SECOND FEATURE:

Columbia County Gives Wind Energy a Nod

SOURCE Capital Newspapers, www.wiscnews.com

May 21 2010

By LYN JERDE,

PORTAGE – The Columbia County Board of Supervisors offered tepid approval Wednesday to a resolution declaring electricity-generating wind turbines on five parcels of farmland are in keeping with the landowners’ farmland preservation agreements with the state.

But the non-unanimous voice vote assent didn’t come without questions about the effects of the turbines on farming, and about how the county’s approval or disapproval of the resolution might affect the future of what could soon be the state’s largest wind energy farm.

We Energies plans to build Glacier Hills Energy Park, beginning this spring, on leased farmland in the towns of Randolph and Scott. Plans call for up to 90 wind turbines, capable of generating up to 207 megawatts of electricity.

Five of the parcels leased for turbine locations – four in the town of Randolph, one in the town of Scott – are subject to farmland preservation agreements with the state.

The intent of the resolution was to declare the county’s conclusion that locating a turbine on the land is not inconsistent with the agreement that the land must continue to be used for agricultural purposes.

But why, asked Supervisor Debra Wopat of Rio, is Columbia County even addressing this issue?

The towns of Randolph and Scott are not covered under the county’s zoning ordinances. And the farmland preservation agreements, she said, are between the landowners and the state’s Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection.

Kurt Calkins, director of Columbia County’s land and water conservation department, said it was the county board that originally approved forwarding the farmland preservation agreements to the state – so the County Board has to authorize a change in the agreement to reflect the presence of the windmills. The DATCP will agree that the windmills do not impede agricultural use of the land if the county also agrees to that, he said.

“The real question is, do you deem them consistent with agricultural use? That’s the question the state has asked us to answer,” Calkins said.

Supervisor Fred Teitgen of rural Poynette questioned whether the turbines are good for rural areas.

“There are problems with large wind turbine systems, especially with noise and shadow flicker,” he said.

That was why Teitgen proposed amending the resolution to say, “Columbia County believes [that] a wind turbine structure may not (instead of will not) conflict with continued agricultural use in the area,”

He also proposed adding to the resolution a condition that the turbines should be sited properly in accordance with Wisconsin Public Service Commission standards and local requirements.

This amendment failed on a voice vote.

Supervisor Brian Landers of Wisconsin Dells said he was concerned that the revision might imply that the county can or should provide oversight for the construction of the We Energies turbines. If that’s the case, Landers asked, then which department would be responsible for the oversight, and at what cost to the county?

“I would be hesitant to add language that we somehow have a governance of this if we don’t have the legal authority to do so,” Landers said.

When Supervisor John Tramburg of Fall River asked how much farmland would be consumed by the turbines and related structures such as roads, Walter “Doc” Musekamp of We Energies said that, among the five land tracts in question, a total of 3.4 acres would be taken out of production for roads and foundations.

Construction of the roads and other ancillary structures is expected to start this spring.

THIRD FEATURE

Wind Farms vs. Doppler Radar

SOURCE: WMBD/WYZZ Chief Meteorologist Marcus Bailey

Lincoln -  Last year a weak tornado touch-downed near Holder in eastern McLean county. That's near the Twin Groves wind farm, one of the largest in the state.

Chris Miller, Warning Coordinating Meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Lincoln explains what happened next.    

"When that storm enter the wind farm area, because the rotation was weak we lost that signature as it went through the wind farm."  Says Miller.  "We had to rely strictly on storm spotter reports in the area."

Here's the concern:  The Doppler Radar beam hits the blades on a wind farm tower, causing interference.  That interference looks similar to a thunderstorm.  Current Doppler Radar uses software to filter out objects that are stationary, but rotating wind tower blades are an issue.

"We don't want to eliminate actual moving storms, but somehow the Radar would need to decide in what area the wind turbines are located and how fast they're moving and then try to remove some of that."  Says Miller.  "That's a very difficult problem to try to do software related."

