CHILTON — Calumet County supervisors jumped the gun on new wind turbine rules this summer even while asking the state Supreme Court to consider whether its old ordinance met legal muster.

 A denial from Wisconsin’s justices will now require the county to put that early work to action.

The state Supreme Court on Friday denied Calumet County’s petition for review of an appeals court decision that invalidated the county’s wind turbine rules. The ordinance dictated setbacks and maximum heights and sound levels for all turbine construction within its zoning jurisdiction.

Wisconsin’s 2nd District Court of Appeals struck down the ordinance in July, saying each proposed project has to be reviewed on its own merits.

Turbine construction has been a contentious issue for years in the rural county, pitting farmers considering the potential for income against residential property owners with concerns including health and aesthetics.

Chester Dietzen, chairman of the county’s planning, zoning and farmland preservation committee, said supervisors made good use of their time since asking the Supreme Court for review. The committee already held a public hearing on proposed ordinance changes, which clears the path to forward compliant rules to the county board for consideration.

“We’re ahead of the game,” he said.

The decision stemmed from a 2006 lawsuit filed against Calumet County by a Town of Stockbridge farmer who sought to add four turbines to his property. The county, however, placed a moratorium on construction after Marvin Ecker Jr. declared his intention, and then passed the ordinance that tightened requirements.

The appeals court found the County Board overstepped its authority.

The county’s petition to the Supreme Court argued that appellate judges read beyond the plain language of state statutes and imposed limits on municipalities that weren’t contemplated by the state Legislature.

“Supreme Court review will clarify the proper role of municipalities in the regulation of wind energy systems,” the petition said.

County supervisors said the revised ordinance would give individual consideration to construction proposals through conditional use permits.

A new ordinance will also become moot in time due to a newly passed law that directed the state’s Public Service Commission to draft statewide regulations for turbine placement.

While those rules will override local ordinances, Dietzen said passage of a new ordinance would protect county interests in the meantime.
Dietzen said it could be up to a year before the statewide rules are enacted.

FROM MICHIGAN:

BIG WIND VS: SMALL GOVERNMENT:

Noise limits and setbacks debated

By Kate Hessling, Tribune Staff Writer

Huron Daily Tribune

www.michigansthumb.com

24 November 2009

 BAD AXE — A public hearing held Monday served as the forum for a variety of interests, as local government officials, wind developers and residents gave input on the effect of wind turbine setback requirements and noise limitations on wind energy development.

Local officials saw Monday’s hearing, which was held by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), as a last-chance opportunity to implore state officials to keep control of zoning for wind turbine setbacks and noise limitations with local governments.

Representing the Huron County Planning Commission, Building and Zoning Director Russ Lundberg said Huron County has a track record in the form of the only two commercial-scale wind projects in Michigan. He said the projects, which achieve the state’s goal of harnessing energy from wind power, were possible because of local zoning. The county’s approach to local wind turbine zoning is to allow them in agricultural areas, so as to preserve the area’s agricultural heritage.

This approach, Lundberg said, benefits the state and local area, and there is no need for the state to preempt local zoning.

District 2 Huron County Commissioner Dave Peruski agreed with Lundberg, noting it should be up to the local area to determine the best way wind development projects and the general public can co-exist.

He said Huron County has first-hand experience and knowledge of commercial-scale wind turbine developments, and the state does not.

“We live with them — we should be able to make the rules for them,” Peruski said.

Developers encourage standardized zoning

Developers used Monday’s hearing as a forum to note that while it’s important to work with local government officials and have some local zoning requirements in order for any wind development project to be successful, there needs to be some sort of standard in the state for turbine setback requirements and noise limitation for wind energy development to work in Michigan.

Brad Lila, of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc. (RES Americas), said there is a lack of consistency and certainty regarding zoning requirements for turbine setback and noise limitations in the state. Because of this, he said, it makes it difficult for developers to plan large projects. Lila said it’s important to reconcile the interest of the public to that of the interest of project participants, and local governments are crucial to achieving that balance.

Unfortunately, Lila said, setback distances and noise emitted from turbines are complex issues. At times it can be difficult, if not impossible, to build a project if local zoning provisions include overly-strict standards based on “unfounded fears or assumptions.”

Many of the residents in attendance Monday to speak against wind energy development in their area took offense to that statement, saying their fears are not unfounded — particularly when it comes to health issues they say have been experienced by some who live near wind turbines.

