Better Plan, Wisconsin

Home in the Butler Ridge wind farm, near Iron Springs, Wisconsin

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Wind farms threaten county 

Greenbay Press Gazette

January 15, 2010   

 For the past three weeks, my neighbors and I in southern Brown County have been grappling with the possibility of losing our health and our homes to a private wind-farm developer.

It seemed to happen overnight, very quietly and well planned. My husband likens it to the operation of a stealth bomber; we never saw this coming.

The proposed industrial turbines would be placed as close as 1,000 feet from many peoples' homes and places of work on the ledge escarpment south of De Pere.

Placing these 40-story turbines that close to homes and businesses has shown in New York, Maine, Illinois, Fond du Lac, as well as England, France and Germany to cause neurological symptoms, i.e., migraine headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, tingling in the hands, etc.

This scientific study, "Summary of Recent Research on Adverse Health Effects of Wind Turbines," can be found at: www.windaction .org/documents/23709 . The data gathered by doctors and research scientists concludes that a moratorium should be put in place to rethink siting turbines so close to people and animals.

Industrial turbines are rated about 25 percent efficient and may hurt the environment more than help it. Because wind energy seems to be seen as the solution to our future energy problems, its legacy may be a human health and environmental disaster.

-Sandra Johnson

Greenleaf, Wisconsin

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: For more information  about the project in Brown County,

CLICK HERE to visit the BCCRWE website.

Brown County Citizens for Responsible Energy (BCCRWE) is a grass roots organization of local residents in Brown County where Invenergy is proposing to build the Ledge wind farm.

CLICK HERE to visit the Public Service Commission docket for this project.

Type in case number 9554-CE-100

CLICK HERE to file a comment with the PSC on the project

Home in a wind farm, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin.  Photo by Gerry Meyer

Turbine Noise Annoys: Expert says people are suffering health problems from being too close to structures

By PAUL SCHLIESMANN

THE WHIG-STANDARD, www.thewhig.com

January 16 2010

"Some people are definitely suffering from the noise. Some people suffering are keeping quiet about it because of family ties. They can also see that some people are revelling in it. They're making money. There are technicians coming over to work. Some shopkeepers made a lot of money. It's been a shot in the arm, if you like. There's a party line."

-John Harrison retired Queen's University physics professor

 

      Some might accuse John Harrison of tilting at wind turbines, but the retired Queen’s University physics professor says he’s got the science to prove that wind farms are bad for people’s health.

Harrison became an expert critic of wind technology — and an ally of those who oppose it — after learning that his retirement community of Amherst Island could become the site of a wind farm like the one on nearby Wolfe Island.

“My first reaction was I thought it would spoil the island for the looks. I didn’t realize the noise problem,” said Harrison.

“I learned that they really should be kept away from where people live.”

So began what has amounted to a self-funded second career.

Two years ago, Harrison travelled to the western Ontario community of Kincardine to monitor an Ontario Municipal Board hearing into a proposed wind turbine project there.

He came away with the impression that, in order to get the project approved, industry representatives and provincial government officials were paying little attention to the science that linked the giant machines to health concerns.

“There were two experts,” he said. “Their testimony made no impact on the OMB hearing because, for one thing, the company had a very talented lawyer.

“I know the lawyer had no idea what was going on but had this amazing expertise to orient facts.”

Harrison recalled that the 100 or so residents opposing the Kincardine project had no money to hire a lawyer of their own and no ability to pay for independent studies.

“That was a real eye-opener for me,” he said. “First that there are noise problems, that there is a valid scientific basis for the noise problems, and that the ministry of the environment and developers are not interested in hearing about the noise problem.”

The scientist began poring over the research literature. He sent his analyses and critiques to anyone connected with wind projects, including Ontario’s environment minister, John Gerretsen, who is also MPP for Kings -ton and the Islands.

At the time, Wolfe Island, in Gerretsen’s riding, was about to become home to an 86-turbine facility built by Canadian Hydro Developers.

It officially opened last summer and was soon purchased by TransAlta.

Canadian Hydro had been considering a second wind farm on Amherst Island.

“I came back from Kincardine and started reading original reports, original science,” said Harrison.

One study, by a Dutch researcher on the topic of background noise, stood out.

At the time, Ontario’s regulations limited the noise effect from wind turbines on nearby residents to 40 decibels. At a wind speed of 50 km/h, however, up to 50 decibels were allowed, the theory being that wind blowing through surrounding vegetation such as trees and shrubs would mask the additional 10 decibels.