This isn't an issue when the weather is fair; but when severe weather approaches or moves over a wind farm, meteorologists may not be able to pick out certain features; most specifically tornadoes.  

There are two wind farms that impact the Doppler Radar in Lincoln.  Railsplitter in southern Tazewell and northern Logan counties is the closest and most commonly seen on Radar.  A proposed wind farm may be built in western Logan county, which could also affect Radar images once completed.

So what's next?  National Weather Service officials are educating wind farm developers on their potential impact on Doppler Radar. 

"There is open dialog for the wind farm developers, but if anything we just want to educate them on what some of the concerns are."  Says Miller.  "Hopefully we have future discussions about what can be done to help mitigate the problem."


Tom Vinson, Director of Federal Regulatory Affairs with the American Wind Energy Association says wind developers are in discussions with the National Weather Service on this matter.    The Association hope that the Weather Service can develop software to take care of the problem.

"The preference on the industry side would be for a technical solution that would resolve the problem without having to necessarily give up energy production at certain times."  Says Vinson.   "It's certainly something that should be discussed but it's not something that we have definite agreement on today."  

We contacted Horizon Wind Energy, the owner of the Railsplitter wind farm.  They had no comment on our story.  Oklahoma University scientists are conducting studies on the issue.

WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING

1:30 PM Monday MAY 17 2010 AT THE PSC

Public Service Commission Building

610 North Whitney Way

Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 1:30 CLICK HERE to visit the PSC website, click on the button on the left that says "Live Broadcast". Sometimes the meetings don't begin right on time. The broadcasts begin when the meetings do so keep checking back if you don't hear anything right at 1:30.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: For some, watching a Wind Siting Council Meeting is like watching paint dry. For others it's like watching people toss your future around in their hands. For the BPWI Research Nerd (who is working on a book about the experiences of wind farm residents in our state) it's a front row seat on the creation of siting standards that will either protect the people and avian species of our state, or protect the interests of wind developers, utilities and wind lobbyists. If you live in rural Wisconsin, there is a very good chance that this issue will soon be at your front door.

As we look over the agenda we look forward to discussion of the PSC commissioner's sudden adoption of draft rules last week.

On Friday, the PSC commissioners approved draft wind siting rules containing conditions which include specific numbers concerning setbacks and noise limits the Wind Siting Council has never been allowed to discuss.

For those of us following this issue, this sudden move by the PSC commissioners comes as a complete surprise.

The numbers used for the draft rules come from the Glacier Hills decision, according to the commission.

The setback from non participating homes in Glacier Hills is 1250 feet. The noise limit is 50 dbA and 45dbA depending on the season.

The setbacks and noise limits previdously approved by the PSC which causing so much trouble for residents in existing Wisconsin wind projects are 1000 feet from non participating homes and a noise limit of 50dbA.

AGENDA

MEETING NOTICE
Wind Siting Council
Docket 1-AC-231
Monday, May 17, 2010, beginning at 1:30 p.m.

Agenda

1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda
2) Review and adoption of meeting minutes of April 29, 2010
3) Update on Commission rulemaking process
4) Presentation: Wind Turbines: A Brief Health Overview
Council member Jevon McFadden, MD, MPH
5) Next steps/Discussion of next meeting’s time, place and agenda
6) Adjourn

This meeting is open to the public.
If you have any questions or need special accommodations, please contact Deborah
Erwin at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin by telephone at (608) 266-3905 or
via e-mail at deborah.erwin@wisconsin.gov.

SECOND FEATURE:

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules

CLICK HERE to get a copy of the draft siting rules approved by the commissioners on Friday, and to find out more about the Wind Siting Council

CLICK HERE and type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted so far.

