Better Plan, Wisconsin

Click on image below to watch a news story about the Brown County Board of Health's recommendation about constructing wind turbines in the area:

PSC Schedules public hearings on proposed wind farm siting rules

SOURCE Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com

June 25, 2010

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) will hold three public hearings next week, including one in Fond du Lac, on proposed uniform wind siting rules.

Once finalized, the uniform rules will set forth consistent standards for the local regulation of wind energy systems in Wisconsin, according to a PSC news release.

The hearings will be held in the Legislative Chambers of the City County Government Center, 160 S. Macy St., in Fond du Lac at 1 and 6 p.m. Monday, June 28; in Tomah on Tuesday, June 29; and in Madison on Wednesday, June 30.

Public comments offered at the public hearings will assist the PSC as it finalizes the rules.

Those attending will be able to provide oral testimony to the administrative law judge presiding at the hearing.

The hearings are wheelchair-accessible. Those requiring accommodations to participate should contact Docket Coordinator Deborah Erwin at (608) 266-3905.

Documents associated with the proposed rules can be viewed on the PSC’s Electronic Regulatory Filing System at http://psc.wi.gov/. Enter case number 1-AC-231 in the boxes provided on the PSC homepage, or click on the Electronic Regulatory Filing System button.

SECOND FEATURE:

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

The document below was distributed to Wind Siting Council members at Wednesday's meeting.  As the majority of the council has direct or indirect financial interest in creating rules with as few restrictions as possible on the wind industry, it won't be hard for any of us to guess which boxes they will check on this multiple choice worksheet.

The Wind Siting Council is an advisory group. Ultimately the PSC commissioners will decide the final guidelines.

DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE WORKSHEET BY CLICKING HERE

Wind Siting Council 6.23.10

STRAW PROPOSAL AMENDMENT WORKSHEET

Wind Energy System Sizes – General

1. Should the rules establish rules for community wind energy systems that are different than rules for small wind and large wind?

□ Yes
□ No, community wind should be treated the same as large wind

[BPWI RESEARCH NERD NOTE there was discussion among council members about the term "community wind" and what it means.

The majority of council members seemed to agree that the term "community wind" simply refers to projects of between 10 and 15 industrial scale turbines, like the Town of Glenmore project developed by Council member Bill Rakocy, which consists of several 500 foot tall turbines.

Rakocy has been vocal about wanting as few restrictions as possible on his ability to develop wind projects.

One council member commented that "community wind" was simply a 'cozy term' sometimes used to disguise the fact that these are still projects by private developers who are not obligated to benefit the community in any manner that is different than the larger projects.

Questions have been raised as to why permitting standards should be different for projects with fewer turbines.

 The "community wind" guideline options in this document do nothing to prevent a larger project from breaking itself down in to a number of smaller "community wind LLCs" in order to take advantage of fewer regulations.]

2. If the rules establish a category for community wind, in what areas should the requirements for community wind be different than what is required for a large wind energy system?

□ Notification requirements
□ Application requirements
□ Mitigation requirements
□ Other ____________________________________________________

3. If the rules establish a category for community wind, how should small wind be defined?

□ A wind energy system up to 100 kW in size, whether one or more turbines
□ A wind energy system up to 300 kW in size, made up of one or more turbines each no greater than 100 kW in size
□ A wind energy system up to 500 kW in size, made up of one or more turbines each no greater than 100 kW in size

4. If the rules establish a category for community wind, how should community wind be defined?

□ Up to 2 large wind turbines (over 100 kW) owned by or where the output is used by a local resident, business, school or unit of government
□ One large turbine (over 100 kW) for personal or “community” on-site generation and/or educational purposes
□ Other ________________________________________

[NOTE FROM BPWI: During the discussion, options one and two were not considered. The council discussion about the meaning of community wind clearly concerned full sized industrial scale turbines with a project size of up to 20MW determined by MISO standards.]

5. If the rules establish a category for community wind, how should large wind be defined?

□ A wind energy system that is not a small wind energy system and is not a community wind energy system
□ Large wind should include community wind, except where otherwise specified (all rules for large wind should apply to community wind, except where otherwise noted)

Setbacks, Noise & Shadow Flicker – General

6. The rules should: (choose as many as apply)

□ Set a minimum safety setback
□ Set a noise performance standard
□ Set a shadow flicker standard

7. Should the rules require or allow for (at political subdivision’s discretion) different noise and shadow flicker performance standards for community wind v. large wind?

□ Yes, different requirements
□ Yes, allow at political subdivision’s discretion
□ No

Minimum Safety Setbacks

8. Should the rules establish a minimum safety setback?
□ Yes
□ No

9. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback, from what should the turbine be set back?

□ Nonparticipating landowner’s property line
□ Nonparticipating residence
□ Occupied community building
□ Participating residence
□ Other

10. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback from a property line, should the landowner be able to waive the property line setback?

□ Yes
□ No
□ Yes, but only for small wind turbines (up to 100 kW)

11. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback from a residence, should the landowner be able to waive the setback from the residence?

□ Yes
□ No
□ Yes, but only for small wind turbines (up to 100 kW)

12. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback, should the exact distance of the setback depend on the maximum blade tip height of the wind turbine (how tall the turbine is with its blade extended to the maximum height)?

□ Yes
□ No

13. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback from a property line, what should the distance be for a large wind turbine (over 100 kW), when measured from the center of the turbine?

□ 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height
□ _______ times the maximum blade tip height
□ 2500 feet
□ Other ___________________________________________

14. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback from a nonparticipating residence, what should the distance be for a large wind turbine (over 100 kW) when measured from the center of the turbine?

