Entries in PSC (4)
5/26/10 TRIPLE FEATURE PSC Agenda for tomorrow's open hearing includes three big Invenergy items AND Brown County residents push for wind turbine health study
BIG WIND DECISIONS ARE PART OF PSC OPEN MEETING TOMORROW
Thursday, May 27, 2010, at 10:30 a.m.
Flambeau Room, third floor
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way
Madison, Wisconsin
Audio of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 10:30. CLICK HERE to visit the PSC website, click on the button on the left that says "Live Broadcast". Sometimes the meetings don't begin right on time. The broadcasts begin when the meetings do so keep checking back if you don't hear anything right at 10:30.
There are many items to be discussed and decided upon at tomorrow's open meeting but three of them are of special interest to those of us who are following the wind issue in our state.
All three involve Chicago-based wind developer Invenergy.
Invenergy wishes to expand its 86 turbine Forward Energy wind project in Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties, it also wishes to construct a large wind project in Brown County which it is calling "Ledge Wind"
The third item involves a lawsuit from the Wirtz family who abandoned their home because of turbine noise.
These items are number 12 of 17 items currently listed on the agenda.
Docket number: 9300-CE-100 – Application of Forward Energy LLC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Wind Electric Generation Facility and Associated High Voltage Electric Transmission Facilities, to be Located in Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties
9554-CE-100 – Application of Ledge Wind Energy, LLC for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to Construct a 150 MW Wind Electric Generation Facility and
Associated Facilities, to be Located in the Towns of Morrison, Holland, Wrightstown and
Glenmore, Brown County
9554-EI-100 – Complaint of Ann and Jason Wirtz, Seeking Compensation for Injuries
Sustained as a Result of the Operations of the Forward Wind Energy Center (suggested
minute) (DL memorandum of 4/27/10)
SECOND FEATURE
Wind turbine foes press Brown County to ask Wisconsin for further studies
SOURCE: Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com
May 25, 2010 By Tony Walter
The citizens group contesting the proposed locations of wind turbines in southern Brown County has asked county officials to take an active role in convincing the state to further study the health and safety impact.
In more than two hours of presentations before a joint meeting of the county’s Human Services Committee and Board of Health, group members cited sleep disorders, physical danger and well contamination among their reasons.
The Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy is challenging the proposed Ledge Wind project sites of Invenergy LLC in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore, Wrightstown and Holland.
The state Public Service Commission has the final say on the locations and has appointed a wind siting committee to establish the guidelines that are expected to be announced this summer.
“This is a very significant matter for our leadership to discuss before installation,” said Carl Kuehne, a spokesman for the citizens group. “We want to make certain that they’re properly sited.”
The group made four requests:
* That the County Board or Board of Health prohibit erection of wind turbines until a study of the health effects can be completed.
* That the county ask the state Department of Public Health to conduct a formal and independent study of the health effects of wind turbine noise on existing farms in Wisconsin.
* That the county ask the PSC to defer any applications for siting wind turbines anywhere in the state, particularly in Brown County, until the study is completed.
* That the Board of Health establish appropriate setbacks and noise level guidelines for wind turbines in Brown County.
The group submitted a petition with 900 signatures.
Morrison resident Tim Harmann showed a video in which he interviewed residents near Fond du Lac who were dissatisfied with the wind farm project in that region.
Ann Wirtzsaid her family had to move away from wind turbines near Fond du Lac because of health issues created by the turbines. She gave an emotional review of her experience.
“Don’t do this to people,” she told the committees. “I beg you.”
Jon Morehouse, a member of the citizens group, said there were dangers from broken blades and fallen turbines, adding that one collapsed last week in Illinois.
Kristin Morehouse said the construction of turbines in Morrison presented serious well contamination issues to a community that has already been beset with such issues.
Matt Thornton, a spokesman for Invenergy, said the evidence of health and safety with wind turbines is extensive.
Reading from a prepared statement, he said, “There is prodigious evidence nationwide that wind turbines are safe and produce no negative health effects. There is already a body of evidence in Wisconsin showing wind farms are safe, healthy and beneficial, including the recent Glacier Hills case decided by the Public Service Commission.”
4/2/10 DOUBLE FEATURE: Wisconsin family driven from home by wind turbine noise takes it to court AND Couldn't make it to the April 1, 2010 Wind Siting Council Meeting? Watch it here!
A family's noise complaint against Invenergy LLC and its Forward Energy Wind Center in Brownsville is spooking wind farm developers trying to do business in the state.
