Author Archives: Rob Danielson

Problem with wind energy: vacated homes linked to wind turbine nuisance 

By Frank Jablonski, March 13, 2026

I am a lawyer (please keep reading anyway) with a long history in energy law. I recently finished an intriguing case involving wind turbines. I am creating this – my first Substack Post – to share what I learned, because I was surprised. You may be too.

Here’s the TL;DR: when operating exactly as designed and planned, modern, industrial-scale wind power plants will lead to people vacating their homes, and some of them are likely driven out by impacts to their balance system that occur because of how modern wind turbines (ever larger and more powerful, with slow-moving blades) operate.

Vacated homes linked to wind turbine nuisances are a worldwide phenomenon. Some examples:

  • Waubra Wind Farm (Victoria, Australia): Eleven homes within ~1.5 km were vacated, citing turbines as the cause.
  • Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm (Victoria, Australia): Homes were vacated based on reports of ringing ears, heart racing, and vibration.
  • Fontrieu / Margnès (Tarn, France): A lawsuit was brought by displaced homeowners, citing headaches, insomnia, dizziness, tinnitus, nausea and heart irregularities. Homeowners won. The Court recognized wind turbines as the cause of their symptoms.
  • Ontario, Canada: Multiple, peer-reviewed published articles reviewed for the reasons people gave for vacating their homes near industrial wind facilities.
  • Shirley Wind (Wisconsin): Vacated homes were linked to very low frequency pressure pulses. The Board of Health for Brown County – the location of the wind farm – designated the wind farm a “human health hazard.” The Board has not repudiated the designation.
  • Red Barn Wind Farm. Multiple complaints and at least one home vacated long term based on “nauseogenic” complaints.

Unless they are directly displaced for land to build the facility, homeowners are rarely driven to vacate their homes when nearby energy production equipment operates exactly as designed. But with modern wind turbines, it happens regularly.

Spiked Pressure Pulses

Many people who vacate homes near industrial wind facilities cite obvious nuisances such as audible noise and shadow flicker from turbine blades casting repeated transient shadows.

Others, including the women identified in the last two bullet points above – leave their homes indicating that they experience nausea and vertigo when turbines are operating, even when they can neither see the turbines nor hear their audible noise.

Research has linked such symptoms to a phenomenon that audiologist Jerry Punch, PhD, a Michigan State University Professor Emeritus, has labeled “spiked pressure pulses” or “SPPs.” SPPs are the high-amplitude spikes in air pressure that occur when rotating turbine blades pass the wind turbine tower. These high-amplitude pressure changes can be readily detected and graphically displayed as transient spikes that stand out prominently against the overall acoustic energy produced by wind turbines.

Though SPPs are co-created along with higher-frequency pressure changes that create audible sounds – the “whoosh” you hear if you are close enough to hear rotating blades passing the turbine tower – they are not the same. You can’t hear SPPs.

Like all sound, SPPs are acoustic energy – mechanical air pressure waves that travel through the air – but we cannot hear SPPs because they occur outside the sound wave frequencies that people can hear. Like a dog whistle – but at the opposite end of the frequency spectrum (1).

The sounds from wind turbines that occur at audible frequencies can be analogized to ripples on water. These audible sound waves scatter, lose energy quickly (2), and are easily disrupted, broken up or blocked by obstacles. As they weaken, they become indistinguishable from the many other sounds that occur in the same frequency range.

By way of contrast, SPPs are like large swells in water; they lose little energy to obstacles, and they continue for a long distance. Though not recognized as audible sound, SPPs impact the motion-detection sensors in our inner ears. Motion detection is critical to your sense of balance and movement. Your motion-detection equipment conveys to your brain whether you are in motion (or not) and whether you are balanced (or not).

The balance system

Although we may consider our ears to be only hearing organs, they have another critical job: helping us maintain balance. Tiny fluid-filled sacs in the inner ear act like exquisitely sensitive motion sensors. Your brain combines information from these motion sensors with information from position sensors in muscles, joints, tendons and skin (3), as well as information from your eyes. You can literally watch a baby developing its balance system in real time as it learns to move, sit up without falling over, crawl, stand, walk, and climb, etc.

As you build and train your balance system, the patterns it encounters evolve into automatic predictions – so your balance system is aware that the signals from each of the three main input mechanisms should be aligned. When the motion sensors in your ears sense motion, your eyes will see motion and the position sensing system in other parts of your body will align with the visual and motion-sensor signals.

When signals do not match up as expected, your brain alerts you that “something is wrong” because there is a sensory conflict. Your body reacts with physiological symptoms like dizziness, vertigo, motion sickness, disorientation, nausea, and unease.

Here is an example from my life; my guess is many people may have had similar experiences.

Our small office building is on a corner at the base of an incline. On weekends, I often park out front on the street, facing downhill. Other people park on the same side of the street behind me because I often manage to get the last legal parking space before the corner. I was in the car one Saturday, strapped in and ready to go home, getting ready to put the car in gear with my foot on the brake. I went to make one last check of my rear-view mirror. When I looked my eyes told me I was already pulling away from the car behind me.

But my foot was on the brake. The car was not in gear. My body awareness and the motion sensor system in my ears told me I was standing still. At that moment I felt all the symptoms: dizziness, disorientation, nausea and unease, as well as a quickly rising emotional panic over what was happening. What’s the deal with the car? Was I uncontrollably rolling down the incline into the intersection ahead of me?

