Final wind farm hearing Wednesday

By Lyn Jerde, Daily Register 

[CLICK HERE to read at source]

October 28, 2009

Residents will have one last chance to have their say before the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decides the fate of a proposed wind energy farm in northeast Columbia County.

Here are some questions and answers about Wednesday's public hearing on the Glacier Hills Wind Park, proposed by We Energies.

Q. Where and when will the hearing be held?

It will be held Wednesday at the Randolph Town Hall, which is located in the village of Friesland at 109 S. Madison St. (Columbia County Highway EF, just off Highway 33).

Public Service Commission Spokeswoman Teresa Weidemann-Smith said there will be two hearings - one beginning at 3 p.m. and the other at 7 p.m. Either of the hearings could be extended or continued to another day if there are more people wishing to testify than time allows, she said.

Q. Who will preside over the hearings?

Administrative Law Judge Michael Newmark will preside.

Q. Are the hearings like a courtroom proceeding?

In many ways, yes. People who testify will take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Objections can be raised that could lead to testimony not being admitted to the record, with Newmark ruling on whether the objections would be sustained or overruled.

Q. Who can testify?

Anybody with an opinion for or against the proposed wind farm - consisting of 90 wind turbines, to be located on leased land in an area covering 17,300 acres in the towns of Scott and Randolph - can testify at the hearing.

Q. How will the testimony be used?

The testimony will be taken down verbatim by a court reporter and will be compiled for consideration by the members of the Public Service Commission: Chairman Eric Callisto and Commissioners Mark Meyer and Lauren Azar. The commission is expected to decide in January whether it will approve, reject or modify the We Energies application to construct the wind farm.

Q. Why does We Energies want to build a wind farm in Columbia County?

Utility companies operating in Wisconsin are being required by law to produce more and more of their energy from renewable sources such as wind and sun.

Walter "Doc" Musekamp, local affairs director for We Energies, said the proposed Columbia County location offers several advantages. It's located near an existing electric transmission system, and it's in an area that has pockets of reliable wind.

Altogether, the wind farm is expected to generate up to 207 megawatts of energy, enough to power at least 25,000 homes.

Q. Will Columbia County residents get any of the energy that the wind farm is expected to generate?

 Yes and no. We Energies has electric customers in Wisconsin and Michigan but does not offer electric service anywhere in Columbia County. (A small portion of the county gets natural gas service from We Energies.) However, once power gets added to an existing grid, it's impossible to determine exactly where it originated - so, theoretically, some of the energy generated in Columbia County could wind up being used by Columbia County customers of utilities other than We Energies.

Q. Wasn't the public hearing on this project supposed to have been held last summer?

Yes. It was originally scheduled for July 13. But the Public Service Commission requested the delay to allow for the compilation of an environmental impact statement after residents of the towns of Scott and Randolph raised questions not addressed in an environmental assessment that the PSC released - questions about such things as the noise made by the turbines, their effects on flying wildlife such as birds and bats, effects on land use and long-term health effects for people who live near large wind turbines. These questions were addressed in the environmental impact statement, which came out early this month. The environmental impact statement, and other documents relating to the project, can be viewed on the Public Service Commission's Web site by going to www.psc.wi.gov and entering case number 6630-CE-302.

Q, If the commission approves the project, when would the wind farm be up and running?

A. No sooner than spring or summer 2011.

Q. If I can't make it to the hearing, may I express my opinion about the project to the PSC in written form?

A. The deadline for doing so was Wednesday. Any further expressions of opinion would have to be in the form of testimony at the public hearing.

HOME IN A WISCONSIN WIND FARM: What the setbacks from homes look like in the Invenergy Forward Energy Wind Farm near the Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County

FROM THE DOCKET:  If you'd like to review the testimony and public comments for the proposed Glacier Hills project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

To see maps and find out more about this project, CLICK HERE.

The following is included as part of the documents submitted regarding the Glacier Hills project. It was written by James Vollmer, who is a resident of the Blue Sky/Green Field project which is owned by WE Energies. WE Energies will also own the Glacier Hills farm.

