Better Plan, Wisconsin

Our wind industry video of the day ends with a question: What do these wind turbines sound like to you? Better Plan has listened and the narrator's suggestion of 'waves lapping against the shore' was not our first pick.

OUR WIND INDUSTRY VIDEO OF THE DAY:

Click on the image below to watch a happy wind developer talk about his project. Note the lack of homes in this video. Also note the compression of the soil and other side effects of the heavy machinery required during turbine construction. Rock out to the guitars in the background.

OUR REALITY VIDEO OF THE DAY

Life with turbines: Click on the image below to hear the turbine noise from a wind project home in DeKalb, Illinois. Recorded December 17th, 2010

WIND DEVELOPMENT THREATENS ICONIC AMERICAN BIRDS

SOURCE www.salem-news.com

December 29 2010

Safeguards needed to prevent population declines in the Whooping Crane and Greater Sage-Grouse, and reduce mass mortality among eagles and songbirds.

(LOS ANGELES) – Today, American Bird Conservancy announced that three iconic American bird species face especially severe threats from wind energy development.

“Golden Eagles, Whooping Cranes, and Greater Sage-Grouse are likely to be among the birds most affected by poorly planned and sited wind projects,” said Kelly Fuller, Wind Program Coordinator for American Bird Conservancy, the nation’s leading bird conservation organization.

“Unless the government acts now to require that the wind industry respect basic wildlife safeguards, these three species will be at ever greater risk.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) currently estimates that more than 400,000 birds are already being killed each year after being struck by the fast-moving blades of wind turbines.

This figure is expected to rise significantly, and will likely eventually pass the million mark as wind power becomes increasingly ubiquitous under a Department of Energy plan to supply 20% of America’s power through wind by 2030.

Golden Eagles have already been one of the major victims of the largest wind farm in the United States at Altamont Pass in California. The Altamont wind farm was sited in an area that eagles and other raptors use to hunt ground squirrels and other small mammals.

Using the now-outdated towers as perches, thousands of raptors have been killed as they launch out through the spinning turbines towards their prey. While new tower designs have been developed, they don’t completely eliminate the risk.

Much of the additional wind build-out planned for the western U.S. is expected to occur in areas used by Golden Eagles.

A further threat to birds is expected to come from the major transmission line build-out required to service new wind farms. Large birds such as the endangered Whooping Crane can fail to see the wires in time and die after colliding with them. According to a recent FWS report, “The Great Plains states traversed by the Whooping Cranes during their fall and spring migrations are among the windiest states in the nation.

The best places for wind energy development in these states overlap to a large extent the Whooping Crane migration corridor, and many of these areas provide attractive stopover sites. Thus, the potential for impacts to Whooping Cranes from future wind energy development is high.”

The threat to yet more birds comes not from collisions, but from loss of their habitat due to wind farm construction. The Greater Sage-Grouse is already reduced to a tiny fraction of its former range and population size due to degradation of sagebrush habitat in the West.

The proliferation of giant turbines looming over the habitat can cause birds to abandon remaining traditional breeding grounds. The total habitat footprint from wind farms is predicted to exceed 20,000 square miles by 2030, much of it in states such as Wyoming, one of the last remaining sage-grouse strongholds.

While the threat from wind development stands out for these three iconic American birds, it is by no means limited to a small handful of species. More than ten billion birds are estimated to migrate across the country each spring and fall, many at night.

Wind turbines will be an unexpected obstacle to these migrations. Plans to build a wind farm at Canada’s Point Pelee—a migration hotspot on the Great Lakes—were recently shelved due to a public outcry over the expected impact on songbirds, but other wind developments are planned along the U.S. side of the lakes, and in other areas through which migrating birds funnel, with as-yet uncalculated bird impacts.

While Whooping Cranes are protected under the Endangered Species Act and Golden Eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, most migratory birds are only protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which has seldom been enforced to prevent such mortality as is predicted as a result of wind development.

