by jboullion | Oct 26, 2009 | Uncategorized
From the announcement of the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters:
Each year citizens from across Wisconsin descend on the Capitol to share their conservation values with their Legislators. Since the first Conservation Lobby Day in 2005, it has grown from just 100 citizens to more than 600! As we head into the 6th annual Conservation Lobby Day, there is one thing we can guarantee-when citizens come together to make their conservation values known, legislators listen, and conservation victories soon follow!
The reauthorization of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund and the passage of the Strong Great Lakes Compact are two great examples of how citizen lobbying resulted in ground-breaking conservation laws.
Conservation Lobby Day is a unique opportunity to share your conservation stories and experiences with legislators and have a huge impact on conservation policies affecting all of Wisconsin.
This Conservation Lobby Day, you can help to:
•Preserve Groundwater: Wisconsin’s Buried Treasure: manage Wisconsin’s groundwater resources to preserve lakes, streams, wetlands and drinking water supplies.
•Stop Global Warming in Wisconsin: address the threats of global warming in Wisconsin through clean, renewable energy jobs and energy conservation.
•Restore Conservation Integrity: return Wisconsin to an Independent DNR Secretary and a timely appointment of Natural Resource Board members.
•Protect Wisconsin’s Drinking Water: protect Wisconsin’s drinking water supplies by making sure we safely spread agricultural, municipal, and industrial waste.
For a 1-page brief on each of these issues, click on their title above. To read even more, check out the Conservation Priorities 2009-2010.
by jboullion | Oct 26, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Larry Bivins in the Stevens Point Journal:
WASHINGTON — Wisconsin has lost a little ground in energy efficiency, but it still ranks among the top states, according to a new report released today.
The Badger State fell from ninth to 11th on a 2009 scorecard compiled by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. The group rated states’ energy policies and programs in six categories — utilities and public benefits; transportation; building energy codes; combined heat and power; government initiatives; and appliance efficiency standards.
Wisconsin totaled 24 out of a possible 50 points. The national average was 17.
Wisconsin’s best showing was in combined heat and power, on which it scored four out of five total points. Its worst showing was on appliance efficiency standard, where it scored zero.
The state’s slippage in the rankings was more a result of other states having made substantial improvements rather than Wisconsin not doing as much as it had in the past, said Maggie Eldridge, the ACEEE report’s lead author. Maine, for example, moved from 19th to the 10th spot.
Wisconsin, she said, has “a very long and strong track record of offering energy efficiency programs.”
Dan Kohler, director of Wisconsin Environment, said while the state has a good ratepayer-funded energy efficiency program, it could do a lot more. He said his organization has called on the state to require a 2 percent reduction in energy use per year and to use federal money to retrofit homes and businesses.
“Energy efficiency is the fastest and cheapest way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce carbon pollution,” Kohler said. “Plus, it can save consumers and businesses hundreds of dollars each year on their bills.”
by jboullion | Oct 26, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Dee J. Hall in the La Crosse Tribune:
When state Department of Natural Resources Secretary Scott Hassett resigned suddenly in the summer of 2007, Gov. Jim Doyle’s office announced that Hassett was leaving to “write, travel and consult on environmental and regulatory issues.”
Privately, however, Hassett told a different story: That Doyle, a fellow Democrat, had forced him out of the top spot at the DNR because of the agency’s insistence that the state clean up UW-Madison’s coal-burning Charter Street heating plant – a move now expected to cost Wisconsin more than $200 million.
Hassett has told at least two former top DNR officials that he was forced to resign and one
of the reasons was the Charter Street enforcement action, which pitted two state agencies against one another in a conflict that hit close to the governor’s office.
“There was no doubt in my mind that he (Hassett) was forced out,” said George Meyer, DNR secretary from 1993 to 2001, recounting a conversation he had with Hassett at Hassett’s Lake Mills-area home in March. Meyer said Hassett told him he believed the enforcement action against the plant was a key reason for his ouster.
Tom Thoresen, retired deputy chief conservation warden for the DNR, said Hassett told him a similar story in a phone conversation earlier this month.
