Legalectric

Oops, there goes a Suzlon…

Anyway, today the STrib has an editorial today about increasing setbacks — it’s a mixed bag — scroll way down below to read it.  This concern of setbacks is ramping up and  goes back to concerns raised over the years regarding individual projects as they wind their way through the permitting process.  Now there is this PUC Docket that is coming to a head, based on a survey report commissioned by the Commission — they’re supposed to have a PUC meeting addressing this docket, maybe this month, but no word yet, don’t worry, I’ll post notice here (we know they’re not so hot on giving notice to non-wind industry interests in this docket):

MN Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

To look at that docket, CLICK HERE FOR PUC SEARCH, and search for docket 09-845.

This also comes at the time that Comments are due in the Goodhue Wind PPA docket.  To look at that, go to CLICK HERE FOR PUC SEARCH, and search for dockets 09-1349 and 09-1350.  For the Certificate of Need docket for Goodhue Wind, see Docket 09-1186.

Yesterday (the comment deadline WAS yesterday) I filed this for Goodhue Wind Truth:

Goodhue Wind Truth – Comment 2

Then it turns out the PUC had filed another extension for MOES (seems they can’t meet a deadline these days, the EIS for CapX was also just delayed today too) and the deadline is now 2/12 for Comments and 2/22 for Reply Comments.   GREAT!  Another whack at the apple…  Now’s your chance.  You can eFile them at the PUC site, or mail in, take a look at the Comment above to get an idea how to do it.

Back to wind generally — This opinion piece was in the Republican Beagle a few days ago:

Study of wind project may blow you away

Erin Logan

Zumbrota

I found out by pure accident my home is in the Goodhue Wind Project area by looking at the map published Dec. 9 Zumbro Shopper. What a surprise. Why wasn’t I notified?

I received a packet in the mail sometime around Dec. 15 from a Twin Cities attorney; let’s just call it “notification.” I decided I better read the information to find out what it means to be in the Goodhue Wind Project.

The 212-page document is a dry read, but some interesting information caught my attention. It includes a site map identifying homes and proposed placement of the 400-foot tall wind turbines.

To my surprise my home does not exist on the proposed project map, but it does show a wind turbine 100 feet from my home and two more within 1,500 feet. I wonder how many other homes have been omitted from or wiped off the map?

Let me share a few things I have learned since I read through this packet.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over this project due its size. The public can submit comments regarding the permit application until Jan. 22. I will definitely take advantage of this opportunity, although I’m not sure how much good it will do.

I understand the PUC was made aware of homes not included in the project application, but were not concerned with the detail of the site plan.

Reading through information on the PUC Web site I learned a state statute allows our county commissioners to adopt more stringent zoning ordinances for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems. This means our local elected officials have the authority to define what is best for Goodhue County residents regarding this project.

The purpose of the setback is to protect adjacent landowners if the turbine falls over, mitigate noise levels and shadow flicker that may be imposed on their homes. It will also provide protection if any ice builds up on the blades, breaks off and plummets 400 feet to the ground.

I have learned that current Goodhue County zoning setback requirements do not allow a wind turbine to be erected within 750 feet of a dwelling. This is reciprocal in that a dwelling cannot be constructed within 750 feet of a wind turbine.

Hmmm, I think I just lost the right to build an attached garage or an addition between my house and that wind turbine 750 feet away.

The property line setbacks are less stringent: 500 feet for a 400-foot tall wind turbine.

I encourage anyone who has an unoccupied residence or temporary dwelling in place to speak up. This project could restrict where you are allowed to build on your property.

Gaps in the system like this make it clear to me we are not prepared to endorse a project of this magnitude. This is new territory that warrants some education in lieu of assuming we can rely on outdated regulations to provide safety, health and well-being to Goodhue County residents.

As I read through this permit application I see inaccurate data, incomplete information and open-ended statements. There are far too many to include in detail, so I’ll share a few of the items that seem fairly important to me.

• Actual wind turbine size — The permit application states that this can be changed to meet the needs of the project. Will they be 300 feet, 400 feet or taller?

• Equipment specifications — The application identifies the sound level created by the smallest wind turbine they would choose to install. This data is used to determine the distance the wind turbine can be located from your residence while ensuring they don’t exceed the maximum amount of noise pollution you can be subjected to.

• Project decommissioning — As stated in the application, all above-ground equipment and foundations, to a depth of 4 feet, will be removed. This does not meet Goodhue County Ordinance, Article 18, Section 5, Subd. 10.

