by jboullion | Mar 26, 2013 | Uncategorized
|
Epic Systems of Verona has erected six
wind turbines along Kickaboo Road near
Highway 12 in the town of Springfield. |
A timely editorial (relating to the SB-71 proposal) in the Wisconsin State Journal about why Wisconsin should keep it’s wind siting rules intact. Find the original posting here.
The state regulation of wind farms that Wisconsin put in place a year ago improves on the previous patchwork of local regulations.
That’s one reason why lawmakers should leave the regulation intact and reject the latest proposal to turn back to the patchwork approach.
Here’s another reason: A return to patchwork regulation would threaten the public’s interest in developing clean, renewable energy.
Wisconsin’s wind farm regulations set standards for projects, including how far turbines must be set back from nearby homes and how noisy the turbines can be. If local governments develop their own regulations, they cannot be more restrictive than the state standards.
To develop the standards, the Public Service Commission considered a range of viewpoints and studied scientific evidence on the effects of wind turbines. The resulting regulations fairly protect local interests in safety and property rights as well as the general interest in taking advantage of a green energy source.
Nonetheless, wind farm opponents continue to argue for more restrictions. This month, a group of lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 71 to permit local governments to go beyond the state regulations. Bill supporters have seized upon a study of a Brown County wind farm. The study, conducted by acoustics experts, detected largely inaudible, low-frequency sound inside three homes near the wind turbines. The study also noted that some residents complained of health problems, such as nausea and headaches.
However, the study could link the noise in only one home to a turbine. Furthermore, the study could not attribute the health complaints to the noise. The indecisive findings do not offer evidence to change the state’s regulations.
Lawmakers should appreciate the perils of putting the regulatory burden for wind farms on local governments.
First, local governments typically lack the time and resources the PSC employed to study the issue. Before the state standards were developed, some local governments rushed into extreme regulation without scientific foundation. Trempealeau County required turbines to be set back one mile from neighboring homes. That restriction virtually banned wind farm development.
Second, without state standards, the wind energy industry faces the uncertainty of a varying collection of costly local regulation. The chilling effect deprives the state of wind power development.
The effects of wind turbines should continue to be examined. Regulations may need future updating. But Wisconsin cannot afford to go backward in regulation. Wind power is too important for its potential to improve energy security, reduce air pollution and boost economic development.
Find the original posting of this article here.
by jboullion | Mar 20, 2013 | Uncategorized
Lenore Taylor, Chief Political Correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald, debunks “wind turbine sickness”. See the original posting of this article here.
|
A new study has found that 63 per cent of Australia’s 49 wind farms have
never been the subject of any health complaint from nearby residents. Photo: Nicolas Walker |
”Wind turbine sickness” is far more prevalent in communities where anti-wind farm lobbyists have been active and appears to be a psychological phenomenon caused by the suggestion that turbines make people sick, a study has found.
The study found that 63 per cent of Australia’s 49 wind farms had never been the subject of any health complaint from nearby residents.
It found 68 per cent of the 120 complaints that have been made came from residents living near wind farms heavily targeted by the anti-wind farm lobby, and that ”the advent of anti-wind farm groups beginning to foment concerns about health (from around 2009) was also strongly correlated with actual complaints being made”.
Study author, Simon Chapman, professor of public health at Sydney University, said the results suggested that ”wind turbine sickness” was a ”communicated disease” – a sickness spread by the claim that something was likely to make a person sick. This was caused by the ”nocebo effect” – the opposite of the placebo effect – where the belief something would cause an illness created the perception of illness.
He found a much greater correlation between negative attitudes to wind turbines and reports of sickness than any ”objective measures of actual exposure”.
And he cited studies suggesting that the spread of communicated diseases was much faster when the ”illness” had a name – such as Wind Turbine Syndrome, Vibro Acoustic Disease and Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance.
