Fond du Lac County, host of 168 wind turbines, supports PSC siting rules

by jboullion | Feb 11, 2011 | Uncategorized

Testimony of Sam Tobias
Director of Planning and Parks
Fond du Lac County

Before the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules
February 9, 2011

(starts at 3:45:30 pm on Wisconsin Eye)

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today — chairs and committee members as well.

I’ve been with Fond du Lac County for 25 years in a couple of different roles but at this point I’m with the county planning and parks director. You have to know just a bit about Fond du Lac County to understand where I’m coming from and what’s been happening in Fond du Lac. In our county we do not have county zoning, every town in our county, all 21, each has their own individual zoning ordinance. They administer their zoning ordinances. At times, with wind siting issues especially, they depend heavily on their attorney, and they all pretty much use the same attorney. They’ve come up with pretty much the model that’s being used in the PSC rule. And it’s worked very well, and that’s my point here today is we’ve been a test-bed so to speak in Fond du Lac.

The program has worked in Fond du Lac County. Why do I say that? The six town boards in Fond du Lac County that are the six towns that are host to wind turbine projects are all still in place. If this were truly a monumental issue, and truly had widespread health effects, and hazards, nature hazards, those types of things, I don’t think those six town boards would be in place today, but they are.

We’re home to three major utility scale wind turbine projects — 168 turbines, 268 MW of electricity capacity. Again, the towns, the 8,000 to almost 9,000 town residents, that are involved in these facilities. We don’t have 8,000 to 9,000 people here today protesting against the rules. There are people with concerns, but it’s not the majority by any stretch of the imagination.

Town government took the lead, as I said previously. In permitting, in regulating wind farms in Fond du Lac County and I think they’ve done a very great job. Again, our setbacks are very similar in our towns as to what’s in our state rule. Utility-scale wind farm in Wisconsin mean a lot to local businesses — from the sandwich supply lunch truck, that comes out to construction sites, to Michels Corporation in Brownsville that’s got 200 people that have been involved in developing wind projects in our county and elsewhere around the state. By their estimations, there are probably four projects out there that are being discussed and are in the works, 100 MW or more each, so there’s projects queued up that need some predictability in outcome, and that’s what this rule does.

I’ll go back to creating a level playing field. This is the same kind of thing that the Wisconsin Realtors Association asked for in ’99 and 2000 – the Wisconsin Smart Growth law. I’m a planner so I supported them in those efforts and that was a big thing that they really wanted. They wanted a level playing field. And I think in this situation, the same rule applies, the same situation applies. Let’s provide a level playing field. We’re not going to have turbines in every corner of the state of Wisconsin. These companies are going to go where the resource is. The resource is fairly limited in our area. . . .

(Q) Thank you for your testimony. You said that the standards that were in place when the wind turbines were put up in Fond du Lac were similar to what were in the PSC. So like a 1,250 foot setback? We’re dealing with something like that?

A) Yes, yes. Setbacks for municipal and civil structures are three times the maximum height of a wind turbine. Setbacks from participating residences can be 600 feet or 1.1 times the turbine height is allowable with written permission from the land owner. The setback from nonparticipating residences is three times the maximum height of the turbine. Setbacks from property lines are 1.1 times the height of the turbine. And setbacks from communications and utility lines is 1.1 times, so it’s similar. If there are some additional consideration to be given, look at what towns in Fond du Lac County have done.

Q) (Senator Leibham) I just want to clarify, are you here on behalf of the County or yourself as an individual?

A) I’m here on behalf of Fond du Lac County. This is an issue we’ve talked over, I’ve talked over with the boss, the county executive Allen Buechel and I’m here with his permission. So I’m speaking on behalf of myself and behalf of Fond du Lac County.

Committee takes no steps to ban wind turbines

by jboullion | Feb 10, 2011 | Uncategorized

RENEW Wisconsin submitted the following statement at the public hearing of the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules on wind siting rules (PSC 128).

Governor Walker and legislative leaders reportedly will seek a change in the rule when the governor appoints a new chair of the three-person Public Service Commission when Commissioner Mark Meyer’s term expires March 1. With no legislative action, PSC 128 will become effective on March 1, 2011, and will remain in effect until changed by the PSC.

Good morning, my name is Michael Vickerman. I am here to represent RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit advocacy and education organization based in Madison. Incorporated in 1991, RENEW acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. We have over 300 total members, and more than 60 businesses around the state, including Biogas Direct (Prairie du Sac), Bleu Mont Dairy (Mount Horeb), Bubbling Springs Solar (Menomonie), Crave Brothers Farm (Waterloo), Convergence Energy (Lake Geneva), Emerging Energies (Hubertus), Energy Concepts (Hudson), Full Circle Farm (Seymour), Full Spectrum Solar (Madison), GDH, Inc. (Chilton), H&H Solar (Madison), Kettle View Renewable Energy (Random Lake), Michels Wind Energy (Brownsville), North American Hydro (Neshkoro), Northwind Renewable Energy LLC (Stevens Point), Pieper Power (Milwaukee), Organic Valley (LaFarge), Quantum Dairy (Weyauwega), Renewegy (Oshkosh), and Seventh Generation Energy Systems (Madison).

