economics and Planning (RSEP) issued when the petition was submitted.

At the time RSEP submitted the petition to Huron County Clerk Peggy Koehler, the group claimed it was not an attempt to stop a wind park from being developed in the Ubly area. Instead, it was intended to create “better and more fair zoning for all citizens of Huron County,” according to a statement the group issued in October 2005. The issue ended up in court, as RSEP sued Koehler in November 2005 because she determined the petitions submitted by the group were inadequate. Circuit Court Judge M. Richard Knoblock ruled in favor of the county clerk.

Noble Environmental Power, LLC then proceeded with the development of Michigan Wind I, which consists of 42 turbines and encapsulates more than 150 parcels owned by 96 different landowners.

The project was sold to John Deere Wind Energy in October 2008, and the park officially went into commercial operation a few months later.

That’s when the plaintiffs state the quality of their life and property values began diminishing.

Count I: Private nuisance

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim they have property rights and privileges with respect to the use and enjoyment of their property, and the defendants interfered with those rights by creating, through the operation of the wind farm, “significant and material intrusions upon the plaintiffs’ property.”

Intrusions detailed in the lawsuit include: • Low frequency noise and subaudible infrasound and/or impulse noise created by and emitted from the wind turbines, which range as close as 1,100 and 1,700 feet away from each plaintiff’s home.

• Sustained and highly disturbing audible noise created by the wind turbines.

• Amplitude modulation in both audible and sub-audible frequency ranges emitted from the turbines.

• A flicker/strobe light effect that covers the plaintiffs’ properties when sunlight passes through the rotating turbine blades.

The lawsuit states the interference and invasions caused by the conduct of the wind energy companies was either intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional and negligent conduct.

“The intrusions caused by the turbines in the wind farm cause plaintiffs actual physical discomforts and would cause such physical discomfort to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” the lawsuit states.

Physical harm and negative health effects listed in the lawsuit included: Inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea, and other physiological and cognitive effects.

The lawsuit notes the symptoms experienced by David and Marilyn Peplinski’s family forced them to rent an apartment away from the wind farm in order to avoid the adverse health effects.

“Despite the conditions caused by the continued operation of the wind farm and the resulting health conditions suffered by the plaintiffs, John Deere, John Deere Renewables and Michigan Wind I continue to operate and/or profit from the wind farm,” the lawsuit states.

Count II: Public nuisance

“Based on the aforementioned allegations, the actions of (the defendants) constitute an unreasonable interference with a common right enjoyed by the general public, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states. “Said actions resulted in the existence or creation of a dangerous condition to plaintiffs and other members of the general public and further resulted in significant harm to plaintiffs.”

In the portion of the lawsuit alleging the local wind park is a public nuisance, the lawsuit states the plaintiffs suffered harm and personal injuries different from the harm suffered by the general public, specifically, the increased harm to their health and well being that resulted from the close proximity of the turbines to their primary residences.

“The actions of (the defendants) further created a nuisance in fact, which was either intentional or negligent, by causing a hazardous or dangerous situation,” the lawsuit states.

Count III: Negligent design of wind farm

The lawsuit claims the wind companies had a duty to use reasonable care in the design and construction of the wind farm, specifically in relation to selecting turbine locations.

That duty was breached by the defendants, the lawsuit claims, because the companies ignored available data regarding the probability of negative health effects associated with placing the turbines in close proximity to the plaintiffs’ homes.

Also, the lawsuit references a noise assessment included in the project’s site plan review application that estimated only audible noise levels within the dBA range, and did not consider low frequency noise or impulse noise.

The lawsuit cites portions of the noise assessment stating, “in general, it is undesirable for any home, particularly that of a non-participant, to be on or inside a 45 dBA contour,” and “the probability of complaints from any project opponent exposed to this project noise level would be extremely high.”

