BREAKING NEWS:

Town of Carlton passes moratorium

Residents of Kewaunee County’s Town of Carlton  filled the room at the zoning board hearing Monday night to show support for a moratorium on wind project development throughout the township. After the hearing the moratorium was passed by unanimous vote.

HOW MUCH OF WISCONSIN WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE WIND SITING COUNCIL GUIDELINES?

CLICK HERE to find out who is on the siting council

One of the issues the siting council will be addressing is shadow-flicker. Click on the image below to see what shadow flicker looks like in the dining room of a home in the Cedar Ridge project in Fond du lac County.

 The family in this home didn't know anything about wind turbine shadow flicker until the day it started hitting their home. They do have the option of pulling down all the blinds and turning on the lights in order to eat together at the dining room table during the day. They also get shadow flicker on moonlit nights.

This is a map of counties where wind developers have expressed interest in siting projects. If we've missed any CLICK HERE to contact us and let us know so we can update the map.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:  

The next Wind Siting Council meeting is Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 1:30 pm 

-Developing guiding principles- Developer/owner responsibility

Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

[Click here for map]

Rule deadline spooks wind farm neighbors

SECOND FEATURE: What's on the Wind Siting Council (WSC) docket today?

CLICK HERE to find out who is on the siting council

Public Comment from Town of Forest, St. Croix County, Wisconsin regarding Emerging Energies plan to site wind project there

  I LIVE IN THE TOWN OF FOREST IN ST CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN WHICH IS A PROPOSED SITE FOR A 100 MW WIND ENERGY PROJECT CONSISTING OF (40) 2.5 MW TURBINES MOUNTED ON 300 FT TOWERS.

THE DEVELOPER IS EMERGING ENERGIES INC BASED HERE IN WISCONSIN.

THERE WAS A TOWN BOARD MEETING IN FOREST ON MARCH 11, 2010 AT 7 PM WHICH HAD TWO OF THEIR REPRESENTATVES GIVING A POWER POINT PRESENTATION ON THE FINDINGS OF THE TWO YEAR WIND STUDY FOR THE AREA.

THE ATTENDEES AT THE MEETING WERE MAINLY LAND OWNERS THAT HAD EXPRESSED INTEREST IN HAVING TURBINES PLACED ON THEIR PROPERTY FOR PROFIT.

AS FAR AS I COULD TELL, I WAS THE ONLY RESIDENT THERE THAT DID NOT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THIS PROJECT.

I ASKED A FEW QUESTIONS ON SITE REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS SET BACKS FROM PRIVATE RESIDENCES FOR TURBINES, OVERHEAD OR UNDERGROUND FEEDER CABLES AND TRANSMISSION LINES AND THE PLACEMENT OF A SUBSTATION.

 I COULD TELL THAT MY QUESTIONS EVOKED SURPRISE FROM THE EMERGING ENERGIES PRESENTOR.

MY BACKGROUND IS IN THE ELECTRICAL UTILITY AND CONTRACTOR MARKETS AND I DO SELL PRODUCTS INTO WIND ENERGY PROJECTS.

I HAVE BEEN TO OVER A DOZEN WIND PROJECTS SITES IN TEXAS, WYOMING, OREGON AND OKLAHOMA. MOST OF THESE PROJECTS IN THOSE STATES ARE BEING DEVELOPED IN REMOTE AND VERY WIDE OPEN AREAS. UNLIKE WISCONSIN, WHERE THE AVERAGE FARM IS 40 TO 400 ACRES, RANCHES OUT IN THESE PLACES ARE MEASURED IN 640 ACRE SECTIONS AND ARE COMPRISED OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES.

THE PLACEMENT OF TURBINES USUALLY HAS NO EFFECT ON PRIVATE RESIDENCES BECAUSE OF THIER ISOLATED LOCATIONS.

THE PROJECT PROPOSED FOR THE TOWN OF FOREST WILL BE LOCATED IN AN AREA THAT HAS MUCH HIGHER POPULATION DENSITY AND MANY HOMES WILL BE AFFECTED.