□ 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height
□ _______ times the maximum blade tip height
□ 2500 feet
□ 2600 feet
□ Other ___________________________________________

15. If the rules establish a minimum safety setback, what should the distance be for small wind turbines (up to 100 kW) when measured from the center of the turbine?

□ 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height
□ 1.0 times the maximum blade tip height
□ _______ times the maximum blade tip height
□ Other ___________________________________________

16. Should the rules require or allow for (at political subdivision’s discretion) different setback requirements for community wind?

□ Yes, different requirements: ___________________________
□ Yes, allow at political subdivision’s discretion
□ No, community wind should have the same setback requirements as large wind
□ No, community wind should have the same setback requirements as small wind

Noise – General

17. If the rules establish noise performance standards, should the rules have the same noise performance standards for all wind energy systems, small, community and large?

□ Yes
□ No

18. What type(s) of noise standards should the rules specify?

□ Setback distances only
□ Both setback distances and decibel limits
□ Decibel limits only

19. If the noise standards include decibel limits, should the decibel limits be absolute (i.e., xx dBA) or relative (i.e., ambient + yy dBA)?

□ Absolute
□ Relative
□ Both

20. If the noise standards include decibel limits, should the limits vary seasonally?

□ Yes
□ No

21. If the noise standards include decibel limits, to what should the limits apply?

□ Nonparticipating residences and occupied community buildings
□ Anywhere on a nonparticipating property
□ Other ______________________________________

22. If the noise standards include absolute decibel limits, what should the limits be?

□ 55 dBA
□ 50 dBA
□ 45 dBA on summer nights, 50 dBA at all other times
□ 45 dBA at night (year round), 50 dBA during day
□ 30 - 35 dBA
□ Other

23. If the noise standards include absolute decibel limits, should they provide for the instance when the ambient noise exceeds the absolute decibel limit imposed on the wind energy system?

□ Yes, in that case the standard should be ambient dBA plus 5 dBA

□ Yes, in that case the standard should be: __________________________________

□ No, the rules do not need to address this

24. If the noise standards include relative decibel limits, what should the limits be?

□ 5 dBA above ambient
□ 10 dBA above ambient
□ Other

25. If the noise standards include a setback distance, what should the distance be?

□ 1000 feet
□ 2500 feet
□ 2600 feet
□ Other _______________________________

26. Should the rules require use of a standard noise measurement protocol?

□ Yes, the PSC protocol
□ Yes, the PSC protocol and additional standards
□ Yes, but not the PSC protocol, instead: ___________________________
□ No

27. Should the rule require pre-construction noise testing at typical ambient sound levels?

□ Yes
□ No

28. Should the rule require post-construction noise testing at full turbine power [if this is possible]?

□ Yes
□ No

29. Should the rule require noise measurement readings in winter as well as summer?

□ Yes
□ No

Shadow Flicker – General

30. Should the Council recommend a shadow flicker performance standard as a best practice?

□ Yes

□ No

31. Should the rules require a standalone shadow flicker performance standard (performance standard only; no setback specifically designed to address shadow flicker)?

□ Yes, shadow flicker should be addressed solely by a performance standard
□ No, shadow flicker should be address by something other than just a performance standard

32. If the rules do not require a standalone shadow flicker performance standard, how should shadow flicker be addressed?

□ Shadow flicker-related setback requirement only
□ Combination shadow flicker-related setback and performance standard
□ Other _________________________________________

33. If the shadow flicker standards include a setback distance, what should the distance be?

□ 1000 feet
□ 1100 feet
□ 2500 feet
□ 2600 feet
□ Other _______________________________

34. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, what type of wind energy systems should it apply to?

□ Large wind energy systems
□ Community wind energy systems
□ Small wind energy systems

35. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, what must a developer do to plan to comply with the standard?

□ Existing computer modeling offers a satisfactory method of measurement at this time.
□ Existing computer modeling needs to be improved via set, uniform standards
□ Other ____________________________________________

36. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, what should the standard take into account?

□ All nonparticipating landowners (whether or not a residence exists)

□ Nonparticipating residences existing at the time of the wind energy system application

□ Nonparticipating residences existing at the time of the wind energy system approval

□ Nonparticipating residences not yet constructed at the time of the application but for which a building permit has been filed prior to the wind energy system application

□ Nonparticipating residences not yet constructed at the time of the approval but for which a building permit has been filed prior to the wind energy system approval

□ Nonparticipating residences constructed after the wind energy system receives approval for which no building permit was filed prior to the wind energy system approval

□ Other _______________________________________________

37. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, what should it include?

□ Properties (which would include existing and potential residences and outbuildings)
□ Existing residences only
□ Existing residences and outbuildings only

38. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, what should the standard be?

□ No shadow flicker may occur on affected areas
□ Shadow flicker may not exceed 25 hours per year
□ Shadow flicker may not exceed 40 hours per year
□ Shadow flicker may not exceed 45 hours per year
□ Shadow flicker may not exceed 50 hours per year
□ Other ____________________________________

39. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, can the requirement be waived by an affected landowner (i.e. for compensation)?

□ Yes
□ No

40. If the rules require a shadow flicker performance standard, to what extent should mitigation of shadow flicker be required?