The Greater Sage-Grouse, meanwhile, currently receives no federal legal protection, though several states have stepped up to protect remaining core breeding areas. In the face of increasing wind development, realizing the potential for state agencies to do yet more will be important for this species.

“Without strong standards designed to protect birds through smart siting, technology, and mitigation programs, wind power will soon affect millions of birds. Given the subsidies paid to the wind industry by the government, many of the negative impacts to birds will be unwittingly funded by the American taxpayer,” said Fuller. “We understand the problem and we know the solutions. American Bird Conservancy supports wind energy, and some operators are already working to protect birds, but we need to make all wind power bird smart now before major build out occurs.”

SECOND FEATURE:

HAMMOND WIND PANEL ADOPTS HOME GUARANTEE

 SOURCE The Journal, www.ogd.com 

December 30 2010

By Matt McAllister,

HAMMOND – Is the Hammond Wind Committee nailing the coffin on the town’s chances of hosting an Iberdrola-owned wind farm?

The committee voted 9 to 1 Tuesday evening – with committee member and leaseholder, Michele W. McQueer, casting the lone dissenting vote – to adopt the controversial Residential Property Value Guarantee (RPVG) as a suggestion to the town board.

In a recent letter from Iberdrola Renewables to the committee, Mark Epstein, Esq., senior counsel, wrote, “We believe that if the Committee chooses to pursue the RPVG, it will prevent any development of windpower facilities in Hammond.”

Iberdrola Communications Manager Paul Copleman e-mailed the following statement on Wednesday: “We are disappointed in the Committee’s decision to recommend the Residential Property Value Guarantee in its current form. While we appreciate and welcome the Committee taking a close look at the concerns expressed by some community members, we have explained the significant and potentially prohibitive burden such a RPVG would place on both members of the community and any company wishing to open a business in Hammond.

“We look forward to continuing to work with the Committee, but most likely won’t reach any decision about the project’s viability until Hammond adopts zoning laws governing wind energy.”

The agreement, drafted by Richard K. Champney, committee member and real estate attorney, was reviewed over the past several weeks by all committee members, who offered their suggestions. Many members of the public were also considered, according to Mr. Champney, who said he had received a horde of phone calls and e-mails, none of which offered opposition to his proposal.

After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made by Merritt V. Young and seconded by Ronald R. Papke.

The revised document includes changes in Section 13, “Exclusive option of any residential property owner living within close proximity (two miles) to a wind turbine,” where a property owner has a once in a lifetime right to be reimbursed for his or her real property and five acres surrounding that residence at the then appraised value, if they follow the provisions listed in the document.

These provisions now include:

* Property owner must notify guarantor within 90 days of issuance of an industrial wind farm permit;

* Property owner must have been the legal owner of real property at the time permit was issued;

* Property owner and the guarantor will enter into a 30-day cooling off period where property owner discusses entering into a Good Neighbor Program and if it is not possible, they will continue to complete the agreement application;

* Guarantor will consider relocating wind turbine out of a two-mile radius of the property owner’s residence;

* If property owner and guarantor have not reached agreement within 60 days, the property owner orders a certified property appraisal that can be used as cost replacement value;

* If still no agreement, a second and/or even a third appraisal can be ordered which will then be averaged with the first to determine the final controlling value the property owner will receive as a buyout from the guarantor (wind company). This option cannot be used in conjunction with any future guarantee of the sale of a residence.

In further discussion before moving on to the next issue, there was mention made of a Good Neighbor Agreement that Iberdrola representative, Jenny Burke, had just made available to committee members which was apparently offered as an alternative to the RPVG.

Good Neighbor Agreements are made between non-participating land owners in the vicinity of wind turbines and the wind company, according to Ms. Burke, and can involve either monthly or annual payments in exchange for closer proximity. In response to a question from committee member, Frederick Proven, Ms. Burke said such agreements typically apply to anyone living within 3000 feet of a wind turbine but that it hadn’t been decided for this particular project because a turbine layout has not yet been established.