I WAS NOT GIVEN A CLEAR ANSWER ON MY SETBACK QUESTION, I WAS TOLD THEY COULD PLACE A TOWER 1.1 TIMES IT'S HEIGHT FROM MY PROPERTY LINE OR 11OO FT FROM MY HOME....MAYBE 1200 FT. THIS IS WAY TOO CLOSE.

WE SHOULD NOT LEAVE HOMEOWNERS AT THE MERCY OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPERS. THE NOISE AND LOW FREQUENCY SOUNDS EMMITTED 24 HRS A DAY ARE HAZARDOUS TO HEALTH OVER EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME.

THE FLICKERING EFFECT FROM THE SUN CAN BE VERY ANNOYING. THE PEOPLE IN THE TOWN OF FOREST HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF LIVING TOO CLOSE TO THESE 300 FOOT TURBINES AND THEY NEED TO BE INFORMED.

A FEW OF US WILL BE STARTING A CITIZENS ACTION GROUP TO EDUCATE LOCAL RESIDENTS ON THESE ISSUES, AND TO STOP THE PROJECT IF THE DEVELOPER DOES NOT RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE RESIDENCES AND THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF PEOPLE LIVING AND WORKING IN AREA.

I AM NOT OPPOSED TO WIND ENERGY, BUT THERE MUST BE REGULATIONS TO ENSURE RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT. I ASK THAT YOUR COMMITTEE ESTABLISH A 4000 - 5000 FOOT SET BACK REGUATION FOR THESE TURBINES AWAY FROM PRIVATE RESIDENCES

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

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Bill Rakocy, partner and founding member of Emerging Energies is on the Wind Siting Council which will be setting rules for siting wind turbines in our state and like many others on the council, he has a direct financial interest in establishing short setbacks.

Emerging Energies is bringing the largest turbines ever sited in Wisconsin to the Brown County Town of Glenmore. They are fifty stories tall (500 feet) and made by German Company, Nordex

  More from the docket:

Wind projects affect the lives of home owners for 25 - 35 years.

Careful study needs to be done to insure there are no adverse health and safety affects from inadequate siting guidlines.

Since not everyone can attend 2 or 3 hearings per week, this study should not try to be rushed through in 3 months time.

I would also like to see more hearing held near the affected communities. Everyone deserves the opportunity to be heard.

Thank You.

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

Curt Hilgenberg, Town of Holland

Visit the docket by CLICKING HERE. The docket number to enter is 1-AC-231

ADDED MARCH 29, 2010

Prepared for Wind Siting Council for Informational Purposes March 29, 2010

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES PROCESS

(CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD)

DRAFT RULE OUTLINE:

(CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD)

PSC Chapter 128 Draft Compiled Rule Outline Prepared for Wind Siting Council

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FIRST STEP - STATEMENT OF SCOPE

• Commission staff prepares a draft Statement of Scope
• Commission reviews and approves the Statement of Scope
• Statement of Scope is published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register
• Waiting period

SECOND STEP - HEARING STEP

• Commission staff prepares draft rule
• Once draft is ready, staff prepares a Notice of Hearing and other information regarding the draft rule
• The Commission reviews and approves the draft rule and Notice
• The Notice of Hearing and Proposed Rule are published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register
• A hearing is held and comments taken

For the Wind Siting Rules, at least 2 hearings (one in Monroe County, and one outside
Dane and Monroe Counties, but where developers have proposed wind energy systems)

THIRD STEP - LEGISLATIVE STEP

• Commission staff redrafts rule based on comments
• Commission staff prepares a Report to the Legislature
• The Commission reviews and approves the Final Rules and the Report to the Legislature
• The Rule and the Report to the Legislature are sent to both the Assembly and the Senate
• The Rule is assigned to a Committee in each house
• Committees have 30 days to review the rule
A committee may schedule a hearing or request that the Commission modify the rule

FOURTH STEP - FINAL STEP

• At the conclusion of the legislative rule review period, the Rule is approved
• The Final Rule is sent to Secretary of State
• The Final Rule is published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register
• Generally, the Final Rule becomes effective the first day of the first month following publication PSC REF#:129087
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
RECEIVED: 03/29/10, 3:06:54 PM

DRAFT RULE OUTLINE:

(CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD)

PSC Chapter 128 Draft Compiled Rule Outline Prepared for Wind Siting Council

WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS

PSC 128.01 Definitions.

