WATCH YESTERDAY'S HEARING ON WISCONSIN EYE

CLICK HERE  to watch Wisconsin Eye video of the Senate Committee wind rules hearing yesterday. 

After you click on the link, click "Watch" under 10.13.10 Senate committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail

BELOW: Video testimony of Dr. Herb Coussons on the wind siting rules. Unfortunately video testimony was not accepted at the hearing. It has been accepted in the past. No reason was given for the change.

Click on the image above to hear Doug Zwiezig ask the Wind Siting Council a simple question about the rules they were approving. It was a simple question no one was able to answer correctly.

Residents from the counties of Rock, Manitowoc, Calumet, Kewaunee, Brown, St. Croix, Fond du Lac, Dodge,  Grant and more who turned out in force at the Capitol to testify against the new wind siting rules created by the Public Service Commission, were surprised that Senator Plale gave the Vice Chair of the Wind Siting Council just three minutes for his testimony about what went wrong on the council.

This critical testimony (below) from Wind siting council Vice Chair Doug Zweizig was cut short at the senate hearing yesterday by the three minute rule.

We are glad to present it here

To Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail

From: Douglas Zweizig, Ph.D., Vice Chair, Wind Siting Council

Re: Clearinghouse Rule #10-057; PSC Wind Siting Rules proposed Chapter 128

Date: October 13, 2010

Good afternoon. My name is Douglas Zweizig. I am retired from teaching at the UW—Madison School of Library and Information Studies where I taught in the areas of management and research methods. I am also a member of the Town of Union (Rock County) Plan Commission, and I chaired that Plan Commission through a sixteen-month process as it developed a licensing ordinance for wind energy systems.

I am an advocate for alternative energy use and have installed geothermal and solar photovoltaic systems at my home. I am speaking today from my experience as Vice Chair of the Public Service Commission-appointed Wind Siting Council.

At the formation of the Wind Siting Council, I was hopeful that this broadly representative group could work together to recommend responsible uniform rules for the siting of wind turbines, but I came to see that the process being followed was flawed, and I was one of the authors of the Council’s minority report.

It seems appropriate for your committee to be holding a hearing on the Public Service Commission-proposed rules as there is considerable evidence that the Public Service Commission did not take seriously the directives in Act 40, the legislation that directed the PSC to appoint the Council and that instructed it in the work that the Council was to carry out. I know that there were a lot of statements made in support of the legislation about the intentions for the Wind Siting Council, and there are descriptions in the Council report of the working of the Wind Siting Council that sound like it worked the way it should have, but the behaviors do not fit that description.

Others will present concerns with the substance of the rules proposed by the Public Service Commission. I want, as a member and Vice-Chair of the Wind Siting Council to report to you on the process of the Council and the ways in which that process did not match the requirements of Act 40.

When the members appointed to the Council were announced, there was widespread objection to the appointments. The minority report of the Wind Siting Council (selection appended on pages 9-14) details some of these concerns, but in brief, even though Act 40 was clear in specifying a balance of interests in the Council, the appointments heavily favored persons with financial interests in the development of large wind energy systems in Wisconsin. I am aware that the Commissioners believe that the legislature desires increased development of wind energy systems, but I don't believe that the legislature desired a bias in the Council that would pre-determine rules favorable to the wind industry and harmful to the health and home values of Wisconsin residents.

I’m going to touch on several aspects of what Act 40 called for the PSC to do with the Wind Siting Council and report on what, in my view, happened. For example, in Act 40, you clearly specified the make-up of this critical committee, the Wind Siting Council. You asked for a balanced Council that would address the concerns of the various parties and that would provide recommendations that accommodated those concerns to the degree possible. What you got was a Council front-loaded in support of wind development, that contained an imbalance of those with financial interests in the development of wind energy systems, and that did not seek to evolve creative solutions to the tensions, only to override any opposition. In choosing a Chair for the Council, the Public Service Commission could have used its opportunity of appointing two public members to appoint someone with stature, skills, and neutrality who could serve as Chair—someone who could help the different interests in the Council listen to each other and craft recommendations that the Public Service Commission and you could move forward with. The appointments of public members that the PSC made squandered that opportunity. Instead, the PSC put forth as Chair someone who was an executive with an electric utility, who had previously issued permits for wind farms as a PSC chair, and who was chair of CREWE (Clean, Responsible Energy for Wisconsin's Economy), an organization even at that time lobbying for an extended and increased Renewable Portfolio Standard. While the Chair did make some efforts to urge members to work toward solutions, there was no effort made by the wind industry block to negotiate solutions that would have begun to adequately address non-industry concerns.

Even though you sought a Council that would contain knowledge and experience from a variety of perspectives, this knowledge and experience was either missing or for the most part unused and sometimes misused. Fortunately, there is an almost complete record of the over 30 hours of Wind Siting Council meetings, from observers' videos and, from midway through the process, on Wisconsin Eye (wiseye.org), so observations about the conduct of the Council can be verified.

 Here are some examples of how the knowledge and professionalism of Council members was neglected.

One would only have to look at a randomly-selected hour of video of a meeting to see the lack of critical thinking that was operating, and this is the process that produced the recommendations of the Council.