Thoresen said he called Hassett to thank him for helping push for a bill that would take away the power of the governor to appoint the DNR secretary and return that authority to the Natural Resources Board. Four former DNR secretaries, including Hassett and Meyer, signed a letter last month backing Assembly Bill 138.
“I did talk to Scott Hassett … thanking him for his signing on to the DNR letter to legislators,” Thoresen said. “Scott told me that yes, Charter Street was part of the reason for his being let go.”
Doyle spokesman Lee Sensenbrenner declined to answer directly whether Hassett, and his deputy, Mary Schlaefer, were forced out. He pointed to a July 20, 2007, news release that implied Hassett was resigning because of overwork after four and a half years on the job.
“Anyone who claims that Charter Street is the reason for Scott Hassett’s departure is a liar,” Sensenbrenner said in a statement.
by jboullion | Oct 26, 2009 | Uncategorized
Even though the quotes below from pre-filed statements take the form of rebuttal testimony in the PSC proceedings on We Energies’ Glacier Hills Wind Park, they can stand on their own. You need not read the filings they rebut in order to make sense out of what they’re saying.
The pre-filed testimony stands among the strongest redupiation of anti-wind arguments.
These filings will be formally entered into the record when the technical hearings begin on November 2nd, but they (and all other filings) are available online at the Web site of the Public Service Commission and link directlyi to case 6630-CE-302.
Richard Larkin, a state certified real estate appraiser, rebuts a “study” of property values paid for by the Coaliton for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship (CWESt), a group opposing the Glacier Hills project:
I am responding to testimony submitted by Kurt Kielisch on behalf of CWESt, in 1 which he claims that paired sales analyses at the Blue Sky Green Field and Forward wind projects shows that proximity to wind turbines results in a significant negative impact on residential real estate values. There are significant (and probably fatal) problems with his analysis, which I will explain in my testimony. . . .
. . .it is my opinion that Appraisal One’s Wind Turbine Impact Study is significantly flawed, and in my opinion, likely meaningless.
Read all of Larkin’s testimony here.
William Roberts, PhD in Epidemiology, former faculty member with the Medical College of Wisconsin (Dept. of Preventative Medicine), former Oklahoma State Epidemiologist dissects Dr. Nina Pierpont’s “research” and rebuts CWESt’s acoustical consultant. He summarized his testimony as follows:
+ “Wind Turbine Syndrome” is not a medical diagnosis supported by peer reviewed, published, scientific literature;
+ The materials presented to support “Wind Turbine Syndrome” are not of sufficient scientific quality nor have they received the rigorous scientific review and vetting that is customarily part of the peer review and publishing process;
+ The tried and true scientific method of developing a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, publishing the results and having others attempt to repeat the research has not been done to test the existence of a health condition called “Wind Turbine Syndrome;”
+ An accumulation of anecdotal interviews with self-selected persons living near a wind turbine does not constitute an epidemiological study and is not sufficient to determine causation;
+ The bases for claimed adverse health effects due to wind turbines cited by Mr. James either cannot withstand scientific scrutiny or have nothing to do with wind turbines; and
+ Siting a wind turbine within view of a residence and the operation of that turbine could be a source of annoyance to those living in the residence.
Read all of Roberts’ testimony here.
Geoff Leventhall, acoustical consultant, PhD in acoustics, presented testimony to rebut CWESt’s acoustical consultant.
Based on my experience of infrasound and low frequency noise, it is my belief that the infrasound from wind turbines is of no consequence. Attempts to claim that illnesses result from inaudible wind turbine noise do not stand up to simple analyses of the very low forces and pressures produced by the sound from wind turbines. Additionally, the body is full of sound and vibration at infrasonic and low frequencies, originating in natural body processes. As an example, the beating heart is an obvious source of infrasound within the body. Other sources of background low frequency noise and vibration are blood flows, muscle vibrations, breathing, fluids in the gut and so on. The result is that any effect from wind turbine noise, or any other low level of noise, which might be produced within the body is “lost” in the existing background noise and vibration. This is considered in more detail in my Appraisal of Wind Turbine Syndrome, which is submitted as Exhibit 18.
