Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 3 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Safe Wind lobbies state over turbines
Published Monday, July 13, 2009
After a public hearing June 29, Safe Wind of Freeborn County is continuing to work to influence the placement of the turbines for the Bent Tree Wind Farm in Freeborn County.
Wisconsin regulators last week gave their permission for Wisconsin Power & Light to build the wind farm, though now it needs Minnesota approval.
Safe Wind is working to get its message out before the state Public Utilities Commission decides later this summer whether to approve the site permit and certificate of need for the project, which if passed would give the green light to construction.
One of the biggest concerns of Safe Wind is the health effects of the noise produced by the wind turbines. Katie Troe of Safe Wind said the turbines produce noises that can both be heard, and low-frequency sounds that some studies say are amplified and trapped in homes. Troe said some of the sound is audible and some is not.
Katie Troe
“We’re dealing with an unknown. This is something that’s fairly new to Minnesota, at least more developed areas of Minnesota, and there are so many unknowns,” said Amy Wasson, a lawyer for Safe Wind in Freeborn County.
“So it’s kind of hard to say, ‘Yes, this is definitely what we want,’ because we’re dealing with something that’s just unknown,” she added.
On March 19, Safe Wind requested contested hearings concerning the site application and certificate of need for Bent Tree. The PUC denied the contested hearings, but a public hearing was held June 29.
Administrative Law Judge Steve M. Mihalchick oversaw the hearing. The public hearing gave people the opportunity to ask questions, call witnesses and present research. Mihalchick will compile all the information and testimony from the hearing, and he’ll then present that information to the PUC.
The PUC will review the information before making a decision on the site permit and the certificate of need.
The PUC could rule on the site permit and the certificate of need by late July or August.
Amy Wasson
After the PUC’s decision, Wasson said Safe Wind would shift its focus to the approval process for the transmission lines at the county level.
“It’s the only avenue we have left,” Wasson said.
“I think the setbacks are the biggest issue for Safe Wind,” she said.
“Because I think everyone realizes that we’re not going to be able to completely stop them,” Wasson added. “While we would like to, that’s just not realistic.”
The Minnesota Department of Health prepared a paper called Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines, and that was discussed at the hearing.
The paper did not give recommendations of what to do, and Troe said safe wind is not giving recommendations of what to do.
However, in her statements at the public hearing, Troe gave a condition of 1,500-foot setbacks, but she said that is more for aesthetics than for health.
According to Troe, there has been some research and papers written on the possible effects of these sounds, some which are inaudible to the human ear. She said some of the effects include lack of concentration, headaches, mood swings, chest problems, shortness or breath, tingling, fatigue and heart palpitations.
“What is the exact effect of these on people, on animals, pets, cattle, migratory birds? We don’t know the answers. And that’s the most frustrating thing is we really don’t know if there is a bad case,” Wasson said.
One of Safe Wind’s goals is to have a third party assist with the modeling, or the placing of the turbines in relation to homes. She said the independent group would add balance to the process.
“On setbacks, I think they need professional help. I’m not professional, and I’m not claiming to be professional. But I feel like I can read these studies and I can see that there is a need that Minnesota needs to look at this in different light. We need to investigate this. You don’t just let the turbine company or even the energy company do their own modeling,” Troe said.
One reason Troe and Safe Wind did not make any more specific recommendations at the hearing was because she said each turbine will be different based on placing and terrain, so it may be difficult to have a set standard.
For example, Troe said certain sound waves can be amplified or deadened by things like trees and hills.
“If you properly site a turbine they will all be different …” Troe said. “I’m not saying 15,000 feet is going to solve that problem.”
Troe said Safe Wind is not a group opposing wind energy or the building of wind turbines, the group is seeking proper setbacks from residences.
“We’re just for properly sited turbines,” Troe said.
With the PUC decision in the near future, Wasson is pleased with the efforts of Safe Wind.
“I feel as if we’ve done everything we possibly could, and if that’s not enough, than that’s just the way it was supposed to be,” Wasson said. “We really feel like we went down every road and checked out every avenue that we possibly could in order to make this a project that’s going to be safe for the people that have to live under and near it.”
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by ErnieGann (anonymous) on July 13, 2009 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good for Safe Wind!
It isn't reasonable to stop all growth--but they have worked hard to mitigate the issues affecting homeowners. Assuming the 1500' setbacks are followed, the only issues left are the visual blot upon the landscape, the diminished value of rural homes, and the transmission lines.
Yes, there is a million dollars a year coming into the county coffers, but the value of the homeowner's property is also diminished--without compensation.
In Massachusetts, the Kennedy family has successfully kept wind generators from being installed in the ocean, as it blocks their view. Too bad the local affected homeowners aren't Kennedy's.
It would help if the affected homowners had lower electric bills--but the electricity generated here will be exported to Wisconsin.
As a final insult, homeowners will be affected by 35 miles of high-voltage power lines built right on top of them--again, without compensation.
The practical solution is not to prohibit building the towers and lines--but to force the utilities to buy the affected property. Any OTHER similar use without compensation is considered a TAKING. Airports, for example, either have to buy affected property, or insulate it. Why are the electric companies able to TAKE rural property without compensation?
Posted by allake (anonymous) on July 13, 2009 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not new to Minnesota. Anyone driven to Mower County in the few years. The ones in Dexter have been up for four years now? Then there are the turbines on the Buffalo Ridge.
I don't know how you could build a transmission line without compensating the land owners. Unless they are using existing right of way?
Ernie, you seem to be concerned about the cost of electricity. But you are shooting at the wrong people. The utility companies are being forced to generate power this way by regulations passed by our elected officials. Now you want them to buy all the land, who do you think would pay that bill?
Posted by ErnieGann (anonymous) on July 14, 2009 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, I'm concerned about the cost of electricity--but if you re-read the post, I'm more concerned with the diminished value of the homeowners land--without compensation. It doesn't affect me directly--I will be about 1 mile from the nearest tower--but a lot of my neighbors don't want these things in their windows--or their associated power lines. Their home values ARE diminished with a spoiled view.
If government is going to get involved by mandating that power companies produce power from something that is not economically viable without government subsidies, then should government not compensate those who are affected? That's the problem when government attempts to rule by fiat.
I sympathize with the power companies--and as a co-op customer, it DOES directly affect my utility rates. Contrary to assertions, wind power is NOT "free." As taxpayers, we subsidize the wind farms. As electric consumers, we pay higher rates for the electricity government mandates that we buy from the towers. We also pay higher rates because the co-ops have to build large PEAKING PLANTS to generate power when the wind doesn't blow. Finally, as natural gas customers, our rates are higher for natural gas--the preferred fuel for those peaking plants.
Some studies referenced by our local electric co-op show that if the Waxman bill is passed (to include energy taxes) that the energy bill for the average family will go up by $1500. Most of that is taxes and subsidies--if Waxman and company REALLY want to do something about energy, can you imagine what a $1500 a year credit for heat pumps and efficient appliances would do? Putting the money directly in the hands of the consumers would be FAR and away more efficient than giving it to the government.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
The Tribune encourages healthy, respectful dialogue in the spirit of community enlightenment. It's OK to disagree, but be courteous and civil. Name-calling, vulgarity and claims of criminality are subject to removal.
(Requires free registration.)