Turbine noise measured at four of the plaintiffs’ homes ranged from 45 to 51 dBA, according to results from a noise study paid for by John Deere last fall that are included in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims the wind companies “negligently, carelessly and recklessly” sited the wind turbines in a way that increased the negative health effects and other damages. Other allegations state the wind companies negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed to construct the turbines at a safe distance from the plaintiffs’ residences, and to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unsafe condition and unreasonable risk of harm.

Count IV: Negligent misrepresentation

The lawsuit claims the wind companies made false representations in board of commissioner and planning commissioner meetings and public hearings when company representatives said the wind farm’s operations would not result in a noise nuisance or cause adverse health effects to adjacent landowners.

“(The defendants) were negligent in making these misrepresentations because, as the parties seeking approval to construct a wind turbine farm in Huron County, they had a duty to use reasonable care to provide Huron County and its citizens with both accurate and complete information,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs claim the wind companies provided inaccurate and/or incomplete information about the audible turbine noise levels, and no information about low frequency noise, infrasound and/or impulse noise emitted from the turbines.

Huron County relied on the information from the wind companies when approving the project, the lawsuit states.

“(The defendants) should have known that the information it supplied to Huron County would directly impact the residents of Huron County, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit adds.

Suit does not name any government entity

According to the Huron County Clerk’s Office, there have been no lawsuits filed against any government entities relating to any Thumb area wind park.

In the lawsuit against the wind companies, the plaintiffs are being represented by Craig W. Horn, of Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner, P.L.C. in Saginaw. Despite numerous attempts, Horn was unavailable for comment as of press time.

Ken Golden, Deere & Company Strategic Public Relations director, on Friday told the Tribune: “By company policy, Deere & Company does not make comment on pending litigation.”

The defendants have 28 days from the May 11 filing date to respond to the complaint, and then a hearing date will be scheduled, according to the Huron County Circuit Court Office.

The lawsuit states the plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.

 

SECOND FEATURE: ANOTHER CHAPTER OF "WIND DEVELOPERS BEHAVING BADLY"

The following is a candid quote from an article in Renewable Energy World Magazine which outlines current difficulties faced by wind developers.

 Wind Farms: Are All the Best Spots Taken?

 “Another problem is that landowners have become increasingly savvy about the value of their property.

Farmers are driving harder bargains with wind developers for purchase or lease of their land.

A decade ago 'nobody knew what a fair price was, but as long it was not a dollar less than the guy down the road, they thought it was fair.

Now with the internet and more awareness of what these terms and conditions are, it has leveled the playing field', said Jim Tynion, a partner with the law firm Foley & Lardner, where he is chair of the Energy Industry Team.”

READ FULL TEXT HERE

"Evidence does not support the conclusion that wind turbines cause or are associated with adverse health outcomes" 

"Gaps remain in our knowledge of the impact that wind energy may have on human health"

-Dr. Jevon McFadden, "Wind Turbines, a Brief Health Overview", slide 76 Prepared for the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council. Dr. McFadden delivered a shorter version of this presentation to the council on May 17th, 2010

 

Ontario Health and Environmental Officials Agree: On-the-ground sound measurement is needed near wind farms.

SOURCE: The Acoustic Ecology Institute, aeinews.org

 May 28 2010

Over the past week or so, two reports from Ontario have spurred a fair amount of notice and comment among those following wind development issues.  

First, the provincial health office responded to the public’s concerns about health problems reported by some wind farm neighbors, framing its answer carefully and narrowly:  ”According to the scientific evidence, there isn’t any direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects,” said Dr. Arlene King, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer, as reported by the Vancouver Sun.

 It is no real surprise that the sound levels near wind farms aren’t loud enough to directly cause physiological damage or effects, though it seems clear that annoyance and sleep disruption may well contribute to health effects; the report acknowledges the likelihood of some annoyance, and notes too that while low-frequency sound is below generally perceptible levels, some people who hear these frequencies better than most may be bothered.