□ No mitigation required; mitigation at developer’s/owner’s discretion
□ Mitigation required for exceeding ______ hours per year
□ Other __________________________________________

Siting – Other

41. Should the rules treat private airports at medical facilities used for air ambulance purposes as a public airport for purposes of establishing siting criteria around the private airport?
□ Yes
□ No

42. Should the rules require that siting requirements be science-based?
□ Yes
□ No

Mitigation – General

43. Should the rules establish requirements that apply to new residences or buildings not yet constructed?

□ Yes
□ Yes, but only for which a building permit has been filed prior to the wind energy system application filing
□ Yes, but only for which a building permit has been filed prior to the wind energy system receiving approval
□ No

44. Should the rules address other future potential (not construction-related) uses of leased properties and non-participating properties?

□ Yes, to address these issues: ______________________________________
□ No

Mitigation – Noise & Shadow Flicker

45. Should the rules require specific mitigation measures when shadow flicker or noise standards are exceeded?

□ Yes, shut down the turbine as needed to prevent exceeding performance standards
□ Yes, other _________________________________________________
□ No

46. When mitigation is required for a residence, what residences qualify for mitigation?

□ All residences
□ Only those in existence when the wind energy system requested approval
□ Only those in existence when the wind energy system received approval
□ Only those in existence when the wind energy system was constructed
□ Other ________________________________________________________

47. Should the rules address potential tax liability of a landowner relating to mitigation measures received by the landowner?

□ Yes, the rules should: _____________________________________
□ No, the rules should not address this

48. Should the rules require wind energy system applications to include a [minimum?] plan for mitigating shadow flicker?

□ Yes
□ No

Mitigation – Signal Interference

49. Should the rules provide a definition of what constitutes “reasonable effort” to mitigate signal interference?

□ Yes, it should be defined as: ________________________________________
□ No

Complaint Resolution

50. Should the Council recommend complaint resolution process best practices?

□ Yes
□ No

51. Should the rules define the types of complaints that will be considered by the entity responsible for complaint resolution?

□ Yes
□ No

52. Should the rules require political subdivisions to establish a complaint resolution procedure pursuant to a protocol to be established by the Public Service Commission?

□ Yes
□ No

53. Should the rules require that a complaint must be resolved within 90 days?

□ Yes
□ No, the rules should not place a hard time limit on complaint resolution
□ No, the rules should impose a different time limit of: ____________________

54. Should the rules require dismissal of complaints if the complaint stems from an activity or condition that is clearly allowed pursuant to the political subdivision’s approval?

□ Yes
□ No
□ Other _________________________________________

55. Should the rules require that complaints be overseen by the political subdivision granting the approval for a wind energy system?

□ Yes
□ No

56. Should the rules require that complaints be handled by the political subdivision in the first instance?

□ Yes, the political subdivision itself should deal with complaints

□ Yes, but if the political subdivision does not have sufficient resources, the developer/owner should be responsible for responding to complaints according to a standardized protocol, and the political subdivision may review complaint records at any time

□ No, the political subdivision should be able to establish a committee to deal with complaints

□ No, the political subdivision should be required to establish a committee to deal with complaints

□ No, complaints should be handled directly by the Public Service Commission with no political subdivision involvement

57. Should the rules clarify the Public Service Commission’s authority to review complaints?

□ Yes, the rules should be clarified regarding: _______________________________
□ No

58. Should the rules clarify how stakeholders will engage in the Public Service Commission’s review of complaints?

□ Yes, stakeholder should be able to: ______________________________
□ No, the draft rules are sufficient on this issue

Property Value Protection Plan

59. Should the Council recommend a property value protection plan as a best practice?

□ Yes
□ No

60. Should the rules require developers to offer a property value protection plan?

□ Yes
□ No

61. If the rules require developers to offer a property value protection plan, what wind energy systems should it apply to?

□ Large wind energy systems
□ Community wind energy systems
□ Small wind energy systems

62. If the rules require developers to offer a property value protection plan, who should it be offered to?

□ Landowners adjacent to turbine host properties
□ Landowners within ______ feet of a turbine
□ Other _______________________________________________

Wind Leases & Easements

63. Should the Council establish a list of items to include in a lease or easement as part of a best practices document?

□ Yes
□ No

64. Should the rules address items that must be included and may not be included in a lease or easement?

□ Yes, with as much detail as possible
□ Yes, for certain limited topics
□ No

65. Should the language in the draft rules requiring the developer, owner and operator of the wind energy system to comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to the wind energy system be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

66. Should the language in the draft rules requiring a lease to permit the property owner to terminate the wind lease if the portion of the wind energy system located on the property has not operated for a period of at least 18 months unless the property owner receives the normal minimum payments be removed?

□ Yes
□ No, it should stay as is
□ No, but it should be modified to state: _______________________________________

67. Should the language in the draft rules requiring a lease to specify the circumstances under which the developer, owner or operator of the wind energy system may withhold payments from the property owner be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

68. Should the language in the draft rules requiring a lease to permit the property owner to rescind an executed wind lease within 3 business days of signing the wind lease be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

69. Should the language in the draft rules stating that a lease, except for compensation terms, may not be required to be confidential be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

70. Should the language in the draft rules stating that a lease may not make the property owner liable for any property tax associated with the wind energy system or other equipment related to the production of electricity by the wind energy system be removed?

□ Yes
□ No, it should stay as is
□ No, but it should be modified to state: ____________________________________

71. Should the language in the draft rules stating that a lease may not make the property owner liable for any violation of federal, state or local laws and regulations by the developer, owner or operator of the wind energy system be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

72. Should the language in the draft rules stating that a lease may not make the property owner liable for any damages caused by the wind energy system or the operation of the wind energy system, including liability or damage to the property owner or to third parties be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

73. Should the language in the draft rules stating that a developer, owner or operator may not, as a condition of accepting any benefit to settle a noise, signal interference, stray voltage or shadow flicker mitigation issue, require a property owner to keep the settlement confidential or require the property owner to waive any right to make a future claim about an unrelated issue be removed?