Blue Sky/ Green Field wind farm, Towns of Malone and Marshfield, Fond du Lac County. Photo by Gerry MeyerHome in a wind farm with a 1000 foot setback: Fond du Lac County Wisconsin

  "Since the wind turbines have been turning I have had to deal with several different problems and have not had any of my complaints resolved.

I have had problems with TV reception, radio reception, cell phone phone reception, shadow flicker, poultry dying, noise keeping me awake at night and have been forced into selling my property to get away from these problems.

I'm not even able to get anyone to even make an offer on the house since it has been for sale.

When [WE Energies] started the project  we were told that any TV problems would be taken care of.

Since then they have made me jump through all kinds of hoops in order to get the dish that was in stalled on the house. The dish still does not work properly. When watching the TV the screen still locks up and the voices  are off from the lip movement and the only thing they tell me is that I have to wait for the technology to get better.

It is coming up on two years and the problems are still not fixed.

Now they are going around and having people sign a contract that will only give them the local channels which consist of four stations. And should we be happy with this?

I will take time and send in more info on this subject as I have time.

(Written by James Vollmer to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin)

Mr. Vollmer was one of the residents interviewed for a book proposal about life in a Wisconsin Wind farm. The interview took place in late June of this year.

This is an early draft of the chapter about his experiences:

      James Vollmer’s home is located inside one of Wisconsin’s more recent wind farms near the town of Malone, in Fond du Lac County. The 88- turbine project known as Blue Sky/Green Field, has been operational for about a year and a half.

The yellow farm house is an old-fashioned four-square and the vintage barn is attractive, solid and has a brand new roof.

 There is a superb mechanic’s workshop large enough to contain a few vintage cars, tractors, huge pieces of farm equipment, work benches and heavy duty tools. It has a fine concrete floor.

  James is a mechanic and he did most of the work on the shop himself, putting everything he had into getting it just the way he wanted it. He intended to be there awhile.

 There is also a nice sized chicken house and from it comes the pleasant sound of roosters crowing and chickens clucking. James also raises poultry. He’s been breeding and showing prize-winning birds for most of his life.

It’s a tidy little farm with a nice feel to it, so the “For Sale” sign in front of this home comes as a surprise.

James lets me know the for sale sign isn’t something he ever wanted to see there, but the reason for it is clear. Scores of wind turbines surround his home—each as tall as a 40-story building. And the multitude of problems that come with them have made life unbearable. The subject of selling his place clearly pained him. We spoke just a few hours before the realtor held the first open house.

The noise from the turbines is much louder and more bothersome than he was told it would be. The shadow flicker is much more severe than he was told it would be.The turbine problems also include loss of radio, TV and cell phone reception. But the most troubling problem of all has to do with his chickens. 

James has been around chickens his whole life. His grandmother and grandfather raised poultry and he says he took to it right away.  “I can’t remember a time in my life when I wasn’t around chickens.” He shows me a photograph taken by his grandmother of Jim as a toddler. He’s lying on his stomach with a half a dozen baby chicks nestled together on his back looking as content as if they were in a nest.

James Vollmer as a toddler with his baby chicks. Photo taken by his grandmother.

Says James, “I’ve always liked them.”

 He joined 4-H and by the age of nine he was showing chickens at the county fair. He handed me one of his earliest 4-H notebooks. Even at an early age he was a meticulous record keeper, a habit he has never lost. He’s been documenting all that has happened since the wind turbines started up.

 When asked about his chickens, a pained look crosses his face. How could someone who has raised healthy prize-winning poultry his whole life find himself in a situation where he is unable to keep them alive?

 We go into the chicken house together. A sick bird huddles against a wire fence. A few birds move about but seem lethargic. “They shouldn’t be hanging their heads and sitting there like that,” says James, “They should be going outside and running around.”

 He tells me he knew there was trouble when his birds went into a full molt the first winter the turbines were on line. “Then they pretty much quit laying eggs.” He lets me know that a full molt in winter is unusual, birds don’t molt in the winter when they need their feathers most to stay warm. And he’d never had a problem with egg production before. “I didn’t know what was going on.”

