Better Plan, Wisconsin

SAVE THE DATE!!!

On Tuesday, November 9th the Assembly Committee on Commerce, Utilites, Energy and Rail will hold a full public hearing at the capitol because of questions raised regarding the  Public Service Commission's new wind siting rules for the state of Wisconsin.

The public is encouraged to attend and to provide testimony regarding specific concerns about the rules.

Tuesday, November 9th at 10:30 a.m. in Room 417 North at the State Capitol Building: Hearing relating to  Clearinghouse Rule 10-057

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD CLEARING HOUSE RULE 10-057

TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT THE SENATE HEARING ON WIND RULES CREATED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

In 2004 the Energy Center of Wisconsin[1] published a report for the State of Wisconsin Department of Administration Division of Energy entitled, “A Study of Wind Development in Wisconsin, A Collaborative Report”. On page 48, under “Turbine Placement” it states:

The first generation of wind power projects in Wisconsin (particularly in Kewaunee County) showed that unless developers pay attention to the placement of turbines, noise and blade flicker could become significant issues for nearby residences.

The importance of turbine placement and wind farm design cannot be overemphasized. Developers need to make use of visual rendering tools to ensure their project explicitly evaluates the potential effect of noise levels and blade flicker on host landowners and adjacent property owners.

The proposed Wind Siting Rules do very little to ensure the fulfillment of this industry supported recommendation.

Wind development stakeholders will testify that these rules are the strictest wind siting rules in the nation.[2]

Last week, Goodhue County became the second county in Minnesota  in the last year to adopt wind siting rules which included a key provision that would impose a wind turbine setback of 10 “rotor-diameters” or about 1/2mile, from homeowners not participating in a commercial wind project —[3] unless those homeowners agree to less stringent standards.

Some wind siting council members were prepared to discuss other ordinances in the U.S. and internationally as provided in Act 40. The subject wasn’t opened for discussion. In fact, Wisconsin is breaking ground by taking away all local control in the development of wind projects. 

Shadow flicker modeling and noise modeling standards are left to the discretion of each wind developer. This is one area that should have more uniformity set by the PSC for input parameters.  Wind developers are not vetted by the state. There are no consequences for bad actors or modeling errors.  

Impacts should be mitigated with proper siting. There is too much emphasis on band-aid methods to comply and mitigate after the turbine installation instead of being confident that the PSC has put forth accurate siting rules.

Having a rule for notice of process for making complaints sent to all residents within a ½ mile before construction just signals the community that problems are most certainly expected.

Under the complaint process in the wind siting rules, the rule states that a complaint shall be made first to the owner of the wind energy system pursuant to a complaint resolution process developed by the owner.

It further states that after 45 days the complainant may then petition the local government for review of a complaint.

The permitting authority is the local government. Complaint resolution should be administered by them.

Unlike a wind turbine owner, the town or county boards are elected officials who have the intrinsic responsibility to protect the health and safety and welfare of their constituents even if the rules remind them that they are restricted by statute 66.0401.

The rules should be clear on what procedural methods and tools the local governments have to investigate complaints.

For example how do they determine if noise limits are exceeded? What is the definition of “curtailment” and how shall that be measured?

There should be a stipulation for funds to be collected before project construction, and held in escrow to address investigation of complaints after the project is operational, as provided for in the permitting and construction process.  In addition there should be a clear procedure for an appeal process to the PSC if the wind turbine owner determines the complaint resolution is unreasonable and refuses to comply.

The rules are silent on mechanisms of enforcement. Local governments need to know what their enforcement authority is. Most towns do not have authority to issue citations for non-compliance in operations in their towns. What tools does a local government have to ensure that the siting standards are met without burdening the community with litigation costs for 25 years?

A wind project may be the single most intrusive development that engulfs a community.

Have the Wisconsin legislators carefully reviewed the evidence that wind energy will live up to the marketing rhetoric; reduce our dependency on foreign oil, reduce C02 emissions and reduce imports of fossil fuels?

If so, then more lessons need to be learned from our existing installed wind projects to make continuing development sustainable. Accepting the same methods of planning developments as in the past has done nothing but fuel opposition. The wind siting rules as written have done nothing to minimize this.

Cathy Bembinster

Evansville, WI 53536

[1] http://www.ecw.org/prod/231-1.pdf

[2] http://renewwisconsinblog.org/2010/08/30/vickerman-wisconsin-poised-to-adopt-the-strictest-statewide-siting-rule-on-large-wind-turbines-in-the-nation/

[3] http://www.republican-eagle.com/event/article/id/69492/

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Better Plan would like to thank Cathy Bembinster for providing us with a copy of their testimony so we can share it here.

CLICK HERE  to watch Wisconsin Eye video of the Senate Committee wind rules hearing. After you click on the link, click "Watch" under 10.13.10 Senate committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail.

Better Plan would also like to thank Wisconsin Eye for making this video available to the public.

DATES SET FOR WIND LAWSUIT

SOURCE: Huron Daily Tribune, www.michigansthumb.com

October 23 2010

By Kate Hessling, Tribune Staff Writer,

Turbines in Ubly, MichiganBAD AXE — Dates have been set for a case evaluation and jury trial for the lawsuit filed by 20 Huron County residents claiming the Ubly area Michigan Wind I development has harmed their quality of life and lowered property values.

Huron County Circuit Court officials said a case evaluation will be conducted July 21, 2011 and a jury trial has been scheduled for Oct. 4, 2011. The dates were set after a pretrial hearing that was held Thursday.

The case evaluation consists of a panel of three attorneys who will review the case and recommend a case outcome. The plaintiffs and defendants then will have 28 days to either accept or reject the results of the case evaluation. If both accept the recommendation, an order closing the case will be drafted. If one or both parties reject the recommendation, the case goes to a jury trial.

In the lawsuit, which was filed May 11 in Huron County Circuit Court against John Deere Renewables, Deere & Company (John Deere), Noble Environmental Power, LLC, Michigan Wind I, LLC (Noble Thumb Windpark I) and RMT, Inc., the plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $25,000 and an injunctive relief ordering the companies to cease and desist their activities.

The lawsuit consists of four counts: Private nuisance (Count I), public nuisance (Count II), negligent design of a wind farm (Count III) and negligent misrepresentation (Count IV). While the lawsuit names John Deere Renewables, John Deere, Michigan Wind I, LLC and Noble Environmental Power, LLC in all four counts, RMT, Inc. is named only in Count III.

