Category Archives: Uncategorized

LANDOWNER AND ELECTED OFFICIAL OPTIONS CONCERNING THE UPLANDS & BADGER HOLLOW WIND POWER PLANT PROPOSALS

The below maps show land parcels under contract for potential wind power plant development as of November, 2022 Select landowners in Iowa, Grant and Lafayette Counties have an unprecedented opportunity to work together and prevent some or many industrial scale wind turbines from being developed. More explanation follows below

Additionally, Town and Village officials in these jurisdictions have been presented the opportunity to request two meetings with Pattern Energy, the developer of the 600 MW Uplands Wind proposal. The first meeting is designated to provide exact, preferred locations of wind turbines and associated equipment in the municipality’s jurisdiction and the second to make suggestions that Pattern can consider and affect before their application is submitted to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. This information is essential for a municipality to be able to “work with” the developer as encouraged by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.

CLICK MAP TO VIEW LEASED LAND PARCELS NEAR YOU

CLICK MAP TO VIEW PROPOSED THREE COUNTY UTILITY DISTRICT

CLICK MAP TO VIEW SAMPLE INFRASOUND IMPACT AREA

Designated parcel information was sourced from County land records in November, 2022 and may not be complete. Wind turbine, new transmission line and right of way locations in these map portrayals are approximated. Developers have not yet provided this information at the time of this writing.

The information in this article was researched by five individuals whose lands, livelihoods, health and economic welfares are threatened by the proposed development of more than 250 square miles of very large-scale wind power plant development in Iowa, Grant, and Lafayette Counties, Wisconsin. The goal is to help potentially impacted landowners, residents and citizens at large become more aware of the enormous scale of the Uplands and Badger Hollow power plant proposals and steps that can help prevent or reduce negative impacts. As electric customers, we pay for all added power plants. Our research finds that these very costly plants pose unacceptable heath risks, are not compatible with existing land values and uses and would be much less effective at reducing CO2 emissions compared to using the billions, instead, to incentivize home and business based energy improvements.

WITHHOLDING CONNECTOR LINE EASEMENTS

The blue-green colored rectangles in the map indicate parcels of land in county records that landowners have signed over for possible uses by Pattern Energy, the under-regulated, “merchant” utility that wishes to build the Uplands Wind power plant. Similarly, the pink-colored rectangles indicate parcels in county records that owners have signed over for possible uses by Invenergy LLC, the under-regulated, “merchant” utility that wishes to build the Badger-Hollow wind power plant.

Ostensively, these marked land parcels can be used for several purposes including installation of wind turbines, access roads, right of ways, under or above ground high voltage “connection” lines, project substations and high profile transmission lines connecting the power plant to large substations. As can be seen in the below, to-scale, illustration, modern wind turbines are much larger than any turbines installed in Wisconsin, to date. The turbine models under consideration by the privately owned, non-public utility developers have not been specified but are expected to range to as large as 6.4 MW with heights of ~650 feet.

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.

Each of the approximately 160 wind turbines in the two, proposed power plants must be connected to expansive, web-like networks made up of several dozen of high voltage power lines (34,500 volts or 34.5 kV). The heavy cables, or “Collection Lines” can transport considerably more power than the existing distribution lines in the area. Collection lines are either buried under ground or mounted on poles on the surface.

As illustrated below, wind power plants require a large number of Collection Lines that converge at Project Substations. The power from these Substations is collected and interjected into the area grid.

By zooming in to the contracted land parcels on the high resolution map of the Uplands/BadgerHollow projects, one can see that many of the blue-green, rectangular shaped land parcels are bunched together, as illustrated below. Because landowners have permitted collection line RIGHT OF WAY in the lease options they signed, the private company can add collection lines without additional land contracting.

In this simulation, rectangular land parcels under contract that are bunched together grant the developer right of way to install collection lines between the turbines. Note that collection lines can pass through properties without wind turbines.

However in many locations on the map, contracted parcels, stand alone, separated from the larger bunches creating gaps. As of November 2022, county records suggest that parcels in many “gap” areas have not yet been contracted by Pattern or Invenergy for power plant-related purposes. This condition is crucial for landowners to understand because those concerned about the lack of modern protections for public health and unwarranted negative impacts on property values can work together. They can refuse to sign RIGHT OF WAY easements and discourage the developer from adding connection lines needed to build stranded turbines, potentially, within 1250′ of occupied residencies.

In this simulation, the orange, dotted lines represent approximate paths of possible Connection Lines across parcels of land that the developer does not have right of way for. It is believed that the ability to install wind turbines on these, separated parcels can become limited if surrounding property owners withhold giving the merchant developer right of way to add the necessary connections lines, This illustration does not portray actual locations of turbines being sought by the Pattern or any other potential developer. These locations have not been provided at the time of this writing.

Potential gaps in right of way for the Uplands Wind project are portrayed on the high resolution parcel map as blue-green tinted areas. Potential gaps in right of way for the Badger Hollow Wind project are portrayed on the high resolution parcel map as pink tinted areas.

CONTACTING INTERESTED NEIGHBORS

  If you would like a neighboring volunteer to contact you to discuss ways to use the above information to engage your neighbors or your Town/Village officials, please email info@no-uplands.com . Please include the street address of your potentially affected property in your email so we can get you in touch with a volunteer who lives near you.

Second Information Request Submitted to Pattern LLC

July 6, 2022

Pattern Energy, LLC Corporate Headquarters
1088 Sansome St. San Francisco, CA 94111
UplandsWind@PatternEnergy.com , community@patternenergy.com info@patternenergy.com

Phillip Ross
Phillip.Ross@patternenergy.com

Allen Wynn
allen.wynn@patternenergy.com

Matt Dallas
Matt.Dallas@patternenergy.com

Dear Pattern Energy,

Please find, attached, questions and information requests that twenty-four co-signees are submitting concerning your intention to build a 600 MW wind power plant entitled Uplands Wind (the “Project”) in Iowa and Lafayette Counties, Wisconsin.