Harrison said the Dutch study showed that “at nighttime there is no masking noise.”

This would be especially true in places like Wolfe and Amherst islands, which are rural and quiet.

“This thesis was a thorn in the side for the Ministry of the Environment because it made nonsense of their thesis,” said Harrison. “It really rattled the Ministry of the Environment. Politically, it wasn’t good because it meant the regulation wasn’t very good.”

Gerretsen says the regulations that were subsequently written into Ontario’s Green Energy Act — with a 40-decibel maximum and 550-metre minimum setbacks — exceed all other jurisdictions and make the Dutch study irrelevant.

“He’s wrong about the masking,” said Gerretsen.

Despite his criticisms, Harrison was asked to sit on an environment ministry working group made up of about 40 people — ministry personnel and engineers, acoustic consultants, municipal staff, planning consultants, as well as himself and two other citizens.

When the working group endorsed a report written by a Ryerson University professor dismissing the Dutch study, Harrison was perturbed and, typically, responded with his own critique.

When a group of Wolfe Island residents asked for his help reviewing the environmental study for the new 86-turbine project in their community, again he found what he considered flaws in the data and dutifully told the consultants, Canadian Hydro and the ministry.

“They just ignored the whole thing. There was no check and balance in the system,” he said. “Those measurements were worthless. The ministry accepted them.”

Harrison said Wolfe Islanders today are more divided over the issue than many let on.

“Some people are definitely suffering from the noise. Some people suffering are keeping quiet about it because of family ties. They can also see that some people are revelling in it. They’re making money. There are technicians coming over to work. Some shopkeepers made a lot of money. It’s been a shot in the arm, if you like. There’s a party line.”

Harrison says he isn’t opposed to wind energy, though he feels it will never supply more than 4% or 5% of Ontario’s power.

He is against putting them near people. “My intention has been, let’s install renewable energy, but let’s install it away from people.”

Gerretsen said most wind-energy companies would probably prefer to be situated in remote locations to avoid conflicts, but the cost of getting the energy to the grid would become prohibitive.

“If you find more remote places, then you get into the problem of transmission lines,” he said.

In a recent interview with the Whig-Standard, Gerretsen endorsed an industry-funded report by the Canadian and American wind energy associations that characterized most of the health problems documented by people living near wind turbines as psychosomatic.

He said the Wolfe Island wind farm opponents were promoting not-in-my-backyard activism because they didn’t like the looks of the turbines.

Harrison dismissed that review as “an industry association convened and sponsored attempt to deny the adverse health effects being reported.”

He said the symptoms are real — people are losing sleep, becoming stressed and experiencing various health problems.

“Other families in Ontario are using safe houses maybe 20 km away. When they need a good night’s sleep, they go to these safe houses,” he said.

Harrison takes credit for helping a woman and her husband near Kindcardine get a settlement from the wind farm company.

“I sent in a report that the noise was far in excess of the Ontario noise regulation. The result was the company bought her out and made her sign a gag order,” he said.

“I think down the line you will see this on Wolfe Island.

The Meyer Family live in the Invenergy Forward Energy Wind farm near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. Gerry Meyer has been keeping a noise log since the turbines went on line near his home in March of 2008.

In yesterday's entry he talks about noticing the thumping sound from the turbines is louder inside the pole shed than it is out of doors. He mentions Ann Wirtz whose alpaca herd sheltered in a pole shed and began to fail once the turbines went on line. The Wirtz family have abandoned their home because of wind turbine noise and vibration. To read the story of why the Wirtz Family abandoned their home, CLICK HERE

Scroll down to read yesterday's noise log entry. Click on the image above to hear the turbine closest to the Meyer home. This was recorded with a hand held video camera from the Meyer's porch

Jan 14, 2010 7:15AM,

Wind SW, [turbine spinning at] 18 rpms. Loud jet sound or thumping sound. I can hear it in the house as well.

I can hear it in the driveway 20’ from an idling diesel pickup truck and while an 800cc 4- wheeler is pushing snow. This sound is mainly from turbines # 4 and #73. At one point thismorning the sound, while outside, seemed to be coming from everywhere.

Again in my opinion this should not be a “sacrifice” we should endure, one that is taking away our quality of life and health to satisfy the wants of the PSC.