My internal motion sensor and my body awareness system turned out to be right: I was not moving.

But I perceived that I must be moving because my glance in the rear-view mirror showed me that my car and the car parked behind were moving apart. It turns out the car behind me was backing up. But since I expected that the car behind me was parked and stationary – an expectation based on decades of driving away from parked cars – my eye-brain system told me that my car was moving while my motion-sensor and body awareness system told me I was stationary. The mismatch, or conflict, triggered the symptoms.

Bad Vibrations

SPPs, like all sound (whether you can hear it or not), come from, and with, vibration or oscillation (4). They can cause motion sickness by introducing vibration to the body’s motion sensor, putting it out-of-sync with the other parts of the balance system. Some people are far more sensitive than others.

When the motion sensors in vulnerable peoples’ ears feel the impact of SPPs, “parts of the brain other than the primary auditory cortex become active and the signals are perceived as something other than sound” (5). Because SPPs vibrate at a frequency perceived by the motion-sensor (“vestibular”) component of the balance system, SPPs trigger a response that corresponds to the response triggered by other comparably low-frequency vibrations. Science fully accepts that “oscillatory motion” affecting the body’s motion-sensor (the “vestibular system”) causes “motion sickness.” (ISO 9996: 1996, pp. iii [Introduction], 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 [see endnote 6]).

As with motion sickness on boats or airplanes, not everyone gets sick. People vary in how the inputs to their balance system interact. People have different thresholds of amplitude at which they experience symptoms. “[A]bout 5% to 10% of the population is extremely sensitive to motion sickness; 5% to 15% are relatively insensitive; and about 75% are only subject to it to a ‘normal,’ i.e., limited degree” (7).

Women are at greater risk for the same reasons that they are more susceptible to motion sickness (8). The final two items in the bullet list at the beginning of this post involve homes vacated because women trying to live in them were debilitated by SPPs.

The Shirley Wind Study.

The influence of SPPs has been recognized for about 15 years. People began reporting “motion sickness” type symptoms when wind turbines, in the first decade of this century, became large enough to generate pressure pulses at less than 1 Hz (longer blades on taller towers rotate more slowly).

People vacating their homes near the Shirley Wind project in Northeast Wisconsin, not far from Green Bay, led the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin to commission a study (9) by four consulting firms. Two of the four firms had income streams from assisting wind development projects. One had worked almost exclusively with wind project opponents. One had worked about equally with proponents and opponents. None of the experts involved in the study was categorically opposed to wind projects.

The consensus of all four firms (10) was that that the issue of very low-frequency infrasound (the pulses later designated “SPPs” by Dr. Punch) needed urgent attention:

The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN (11) and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry. It should be addressed beyond the present practice of showing that wind turbine levels are magnitudes below the threshold of hearing at low frequencies.

(See: 2012 A Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and Infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin PDF: p. 18; internal pagination, p. 7.)

One of the researchers explained further in an appendix:

Nausea was experienced and nauseogenicity is indicated. (See: id.: PDF p. 14; internal pagination of Appendix C, p. 3.)

A nauseogenic factor is presentNaval, aviation and other research has established human sensitivity to motion producing nausea. While mechanism for motion sickness is not well understood, “theories all describe the cause of motion sickness via the same proposition: that the vestibular apparatus within the inner ear provides the brain with information about self motion that does not match the sensations of motion generated by visual or kinesthetic (proprioceptive) systems, or what is expected from previous experience”. The range of motion nauseogenicity has been measured at 0.1 to 0.7 Hz and with a maximum nauseogenic potential at 0.2 Hz (see Figure 1).

(See: id., PDF: p. 17; internal pagination of Appendix C, p. 6; bolding and italics in original.)

The correlations to nauseogenicity at the 2.5MW power rating and size suggest worsening effects as larger, slower-rotating wind turbines are sited near people.

(See: id., PDF: p. 19; internal pagination of Appendix C, p. 8.) The four firms jointly recommended “additional study on an urgent priority basis.” (See: id. PDF: p. 8; internal pagination, p. 7.)

Regulatory and Industry Reaction

Reacting to health impacts that primarily affect women, the wind industry has responded with what I would characterize as “gaslighting.” Commissions notionally charged with regulating the industry (I will write later about the “revolving door” between “regulators” and the electrical industry) have limited their regulations to audible noise.

The industry argues that people experiencing powerful and debilitating physical effects that arise only when wind turbines – that they can neither see nor hear – are suffering from a “nocebo” effect, i.e., they are consciously or subconsciously generating their symptoms based on expectations derived from things they have read or heard about and that are emotionally fueled by their desire to not have the wind turbines around. The explanation presumes people vacate their homes, take on multiple mortgages to get another place to live, or move from comfortable homes into campers because they prefer battling multi-billion-dollar wind turbine companies over their usual life activities.

The “nocebo” explanation fails. Here’s why:

First, across the world people [and other animals —NWW] suffer the same symptoms with no foreknowledge that others have experienced the same effects.

Second, people who are sensitive to SPPs experience symptoms that correspond to wind turbine operation when they have no visual or audible exposure to wind turbines, and no knowledge – other than through their symptoms – that turbines may be operating.