"I think it would have a devastating effect in Wisconsin," said Jim Naleid, managing director of Holmen-based AgWind Energy Partners LLC. "People are already avoiding the state because of the political trouble you can face getting a wind farm approved, and now this could just deter them further."
In a complaint filed with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Ann and Jason Wirtz argue the 86-turbine Forward Energy Wind Center cost them their home and their alpaca-breeding business and created health problems for the family. The project went online in 2008.
The Wirtzes want the PSC to require Invenergy compensate them for their losses, although the complaint does not specify how much the family wants.
"They couldn't stand to live there anymore," said Edward Marion, the Madison attorney representing the Wirtzes, who moved from Brownsville to nearby Oakfield in 2009.
"And the PSC has a lot more evidence now about noise standards and county ordinances than it did when it approved this project."
The Wirtzes, in their complaint, claim their daughter Megan developed serious stomach and intestinal problems as well as chronic fatigue and headaches as a result of the noise. According to the complaint, two baby alpacas were aborted and one was stillborn after the wind farm went online.
John Shenot, PSC policy adviser, said Friday the commission's attorneys are reviewing the complaint and determining the next step.
Chicago-based Invenergy will not comment specifically on the complaint, said Joe Condo, the company's vice president and general counsel. But he said forcing companies to pay damages years late could threaten future projects.
"If it's decided in the face of studies showing no link between the sounds produced by a wind farm and a person's health that developers nonetheless have to compensate owners, then, yeah, of course it would be a problem for developers," Condo said. "It also flies in the face of what the state and nation are trying to do in developing the renewable industry."
Condo referred to a 2009 study commissioned by the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations that concluded sounds from wind turbines cannot produce adverse physical or health effects.
Marion said he does not know of any other cases in which property owners filed complaints against a wind farm developer after the project began operating. But with more wind farm projects going up in Wisconsin, he said, landowners are more aggressive in protecting their property.
"This is the first of what may be more," Marion said of the Wirtzes' complaint.
That is exactly what scares Naleid and other developers, Naleid said. He said developers cannot be expected to pitch new projects if they must live in fear of penalties years after project approval.
Yet Naleid agreed the Wirtzes' complaint could be the first of many.
"Then what kind of thoughts do you have about developing any kind of power, whether it's coal-fired, nuclear, solar?" he said. "If the plan is approved but you can still be sued later, why would anyone want to?"
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Better Plan will be uploading video the entire April 1, 2010 WSC meeting to YouTube in ten minute segments over the next few days.
3/31/10 QUADRUPLE FEATURE: Kewaunee County Town of Carlton passes Large Wind Moratorium AND Where are they putting the turbines? And Hurry, hurry, hurry! Wind developers are waiting: PSC wants rules in three months, AND what's on the WSC docket today?
BREAKING NEWS:
Town of Carlton passes moratorium
Residents of Kewaunee County’s Town of Carlton filled the room at the zoning board hearing Monday night to show support for a moratorium on wind project development throughout the township. After the hearing the moratorium was passed by unanimous vote.
HOW MUCH OF WISCONSIN WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE WIND SITING COUNCIL GUIDELINES?
CLICK HERE to find out who is on the siting council
One of the issues the siting council will be addressing is shadow-flicker. Click on the image below to see what shadow flicker looks like in the dining room of a home in the Cedar Ridge project in Fond du lac County.
The family in this home didn't know anything about wind turbine shadow flicker until the day it started hitting their home. They do have the option of pulling down all the blinds and turning on the lights in order to eat together at the dining room table during the day. They also get shadow flicker on moonlit nights.
This is a map of counties where wind developers have expressed interest in siting projects. If we've missed any CLICK HERE to contact us and let us know so we can update the map.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
The next Wind Siting Council meeting is Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 1:30 pm
-Developing guiding principles- Developer/owner responsibility
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin
Rule deadline spooks wind farm neighbors
By Paul Snyder
March 29, 2010
Developers and landowners disagree over a state wind farm council’s three-month schedule to set turbine placement guidelines.
Developers with proposals on deck want the standards soon. Property owners do not want the state to rush a decision.
“These are life-changing decisions that will be made, and you can’t weigh health and safety issues against a three-month timeline,” said Lynda Barry-Kawula, a Spring Valley resident and co-founder of Better Plan Wisconsin, a volunteer group representing residents affected by wind farm development.
The state’s Wind Siting Council, appointed by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, met for the first time Monday in Madison, and PSC Chairman Eric Callisto said he expects the council’s work to be done by July.