Mr. Champney said that a landowner could not apply for both agreements, as it would constitute “double dipping.” He said he would be willing to hold a complimentary workshop for landowners to help them understand the ramifications of a Good Neighbor Agreement.

Members discussed property management issues that included oversight of the wind project, decommissioning, and insurance and liability issues.

Board members also discussed the wind overlay district and attempted to clarify how it applies to the waterfront. Several committee members felt that rather than starting at Route 12, it should begin at the St. Lawrence River shoreline. This discussion will continue Tuesday at 7 p.m. in the Hammond Central School Library, with additional agenda items to include economics and tourism, setbacks and environmental issues.

THIRD FEATURE

WIND FARM PLAN CHALLANGED

SOURCE The Border Watch, www.borderwatch.com.au

December 30 2010

Anelia Blackie,

An eight Mile Creek landowner is furious after learning his house would be within 750 metres of wind turbines if the proposed wind farm development goes ahead at Allendale East.

The Acciona Energy project has been temporarily stalled pending the outcome of a court decision after Allendale East dairy farmer Richard Paltridge opposed the development, standing alone in his battle against the company.

But in the past week, Paul Manning and his wife Kaeli have thrown their support behind Mr Paltridge — only to find out that up to 30 residents also share their objections, but chose to remain anonymous because they feared victimisation.

“We are a hard working young family — my partner has shed blood, sweat and tears to make that property what it is today,” Mr Manning told The Border Watch.

“She literally cried when she began to comprehend what the wind farm’s impact will have on our future plans, including the future development of our investment, our retirement, in terms of the potential for the property and the personal connection we have with it.”

According to Mr Manning, many of the landowners, including himself, do not live on their properties, but work interstate and were therefore ill-informed or excluded from a community consultation process about the $175m development.

He has joined the Concerned Residents Group fighting to have the consultation process re-opened.

“We are very disappointed and concerned at hearing about decisions and actions so detrimental to our family’s future,” Mr Manning said.

“The only previous communications we have received in regards to this very serious matter was a very simple and poorly copied generic pamphlet that was delivered nearly two years ago — we have received nothing since.”

“With gag orders on many of the neighbours and our current work interstate, we have heard little about the planning, design and impact of the wind farm.”

Mr Manning said the proposed wind farm added to other issues already looming over the community and causing them to lose confidence in Local Government.

“Through our recent investigations, one thing has become increasingly clear about the view the community has of the government at all levels,” he said.

“There is a real undercurrent of a no confidence vote brewing within the community due to the problems with the cray fishing season being shortened and all the forests and timber mills scheduled to be sold off to overseas interests — many jobs will be lost and the real talk is that the region will become a ghost town kept in a near death state by the humming and whirring of turbines — this has already been demonstrated at similar locations.”

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO A DISCUSSION OF THE NEW WIND RULES AND WIND POWER IN WISCONSIN HOSTED BY WORT 89.9FM, MADISON'S COMMUNITY RADIO STATION.

 EXTRA CREDIT READING: 

CLICK HERE for Clean Wisconsin's 2009 testimony to the Public Service Commission during the Glacier Hills Wind Project hearings--Clean Wisconsin tells the PSC there will no CO2 reduction because of the implementation of the Glacier Hills project unless the PSC also requires a coal fired plant to be shut down.

Result: The PSC approves the project with no requirement that a coal-fired plant to be shut down.

12/7/09 Clean Wisconsin lives up to its name by taking on the dirty elephant in the room.

December 16, 2010

Dear Senator Plale and Representative Soletski,

We are writing to express our concerns regarding Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 which sets state-wide standards for the siting of wind towers.

The Rule pending before your committee should be sent back to the Public Service Commission for modifications.

We appreciate the work of both committees on this proposed rule. Much of the citizen reaction, including that of your constituents raised serious concerns about the effects of the rule. We are grateful for the committee action in October to return the rule to the PSC for modifications.

Unfortunately, the PSC modified Rule sent back to your committee this month does not address the concerns expressed by citizens of members of your committee.

