Better Plan, Wisconsin

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd:

 The PSC heard from people all over the state during the three days of hearings about the draft wind siting rules. Here is one from a resident of We Energies Blue Sky Green Field Project in Fond du Lac County.

Andy Hesselbach, who is in charge of developing wind projects for We Energies is one of the wind siting council members with a direct financial interest in creating rules that will allow We Energies to continue to site turbines with the same setbacks and noise limits that have caused problems detailed in the letter below.

Questions have been raised regarding similar conflicts of interest for the majority of the Wind Siting Council members.

CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT WHO IS ON THE WIND SITING COUNCIL

CLICK HERE TO READ the red-lined and re-written siting guidelines from wind developer NextEra,formerly Florida Power and Light. Scroll though the document to read what changes they want from the PSC.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE LETTER BELOW

Click on the image below to watch a video at a link submitted to the PSC. Interview with a Blue Sky/Green Field resident

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC took public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules until the July 7th, 2010 deadline.

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

CLICK HERE to go to the PSC website, then type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted.

CLICK ON THE ITEMS BELOW TO DOWNLOAD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS POSTED ON THE DOCKET:

 

Comments from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCAP) regarding aerial application and concerns about the impact on vegetable growers in our state.

 Click here to download testimony submitted to the PSC by Kevin Kawula regarding wind turbines effect on weather radar, birds and bats, CO2 emissons, and more. The PDF includes photos and graphs.

Click here to read why the Wisconsin League of Municipalities is concerned about the draft rules and why rural Wisconsin residents should also be concerned

CLICK HERE to download photos submitted to the PSC of wind turbines built within 1000 and 2000 feet from homes in three Wisconsin wind projects: Blue Sky/Green Field, Forward, Butler Ridge

THIS FROM THE MADISON AUDUBON SOCIETY:

Madison Audubon Society is very disappointed in the draft wind siting rules.

The sole reason we changed our position last year to one of support for SB 185 was because there would be provisions for taking important bird and bat resources into account when siting turbines.

These provisions included mapping areas in the state where wind turbines could have an adverse effect on bird and bat populations and a review of DNR`s statutory authority to adequately protect wildlife and the environment from any adverse effect from the siting, construction, or operation of wind energy systems.

Neither provision is cited in the draft rule other than one reference to "current DNR guidelines" that is buried on page 30.

Whether these two provisions are statutorily required or not, the maps and guidelines are essential for developers, landowners, and municipalities ("political subdivisions" in PSC-speak), to know about as early in the process as possible.

Not only would this help prevent undue harm to important wildlife resources, but it would help all parties involved avoid potential controversy and very-costly delays or denials of projects.

It would be far better to know as much as possible upfront, before the process even begins, about where key migratory bird routes, bat hibernacula, and other important bird and wildlife areas are located. DNR (p. 6) should be notified at least as soon as, if not earlier, than landowners, to help developers avoid problems.

While wind developers should be consulting with DNR as early in the process as possible, prominently including mention of the maps and guidance in the rule would alert municipalities about the existence of the maps and guidance and to ask companies if they have taken those into consideration. These two critical sources of information need to be hot-linked to the appropriate documents on the web.

FROM THE TOWN OF MORRISON:

My name is Timothy J. Harmann and I testified at the 1:00PM meeting on June 28, 2010
in Fond Du Lac in regards to the Wind Siting Rulemaking docket 1-AC-231.

I submit a CD with 5 videos of people that I personally interviewed on May 22, 2010 near Fond Du Lac, WI that were negatively impacted by Industrial Wind Projects but the CD wasn’t able to be accepted in the presented format.

After the hearing I was approached by the judge and was told that I could submit a link to the videos on the PSC ERF system.

Here is the online location of the videos that I presented during my testimony (I had to
split them into 5 separate videos because of the youtube limitations):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIbzYXSM0zs&layer_token=30fd99341a3167cc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzh106w1lRA&layer_token=5422aca72bfde2c2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PvPXU0io_A&layer_token=3affccee951c2680

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34oOPKNJv-E&layer_token=11e52b0a21d359d3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Ro4tZd-B0

These 5 videos are also available at this address (labeled Interview1 – Interview5):
http://www.bccrwe.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60&Itemid=87

They are under this heading: “Interviews with residents of a Wisconsin Wind Farm”

Thank you for your time in this very important matter.

Timothy J. Harmann
Town of Morrison
Brown County
Wisconsin

Click on the image below to watch a video at a link submitted to the PSC. Interview with a Blue Sky/Green Field resident

________

This from Poynette, Wisconsin:

 As a resident who will be living in the middle of the proposed Arlington area wind farm I would like to say this: Large scale industrial wind sites should be zoned as industrial use.

People in close proximity should be compensated under Wisconsin takings law, for the loss of value and degradation of their property. People and/or dwellings should be relocated.

These are industrial scale energy production zones. They are not compatible with human occupancy. These giant multi-million dollar projects should have a concentration of wind towers, not the widely scattered array as proposed in Arlington.

The investors should own the land, pay the local property taxes. Please guarantee the maintenance and future dismantling costs with an adequate escrow account, so that local governments are not saddled with run-down wind farms after their useful life and competitive cost/usefulness has expired.

The energy industry (coal, nuclear, oil, gas etc.) has surely demonstrated the usefulness of government regulation, control, and protection of American taxpayers. The legal strength and lobbying power of the energy industry and its ability to manipulate contracts, politicians and events in its own interest have been demonstrated in the Appalachians, the Rocky Mountains, and on our west coast and in the gulf.

This industry acts in its own interests without regard to American public lands, water and air. As an example, they have installed 30,000 miles of pipeline in the gulf seafloor. Many geologists and other scientists say this may not be prudent.

So, we citizens rely on our elected representatives, our Wisconsin and national lawmakers to apply the necessary counterweight to proposals like industrial wind production siting.

At our town hall meetings in Arlington it was obvious the industry had successfully managed to divide the community.

Absentee landowners, and large scale farms will benefit with tax breaks and secret contracts with the energy industry.

Why have my neighbors signed contracts with a wind investor that they are not allowed to discuss? Why the muzzling?A process that has been conceived in secrecy?

Decision makers on local town boards should not be in the position to personally benefit from a secret contract, a contract that will pad their pockets but one that has the potential to erode local property values and harm their neighbors.