VISIT THE DAILY REPORTER’S WIND FARM PROJECT PROFILE PAGE
The 15-member council was formed through a law passed last year to create common guidelines for wind farms generating less than 100 megawatts of electricity. Currently, the PSC reviews all projects that generate 100 megawatts or more, and local governments create ordinances for projects that generate less.
In addition to determining property setback distances for turbines, the council will review PSC-drafted rules relating to noise levels, shadow flickers on nearby properties and how best to restore sites after utilities decommission wind farms.
The council’s guidelines will govern the smaller wind farms, but also could apply to larger projects.
The lack of uniform standards is costing Wisconsin projects, said Dean Baumgartner, executive vice president of technical services and construction for St. Louis-based Wind Capital Group’s Madison office.
“If the cost of developing wind farms isn’t as competitive here as it is in other states, then developers will look elsewhere,” he said. “And Wisconsin will see that tax base go to other states.”
Baumgartner said Wind Capital Group is considering projects in Wisconsin, but the company will wait until uniform standards are in place. He said he’s encouraged by the PSC’s tight timeline.
The state needs to establish standards as quickly as possible, said Deb Irwin, the PSC’s renewable energy specialist.
“There are a lot of developers waiting,” she said.
The PSC will have a draft set of rules ready for council review in two weeks, at which point council members can raise issues or propose changes for a final version. The council will hold at least two public hearings on the rules — one in Monroe County and one in another county besides Dane County.
Irwin said if the council’s work is not done by July, it can continue to debate changes. But she said the PSC wants a final product this summer.
That worries Gerry Meyer, a Brownsville resident who lives near Chicago-based Invenergy LLC’s Forward Wind Energy Center.
“I don’t know if they can really reach consensus in that time,” he said. “There might be some strong votes, but I think it’s going to go one way, and that’s stacked against landowners.”
Ryan Schryver, a member of the council and grass-roots organizer for Madison-based Clean Wisconsin Inc., said the aggressive timeline is good and concerned landowners will get a chance to air their concerns.
“I think the PSC’s been pretty clear about taking the existing ordinances and the changes to the public, and I think that will continue,” he said. “We’re committed to getting the public involved.”
SECOND FEATURE: What's on the Wind Siting Council (WSC) docket today?
CLICK HERE to find out who is on the siting council
Public Comment from Town of Forest, St. Croix County, Wisconsin regarding Emerging Energies plan to site wind project there
I LIVE IN THE TOWN OF FOREST IN ST CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN WHICH IS A PROPOSED SITE FOR A 100 MW WIND ENERGY PROJECT CONSISTING OF (40) 2.5 MW TURBINES MOUNTED ON 300 FT TOWERS.
THE DEVELOPER IS EMERGING ENERGIES INC BASED HERE IN WISCONSIN.
THERE WAS A TOWN BOARD MEETING IN FOREST ON MARCH 11, 2010 AT 7 PM WHICH HAD TWO OF THEIR REPRESENTATVES GIVING A POWER POINT PRESENTATION ON THE FINDINGS OF THE TWO YEAR WIND STUDY FOR THE AREA.
THE ATTENDEES AT THE MEETING WERE MAINLY LAND OWNERS THAT HAD EXPRESSED INTEREST IN HAVING TURBINES PLACED ON THEIR PROPERTY FOR PROFIT.
AS FAR AS I COULD TELL, I WAS THE ONLY RESIDENT THERE THAT DID NOT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THIS PROJECT.
I ASKED A FEW QUESTIONS ON SITE REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS SET BACKS FROM PRIVATE RESIDENCES FOR TURBINES, OVERHEAD OR UNDERGROUND FEEDER CABLES AND TRANSMISSION LINES AND THE PLACEMENT OF A SUBSTATION.
I COULD TELL THAT MY QUESTIONS EVOKED SURPRISE FROM THE EMERGING ENERGIES PRESENTOR.
MY BACKGROUND IS IN THE ELECTRICAL UTILITY AND CONTRACTOR MARKETS AND I DO SELL PRODUCTS INTO WIND ENERGY PROJECTS.
I HAVE BEEN TO OVER A DOZEN WIND PROJECTS SITES IN TEXAS, WYOMING, OREGON AND OKLAHOMA. MOST OF THESE PROJECTS IN THOSE STATES ARE BEING DEVELOPED IN REMOTE AND VERY WIDE OPEN AREAS. UNLIKE WISCONSIN, WHERE THE AVERAGE FARM IS 40 TO 400 ACRES, RANCHES OUT IN THESE PLACES ARE MEASURED IN 640 ACRE SECTIONS AND ARE COMPRISED OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES.