Specifically, we are deeply concerned about the setback provisions and its effect on neighbors to properties containing wind towers. Substantial testimony was provided by citizens describing this setback as completely unacceptable.

 It seems the PSC has entirely disregarded the will of Wisconsin's citizens and elected officials.

We respectfully urge you to consider the will of the people and those whom they have elected. We ask the committee to either return the rule to the PSC for further modifications or act quickly to object to the proposed rule so it can be taken up the Joint Committee on Review of Administrative Rules.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Sincerely,

Kathleen Vinehout
State Senator
31st Senate District

Chris Danou
State Representative
91st Assembly District

WHERE OH WHERE HAS SENATOR JEFF PLALE GONE?

IS THERE A SPIDER HOLE IN MADISON?

With the clock running out on objecting to the wind rules, Senator Plale seems to have gone into hiding.

An aide to other senate committee members responsible for approving the wind rules say Plale has "checked out" and is no longer returning phone calls or any other manner of request for objection to the PSC's weakened wind rules.

Those of us who have been following this issue apparently must now begin to beat the bushes, pound on doors and look for spider holes in Madison and Green Bay in order to find the senator who holds the fate of so many of us in his hands.

 Letter from Representative Al Ott

To Representative Jim Soletski
Chairman, Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities

To Senator Jeff Plale
Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail

December 10. 2010

Chairmen Soletski and Plale:

I would like to take this opportunity to respectfully request your consideration in promptly scheduling an Executive Session of your respective Committees in order to object to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057.

Upon review of the changes made by the Public Service Commission (PSC) to Clearing House Ril 10-057, it is clear the Commission did virtually nothing to address the serious concerns raised by the numerous citizens who testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail in October.

I sincerely appreciate that the Senate Committee did the right and responsible thing by holding a Public Hearing and ultimately sending the rule back to the PSC for modifications.

I also appreciate that the PSC did make some improvements to the rule; however, I find it unfortunate that the PSC seemingly chose not to listen to the vast majority of concerns brought forward during the October 13th hearing.

Further, I would argue that the modified setback provision s relative to occupied community buildings and non-participating residences show a blatant disregard for the citizens of areas targeted for wind farm developments.

This is an issue that will impact people's lives and is not to be taken lightly. I believe it is absolutely necessary for your respective Committees to utilize the legislative oversight authority proved by law to ensure that the people who stand ot be impacted the most by the siting of wind turbines are afforded every opportunity under the administrative rule process to protect their rights and their communities.

The process for developing this rule has been flawed from the start. I ask that you bring that flawed process to a halt by objecting to Clearinghouse Rule 10-057 prior to December 22, 2010 so that it may be taken up by the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules.

Thank you for your consideration of my request. I look forward to your response.

SIncerely,

Al Ott
State Representative
3rd Assembly District

LETTER FROM REPRESENTATIVE ZIGMUNT:

December 16 , 2010

The Honorable Jim Soletski

Chairman, Assembly Committee on Energy & Utilities

307 West, State Capitol

Madison, WI   53702

The Honorable Jeff Plale, Senate Chairperson

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

State Capitol, Room 313 South

Madison, WI 53702

Honorable Chairmen Soletski and Plale,

 I take this opportunity to respectfully request a public hearing on Public Service Commission Clearinghouse Rule 10-057.

My office has received numerous contacts from my constituents requesting this hearing before the rule goes into effect. Concerns have been raised over health and environmental impacts that could stem from the wind turbines and my constituents feel these concerns have not been properly addressed.. As such, I consider it necessary that the people be given the opportunity to make their case regarding this ruling directly to the legislature.

Thank you for your serious consideration of my request.

Sincerely

Ted Zigmunt

State Representative

2^nd Assembly District

PRESS RELEASE FROM BROWN COUNTY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE RENEWABLE ENERGY

BCCRWE says PSC Action is “Dirty Politics”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 13, 2010

(Denmark, WI) Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy says the latest maneuver by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin regarding wind turbine siting rules is the embodiment of "dirty politics."