If the property values go down, the tax rolls go down, and soon the deferred maintenance lists for our schools and town roads becomes longer and longer. Will the international investors know or care?

Lastly, I have heard personal testimony from people living in close proximity to wind turbines who say their health and well-being, or their livestock, and their property values, have been severely negatively impacted.

If the PSC does not get this right, there will probably be class action lawsuits, similar to the ones that followed the construction of the Columbia power plant near Portage.

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

Click on the image below to watch a video at a link submitted to the PSC. Interview with a Wisconsin wind project resident.

FROM MANITOWOC COUNTY:

 From Dean Anhalt
Supervisor
Town of Mishicot
Manitowoc County

I have been looking at wind turbine issues for 6 years. Please consider my comments.

We need to do epidemiological studies to find out what is negatively affecting people and animals in current Wisconsin wind farms before any new wind turbines are erected.

Setbacks need to be from property lines, not residences. Turbines should not be casting any unsafe zones over neighboring non-participating properties.

Wind rights need to be protected. Turbines should not be using winds over neighboring non participating lands. When others use winds over neighboring properties they gain control over the property through wind access rights and can control what is done on the neighboring non-participating property. This is a taking of property rights.

Setbacks to roadways need to be large enough that debris from a turbine malfunction will not land on roads. Past wind turbine accidents and mathematical calculations show a 1.1 times the turbine height setback to a road may not be adequate.

Electrical pollution from wind turbines cannot affect our farms.

Allowable noise levels should be set at an amount over ambient background noise. Ambient noise levels are quite low at night in rural areas. People need to be protected from offensive audible and low frequency noise.

Shadow flicker should not fall on neighboring non-participating lands.

Proper funds need to be set aside by wind farm owners to cover all costs of decommissioning. Local municipalities or land owners must not be stuck with removal costs at decommissioning time.

Towns need the ability to recover all costs to repair road damage during the building, operation ,and decommissioning of a wind farm.

Developers should have to give notice to counties of their intent to solicit lands to build a wind farm on before any landowners are contacted. These projects affect all people in their area. There is still too much happening behind the scenes and in secrecy. Local municipalities and all people should be made aware of projects in the very beginning.

In my area we have nuclear plants. I believe it is one of the best places for future nuclear power projects and expansions. Will a proposed wind farm in our area fill the local electrical grid not allowing room for future nuclear expansion without expensive grid updates? If so is this in the best interest of consumers looking for economical base load power.

Sincerely,
Dean Anhalt

 FROM BROWN COUNTY:

July 7, 2010
Sandra Paske
Secretary to the Commission
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
P.O. Box 7854
Madison, WI 53707
Via: ERF
RE: Docket No. 1-AC-231 Wind Siting Rules

Dear Ms. Paske:

I am filing these written comments as a supplement to the comments I made at the public hearing in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin that was held June 28, 2010.

I am a resident of Brown County and have been approached to lease property for the construction of wind turbines, which has caused me to look into the effects of wind turbines on people and property.

With regard to the rules of the siting of wind turbines, I have three principle areas of concern:

• Health and Safety of people who live and work near wind turbines
• Property values in the area of wind factories
• Placing wind turbine factories in areas with sensitive geological features

I. Health and Safety

With regard to health and safety of the people who would live or work within the area of a wind turbine factory, I would first bring to your attention the recommendation of the Brown County Board of Health.

A copy of that recommendation is attached.

I would refer the Public Service Commission to the following reports which were made a part of the record during my comments at the Fond du Lac hearing:

1. World Health Organization “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe”
2. World Health Organization Final Implementation Report for Night Noise Guidelines
3. Report compiled by Dr. Keith Stelling – October, 2009
4. Health Survey Report for the Ontario, Canada Government
5. Dr. Nina Pierpont – March, 2006
6. Vestas Wind Systems of Denmark – Mechanical Operating and Maintenance Manual

Based on the above scientific expert analysis of wind turbine factory noise outputs, I would ask the PSC. to impose setbacks of at least one mile from an adjoining property owner’s property line and to set anaudible noise level of 30 dB at an occupied structure.

II. Property Values

Regarding property values, Appraisal Group One of Oshkosh, Wisconsin studied the sales of property within two wind factories in Wisconsin: Blue Sky Green Field in Fond du Lac County and Forward in Fond du Lac and Dodge County. The Report included a literature review, an opinion Survey and a Sales Study The conclusions from the Sales Study were that “the impact of wind turbines decreased the land values from -12% to -47% with the average being -30%.”

The Wind Energy companies normally rely on a study from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to show no or little effect on property values. This Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study has been debunked in several articles. The statistical methodology used (Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis) by LBL is not appropriate for this type of study.

The authors failed to follow any of the well-developed and tested standards for performing regression analysis on property sales.

This is a significant problem because out of the 7,500 sales in the study, less than 10% had ANY view of turbines, and only 2.1% had a view rated greater than minor. That is 158 homes out of 7,500 nationwide.

Because of the dramatic effect that wind turbines have on adjoining property owners and their land value, the Public Service Commission should establish setback standards from property lines, not occupied structures. By establishing setbacks for wind turbines related to existing homes or other occupied structures, the Public Service Commission will be depriving property owners of the use of their property should the property owners wish to construct a residence or occupied structure within the setback area that encroaches upon adjoining property.

The State – or local government - may ultimately be financially responsible to adjoining landowners who have lost the right to the use and enjoyment of their property.

The legal doctrine of inverse condemnation is recognized in Wisconsin.

The case of Piper vs. Ekern 180 Wis. 586 (1923) recognizes that a State regulation meant for the public good, but which reduces property value, may be a “taking” even though no formal condemnation has been initiated.

In that case, the State was required to compensate the property owner who suffered economic harm as a result of the State regulation. (Related to the height of buildings near the State Capital). Also the case of Zimm vs. State 112 Wis. (2d) 417 (1983) stated that the State was responsible to the land owner for property lost when the DNR raised the water level of a lake and the property became accessible to the public.

In order to protect adjoining property owners and to preserve the rights of property owners to the use of their property, the Public Service Commission should establish setbacks for wind turbines of one mile from property lines.