Co-signers ask that Pattern LLC provide written answers to as many of these questions as possible prior to Pattern’s July 12, 2022 Open House in Belmont so that follow-up questions can be asked and answered. Signers may also re-ask questions similar to these at the Meeting. For questions that Pattern cannot answer in time for the meeting, please provide a timeframe for when you will provide written answers to all of the co-signers whose addresses are provided. If there are questions that Pattern feels it cannot answer, please specify the reasons or explain when Pattern will be able to answer.

We thank you in advance for your attention to providing this very important and relevant information to them.

QUESTIONS & INFORMATION REQUESTS

I. Project affects on Real Estate Values

During the May 26, 2022, Zoom Virtual “Public Informational” Session (ZOOM meeting), Pattern representatives stated that the Project would not have a negative impact on local real estate values as demonstrated in studies that have been conducted. Please provide copies of all studies that pertain to property value impacts from all turbine sizes (in MW rating and total height) that Pattern is considering for the Project. Please do not include studies that utilize setback distances from occupied residencies that are greater than the minimum setback distance that Pattern will utilize for the Project.

II. Decommissioning and Disposal Practices

  1. Please provide the names and contact information for contractors that Pattern has previously used to recycle wind turbine blades.
  2. Please provide a description of the recycling practices used by these contractors that Pattern determined to be acceptable.
  3. Has Pattern previously committed to recycling turbine blades in an application to a state regulator before? Does Pattern intend to commit to recycling by including it as part of their decommissioning plan in their application to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW)?
  4. Please describe all Project infrastructure that Pattern will reserve the right to remain on-site above and below ground, after decommissioning of the Project, if the Project is approved and decommissioned? If this information is not available for the Project, please provide sections from existing decommissioning plans for at least three Pattern wind projects describing the rights Pattern retains to leave infrastructure on-site above and below the ground. Provide this information at your earliest convenience.
  5. Please specify if and how Pattern funds are set aside for decommissioning? Please provide examples of decommissioning plans for 3 existing projects, owned and operated by Pattern.

III. Health Effects from Wind Turbines

  1. At the ZOOM meeting, a Pattern representative stated there was no evidence of wind turbines causing negative health impacts. Please provide all available health impact studies reaching this conclusion for all possible setback distances and for all possible wind turbine sizes that Pattern might select for the Project. Please provide these studies at your earliest convenience before the Project application is submitted to PSCW.
  2. Please provide existing audible and infra-sound field analysis that Pattern has conducted or commissioned for existing wind facilities having the same MW rating, turbine heights and setback distances that Pattern could possibly install/apply for the Project
  3. Please describe the accommodations would Pattern make if residents or landowners become ill from living in proximity to the Project?
  4. Has Pattern ever monetarily compensated a resident or landowner that has become ill from living in proximity to a project they owned and operated?

IV. Wind Turbine Siting and Related Information

  1. At your ZOOM meeting, Pattern was asked for a timetable for when exact locations for wind turbines would be presented to affected Townships and to all participating and non-participating landowners for review and comment. The answers failed to provide the requested timetables. Please provide a schedule of when presentations about Pattern’s preferences for exact turbine locations would be made to each affected township, village, city and county to enable feedback and recommendations from local governments, participating and non-participating landowners and the public prior to Pattern making application to the PSCW.
  2. Please inform elected officials and the public of when the range of turbine sizes in total heights and in MW ratings will be presented to each affected township, village, city and county.
  3. For each possible turbine in the range presented (4b above), please provide the absolute minimum setback distances from occupied residences that Pattern would abide by.
  4. For each setback distance (in 4c above), please provide the state law wording or other reasoning used in determining the selected distance.
  5. For each possible turbine in the range presented (4b above), please provide the estimated dimensions of the required foundation structures.

V. Lease Agreements

  1. For participating Properties, please describe the types of controls that the lease agreement allows Pattern to exercise over the entire property.
  2. Is there language in the Pattern’s lease agreements for Uplands Wind that prohibits the landowner from sharing information with others regarding the lease agreement or other aspects of the project? Please include the language used in the lease agreement that prohibits the landowner from sharing Project information with others.
  3. What information, specifically, is the landowner prohibited from sharing?
  4. If for any reason, Uplands Wind is not built, will Pattern retain the lease agreements or will they nullify the lease agreements, releasing landowners from the leases? For prior projects has Pattern ever retained lease agreements for a project they have not built and if so, what was the final disposition of the lease agreements?
  5. If Pattern retains the lease agreements, could they sell them to another developer?

VI. Community Concerns

  1. Does Pattern have a plan to ensure that Med Flight helicopters can reach residents within or in proximity to the Project? Please provide documentation of Pattern’s Med Flight Plan that would be included with their application for the Project. If a Med Flight Plan for the Project is not available yet, please provide one from an existing project. If Pattern does not ensure that Med Flight helicopters can reach residents in proximity to the Project, please explain the reason for this.
  2. Is money set aside within the Project budget for local road repairs?
  3. Before the application is submitted does Pattern plan to have an in-person public information meeting with a presentation by Pattern where follow-up questions can be asked and answered before the entire audience in attendance?
  4. During the Zoom meeting, Pattern representatives used the phrase “prior to permitting” in answering some questions relating to when specific information would be available. Does “prior to permitting” mean: prior to pre-application notification; prior to application to the PSCW; prior to the end of the PSCW CPCN proceeding, or; prior to construction (after the PSCW CPCN proceeding has ended)?