The three PSC Commissioners, Eric Callisto, Lauren Azar, and Mark Meyer, voted unanimously on December 9, 2010 to send updated wind turbine siting rules back to the legislature.

These updated rules were crafted after the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail sent the rules back to the PSC for changes following an October 13, 2010 public hearing in Madison, WI.

The intent of the Senate committee that returned the rules to the PSC was summarized by Senator Jon Erpenbach in a November 30, 2010 letter to the PSC (letter below).

We are thankful that Senator Erpenbach called for larger setbacks to residences, lower noise levels, and setbacks measured from property lines. Perhaps most important, was his request for further study of the health impacts to people living in close proximity to industrial wind turbines. The PSC acknowledged receipt of his letter, and then blatantly ignored most of Senator Erpenbach's key requests.

The PSC rule changes reduce the setback requirement for large turbines (a reduction of 300 feet for turbines the size of those recently erected in the Town of Glenmore), and significantly reduce payments to non-participating neighboring landowners.

While that alone is disturbing, more so is the timing for the submission of the rules.

The PSC chose to submit the rules during the last month of a lame duck legislature; at a time when offices are being vacated in Madison, staff is moving, and legislators are preparing for the holidays. In the midst of all this change, legislators who are members of the House and Senate energy committees have only 10 working days to study and fully understand the changes the PSC made.

They can express their opinion on the new rules, but only the Committee Chairmen (Senator Plale or Representative Soletski) can formally 'object' to them. We were thankful that Senator Plale called for a public hearing in October and are hopeful that he and Representative Soletski will object to these new rules.

Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy believe these rules directly threaten the health, safety, and financial well-being of countless rural Wisconsin communities, as well as place a huge tax burden on all Wisconsin residents.

These rules will raise all utility customers' rates, making Wisconsin an even more difficult place to do businesses. These new rules directly contradict the stand taken, and recommendations made, by following organizations:

* The Wisconsin Towns Association
* The Brown County Public Health Department
* The Brown County Land Conservation Department
* The Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association

As well as numerous town ordinances across the state that protect residents' health and safety.

Worst of all, the PSC wholeheartedly ignored the voice of nearly all the citizens that spoke at the Wisconsin Senate public hearing in October, and the countless residents that submitted public comments at the PSC website. This is governing by and for special interests at the expense of Wisconsin families and taxpayers.

Media Contact:
Steve Deslauriers
BCCRWE
PO Box 703
Denmark 54208
Phone: 920-785-1837

LETTER FROM SENATOR JON ERPENBACH TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

REGARDING WIND SITING RULES

SOURCE: PSC DOCKET # 1-AC-231

November 30, 2010

Public Service Commission

Eric Callisto , Chairperson

Mark Meyer, Commissioner

Lauren Azar, Commissioner

PO Box 7854

Madison WI 53707-7854

Dear Commissioners Callisto, Meyer and Azar:

I am writing to today regarding Clearinghouse Rule # 10-057 – PSC Wind Siting Rules proposed Chapter 128.  Having voted for the rule’s return to the PSC with the majority of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail, I wanted to share some perspective as to why.

In the committee hearing that was held on October 13, 2010, we received a number of suggestions regarding the rules that resonated with committee members.  I am including copies of that testimony for your consideration and will summarily list them in outline fashion for your use.

1. Wisconsin Towns Association Memo
   1. Setback of large wind turbines from nonparticipating residences – at a minimum having the setback from the property line of a nonparticipating property, not the residence.
   2. Decrease the maximum noise limits from 50 dBA during daytime and 45 dBA during nighttime hours.
   3. Eliminate the authority of PSC to approve lesser standards than the minimum standards to protect the public under PSC 128.02 (4) Individual Consideration
   4. Increase the 25% limit that a local government is allowed to require a large wind turbine  owner to compensate the owner of a nonparticipating residence.  PSC 128.33 (3) Monetary Compensation.
   5. Require the owner of the wind turbine to reimburse the emergency personnel who train them in safety and emergency procedures.  PSC 128.14 (4) (e) under Emergency Procedures
   6. Change of ownership should not be valid until the new owner has shown proof of compliance with all specific requirements of the original owner.

