by jboullion | Oct 27, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a column by Margaret Krome in The Capital Times:
President Obama toured renewable energy research facilities recently at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He wanted to drive home the point that homegrown, low-carbon energy sources and energy conservation strategies are crucial to steer the planet toward a safer climate and the nation toward greater energy security. In addition, policy based on renewable energy and conservation creates jobs.
The president could just as well have toured Wisconsin to make his point. Wisconsin’s researchers are forging ahead on many fronts, such as ways to grow biomass crops in a sustainable manner; economically viable processes to convert biomass into transportation fuels; and the siting, processing, and transportation protocols associated with using biomass for heat and power. Given the state’s large biomass capacity in forests and crops like switchgrass, researchers are making an investment in the state’s future.
But more is happening. The Legislature will soon consider recommendations from the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force, some of which offer opportunities for new jobs across the state, in small towns as well as cities. Inevitably, vested interests always fight even obviously necessary change. So it should surprise nobody when coal companies and others who depend on fossil fuels mount campaigns to oppose renewable energy policies. But many objections are borne of fear and misinformation.
For example, some farm groups express concerns about the low carbon fuel standard, a policy that is actually likely to benefit Wisconsin’s farmers. This policy uses a market mechanism to require fuel providers to reduce the total carbon content of fuels sold in the state. Rather than deprive farmers of fuels currently available, it would diversify farmers’ fuel options and reduce volatility. And because the state does not produce fossil fuels but does produce biomass-based energy, this policy plays to the state’s agricultural strengths.
Another policy being considered that supports farmers and rural communities as well as municipalities is the renewable energy buyback program. To meet demand for renewable energy, Wisconsin needs many people to become small-scale renewable energy producers. Some have already done so by installing wind turbines, methane digesters, or solar panels and selling the extra energy back into the grid. But the amount these small-scale producers get paid varies greatly, often making that energy unprofitable to produce.
by jboullion | Oct 27, 2009 | Uncategorized
From the Southeastern Wisconsin Regionial Planning Commission:
The public is invited to attend one of three upcoming public informational meetings for the Racine County Public Transit Plan. At the meetings, you can learn more about the plan, discuss it with Commission staff, and comment on the work performed to date. The meetings will be in an “open house” format, allowing you to attend at any time during the two-hour timeframe:
+ Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 4:30-6:30 p.m.
Racine Railroad Depot
1409 State Street
Racine
+Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 4:30-6:30 p.m.
Burlington Town Hall
32288 Bushnell Road
Burlington
+Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Auditorium, Ives Grove Office Complex
14200 Washington Avenue
Sturtevant
More details here.
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.