Sincerely,

Marie Baker, 5318 Weaver Rd. Dodgeville, WI 53533
Kim and Roberta Barham, 275 County Road K, Blanchardville, WI 53516
Deirdre Birmingham and John Biondi, 7258 Kelly Rd. Mineral Point, WI 53565
Michelle Citron, 5175 Country Rd ZZ, Dodgeville WI 53533
Jan Day, 148 Commerce Street, Rewey, WI 53580
Kerry McDermott, 776 County Rd. J, Mineral Point, WI 53565
Rob Danielson, S3897 Plum Run Road, La Farge, WI 54639
Steve Ferrell & Sheila Fry, N2221 Asmus Road, Monroe, WI 53566
Carrie Honerbaum, 523 Blacks Grove Rd., Dodgeville, WI 53533
Jackie and John Howard, 21755 Search Rd., Blanchardville, WI 53516
Ronald and Ronna Heftman, 3648 County Road M, Dodgeville, WI 52533
Lillie Jewell, 3362 County Road B, Dodgeville, WI 53533
Marcia Jewell, 3362 County Rd B, Dodgeville, WI 53533 (Linden Township)
Chris Klopp, 4283 County Road P, Cross Plains, WI 53528
Tom and Judith Kordus, 2025 Survey Rd. Mineral Point, WI 53565
Ron and Jean Luecke, 521 Blacks Grove Rd., Dodgeville, WI 53533
Ed Michalski and Mary Michalski, 17900 O’Neil Rd., Mineral Point, WI 53565
Matthew Michalski, Bik Wong, Milo Wong & Lily Wong,17950 O’Neil Rd., Mineral Point, WI 53565
Jason Neton, W5725 County Road H, New Glarus, WI 53574
Allen Pincus, 7836 Lakeview Road, Barneveld, WI 53507
Cyra Polizzi & Richard Paro, 1317 Chandler St., Madison, WI 53715
Frank and Barbara Polizzi, 5381 State Road 39, Mineral Point, WI 53565
George A. Schwarzmann Jr., 21791 Sand Hill Rd, Platteville WI 53818
Lila Zastrow & Dave Hendrickson, N5399 French Rd. Seymour, WI 54165-8352

Wisconsin Farmer: “Biggest Regret I’ve Ever Experienced”

In 2011, Wisconsin farmer, Gary Steinich of Cambria Wisconsin, sent this letter to Better Plan, Wisconsin, asking that it be published.  It is re-printed here with appreciation to both Mr. Steinich and Better Plan, Wisconsin.

“This is an open letter to Wisconsin farmers who are considering signing a wind lease to host turbines on your land. Before you sign, I’d like to tell you about what happened to our family farm after we signed a contract with a wind developer.

In 2002, a wind developer approached my father about signing a lease agreement to place a MET (meteorological) tower on our land. My father was in his 70’s at the time. The developer did a good job of befriending him and gaining his trust.

He assured my father that the project wasn’t a done deal and was a long way off. They first had to put up the MET tower to measure the wind for awhile.

He told my father that if the project went forward there would be plenty of time to decide if we wanted to host turbines on our farm. There would be lots of details to work out and paperwork to sign well before the turbines would be built. The developer said my father could decide later on if he wanted to stay in the contract.

In 2003 the developer contacted us again. This time he wanted us to sign a contract to host turbines on our land. We were unsure about it, so we visited the closest wind project we knew of at the time. It was in Montfort, WI.

The Montfort project consists of 20 turbines that are about 300 feet tall and arranged in a straight line, taking up very little farmland with the turbine bases and access roads. The landowners seemed very satisfied with the turbines. But we were still unsure about making the commitment.

We were soon contacted again by the developer, and we told him we were undecided. Then he really started to put pressure on us to sign.

This was in March of 2004, a time of $1.60 corn and $1200 an acre land. It seemed worth it have to work around a couple of turbines for the extra cash. We were told the turbines would be in a straight line and only take up a little bit of land like the ones in Monfort.

And we were also told that we were the ones holding up the project. That all of our neighbors had signed, and we were the last hold-outs. It persuaded us.

What we didn’t know then was the developer was not being truthful. We were not the “last hold-out” at all. In later discussions with our neighbors we found out that in fact we were the very first farmers to sign up. I have since found out this kind of falsehood is a common tactic of wind developers.

My father read through the contract. He said he thought it was okay. I briefly skimmed through it, found the language confusing, but trusted my father’s judgment. We didn’t hire a lawyer to read it through with us. We didn’t feel the need to. The developer had explained what was in it.

The wind contract and easement on our farm was for 20 years. By then my dad was 75. He figured time was against him for dealing with this contract in the future so we agreed I should sign it. A few months later, my father died suddenly on Father’s Day, June 20th, 2004

After that, we didn’t hear a whole lot about the wind farm for a couple years. There was talk that the project was dead. And then in 2007 we were told the developer sold the rights to the project. A Wisconsin utility bought it.

After that everything changed. The contract I signed had an option that allowed it to be extended for an additional 10 years. The utility used it.

The turbines planned for the project wouldn’t be like the ones in Monfort. They were going to be much larger, 400 feet tall. And there were going to be 90 of them.

They weren’t going to be in a straight row. They’d be sited in the spots the developer felt were best for his needs, including in middle of fields, with access roads sometimes cutting diagonally across good farm land. Landowners could have an opinion about turbine placement but they would not have final say as to where the turbines and access roads would be placed. It was all in the contract.

Nothing was the way we thought it was going to be. We didn’t know how much land would be taken out of production by the access roads alone. And we didn’t understand how much the wind company could do to our land because of what was in the contract..

In 2008 I had the first of many disputes with the utility, and soon realized that according to the contract I had little to no say about anything. This became painfully clear to me once the actual construction phase began in 2010 and the trucks and equipment came to our farm and started tearing up the field.

In October of 2010 a representative of the utility contacted me to ask if a pile of soil could be removed from my farm. It was near the base of one of the turbines they were putting on my land. I said no, that no soil is to be removed from my farm.

The rep said that the pile was actually my neighbor’s soil, that the company was storing it on my land with plans to move it to another property.

Shortly afterwards I noticed the pile of subsoil was gone.

In November of 2011 I saw several trucks loading up a second pile of soil on my land and watched them exiting down the road. I followed them and then called the Columbia County Sheriff. Reps from the company were called out. I wanted my soil back.

