Navigation

Neighbors Could Sue for Turbines’ Physical, Emotional Damages

A bill in the state Senate would allow people living within a mile and a half of a wind turbine to sue for physical or emotional damages caused by living near a turbine.

State Senator Frank Lasee introduced the bill, just one of eight he’s introduced or co-sponsored since 2011 that would tighten wind industry regulations. Lasee could not be reached for comment.

Current state statutes allow local governments to require setbacks from homes up to 1,250 feet – about a quarter mile – for wind turbines. Anyone interested in building a turbine has to alert nearby residents and the municipality 90 days before construction so the municipality has time to write an ordinance.

Photo by Len Villano.

“It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a free-for-all,” said Deborah Erwin, program and policy supervisor for the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) gas and energy division. “They get that time period to decide whether they want to regulate [wind turbines] if they have an application, so they don’t all have to get out in front of it.”

The state requires wind turbines to be below 50 decibels in the daytime – about as loud as a typical office – and 45 at night – about as loud as a bird call. Noise in rural areas is typically 30 decibels. Turbines can also only have 30 hours of shadow flicker a year, (shadow flicker is the effect caused when rotating wind turbine blades cast shadows).

In a press release, Lasee said wind turbines have caused some of his constituents sleep loss, headaches and ear pain.

Erwin said the PSC seems to get more complaints about wind turbines than other forms of energy production, but complaints are typically about TV or radio interference, noise and shadow flicker.

“Generally the other energy sources are located farther away from people’s homes than wind turbines are, so that’s probably a factor in the number of complaints we get,” Erwin said.

Compared to other forms of energy such as coal, natural gas or nuclear energy, Gary Radloff, director of Midwest Energy Policy for the Wisconsin Energy Institute, said the risks of wind production seem tame.

“Right now wind seems to be a pretty minimal risk – and I don’t want to diminish if individuals feel they’re having health problems from nearby wind turbines … I’m just putting it into a much bigger context of health risk,” Radloff said. “My instincts tell me that [wind energy] might be lower risk than nuclear or coal burning.”

Photo by Jim Lundstrom.

For energy economist Richard Shaten, it’s all about externalities – or the costs paid by people who don’t profit from an industry. (The pollution that negatively impacts health of people living near a coal plant is an example of an externality.)

“As consumers we enjoy all the benefits of energy but we don’t have to endure any direct environmental impacts,” Shaten said. “[Wind is] one energy source we could produce here, so in a sense it’s unique because now we have to bear the impacts of some production.”

Other energy production facilities – coal, nuclear and natural gas plants – pepper the state, but the raw materials used in those facilities typically come from elsewhere.

“If the bill were fair it would say you can sue a nuclear plant, you can sue a coal plant, whatever,” Radloff said. “It seems like it’s taking a fairly narrow [stance] – here’s one technology, one energy [source], we’re going to create a tort action for it.”

Shaten said the complaints of living near a wind turbine are legitimate – most turbines are put up in rural areas where people want to avoid industrial activity. Even if turbines don’t affect health or property values, the perception of negative effects could cause damage.

“The piece of legislation does something I’ve never seen a piece of legislation do before,” he said. “It codifies [or classifies] your perception there’s a problem into a conclusion there’s a problem.”

According to Shaten, the bill would set a precedent that would allow people to sue for any nearby industrial activity, like highway construction, mining or nuclear energy generation, even though it addresses wind turbines specifically.

“Once people claim emotional distress over a wind turbine, should they be able to claim emotional distress over an iron mine? Why not?” Shaten said. “I say pass the law, bring it on, then apply it to everything else.”

“Once people claim emotional distress over a wind turbine, should they be able to claim emotional distress over an iron mine? Why not? I say pass the law, bring it on, then apply it to everything else.”

While the wind bill – Senate Bill 167 – would give more power to residents near industrial activity, others introduced this year would take power away.

Senate Bill 349, introduced on Oct. 22 with a public hearing held Oct. 24, would give the power to regulate frac sand mining, air and water quality to the state instead of local jurisdiction. Lasee and Assembly Representative Garey Bies of Sister Bay, one of the four representatives co-sponsoring SB 167, also co-sponsored SB 349.

Senate Bill 1 loosened ferrous mining regulations. Lasee, Bies and representative André Jacque, another SB 167 co-sponsor, also supported this bill, which passed in March.

“The people who are writing this legislation, supposedly on behalf of protecting the public, how have these people dealt with similar legislation that addresses the environmental impact of other issues in Wisconsin?” Shaten said. “The people writing this legislation traditionally have supported pro-industry, pro-business up and down the line, particularly in the energy industry. The very people who seem to be protecting the public from the horrors of wind energy are not being consistent.”