Third, Dr. Punch’s analysis aligns with known mechanisms of causation: i) consensus science, embodied in international standards, recognizes that vibrations at less than 1 Hz trigger perceptions of movement in the body’s motion-sensor; ii) a foundational scientific insight into the human balance system recognizes that a disconnect between what is perceived by the motion-sensing system and the other components of the balance system can cause motion sickness symptoms; iii) contemporary wind turbines produce pulses in the < 1 Hz “nauseogenic” range; iv) SPPS have been (and are being) measured in vacated homes; and v) people sensitive to the pulses have both reported, and been observed to experience, debilitating motion sickness when exposed – even when they can neither see nor hear the wind turbines.

Fourth, the industry and their allies among regulators and wind energy advocates seem to be going to great lengths to evade, instead of address, the issue.

  • The operator of the Shirley Wind farm agreed to suspend operation so that the Shirley Wind report authors could run a controlled experiment to determine whether “blinded” persons would suffer symptoms that they could link to wind turbine operations that the “subjects” of the experiment could neither see nor hear. This provided the industry a golden opportunity to prove that the symptoms were nothing more than the “nocebo” effect. The operators of Shirley Wind backed out of the arrangement.
  • The unanimous recommendation of the Shirley Wind researchers, who jointly called for additional controlled independent research to confirm or falsify the link between very low-frequency pulses and adverse health effects, was ignored. The regulators instead, shortly thereafter, adopted regulatory standards that address only audible sound, entirely ignoring the body’s motion-detecting (vestibular) system, motion sickness, and the issue of sensory conflict.

Fifth, as much as people dislike having energy infrastructure nearby, no other method of generating electricity is documented to lead to people regularly deciding, often at great cost, to take extreme measures, such as vacating their homes, to escape the effects of an electricity generation facility when it is operating exactly as designed. Neither solar, nuclear, coal, hydro, nor natural gas have wind energy’s record of driving people from their homes.

The evidence from recorded data, international standards, scientific knowledge of how very low Hz pulses affect the balance system, the records of people vacating their homes, and industry evasion, all point to a real issue that is not going away, and that is likely to become more prominent with construction of larger wind turbines with slow turning blades that produce SPPs.

—Frank Jabolonski, energiepolitique, March 9, 2026


Sources and Notes

  1. Dog whistles create sound at frequencies greater than 20,000 Hz while SPPs occur at frequencies of 1 Hz or lower. Dogs hear dog whistles the same way we hear regular sound because their “filter” for audibility is different. Conversely, some sounds that we can hear, dogs cannot. If dogs were able to assign labels to those sounds, they might call them “human whistles.”
  2. “LFN” refers to “Low Frequency Noise.” The term “Spiked Pressure Pulses” was developed by Dr. Punch to reference the specific low frequency range of concern.
  3. The body awareness system (proprioception) is what enables you to touch your nose with your eyes closed.
  4. These are essentially the same thing. For example, the oscillatory or vibrational (back and forth) motion produced by plucking a guitar string – making it vibrate – creates a tonal vibration or oscillation in the air. Scientists tend to use the terms in different contexts.
  5. Direct Testimony of Dr. Jerry Punch, PhD, Dated 7/10/2025, p. 7.
  6. “ISO” (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies (ISO member bodies). The ISO “develops and publishes international standards in technical and nontechnical fields, including everything from manufactured products and technology to food safety, transport, IT, agriculture, and healthcare.” A theory to explain some physiological effects of the infrasonic emissions at some wind farm sites, Shomer, et al. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015 Mar;137(3):1356-65, citing Montavit (2014). “Motion sickness.”
  7. Bos JE, Damala D, Lewis C, Ganguly A, Turan O. Susceptibility to seasickness. Ergonomics. 2007 Jun;50(6):890-901.
    Koslucher F, Haaland E, Malsch A, Webeler J, Stoffregen TA. Sex Differences in the Incidence of Motion Sickness Induced by Linear Visual Oscillation. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2015 Sep;86(9):787-93.
    Park AH, Hu S. Gender differences in motion sickness history and susceptibility to optokinetic rotation-induced motion sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1999 Nov;70(11):1077-80.
  8. Report Number 122412-1 Issued: December 24, 2012 A Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and Infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin.
  9. “This team functioned very well together with a common goal, and found collectively a new understanding of significant very low frequency wind turbine acoustic components that correlated with operating conditions associated with an intolerable condition for neighbors.”
  10. “LFN” refers to “Low Frequency Noise.” The term “Spiked Pressure Pulses” was developed by Dr. Punch to reference the specific low frequency range of concern.

Badger Hollow Solar – Health Impact – Scoping Observations

Affected Landowner Comments Due Dec. 20, 2024. Instructions.

On November 21, 2024, the Public Service Commission and Department of Natural Resources of Wisconsin sent this IMPACT COMMENT OPPORTUNITY NOTICE to residents, local governments, counties, schools and other organizations that would be affected by the construction and operation of the 24.5 square mile, Badger Hollow wind power plant in the Towns of Clifton, Eden, Linden, Mifflin, Wingville, Lima and Belmont in Iowa, Grant and Lafayette Counties, Wisconsin.

“[T]he agencies are requesting comments from the public to help the state agencies determine the potential impacts associated with the project and the scope of the Environmental Assessment (EA). . . Comments for the EA scoping are most effective when they discuss:

Any potential human and environmental impacts of the proposed wind generation project; or

Any specific actions or changes to the proposed project that might minimize or mitigate the potential impacts of the project.