 The shadow flicker from the turbines was so severe it woke him up in the morning. Like others I spoke to in the Blue Sky/Green Field project, James said the effect is unbearable. Enormous shadows passing rapidly across his entire home, barn, workshop and chicken house are relentless and inescapable. James, along with many others I spoke with, talked about getting headaches caused by the severe shadows and light flashing on and off inside and outside his house.

 When he called WE Energies to complain, he was sent a form on which he was to record the time, location and duration of the shadow flicker. He did just that and sent it in.

 A representative then contacted James and told him that as far as WE Energies was concerned, the shadow flicker he was experiencing was a non-issue and WE Energies had no plans to remedy the problem.

James sent along a copy of a video he’d made of the shadow flicker in his home. A representative later contacted him and offered to provide window blinds for the windows that were in the video, but would not agree to provide blinds for any of the other windows because James had not recorded them. He made yet another video, and after six months and many phone calls, WE Energies finally installed blinds on his home.

 Now he has to have the blinds completely down and his lights on in the morning. He didn’t like having a dark house or having to use electricity to keep lights on during the day, but he can’t stand the shadow flicker so he had no choice.

 His birds, however, were having a harder time. He tells me chickens have an instinctive fear and stress response to rapidly passing shadows. It signals the approach of predators like hawks and owls. Chickens are also very sensitive to changes in light and darkness.

James noticed the chickens didn’t seem to want to go out doors anymore after the turbines were running. Instead of behaving as they always had and getting the benefits of sunshine, fresh greens and insects, they stayed huddled in the chicken house. Their health began to suffer.

 After a lifetime of successfully raising poultry, James Vollmer’s chickens were no longer thriving. Even the young birds were starting to die. When I visited with him he said he’d lost eight more in the last two weeks. “From twenty white hens, I’m down to eight or nine now.”

 The chickens don’t seem to be the only birds that have been affected since the turbines went on line. James mentions the disappearance of the flocks of barn swallows that had been a fixture on the farm for years. “There used to be so many. We had twenty to thirty nests every year. when I’d cut the grass they’d just be swooping all over the place. Now they’re gone,” he says, And the hummingbirds are gone too.”

 He tried everything he could think of to help his chickens but no matter what he did, the chickens continued to weaken. Then some of his chickens were taken to be raised outside of the wind plant. “The guy that took them told me chickens turned around. They got better and then they were completely fine. When they go live elsewhere they do fine.”

 Though he’s certain the problems are caused by the wind turbines, he says he can’t prove anything. And even if he could, over a years worth of dealings with WE Energies has convinced him it would be useless to even try. He holds no hope of WE Energies looking into it or doing anything about it.

 The frustration, worry and anger this has caused him is evident, and the stress of it all has taken its toll. “I don’t know what to do here, but I know I can’t stay.”

 James Vollmer is leaving behind everything he worked so hard for, his home, the old barn he preserved and roofed, the huge mechanic’s workshop he built to last a lifetime, and the chicken house that once held so many healthy active birds.

 He knows that if he can sell his place at all, he’s going to have to sell at a loss, but remaining is no longer an option for him. “I can’t be happy here anymore. I can’t even stand to be outside anymore.”

  So the ‘For Sale’ sign is up, and the house he didn’t want to leave is clean and ready for the open house. He’s hoping for just the right buyer. He says it’s going have to be someone “who just doesn’t care”

 Someone who doesn’t care about bad radio, TV, and cell phone reception, isn’t bothered by turbine noise loud enough to drown out the crickets at night and make you keep your windows shut all summer. Someone who doesn’t mind flashing shadows and light severe enough to wake you or force you to keep your blinds down and lights on during the day.

And most of all, it has to be someone who won’t ever miss the crowing of a rooster, the clucking of hens, the peeping of chicks, or the sweet lively song of the barn swallow.

The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills Environmental Impact Statement. If you'd like to comment on the inadequacy of the 1000 foot setback built into this project, CLICK HERE.

To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

The following is a recent submission to the docket concerning setbacks.