III. Placing Wind Turbine Factories in Areas With Sensitive Geological Features

My residence is located on the Niagra Escarpment. My water needs are supplied by a private well. Because of that, I am very concerned about the possible effects of ground water contamination from the construction of the foundations for Wind Turbines and the trenching for the necessary cabling to connect the turbines to the electrical grid.

The Niagra Escarpment is a unique geological feature in Northeast Wisconsin. The rock that forms the escarpment has many fractures and in certain areas the bedrock is exposed or very near the surface. The term for that condition is Karst fractures.

It is very important that the Public Service Commission not allow wind farms to be built along the Niagra Escarpment where Karst fractures exist to prevent contamination of the ground water supply in these particularly sensitive areas.

In conclusion, I would urge the State of Wisconsin to fully study the issues that have recently been coming to light. Europe has had wind turbines for decades and is only within the recent past begun to become aware of the negative side effects of wind turbines. There are many other issues that need to be addressed, including the effect of wind turbines on domesticated and wild animals, as well as interference
with communications and television and radio reception.

Do not allow additional residents of Wisconsin to be guinea pigs to be studied after the fact. Let’s fully understand the consequences of locating Wind Turbine Factories in areas where people live and work before the wind turbines are installed.

If wind turbines are to be located in Wisconsin before we study and understand their effects, the setback should be one mile from adjoining property owners’ property line and an audible noise level of 30 dB at an occupied structure.

Very truly yours,
Carl W. Kuehne

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS LETTER AND THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FROM THE BROWN COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH OUTLINING THEIR CONCERNS

 FROM THE WISCONSIN TOWNS ASSOCIATION:

Wisconsin Towns Association
Richard J. Stadelman, Executive Director
W7686 County Road MMM
Shawano, Wis. 54166
Tel. (715) 526-3157
Fax (715) 524-3917
Email: wtowns1@frontiernet.net

To: Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
From: Richard J. Stadelman, Executive Director
Wisconsin Towns Association
Re: Comments on Wind Facility Siting Rules, Docket 1-AC-231
Date: July 7, 2010

On behalf of the board of directors and member towns and villages of Wisconsin Towns Association I submit the following comments on the draft proposed rule for Wind Energy System Siting Rules, Docket 1-AC-231.

Wisconsin Towns Association would ask that the Public Service Commission`s (PSC) final decision in developing and adopting rules as authorized under 2009 Wis. Act 40 should be governed by two overriding principles: (i) protection of public health and safety and (ii) protection of community interests, including protection of private property rights.

In view of the fact that Act 40 provides that local governments may not place any restrictions on installation or use of wind energy systems that are more restrictive than these PSC rules, it is imperative that the rules ensure these two protections.

Many town officers and town residents have expressed concern that there is not sufficient reliable health studies of people living in or near existing wind energy systems.

It is evident from some of the studies that do exist, certain individuals are more sensitive to the impacts of wind turbines, such as noise and shadow flicker effect.

Therefore, we respectfully ask the PSC to make your decisions on the side of caution in setting standards until more extensive health studies have been completed in our state and across the nation.

The following specific topics in the draft rule are of particular concern to our Association members:

1. Setbacks and noise standards should be sufficient to protect public health and safety of neighboring residents, particularly non-participating property owners.

a. Noise standards should have both a setback distance and a decibel limit. We would ask that decibel limits be not more than 35 dBA or 40 dBA from non-participating property lines.

b. These setbacks and noise standards should be applied from the property line of non-participating property owner. Applying setbacks and noise standards from the wind turbine to existing non-participating residential structures (as opposed to property line) is a taking of private property rights from these residents (i.e. the distance between their existing structure and their property line which could have been built on).

2. While Sec. 128.02 (2) of the draft rules provides that "Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the commission from giving individual consideration to exceptional or unusual situations and applying requirements to an individual wind energy system that may be lesser, greater, or different from those provided in this chapter," the draft rules as a whole do not give adequate recognition to local comprehensive plans of towns and counties. We believe recognition should be given to local comprehensive plans which allows flexibility in setting standards for certain conditions.

a. The question can be raised, "how would this subsection be applied by a local government in relation to unique natural, cultural archeological, scenic, or environmental resources as identified in local comprehensive plans?"

b. Would the town or county have to appeal to the PSC that in the case of such unique resources greater setback standards or other restrictions should be applied? Or would the local government merely adopt greater standards and then wait for an appeal by an applicant to determine if they are appropriate?

c. Recognition should be given to the local comprehensive plans for future conflicting development, such as residential development.

d. Recognition should be given to local comprehensive plans for future developments such as community buildings, parks, airports, etc.

3. The PSC rules should address the issue of "property value protection" for non-participating neighbors.

a. Act 40 has preempted local governments from setting restrictions in local regulations that would protect both community interests and neighboring properties by establishing maximum setbacks, noise standard, etc. Property values of neighboring properties (both adjoining and in the area) to wind turbines will be affected by the public perception of impacts from these facilities.

b. Without a fair and reasonable "property value protection" plan the permitting by local government (under the PSC rules and standards) of wind turbine facilities, local governments will be subject to possible inverse condemnation claims or "taking" of private property rights of these neighboring properties.

4. The PSC rules should include a "complaint resolution process" which is administered by the local government, including specific details as to subjects of complaints, timelines for resolution, and appeal rights.

a. Without a detailed process established in the rule, possible complaints will result in the threat of more actual civil litigation against the local government as the permitting agency.

b. The complaint resolution process should be funded by the wind turbine facility owner. The costs of administration of this process includes such things as the per diems of board members, consultation with experts in certain cases, etc. The costs of such a process should not be bore by the community as a whole.

5. The PSC rules should allow local governments to establish fees to cover actual and necessary costs of administration of the permit system, or in the alternative establish a fixed maximum dollar fee adequate to cover local government costs.

a. Wis. Statues §66.0628 currently provides that "any fee that is imposed by a political subdivision shall bear a reasonable relationship to the service for which the fee is imposed." This statutory standard should be used to allow local governments to recover the costs of administering wind turbine facility siting, just as in other permitting cases.

b. The fee structure proposed under Sec. 128.32 (5)(d) of the draft rules, based upon a percentage of estimated cost will be very difficult for local governments to apply. As an alternative to "actual and reasonable costs" we believe that a predetermined amount per turbine would be more appropriate and predictable for all parties.

c. Allowing local governments to recover adequate fees for the administration of the permitting of wind turbine facilities will allow the local officials to retain competent professional advisers, which will in the long run facilitate the siting of these facilities and reduce conflict during the process.