1. Wisconsin Realtor Association
   1. Setback
   2. Attorney review of contracts
   3. Informational brochure for property owners
   4. Clarification that lease negotiators must have a WI Real Estate License
   5. Additional health impact research
   6. Time period for addressing complaints
   7. Define the term “affected” in “affected nonparticipating residence”

1. DATCP 

     Incorporate the use of DATCP guidelines that intend to maintain the productivity of the farmland associated with wind energy projects.

1. Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc.  & WI Potato & Vegetable Growers Assoc. Inc.

Address the concerns regarding aerial application of farmland and compensation for conflict that arises.

1. The concerns raised by countless individuals that the health concerns or wind turbines are not being addressed adequately, that the setbacks need revision, that the “takings” issue needs to be addressed, that dBA levels need to be reduced both day and night, that shadow flicker must be addressed in the rule, that the health aspects of Wind Turbines have to be studied and taken into consideration.   I have not included the reams of paper that was shared with the committee by all of these individuals – I know much of it has already been shared with the PSC.

In closing, I think the above outline gives the Commission a number of particular issues to re-examine within the rule. 

I would be happy to discuss further the return of the rule by the Senate Committee with the Commission.

Sincerely,

JON ERPENBACH

State Senator

27^th District

JE.tk

REPLY FROM ERIC CALLISTO, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

December 3, 2010

Dear Senator Erpenbach,

Thank you for sharing your concerns and comments regarding the wind siting rules. We appreciate the summary you provided us and will take all comments into consideration when deciding upon modifications that the Commission plans to take up at an open commission meeting soon.

Eric Callisto
Chairperson

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Why won't Public Service Commission Chairman Eric Callisto tell Senator Erpenbach exactly when the open meeting regarding the wind siting rules will take place?

Certainly Chairman Callisto knows exactly when this meeting will happen. Why give such a vague reply to a state senator?

For those of us watching this issue, it's important to note that Better Plan has been told that the calendar of events on the PSC website is not an official posting place for such meetings so the PSC website calendar is exempt from the 24 hour notice prior to a public meeting that is required by law.

Better Plan has been unable to find the official posting place for the meetings apart from the entry way of the PSC building in Madison.

For many of us, a daily drive to Madison to check the posting at the PSC isn't possible.

Better Plan is concerned that the PSC is purposefully being vague about the date and time of this meeting and urges you to call the PSC daily to find out when this meeting will take place and ask for an agenda.

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

610 North Whitney Way. P.O. Box 7854

Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7854

Phone:(608)266-5481

General Toll Free:(888)816-3831

TTY:(608)267-1479

Fax:(608)266-3957

URL:http://psc.wi.gov/

LETTER FROM SENATOR JON ERPENBACH TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

REGARDING WIND SITING RULES

SOURCE: PSC DOCKET # 1-AC-231

November 30, 2010

Public Service Commission

Eric Callisto , Chairperson

Mark Meyer, Commissioner

Lauren Azar, Commissioner

PO Box 7854

Madison WI 53707-7854

Dear Commissioners Callisto, Meyer and Azar:

I am writing to today regarding Clearinghouse Rule # 10-057 – PSC Wind Siting Rules proposed Chapter 128.  Having voted for the rule’s return to the PSC with the majority of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail, I wanted to share some perspective as to why.

In the committee hearing that was held on October 13, 2010, we received a number of suggestions regarding the rules that resonated with committee members.  I am including copies of that testimony for your consideration and will summarily list them in outline fashion for your use.

