Better Plan, Wisconsin

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Spanish wind giant, Acciona, owns easements to land in Rock County for a large wind project that would occupy Magnolia Township. The proposal is for 67 wind turbines to be sited in Magnolia's 36 square miles.

Acciona has not responded to repeated email from Better Plan asking for information about the project.

The contracts held by Acciona for farmland in Rock County were solicited by a "local" wind developer, EcoEnergy, who wooed local residents, held contract signing parties and open houses and then quickly 'flipped' the project to Spanish ownership. How much EcoEnergy made by selling the valuable contracts is unknown, but the farmers who signed away their land won't see any of it.

Like a bad neighbor, Acciona of Spain is there.

Acciona submits 'final' statement; Developer ignores consultant's views on noise analysis

SOURCE: Watertown Daily Times, www.watertowndailytimes.com

August 12, 2010

By Nancy Madsen

CAPE VINCENT — The developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm has eliminated two wind turbines for noise and wetland considerations, but it ignored the conclusions of the town’s consultant on noise analysis in order to maintain a 51-turbine array.

Acciona Wind Energy USA submitted the possible Final Environmental Impact Statement to the town Planning Board on July 28. The board will meet at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Cape Vincent Recreation Park, 602 S. James St., to decide whether to accept the statement and deem it complete.

The developer’s consultant, David M. Hessler of Hessler Associates Inc., Haymarket, Va., maintained that his handling of noise measurements and analysis were proper. But the town’s independent consultants, Gregory C. Tocci and William J. Elliot of Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, Mass., found fault with the analysis.

Mr. Hessler used sound levels that were an average of 44 decibels during the summer and 37 decibels during the winter when the wind is blowing.

According to a state Department of Environmental Conservation guideline, noise exceeding six decibels above ambient is considered intrusive or objectionable. Hessler Associates’ analysis showed the array of turbines would not create noise above six decibels above ambient at any residence.

“All residences, whether participating or not, lie outside of the 42 dBA sound contour line and will be short of the 6 dBA NYSDEC threshold,” the developer wrote in the statement. “However, wind and weather conditions (i.e., temperature inversion and low level jetstreams) may develop from time to time causing Project sound levels to increase, sometimes substantially, over the normal predicted level.”

Those periods should be short, the statement said, although it noted that the cumulative effects if both St. Lawrence Wind Farm and BP Alternative Energy’s Cape Vincent Wind Farm were built would push noise levels above the DEC guideline. The statement predicted higher levels for six participating and 37 nonparticipating residences.

In letters to town engineer Kris D. Dimmick, of Bernier, Carr & Associates, Watertown, Mr. Elliot and Mr. Tocci repeated criticism of the noise analysis Mr. Elliot described to town officials in February. He said then that Hessler’s data did not statistically support the correlation between wind speed and noise. To get a stronger correlation, the wind speed and noise levels would have to be taken at the same location, but they were not, he said.

In a May 14 letter, the two disputed the background noise levels that Mr. Hessler assumed through his regression analysis. Mr. Elliot and Mr. Tocci had measurements that averaged five decibels below the levels Mr. Hessler predicted in his regression analysis. They recorded the sound levels at specific wind speeds.

If ambient noise levels have been overstated in the impact statement, it will allow higher levels of noise from turbines without violating DEC limits.

“Using a regression to associate background sound with wind speed frequently underestimates wind turbine noise impact by permitting frequent conditions where turbine sound significantly exceeds the NYSDEC margin of 6 dBA,” Mr. Elliot and Mr. Tocci wrote.

In a rebuttal letter June 21, Mr. Hessler said the actual measured noise values were too strict.

“Using these overly conservative values in the various wind speed bins as bases for evaluating the nominal impact threshold of a 6 dBA increase would undoubtedly and unrealistically suggest that adverse noise impacts will occur on a widespread basis over the entire project area and beyond,” Mr. Hessler wrote.

In a July 15 letter, Mr. Elliot and Mr. Tocci again argued against using the regression analysis and for the actual measurements from wintertime.

Using the measurements “leads to an impact threshold based on the NYSDEC policy that is approximately 5 dBA lower than the impact threshold estimated by Hessler” at 13.4 miles per hour, they wrote. “It is at this wind speed that Hessler indicates the greatest potential noise impact may occur.”

They reiterated that the Hessler analysis does not show a “conclusive relationship” between sound and wind speed. As a result of the averages used by Hessler, Cavanaugh Tocci suggested instituting a resolution process for noise complaints.

The developer proposed a complaint resolution procedure. A written complaint from a resident or business would go first to the developer. Acciona would have five days to respond and if the developer couldn’t fix it, the complaint would be sent to a town designee for investigation.

Any testing would begin within 10 days of the report from Acciona. Test results would go to the plaintiff and town within 30 days. If the town Planning Board agreed the turbine violates permit conditions, the developer would mitigate it. If the plaintiff wasn’t happy with the resolution or it had been longer than 30 days and there had been no resolution, an appeal could be made to the complaint resolution board.

The board will have a member from the developer and the town and an independent consultant agreed upon by the developer and town. That member can change depending on the nature of the complaint.

The board has 30 days to hear the complaint and 30 days to render a binding decision.

Repeated complaints will trigger additional investigations only if the town determines the operational characteristics have changed since the first complaint.

The final statement also proposes eliminating two turbines for noise and wetland concerns, moving a turbine 2.9 miles and adjusting 10 turbines to decrease wind turbulence. It includes additional well, wetland and wildlife studies. Five segments of roads and 23 intersections will need improvements to handle the construction, and 31 of the 51 turbines will be lit with simultaneously flashing beacons, according to Federal Aviation Administration standards.