6. The PSC rules should provide clear and certain enforcement authority for local governments to ensure that siting and operation standards are being met by permitted facilities.

a. Local governments will be expected to ensure that the actual construction and operation of the wind turbine facilities are meeting the established standards of the local ordinances as restricted by the PSC rules.

b. Clear and certain enforcement authority, such as notice to facility operators, citation authority for non-compliance, and possible court injunctive relief should be spelled out in the PSC rules, so there can be no doubt that compliance of the standards is met. This type of enforcement is normal in any permitting or regulatory process and should be included in these rules.

7. The PSC rules should include decommissioning requirements backed by sufficient bonds.

a. Restoration of the site to conditions prior to initial construction of the wind turbine facility should be required under the rules.

b. Adequate financial security to ensure that these requirements are met should be authorized in the rules, to protect the local communities at the end of the useful life of wind turbines.

We thank the members of the wind siting council for their diligent work to date, and ask that the Public Service Commissioners and staff keep protection of public health and safety and protection of community interests as overriding goals in adopting these rules.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

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

FROM FOND DU LAC COUNTY:

Two general comments: 1) The standards do not provide guidelines for siting wind towers in relation to lands or habitats with bird or bat species which are particularly susceptible to wind tower mortality or where exceptional abundance of these species is present, adjacent to public wildlife areas or parks, or locations in heavily used bird migratory routes; 2) the guidelines do not provide guidelines for siting wind energy systems to minimize visual impacts to rural landscapes or scenic areas such as the Niagara Escarpment, river bluffs and riverways. Standards should be developed to site projects in more concentrated design rather than spreading wind towers out over large landscape areas. Guidelines should require minimizing landscape impact to maintain Wisconsin's rural character. Projects must be required to have sufficient setback from areas such as the Horicon Marsh, Mississippi River or Wisconsin River Riverway to not visually intrude on the wild nature of these areas. Specific Comments: Page 6, line 6-9: require to consult with DNR and incorporate in the design; wildlife concerns other than just threatened and endangered species including bats and birds shall be incorporated in project design. Page 8, line10: Property owner should have at least 5 working days to rescind and executed wind lease Page 10, Table 1: Setback distance from Occupied Community Buildings must be at least 2500 feet; setback distance from non-participating residences must be at least 2500 feet unless the owner waives that requirement in writing; setback distance from non-participating property lines shall be adequate to not restrict future use of the non-participating property owners land unless owner waives that requirement; setback from wetlands, lakes and waterways shall be sufficient to minimize visual, wildlife and property rights of non-participating owners of those lands and the waterways Page 11, line 22: The siting guidelines must have setback requirements for private airports to minimize impacts to a non-participating landowner Page 12, line 1-3: I disagree with this guideline. A wind energy developer should not be allowed to site a wind energy system that would restrict or prevent future land use in a political subdivision against the wishes of the local political subdivision. Page 12, line 18-19: A wind energy system shall operate the wind energy system in a manner that does not exceed 50dBA daytime or 35dBA nighttime at any non-participating residence or occupied community building unless the owner of that residence or building waives that requirement. Page 12, line 23: noise limit shall be 35dBA Page 13, line 3: delete April 1 to September 30. Noise is likely to be a greater problem in cold weather and after leaf fall when sound travels further Page 13, line 12: curtailment of a wind turbine during nighttime hours shall be used Page 14, line 9: manner that prevents shadow flicker Page 14, line 14: a non-participating residence shall experience no shadow flicker unless the owner waives that requirement Page 14, line 16: delete mitigation requirement--line 14 should require no shadow flicker at non-participating I generally agree with other standards in the proposed guidelines. I am very concerned that the weighting of committee membership in favor of the wind energy industry will result in approval of standards that do not protect the non-participating landowner or the Wisconsin landscape. It is the responsibility of the Public Service Commission to protect all citizens and landowners, not just the financial interests of the wind energy developers. The creation and strict application and enforcement of the siting standards is critically important to the character of the Wisconsin landscape. To meet the renewable energy standards established by the legislature an estimated 12,000 to 14,000 turbines will be required. This will desecrate the rural nature of our state, and will not meet but a small fraction of the energy needs of Wisconsin. After we have destroyed the visual beauty and peacefulness of the Wisconsin landscape we will still be building coal-fired or nuclear powered electric generation facilities to meet our energy needs. The emphasis should be placed on reduction of electrical use through efficiency and conservation. Taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize wind energy. Let the true cost be known through rate increases that consumers will then be aware of the impact of their lifestyle. I don't believe for a second that wind energy is the solution to our future energy needs. It is for certain that it will destroy the beauty of the Wisconsin landscape if the energy industry is allowed to run roughshod over the rights of those who don't have turbines on their property. I am very aware of the pro-wind efforts to discredit those experiencing health effects, property value decline and other impacts of wind energy. It is your responsibility to objectively evaluate the information available and create standards that are protective to all persons rights. I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. James and Cheryl Congdon

Click on the image above to hear a sworn statement regarding turbine related impacts to human health. Dr. Herb Coussin's June 30, 2010 testimony to the Public Service Commision, June 30, 2010

TRANSCRIPT

EXAMINER NEWMARK: All right. Let me  swear you in.

 HERB COUSSONS, PUBLIC WITNESS, DULY SWORN

EXAMINER NEWMARK: Have a seat. Just state your name and spell your last name for us.

DR. COUSSONS: It's Herb Coussons, C-O-U-S-S-O-N-S.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: I'm going to start  the timer. Go ahead.

DIRECT TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT

DR. COUSSONS: I'm Herb Coussons, M.D. I'm a physician. I live in the town of  Wrightstown in Brown County and I have been  practicing in Green Bay for eight years, in private practice for 15 years, women's health and  primary care, mainly.

 I also have an interest -- a special interest in spatial disorientation because I'm an aerobatic and commercial pilot.

I've studied the literature and listened to the testimony of both affected and non-affected  residents of the wind turbine projects, and I'm  concerned that any setbacks of less than half a  mile will have adverse consequences on the people  that live near them, primarily because of noise --with noises in those shorter setback ranges over 45 and approaching 55 decibels.