Residents concerned

A majority of the residents who spoke Monday were opposed to wind energy development in their area, citing concerns that turbines sited too close to homes will cause health problems, declining property values, a loss of scenic value and wildlife, and other detrimental effects to the environment.

“We don’t treat enemy combatants this bad,” said Robert McLean, of Minden City, in regard to the “torture” he says some have experienced because turbines have been sited as close to 1,000 feet to their home.

A number of residents from the Ubly area gave first-hand accounts of health issues they’ve experienced from turbines being sited too close to their homes.

Marilyn Peplinski said she and her husband have had to rent an apartment to go to on nights when the turbines make too much noise for them and their children to sleep. She referred to a variety of health problems she says her family has experienced as a result of sleep deprivation.

Peplinski wanted to know who is protecting the fundamental rights — including the right of an individual to be safe in his/her home — of the people of Huron County.

“It’s undeserved, unacceptable and it’s not the Huron County way,” she said.

Jan Ramboski, of Port Hope, said she feels the health issues have been dismissed by developers.

“The companies building them, in my opinion, don’t care,” she said. “It’s the big buck — and I don’t mean deer.”

She said the entire Thumb should get a say in whether future wind projects should be allowed in the area, not just local landowners.

Regarding fears that wind developments will cause property values to plummet, local realtors said they were concerned no one will want to live in an area riddled with wind turbines.

Retirees expressed fears that the scenic beauty of the area they chose to spend the rest of their life in will be forever marred if a number of commercial-scale wind turbine developments are allowed to be constructed.

Others were concerned about ill effects a large number of turbines will have on the hunting and tourism industries.

Thomas Peruski, who lives a half-mile west of Ubly, said he hasn’t seen a deer near his home since the Michigan Wind 1 wind farm went online last year.

He expressed displeasure with the fact that decisions that will be made at the state level will be decided by individuals who do not live in the areas that are affected. Thomas Peruski said the power generated by these wind projects do not even benefit those living in the nearby vicinity, though everyone has to pay surcharges on their utility bills to fund the alternative energy developments.

Many of those in attendance agreed, saying wind energy may not be the most viable solution, particularly because it is not a constant source of energy, is very expensive and would be subsidized by ratepayers and the government. As a result, many encouraged the state officials present to consider a different sort of alternative energy, such as solar power.

One resident suggested the state should consider giving subsidies to residents to help them put solar panels or other small-scale renewable energy devices on their homes.

Not all of the comments given at Monday’s hearing were opposed to local wind energy development in the local area, however.

Keith Iseler, a Port Hope resident who said he is one of many landowners to sign contracts with RES Americas, said wind energy is important for the sake of making progress. He noted if nothing is done, the area will be left in the dust.

Also, Iseler said, it’s possible to make improvements as projects progress, as wind companies are willing to negotiate and work with area residents and local government officials.

Iseler added he doesn’t see why wind energy development can’t be successful in the Thumb if there is proper supervision.

Mixed responses on state zoning noise, setback requirements

Regarding whether it would be better to have the state institute zoning standards or have control stay at the local level, there were mixed responses given during Monday’s meeting.

Carl Duda, of Bad Axe, said while he is concerned that officials are not giving the entire truth regarding the health effects associated with wind turbines, he fears that if the state takes over control of local zoning, the result will be having thousands of turbines pushed into Huron County in a short time.

Charlie Parcells, of Port Hope, agreed, adding he can’t decide if the Thumb needs the protection of the state or protection from the state.

Parcells said he can’t fault any landowner for doing what he or she feels is what’s best for their family by participating in wind development projects. However, at the same time, he said he feels putting thousands of windmills in the Thumb is a bad idea.

Quite of few of the residents who spoke during Monday’s hearing expressed opposition to the MPSC delegating the Thumb as a wind energy zone, which is an area that would be most productive for wind energy. Delegating a wind energy zone will help expedite wind energy development as efforts, such as upgrading transmission capabilities.

Many residents feared that having the area named as a wind energy zone will open the door to thousands of turbines being erected in the Thumb in the next five years.

As a result, a large number of residents focused their concerns on the effects this would have on the area’s health, environment, property values and scenery.