 While the report itself is brief and lacks the detail of the recent industry-funded AWEA/CanWEA report, which reached the similar conclusions in the same narrowly-focused task, King’s report frames the results with two crucial but under-reported observations:

 

By way of introduction, the report explicitly states a simple fact that is rarely acknowledged: “Little information is available on actual measurements of sound levels generated from wind turbines and other environmental sources.

Since there is no widely accepted protocol for the measurement of noise from wind turbines, current regulatory requirements are based on modelling.”  Indeed, sound models are used to determine what distance a turbine needs to be from nearby homes in order to meet local statutory noise limits (which stand at 40dB in Ontario).

And in its final words, the report stresses the corollary to this observation: “The review also identified that sound measurements at residential areas around wind turbines and comparisons with sound levels around other rural and urban areas, to assess actual ambient noise levels prevalent in Ontario, is a key data gap that could be addressed.

An assessment of noise levels around wind power developments and other residential environments, including monitoring for sound level compliance, is an important prerequisite to making an informed decision on whether epidemiological studies looking at health outcomes will be useful.”

Actual rural ambient noise levels are often very low, so that wind farm noise becomes bothersome at lower levels than industrial or transportation noises prevalent in urban and suburban areas; and, as noted in the body of the report, most of the case studies and other reports of health effects lack any clear information on how loud the turbine sounds are in the homes of those being affected.  

So while this report is in large part another seemingly definitive, yet stubbornly partial, assessment of the health effects reported near wind farms, it also lays the groundwork for much-needed on the ground assessment of noise patterns around wind farms.

On a similar note, Ontario Ministry of Environment officials confirmed this week that they do not have the capability to record or assess the noise near wind farms where noise complaints arise.

 According to the Windsor Star, “Although hundreds of wind turbines have already been built in Ontario, Michael Parker, district manager for the environment ministry, said staff have not yet been given noise-monitoring equipment. The ministry is responsible for ensuring that wind turbine noise reaching a residence doesn’t exceed 40 decibels, he said.

 If a complaint about turbine noise is made to the ministry, two environment officers are sent to the area to listen for the noise and contact the turbine owner, Parker said, noting that the ministry could still intercede with turbine owners even without hard data on the noise levels.

In some cases, turbine speeds have been scaled back or the turbine shut down completely.”  

In January, the Ministry of Environment issued two Requests for Proposals seeking advice and technical standards to use in assessing wind farm noise.

The RFPs said that “The Ministry requires a consultant to assist in the development of a measurement procedure to assess noise compliance of existing wind farms with the applicable sound level limits,” noting that ”Unlike typical industrial noise sources, measurement of audible noise from wind turbines in general raises technical challenges.”

At that time, the Ministry acknowledged that its “Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms…do not contain a measurement method for assessing the actual noise impact.”

SECOND FEATURE:

When is a conflict of interest not a conflict of interest?

When an official who stands to make some money says it is not and just 'leaves it at that'

Click on the images below to watch news stories about what happens when those who make the rules anticipate financial gain.

For those of us following the proceedings of Wisconsin's Wind Siting Council, this is an issue very much on our minds. It is impossible not to notice a clear majority of the council members have direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the siting guidelines they are helping to create. CLICK HERE TO SEE WHO IS ON THE COUNCIL

VIDEO SOURCE: http://www.wnem.com

Part 1: Wind proposal dividing communities, May 4, 2010

MORRISON – Imagine dozens of wind turbines, standing 400 feet tall, stretching across the farm fields of southern Brown County.

They’d be spinning, day and night, for at least the next 30 years.

Some believe it’s a picture of progress.

“Of course it is. Wind has been used since the beginning of time,” said Glen Martin, a landowner in the town of Morrison.

Others see it as a major misstep.

“What do you do when the wind don’t blow?” said Dick Koltz, a landowner in Wrightstown.