• Economic impact — This is such a multi-faceted topic, but it is good to note the claim that the local economy will benefit from the dollars the project will pay in state and local taxes and the long-term beneficial impacts to the counties’ tax base. Take a look at the corporate Web site — http://www.nationalwind.com/minnesota_wind_facts — which lists the financial incentives for wind projects. The way I read that information, this project will be exempt from both property and sales tax.

I would also like to know what kind of long-term impacts this will have on local and county roadway lifecycles.

I hope enough people encourage our commissioners to update zoning ordinances to adequately mitigate the impact of a Large Wind Energy Conversion System on Goodhue County residents.

For anyone who thinks this doesn’t affect them, keep in mind wind conditions are similar throughout Goodhue County and there is a lot of land out there. Implementing this project may open the door for wind turbines in your neighborhood.

I need more information before I can make an educated decision on whether this project will be a benefit or a detriment. Perhaps others in and around the Goodhue Wind Project area have received more information.

This is a community-based project, yet I have never had one of the local representatives stop by during one of the many trips they’ve made past my home. I believe that a good idea is worth talking about, so why all of the secrecy?

Here’s the response of Ann Occhiato, a  landowner who lives in the proposed Greenvale project in Dakota County to the STrib editorial, below:

I am writing in response to today’s editorial on increased wind turbine setbacks.  While the editorial highlights the critical need to increase setbacks to maintain wind’s momentum, it minimizes the reasons why setbacks are important in the first place.

There is, in fact, credible evidence that low frequency sound from wind turbines can have a negative impact on health.  The Minnesota Dept. of Health’s white paper on the Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines outlines this and recommends the cumulative affect of multiple turbines be taken into account when evaluating sound impacts, which is not currently done.  There is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence from homeowners living near turbines all over the world on the negative impacts to quality of life, health, safety, and property values.  While the wind industry and proponents of wind like to point to studies that minimize these issues, numerous other studies show these impacts to be real.

The fact is there are serious issues related to wind farming that need to be addressed including setbacks, environmental regulation, property rights, health, safety, quality of life, and economic justice, among others.  Industrial scale wind turbines clustered in “farms” can ruin neighborhoods and seriously alter the course of people’s lives.  Belittling their concerns will not help the wind industry in Minnesota and it certainly does not make us a national leader.

As wind continues to spread these problems will only become more pronounced.  Increased setbacks, pre-permitting site guidelines, community support and involvement, alternative modeling, and other solutions are necessary for the continued growth of the wind industry in Minnesota.  Developers, public officials, legislators, and environmental groups have a responsibility to address these issues.

Ann Occhiato

Here’s the STrib’s editorial:

Editorial: Reconsider setbacks for wind turbines

Expand wind energy while respecting rural livability.

To drive through the Minnesota countryside is to drive through contradiction. Those vast rolling fields — are they busy engines of production for the agriculture industry? Or are they places of natural beauty, serenity and tranquility?

It’s harder nowadays to have it both ways. The rapid advance of wind farming, for example, has transformed the rural landscape. Hardly anyone denies the value of the clean energy produced by the giant wind turbines going up on sparsely populated land all across the country. At last count there were nearly 1,500 such turbines operating in Minnesota, making it the nation’s fourth-largest wind power-producing state. Many more turbines are on the way, and that’s a good thing.

But if badly located, the machines can harm not only the beauty and serenity that so many rural people value, but invite thoughtless and pernicious opposition to wind power generation. That, in turn, could impede the changeover to greener energy that’s so badly needed. Minnesota must keep pace with its goal of producing 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources (mostly wind) by 2025. The current share from wind is about 5 percent.

As the Star Tribune’s Tom Meersman reported last week, complaints about wind turbines are mounting, less on their merits than on their occasionally inappropriate locations. A family near Austin, for example, lives just across the road from a wind farm. One giant turbine, about 900 feet away, casts a flickering shadow over their 100-year-old farmhouse. There’s little they can do. State law allows commercial turbines as close as 500 feet from dwellings, although decibel restrictions typically stretch the actual distance to 700 to 1,000 feet. That’s still too close for a 400-foot turbine, especially if it’s not on your property.
Read the rest of this entry »

Here’s what just was filed on behalf of Minnesota Coalition for Sensible Siting:

Minnesota Coalition for Sensible Siting – Comments

Exhibit A – CUB-WIEG Petition for Review – Bent Tree

Exhibit B – Canada Health Survey July 20, 2009

Exhibit C – Testimony of Rick James – Tazewell IL

Exhibit D – AEI Wind Turbine Noise Report 2009

Exhibit E – Harding – Wind Turbines, Flicker and Photosensitive Epilepsy

Exhibit F – Failed Suzlon Turbine

Exhibit G – Failed Turbine in Sherman Co, OR

Exhibit H – Wind Worker Casualties

Exhibit I – Murray County Wind Ordinance

Exhibit J – Manitowoc County Wind Ordinance 9-07

Exhibit K – Calumet County Wind Ordinance

Exhibit L – Ridgeville Wind Ordinance

And this was filed by CFERS:

CFERS Comment

To look at all the filings, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and to eDockets and search for docket 09-845.