Lake Township Clerk Valerie McCallum questioned a portion of the state’s energy law passed last year that states the MPSC’s designation of a wind zone is not allowed to represent an unreasonable threat to the public convenience, health and safety and that any adverse impacts on private property values are minimal.

She particularly wanted to know what constitutes “unreasonable” or “minimal,” and asked if “reasonable risk” includes someone being driven away from their home because they can’t sleep at night.

McCallum said the MPSC and state have to make very careful decisions in regard to turbine setback requirements and noise limitations. Otherwise, she said, the state will be trading one unhealthy means of energy generation for another if those living near turbines experience health and financial harm.

Others who spoke during Monday’s hearing were skeptical as to how much the state will consider their concerns.

“I’m not sure this meeting will do much good — it seems the decision already is made,” said Kim Camp, of Harbor Beach, as she questioned how impartial the MPSC will be in light of the fact that it is the state’s goal to encourage/facilitate large-scale wind development in Michigan.

The hearing’s purpose

Monday’s hearing was held by the MPSC to receive public comments on the effect of wind turbine setback requirements and noise limitations on wind energy development.

Administrative Law Judge Mark E. Cummins, who moderated Monday’s hearing, explained the hearing was held pursuant to Public Act 295 of 2008, also known as the Clean, Renewable and Efficient Energy Act, which requires the MPSC to submit a report to the Michigan Legislature on the effect that setback requirements and noise limitations under local zoning or other ordinances may have on wind energy development in wind energy resource zones.

It was noted the MPSC is an agency within the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth. Decisions are made by a three-member board, comprised of unelected members that are appointed by the governor. All three of the current board members have been appointed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

The three members were not present at the public hearing, which was held in Lansing, nor were they at two satellite locations, one in Bad Axe and the other in Traverse City. Cummins said MPSC staff members who were in Lansing, Bad Axe and Traverse City all were there to facilitate gathering information in the form of public comments — either spoken or written — which will be compiled and then forwarded to the MPSC board for review.

Included in that information will be a transcript of Monday’s public hearing, which Cummins said is expected to be prepared by Dec. 11, and published on the MPSC’s website, www.michigan.gov/mpsc, shortly thereafter.

Those who still wish to submit a written comment have until 5 p.m. Dec. 11 to do so.

Written comments should be sent to: Executive Secretary, Michigan Public Service Commission, P.O. Box 30221, Lansing, MI 48909. Electronic comments can be e-mailed to mpscedockets@michigan.gov.

All comments should reference Case No. U-15899. The MPSC notes all information submitted to the commission in this matter will become public information, available on the Commission’s Web site, and subject to disclosure.

Protesters speak out against turbines

(Click on image above to watch video.)

• Sonu Wasu [click here to read at source]

MECHNICSBURG, Ohio (WDTN) - A court battle was underway to decide the future of Miami Valley wind turbines. As the debate went on indoors, protestors lined up outside the Governors office in Columbus.

They were handing out flyers, letting people know that these wind turbines would be taller than the Statue of Liberty, and ruin the landscape.

Ohio lawmakers were considering a proposal that would put 70 wind turbines on land in Champaign county.

"To give you some grasp of that, there are only 11 buildings in the whole state of Ohio that tall, and we'll have 70 now that tall, in area of 9000 square acres," said concerned citizen Daniel Dye.

All the turbines would be planted on land between Urbana and Mechanicsburg. Landowners who have signed on to agree stood to gain about $15,000 in return. They would also provide enough power to run 600 homes, and create jobs.

Protesters worried about what that would cost in terms of quality of life, property values, and the environment, in what they called their small bedroom community..

"When you're living among 500-foot spinning monstrous, noisy towers, it's definitely going to affect the quality of life," said Dye.

The push for green jobs and finding alternative energy sources was Ohio Governor Ted Strickland's new mission. Now with time running out, protesters hoped their voices carried through this wind of change.

"We didnt have a voice in the matter. I'm very concerned for my friends and neighbors who will have them in their backyards," said protester Lori Forrest.

The Ohio Power Sitting Board is now deciding whether to issue site permits for this project. Whether you're for it or against, if you'd like your voice to be heard you can contact your township trustees, zoning board, or local state representative.

You can also mail your opinions to the Ohio Power Sitting Board, 180 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215.

A few weeks ago we sent an inquiry to EcoEnergy LLC about the status of the proposed 67 turbine wind farm in the Town of Magnolia.

