Better Plan, Wisconsin

CLICK HERE IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY CONTACTED YOUR LEGISLATORS TO ASK THEM TO SUPPORT GOVERNOR WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL

CLICK on the image below to see how the PSC came up the number of hours of wind turbine shadow flicker a household must endure before they can complain to the wind company

Click on the image below to hear a PSC Wind Siting Council member suggest the setback around a wind turbine be called a 'courtesy setback' rather than a 'safety setback' because she does not believe safety is an issue

Click on the image below to hear why the Wind Siting Council would allow local government to reduce the setbacks and make them less than the PSC's saftey guidelines

Click on the image below to hear why wind developers don't want to tell people in a community that they are planning a project in their community

CLICK here to watch the PSC's Wind Siting Council unable to answer the most basic of questions. How much louder is the 25 decibel increase they have recommended?

EXTRA CREDIT READING:

“I saw those flames go out the door with no smoke and I said: ‘The barn’s on fire!’ And I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.”

ABOVE: A barn at the Nelson farm in Lowell burned down in August. State police couldn't determine a cause. Don Nelson thinks the barn was torched because of his opposition to the Lowell wind project.

By John Dillon

Vermont Public Radio News, www.vpr.net

February 1, 2011

(Host) This week, the Public Service Board opens hearings on Vermont’s largest wind development – a proposal for 21 wind turbines that would stand 440 feet tall on a ridgeline in Lowell.

Developers hoped to avoid some of the controversy that other projects have faced by asking for, and winning, Lowell voters’ support last Town Meeting Day. But it hasn’t been that easy.

In the first part of our series on wind’s future in Vermont, VPR’s John Dillon explains how passionate, and personal, the debate still is in Lowell.

(Dillon) Don Nelson is a retired dairy farmer. He’s a slight, wiry guy with white hair and a bad back from years milking cows.

The farm where Nelson and his wife, Shirley, live is far up a dirt road, snug up against the Lowell Mountains. They’ve fought wind turbine development here for almost ten years. The first company eventually called it quits.

But the project was revived by Green Mountain Power. The Nelsons continued to fight and they wonder whether they’ve been targeted as a result. Don Nelson remembers Friday the 13th of August last year.

(Nelson) “I saw those flames go out the door with no smoke and I said: ‘The barn’s on fire!’ And I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.”

(Dillon) Nelson had slept past his normal dawn rising. Soon after he poured coffee, he saw his red barn erupt in flames.

(Nelson) “It didn’t go bang. It went ‘woooom!’ And then ‘wooom!’ like that. And the first one, it forced the flames right through the cracks in the roofing.”

(Dillon) Balls of flame leveled the barn within 30 minutes. State police couldn’t determine a cause. Nelson thinks his barn was torched. And he thinks his opposition to the wind project might have been why.

(Nelson) “All I know is that it’s a $160 million project and the town of Lowell is going to get $400,000-$500,000 a year. Money changes people. I don’t know. How do I know? All I know is: I know the barn was set, and I know that we didn’t set it.”

(Dillon) The embers of the barn fire cooled last August. But tensions in Lowell and other communities remain high over wind development and the future of Vermont’s ridgelines.

On one side are people like the Nelsons. They argue the projects will hurt tourism and damage fragile mountain habitat.

But many others see economic and environmental value. Alden Warner is a selectman in Lowell. He says Vermont has to take responsibility for generating some of its own electricity.

(Warner) “Our earth’s supply of energy sources is going to be depleted. The millions of gallons that are being burned every day – we’ve got to do something to start getting prepared for our energy.”

(Dillon) Warner is also the Lowell fire chief. He thinks the Nelson fire probably was intentionally set, but who did it and why remains a mystery.

(Warner) “I would really be disappointed if I found out that if somebody that was pro wind turbines would actually take something to the degree of actually destroying somebody’s property just to get even.”

(Dillon) Warner says deep divisions remain in town. He’s a big booster of the project – but one of his brothers is involved in the opposition group.

Still, GMP won Lowell’s support on Town Meeting Day. The town will be rewarded with annual payments that could cut property taxes by a third or more.

Opponents say the impacts go far beyond Lowell.

Steve Wright is a former state Fish and Wildlife Commissioner and member of the Conservation Commission in Craftsbury. Many areas in Craftsbury overlook the Lowell range. Wright said he thought ridgeline wind generation was benign until he started reading the 1,300 page application GMP filed with the Public Service Board.

(Wright) “I read one segment in there that flipped me over completely and that was the segment on the amount of road building and alteration of the 450 million year old Cretaceous era ridgeline which currently basically has no roads there. That’s what turned me around.”

(Dillon) Trees would have to be cleared for four miles of new road. State biologists warn about damage to critical bear habitat. Wright says the mountain will have to be blasted and leveled as much as 40 feet in places. And he believes the beauty of the area will be damaged.