The statement also responds to all comments made by agencies and the public on the draft and supplemental environmental impact statements.

The statement is available at the Cape Vincent Public Library, 157 N. Real St.; Lyme Free Library, 12165 Main St., Chaumont, and Cape Vincent town clerk’s office, 1964 Route 12E. If it is accepted as complete, it will be available on Acciona’s website as well.

If the board deems the statement complete, it can complete its findings and end the environmental review after 10 days. The board has indicated that could happen Sept. 15. Other involved agencies, but not the public, also will weigh in with findings.

SECOND FEATURE:

WIND POWER LAW HASN'T RESOLVED DEVELOPMENT CONFLICTS

 SOURCE: Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting, bangordailynews.com,

 By Naomi Schalit, Senior Reporter

AUGUSTA, Maine — After proposing major changes to state law that would speed up the review of wind power projects, Gov. John Baldacci’s wind power task force members went one step further: They made a map.

Without the map, the law would just be a set of rules. The map was essential because it showed where wind turbines could go to get fast-track consideration.

The map designated all the organized towns and about a third of the unorganized territory as the state’s “expedited wind zone” where that speedy consideration of projects would take place. The task force also proposed to allow the Land Use Regulation Commission to expand the areas if applicants met certain standards.

How that map got drawn is not clear from the official record of the task force’s meetings. That’s because summaries for the last two meetings don’t exist, said task force chair Alec Giffen’s secretary, Rondi Doiron.

“Everyone was working straight out on getting the report done and no one had time to get the summaries done,” Doiron wrote in an email to the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting.

But Giffen and others freely describe the map’s genesis: First, Giffen consulted with the developers’ representatives one-by-one, as they were loathe to share proprietary information with competitors. Then he went to the environmental groups and asked what areas they wanted to protect.

Then he came up with a proposed map designating expedited wind development areas.

“I integrated, based on what I knew about what areas were important for what kinds of uses, presented it to the task force and got concurrence that the way in which it was outlined made sense,” Giffen said.

Others describe the map-drawing process as a last-minute rush to get the task force’s report done in time for legislators to consider as they neared the end of a short session.

“There was a lot of ‘Here, here, here and here’ and ‘No, no, no and no,” during the map debate, said task force member Rep. Stacey Fitts, R-Pittsfield. “It changed several times.” Maine Audubon’s Jody Jones described the process as “I want this in, I want this out.”

Whatever the process looked and sounded like is lost to the public record because no minutes were taken or recorded.

And that, says Sun Journal managing editor Judy Meyer, who’s also vice president of the Maine Freedom of Information Coalition, is “shocking.”

Maine law doesn’t require groups like the governor’s wind task force to memorialize deliberations, says Meyer.

“There’s no requirement that they record their meetings or produce minutes,” she says. “What smells particularly about this is that there are some summaries and not others. That’s a real eyebrow raiser. You’d think a governor’s task force would have the ability to keep minutes of its proceedings.”

Giffen says the map — which was approved by the full Legislature — is only the first step in deciding whether a project should be built in a specific place.

“It’s a coarse filter to try to get wind power development guided to parts of the landscape where it’s already partially developed and you already have infrastructure,” he said. “Then you have the finer filters of the regulatory process.”

Task force member Pete Didisheim of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, who was one of the group’s strongest proponents of wind power development, says the map provided an essential tool by taking a lot of uncertainty out of the process of siting wind farms. That’s because he says that the designation of expedited zones announced, by implication, where developers shouldn’t go.

“I don’t think that any other state has drawn a map that says to developers, ‘Don’t go here,’” said Didisheim.

Attorney Chip Ahrens, who attended task force meetings on behalf of two clients, a large wind power developer and an installer of small wind turbines in commercial and residential sites, said that approach turned state regulation on its head — appropriately:

“There had always been on the table the state saying where wind power should go,” said Ahrens, who stressed he was not speaking on behalf of his clients. “I said, ‘let’s say where it should not go.’”

And just because a site is in the expedited permit zone doesn’t mean it’s an automatic approval once a wind power project applies for a permit to build.

“The law specifically says that the permitting agency shall not compromise its regulatory review criteria,” says LURC director Catherine Carroll. “It’s not a slam dunk.”

Law tested, angering some

That point was made acutely clear this year in one of the first tests of the new law, an application by TransCanada to build turbines in the expedited wind zone near its western Maine Kibby Mountain project.

At a meeting on July 7 in Bangor, LURC commissioners — all of whom were nominated or renominated by Gov. John Baldacci — indicated by straw vote they’d deny TransCanada’s request to construct the turbines.

Several environmental organizations, including the three groups who were on the governor’s wind power task force, testified against portions of the project. Objections ranged from damage to wildlife to degradation of the scenically valuable high mountain site. Many of the commissioners likewise expressed concerns about the potential harm the project would do to the site.

Commissioners struggled to weigh the new law’s goals for wind power development against the environmental problems posed by the project.

“I’m terribly conflicted here,” said Commissioner Steve Schaefer.

He and other commissioners said they were unclear whether the law’s goals for wind power were binding on them and would force them to approve a project they didn’t feel protected the landscape they were legally obligated to protect.

“The Wind Power Act looms large here,” said Commissioner Ed Laverty.

“We’re all going to reduce global warming and our carbon footprint,” continued Laverty, “but most of the immediate benefits of projects like these do not accrue to the people of Maine, they’re exported through the grid elsewhere.

“What stays with us in the state of Maine are the environmental impacts.”