In August, Huron County Circuit Court Judge M. Richard Knoblock dismissed two of four counts against John Deere Renewables, LLC, Deere & Company and Michigan Wind 1, LLC, and one of four counts against Noble Environmental Power, LLC

Knoblock’s ruling left John Deere, John Deere Renewables, Michigan Wind I LLC facing two counts: Count I of private nuisance and Count II of public nuisance. Noble Environmental Power, LLC is left with three counts: Count I of private nuisance, Count II of public nuisance and Count III of negligent design of a wind farm. RMT, Inc. still faces the one count of negligent design of a wind park.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege the actions of the wind companies and Michigan Wind 1 wind farm have caused the plaintiffs substantial damage, including, but not limited to, physical harm and adverse health effects, including the inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea and other physiological cognitive effects.

According to the answer attorneys for RMT, Inc. filed in response to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, RMT denies it is liable to the plaintiffs in any amount of money whatsoever, and is asking the court to dismiss the complaint and grant RMT, Inc. its costs, attorney fees and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate.

Answers filed by attorneys for John Deere, Deere Renewables and Michigan Wind I LLC, and by attorneys for Noble Environmental Power, LLC, also deny the allegations in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in the case are David Peplinski, Marilyn Peplinski, Frank Peplinski, Georgia Peplinski, Terry Peplinski, Christine Peplinski, Curtis Watchowski, Lynda Watchowski, James Czewski, Delphine Czewski, Dennis Mausolf, Darcy Mausolf, Dale Laming, Elaine Laming, Lynn Sweeney, Pam Sweeney, Alger Nowak, Mary Nowak, Randy Weber and Angela Weber, according to court documents from the Huron County Clerk’s Office.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege the actions of the wind companies and Michigan Wind 1 wind farm have caused the plaintiffs substantial damage, including, but not limited to, physical harm and adverse health effects, including the inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea and other physiological cognitive effects.

The lawsuit attributes the adverse health effects to low frequency and sub-audible infrasound and/or impulse noise created by and emitted from turbines in the Ubly area wind park.

Noise and setback issues included in the lawsuit are what many opponents to local wind energy development say are the most contentious issues surrounding the Nov. 2 county Proposals 1 & 2. They believe the county’s standards are too lax and put the public health, safety and welfare at risk.

County officials and wind proponents have countered efforts urging people to vote “No” on the two proposals by noting the two proposals are not about noise and setbacks. The proposals are to amend the county’s wind ordinance to change two areas of the county — McKinley Township and portions of Rubicon, Sigel and Bloomfield townships — from a zoning classification of agriculture to a zoning classification of agriculture with a wind overlay district.

The proposals do not seek to change any of the ordinance’s language or existing noise and setback standards for wind energy developments.

With that said, opponents to wind developments say readers should be informed about these issues from Dr. Malcolm Swinbanks, the expert who wind opponents repeatedly have referenced in literature and public meetings.

Some key points of opponents and proponents in this debate will be featured in Tuesday’s edition of the Huron Daily Tribune.



SECOND FEATURE

OREGON PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICE DECIDES IT'S TIME TO STUDY HEALTH EFFECTS OF WIND TURBINES

By Scott Learn, The Oregonian, www.oregonlive.com 21 October 2010

Oregon has boosted wind energy projects with a vengeance in recent years, adopting a renewable power standard and tax breaks that have helped spread wind farms across the state’s northern reaches and into eastern Oregon.

Now comes the Oregon Public Health office, which announced Thursday that it’s embarking on a public health assessment of wind farms, kicking off with three “listening sessions” next month in LaGrande, Pendleton and Arlington to hear residents’ health concerns tied to the spinning blades.

The health issues are part of a broader backlash in Oregon and nationwide from critics who complain of negative impacts on scenery, property values, wildlife and tourism.

The growing number of wind farms has led to more complaints about their health effects, said Sujata Joshi, an epidemiologist in the environmental public health office. Health concerns raised to date focus on noise and vibration generated by the huge turbines.

The assessment will start with the listening sessions, but also include a review of health studies and talks with a steering committee that will include wind farm developers, community members, the state Department of Energy and Oregon’s energy facility siting council, which oversees new wind farm locations.

“With any development, you start learning more about potential concerns as more people start experiencing it,” Joshi said. “Our goal now is to hear what people have to say, and see if we can find solutions that work for communities and for the state’s goals.”

Wind farm critics cite work done by New York physician Nina Pierpoint who coined the term “wind turbine syndrome” to describe effects — such as headaches, dizziness and memory loss — of living near the machines. Industry representatives say they haven’t seen solid research linking wind turbines and negative health effects.

In May, Morrow County’s planning commission voted to give owners of the 72-megawatt Willow Creek farm six months to comply with state noise regulations. In November, Union County voters will vote thumbs up or down on the proposed Antelope Ridge Wind farm, though the vote is only advisory to the county commission. Supporters say the projects bring jobs, healthy lease payments to land owners who host the turbines and carbon-free electricity.

Oregon’s renewable power standard requires Portland General Electric and PacifiCorp to obtain 25 percent of their energy from new renewable sources by 2025. A more aggressive standard in California has also driven fast-paced wind farm development in Oregon.

Joshi said she’s not sure yet when the health office will complete its work. Updates will be posted at www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hia/windenergy.shtml, which also includes details of the sessions on Nov. 3 and 4.

THIRD FEATURE:

PANEL: SPREAD WIND'S REWARDS

MAKE UP FOR LOSSES: Cape Vincent team says property value, tourism are at risk  

CAPE VINCENT — The town's wind economics committee, finding risks and rewards of wind farm development, has offered bold recommendations to spread rewards around and compensate nonparticipating landowners for any losses they incur.

The committee, which released its report Oct. 7, saw risks to property values, school district aid and tourism. On the other hand, wind power projects would have payments for landowners and for taxing jurisdictions through payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreements.

The report also briefly pointed to other financial risks, including the failure of the developer to pay agreed payments, the owner terminating operation and the owner not saving enough money for decommissioning costs. The town and residents could incur legal fees from disagreements or disputes.

To limit the possibility of economic harm, the committee recommended that the town:

Butler Ridge Project, Dodge County WIsconsin-- home of the 1000 foot setback

WIND WARS: HOW CLOSE IS TOO CLOSE?

SOURCE: The Republican Eagle, www.republican-eagle.com

October 20n2010

By Eric Ludy,

With high transmission capacity and adequate wind levels, southeastern Minnesota is poised to be one of the next hot spots for wind development, according to wind resource analysts.

“Almost all the way across is very good,” said Dan Turner, an analyst with Windustry, a Minneapolis-based wind advocacy group.