(Wright) “People come to many towns in Vermont, I believe, for the way these towns look. And we get some push back often on the view not meaning anything. I contest that: why have we worked for years to create a body of legislation that essentially protects the view?”

(Dillon) Wright refers to Act 250, the billboard law, and other efforts to preserve the state’s iconic character. But another land ethic runs fiercely through Vermont – and the Northeast Kingdom in particular – protection of property rights.

(Pion) “Everybody wants to have a say in everybody else’s land. And I have a problem with that.”

(Dillon) Richard Pion is chairman of the Lowell selectboard. He says landowners have the right to do what they want with their property. A neighbor steers his tractor away from Pion’s front yard, where Pion points out a few of the turbines will be visible. But he’s not worried about the view.

(Pion) “Once these are built for six months people won’t pay any attention to them. Won’t be any worse that looking at the ski resort.”

(Dillon) Back in Don and Shirley Nelson’s living room, a clock chimes the hour as they reflect on the personal toll of their opposition. Shirley Nelson says the barn fire put many on edge. Don Nelson worries about the future.

(Nelson) Some people couldn’t stand to live here. Some people think this is heaven, but it won’t be when this is done. It’s going to change the character of the Northeast Kingdom forever.

(Dillon) The Nelsons and others fighting the project will be at the Public Service Board this week. But they’re not hopeful. They point out that the state agency that represents electric consumers recently reversed itself and endorsed the Lowell wind project.

For VPR News, I’m John Dillon.

(Host) Tomorrow, we take a look at the science behind wind energy, and how much wind development is needed to effectively reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

OPINIONS DIFFER ON WIND POWER'S POLLUTION REDUCTION

 Source: Vermont Public Radio News, www.vpr.net 

February2,  2011

John Dillon

(Host) Supporters and opponents of commercial-scale wind energy projects on Vermont’s ridgelines use a lot of statistics and facts to argue their very different sides of the debate.

So it’s difficult to sort out how much carbon pollution might be cut if there were big wind turbines in the mountains. Or whether the wind generators could replace bigger electric plants, such as Vermont Yankee.

As part of a series on the future of wind energy in Vermont, VPR’s John Dillon explains the complexities.

(Dillon) Leading environmental groups say Vermont has a “moral obligation” to combat climate change. And they say developing wind projects on the state’s ridgelines is the way to make progress.

Brian Shupe of the Vermont Natural Resources Council says all that’s needed is some planning.

(Shupe) “The lack of a coherent energy plan in the state has not allowed Vermont to adequately prepare for the closing of Vermont Yankee, or to address climate change in a meaningful way.”

(Dillon) Those are the twin goals of many Vermont environmentalists: Shut down Yankee and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But can industrial-scale wind do the job? Can it replace Yankee? To answer that, we need to step back for a moment for a lesson on how the electricity grid works.

Yankee is what’s known as a “baseload” plant. That means – barring an unexpected shutdown – it cranks 620 megawatts into the New England grid all day, every day, all year.

But the wind doesn’t blow every day, so wind power can’t be baseload. It’s known as intermittent.

ISO New England, which oversees the regional energy market, says more wind will not replace nuclear reactors like Yankee, or the big greenhouse gas polluters – coal-fired plants.

(Luce) “I’m Ben Luce. I’m a professor at Lyndon State College.”

(Dillon) Now, let’s pause for a moment for a lesson in a science lab.

Professor Luce has sandy hair and round glasses. He speaks in the measured, analytical tones of a physics professor, which is what he is. In his lab, Luce tinkers with a shiny chrome device. It’s a heat pump, kind of a reverse refrigerator.

(Luce) “Well, we try to teach about the principals of clean energy technology so people really understand them. And this geothermal heat pump unit is one we’re evaluating.”

(Dillon) Because he advocates for renewable energy, Luce has high hopes for devices like this. It can convert the cold temperatures from the ground into heat that can be used to warm buildings. But despite his environmentalist credentials, Luce is skeptical about wind in Vermont. He encouraged it in New Mexico when he worked there. But he says there’s just not enough wind potential here to make much of a difference in global climate change.

(Luce) “On the scale of U.S. energy usage, it’s quite small. If you were to develop all the so-called developable wind resources in the eastern United States they would only be able to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions by about 1 percent.”

(Dillon) Notice he said if you were to develop all the wind resources. That means turbines on many, many ridgelines and extensive offshore wind projects. Even if you did all that, says Luce, you wouldn’t make much of a dent in climate change.

(Luce) “It really is a minor resource. At the same time developing it in my opinion would have an incredibly adverse effect on the ecology and the economy and the character of the state.”

(Dillon) Yet Green Mountain Power says the 21 turbines the company hopes to build on Lowell Mountain will cut greenhouse gases. Robert Dostis is a company vice president.

(Dostis) “Every kilowatt of electricity that’s produced from Lowell is power we don’t have to buy from some other resource. And if that other resource is a fossil fuel, then that’s carbon we’re not putting into the atmosphere.”

(Dillon) But how much less on carbon? GMP says it’s difficult to say because different fuels create different emissions.

(Dostis) “The bottom line is, any development of this size obviously is going to have impacts, and it’s about the trade-offs.”

(Dillon) Even if environmental concerns weren’t part of the wind equation, there’s another piece of the energy system that critics say has to be considered.

It’s the question of “spinning reserve.” Here’s what that is: A spare power source, ready to kick in whenever it’s needed. Think of spinning reserve like this. When you’re sitting in your car waiting at a stop light, you want to be able to go as soon as the light turns green. It’ll take longer to get rolling if you have to restart the engine after every stop.

The electricity system is much more vast than a single car, though. So it also needs another reserve, one that could be powered up within 10 minutes.

New England needs 1,200 megawatts of both kinds of reserve electricity on hand. It usually comes from baseload hydro, nuclear or fossil fuel. Experts say if wind were a more significant part of the mix, there would be an even greater need for reserve because wind is intermittent.

Despite wind’s limitations, environmental groups argue that Vermont has to do something to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels. James Moore of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group says five or six wind projects would make a significant impact.

(Moore) “We’re talking about 8 percent of the state’s annual electricity demand already being met by local resources just in the next couple of years.”

(Dillon) But Physics professor Ben Luce has a different idea: solar. He says it’s getting cheaper and produces electricity when it’s most needed.

Luce says he wants the debate to be driven by science not hope.

(Luce) “So when people say we have to do something, my response to that is to say we really need to do something serious, not something that is just effectively symbolic.”

(Dillon) Most of Vermont’s greenhouse gases come from vehicles and heating fuels. Luce says that’s where the state could focus.

For VPR News, I’m John Dillon in Montpelier.

(Host) Tomorrow our series concludes with a look at how wind projects are financed.



 

"It's a death sentence.

This has everything to do with eliminating wind power. That's why the proposal is so high.

It's a hit job."

- Michael Vickerman, who was a registered lobbyist for RENEW Wisconsin whose clients include Alliant Energy, ATC, We Energies, MG&E, North American Hydro, WPPI, and many wind developers with projects pending in our state. [SOURCE]

REFORM BILL POSES THREAT TO WIND FARMS IN OUR STATE

SOURCE: Wisconsin State Journal

January 15, 2011

By CLAY BARBOUR

Buried in a regulatory reform bill proposed by Gov. Scott Walker earlier this week lies a provision that wind energy insiders say could shut down 12 wind farm projects, cost investors billions and essentially kill the industry in the state.

In the bill announced Tuesday, Walker seeks to quadruple the distance between wind turbines and neighboring property.

The governor said the provision was written to protect homeowners, many of whom have complained about the encroachment of wind turbines in the rural parts of the state. Opponents of wind farms have complained of diminished property values, occasional noise pollution, moving shadows cast by the giant machines and loss of sleep from vibrations.

But critics this week called the provision a job killer and said it would earn Wisconsin a reputation for being hostile to alternative energy sources, such as wind.

"It would in essence shut down wind energy in the state," said Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. "It is one of the most onerous regulations we have seen."

Bode said that, if passed, the measure would shut down 12 wind farm projects worth about $1.8 billion. Those projects, which are in various stages of planning, could produce about 950 full-time jobs for one year, she said.

"This is a shock to those of us in the wind industry," Bode said. "This will cause projects to go to other states."

Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie would not comment on specific criticisms of the bill, instead reiterating what has become the new Republican governor's mantra. "Governor Walker is focused on ensuring Wisconsin has a business climate that allows the private sector to create 250,000 jobs across all economic sectors," he said.

The proposal was met with applause from wind farm critics, like Elizabeth Ebertz. Ebertz, 67, lives in a little valley about a half-mile from a dozen 400-foot-tall wind turbines. The structures are part of the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in northeastern Fond du Lac County, one of the state's largest wind farms, capable of producing energy for about 36,000 homes.

But according to Ebert, the turbines also produce enough noise to chase her from the garden - and, on most nights, disturb her sleep.

"I think it's a terrific idea, and long overdue," she said. "I have a lot of them now and I'd like to get rid of them."

‘Death sentence'

Bode said the wind industry employs about 3,000 people in Wisconsin. The state spends about $1.5 billion on imported energy every year and ranks 16th in the country in available wind.

According to the AWEA, Wisconsin has the capacity to produce up to 449 megawatts of energy from its existing wind farms - enough to power about 110,000 homes. Yet it trails other Midwestern states in wind energy production. Minnesota wind farms produce 1,797 megawatts, Illinois produces 1,848 and Iowa generates 3,670.

Industry insiders hoped new rules approved by former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle would end years of localized fights - often spurred by well-funded anti-wind organizations - that killed at least 10 proposed wind farms in the past eight years and scared off several others.