A few days later the rep admitted they couldn’t give it back to me because my soil was gone. It had been taken and already dispersed on someone else’s land. I was offered 32 truck loads of soil from a stockpile they had. I was not guaranteed that the soil would be of the same quality and composition as the truck loads of soil they took from my farm.

I was informed by the lawyer for the utility that I had until April 30, 2011 to decide to take the soil. There would be no other offer. Take it or leave it.

I contacted the Public Service Commission for help. The PSC approved the terms of project and I believed the utility was violating those terms. The PSC responded by telling me they could do nothing because the issue involved a private contract between myself and the utility.

They told me my only option was to sue the utility.

My father and I both worked those fields. Watching the way they’ve been ripped apart would sicken any farmer. But what farmer has the time and money it would take to sue a Wisconsin utility?

By signing that contract I signed away the control of the family farm, and it’s the biggest regret I have ever experienced and will ever experience. I have only myself to blame for not paying close enough attention to what I was signing.

We had a peaceful community here before the developer showed up, but no more. Now it is neighbor against neighbor, family members not speaking to one another and there is no ease in conversation like in the old days. Everyone is afraid to talk for fear the subject of the wind turbines will come up. The kind of life we enjoyed in our community is gone forever.

I spend a lot of sleepless nights wishing I could turn back the clock and apply what I’ve learned from this experience. Now corn and bean prices are up. The money from the turbines doesn’t balance out our crop loss from land taken out of production. The kind of life we enjoyed on our family farm is gone forever too.

I would not sign that contract today. As I write this, the utility is putting up the towers all around us. In a few months the turbines will be turned on and we’ll have noise and shadow flicker to deal with. If I have trouble with these things, too bad. I’ve signed away my right to complain. These are some of the many problems I knew nothing about when I signed onto the project.

If you are considering signing a wind lease, take the contract to a lawyer. Go over every detail. Find out exactly what can happen to your fields, find out all the developer will be allowed to do to your land. Go through that contract completely, and think hard before make your decision.

I can tell you from first-hand experience, once you sign that contract, you will not have a chance to turn back.

·
Update:  June 5, 2011, Gary Steinich contacted Better Plan to let us know he and the utility have reached an agreement on his soil restoration.

Comments:

  1. Comment by Anonymous on 08/13/2011 at 6:17 pmIt’s reassuring to know there are still people who are brave enough to speak up against.big business. I grew up in the Cambria area and understand the strength of the community. It is unfortunate this project has affected life-long friendships and local business opportunities. Thank you for sharing your story to enlighten others.
  2. Comment by Anonymous on 12/06/2011 at 7:58 amI unfortunately am a non participating neighbor to the wind turbines. So, although my neighbors are making money for the disruption to their land and life, I am not! We have already noticed TV and radio resception problems. We have noticed the noise from the turbines during the warm months. Now that the windows are closed up, that is not an issue. Family members have been woken in the mornings from the shadow flicker.I too have watched the turbines and, between the blades and the shadow movements, it made me feel sick. I don’t know what the long-term health effects will be, and don’t like that I am, against my will, being forced to find out.My biggest concern is the value of our home, now that we have turbines all around our home. What loss will be have when we try to sell our home?Editor’s reply. Real estate appraisers generally estimate the property value loss is anywhere from 20 to 40 percent. There are numerous articles on our website by certified real estate appraisers (by Michael McCann, in particular); I suggest you read them.

Videos About Adverse Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

Below are four video documentaries about adverse heath effects associated with wind turbines recommended by TLVA volunteer, Richard Jinkins of Cobb, Wisconsin, Iowa County. Richard has been avidly studying the phenomena for several years since discovering that members of his family personally experience ill effects from the existing, small, turbine installation near Montfort. WI. The same area would be impacted by the Uplands Wind proposal. In addition to the videos, Richard provides a large file directory with other videos, research papers, maps and other informative resources one can browse through.

1. A Pennsylvania Couple discuss their experiences living 1600 feet from a wind turbine. Note that the offending turbine is much smaller than those being proposed for Uplands, Red Barn and Whitetail (Iowa and Grant Counties, WI) and is positioned 350′ further than allowed under Wisconsin’s, out of date, 2008 wind siting laws. The video is 15 mins.

2. Wind Power Plants in Sweden 30 mins.

3. Norma Schmidt- Retired Nurse (Canada) Ms. Schmidt describes the decline her health after happily accepting the opportunity to site a wind turbine on her property. This video excerpt from the CBC video, Wind Rush also includes a number of specialists including Dr. Michael Nissenbaum who explains the basic phenomena that create audible and inaudible (infrasound) air pulses that lead to loss of sleep and other ill impacts. 14.5 mins

4. Down Wind. This video can be difficult to watch, at times, because of the degree of suffering the residents are forced to endure. It also contains a great deal comprehensive, well-founded information. It is about 90 mins.

38 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT UPLANDS WIND

Above Image: View from a 4.6 MW Wind Turbine. Pattern LLC has announced the possibility of larger turbines for their proposed 600 MW Uplands wind power plant inIowa and Lafayette Counties, Wisconsin.

Update: As of Novmber 21, 2021, On November 4, rather than respond to the 38, precisely-stated questions and documentation requests, Pattern LLC sent a letter to one of the questioners with general information about the proposal. On November 17, the recipient responded to Pattern asking the company to please send the letter to the other 73 questioning co-signers whose addresses they possess. ACTIONS: Each Co-signer of the orginal request has the option to consider emailing Pattern asking the international power plant builder to answer the provided questions, as promised, and to send all correspondence on the matter, personally, to them.Other persons can email and join the request for answers and ask the company to add to thieir name and addresss to the list of the original 74 requesters. Feel free to cc info@no-uplands.com in your correspondence.

Update: As of October 25, 2021, despite their promises, International, wind power plant builder, Pattern LLC, has not supplied a single answer to the questions posed by 74 landowners. The time has come to contact your local and state elected officials and ask them to help the residents Iowa and Lafayette counties in Wisconsin get accountability from Pattern LLC!