THE PLACEMENT OF TURBINES USUALLY HAS NO EFFECT ON PRIVATE RESIDENCES BECAUSE OF THIER ISOLATED LOCATIONS.
THE PROJECT PROPOSED FOR THE TOWN OF FOREST WILL BE LOCATED IN AN AREA THAT HAS MUCH HIGHER POPULATION DENSITY AND MANY HOMES WILL BE AFFECTED.
I WAS NOT GIVEN A CLEAR ANSWER ON MY SETBACK QUESTION, I WAS TOLD THEY COULD PLACE A TOWER 1.1 TIMES IT'S HEIGHT FROM MY PROPERTY LINE OR 11OO FT FROM MY HOME....MAYBE 1200 FT. THIS IS WAY TOO CLOSE.
WE SHOULD NOT LEAVE HOMEOWNERS AT THE MERCY OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPERS. THE NOISE AND LOW FREQUENCY SOUNDS EMMITTED 24 HRS A DAY ARE HAZARDOUS TO HEALTH OVER EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME.
THE FLICKERING EFFECT FROM THE SUN CAN BE VERY ANNOYING. THE PEOPLE IN THE TOWN OF FOREST HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF LIVING TOO CLOSE TO THESE 300 FOOT TURBINES AND THEY NEED TO BE INFORMED.
A FEW OF US WILL BE STARTING A CITIZENS ACTION GROUP TO EDUCATE LOCAL RESIDENTS ON THESE ISSUES, AND TO STOP THE PROJECT IF THE DEVELOPER DOES NOT RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE RESIDENCES AND THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF PEOPLE LIVING AND WORKING IN AREA.
I AM NOT OPPOSED TO WIND ENERGY, BUT THERE MUST BE REGULATIONS TO ENSURE RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT. I ASK THAT YOUR COMMITTEE ESTABLISH A 4000 - 5000 FOOT SET BACK REGUATION FOR THESE TURBINES AWAY FROM PRIVATE RESIDENCESI affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
JEFF ERICSON
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Bill Rakocy, partner and founding member of Emerging Energies is on the Wind Siting Council which will be setting rules for siting wind turbines in our state and like many others on the council, he has a direct financial interest in establishing short setbacks.
Emerging Energies is bringing the largest turbines ever sited in Wisconsin to the Brown County Town of Glenmore. They are fifty stories tall (500 feet) and made by German Company, Nordex
More from the docket:
Wind projects affect the lives of home owners for 25 - 35 years.
Careful study needs to be done to insure there are no adverse health and safety affects from inadequate siting guidlines.
Since not everyone can attend 2 or 3 hearings per week, this study should not try to be rushed through in 3 months time.
I would also like to see more hearing held near the affected communities. Everyone deserves the opportunity to be heard.
Thank You.I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Curt Hilgenberg, Town of Holland
Visit the docket by CLICKING HERE. The docket number to enter is 1-AC-231
ADDED MARCH 29, 2010
Prepared for Wind Siting Council for Informational Purposes March 29, 2010
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES PROCESS
DRAFT RULE OUTLINE:
PSC Chapter 128 Draft Compiled Rule Outline Prepared for Wind Siting Council
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FIRST STEP - STATEMENT OF SCOPE
• Commission staff prepares a draft Statement of Scope
• Commission reviews and approves the Statement of Scope
• Statement of Scope is published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register
• Waiting period
SECOND STEP - HEARING STEP
• Commission staff prepares draft rule
• Once draft is ready, staff prepares a Notice of Hearing and other information regarding the draft rule
• The Commission reviews and approves the draft rule and Notice
• The Notice of Hearing and Proposed Rule are published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register
• A hearing is held and comments taken
For the Wind Siting Rules, at least 2 hearings (one in Monroe County, and one outside
Dane and Monroe Counties, but where developers have proposed wind energy systems)
THIRD STEP - LEGISLATIVE STEP
• Commission staff redrafts rule based on comments
• Commission staff prepares a Report to the Legislature
• The Commission reviews and approves the Final Rules and the Report to the Legislature
• The Rule and the Report to the Legislature are sent to both the Assembly and the Senate
• The Rule is assigned to a Committee in each house
• Committees have 30 days to review the rule
A committee may schedule a hearing or request that the Commission modify the rule
FOURTH STEP - FINAL STEP
• At the conclusion of the legislative rule review period, the Rule is approved
• The Final Rule is sent to Secretary of State
• The Final Rule is published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register
• Generally, the Final Rule becomes effective the first day of the first month following publication PSC REF#:129087
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
RECEIVED: 03/29/10, 3:06:54 PM
DRAFT RULE OUTLINE:
PSC Chapter 128 Draft Compiled Rule Outline Prepared for Wind Siting Council
WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS
PSC 128.01 Definitions.
