Committee takes no steps to ban wind turbines

RENEW Wisconsin submitted the following statement at the public hearing of the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules on wind siting rules (PSC 128).

Governor Walker and legislative leaders reportedly will seek a change in the rule when the governor appoints a new chair of the three-person Public Service Commission when Commissioner Mark Meyer’s term expires March 1. With no legislative action, PSC 128 will become effective on March 1, 2011, and will remain in effect until changed by the PSC.

Good morning, my name is Michael Vickerman. I am here to represent RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit advocacy and education organization based in Madison. Incorporated in 1991, RENEW acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. We have over 300 total members, and more than 60 businesses around the state, including Biogas Direct (Prairie du Sac), Bleu Mont Dairy (Mount Horeb), Bubbling Springs Solar (Menomonie), Crave Brothers Farm (Waterloo), Convergence Energy (Lake Geneva), Emerging Energies (Hubertus), Energy Concepts (Hudson), Full Circle Farm (Seymour), Full Spectrum Solar (Madison), GDH, Inc. (Chilton), H&H Solar (Madison), Kettle View Renewable Energy (Random Lake), Michels Wind Energy (Brownsville), North American Hydro (Neshkoro), Northwind Renewable Energy LLC (Stevens Point), Pieper Power (Milwaukee), Organic Valley (LaFarge), Quantum Dairy (Weyauwega), Renewegy (Oshkosh), and Seventh Generation Energy Systems (Madison).

On behalf of all our members that have an interest in wind generation, RENEW Wisconsin took the lead in bringing together diverse groups and companies and forging a broad and bipartisan coalition to support legislation establishing statewide permitting standards for all wind generators in the state of Wisconsin. The fruit of that labor, 2009 Act 40, was signed into law in September 2009.

I am here today to encourage this Committee to take no action on the PSC 128 rule that is scheduled to take effect on March 1st. The Commission’s rule is a good-faith compromise that balances the state’s interest in promoting a preferred energy resource with the interests of neighboring landowners.

The PSC rule will provide wind energy developers with regulatory certainty — a clearly defined set of requirements which they must comply with in order to obtain a permit. Such stability and clarity in the wind permitting arena has been absent from Wisconsin for the last 13 years, which, more than any other reason, explains why Wisconsin utilities own more wind generating capacity in Iowa and Minnesota (329 MW) than they do in Wisconsin (235 MW).

I would like this committee to consider the following points:

* The statewide rule promulgated by the PSC is the culmination of two uninterrupted years of agency involvement in wind siting proceedings. The record built on the major issues is nothing short of encyclopedic.

* A longer setback distance is not necessary given PSC 128’s strict regulation of sound propagation and shadow flicker duration. Both the maximum allowable nighttime sound threshold (45 dBa) and the maximum allowable duration of shadow flicker (25 hours a year) are very strict thresholds in comparison to what other states have adopted.

* Payments from wind generation facilities support rural economies. The counties and towns hosting Wisconsin’s four largest operating windpower installations receive more than $1.5 million in payments in lieu of taxes each year. Landowners hosting the 251 turbines in these projects receive more than $1.2 million per year combined. Not counting payments for transmission-related infrastructure, these four wind projects pump nearly $3 million annually to local governments, host landowners and neighboring residents. (See the January 12th, 2011, article in the Fond du Lac Reporter)

* There is no credible evidence that existing wind development in Wisconsin has depressed property values statewide. In 2008 and 2009, Poletti and Associates, an Illinois real estate appraisal firm, investigated the impact of the Lincoln and Rosiere wind projects on nearby land sales and home construction activity. Analyzing seven years’ of sales data, the Poletti study concluded that the 31 turbines in Kewaunee County have not an effect on area property values. Moreover, since 1999, when the turbines were placed in service, more than 10 houses have been constructed within one-half mile of a turbine there.

There is one sure way that Wisconsin leaders can demonstrate their commitment to nurturing wind energy-related businesses and the jobs that will emerge from their activities, and that is to allow the PSC 128 rule to take effect as scheduled on March 1st. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Somerset business owner submits testimony on Walker's wind siting proposal

John Backus, owner of St Croix Valley Sustainability Solutions LLC, Somerset, submitted the following testimony during a public hearing of the Joint Committee on Review of Administrative Rules on February 9, 2011:

Committee Members,
To start, let me thank the committee for entertaining my testimony as it relates to the committees consideration of Uniform Wind Siting Rules in Wisconsin. If not for a wind conference in the state of Illinois, coupled with business meetings related to wind projects, I would be meeting with you today. Assuming the business climate in Wisconsin is supportive of renewable energy development I hope to expand my business in Wisconsin by partnering with a third party turbine supplier to expand the scope of renewable energy options available to Wisconsin: homeowners, commercial businesses, agricultural operations, and educational entities.