Professor Chapman also cites a recent New Zealand study in which some healthy volunteers were exposed to actual ”infrasound” – the sub-audible noise from wind farms claimed to cause health problems – and others to complete silence, which they had been told was ”infrasound”. In both cases the volunteers who had been told about the potential harmful effects of infrasound were more likely to report symptoms.
There have been several parliamentary inquiries into concerns about the health impacts of wind farms and the National Health and Medical Research Council is conducting a second study into the available medical evidence for the health complaints.
Parliament recently rejected a private members bill by independent Senators Nick Xenophon and John Madigan, which would have removed government subsidies from wind farms operating above certain noise levels.
But the Coalition has said that if it is elected in September it will hold another ”expert” inquiry into wind farm noise.
The most recent Senate inquiry into the issue found no causal link between the noise from wind farms and symptoms reported by those who lived near them, but accepted that people were reporting that they felt unwell.
After a ”rapid review” in 2010 NHMRC said there was ”insufficient published scientific evidence” to link wind turbines with adverse health effects.
But some residents have continued to report suffering from sleep deprivation, stress and serious long-term health problems.
See the original posting of this article here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/wind-turbine-sickness-all-in-the-mind-study-20130315-2g4zd.html#ixzz2O5v0FOVS
by jboullion | Mar 19, 2013 | Uncategorized
For all of you folks interested in biomass, check out this conference coming up:
by jboullion | Mar 18, 2013 | Uncategorized
A great article from Tom Content at JS Online on the third-party ownership bill. Find the original article here.
State’s electric utilities oppose move to allow third-party solar financing
Wisconsin is missing out on a wave of solar power development that’s going on around the country.
One example: Kohl’s Department Stores around the country generate three times as much power as all the solar electricity being generated in Wisconsin today.
What’s driving the boom in other states is third-party financing, which allows a company such as SunEdison, a builder of solar power plants, to own the panels on the roof of a Kohl’s store. That’s not allowed in Wisconsin, but would be under a bill being drafted in Madison.
The proposal, backed by a group of clean energy companies and the Wisconsin Farmers Union, faces opposition from the lobbying group for the state’s electric utilities.
The utilities worry that such a change would open the door to more renewable energy and drive up costs for other ratepayers.
The legislation is being crafted by Rep. Chris Taylor (D-Madison) and Rep. Gary Tauchen (R-Bonduel). It’s expected to be among a host of energy issues that may come before the Legislature now that the debate over mining legislation is finished.
The change would exempt owners of renewable generation at a home or business from being regulated as a public utility. Supporters say it’s a low-cost step that would stimulate economic development in the form of increased investment by solar installers that have moved work to states that are encouraging renewable energy.
“This will open up the renewable energy market to companies that don’t have a lot of money lying around to finance clean energy projects,” said Michael Vickerman, policy director for Renew Wisconsin, a clean energy advocacy group.
For Renew Wisconsin, the effort could make up ground lost in recent years after the failure to expand the state’s renewable energy standard, and following moves by state regulators and utilities to shift their focus away from support for customer-owned renewable systems.
The markets where solar has taken off are dominated by those that permit third-party ownership, said Carl Siegrist, a solar energy consultant who was a renewable energy strategist at We Energies.
“Nearly three-fourths of the solar market last year came from third-party ownership,” said Siegrist, who discussed the proposal at the recent Sustainability Summit in Milwaukee.
At stores around the country, Kohl’s buys power from SunEdison, which built the panels on the roofs of the Kohl’s stores.
“If there was third-party ownership allowed, they would have it on every one of their stores in the state,” said Steve Johnson of solar energy developer Convergence Energy, which developed a solar project in Delavan.
Fears of cost shifting
Utilities are concerned that the proposal could lead to higher rates.
According to Bill Skewes, who heads the Wisconsin Utilities Association, the lobbying arm for the utility industry, the biggest concern is that utilities will see cost shifting because they will sell less power to customers who install solar systems.
The fixed costs of paying for the poles, wires and day-to-day business operations of the utility would then have to be spread across the remaining customers, he said in a memorandum to lawmakers on the issue.