It’s out today, Dan Gunderson at MPR has done an extensive piece on the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission “investigation” of wind turbine noise and health impacts, looking at, per the PUC:

The Commission is gathering information to determine if current permit conditions on setbacks remain appropriate and reasonable.

PUC – Notice WITH SERVICE LIST

Here’s the audio — full text is way below:

What concerns me is that, again, they only gave notice of this docket to the wind industry, and not the people intervening or commenting in PUC wind dockets who raised this issue in the first place, and my comment on that to the PUC, urging them t expand the Notice:

Overland Comments – Request for Broader Distribution of Notice

To see the PUC’s wind turbine setback docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, click “eDockets” on lower right, and search for docket 09-845.

And here’s the MPR piece in writing:

Wind turbine noise concerns prompt investigation

by Dan Gunderson, Minnesota Public Radio

August 4, 2009

Valley City, ND — Wind farms are rapidly expanding across the Midwest, and a growing number of residents who live near the wind turbines are complaining about noise.

In Minnesota, those complaints prompted the Public Utilities Commission to investigate.

When Dennis and Cathryn Stillings chose a place to retire, they were looking for solitude and quiet. So a couple of years ago, they bought a farmstead in the rolling hills of eastern North Dakota.

Soon after they moved in, dozens of wind turbines sprouted in a neighbor’s nearby field.

Dennis Stillings said he wasn’t bothered at first because he supported wind energy and he was told the turbines were quiet, no louder than 55 decibels.

“Which is about the same level as your refrigerator running, or the same level as my conversation right now,” Stillings said. “Well, if I was holding a conversation with someone in my living room and someone in the corner was sitting there going bop, bop, bop at 55 decibels, it would drive me nuts and I’d kick him out.”
Larger view
Wind turbines

The Stillings said what bothers them is the pulsating, low-frequency sound. They say it’s like a giant dishwasher, or a helicopter in the distance. Cathryn Stillings said there’s no escaping the sound and that she’s having trouble sleeping.

“It’s a duller sound in the house but it’s still out there,” she said. “You can hear it through the walls. It just kind of gets in your bones.”

The Stillings’ complaints are similar to cases popping up around the country in the past couple of years, as wind farm expansion moves closer to populated areas. Complaints include headaches, dizziness and trouble sleeping.

In Minnesota, a handful of groups have organized to demand tougher regulation. They want the state to require more distance between wind turbines and homes. A report by the Minnesota Department of Health concluded there are potential health concerns.
Read the rest of this entry »

Iff we could harness the energy of Katie V. Troe!  Her work on the Bent Tree Wind Project has a measurable impact.  Here’s one example — the long awaited Minnesota Dept. of Health Wind White Paper has been released, and here it is:

MN Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

Here’s the short version:

The Minnesota nighttime standard of 50 dB(A) not to be exceeded more than 50% of the time in a given hour, appears to underweight penetration of low frequency noise into dwellings. Different schemes for evaluating low frequency noise, and/or lower noise standards, have been developed in a number of countries.

…

Unlike low frequency noise, shadow flicker can affect individuals outdoors as well as indoors, and may be noticeable inside any building. Flicker can be eliminated by placement of wind turbines outside of the path of the sun as viewed from areas of concern, or by appropriate setbacks.

Prediction of complaint likelihood during project planning depends on: 1) good noise modeling including characterization of potential sources of aerodynamic modulation noise and characterization of nighttime wind conditions and noise; 2) shadow flicker modeling; 3) visibility of the wind turbines; and 4) interests of nearby residents and community.

VII. Recommendations

To assure informed decisions:

• Wind turbine noise estimates should include cumulative impacts (40-50 dB(A) isopleths) of all wind turbines.

• Isopleths for dB(C) – dB(A) greater than 10 dB should also be determined to evaluate the low frequency noise component.

• Potential impacts from shadow flicker and turbine visibility should be evaluated.

Any noise criteria beyond current state standards used for placement of wind turbines should reflect priorities and attitudes of the community.

This seems to me to be recommending either local control of siting criteria that actually addresses these issues (and what county government will?) or state criteria change reflecting issues raised by local communities and recommendations that the people have brought forward.