Outside of ready capital no single hurdle is greater for my business then the uncertainty related to the myriad of zoning rules and regulations that are currently promulgated by different cities and counties across the state of Wisconsin. In 2009 I welcomed Wisconsin Act 40 knowing full well the benefits of certainty in how wind energy systems, both large and small, could be installed in this state. I also welcomed accountabilities that would require, among other things, that non-functional, or abandoned wind energy systems, would be taken down in a timely fashion.

While it is certain that the PSC rules do not meet all of my expectations they are none-the-less a carefully considered balance of concerns, needs, and requirements. The PSC advisory board represented a broad array of interests and provided ample opportunity for public comment. To stop the implementation of the March 1, 2011 PSC Uniform Wind Siting Rules would damage my business interests, and no doubt the business interests of many others in this state. As I see this decision, the committee is presented with an opportunity to promote: private capital expenditures, job creation, and stability in an economy that is not expanding fast enough for the average Wisconsin worker.

Assuming the adoption of the PSC Uniform Wind Siting Rules, the benefits to this state are significant. First, the rules will reward the risk taking entrepreneurs in Wisconsin that are only asking for certainty in opportunity. Second, wind energy in this state is too valuable a natural resource to not be tapped in a responsible and transparent fashion. Third, now is the time for Wisconsin’s legislative leaders to demonstrate that they will create, through their actions, a business climate in Wisconsin that is Open for “All” Businesses. In closing, I ask that the committee allow implementation of the PSC Uniform Wind Siting Rules on March 1, 2011.

Scientists see no basis for turbine 'infrasound' health problems

From an article by Jim Dulzo on the Web site of Michigan Land Use Institute:

. . . when they could not find an independent organization willing to underwrite such a study, they paid for it themselves. AWEA [American Wind Energy Association] and CanWEA [Canada Wind Energy Associaiton] assembled eight scientists and doctors to survey the available scientific literature on the known health effects of living near wind turbines.

Collectively, the eight have strong research or clinical experience in public health, otolaryngology, noise-induced hearing loss, balance and hearing disorders, clinical medicine, audiology, infrasound acoustics, industrial sound pathology, wind and turbine physics, and turbine sound measurement and siting.

Their review of 140 different studies and papers issued in 2009, largely from Europe, where wind farms are common and located quite close to residential areas, is called Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects; An Expert Panel Review.

The panel points out that the environment and our bodies are awash in infrasound, much of it naturally occurring. It finds Dr. Pierpont’s list of maladies too poorly characterized to be medically useful. It finds a markedly stronger correlation between subjects’ claimed turbine syndrome symptoms and their initial attitudes toward turbines than between their symptoms and their level of exposure to turbine sounds.

Windpower opponents quickly attacked the industry funded findings as biased, something that Mike Klepinger, who formerly worked at Michigan State University Extension Service, where he wrote the agency’s wind turbine siting guidelines, says is not surprising.

“Of course, whenever you invite industry into a panel, the whole panel becomes suspect,” Mr. Klepinger said in an interview with Great Lakes Bulletin News Service. “They say, ‘It couldn’t possibly be operating scientifically.’ But you look at the who’s who on the [panel] list, and you kind of have to give the industry an A-plus for trying to make the panel objective.”

Their three major conclusions:

  •  “There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.
  • “The ground-borne vibrations from wind turbines are too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.
  • “The sounds emitted by wind turbines are not unique. There is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds and the panel’s experience with sound exposures in occupational settings, that sounds from wind turbines could plausibly have direct adverse health consequences.”

Scientists see no basis for turbine ‘infrasound’ health problems

From an article by Jim Dulzo on the Web site of Michigan Land Use Institute:

. . . when they could not find an independent organization willing to underwrite such a study, they paid for it themselves. AWEA [American Wind Energy Association] and CanWEA [Canada Wind Energy Associaiton] assembled eight scientists and doctors to survey the available scientific literature on the known health effects of living near wind turbines.

Collectively, the eight have strong research or clinical experience in public health, otolaryngology, noise-induced hearing loss, balance and hearing disorders, clinical medicine, audiology, infrasound acoustics, industrial sound pathology, wind and turbine physics, and turbine sound measurement and siting.

Their review of 140 different studies and papers issued in 2009, largely from Europe, where wind farms are common and located quite close to residential areas, is called Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects; An Expert Panel Review.