Five contiguous Rock County Towns have now adopted wind ordinances with a setback of 2640 feet. These include Magnolia, Union, Center, Janesville and Spring Valley.

Better Plan contacted the developer to ask for their response to this, and for an update on their plans for our community. We have not received a reply.

If you would like to contact them and ask them yourself, they can be reached by clicking here:

info@ecoenergyllc.com

WHY YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED:

EcoEnergy has had wind prospectors in each of the five Rock County Towns listed above. They've signed up landowners to lease their land to host turbines and they've sold the rights to those leases to Acciona, a Spanish company.

This is from the EcoEnergy website [click here for source]

What is shadow flicker?

Shadow flicker is the term used to describe what happens when rotating turbine blades come between the viewer and the sun, causing a moving shadow effect. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the National Academy of Sciences found in May, 2007 that "In the United States, shadow flicker has not been identified as causing even mild annoyance. In northern Europe, on the other hand, because of the higher latitude and lower angle of the sun, especially in winter, shadow flicker can be a problem of concern."

Shadow flicker is almost never a problem for residences near new wind energy facilities, and in the few cases where it could be, it is easily avoided through careful siting.

THIS IS SHADOW FLICKER FILMED BY A WISCONSIN WIND FARM RESIDENT near Town of Byron, in Fond du Lac County.

Wisconsin writer Lynda Barry has been interviewing wind farm residents for a book she is putting together that answers that very question. She's interviewed people from 20 households in both the Blue Sky/Green Field wind farm near the Town of Malone and also the Invenergy Forward Energy wind farm near the Town of Byron. Both wind farms have a setback of 1000 feet from non-participating homes.

This exerpt, from the up-coming book, is based on an interview conducted in late June of 2009:

      Harvey and Rita Freund live in the north-central section of the Blue Sky/Green Field 88 turbine wind project. Their home is surrounded by turbines on all sides. The closest turbines appear to be approximately 1500 feet away, with about 11 more turbines within a 2640 foot range of their house.

 They’ve lived in their farmhouse since 1962, raising six kids. They are grandparents and great-grandparents and their home is full of family photos.

 They welcomed me with that Wisconsin mix of hospitality, friendliness and earthy humor that is one of my favorite things about people in our state. On the afternoon we spoke they were just a few weeks away from their 59^th wedding anniversary.

 Harvey greeted me from out in front of the house where he was greasing some machinery on a boat. He’s 79 years old, has bright blue eyes, and an easy, open smile. He tells me he’s hard of hearing so the turbine noise doesn’t bother him as much as it bothers his wife. But he is bothered by the disappearance of wildlife from the area since the turbines went on line.

 Harvey says, “We used to have so many ducks and geese around. They’d come over there to the pond to mate, and nest.” Harvey says now the ducks are few and the geese seem to have abandoned their nests. There are fewer birds now than he’s seen in the last 35 years.

 “And we always had bats. Lots of bats.”  He says they’re gone too. “These last two nights I’ve only seen but one.”

He invites me inside to meet Rita.

Rita Freund is 77 years old. She has congestive heart failure and sits in a recliner with a walker near by. Her heart may not be in the best shape but her sense of humor is in top condition. She says, “When Harvey and me got married I told him, I’ll cook for the first fifty years, then you cook for the next fifty years, and then the next fifty years we’ll negotiate.”

 She’s wearing a blue dress, which sets off alert blue eyes behind glasses.  Her legs and ankles are swollen with the edema that typifies congestive heart failure, and her feet are resting on a towel. She has extreme difficulty getting around and is confined to an electronically adjustable recliner most of the day.

 She spoke about severe shadow flicker from the turbines. “The first time it came in through the bathroom so bright and flashing I didn’t know what it was. I was hollering for Harvey because I thought the house was on fire.”

 She says the flicker hits their house in the morning. It makes her feel sick and dizzy and she can’t shut it out. When asked what she does about it she says, “I just cover up my head with a blanket until it’s over.”

 When asked how long the flicker lasts she says, “It lasts for quite a while. When the sun is out we get it every morning. Drives me crazy. They need to shut that turbine down.”

 She says the flicker is terrible but her biggest complaint is the buzzing sound in her ears, which began soon after the turbines, went on line.