To the Commission:

One thing that is not addressed in the EIS for the Glacier Hills project is what residents of the project can do when WE Energies does not respond to the inevitable complaints of noise, shadow flicker, leaking oil, and interrupted television and radio signals. Blue Sky/Green Field residents I have interviewed say the lack of complaint resolution has been a major problem which appears likely to continue if the PSC approves of the 1000 foot setbacks built into this project.

Residents who are desperate for help have approached WE Energies, local government, the county health department, legislators and the PSC with their complaints.

A few days ago a turbine located 1012 feet from the Dalka home near the Town of Malone was finally shut down after well over a year of persistent complaining about noise from a defective blade. WE Energies has denied the problem until just recently. My understanding is that it required PSC intervention to get WE Energies to act. One wonders if WE Energies would have acted at all if they weren't seeking approval from the PSC for this project.

(It's also my understanding that at least five turbines in the BS/GF project were leaking oil into the fields and there have been numerous complaints about this as well. Finally the DNR has come out to investigate.)

In the Oct. 26, 2008 edition of the Milwaukee Journal-Standard, [http://www.jsonline.com/business/65911402.html] Andy Hesselbach, the Glacier Hills project manager for We Energies says this:

“If "the sound or setback standards are modified in any material way, it is unlikely that this project will be developed, and moreover that any large-scale wind project will be built by any entity in the future in the state of Wisconsin," Hesselbach said. "The only option to utilize wind generation would be to develop projects in other states."

Mr. Hesselbach is also featured in a news segment speaking about the BS/GR project which ran on Milwaukees Channel Six. He says, "The very modest or meager impacts to the community of sound or shadow are insignificant in the grand scheme of the upside of the renewable technology" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSpToi982A]

None of the families I've interviewed would say the impact of noise, shadow flicker and other turbine related problems has been modest, meager or insignificant. They feel the wind farm has had a negative impact on their quality of life. They say a larger setback would have made living in this wind farm more bearable. WE Energies 'grand scheme' of renewable technology in this case has resulted in a great deal of anger, frustration, and too many sleepless nights for residents of this wind farm.

I might add that the same complaints are coming from residents of Invenergy's "Forward Energy" wind farm.

Can the residents of Wisconsin rely on the PSC to put our health, safety and welfare first?

Will the PSC knowingly subject the residents of the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm to the same problems by approving this inadequate setback?

Or, now that the PSC is well aware of the problems caused by the 1000 foot setback and 50dbA noise limits (which I understand has been changed to a 50dbA "average" in the BS/GF joint development agreement--) will the commission act to prevent this damage from happening again in the Glacier Hills project?

Only a larger setback can mitigate turbine-related problems. That's the reality of the situation no matter what the 'grand scheme' may be.

Respectfully submitted by

Lynda Barry

(click on image below to see the news segment featuring Andy Hesselbach and residents of the BS/GF project)

PSC to Hold Public Hearings for Glacier Hills Wind Park

MADISON -- The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) will hold public hearings on Wisconsin Electric Power Company’s (WEPCO) application to construct The Glacier Hills Wind Park, a wind electric generation facility in the towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia County.

The public hearings will be held Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. at Randolph Town Hall, 109 South Madison Street in Friesland with Administrative Law Judge Michael Newmark presiding.

WEPCO, doing business as We Energies, filed an application with the PSC on June 18, 2008, for approval to construct the electric generation facility. The project consists of 90 wind turbines with a total capacity of up to 207 megawatts (MW). The turbines would be located in a project area of approximately 17,300 acres and would be connected together by underground electrical cables. The wind farm would be connected to an existing 138 kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line that traverses the project area via a new interconnection substation.

Public comments on WEPCO’s application will be included in the record the Commission will review to make a decision. Citizens are encouraged to attend the public hearings. If you cannot attend the public hearings, but would like to provide comments, you can do so on the PSC’s website through October 28.

LETTERS:

The following letter was written by Jerome Hlinak who is a Tisch Milles, Wisconsin, dairy farmer

Source: www.wisinfo.com

23 October 2009

 When reading articles from pro-wind people, you always find that wind energy is the solution to global warming, the energy crisis, job creation and financial problems for farmers that host the turbines.

Blinded by a feel-good solution for a problem that never existed, legislators are being misled into a belief that something like wind turbines will not have a negative effect on those who are left to live around them.