I have noticed recently that when I am in my new wood shed the thumping and pounding is louder. I can hear it over the radio as I fill the wood furnace. I think of Ann Wirtz’s alpacas and what they must have endured in the metal pole shed that they lived in until they had to be moved off the property.

Today the thumping and pounding from the turbines was loud, similar to what we often hear in the house. I thought that I would check the speed of the turbine blades when I left the shed. The turbine is directly north of the wood shed and about 1585’ away.

When I walked out of the shed and closed the door I realized that the thumping sound outdoors was not as loud as IN the shed. This must be the low frequency noise issue or effect I have heard about. This is the decibel (dbC) reading the wind companies won’t talk about and the PSC ignores.

9:30 PM Wind NW. Jet sound and pounding sound continues especially from turbine 4 plus turbine 6.

 

CLICK HERE TO READ WIND TODAYS "TURBINES IN THE NEWS REPORT":

Wind turbine blades crack in big storm AND the myth of the myth of no negative health effects from wind turbines

 

“We lost a lot of money on the sale of the house, but it was better to get away from (the turbines),” Ernest says. “We are not against wind power. We were for it. But they shouldn’t be near people.”

STUDY FUNDED BY WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY QUESTIONED:

By SUSAN HUNDERTMARK and DAN SCHWAB,

Today's Farmer, www.todaysfarmer.ca

Still poised to respond to any renewed efforts by CASA Engineering and Construction to build a wind project in the St. Columban area, Huron East Against Turbines (HEAT) is cynical about a report from the wind industry stating that wind turbines have no adverse effect on human health.

“This study is no big deal and no surprise. We still need an independent health study,” says HEAT member Rob Tetu.

The study — funded by the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association — involved a seven-member international panel that reviewed all current peer-reviewed scientific literature on sound and health effects.

“There is no evidence that the sounds, nor the sub-audible vibrations, emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects on humans,” says a press release released by CanWEA, quoting Dr. Robert J. McCunney, one of the study’s authors.

“We’ve got no peer-reviewed studies. All we’ve got is a bunch of sick people,” responds Tetu, referring to the over 100 people documented by Wind Concerns Ontario to have suffered ill effects from living too close to wind turbines since 2007.

“I have very little faith in a study released by the wind industry,” he says.

Tetu says HEAT’s mandate is to fight the project proposed for the St. Columban area and is preparing a document to send to the province in response to its definition of a “point of reception.”

Clarification needed

He says the definition needs clarification since it’s not yet clear if barns, cabins and trailers will be considered points of reception along with houses.

Tetu says that while HEAT has determined that CASA will be subject to the new setback distances under the new Green Energy Act, the group has not been able to find out if CASA is working at redeveloping its plans from its original setbacks of 450 metres and reapplying to continue with a wind project for the St. Columban area.

The Green Energy Act sets a minimum 550-metre setback for wind turbines for projects of five turbines and under and 750 metres for projects of six to 10 turbines.

“CASA is not communicating with us but they are obligated to make contact with the community if the project is on the go,” says Tetu.

The Green Energy Act did not require an independent epidemiological study to prove that the setbacks stated in the regulations are not harmful to human health, a request made by Huron East council several months ago and a request that was recently made by Grey County council in a resolution approved by Huron East council.

While HEAT has raised $61,000 in the local community to pay for its legal bills, Tetu says HEAT is supporting “in spirit” a legal battle happening in Prince Edward County where farmer Ian Hanna is suing the Ontario government and asking for an independent health study on the effects of industrial wind turbines.

“We can’t support it financially but we can encourage local people to do so. They’re looking for $250,000 to do it — it’s a provincewide project,” says Tetu, adding interested people should access the Wind Concerns Ontario website.

Seaforth residents Ernest and Sharon Marshall say they were “forced off (their) farm in Goderich” after the elderly pair began experiencing health problems, which they believe were linked to living next to wind turbines.

In April 2006, a wind turbine was erected 548 metres from the Marshall’s property. Four turbines surrounded the house, with 11 turbines in total within a two-mile radius, Ernest says.

After that, the couple both began experiencing health issues.

The couple also says the horses they owned at the time started acting strangely after the wind turbines were built.

Ernest says after years of raising horses he’d never seen them act so bizarrely.

In April 2008, after exactly two years of living next to the wind turbines, the Marshalls moved out of the home they’d live in for 30 years and into a house in Seaforth.

“We lost a lot of money on the sale of the house, but it was better to get away from (the turbines),” Ernest says. “We are not against wind power. We were for it. But they shouldn’t be near people.”