You also directed the Council to inform itself about local government regulations, about health impacts, and about regulation in other states and countries. For example, you asked in Act 40 that there be "one member representing towns and one member representing counties," (15.797 (1) (b) 2.) and said that "the initial member of the wind siting council [appointed as a town or county representative] shall represent a town or county that has in effect . . . an ordinance regulating wind energy systems." (Section  14 (2) (b).) It seems clear from this requirement that you wanted the Council to consider and benefit from the local ordinances that had been developed for the regulation of wind siting. Since the major argument made for the need for state-level uniform standards for wind turbine siting was the existing “patchwork” or “hodgepodge” of local ordinances and since the statute stipulated that a member of the Wind Siting Council should have direct experience with such an ordinance, it may be surprising to you that no examination or consideration of these local ordinances occurred. I had provided copies of my Town of Union’s ordinance to members of the Council, but it was never taken up in a meeting. While it was easy for frustrated wind developers to rail against having to understand and comply with local government concerns, the fact is that local governments spent considerable time and resources to carry out their responsibilities to their constituents. In the case of my small township, sixteen months and an estimated $40,000. was spent preparing a licensing ordinance for wind energy systems. We did not take this task lightly, and we believe that our investigations and work resulted in an ordinance that would allow wind development in our township while being protective of our citizens, but our experience and the experience of other local jurisdictions were not considered as anything other than impediments.

The Wind Siting Council ignored the work that had been done by local governments across the state because it seems the focus of the Council was on the needs of the wind industry and not on the equally legitimate concerns of local jurisdictions.

In a specific case, when I tried to address the issue of complaint resolution and provided language from our ordinance that described our approach (appended pages 15-17), it was not taken as a motion or seriously discussed. Instead, the Chair repeatedly asserted that the approach used by WE Energies should be taken as a model to be used throughout the state.

You asked that "one member who is a University of Wisconsin System faculty member with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems" (15.797 (1) (b) 8.) be on the Council.

It is pretty clear that you were asking for the best qualified person to be found in public higher education in Wisconsin to inform the recommendations of the Wind Siting Council on this issue of central concern. We now have hundreds of Wisconsin families who are living adjacent to large wind turbines, we have reports of serious health concerns and suspected consequences among these families, we have households abandoning their unlivable homes in order to avoid the effects of wind turbines—it is important to be as sure as we can be that policy decisions on wind turbine siting will not result in compromising the health of wind farm hosts or neighbors. This is why you specified clearly that you wanted to be guided by the highest quality of information.

What you got was not a University of Wisconsin System faculty member but someone who had been hired to teach a course in the medical school, someone whose highest research qualification is a masters degree, someone who had begun to investigate the literature on the "health impacts of wind energy systems" just a few months before being appointed to the Wind Siting Council, and someone who had done no independent investigation of the health impacts of exposure to wind energy systems. It is difficult to understand how this appointment came about, but it is clear that the Public Service Commission did not, as was asked for, look throughout the UW System, but only at the UW—Madison and then, finally, in the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

To further underscore your concern with health impacts, you specified that the Wind Siting Council "shall survey the peer-reviewed scientific research regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems" (Section 12,  (e).)

The Wind Siting Council did not conduct any such survey. One member of the Wind Siting Council, having a masters degree in Public Health and working for a state agency that had already taken a position denying the health impacts of wind energy systems, was asked to prepare a presentation to be given to the Wind Siting Council. Immediately following the PowerPoint-assisted presentation, there was a limited time for questions. The written text of the presentation was initially promised to be provided, but then was withheld. It is now taking a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain a copy of this paper prepared by a state employee as part of his work. Without this text, the basis for the presentation cannot be evaluated. The Wind Siting Council was not provided access to any of the research studies by either copies or links, and the section on Noise in the report of the Wind Siting Council cites studies that were not part of the presentation and that were unknown to the Council. This critical part of your direction was simply not carried out.

In addition, you required that the Wind Siting Council "shall . . . study state and national regulatory developments regarding the siting of wind energy systems." (Section 12,  (e).) How did that go? I don't believe that state or national regulations ever appeared on an agenda for the Wind Siting Council. There were no briefing materials prepared or provided to WSC members. When I provided information on New Zealand's reconfirmed and revised noise standard of 5 decibels over background sound levels (appended pages 18-19), a standard that they have found workable and that is supported by both the government and the industry-based New Zealand Wind Energy Association, consideration of it was dismissed by a wind developer by saying that we should not consider any standards from other countries.  The Chair, and other industry supporters, thought that was an adequate response.

The only report on regulation from any other states that I have seen from the PSC was appended to the Rules sent to you at the end of August as Attachment A1, "Comparison with Similar Rules in Surrounding States." This information was not provided to the Wind Siting Council. So, for example, we never learned that Michigan PSC has recommended that "setback requirements and noise limitations should continue to be decided at the local level where feasible so that the needs of local citizens can be appropriately considered." We never learned about the Michigan PSC’s recommendation that the noise standard should be measured from the property line, not the residence. We never learned that in Minnesota "a county may adopt standards for large wind systems that are more stringent than those in Minnesota PUC rules or permit standards." And given these differences found in neighboring states, there is a good chance that we could learn a great deal from an unbiased survey of state and national regulatory siting regulation, but that survey was apparently never conducted or at least was not shared with the Council.

While I have been impressed with the professionalism and diligence of the PSC staff, it is clear that the PSC-directed process of the Wind Siting Council has failed to comply with the requirements you included in Act 40

• in making appointments to the Council,
• in learning from local government experiences with regulation of wind energy systems,
• in responsibly investigating the concerns with health impacts, and

 This outcome is not what Chairman Callisto promised this committee in May of last year when he said, "I pledge to you a rule-making process that will be open and inclusive. I have no desire to send you a rule that gives you heartburn. My job is to get the rule done right the first time."

I think that you and I would agree that the health and property of Wisconsin citizens and the energy future of the state are all important issues and deserve better attention than they received in the Wind Siting Council. It is sad that the Public Service Commission was not able to make better use of the opportunity provided by Act 40 to develop rules that would promote sustainable wind development for Wisconsin, that would be fair to all parties, that would be workable, and that would promote community acceptance of wind energy systems.