There is proof that the PSC standards are greatly flawed on wind projects already in operation, yet lawmakers had no problem taking away the power of local zoning on projects less than 100 MW of power.

To understand the problem you needed to be at the hearing in Madison on May 12, held by the Senate and Assembly Energy Committee.

If you were not there you were just like the majority of the committee members.

Out of 19 committee members, only four or five were there at any given time and most never showed up at all.

It was obvious that the pro-wind lobby, paid with your tax money from RENEW Wisconsin, had the minds of legislators on their side long before the hearing.

Several people that live near wind turbines gave first-hand testimony — to empty chairs of the committee — of the negative effects and problems they have. Some broke down in tears as they spoke of negative health effects on their families and their farm animals and that abandoning their homes was the only solution in the near future.

Because of financial situations, most are stuck living in a PSC-regulated hell with nowhere to turn and no one to listen.

There are those who think the PSC is not politically motivated.

With the governor appointing the three-member committee and Senate approving the confirmations, can anyone see no political motive?

The Energy Committee consists of mostly legislators that are from city districts and have no possibility of having turbines placed in their back yards.

Anyone want to bet that there will be no turbines located in lakes around the Capitol in Madison?

Who are the NIMBYs now?

Others will tell you that turbines create jobs and provide wealth for all involved. They don’t tell you that the cost of production of wind electricity will drive up electrical rates three to four times the current cost. How many businesses will be lost because of these added costs? Can our municipalities and homeowners afford these added costs?

I am tired of the false information given by LTC wind energy instructor Jenny Heinzen and Michael Vickerman of RENEW Wisconsin, and others in the wind industry.

Name-plate capacity is not actual generation.

Wind turbines are only 25 percent or lower in efficiency.

A household also uses four times more electricity than their calculations.

As a dairy farmer, I never claim my production is the gallons of capacity of my bulk tank, and that I can feed the world with that milk inside.

Millions of your tax dollars have been spent on the Farmland Preservation Program to preserve farmland from being developed.

The agricultural industry is the backbone of Wisconsin’s economic infrastructure. With the PSC in control of local zoning on wind energy, there will be no way for local governments to protect the land from destruction.

Legislators passed the Working Lands Proposal in the budget to penalize landowners who convert land out of the preservation program, but wind turbine developments are not included. I believe that eminent domain will be used by the PSC to place thousands of turbines.

I also believe funding of these turbines will be cut by lawmakers in future state and federal budgets, leaving those who have turbines on their land penniless and unable to farm.

THE BIG IF

Better Plan takes a closer look at some of the expert testimony on the Glacier Hills Docket.

Today's testimony comes from Jerry Mendl who was hired by Clean Wisconsin to evaluate the effectiveness of the Glacier Hills wind farm at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2.

(NOTE: Mr. Mendl served at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission as Director of the Bureau of Environmental and Energy Systems and also as Administrator of the Division of Systems Planning, Environmental Review and Consumer Analysis. Learn more about Mr. Mendl by clicking here)

[download Mr. Mendl's complete testimony by clicking here]

His testimony is frank and full of surprises, the greatest of which is this:

Unless WEPCO fully retires a coal plant, the Glacier Hills wind farm will not reduce Wisconsin's CO2 emissions, and could in fact, increase them. [1] [2] [3] [4][5]

(We were unable to find any indication that WEPCO wishes to completely shut down one of its coal-fired plants, or that they would be obligated by the PSC to do so.)

Other findings from Mr. Mendl's testimony:

WEPCO does not need additional capacity until 2024. Regardless of whether it builds Glacier Hills or other RPS facilities, WEPCO will have excess capacity through 2024 which it intends to sell. Additional capacity clearly is not needed to serve the projected load and reserve margin. [1] [2]

 Because WEPCO intends to sell the excess capacity and energy it produces, it is likely that the CO2 emissions will not be reduced from Wisconsin plants. [3]

Unless WEPCO agrees to take a coal-fired plant off line, the net result of building Glacier Hills to comply with Wisconsin RPS requirements and selling the excess capacity will be little to no reduction of CO2 emissions. The Glacier Hills wind farm itself won’t reduce CO2 emissions unless WEPCO retires a coal fired plant. [3]

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Another surprise in this testimony involves  shutting down the Glacier Hills wind turbines in the summer in order to maintain profitability by burning coal instead. On page 18 of the testimony we find this:

 Q. Did your analysis raise any concerns that the Commission should consider?

A. Yes. The analysis suggests that particularly in the summer months, when strongly negative LMPs [locational marginal price] can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence, the way the MISO market works, free energy with environmental benefits is too expensive!

