by jboullion | Mar 26, 2013 | Uncategorized
|
Epic Systems of Verona has erected six
wind turbines along Kickaboo Road near
Highway 12 in the town of Springfield. |
A timely editorial (relating to the SB-71 proposal) in the Wisconsin State Journal about why Wisconsin should keep it’s wind siting rules intact. Find the original posting here.
The state regulation of wind farms that Wisconsin put in place a year ago improves on the previous patchwork of local regulations.
That’s one reason why lawmakers should leave the regulation intact and reject the latest proposal to turn back to the patchwork approach.
Here’s another reason: A return to patchwork regulation would threaten the public’s interest in developing clean, renewable energy.
Wisconsin’s wind farm regulations set standards for projects, including how far turbines must be set back from nearby homes and how noisy the turbines can be. If local governments develop their own regulations, they cannot be more restrictive than the state standards.
To develop the standards, the Public Service Commission considered a range of viewpoints and studied scientific evidence on the effects of wind turbines. The resulting regulations fairly protect local interests in safety and property rights as well as the general interest in taking advantage of a green energy source.
Nonetheless, wind farm opponents continue to argue for more restrictions. This month, a group of lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 71 to permit local governments to go beyond the state regulations. Bill supporters have seized upon a study of a Brown County wind farm. The study, conducted by acoustics experts, detected largely inaudible, low-frequency sound inside three homes near the wind turbines. The study also noted that some residents complained of health problems, such as nausea and headaches.
However, the study could link the noise in only one home to a turbine. Furthermore, the study could not attribute the health complaints to the noise. The indecisive findings do not offer evidence to change the state’s regulations.
Lawmakers should appreciate the perils of putting the regulatory burden for wind farms on local governments.
First, local governments typically lack the time and resources the PSC employed to study the issue. Before the state standards were developed, some local governments rushed into extreme regulation without scientific foundation. Trempealeau County required turbines to be set back one mile from neighboring homes. That restriction virtually banned wind farm development.
Second, without state standards, the wind energy industry faces the uncertainty of a varying collection of costly local regulation. The chilling effect deprives the state of wind power development.
The effects of wind turbines should continue to be examined. Regulations may need future updating. But Wisconsin cannot afford to go backward in regulation. Wind power is too important for its potential to improve energy security, reduce air pollution and boost economic development.
Find the original posting of this article here.
by jboullion | Mar 20, 2013 | Uncategorized
Lenore Taylor, Chief Political Correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald, debunks “wind turbine sickness”. See the original posting of this article here.
|
A new study has found that 63 per cent of Australia’s 49 wind farms have
never been the subject of any health complaint from nearby residents. Photo: Nicolas Walker |
”Wind turbine sickness” is far more prevalent in communities where anti-wind farm lobbyists have been active and appears to be a psychological phenomenon caused by the suggestion that turbines make people sick, a study has found.
The study found that 63 per cent of Australia’s 49 wind farms had never been the subject of any health complaint from nearby residents.
It found 68 per cent of the 120 complaints that have been made came from residents living near wind farms heavily targeted by the anti-wind farm lobby, and that ”the advent of anti-wind farm groups beginning to foment concerns about health (from around 2009) was also strongly correlated with actual complaints being made”.
Study author, Simon Chapman, professor of public health at Sydney University, said the results suggested that ”wind turbine sickness” was a ”communicated disease” – a sickness spread by the claim that something was likely to make a person sick. This was caused by the ”nocebo effect” – the opposite of the placebo effect – where the belief something would cause an illness created the perception of illness.
He found a much greater correlation between negative attitudes to wind turbines and reports of sickness than any ”objective measures of actual exposure”.
And he cited studies suggesting that the spread of communicated diseases was much faster when the ”illness” had a name – such as Wind Turbine Syndrome, Vibro Acoustic Disease and Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance.
Professor Chapman also cites a recent New Zealand study in which some healthy volunteers were exposed to actual ”infrasound” – the sub-audible noise from wind farms claimed to cause health problems – and others to complete silence, which they had been told was ”infrasound”. In both cases the volunteers who had been told about the potential harmful effects of infrasound were more likely to report symptoms.
There have been several parliamentary inquiries into concerns about the health impacts of wind farms and the National Health and Medical Research Council is conducting a second study into the available medical evidence for the health complaints.