I respectfully request that the rules be sent back to the Public Service Commission to improve the Council membership and process and to carry out the charge contained in Act 40.

 Thank-you for this opportunity to report to you. I would be glad to respond if you have any questions at this or any other time.

SECOND FEATURE:

FIGHTING WIND FARMS AT THE CAPITOL

SOURCE: Wisconsin Radio Network, www.wrn.com

October 14 2010

by Andrew Beckett,

Critics of proposed statewide rules of permitting wind farms in Wisconsin unloaded complaints on legislators, during a hearing at the Capitol Wednesday. A state Senate committee is reviewing the rules from the Public Service Commission, which would create statewide standards for the construction of wind farms.

Larry Wunsch, who served on the PSC advisory panel, says proposed setbacks for wind turbines still leave them too close to homes. Wunsch was also critical of the process the Commission used in crafting the rules, arguing that the panel was stacked with pro-wind advocates who ignored opposing viewpoints.

Tamas Houlihan with the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association voiced concerns about restrictions on aerial crop spraying, warning it could cause delays in treating plants. Houlihan was joined by several other farmers who say they need to react quickly to potential pest threats, and only aerial spraying allows them to do that.

Lawmakers also heard from supporters of the rules, who argue that clear guidelines are needed to keep local governments from creating conflicting standards.

Michael Arndt of Element Power says setback guidelines that are too strict could severely limit where wind farms can be built. Arndt says there’s a misconception that there are large strips of land out there waiting for wind development. However, he says forcing turbines to be built a half mile or more from neighboring properties quickly reduces the amount of land available.

State Senator Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee), who chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail, told dozens of people who turned out to testify Wednesday that lawmakers will likely send the proposed rules back to the PSC for changes.

AUDIO: Andrew Beckett reports (1:16)

THIRD FEATURE:

SOME FARMERS RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT WIND FARM SITES:

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

October 13 2010

By Thomas Content of the

Wind farms built in certain areas of the state could end up preventing farms growing potatoes and beans from using airplanes to spray their fields with pesticides and insecticides, agricultural representatives told a state Senate hearing in Madison on Wednesday.

“If large-scale wind energy plants would be sited in areas of intense vegetable production, the result could be devastating crop losses,” said Tamas Houlihan of the state Potato and Vegetable Growers Association.

The group is seeking “some kind of system for compensation in the event of losses due to siting of wind energy facilities that prevent the use of aerial application,” he said.

At issue is a set of rules that the state Public Service Commission developed this summer after a series of public hearings and recommendations by a wind siting advisory council.

Developers are concerned that some of the restrictions may force them to develop wind projects out of state instead of here. And they left opponents of wind farms critical that the PSC didn’t go far enough to restrict how close wind turbines can be built to nearby homes.

Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee), chair of the Senate commerce, energy and utilities committee, said he wants to see the rules sent back to the PSC for more work. Plale was the author of a bill that led to the rules created by the PSC. If the Legislature does not send the rules back, the rules would take effect.

Nick George of the Midwest Food Processors Association, said sending the rules back would help the agency incorporate a compensation system that the farm groups have developed in consultation with other stakeholders.

Wind developers object that setback rules will make it impossible to build some projects, and deprive the state of economic development opportunities.

Michael Arndt of Oregon-based Element Power said his company is proposing a $300 million project that would create 150 construction jobs and 15 maintenance jobs as well as $2 million in revenue for local landowners.

“And the project may not be viable if the proposed rules are adopted as they stand today. It will force us to basically deploy our development dollars in neighboring states.”

TESTIMONY FROM

 Bob Ziegelbauer, County Executive

 Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail

Senator Jeff Plale, Chair

Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 11:00 AM

411 South, State Capitol

RE: Opposition to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057, relating to the siting of wind

energy systems.

Dear Senator Plale & Committee Members:

As I testified at the public hearing held over a year ago on SB 185/AB 256, I was opposed to the wind siting bills then, and am opposed to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 now.

I continue to strongly support that the siting of wind towers must be made by the local units of government where wind towers will be located.

I strongly encourage the Committee to send the rule back to require local input and decisions.

In the Manitowoc County area we are very interested in efficient new energy technologies. We host two valuable highly efficient nuclear plants (and if you’re really serious about producing low cost electricity for a long time we would love to put one more between those two).

Our workers manufacture the towers that support the wind turbines. And, the City of Manitowoc operates a new clean coal power plant in the middle of town, a block from my house, three blocks from the Courthouse.

We are “all in” on the energy economy.

The issue here is actually a fairly simple one. “Do you trust people in their local communities to make serious land use decisions on important issues?”

Nearly five years ago when it became clear that the demand for wind power sites would include our area, Town and County government embarked on the intense process of trying to make the difficult land use policy decisions contemplated under existing state law.

After a failed first attempt to create a suitable county wind power ordinance, the County Board took a “time out” by declaring a moratorium on projects while it convened a special study committee to write a new ordinance.

That committee, a balanced mix of citizen and elected officials encompassing all the principal points of view, took significant public input and agonized over the implications of making wind tower siting decisions.

After more than a year of serious deliberation their work product, a comprehensive wind power ordinance was overwhelmingly passed into law by the Manitowoc County Board in 2006.

That both sides of the debate came away from the process a little unhappy with the results speaks highly of the quality of the work they did.

It continues to be tested, defined, and refined according to the appropriate due process that is available at the local level for these issues.

This would throw all that work away.

I encourage you to stand up for those local officials and the process of making local decisions throughout the State.

Their work and the work of similar groups of local officials, who took their

responsibilities seriously and in good faith waded in to try address controversial issues in their communities should stand; not be washed away because “Monday morning quarterbacks” from 150 miles away don’t like the result.