□ Yes
□ No
□ No, but it should be modified to state: _____________________________________

74. Should the rules require the lease to state that a person negotiating or presenting a wind lease or easement on behalf of a developer represents the developer and not the landowner?

□ Yes
□ No

75. Should the rules require the lease to state that the lease is a contract?

□ Yes
□ No

76. Should the rules require the lease to include plans and specifications regarding the specific wind turbine that may be constructed?

□ Yes
□ No

77. Should the rules invalidate any wind lease or easement signed prior to the developer giving general public notice of the planned wind energy system?

□ Yes

□ No

78. If the rules invalidate any lease or easement signed prior to general public notice, should the rules allow a letter of intent to be signed in lieu of a lease [without requiring general public notice first]?

□ Yes
□ No

79. Should the rules require any person negotiating or presenting a wind lease or easement on behalf of a developer to hold a license to conduct real estate activities and be under the supervision of a real estate broker?

□ Yes
□ No

80. Should the rules require any person negotiating or presenting a wind lease or easement on behalf of a developer to hold a real estate broker license?

□ Yes
□ No

81. Should the rules require wind leases and easements to comply with existing precedents and state laws relating to other types of construction?

□ Yes
□ No

Decommissioning

82. For how long should a wind energy system be allowed to stand continuously without operating before decommissioning is required?

□ 18 continuous months, with limited exceptions
□ 24 months, with a rebuttable presumption if the system will be reused
□ Other ______________________________________

83. Should the rules require removal of the turbine foundation and other underground structures?

□ Yes, they should be completely removed
□ Yes, they should be removed to at least four feet below grade
□ Yes, they should be removed to _________________________________
□ No

84. If the rules require removal of below ground improvements, should the rules require wind energy system applications to include plans and estimated costs for excavating and removing the below grade improvements?

□ Yes
□ No

85. To what condition should the rules require restoration of the land upon decommissioning?

□ Pre-construction condition, to the extent feasible

□ The same general topography that existed just prior to construction and with topsoil re-spread over the disturbed areas at a depth similar to that in existence prior to the disturbance. Areas disturbed by the construction of the facility and decommissioning activities must be graded, top-soiled, and re-seeded according to NRCS technical guide recommendations and other agency recommendations, unless the landowner requests in writing that the access roads or other land surface areas be retained.

□ Other _____________________________________

86. What should the rules require developers/owners to provide in terms of financial assurances related to decommissioning?

□ Proof of financial ability to decommission in a form and amount based on a cost estimate by a mutually agreeable third-party
□ Bonds or monies up front to guarantee decommissioning
□ Other _____________________________________

87. Should the language in the draft rule requiring owners of wind energy systems to file a notice upon completion of decommissioning be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

88. Should the rules stipulate penalties if decommissioning requirements are not followed?
□ Yes
□ No

89. If the rules stipulate penalties if decommissioning requirements are not followed, what should these penalties be?

□ Penalties imposed by political subdivision using political subdivision’s general authority
□ Specific financial forfeiture in the amount of ____________
□ Other _____________________________________

90. Should the State assume ultimate responsibility for decommissioning wind energy systems approved by political subdivisions?

□ Yes
□ No

Construction and Operation Standards – General

91. Should the language in the draft rules establishing requirements relating to turbine appearance be removed or modified?

□ Yes, they should be removed
□ Yes, they should be modified
□ No, the language should stay as is

92. If the language in the draft rules establishing requirements relating to turbine appearance should be removed or modified, should the rules require wind turbines to have a neutral finish?

□ Yes
□ No, there should be no requirements about the finish
□ No, there should be a different requirement about the finish _____________________

93. If the language in the draft rules establishing requirements relating to turbine appearance should be removed or modified, should the rules prohibit displaying advertising material or signage on a wind turbine, other than warnings, equipment information or indicia of ownership?

□ Yes
□ No

□ Yes, advertising material and signage on a turbine should be prohibited, but with different/additional exceptions: ____________________________________________

94. If the language in the draft rules establishing requirements relating to turbine appearance should be removed or modified, should the rules prohibit attaching any flag, decorative sign, streamers, pennants, ribbons, spinners, fluttering, or revolving devices except for safety features or wind monitoring devices?

□ Yes
□ No
□ Yes, these should be prohibited, but with different/additional exceptions: ______________

95. Should the rules require the wind energy system owner to provide as-built specifications for the wind energy system?

□ Yes, to the political subdivision granting the approval
□ Yes, to the Public Service Commission
□ Yes, to some other entity: ______________________________________
□ No

Construction and Operation Standards – Emergency Procedures

96. Should the rules set forth default areas of responsibility for emergency services provision at the wind energy system (what is the developer/owner responsible for, what is the local service provider responsible for)?
□ Yes
□ No

97. If the rules set forth default areas of responsibility for emergency services provision at the wind energy system, should the developer/owner be responsible for services starting at the base of the turbine?

□ Yes
□ Yes, and the developer/owner should also be responsible for _____________________
□ No, the developer/owner should only be responsible for ___________________________

98. Should the rules require the applicant to provide a copy of the project summary and site plan to the local emergency services provider, as designated by the political subdivision reviewing the application?