Q. What can the Commission do about that?
A. A Commission requirement to retire one or more coal units would help mitigate this occurrence.

     As far as Better Plan can tell, WEPCO has no intention of retiring a coal-fired plant and every intention of selling the excess energy. This is understandable in terms of a business plan where profit is the goal.

However if reduction of CO2 emmissions in Wisconsin is the goal, our question to the PSC is this:

What is the benefit of the Glacier Hills wind farm in terms of CO2 reduction to our state if WEPCO does not retire a coal plant?  

If there is no CO2 benefit and if WEPCO has excess capacity until 2024 without the Glacier Hills wind farm, how can the PSC justify granting a Certificate of Public Need and Convinience?

The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the lack of reliable CO2 reduction from this project , CLICK HERE To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

References from the testimony document: [download complete testimony by clicking here]

[1] P3:1-13. "Reduction in greenhouse gases, including CO2, is an important purpose of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) law that underlies the Glacier Hills proposal. The effectiveness of Glacier Hills project in reducing greenhouse gases can be best ensured if the Commission requires WEPCO (and other utilities in future RPS projects) to plan for corresponding retirements of  existing coal capacity.

4. The opportunity to retire excess capacity exists because WEPCO, even without Glacier Hills, does not need additional capacity until 2024 under the updated forecasts that WEPCO witnesses relied upon for their supplemental testimony. When one adds Glacier Hills and additional wind generation to meet WEPCO’s RPS standard of 662 MW by 2015, WEPCO will not need additional capacity until at least 2026. Thus, it is clear that WEPCO could retire at least 100 MW of existing coal generation."

[2] P.5: 2-22  Q: Will the operation of Glacier Hills result in WEPCO having excess capacity?
A. Yes. According to its application in this docket, as amended by WEPCO’s updated forecast and supplemental direct testimony, WEPCO will have excess capacity through 2024, regardless of whether it builds Glacier Hills or other RPS facilities.

Q. Does WEPCO plan to sell excess accredited capacity?                                                                            A. Yes. Although WEPCO has not identified specific plans, it has indicated that it intends to sell all capacity over the 14.5% reserve margin prior to each planning year. It has done so for 2009.

[3] P.6:17-20 Q:What effect would WEPCO’s planned sale of excess capacity have on the emission of greenhouse gases from WEPCO’s power plants?

A: If WEPCO sells the excess capacity and energy it produces, it is likely that the CO2emissions will not be reduced from Wisconsin plants. WEPCO’s EGEAS runs show a decrease in CO2 emissions to supply electricity used by WEPCO’s customers. However, if the purchaser of the excess capacity takes energy at levels equivalent to or greater than that forecasted by WEPCO for its own loads without Glacier Hills, the net CO2 emissions from WEPCO plants would not be reduced and may be increased.

[4] p.14:1-15 In concept, Wisconsin utilities may install renewable resources to meet the RPS objectives and to reduce greenhouse gases, and MISO could then dispatch the resources available without reducing the utilization of Wisconsin coal-fired power plants. In this example, Wisconsin’s CO2 emissions would stay the same, although MISO dispatch would reduce the utilization of power plants elsewhere in the MISO 5
footprint.
Q. Should that be a concern to this Commission? 7
A. Yes, for at least two reasons. First, if MISO dispatch displaces a highly efficient natural gas fired combined cycle plant with generation from Glacier Hills, the effectiveness at reducing CO2 emissions will be far less than if MISO displaces a relatively inefficient coal-fired unit with much higher CO2 emissions per kWh.
Second, if CO2 emissions by state are ever used as a benchmark of global climate change performance, Wisconsin would be identified as an underperformer because MISO dispatch produced CO2 in Wisconsin plants, even though the energy was consumed elsewhere.