This proposal tells local people to get out of the way, tells local officials to dodge the tough issues, and because people in Madison know better, you’ll decide.

I urge you to not support the rule and send it back for modifications.

 Bob Ziegelbauer

Manitowoc County Courthouse 

1010 S. 8th Street

Manitowoc WI 54220

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

For some reason the Senate committee yesterday did not allow short video clips to be shown as part of testimony. In the past this option has always been available for citizens. No reason was given for the change. This is one of the videos that was not allowed to be presented which is unfortunate because it clearly illustrates a key problem with then new rules.

After listening to 6 hours of testimony, including very moving and upsetting testimony from residents now living in wind projects in our state, out-going senator Plale, who was quite jovial during the proceedings, ended the hearing by saying he would send the rules back to the PSC which was not surprising. What is surpising is, given all he heard during the hearing, he will send the rules back with no recommendations.

Residents in this Ontario Community had problems getting into a public meeting about a proposed wind farm in their community unless they agreed to give their names to wind developers who hired local police to help with enforcement.

Below, a news story on what happened once the meeting got started.

With new wind siting rules in the state of Wisconsin that will overturn local ordinances created to protect residents in rural communities, will scenes like these soon take place in our state?

SECOND FEATURE: WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS

FOR THOSE NEAR, THE MISERABLE HUM OF CLEAN ENERGY

SOURCE: The New York Times

October 5, 2010

By Tom Zeller, Jr

VINALHAVEN, Me. — Like nearly all of the residents on this island in Penobscot Bay, Art Lindgren and his wife, Cheryl, celebrated the arrival of three giant wind turbines late last year. That was before they were turned on.

“In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” Mr. Lindgren said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.”

Now, the Lindgrens, along with a dozen or so neighbors living less than a mile from the $15 million wind facility here, say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life in this otherwise tranquil corner of the island unbearable.

They are among a small but growing number of families and homeowners across the country who say they have learned the hard way that wind power — a clean alternative to electricity from fossil fuels — is not without emissions of its own.

Lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property value have cropped up in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, among other states. In one case in DeKalb County, Ill., at least 38 families have sued to have 100 turbines removed from a wind farm there. A judge rejected a motion to dismiss the case in June.

Like the Lindgrens, many of the people complaining the loudest are reluctant converts to the antiwind movement.

“The quality of life that we came here for was quiet,” Mrs. Lindgren said. “You don’t live in a place where you have to take an hour-and-15-minute ferry ride to live next to an industrial park. And that’s where we are right now.”

The wind industry has long been dogged by a vocal minority bearing all manner of complaints about turbines, from routine claims that they ruin the look of pastoral landscapes to more elaborate allegations that they have direct physiological impacts like rapid heart beat, nausea and blurred vision caused by the machines’ ultra-low-frequency sound and vibrations.

For the most extreme claims, there is little independent backing.

Last year, the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, along with its Canadian counterpart, assembled a panel of doctors and acoustical professionals to examine the potential health impacts of wind turbine noise. In a paper published in December, the panel concluded that “there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.”

A separate study financed by the Energy Department concluded late last year that, in aggregate, property values were unaffected by nearby wind turbines.

Numerous studies also suggest that not everyone will be bothered by turbine noise, and that much depends on the context into which the noise is introduced. A previously quiet setting like Vinalhaven is more likely to produce irritated neighbors than, say, a mixed-use suburban setting where ambient noise is already the norm.

Of the 250 new wind farms that have come online in the United States over the last two years, about dozen or so have generated significant noise complaints, according to Jim Cummings, the founder of the Acoustic Ecology Institute, an online clearinghouse for information on sound-related environmental issues.

In the Vinalhaven case, an audio consultant hired by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection determined last month that the 4.5-megawatt facility was, at least on one evening in mid-July when Mr. Lindgren collected sound data, in excess of the state’s nighttime sound limits. The developer of the project, Fox Island Wind, has contested that finding, and negotiations with state regulators are continuing.

In the moonlit woods behind a neighbor’s property on a recent evening, Mr. Lindgren, a retired software engineer, clenched a small flashlight between his teeth and wrestled with a tangle of cables and audio recording equipment he uses to collect sound samples for filing complaints.

At times, the rustle of leaves was all that could be heard. But when the surface wind settled, a throbbing, vaguely jetlike sound cut through the nighttime air. “Right there,” Mr. Lindgren declared. “That would probably be out of compliance.”

Maine, along with many other states, puts a general limit on nighttime noise at 45 decibels — roughly equivalent to the sound of a humming refrigerator. A normal conversation is in the range of 50 to 60 decibels.

In almost all cases, it is not mechanical noise arising from the central gear box or nacelle of a turbine that residents react to, but rather the sound of the blades, which in modern turbines are mammoth steel appendages well over 100 feet long, as they slice through the air.

Turbine noise can be controlled by reducing the rotational speed of the blades. But the turbines on Vinalhaven already operate that way after 7 p.m., and George Baker, the chief executive of Fox Island Wind — a for-profit arm of the island’s electricity co-operative — said that turning the turbines down came at an economic cost.

“The more we do that, the higher goes the price of electricity on the island,” he said.

A common refrain among homeowners grappling with sound issues, however, is that they were not accurately informed about the noise ahead of time. “They told us we wouldn’t hear it, or that it would be masked by the sound of the wind blowing through the trees,” said Sally Wylie, a former schoolteacher down the road from the Lindgrens. “I feel duped.”

Similar conflicts are arising in Canada, Britain and other countries . An appeals court in Rennes, France, recently ordered an eight-turbine wind farm to shut down between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. so residents could get some sleep.

Richard R. James, an acoustic expert hired by residents of Vinalhaven to help them quantify the noise problem, said there was a simpler solution: do not put the turbines so close to where people live.