Impacted residents may find benefit in reviewing the following impact estimations from Invenergy’s commissioned, health-related analyses, Appendix Y-Noise; Appendix Z-Shadow Flicker; Appendix Y-EMF, and maps in Figure 4.1.2 and Figure 4.4.1 .

IMPORTANT UPDATE!! Due to determined project infrastructure layout changes in January 2025, the above referenced appendices and associated maps have been changed– particularly proposed and alternative wind turbine sites East of Livingston. See revised Appendixes U, H, Z, Y, X & L in the application docket, here. These changes affect some of the resident impacts listed in the below analyses.

  • ~370 Residents Predicted to Experience Audible Noise Under Quiet Conditions
  • Nauseogenic Illnesses from wind turbine air pulses documented up to distances of 4 miles (Vertigo, dizziness, headaches, nausea, tiredness, irritation, uneasiness and difficulties with concentration.
  • ~100 Residents predicted to be subject to at least 10 Shadow Flicker Hours per year with some residences undergoing 48 hours per year. Approximately 452 residencies would be subject to at least one minute of Shadow Flicker per year with a mean of 3 hours and 20 minutes per year.
  • ~22 miles of vegetation management on easements through Agricultural Fields, Pastures
  • 25 Stream Crossings
  • Electromagnetic Field Concerns From ~22 miles of buried 34,500 volt (34.5 kV) connection lines.

A. Click on the below map to open it in another window and zoom into it or, click on one of these links if you live in a village Invenergy has evaluated: Cobb, Livingston and Rewey. WRITE DOWN YOUR RESIDENT NUMBER (eg.”R-0018″). Iowa Grant High School residency numbers are R-1708 & R-1709


Click-on the two, below lists and search for your Resident/Farm number. If your house is not included, your exposure to audible wind turbine is probably at the lower range of concern.

56 Most Noise-Affected Residents

313 Additional Noise-Affected Residents


Refer to the 2-MIle and 4-Mile impact maps, below. Darker shaded areas reflect higher concentrations of air pulses– the extremely rapid changes in barometric air pressure that produce a variety of short and long-term health risks.

All persons are not subject to immediate negative impacts including, vertigo, dizziness, headaches, nausea, tiredness, irritation, uneasiness and difficulties to concentrate, but person who experience motion sicknesses frequently are. The slower blade rotations from the extremely large, 6.2 MW turbines are expected to increase health risks. Negative health impacts from the smaller, Red Barn turbines near Montfort/Livingston, have already been documented at a distance of 4 miles.

Affected schools, places of worship and assisted living/nursing home sites have been added to the 4 Mile radius impact map from Invenergy’s Figure 4.1.7.2. Iowa Grant High School residency numbers are R-1708 & R-1709


The experience of Shadow Flicker,  the effect of pulsating light and shadow is produced by the sun shining through rotating wind turbine blades. The developer proposing the Badger Hollow wind power plant has predicted the number of hours per year that residents in the impact area can expect to experience Shadow Flicker. A list of 234 farm/residential locations predicted to be subject to at least 5 hours of Shadow Flicker per year has been provided, below. One can also use one’s residence number and the below map to help assess one’s risk exposure. If you are not aware of the experience of Shadow Flicker, this video produced at a Wisconsin location provides useful documentation.


There is continuing controversy about how to test and predict EMF health impacts. Developers favor short-term sampling, lab-based modeling while medical findings incorporate long-term field/patient observations. As for potential EMF impacts with the Badger Hollow Wind proposal (BHW), it is important to note the lack of short and long-term studies of close to the surface, buried, 34.5 kV “connection” transmission lines. Invenergy’s study for BHW proposes to bury 1 to 5 circuits of these high voltage/high current lines only 4.5 feet below pastures, croplands and other areas– creating about 22 miles of 20-100 foot wide impact swaths. Further, the lab analysis suggests each of these connection line circuits would produce continuous EMF levels to 10 milliGauss– the level of radiation emitted by the average microwave oven at 2 feet.

In direct testimony filed before the Minnesota Public Utility Commission, Dr. David Carpenter accounts for, “strong scientific evidence that exposure to magnetic fields from power lines greater than 4 milliGauss (“mG”) is associated with an elevated risk of childhood leukemia” based on his epidemiological research including patient experiences. While communities await long-term field studies on buried 34.5 kV lines, Dr. Carpenter warns, “there is sufficient scientific evidence to cause concern about leukemia risks at [sustained] exposures above 2 mG.”

This PSC WI Publication has considerable info on EMH health studies and origins of epidemiological research.

The below graphic was made from data supplied in Invenergy’s commissioned EMF analysis for BHW.

All studies seem to agree that steady, close-range exposure to EMF is needed to produce higher end risks. Below is a list of BHW residency numbers with closer proximities to proposed, buried, 34.5 kV collection lines.

PSCW SCOPING COMMENT PROCESS

On November 21, 2024, the Public Service Commission and Department of Natural Resources of Wisconsin sent this COMMENT OPPORTUNITY NOTICE to residents affected by the Badger Hollow wind power plant proposal. The facility would install about 19, 656′ tall wind turbines and 22 miles of transmission lines with health and environmental impacts. Some of these negative impacts been estimated and are accessible in Invenergy’s commissioned studies: Appendix Y-Noise; Appendix Z-Shadow Flicker; Appendix W-EMF, and maps in Figure 4.1.2 and Figure 4.4.1 .