 “It started off sounding like a Slinky going down the stairs, you know? Then it turned into a buzzing with a beat. And now my head just buzzes all the time.”

 She has a history of stroke, and when she mentioned the buzzing to her doctor, he became concerned and recommended she get an MRI. She did and it showed no problems.

 But the buzzing continued. She said, “It has three different sounds. One has a beat, like a drum, you know? Then that Slinky. Then that buzzing. It depends on the direction of the wind. I can be sitting here watching TV and inside my head it’s just buzzing away.”

 She says a long-time neighbor from across the road also suffers from buzzing in her ears since the turbines went on line. One day they were visiting and talking about the turbine noise and shadow flicker and her neighbor says, “But it's that buzzing in my ears that drives me up a wall.”

  “I said, ‘me too’. That’s how we found out it wasn’t just me, we both had it.”

 Her neighbor recently decided to move to the nearby town of Chilton because of the turbine troubles.

 When asked if Harvey and Rita have complained to the wind company about the noise and shadow-flicker, Harvey shakes his head. He says he learned back when the mega-farms came in that complaining is useless.

 “It don’t do no good,” he says, “I’m 79 years old. I have five maybe six years left. I ain’t going to spend it fighting the wind company."

WIND FARM PLAN STIRS DEBATE IN BROWN CO.; Developer seeks to build largest operation in state.

By Scott Williams

Green Bay Press-Gazette

CLICK HERE TO READ AT SOURCE

Business has been slow, so dairy farmer Bernie Kozlovsky could use a little extra cash as much as the next guy.

But a developer’s offer of $6,000 annually for access to his property has Kozlovsky — and many of his neighbors — conflicted about whether to welcome a wind farm into southern Brown County.

The proposal by Chicago-based Invenergy LLC would be Brown County’s first major commercial wind farm and would be larger than any currently operating in the state.

Proponents say wind energy protects the environment and provides economic growth, while opponents fear the intrusion of spinning turbines that stand 400 feet tall.

As presented to state regulators, Invenergy’s plan calls for 100 turbines south of Green Bay in the towns of Glenmore, Wrightstown, Morrison and Holland.

Kozlovsky, who farms 80 acres in Glenmore, has made up his mind.

“I said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” he said. “Sure the money’s tempting. But then you’ve got to step back.”

In addition to paying farmers and other landowners $6,000 a year or more to allow turbines on their property, Invenergy is offering the county and local communities a combined $600,000 annually in incentives.

Invenergy spokesman Kevin Parzyck said other Wisconsin locations were considered, but the topography of southern Brown County made it an ideal location.

“There’s good wind that can produce good energy,” he said.

The Chicago developer, which already has 18 wind farms throughout the country, outlined its plans in an application filed last week with the state Public Service Commission.

According to the application, 54 turbines would be erected in Morrison, while 22 would be in Holland, 20 in Wrightstown and four in Glenmore. Known as the Ledge Wind Energy Project, the farm would begin operation in 2011 and would generate enough electricity to power about 40,000 homes.

Wisconsin currently is home to nine commercial wind farms, the largest of which is owned by Milwaukee-based We Energies and includes 88 turbines in Fond du Lac County. Twenty more wind projects are under development statewide, including one in Glenmore that would involve eight turbines.

Another developer in 1998 erected two turbines elsewhere in Glenmore, in what was Brown County’s first commercial wind project.

Invenergy’s proposal for the county’s first large-scale operation is stirring strong reactions.

William Hafs, the county’s director of land and water conservation, said county officials support wind energy development because it is environmentally friendly.

Hafs noted that Gov. Jim Doyle has set a goal of utilizing renewable resources to generate 25 percent of the state’s energy needs by 2025.

“This is the future,” Hafs said. “It’s a clean energy, and it’s the way to go.”

The Public Service Commission will hold public hearings before deciding whether to allow the Invenergy development — a process that could take several months. County and town officials also will have an opportunity to review applications for zoning, building permits and other elements of the development.

Local officials in the development site say they have heard mixed feelings from residents.

Kevin Collins, a Morrison trustee, said some residents favor the project because of the economic boost, but others are opposed to the idea of altering the area’s rural aesthetics.

“I don’t think it’s for everybody,” Collins said.

Glenmore Chairman Don Kittell, on the other hand, called the development a boon to the region both financially and in terms of energy resources.