“It would seem to be time for the wind utility developers to rethink their plans for duplicating these errors and to focus on locating wind turbines in areas where there is a large buffer zone of about a mile and one-quarter between the turbines and people’s homes,” said Mr. James, the principal consultant with E-Coustic Solutions, based in Michigan.

Vinalhaven’s wind farm enjoys support among most residents, from ardent supporters of all clean energy to those who simply say the turbines have reduced their power bills. Deckhands running the ferry sport turbine pins on their hats, and bumper stickers seen on the island declare “Spin, Baby, Spin.”

“The majority of us like them,” said Jeannie Conway, who works at the island’s ferry office.

But that is cold comfort for Mrs. Lindgren and her neighbors, who say their corner of the island will never be the same.

“I remember the sound of silence so palpable, so merciless in its depths, that you could almost feel your heart stop in sympathy,” she said. “Now we are prisoners of sonic effluence. I grieve for the past.”

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

Correction: The Butler Ridge wind project is in Dodge County, south of the Fond du Lac County line.

Midwest must almost double wind power production to meet 2025 goal

SOURCE: Wisconsin State Journal:

By JUDY NEWMAN

September 30, 2010

Wisconsin and four other Upper Midwest states will need 15,000 megawatts of wind energy by 2025 — or about 8,600 megawatts more than already available — to fulfill their renewable energy goals, a study says.

In addition, it will cost an estimated $3 billion to build the transmission lines that will hook the wind power into the electric transmission grid.

The 15-page report, issued Thursday by a committee representing Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and North and South Dakota, identifies 20 renewable energy zones within the five states, windy enough to serve as a power resource.

It also suggests six transmission corridors “that would efficiently move energy from these wind zones to customers, and serve as a backbone for a variety of future development needs in the region, and potentially further east.”

Two of the possible corridors for the high-voltage transmission lines extend into Wisconsin, including one that would run from Iowa to Madison.

The committee, called the Upper Midwest Transmission Development Initiative, will continue to meet to talk about potential cost allocation and other factors. No specific routes for the new transmission lines have been proposed yet.

However, at least three transmission companies have outlined possible projects with similar goals.

WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS:

WYOMING WIND TASK FORCE FAVORS EMINENT DOMAIN LIMITS

Source: Bloomberg Business Week

September 30, 2010

By Bob Moen 

"If we can restrict eminent domain in any way I think our landowners support that because we believe these issues should be addressed through private negotiations and agreement, not through holding a gun to somebody's head and threatening eminent domain, which basically forces the landowner to take whatever the condemner is offering because they have the greater power,"

Private companies that want to string small power lines from wind turbines to the main power grid wouldn't be able to seize land from Wyoming landowners under a recommendation made by a task force Thursday.

The Wind Energy Task Force voted 5-4 to deny the power of eminent domain to private companies building so-called collector lines for wind projects in the state. Eminent domain is the forced acquisition of private property for public use and has been used to build railroads, pipelines and other projects.

At the same time, the panel recommends that regulated public utilities retain the power of eminent domain. Public utilities are subjected to more scrutiny from state Public Service Commission regulations and oversight.

Task force chairman Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, said the panel's eminent domain recommendation seeks fairness for landowners whose land is needed only for small collector lines.

"All he gets is one lump sum payment for the fair market value of what little property they need and he never sees another dime," Brown said.

Landowners with the wind turbines on their land pocket monthly checks from the wind producer, Brown said.

The task force's recommendations go the Legislature, which would have to approve any change in state eminent domain law.

Wyoming imposed a moratorium on the use of eminent domain for collector lines that went into effect in March and will last through June 30, 2011. It's meant to buy some time for Wyoming citizens and policymakers to examine the issue.

The Legislature last made changes to the state's eminent domain law in 2007 mainly because of complaints from landowners who felt run over by booming oil and gas development. The process proved contentious.

Brown still refers to the 2007 debate as the "eminent domain wars."

"They're just tough, tough issues every time they come up," he said.

Jill Morrison, an organizer with the Powder River Basin Resource Council, which advocates for private landowners, applauded the panel's decision.

"If we can restrict eminent domain in any way I think our landowners support that because we believe these issues should be addressed through private negotiations and agreement, not through holding a gun to somebody's head and threatening eminent domain, which basically forces the landowner to take whatever the condemner is offering because they have the greater power," Morrison said.

Cheryl Riley, executive director of the Wyoming Power Producers Coalition, declined immediate comment on the task force's action until she can study its recommendation.

Brown said he couldn't say how the task force's recommendations might affect the growing wind industry in Wyoming.

The dozens of wind farms that have been built or are being proposed in the state so far have hugged the main power transmission lines that cross the state. Building wind farms farther away from the grid will mean erecting many more of the collector lines.

Wyoming is one of the most reliably windy inland areas of the United States, and its wind energy potential has attracted wide interest in recent years.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:How loud is too loud? In the state of Oregon, turbine noise limited to 35 decibels is causing trouble for those who reside in the Invernergy project.

Because of the pulsing characater of wind turbine noise, studies show it to be more disruptive at lower noise levels than noise from road traffic, aircraft, or trains. Chronic sleep disruption due to nighttime turbine noise is the most common complaint from wind project residents Wisconsin.

The new wind siting rules put forth by the Public Service Commission set turbine noise limits in our state at 45 decibels at night and 50 during the day.

The World Health Organization recommends a nighttime noise limit of 40 decibels for healthy sleep. Why the Public Service Commission has chosen noise limits above World Health Organization guidelines is unknown.