• Large wind energy system
• Small wind energy system
• Other

PSC 128.02 Applicability.

• Applicable to projects on going forward basis, except as noted
• Commission may waive or modify a rule provision in an exceptional situation

PSC 128.03 Siting criteria.

• Setbacks for design and construction of a wind energy system• Compliance with setback provisions measured from the centerline of the turbine tower to the nearest point on the foundation of the building

• Owners of occupied buildings, participating residences or non-participating residences may waive setbacks

• Long term land use planning may not preclude construction of wind turbines

• No height or location limitations near public use airports or heliports stricter than FAA obstruction standards

• No height or location limitations near private medical facility heliports use for air ambulance service stricter than the FAA obstruction standards that apply to public use heliports

• Developer shall consider noise standard in siting decisions

• Developer shall consider shadow flicker impacts in siting decisions

• Developer shall consider radio, television, phone interference in siting decisions and avoid interference to extent practicable

• Developer shall test for stray voltage near project facility prior to construction and after the project is completed; developer to rectify stray voltage problems arising from the construction and operation of the project

• Developer shall work with political subdivisions to minimize individual hardships

PSC 128.04 Development of a wind energy system.

• Developer is required to provide advance notice to landowners near project area and political subdivisions where project is located

• Possible requirement for developer to provide notice to commission

• Developer to consult with DNR regarding natural resources

• Developer to consult with Wisconsin Historical Society regarding historical and archeological resources

• Developer to develop a transportation plan in consultation with DOT and political subdivision

• Political subdivision may require developer to submit a detailed roads plan PSC

• Developer to coordinate with local first responders and air ambulance services regarding emergency evacuation plan

• Political subdivision may require developers to consult with owners of private use airports in the project area

• Consideration of impacts on aerial spraying practices

• Consideration of impacts on existing agricultural or other commercial enterprises

• Compensation for non-participating residences near turbines

• Possible recording requirement for wind leases and easements or a memorandum thereof

• Requirements regarding provisions to be contained in a wind lease or easement

PSC 128.05 Construction and operation.

• Developer/owner may not materially deviate from the approved application without separate approval from the political subdivision

• No advertising material permitted on a wind turbine

• Political subdivision may not impose structure lighting restrictions that would conflict with

FAA specifications

• Developer/owner shall restore the project area after construction is complete

• Developer/owner shall ensure the outside of a turbine is not climbable

• Developer/owner shall ensure access doors are locked

• Developer/owner shall post appropriate warning signage

• Developer/owner shall post 24/7 emergency contact, ownership, and location information

• Political subdivision may create rules regarding blasting

• Developer/owner shall construct, maintain, and operate collector circuit facilities in compliance with National Electrical Safety Code and Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 114

• Developer/owner shall construct, maintain, and operate all other wind project facilities in compliance with National Electrical Code

• Developer/owner shall repair, maintain and replace wind turbines and associated facilities as needed to keep the wind energy system in good repair and operating condition

• Developer/owner shall report to political subdivision regarding operations and maintenance

• Developer/owner shall notify political subdivision and commission of an emergency

• Developer/owner shall establish emergency procedures

• Developer/owner shall operate the project in a manner that meets specified noise limits (dBA) during daytime hours

• Upon complaint by an affected resident, noise limit shall be reduced during nighttime hours for areas related to the complaint

• Methods available to comply with noise limits

• Developer/owner relieved from meeting nighttime noise limit if affected resident agrees to a waiver or settlement

• Noise limits in the event of a steady pure tone (whine, whistle, screech, hum)

• Compliance with noise limits shall be measured or otherwise evaluated at the outside wall of residence

• Developer/owner to conduct pre- and post-construction noise studies

PSC 128.06 Enforcement and mitigation.