But as large-scale wind development moves from places like the sparsely populated Buffalo Ridge in Minnesota’s southwest corner to more densely settled areas like Goodhue County, what sorts of problems develop? Are people willing to live among wind turbines?

That question has taken on special bearing in Goodhue County, where the proposed Goodhue Wind project has sparked two years of heated public meetings. Opponents of the project say the 50 400-foot tall turbines would be sited too close to many neighboring homes.

Developers have countered that they have voluntarily agreed to 1,500-foot setbacks from homeowners not participating in their project, above the state-mandated 750 feet.

Both supporters and opponents are expected to make one final case to state regulators Thursday in St. Paul as the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission decides on the fate of the project.

Living in the shadow

Among those there will be Rep. Tim Kelly, R-Red Wing, and Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa. In a recent letter, they called on Gov. Tim Pawlenty to speak out against the Goodhue Wind project, arguing that the region’s dense settlement and topography make it unsuitable for large wind development.

Those opposed to the project would be forced to “live within its shadow” against their will, they wrote.

In an interview with the R-E Monday, Kelly argued that the state takes a “cookie cutter” approach to the permitting of large wind projects, ignoring regional differences.

“They’ve already developed on the best areas,” he said. “Now, we’re encroaching on spaces that are maybe higher in population density.”

To correct the issue, he’s seeking legislation that would give increased control over permitting to local government bodies like townships and counties.

But not all area legislators agree.

Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, said that giving too much control to local governments would result in hodgepodge development that limits the state’s ability to meet renewable energy goals. The state adopted a “25 percent by 2025″ green energy goal in 2007.

He argued that under safe setbacks, people in more densely settled areas could and should be able to live near wind turbines.

“I actually think it’s a good thing that we’re trying to develop wind in places where we need the electricity,” he said.

‘Issue of annoyance’

As wind development has accelerated across the state — capacity jumped from 273 megawatts to 1,810 from 1999 to 2009 — state officials have struggled to come up with clear answers to questions about the impacts of wind turbines on people living within their footprint.

In early 2009, the state Office of Energy Security responded to concerns about the proposed Lakeswind Wind Power Plant in northwest Minnesota by commissioning a “white paper” from the Minnesota Department of Health evaluating possible health effects of wind turbines.

The report, titled “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines” and conducted by MDH toxicologists Carl Herbrandson and Rita Messing, found that annoyance from noise levels and “shadow flicker,” caused when turbine blades spin in front of the sun, were the biggest complaints from people living near the towers.

“It really is, in a lot of ways, an issue of complaints, an issue of annoyance,” Herbrandson told the R-E Tuesday.

He said people generall start complaining about noise around 35 to 45 decibels, comparable to a humming refrigerator.

According to noise models conducted by National Wind, the company that manages Goodhue Wind, 12 percent of the 482 homes in or near the project area would see noise levels between 40 and 45 decibels under “worst-case” conditions.

Ultimately, Herbrandson said, complaints are subjective and rely on a variety of factors, particularly if an individual is participating in a project or not. He said complaints tend to reduce with distance from turbines.

“As you move away from it, there’s a place where that stops. And that’s going to be a different place for everybody,” he said.

Conflicting opinions

Supporters and opponents of the project are, predictably, divided on the health impacts.

National Wind senior wind developer Chuck Burdick said that annoyances have been reported, but aren’t any more severe than those associated with feedlots or other agricultural uses.

The company develops projects as far east as Ohio and has heard few complaints, he said.

He equated public criticism of the Goodhue Wind project over the past two years to “misinformation and fear.”

“The kinds of worst-case scenarios that opponents present are simply not represented by community’s experiences around the country,” he said.

Opponents, however, have repeatedly argued that Goodhue County’s population is simply too dense to support the scale of wind development Goodhue Wind proposes.

Marie McNamara of Belle Creek Township said the large towers would clearly affect the quality of life of her family and others living throughout the project’s area.

“They do affect people, and people don’t want to live with them,” she said.

SECOND FEATURE:

HOT AIR? WHITE HOUSE TAKES CREDIT FOR BUSH ERA-WIND FARMS

Administration claims 50,000 jobs created, but many projects were completed before funds were handed out

SOURCE: MSNBC.COM

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is crediting its anti-recession stimulus plan with creating up to 50,000 jobs on dozens of wind farms, even though many of those wind farms were built before the stimulus money began to flow or even before President Barack Obama was inaugurated.

Out of 70 major wind farms that received the $4.4 billion in federal energy grants through the stimulus program, public records show that 11, which received a total of $600 million, erected their wind towers during the Bush administration. And a total of 19 wind farms, which received $1.3 billion, were built before any of the stimulus money was distributed. ( See a list of the projects here.)

Yet all the jobs at these wind farms are counted in the administration's figures for jobs created by the stimulus.

In testimony to Congress earlier this year, the Department of Energy's senior adviser on the stimulus plan, Matt Rogers, touted the wind farm program for creating as many as 50,000 jobs. He acknowledges that these figures were provided by a wind industry trade and lobbying group. The trade group, in turn, cites a government study, which found that most of the jobs are short term.

The Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University fact-checked that claim, using the federal government's own documents. Not only were 19 of the wind farms already in place before the first stimulus payments were made, but 14 of them were already sending electricity to the grid.

First comes the project, later the stimulus
Here's how we checked the administration's claim: Wind towers are tall — hundreds of feet tall — making them dangerous to low-flying planes. The Federal Aviation Administration requires every structure over 200 feet to be recorded in a database, including the date each structure was built. We reviewed these records filed by the wind farms that received stimulus grants. We also checked records kept by utility regulators, showing when wind farms began producing electricity.

In western New York, for example, in the hills near the economically hard-hit cities of Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo, the Canandaigua Wind Farm could have created the sort of green-collar jobs that the Obama administration promised would be generated by the stimulus package. The feathery blades of the farm's 88 gigantic turbines reach more than 400 feet in the air. Each turbine contains 8,000 components and is almost as sophisticated as a jet engine. Hundreds of construction workers were needed to haul and erect the steel towers, each weighing hundreds of tons.

The wind farm was built in two phases. The developer, First Wind, received a total of $61.8 million in stimulus grants on Sept. 1, 2009, when the administration began rolling out money for the program. But FAA records indicate both were completed at least 15 months earlier — by May 20, 2008.

There are other examples.

In the coal country of eastern Pennsylvania, FAA records show, the last turbine on the 51-turbine Locust Ridge II wind farm in Mahanoy City, Pa., was erected on Jan. 1, 2009, the first day a project could be eligible for a stimulus grant. But the other 50 turbines were built in 2008 — 31 of them before Obama was elected. The farm's developer, Iberdrola Renewables, the subsidiary of a Spanish utility, collected $59.1 million in stimulus money.