WILLOW CREEK TOLD IT MUST QUIET DOWN

SOURCE: East Oregonian,

September 29 2010

By Erin Mills,

A reluctant Morrow County Planning Commission finally spelled it out for Invenergy, the developer of the Willow Creek Wind Project: not only is the project too loud for nearby homes, but Invenergy will be paying for another noise study once its six-month grace period is up.

The 72-megawatt project and four of its neighbors in the Willow Creek Valley north of Ione have been locked in a struggle over noise since before the turbines began turning in late 2008.

After many hours of testimony, the planning commission ruled in May that the project did break the state noise standard, and gave the Chicago-based company six months to comply.

Both parties appealed the decision to the Morrow County Court. The court agreed the planning commission’s decision lacked meat on its bones; it didn’t detail why, or say who was to determine that Willow Creek was in compliance.

At a meeting Tuesday night, commissioners found consensus on several important points. First, they said, the evidence presented by Invenergy’s — and the neighbors’ — noise experts indicated the project broke the state noise rule at nearby homes. The rule states that a wind facility must not increase the ambient background noise of 10 adjusted decibels, or 10 dBA. If a developer does not determine the ambient noise prior to building the facility, there is an assumed ambient of 26 dBA. That means a wind facility that chooses the assumed ambient can generate only 36 dBA at nearby homes.

The commission briefly discussed the percentage of time a facility should be allowed to break the rule, a major point of contention with the two acoustical experts who earlier testified. But Vice-Chair Jeff Wenholz put such quibbling to rest. The developer chose to take the assumed background level, he said, and the noise rule is the noise rule.

“It’s no different than if the speed limit is 65 (mph),” he said. “The cop can write you a ticket for 66.”

The commission next decided that granting Invenergy six months to fix the problem was reasonable, although Pam Docken initially disagreed, saying Willow Creek has already been operating — and breaking the rule — long enough.

“Do you think six months is just flat too long?” asked Chair David Sykes.

“Yes, but I think I’m a solo act here,” Docken replied.

She was right. Eventually she and the group decided Invenergy needs time to adjust. It can finish adjusting sooner than six months, they said, but it must be done when the time is up.

County Counsel Ryan Swinburnson questioned whether Willow Creek should be allowed to run during the six months. The commission agreed it could.

Unlike at previous meetings on the topic, only a handful of people attended, the six neighbors and two Invenergy representatives. Mike Collins, an Invenergy asset manager, said he could not immediately comment on the commission’s decision.

One of the neighbors, Mike Eaton, said he felt numb.

“It’s just a process that we’re in,” he said. “I think the planning commission had a really tough job on their hands.”

Dave Mingo, another neighbor, said Invenergy could fix the problem “in a day,” with an acceptable easement payment. Invenergy made offers to the neighbors shortly after they first complained. All four — two of the neighbors are couples — turned the company down, saying the amount was too small.

The planning commission’s decision vindicated the neighbors’ claims, doggedly expressed for almost two years. But the acknowledged fact — voiced even by commissioners — was that Invenergy would appeal their decision.

“We feel it’s going in the right direction,” Mingo said. “I don’t feel it’s over, by any means.” The planning commission will finalize its decision Oct. 26 at 7 p.m. at Heppner City Hall.

WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS

Panelists lambaste state about wind power studies

 SOURCE: Sun Journal, www.sunjournal.com

 September 30 2010

By Eileen M. Adams, Staff Writer,

RUMFORD — Panelists at a wind energy forum Wednesday night lambasted the state for not conducting more studies on the potential impact of wind farms and Dr. Dora Ann Mills, the state’s chief medical officer, for not pursuing possible health issues related to them.

The panelists warned that wind energy would be both more expensive and result in greater pollution.

About 50 people turned out for the decidedly one-sided presentation on potential wind farm development in Rumford and other locations in Western Maine.

The forum, sponsored by the River Valley Wind Education Committee, was held about a month before Rumford and Dixfield voters will decide whether to adopt wind energy ordinances.

Panelist J Dwight, an economist from Wilton and one of the four panelists, said using electricity generated from wind turbines would likely double utility bills by 2020.

“We have enough power already,” he said.

He said later during the forum that First Wind LLC of Boston, Mass., which proposes constructing about a dozen turbines on Black Mountain and an adjacent mountain, is financially bankrupt.

“This is a company that should be scrutinized,” he said.

Dr. Albert Aniel, a local doctor, said Mills has not had a study conducted on the effects of the Mars Hill wind farm on residents there.

“The Department of Health and Human Services is not interested,” he said.

Also speaking was Robert Rand, a sound engineer from Brunswick who displayed a series of graphs showing how sound levels from turbines could affect people living at various distances from a turbine. He also played a recording of two turbines he said was made one mile from the turbines. He was eventually asked to turn off the sound when Rumford wind ordinance committee member Len Greaney asked whether people in the Mountain Valley High School auditorium would have a problem with such noise.

Rand said he has conducted studies or found studies that show how people can become highly annoyed when sounds reach 45 decibels, which is the level sanctioned by the state for nighttime sounds. During the day, the permitted level rises to 55 decibels.

Rumford resident Dan Richard asked whether it was safe to say that the panel is against wind power in general.

“This panel is not in favor of wind,” Dwight said.

Richard said about 600,000 gallons of fuel oil are used each day at the Cousins Island electrical plant.

“And look how many trucks roll in there each day,” he said.

Another man asked whether Rand had measured the level of noise coming from the NewPage mill in Rumford.

Rand said that although he has not measured it, any noise coming from mills tends to be steady, and not variable as he said wind turbines produce.

Karen Pease, a Realtor from Highland Plantation, where another wind farm is proposed, also spoke as part of the panel.

She said turbine construction would decrease the value of homes sited within two miles.

She said a study conducted in Illinois suggested that wind farm developers should guarantee property values, and turbines should be shut down if the noise level goes beyond 10 decibels above ambient sound.