Parliament recently rejected a private members bill by independent Senators Nick Xenophon and John Madigan, which would have removed government subsidies from wind farms operating above certain noise levels.
But the Coalition has said that if it is elected in September it will hold another ”expert” inquiry into wind farm noise.
The most recent Senate inquiry into the issue found no causal link between the noise from wind farms and symptoms reported by those who lived near them, but accepted that people were reporting that they felt unwell.
After a ”rapid review” in 2010 NHMRC said there was ”insufficient published scientific evidence” to link wind turbines with adverse health effects.
But some residents have continued to report suffering from sleep deprivation, stress and serious long-term health problems.
See the original posting of this article here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/wind-turbine-sickness-all-in-the-mind-study-20130315-2g4zd.html#ixzz2O5v0FOVS
by jboullion | Mar 13, 2013 | Uncategorized
RENEW Wisconsin’s policy director, Michael Vickerman, is submitting the following statement in opposition of Senate Bill 71 at today’s hearing :
Statement of RENEW Wisconsin before the Government Operations, Public Works and Telecommunications Committee in Opposition to Senate Bill 71
March 13, 2013
Good afternoon, my name is Michael Vickerman, and I am submitting testimony today on behalf of 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 250 total members, and more than 100 businesses around the state, including Bleu Mont Dairy (Mount Horeb), Crave Brothers Farm (Waterloo), Convergence Energy (Lake Geneva), Current Electric (Brookfield), DVO, Inc. (Chilton), Emerging Energies (Hubertus), Energy Concepts (Hudson), Full Circle Farm (Seymour), Full Spectrum Solar (Madison), Kettle View Renewable Energy (Random Lake), Michels Wind Energy (Brownsville), Morse Group (Beloit), North American Hydro (Neshkoro), Northwind Renewable Energy LLC (Stevens Point), Pieper Foundation (Milwaukee), Organic Valley (LaFarge), Quantum Dairy (Weyauwega), Renewegy (Oshkosh), SunVest (Waukesha), Symbiont (Milwaukee), W.E.S. Engineering (Madison) and Werner Electric (Neenah).
On behalf of all our members that have an interest in advancing clean, locally produced, cost-effective 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. As directed by the Wind Siting Law, the Public Service Commission promulgated PSC 128, a rule that sets forth uniform, science-based standards for local government review and regulation of wind power systems in Wisconsin. PSC 128 took effect on March 16, 2012.
In evaluating the merits of SB 71, RENEW asks the Committee to consider the following points:
- In terms of setback distances as well as maximum allowable sound levels and shadow flicker duration, PSC 128 is the strictest statewide standard for permitting windpower systems in the United States. The provisions in PSC 128 are, on balance, stricter than the conditions specified in the prior permits issued by local governments or the PSC.
- The statewide rule is the culmination of two uninterrupted years of agency involvement in wind siting proceedings. It is the product of a highly deliberative process that elicited substantial input from the Wind Siting Council and the public. The Siting Council looked at all the health-related studies that were in the public domain at that time, and tailored its recommendations accordingly. The record built on the major issues is nothing short of encyclopedic.
- All 412 utility-scale wind turbines currently operating in Wisconsin were permitted before PSC 128 took effect a year ago. Because PSC 128 does not have a track record, there is no factual foundation for asserting that PSC 128 inadequately protects public health and safety.
- An independent expert panel established by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Public Health gave wind a clean bill of health in January 2012, based on analyzing all available scientific studies. The agencies stated: “There is no evidence for a set of health effects from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’…we conclude the weight of the evidence suggests no association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental health problems.” This is as true today as it was 14 months ago.
- The PSC rule was intended to provide wind energy developers with regulatory certainty — a clearly defined set of requirements which they must comply with in order to obtain a permit. This lack of certainty and predictability in the local permitting process would be paralyzing to wind developers and would bring wind development to a standstill.
- The PSC rule was intended to provide wind energy developers with regulatory certainty — a clearly defined set of requirements which they must comply with in order to obtain a permit. Allowing local governments to opt out of PSC 128 would undermine the chief rationale for the Wind Siting Law–uniform standards consistently applied across all jurisdictions in Wisconsin. This lack of certainty, consistency and predictability in the local permitting process would be paralyzing to wind developers and would bring wind development to a standstill.