I believe that based on currentliterature and testimony of others that any levels  above 40 decibels will cause chronic sleep disturbance in up to 50 percent of the people that live close to them.

By increasing the setback, noise deteriorates over distance, and this would alleviate some of these problems.

 I've heard Dr. McFadden speak from the Wind Siting Council, and I agree that there is no causal evidence now to directly link turbines to  health problems, but I do know that noise such as that measured as audible and dBC will disturb sleep.

And exhaustive literature support shows that extensive disturbed sleep does have an adverse impact on health, primarily in the areas of hypertension, cardiac disease, weight gain, diabetes, lowered immunity, increased problems with falling asleep, accident rates, and maybe  even poor school performance.

 I'm afraid that so far what I've read from the PSC, the Siting Council, and the legislature has been willing to proceed without finding out if there is truly a causal relationship and, if so, what can be done about it.

Sample studies such as home sleep studies, like those done for sleep apnea patients, can provide some direct evidence of people living in wind turbine areas currently. Evaluations such as lab and sleep data on both wind and control patient -- patients that suffer from wind problems as well as those who live outside of turbine areas can also provide much needed information.

Otherwise we're doomed to repeat the same experiment as other wind projects in Wisconsin, around the United States, and the world.

I'm also concerned that by stating that there is no proof of adverse health consequences, as Dr. McFadden has in his presentation, that we give the media, the less informed in the wind industry, license to lie about safety.

In the Brown County Board of Health meeting, Invenergy, a wind developer in the state, stated that due to studies in Wisconsin, wind was safe and beneficial. When paired with Dr. McFadden's conclusions, there seems to be no argument against the industrial wind turbines. But there are no good trials that support their relationship and, if so, what can be done about it.

  In the Brown County Board of Health  meeting, Invenergy, a wind developer in the state, stated that due to studies in Wisconsin, wind was safe and beneficial.

When paired with Dr. McFadden's conclusions, there seems to be no argument against the industrial wind turbines. But there are no good trials that support their statement or the safety of industrial wind turbines.

 It is equally wrong to claim safety  based on the literature. It was misleading and there is more case report data showing deleterious effects than beneficial case reports.

In the drug industry, the manufacturers of drugs are required to provide safety information at their own expense prior to  releasing drugs in the market. The FDA and governmental oversight regulates this, and I think that the same model could be used with the wind industry as well, as the expense to have some of these studies may be overwhelming for our governmental agencies.

Not only do the health issues concern  me, but the economics of wind energy do not make  sense. In Europe, Canada, and now the U.S., government subsidies and increased power rates are the only way to make it a viable industry.  Reports from Europe continue to caution  the U.S. to not go down the road of heavily subsidized alternative energy pathways.

I may disagree with that and I may believe that subsidies are an acceptable cost, but human health is not an acceptable cost.

The effect on adjoining property rights and values is also disturbing. I own 40 acres in Brown County and live there. My sister and brother-in-law put a house on the market in southern Brown County and had an accepted offer on the house pending the sale of another home. As  soon as the groundswell of words about the wind  industry came, they withdraw their offer, and in the past six months, they've had no lookers.

In conclusion, the wind industry itself in the Beech Ridge project said that setbacks up to a mile would mitigate complaints from sound and shadow flicker. The World Health Organization said sound sleep -- on sound sleep and health stress that a plausible biologic model is available with sufficient evidence for the elements of a causal chain. Thank you.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: Judge, I want to ask a few questions. I don't usually do that.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: We haven't been doing  that yet.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: Okay. Then never mind.

DR. COUSSONS: It's fine with me.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: I have been asking a few questions of witnesses, so I can allow that
 for now.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: I just have a question with regards to epidemiological studies, which is what I've been hearing a lot about thus far, and the fact that there's a lack of evidence in epidemiological studies.

DR. COUSSONS: Right.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: If you could describe sort of how -- how do I even ask this question? I would imagine there needs to be a lot of folks that are affected for something to essentially hit on the radar with regards to an epidemiological study.

DR. COUSSONS: Possibly, but not necessarily. I mean -- and you know, it depends on, well, if you have a thousand people in our community, and if I use that for an example -- or I'm not sure how many live in the Fond du Lac area, but that development down there. But if you3 have a thousand people and in self-reported comments or publications or surveys or things like that, if 15 or 35 or 45 percent are self-reported that's still not an epidemiologic, you know, study as far as a cause-and-effect type of thing.
But it's almost impossible to design that kind of study, because how can you sort of blind someone that they're living in this noise environment? You know, it's very impossible. And so from a medical standpoint, you know, after talking with Dr. McFadden, I feel like self-reported is all that we have to go on.

But if we do self-reported and try to get some objective data, like home sleep studies in their natural surrounding about people that do report problems, do the same types of studies on people in the area that don't report problems, and then  back up a mile, a quarter -- you know, a half a mile, five miles and do the same studies, you can show some kind of link to noise and sleep disturbance.

 It would take 20 years to show cardiac effect, you know, or hypertension or weight gain or diabetes, and we don't have time for that. We  don't have the time or the money or resources to do it.

 But I think a short-term study based on distance, some objective data with some self-reported data would be -- I think it would be very telling on adding some validity to some of these people's concerns. And maybe even small numbers. Maybe 20 or 40 people in each group.

COMMISSIONER AZAR: Great. Thanks.

EXAMINER NEWMARK: All right. Thank you very much.

DR. COUSSONS: Thank you.

WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING TOMORROW

Wednesday, June 9, 2010, at starting at 9AM

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 9:00. 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 2, 2010

3) Presentations: Property Values

a. Kurt Kielisch, Appraisal Group One
b. Eric Corroy, Zoning Administrator, Red River Township
c. Joe Jerabek, Zoning Administrator & Assessor, Lincoln Township (invited)
d. Representative, Action Appraisers (invited)

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

a. Statutory interpretation
b. Enforcement
c. Commission rulemaking authority
d. Notice requirements
e. Emergency services
f. Vestas manual reference
g. Decommissioning
h. Stray voltage
i. Complaint resolution
j. Commission noise measurement protocol
5) Discuss Council’s recommendations on topics covered by the draft rules
6) Next steps/Discussion of next meeting’s time, place and agenda

7) 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.

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

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

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

CLICK HERE to get a copy of the draft siting rules approved by the commissioners on May 14th, and to find out more about the Wind Siting Council

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

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

WHAT'S ON THE DOCKET?

This from a resident of Brown County

I do completely agree with the realtors on the counsel that the developers need to be licensed and there needs to be a "truth in wind development" requirement.

We agreed to run a buried cable, not a turbine. It was never disclosed that by signing a cable easement we were also allowing a turbine to be placed right up to our property line, and that a turbine could be placed 500 feet from our home.

We would have never agreed to this if it was truthfully disclosed.

-- Curt Hilgenberg, Greenleaf Wisconsin

Dear PSC Commissioners and Wind Siting Counsel members;

I`d like to share my experience with a wind developer in hopes of helping future land owners.

My wife and I looked into small wind turbines for several years, but could never cost justify buying one. The payback period was always longer that the life expectancy of the turbines. When I read about a proposed wind project in my area, I called the developer to find out about hosting a turbine on our land. I though, this is great, I can do my part for renewable energy.

When we learned about the size of the turbines, we realized that there was no where on our 35 acres where I could host a turbine and not impact my neighbors, so we decided against it. We also were worried about how a 400 foot turbine would negatively affect property values and the ability to sell our home if needed.

After over a year of hearing almost nothing about the project we got a call about running a buried collector cable through our land. We again decided against it. After several more phone calls, we reluctantly agreed to sign a buried cable easement.

We were given the pitch that they are going to be built with or without our participation so we may as well benefit financially from it. We were promised that the cable would be run along the lot line where it would have minimal impact.

Again we did this to help the project and to do our part for renewable energy.

After another year hearing nothing from the developer (we did attend the only public information session hosted by the developer but were told everything is still being designed yet, they have don`t have any details) we learned what the plan was for our property.

We found out about it on the PSC application, the developer never discussed anything with us. The plan was to run a high voltage cable through our front yard between our house and barn which are about 100 feet apart. This high voltage line was going to run right through our electric supply line, our well water line and our septic system.

It was going to cross 3 fence lines, take a right turn in the middle of our horse pasture and then cross another fence line. Hardly the low impact we were promised.

The really baffling part of this is that there was an alternate path between the 2 turbines they are trying to connect that was almost a straight line on vacant land. This path was not through our property, but was through other properties already under easement. Instead the developer chose a path that was about twice as long and had much more negative impact.

Once you sign an easement agreement, the developer holds all the cards.

They can legally place turbines, collector lines, and access roads anywhere on the property under easement.

I would like to see the process changed to require landowner approval after the land usage is determined. The contract agreement should be a separate event from the easement filing with the county.

If the developer`s plan is materially different from what was discussed and promised, the easement could not be filed and the contract would be voided. This would ensure that the developer would keep their promises and keep the land owner involved in any changes, or the land owner could opt out.

In our case, the developer did not do what was promised. They have since verbally said they would move the line, but we have seen no evidence of it.

We have become so disgusted at the misstatements, omissions, and lack of communication that we no longer want to be part of the project. We returned our un-cashed easement check (we were waiting to cash it until we saw that the plan for our land was acceptable and as discussed) to the developer and asked to be released from the contract and easement.

They simply said no.

We hired an attorney to work out a release. They again said no and reminded us of that our contract had a confidentiality clause.

I`m not implying that all wind developers will look you in the eye and lie to you. I`m sure that some work with the landowners for the benefit of both parties. These reputable developers should not have an issue with a 2 step easement because they are treating the land owner as a partner.

I do completely agree with the realtors on the counsel that the developers need to be licensed and there needs to be a "truth in wind development" requirement. We agreed to run a buried cable, not a turbine.

It was never disclosed that by signing a cable easement we were also allowing a turbine to be placed right up to our property line, and that a turbine could be placed 500 feet from our home. We would have never agreed to this if it was truthfully disclosed. This is plain and simply WRONG!

A developer has an unfair advantage. They work with these contracts on a regular basis. The land owner, probably only once in a lifetime.

The process is broken. It needs to be fixed and regulated.

 Curt Hilgenberg

Greenleaf, Wisconsin.

This from Kevin Kawula, a prairie conservationist from Rock County, Wisconsin

To the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Commission Staff, and Wind Siting Council Members,

I ask that no CPCN be granted by the PSCW for any Industrial Wind Facility, or Industrial Wind Project, until health and safety standards for people and wildlife can be established by the Wind Siting Council, and a more responsible, ethical, and equitable joint development model can be created for a state natural resource, the wind.

The Commission`s draft safety setback of 1,250 feet, from a non-participating residence, and a nighttime noise level of 45 Dba, are insufficient to protect Wisconsin citizens` health. These setbacks put rural Wisconsin citizens at risk from unsafe industrial wind development.

Wind developers are in Wisconsin to do business, and make money. They are offering the minimum in cooperation, compassion, and compensation, and are expecting the greatest of windfalls. The electric utilities by law are guaranteed a profit.

The question is how much are the utilities allowed to profit over a community's health and safety from a "free" resource. A "greater benefit" to society, the state, is often the justification. The wind developers hope it is so. It is the PSCW`s responsibility to prove the case for such a takings from the commons.

I, as a tax-paying citizen, am asking the PSCW, as an appointed government body, to tell wind developers and the utilities, that Wisconsin and its citizens deserve better. Better safety setbacks, better operating parameters, and better cost and profit sharing for the exploitation of a state natural resource.

It is alarming that the PSCW would consider and approve a CPCN for WEPCO`s Glacier Hills with the same inadequate safety setbacks, before it has established the rules for siting wind facilities in Wisconsin through the Wind Siting Council, as required by the recently passed Wind Siting Reform Law.

There are known and admitted problems with industrial scale wind turbines. Nighttime noise and sleep deprivation are the prime concerns for Wisconsin`s rural residents.

The need for nighttime industrial wind generation profits, over a citizens right to healthful sleep, needs to be addressed by the PSCW prior to granting of any CPCN any industrial wind facility.

Bat deaths and wildlife displacement also need to be addressed responsibly.