Nine commercial wind farms are already up and running in Wisconsin, but on the table is a proposal for the largest project yet: 100 wind turbines in southern Brown County. It’s known as the Ledge Wind Energy Project.

The project has been proposed by Invenergy, a private wind developer from Chicago.

“The beauty of wind, once it’s installed, it just runs and runs and runs without harmful commodities having to be used up,” said Kevin Parzyck, the project development manager for Invenergy.

“We’re not claiming this is the end all for all power needs. It’s one component of the mix,” said Parzyck.

Parzyck said the electricity generated by the wind turbines would be sold to utility companies in Wisconsin.

The current proposal places 54 turbines in the town of Morrison, 22 in Holland, 20 in Wrightstown and 4 in Glenmore.

One would be on Glen Martin’s farmland in the town of Morrison. He believes the wind turbines are a necessary step towards energy independence.

“We have to produce this electricity and power some place, just like we have to grow a crop some place, just like we have to mine coal some place. This all has been to be done some place and this is a good place to do it,” said Martin.

But it’s not just about going green. Landowners would be paid as much as $10,000 per year for each turbine on their property. That’s quite the bonus, especially for farmers who have seen their share of struggles.

“Let’s face it, it would be nicer and times are tough. I’m sure the last couple of years swayed some of them into doing it. It is attractive,” said Dick Koltz.

Koltz signed a contract to have one turbine on his farmland in the town of Wrightstown, but said he’s now having serious doubts. His opinion changed drastically after seeing the wind turbines up close on a trip to Fond du Lac County.

“It just sort of hit me that this should never be. Not this close and not the area. It just wasn’t a good feeling,” said Koltz.

The feeling was so bad, in fact, Koltz is trying to get out of his contract with Invenergy.

Many of his concerns are being voiced loudly by the group Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy. Spokesman Jon Morehouse says the group is made up of neighbors who think the turbines are unsightly and unsafe.

“It can have mental and physiological effects on your body. There is also the low frequency sound waves as well as the sounds waves that you can hear and those have negative effects from sleep depravation to increase blood pressure,” said Morehouse.

Invenergy denies those claims.

“There’s anecdotal evidence of certain people with problems but there are no scientific studies that there are problems with wind noise,” said Kevin Parzyck, the project development manager for Invenergy.

The opposition group’s more than 200 members still aren’t convinced. They continue to show up at town hall meetings to voice their concerns.

The group’s spokesman turned down an offer to have three turbines on his property. It could have made him nearly one million dollars.

“I would never do something on my land that would negatively affect somebody else in our community,” said Jon Morehouse.

Others say they just don’t care if their neighbors don’t like the project.

“If I decide to go ahead and put something up like that, that’s my right,” said Glen Martin.

Even though Invenergy has been signing up landowners to participate in the project, the company is still in the process of modifying its application with the state. That application will ultimately be reviewed and voted on by the Public Service Commission — a process we’re told is likely still several months away.

Part 2: Wind blowing up storm of opinions, May 5, 2010

MALONE – If you walked out of your home every morning and saw wind turbines in every which direction, is it a sight you would get used to?

“You don’t even notice them anymore. They’ve been here two years and it’s just a part of life now, I guess,” said Ken Krause, a farmer in the Fond du Lac County town of Marshfield.

Or, is it a site you would grow to hate?

“Not these big, industrial turbines. They just don’t belong here,” said Al Haas, a farmer in the Fond du Lac County town of Malone.

It’s something many neighbors in Fond du Lac County will never agree on. Opinions are even more polarized among those who live on the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm . With 88 wind turbines, it is currently the largest wind farm in the state.

Haas has three turbines spinning on his farmland. He makes about $15,000 a year just for having them there. That’s a nice side income with no extra work involved.

“We were told we would basically be able to farm right up to it. We were told there would be basically no land loss to speak of, it just sounded like a good deal,” said Haas.

That extra money? Haas now says it isn’t worth it. He blames the wind turbines for damaging his crops and interfering with his TV reception.