□ Yes
□ No

99. Should the rules require the applicant to cooperate with local emergency services in developing an emergency response plan upon the request [of the political subdivision]?

□ Yes
□ No

100. If the rules require the applicant to cooperate with local emergency services in developing an emergency response plan upon request, what area should this plan cover?

□ The wind energy system
□ The area within ______ feet of the wind energy system
□ Other _________________________________________________________________

Conflict of Interest

101. Should the rules require that no member of the political subdivision reviewing an application, or any of the political subdivision’s involved committees, may derive any personal profit or gain, directly or indirectly, by reason of his or her acting on an application for a wind energy system?

□ Yes
□ No, the rules should not address political subdivision conflicts of interest
□ No, the rules should address conflicts of interests differently: ____________________

102. Should the rules require any member of the political subdivision reviewing an application to disclose to the political subdivision any personal interest that he or she may have in any wind energy system matter pending before the local jurisdiction?

□ Yes
□ No

103. Should the rules require any member of the political subdivision reviewing an application to refrain from participating in any wind energy system matter pending before the local jurisdiction in which the political subdivision member has a personal interest?

□ Yes
□ No

General Notification Requirements

104. What should the general public notification period be for large wind energy systems?

□ 270 days before filing a construction application or 180 days before planned start of construction, whichever is earlier
□ 90 days before filing a construction application
□ 60 days before filing a construction application
□ 30 days before filing a construction application or 60 days before planned start of construction, whichever is earlier
□ Other _________________________________________________

105. What should the notification period be for small wind energy systems?

□ 270 days before filing a construction application or 180 days before planned start of construction, whichever is earlier
□ 90 days before filing a construction application
□ 60 days before filing a construction application
□ 30 days before filing a construction application or the planned start of construction, whichever is earlier
□ Other

106. Should the rules require developers to provide general public notification prior to signing any binding leases or easements?

□ Yes
□ No

107. Should the rules require small wind energy systems to notify only adjacent landowners?

□ Yes
□ No, they should notify the same people as large wind
□ No, they should notify: _______________________________

108. [Regarding the form of notification to be given,] should the rules require notification using “commercially reasonable efforts” only?

□ Yes
□ No

Application Process Requirements

109. Should the rules require that wind energy system applications include plans and specifications for the turbines being built?

□ Yes
□ No

110. Should the rules allow a political subdivision to request only additional information required under the rules?

□ Yes
□ No

111. Should the language in the draft rules allowing political subdivisions to request information in an application pursuant to detailed application filing requirements specified by the Commission be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

112. Should the language in the draft rules allowing political subdivisions to request any other information necessary to understand the proposed wind energy system be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

113. Should the language in the draft rules allowing political subdivisions to request information related to the wind energy system be removed?

□ Yes
□ No

Political Subdivision Process

114. Should the rules prohibit a political subdivision from placing any condition or regulation on a wind energy system except as specifically authorized by the rules?

□ Yes
□ No

Additional questions from Commission staff:

115. Should the rules specify numerical limits on the amount of reasonable fees that a political subdivision can charge?

□ Yes
□ No

116. If the rules specify numerical limits on the amount of reasonable fees that a political subdivision can charge, what should the limits be?

□ Fee capped at 1.0% of estimated wind energy system cost
□ Fee capped at 0.5% of estimated wind energy system cost
□ Fee capped at 0.3% of estimated wind energy system cost
□ Other ____________________________________________

Stray Voltage

117. Should the rules establish required standards for pre-construction and post-construction stray voltage testing?

□ Yes
□ No

118. If the rules establish required standards for pre-construction and post-construction stray voltage testing, what should the rules require?

□ Parties must follow the PSC’s Phase 2 stray voltage protocol
□ Facility should be tested by a licensed engineer before the utility gets involved
□ Utilities should be required to install neutral isolation devices on all transformers serving dairies and other livestock operation.
□ Other __________________________________________________________

119. Should the rules address who (developer/owner v. utility) is responsible for ensuring that required pre-construction and post-construction stray voltage testing is conducted?

□ Yes
□ No

120. Should the rules address who (developer/owner v. utility) is financially responsible for what portions of pre-construction and post-construction stray voltage testing?

□ Yes
□ No

Commission Review
(No amendments suggested)

About this document:
This Straw Proposal Amendment Worksheet was prepared by Commission staff based on written responses to the Straw Proposal of June 9, 2010 that were submitted by Wind Siting Council members as of June 21, 2010, and based on discussions at the Wind Siting Council meetings June 15 and June 21, 2010.
Wind Siting Council members are encouraged to contact Commission staff as soon as possible regarding any errors in or omissions from this Worksheet.

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



BROWN COUNTY TOWNS URGE MORE STUDY OF WIND FARM SITES

SOURCE: Greenbay Press Gazette

June 24, 2010

By Tony Walter

 The elected officials of three southern Brown County towns will ask the Public Service Commission to take more time to study possible health and safety issues before approving wind turbine siting rules.

Comments from town supervisors and residents in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore and Wrightstown will be delivered to the PSC's Wind Siting Council next week. A joint meeting of the three town boards was held Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the county's Human Services Committee unanimously approved a resolution supporting the Board of Health's recommendations that turbines not be built in areas where the fractured bedrock and thin soil could lead to groundwater contamination. The resolution will be considered by the County Board at its July 21 meeting.

Invenergy LLC, a Chicago-based company, has proposed to build a 100-turbine wind farm in Morrison, Glenmore and Wrightstown. It is waiting to resubmit its application until the guidelines are approved by the PSC.