• Large wind energy system
• Small wind energy system
• Other
PSC 128.02 Applicability.
• Applicable to projects on going forward basis, except as noted
• Commission may waive or modify a rule provision in an exceptional situation
PSC 128.03 Siting criteria.
• Setbacks for design and construction of a wind energy system• Compliance with setback provisions measured from the centerline of the turbine tower to the nearest point on the foundation of the building
• Owners of occupied buildings, participating residences or non-participating residences may waive setbacks
• Long term land use planning may not preclude construction of wind turbines
• No height or location limitations near public use airports or heliports stricter than FAA obstruction standards
• No height or location limitations near private medical facility heliports use for air ambulance service stricter than the FAA obstruction standards that apply to public use heliports
• Developer shall consider noise standard in siting decisions
• Developer shall consider shadow flicker impacts in siting decisions
• Developer shall consider radio, television, phone interference in siting decisions and avoid interference to extent practicable
• Developer shall test for stray voltage near project facility prior to construction and after the project is completed; developer to rectify stray voltage problems arising from the construction and operation of the project
• Developer shall work with political subdivisions to minimize individual hardships
PSC 128.04 Development of a wind energy system.
• Developer is required to provide advance notice to landowners near project area and political subdivisions where project is located
• Possible requirement for developer to provide notice to commission
• Developer to consult with DNR regarding natural resources
• Developer to consult with Wisconsin Historical Society regarding historical and archeological resources
• Developer to develop a transportation plan in consultation with DOT and political subdivision
• Political subdivision may require developer to submit a detailed roads plan PSC
• Developer to coordinate with local first responders and air ambulance services regarding emergency evacuation plan
• Political subdivision may require developers to consult with owners of private use airports in the project area
• Consideration of impacts on aerial spraying practices
• Consideration of impacts on existing agricultural or other commercial enterprises
• Compensation for non-participating residences near turbines
• Possible recording requirement for wind leases and easements or a memorandum thereof
• Requirements regarding provisions to be contained in a wind lease or easement
PSC 128.05 Construction and operation.
• Developer/owner may not materially deviate from the approved application without separate approval from the political subdivision
• No advertising material permitted on a wind turbine
• Political subdivision may not impose structure lighting restrictions that would conflict with
FAA specifications
• Developer/owner shall restore the project area after construction is complete
• Developer/owner shall ensure the outside of a turbine is not climbable
• Developer/owner shall ensure access doors are locked
• Developer/owner shall post appropriate warning signage
• Developer/owner shall post 24/7 emergency contact, ownership, and location information
• Political subdivision may create rules regarding blasting
• Developer/owner shall construct, maintain, and operate collector circuit facilities in compliance with National Electrical Safety Code and Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 114
• Developer/owner shall construct, maintain, and operate all other wind project facilities in compliance with National Electrical Code
• Developer/owner shall repair, maintain and replace wind turbines and associated facilities as needed to keep the wind energy system in good repair and operating condition
• Developer/owner shall report to political subdivision regarding operations and maintenance
• Developer/owner shall notify political subdivision and commission of an emergency
• Developer/owner shall establish emergency procedures
• Developer/owner shall operate the project in a manner that meets specified noise limits (dBA) during daytime hours
• Upon complaint by an affected resident, noise limit shall be reduced during nighttime hours for areas related to the complaint
• Methods available to comply with noise limits
• Developer/owner relieved from meeting nighttime noise limit if affected resident agrees to a waiver or settlement
• Noise limits in the event of a steady pure tone (whine, whistle, screech, hum)
• Compliance with noise limits shall be measured or otherwise evaluated at the outside wall of residence
• Developer/owner to conduct pre- and post-construction noise studies
PSC 128.06 Enforcement and mitigation.