More broadly, my testimony establishes that the claims of health effects from the low levels of infrasound and low frequency noise from wind turbines, as described in the Wind Turbine Syndrome and Vibroacoustic Disease hypotheses, fail. However, higher frequency noise from wind turbines, if it is audible, can cause disturbance to some residents, but this effect is no different from that of noise from another source.
Read all of Leventhall’s testimony here.
by jboullion | Oct 23, 2009 | Uncategorized
A news release issued by RENEW Wisconsin:
Utilities’ voluntary incentives hit limits
(Madison, WI – October 23, 2009) In contrast to the rapid growth experienced in the last three years, a leading state renewable energy advocacy group expects a sharp decline in installed solar electric capacity in 2010.
In statements directed to the Public Service Commission (PSC), three utilities – Wisconsin Electric Power (WE), Wisconsin Power and Light (WPL), and Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) – acknowledged yesterday that their voluntary solar incentive programs will be discontinued for new customers. All three had offered, on a limited basis, a special buyback rate for the generated electricity, which effectively cut in half the payback period for the systems.
“These three incentive programs spurred homeowners and businesses to install nearly 2.5 megawatts of solar electric capacity,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. “But for those incentives, we wouldn’t not have reached the milestone that PSC Chair Eric Callisto recently celebrated at the installation of a system serving the Town of Menasha.”
“Though voluntary initiatives are certainly welcome, they cannot by themselves sustain a vibrant solar marketplace. By far the most effective way to maintain solar’s momentum is for the Legislature to require utilities to purchase a set amount of renewable energy from their own customers at a reasonable price,” said Vickerman.
Going into 2010, the only investor-owned utility that has a special buyback rate is Madison Gas and Electric (MG&E), which pays its customers 25 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity generated from their solar systems. MG&E’s voluntary program still has room for another 600 kilowatts of customer-owned solar.
Until their voluntary initiatives had reached capacity, both WPS and WPL had been paying the same rate as MG&E, while WE had offered a 22.5 cents for each kilowatt-hour generated.
“If renewable energy is to drive job growth in Wisconsin, lawmakers must create favorable marketplace conditions to support new installations going forward. No policy will accomplish that goal more effectively than a state initiative to establish higher buyback rates,” Vickerman said.
by jboullion | Oct 23, 2009 | Uncategorized
Even though the quotes below from pre-filed statements take the form of rebuttal testimony in the PSC proceedings on We Energies Glacier Hills Wind Park, they can stand on their own. You need not read the filings they rebut in order to make sense out of what they’re saying.
The pre-filed testimony stands among the strongest redupiation of anti-wind arguments.
These filings will be formally entered into the record when the technical hearings begin on November 2nd, but they (and all other filings) are available online at the Web site of the Public Service Commission and link directlyi to case 6630-CE-302.
Richard Larkin, a state certified real estate appraiser, rebuts a “study” of property values paid for by the Coaliton for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship (CWESt), a group opposing the Glacier Hills project:
I am responding to testimony submitted by Kurt Kielisch on behalf of CWESt, in 1 which he claims that paired sales analyses at the Blue Sky Green Field and Forward wind projects shows that proximity to wind turbines results in a significant negative impact on residential real estate values. There are significant (and probably fatal) problems with his analysis, which I will explain in my testimony. . . .
. . .it is my opinion that Appraisal One’s Wind Turbine Impact Study is significantly flawed, and in my opinion, likely meaningless.
Read all of Larkin’s testimony here.
William Roberts, PhD in Epidemiology, former faculty member with the Medical College of Wisconsin (Dept. of Preventative Medicine), former Oklahoma State Epidemiologist dissects Dr. Nina Pierpont’s “research” and rebuts CWESt’s acoustical consultant. He summarized his testimony as follows:
+ “Wind Turbine Syndrome” is not a medical diagnosis supported by peer reviewed, published, scientific literature;
+ The materials presented to support “Wind Turbine Syndrome” are not of sufficient scientific quality nor have they received the rigorous scientific review and vetting that is customarily part of the peer review and publishing process;
+ The tried and true scientific method of developing a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, publishing the results and having others attempt to repeat the research has not been done to test the existence of a health condition called “Wind Turbine Syndrome;”
+ An accumulation of anecdotal interviews with self-selected persons living near a wind turbine does not constitute an epidemiological study and is not sufficient to determine causation;
+ The bases for claimed adverse health effects due to wind turbines cited by Mr. James either cannot withstand scientific scrutiny or have nothing to do with wind turbines; and
+ Siting a wind turbine within view of a residence and the operation of that turbine could be a source of annoyance to those living in the residence.