Both Dixfield and Rumford residents will vote on their respective proposed wind turbine ordinances on Nov. 2.

EDITORIAL: "13% ELECTRICITY HIKE TOO MUCH"

Source: globegazette.com

Sept 26, 2010

Hearings began last week on Alliant Energy’s request for a 13 percent electricity rate hike.

We know from past experience the final rate granted by the Iowa Utilities Board will not be 13 percent, but just the same today are urging the board to allow as little a rate increase as possible to cover expenses, as there are many individuals and companies who cannot afford any more.

The increase sought by Interstate Power & Light, a subsidiary of Alliant, would yield $149.9 million to the utility. It said it needs the money to offset additional transmission costs, recover the cost of building the $478 million Whispering Willows East wind farm south of Hampton, recover $3.4 million for past improvements to a generating station in Cedar Rapids, and for environmental controls at its Lansing power plant.

The increase would be on top of a 7 percent rate increase in January, mainly to pay for costs of recovering from record floods in June 2008 and ice storms in recent winters.

The increase sought by Alliant before the 7 percent was granted was 18 percent. So if a similar percentage is granted, customers can expect the current 13 percent increase will result in a 5 percent increase. That’s still pretty hefty for such a short time between increases.

We are pleased, though, with the utility’s investment in wind power in our region. The company has invested $478 million investment in the Whispering Willow-East Wind Farm in Franklin County. According to Alliant, the farm is powering nearly 50,000 Iowa homes with clean, renewable energy.

Green energy is not expensive, Alliant officials have said, nor is installation of pollution control equipment, such as the $188 million investment to reduce emissions from the Lansing power plant.

The consumer advocate office has asked the utilities board to deny the increase and instead order Alliant to reduce electric rates by $1.8 million.

The Mason City Chamber of Commerce has not officially taken a stance on the current rate hike request, but did so last year when the 18 percent request was in play.

Members have expressed concern the current proposal could make Mason City less competitive, said Robin Anderson, executive director of the chamber. She said the chamber helped organize a meeting in June between local members and Alliant officials. From a customer service standpoint, members are satisfied with Alliant, but are concerned their rates will not be competitive in the foreseeable future, she said.

Anderson pointed to a survey of chamber members in 2009. More than 100 members responded. An alarming rate, more than 15 percent, said the rate increases sought at that time would threaten their ability to continue operating in Mason City.

Also, 88 businesses responded to a question about whether utility rates would be considered in a decision to expand in the near future. Sixty-four said they would.

Asked which utility cost impacted their business the most, 69 percent said electricity, 29.9 percent natural gas and one percent water.

Obviously our region’s economic fortunes are closely linked to having competitive, reliable energy. We appreciate Alliant’s reliability and its overall fine standing as a corporate citizen, but ask that it — and mainly the Iowa Utilities Board — go as lightly as possible with this rate increase.

Board Votes not to accept money

SOURCE: TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF, www.telegram.com

September 30, 2010

By Kim Ring

BRIMFIELD — After hearing three hours of mostly opposing comments from residents, selectmen last night voted unanimously not to accept $30,000 from First Wind, the company hoping to build several turbines in town.

The funds would have been used to study the financial impact of a wind energy facility on West Mountain, near Steerage Rock.

About 160 people attended the public hearing at Brimfield Elementary School, most speaking in opposition to the project that would site eight to 10, 400-foot wind turbines on the ridge just north of Route 20, and expressing concern that taking the money would allow First Wind to move closer to its goal.

Board members said if they had decided to accept the money, the town would not have been bound to any future agreements, nor would it have been forced to allow the turbines to be constructed; rather, the money would have helped fund research about the project.

Health Board Chairman Richard Costa and other local officials visited a facility at Mars Hill, Maine, and said he now believes the project would be wrong for Brimfield.

He said residents in Maine told him stories of health issues, decreased property values, and turbine noise difficult to tolerate.

“I don’t really think that this project would be a good fit,” he said, to rousing applause.

Police Chief Charles T. Kuss also went to Maine and said the turbines there, not as tall as the ones planned for Brimfield, were visible from 40 miles away.

He said the folks he spoke with, most of whom favored the project, “did have some economic tie to the industry.”

But some residents of Mars Hill are suing First Wind over the project.

Dr. Elizabeth Smola said she is concerned because recent studies show serious health risks associated with living near wind turbines and being exposed to very low-frequency noise, which is inaudible.

The risks can cause thickening of the heart wall, balance disorders and memory loss, and most often affects fetuses, children and younger people, she said.

In Brimfield, some residents said they favor the turbines and a move toward green energy. One man who lives on St. George Road said he finds the turbines “elegant looking.”

A few residents said that, while they favor green energy, they oppose the turbines in Brimfield, where they would be within 2,000 feet of 79 homes.

“I’m a tree-hugging liberal,” said Anton Prenneis of Brookfield Road, adding that he was initially excited about wind power until he researched what was proposed for Brimfield.

He said as a bluegrass fan who knows the best songs are written about towns devastated by coal mines, “I don’t want to see that happen to the town.”

Dale LaBonte said she drives a Prius, lives in a passive solar home and has no dishwasher, but opposes the wind facility because it will affect the stillness she enjoys while walking her dog at night.

Many were concerned about the “flicker effect” which causes a strobe-like light at certain times of the day. Some, including Doris Carlson, who runs a riding stable on Brookfield Road, were concerned about having to deal with that at their homes.

Eric J. Jaeger, who called himself a “retired reformed opera singer,” said he would, if needed, “sing ‘The Impossible Dream,’ over and over to stop this” project from moving forward.