High above the rolling plains southeast of Lubbock, Texas, the 166-turbine Pyron Wind Farm represents the new wave of American wind farm development. In the heart of the country's "wind belt," it's far larger and more labor intensive than the projects in Pennsylvania and New York. German developer E.On Climate and Renewables estimated that 620 construction jobs were created, and on Sept. 22, 2009, the project received $121.9 million in stimulus money. FAA records show the last tower had been built on Dec. 11, 2008.

The program, known as the Section 1603, reimburses developers of renewable energy facilities, such as wind and solar farms, up to 30 percent of the project's cost. Applicants need only prove they built the facility and are automatically awarded the money. Unlike other stimulus programs, the wind farms aren't judged on job creation or required to abide by "Buy American" clauses. The money also comes with virtually no strings, and there is no obligation to reinvest it.

Administration officials and the companies did not dispute that much of the work on the wind farms occurred in late 2008 or early 2009, but said the stimulus money was vital for creating jobs down the line. Even if the wind farms that received the grants had been completed, they said, the money was vital to ensure that the next generation of wind power plants is built.

As the stimulus program continues to be hotly debated on the campaign trail, the Obama administration's record of touting all these grants for creating "real jobs" continues.

"These programs were particularly effective in getting money out the door quickly to put people back to work on great projects that would otherwise have been idled in the face of the Great Recession," Matt Rogers, the Department of Energy's senior adviser on stimulus, testified to Congress in April of this year. At other points in his written testimony, Rogers said the Section 1603 program was responsible for "50,000 additional jobs in 2009."

In an interview in late September, however, Rogers did not dispute the records showing that a large portion of work on many projects was completed before 2009. But he defended the grant program as a vital tool to ensure the recipients continued to invest in wind farms in the United States.

"With the first set of projects that were done before the passage of the Recovery Act — in almost every case, what they did was reinvest in the next set of projects," Rogers said. "Because we now have a set of incentives, project developers and sponsors are reinvesting in the U.S. market, instead of seeing a lot of that money go to other places. That's one of the most exciting parts of the job creation story."

Because of the way the law was written, the Section 1603 grant program has no language requiring that recipients reinvest their grant money in the United States. Rogers said he was basing his claim on the fact that many companies have reported to the administration that they reinvested their grants in future wind projects in the U.S.

Most of the job gains are short term, study finds
Although the administration has described 50,000 new jobs, Rogers, when pressed, speaks of 40,000 to 50,000 jobs being created, saved or supported. He said these figures were provided by the American Wind Energy Association, an industry lobbying group. In February, for example, that group said, "Were it not for the Recovery Act, we estimated a loss of as much as 40,000 jobs."

The association, in turn, cites a study by the Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which estimated that the grant program supported more than 51,600 short-term jobs during the construction phase, the equivalent of that many people working full time for one year, and an additional 3,860 long-term full-time jobs. The study assumed that all the projects finished in the first half of 2009 were not caused by the stimulus. ( Read the study here.)

When the wind association and the Obama administration cite such figures as 50,000 jobs, however, they don't mention that the study found that most were short-term jobs.

Since it gave out its first grants on Sept. 1, 2009, the renewable energy stimulus program has handed out more than $5 billion to more than 1,100 projects, many of them small solar-energy projects. The largest amount of money, $4.4 billion, has gone to big wind farms.

The Investigative Reporting Workshop previously reported that the majority of the money was going to foreign-owned developers, and that the majority of turbines being installed were built by foreign-owned manufacturers. ( Read those stories here.) The Treasury Department has rejected Freedom of Information requests by the Investigative Reporting Workshop seeking grant applications, citing trade secrets.

Only one of the companies identified by the Investigative Reporting Workshop as having finished construction on a project before Jan. 1, 2009, disputed the date its turbines were listed as built. The FAA records show that the final turbine on the Wheat Field wind farm in Gilliam County, Ore., was built on Nov. 10, 2008. But in a statement, Horizon said construction on the project began in September 2008 and the first turbine wasn't "mechanically completed" until Feb. 2, 2009. In the statement, Horizon said the FAA information was filed in February 2008, and the November 2008 date was only an estimate to make sure the FAA had the structure on its maps by the time the tower was built.

Power generated during Bush administration
The Investigative Reporting Workshop also reviewed publicly available data on each wind project's electrical generation. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission keeps records of nearly all commercial energy transactions — recording the time, quantity of power, price and total cost of the transaction.

The records show that at least 11 wind farms were generating at least some electricity and selling it into the grid by March 1, days after the stimulus bill was passed in late February. And 14 wind farms were generating electricity and selling it into the grid by the time the stimulus money was first given out in September 2009.

For example, the Locust Ridge II wind project, in Pennsylvania, first sold electricity to PJM Interconnect on Oct. 24, 2008, at 11 a.m. Between Oct. 24 and Dec. 31, 2008, the holding company that owns the facility sold 687.6 megawatt/hours of electricity to PJM, charging a total of $32,788.

Paul Copelman, a spokesman for Iberdrola, said the Locust Ridge II wind farm wasn't in full commercial operation until March 2009. The electricity generated in 2008 was the result of testing, he said.

How they qualified
These wind farms qualified for the stimulus grants for two reasons.

First, the stimulus bill allowed a wind farm to qualify if it was "placed in service" on or after Jan. 1, 2009. The money didn't start flowing until Sept. 1, 2009, so it was inevitable there would be payments for work previously done, particularly for large wind farms that can take years to develop. To get the money, these companies didn't have to create new jobs; they just filled out an application after the fact.

Second, "placed in service" has a peculiar meaning. Generally, it means a piece of equipment, like a wind turbine, is ready to be used for the purpose it was intended. But, when a developer finishes building the tower and attaching all the parts — the labor intensive part of the process where most jobs are created — there are several more steps, including testing and installing the equipment that regulates the flow of electricity and feeds it into the grid, before it is deemed "in service."

In the operation of other federal incentive programs for wind energy, each turbine in a large wind farm is evaluated individually before being "placed in service." However, under the Section 1603 program, tax attorneys and the companies contacted by the Investigative Reporting Workshop said that developers were allowed to count all of their turbines on a wind farm as one. In other words, what counted was when the last turbine was "placed in service," and the whole farm was ready to operate at full capacity.