  • ~370 Residents Predicted to Experience Audible Noise Under Quiet Conditions
  • Nauseogenic Illnesses from wind turbine air pulses documented up to distances of 4 miles (Vertigo, dizziness, headaches, nausea, tiredness, irritation, uneasiness and difficulties with concentration.
  • ~100 Residents predicted to be subject to at least 10 Shadow Flicker Hours per year with some residences undergoing 48 hours per year. Approximately 452 residencies would be subject to at least one minute of Shadow Flicker per year with a mean of 3 hours and 20 minutes per year.
  • ~22 miles of vegetation management on easements through Agricultural Fields, Pastures
  • 25 Stream Crossings
  • Electromagnetic Field Concerns From 22 miles of buried transmission lines.

The PSC Notice Explains:

“[T]he agencies are requesting comments from the public to help the state agencies determine the potential impacts associated with the project. . . Comments for the EA scoping are most effective when they discuss:

Any potential human and environmental impacts of the proposed wind generation project; or

Any specific actions or changes to the proposed project that might minimize or mitigate the potential impacts of the project.

Notes: (A) One can file comments with text and inserted images using a writing program and exported as a “PDF” document. The PDF is up-loaded to the case docket by creating an PSC account and following these document uploading steps . Make sure the file is uploaded to the docket before the published deadline. (B) Questions about scoping process and how to find topics can be directed to: Olivia Poelmann, Badger Hollow Wind Environment Assessment Coordinator at olivia.poelmann@wisconsin.gov or via phone, (608) 266-5528.

Social Media in SW Wisconsin

Facebook – Mineral Point Community Area Networkhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/mineralpoint
Facebook – Platteville(p-Vegas) Discussionshttps://www.facebook.com/groups/1531963103701922
Facebook- Platteville Community Discussinshttps://www.facebook.com/groups/2808306906054863
Facebook- Things of Interest in Platteville WIhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/823529311017954
Facebook – Farmland Firsthttps://www.facebook.com/groups/753332106385192
Facebook – No-Uplands Wind Discussion Grouphttps://www.facebook.com/groups/nouplandswind
Facebook- Driftless Area 2.0https://www.facebook.com/groups/244866936414539
Facebook – You Know you are from Richland Center if,..https://www.facebook.com/groups/105303082902635
Facebook – Southwest Wisconsin Trout Fishinghttps://www.facebook.com/groups/599214096877180
YouTube Mysteries of the Driftless – The Documentaryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn_DOPumFkU

Contact Info for Southwest Wisconsin Daily & Community Newspapers

NEWSPAPERCITYEDITOR(S)EMAILPHONE
The Platteville JournalPlattevilleSteve Prestegardeditor@theplattevillejournal.com
Grant County Herald IndependentLancasterDavid Timmermannewseditor@tds.net
LaCrosse TribuneLa CrosseTodd Krysiakhttps://lacrossetribune.com/forms/contact/letter_to_the_editor/
online form
Telegraph HeraldDubuqueAmy Gilligan, Chair
Mike Fortman
Allie Hinga
Letters to the Editorthletters@thmedia.com
Wisconsin State JournalMadisonKelly Lecker, Exec. Editorklecker@madison.com
The Capital TimesMadisonSteven Elbowselbow@captimes.com608-252-6430
The Dodgeville ChronicleDodgevilleMike & Pat Reillynews@thedodgevillechronicle.com
Republican JournalDarlingtonKayla Barneseditor@myrjonline.com
Mt. Horeb MailMt. HorebMatt Geigermgeiger@newspubinc.com
Fennimore TimesFennimoreJason Nilestimeseditor@tds.net
Home NewsSpring GreenLinda Schwankehomenewseditor@newspubinc.com
The Richland ObserverRichland CenterMatt Johnsoneditor@richlandobserver.net
The Boscobel DialBoscobelJoe Hartdialeditor@boscobeldial.net
Prepared by Gina Metelica, August 2, 2024

https://bit.ly/Newspapers-SW-WI

Pending WISCONSIN WIND SITING COUNCIL findings must account for impacts of significantly larger wind turbines.

Click on above image or here for table with projects and calculations of the averages.

In 2009, The Wisconsin Wind Siting Council was established in state law WI ACT 40 for these purposes and terms:

196.378(4g)(e)  The Wind Siting Council shall survey the peer-reviewed scientific research regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems and study state and national regulatory developments regarding the siting of wind energy systems. No later than October 1, 2014, and every 5 years thereafter, the wind siting council shall submit a report to the chief clerk of each house of the legislature, for distribution to the appropriate standing committees under s. 13.172 (3), describing the research and regulatory developments and including any recommendations of the council for legislation that is based on the research and regulatory developments.

Despite a steady increase in pending wind power plant proposals including a 600 MW, ~400 square mile plant in SW Wisconsin that would be 3.7 times larger than any prior state wind facility, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin failed to convene the Wind Siting Council by the legislation-specified, “no later” date of October 1, 2019.  

Above map/list of proposed Wind Power Plants was obtained from MISO’s interactive map on Mar 18, 2024. If approved by the PSC or county subdivisions, these plant additions totaling 1,157 MW would increase Wind Generation in Wisconsin 60% (787 MW Existing).