A few days after the LURC meeting, TransCanada’s project manager Nick DiDomenico was outraged at the meeting’s outcome. The environmental groups that had participated in the task force and then opposed TransCanada’s proposal drew his special wrath:

“The [environmental groups] were at the table when the map was drawn up,” he said. “That to me means these areas are acceptable for visual impacts. Maybe we were a little naive in drawing that conclusion.

“We thought the Wind Power Act meant something.”

Within eight days, construction company Cianbro’s chairman Peter Vigue had published a column in the Bangor Daily News criticizing LURC. Cianbro has done construction work on TransCanada’s wind power projects as well as others in the state.

“This unpredictable regulatory environment will discourage investment in Maine,” wrote Vigue.

On Aug. 1, retired law professor Orlando Delogu published a similarly sharp-toned column in the Maine Sunday Telegram.

“Reading a transcript of the recent LURC hearing on TransCanada’s proposed Kibby No. 2 wind energy project, a 45-megawatt expansion of an existing facility in Chain of Ponds Township, makes you want to cry for Maine’s economy and energy future,” wrote Delogu.

“And then it makes you mad.”

But state Sen. Peter Mills isn’t mad at LURC. Instead, he calls the LURC commissioners “victims” of a new state policy that isn’t clear enough about if, and how, competing values can be resolved.

“No one wanted to be bothered with the details,” said Mills. “We’ll just leave it up to LURC to figure out what we mean. We passed this thing, but we never gave them the tools to deal with this.”

LURC Commissioner Sally Farrand mirrored Mills’ frustration, when she remarked during the July 7 hearing, “Boy, I sure hope we can tighten up some of this stuff because I see it as a skating rink with some very dull skates.”

Other problems

There are other problems created by the legislation. One unintended consequence is that Maine mountain ridgelines, once available at relatively cheap prices to those who wanted to preserve them, have become coveted – and expensive – pieces of land.

“Were it not for the wind-power market, alpine land has fairly limited value,” said Alan Stearns, deputy director of the Bureau of Parks and Lands. “Right now the mathematics is land with wind power potential is not for sale for conservation.

“As long as the market for wind power is dynamic,” said Stearns, “most landowners with wind-power potential are working with wind power developers, not conservation groups, for that land.”

And turbine noise that irritates neighbors has proven to be especially problematic, with residents who live near towers complaining of sleep disturbance and other health problems.

But a comparison of the task force’s report with the governor’s legislation that became the Wind Power Act reveals a significant omission: The recommendation that the environmental protection commissioner be given the power to modify the noise aspects of a project’s permit never made it into the legislation.

Gov. Baldacci supplied the following answer in writing when asked why that provision had been left out of his wind power legislation:

“I relied on the Task Force members’ review of the draft legislation as a complete and accurate reflection of all the recommendations in their Report. If one or more of their recommendations was not included, I was not aware of that nor was any omission or deletion done at my request or direction.”

Task Force Chairman Giffen likewise had no idea how the omission occurred, and told the Center he knew of no plans to correct it.

Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.

“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine — oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines — that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.”

Uncertain future

What’s significant for the state’s wind power policy is that Mills, who wasn’t on the task force, isn’t the only one who now doubts whether the state can — or should — meet the goals promoted by the governor and enshrined in his Wind Energy Act.

Members of Baldacci’s hand-picked task force are dubious as well about whether there really are enough suitable — and politically acceptable — sites to build turbines to meet the goal of 2,000 megawatts by 2015 and 3,000 megawatts by 2020.

“We have to look at whether we have the land base to meet them,” said Jones.

Reaching 3,000 megawatts “is dependent on whether the political consensus holds up,” said task force member and DEP Commissioner David Littell.

“I think it’s a stretch to reach 2,000 by 2015,” said the NRCM’s Pete Didisheim.

But Giffen said he still believes that promoting wind power is an essential response to global warming.

“So big picture here, the way that I look at this, is to say, the idea that there’s not going to be any change in the state of Maine as regards our natural resources or how we generate energy, that’s not a possibility,” said Giffen.

”If we don’t do anyting, we’re going to see massive changes just in our natural resources. The changing climate conditions are going to mean that in 100 years the area around Portland is going to be suitable for loblolly pine (a southern tree species). What does that mean for our existing soils, our existing ecosystems?

“Is no change something that is even possible?” asks Giffen. “No, it’s not. Do we have significant problems with our energy supply and dependence on fossil fuels in terms of climate change? Yes.

“So is Maine well served by having looked at its regulatory system to see how it can deal in a rational way with this kind of development? Is it perfect? I doubt it. Will we learn as we go along? Yes.”

LURC Commissioner Laverty takes another perspective:

“I think we need to take into consideration, there aren’t a lot of these 2,700 plus foot mountains in the state of Maine … I think that we have to pay special attention to the impact on significant resources in these areas, because,” he said, “once you invade these resources, the chances of re-establishing them over time, at least in our lifetimes, probably are fairly slim.”

In the end, the law that was supposed to put conflict to rest has not, and for a host of reasons, both procedural and substantive. Harvard University professor Henry Lee, who teaches energy and international development at the Kennedy School of Government, said the conflict in values that wasn’t resolved by Maine’s Wind Energy Act — where those who want to act against the threats of global warming fight land conservationists — is one that’s playing out across the nation and globe.

“I think that this pits to some extent environmental organizations against each other,” said Lee. “Some are focused on pollution issues and see wind and solar and other renewables as a significant improvement in terms of reduced pollution — and it is.

“On the other hand if you’re worried about land use, in a world where … you have a finite quantity of land, there will continue to be significant disputes,” said Lee. “Wind sites tend to be slightly better along the coast and at higher altitudes, exactly where you have sign conflicts with esthetics.