- Allowing local governments to opt out of PSC 128 would jeopardize current proposals that have been configured to conform with PSC 128. It is extremely challenging to redesign windpower projects to meet different standards than those that informed the original proposal.
Restricting windpower development in Wisconsin will result in a net loss of construction and manufacturing opportunities in the clean energy sector, dry up investment and business start-up opportunities here at home, deprive local governments of a stable source of local payments, and force young adults committed to this career path to relocate to other states. In addition, passage of this bill would further exacerbate Wisconsin’s dangerous overreliance on imported fossil fuels, causing certain environmental harm.
For the reasons enumerated above, RENEW Wisconsin urges rejection of SB 71.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Vickerman
Program and Policy Director
March 13, 2013
by jboullion | Mar 12, 2013 | Uncategorized
More on SB-71 (see our previous action alert post). You can also find RENEW’s testimony, opposing this bill, submitted at the hearing March 13. Below is an editorial published in the Sheboygan Press:
It has been a year since the Wisconsin Legislature reinstated a controversial rule that uniformly regulates wind energy operations in the state. The rule — PSC 128 — spells out what is allowed and not allowed for wind turbines throughout Wisconsin.
It accounts for such factors as size and allowable setbacks from roadways and buildings.
The Public Service Commission rule is not perfect, but is preferable to the patchwork approach it replaced. Now, a group of state lawmakers seeks to again allow municipalities greater latitude in skirting the PSC rules. It is a bad idea.
The Legislature’s primary opponent of current wind siting rules is state Sen. Frank Lasee. The Ledgeview Republican’s crusade includes advocacy on behalf of several 1st Senate District families who say they have suffered negative health effects from large wind turbines on or near their properties, including in Manitowoc and Brown counties.
Similar concerns are expressed in Sheboygan County, where EEW Services is proposing the four-turbine Windy Acres wind farm in the towns of Sherman and Holland. The effect of wind turbines on human health has been a subject of controversy for many years. Study results have proven inconclusive, however, and cannot at this point form the basis of policy changes.
Read on…
by jboullion | Mar 11, 2013 | Uncategorized
A note from Michael Vickerman, RENEW’s Policy Director:
Senator Frank Lasee’s bill to allow municipalities to “opt out” of the reasonable standards contained in PSC 128, Wisconsin’s wind siting rule, is rapidly moving through the state legislature. A Senate Committee will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 71 on Wednesday, March 13 at 12:00 PM CST. This bill would have an immediate impact on projects currently under development and will jeopardize the future of the Wisconsin wind industry.
We need your help opposing this bill.
It is absolutely imperative that policymakers hear from Wisconsin supply chain businesses, construction companies, project developers, installers, and manufacturers on this bill. If you are able, it would be of great help if you could travel to Madison to testify at the upcoming public hearing. If you are not able to come in person, please contact me directly as there are several other ways to help (direct calls, written testimony, lending your company’s name to our testimony, etc.)
Stopping this bill will take a united effort. We hope that we can count on your support.
The notice of the public hearing on SB 71 is below.
Thank you,
–Michael Vickerman Policy Director, RENEW Wisconsin.
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org 608-255-4044 x. 2
Senate
PUBLIC
HEARING
Committee on
Government Operations, Public Works, and
Telecommunications
The committee
will hold a public hearing on the following items at the time specified
below:
Wednesday, March
13, 2013
12:00
PM
330
Southwest
Senate Bill
39
Relating to: the
notice and degree requirements for the examination to practice as a certified
public accountant.
By Senators L.
Taylor and Grothman; cosponsored by Representatives Kooyenga, Spiros, Knudson,
Marklein, Kapenga, Steineke, Smith, Bernier, Sanfelippo and
Stone.
Senate Bill
55
Relating to:
costs of replacement or relocation of certain municipal utility facilities
required by the construction of a freeway and eligibility for the safe drinking
water loan program.
By Senators
Cowles, Lasee and Lehman; cosponsored by Representatives Jacque, Weininger,
Bernier, Brooks, Kahl, Klenke and Bernard Schaber.
Senate Bill
71
Relating to:
limiting the regulation of wind energy systems by local
governments.
By Senators
Lasee, Ellis, Leibham, Grothman and Moulton; cosponsored by Representatives
Jacque, Murtha, Bies, Endsley, Kestell, Klenke, Knudson, LeMahieu, Spiros and
Thiesfeldt.
________________________
Senator Paul
Farrow
Chair