• Developer/owner shall maintain a log of all complaints

• Developer/owner shall make copies of this complaint log available to any local monitoring committees

• Developer/owner shall provide a contact person and phone number for complaints

• Developer/owner shall work with landowners to mitigate the effects of shadow flicker

• Requirement to mitigate shadow flicker at eligible residences triggered by complaint regarding shadow flicker

• Developer/owner to allow resident to choose a preferred reasonable mitigation technique

• Developer/owner to consult with affected residents regarding the resident’s preferred reasonable mitigation solution for radio and television interference

• Developer/owner to work with affected cellular providers to provide adequate coverage in the affected area

PSC 128.07 Decommissioning.

• Developer/owner must decommission wind energy system at end of its useful life

• Time periods for decommissioning

• Developer/owner to submit decommissioning and site restoration plan to political subdivision

• Developer/owner shall ensure decommissioned sites are restored

• Developer/owner shall demonstrate financial ability to decommission

PSC 128.08 Political subdivision review of a wind energy system.

• Political subdivision may require developer/owner to obtain approval for expansion of a pre-existing or previously approved wind energy system

• Political subdivision’s approval remains in effect despite a change in ownership of the wind energy system

• Conditions for political subdivision granting approval

• Political subdivision may deny an application if conditions are not met

• Political subdivision shall issue its decision in writing, based on written findings of fact, supported by evidence in the record

• Before an applicant files an application, applicant shall submit to the political subdivision a notice of intent to file

• Political subdivision may charge reasonable application fees or obtain reimbursement for reasonable review expenses

• Political subdivision conflicts of interest must be disclosed

• Notice of application shall be given to property owners in the area

• Application shall be available for public review

• Political subdivision to establish a process for accepting public comments

• Political subdivisions may establish a joint application review process when multiple political subdivisions are involved

PSC Chapter 128 Draft Compiled Rule Outline Prepared for Wind Siting Council

PSC 128.09 Application filing requirements.

• Content requirements for an application to a political subdivision

• For incomplete applications, applicants must provide additional information

• For incomplete applications, the political subdivision may require applicant to resubmit its application after integrating additional information

• Subsequent 45-day completeness review periods will begin after the responses to all completeness items are received

• Political subdivision may request additional information subsequent to determining that an application is complete; applicant required to respond in a timely manner

• Political subdivision may require submission of duplicate copies of the application
PSC 128.10 Commission review.

• Appeal will be treated as application to open a docket

• Appeals must be in writing

• Appealing party must serve all relevant parties with copy of appeal

• Requirements regarding filing the record of the local decision being appealed

• Commission may require additional information to be filed

• Commission may proceed without a hearing, but may set a hearing if Commission believes a hearing is necessary

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:  

The next Wind Siting Council meeting is Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 1:30 pm 

-Developing guiding principles- Developer/owner responsibility

Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

[Click here for map]

Wind farm shut down over safety fears after 150 ft turbine blade falls off

SOURCE: The Daily Record, www.dailyrecord.co.uk

March 23, 2010

Exclusive by Ben Spencer

Europe’s largest wind farm ground to a halt after a 150ft blade snapped off one of the turbines.

All 140 of the giant machines were immediately shut down at the £300million development near Glasgow until they could be inspected.

Engineers at Whitelee wind farm, which is run by ScottishPower Renewables, were trying to work out why the blade came crashing down.

They are looking into whether lightning could have struck the turbine or if it was caused by a mechanical problem.

It sheared off and hit the ground in the early hours of Friday morning in blustery conditions.

Automatic systems alerted operators in the control room to the damage and they immediately closed down the unit.

All 420 blades in the wind farm were being examined following the accident.

Last night, more than 50 turbines were expected to have been inspected and safely returned to operation.

The process is expected to be completed by Friday.

Whitelee wind farm’s visitor centre, which is managed by Glasgow Science Centre and had been due to reopen after the winter break yesterday, stayed shut.

German company Siemens, who supplied the turbines, are also understood to be investigating.

The 360ft turbines are so massive that engineers have been able to climb inside them to try to detect the problem.