“These disputes are going to get more intense, not less,” Lee said.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Why are more bats being killed in Wisconsin wind projects than anywhere else in the nation? Three recent post construction mortality studies show turbine related kill numbers in our state to be ten times the national average. They are even higher than those mentioned in the article below.

 

Bird, bat deaths prompt call for St. Lawrence Valley wind moratorium.

SOURCE North Country Public Radio, www.northcountrypublicradio.org

August 6  2010

Save the River, an environmental group based in Clayton, NY, wants a three-year delay in development of more wind power along the St. Lawrence River.

A spokesperson for the group says there are proposals for some 400 wind turbines in the Thousand Island region. Preliminary numbers from a study at an 86-turbine wind farm on Wolfe Island, a Canadian island near Kingston, Ontario, show higher than usual mortality among birds and bats. Martha Foley has more.

An environmental group is calling for a three-year moratorium on building more wind turbines in the St Lawrence Valley. Save The River points to recently released data indicating the 86-turbine wind farm on Wolfe Island caused more than a 1800 bird and bat deaths in six months.

The group’s assistant director Stephanie Weiss says that’s more than double the national average. “When we’re comparing these numbers, we’re talking about how many birds are dying in a 12-month period. The national average might be 2 or 3 or even as high as 4. But the numbers we’re seeing out of Wolfe Island are 8 birds per turbine, in a six-month period,” Weiss said.

Wolfe Island is Canadian territory. In Canada, the province decides where wind farms can be built. In New York State, it’s up to local town governments. Weiss says a moratorium would give them time to find out why avian mortality rates are so high on Wolfe Island. It’s the only wind farm on the St Lawrence River and it’s six months into a three-year study on bird and bat deaths caused by turbines.

“There are a lot of reasons why this could happen. Wolfe Island itself is an important bird area, designated by Nature Canada. It’s a part of the fly way, which is really important. We know there’s some really essential grassland habitat here. We know it’s incredibly important over-wintering raptor area,” said Weiss.

Weiss says once a wind farm is built, environmental damage is hard to undue. She says 400 wind turbines have been proposed in the Thousand Islands. And a thorough study at Wolfe Island will help local officials make the best decisions about if, and where, they should be built. “We can’t just guess at what kind of bird and bat mortality we would have. The three years are essential. I don’t think it’s too long. The wind will still be there,” Weiss said.



FOUR NEWS STORIES ABOUT YESTERDAY'S WIND SITING HEARINGS:

PUBLIC VOICES CONCERNS ON WIND SITING RULES

SOURCE:  Bob Nelson-KFIZ,Wisconsin Radio Network, www.wrn.com 29 June 2010Bob Nelson-KFIZ,Wisconsin Radio Network, www.wrn.com  June 29 2010

Landowners, engineers, wind energy advocates, elected officials and others turned out for two public hearings in Fond du Lac Monday on proposed uniform wind siting regulations. Among the speakers was Michael Hutter of Michels Corporation, which has worked on wind farm projects in Calumet, Columbia, Dodge, and Fond du Lac counties. His company believes uniform regulations will “facilitate the responsible development and construction projects in Wisconsin.”

Barnaby Dinges, a member of the American Wind Energy Association, is concerned the rules may be too restrictive and counterproductive to rural development.

The rights of landowners were raised including use of eminent domain. “It is just plain immoral for you to allow this plundering and endangerment of Wisconsin for the greedy gain of a few.” These concerns were echoed by a Town of Wrightstown Supervisor, “Grown men will have tears in their eyes as they sense in effect the taking of their property without due process,” said Jesse Juedes.

The state’s Public Service Commission will use information from the hearings and other public comment before making a final determination on the regulations. The PSC will hold two public hearings in Tomah today and two more in Madison tomorrow.

SECOND STORY:

WIND FARM SITING HEARINGS A BIG DRAW

SOURCE Beaver Dam Daily Citizen, www.wiscnews.com

June 29, 2010

By MEGAN SHERIDAN, Staff Reporter,

FOND DU LAC – Monday was the first day of three in Wisconsin that allowed for the public to make statements to the Public Service Commission regarding rules for the siting of wind farms throughout the state.

Fond du Lac City Hall hosted the first round of open hearings at 1 and 6 p.m. The siting rules pertain to the of turbines and will cover issues from resident’s health and safety to developer requirements. The rules are required through Act 40, created in October 2009.

“We are not here today because of some fantastic new technology that has been developed to produce cheap electricity,” said Jarret Treu of Morrison in Brown County. “We are not here today because of the free market. We are here today because of government fiat and misleading propaganda.”

Treu said wind farms, of which there are nine in the state producing a total of 449 megawatts of electricity on average, will never be able to support the entire state with electricity.

“Wind power can never be the backbone of any modern electrical grid or replace thermo generation plants in any large number,” Treu said. “Wind power fails in fulfilling the two main needs of a modern electrical system. It fails in providing both a continuous base load 24/7 stream of electricity and it can’t be ramped up or down to meet demand.”

Others criticized the lack of protection for Wisconsin citizens from wind farm corporations.

“We want you to stand up and protect the citizens of Wisconsin against big wind industry companies coming here and harming us instead of acting in such a way as to protect wind companies from Wisconsin citizens trying to protect themselves,” said Barbara Vanden Boogart, another Brown County resident.

Industry in general was a concern on many fronts for people speaking to the commission.

“We’re going to wipe out the dairy industry and hurt people,” said Jerome Hlinak, a town of Carlton resident. “Government has to screw up before they fix the problem.”

Hlinak raised the concern of stray voltage from the turbines, stating that such an issue can kill livestock and had taken a number of his cows.