“The customers who become partial customers because of a distributed generation agreement would be subsidized by the other customers on the utility system,” Skewes said.
Supporters of the renewable energy shift see potential for helping farmers address their phosphorus and manure challenges by enabling them to put up more anaerobic digesters.
But, Skewes said, “advocates that want to help farmers may, in the next breath, decry the utility rate increases that further discourage economic development at a time when Wisconsin is trying to foster job growth.”
Supporters concede that the shifts could help businesses that install solar generation avoid some of the rate pressure in Wisconsin, and it could result in reduced power sales by utilities.
At the same time, they note that utilities see lower sales every time a business takes steps to cut energy waste or replaces an incandescent light bulb with an LED bulb.
Making solar affordable
Nationwide and worldwide, solar development is booming, with solar generation now reaching more than 6,000 megawatts, or enough to supply 1 million homes, according to GTM Research.
While the price of solar systems is coming down quickly – it has fallen by 50% over five years – companies are conserving cash rather than looking for places to spend it.
So when an efficiency consultant such as Johnson Controls Inc. contracts with a building owner to help cut energy waste, the upfront cost is paid for by Johnson Controls, not the utility customer. The customer then pays Johnson back over time through the savings on energy bills.
The renewable proposal works the same way, said Amy Heart, solar program manager for the City of Milwaukee. The solar company would pay the upfront costs, with the customer paying a fixed price over time for the power generated by the panels.
“We see the opportunity to not only support our solar industry, but we also have the opportunity to reduce our energy costs and lock in those rates for a 10- to 20-year term, which is that consistency we’re looking for,” Heart said. “In the long run, if we can lower our energy bills for taxpayers, that’s the idea.”
It’s a way to lock in prices over time from solar, even if utility rates go up, Siegrist said.
The proposal also overcomes one of the biggest hurdles facing renewable energy – that its upfront cost makes it affordable to a select few.
(See the original posting of this article here.)
by jboullion | Mar 15, 2013 | Uncategorized
Doug Stingle, the MREA Development Director, wrote this great article on why Wisconsin needs options for third-party ownership – it’s clear we need Clean Energy Choice legislation to boost renewable markets. (See the original posting on SeeingRED here).
The US solar electric (PV) market is booming. In fact, according to the Solar Electric Industries Association (SEIA), the residential solar electric market grew 12% over the 2nd quarter of 2012 and had its largest quarter in history. Wow, that is some impressive growth that many industries would be boasting about for quite some time. Of course, the solar industry is proud of the market growth and does some bragging about their success.
However, living in Wisconsin, you would never hear about the growth of the solar market, because the solar market in Wisconsin is stagnant.
So where are all these solar panels getting installed? According to SEIA in the 3rd quarter of 2012 (the most recent period statistics are available), Wisconsin ranked 26th in installation of solar electric capacity. Unsurprisingly, California ranked number one for installed capacity of solar in 2012, with Arizona a close second. California is a sunny state with a great solar resource, but that is not completely what is driving the installations there. The number one driver of home-sited solar systems is a third-party ownership model.
How does this work? First, you contact Company X and let them know you are interested in solar on your house. Next, Company X does an assessment on your home to see if the solar resource is adequate, and then the company looks over your electric bills to properly size a system. Company X can then come back and offer you the opportunity to install solar on your house, with no upfront costs, and save money on your monthly electric bills.
For example, let’s say you are paying $90 a month on your current utility bill. Company X can offer you the option of installing solar, and you pay Company X $80 a month as a result. Company X is the owner of the solar system, and you buy the energy produced from the solar array on your home. Company X is able to offer you the chance to reduce your electric bill and utilize solar, because the company is able to take a tax break on the installed system cost as well as sign a net-metering agreement with the local utility, allowing the company to sell any excess electricity generated by the solar system back to the utility.