Wind developers and utilities are trying to side-step the very real health concerns (Dr. McFadden`s `partial overview` presentation to the Wind Siting Council fits in here!), community, and environmental impacts of industrial wind facilities by dazzling the Wind Siting Council, Commission, and citizenry with RPS claims, shared revenue numbers, and promised jobs.

RPS CLAIMS

Wind developers and utilities can assure the PSCW of an industrial wind facility`s RPS qualifications when it resolves to close down an appropriate coal burning facility.

The PSCW can determine the value of an industrial wind facility either through the CPCN permit (x amount MW coal facility), the installed nameplate capacity of an industrial wind facility (1-200 MW, as proposed, of coal generation), or actual industrial wind facility generation.

(The Governor`s Task Force on Global Warming is hoping that Wisconsin wind facilities will achieve 29% of their nameplate capacity, but numbers in Wisconsin wind facilities are currently lower at 25% of nameplate capacity) This would help the PSCW achieve true RPS goals of reduced fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

If the inclusion of industrial wind nameplate capacity is allowed by the PSCW factoring towards achieving Wisconsin`s utilities RPS goals without tying that industrial wind nameplate to the equivalent reduction of coal generation, then the RPS is hollow and without value.

All understand the intermittency of industrial wind generation. All understand the responsibilities of base load generation towards the dependability of a transmission/distribution electrical grid.

If industrial wind facilities do not reduce the need for nighttime base load generation, due to their intermittency or lack of need for additional generation, then are industrial wind facilities reducing CO2 emissions?

The answer is no.

If the economic benefits of nighttime generation are necessary to the wind industry, despite the lack of emission reductions, then why is the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPS) so intent on building additional transmission lines up to Manitoba Hydro reservoirs north of Winnipeg Canada?

According to Roy Thilly (WPPI), the Co-Chairperson of The Governor`s Task Force on Global Warming, transmission lines built up to Manitoba Hydro reservoirs would allow WPS to store the nighttime wind generation it currently has to sell at a loss to get it on the grid at night.

Manitoba Hydro would charge for this service, but it would prevent WPS from having to sell nighttime wind generation at a loss.

SHARED REVENUES?

Lets look at some of the revenue numbers surrounding the WEPCO, Glacier Hills Wind Facility.

WEPCO plans to construct 90 1.8MW wind turbines for an installed capacity of 162MW of renewable energy, Columbia County would receive $378,000 per year, the Town of Scott $108,000, and the Town of Randolph $180,000, for a total of $666,000 per year, or $4,111 per MW of installed nameplate capacity.

Not bad? What is the source of these shared revenues? WEPCO income, profits, or a rate tax mechanism?

How much profit does WEPCO hope to make? A bunch.

In July 2009, the U.S. Treasury Department began to accept applications for renewable energy projects cash grants of up to 30% in lieu of Investment Tax Credits (ITCs).

Regardless of the price tag WEPCO is certain to write off the cost of the project against its earnings over the next 5 to 6 years. So the cost, $335 million to $413 million, is shouldered by the taxpayers.

Up to 30% up front, the remainder through annual depreciation written off against WEPCO Glacier Hill earnings, and any depreciation balance transferable to other WEPCO earnings.

WEPCO potential earnings at Glacier Hills can be calculated as follows: Each 1.8MW wind turbine, generating at 29% efficiency, and selling the generation at 7 cents a kilowatt hour (kwh), would earn WEPCO $365,400 per turbine per year.

Green tags/Green credits, sold at 2 cents a kwh, would generate an additional $104,400 per turbine per year. There is also the Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC), at 2 cents per kwh that would also be worth $104,400 per turbine per year in additional write offs.

The 90 turbines of Glacier Hills together could earn $42,282,000 per year, with a PTC worth $9,396,000.

So to recap WEPCO through Glacier Hills could see $42,282,000 in gross income per year, while Columbia County, and the Towns of Randolph and Scott could see $666,000 per year. Fair? Just? Equitable?

How much will the State of Wisconsin generate in tax revenues from Glacier Hills?

Another case study of industrial wind facility shared revenues can be found with MG&E and Wave Wind LLC. Wave Wind LLC was recently in the papers seeking 8 cents per kwh for it`s proposed industrial wind project`s generation, but MG&E was only offering 2.9 cents per kwh, due to having met it`s RPS requirements.

If Wave Wind LLC were to get 8 cents per kwh along with green credits at 2 cents per kwh, that means a 1.5 MW wind turbine operating at 29% efficiency would generate $435,000, $375,000 at 25% efficiency, while the county would receive $4,000 and township $2,000.

JOBS

We as a state or nation can subsidize any industry we choose. For an industry to try to hold a community, state, or country hostage over the promise of `JOBS` is ridiculous in this day and age. We see it all the time however, as community`s vie for the worse business deal to lure a temporary industry. Choose any green industry and the `Jobs` argument fades quickly.


CONCLUSION:

STATE NATURAL RESOURCE ALLOCATION REQUIREMENT FOR CPCN

Since we, Wisconsin citizens, are paying for these industrial wind projects, and that profits made from our shared natural resources must be distributed equitably, wind project developers need to be more open and generous with its profit sharing potential of our shared natural resources.

The PSCW needs to provide improved oversight so that the industrial wind industry`s business drive does not jeopardize any Wisconsin citizens` quality of life.

Wind proponents like to stress that the wind is "free". Utilities, like WEPCO, MG&E, etc. stand to profit exorbitantly from a "free" Wisconsin natural resource ($42,282,000 with Glacier Hills at 29% efficiency, $36,450,000 at 25% efficiency vs. $666,000 for Columbia County and the towns of Randolph and Scott regardless of generation efficiency) if our appointed government bodies, like the PSCW, do not allocate the natural resource, and its benefits, more equitably.

The primary PSCW CPCN reallocation requirement, for any industrial scale wind project, is the nighttime curtailment of industrial scale wind turbine operations, when the demand for electrical generation is low and covered by base load operations, and human health and safety impacts are high.

Nighttime curtailment will also eliminate unnecessary bat, and nocturnal migrating bird mortalities.

Industrial scale wind developers, in the Glacier Hills case WEPCO, often make payments in lieu of taxes, to communities and governments. Nighttime curtailment, as a CPCN required reallocation of a state natural resource, is an improvement on this model, and would benefit the hosting communities by removing an unnecessary health impact at no expense to WEPCO.