The quasi-Council that the Commission marshaled and charged with duties four years late (in July, 2023), failed to include required membership. Most glaringly, the body charged with recommending needed changes in Chapter PSC 128 regulating state wind power plants lacked the expert essential for council assessment of “peer-reviewed scientific research regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems,” which law designates:

One member who is a University of Wisconsin System faculty member with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems .

Wis. Chapter 15.797

Unfortunately, the Commission has, instead, tried substituting faculty persons with no health or medical backgrounds. As a result, when Council members make motions to introduce studies, articles and other considerations of health and safety impacts not acknowledged in 2014, there is no expert on the Council with professional reputation at risk or professional avenues to pursue to conduct basic business such as:

  • Answer questions posed by council members
  • Make researched, clarifications about study findings
  • Proof read PSC staff accounts of medical studies beyond their expertise
    • Move the consideration of impacts from the much larger and more powerful turbines forward.

The detrimental impact on the Council can no longer be pushed aside.

In 2023 the US Department of Energy released an agency-sponsored study accounting for larger setback distances in use with popularly used, larger, wind turbines ranging from 3.2 to 5.8 MW. Council members did not become aware of this extremely rare report until an arbitrary deadline for study submission had passed. Rather than make accommodations to insert this single report pertaining to vastly changed technologies, Wind industry appointees and members in broad support of wind development voted to reject inclusion of the study on mere basis of late submission by narrow margin.

If, at the end of a thorough process, no changes in PSC 128 setback distances or other protections are made, the council, the legislature and the citizens of Wisconsin have lost nothing by the delayed report. But rather than pausing and finding a way to meet the legislative requirements, recent minutes indicate that the Council Chair is hurrying to “finalize the report, in total, for April [2024].”

Consistent with verbal accounts of Council members representing landowner and community interests, an agenda item addressing the newer, more powerful and taller wind turbines being proposed in Wisconsin has yet to be scheduled.

If submitted in April, the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council’s report to the state legislature report would unacceptably lack:

  • Input from a medical professional with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems.
  • Informed acknowledgment of, not to mention appropriate regulation for the much larger and more powerful wind turbines being presently proposed in Wisconsin.
  • Incorporation of the US Department of Energy’s sponsored study concerning much larger setbacks being used to meet acoustic noise standards set for much smaller wind turbines
  • Incorporation of fundamental infrasound data for the larger turbines.
  • Studies the Council has not yet considered taking up in their impactful decision making included:  

Effects of land-based wind turbine upsizing on community sound levels and power and energy density, Ben Hoen, Ryan Darlow, Ryan Haac, Joseph Rand, Ken Kaliski, January 2023 

Symptoms intuitively associated with wind turbine infrasound, Anu W. Turunen, Pekka Tiittanen, Tarja Yli-Tuomi, Pekka Taimisto, Timo Lanki, 2021

Does Stochastic and Modulated Wind Turbine Infrasound Affect Human Mental Performance Compared to Steady Signals without Modulation? Results of a Pilot Study, Paweł Małecki, Małgorzata Pawlaczyk-Łuszczynska, Tadeusz Wszołek, Anna Preis, Maciej Kłaczynski, Adam Dudarewicz, Paweł Pawlik, Bartłomiej Stepien ́and Dominik Mleczko,  2023

Health Effects Related to Wind Turbine Sound: An Update, Irene van Kamp and Frits van den Berg, 2021

Self-reported health in the vicinity of five wind power production areas in Finland, 
Anu W. Turunen, Pekka Tiittanen, Tarja Yli-Tuomi, Pekka Taimisto, Timo Lanki, 2021

Commercial wind turbines and residential home values: New evidence from the universe of land-based wind projects in the United States, 
Eric J. Brunner, Ben Hoen, Joe Rand, David Schwegman, 2023

Property value impacts of commercial-scale solar energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 
Vasundhara Gaur and Corey Lang, Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics University of Rhode Island, 2021 

Visualizing Occupied Dwelling Impact Differences between Wisconsin’s 2014, 1250′ setback and the 2023 NREL-Sponsored Study’s Assumed 4,560′ setback distance for 3.4 MW Turbines.

APPROXIMATELY 392 DWELLINGS LOCATED WITHIN 1 MILE OF WIND TURBINES WOULD BECOME SUBJECT TO INFRASOUND IMPACTS PRODUCING HEALTH RISKS FOR A PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTS. (Dwelling figures ascertained from Project “Setback” Maps on pdf pages 63, 65 & 67 in the Whitetail Wind Application)/

  • A MAY, 2023 STUDY SPONSORED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RECOMMENDS AN AVERAGE SETBACK DISTANCE OF 4,560 FEET (BEIGE AREAS) FOR WIND TURBINES LIKE THOSE PROPOSED BY THE MERCHANT UTILITY DEVELOPER TO SURROUNDING LIVINGSTON, WISCONSIN.* The 3.7 greater distance compared to the 1250’ used by the developer significantly reduces exposure to sound and “SPL related requirements.” The discouraged beige impact areas include about 390 dwellings and most of the Village. *The specified GE 3.4-140 turbines align with the 1.39 km average setback for the “Future with STE” scenario. See “Effects of land-based wind turbine upsizing on community sound levels and power and energy density,” by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Ben Hoen, Ryan Darlow, Ryan Haac, Joseph Rand and Ken Kaliski. May, 2023. Accessible at: https://bit.ly/4560ft .