Tax attorney Jeffrey G. Davis, a Washington partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, where he specializes in representing renewable energy firms, said it's not uncommon for a wind farm to generate electricity — and even sell it — before being "placed in service." Wind farms may need to start turbines and generate electricity to test them or prove viability for commercial production.

In addition, all the wind farms contacted stressed that the process of qualifying a wind farm as "placed in service" involves a number of steps, like testing and building associated transformers and transmission equipment. Iberdrola also noted that it was required to submit third-party certification of the "placed in service" date.

Rogers, the Energy official, said that some of the wind farms cited by the Investigative Reporting Workshop could have been left half-built during the recession, but that once Obama was elected in November 2008, developers decided to finish the work in hopes of a stimulus package. When pressed for examples, Rogers declined to name any projects.

"It's a question you've asked; I've answered. It's an incredibly successful program," Rogers said.

Several of the companies contacted by the Investigative Reporting Workshop said they had considered halting construction during the recession. These include Iberdrola, which considered halting construction on half of its projects, spokesman Paul Copelman said, regardless of how far along they were in the construction process. And E.ON Climate and Renewables said it had considered halting the giant Pyron Wind Farm in Texas, which was substantially constructed in 2008. Neither company ultimately halted construction.

When asked how to reconcile claims from the administration that the jobs associated with these projects were a result of the stimulus — even though the work was done months before the stimulus was passed — Rogers did not offer a direct response.

"I think it's the simplest thing. You can talk to the 40[,000] to 50,000 people who have been working on these projects since they were passed," he said, "and ask if they are pleased."

The Investigative Reporting Workshop is a professional journalism center in the School of Communication at American University in Washington. More about the program.

Russ Choma is a Washington reporter who writes frequently about climate and energy issues, transportation and stimulus spending. His previous articles on the wind farms grant program are here.

VESTAS USING POTENTIALLY HARMFUL CHEMICALS

SOURCE: Coloradoan.com

 October 17, 2010 

BY DAVID YOUNG

Records show Windsor plant has been cited for violations.

WINDSOR – The international wind turbine company Vestas Wind Systems is using potentially harmful chemicals in its blades factory here that have injured several workers and in some cases led to employees losing their jobs, according to government records and former employees.

A two-month investigation by the Coloradoan shows that a handful of employees working at the Vestas facility, 11140 Eastman Park Drive, have been injured by an epoxy resin used in the blade manufacturing process.

The company has been aware of the dangers since a 2009 settlement in the United Kingdom involving exposure to the same chemical.

The Windsor plant has also been cited by U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, for numerous violations related to the chemicals and lack of training that contributed to workers’ injuries.

According to OSHA records and current and former Vestas employees, some employees exposed to epoxy resin have developed the skin allergy dermatitis, an often painful allergy that causes swollen, red and itchy skin.

Some employees allege the company terminated their employment at the plant based on the dermatitis they contracted while working there.

Vestas officials would not speak to specific incidents, only stating that it works with employees who have chemical allergies to mitigate the issues and in some instances those employees might need to find alternative employment.

The workers

Former Vestas employee Rusty Estes, 29, of Loveland had worked around epoxy resins while doing vehicle restoration before joining the blades facility in January 2008.

Before going to work on the “join-up” team at Vestas, where Estes was tasked with putting the two halves of a blade together, he had never had any reaction to the material.

However, just a month after working in production at Vestas, Estes developed significant dermatitis on his forearms, according to a November 2009 medical report where a “patch skin test” was planned by Dr. Scott Pace. A year after working at the plant, his body was covered in a painful rash, Estes said.

At least 10 other employees have also been injured by epoxy resins, Estes said.

Dust and fumes from Fiberglas as well as epoxy resins got on his skin despite the protective equipment provided by the company, Estes said. Vestas provides workers with protective clothing, including respirators, and the training on how to properly use it, but he said the equipment was ineffective.

OSHA violations deemed “serious” by the governmental agency confirm that while Vestas provided protective gear, it “did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace.”

Ken Blehm, a professor of environmental health at CSU and an expert in epoxy resins, said the resin can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin, which is why he recommends limiting all contact with the chemicals by using protective clothing.

Included in the April 29 citation, OSHA wrote Vestas “did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee’s ability to use a respirator before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace.”

The respirators were not inspected before each use and during cleaning, according to the report, and Vestas did not provide training prior to requiring the employees to use respirators in the workplace.

A separate citation noted Vestas did not “provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area.”

Those violations have since been abated and the case is now closed, according to OSHA. According to Estes’ worker’s compensation medical records, doctors prescribed a topical agent that did not help with the itching.

During the next year, Estes said the dermatitis progressed to the point that it was “eating his skin away.” Medical records indicate the rash improved when Estes was not working in the facility for a week because of an illness, but the irritation always returned.

After six months of “severe” dermatitis, Estes was reassigned from production to the “webbing area,” according to medical records.

The job reassignment did little to alleviate his rash because the epoxy was in the air, he said.

According to Estes’ medical records, “There is definitely a cause and effect between working at Vestas and developing the contact dermatitis, and having it clear up once he got out of the exposure.”

In March 2010, Vestas fired Estes because of the dermatitis, he said.

“They figured they had no place for me, so they figured they would just get rid of me,” Estes said. “So I was terminated over the dermatitis.”

Since that time, Estes has been unable to find work, in part because of his dermatitis, straining his finances and marriage.

“Vestas pretty much kicked me to the curb, and I am losing everything. It actually hurt my marriage,” Estes said.

Estes pursued legal action but was told there was nothing he could do about the termination considering Colorado is a hire and fire at-will state. He was paid $10,000 in worker’s compensation for his medical bills.

Estes said he has decided to go public with his story in hopes that the injuries at the plant will stop and to empower others who have been injured at the plant by harmful materials.

“It made me pretty upset; they (Vestas) were not willing to work with me or nothing else,” said Estes, who wanted to keep working at the plant despite his injuries. “They caused what happened … I think I was wrongfully terminated, because I think they could have found a place for me.”

Other Vestas employees hurt by the epoxy have fared better than Estes.

Wayne Stolzenberger, a Vestas production assistant, said in an August phone interview that he has been injured by exposure to the epoxy resin at the Windsor plant but was able to keep working.

His reaction to the resin occurred in May, and Stolzenberger said he was reassigned from wood carving and build production to production assistant to mitigate the issue.

Stolzenberger considers himself lucky – the skin irritation cleared up and he has been able to continue working. He said two other workers adversely affected by the epoxy were let go.

Stolzenberger said Vestas told them they lost their jobs because of lack of effort, but he disagrees with what happened.