Supporting Invenergy's plans are those who say sustainable energy must be encouraged.

The Wind Siting Council released a draft of rules in May and is holding meetings statewide to hear public comments.

Glen Schwalbach, a supervisor for Rockland, has been hired by the three towns to present the comments to the PSC. He isn't addressing the Invenergy proposal specifically but wind turbines in general.

Comments from town supervisors and residents in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore and Wrightstown will be delivered to the PSC's Wind Siting Council next week. A joint meeting of the three town boards was held Wednesday.

In his presentation to about 35 area residents Wednesday, Schwalbach cited three major points: 

 SECOND FEATURE

The letter below was submitted by a resident of the Ashtabula wind project to Jerry Lien a staff analyst for the North Dakota Public Service Commission. It details how NextEra (formerly Florida Power and Light Energy) opted to address the problems of noise and shadow flicker caused by the Ashtabula Wind Energy facility.     

Wind project residents in Wisconsin have been telling similar stories about what happens when they complain to wind project developer/owners about noise and shadow flicker. Also included here is the contract offered by NextEra to the non participating landowners.

[TO] Jerry Lien
North Dakota Public Service Commission

Greetings Jerry,

I appreciate your attention to this matter of the effects of living next to wind turbines. As was discussed in our phone conversation, Next Era Energy is not offering to repair the damage or fix the problem of the noise and shadow flicker imposed on our home, business and property.

They merely want to pay us to accept it. They say we can use the payment to fix the problem ourselves. In order to receive the payment, we must accept this contract as offered, which I have attached to this letter [below]. This contract, as you can see, is a release for the company to negatively affect us.

Furthermore, this contract has more wording in it about keeping quiet about the whole issue than solving the problem. Also you can see that it will be binding on us and our property in any future issues.

$15,000 as a payment is not going to fix this problem. We did not ask for money from this company but requested a relief to the problem at hand.

Scott Scovill from Next Era, suggested for us to buy trees with the money. Trees will not block the effects because they are not tall enough and may take up to twenty years before they would grow even fifty ft. tall.

One solution we suggested was to turn the offending turbines off only during the time they cause shadows. That suggestion was answered by Scott bluntly saying "we're not shutting them off".

Since then Scott or any other Next Era representative has not returned our phone calls.

Mary Ann and I cannot sign on to a contract of this nature. Our attorney advises against it as well. We are not willing to release to the company our property and enjoyment of our home so they can cause noise, shadow flicker, interference, diminishment of property value and the effects acknowledged in their contracts.

We are now suffering from these problems as a result of the decision to allow this irresponsible siting of wind towers too close to our farm.

By reviewing the project you can see there are about four or five turbines to the east of our farm that are causing blinking shadows up to and hour and a half per day for at least 12 weeks of the year. The shadow effects across the windows of our offices are severely disruptive to our business.

How does the Public Service Commission plan to deal with our issue?

 Is this going to be allowed in every wind farm project in the future? Is it going to be allowed that a large out-of-state company negatively impact a local business? Are the residents of this state expected to sell - (quoted from the contract) "the ability to use or enjoy your property, nuisance, injury or harm to persons, anxiety, suffering, mental anguish and loss of ability to enjoy life"?

I would like a response to these questions.

It has been brought to my attention that Next Era representatives have been spreading a lie that we knew this wind farm project was planned before we purchased our property here in Griggs County. This is a false statement and can be proven. We were living on our farm when we were invited to the first meeting of this project.

I request that you make this contract and my letter part of the public record.

Sincerely,
Jim Miller

RELEASE

THIS RELEASE ("Release") is made as of the _____ day of _____________, 2010 by and between Ashtabula Wind II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Company") and __________________________________, ("Owner") (hereinafter collectively the "Parties") upon the terms and conditions set forth below:

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of a certain tract of land located in Griggs County, North Dakota legally described on the attached Exhibit A ("Property") and incorporated herein; and

WHEREAS, Company owns and operates the Ashtabula Wind Energy Center ("Wind Farm"), a wind farm which is adjacent to the Property; and

WHEREAS, Owner notified Company that they are experiencing problems with shadow flicker at their residence on the Property.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth herein, the Parties hereby agree, as follows:

The recitals are true and correct and are incorporated in this Release by reference.

Company shall pay to Owner the one-time amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00), payable on or before March 31, 2010, for any and all shadow flicker related to the Property, caused or alleged to be caused by the Wind Farm stemming from, related to or attendant to the operation of the Wind Farm by Company, its parent companies, affiliates, successors, assigns, related companies including but not limited to interference with glare, shadow flicker, diminishment of the value of the Property, the ability to use or enjoy the Property, nuisance, and any injury or harm to persons, including but not limited to anxiety, suffering, mental anguish, loss of the ability to enjoy life, or any other harm or wrong, tort, intentional or negligent conduct stemming from, related to or consequent to shadow flicker from the Wind Farm whether claimed or not claimed, including all claims that could have been brought, or which hereafter might be brought by Owner or any of their successors and assigns.

The matters settled and released pursuant to this Release include all matters, claims, causes of action, and disputes of any nature whatsoever within the authority of the Parties (including third-party claims, indemnity claims, contribution claims, direct and derivative claims, and any other claims held in any capacity) whether or not fully accrued, relating to or arising out of the interference on the Property. The foregoing matters described in paragraph 2 are referred to hereinafter in this Release as the "Released Matters."