CLICK HERE to leave a comment on the Wind Siting Council Docket

Here is a recent comment from a resident of Greenleaf, Wisconsin

I just read the last siting minutes and the draft document putting setbacks from non-participating residents at 3.1 X turbine height and "1.1" X turbine height from the property line.

In my case this is effectively stealing 690 feet of my property.

My neighbor has 138 acres and I have ten acres. If he doesn't have enough acreage to keep the 3.1 X setback from the "property line", then he does not have enough land host two turbines.

I paid off the mortgage for my land with the property rights intact and I paid the the property taxes on my land for 29 years. If there is anyone entitled to the property rights of my property- it is me.

If the state wishes to exercise eminent domain, then they have a right to do so for public conveyance and I must be compensated for the loss of my property.

The wind developer and my neighbor DO NOT have the right of eminent domain. The Wind Siting Council has a legal and moral obligation to respect the property rights of all Wisconsin property owners and any rules they make must reflect those obligations.

 I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
 

Dave Hettmann

THIRD FEATURE

Do wind turbines cause health problems?

 by Julia Layton

 SOURCE: How Stuff Works

http://science.howstuffworks.com/wind-turbines-health.htm/printable

Some people living near wind turbines complain of chronic sleep loss, headaches and other symptoms

Wind power accounts for about 1 percent of the electricity prod­uced in the United States [source: Gillam]. Nearly 2­5,000 wind turbines crank out power throughout the country. These massive windmills -- up to 80 feet (24 meters) tall -- capture the energy in wind and convert it into free-flowing electrons that people can use to run dishwashers, air conditioning and lights.

 That 1 percent may not sound like much until you realize that wind power is just catching on in the United States. Huge new wind far­ms accounting for thousands more megawatts of capacity are in development as we speak, and estimates put 20 percent of the nation's electricity coming from wind power by 2030 [source: The Oregonian]. The European Union hopes to reach that percentage even sooner -- by 2020.

 Until recently, there were three main issues regarding the possible downsides of wind power: bird and­ bat deaths, cost, and disrupting the appearance of natural landscapes. But a new objection to wind power has popped up in the past few years, resting on the research of a few scientists. The latest argument states that wind power endangers the health of people who live near windmills. Some people call this theory "wind-turbine syndrome." Although the extent of the phenomenon is unknown, there does seem to be something to it.

 Those concerned about wind-power syndrome are interested in finding out if and how wind power could be making people sick. Is everyone living near windmills facing health probl­ems? Let's take a look at the possible health risks associated with wind farms and find out whether we should be worried about the steady increase in wind-generated power throughout the world.

 Infrasound and The Body

 The rapidly spinning blades of huge wind turbines have an effect on their surroundings, and it goes beyond aesthetics. The blade tips of a wind turbine can spin at speeds­ of up to 80 meters per second, or about 180 miles per hour. In high winds, this rapid spinning can produce sound a­nd vibration -- in addition to disruptions in air pressure [source: MIT].

 The extremely low air pressure surrounding a wind turbine could be the reason why bats die near them. A bat's lungs are very delicate, and it seems the low pressure might cause them to expand to the point of bursting blood vessels [source: NewScientist]. Scuba divers can certainly attest to the effects of pressure on the human body.

 And the corporeal effects of sound -- essentially fluctuations in air pressure that vibrate the eardrum -- are well-documented. For instance, infrasound -- sounds at such low frequency that they can't be picked up by the human ear but can carry through the atmosphere for thousands of kilometers -- is believed to cause certain breathing and digestive problems [source: Infrasound Lab].

 Infrasound is the primary issue for those concerned about wind-turbine syndrome. They also say that audible sound and vibrations contribute to the health problems reported by some people who live close to wind farms. Symptoms of wind-turbine syndrome might include:

    * headaches

    * sleep problems

    * night terrors or learning disabilities in children

    * ringing in the ears (tinnitus)

    * mood problems (irritability, anxiety)

    * concentration and memory problems

    * issues with equilibrium, dizziness and nausea

 Around the World

 As of May 2008, about 25,000 wind turbines are cranking out power across the country -- and the world [source: Gillam]. In Britain, 2,100 turbines supply up to 2 percent of the country's power; Germany, the world's top user of wind power, draws 7 percent of­ its electrical needs from more than 19,000 turbines [source: BBC,BWEA].