“We’re going to make some money,” Kittell said, “and we’re not going to run out of electricity."

By Lyn Jerde

Daily Register

CLICK HERE TO READ AT SOURCE

FRIESLAND - Walter Wiersma considered introducing a photo of his children - 5-year-old Spencer and 3-year-old Rianna - into the written record of Wednesday's Public Service Commission of Wisconsin hearing to illustrate his opposition to electricity-generating wind turbines in northeast Columbia County.

Wiersma, of Friesland, was one of many people at the standing-room-only hearings who said worries about the health effects, safety and noise from wind turbines, in a 17,300-acre area in the towns of Scott and Randolph, should lead the commission to reject the We Energies proposal for Glacier Hills Wind Park.

"I'm for green energy," he said, "but I don't want it to hurt my family and friends."

The two hearing sessions, one at 3 p.m. and one at 7 p.m., were moved from the Randolph Town Hall to the Friesland Village Hall next door, in an effort to accommodate the crowds that showed up at both sessions.

All 50 chairs in the village board's meeting room were filled, and attendees spilled into the back of the room, and even into the hall outside.

At the first session, which lasted about an hour and 15 minutes, testimony was fairly divided among proponents and opponents of the wind project, which is expected to generate 207 megawatts of energy (enough to power about 45,000 homes) from 90 turbines, built on about 240 parcels of leased farmland.

Cliff Krentz of the town of Randolph said economics - namely, jobs for builders such as himself - is the strongest argument in favor of the project.

"Glacier Hills Wind Park can do a lot of good for a lot of people in this area," he said.

Several other witnesses, representing construction companies and unions representing workers in the construction business, offered similar testimony.

But at the second session, which lasted about two hours, several of those who testified said they lived near Blue Sky Green Fields, an 88-turbine We Energies wind farm that began operating last year in Fond du Lac County, in the towns of Marshfield and Calumet.

James Mueller of the town of Marshfield said the noise from the turbines is worst in winter, when there are no crops in the field to muffle it.

"It roars above my house like a jet," he said.

James Vollmer, who also lives near Blue Sky Green Fields, said he had to stop raising birds because the noise from the turbines stressed them so much, they stopped laying eggs, they molted in the winter and some of them died.

"Just like anyone else," he said, "if birds can't sleep, they get health problems."

Several other witnesses who live near Blue Sky Green Fields testified about problems with TV and radio reception, a strobe effect from the turbine blades called shadow flicker, and people who are susceptible to motion sickness experiencing queasiness from the turning turbines.

But Art Ondrejkas. who lives in the town of Calumet in Fond du Lac County, said he works for a company that is contracted to service the turbines there - and he has no problems living near them.

"I have a family there," he said, "and if I thought that something would happen to my family because of the wind turbines, I'd be out of there in a minute."

Several residents of the towns of Scott and Randolph said they've tried to sell their homes since hearing of plans for the wind farm, but have had few or no offers because of the possibility of the turbines being built.

Nancy Bump of the town of Scott said she has not leased any of her land for the turbines, but four of them are planned for near her home - the nearest one a little less than 1,200 feet away.

"We will be subjected to sleepless nights and shadow flicker from all four points of the compass," she said.

Carl Vander Galien, Friesland village president, read into the record a village resolution in opposition to the project. If the turbines are built, the resolution asks that We Energies pay the village yearly to compensate for the drop in property values the village is already experiencing just from the anticipation of the project.

"Personally," he said, "I don't see why this project is being built here, because of the low amount of wind."

Several attendees also submitted only written testimony, which was not read aloud to the group.

Administrative Law Judge Michael Newmark, who presided at the hearings, said all testimony, oral and written, is taken under oath. All testimony, except any that might be removed later due to objections from attorneys, will be compiled for the three-member Public Service Commission's consideration when it decides, probably sometime in January, whether to approve, deny or approve with modifications the Glacier Hills Wind Park project.

If the commission approves the project, construction will likely start next summer, and the turbines should be operational sometime in 2011.

ljerde@capitalnewspapers.com

745-3587

Lyn Jerde/Daily Register
James Ebert of Friesland, left, expresses adamant opposition to the proposed Glacier Hills Wind Park Wednesday, as Administrative Law Judge Michaal Newmark listens, during a Public Service Commission of Wisconsin hearing at the Friesland Village Hall. Sworn testimony from the hearing will be given to the three-member Public Service Commission, which will decide, probably in January, whether to approve, modify or deny approval to the proposed We Energies wind energy complex in northeast Columbia County.