The proposed rules in the siting of wind energy systems would require testing before and after completion of the turbines to determine if stray voltage is present due to the turbines.

Mark Hutter, Vice president of the Michaels Corp. based in Brownsville, said through his knowledge of constructing turbines that he supports a statewide siting rule and that built properly, turbines would not cause stray voltage.

“A properly constructed wind energy project will not produce stray voltage in a rural setting as is common around projects in Wisconsin. The more likely source of stray voltage is from the adjacent properties themselves,” Hutter said.

There were some that lauded the wind farm industry stating that it brings money and jobs into Wisconsin.

“Michaels has 4,000 employees many of whom live in Wisconsin or work across North America,” Hutter said. “We have constructed 3,350 megawatts of wind energy projects in 12 states. Michaels Corporation is in favor of energy independence. We believe this proposed rule will facilitate the responsible development and construction of wind energy projects in Wisconsin.”

Elizabeth Ebertz, a Fond du Lac county woman shared her personal experience of living within the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm. She said she heard a constant hum as if an airplane was constantly flying over the house causing her to lose sleep. Her son also spent a few nights at the home finding the same problem.

“It’s not just me, my whole family is affected,” Ebertz said. “I just want my life back and some sleep.”

The remaining public hearings will be held today at 1 and 6 p.m. at the Holiday Inn 1017 E. McCoy Boulevard in Tomah and Wednesday at 1 and 6 p.m. at 610 N. Whitney Way in Madison.

The PSC is also taking written statements either at the public hearings or online at psc.wi.gov/apps/dockets/comment.aspx docket number 1-AC-231.

Both spoken and written statements hold the same amount of weight to the commission. Written comments will be accepted until noon on July 7. The proposed rules will then be finalized over the summer and sent to the Wisconsin Senate and Assembly where they will be discussed in two separate committees before they become rules.

To view the proposed rules, visit psc.wi.gov/apps/erf_share/view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=131628.

THIRD STORY:

HEARING ON WIND SITING DRAWS A CROWD

SOURCE: Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com

June 29, 2010

By Colleen Kottke,

They came from near and far, packing Legislative Chambers at the City County Government Center in Fond du Lac Monday to voice their opinions about proposed wind farm siting rules to be crafted by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

The proposed rules would ultimately result in uniform wind farm siting standards for local units of government, replacing a patchwork of different rules and moratoriums that have been imposed by counties and towns around the state in relation to small wind power projects.

The public hearings, scheduled around the state this week, were launched by the state Legislature after it passed a uniform siting law in October.

Using citizen input, the PSC will draft legislation touching on controversial issues such as maximum sound levels and setback requirements. Once passed, municipalities considering ordinances for wind farms would not be allowed to make their local ordinance more restrictive than the state model.

Act 40 requires the PSC to conduct the rulemaking with the advice of the Wind Siting Council, an advisory body. The PSC is expected to announce the new guidelines by July.

“Right now the proposed rules are just a draft; that’s why the public comments are very important. There are a lot of interested parties and we want to make sure this is a balanced process,” said Deborah Erwin, renewable energy policy analyst for the PSC.

Energy slacker

Barnaby Dinges, owner of a public relations firm and member of the American Wind Energy Association, warned that more restrictive rules for siting wind farms would further harm the state’s quest to build its alternative energy portfolio.

“Wisconsin is already an energy slacker. We’re the only Midwest state that doesn’t currently have a major wind energy project under construction,” Dinges said. “New restrictions will make the state even less desirable for development of wind projects.”

He pointed out that the Wisconsin PSC already has a rigorous wind farm approval process in place for wind farms over 100 mega watts.

“New regulations will only make it more extremely unlikely that Wisconsin will come anywhere close to meeting its legislative goal of reaching 10 percent of renewable energy by 2015. It’s currently less than 5 percent,” Dinges said. “The unnecessary costs and uncertainties of proposed harsh new restrictions on turbine setbacks, sound levels and shadow flicker will create too much risk for developers, who will likely build elsewhere.”

Green jobs

In an industry that has felt the soft economy the most, jobs stemming from the construction of wind farms are welcomed by members of the union Travis Martzahl represents.

“Without the legislators setting up reasonable local regulations, it’s our fear that these construction jobs would be lost to our neighbors in Iowa and Minnesota. Keeping jobs here is vital to our membership of International Union of Operating Engineers Local 139, which represents thousands of workers,” Martzahl said.

Without the uniform rules in place, Martzahl fears that townships and counties would work to block development of wind farms.

“While building wind farms isn’t as good of work as building coal-fired plants, it’s still good paying work that supports families,” Martzahl said.

Michels Corporation of Brownsville has profited from the green energy boom, constructing more than 3,350 megawatts of wind energy projects in 12 states, including work on the Forward Wind Energy Center and the Blue Sky Green Field projects in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties.

“We believe the proposed rule will facilitate responsible construction of wind energy projects in Wisconsin. If the state is mandating that renewable energy be part of the energy mix…then it’s important to get this rule right,” said Mark Hutter, vice president at Michels Corporation.

Ledge Wind opponents

Many of those in attendance at the hearing in Fond du Lac hailed from the four townships in Brown County where citizen groups are rallying against Invenergy’s proposed 100-turbine Ledge Wind Energy Project. The project is spread across four townships, including Morrison, Wrightstown, Glenmore and Holland.

Wrightstown Supervisor Ronald Diny said town officials have worked together diligently to craft an ordinance to protect citizens.

“There is no effective process in (Act 40) to ensure proper installation and operation of wind turbines after the approval process. (Currently) when towns recognize potential problems, they can act and stop a bad project,” Diny said.