The panel points out that the environment and our bodies are awash in infrasound, much of it naturally occurring. It finds Dr. Pierpont’s list of maladies too poorly characterized to be medically useful. It finds a markedly stronger correlation between subjects’ claimed turbine syndrome symptoms and their initial attitudes toward turbines than between their symptoms and their level of exposure to turbine sounds.

Windpower opponents quickly attacked the industry funded findings as biased, something that Mike Klepinger, who formerly worked at Michigan State University Extension Service, where he wrote the agency’s wind turbine siting guidelines, says is not surprising.

“Of course, whenever you invite industry into a panel, the whole panel becomes suspect,” Mr. Klepinger said in an interview with Great Lakes Bulletin News Service. “They say, ‘It couldn’t possibly be operating scientifically.’ But you look at the who’s who on the [panel] list, and you kind of have to give the industry an A-plus for trying to make the panel objective.”

Their three major conclusions:

  •  “There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.
  • “The ground-borne vibrations from wind turbines are too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.
  • “The sounds emitted by wind turbines are not unique. There is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds and the panel’s experience with sound exposures in occupational settings, that sounds from wind turbines could plausibly have direct adverse health consequences.”

Ashland hospital, ahead of biomass curve, saves money

From an article by Joe Cadotte on BusinessNorth.com:

An idea sketched on a napkin inside an Ashland restaurant 27 years ago has transformed the Memorial Medical Center into one of only two or three hospitals nationally that runs off of waste wood.

With 99 percent of the hospital’s energy needs coming from wood that might otherwise have been discarded, the Ashland hospital is many steps ahead of the biomass trend we’re seeing today.

In 1984, MMC administrators were looking for ways to restrain health care costs. Their plan was to use a wood burning boiler to supplement three gas boilers that were installed in 1972 when the facility was built. . . .

During its design phase, MMC Vice President Les Whiteaker was in charge of assessing the cost effectiveness of the boiler. “I thought it would take three to four years for the boiler to pay for itself,” he said. To his surprise, energy savings were sufficient to offset the $468,000 investment in just 30 months.

Over the years those savings have amounted to more than $6 million. By burning wood, the hospital annually saves $400,000, making medical services 22 percent less than the state average.

Renewable energy courses announced for 2011

Custer, WI – The Midwest Renewable Energy Association, an ISPQ Accredited renewable energy education provider, has just released their 2011 workshop schedule.

Solar electric, solar water heating and wind electric are now forms of energy that can be installed at a residence to supply a portion or all the energy needs of a home and still be connected to the utility grid in the traditional manner.

MREA courses walk consumers and installers though basics to the installation.

To get find more information on how you can participate in this energy form, check out the MREA’s web site for a course near you or call 715-592-6595.

GreenWhey, Turtle Lake, to break ground for digester

From an article by Heidi Clausen in The Country Today:

TURTLE LAKE – After some setbacks, ground will be broken this spring for an anaerobic cogeneration facility aimed at solving a growing dilemma for northwestern Wisconsin dairy plants.

GreenWhey Energy Inc. is on target to begin construction in late March or early April on a 70,000-square-foot digester plant in Turtle Lake that will recycle wastewater from dairy and food processing, turning it into renewable energy and fertilizer.

The plant, scheduled to be operating by Nov. 1, will employ eight to 10 people.

Along with helping the dairy industry turn a liability into a commodity, the plant is designed to reduce the load on Turtle Lake’s wastewater treatment plant.

GreenWhey is a privately held company spearheaded by Tom Ludy, who founded Lake Country Dairy in Turtle Lake in 2001.

Ludy outlined the company’s plans in a public meeting Jan. 25 attended by about 50 people in Turtle Lake. Ludy said the meeting was held to address any concerns about the project before construction begins.

GreenWhey would be the second project of its kind in Wisconsin and is unique in its number of investors, Ludy said. A similar whey digester facility at Kraft Foods in Beaver Dam is owned by the municipality.
State officials and dairy companies across Wisconsin are watching the GreenWhey project closely in hopes that this type of project could help the dairy industry manage wastewater more sustainably.

The approximately $15 million project is being financed by private investors, grants and low-interest government loans.

Proposed wind-energy ban threatens Cashton wind project

From an article by Kevin Lee in The Daily Reporter:

MADISON — Local contractors seeking to build a new wave of wind energy sites are still holding their collective breath.

Gov. Scott Walker has put the brakes on legislation to push back the minimum distance between wind turbines and property lines, but a joint legislative committee may take up the matter on Wednesday.