Lyn Jerde/Daily Register
Every chair was filled, and people stood in the back of the room and even in the hallway, for a Public Service Commission of Wisconsin public hearing on a proposed wind energy complex in the towns of Scott and Randolph. The hearing, originally scheduled for the Randolph Town Hall, was moved to the Friesland Village Hall next door to allow more seating space. At least 100 people attending each of the two hearing sessions Wednesday.

To follow the stimulus money you'll need a passport

A new report finds that only two out of ten dollars in stimulus money granted for wind energy stays in the US. The other 80% heads straight overseas.

CLICK HERE to read the whole story.

Final wind farm hearing Wednesday

By Lyn Jerde, Daily Register 

[CLICK HERE to read at source]

October 28, 2009

Residents will have one last chance to have their say before the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decides the fate of a proposed wind energy farm in northeast Columbia County.

Here are some questions and answers about Wednesday's public hearing on the Glacier Hills Wind Park, proposed by We Energies.

Q. Where and when will the hearing be held?

It will be held Wednesday at the Randolph Town Hall, which is located in the village of Friesland at 109 S. Madison St. (Columbia County Highway EF, just off Highway 33).

Public Service Commission Spokeswoman Teresa Weidemann-Smith said there will be two hearings - one beginning at 3 p.m. and the other at 7 p.m. Either of the hearings could be extended or continued to another day if there are more people wishing to testify than time allows, she said.

Q. Who will preside over the hearings?

Administrative Law Judge Michael Newmark will preside.

Q. Are the hearings like a courtroom proceeding?

In many ways, yes. People who testify will take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Objections can be raised that could lead to testimony not being admitted to the record, with Newmark ruling on whether the objections would be sustained or overruled.

Q. Who can testify?

Anybody with an opinion for or against the proposed wind farm - consisting of 90 wind turbines, to be located on leased land in an area covering 17,300 acres in the towns of Scott and Randolph - can testify at the hearing.

Q. How will the testimony be used?

The testimony will be taken down verbatim by a court reporter and will be compiled for consideration by the members of the Public Service Commission: Chairman Eric Callisto and Commissioners Mark Meyer and Lauren Azar. The commission is expected to decide in January whether it will approve, reject or modify the We Energies application to construct the wind farm.

Q. Why does We Energies want to build a wind farm in Columbia County?

Utility companies operating in Wisconsin are being required by law to produce more and more of their energy from renewable sources such as wind and sun.

Walter "Doc" Musekamp, local affairs director for We Energies, said the proposed Columbia County location offers several advantages. It's located near an existing electric transmission system, and it's in an area that has pockets of reliable wind.

Altogether, the wind farm is expected to generate up to 207 megawatts of energy, enough to power at least 25,000 homes.

Q. Will Columbia County residents get any of the energy that the wind farm is expected to generate?

 Yes and no. We Energies has electric customers in Wisconsin and Michigan but does not offer electric service anywhere in Columbia County. (A small portion of the county gets natural gas service from We Energies.) However, once power gets added to an existing grid, it's impossible to determine exactly where it originated - so, theoretically, some of the energy generated in Columbia County could wind up being used by Columbia County customers of utilities other than We Energies.

Q. Wasn't the public hearing on this project supposed to have been held last summer?

Yes. It was originally scheduled for July 13. But the Public Service Commission requested the delay to allow for the compilation of an environmental impact statement after residents of the towns of Scott and Randolph raised questions not addressed in an environmental assessment that the PSC released - questions about such things as the noise made by the turbines, their effects on flying wildlife such as birds and bats, effects on land use and long-term health effects for people who live near large wind turbines. These questions were addressed in the environmental impact statement, which came out early this month. The environmental impact statement, and other documents relating to the project, can be viewed on the Public Service Commission's Web site by going to www.psc.wi.gov and entering case number 6630-CE-302.

Q, If the commission approves the project, when would the wind farm be up and running?

A. No sooner than spring or summer 2011.

Q. If I can't make it to the hearing, may I express my opinion about the project to the PSC in written form?

A. The deadline for doing so was Wednesday. Any further expressions of opinion would have to be in the form of testimony at the public hearing.