“On one hand, standard state rules will help, but they also set the stage for some bad projects since the (proposed) requirements to stop a bad project before construction are more restrictive and complicated,” Diny added.

Former dairy farmer Jerome Hlinak of Two Rivers said the PSC is slow to react when problems arise from utility projects. By wresting the control away from the local level, Hlinak said the PSC is taking away the municipalities’ rights to protect its citizens.

“There are problems at the national and state level, and even at the local level. But at least at the town level we can fix things quickly because it’s a neighbor. Here, nobody listens,” Hlinak said.

Want my life back

Barbara VandenBoogart and her husband searched for years to find a home in the rolling hills near Greenleaf in Brown County. Today, they spend their time and money speaking out against the Ledge Wind Energy Project.

“Everyone tells us that you’re (PSC) the one that will make a difference because you’re the ones that make the rules. We want you to stand up and protect the citizens of Wisconsin against big wind industry companies coming here and harming us, instead of acting in a way to protect those companies from us who are trying to protect ourselves,” VandenBoogart said.

While VandenBoogart can only imagine the impact a wind farm would have on her life, Fond du Lac County resident Elizabeth Ewerdt has lived with the reality of wind turbines towering over her home for the past few years. The noise from the turning blades from the We Energy turbines has robbed her of countless nights of sleep, she said.

“Can’t we hold these companies somewhat responsible for what they have taken from us?” she testified. “I don’t want any money. I just want my life back.”

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

WHO ARE YOU, BARNABY DINGES?

Now don't us tell a FIB!

Dinges, who calls Wisconsin an "Energy Slacker" in the previous article lives in Illinois and is running for mayor of  Evanston, a city located just north of Chicago on Lake Michigan.

 He runs a Public Relations firm called "The Dinges Gang" and has been hired by wind developer giant, Invenergy, to smooth the way for the Ledge wind project in Brown County.

From "THE DINGES GANG" website: "If your company, group or government agency is facing a challenging issue or project, call in The Dinges Gang."

Who else does the "Dinges Gang" represent?

• Abbott Laboratories
• Chicago Bears
• The Chicago Network
• CMGI
• Chicago Park District
• Draper and Kramer
• Illinois Department of Transportation
• Illinois Department of Public Aid
• Illinois Sports Facilities Authority
• Kraft Foods
• PLS Landscape Architects

Public Relations Team Projects for...

• ComEd
• DTE Energy
• Gateway 2000
• Ghirardelli Chocolate
• Illinois Casino Gaming Association
• Jim Beam
• Lernout & Hauspie Speech Recognition Products
• Monsanto
• Sears
• Starkist
• Trizec Hahn Properties

WHAT HAS THE DINGES GANG DONE FOR WISCONSIN?

From the DINGES GANG website:

 ADVOCACY

Case Study: Forward Energy Windmill Farm

 

Generating Green Energy and Public Support

Invenergy developed plans to build Wisconsin’s largest wind farm, a 200-MW project within miles of the Horicon Marsh, a migratory destination for millions of birds and the area’s largest tourist attraction. The wind farm would provide enough power for 70,000 homes and help Wisconsin reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

The Challenge

In a classic case of NIMBY obstructionism, a local group used $50,000 in public funding to organize a group to oppose the project and encourage the Public Service Commission to vote against the project. The opposition group, Horicon Marsh System Advocates, created an opposition web site, and used its 300 members to write letters to regulators and media, and to attend public meetings to rail against the project. The opposition group claimed the wind farm would kill birds, destroy the area’s landscape, endanger local pilots, and harm local tourism.

[NOTE FROM THE NERD: The advocacy group he mentions here turned out to be right about wildlife impact. Initial post construction mortality studies show the Forward project turbine related bat deaths are among the highest in north america.

The national figure is about 4 bat kills per turbine per year. In the project advocated by the Dinges Gang the rate is 41.5 bat kills per turbine per year, or over ten times the national average.

In a little more than two years, this project along side the Horicon Marsh is estimated to have killed over 3,500 bats. The bird kill rates for this project are also much higher than the national average]

The Plan

Partnering with local farmers who would host wind turbines on their land, The Dinges Gang educated the group to communicate with local officials and the media.

We placed “Wind Yes!” signs in front of their farmhouses. The group of supporters also included Wisconsin environmental groups and local labor and construction groups.

The Forward Energy team testified at public meetings and emailed letters of support to the Public Service Commission.

Supporters also wrote letters to and conducted interviews with media to underscore the broad benefits of the project (keeps farmers farming, provides $1-million annually in new local taxes for government, creates 250 construction jobs, etc.).

We also refuted each of the opposition’s arguments, showing them to be wild exaggerations and desperate attempts by a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) group to impede progress that will benefit the entire region.

Our Success
On July 8, 2005, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission voted to support the $250-million project, which will erect 133 wind turbines on the Niagara Escarpment, within two miles of the Horicon Marsh.

Here is his profile from evanstonnow.com

About me

My name is Barnaby Dinges. I am a teacher and issue advocate with more than 25 years of experience in politics, public relations, and community activism.

I own a small business in Evanston – The Dinges Gang – an issue advocacy consultancy.

Among my clients is Invenergy, a Chicago wind developer building wind farms throughout Central Illinois.

I am an adjunct professor of marketing at Columbia College in downtown Chicago.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE BELOW TO WATCH A VIDEO ABOUT THE INVENERGY WIND PROJECT ALONGSIDE THE HORICON MARSH

FOURTH STORY

ELECTRIC DEBATE ABOUT WIND TURBINES BEFORE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

SOURCE: www.fox11online.com

June 28 2010

Ryan Dietz,

FOND DU LAC – Dozens spoke their minds before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission on proposed rules on wind turbines in Fond du Lac.