If the wind is truly free then the PSCW should not hold Wisconsin communities, homes, and citizens accountable for profit forecasts made to WEPCO shareholders for a natural resource they do not own.

This is much more equitable than a response to non-hosting residents found in a partial review of the PSCW`s EIS on Glacier Hills states in, Property Values, 5.10.2, p.85, "Another method that could mitigate potential impacts to non-host residences is a property value protection plan.

This type of a plan provides property owners with certain assurance that they will receive "fair market value" for their eligible properties upon sale. Since 1997, this type of agreement has been implemented between the Onyx Glacier Ridge Landfill and the town of Williamstown, city of Mayville, and Dodge County. Fair market value is determined by a state-licensed appraiser. The plan identifies the properties covered by the agreement, the party responsible for paying for the property appraisals, and the method for compensating affected property owners."

The fact that the PSCW uses landfill mitigation as a way of addressing wind project impacts, should raise concerns with every rural land owner, and state politician.

Wind Turbine Projects = Sanitary Landfills ...as far as home and property values are concerned.

The PSCW can correct these errors. Wisconsin deserves responsible policy makers who care about all of Wisconsin`s citizens, not just those who are paid to shape public policy, and create short sighted legislation.

Respectfully submitted,

Kevin A. Kawula, 

WE Energies Blue Sky/ Green Field project in Fond du Lac County, WIsconsin

PSC Docket Number 1-AC-231

Announced March 16, 2010
 
WIND SITING COUNCIL

Tom Green, Wind developer, Wind Capitol Group, Dane County

Bill Rakocy, Wind developer, Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, LLC, Wind developer, Dane County

Doug Zweizig,  P&Z Commissioner, Union Township, Rock County

Lloyd Lueschow, Green County Board Supervisor, District 28, Green County,
 
Andy Hesselbach, Wind project manager, We Energies, Dane County
 
Dan Ebert, Vice President of Policy and External Affairs, WPPI Energy, Dane County

Michael Vickerman , Executive Director, RENEW Wisconsin, Madison, Dane County
 
Ryan Schryver , Global Warming Specialist, Organizer, Advocate: Clean Wisconsin, Madison, Dane County

George Krause Jr. Real estate broker: Choice Residential LLC, Manitowoc County

Tom Meyer, Real Estate Agent, Restaino & Associates, Middleton, Dane County

Dwight Sattler Landowner, retired diary farmer, Malone, Fond du Lac County

Larry Wunsch, Landowner, fire-fighter, non-participating resident of Invenergy Forward Energy wind project, Fond du Lac County
 
David Gilles, attorney specializing in energy regulatory law, shareholder, Godfrey & Kahn Attorneys at Law, Madison, Dane County

Jennifer Heinzen, Wind Energy Technology Instructor, Lakeshore Technical College, Manitowoc County, and President of RENEW Wisconsin, Madison, Dane County
 
Jevon McFadden University of Wisconsin, School of Medicine & Public Health, Dane County

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Questions are being raised about the PSC's appointment of the President of RENEW Wisconsin as well the the Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin. For those wonder why RENEW has two top representatives on the siting council, why not contact the PSC and ask? We'd appreciate hearing any answers they give you. CLICK HERE TO CONTACT US

Also, we can't help noting that of the 15 members on the siting council, ten of them are from Dane County. There are 72 counties in the state of Wisconsin.

In the news:

TOUGH TASK AWAITS WIND SITING COUNCIL

SOURCE: www.jsonline.com

Thomas Content

March 17, 2010

The controversial decision about how close wind turbines should be placed from homes is now in the hands of the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council.

Homeowners who live near wind turbines built in some wind farms in Wisconsin have complained about the turbines and effects including shadow flicker and noise.

The council, appointed Tuesday by the state Public Service Commission, was set up as part of a law that passed last year to set up uniform wind siting standards for the state.

The legislation came in response to local ordinances that wind developers contended amounted to virtual outright bans on wind development. Some counties and local governments also enacted wind-development moratoriums. That stalled development of small wind farms across the state, with some developers saying they were looking to develop wind power projects outside the state.

Concerns from property owners led the Public Service Commission last fall to limit how far turbines could be located from properties in the Glacier Hills Wind Park to be built by We Energies.

More recently, concerns about living near turbines have led to nearly 200 public comments in concerning Chicago-based Invenergy’s proposal to build a big wind farm south of Green Bay in Brown County.

Two members of the council have ties to the PSC, including former chairman Dan Ebert, now with WPPI Energy, and David Gilles, former commission lawyer, now with Godfrey & Kahn. Other panel members hail from utilities, wind developers and local governments that have wrestled with development of local wind siting ordinances.

In a statement Tuesday, Eric Callisto, PSC chair, said, “Wind siting regulation is complex and sometimes controversial. I look forward to the Council’s input as we develop these rules for Wisconsin.”

SECOND FEATURE

Brown County wind farm could be slowed by new state rules

Source: Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

Scott Williams

March 17 2010

The developer of a proposed Brown County wind farm said today the project could be slowed by a move to establish new statewide standards for wind farms.

Kevin Parzyck, project manager for Invenergy LLC, said the company already is adjusting its plans to account for standards imposed by state regulators on another wind project — with wind turbine setbacks of 1,250 feet from surrounding properties rather than the 1,000 feet originally planned by Invenergy.

If a new state advisory group recommends statewide standards before Invenergy’s project is under way, Parzyck said, that could require more adjustments.

“We’re moving down some parallel paths here,” he said during a meeting with the Green Bay Press-Gazette editorial board.

The state Public Service Commission on Tuesday named a 15-member advisory group to consider whether Wisconsin should set uniform policies regarding the construction of wind farms.

Invenergy submitted a proposal last fall to build Brown County’s first major commercial wind farm in the towns of Morrison, Holland, Glenmore and Wrightstown.

Once the firm’s application is deemed complete — the adjustments are under way — state regulators will have six months to hold public hearings and render a decision.

WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS" What did the wind developer say to the 1000 people in a bad mood?

WARRING OVER WIND-

"With well over 1,000 people in attendance – and most of them in an unpleasant frame of mind – a public information session about the proposed Belwood Wind Farm project was held at the Lions Hall in Belwood on Tuesday, Mar 9."

NEW: Click on the button below to Follow Better Plan, Wisconsin on Twitter