1. Wisconsin Towns Association Memo
   1. Setback of large wind turbines from nonparticipating residences – at a minimum having the setback from the property line of a nonparticipating property, not the residence.
   2. Decrease the maximum noise limits from 50 dBA during daytime and 45 dBA during nighttime hours.
   3. Eliminate the authority of PSC to approve lesser standards than the minimum standards to protect the public under PSC 128.02 (4) Individual Consideration
   4. Increase the 25% limit that a local government is allowed to require a large wind turbine  owner to compensate the owner of a nonparticipating residence.  PSC 128.33 (3) Monetary Compensation.
   5. Require the owner of the wind turbine to reimburse the emergency personnel who train them in safety and emergency procedures.  PSC 128.14 (4) (e) under Emergency Procedures
   6. Change of ownership should not be valid until the new owner has shown proof of compliance with all specific requirements of the original owner.

1. Wisconsin Realtor Association
   1. Setback
   2. Attorney review of contracts
   3. Informational brochure for property owners
   4. Clarification that lease negotiators must have a WI Real Estate License
   5. Additional health impact research
   6. Time period for addressing complaints
   7. Define the term “affected” in “affected nonparticipating residence”

1. DATCP 

     Incorporate the use of DATCP guidelines that intend to maintain the productivity of the farmland associated with wind energy projects.

1. Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc.  & WI Potato & Vegetable Growers Assoc. Inc.

Address the concerns regarding aerial application of farmland and compensation for conflict that arises.

1. The concerns raised by countless individuals that the health concerns or wind turbines are not being addressed adequately, that the setbacks need revision, that the “takings” issue needs to be addressed, that dBA levels need to be reduced both day and night, that shadow flicker must be addressed in the rule, that the health aspects of Wind Turbines have to be studied and taken into consideration.   I have not included the reams of paper that was shared with the committee by all of these individuals – I know much of it has already been shared with the PSC.

In closing, I think the above outline gives the Commission a number of particular issues to re-examine within the rule. 

I would be happy to discuss further the return of the rule by the Senate Committee with the Commission.

Sincerely,

JON ERPENBACH

State Senator

27^th District

JE.tk

REPLY FROM ERIC CALLISTO, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

December 3, 2010

Dear Senator Erpenbach,

Thank you for sharing your concerns and comments regarding the wind siting rules. We appreciate the summary you provided us and will take all comments into consideration when deciding upon modifications that the Commission plans to take up at an open commission meeting soon.

Eric Callisto
Chairperson

A letter from Representative Bies regarding the wind rules:

December 9, 2010

The Honorable Jeff Plale, Senate Chairperson
Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail
State Capitol, Room 313 South
Madison, WI 53702
 
The Honorable James Soletski, Assembly Chairperson
Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities
State Capitol, Room 21 North
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, WI 53708
 
Chairmen Plale and Soletski,
 
I am writing to you today to request that you formally object to Clearinghouse Rule 08-070.  I have reviewed the changes made by the Public Service Commission and it appears the changes that were made did nothing to address the serious concerns raised by many people including me about the effects of these rules.
 
Among these concerns are the potentially unconstitutional takings of land rights from property owners adjacent to wind projects who will be unable to use or develop significant portions of their property, the reduction of local home values, the possible detrimental health effects from noise and shadow flicker, and the removal of any substantive local control over these projects.  
 
For these and other reasons I am requesting that you object to the proposed rule prior to December 22, 2010 so that it may be taken up by the Joint Committee on Review of Administrative Rules.  

Thank you,
 
GAREY BIES
State Representative
1st Assembly District

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

The PSC delivered a multi-million dollar gift to wind developers by unanimously approving rules which made siting turbines even easier than they first proposed, shocking many rural Badgers whose lives will be directly affected once these rules are adopted.

Changes include decreasing setbacks from homes from 1500 feet to a setback distance that will be  3.1 the turbine height or 1250 feet which ever is the lesser. So a 500 foot tall turbine gets the same setback as a 400 foot turbine.

Chairman Callisto was convinced that a turbine that is 100 feet taller with a wider blade span than the current 400 foot turbines will somehow be quieter, thus eliminating the need for a longer setback.