 These symptoms have been observed and documented by a limited number of scientists studying small groups of people, and the scientific community hasn't conclude­d whether wind-turbine syndrome exists.

 There are also mixed opinions on whether wind turbines emit infrasound and if the amount is any more than that emitted by diesel engines or waves crashing on the beach [source: CleanTechnica, ABC Science]. But we do know that at high speeds, wind turbines can produce an audible hum and vibration that can be carried through the air. ­It's these sounds and motions that provide clues and possible solutions to wind-turbine syndrome, which we'll explore in the next section.

 Wind-Turbine Syndrome Explanations and Solutions

 It's understood that some people who live in close proximity to wind turbines experience sleep disturbances, headaches and concentration problems. These symptoms and others could be explained as the effects of infrasound as well as constant humming and vibrations.

 But here's the catch: Many of the symptoms of wind-turbine syndrome can also be caused by chronic sleep loss -- simply and unfortunately an effect of living near a noise-producing entity [source: ­­Ohio Department of Health].

 People who live near a highway or busy street may have trouble sleeping, which can lead to other health problems like irritability, anxiety, concentration and dizziness.

 Infrasound Weapons

 There was a rumor years ago about an infrasound-based military weapon that would make people lose control of their bowels and poop on themselves. It was said to be a riot-control device. The rumor wasn't true, as far as we know [source: ABC Science]. But in theory, such a weapon might work.

 To solve this sound issue, new wind-power technology employs sound-dampening systems. Engineers are hoping that these newer systems -- which can block or cancel out multiple sound frequencies -- will reduce any sound-related problems associated with wind farm communities [source: Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft].

 Researchers studying wind-turbine syndrome also recommend a larger buffer zone around wind farms to protect people from any ill effects. Some people say that the distance should be least 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) [source: CleanTechnica].

 Others suggest at least 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) [source: PlanetGore].

 Some wind farms are currently located as close as a half mile (0.8 kilometers) from residential areas.

 Whether we should be concerned with the expansion in wind power ultimately comes down to weighing the pros and cons. Is cleaner, cheaper, domestically produced energy worth the potential side effects of some people experiencing headaches? The hope is that new buffer-zone regulations and sound-canceling technologies can do away with the question entirely.

 If the issue persists, we'll have to decide whether wind power is important enough to pursue anyway -- much like deciding whether building a new, noisy highway that would reduce congestion and increase commerce is worth some unfortunate people losing sleep.

Sources

  * ABC Science. Brown note: bad vibration mega-hurts. May 13, 2008.

      http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/05

      /13/2242923.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience

    * BWEA.Low Frequency Noise and Wind Turbines.

      http://www.bwea.com/ref/lowfrequencynoise.html

    * CleanTechnica. Wind Turbines and… Health? August 18, 2008.

      http://cleantechnica.com/2008/08/18/wind-turbines-and-health/

    * "Anti-noise" silences wind turbines.

      http://www.fraunhofer.de/EN/press/pi/2008/08/Research

      News082008Topic3.jsp

    * Gillam, Carey. Wind power gains adherents in United States. International Herald Tribune. Reuters.

      http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/19/business/wind.php

    * Infrasound Lab. University of Hawaii.

      http://www.isla.hawaii.edu

    * NewScientist Environment. Wind turbines make bat lungs explode. August 25, 2008.

      http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14593

    * Ohio Department of Health. Bureau of Environment Health. Health Assessment Section. Literature search on the potential health impacts associated with wind-to-energy turbine operations.