SECOND STORY

RESIDENTS NOT SWAYED BY WIND PROJECT REPORT

www.agrinewsinteractive.com

Vol. 34, No. 1,

January 2010

North Gower and Richmond residents worried about a proposal for industrial wind turbines near the villages are not reassured by a report on health effects from the noise produced by turbines.

The report, released last month and sponsored by both the Canadian Wind Energy Association and the American Wind Energy Association, is titled Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects.

The panel of expert reviewers concluded that there is “no evidence that audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.”

It doesn’t sit well with opponents of a proposal to build eight industrial wind turbines more than 600 feet tall in their area.

“We have joined a coalition of 41 citizens‚ groups throughout this province,” says North Gower Wind Action Group chair Gary Chandler in a press release issued by his organization.

“I can tell you that people in Ripley, Essex, Melancthon, Amaranth and on Wolfe Island are saying that the constant noise and vibration from these huge structures is very disturbing,” Chandler alleges. “These reports are real and very worrying for us.”

He asserts that the most recent report is not a true health study, but merely a review of existing reports.

“As far as I can tell, this is just a re-reading of information we had before, nothing new. And certainly, none of the reviewers ever consulted with people who are experiencing the effects from turbine noise, or their family doctors. In our view, this report is a reaction to the just-released book by Dr. Nina Pierpont, The Wind Turbine Syndrome, which is a peer-reviewed account of real experiences.”

He says his group and others continue to ask government to sponsor independent research on the health effects of exposure to industrial wind turbines, and enact a moratorium on industrial wind turbine developments until that research has been completed.

“It just makes sense not to subject more people to this noise until we know the truth,” Chandler adds. “These turbines can be a welcome source of energy, but they should not be located close to people’s homes.”

The North Gower Wind Action Group points to a Dec. 13 report in The Sunday Times of Britain that UK officials covered up warnings that wind turbines generate noise damaging to people’s health for miles near such installations. As a result, hundreds of turbines were erected and allowed to generate higher levels of noise than should be allowed.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The industry-funed health study focused mainly on homes located a half mile from wind turbines. The latest wind farm approved in Wisconsin has a setback of just 1250 feet from homes.

  Fond du Lac Reporter

Source: www.fdlreporter.com   

January 13 2010

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

My daughter recently had a basketball tournament in Lomira.

On our way home from the tournament, we drove through Brownsville and observed the wind turbines located there. My daughter, her teammate and I all had the same reaction — thank goodness we didn’t have those wind turbines in our backyard.

Simply stated, they are very ugly. What an eyesore! I wondered why anyone would agree to have those monstrosities erected on their property. So I did a little research about wind turbines and their impact on the residents and communities where they were built.

I found that many of the residents who lived near the turbines complained about the noise, comparing it to living next to a major airport. They also complained about fatigue, headaches, ringing in their ears, loss of balance and nausea.

I also discovered that residents who had tried to sell their property to get away from the turbines were either unable to do so because prospective buyers immediately became disinterested upon finding out about the turbines, or residents had to sell their homes well below fair market value.

I wondered what types of high-pressure “tactics” the wind turbine company had to use in order to convince residents that the wind turbines were a good idea without informing residents about the negative effects of the turbines.

I wondered if the company’s executives promoting wind turbine construction would agree to having one constructed on their own property. I doubt it.

I know that after researching this issue, I would absolutely oppose construction of any wind turbines in my community. My heart goes out to the innocent victims who have had their lives so negatively impacted by their greedy and selfish neighbors.

Tammy L. Kroetz
Westfield

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The only thing we don’t agree with in this letter is the idea that hosting landowners are driven only by greed and selfishness. There are a many reasons why a family might sign on with a developer. And developers talk a good game. Like any other salesman, their only objective is to make the sale.

CLICK HERE to read why a Wisconsin farmer regrets signing on with a wind developer

Click on the images below to watch an interview with Wisconsin father and son dairy farmers who talk about their first hand experiences with wind developers, hosting a met tower on their land, and what the developer did to them after they changed their mind about hosting turbines in their land.

For those who have slower internet connection, a transcript of the interview can be read by clicking here.

WATCH PART TWO OF THIS INTERVIEW BY CLICKING HERE

READ TRANSCRIPT OF PART TWO BY CLICKING HERE

“In making this decision,” said Chairman Eric Callisto, “I know that people will make sacrifices in many ways.”