Read all of Roberts’ testimony here.
Geoff Leventhall, acoustical consultant, PhD in acoustics, presented testimony to rebut CWESt’s acoustical consultant.
Based on my experience of infrasound and low frequency noise, it is my belief that the infrasound from wind turbines is of no consequence. Attempts to claim that illnesses result from inaudible wind turbine noise do not stand up to simple analyses of the very low forces and pressures produced by the sound from wind turbines. Additionally, the body is full of sound and vibration at infrasonic and low frequencies, originating in natural body processes. As an example, the beating heart is an obvious source of infrasound within the body. Other sources of background low frequency noise and vibration are blood flows, muscle vibrations, breathing, fluids in the gut and so on. The result is that any effect from wind turbine noise, or any other low level of noise, which might be produced within the body is “lost” in the existing background noise and vibration. This is considered in more detail in my Appraisal of Wind Turbine Syndrome, which is submitted as Exhibit 18.
More broadly, my testimony establishes that the claims of health effects from the low levels of infrasound and low frequency noise from wind turbines, as described in the Wind Turbine Syndrome and Vibroacoustic Disease hypotheses, fail. However, higher frequency noise from wind turbines, if it is audible, can cause disturbance to some residents, but this effect is no different from that of noise from another source.
Read all of Leventhall’s testimony here.
by jboullion | Oct 23, 2009 | Uncategorized
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 23, 2009
MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org
Utilities’ voluntary incentives hit limits
(Madison, WI – October 23, 2009) In contrast to the rapid growth experienced in the last three years, a leading state renewable energy advocacy group expects a sharp decline in installed solar electric capacity in 2010.
In statements directed to the Public Service Commission (PSC), three utilities – Wisconsin Electric Power (WE), Wisconsin Power and Light (WPL), and Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) – acknowledged yesterday that their voluntary solar incentive programs will be discontinued for new customers. All three had offered, on a limited basis, a special buyback rate for the generated electricity, which effectively cut in half the payback period for the systems.
“These three incentive programs spurred homeowners and businesses to install nearly 2.5 megawatts of solar electric capacity,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. “But for those incentives, we wouldn’t not have reached the milestone that PSC Chair Eric Callisto recently celebrated at the installation of a system serving the Town of Menasha.”
“Though voluntary initiatives are certainly welcome, they cannot by themselves sustain a vibrant solar marketplace. By far the most effective way to maintain solar’s momentum is for the Legislature to require utilities to purchase a set amount of renewable energy from their own customers at a reasonable price,” said Vickerman.
Going into 2010, the only investor-owned utility that has a special buyback rate is Madison Gas and Electric (MG&E), which pays its customers 25 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity generated from their solar systems. MG&E’s voluntary program still has room for another 600 kilowatts of customer-owned solar.
Until their voluntary initiatives had reached capacity, both WPS and WPL had been paying the same rate as MG&E, while WE had offered a 22.5 cents for each kilowatt-hour generated.
“If renewable energy is to drive job growth in Wisconsin, lawmakers must create favorable marketplace conditions to support new installations going forward. No policy will accomplish that goal more effectively than a state initiative to establish higher buyback rates,” Vickerman said.
END
by jboullion | Oct 22, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a news release issued by Govenor Jim Doyle:
MADISON – Governor Jim Doyle today announced over 100 communities have joined the Wisconsin Energy Independent Community Partnership. The communities, which come from every region of Wisconsin, have pledged to work toward Governor Doyle’s “25×25” goal of generating 25 percent of the state’s electricity and transportation fuels from renewable resources by the year 2025.