Who wouldn’t want solar installed on their house and to pay less on their electric bills, all with no upfront cost? Almost everyone. So why aren’t thousands of Wisconsinites lining up to get solar on their roofs?
In Wisconsin we have just two options when it comes to electricity at our home:
- We connect to the local utility company.
- We generate and store our own power.
This gives the utility companies a virtual monopoly on power supply, as most people don’t have the resources to pay for all of the power up front. A third-party owned renewable energy generation system, as an option, is currently in legal limbo in Wisconsin.
The arrangement is neither legal nor illegal. The Public Service Commission in Wisconsin has advised that any power generating facility that is not owned by the same entity where it is located, is in fact, a utility and subject to utility regulations. This sort of legal gray area has a chilling effect on third-party owned solar systems, as companies aren’t keen on possibly facing legal action that would cut into their bottom line. Why take the chance on a possibly illegal installation in Wisconsin when this arrangement is perfectly legal in many other states?
In addition, this legal black hole is preventing schools and non-profits from partnering with a third-party who can take advantage of tax incentives that a non-profit cannot, to install solar at their location. Third-party owned renewable energy systems are great drivers of the market and are employing thousands of workers manufacturing solar components and installing systems.
The solar market is booming because of these third-party owned systems. How can we get more installed in Wisconsin and create homegrown energy and jobs?
We need clean energy choice legislation that allows third parties to own energy generation sited at customer locations and to not be regulated as a utility. Clean Energy Choice is a matter of fairness. We need to create competition in the energy market. Free market supporters can easily see this as a case of government being in the way of the free market.
Write, call or email your state representative and Governor Walker and tell them to make Wisconsin open for (renewable energy) business and to support giving Wisconsin residents a clean energy choice. Also visit
www.renewwisconsin.org and sign on to the letter of support for clean energy choice.
–Doug Stingle
(See the original posting of this article on SeeingRED here).
by jboullion | Mar 14, 2013 | Uncategorized
Below is a post from Nicole Sandler on the BioForward blog. If you’re interested in bio in Wisconsin, checkout their website for more information. See this article in it’s original posting here.
My first post for Biotech in Wisconsin was scheduled for the week of March 11, which as many scientists know includes Pi Day. As we were exchanging ideas about a potential topic, I got an email from Laura Strong, who runs a cancer drug development company in Madison and created this blog, that said:
“I was thinking of something “fun” for Pi Day (March 14) like a pie contest, which got me thinking about cow pies. Cow pies led to a recollection that manure is being converted to energy – a sort of biotech mix of ag and energy…”
In case you aren’t familiar with
Cow Pies, they are a candy made of pecans covered in caramel and chocolate. So there you have it – from
the transcendental π to delicious desserts to actual cow poop to renewable energy!
Some initial searching on the topic of biogas revealed two data-rich documents, both relevant and informative. They serve as the sources for this basic background on where the state of Wisconsin stands on the concept of harvesting animal and plant waste to produce renewable fuel.
But first a quick explanation for those in the dark (like myself) on what exactly is meant by biogas. Biogas is produced from biomass, which can be thought of as animal and plant waste. As a renewable energy source biomass can be used directly or converted to a biofuel in any of three ways – thermal conversion, chemical conversion or biochemical conversion. Think of humans burning wood to make fire to produce heat. That is one of the most basic examples of how we use a biomass source to make energy.
Biogas is a gas that is produced by the breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen – the biologists in the crowd recognize this as anaerobic digestion or fermentation. Typical sources of such biodegradable materials include manure, sewage, municipal waste, plant materials and crops; in other words, biomass. Biomass that is suitable for biogas production is referred to as “feedstock,” a term that figures prominently in the comprehensive reports and data available on this topic.
One such strategic report,
Wisconsin Strategic Bioenergy Feedstock Assessment, was published last year by the Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative (WBI). The report highlights that Wisconsin has a wide range of biomass, from crops to food and dairy processing facilities to dairy farms. Dairy manure was described as the “lowest hanging fruit” for biomass in Wisconsin. Based on detailed economic modeling, the report suggests that despite a strong forest product industry in WI, use of wood as biomass would impact prices.
The lead author of the report and Director of the WBI is Gary Radloff. Radloff is also Director of Midwest Energy Policy Analysis with the Wisconsin Energy Institute and considered an Expert in energy policy. When asked to comment on the role that biogas can play in our state, he had this to say:
“Wisconsin has the opportunity to a be a national leader in biogas energy with its robust dairy sector, large food processing sector, along with local government facilities such as wastewater treatment plants and landfill sites. Yet it may take some additional supportive public policy to push the opportunity to success due to current challenges in the energy economic marketplace today.”
Another influential organization working for more renewable energy is
RENEW Wisconsin. RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit sustainable energy advocacy organization that leads and represents statewide businesses, and individuals who seek more clean, renewable energy. Don Wichert, the organization’s interim executive director, provided some updated numbers to illustrate just where the state of Wisconsin stands on biogas:
“As of a few years ago we could boast of at least 100 biogas facilities – including over 35 wastewater treatment pants, 10 landfills, 40 animal digesters that use dairy manure and another 10 or so that use food waste.” Interestingly, one of these, at UW-Oshkosh, is the
first commercial-scale dry fermentation anaerobic biodigester in the nation, and it provides the campus with five percent of its current energy and heating needs.
In other words, biogas is not new to the state of Wisconsin.
As Wichert explains, these biogas facilities basically function by taking the waste, converting them to a 50:50 mix of methane and carbon dioxide which is then put that into an engine that turns a generator to produce electricity.
“We have a pretty solid basis for being the national leader in biogas production,” says Wichert. “Already we are very close to having the most in any state, and we could expand the number by a factor of four within the next ten years.” What this will require however, are a “few different policy tweaks.”
The Wisconsin State Energy Office also is involved in furthering the potential of biogas as a renewable energy source and recently
published a forward-looking plan in partnership with Baker Tilly. The end result is a report backed up by a set of tools to do an initial evaluation of the viability of biogas projects, specifically in the areas of cheese production and dairy farms. While the economic modeling tool is a bit advanced,
the map overlaps feedstocks and existing power/energy infrastructure.
Wisconsin seems to be striving to make its mark as a leader in harnessing biomass for renewable energy. With strong interest and resources, perhaps we could tap into the local biotech sector to address some of the quality of biomass concerns and help improve the conversion processes.
Wisconsin does have a few of these companies, most notably
Virent, which was developed around its BioForming® platform. The novel process is able to accommodate renewable feedstocks required by Virent’s customers and in doing so converts plant-based materials into a wide range of petroleum-free products.
See the original posting of this article here.
by jboullion | Mar 13, 2013 | Uncategorized
RENEW Wisconsin’s policy director, Michael Vickerman, is submitting the following statement in opposition of Senate Bill 71 at today’s hearing :
Statement of RENEW Wisconsin before the Government Operations, Public Works and Telecommunications Committee in Opposition to Senate Bill 71
March 13, 2013
Good afternoon, my name is Michael Vickerman, and I am submitting testimony today on behalf of 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 250 total members, and more than 100 businesses around the state, including Bleu Mont Dairy (Mount Horeb), Crave Brothers Farm (Waterloo), Convergence Energy (Lake Geneva), Current Electric (Brookfield), DVO, Inc. (Chilton), Emerging Energies (Hubertus), Energy Concepts (Hudson), Full Circle Farm (Seymour), Full Spectrum Solar (Madison), Kettle View Renewable Energy (Random Lake), Michels Wind Energy (Brownsville), Morse Group (Beloit), North American Hydro (Neshkoro), Northwind Renewable Energy LLC (Stevens Point), Pieper Foundation (Milwaukee), Organic Valley (LaFarge), Quantum Dairy (Weyauwega), Renewegy (Oshkosh), SunVest (Waukesha), Symbiont (Milwaukee), W.E.S. Engineering (Madison) and Werner Electric (Neenah).
On behalf of all our members that have an interest in advancing clean, locally produced, cost-effective 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. As directed by the Wind Siting Law, the Public Service Commission promulgated PSC 128, a rule that sets forth uniform, science-based standards for local government review and regulation of wind power systems in Wisconsin. PSC 128 took effect on March 16, 2012.
In evaluating the merits of SB 71, RENEW asks the Committee to consider the following points:
- In terms of setback distances as well as maximum allowable sound levels and shadow flicker duration, PSC 128 is the strictest statewide standard for permitting windpower systems in the United States. The provisions in PSC 128 are, on balance, stricter than the conditions specified in the prior permits issued by local governments or the PSC.
- The statewide rule is the culmination of two uninterrupted years of agency involvement in wind siting proceedings. It is the product of a highly deliberative process that elicited substantial input from the Wind Siting Council and the public. The Siting Council looked at all the health-related studies that were in the public domain at that time, and tailored its recommendations accordingly. The record built on the major issues is nothing short of encyclopedic.
- All 412 utility-scale wind turbines currently operating in Wisconsin were permitted before PSC 128 took effect a year ago. Because PSC 128 does not have a track record, there is no factual foundation for asserting that PSC 128 inadequately protects public health and safety.
- An independent expert panel established by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Public Health gave wind a clean bill of health in January 2012, based on analyzing all available scientific studies. The agencies stated: “There is no evidence for a set of health effects from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’…we conclude the weight of the evidence suggests no association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental health problems.” This is as true today as it was 14 months ago.
- The PSC rule was intended to provide wind energy developers with regulatory certainty — a clearly defined set of requirements which they must comply with in order to obtain a permit. This lack of certainty and predictability in the local permitting process would be paralyzing to wind developers and would bring wind development to a standstill.
- The PSC rule was intended to provide wind energy developers with regulatory certainty — a clearly defined set of requirements which they must comply with in order to obtain a permit. Allowing local governments to opt out of PSC 128 would undermine the chief rationale for the Wind Siting Law–uniform standards consistently applied across all jurisdictions in Wisconsin. This lack of certainty, consistency and predictability in the local permitting process would be paralyzing to wind developers and would bring wind development to a standstill.
- Allowing local governments to opt out of PSC 128 would jeopardize current proposals that have been configured to conform with PSC 128. It is extremely challenging to redesign windpower projects to meet different standards than those that informed the original proposal.
Restricting windpower development in Wisconsin will result in a net loss of construction and manufacturing opportunities in the clean energy sector, dry up investment and business start-up opportunities here at home, deprive local governments of a stable source of local payments, and force young adults committed to this career path to relocate to other states. In addition, passage of this bill would further exacerbate Wisconsin’s dangerous overreliance on imported fossil fuels, causing certain environmental harm.
For the reasons enumerated above, RENEW Wisconsin urges rejection of SB 71.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Vickerman
Program and Policy Director
March 13, 2013
by jboullion | Mar 12, 2013 | Uncategorized
More on SB-71 (see our previous action alert post). You can also find RENEW’s testimony, opposing this bill, submitted at the hearing March 13. Below is an editorial published in the Sheboygan Press:
It has been a year since the Wisconsin Legislature reinstated a controversial rule that uniformly regulates wind energy operations in the state. The rule — PSC 128 — spells out what is allowed and not allowed for wind turbines throughout Wisconsin.
It accounts for such factors as size and allowable setbacks from roadways and buildings.
The Public Service Commission rule is not perfect, but is preferable to the patchwork approach it replaced. Now, a group of state lawmakers seeks to again allow municipalities greater latitude in skirting the PSC rules. It is a bad idea.
The Legislature’s primary opponent of current wind siting rules is state Sen. Frank Lasee. The Ledgeview Republican’s crusade includes advocacy on behalf of several 1st Senate District families who say they have suffered negative health effects from large wind turbines on or near their properties, including in Manitowoc and Brown counties.
Similar concerns are expressed in Sheboygan County, where EEW Services is proposing the four-turbine Windy Acres wind farm in the towns of Sherman and Holland. The effect of wind turbines on human health has been a subject of controversy for many years. Study results have proven inconclusive, however, and cannot at this point form the basis of policy changes.
Read on…
by jboullion | Mar 12, 2013 | Uncategorized
More on SB-71 (see our previous action alert post). You can also find RENEW’s testimony, opposing this bill, submitted at the hearing March 13. Below is an editorial published in the Sheboygan Press:
It has been a year since the Wisconsin Legislature reinstated a controversial rule that uniformly regulates wind energy operations in the state. The rule — PSC 128 — spells out what is allowed and not allowed for wind turbines throughout Wisconsin.
It accounts for such factors as size and allowable setbacks from roadways and buildings.
The Public Service Commission rule is not perfect, but is preferable to the patchwork approach it replaced. Now, a group of state lawmakers seeks to again allow municipalities greater latitude in skirting the PSC rules. It is a bad idea.
The Legislature’s primary opponent of current wind siting rules is state Sen. Frank Lasee. The Ledgeview Republican’s crusade includes advocacy on behalf of several 1st Senate District families who say they have suffered negative health effects from large wind turbines on or near their properties, including in Manitowoc and Brown counties.
Similar concerns are expressed in Sheboygan County, where EEW Services is proposing the four-turbine Windy Acres wind farm in the towns of Sherman and Holland. The effect of wind turbines on human health has been a subject of controversy for many years. Study results have proven inconclusive, however, and cannot at this point form the basis of policy changes.
Read on…
by jboullion | Mar 11, 2013 | Uncategorized
A note from Michael Vickerman, RENEW’s Policy Director:
Senator Frank Lasee’s bill to allow municipalities to “opt out” of the reasonable standards contained in PSC 128, Wisconsin’s wind siting rule, is rapidly moving through the state legislature. A Senate Committee will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 71 on Wednesday, March 13 at 12:00 PM CST. This bill would have an immediate impact on projects currently under development and will jeopardize the future of the Wisconsin wind industry.
We need your help opposing this bill.
It is absolutely imperative that policymakers hear from Wisconsin supply chain businesses, construction companies, project developers, installers, and manufacturers on this bill. If you are able, it would be of great help if you could travel to Madison to testify at the upcoming public hearing. If you are not able to come in person, please contact me directly as there are several other ways to help (direct calls, written testimony, lending your company’s name to our testimony, etc.)
Stopping this bill will take a united effort. We hope that we can count on your support.
The notice of the public hearing on SB 72 is below.
Thank you,
–Michael Vickerman Policy Director, RENEW Wisconsin.
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org 608-255-4044 x. 2
Senate
PUBLIC HEARING
Committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications
The committee will hold a public hearing on the following items at the time specified below:
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
12:00 PM
330 Southwest
Senate Bill 39
Relating to: the notice and degree requirements for the examination to practice as a certified public accountant.
By Senators L. Taylor and Grothman; cosponsored by Representatives Kooyenga, Spiros, Knudson, Marklein, Kapenga, Steineke, Smith, Bernier, Sanfelippo and Stone.
Senate Bill 55
Relating to: costs of replacement or relocation of certain municipal utility facilities required by the construction of a freeway and eligibility for the safe drinking water loan program.
By Senators Cowles, Lasee and Lehman; cosponsored by Representatives Jacque, Weininger, Bernier, Brooks, Kahl, Klenke and Bernard Schaber.
Senate Bill 71
Relating to: limiting the regulation of wind energy systems by local governments.
By Senators Lasee, Ellis, Leibham, Grothman and Moulton; cosponsored by Representatives Jacque, Murtha, Bies, Endsley, Kestell, Klenke, Knudson, LeMahieu, Spiros and Thiesfeldt.
________________________
Senator Paul Farrow
Chair