But his main complaint is the noise. He says it keeps him up at night and has led to stress.

“It can sound like a freight train going through the other end of town. The problem is that freight train don’t have a caboose. It don’t stop. It just keeps rolling and rumbling on and on and on, for hours and hours,” said Haas.

“There are probably 3 or 4 days out of the month where they are loud but I think it’s a small prices to pay,” said Ken Krause.

Krause stands on the other side of the wind debate. He even likes the look of the two turbines on his farmland.

“If each community in the country was doing what we are doing, we wouldn’t need foreign oil … Not as much anyway,” said Krause.

Krause points to the pain at the pump two summers ago.

“Some people are already forgetting the $4 (a gallon) gas we had a couple years back. This is helping,” said Krause.

So, are all the wind turbines worth it? That’s what people in Brown County want to know. Some have even contacted people on both sides of the issue in Fond du Lac County to hear first hand with it’s really like living inside a wind farm.

“Is there a place for wind? Maybe. But I don’t think it’s in Wisconsin,” said Jon Morehouse, the spokesman for Brown County Citizens for Responsible for Wind Energy .

The group represents more than 200 people who are opposed to large-scale wind development in Brown County. Many of those people say wind turbines blemish the landscape and pose health hazards.

“We need to slow down, we need to slow down until things get put into place to regulate these industrial monsters to a safe and healthy level,” said Morehouse. “People are going to have to put up with them for 30 years.”

100 turbines are proposed in southern Brown County, with 54 turbines going in the town of Morrison, 22 in Holland, 20 in Wrightstown and 4 in Glenmore. It would be the largest wind farm in the state.

The project is being developed by Invenergy, a private firm from Chicago . The company says the location is one of the best places to harness wind in Wisconsin.

“Wisconsin has very good places for good wind and good transmission capabilities near where the power is going to be used,” said Kevin Parzyck, the wind development manager for Invenergy.

Invenergy is still modifying its application for the project. It will ultimately go to the state Public Service Commission for a decision.

That process will likely take several more months which gives people in Brown County more time to research the issue.

“We want people to go. Go to a turbine, stand under a turbine, see what it’s like, the proof is in the pudding,” said Parzyck.

Though, there are many farmers in Fond du Lac County who say a few days in their shoes would turn most people against wind development.

Part 3: The fight over Wisconsin’s wind future, May 6, 2010

It’s free, it’s everywhere and some think it’s the answer to our ever-increasing energy needs.

“Wind is the most feasible resource for most states because of its ability to scale up,” said Michael Vickerman, the executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. The non-profit group has been advocating for nearly two decades for widespread wind development in the state.

Wind turbines also provide struggling farmers a financial lifeline of thousands of dollars each year.

“For me, it’s a good thing,” said Gary Koomen, a landowner in the town of Morrison.

But as the state Public Service Commission continues to green light large-scale wind developments throughout the state, more and more people are speaking out against the projects.

“We need to slow down until things get put into place to regulate these industrial monsters to a safe and healthy level,” said Jon Morehouse, the spokesman for Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy. The group represents more than 200 people who are against large scale wind development in southern Brown County.

Right now, 9 commercial wind farms are operating in the state, with a total of more than 300 wind turbines. Though, 18 more wind farms have been proposed, which could push the number of turbines in the state upwards of 1,000.

The largest proposal on the table is 100 turbines in southern Brown County. The project is being developed by a private company from Chicago called Invenergy.

“I’ve always been a supporter of alternate energy to start with so it kind of appealed to me a consumer,” said Gary Koomen.

Koomen signed up to have two turbines on his farmland. He stands to pocket roughly $10,000 per year for each turbine. That kind of money can make life a little easier.

“Fun money,” laughed Koomen. “I’ll probably take a vacation.”

The push for wind development in the state stems back to 1999 when Wisconsin set its first renewable energy goal. The idea is to find energy sources that are sustainable.