“Personally, I feel it was handled incorrectly,” Stolzenberger said. “These guys were not allergic prior to working there. They are exposed, and now the company is writing them off and kicking them out the door.”

On Tuesday, Stolzenberger said nothing has changed since August, and he is no longer affected by the epoxy resins.

Another Vestas employee who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution said, like Estes, he was exposed to epoxy resin while working at the Windsor facility between February 2008 and August.

He developed a painful case of dermatitis, causing him to break out in a rash anytime he was working, according to 12 pages of worker compensation forms that detail the employee’s injury in numerous clinical notes from March 19 through Aug. 10. The documents list Vestas Blades America Inc. as the employer, Pinnacol Assurance as the insurer and Dr. Brian Thompson of General Care Medical Clinic as the health-care provider.

The employee had minor outbreaks and treated the rash with a topical steroid cream, according to the documents. In March, the rash spread to the neck and forearms and worsened. By May, the employee was working in a newly constructed paint tunnel where the irritation continued. According to the clinical notes, the Vestas employee was provided protective equipment including a full face mask, but it didn’t fully protect his neck.

During the next few months, the rash appeared to dissipate, however, it recurred and by July 20, the employee had been sent home for two weeks to allow for the rash to clear. Two days after returning to work, the rash flared up again.

At that point, the documents reveal the doctor would not allow him to work at any indoor position at Vestas because of the health and safety risks involved.

The end was swift, according to the employee.

The termination “just completely caught me off guard,” he said. “It was a hell of a blow. There are still repercussions.”

Like Estes, he has been unable to find another job because of his new sensitivity to epoxy resins.

Rather than being let go, the employee said Vestas should have found a position that worked for him, even if that meant transferring him to another one of Vestas’ Colorado facilities such as the new plant in Brighton.

“I don’t think they can do this thing to employees and not have their own repercussions,” he said. “I didn’t bring this upon myself. All I asked for was to be taken care of … I just wanted them to acknowledge this is their fault and here is severance pay.”

Aside from workers’ compensation for his medical bills, he got no compensation for his injuries and opted not to pursue legal action, assuming it would accomplish little.

It is unknown exactly how many other similar incidents occurred at the plant.

Jim McMillen, director of risk management with Pinnacol Assurance, declined to comment directly on how many claims he has received from Vestas, but he said epoxy resin exposure is a fairly common claim throughout the U.S.

In terms of dermatitis, McMillen said anyone regularly handling the material should be using protective equipment to keep the chemical off their skin.

Thompson, with General Care Medical Center, who treated both Estes and the unnamed employee, did not return multiple calls seeking comment.

Vestas tight-lipped

Vestas officials declined to comment on specific cases at their blades facility in Windsor, in turn, e-mailing a prepared statement.

“Under certain conditions, chemical allergies can occur in manufacturing environments that do not allow some employees to continue working in their positions. In such cases, Vestas works with the employee to determine whether exposure to the cause of the allergy can be mitigated. If mitigation is not possible, we try to locate another open position for which the employee is qualified,” said Andrew Longeteig, Vestas communications specialist, in an e-mail.

“We invest significant resources in hiring, training and retaining our employees. As a result, in the case of an epoxy allergy, we look at many options to retain an employee. We manage these options with the health and safety of the employee first and foremost. In cases where an allergy prevents an employee from performing his or her position, and in which an employee’s condition cannot be reasonably accommodated, an employee may need to find alternative employment.”

Kevin Cory, human resources director at the Windsor blade factory, did not return numerous phone calls and e-mails seeking comment. According to Vestas, the company meets regulatory standards and conducts safety training before employees take their jobs on the factory floor. That training emphasizes proper use of protective equipment and how to safely handle epoxy resin.

Employees who follow proper procedures can avoid skin allergies, according to Longeteig.

Stolzenberger said Vestas does provide protective equipment including full body suits and respirators, but they don’t always work.

OSHA fined Vestas $1,500 and cited the company twice with eight separate violations for failure to train employees how to properly use respirators as well as a failure to complete incident report forms for injuries at the facility.

These violations are directly linked with dermatitis and illnesses recorded at the plant, according to Herb Gibson, area director for the Denver OSHA office.

“I think there were probably dermatitis cases dealing with skin contact with this material,” Gibson said in a voicemail. He said he could not disclose details of injuries and illnesses at Vestas’ Windsor facility.

More than a year ago across the Atlantic, Vestas found itself in a similar situation. In June 2009, the Isle of Wight County Press newspaper in the U.K. reported that Vestas Blades Newport turbine factory, which has since closed, was fined almost $800,000 for health and safety violations pertaining to 13 employees who suffered dermatitis after exposure to epoxy resin between 2005 and 2007.

According to that newspaper’s report, Health and Safety Executive Inspector Roger Upfold said, “Dermatitis is not a trivial condition. Epoxy resins are hazardous substances with well-known ill-health effects.”

Like the Windsor plant, employees at the U.K. plant reported symptoms that included swelling, itching and rashes on the skin, with the effects lasting for days in some cases. As a result, some had to stop working for Vestas Blades UK Ltd, according to the news report.

The employees were injured as a result of improper use of or defective protective equipment, according to the report.

“The company was aware but failed to act properly on the reports of ill-health,” Upfold said in the newspaper.

Epoxy resins

The term epoxy resin encompasses a wide range of chemicals; everything from materials used to construct a B-2 stealth bomber to a hockey puck.

Depending on the chemicals used, epoxies can be inert and harmless or cause severe long-term injuries including infertility and kidney damage.

It isn’t entirely clear what chemicals are used by Vestas in the construction of its blades, however, medical reports for injured workers along with OSHA citations note: epoxy, resins, hardeners, aerosol, carbon fibers and Fiberglas dust.

The exposure is such that in some cases employees must wear full-body protective suits as well as respirators to ensure there is no contact with the chemicals.

Blehm, the Colorado State University professor, said health risks and dangers involved with the material depends on the chemicals used, but common health risks include dermatitis, dizziness, sleepiness, liver damage, kidney damage, blisters, chemical burns and potential reproductive effects.

While some people might be born with an aversion to epoxies, it is possible to develop a sensitivity to the chemicals over time. And once a person becomes sensitive to an epoxy resin, there is no way to desensitize them, Blehm said.

“To the best of my knowledge, I do not know anyone who is able to reverse a chemical sensitization once they become sensitized,” Blehm said.

In tandem with limiting contact, Blehm said it is important to practice good hygiene and keep protective equipment and work spaces clean.

If a person were to come into contact with an epoxy resin, he said the first measure is to wash the skin as soon as possible.

Depending on the individual, reactions can be fairly mild, such as a minor rash, to something as severe as anaphylactic shock.

Doug Bjorlo, air quality specialist with the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment, said he primarily encounters epoxy resins in the manufacturing sector.

While Bjorlo couldn’t speak to health risks involved with the chemicals, he said it is important to wear protective gear such as goggles, gloves and aprons to protect from skin contact.

How many radios will it take before they fix the problem? James Vollmer has four so far.PSC Data Request Response Blue Sky Green Field Wind Project 6630-CE-294

11.01. Regarding Commission staff’s July 19, 2010, Data Requests 10.01 and 10.02, also provide a detailed history of WEPCO’s contacts and any plan to address complaints of the following resident:

• James Mueller

Response:

The following is a summary of contacts with this customer. Any further actions would follow the practices provided in response to PSC 10. 02.

Summary of Contacts with Jim Mueller
Television and Radio Mitigation Efforts

In February 2008, Mr. Mueller contacted WEPCO regarding television reception problems.

After unsuccessfully trying to eliminate Mr. Mueller’s interference with an antennae solution, a DISH Network system was installed in March 2008.

On March 28, 2008, a reboot of the Mueller’s DISH system was conducted in response to complaints of receiver “lock-up” problems.

Because of this issue, the DISH receiver and remote was serviced and an AB switch was installed to facilitate the use of the aerial antenna system when needed.

In July 2008, at Mr. Mueller’s request, WEPCO sent Mr. Mueller a letter referencing our obligations as stated in the Joint Development Agreement and the CPCN Order in regards to mitigating television interference.

Mr. Mueller’s concern was that WEPCO would not continue its mitigation efforts.

The letter was to reassure Mr. Mueller that WEPCO is obligated to provide long term mitigation.

In April 2009, a WEPCO representative visited the Mueller’s to check on the satellite TV operation and answer any questions on the terms of the service provided by WEPCO.

On July 19, 2009, WEPCO provided Mr. Mueller with a weather radio.

In August 2009, Mr. Mueller voiced a complaint over the reception with his weather radio and the Sony HD radio provided by WEPCO.

As a result, WEPCO provided Mr. Mueller a replacement weather radio. The new unit improved reception and provided additional features.

On September 8, 2009, a Sangean HD radio tuner was installed on the Mueller’s home stereo system and was connected to their roof-mounted antenna to determine if they received better reception than with the Sony unit.

The Muellers indicated that the reception was an improvement, but fell short of the pre-turbine reception conditions.

The Muellers suggested that satellite radio service be considered if other options were unsuccessful.

On February 9, 2010, a Sirius satellite radio system was installed at the Muellers. The Muellers were provided the Starmate 5 radio and car kit, the SUBX2 boombox, a 50 foot antenna extension, and credit for 12 months of Sirius’ “Pick 50” programming.

On March 11, 2010, Mrs. Mueller contacted WEPCO because she was upset about the credit structure for the Sirius radio solution.

She did not want to be responsible for monthly payments to Sirius after receiving a check for the year of service upfront.

WEPCO agreed to address her concern when finalizing the terms of the satellite radio mitigation program.

In July 2010, a revised radio service agreement was sent to the Muellers.

Additionally, a WEPCO representative notified Mr. Mueller by voicemail of its purpose and that he should call
if he had any questions or concerns.

On August 6, 2010, Mr. Mueller contacted the WEPCO representative and indicated that he would not sign the agreement because he believed that we had changed language in prior contracts such as the turbine maximum noise levels.

The WEPCO representative reiterated that the letter was solely intended for clarification and documentation of the terms.

Mr. Mueller indicated that he understood WEPCO would require that he return the Sirius equipment in the
event he moved from the area or if a better solution became available.

WEPCO also explained the intended plans to transfer to a “lifetime” account structure.

The WEPCO representative also stated that the new account would address Mrs. Mueller’s previous concerns of monthly payment responsibilities by requiring a one time payment by WEPCO to Sirus for the extended “lifetime” service. Furthermore, WEPCO indicated the new account would provide more Sirius programming than the “Pick 50” package.

Currently the Muellers are being provided DISH Network satellite TV service with America’s Family Plan (a 55 channel package) and Green Bay local channel programming at WEPCO’s expense.

The Muellers are also being provided Sirius satellite radio service with the “Pick 50” programming package, a high gain UHF antenna and amplifier system, a SONY HD radio, a Sangean HD radio Tuner and a weather radio.

Town of Marshfield Committee

Mr. Mueller has participated as a member of the Town of Marshfield Wind Turbine Committee.

During the committee meetings, Mr. Mueller raised concerns about only being able to obtain the local channels through DISH after the initial promotional programming package ended for new DISH subscribers.

After discussion with the Town of Marshfield committee on wind turbines, in November 2009, WEPCO offered to upgrade the package for all those receiving DISH service from WEPCO from the local channel only package to the “family package.”

The rationale for this was that before the project went operational some affected residents were able to receive programming from Green Bay and Milwaukee. In addition to this, people could also pick up over-the-air digital channels.

Since the DISH subscription allowed for only one local area programming (Green Bay) due to FCC rules, it was concluded adding the “family package” was a reasonable mitigation measure.

At a Town of Marshfield Committee on Wind Turbines meeting in late 2009, Mr. Mueller suggested that we offer satellite radio in cases where people have severe radio reception issues even with an HD radio.

WEPCO looked into this service and agreed to try the service at two residences. After a trial period, the residents felt that this was a good service that could provide the variety of programming that they would otherwise receive off-air, and in many cases they would be receiving additional programming via the satellite service.

It was discussed and acknowledged that local channels are not available over satellite radio; however, the additional programming was seen as a benefit. The HD radio could still be utilized for the local programming.

Customers receiving satellite radio service were initially provided the Pick 50 Channel programming package. We have since determined it is more cost effective to pay for an equipment lifetime subscription to Sirius Satellite Radio, which provides significantly more program options. We are preparing to convert accounts from Pick 50 to the lifetime subscriptions.

Sound

Mr. Mueller has raised concerns regarding [wind turbine] sound levels.

WEPCO personnel have discussed this with Mr. Mueller on numerous occasions and have provided the sound study for his review.

Mr. Mueller has also indicated that he believes there was a change in the language from the original JDA and what was submitted to the PSCW during permitting.

The sound standard has remained unchanged since the original JDA was signed Nov. 3, 2003. The WEPCO application for the CPCN contained the original JDA as Appendix C. The document Mr. Mueller is
apparently confusing this with is the Feb. 6, 2007 CPCN Order issued by the PSCW approving the project and referencing the noise standard under the JDA.

Answered By: Paul Farron
Date: September 3, 2010

PSC Data Request Response Blue Sky Green Field Wind Project 6630-CE-294 

11.02.It has come to the attention of [the Public Service] Commission staff that WEPCO has recently begun sending “Radio Mitigation Agreements” to residents who experienced radio interference problems, and to whom WEPCO had previously provided mitigation.

A sample agreement is attached.

Describe the company’s rationale in sending out the Radio Mitigation Agreements. Include a description of any other agreements that have or will be sent.

Response:

WEPCO utilizes Television and Radio Agreements with customers participating in our mitigation programs to ensure an understanding between both parties on what WEPCO is providing.

The television agreements are used to ensure that the customers know exactly what credit WEPCO applies to their account with DISH Network.

When a customer is signed up for DISH Network, WEPCO credits an account in their name for the equipment and services covered in our program for a two-year period. The two-year term was chosen to allow the Company to periodically evaluate the status of technical solutions available to provide mitigation.

The payment term was also established to monitor and account for changes of residency in the affected area.

Because DISH Network accounts are in the customers’ names, customers are able to upgrade programming and additional services as they choose.

However, if they add additional services and do not separately pay for these additional costs, the credit WEPCO applied is used by DISH Network to cover the additional costs.

We have had many instances where this has happened and the credit runs out before the two-year period is up.

To ensure customers understand what programming costs are covered by the WEPCO credit, we began re-visiting participants of the program in April 2009 and have them review and sign the Television Mitigation Service Agreement which explains the compensation provided by WEPCO.

In the unusual cases where people have refused to sign the agreement, we document the visit and note the service agreement terms were reviewed with them.

The Radio Service Agreement is similar to the Television Service Agreement. Since WEPCO is purchasing the programming package and radio equipment, the Company attempts to present a clear understanding that if a resident moves or no longer needs the service, the equipment must be returned to WEPCO for use with the next resident at this location or with another customer.

In July 2010, a signature page was sent to current satellite radio users. Unfortunately, the cover letter was omitted in the mailing, so a clear description of why the individuals received the signature page
was not provided.

Those five individuals who did not receive the complete information package are being contacted to fully explain the mailings.

Since WEPCO is committed to mitigating interference and is actively engaged in doing so, we want to make sure everyone is very clear on the terms and conditions associated with the use of our equipment.

The signature page merely spells out those terms and conditions to avoid misunderstandings in the future. Also see the response to PSC 10.02.
Answered By: Paul Farron
Date: September 3, 2010

PSC Data Request Response Blue Sky Green Field Wind Project 6630-CE-294

11.03. Describe WEPCO’s plans if landowners do not sign and return the agreements. Address specifically whether WEPCO intends to discontinue service if the agreements are not signed.

Response:

The agreements were developed to document the offerings and confirm the customers’ understanding of the terms. Not having a signature does not affect the proposed mitigation, but the goal is to make the customers aware of the extent of the offering.

Answered By: Paul Farron
Date: September 3, 2010

PSC Data Request Response Blue Sky Green Field Wind Project 6630-CE-294

11.04. Describe whether the radio mitigation agreement was discussed with the local committees established in the joint development agreements (JDA) with the towns of Calumet and Marshfield. If it was not, explain why not.

Response:

While the Joint Development Agreements between WEPCO and the Towns of Marshfield and Calumet did not contain provisions for the establishment of committees the Company has voluntarily participated in local efforts to solicit customer input on wind farm issues and provide mitigation as appropriate.

At a Town of Marshfield Committee on Wind Turbines meeting in late 2009, it was suggested that we offer satellite radio in cases where people have severe radio reception issues even with an HD radio.

WEPCO looked into this service and agreed to try the service at two residences. After a trial period, the residents felt that this was a good service that could provide the variety of programming that they would otherwise receive off-air, and in many cases they would be receiving additional programming via the satellite service.

It was discussed and acknowledged that local channels are not available over satellite radio; however, the additional programming was seen as a benefit. The HD radio could still be utilized for the local programming.

The radio service agreement was not discussed with the Committee; however, it was stated that we would put together guidelines and a verification process for the program.

At several meetings the Committee was asked for their input regarding the guidelines. The only discussion point raised and agreed upon was that there would need to be some level of verification.

The Committee has not met since the agreements were mailed but WEPCO plans to participate in Committee meetings as scheduled by the municipalities. Also see the response to PSC 10.02.
Answered By: Paul Farron
Date: September 3, 2010

PSC Data Request Response Blue Sky Green Field Wind Project 6630-CE-294

11.05. The third paragraph of the attached sample agreement states that “We Energies has the right to modify or terminate the satellite radio contract,” “at the sole discretion of We Energies.”

At the end of the letter, “12 months of Pick 50 programming” is listed as an item provided to the landowner. Viewed together, these statements could be interpreted to mean that WEPCO intends to discontinue satellite radio at the end of the current 12-month period, about November 2, 2010.

Additionally, comments received in the Wind Siting Rules proceeding (1-AC-231) state that WEPCO has reduced the quantity of channels available in the satellite television packages provided to residents with television reception problems.

Discontinuing these services may not be consistent with the Commission’s decision in the Glacier Hills docket (6630-CE-302), nor with the draft Wind Siting Rules, where mitigation measures are specifically required to be made permanent.

Describe WEPCO’s short- and long-term strategies for managing mitigation of reception problems caused by the project. If the strategies include discontinuation or scaling back of services provided to residents, describe the rationale for these reductions in service.

Include a discussion of any reductions in service that have already been implemented. Do not limit the discussion of reductions in service to those that have already been implemented to interference mitigation.

Response:

It is appropriate to ask for clarification when and where assumptions or interpretations can be made.

Regarding radio and television reception, WEPCO’s long range objective is to restore the customer level of programming that existed before the Blue Sky Green Field project was constructed.

In the meantime, the Company is providing mitigation that comes as close as possible to this objective.

As reception and programming improvements become available the Company will transition as permitted within existing contracts.

The Customers receiving satellite radio service were initially provided a Pick 50 Channel programming package for a contract period of a year.

We have since determined it is more cost-effective to pay for an equipment lifetime subscription, rather than annual commitments for Sirius Satellite Radio.

This option is more attractive even if other alternatives such as improved antenna performance become available. An added feature of this new subscription is significantly more programming options to our customers.

The Company is in the process of converting accounts from Pick 50 to the lifetime subscriptions. Also see the response to PSC 10.02.
Answered By: Paul Farron
Date: September 3, 2010