The Parties, each for itself and its directors, officers, agents, and/or representatives, hereby expressly and unconditionally release and discharge one another, and their respective directors, officers, agents, representatives, employees, agents, successors and/or assigns, from any and all obligation, liability or responsibility arising from or as a result of the Released Matters.

The execution of this Release shall not be construed as an admission by any Party as to the validity or invalidity of any other Party's position with reference to the issues resolved in this Release and neither party shall, directly or indirectly, seek to take or advance any position before any court, agency, or administrative tribunal, predicated in whole or in part on any term or condition of this Release except in connection with an action to enforce this Release or the terms or conditions thereof.

The fact of settlement, the amount, nature of terms of the Release, and this Release are to are to remain strictly, totally and completely confidential and any breach of the terms of this Release shall entitle the non-breaching Party to seek all equitable relief as well as monetary damages from Owner.

The Parties agree not to make any statements, written or verbal, or cause or encourage others to make any statements, written or verbal, that defame, disparage or in any way criticize the personal or business reputation, practices, or conduct of the other party, its employees, directors, and officers.

The Parties acknowledge and agree that this prohibition extends to statements, written or verbal, made to anyone, including but not limited to, the news media, investors, potential investors, any board of directors or advisory board or directors, industry analysts, competitors, strategic partners, vendors, employees (past and present), and clients.

Either Party, if approached, has the right to state "we had an issue and that the issue has been resolved to our satisfaction."

The Release may not be modified or amended except by a written instrument signed by all the Parties hereto.

In the event of litigation arising out of or in connection with the enforcement of this Release or any dispute arising out of this Release, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and incidental expenses incurred in connection with such litigation proceeding, including all costs or fees incurred on appeal.

The provisions of this Release shall be governed by North Dakota law.

This Release shall be binding upon the predecessors, heirs, successors, and assigns of each Party.

EXECUTED on the dates appearing below their signatures by the Parties' undersigned officers, duly authorized.

Company:
Ashtabula Wind II LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company

By: ________________________________________
Name: Dean R. Gosselin, Vice President
Date: ________________________________________

Owner: ________________________________________
Name: ________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________
 



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

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.

HEALTH OFFICIALS WEIGH IN ON WIND FARM

SOURCE www.fox11online.com

 June 16, 2010

By Becky DeVries

BROWN COUNTY – A Brown County committee makes a recommendation against an area wind farm because of worries it may be unhealthy for people nearby.

Brown County’s Board of Health says it believes the risk is too high, and is recommending a proposed wind farm not be built.

Invenergy is the Chicago-based company, planning to build 100 wind turbines in southern Brown County. The wind farm is not a done deal yet. The state Public Service Commission is still taking public comments on the topic, and has yet to give final approval.

“Behind me there would be at least three of them I believe, possibly more, and there will be some on this side also,” Jeff VanRossum explained near his Town of Wrightstown home.

The view from VanRossum’s front yard could soon change if plans are approved to put up 100 wind turbines in southern Brown County.

“There’s too many variables, too many health issues,” said VanRossum.

VanRossum does not want the wind farm in the area, his main concern is health.

“We’re saying that this is not a safe place to cite a wind farm,” said Audrey Murphy, chair of the Brown County Board of Health.

The board is formally recommending the wind farm not be built. Murphy says the main concern is the risk of water contamination that could happen as a result of an underground system that would connect the windmills.

“The greatest threat to this wind farm is the ground water situation,” said Murphy. “This is an area that has a historical record of having ground contamination.”

However, Invenergy, the company proposing the project, says it has addressed ground water contamination concerns in the past, and has not had problems.

“We’re confident that it will be shown that our project is a safe and reliable facility that is going to generate great economic benefits,” said Kevin Parzyck, development manager for Invenergy.

The Wisconsin Public Service Commission says its three commissioners will review all the information regarding the wind farm and make a decision based on that. The recommendation from the Brown County Board of Health is just one piece of information the commission will review. It doesn’t necessarily hold any more or less weight than any other piece of information.

“We have to start making a step toward cleaner air,” said Dave Bining.

Bining lives just down the street from Jeff VanRossum, and welcomes the windmills.

“I’m for it,” said Bining. “We can’t keep pumping pollution into the air. At some point there’s got to be an alternative. Wind mills may not be the answer, but right now they’re available.”

Just which neighbor gets his way remains to be seen.

The Wisconsin Public Service Commission is still accepting public comments. It will review them, and other information and then make a decision, on allowing the plans to go forward. Invenergy hopes to start construction on the Brown County wind farm next year.

SECOND STORY:

BROWN COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH OPPOSES WIND TURBINE PROJECT

 SOURCE: www.wbay.com

June 17 2010

By Marcie Kobriger

Plans in motion to build a 100-wind turbine farm in southern Brown County will be at a standstill if the Public Service Commission accepts a recommendation from the county board of health.

The board says digging in to put up the turbines could put the public’s health at risk.

Whether the complaints are that they’re noisy, ugly, or emit stray voltage, the arguments against building wind turbines in Brown County have been stacked high.

But it’s what’s beneath the ground that’s convinced the Brown County Board of Health that this type of green energy is not the way to go in the southern part of the county.

Well water in the Town of Morrison and other southern Brown County communities has been plagued for years.

“Over 30 percent of our wells in the Town of Morrison right now are over the drinking water standard for nitrates,” Bill Hafs of the Brown County Land and Water Conservation Department said.

E. coli and other bacteria have also been found in the wells.

The project would require digging 81 miles of trenches to bury cable to carry power from the wind turbines to the electrical grid.