Supporters hoped the new rules would help the state reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2015. Renewable sources account for 5 percent of the state's energy now.

But Walker's proposal has many wondering what the future holds for the industry. Currently the state requires turbines have a setback from the nearest property line of 1.1 times the height of the turbine, or roughly 450 feet. The turbines are also required to have a setback of 1,250 feet from a home.

Walker's provision would push the setback from the property line to 1,800 feet (almost six football fields), a distance that industry experts say is unheard of in other states.

"It's a death sentence," said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a Madison nonprofit that promotes clean energy. "This has everything to do with eliminating wind power. That's why the proposal is so high. It's a hit job."

Taking their business elsewhere

Vickerman said the new rules, if approved, would essentially end the industry's growth here. His sentiment is shared by many in the wind industry.

"This regulation goes far beyond what any other state has done," said Tim Polz, vice president of Midwest Wind Energy, a company currently planning a large wind farm in Calumet County. "This will kill our project."

The Chicago-based Midwest has developed seven wind farms in total and has 12 more in the planning stages. The company already built two wind farms in Wisconsin: the 36-turbine Butler Ridge Wind Energy Project in Dodge County and the 41-turbine Cedar Ridge Wind Farm in Fond du Lac County.

Polz said Midwest has already spent three years and about $1 million on the Calumet County project, which would employ between 150 and 200 construction workers for up to 18 months if it moved forward.

"This sends the message to us that Wisconsin does not want our business," he said.

Dean Baumgardner, executive vice president for the St. Louis-based Wind Capital Group, said Walker's proposal was disappointing, especially considering the governor's vow to create jobs.

Wind Capital, which has an office in Madison, has developed six farms and has 20 more in the planning stages - including a 40- to 60-turbine farm in Grant County. Baumgardner said Walker's proposal will likely kill the Grant County farm.

"But we will keep building wind farms," he said. "We will just do it elsewhere."

SECOND FEATURE:

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

The setbacks proposed in the Walker bill will not be the strictest in the nation as stated in the article below. The claim seems to be based on statements from Denise Bode, head of the Amercian Wind Energy Association which is the largest wind lobbying organization in the nation.

EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION: Who is Denise Bode? Scroll down past the RED HANDS to read more about the AWEA and Denise Bode.

PROPOSED WIND RESTRICTIONS WOULD BE STRICTEST IN NATION

 SOURCE Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com 

January 14, 2011

By Thomas Content

The head of a wind industry trade group and a lobbyist for the Wisconsin Realtors Association squared off over Gov. Scott Walker’s wind farm siting proposals.

Denise Bode, chief executive of the American Wind Energy Association weighed in Friday on Wisconsin’s proposed wind-siting rule, calling it “the biggest barrier” to wind development in the country.

“This will be the biggest regulatory barrier in terms of setbacks in the country,” said Denise Bode, chief executive of the AWEA, based in Washington, D.C., in an interview Friday afternoon. “You’re adding a new regulator barrier and putting a ‘closed for business’ sign on Wisconsin for wind development.”

A restrictive environment for wind development will create a chilling effect for companies that manufacture parts for wind turbines to want to open plants in the state, following the lead of firms like TowerTech in Manitowoc and Ingeteam, which is building a factory in the Menomonee River Valley.

Many states have no setback requirements, deferring to local units of government. Of those that do, none has a setback as far as Wisconsin’s proposal, Bode said.

But Tom Larson, chief lobbyist for the Wisconsin Realtors Association, said the proposal is a strong defense for property rights.

“We think that with this bill Wisconsin would be the only state in the country to have an adequate setback for property owners,” said Larson.

He called the rule adopted by the Public Service Commission “the poster child for Scott Walker’s regulatory reform on how administrative rules are made,” noting that the rule was enacted by an agency and not elected government officials.

Developing wind farms in Wisconsin has generated more controversy than in some other states in part because its areas most suitable for wind turbines are more densely populated than rural expanses of Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas that host wind projects.

Opposition to wind farms led some counties to enact wind power moratoriums and other restrictive rules. The patchwork of local rules stalled projects, prompting the state Legislature to pass legislation to set a statewide standard.

Bode said the industry wasn’t pleased with – but could live with – the standard that was adopted by the Public Service Commission last year, Bode said.

Dan Ebert, who chairs the state’s wind siting advisory council, said the end result wasn’t perfect, but it did a better job at balancing the competing interests with this issue.

“We shouldn’t have the Realtors Association dictating energy policy in this state,” he said.

The proposed rule is more aggressive than the PSC rule because it would cover large utility-scale wind farm as well as smaller wind farms, said Ebert, a senior vice president with WPPI Energy in Sun Prairie.

Better Plan encourages you to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for including these more protective setbacks in this bill and to also contact your senator and representative to encourage them to support it.

 CONTACT Governor Scott Walker govgeneral@wisconsin.gov
115 East Capitol
Madison WI 53702
(608) 266-1212 

CONTACT Legislators  

Who Are My Legislators?  To find out, CLICK HERE

Senate | Members | E-Mail Directory

Assembly | Members | E-Mail Directory

MORE ON WIND LOBBYISTS:

WANT BIG WIND? CHANGE THE LAW! ALL IT TAKES IS FIVE MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF LOBBYING MONEY

Industry blitzes hill on Schumer bill, renewable mandate

SOURCE: The New York Times, www.nytimes.com

By ANNE C. MULKERN of Greenwire, 

March 9, 2010

"The wind industry over the last year has made a major lobbying push. In 2009, the industry tripled spending on influence efforts from a year earlier. The American Wind Energy Association paid $5 million for lobbying in 2009, compared with $1.7 million the previous year, the highest amount ever for the association and a sixth of the $30.1 million spent by all renewable companies combined. It came in the same year that the wind industry saw its prospects lifted by legislation."

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

SORRY WE MISSED THE PARTY: Drinking with the PSC

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: For those of you who have been following the wind siting rules issue in our state, Deborah Erwin (pictured below) of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission will be a familiar name to you. The photo was taken at the August "WIND POWER HAPPY HOUR" event at the Capitol Brewery.

SOURCE: Breezesandbeverages.blogspot.com

Friday, September 3, 2010

Great Attendnce for the August Wind Power Happy Hour at Capital Brewery

Photo: Deborah Erwin from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and Mike Ross from American Superconductor at Capital Brewery in Middleton, Wisconsin.

In what turned out to be one of our most well attended events of the year, more than 60 people attended the August Wind Power Happy Hour to sample some of Capital Brewery's finest offerings, sit in the Bier Garten on one of the nicest days of the summer, and to hear from a couple of great presenters.

Mike Ross, Sr. Engineer for American Superconductor in Middleton, Wisconsin was the company spotlight for this meeting. He provided an overview of three key aspects of AMSC's products: Windtec technology, superconducting cables, and the SeaTitan--a 10 MW wind turbine being developed for off shore purposes. Mike also shared that AMSC recently acquired an ownership stake in Blade Dynamics, a designer and manufacturer of advanced wind turbine blades based on proprietary materials and structural technologies.

Deborah Erwin is the Docket Manager for the Public Service Commission and the Wind Siting Council that has been developing rules for wind farms under 100 MW in Wisconsin. Its been a tough job, but she reported they are almost ready to be sent to the Legislature for approval. Click here to see a current copy of the proposed Wind Siting rules and the press release issued by the PSC on their completion of their efforts.

Special thanks to Capital Brewery for their hospitality, and for letting us use the Bier Stube for our event.

FIRST FEATURE:

THE ALLURE OF TECHNO-GLAMOR

Source: Wall Street Journal

November 20, 2010

By Virgina Postrel

[Please note: photos added by Better Plan]

When Robert J. Samuelson published a Newsweek column last month arguing that high-speed rail is "a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause," he cited cost figures and potential ridership to demonstrate that even the rosiest scenarios wouldn't justify the investment.

He made a good, rational case—only to have it completely undermined by the evocative photograph the magazine chose to accompany the article.

The picture showed a sleek train bursting through blurred lines of track and scenery, the embodiment of elegant, effortless speed. It was the kind of image that creates longing, the kind of image a bunch of numbers cannot refute. It was beautiful, manipulative and deeply glamorous.

The same is true of photos of wind turbines adorning ads for everything from Aveda's beauty products to MIT's Sloan School of Management. These graceful forms have succeeded the rocket ships and atomic symbols of the 1950s to become the new icons of the technological future. If the island of Wuhu, where games for the Wii console play out, can run on wind power, why can't the real world?

Policy wonks assume the current rage for wind farms and high-speed rail has something to do with efficiently reducing carbon emissions. So they debate load mismatches and ridership figures. These are worthy discussions and address real questions.

But they miss the emotional point.

To their most ardent advocates, and increasingly to the public at large, these technologies aren't just about generating electricity or getting from one city to another. They are symbols of an ideal world, longing disguised as problem solving. You can't counter glamour with statistics.

Glamour always contains an element of illusion. (The word originally meant a literal magic spell.) By obscuring some details and heightening others, it offers an escape from the compromises, flaws and distractions of real life. It shows no bills on the kitchen counter, no blisters under the high heels, no pimples on the movie star's face.

In those glamour shots, wind power seems clean, free and infinitely abundant. Turbines spin silently and sometimes appear barely taller than a child. The wind blows constantly and in exactly the right amount—never so much that it piles up unwanted power and never so little that it requires backup supply. The sky is unfailingly photogenic, a backdrop of either puffy clouds or a brilliant sunset; the landscape is both empty and beautiful; and there are no transmission lines anywhere.

The image of a speeding train, meanwhile, invites you to imagine taking it when and where you want, with no waiting, no crowds and no expensive tickets. Like the turbines, high-speed trains exemplify autonomy and grace, sliding along effortlessly, with no visible source of fuel. To a stressed-out public, they promise an escape from traffic jams—and, at least until the first terrorism scare, from the hassles, intrusion and delays of airport security.

For all its deceptiveness and mystery, glamour reveals emotional truths. What today's green techno-glamour demonstrates, first and foremost, is that its audience has no inclination to give up the benefits of modernity and return to the pre-industrial state idealized by radical greens. Neither the Unabomber nor Henry David Thoreau would go for wind farms and high-speed rail. To the contrary, these iconic new machines cater to what Al Gore denounced in "Earth in the Balance" as "the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." They promise that a green future will be just as pleasant as today, only cleaner and more elegant.

For at least some technophiles, in fact, the trains and windmills are goods in and of themselves, with climate change providing a reason to force the development and adoption of cool new machines that wouldn't otherwise catch on. These technologies also restore the idea of progress as big, visible engineering projects—an alternative to the decentralized, hidden ingenuity of computer code.

They evoke the old World's Fair sense of hope and wonder, a feeling President Barack Obama draws on when he endorses high-speed rail subsidies as "building for the future." They are the latest incarnation of flying cars and electricity too cheap to meter.

The problems come, of course, in the things glamour omits, including all those annoyingly practical concerns the policy wonks insist on debating. Neither trains nor wind farms are as effortlessly liberating as their photos suggest. Neither really offers an escape from the world of compromises and constraints. The same is true, of course, of evening gowns, dream kitchens and tropical vacations. But at least the people who enjoy that sort of glamour pay their own way.

—Virginia Postrel is the author of "The Future and Its Enemies" and "The Substance of Style." She is writing a book on glamour.

SECOND FEATURE:

TURBINES IN GARDEN'S FUTURE

SOURCE: The Daily Press, www.dailypress.net

November 22 2010

By Ashley Hoholik

What does the contract say about the wind developer's rights over your land?

“…[Wind developer] shall have a non-exclusive easement over and across said property for audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, electrical, and radio frequency interference, and any other effects attributable to [wind developer's] operations.”

The lease further stipulates: “[Property owner] waives any claim with regard to any such interference or effects.”

GARDEN – A landscape dotted with wind turbines is in the Garden Peninsula’s future, thanks to a downstate sustainable energy firm. Heritage Sustainable Energy, of Traverse City, Mich., has already signed leases with a number of area residents, but not everyone is welcoming the company.

After nearly two years of various wind studies conducted in the Garden area, some by Heritage, few residents were surprised when a company began to seriously pursue unused parcels of land.

Heritage, which is best known for its nearly 2,000-acre Stoney Corners Wind Farm Project near Cadillac, Mich., plans to site leased areas and assess the land’s potential in housing one of their nearly 400-foot wind turbines.

According to Heritage Project Manager Rick Wilson, the company is excited about the Garden Township Wind Energy Project and has already leased approximately 10,000 acres throughout the Garden Peninsula, including Garden and Fairbanks Township.

“The size of this wind project is moderate; about 13 wind turbines will be placed on agricultural land between south Garden to north of Garden,” Wilson said.

“We’ve been doing energy analysis in the area for about three years and have three meteorological towers already out there.”

Wilson said the turbines will be used to produce energy that will then be sold into the transmission grid and passed on to larger Michigan utility companies.

“We’ve done the preliminary studies, done the pre-planning work, and now we are in the pre-development stages,” he explained. “We’re working toward developing this project and are hoping to begin installation of the wind turbines by the end of 2011 or early 2012.”

According to a Heritage 10-year lease provided to a Garden resident, anyone leasing their land to Heritage will be paid $15 per net surface acre. If the company decides to actually build on the leased land, a one-time $10,000 fee will be paid to the lessee. The lease also notes that Heritage has the option to continue the lease beyond the 10-year period by paying an extension payment of $30 per net surface acre. For this reason, the lease is “considered to be continuous.”

While some residents were quick to jump on board with Heritage’s project, whether it was for the financial perks, to support alternative energy or a combination of the two, others are not as willing.

Cliff and Rosemary Stollings of Garden were approached by Heritage, but decided against leasing their land. Their concerns are rooted in the fact that, currently, Delta County has no zoning ordinance for wind energy. This would give too much leeway to Heritage, said Cliff, and offers no governance on the distance a wind turbine needs to be away from a residence.

The Heritage lease stipulates that a wind turbine will have to be at least 400 feet away from a residence. Conversely, the Stollings claim that, in researching wind energy, it is now generally recommended that wind turbines be at least a mile to a mile and a half away from a residence.

While there is conflicting research regarding a wind turbine’s proximity and subsequent impact on wildlife and human health, the Stollings’ factored the potential negative impact in their decision.

A portion of the lease addresses some of these possible impacts, but not in the way that the Stollings would have liked:

“…Lessee shall have a non-exclusive easement over and across said property for audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, electrical, and radio frequency interference, and any any other effects attributable to Lessee’s operations.” The lease further stipulates: “Lessor waives any claim with regard to any such interference or effects.”

Garden Township Supervisor Morgan Tatrow said that Heritage has been visiting the area frequently, working with the township and attending a county joint governmental meeting, various Garden township meetings, and even school board meetings.

“Heritage has already obtained lease permits from private property owners, and their plans right now are to obtain the permits for access roads leading to their wind turbine locations,” explained Tatrow. “We, the township, are talking with our legal people because there are currently no ordinances regarding wind towers.” In the meantime, Heritage will continue work on the project as residents from both sides voice their support or concern.

“It’s an excellent project and an economic opportunity for Delta County and Garden Township,” said Wilson. “It is going to mean around $5 million worth of investment in the local community during the construction process and the estimated personal property tax revenue is between $30,000 to $40,000 per turbine, per year.”

THIRD FEATURE

On Electric Cars---

Adding an electric vehicle or two to a neighborhood can be like adding another house, and it can stress the equipment that services those houses. "We're talking about doubling the load of a conventional home," says Karl Rabago, who leads Austin Energy's electric vehicle-readiness program. "It's big."

Opportunity has power industry scrambling

Benefits: Big cuts in fuel costs, greenhouse gas emissions

SOURCE: Portland Press Herald

November 22, 2010

By JONATHAN FAHEY The Associated Press

The first mass-market electric cars go on sale next month, and the nation's electric utilities couldn't be more thrilled -- or worried.

Plugged into a socket, an electric car can draw as much power as a small house.

The surge in demand could knock out power to a home, or even a neighborhood. That has utilities in parts of California, Texas and North Carolina scrambling to upgrade transformers and other equipment in neighborhoods where the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt are expected to be in high demand.

Not since air conditioning spread across the country in the 1950s and 1960s has the power industry faced such a growth opportunity.

Last year, Americans spent $325 billion on gasoline, and utilities would love even a small piece of that market.

The main obstacles to wide-scale use of electric cars are high cost and limited range, at least until a network of charging stations is built. But utility executives fret that difficulties keeping the lights on for the first crop of buyers -- and their neighbors -- could slow the growth of this new niche.

"You never get a second chance to make a first impression," says Mike Rowand, who is in charge of electric vehicle planning at Duke Energy.

Auto executives say it's inevitable that utilities will experience some difficulties early on. "We are all going to be a lot smarter two years from now," says Mark Perry, director of product planning for Nissan North America.

Electric cars run on big batteries that are charged by plugging into a standard wall socket or a more powerful charging station.

A combined 30,000 Nissan Leafs and Chevrolet Volts are expected to be sold over the next year. Over the next two years, Ford, Toyota and every other major automaker also plan to offer electric cars.

Governments are promoting the technology as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.

Congress is offering electric car buyers a $7,500 tax credit and some states and cities provide additional subsidies that can total $8,000. The Leaf sells for $33,000, the Volt for $41,000.

Electric cars produce no emissions, but the electricity they are charged with is made mostly from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, which do. Still, electric cars produce two-thirds fewer greenhouse gas emissions, on average, than a similarly sized car that runs on gasoline, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Driving 10,000 miles on electricity will use about 2,500 kilowatt-hours, or 20 percent more than the average annual consumption of U.S. homes. At an average utility rate of 11 cents per kilowatt-hour, that's $275 for a year of fuel, equivalent to about 70 cents per gallon of gasoline.

"Electric vehicles have the potential to completely transform our business," says David Owens, executive vice president of the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group.

Nationwide, utilities have enough power plants and equipment to power hundreds of thousands of electric cars. Problems could crop up long before that many are sold, though, because of a phenomenon carmakers and utilities call "clustering."

Electric vehicle clusters are expected in neighborhoods where:

• Generous subsidies are offered by states and localities.

• Weather is mild, because batteries tend to perform better in warmer climates.

• High-income and environmentally conscious commuters live.

So while states like North Dakota and Montana may see very few electric cars, California cities like Santa Monica, Santa Barbara and Monrovia could see several vehicles on a block.

SoCal Edison expects to be charging 100,000 cars by 2015. California has set a goal of 1 million electric vehicles by 2020.

Progress Energy is expecting electric car clusters to form in Raleigh, Cary and Asheville, N.C. and around Orlando and Tampa, Fla. Duke Energy is expecting the same in Charlotte and Indianapolis.

Adding an electric vehicle or two to a neighborhood can be like adding another house, and it can stress the equipment that services those houses. "We're talking about doubling the load of a conventional home," says Karl Rabago, who leads Austin Energy's electric vehicle-readiness program. "It's big."

Click on the image above to hear Wind Siting Council members Tom Meyer and Doug Zweizig express concerns about wind developer licensing and accountability issues regarding contracts and leases, and why there should be more protection for Wisconsin landowners built into the rules.