On August 13, 2021, following Pattern LLC‘s July 29, Public Information Meeting in Belmont, WI concerning the 600 MW Uplands wind power plant, the company was presented with an extensive set of questions co-signed by more than 50 potentially affected residents in Iowa and Lafayette Counties, Wisconsin and 24 supporting citizens across the Midwest.

All private individuals, businesses and governmental units have the option to consider following-up these requests with questions of their own. For record keeping purposes. it is best to attach a signed letter via email to these addresses: UplandsWind@PatternEnergy.com Matt.Dallas@patternenergy.com community@patternenergy.com info@patternenergy.com Pattern Energy Corporate Headquarters 1088 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111


Its very possible reading through the 38 questions submitted will prompt some ideas about information you are interested in:

1. Does Pattern agree that if 5.6 MW turbines were installed in Uplands, it would likely be the first time or one of the first times that such technology has been installed, on land, in the US?

2. Of the various types of studies (health, economic, property value, etc.) that Pattern plans to include or cite in its application for Uplands, please name/identify all that specifically pertain to 3.0 MW or larger turbines and apply to a setback of 1250′ or less.

3. It was stated by Pattern personnel at the Public Information Meeting that Pattern’s land lease contract with property owners requires Pattern to individually meet with all turbine-hosting property owners to go over turbine and other siting details before Pattern’s plan becomes final and that this meeting includes opportunity for the landowner to make suggestions. Please provide text from the contract or other document where these requirements are described.

4. Please describe all, pre-application meetings that Pattern will conduct with property owners living adjacent to turbine-hosting property owners to go over turbine and other siting details before Pattern’s plan becomes final and explain whether the meeting includes opportunity for the landowner to make suggestions

5. Please provide an estimated date for Pattern publicizing its final turbine size selections (MW size) and specify whether this date would be before Pattern makes it application to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

6. Please indicate whether Pattern has ever been involved with a law suit concerning these physical impacts on humans:

6A) Alleged audible noise level from one or more Pattern turbines;

6B) Alleged shadow flicker from one or more Pattern turbines;

6C) Alleged nausea, anxiety, sleep loss, disorientation or headaches from one or
more Pattern wind turbines; and,

6D) A combination of these impacts from one or more Pattern wind turbines.

7. If law suits have been received by Pattern, please provide the associated MW size and setback distance conditions for each of the lawsuit allegation types, above.

8. Does Pattern plan to provide counties and local governments evidence from other Pattern Projects of a 100 MW or larger wind power plant resulting in net gain in local government revenue after factoring in payments per megawatt, tax revenue impacts, property valuation changes and other expenses factors over an operation period of at least 3 years? If yes, please explain whether the evidence will be submitted before an application for Uplands is submitted allowing for public input. If no, please explain why Pattern will not be providing this evidence.

9. Pattern’s FAQ estimates payments to counties and local governments only over the first 30 years and describes them, as “stable, long-term funding.” Please explain why 30 years is considered long term when contracts with landowners are longer. Please explain why funds at the discretion of state lawmakers are described as, “stable.”

10. Does Pattern plan to provide local economies potentially affected by Uplands a comprehensive economic study of a completed Pattern wind power plant project 300 MW or larger? If so, please indicate whether the study will address these factors:

10A. Tax revenue impacts for all directly impacted municipalities by comparing historic (15 years prior) and after turbine operation annual property tax collection totals.

10B. Impacts on new business and residential development by comparing historic (15 years prior) and after turbine operation annual tax base additions by type, number and assessed values for all directly impacted municipalities.

10C. Impacts on real estate activity and property values by comparing historic (15 years prior) and after turbine operation sales including a list of annual property transactions, the sale value of each transaction and description of the property including its tax number. A comparison of this data to comparable, municipal government units beyond the view scape of the turbine project and other, wind installations.

10 D. Potential Impacts on population and average income levels by comparing historic (20 years prior) and after turbine operation census data.

11. How many acres, per MW, on average, does Pattern expect would be removed from local taxable rolls for the Uplands project?

12. The Pattern FAQ states, “Pattern Energy began developing the project in 2020.” Please provide the year and month that Pattern or a subcontractor for Pattern acquired its first signature on a lease option for Uplands.

13. Please provide the dates and documentation for Pattern’s official notice of intent to build a power plant to Iowa & Lafayette Counties.

14. Do other states require Pattern to formally notify government officials of intent to build a large wind power plant before seeking signatures from private landowners?

15. Does Pattern encourage Iowa or Lafayette Counties to update their existing Wind Siting Ordinances to include all state of Wisconsin regulations under PSC 128?

16. Pattern’s FAQ states that during construction, there will be additional traffic and heavy equipment in the area including bulldozers, graders, trenching machines, concrete trucks, flatbed trucks, and large cranes. Does Pattern plan to provide the local governments potentially affected by Uplands, contact information for elected officials at a minimum of five governmental units to discuss the construction period activity of a Pattern wind power plant 300 MW or larger? For 100 MW or larger?

17. Please explain whether Pattern’s estimated annual payments to landowners have changed more than 15% and describe the reasons for the changes.

18. Is there a protection in the Uplands landowner contracts that prevents the new owner from affecting changes in contract terms or acquiring additional rights? If so, please provide the section in the contract where these protections exist.

19. Stated in years after initial operation, how soon could a participating property owner discontinue hosting a turbine on their property?

20. If Uplands is not built, what are Pattern’s plans for the land contracts? Would Pattern keep them? Sell them to other developers? A combination of these?

21. Has Pattern ever transferred control of contracts they have gotten from property owners to other utilities?

22. Please provide a list of Pattern wind projects by name and location that are operating in in a ridge-valley landscape where ridges are primarily used for corn, bean and hay cropland and the valleys are heavily forested.

23. Please provide a list of Pattern wind projects by name and location that are operating on Karst geology.

24. Please provide written documentation describing effective preventative measures that Pattern has taken in the past to minimize bird and bat kills.