With farms as far as the eye can see — providing plenty of manure to spread– conservation experts say the Town of Morrison, with less than one foot of top soil above bedrock in places, is susceptible to well contamination.

“Once you’ve disturbed that and hit the bedrock, then if you land apply any waste over the top it’ll hit that cable and go down into the bedrock and cause a ground water contamination,” Hafs said. “We’ve created a conduit to bedrock, a conduit to ground water.”

But the board of health’s recommendation has done little to reconcile friends and families who’ve been at odds over the issue of wind turbines since the wind farm was first proposed.

“We till fields, we till swamp holes, we till sink holes, we till frog holes, and none if it affects the ground water. How could a wire?” neighbor Harvey Hafeman responds. “How could that affect groundwater? That’s a myth.

Hafeman believes the recommendation has less to do with water concerns than the concerns of his neighbors who oppose wind turbines.

“It’s all because these people don’t want a tower in their back yards.”

Hafeman says he has the acreage to put many wind turbines on his property.

He doesn’t believe the four-foot cable trenches would pose any additional threat of well contamination.

“If they did go nine feet, the basement of this house is nine feet deep and they don’t go that far even if they don’t have to,” Hafeman said.

Conservationists disagree.

“You typically don’t spread animal waste or industrial waste close to buildings,” Hafs responded.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: To read more about Wisconsin wind issues and the latest on what is happening in Brown County, visit the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy (BCCRWE) website by CLICKING 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

SAVE THE DATE: The PSC will be holding public hearings for the wind sitting rules on

Monday, June 28 @ 1PM & 6PM in Fond Du Lac at the City Hall on 160 S. Macy Street

Tuesday, June 29 @ 1PM & 6PM at Holiday Inn in Tomah on 1017 E. McCoy Blvd.

Wednesday, June 30 at the PSC in Madison on 610 North Whitney Way, 1pm and 6pm

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has scheduled several hearings throughout the state regarding the creation of statewide wind turbine regulations.

The new regulations apply to wind farms that will generate less than 100 Megawatts of power. Specifics about turbine height, noise and distance setbacks, shadow flicker, signal interference and when residents and government agencies must be notified about proposed projects are included in the 53-page document.

To view the document, go to www.psc.wi.gov, enter docket number 1-AC-231 into the case search bar and download the document titled “Notice of Hearings” with the Public Service Commission reference number 131882.

Comments are due on Wednesday, July 7, 2010 at noon and must be mailed to: Sandra J. Paske, Secretary to the Commission, Public Service Commission, P.O. Box 7854, Madison, Wis., 53707-7854.

Comments can also be faxed to (608) 266-3957 and are due by Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at noon.

Online comments can be submitted at http://psc.wi.gov using docket number 1-AC-231.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETINGS AT WISCONSIN EYE WEBSITE

Sound, shadow standards scare wind developers

SOURCE:  The Daily Reporter, dailyreporter.com

June 14, 2010

By Paul Snyder

Environmental consultants can count the minutes a home is affected by the strobelike flickers of a wind turbine’s shadow.

They can measure the decibels of the rhythmic thrum of turbine blades cutting through the air.

They can use those flicker and sound measurements to determine the best placement for wind farms.

But, wind farm developers argue, basing placement on those tests means sacrificing the one thing the industry needs to build in Wisconsin: certainty. Establishing setback distances would give developers that certainty, said Jim Naleid, managing partner for Holmen-based AgWind Energy Partners LLC.

“The problem with issues relating to sound and shadow flicker is that you run into a series of unending tests,” he said. “You don’t know at what cost those tests will come, and that’s the problem.”

It can cost as much as $15,000 and take as long as a month to run a computer program that studies the flicker, said Bryan Wheler, project manager for Hershey, Pa.-based ARM Group Inc., an environmental consulting firm that runs shadow flicker and sound tests for wind farm projects. He said sound tests take two to three months and can cost as much as $30,000.

“It’s not an unending series of tests,” Wheler said.

Those tests lend logic to turbine placement that arbitrary setbacks cannot, said Doug Zweizig, co-chairman of the state’s Wind Siting Council, which is developing turbine placement recommendations for wind farms that generate less than 100 megawatts of electricity.

“A setback is just a very crude attempt to deal with issues relating to noise and shadow flicker,” he said. “If the real problem is something like noise, then why don’t we just deal with that?”

The council, Zweizig said, will consider a proposal to restrict turbine noise and shadow flicker on properties that do not host turbines. The proposal would limit shadow flicker to 25 hours per year. It also would set a 50-decibel daytime limit and 45-decibel limit at night.

The drawback to establishing a setback distance, Wheler said, is that it could limit wind farm development. If the council, for example, established a 2,000-foot setback from property lines, he said, developers lose the opportunity to account for variables.

“What if there’s a property closer than 2,000 feet that’s down in a valley where they’ll never see shadow flicker?” Wheler said. “What if there are trees and vegetation in between the turbine and house that limits shadow flicker? You still have developers saying, ‘Well, we don’t have 2,000 feet here. Let’s move on.’”

Those variables create unnecessary complications for projects, said Jason Yates, contracts manager for Elgin-based EcoEnergy LLC. The industry needs a reliable standard, he said.

“Because maybe there are issues with 10 of 40 turbines, so you have to run a new set of tests,” Yates said. “It’s just nonending battles.”

If the council expands the guidelines beyond setback distances, Yates said, it will create more uncertainty in Wisconsin’s wind market.

That, Naleid said, would scare away developers.

“Until there is some kind of standard,” he said, “developers are not going to do business here.”