[5] P.18: 8-16 Q. Did your analysis raise any concerns that the Commission should consider?
A. Yes. The analysis suggests that particularly in the summer months, when strongly negative LMPs can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence, the way the MISO market works, free energy with environmental benefits is too expensive!

Q. What can the Commission do about that?
A. A Commission requirement to retire one or more coal units would help mitigate this occurrence.

Better Plan will continue with our look at the PSC's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Glacier Hills Wind Farm proposed for the Towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia county. 

BUT FIRST--- a quick look at the similarity of response between Big Wind and Big Tobacco when it comes growing concerns about negative public health impacts caused by their products.

 In 1954, as the public was first becoming aware of evidence linking cigarette smoke with cancer, Big Tobacco was already mobilizing a public relations campain that included a full page advertisement published nationally called "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" [Click here to read entire text]

Exerpt:

Distinguished authorities point out:

• That medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer.

• That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is.

• That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes.

• That statistics purporting to link cigarette smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern life. Indeed the validity of the statistics themselves is questioned by numerous scientists.

The signators to this statement are:

THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC.
BURLEY TOBACCO GROWERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
PHILLIP MORRIS & CO. LTD., INC.
BENSON & HEDGES
LARUS & BROTHER COMPANY, INC.
R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY
BRIGHT BELT WAREHOUSE ASSOCIATION
P. LORILLARD COMPANY
STEPHANO BROTHERS, INC.
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION
MARLYAND TOBACCO GROWERS ASSOCIATION
TOBACCO ASSOCIATES, INC..
BURLEY AUCTION WAREHOUSE ASSOCIATION
UNITED STATES TOBACCO COMPANY

As negative health effects of living too close to industrial wind turbines are being reported by wind farm residents world wide, wind developers are following in Big Tobacco's footsteps by denying that problems exist.

NOTE: THIS NOT A SCALE MODEL. Modern wind turbines are 40 to 50 stories tall

Recently, a spokes person for Acciona, one of the largest wind developers in the world made this statement regarding questions about wind turbine impacts on public health:

"Acciona Energy is not aware of any investigation but would willingly participate with confidence, knowing there is no clear, consistent scientific data, nor a peer-reviewed scientific consensus, to confirm a connection between modern wind turbines and health concerns." [source]

(Incidentally, Acciona claims to own exclusive rights to develop industrial wind farms in Rock County, Wisconsin. These rights were sold to them by EcoEnergy, LLC [source])

 And what do wind developers have to say about concerns raised by a recent report from the Minnesota Department of health regarding public health impacts of industrial wind turbines?

This report identifies 2640 feet as the setback beyond which wind turbine noise and shadow flicker were not a major concern.

Wind developers insist on a 500 to 1000 foot setback for reasons of profit, no matter what the impact may be to public health. The ability to continue with these setbacks relies on the consistant industry-wide denial of any negative health impacts cased by siting industrial wind turbines too close to home.

[click here for the entire Minnesota Department of Health report]

[click here for the entire developer's response]

Wind developers response:

"....We believe that the best evidence available indicates that wind turbines do not cause adverse health effects from low-frequency sound or infra sound and compliance with existing noise standards and setback requirements is protective of health and safety.

Signators to this document include:

CPV RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPANY, LLC
ELEMENT POWER, LLC
ENXCO INC.
GERONIMO WIND ENERGY LLC
GOODHUE WIND LLC
HALF MOOK POWER LLC
HIGH COUNTRY ENERGY LLC
LAKE COUNTY WIND ENERGY LLC
LITTLE ROCK WIND LLC
NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES LLC
NORFOLK WIND ENERGY LLC
PROJECTS RESOURCES CORP.
RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS AMERICAS, INC
TURNING POINT MANAGEMENT, INC
WIND CAPITOL GROUP, LLC

The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the impact of 90 wind turbines on residents forced to live with the proposed 1000 foot setbacks, CLICK HERE To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.