      www.odh.ohio.gov/ASSETS/C43A4CD6C24B4F8493CB32D525FB7C2

      7/Wind%20Turbine%20SUMMARY%20REPORT.pdf

    * Planet Gore. Wind Turbine Syndrome. August 15, 2008.

      http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTgxZjc4NzMyM2YxYTNj

      ZDI5YTNlY2E0YjVhOWNmMGU=

    * The Oregonian. Wind whips up health fears. August 10, 2008.

      http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news

      /1218250522129010.xml&coll=7&thispage=1

    * WindAction.org. Wind Turbine Syndrome. March 12, 2006.

      http://www.windaction.org/pictures/2010



Home in a wind farm. Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. Photo by Gerry Meyer 2009

Government of Ontario requests 'Expert Advice' on Wind Turbine Noise

From THE SOCIETY FOR WIND VIGILANCE

www.windvigilance.com

 January 20, 2010

 TORONTO- The government of Ontario admitted this week that it does not know 'how or whether' to measure for low frequency sound at wind turbine installations.

Two Requests for Proposal www.merx.com were issued yesterday by the Ontario Ministry of Environment to help the  ministry in "determining how or whether to regulate low frequency noise emissions from wind turbines".

  The requests go on to state, "The Ministry requires a consultant to assist in the development of ameasurement procedure to assess noise compliance of existing wind farms with the applicable sound level limits"

"Unlike typical industrial noise sources, measurement of audible noise from wind turbines in general raises technical challenges."

 The request adds, "the MOE Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms, October 2008 do not contain a measurement method for assessing the actual noise impact."

  Questions arise:

  If  the government does not have a method for measuring noise impact, why are  they moving ahead with more wind developments before proper studies and science are completed?

 How did the Ministry of Environment arrive at an arbitrary distance of 550m from industrial wind turbines to protect from noise?

 Reports of adverse health effects experienced by people living too close to industrial wind turbines have been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Environment for more than two years.

 Nothing has been done to mitigate the suffering and many have been forced to abandon their homes or be bought out by a wind developer. Hundreds of requests for mitigation of the issue have not been dealt with yet industrial wind turbines continue to be erected.

  The Society for Wind Vigilance, an International Federation of Physicians and other professionals, repeats its appeal to all governments including the Government of Ontario to place a moratorium on all wind development until a third party health study is conducted into the impact of industrial wind turbines on human health.

At the minimum, current turbines should be turned off at night as a French court ruled and new industrial wind turbines should be set  back a minimum of 2000 meters from residences. Ongoing monitoring for adverse health effects must be conducted.

 SECOND FEATURE:

 Note from the BPWI Research nerd: The Oregon State noise limit for the Invenergy wind farm mentioned in the following story is 36 dbA

The current turbine noise limit for Invenergy in the State of Wisconsin is 50 dbA

The "too loud" referred to in the story below is under 38dbA

 Study says wind farm is too loud

East Oregonian, eastoregonian.com

January 21, 2010

 The Willow Creek Energy Center is in violation of state noise standards for at least three nearby homes, its acoustical expert revealed at a planning commission meeting Tuesday night. Still up for debate, according to the other experts in attendance, is how much and how often.

 The meeting amounted to a day in court for the neighbors of the wind farm – Dan Williams, Mike and Sherry Eaton and Dennis Wade – who began complaining about farm’s noise and other effects last year.

 According to Oregon Administrative Rule, energy-generating facilities can be as loud as 36 decibels at adjacent homes – that’s 26 decibels for background noise plus 10 for the facility. In the analysis of the acoustical expert that Invenergy hired, Michael Theriault of Portland, Maine, the noise at the Wade residence was usually less than 36 decibels. At the Eaton residence, it was usually less than 37 decibels. At the Williams residence, the noise “moderately” exceeded the noise code about 10 percent of the time, Theriault said.

 Theriault also conducted a noise study at the home of another neighbor, Dave Mingo, and found that the noise was usually less than 37 decibels. “On overview, the facility is substantially in compliance with state rules,” he said.