• Developer/owner shall maintain a log of all complaints
• Developer/owner shall make copies of this complaint log available to any local monitoring committees
• Developer/owner shall provide a contact person and phone number for complaints
• Developer/owner shall work with landowners to mitigate the effects of shadow flicker
• Requirement to mitigate shadow flicker at eligible residences triggered by complaint regarding shadow flicker
• Developer/owner to allow resident to choose a preferred reasonable mitigation technique
• Developer/owner to consult with affected residents regarding the resident’s preferred reasonable mitigation solution for radio and television interference
• Developer/owner to work with affected cellular providers to provide adequate coverage in the affected area
PSC 128.07 Decommissioning.
• Developer/owner must decommission wind energy system at end of its useful life
• Time periods for decommissioning
• Developer/owner to submit decommissioning and site restoration plan to political subdivision
• Developer/owner shall ensure decommissioned sites are restored
• Developer/owner shall demonstrate financial ability to decommission
PSC 128.08 Political subdivision review of a wind energy system.
• Political subdivision may require developer/owner to obtain approval for expansion of a pre-existing or previously approved wind energy system
• Political subdivision’s approval remains in effect despite a change in ownership of the wind energy system
• Conditions for political subdivision granting approval
• Political subdivision may deny an application if conditions are not met
• Political subdivision shall issue its decision in writing, based on written findings of fact, supported by evidence in the record
• Before an applicant files an application, applicant shall submit to the political subdivision a notice of intent to file
• Political subdivision may charge reasonable application fees or obtain reimbursement for reasonable review expenses
• Political subdivision conflicts of interest must be disclosed
• Notice of application shall be given to property owners in the area
• Application shall be available for public review
• Political subdivision to establish a process for accepting public comments
• Political subdivisions may establish a joint application review process when multiple political subdivisions are involved
PSC Chapter 128 Draft Compiled Rule Outline Prepared for Wind Siting Council
PSC 128.09 Application filing requirements.
• Content requirements for an application to a political subdivision
• For incomplete applications, applicants must provide additional information
• For incomplete applications, the political subdivision may require applicant to resubmit its application after integrating additional information
• Subsequent 45-day completeness review periods will begin after the responses to all completeness items are received
• Political subdivision may request additional information subsequent to determining that an application is complete; applicant required to respond in a timely manner
• Political subdivision may require submission of duplicate copies of the application
PSC 128.10 Commission review.
• Appeal will be treated as application to open a docket
• Appeals must be in writing
• Appealing party must serve all relevant parties with copy of appeal
• Requirements regarding filing the record of the local decision being appealed
• Commission may require additional information to be filed
• Commission may proceed without a hearing, but may set a hearing if Commission believes a hearing is necessary
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
The next Wind Siting Council meeting is Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 1:30 pm
-Developing guiding principles- Developer/owner responsibility
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin
10/13/09 The Birds, the Bats and the proposed Glacier Hills Wind "Park"
Better Plan continues with our look at the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Glacier Hills Wind Farm proposed for the Towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia county.
Download the entire EIS by clicking here
Today we're looking at the section called ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE GLACIER HILLS WIND PARK which begins on page 24 with the issue of bird mortality.
We're very troubled to learn the pre-construction bird and bat studies were done by same utility that is proposing the project.
Here's what the EIS says about birds:
"The potential for avian mortality and displacement from feeding and nesting habitat is a major environmental concern. Bird collisions with turbine blades and towers have been widely reported in this country and abroad.
WEPCO conducted a pre-construction avian study of the project area between mid-June 2007 and mid-June 2008.1 The methodology used and the timing of the survey was consistent with the Breeding Bird Survey methodology and provided a general assessment of bird use in the project area during the one-year study period. The avian study did not identify any heavily used local flight paths or any locations in the project area
where bird activity was heavily concentrated.
The surveys recorded observations of 151 bird species.
Three state-listed threatened species were recorded. An additional 20 species that are listed as species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) were observed in the project area.
Almost all project construction would occur on active agricultural lands. Only a small amount of habitat other than agricultural lands would be directly disturbed by the project. Active agricultural lands provide feeding areas for some bird species during migration and winter but provide only limited habitat for nesting birds. The impact to bird habitat from direct habitat removal and from fragmentation of existing habitat would be relatively low."
NOTE: Though the impact to bird nesting habitat would be relatively low, what about the impact to the birds themselves? Concern about the effects of a large scale industrial wind farms on actual bird populations is growing.
According to a new study by the Britain's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, wind farms can reduce bird numbers by up to half. [click here for source]The research, published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, suggests the most likely cause of the decline is the fact that birds are less likely to live near wind farms because of the noise and development.
In another report, [source] Purdue University Associate Professor John Dunning says wind turbines could also pose a threat to animals that share the airspace: “The worry is if you put something dramatically different, like big towers with whirling blades in it, some of the species that previously used that area, might not get killed but they might avoid going into the area,” Dunning said.
Newsweek published a recent report entitled "Birds VS Environmentalists" with the sub-heading:"The wind industry may be green, but it's proving deadly to wildlife"[source] In it, Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy says turbines kill three to 11 birds per megawatt of wind energy they produce. Right now, there are about 20,000 megawatts produced in the United States, which can mean—at worst—up to 220,000 bird fatalities a year. With wind energy expected to produce 20 percent of this country's energy by 2030, output would grow tenfold and, environmentalists worry, deaths could increase at a similar rate.
Because the turbines in the Glacier Hills wind farm will cover over 17,000 acres, and because out of the 151 species of birds identified in WEPCO's pre-construction study, 3 species are threatened and 20 more qualifiy as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) we believe another independent study should be conducted by a party with no financial interest in providing results required to get approval of this project.
Residents in both the Invenergy wind farm near the Town of Byron and in the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm near the Town of Malone in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties have said there have been fewer birds since the turbines have gone up. Many have specifically mentioned the loss of barn swallows, even on farms where barn swallow flocks have been coming to nest for years.
Wind developers will often say more birds are killed by cats than by wind turbines. True or not, this statement seems intended to make turbine related bird deaths more acceptable.
Scientists study birds killed by wind turbines
By DAVID SCHECHTER / WFAA-TV
13 October 2009
When it comes to generating green energy from the wind, Texas leads the way.
But in the pursuit of cleaner energy, there’s also an environmental cost: dead birds and bats killed by turbine blades.
Now a unique research project in North Texas is trying to find out how many are dying and what can be done to save them.
As Texas continues to flip the switch from dirty coal to clean wind, not all is perfectly green.
That’s why Texas Christian University researchers are scanning the base of a wind turbine at Wolf Ridge, outside Muenster, Texas.
“Some of them are obvious that the turbine killed them. Other times you can’t tell,” said field technician Jennifer Ellis of the dead birds she finds.
Among them are raptors, vultures, yellow-billed cuckoos, said Amanda Hale, TCU researcher.
Birds killed by wind turbines pale in comparison to birds killed by cars, buildings and other animals.
“We do know that birds and bats are being affected by wind turbines,” said Hale.
Hale and her team want to definitively determine how many birds and bats are killed by wind turbines.
Her peer-reviewed research project is funded by the nation’s biggest renewable energy company NexTera.
“We’ve actually seen a huge variety of birds,” Hale said.
But it turns out, dead bats are the surprise finding.
Hale did not expect to find any. Instead, her team has found five times more bats than birds.
Why is that a problem?
The bat population is smaller, more susceptible to disease, and slower to reproduce.
“If we add wind on top of it, it’s enough to be a real concern,” said Hale.
Back at the Hale’s laborartory at TCU, they carry out tests.
“We can measure how good we are at finding these bats,” said Kris Karsten.
Hale’s team analyzes DNA, weather patterns and mortality trends at the Wolf Ridge Wind Farm, all for one purpose.
“If we can predict when mortality happens, we can use that information to prevent it,” said Hale.
As our reliance on wind energy grows, a discovery like that may keep us from making things worse, while we’re trying to make them better.
THIS from USA TODAY: [click here to read at source]
Updated 9/22/2009 3:21 AM ET For years, a huge wind farm in California's San Joaquin Valley was slaughtering thousands of birds, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks and burrowing owls.