LANDOWNERS: Signing “Good Neighbor” Agreements May Provide Critical Easements for Massive “Uplands Wind” Project

Map detailing some of the critical infrastructure announced by Pattern in September, 2023 for their proposed 600 MW ‘Uplands” wind power plant. The facility impacting an area of approximately 400 square miles viewable from the outskirts of Madison to the Mississippi River would be the largest wind facility in Wisconsin and among the largest in the United States. Unlike facilities Wisconsinites are accustom to, the massive plant would host about 150, super-scale turbines as high as 650′ feet, more than 40 miles of 120′-180′ high 345 kV High Voltage Transmission lines as well as hundreds of miles of 34.5 kV “connection’ transmission lines. Pattern is aggressively seeking landowners to sign easement/access contracts for lacking critical transmission components under the misleading description of a “Good Neighbor” agreement.
Under Wisconsin’s out-of date wind turbine siting codes (PSC 128), newer, much larger wind turbines can still be located as little as 1250′ from an occupied dwelling exposing persons to impacts on a nearly continuous basis.

Informed landowners in Iowa, Grant and Lafayette Counties have the option to consider working together to prevent some industrial-scale wind turbines from being included.

Each of the approximately 150 wind turbines in the Uplands power plant must be connected to expansive transmission networks comprised of dozens of 34,500 volt high voltage “connector lines. These lines that can be buried or carried on poles hold considerably more power than the existing distribution lines in the area.

As diagramed below, wind power plants require a large number of high voltage “Collection” lines that converge at Project Substations. The power from the Uplands Project Substations would then be transported through 41 miles of large-scale, high voltage, 345 kV transmission “Tie Lines” similar to the recently constructed and highly controversial Cardinal Hickory Creek (CHC) Transmission line. But unlike CHC, most of the 345 kV Tie Lines and 34.5 kV Connector Lines for Uplands would not follow pathways of existing transmission but rather new swaths across the properties of landowners who grant easements through “good neighbor” or other contracts.

When landowners choose to not provide access for these transmission facilities, it stands discourage the inclusion of nearby wind turbines or even more infrastructure.

Pattern, Again, Disregards State Codes and Critical Public Interests in PSC filing.

PSC Required Map of ALL Wind System components found to be incomplete and potentially misleading.


[Below filing from the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Docket 9300-WF-2023, by Ben Hoffman, October 3, 2023.]

Subject: Docket ID: 9300-WF-2023
Required Notices and Filings under Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 Related to Wind Siting for CY 2023 PSC REF # 480525

Uplands Wind LLC (Pattern Energy) submitted a 180 day Pre-Application Notice for the proposed Uplands Wind Project on September 27th 2023. The project, proposed to be located in the Wisconsin Counties of Iowa, Lafayette, and Grant, is a 600-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility requiring a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) under Wis. Stat. § 196.491 (3). Having proposed turbine heights greater than 600 feet, Pattern Energy is required to submit this Pre-Application Notice in order to comply with state law.

  • –  Per Wis. Admin. Code PSC 128.01 (26), “Wind Energy System Facility” is defined as: “any component of a wind energy system, such as a wind turbine, collector circuit, access road, electric system interconnection facility or operation and maintenance facility.”
  • –  Per Wis. Admin. Code PSC 128.105 (2) (b), the owner of a Wind Energy System is required to include “a map showing the planned location of all wind energy system facilities” with their 180 Day Pre-Application Notice.The map included in Pattern Energy’s 180 Day Pre-Application Notice (PSC REF # 480525) does not show the planned location of all wind energy system facilities, and therefore does not satisfy the legal requirements outlined in Wis. Admin. Code PSC 128.105 (2) (b). There are numerous omissions and inaccuracies on the map, but of particular importance:
  1. 21 of the 145 “Wind Turbine Locations” on the map have no Collector Circuit lines, which means they are not connected to the overall project/grid.
  2. At least 50-75% of the “Wind Turbine Locations” on the map have “Access Roads” that do not connect to any identifiable or named public road, which makes it impossible to identify what the access road connects to.
  3. Up to 10 of the “Wind Turbine Locations” have no access roads identified at all.
  4. The map is missing key road names that are necessary access points for the operation of the proposed Wind Energy System Facilities.
  5. At least one (possibly two) of the “Wind Turbine Locations” on the map are located inside designated State of Wisconsin Wildlife Areas that cannot possibly be used for this project given that the land was purchased using State and Federal Stewardship funds that does not permit any type of industrial or commercial use of the land.

It is important to note that this is the second Pre-Application Notice filed for this project by Pattern Energy. On August 11th, 2023, Pattern Energy filed a Pre-Application Notice (PSC REF # 475068) that was embarrassingly incomplete. Fortunately, concerned citizens [Kurt, Zemlicka] recognized this and submitted correspondence to the PSC highlighting the obvious lack of detail in that original filing. It took Pattern Energy just 49 days to file their new/second Pre-Application Notice, which – as outlined above – is still incredibly incomplete and inaccurate.

It is also important to note that Pattern is not the first developer to navigate the approval process in our State. There are numerous other developers that have complied with state law by providing accurate and detailed maps of their proposed wind energy system facilities and were successful in their applications. These projects serve as templates, providing a reliable precedent for what a developer is required to provide during the approval process. It is alarming that Pattern Energy did not feel the need to utilize that information not just once, but twice, in their Pre-Application Notice filings.

The fact that Pattern Energy felt it was necessary to file a second Pre-Application Notice means they acknowledge their first filing did not satisfy state requirements. This second incomplete and inaccurate filing by Pattern Energy supports that this is no longer an “error” on their part as they navigate the approval process – especially since there are many successful wind project applications in our state that can be used as reference. At worst, Pattern’s filings are a blatant disregard for the law. At best, it shows their dishonest business practices and total disregard for the public as they attempt to push this project through. Given Pattern Energy’s track record of submitting incomplete and inaccurate filings, additional scrutiny by state officials and citizens is warranted when reviewing any additional filings by Pattern Energy related to this proposed project.

Due to both Pattern Energy’s Pre-Application Notices (PSC REF #480525 and #475068) omitting essential wind energy system facilities from their map, the 180-day time period prior to application should not commence until the map is updated and fully complies with Wis. Admin. Code PSC 128.105 (2) (b). Proceeding without this information deprives citizens and political subdivisions of their opportunity to defend their substantial interests – most importantly, their health and safety – and therefore deprives them of their due process rights.

Respectfully,

Ben Hoffman
Muskego, WI

GRANT CO. SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING WHITETAIL WIND TURBINES IN TOWNS OF WINGVILLE, CLIFTON & VILLAGE OF LIVINGSTON, GRANT CO. WISCONSIN THROUGH JUNE 27, 2023

On July 6, 2023 The Grant County Conservation, Sanitation and Zoning Committee will meet to assess developer ALLETE Clean Energy’s APPLICATION request to build a 19.9 square mile wind power plant (12,793 acres) with industrial scale turbines reaching as high as 665′ impacting more than 400 occupied dwellings in eastern Grant County.

The proposed, 70 Megawatt plant would make the seventh wind power plant aimed at a 600 square mile, three county utility district in Southwest Wisconsin.

Click on Map for greater detail.

The Conservation, Sanitation and Zoning Committee will read and consider written comments and suggestions about the proposal if submitted by June 27th to Erik Heagle, 150 West Alona Lane, Suite #1 Lancaster, WI 53813 or emailed to erik.heagle@wi.nacdnet.net (Start email with introduction).

Following are some project factors determined from Allete’s 62 MB Application that may not be immediately apparent about the proposal:

  • A MAY, 2023 STUDY SPONSORED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RECOMMENDS AN AVERAGE SETBACK DISTANCE OF 4,560 FEET (BEIGE AREAS) FOR WIND TURBINES LIKE THOSE PROPOSED BY THE MERCHANT UTILITY DEVELOPER TO SURROUNDING LIVINGSTON, WISCONSIN.* The 3.7 greater distance compared to the 1250’ used by the developer significantly reduces exposure to sound and “SPL related requirements.” The discouraged beige impact areas include about 390 dwellings and most of the Village. *The specified GE 3.4-140 turbines align with the 1.39 km average setback for the “Future with STE” scenario. See “Effects of land-based wind turbine upsizing on community sound levels and power and energy density,” by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Ben Hoen, Ryan Darlow, Ryan Haac, Joseph Rand and Ken Kaliski. May, 2023. Accessible at: https://bit.ly/4560ft

  • OF THESE AFFECTED DWELLINGS, MORE THAN 60 WOULD EXPERIENCE FROM 10 TO 90 HOURS OF TURBINE SHADOW FLICKER IMPACTS PER YEAR.
  • THE APPLICATION CONTAINS NO MENTION OR ACCOUNTABILITY OF HEALTH DANGERS PRESENTED BY THE DOCUMENTED PHENOMENON OF “ICE THROW.” STUDIES SHOW THAT THE ICE FROM SHEETS THAT BUILDS-UP ON TURBINE BLADES UNDER THE RIGHT CONDITIONS CAN BE LAUNCHED DISTANCES AS GREAT AS 500-1700′. THE LATER DISTANCE, ESTIMATED BY PROF. TERRY MATILSKY OF RUTGERS UNIVERSITY FOR TURBINES MUCH SMALLER THAN THOSE BEING PROPOSED, IS CONSIDERABLY GREATER THAN THE 1250′ SETBACK DISTANCE THAT WISCONSIN LAW ALLOWS ALLETE TO BUILD TURBINES FROM OCCUPIED DWELLINGS AND OTHER EXTERIOR EXPOSURES CREATED BY WORK AND OTHER ACTIVITIES.

Public Invited to View “Red Barn” Wind Turbine Connection Line Damage, April-2023

Letter to the Editor From Dodgeville Chronicle, April 20, 2023:

On a windy day with gusts in the 25 mph range, one can also assess audible sound impacts. Drive west of Montfort, WI on Highway 18 to the last two Red Barn industrial Wind Turbines (circled in white on below map). Turn South on Annaton Road and park off the road between the two turbines. Both of these IWTs are located about1250 ft from the road- the allowable setback distance from residents in Wisconsin under out of date code. Many states have increased setbacks to one mile or further.

This is an excellent excursion to for anyone unfamiliar with the size and impacts of modern day Industrial Wind Turbines. Red Barn turbines are approximately 550 feet high, 100 feet shorter than the 650′ systems being proposed.