Over the weekend, the site at Eaglesham Moor, 13 miles from Glasgow city centre, was cordoned off to keep visitors away. Raymond Toms, 45, a teacher from East Kilbride, spotted the broken turbine as he cycled past on Sunday.

He said: “I was out for a bike ride and I saw one of the massive blades had broken clean off. It was quite unnerving really.

“You can walk right up to these things normally and touch them.

“The public have access to the network of pathways nearby.

“I have grave concerns over the safety of the public, who can walk right up to the turbines.

“It’s worrying that if one of these could fall off then perhaps another one could.

“It’s made me think about going too close, that’s for sure. It’s just lucky this took place at night, when nobody was around.”

Keith Anderson, managing director of ScottishPower Renewables, said: “This type of incident is exceptionally rare and highly unusual.

“However, the safety of our people and the public is our first priority.

“While the investigation into the cause of the incident is ongoing, our engineers continue to conduct an internal and external examination of all turbine blades at the wind farm”.

A spokesman for the firm added: “Investigations are ongoing, and a number of possibilities including mechanical failure and lightning strike are being considered.

“Operators in the 24-hour control room immediately closed the turbine down.

“This is a highly unusual situation. I’ve not heard of this kind of incident happening in 30 years.”

GREEN ENERGY BLUEPRINT

Whitelee was officially switched on in May 2009 by First Minister Alex Salmond.

Each turbine at Whitelee, which started producing electricity in January 2008, stands 360ft high.

The wind farm has 140 turbines that can generate 322 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 180,000 homes.

ScottishPower Renewables have been given permission to add 36 turbines to the site, allowing the wind farm to power 250,000 homes and create up to 300 jobs.

Last week, it was revealed that community groups in East Renfrewshire are to benefit from a fund set up from the development of Whitelee.

The fund will deliver about £140,000 a year for the next 25 years to the area’s council for local groups.

SOURCE: A Photo Blog :: Chicago Photojournalist Alex Garcia

Most people when asked are in favor of wind energy. Green. No foreign oil. No spent fuel rods. Cool-looking turbines.

But when a reporter and I went out to DeKalb County to talk to residents embroiled in a lawsuit surrounding a wind farm installed in an otherwise tranquil setting, we heard quite an earful.

Residents pitted against each other, noise, shadow flicker, lost sleep, stress, dead animals, lower real estate values, lost sightlines. It was a long list of complaints.

Although many people wrote off their grievances as little more than NIMBY, you do have to wonder whether 1400 feet is the sufficient amount of distance that a turbine should be from the foundation of a home.

Landowners who allowed the wind turbines on their properties are to be paid $9000 a year, per turbine, for the privilege. Some had a few. In this economy, I can see it from their perspective too. In this case, however you look at it, the wind blew up a storm.

SECOND FEATURE:

Letter from Dr. Nina Pierpont against siting wind turbines near home

SOURCE: Wind Concerns, Ontario

I am told that wind developers are proposing to build industrial-scale wind turbines as close as 270 meters [less than 900 feet] from people’s homes.

This is a reckless and violent act. The evidence for turbines producing substantial low frequency noise and, worse, infrasound, is no longer in dispute.

The clinical evidence is unambiguous that low frequency noise and infrasound profoundly disturb the body’s organs of balance, motion, and position sense.

The case studies performed by me and other medical doctors have demonstrated unequivocally that people living within 2 km of turbines are made seriously ill, often to the point of abandoning their homes.

There is no doubt among otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists who have studied the evidence that wind turbine low frequency noise and infrasound are seriously disrupting the body’s vestibular organs, resulting in the constellation of illness I have called Wind Turbine Syndrome.

The cure for Wind Turbine Syndrome is simple: Move away from the turbines or shut off the turbines.

The prevention of Wind Turbine Syndrome is even simpler: Don’t build these low frequency/infrasound-generating machines within 2 km of people’s homes.

Governments and corporations who violate this principle are guilty of gross clinical harm. Such governments and corporations should be taken before whatever level of court is necessary to stop this outrage.