“I’m pleased that communities across Wisconsin have accepted my clean energy challenges head on,” Governor Doyle said. “Together we are making great strides toward energy policies that create jobs, clean our air and water, and save us money. I look forward to working with Energy Independent Communities as we continue Wisconsin’s clean energy leadership.”
The Wisconsin Energy Independent (EI) Community Partnership is the first of its kind in the nation and is an integral part of Clean Energy Wisconsin, Governor Doyle’s plan to move Wisconsin toward energy independence. The plan details strategies to move Wisconsin forward to promote renewable energy, create new jobs, increase energy security, and improve the environment.
The community partnership, which is led by the Wisconsin Office of Energy Independence, helps individual communities take advantage of their unique resources and develop new strategies to foster innovative clean energy solutions.
New members of the Energy Independent Community Partnership include: City of Two Rivers in Manitowoc County, City of West Allis in Milwaukee County, City of New London in Outagamie County, Village of Stratford in Marathon County, City of Whitewater in Walworth County, City of Jefferson in Jefferson County, Village of Oxford in Marquette County and Iowa County.
by jboullion | Oct 22, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a news release issued by Govenor Jim Doyle:
MADISON – Governor Jim Doyle today announced over 100 communities have joined the Wisconsin Energy Independent Community Partnership. The communities, which come from every region of Wisconsin, have pledged to work toward Governor Doyle’s “25×25” goal of generating 25 percent of the state’s electricity and transportation fuels from renewable resources by the year 2025.
“I’m pleased that communities across Wisconsin have accepted my clean energy challenges head on,” Governor Doyle said. “Together we are making great strides toward energy policies that create jobs, clean our air and water, and save us money. I look forward to working with Energy Independent Communities as we continue Wisconsin’s clean energy leadership.”
The Wisconsin Energy Independent (EI) Community Partnership is the first of its kind in the nation and is an integral part of Clean Energy Wisconsin, Governor Doyle’s plan to move Wisconsin toward energy independence. The plan details strategies to move Wisconsin forward to promote renewable energy, create new jobs, increase energy security, and improve the environment.
The community partnership, which is led by the Wisconsin Office of Energy Independence, helps individual communities take advantage of their unique resources and develop new strategies to foster innovative clean energy solutions.
New members of the Energy Independent Community Partnership include: City of Two Rivers in Manitowoc County, City of West Allis in Milwaukee County, City of New London in Outagamie County, Village of Stratford in Marathon County, City of Whitewater in Walworth County, City of Jefferson in Jefferson County, Village of Oxford in Marquette County and Iowa County.
by jboullion | Oct 22, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a news release issued by Govenor Jim Doyle:
MADISON – Governor Jim Doyle today announced over 100 communities have joined the Wisconsin Energy Independent Community Partnership. The communities, which come from every region of Wisconsin, have pledged to work toward Governor Doyle’s “25×25” goal of generating 25 percent of the state’s electricity and transportation fuels from renewable resources by the year 2025.
“I’m pleased that communities across Wisconsin have accepted my clean energy challenges head on,” Governor Doyle said. “Together we are making great strides toward energy policies that create jobs, clean our air and water, and save us money. I look forward to working with Energy Independent Communities as we continue Wisconsin’s clean energy leadership.”
The Wisconsin Energy Independent (EI) Community Partnership is the first of its kind in the nation and is an integral part of Clean Energy Wisconsin, Governor Doyle’s plan to move Wisconsin toward energy independence. The plan details strategies to move Wisconsin forward to promote renewable energy, create new jobs, increase energy security, and improve the environment.
The community partnership, which is led by the Wisconsin Office of Energy Independence, helps individual communities take advantage of their unique resources and develop new strategies to foster innovative clean energy solutions.
New members of the Energy Independent Community Partnership include: City of Two Rivers in Manitowoc County, City of West Allis in Milwaukee County, City of New London in Outagamie County, Village of Stratford in Marathon County, City of Whitewater in Walworth County, City of Jefferson in Jefferson County, Village of Oxford in Marquette County and Iowa County.