Clad in a shirt that read “Mafia Go Home,” John Mortarelli vocally opposed the project, saying he’s done research and questioned whether the company is viable and the source of its funds.

He said the town’s bylaws prohibit the towers and that should be enough to quash the project.

But there is concern over Gov. Deval Patrick’s support for a law that would allow the state to have oversight when it comes to siting wind turbines.

Some fear the proposed law would take away local control and make local bylaws that prohibit the towers moot.

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: The story below outlines a problem that comes with wind development everywhere, including Wisconsin, where wind projects have been approved and permitted by members of local government who stood to gain financially from the project or had family members who would.

Although some members of the Wind Siting Council saw the conflict of interest issue  as a problem that should be directly addressed in the wind siting rules, the majority of the council-- most of whom happen to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the rules-- decided against including it.

Records show area officials profit

from leases with turbine firms

SOURCE: Observer-Dispatch, www.uticaod.com

September 18,2010

By JENNIFER BOGDAN,

Twelve public officials who sat on county and town boards in Lewis County stand to make a combined $7.5 million from the region’s largest wind-turbine project, government disclosure forms show.

And numerous other officials in Herkimer County stand to profit as well from new projects there, although not to the same extent, records show.

The lease arrangements have raised questions among local residents and good-government experts about potential conflicts of interest as wind-turbine farms are approved.

One person who feels that way is Gordon Yancey of the town of Lowville, who used to have a clear view of the Adirondacks stretching as far as the eye could see from his property on the edge of the Tug Hill plateau.

But in 2006, the sprawling Lewis County landscape became home to the Maple Ridge wind farm – a group of 195 wind turbines towering 400 feet high over the once undeveloped landscape in Lowville, Martinsburg and Harrisburg. Those communities are located along state Route 12 about one hour north of Utica.

Now, Yancey said all he sees are the massive white towers obstructing his view. He blames lease agreements between wind developers and public officials, one of whom is his brother, Edward Yancey, who sat on the Harrisburg Zoning Board of Appeals.

Edward Yancey stands to benefit to the tune of up to $1 million over the lifetime of the agreement, according to disclosure forms filed with the state by Iberdrola Renewables and Horizon Wind Energy, which co-own the project.

“They made their sweetheart, backdoor deals long before anything was made public,” Gordon Yancey said. “Of course, the boards pushed everything through.”

Edward Yancey could not be reached.

Disclose or face fine

A 2008 mandate from the state Attorney General’s Office requires wind companies to disclose the nature and scope of any municipal officer’s financial interest in a wind project or risk facing fines of as much as $100,000.

No companies have been penalized to date, according to the state Attorney General’s Office.

“In order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, we publically disclose any relationship with a municipal officer or their relative,” Iberdrola spokesman Paul Copleman said.

Lise Bang-Jensen, senior policy analyst for the Empire Center for New York State Policy, said any move towards increased government transparency is admirable, but making sense of conflicts is more complex than writing them down.

“If you have a role on both sides of a project, that’s a clear conflict of interest,” Bang-Jensen said. “Putting it on a piece of paper and disclosing it, doesn’t make it legal.”

Many of the officials listed on the disclosure forms – including Harrisburg Town Supervisor Stephen Bernet, who stands to make $1 million – did not return calls last week.

One of those listed on the disclosure forms is Roger Grace, a Planning Board member in Pinckney. Maple Ridge wind farm spreads across Lowville, Harrisburg and Martinsburg, but Grace, who stands to make as much as $20,000 from the project, still is required to disclose his role in a neighboring town.

He said his role isn’t a concern, and he believes those involved have acted appropriately.

“I think everyone’s done a phenomenal job,” Grace said. “It’s always a battle, though. People that got money love them, and people that didn’t get money hate them. That’s all.”

‘Not acting objectively’

The issue of lease agreements between public officials and wind developers is burgeoning in Herkimer County, where the Hardscrabble wind farm is slowly rising.

The Herkimer County towns of Fairfield and Norway will soon be home to 37 turbines – seven of which are already standing.

In that project, five officials stand to make as much as $85,000 from the turbines that are expected to be up and running by the end of the year.

“For any municipal officers or their relatives with whom we have a relationship, we specifically request that the officers recuse themselves from a decision or vote that would in any way affect the development of a project or affect how the municipality treats wind power,” said Copleman, the Iberdrola spokesman.

Yet six years ago, when the Hardscrabble project was nothing more than a vague concept, questions arose as to why Fairfield Planning Board member Harold Robinson was voting on wind issues while he had an agreement with the wind company aiming to come to town, according to O-D archives.

“The Town Board is not acting objectively,” Fairfield Planning Board Chairman Peter Fishbein complained in 2004. “The board needs to acknowledge there are people who are worried about this and at least hear their concerns.”

Robinson, who stands to make as much as $20,000 from a lease agreement, did not return calls last week.

‘Won’t like the looks of things’

Other wind projects are brewing across the Mohawk Valley, including a plan from NorthWind and Power to build a farm of eight to 12 turbines on Dry Hill in Litchfield.

In that development, some residents have questioned the role played in the process by Litchfield Supervisor Wayne Casler, He is a regional controller at Barrett Paving Materials, which owns more than 100 acres of land on the southern end of Dry Hill.

Wind developers have said the paving company’s land won’t be considered, but the company could be chosen to supply materials for the project if it’s approved.

From time to time in Lowville, Gordon Yancey hears rumblings of other wind farm in the works – like the one in Litchfield.

Each time, he said, he thinks back to the days before his business was surrounded by turbines. Oftentimes, the curious come knocking on his door to ask what his experience was like years before.

“What I tell people is ‘Educate yourselves because you can’t trust where anywhere else is coming from,’” Yancey said. “Ask every question you can. And when you do, you won’t like the looks of things either.”