STrib editorial on wind setbacks
January 20th, 2010
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):
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:
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
Let me share a few things I have learned since I read through this packet.
The property line setbacks are less stringent: 500 feet for a 400-foot tall wind turbine.
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.
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 »
PUC to address setbacks and impacts of wind turbines
July 29th, 2009
Carleton’s wind turbine goes up (this photo may have been taken by Jonathan Larson, Bruce Anderson or ??? and not moi).
YEAAAAAAAAAA – The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is going to address the concerns that many groups and individuals have raised about wind turbines, particularly the setbacks required to protect the health and safety of those living nearby. First, the Minnesota Department of Health release a white paper:
Now, following up on that, the PUC has issued notice of a comment period to address “PermitConditions on Setbacks and the Minnesota Department of Health Environmental Health Division’s White Paper on Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines.” And here’s their notice — LOOK AT WHO IS ON THE SERVICE LIST, LOOK AT WHAT SERVICE LISTS THEY USED:
The service list used are the ones for 04-1616, a docket regarding multi-state tracking and trading system for Renewable Energy Credits; and 03-869, a docket for electric utilities subject to Minn. Stat. 216B.1691. Yup, that really gets it out there, doesn’t it… and the service lists for Bent Tree, Kenyon Wind, Clay County, New Ulm Utilities were NOT used… hence my first comment to be filed!
Overland Comments – Request for Broader Distribution of Notice
It’s very good that they’ve opened this docket, that they even did that White Paper on Public Health Impacts of wind turbines, BUT that they’re only giving notice of this docket to industry parties is problematic to say the least. Let’s do it right, PUC!
Bent Tree comment deadline TOMORROW!
July 13th, 2009
Katie Troe, Safe Wind in Freeborn County
Tomorrow at 4:30 p.m. is the deadline for Comments on the Bent Tree Wind Farm Certificate of Need and Siting docket. This is the 200-400MW wind project that Wisconsin Power & Light wants to build in MINNESOTA for credit towards the Wisconsin Renewable Electricity Standard.
QUICK, send your comments to:
Steve.Mihalchick [at] state.mn.us
For the PUC’s sites, go to www.puc.state.mn.us
Then click on the blue “eDocket” button…
… and search for dockets
08-573 for Siting Docket
07-1425 for Certificate of Need
And there’s also Commerce’s Siting page:
Remember, this is the one that, together with one in Clay County, triggered this White Paper:
Here’s another story in the Albert Lea Tribune with a great “I think they need professional help” quote from Katie Troe:
Safe Wind lobbies state over turbines
By Jason Schoonover | Albert Lea Tribune
Jacobsen wind turbine up and running!
December 12th, 2008
So… for those of you wondering what Shar and Rollie Jacobsen are doing since moving from Northfield, well, Rollie went sliding off the roof on Election Day, and got a bit banged up, he was probably up there testing the political winds after his vote… but wait, there’s something else, there’s a reason to test those winds! Here’s the newest addition to the Jacobsen family:
The turbine was assembled and then the crane arrived from Fargo and up it goes. Rollie reports it’s running, generating electricity — that it was well worth the wait! And Rollie, you didn’t need to test the political winds, you can trust your gut on that one!!!