Kelly Hossainin – a lawyer for Invenergy, the company that runs Willow Creek Energy Center – argued that the amount by which the wind farm exceeded the noise limit at the Eaton and Mingo residences, one decibel, is not perceptible outside a laboratory environment.

She said the times the wind farm exceeded the noise standards were unusual events, which would qualify for an exception under the rules.

 Theriault explained some of his methods to the planning commission. For example, he did not analyze the noise data that was generated while the wind was blowing more than 9 meters per second (about 18 miles per hour). According to General Electric, the company that made the turbines, turbine noise does not increase after that point, he said.

 Commissioner Pam Docken asked Theriault if he could speak to the health effects of turbine noise.

 “Annoyance is a very complex phenomena,” he said, referring to a recent wind-industry study that found no negative health effects of wind turbines except annoyance. “We know that in some cases, annoyance isn’t even related to noise level. It can be related to whether they see the noise source and can change with the subject’s attitude to the noise source.”

 Then Kerrie Standlee, a prominent acoustical expert – he works for the Oregon Department of Energy doing site certification reviews and was even hired by Morrow County to analyze the racetrack issue – began to speak for the Eatons, Williams and Wade. He presented his own noise study, which showed that the noise at the Eaton’s residence hovered just above the noise standard on a regular basis, and at the Williams residence it regularly went above 40 decibels.

 Standlee also analyzed Theriault’s study. He pointed out that the wind farm consistently broke the noise rule at precisely the time when Theriault decided not to use the data – when wind speeds exceeded 9 meters per second.

 When the data is analyzed in a wider range of wind speeds, he said, the wind farm was in violation of the rule 22 out of 37 nights.

 “I’m not sure how someone can say this is an unusual, infrequent event,” he said. “To me, 59 percent is not occasional or unusual.”

 Standlee’s noise study also went beyond Theriault’s in that he gave the residents a sheet of paper to log their experiences with time and date. He then overlaid those comments on the data and showed that when the residents reported high noise, the wind was blowing from a particular direction or at a particular speed.

 Another acoustical expert, Jerry Lilly, spoke for Dave Mingo. He came up with results similar to Standlee’s, but noted that the Theriault study was also flawed because it did not measure noise at the residence’s property line – as required by Morrow County noise ordinance – and it did not measure the noise inside the homes.

 The commission also heard heartfelt testimony from the residents themselves, who said that their lives had been completely changed since the wind farm came.

 “A basic right in my life is to live in my beautiful home with my peace and quiet, and now I can’t do that,” Dan Williams said.

 When the testimony ended, the planning commission agreed to wait until their next meeting to make a decision about whether – and how – the Willow Creek wind farm must mitigate the noise problem.

PSC STILL SORTING OUT DETAILS OF COLUMBIA COUNTY WIND FARM

By Lyn Jerde, Daily Register, portagedailyregister.com

January 21 2010

Within days, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin will finalize its list of conditions for the construction of a wind farm in northeast Columbia County.

But officials of We Energies already are planning where the turbines will go and determining whether the PSC’s conditions will allow erecting all 90 of them.

On Jan. 11, the PSC approved a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the wind farm, called Glacier Hills Wind Park, on about 17,300 acres of farmland in the towns of Scott and Randolph.

The proposal called for 90 turbines, each about 400 feet tall, capable of generating up to 207 megawatts of electricity.

The commission met again Wednesday, this time to draft the specifics of conditions that the commissioners had discussed Jan. 11 before granting approval for the project.

PSC spokeswoman Teresa Smith said Monday is the deadline for the formal list of conditions to be in the hands of We officials. The list is undergoing final editing, based on the discussion of the commission at its meeting in Madison on Wednesday.

We Energies spokesman Brian Manthey said he listened to the live electronic broadcast of Wednesday’s meeting and has heard nothing in the proposed conditions that could stall or stop the utility’s plans to start construction late this spring.