What he based this assumption on is unknown. Better Plan believes it's based on the assurances from wind developers who need to place turbines that are 50 stories tall no more than 1250 feet from non-participating homes to insure a profitable project.

He did not address the issue of the how the new setbacks will increase hours of shadow flicker on a residence. Nor did he seem to care.

 The new rules also pamper wind developers by lowering payments to non-participating neighbors.

Sources tell Better Plan that the rules were immediately sent to the legislative committees who have ten business days to make a decision. If the committees do nothing, the rules will become automatically become law.

If the committee members object to the rules, they will be sent to a rules over-sight committee which could call for a hearing and then introduce a bill to stop the rules from being adopted.

According to our source, out-going Committee chairman Senator Jeff Plale (D), who heads the senate committee made it clear an objection of this sort unlikely.

However, we've also been told that committee member Senator Robert Cowles (R) has been frustrated with his interaction with the PSC regarding this matter. Sources say the PSC has been unresponsive to Senator Cowles concerns.

Senator Erpenbach (D) sent a detailed letter outlining the ways he'd like to see the rules strengthened to protect residents of wind projects in our state. This too was ignored by teh PSC.

The Wisconsin Towns Association also made it clear to the PSC that the original rules were not strong enough to protect rural residents and suggested changes.

Once again, ignored by the PSC.

The three Doyle-appointed members of the PSC not only paid no attention to these requests, they also ignored the hundreds of residents of our state who testified over the course of the rule-making process, and asked for more protection. The PSC also ignored local ordinances adopted by rural Towns which sought to protect its residents.

What the PSC did not ignore were wind developers wishes. By weakening the rules they have handed developers exactly what they wanted. The cost? No cost to the PSC but for rural Wisconsin residents the cost is health, safety and property values.

WHAT YOU CAN DO RIGHT NOW

You can call the committee members listed below and ask what their plans are regarding the new PSC rules.

Let them know the new rules are even less protective than the ones origially proposed and must be rejected because they will endanger the health, safety and property values of rural Wisconsin residents.

YOUR PHONE CALLS ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

Call early and call daily. Committee legislators need to hear from you, and you need to know what they intend to do about the new rules.

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

Jeff Plale (D) Chair  608-266-7505   or 414-694-7379

Robert Wirch (D)  608-267-8979  or 262-694-7379

Jon Erpenbach (D) 608-266-6670  or 888-549-0027

Pat Kreitlow (D) 608-266-7511     

Robert Cowles (R) 608-266-0484 or 920-448-5092

Sheila Harsdorf (R) 608-266-7745                        

Neal Kedzie (R) 608-266-2635 or 262-742-2025

The Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities:

James Soletski  (D)  Chair  608-266-0485              

Josh Zepnick  (D)   608-266-1707  or 414-727-0841 

Anthony Staskunas  (D) 608-266-0620   414-541-9440

Jon Richards  (D)  608-266-0650    414-270-9898

John Steinbrink  (D) 608-266-0455     262-694-5863

Joe Parisi  (D) 608-266-5342                          

Ted Zigmunt (D) 608-266-9870                  

Michael Huebsch  (R) 608-266-0631                            

Phil Montgomery  (R) 608-266-5840  or 920-496-5953 

Mark Honadel  (R)  608-266-0610 or  414-764-9921 

Kevin Peterson (R)  608-266-3794                 

Rich Zipperer  (R)  608-266-5120                            

YOU CAN ALSO SEND AN EMAIL TO EACH OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

SENATE:

Sen.Plale@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Wirch@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Erpenbach@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Kreitlow@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Cowles@legis.wisconsin.gov

Sen.Harsdorf@legiswisconsin.gov

Sen.Kedzie@legis.wisconsin.gov

ASSEMBLY

Rep.Zepnick@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Staskunas@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Richards@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Steinbrink@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Parisi@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Zigmunt@legis.wisconsin.gov,

Rep.Huebsch@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Montgomery@legis.wisconsin.gov,

Rep.Honadel@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep.Petersen@legis.wisconsin.gov,

Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov