Better Plan, Wisconsin

WIND FARM OPPONENTS SEEK COUNTY SUPPORT

 Jeff Holmquist

SOURCE: Pierce County Herald www.piercecountyherald.com

July 12, 2012 

The St. Croix Health and Human Services Board will look into health concerns raised by residents of the Town of Forest related to a proposed wind farm in that community.

For the second time in several months, a group of Forest Township residents filled the board room at the Health and Human Services building in New Richmond, Wis. to ask for help.

The HHS Board had previously agreed to send a letter to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services asking for additional study of the possible health impacts of wind energy projects.

Opponents of the Highland Wind Farm project in Forest Township, proposed by Emerging Energies of Wisconsin LLC, say that people living near existing wind farms have suffered varying health impacts ranging from headaches, sleep deprivation and hearing loss.

In a response from Wisconsin Department of Health Services Deputy Secretary Kitty Rhoades, the state is relying on three previous studies on wind farms. All of those studies indicate that the impact on a person’s health is non-existent if proper setbacks are followed, Rhoades wrote.

Wendy Kramer, public health officer for St. Croix County, admitted there is a great deal of controversy related to the health impact of wind turbines near homes.

Forest resident Brenda Salseg said state rules require a minimum 1,250-foot setback from existing homes. At least one industry recommendation calls for a minimum of a 1,640-foot setback from homes, she reported.

If the 41 Forest turbines are allowed to be constructed, Salseg said, it’s likely that some residents will have turbines too close to their home and their family’s health will be in jeopardy.

“This is serious stuff,” she said. “This could become a health emergency in St. Croix County.”

Salseg said she also expects more wind farm proposals in the future, which will have an impact on other parts of the county.

HHS Board Chairman Fred Horne said he will distribute the information that Forest residents are circulating concerning possible health effects and the board will discuss any future action at its meeting in August.

If the group chooses, Horne said, county officials could present testimony about health concerns as part of the upcoming Public Utilities Commission hearings in October.

The Wisconsin PUC will make the final determination about whether the Highland Wind farm will move forward. The Forest project is greater than 100 kilowatts in size, making the state agency the one with final say in the matter.

The Highland project was smaller than 100 kilowatts when it was first proposed, but local opponents worked hard to recall Forest Town Board members who were supportive of the project. The new town board eventually rescinded the required approvals, but then developers increased the size of the project to bypass the local approval process.

WIND PROJECT IS NOT WELCOME

By Brenda Salseg

SOURCE: New Richmond News

February 24, 2012

I can only surmise two reasons the wind developer, Emerging Energies LLC, a.k.a. Highland Wind, dropped its potential $25 million lawsuit against the Town of Forest for breach of contract: 1. the developer knows it would be unwise to open up township records to legal scrutiny, and 2. the wind developer is trying to improve its image with other townships it may be targeting next for a wind project.

Logically, any township near the Town of Forest would also be ripe for the expansion of an industrial wind turbine project, including the towns of Glenwood, New Haven, Cylon and Emerald. Virtually, any township in the state of Wisconsin can be targeted and county and local ordinances overridden if a developer pushes its project over 100 megawatts, which requires permitting through the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

Emerging Energies/ Highland Wind is attempting to “force” the project on the Town of Forest via the PSC. Yet 70 percent of the residents of Forest are against living within an industrial wind park.

Well documented studies by leading scientists, physicians, acousticians, electrical engineers and appraisers link evidence directly to health problems and property devaluation that result wherever industrial wind turbine projects are sited too close to neighboring homes.

The most compelling evidence is the Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore, Wis. Go to www.youtube.com and search “Shirley Wind Project.” Watch the video. The families, who live south of Green Bay are suffering negative health effects and livestock deaths they believe are the result of eight 500-foot tall German-made industrial wind turbines sited in their community and installed by the same wind developer, Emerging Energies. Some of these families live more than a half mile from the nearest turbine.

Emerging Energies’ public relations tactics do not fool us who oppose the wind project in the Town of Forest. Industrial wind energy does not work, is a waste of billions of taxpayer dollars, results in few permanent jobs, does not close down coal plants, and siting turbines too close to homes and livestock is negligent and irresponsible.

Bill Rakocy, managing partner of Emerging Energies, has been quoted as saying, “We’re excited to develop as much wind (power) as we can in Wisconsin.” Of course the developer is; the eight turbines in the Shirley Project netted $13 million in taxpayer subsidy.

If Emerging Energies succeeds in the installation of a 41-wind turbine project, it would be a hostile take-over of our community and de facto eminent domain of nonparticipating properties, some 20,000 acres not under lease. One would have to question what it means to live in the United States of America if corporate interests can supersede constitutional rights.

The people of Forest that stand together against industrial wind will not stand down and allow our township to be taken over by greed under the guise of noble-sounding, planet-saving rhetoric which is not based on the facts. Nor were residents intimidated by Sunday night’s vandalism and theft of more than 30 “No Turbines” signs located on individual private property.

As taxpayers and residents of northwestern Wisconsin, if you turn a blind eye to an industrial-scale wind project in the Town of Forest, how will you respond when Big Wind comes knocking on your township’s back door and attempts to take your property as project foot-print acreage to site industrial wind turbines next to your home without your agreement?

Brenda Salseg

Town of Forest

St. Croix County

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

How do wind developers tear communities apart? Watch this trailer for "Windfall", the award-winning documentary on the darker side of Big Wind. For Wisconsin communities facing wind developers like "Emerging Energies" the scenes in this film will feel all too familiar.

'Highland Wind' group drops $25 million dollar claim against Town of Forest

VIA www.rivertowns.net

February 7, 2012 

The development group that wants to erect 41 wind turbines in the towns of Forest and Cylon announced Tuesday that they’ve dropped their $25 million claim against town officials on the basis “we owe it to the greater good to work together, figure this out and deliver the economic, social and environmental benefits that this project offers,” said Highland Wind Project spokesman Jay Mundinger.

“This project too important to the economic vitality of the region and Wisconsin’s commitment to developing “green” energy for the future,” Mundinger continued.

Township and Highland project representatives have been discussing the proposed project for about four years but after voters removed the entire town board in a recall election and the new board moved to rescind the previous wind farm agreements, claiming that previous meetings related to the Highland Wind Project were improperly noticed and failed to meet state laws guidelines for open meetings, Emerging Energies LLC filed a $25 million claim against the town for backing out of agreements and permits.

Emerging Energies subsequently revisited its plan and upsized the proposal, prompting oversight for the project to move from local governance to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

Last week, Emerging Energies received correspondence from the PSC that its application needs further details before the commission will take it under consideration. The PSC asked for clarification or additional information on 60 different items.

Mundinger told the New Richmond News the company is working to answer the questions and file the completed 1,800-page application within the next month.

“We are on track and I believe we’ll have a resubmittal,” he said.

Jamie Junker, current Forest town chairman, told the News if Emerging Energies would follow the town’s recently adopted rules, there would be no reason for local residents to object to the plans. He did admit, however, that following the township rules would require a significant change in the Highland Wind Project’s plans.

Junker said he wouldn’t comment at length about the project, but referred to the town board’s continuing efforts to protect the community from development that would change the face of Forest forever.

“It’s a big issue,” he said. “Clearly most of the residents of the town aren’t happy with the project.”

Junker said the wind licensing ordinance that the board adopted would provide the protection and safeguards that most people want, like regulations on turbine setbacks, noise levels and “shadow flicker.”

The PSC will invite public comment on the project once it deems the application complete.

The application has been posted to the PSC’s website: psc.wi.gov. The HWF docket number: 2535-CE-100.

The Highland group also launched a new web site — www.highlandwindpower.com– which carries more information about the project.

 NOTE: Scroll down to read an interview with a Wisconsin man whose family had to abandon their home after this same wind developer put up turbines in his community. This company is well aware of the misery they've already caused. Does it matter to them? Not as much as money does.

WIND FARM PROPOSAL IS FIRST IN TWO YEARS

Doug Schneider/Press-Gazette, Clay Barbour, Wisconsin State Journal,

via www.greenbaypressgazette.com

December 27, 2011 

MADISON — Developers have applied to the Public Service Commission for a permit to build a large new wind farm in western Wisconsin, the first application of its kind in more than two years.

Emerging Energies applied this month to build Highland Wind Farm, a 41-turbine, 102.5-megawatt project in the St. Croix County towns of Forest and Cylon, about 25 miles east of the Minnesota border.

The application comes as new wind siting rules remain in limbo in the PSC, with officials trying to broker a deal between the wind industry and its critics.

William Rakocy, a founding member of Hubertus-based Emerging Energies, said his company understands there still is some uncertainty surrounding Wisconsin’s wind energy regulations, but he feels confident about the project.

“I guess we would like to believe that more reasonable minds will prevail,” he said.

Wind farms have been a contentious issue in Northeastern Wisconsin.

A proposed 100-turbine wind farm polarized Morrison and other southern Brown County communities before Invenergy LLC in March withdrew its plans to seek permits to develop the project. The company cited the state’s lack of siting guidelines in pulling the proposal, which would have put 54 turbines in Morrison and others in Glenmore, Holland and Wrightstown.

Residents around the hamlet of Shirley have complained that a smaller wind development there has reduced their property values, and has caused health problems for some people. The development’s owner insists that the wind farm complies with all laws.

Those concerns have prompted elected officials to be involved. State Sen. Frank Lasee, R-Ledgeview, this fall proposed a statewide ban on turbine construction until the state is in possession of a report that assures that they are safe.

Brown County Supervisor Patrick Evans last week called for the County Board to support the Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind Siting Guidelines, a proposal that would establish limits for audible and low-frequency sound emissions, and set penalties for certain violations. A county committee will consider that request in January.

The new wind siting rules, more than a year in the making, were suspended just before going into effect in March. Those rules required wind turbines have a setback from the nearest property line of 1.1 times the height of the turbine, or roughly 450 feet. The rules also required turbines be no closer than 1,250 feet from the nearest residence.

Gov. Scott Walker proposed changes to those rules, pushing the setback from the property line — not just a dwelling — to 1,800 feet, or about a third of a mile. That legislation did not pass but did lead Republicans to ask the PSC to negotiate a new deal.

Those rules are for projects under 100 megawatts. The Highland project is larger and does not specifically fall under the rules under debate. But state law requires PSC officials to consider the yet-to-be approved rules when considering projects of greater than 100 megawatts.

This is only the beginning of the process, and the PSC has 30 days to determine if the application is complete. The agency has up to 360 days to make a decision.

Dan Rustowicz of Minnesota’s Redwind Consulting, a wind farm builder, said he is glad to hear about the application.

“That is a really good sign,” he said. “But we still need to get these rules resolved. Clarity is powerful.”

NEXT FEATURE

WIND POWER MARKET FACES TOUGH 2013

Via www.reuters.com

December 28 2011

The wind turbine market faces a difficult 2013 even if a U.S. incentive scheme known as the Production Tax Credit (PTC) is extended beyond its end-2012 expiry date, Denmark-based MAKE Consulting said in a research note.

Uncertainty about whether the tax credit will be extended or replaced with something else has led to a rushed 2011 and 2012 wind farm building cycle, while new development plans for 2013 have plummeted, MAKE said.

“The wind industry will see precipitous drops in 2013 installations without a PTC,” MAKE said in an abstract of a note for paying customers entitled, “U.S. market eyes policy cliff”.

“But even if a PTC is extended, the market impact is likely to be muted due to more challenging macro-economic conditions – basic demand conditions remain weak and natural gas futures remain low,” it said. “Even with a PTC, 2013 will not be the boom market of PTC years past.”

MAKE Consulting said that an analysis of publically announced orders for projects to be completed in 2012 showed the top-tier turbine manufacturers solidifying their market shares.

MAKE’s annual ranking list published in March this year showed Danish wind turbine maker Vestas clinging to its world market leadership with a 12 percent share, ahead of China’s Sinovel in second place and U.S. industrial giant GE in third.

Turbine prices have eroded steadily since 2008, but aggressive sales tactics may not be sustainable, MAKE said.

WHY THE WIND INDUSTRY IS FULL OF HOT AIR AND COSTING YOU BIG BUCKS

By Robert Bryce,

Via www.foxnews.com 

December 20, 2011

A review of the $9.8 billion in cash grants provided under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the federal stimulus bill) for renewable energy projects shows that the wind energy sector has corralled over $7.6 billion of that money. And the biggest winners in the 1603 sweepstakes: the companies represented on AWEA’s board of directors.

The American Wind Energy Association has begun a major lobbying effort in Congress to extend some soon-to-expire renewable-energy tax credits. And to bolster that effort, the lobby group’s CEO, Denise Bode, is calling the wind industry “a tremendous American success story.”

But the wind lobby’s success has largely been the result of its ability to garner subsidies. And those subsidies are coming with a big price tag for American taxpayers. Since 2009, AWEA’s largest and most influential member companies have garnered billions of dollars in direct cash payments and loan guarantees from the US government. And while the lobby group claims to be promoting “clean” energy, AWEA’s biggest member companies are also among the world’s biggest users and/or producers of fossil fuels.

A review of the $9.8 billion in cash grants provided under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the federal stimulus bill) for renewable energy projects shows that the wind energy sector has corralled over $7.6 billion of that money. And the biggest winners in the 1603 sweepstakes: the companies represented on AWEA’s board of directors.

An analysis of the 4,256 projects that have won grants from the Treasury Department under section 1603 over the past two years shows that $3.37 billion in grants went to just nine companies — all of them are members of AWEA’s board. To put that $3.37 billion in perspective, consider that in 2010, according to the Energy Information Administration, the total of all “energy specific subsidies and support” provided to the oil and gas sector totaled $2.84 billion. And that $2.84 billion in oil and gas subsidies is being divided among thousands of entities. The Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates the US now has over 14,000 oil and gas companies.

The renewable energy lobby likes to portray itself as an upstart industry, one that is grappling with big business and the entrenched interests of the hydrocarbon sector. But billions of dollars in 1603 grants – all of it exempt from federal corporate income taxes – is being used to fatten the profits of some of the world’s biggest companies. Indeed, the combined market capitalization of the 11 biggest corporations on AWEA’s board – a group that includes General Electric and Siemens — is about $450 billion.

Nevertheless, the clock is ticking on renewable-energy subsidies. The 1603 grants end on December 31 and the renewable-energy production tax credit expires on January 1, 2013. On Monday, AWEA issued a report which predicted that some 37,000 wind-related jobs in the US could be lost by 2013 if the production tax credit is not extended.

But the subsidies are running out at the very same time that a cash-strapped Congress is turning a hard eye on the renewable sector. The collapse of federally backed companies like solar-panel-maker Solyndra and biofuel producer Range Fuels, are providing critics of renewable subsidies with plenty of ammunition. And if critics need more bullets, they need only look at AWEA’s board to see how big business is grabbing every available dollar from US taxpayers all in the name of “clean” energy. Indeed, AWEA represents a host of fossil-fuel companies who are eagerly taking advantage of the renewable-energy subsidies.

Consider NRG Energy, which has a seat on AWEA’s board. Last month, the New York Times reported that New Jersey-based NRG and its partners have secured $5.2 billion in federal loan guarantees to build solar-energy projects. NRG’s market capitalization: $4.3 billion.

But NRG is not a renewable energy company. The company currently has about 26,000 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity. Of that, 450 MW is wind capacity, another 65 MW is solar, and 1,175 MW comes from nuclear. So why is NRG expanding into renewables? The answer is simple: profits. Last month, David Crane, the CEO of NRG, told the Times that “I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects.”

Or look at E.On, the giant German electricity and natural gas company, which also has a seat on AWEA’s board of directors. In 2010, the company emitted 116 million metric tons of carbon dioxide an amount approximately equal to that of the Czech Republic, a country of 10.5 million people. And last year, the company – which has about 2,000 MW of wind-generation capacity in the US — produced about 14 times as much electricity by burning hydrocarbons as it did from wind.

Despite its role as a major fossil-fuel utility, E.On has been awarded $542.5 million in section 1603 cash so that it can build wind projects. And the company is getting that money even though it is the world’s largest investor-owned utility with a market capitalization of $45 billion.

Another foreign company with a seat on AWEA’s board: Spanish utility Iberdrola, the second-largest domestic wind operator. But in 2010, Iberdrola produced about 3 times as much electricity from hydrocarbons as it did from wind. Nevertheless, the company has collected $1 billion in section 1603 money. To put that $1 billion in context, consider that in 2010, Iberdrola’s net profit was about 2.8 billion Euros, or around $3.9 billion. Thus, US taxpayers have recently provided cash grants to Iberdrola that amount to about one-fourth of the company’s 2010 profits. And again, none of that grant money is subject to US corporate income taxes. Iberdrola currently sports a market cap of $39 billion.

Another big winner on AWEA’s board of directors: NextEra Energy (formerly Florida Power & Light) which has garnered some $610.6 million in 1603 grants for various wind projects. NextEra’s market capitalization is $23 billion. The subsidies being garnered by NextEra are helping the company drastically cut its taxes. A look at the company’s 2010 annual report shows that it cut its federal tax bill by more than $200 million last year thanks to various federal tax credits. And the company’s latest annual report shows that it has another $1.8 billion of “tax credit carryforwards” that will help it slash its taxes over the coming years.

The biggest fossil-fuel-focused company on AWEA’s board is General Electric, which had revenues last year of $150 billion. Of that sum, about 25 percent came from what the company calls “energy infrastructure.” While some of that revenue comes from GE’s wind business, the majority comes from building generators, jet engines, and other machinery that burn hydrocarbons. The company is also rapidly growing GE Oil & Gas, which had 2010 revenues of $7.2 billion. GE Oil & Gas has more than 20,000 employees and provides a myriad of products and services to the oil and gas industry.

GE has a starring role in one of the most egregious examples of renewable-energy corporate welfare: the Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon. The majority of the funding for the $1.9 billion, 845-megawatt project is coming from federal taxpayers. Not only is the Energy Department providing GE and its partners – who include Caithness Energy, Google, and Sumitomo — a $1.06 billion loan guarantee, as soon as GE’s 338 turbines start turning at Shepherds Flat, the Treasury Department will send the project developers a cash grant of $490 million.

On December 9, the American Council on Renewable Energy issued a press release urging Congress to quickly extend the 1603 program and the renewable-energy production tax credit, because they will “bolster renewable energy’s success and American competitiveness.”

But time is running short. Backers of the renewable-energy credits say that to assure continuity on various projects, a bill must be passed into law by March 2012. If that doesn’t happen, they are predicting domestic investment in renewable energy could fall by 50 percent. A bill now pending in the House would extend the production tax credit for four additional years, through 2017. The bill has 40 sponsors, 9 are Republicans. The bill is awaiting a hearing by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His latest book is Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.

From Massachusetts

MOVING TOWARD CONSENSUS ON TURBINES

By CHRISTOPHER KAZARIAN,

Source: Falmouth Enterprise,

December 20, 2011 

In the Weston & Sampson report the cost for decommissioning the turbines and taking them down is estimated to be $700,000, with on-site storage adding $30,000 to that figure. The monthly maintenance fee for the turbines would be $4,500 a month.

The town could, under the proposal, possibly realize as much as $600,000 for the two turbines, if it were to resell them. If a buyer cannot be found, salvage value of the machines would provide the town with much less revenue, an estimated $102,000.

Earlier this year Falmouth hired a consultant to determine if the town could reach consensus with residents on how to deal with the problems of the town-owned wind turbines at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. That consultant, Edith M. Netter of Waltham, concluded that, despite the acrimony over the turbines, a consensus was achievable.

Last night selectmen moved forward with that approach by accepting advice from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, which is recommending four firms to facilitate that next step. Those firms, which the state agency selected after issuing a Request for Qualifications, are CLF Ventures of Boston; the Consensus Building Institute of Cambridge; the Meister Consulting Group of Boston; and Raab Associates of Boston.

The Clean Energy Center has provided a review of the firms to selectmen, noting which were best suited for facilitating the process of building consensus on how to deal with the town’s two wind turbines. Selectmen will not make a decision on those firms until their next meeting on Monday, January 9.

Chairman of the Falmouth Board of Selectmen Mary (Pat) Flynn asked for public input on the four finalists to help in choosing the one that will be responsible for facilitating the process of how to select the mitigation option most suitable for the town. The options before selectmen are: to decommission the two turbines; to relocate the turbines elsewhere in town; to make specific changes to the operation of the turbines; or to mitigate the homes impacted by the machines. Weston & Sampson has concluded its analysis of these options, and that report will be posted on the town’s website, under the selectmen’s section, later today.

Residents can also find information related to the four firms the Clean Energy Center is recommending for facilitation here, as well. Nancy A. Hayward of Chase Road, West Falmouth, later asked that a copy of the report also be made available to residents in the Falmouth Public Library’s reference department. The board agreed to her request.

In the Weston & Sampson report the cost for decommissioning the turbines and taking them down is estimated to be $700,000, with on-site storage adding $30,000 to that figure. The monthly maintenance fee for the turbines would be $4,500 a month.

The town could, under the proposal, possibly realize as much as $600,000 for the two turbines, if it were to resell them. If a buyer cannot be found, salvage value of the machines would provide the town with much less revenue, an estimated $102,000.

In addition, Weston & Sampson predicted the town would be responsible for repaying the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust the roughly $1 million it received in Renewable Energy Credits for the energy produced by the turbines from 2015 to 2029.

Falmouth would have to cover its debt obligations for the pur- chase of the wind turbines. In the report the town would pay $6.88 million in debt for Wind 1. With relocation Weston & Sampson has estimated the town would require an additional $4.48 million investment. Of that amount roughly $1.5 million would go toward decommissioning of the turbines as well as permitting and site preparation. The remaining money would be needed to cover actual construction costs.

If the town elects to keep the turbines in their current location, it could elect to modify a handful of abutters’ homes. Weston & Sampson mentioned nine homes—four on Blacksmith Shop Road, four on Ambleside Drive and West Falmouth Highway—that were closest to Wind 1 and Wind 2 as ones that should be strongly considered, based upon inspection last month by Harris Miller Miller and Hanson. With proper sound insulation and, in six cases, installation of central air-conditioning, the town would pay roughly $360,000 to modify those nine homes. To extend that strategy to the 25 closest homes would cost Falmouth roughly $1 million.

Another option could be noise barriers, although Weston & Sampson noted that these are not only rare, but also expensive and would require the removal of a number of trees in the area.

As an example of the significant cost of the noise barriers Weston & Sampson estimated that to construct a 41-foot high one to protect the four closest homes to Wind 1 would cost anywhere between $1 million and $2 million. Some of the modfications to the turbine include making operational changes to limit shadow flicker, which is estimated to cost $15,000 per turbine.

Once a facilitator is selected by the board, Ms. Flynn said the neutral consultant would meet with groups of 20 to 40 citizens in confidential interviews or focus groups during the month of January. The purpose of those meetings, Ms. Flynn said, will be to clarify community views on the proposed options in the Weston & Sampson report.

And it would help determine what process, if any, would work to bring people together to discuss mitigation strategies for the wind turbine. If such a process is feasible, selectmen would be apprised of that in the beginning of February by whatever firm is selected to facilitate the consensus-building approach. Over the next two months the board would then work with the public before making a recommendation to Town Meeting in April about how to proceed with the town-owned wind turbines.

FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 19, 2011

[Download a copy of this document by clicking here]

Highland Wind Farm, LLC Files CPCN Application with Public Service Commission

Madison, WI—The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Commission) has received an application from Highland Wind Farm, LLC to build a 102.5 megawatt wind project located in the townships of Forest and Cylon, St. Croix County, Wisconsin.

When the application is deemed complete, the Commission will have up to 360 days to make a decision on the application.

An electric generation project of 100 megawatts (MW) or greater requires a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the Commission.

The Commission has siting jurisdiction over all wind energy systems 100 MW or larger and over utility-owned wind energy systems, regardless of size.

A political subdivision (city, town, village, or county) has siting jurisdiction over non-utility wind energy systems smaller than 100 megawatts.

2009 Wisconsin Act 40 made several changes to the state statutes regarding the siting of wind energy systems.

The law retained the jurisdictional split between the Commission and political subdivisions; directed the Commission to write wind siting rules; and stated that a political subdivision may not impose requirements that are more restrictive than those in the Commission’s wind siting rules.

In response, final Wind Siting Rules promulgated by the Commission (PSC 128) were published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register on February 28, 2011, to be effective March 1, 2011.

Currently the rules are not in effect due to legislative suspension.

The Commission and interested parties are currently working to resolve concerns regarding wind siting for non-utility projects under 100 MW.

Because Highland Wind Farm, LLC has planned a project surpassing the 100 MW threshold, the project application will be treated like any other CPCN application received by the Commission; however, the Commission is also statutorily required to “consider whether installation or use of the facility is consistent with the standards specified in the rules promulgated by the commission under Wis. Stats. §196.378 (4g) (b),” meaning the Commission will need to at least consider whether the application is consistent with
the standards in the promulgated, yet suspended, PSC 128 rules.

Once the Commission receives all pieces of an application, the Commission has 30 days to determine whether the application is complete. After a CPCN application is deemed complete, the Commission urges the public to take advantage of the many opportunities to weigh in.

The public is encouraged to read the Commission’s public notification letter, verify interested parties are included on the Commission mailing lists, review the application posted online, ask questions of the Commission staff, submit comments, and testify at hearings.

Information can be found at the Commission’s web site, http://psc.wi.gov, and at local libraries, government offices, clerks’ offices, and within the environmental review documents that will be prepared for the project.

Wis. Stats. § 196.491 describes the procedures related to the issuance of a CPCN. The general application requirements for the CPCN are described in Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 111.

An overview of a typical application review process can be found at: http://psc.wi.gov/thelibrary/publications/electric/electric03.pdf.

Documents associated with the Highland Wind Farm application can be viewed on the PSC’s Electronic Regulatory Filing System at http://psc.wi.gov/. Type case numbers 2535-CE-100 in the boxes provided on the PSC homepage, or click on the Electronic Regulatory Filing System button.