25. Does Pattern plan to provide comprehensive, third party analysis of the estimated bird and bat killings from Uplands in its application materials to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission? If not, please explain why.

26. Does Pattern plan to provide before and after impact studies on livestock from 300 MW or larger wind systems that Pattern has already built? If not, please explain why.

27. Does Pattern plan to provide potentially impacted residents before and after impact studies of radio signal interference from 300 MW or larger wind systems that Pattern has already built?

28. Does Pattern plan to provide residents before and after impact studies of aerial crop treatment interference from 300 MW or larger wind systems that Pattern has already built?

29. Would Pattern consider proposing a privately owned transmission line in Wisconsin?

30. Will Pattern be providing a list of necessary added transmission and distribution lines with locations to the public for review and comment upon before submitting the Uplands application to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission? Please provide all applicable MISO Project ID numbers.

31. Please provide accounting over five of more years from two, existing Pattern wind power plants showing the percentage and values of total project related expenses that went to local businesses and the percentage and values disbursed to persons businesses residing out of state.

32. How many total wind turbines has Pattern decommissioned with land restored to original use in the United States? Please provide the complete written, decommissioning plans for these turbines.

33. Please explain whether it is Pattern’s intention to return impacted land to its full, former use after the wind turbines are removed? If so, please provide a contract section where this assurance is highlighted. How does Pattern assure that the quality of the restored topsoil is as good or better than before?

34. Pattern’s FAQ states that Wisconsin ratepayers would likely be isolated from paying costs associated with Uplands. Please provide written materials from at least two, prior Pattern wind power plants demonstrating the impacts on state ratepayers over the first 6 years of operation and explain how the same conditions would be applicable to Uplands.

35. Pattern’s FAQ states that Uplands could lower electricity rates. Please provide documentation showing how Pattern wind power plants reduced retail customer electricity rates and explain how similar conditions would be applicable to Uplands

36. Has Pattern been in contact with Wisconsin utilities regarding possible power purchase from Uplands? Please provide a list of these entities.

37. Would Pattern seek Federal Investment Tax Credits for Uplands? Please provide documentation showing how these credits impacted the costs of two, existing Pattern wind power plants over the first 3-7 years of operation.

38. Would Pattern seek Federal Production Tax Credits for Uplands? Please provide documentation showing how these credits impacted the costs of two, existing Pattern wind power plants over the first 5 years of operation.

Industrial Scale Wind Turbine Liabilities

Handout prepared for the 2021-May-28 Marklein / Novak Listening Session, Belmont Convention Center.

Wisconsin’s current PSC-128 guidelines for siting Wind Turbines was created back in 2012 before the negative health effects caused by the Infrasound emitted by ALL Industrial Scale Wind Turbines (IWT) were well- known. I would ask you to PLEASE contact your fellow State Rep. John Macco understand more about the Shirley Wind (only 8 turbines) to ask some of these questions –

  • Why three families in Brown County have had to abandon their homes, even though Shirley Wind Turbines were said to not produce/transmit anything harmful to humans? [Above photo documents the local pleas for neighbor solidarity and solutions to the ill effects of one dozen, much smaller, 2.5 MW Turbines at the Shirley Power Plant near Glenmore, Wisconsin)
  • Why in 2013 the Board of Directors of Wisconsin Towns Association asked the PSC to enact a moratorium to stop the permitting and installation of wind turbines until further studies are done, solutions are found and the State’s wind siting Rule (PSC 128) is modified to implement standards that address infrasound from wind turbines that will protect the health and safety of residents!
  • Why in Oct 2014 did Brown County Board of Health vote unanimously – “To declare the Industrial Wind Turbines at Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County, WI, a Human Health Hazard for all people (residents, workers, visitors, and sensitive passersby) who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health.” In fact, ~90 people living in Brown County have claimed the Shirley Wind turbines have made them sick with sleep problems, headaches, anxiety, and nausea. So, what went wrong in Brown County at Shirley Wind? The simple answer is that the Wind Turbine Operators continue to deny that the high energy Infrasound produced by the rotating turbine blades passing the is the problem. In an attempt to PROVE that the infrasound levels in their home was indeed the cause of the sickness, one of the families that was forced to leave their home contracted with Rand Acoustics to take infrasound measurements inside and outside their home they abandoned. Shirley Wind also hired an acoustic measurement company to take measurements at the same times and locations. They were to take measurements with both the turbines running at full power AND when the turbines were stopped. BUT Shirley Wind refused to shut down their turbines to allow the measurements to be taken while the acoustic companies were onsite. Since there was NO authority that would force Shirley Wind to stop the turbines and enable baseline measurements, the report WAS NOT ABLE to compare the measurements between the running and stopped turbine infrasound levels. After the report was released saying that indeed high energy levels of infrasound were measured in the abandoned home, Shirley Wind (owned by Duke Energy) along with all their industry wind supporters declared that the report was NOT conclusive that the turbines were the source of the infrasound, since the data collection was not able to collect data when the Shirley Wind was not operating … and no one wants to pay for it again!

I challenge our Senators and Representatives is to take ACTION FOR us in SW Wisconsin by protecting ALL non-participating landowner’s property rights from infrasound sickness to –

1) Review the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council – October 2014 report found here –

https://psc.wi.gov/SiteAssets/windSitingReport2014.pdf

Please Read all of p50-60 Appendix F Minority Report signed by 6 of the 14 members

  1. 2)  REQUEST a 5 year update to the above report as REQUIRED by Act 50 on Page 50 of the above report – “Act 40 also requires that Council to submit a report to the Legislature every 5 years to provide updated information about health research and regulatory developments, as well as to provide recommendations for legislation if needed.” If due every 5 years, it is OVERDUE as of the end of October 2019 !!!
  2. 3)  Better understand Infrasound by viewing this very good video on YouTube: – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywWNx3OJyuo or google search for-“infrasound caused by Industrial Turbine German video” and find it yourself
  3. 4)  Revisit a bill first introduced in 2013 by Republican state senator Frank Lasee that – “Allows anyone living within 1.5 miles to sue both the landowner and the owner/operator of the turbine for loss of property value, moving costs, medical expenses, pain and suffering, attorney fees, “and any other loss as a result of the industrial wind turbine.”

FYI: Recent actions taken in our neighboring state Iowa –

In Madison County, Iowa -The Madison County Board of Public Health on record saying that there are legitimate negative health effects caused by wind turbines.

Board Chair Dr. Kevin de Regnier said the board identified two concerns after a review of scientific literature and months of hearings and meetings with residents and MidAmerican Energy.

The two health concerns identified are:

➢ “Flicker” caused by the sun reflecting off turbine blades creates a strobe effect that can cause headaches and nausea.

“Infrasound” is a soundwave just below what the ear can actually detect. It is created by the turbines disturbing wind flow. It, too, can cause headaches and nausea.

Resolved that the Madison County Board of Health determines that there is the potential for negative health effects associated with commercial wind turbines and that current setbacks are inadequate to protect the public health,” said Madison County Public Health.

The Madison County Board of Iowa recommends that any future wind turbine projects be at least 1.5 miles from any residence.

Health Impacts of Industrial Wind

(6 videos)

Conference, Sept. 10, 2019, at Erie County Community College, Williamsville, N.Y., sponsored by New York state Senator Robert Ortt. These 6 YouTube videos are provided by courtesy of Citizens of Lincoln, N.Y. below Also see the summary notes by by Tom Erlandson listed at the end of this document

1-Introduction (Sen. Ortt); Dan Stapleton, Niagara County Public Health Director (18 min.) https://youtu.be/fJCr63zQ5ME

2-Jerry Punch, audiologist, talks about wind turbine sound and infrasound and its impact on the human body. (38 min.)

https://youtu.be/ZpqSr-5uTfQ
3-Robert Rand, acoustician, discusses the mechanics and physiological effects of wind turbine

infrasound and setbacks. (38 min.) https://youtu.be/wOvXriO0LaA

4- Wind Farm Horror Stories: Three victims of industrial wind turbines describe their nightmare. (29 min.)

5- Gary Abraham, attorney, discusses New York State’s Article 10 process and what towns need to do to protect themselves from wind. (12 min.)

6- The participants answer: “Is it wise for Lincoln, N.Y., to allow six 500′ turbines at 3.2 MW to be built ~1,400′ from 34 homes [and only 600′ from some, and less than 1 mile from 121 homes]?” They explain why a 1.24-mile (2-km) setback is needed. (6 min.)

Text Summary below provided by Tom Erlandson, Chair of the Chautauqua County Health Board, based on notes taken during the forum:

Introductory Comments by NYS Senator Robert Ortt, Forum Sponsor

  1. On August 4, 2011, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law Chapter 388 of the Laws of 2011 that enacted Article 10 of the Public Service Law. Article 10 now governs Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs).
  2. The New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) sets zero net carbon emissions by 2050 – it involves public health considerations, among others.
  3. Senator Ortt introduced the other speakers.

Dan Stapleton: Director of Niagara County Board of Health, member of WNY Public Health Alliance Board of Directors, President of NYS Association of County Health Officials

  1. Developers should have burden to prove IWTs are safe – public should not have the burden of proving IWTs are not safe.
  2. Concerned about lakes becoming contaminated by IWT fluids, lost sleep, unanticipated health effects of IWTs.
  3. Resolutions read that thorough environmental impact studies be done for IWTs.

Dr. Jerry Punch: PhD audiologist; studied IWTs in 2009 in the “thumb” of the lower peninsula of Michigan

  1. Affected families left home, using motels at night.
  2. IWT noise much more annoying than noise of trains or cars.
  3. Referred to various studies:
    1. “Wind Energy Comes of Age” – Paul Gipe 1995
    2. “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment” – Dr. Nina Pierpont
    3. Cooper and Chan: Australian study on Wind Turbine Syndrome
    4. “Low Frequency Noise and Health” – Dr. Mariana Alves-Pereira (Portugal, 2007-13)
    5. Berglund, B, et al. 1999 – Guidelines for Community Noise, WHO, Geneva
  4. Mentioned cortisol – a hormone involved in stress.
  5. Stated that sleep disturbance is the most well documented effect of IWT.
  6. Stated that sleep disturbance affects health: hypertension, memory, etc.
  7. Outer hair cells in the inner ear are sensitive to infrasound.
  8. Infrasound can lead to motion sickness – involves balance, vision, muscle receptors.
  9. IWT setbacks are not sufficient to protect human health.

10.EPA noise regulations not updated since 1978.

11. Setback distance is the most effective way of controlling IWT problems: a. 1.25 miles from property line minimum
b. 1.5 miles from property line last month in Madison County, Iowa

12.See conclusions in Punch, J.L. & R.R. James: “Wind Turbine Noise and Human Health: A Four-Decade History of Evidence That Wind Turbines Pose Risks.” 2016 [link]

Rob Rand: Professional acoustic investigator since 1980; has been investigating IWTs since 2009

  1. Rand quoted from the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers: “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”
  2. Meters do not measure noise impacts, only noise levels.
  3. Wind turbines sited primarily in rural areas and are touted as pollution-free.
  4. Distance is the only reliable noise control option available for wind turbines so far. Most places do not have enough setback distance.
  5. Background noise in rural areas is low – 20-25 dBA at night. Annoyance is “perceived by individuals or groups to be adversely affecting them. Above 35 dBA is incompatible with rural living without annoyance” – American National Standards Institute.
  6. The quantity, ubiquity, and consistency of anecdotal complaints do have epidemiological significance.
  7. Re wildlife studies with badgers show elevated cortisol levels resulting from infrasound. [link]
  8. Nauseogenesis – a nauseogenic factor is associated with IWTs.

Gary Abraham: Attorney

  1. Article 10 governs industrial wind projects producing greater than 25 megawatts.
  2. The Cassadaga wind project is the first Article 10 project.
  3. It is not realistic to regulate mean/average noise level with IWTs – the noise output is not a steady hum, but is a pulse produced during the blade downstroke.
  4. Siting board continues to use mean/average noise level.
  5. There is not much optimism in NYS about Article 10. NYS Home Rule is the only reason for optimism in New York State.
    1. Towns must pre-adopt 35 dB noise level limits.
    2. Towns must draft laws to protect people.
  6. Re upstate NYS electric energy picture:
    1. The upstate grid is separate from the downstate grid.
    2. The upstate grid is already getting 90% of its electricity from water power and nuclear power sources (i.e., clean energy). Still we keep building IWT projects.
    3. Towns can limit tower height, e.g., to 400 ft. (676 ft. towers in Town of Guilford, NY (Chenango County).
    4. Towns can adopt 35 decibel limits.
  7. Get your New York town to pass a proper wind law!”

We are praying that we will NOT become sick in our homes in South West Wisconsin like those that have in Brown County

Shirley Wind – Local advocates are posting home-made signs on their lawns in Glenmore

Senator Marklein and Representatives Novak and Tranel, PLEASE help us and take immediate actions BEFORE it is too late. Thank you for all for coming to Belmont to hear our concerns.

Wind Power Plant Developer and County Secrecies Continue

        There are four, fundamental facts that every community and every landowner approached by a wind power developer wants and deserves to know: 

  • What is the power size in megawatts of each turbine?
  • How tall are the turbines?
  • How many would be installed and over what area?
  • With today’s wind turbines more than twice as tall and 3.6 times more powerful/louder than those at Montfort, Wisconsin[1], the public deserves to know if the company has tested the turbines for noise and air impacts under Wisconsin’s lower standards?[2]

        Three of the multi-national companies pursuing large wind power plants in Iowa, Lafayette and Grant Counties (Wisconsin) have provided none of this information either for the public, at large, or for directly affected landowners or their neighbors. To be specific, this fundamental information was omitted in PRC’s mid-April brochure[3] regarding the Red Barn power plant that would surround Montfort, it was not present in Invenergy’s mid-February notice[4] to Iowa County  and Pattern LLC did not mention it in their interview[5] 1 with the Dodgeville Chronicle this month concerning their Uplands plant proposal aimed at Iowa and Lafayette Counties.

        Further, when counties have received scarce information from developers, they have not informed the public about it or placed it into public records. The seriousness of these omissions becomes evident when one considers that Foxconn’s much discussed $672 million plant proposal has only one-third of the value of Uplands when tax and other incentives are folded in over 40 years. (See p. 2 / note 10, https://bit.ly/uplands-m ) 

     And unlike large factories and farms, the wind power plants would be glaringly obvious to all commuters and vacationers on Highways 151 and 18 all the way from the outskirts of Madison to the Bluffs of the Mississippi River. Day and night.  (See p. 3 / note 16, https://bit.ly/uplands-m  ) 

        Had Invenergy’s February 16, 2021 letter to the Iowa County Board [6] been publicly reported, the citizenry of Southwestern Wisconsin would have found the company’s advice about the County’s out-dated, 2014 Wind Ordinance highly informative. The international power plant builder writes, “We encourage you to leave it in place,” despite the fact that updating it would add protections pertaining to impacts from large turbines and other transparency improvements.

    The outcome of Uplands still rests on landowners not signing lease contracts with Pattern. Those who are approached to sign are encouraged to ask themselves:


Why would Invenergy risk stating this request if the company had no fear of increased public and landowner accountabilities from an updated Wind Siting Ordinance?

      Secrecy on both sides has persisted even as community papers have published a steady stream of citizen concerns and information requests since December. The Iowa County Board has yet to acknowledge that more than fifty citizens formally asked the Board to host an on-record, public information meeting for developers to answer questions received in advance and for citizens to ask follow-up questions.

        Concerns about negative health impacts were furthered at the Iowa County Planning and Zoning Committee meeting last week when Scott Godfrey, a member of the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council, stated that he sees little or no ability for County to stand-up for affected residents should they become chronically sick from wind turbine exposures. In 2010, three Wisconsin families were forced to move from their homes in Brown County, Wisconsin when they were exposed to only eight turbines. Those turbines are two hundred feet shorter and have less than half the power of those aimed at the Livingston, Wisconsin area.[7]

        No one disagrees with Invenergy that outdated and lacking public protections are doing a very good job of, “promoting private property rights.” They have literally placed the future of Southwest Wisconsin in the hands of our neighbors. This is our time; this is our test; we either practice the golden rule or have our lands and local economies ruled by outside interests.

  1. Size data at https://bit.ly/Whitetail-Livingston-5_6MW ; http://bit.ly/WhitetailFAARecords-698ft and http://bit.ly/MontfortWind-Description Official utility records indicate that turbines proposed to surround Livingston, WI would be more than twice as tall as the turbines at Montfort (698′ vs. 328′) and have 3.6 times the power (5.6 MW vs. 1.5 MW). The Livingston Turbines said to be under development by Whitetail would be 58% higher than those more recently installed at Quilt Block near Darlington. 
  2. Distances between the wind turbines and residencies in Wisconsin can be as close as 1250’ compared to 1500’-3750’ in other states. Fully allowable noise levels in Wisconsin can be four times louder than background sound levels. Existing Wisconsin codes have no protections against house-vibrating air pressure pulses that can induce nausea, disorientation, sleeplessness and other serious ailments.  
  3. http://bit.ly/RedBarnBrochure-20210416 
  4. https://bit.ly/InvenergyIntentLetter_20210216 
  5. https://bit.ly/Pattern-DodgevilleChronicle-20210401 
  6. https://bit.ly/InvenergyIntentLetter_20210216 
  7. http://bit.ly/3-Families-Move-Out-ShirleyWind-2014