That applies, he said, to We Energies customers who will pay, with higher utility bills, the project’s estimated $352 million to $420 million cost.

But, he said, others who might have to “sacrifice” include people who live near the wind turbines and who might be bothered by the noise they make and by a strobe phenomenon called shadow flicker, from sunlight reflecting from turning turbine blades.

“When erected,” Callisto said, “these turbines will be, visually, the center of attention, for better or for worse. They are not silent. And they cause shadow flicker.”

Wind Farm gets initial go-ahead, but PSC puts conditions on WE energies project.

By Lyn Jerde, Daily Register, portagedailyregister.com

January 11 2010

MADISON – The Glacier Hills Wind Park, which could be the largest in the state, will rise from the farm fields of eastern Columbia County, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decided Monday.

But the three-member commission called for We Energies to meet several conditions in building the 90-turbine wind farm, including a minimum of 1,250 feet of distance between the turbines and the buildings on nonparticipating property; limits on the noise generated by the turbines; and the possibility that people whose property is surrounded by the turbines might have their property bought out.

PSC staff will draft a detailed list of the conditions based on the discussion at Monday’s meeting, said PSC spokesman Timothy Le Monds. The commission is scheduled to vote on the details of the condition Jan. 20, Le Monds said.

We Energies plans to build 90 turbines, each as much as 400 feet high, on rented land covering a 17,300-acre footprint in the Columbia County towns of Randolph and Scott. It would be Wisconsin’s largest wind farm to date.

In voting unanimously to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity to allow construction of the 90-turbine wind farm, the commissioners acknowledged that not all people will be happy about their decision.

“In making this decision,” said Chairman Eric Callisto, “I know that people will make sacrifices in many ways.”

That applies, he said, to We Energies customers who will pay, with higher utility bills, the project’s estimated $352 million to $420 million cost. But, he said, others who might have to “sacrifice” include people who live near the wind turbines and who might be bothered by the noise they make and by a strobe phenomenon called shadow flicker, from sunlight reflecting from turning turbine blades.

“When erected,” Callisto said, “these turbines will be, visually, the center of attention, for better or for worse. They are not silent. And they cause shadow flicker.”

But commissioners agreed that the necessity of creating more energy from renewable resources such as wind – required of utilities by state law – must be weighed against the effect the turbines might have on people who live near them.

“I empathize,” said Commissioner Mark Meyer, “and I have a great deal of compassion for those who will experience the effects of wind turbines. I will not deny these effects. But I must balance all the interests.”

In doing so, the three commissioners offered numerous conditions that We Energies must meet in building the wind park.

One of the key conditions: a minimum 1,250-foot setback separating the turbines from the homes of people who did not lease their land for the turbines’ construction.

This almost certainly will mean that some of the 90 proposed turbines will have to be moved from their preferred location, or possibly be eliminated, commissioners said.

Commissioners discussed, at length, how such setback would be measured, with Callisto proposing that it start from the tip of a turbine’s blade at its maximum arc. The commissioners agreed, however, that it would be measured from roughly the center of a turbine to the center of a structure on land owned by nonparticipating landowners.

The commissioners also called for a noise limit of 50 decibels day and night during winter months and 50 decibels by day and 45 decibels by night during warmer months, because many people like to sleep with windows open on warm nights.

Brian Manthey, spokesman for We Energies, said the company was encouraged by the decision and that it will work within the parameters set by the PSC.

The 1,250-foot setback might mean that some of the 90 preferred sites will not be used; the company will look at 28 alternate sites, Manthey said.

It’s possible there could be fewer than 90 turbines. If the number stays at 89 or more, it will be the largest in the state based on number of turbines.

The Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in northeast Fond du Lac County has 88 turbines and produces 145 megawatts of electricity. The project description says Glacier is projected to produce 207 megawatts.

“Obviously, we’re still going to have a pretty good-sized wind farm,” he said.

He said despite the PSC’s questions, he thought the commission was positive about the project.

“They have quite a job to take in all the different aspects of a project of this magnitude,” he said.

Other conditions that We Energies must meet will include:

• A provision allowing for a buyout of some nonparticipating landowners who are surrounded by turbines.

• Measures to deal with shadow flicker for people who experience problems with it.

• A local committee to be appointed to address concerns and complaints related to the wind farm, though We Energies also would have to be prepared to address such complaints directly.

