STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Did the operations of the FWEC damage the health of the Wirtz family?
2. Did the operations of the FWEC force the Wirtz family to abandon their
home and property, causing them to lose the entire value of that property,
the value of their livestock, and to incur other consequential injuries?
In its decision approving the FWEC, the Commission acknowledged residents' "concerns about adverse impacts from turbine noise." The Commission ordered Invenergy to "work with those residents who testified regarding their particular potential adverse health and safety consequences . . .." FWEC Decision, PSC REF#: 37618, p. 35. The Commission ordered Invenergy "to the extent practicable to mitigate these effects" for two residents in particular, John Immel and John Panzer. FWEC Decision, p. 35.
At the FWEC hearing, Mr. Immel expressed concern for the health of his wife --who had "inner ear problems"-- and for the health of his sons --who "suffered from migraines." FWEC transcript, PSC REF#: 36581, p. 713. Mr. Panzer expressed concern about the effects of the project on his pacemaker and about other health problems, including "depression, flicker and vision problems and hearing problems in the area." FWEC transcript, PSC REF#: 36583, p. 888.
The injuries sustained by the Wirtzes are just as great as the injuries anticipated by Mr. Immel and Mr. Panzer. The Commission found their injuries would constitute individual hardships and ordered Invenergy to mitigate the effects to their health. The Wirtzes are exactly similarly situated. The Commission, therefore, should require Invenergy to remedy the effects to them.
Click on the link at the bottom of this page to access the complete filing.