The most challenging condition, however, is a minimum 1,250-foot setback between each turbine and the property of landowners who are not leasing any land for the turbines, Manthey said.

The original proposal, with 90 preferred turbine sites and 28 alternate sites, included a minimum setback of 1,000 feet from nonparticipating landowners, he said.

The hope, he added, is that “preferred sites” that are closer than 1,250 feet can be replaced with alternate sites that meet the setback requirement, thus allowing all 90 turbines to be built. It’s too early, however, to determine whether the setback rules will result in fewer turbines going up, he said.

“Hopefully, we’ll be up to that number of 90,” he said, “but it might be a different 90 than we’d planned.”

The PSC’s condition limiting the noise of the turbines also is a factor, Manthey said – not only in where they are located, but also in the type of turbines eventually used in Glacier Hills.

The commissioners set noise limits of 50 decibels day and night during colder months and 50 decibels by day and 45 decibels by night during the warmer months when people often like to sleep with their windows open.

Minimizing noise is one reason why We Energies is considering turbines capable of generating 1.8 megawatts each, for a total of 162 megawatts. Manthey noted that these turbines would be about as tall as the ones that would, all together, generate the 207-megawatt maximum allowed by the PSC. The difference in the turbines, which accounts for the difference in the noise they create, is the size of the attached generators.

No final decision has been made regarding the generation capacity of the turbines that soon will be part of Columbia County’s skyline.

But even if the project were to generate the maximum power allowed, Manthey said, We Energies still would need other renewable energy projects to meet the state requirement of generating 10 percent of its electricity from renewable resources by 2015. (Those standards might go up. There’s legislation pending in Wisconsin to raise the renewable energy standards for utilities to 20 percent by 2020 and 25 percent by 2025.)

We Energies has another renewable project pending – a power plant built on the premises of a paper mill near Rothschild, south of Wausau, that would burn waste wood left over from the paper-making process.

Meanwhile, Manthey said, it’s not certain when Columbia County residents can look for trucks carrying the huge wind turbine components down the country roads. The initial construction work will entail site preparation and foundation building. Glacier Hills is expected to be up and running by late 2011.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: According to following press release, the 90 turbine Glacier Hills wind farm mentioned above has an 18 turbine "country cousin."

New 30-Megawatt Wind Project in Columbia County Approved

E Wind LLC is the country cousin to the larger Glacier Hills project, being developed by some local landowners and entrepreneurs who are determined to not let all renewable energy (and money) go to the big companies. Bob Lange, an E Wind member who farms near Columbus remarked, "I was involved in the development of the UWGP ethanol plant in Friesland and saw all these wind measurement towers being installed in the area by several large wind developers; that got me thinking that wind energy might be the next renewable energy of choice for the area." Bob found a few others to join him and off they set to put together a wind project. It included finding willing landowners to lease their property for turbines, paying the transmission owners to study the electrical connection of their project, installing a 200-foot tall wind measurement tower, and approaching the Town of Randolph about receiving permission to build the project.

Wes Slaymaker, P.E., of WES Engineering LLC, a Madison-based wind energy consulting company who is acting as the E Wind LLC project engineer, commented, "We staked some possible turbine locations in the winter of 2008 and spent the next year moving those locations around to address all the concerns of the landowners and community members." Later E Wind hired Cullen Weston Pines and Bach LLP, a Madison law firm, to assist the project with negotiating a development agreement with the Town of Randolph.

Unfortunately, E Wind’s timing was poor as the Glacier Hills project had recently been announced by We Energies and the local area was inflamed with concerns regarding how that large wind project would affect their homes and communities. The E Wind members spent plenty of their evenings attending town and village meetings. They hoped to get some sympathy from the area residents as the local project and eventually convinced the town to vote to approve the E Wind project, contingent upon the approval of the larger Glacier Hills project.