On October 13th, there will be a full public hearing at the capitol because of questions raised regarding the    Public Service Commission's new wind siting rules for the state of Wisconsin.

Senate
PUBLIC HEARING
Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail

The Senate Committee on Utilities, Energy and Rail will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:00 AM, 411 South at the State Capitol in Madison relating to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 siting of wind energy systems.

Senator Jeffry Plale, Chair

CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD CLEARING HOUSE RULE 10-057



NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Requests for a full public hearing have come from both the senate and the assembly due to concerns about the Public Service Commissions new wind siting rules, but no decision has been announced. Outgoing Senator Jeff Plale will make the hearing decision on the senate side, and Representative Soletski will decide for the assembly. Both are sponsors of bills which overturned local government ordinances and gave the Public Service Commission the power to regulate wind siting. A decision regarding the hearing is expected shortly from Senator Plale. Last week, an aide to Representative Soletski said their office was still reviewing information and hadn't made a decision on the hearing. He also said once hearing is announced, it would have to take place within the next 30 days.

EXCERPT FROM A LETTER TO REPRESENTATIVE SOLETSKI FROM 27th DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE KESTELL:

"PSC 128 imposes statewide rules that will apply everywhere in Wisconsin and overrule local government rules and regulations on wind turbine placement. There are many questions and concerns about these rules from citizens statewide and I have personally heard from many constituents as there are existing wind turbines in my district. These are people with actual firsthand experience living with wind turbines and their perspective would be invaluable to committee members in deciding whether changes are warrented.

These voices deserve to be heard and their input taken into account as these regulations will have a huge impact on many citizens in this state.

That's why I am requesting that you schedule a public hearing on the new wind siting rules.

Steve Kestell
State Representative
27th Assembly District
September 23, 2010

New Wind Turbine Siting Rules Proposed

SOURCE:E-update, September 24, 2010 :http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen09/news/

By Senator Joe Liebham

Recently, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) gave its approval to a set of "administrative rules" that will be used to enforce 2009 Wisconsin Act 40, a new law governing the placement of wind turbines in Wisconsin.

 Act 40, as you may recall, was passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Jim Doyle earlier this year in an effort to set consistent guidelines for local regulation of the siting of certain wind turbines and wind farms throughout  Wisconsin.  The bill also created a Wind Turbine Siting Council (WTSC) and tasked it with engineering a rule package that could be backed by a broad consensus of the Council's members.

 After receiving input from area citizens, I voted against Act 40 because it stripped away substantial amounts of local control and placed most of the decisions regarding wind power in  Wisconsin in the hands of the unelected PSC.

 The bill was passed over my objections and now we must consider the recommendations proposed by the WTSC.  Again, the main purpose of the rule was to set guidelines for local regulation of the siting of certain wind turbines.  Specifically, these rules would regulate wind farms under 100 megawatts in generating capacity.  Larger wind farms were not addressed under Act 40 and are still subject to existing state statutes.

 According to the PSC, some of the main highlights of what local units of government may do under the rule package are: 1) Require that a wind farm not generate noise in excess of 45 dBA at night and 50 dBA during the day; 2) Require that a wind farm not cause shadow flicker on a non-participating residence for more than 30 hours per year; 3) Impose minimum setbacks from a wind turbine of 1.1 times the height of a turbine to an adjacent non-participating property line and 3.1 times the height of a turbine to an adjacent non-participating residence; 4) Require wind farm owners to provide financial compensation to non-participating landowners within ½ mile of a turbine site.  These payments could not exceed 25% of payments being made to a landowner hosting a turbine.

 There are additional elements to the rule package and more specific information can be found on-line by  clicking here <http://zensend.msanetwork.net/link.php?M=727145&N=578&L=919&F=H>  or by contacting my office.

 Since the WTSC initially released its recommendations, I have been contacted by many constituents expressing concerns with the proposal.  Generally, the concerns have centered on the impact of local property values near a wind farm, setbacks, shadow flicker and health issues.

 When Act 40 was originally deliberated in the legislature, legislators were assured by the bill's supporters that the WTSC would be a consensus-driven process.  Unfortunately, that has not been the case.  Instead, clear divisions over siting emerged with one side winning and the other side losing.  This is reflected in the identical 11-4 votes on all of the most important issues surrounding the rule proposal.  This may represent majority rule, but it does not represent consensus.

 As a result of the constituent contacts I have received and based on my belief that this important policy issue requires legislative oversight, I have requested that the Senate Committee on Utilities hold a public hearing on the rule proposal so that additional input may be received from individual citizens, local leaders and property owners.

 I am hopeful this request will be approved and I look forward to sharing information on the timing of a public hearing.  In the meantime, I encourage you to share your thoughts with me regarding the proposal.

E- Update September 24, 2010 By Senator Joe Liebham