• Agreements with local emergency responders regarding landing spots for airborne emergency vehicles, such as helicopter ambulances.

• Further study, paid for partly by We Energies, of the effects of wind turbines on flying species such as bats and birds.

The commission, however, rejected a proposal from the village of Friesland that We Energies should pay the village a fee to compensate for property value losses stemming from turbines within 1.5 miles of the village.

It also rejected a proposal that, once the wind farm is up and running, We Energies should be required to shut down a coal-burning electric plant.

The target year for the turbines becoming operational is 2012.

Daily Register Editor Jason Maddux contributed to this story.

"If the Commission allows WEPCO to continue construct Glacier Hills and operate all of its existing coal-fired capacity, WEPCO’s ratepayers will be paying over $525 million for a new facility that is not needed to satisfy demand and will not result in overall CO2 emission reductions."

-Clean Wisconsin's Glacier Hills project post hearing brief

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:  If We Energies does not shut down a coal burning plant, Clean Wisconsin testitifed there will be no reduction in CO2 /green house gasses from this project. [SOURCE]

"Hot Air on Wind Energy: Don't expect wind power to replace coal as the nation's main source of electric power, whatever Obama's interior secretary said."

CLICK HERE to read all of what FactCheck.org has to say about wind energy and coal. FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

 No matter how you may feel about the issue of climate change, there is one point few will argue: air pollution is a serious problem. How will the the Glacier Hills project help?

The 'greater good' of building our industrial scale wind farms, such as the one the PSC has approved in the Columbia County Towns of Randolph and Scott, are supposed to help to solve that problem by replacing our coal plants. This is the 'greater good' that residents are being asked to make sacrifices for.

On the surface it seems pretty logical and simple: just replace dirty coal with clean wind.

The problem is not a single coal fired plant has ever been taken off line in exchange for wind power. Not in the US, not anywhere in the world, including Denmark and Germany, two countries that use the most wind power in their energy mix, and yet continue to burn fossil fuels at an unchanged rate.  In fact, during Germany’s expanded use of more renewable energy, they've also built more coal plants.

 The elephant in the room is this: If coal fired plants are not taken off line in exchange for renewable energy, the current level of air pollution remains the same.

Which brings us to the state of Wisconsin, home to about 300 industrial scale wind turbines with hundreds more being proposed.

The question about what actual impact Wisconsin wind farms are having in terms of reducing current levels of air pollution in our state has never been fully addressed by state environmental organizations except in theory. Theoretically they should reduce GHG, but what are the facts?

 Clean Wisconsin decided to step up and ask the hard questions. Their conclusions are presented in the post-hearing brief filed with the Public Service Commission in response to the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm.

QUOTE:"This practice means that approval of Glacier Hills alone would have literally no impact on GHG reductions. On the contrary, WEPCO would have a financial incentive to generate as much electricity as possible from its coal-fired facilities."

 Though Clean Wisconsin supports the project for the economic benefits it may bring, they clearly point out that unless WEPCO retires a coal burning plant, the construction of the Glacier hills wind farm [and Invenergy's alternate proposed wind farm] will have no effect on reduction of green house gasses in our state.  And they clearly lay out the reasons why.

QUOTE: "One could therefore theoretically satisfy the RPS requirement of a specified percentage of electricity generation from renewable resources while undermining the global warming objectives of reducing GHGs emitted into the atmosphere. That is precisely what will happen here if the Commission does not restrain WEPCO’s electricity generation from coal-fired facilities."

QUOTE: "If the Commission allows WEPCO to continue construct  Glacier Hills and operate all of its existing coal-fired capacity, WEPCO’s ratepayers will be paying over $525 million for a new facility that is not needed to satisfy demand and will not result in overall CO2 emission reductions."

QUOTE: “For these reasons approval and implementation of either of the wind power proposals will not achieve their intended effect of reducing GHGs and will result in significant excess capacity unless the Commission also requires WEPCO to reduce its coal-fired generating capacity."

 There is no indication that WEPCO intends to shut down any of its coal fired plants in exchange for wind energy.

 By their willingness to acknowledge and address the difficult questions head on, Clean Wisconsin proves themselves to be an organization truly committed to protecting Wisconsin's environment and finding real ways to reduce current levels of pollution in our state.

The complete text of the Clean Wisconsin post hearing brief can be downloaded at the Public Service Commission’s website by clicking here and the Glacier Hills docket docket number 6630-CE-302