The raptors would get sliced up by the blades on the 5,400 turbines in Altamont Pass, or electrocuted by the wind farm's power lines. Scientists, wildlife agencies and turbine experts came together in an attempt to solve the problem. The result? Protective measures put in place in an effort to reduce deaths by 50% failed. Deaths in fact soared for three of four bird species studied, said the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Fatality Study. The slaughter at Altamont Pass is being raised by avian scientists who say the drive among environmentalists to rapidly boost U.S. wind-farm power 20 times could lead to massive bird losses and even extinctions. New wind projects "have the potential of killing a lot of migratory birds," said Michael Fry, director of conservation advocacy at the American Bird Conservancy in Washington. Wind projects are being proposed for the Texas Gulf, the Atlantic Coast, the Great Plains and Upper Midwest. President Obama said in April that he would allow turbines along the Atlantic as one way to help meet a goal by environmentalists and the industry of generating 20% of the nation's electricity through wind by 2030. Currently about 1% of U.S. power comes from wind, according to the American Wind Energy Association. "There's concern because of the scale of what we're talking about," said Shawn Smallwood, a Davis, Calif., ecologist and researcher. "Just the sheer numbers of turbines … we're going to be killing so many raptors until there are no more raptors." Working on the problem Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is aware of the problem and says the administration is working with energy companies and wildlife groups to help lessen the deaths. "I think we will be able to minimize the number of birds being killed, just in terms of sheer numbers," Salazar said. "The fact that some birds will be killed is a reality." Officials in the wind-energy industry say migratory birds and birds of prey, including eagles, are killed each year at some of the nation's biggest wind farms, but they say the concerns are overstated. Laurie Jodziewicz, manager of siting policy for the American Wind Energy Association, said the industry has taken steps to reduce bird deaths. "We have hundreds and hundreds of projects all over the country that are not having those impacts," she said, referring to Altamont. Bird deaths cannot be completely eliminated, Jodziewicz said. "There will be some birds that are killed because they do collide with so many structures," Jodziewicz said. Salazar said new technology in the design of turbines and more careful placement, such as outside of migratory paths and away from ridgelines, can reduce bird deaths. Fry says other methods include using radar to detect and shut down turbines when migratory birds approach, building towers higher and with more space between them, and placing them away from areas where raptors hunt for small animals. "Technology has evolved over the last several decades in significant ways," Salazar said. "We know how to do wind farms in ways that minimize and mitigate the effect on birds." Non-wind utilities fined heavily Some see a double standard for wind farms. ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court in August to the deaths of 85 birds at its operations in several states, according to the Department of Justice. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Exxon agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees. In July, the PacifiCorp utility of Oregon had to pay $10.5 million in fines, restitution and improvements to their equipment after 232 eagles were killed by running into power lines in Wyoming, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That is far fewer than the estimated 10,000 birds (nearly all protected by the migratory bird law) that are being killed every year at Altamont, according to Robert Bryce, author of Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence." Bryce says that follows a decades-long double-standard where oil and gas companies face prosecution, but "politically popular" forms of energy get a pass. Salazar said his department's Fish and Wildlife Service task force will recommend guidelines for wind farms that are friendlier to birds. Bird advocates raise doubts about the impact, because the guidelines are voluntary. "It's still entirely up to power companies where to place towers," said Gavin Shire, spokesman for the American Bird Conservancy. |
Bats
We are grateful to the PSC for recognizing that the number of bat fatalities caused by the Glacier Hills wind turbines could be high.
Here's what the EIS has to say about bats:
Bat mortality has exceeded bird mortality at most wind farms where post-construction monitoring of both animal groups has been conducted.
Many species of bats are long-lived and have low reproductive rates.
Also, Bat Conservation International estimates that more than 50 percent of American bat species are in decline.
These characteristics make bat populations more vulnerable to the cumulative impacts that could occur as the number of wind projects continues to increase.
Seven species of bats are known to occur in Wisconsin; five of these are state species of special concern exhibiting some evidence of decline.
Very few bat studies have been conducted in Wisconsin and thus bat numbers and behavior are not well understood.
A pre-construction bat activity study was conducted in the Glacier Hills project area. The study, based on acoustic surveys, focused on bat activity patterns during the post-breeding and fall migration periods. No species identifications were performed during the study.
It is certain there will be some level of bat mortality if the proposed wind farm is constructed. However,due to the lack of research on bat mortality at wind farms in the Midwest, it is not possible to make predictions about the magnitude of bat mortality for this project or whether that mortality would have a significant impact on bat populations.
Post-construction mortality studies are being conducted at three recently completed wind projects in Wisconsin, including WEPCO’s Blue Sky Green Field (BSGF) project. These projects have land cover similar to that present within or adjacent to the Glacier Hills project boundary. In addition, the projected bat activity levels based on pre-construction surveys at BSGF are similar to the pre-construction estimates for the Glacier Hills project.
The initial post-construction data from the BSGF project show a high level of bat mortality.3 Thus, it is possible that bat mortality at Glacier Hills could also be high.
The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on page 24 of the EIS regarding the impact of 90 wind turbines on bird and bat poplulations in the Glacier Hills project area, CLICK HERE
To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.
To watch a short video about bats and wind turbines, click on the image below.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Many residents of wind farms in our state have pointed out that studies have been done on the effect of wind turbines on birds and bats, but none have been done on the effect wind turbines have on the people who are forced to live with them.