Currently, utility companies are required to be providing 10% of electricity from renewable sources by 2015. Experts say, right now, the utilities are only about half way there.

“Without the standards, they have no reason to add more renewable energy,” said Michael Vickerman, of RENEW Wisconsin.

Vickerman says wind is the best renewable resource Wisconsin has, which is why he predicts a flurry of development in years to come.

“Wind will be the workhorse of all the renewable energy family. That’s true elsewhere in the Midwest,” he added.

The issue of wind development has divided communities and pitted neighbors against each other. One of the biggest fights continues to be over how close the massive turbines should be to neighboring properties.

Currently, many of the wind turbines are setback about 1000 feet. There are many people, however, who think they should be significantly farther away.

“It can have mental and physiological effects on your body. There are also the low frequency sound waves as well as the sounds waves that you can hear and those have negative effects from sleep depravation to increase blood pressure,” said Jon Morehouse, the spokesman for a group opposed to the project.

Wind developer Invenergy denies those claims.

“There’s anecdotal evidence of certain people with problems but there are no scientific studies that there are problems with wind noise,” said Kevin Parzyck, the wind development manager for Invenergy.

Though, Gary Koomen spoke with his neighbors about their concerns before signing up for the project. He said he wouldn’t have done it if they didn’t want him to.

“Probably not. I value the relationships I have in the neighborhood,” said Koomen.

The state has decided it wants to study the impact of wind turbines a little bit more. A 15 member wind siting committee was recently formed to advise the Public Service Commission on issues like noise levels and setback distances.

“These are legitimate points of disagreement and the more we can come to terms on those two issues, the better off we will all be,” said Michael Vickerman.

Vickerman is on the PSC’s wind siting committee. The committee’s goal is to come up with standards and rules for permitting large scale wind projects in the state.

Vickerman says uniform requirements are important because many communities have passed their own wind-related laws — some of which are designed to try and slow wind developmental.

The local laws may not even matter, however, because approval of large scale projects ultimately falls in the hands of the PSC.

“We have to resolve this issue before the wind industry gives up on Wisconsin,” said Vickerman.

Some admit that’s what they want.

“Whatever happened to using less and using less to the point where we save and use what we have more effectively. The wind thing does nothing but produce more,” said Jon Morehouse.

Much like the wind itself, the debate over wind development looks to be unending.

The PSC wants to have standards in place for permitting wind projects in the state by as early as this summer.

Officials at Invenergy tell FOX 11 they hope to start construction on 100 turbines in Brown County by 2011.

The question is: can these proposals withstand mounting opposition from the people who actually have to live among the wind turbines? The answer is still blowing in the wind.

SECOND FEATURE: Dig the AWEA conference by clicking on the image belo

THIRD FEATURE

Shadow Flicker: "Similar to flicker experienced when driving"

-Dr. Jevon McFadden, slide 15, 5/17/10 presentation to Wind Siting Council.

Click on image below to see Wind turbine shadow flicker video taken in a PSC approved wind project Fond du Lac County home at 6:30 am on Tuesday April 28th,

More shadow flicker from Fond du Lac County

Click on the image below to watch Better Plan's audio interpretation of shadow flicker

Click on the image below to see shadow flicker in a home in DeKalb County

The family living in this home is keeping a diary about their life with wind turbines.  CLICK HERE TO VISIT THEIR WEBPAGE

Not a good neighbor

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Irresponsible Wind Company

last night there was no sound from turbines. slept through the night and woke up rested. this morning it was a good day to be outside, beautiful weather and some turbines off and some lightly spinning. the winds are picking up (winds from the S, 11mph) this afternoon and the blades are starting to feather out which is creating the low droning. one moment there is peace and the next is filled with this annoying background chopping/low frequency sound. these turbines are too close to our home. how irresponsible of the wind companies to erect these machines so close...this is happening all over. so many people have to suffer. this could be solved by placing the turbines at least a mile away.