Wes Slaymaker, who is helping to construct the Cashton Greens wind energy site in Monroe County, said Walker’s legislation would have disrupted proposed projects preparing for construction.

“As (the proposal) was written, it was kind of a moratorium on wind (energy) in the state. So I guess there is still a bit of a cloud, but now the cloud has moved over to the edge of the horizon, it’s not right over the top of our heads,” he said.

As of now, a state rule that takes effect in March will establish that wind sites must be 1,250 feet away from property lines. Walker wanted to push that distance back to 1,800 feet, which energy wind advocates say would be among the most restrictive limits in the country.

The tougher siting restriction, one of the proposals the governor pushed as part of his special session to improve the state’s economy, has not received a public committee hearing, a typical first step for new legislation.

“We’ll pursue action with the Legislature outside of the special session,” Walker said. “But again, I want to see the wind industry like any other industry be able to be effective here in the state of Wisconsin. I just want to find a way to balance that with the needs of individual property rights in the state as well.”

Business associations clash over wind siting rules

From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The state Legislature moved with remarkable speed during its special session to enact proposals advocated by Gov. Scott Walker.

The single great exception: a bill to restrict development of wind farms.

Of 10 bills considered by the Legislature in the special session that began Jan. 4, the wind siting bill is the only one that didn’t clear the state Assembly.

Legislative leaders last week decided to stop consideration of the Walker bill, saying they would move to address wind siting in a different way. The move came one week after Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby, announced its opposition to the wind siting bill. It’s the only plank of Walker’s special session platform that WMC opposed.

The energy proposal runs counter to Walker’s jobs agenda because it threatens to block several large wind power projects, with an investment valued at $500 million, this year and next, wind power advocates say. But Walker is concerned about the cost of wind power and says the state needs to have a better balance between wind development and property rights. . . .

The Wisconsin Realtors Association said it worked with Walker’s transition team to craft a proposal that would effectively block the PSC’s standard, which was established after eight months of study. The Concerned Realtors Committee was a key backer of Walker’s gubernatorial campaign, donating more than $43,000 in 2010, campaign finance records show.

The governor’s bill was backed by the Wisconsin Builders Association and Wisconsin Towns Association as well as local community groups that have organized to block wind farms, such as the one Chicago-based Invenergy has proposed in Brown County. . . .

The focus on the issue now shifts to a public hearing Wednesday before a legislative committee that reviews rules like the one forwarded by the PSC.

“There are still members of our caucus who have an interest in making a change,” said Andrew Welhouse, spokesman for state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau). “The final discussions on what that change is and what route that change is going to take through the Legislature is not determined. It’s still a work in progress.”

“There are lots of discussions going on on how to come up with a compromise,” state Sen. Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay) said.

He considers the 1,250-foot setback insufficient. But Cowles, who was the author of a bill that resulted in more renewable energy springing up across the state, doesn’t want to see wind development halted.

The Walker bill was met with a barrage of criticism, not only from WMC but also from wind energy developers, advocacy groups and wind energy manufacturer Tower Tech Systems in Manitowoc, which President Barack Obama visited last month. Tower Tech joined other suppliers in raising concerns about the chilling effect the bill would have on jobs and investment.

Talk of a compromise doesn’t please Jeff Anthony, a former We Energies renewable energy strategist who is now director of business development at the American Wind Energy Association.

“From our perspective, the compromise is what we’ve been working on the past two years,” Anthony said. “The compromise went through the legislative process and the regulatory process.”

Wind developers initially sought a setback of 1,000 feet from homes before the PSC adopted a 1,250-foot setback.

Gov. Walker's office to keep pushing new wind turbine rules

From a story on WTAQ, Madison:

MADISON, Wis. (WTAQ) – Governor Scott Walker’s office says it will keep trying to limit the locating of new wind energy farms in Wisconsin – even though his own Republicans in the Legislature are not going along with it for now.

Spokesman Cullen Werwie says Walker will try to get the state Public Service Commission to adopt his proposal. That’s after Republican legislative leaders said they wanted more time to review the impact.

Walker wants wind turbines to be at least 1,800 feet away from neighboring homes, instead of the current 1,250 feet. The Wisconsin Realtors Association pushed for the change.

Walker said it would help property owners who say the turbines cause too much noise and flickering light. But the wind energy industry says it would be the most restrictive setback in the nation – and they’re calling it a de-facto ban on new wind energy projects.

The group Renew Wisconsin says it could put up to $1.8 billion worth of future wind projects in jeopardy. And Denise Bode of the American Wind Energy Association said it would make a mockery of Walker’s claim that Wisconsin is “open for business.”