I realize these are strong words. They are carefully chosen. They are strong because governments and the wind industry stubbornly—I would add, criminally—refuse to acknowledge that they are deliberately and aggressively harming people. This must stop. The evidence is overwhelming. I repeat, this must stop.

Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Former Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, New York



SOURCE: Bureau County Republican,

www.bcrnews.com

Ann Burkey Brezinski

March 17, 2010

I am writing on behalf of Eileen Burkey’s and the late Willard Burkey’s farm located north of Walnut. My great-grandparents purchased and moved to this property in the 1890s.

Since that time, my family has been devoted and faithful caretakers of this acreage. Further, we intend to continue this stewardship for future generations of our family, not just for the benefit of our family but because it is the right thing to do. We are the beneficiaries of a limited, endangered resource that should not be sacrificed.

We will not sign the Wind Project Lease Agreement for four, irrefutable reasons.

First, we will not diminish our tillable acres — either by area or by productivity. To do otherwise is both short-sighted and irresponsible. A wind turbine and its access roadways would decrease our tillable acres. The productivity of the soil would be diminished by compaction and damage to the farm tile system.

Second, we will not sign a contract that provides unilateral “sole discretion” in a LaSalle Street, Chicago limited liability corporate tenant regarding numerous matters concerning our family farm. We are obviously in this for the long haul and will not let our property be irrevocably abused and controlled by outsiders for their financial gain.

Third, the proposed Wind Project Lease Agreement is extremely protective of the wind turbine company, and it does not afford the farm owner the same legal protections. My professional reservations include the potential 70-year duration of the lease and its ramifications upon future generations.

It is impossible to predict the financial viability of the developer or its successors for that time period, or even to gauge the reasonableness of the terms for such a time period. Also, the lease’s list of easement effects will affect the quality of life of anyone in the vicinity of the turbines; this list includes everything from sound pollution to visual blight to air turbulence to radio-frequency interference, to name a few.

I question whether the proposed payment structure is sufficient to compensate for this open-ended list. Further, the lease terms provide that a landowner cannot construct any structure anywhere on his property without first meeting with the developer in order to determine a site that will not impact the developer’s rights. The overriding theme in the proposed lease is clearly the developer’s rights, not the rights of landowners.

Fourth, we are very concerned about evidence showing farmland values are lowered by the existence of neighboring wind turbines. We will not sign a contract that will detrimentally impact the farmland values of our neighbors and friends, and would hope that our neighbors and friends would have the same consideration for us.

Ann Burkey Brezinski

Current 10% Renewables Mandate Costs Too Much, Creates Unneeded Generation

SOURCE: WIEG.ORG

Wisconsin currently has much more energy supply than it has energy demand – indeed, its excess energy supply is more than twice the amount required by law. 

Unfortunately, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has concluded that Wisconsin’s 10% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) trumps our energy needs, energy costs, and statutory conservation requirements, which effectively renders meaningless those “off ramps” that were intended to serve as a safety valve should the cost of renewable energy become too expensive. 

We currently get about 5% of our statewide needs from renewable generation – and we have a long, expensive way to go to meet even the current 10% RPS.  Yet we have no immediate, or even short term, need for more generation.  Wisconsin is building a lot of unnecessary generation at a premium cost. 

Crane Creek (2008) – Wisconsin Public Service Corporation – $251 million – 99 MW

The Commission concluded that Crane Creek was not needed until at least 2021 and that no new generation was needed until at least 2018.

The Commission models showed that a natural gas turbine was less expensive than a wind farm.

WPSC has a roughly 50% reserve margin - it already has way more energy supply than demand.

Bent Tree (2009) – Wisconsin Power and Light Company – $500 million – 200 MW

The Commission approved Bent Tree with a sales forecast that did not include WPL’s extraordinary loss of electric sales over the past year and more (General Motors, Domtar paper mill and other major energy-intensive companies).

WPL requested and received $30 million in its last rate case (Docket 6680-UR-117) for the up-front construction costs of the wind farm that has not yet put any iron in the ground.

Bent Tree was the biggest line item in a rate increase request of roughly $100 million or 10%.

