Freeborn Wind Noise Again!
November 9th, 2021

The Xcel Energy Freeborn Wind post-construction noise modeling equipment is up, this time at the tree line, not behind it.
Just filed today at the Public Utilities Commission:
Xcel Energy has 14 days to respond, and then off to the Public Utilities Commission for consideration. The Commission needs to take a hard look at what they’re doing, because these wind projects sited without rules and too close to people is harming those living in the project footprint.
Noise remains a problem for those trying to live in the middle of a wind project. No surprise when the owner uses a 0.5 ground factor to model bigger, louder turbines, several hundred feet above the ground (these have rotor diameter of 120 meters, or 393.701 feet!). This has been ongoing for so long, going on 5 years, I find I’m forgetting crucial details. But what’s happened in this docket, and what has happened in other dockets, all adds up, particularly with the Bent Tree noise exceedences demonstrated, and resulting settlements, and the Blazing Star noise issues going on right now.
Noise was a problem in Bent Tree with Vestas V-82 for the Hagens and Langruds.
Bent Tree Noise report confirms permit violations!
Wind turbine noise is a problem for the Blazing Star wind project with these bigger and louder Vestas V-120:
Blazing Star Wind NOISE!
More on Blazing Star noise
Freeborn Wind noise has long been an issue. Noise was a problem when the Freeborn Wind ALJ recommended denial of the permit because they had not demonstrated, using 0.0 ground factor, that they could comply. Yes, do not forget that we won that round, first recommendation of denial of wind permit application ever:
WE WON!!! ALJ Recommend Freeborn Permit be DENIED, or…
So then the PUC changes the rules, moves the goal posts, and allows use of 0.5 ground factor in modeling to predict noise, and don’t forget, these are now Vestas V-120 turbines, bigger and louder.
Freeborn? PUC upends ALJ’s Freeborn Wind Recommendation
Can you spell U-N-D-E-R-E-S-T-I-M-A-T-E ?? GI-GO???
Tried for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and got the gong:
PUC Freeborn Mtg 2-6-2020
Filed a MERA claim (Minn. Stat. 116B.03) and we were booted out of court:
Association of Freeborn County Landowners v. Public Utilities Commission
And we appealed the Commission’s final decision on Freeborn:
Freeborn Wind appeal – we lose…
We are persistent. The noise numbers are too high, and they’re higher than pre-construction noise modeling predicted. Yeah, well, DOH, using the wrong ground factor.

The Commission needs to address this obvious problem and deal with the consequences. Avoidance just doesn’t cut it. This is real, and it’s not going away.
ONWARD!
It’s been a busy week. First the release of the ALJ Recommendation for the Freeborn Wind Proect:
OAH+80-2500-34633+Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation
In the STrib today, on both Freeborn Wind and the Bent Tree project!:
Administrative Law Judge says PUC should reject Freeborn County wind project
A couple of choice snippets from STrib article:
and:
Methinks they’re getting the message that wind projects can no longer steamroll communities. It’s time for rulemaking, it’s time for revision of “standards” to something people can live with, it’s time to use proper, applicable, siting criteria, DOH!.
And today was yet another big day, because the Public Utilities Commission approved settlement agreements for two families who have been living under the Bent Tree wind project. This is the first time in Minnesota that landowners within a wind project have been bought out.
It’s real.
Here are the Staff Briefing Papers:
The room was packed, and I hope that the this “first” wasn’t lost on the audience. Wind has shifted direction. Are you paying attention?
Bent Tree Noise report confirms permit violations!
February 7th, 2018
“January Pretzel” — a Bent Tree bent turbine blade 1/20/2018
Taken by the Hagens in the Bent Tree wind project
DOH! The Bent Tree Phase II noise report is out and it confirms that the project is violating the siting permit.
Bottom line:
Here’s the Phase I report:
Bent Tree_Noise Monitoring and Noise Monitoring Report_20179-135856-01
So now what are they going to do?
Tomorrow, the Big Blue wind project is at the PUC which is violating their permit too, and the PUC decision options are to revoke permit, suspend permit, or continue operations with compliance filings.
The process here is flawed (to put it mildly). There is noise modeling required in wind project permitting, but clearly that isn’t sufficient to site them in a way that won’t steamroll the neighbors to the project. The setbacks in MN aren’t adequately protective. Deal with it, Public Utilities Commission!
Wind turbine noise standards? Long overdue!
August 2nd, 2016
It’s been a problem for so long. Minnesota needs respectful wind turbine siting standards, and a part of that is that Minnesota needs wind turbine noise rules.
Way back in 2009, the Minnesota Dept. of Health wrote a report entitled “The Public Health Impact of Wind Turbines” and the PUC opened a docket (PUC Docket 09-845).
In 2016, it’s still an issue, because it’s not been addressed in any meaningful way. Check the Bent Tree docket, starting at 58:36:
So I sent this today, a Rulemaking Petition to the MPCA, and then notice to the PUC that it was sent and that Minn. R. Ch. 7854, the wind siting rules, need work:
Wind developer hush money for wind noise?
August 1st, 2010
Word of today’s NYT article came in over the wire today, and it’s an interesting concept to deal with a very real problem, but not nearly enough!!!
My clients raising noise issues in wind project dockets at the PUC, including the “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines” (09-845) have noted, “how will we be compensated for having to live with all this noise?” In our capitalist culture, $$$ is compensation. Offensive projects aren’t shut down, money is offered.
Minnesota Noise Rules don’t take into account ambient noise, they just set standards for noise, a binary limit on certain types of noise.
Minnesota’s legislature acknowledged that people don’t want to live by transmission lines, and enacted “Buy the Farm” (in full, below)which gives landowners facing a transmission line on their property can opt out, and force the utility to buy their full parcel, not just an easement. Why not the same with wind projects?
Here’s the actual waiver that the wind developer is asking them to sign:
And check this sentence, regarding the Compensation which is outlined in “Exhibit C” attached to the agreement:
Exhibit C shall be redacted from the recorded version of this agreement.
It seems to me that for the blanket “right to offend,” the offers reported are way too low, and waivers are one-sided. From the article:
Don’t change the market price? Well, that says there’s a price and that there’s a market. Caithness does not control the market — they’d better get clear on that right quick. I’ would presume that as this becomes more of an issue the price will go up! LET THE MARKET DECIDE!!! I love it when that happens…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Minnesota’s “Buy the Farm” law:
Minn. Stat. 216E.12, Subd. 4.Contiguous land.