Opinions on the controversial topic varied. Many don’t want wind turbines near their homes, saying their property values will go down and their health will decline.

“Someone who doesn’t sign a contract for those wind turbines shouldn’t have their lifestyle changed,” said Jarret Treu of Morrison.

The Public Service Commission created a draft of the rules last month. From now until July 7, it is asking for public comment on the proposed rules. While some side with the state creating laws, others think municipalities should be in charge of rules.

“The state has taken control over these large impact projects from the towns that our homes reside in and basically negating any unique characteristics of the communities,” said Steve Deslauriers of Holland.

People in favor of the growing wind energy say Wisconsin needs wind power to create jobs and expand renewable energy sources.

“If Wisconsin opts out of this industry, it will be conceding billions in economic benefits to neighboring Midwest states,” said Barnaby Dinges, a wind energy advocate.

The state wants ten percent of all energy produced in Wisconsin to be renewable by 2015. Many believe wind energy doesn’t actually save money. Contractors say people need to realize alternatives.

“Unless people are willing to make a conscious decision that they’re going to use a lot less power, we need that energy from somewhere,” said Mark Hutter, Vice President of Michels Coproration.

The Public Service Commission says it has received an outpouring of public comment on the issue.

“We will be redrafting these rules into a final version and there definitely will be changes so public comments are important,” said Deborah Erwin.

The Public Service Commission expects to finalize the rules by the end of the summer.

For more on the Public Service Commission and the wind turbine rules, click here .

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules. The deadline for comment is July 7th, 2010.

The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes, 500 feet from property lines.

CLICK HERE to get a copy of the draft siting rules approved by the commissioners on May 14th, 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

WHAT'S ON THE DOCKET?

Today we're posting recent selected documents from the wind siting council docket beginning with this post from the Town of Mishicot concerning wind siting council member Bill Rakocy.

There have been serious questions raised about the make-up of the council. Of the 15 members, at least eight of them have direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the rules.

From the TOWN OF MISHICOT
Office of the Town Clerk
618 Tisch Mills Road
Mishicot, WI 54228
Phone: 920-776-1597
e-mail address: mishicottown@charter.net

POSTED TO THE DOCKET ON JUNE 28, 2010

To whom it may concern:

At the annual meeting of the Town of Mishicot, on April 13th, 2010, it was brought to the attention of the people in attendance that the appointment of Bill Rakocy of Emerging Energies to the State Wind Siting Council should be terminated due to conflict of interest.

Emerging Energies has land under contract for seven wind turbines in the Town of Mishicot that has been denied by the Manitowoc County Wind Ordinance. By Bill Rakocy's own admission he has stated that he would benefit from a lesser setback on the standards. The standards of the PSC should be created to address health and safety with the back of engineering standards and not personal profit of wind developers.

This letter is sent in response to a majority vote of those in attendance at said annual meeting.

Sincerely,

The Mishicot Town Board

NOTE FROM THE PBWI RESEARCH NERD:

At WSC meetings, Bill Rakocy has been vocal about wanting as few restrictions on his wind development business as possible.

“We’re  excited to develop as much wind [power] as we can in Wisconsin,”  says partner Bill Rakocy."

“The  permitting process is a rather long-term effort,” says Rakocy. “A   conditional use permit is good for two years, typically, and it may take   you all of that two years to get the balance of the project details  put  in place. And then there’s production tax credits available from  the  federal government, and if they expire in the midst of the project,  all  your work is for naught.”

SOURCE:  "Wind Power's Wind Fall" Marketplace Magazine <http://www.marketplacemagazine.com/content/357_1.php>

WHAT ARE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WITH FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE SITING RULES SAYING?

From Wind Siting Council Member Tom Green, Wind Developer, Wind Capitol Group:

"But whether the wind farm goes in, [Tom Green] said, will depend on what the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decides, as it sets parameters for wind farms - including setback from neighboring properties - that will apply throughout Wisconsin, and which cannot be made stricter by local authorities.

"You can't have a patchwork of rules throughout the state," Green said...

The rules, when they are adopted, will apply to wind farms such as the  one  proposed by Wind Capital Group - operations that generate less than  100  megawatts."

SOURCE: Portage Daily Register, January 28, 2010 <http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/article_d4c01888-2c92-5efe-8e73-136809126a79.html>

From Wind Siting Council Member Andy Hesselbach, wind project developer for WE Energies:

"Hesselbach said he's concerned about proposals to move turbines  farther from people's homes, given the need for Wisconsin to add more  renewable power to comply with the state's renewable portfolio standard.

If "the sound or setback standards are modified in any material way, it is  unlikely that this project will be developed, and moreover that any  large-scale wind  project will be built by any entity in the future in  the state of  Wisconsin," Hesselbach said. "The only option to utilize  wind generation would be to develop projects in other states."
SOURCE "Winds of  Change are Blowing" Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 24th 2009 <http://www.jsonline.com/business/65911402.html>

From Council member Michael Vickerman, registered lobbyist and Executive director of RENEW Wisconsin

“You can’t stop a project in Wisconsin based on the appearance of these   turbines,” [Vickerman] says, “so over the past seven years the  opposition has  refined its arguments and framed them in the realm of   protecting public health and safety.

Here, as  far as I’m concerned, is  where they reveal their antiwind bias. They  allege that they  can’t sleep, they suffer from nausea—they express  their discomfort in  the most hysterical terms, and I think they  basically  work themselves into a very visceral hatred for wind.