Blue Sky Green Field (2007) – WE Energies – over $300 million – 145 MW

The Commission approved Blue Sky Green Field even though it expressly concluded that the energy would not be needed until around 2015 - eight years after it approved the project.

The Commission recognized that the Project was more expensive than fossil fuel generation. 

The Commission approved the Project because of WE Energies need to meet its RPS mandate.

Glacier Hills (2010) – WE Energies – up to $452 million – 200 MW

The Commission concluded that WE Energies needed Glacier Hills in order to meet its RPS mandate, not because it needed more generation.

In her concurring opinion, Commission Azar recognized that WE Energies - and the state as a whole - may soon be exporting energy that it does not itself need, given “the current excess of capacity in Wisconsin.”  And yet, the PSC still approved this project.

WE Energies still plans to spend over $1 billion in new projects to comply with the 10% RPS law.

A decade ago Wisconsin’s electric rates were among the lowest in the country; now, its rates are among the highest in the Midwest.  These four wind projects alone will cost ratepayers at minimum $1.5 billion and they are or will soon be producing energy that Wisconsin does not currently need.  The reason the Commission approved these projects was to meet the current 10% RPS mandate, and we are only at 5% statewide right now. 

The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming recommends boosting the RPS to 25 percent by 2025.  Imagine what a 150% increase in RPS requirement will do to customer bills, at a time when the generation simply is not needed.  We will be generation rich, yes.  But cash poor. 

WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS"

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

What's it like to live in the 86 turbine Invenergy Forward Energy wind project?

Home in Invenergy Forward Energy project, Fond du Lac County--- photo by Gerry Meyer 2009

Here are two recent notes to Better Plan from the Meyer Family. They are residents of the Invenergy Forward Energy wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac county. 

Since the turbines went online near their home two years ago, they have had trouble sleeping, increased blood pressure, ringing and crackling in the ears and headaches. Cheryl has been taking sleeping medication, something she never needed before the turbines started up.

The closest turbine to their home is less than 1600 feet.

From Cheryl Meyer

March 8, 2010

"The turbines are so loud that our dog, Trigger, goes to the backroom window and barks at them.

It sounds like a snowplow driving around the house full bore with its blade down.

I find it interesting the last few days that when I go out with the dog he goes so far down the sidewalk and then turns and looks north to the turbine. He stares at it a few seconds and then moves on.

 But they have been usually loud the last two days. Just thought I would let you know.  

 Cheryl

March 9, 2010

From Gerry Meyer:

Cheryl has a really bad headache.

 She has tried Imatrex or the shot three times in three days, so today went to the Doctor....

The message Cheryl wrote you was when I was in LA. I remember her telling me that the turbines sounded like snow plow coming through the house.

You could add that Trigger barked because that is what he does when a vehicle comes in the driveway. The turbine was so loud he thought a plow was in the driveway.

Gerry

This video was shot by Gerry Meyer from his porch.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

On February 18th, I spent another night in the Meyer home to get a better idea of what they are living with and was kept up well past three in the morning by a thumping from the turbines that seemed to come from all directions.

The only thing I can compare it to is the bass sound you hear coming from a car with powerful speakers. You feel the noise as well as hear it. It was impossible to sleep until it finally stopped.

The typical turbine jet sounds and whooshing were louder outdoors than indoors, but the low thumping was penetrating and much louder inside the home than outside the home. This was especially so on the second floor.

The Meyer family home is a typical wood framed old farm house found throughout rural Wisconsin. The Meyer's young son often goes to bed with two radios playing, one on either side of his head to counteract the turbine noise.

WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS"

3/11/10 Clean and green? Or dirty and red-handed? AND Greed is a bi-partisan affair: a look at AWEA CEO's 'cleansed' bio

3/10/10 DOUBLE FEATURE: Look what they've done to our ridgetop, Ma.... How do you get 200 tons worth of wind turbine up a fragile road?

AND Got trouble forcing your wind project onto a rural community? Why bother with local government when you can change federal legislation? All it takes is five million dollars worth of lobbyists doing their green jobs