On behalf of all our members that have an interest in wind generation, RENEW Wisconsin took the lead in bringing together diverse groups and companies and forging a broad and bipartisan coalition to support legislation establishing statewide permitting standards for all wind generators in the state of Wisconsin. The fruit of that labor, 2009 Act 40, was signed into law in September 2009.

I am here today to encourage this Committee to take no action on the PSC 128 rule that is scheduled to take effect on March 1st. The Commission’s rule is a good-faith compromise that balances the state’s interest in promoting a preferred energy resource with the interests of neighboring landowners.

The PSC rule will provide wind energy developers with regulatory certainty — a clearly defined set of requirements which they must comply with in order to obtain a permit. Such stability and clarity in the wind permitting arena has been absent from Wisconsin for the last 13 years, which, more than any other reason, explains why Wisconsin utilities own more wind generating capacity in Iowa and Minnesota (329 MW) than they do in Wisconsin (235 MW).

I would like this committee to consider the following points:

* The statewide rule promulgated by the PSC is the culmination of two uninterrupted years of agency involvement in wind siting proceedings. The record built on the major issues is nothing short of encyclopedic.

* A longer setback distance is not necessary given PSC 128’s strict regulation of sound propagation and shadow flicker duration. Both the maximum allowable nighttime sound threshold (45 dBa) and the maximum allowable duration of shadow flicker (25 hours a year) are very strict thresholds in comparison to what other states have adopted.

* Payments from wind generation facilities support rural economies. The counties and towns hosting Wisconsin’s four largest operating windpower installations receive more than $1.5 million in payments in lieu of taxes each year. Landowners hosting the 251 turbines in these projects receive more than $1.2 million per year combined. Not counting payments for transmission-related infrastructure, these four wind projects pump nearly $3 million annually to local governments, host landowners and neighboring residents. (See the January 12th, 2011, article in the Fond du Lac Reporter)

* There is no credible evidence that existing wind development in Wisconsin has depressed property values statewide. In 2008 and 2009, Poletti and Associates, an Illinois real estate appraisal firm, investigated the impact of the Lincoln and Rosiere wind projects on nearby land sales and home construction activity. Analyzing seven years’ of sales data, the Poletti study concluded that the 31 turbines in Kewaunee County have not an effect on area property values. Moreover, since 1999, when the turbines were placed in service, more than 10 houses have been constructed within one-half mile of a turbine there.

There is one sure way that Wisconsin leaders can demonstrate their commitment to nurturing wind energy-related businesses and the jobs that will emerge from their activities, and that is to allow the PSC 128 rule to take effect as scheduled on March 1st. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Scientists see no basis for turbine ‘infrasound’ health problems

by jboullion | Feb 8, 2011 | Uncategorized

From an article by Jim Dulzo on the Web site of Michigan Land Use Institute:

. . . when they could not find an independent organization willing to underwrite such a study, they paid for it themselves. AWEA [American Wind Energy Association] and CanWEA [Canada Wind Energy Associaiton] assembled eight scientists and doctors to survey the available scientific literature on the known health effects of living near wind turbines.

Collectively, the eight have strong research or clinical experience in public health, otolaryngology, noise-induced hearing loss, balance and hearing disorders, clinical medicine, audiology, infrasound acoustics, industrial sound pathology, wind and turbine physics, and turbine sound measurement and siting.

Their review of 140 different studies and papers issued in 2009, largely from Europe, where wind farms are common and located quite close to residential areas, is called Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects; An Expert Panel Review.

The panel points out that the environment and our bodies are awash in infrasound, much of it naturally occurring. It finds Dr. Pierpont’s list of maladies too poorly characterized to be medically useful. It finds a markedly stronger correlation between subjects’ claimed turbine syndrome symptoms and their initial attitudes toward turbines than between their symptoms and their level of exposure to turbine sounds.

Windpower opponents quickly attacked the industry funded findings as biased, something that Mike Klepinger, who formerly worked at Michigan State University Extension Service, where he wrote the agency’s wind turbine siting guidelines, says is not surprising.

“Of course, whenever you invite industry into a panel, the whole panel becomes suspect,” Mr. Klepinger said in an interview with Great Lakes Bulletin News Service. “They say, ‘It couldn’t possibly be operating scientifically.’ But you look at the who’s who on the [panel] list, and you kind of have to give the industry an A-plus for trying to make the panel objective.”

Their three major conclusions:

•  “There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.
• “The ground-borne vibrations from wind turbines are too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.
• “The sounds emitted by wind turbines are not unique. There is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds and the panel’s experience with sound exposures in occupational settings, that sounds from wind turbines could plausibly have direct adverse health consequences.”