 I don’t  even know  if they have a philosophical objection to wind. They’re   maybe congenitally unhappy people and they needed to project their fears   and anxieties and resentments onto something new that comes into the   neighborhood and disrupts things.”

SOURCE: The Chicago Reader: "There Will Be Wind" May 14, 2009 <http://www1.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/theseparts09/wisconsin-wind-turbines/>

From council member Jenny Heinzen, President of RENEW Wisconsin

 "I have spent many hours on and underneath wind turbines of all sizes, and have never felt sick.

Nor have any of the systems’ owners/hosts that I’ve met.

What makes me sick is the profound hatred these near-sided [sic] selfish, wind opponents have towards change and progress."

Source: Letter from Heinzen to the Editor of Isthmus, Posted on RENEW  Website  September 29, 2009 <http://renewwisconsinblog.org/2009/09/29/isthmus-article-should-have-been-labeled-opinon/>

 

PUBLIC COMMENT FROM A RESIDENT OF THE CEDAR RIDGE WIND PROJECT IN FOND DU LAC COUNTY:

 I live in the middle of Alliant Energy's Cedar Ridge wind farm in Fond Du Lac, WI. I have lived in this location for over 20 years. I feel the turbines were placed to close to mine and my neighbors houses.

I live in a valley and the turbines were placed all around me on the highest hills. So a 400' wind tower now became a 500' tower which seems like they are on top of me standing on my own lawn.

I emailed the town to complain and asked what ordinance the wind mills had to operate under and what was the setback requirements and noise levels they had to abide by. I was told there wasn't an ordinance and therefore no setbacks and noise restrictions.

We never were notified about any town meetings or where the turbines were to be located until after they were approved to be installed. As a result we are paying the price.

The noise and vibrations they make has taken the quiet country my house used to be located in and turned it into an industrial park setting with noise that is never ending.

The vibrations they create get you sick to your stomach and keep us awake at night.

There isn't any quiet get togethers outside on our deck and patio anymore. We have been forced to keep the windows closed and the air conditioner on which increases our electric bill and security.

At certain times of the year the flicker they create turns my family room and bed room into a disco. They have ruined our over the air television and Radio reception with the promise that they would fix the problem.

It has almost been 1 1/2 years now and my over the air antenna still gets no signal when they are turning.

Our property values have been decimated. I have been told that my property is probably unsellable now. We have to put up with all this without any mention of any compensation that I feel Alliant should owe us.

I have called Allient on numerous occasions to complain, but just get a run around. I was told that the wind turbines aren't going anywhere so I just better get used to it!

The turbines should not be placed near homes unless owners of the surrounding land all agree to their placement. They should respect the property line and have the set back from that and not the house.

I feel a 1 mile setback from any inhabited house would eliminate a lot of problems with noise and flicker and TV reception. Please contact me if you would like more comments.

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

Mark Rademann

Town of Eden, Wisconsin

FROM A RESIDENT IN INVENERGY'S PROPOSED LEDGE WIND PROJECT IN BROWN COUNTY

Hello, I am writing about an issue I have with the siting of wind turbine #21.

It is currently drafted as being located about 1.1 times the height or about 500 feet from my property line.

I have been raising alternative livestock (Elk) for the past 11-12 years and I am very concerned for the health, safety and welfare of my animals. With them being in pens and unable to leave the area, there is a great concern how the turbine will affect them.

I have talked with people from the FonDuLac area that have had problems with their animals after the wind turbines in their area started up. One family had all of their Alpaca's abort their young within 1 month of the turbines starting up.

After hearing of different problems with animals and wind turbines, I called and spoke with Invenergy engineer Matt Thornton. I told him of my concerns and asked if they would consider moving the turbine further up the hill and away from my animals.

He said they would be unlikely to move the turbine because their are 3 more of them located over the hill and they didn't want the air flow to affect the other turbines.

Now mind you that those turbines are located 10 rotor diameters (over 2000 feet) upwind and that the wind blows from the Southwest on a very limited time frame.

I asked why they would put that ahead of my animals health and well being, but all he would say is that it is the most effecient design from a wind perspective.

I am a mechanical engineer by trade and have designed many air systems and of all the training I have had has taught me that 3 to 5 duct diameters is usually very adequate to get back to laminar air flow, but yet he feels they would like to have 10 diameters over the health and well fare of my animals.

This response does not sit well with me and I would like the PSC to please consider this case as it makes it's final wind siting rules.

Please consider making the set backs of a minimum of 2000 feet from any property lines, not 1250 feet from a residence. It is my property and my right to raise animals and that right shouldn't be taken from me.

Thank you,

Troy Verheyen

Greenleaf, Wisconsin 

I am commencing a campaign for mayor of Evanston and I will update residents on the progress of the campaign, both here and on my blog at www.dingesgang.com.

WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE

Monday, June 23, 2010, beginning at 1:30 p.m.

Docket 1-AC-231

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Flambeau River Conference Room (3rd Floor)
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio or video 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 at the appointed start time.

What's on the agenda

1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda

2) Review and adoption of meeting minutes of June 21, 2010

3) Background information on questions raised by Council regarding the draft rules

a. Commission noise measurement protocol

b. Takings

c. Property value protection plans

4) Amendments to straw proposal for Council’s recommendations to Commission regarding
draft rules

a. Discuss proposed amendments to straw proposal

b. Straw poll regarding proposed amendments to straw proposal

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.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Better Plan contacted the PSC to ask why today's meeting was not posted on the event calendar until this morning. Notice of open meetings must be given at least 24 hours in advance. We were told the event calendar postings at the PSC website are a courtesy, but not the official posting place for open meetings.

Better Plan is now trying to find out where the official postings can be found.

CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE