by jboullion | Jan 26, 2010 | Uncategorized
The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) issued its final order on construction of We Energies’ Glacier Hills Wind Park. The order included, among others, several provisions to allow residences to seek remedies should they feel bothered by turbines in the project (numbering follows the numbering in the written PSC order, pages 48-54):
10. WEPCO shall operate the project in a manner that meets noise limits of 50 dBA during daytime hours, and, upon complaint by an affected resident, shall be permanently reduced to 45 dBA during nighttime hours for areas related to the complaint. Nighttime hours are defined to include those hours between 10:OO p.m. to 6:00 a.m. daily, from April 1 through September 30. The requirement to meet the seasonally reduced nighttime noise limit shall be triggered by the receipt by WEPCO of any complaint regarding nighttime noise levels. Methods available for WEPCO to comply with both the daytime and nighttime noise limits shall include, but are not limited to, operational curtailment of the turbine or turbines contributing to the exceedance of the noise limits. WEPCO is relieved from meeting the nighttime noise limit if the affected resident agrees to a financial settlement. Compliance with noise limits shall be measured or otherwise evaluated at the outside wall of the non-participating residence. WEPCO shall provide notification to potentially affected residents of the provisions of this Final Decision relating to noise limits prior to initial operation of the project.
11. WEPCO shall evaluate compliance with the noise limits included in this Final Decision as part of its post-construction noise study. The post-construction noise study shall be conducted as described in the most current version of the PSC Noise Measurement Protocol. WEPCO shall file a copy of the post-construction noise study report with the Commission.
12. WEPCO shall construct its project using a minimum setback from non-participating residences of 1,250 feet.
15. WEPCO shall work with local electric distribution companies to test for stray voltage at all dairy operations within one-half mile of any project facility, prior to construction and again after the project is completed. WEPCO shall work with the distribution utilities and farm owners to rectify any stray voltage problems arising from the construction and operation of the project. Prior to any testing, WEPCO shall work with Commission staff to determine the manner in which stray voltage measurements will be conducted and on which properties. WEPCO shall provide to Commission staff reports of the results of stray voltage testing.
16. WEPCO shall work with landowners to mitigate the effects of shadow flicker. WEPCO shall provide shadow flicker mitigation for residences experiencing 25 hours per year or more of shadow flicker. Residences shall be eligible for mitigation if computer modeling shows that shadow flicker would exceed 25 hours per year, and the property owner need not document the actual hours per year of shadow flicker to be eligible. Residences that exceed 25 hours per year of shadow flicker based on logs kept by the resident shall also be eligible for mitigation. The requirement to mitigate shadow flicker at eligible residences shall be triggered by the receipt by WEPCO of a complaint regarding shadow flicker. WEPCO shall allow the resident to choose a preferred reasonable mitigation technique, including but not limited to, installation at WEPCO’s expense of blinds or planting. WEPCO shall provide notification to potentially affected residents of the provisions of this Final Decision relating to shadow flicker prior to initial operation of the project. WEPCO may provide shadow flicker mitigation for residences experiencing less than 25 hours per year of shadow flicker.
17. WEPCO shall maintain a log of all complaints received regarding the project. The log shall include, at a minimum, the name and address of the complainants, nature of the complaints, and steps taken by WEPCO to resolve the complaints. WEPCO shall make copies of this complaint log available, at no cost, to the monitoring committees authorized by the town of Randolph and town of Scott JDAs.
18. WEPCO shall coordinate with local first responders and air ambulance services regarding the development of an emergency evacuation plan, including the locations of alternate landing zones. The plan shall include provisions for public inspection of the plan, as appropriate. WEPCO shall file the final plan with the Commission, using the Commission’s confidential filing procedures, if necessary.
19. WEPCO shall follow the provisions of the town of Scott and town of Randolph JDAs regarding radio and television interference. In addition, WEPCO shall consult with affected residents regarding the residents’ preferred reasonable mitigation solution for radio and television interference problems, prior to implementing remedial measures, and that the preferred solution shall be made permanent.
20. WEPCO shall follow the provisions of the town of Scott and town of Randolph JDAs regarding cellular communications interference. In addition, WEPCO shall work with affected cellular providers to provide adequate coverage in the affected area. Mitigation techniques for lost or weakened cellular telephone communications shall include, but are not limited to, an additional micro-cell, cell, or base station facility to fill in the affected area. The micro-cell, cell, or base station may be installed on one of the structures within the wind energy facility.
21. WEPCO shall develop and file a plan with the Commission, for Commission approval prior to construction, to reduce the individual hardships to the Smitses and Regneruses. The plan shall be developed in consultation with these two families. The plan may include, but is not limited to: relocation of turbines to reduce the number of turbines within one-half mile to no more than seven turbines; providing annual payments to these two families, not to exceed the amount paid to participating residents receiving payment for one turbine lease; or, purchasing the properties at fair market value.
22. Compliance with setback provisions for non-participating residences shall be measured from the centerline of the turbine tower to the nearest point on the foundation of the residence.
25. WEPCO shall provide up to $150,000 of funding towards an operational curtailment and bat mortality study at GHWP, or a site with similar characteristics, as determined by Commission staff. These funds may be applied to a study effort undertaken by another entity or, if no other study can be identified, WEPCO shall develop and coordinate a study and shall seek additional funding from other entities.
26. WEPCO shall provide proposed designs of the required bat and bird studies to DNR and Commission staff for review, and Commission staff shall approve the final study design.
by jboullion | Jan 25, 2010 | Uncategorized
From the frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill:
Enhanced Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Q: Won’t increased funding for statewide energy efficiency programs come out of the pockets of Wisconsin ratepayers? We shouldn’t be raising energy costs during an economic downturn by adding more fees to our utility bills.
A: Investing more money in energy efficiency has a demonstrable, risk-free payback for Wisconsin residents and businesses. Over the long run we will use less energy, which means we’ll actually be reducing our energy bills.
The cost of conserving energy is far less than the cost of building new power generation. Energy efficiency and conservation efforts are the least-cost means of mitigating carbon pollution.
Investing in energy efficiency also translates into stable, family-supporting jobs, particularly within the building and construction trades and at the 50+ businesses in Wisconsin that manufacture Energy Star appliances, windows, and other products. . . .
Renewable Fuels
Q: Will an Enhanced Renewable Portfolio Standard require the build-out of costly electric generation that Wisconsin doesn’t need, while doing nothing to reduce the demand for electricity? Don’t renewable energy sources cost more than coal and natural gas?
A: Each year, we send over $16 billion out of state to purchase coal, natural gas, and petroleum products to meet our energy demands. Every dollar we spend on these fossil fuels is a dollar that leaves Wisconsin. By increasing our state’s renewable portfolio standards, we are guaranteeing that more of our energy dollars remain here, and creating thousands of jobs for Wisconsin families in construction and building trades work, and, in the longer term, supply-chain jobs in our manufacturing, agricultural, and forestry sectors.
Also, the EPA has moved to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, which means that costs associated with burning coal and natural gas will continue to rise. We cannot continue to pretend that exclusive reliance on fossil fuels for power generation is either sustainable or affordable in the long term. We need to speed our transition to a cleaner energy economy and position Wisconsin as a leader in this growing industry before other states get ahead of us.
As we add renewable sources of energy to our fleet, many of the older and less efficient fossil fuel burning units will gradually be retired, and Wisconsin’s generation capacity will fall in line with demand. Initial infrastructure costs associated with a transition to renewables will be off-set by producing cleaner and reliable renewable energy for Wisconsin over the long-term. Meanwhile, the cost of renewable generation technologies continues to fall when compared to fossil fuel alternatives.
Increased reliance on renewable energy is central to creating a more sustainable Wisconsin. Life cycle costs associated with fossil fuel have a significantly greater adverse impact on public health, quality of life, and the environment.
Advanced Renewable Tariffs
Q: Won’t Advanced Renewable Tariffs simply increase the cost of energy for everyone by subsidizing certain types of renewable technologies at a cost that is higher than the market would otherwise tolerate? Don’t Advanced Renewable Tariffs duplicate the efforts of the Renewable Portfolio Standard?
A: Evidence from around the world suggests that feed-in tariffs lead to faster deployment of renewable generation sources than a stand-alone Renewable Portfolio Standard. Advanced Renewable Tariffs will help harness the power of Wisconsin’s rich agricultural resources by making it easier and more cost-effective for farmers to take farm-waste and generate electricity with it to power their farming operations and deliver clean, renewable energy back to the grid.
Incenting the deployment of smaller-scale, more distributed renewable generation sources cuts down on our state’s transmission infrastructure costs and will reduce our reliance on out-of-state renewable power in the long term.
This policy helps level the playing field so individual homeowners, farmers, and businesses can earn a return on investments in renewable energy that is similar to the returns that utilities earn.
by jboullion | Jan 22, 2010 | Uncategorized
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 21, 2010
MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org
RENEW denounces WMC’s “fact-free flip-flop” in radio ad on energy bill
RENEW Wisconsin’s Executive Director Michael Vickerman assailed the credibility of a new radio ad launched by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) that characterizes the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill as an unaffordable extravagance.
“WMC executed an astonishing fact-free flip-flop with its claim that the legislation (AB 649/SB 450) would raise an average family’s electricity bill by more than $1,000 a year. What’s astonishing about it that WMC is conveniently forgetting existing ratepayer protections, which it endorsed – and claimed credit for — when similar legislation passed in 2006,” Vickerman said.
When the state’s current renewable portfolio standard (RPS) was passed (which directed utilities to source 10 percent of their electricity from renewable generation by 2015), WMC ran an article on its website with the headline “’Energy Efficiency and Renewables Act’ Will Protect Ratepayer Dollars.” That article can be accessed at http://www.wmc.org/display.cfm?ID=1256.
The article says that WMC was instrumental in ensuring that “ratepayer groups will have a clear opportunity to seek delays in the implementation of new renewable portfolio standards, should they have an unreasonable effect on electric rates.”
The Clean Energy Job Act bill would continue those ratepayer protections enacted in 2005 Act 141. So far no utility or energy advocacy group has requested an implementation delay under the current renewable energy standard.
In order for an average family’s bill to increase $1,000 a year, according to Vickerman, electric rates would have to double.
“That will never happen because groups like WMC, Citizens Utility Board, and the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group would intervene aggressively on behalf of their member using the existing ratepayer protections,” Vickerman stated.
Since the adoption of Act 141’s renewable energy requirements, Madison Gas and Electric’s residential ratepayers have seen annual increases of only 0.8 percent through 2009, even though the utility is already in compliance with the 2015 standard, added Vickerman.
“This outrageous claim is just another example of WMC’s decision to lob grenades instead of working constructively to forge a responsible partnership with all parties to create family-supporting jobs in the clean energy sector,” Vickerman said.
“It’s clear that WMC made up its mind to oppose the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill long before its contents were even known to the public,” Vickerman stated.
“There is no more obvious proof of this than WMC’s sponsorship of a so-called study by the Wisconsin Pubic Research Institute (WPRI) that claims that the bill’s provisions to expand renewable energy supplies would cost utilities $16 billion.”
RENEW previously critiqued the WPRI report in a report titled “Think Tank Flunks Renewable Energy Analysis.” (https://www.renewwisconsin.org/2009/12/think-tank-flunks-renewable-energy_22.html)
“WPRI’s assertions demonstrate yet again that if you torture your economic models long enough, they will confess to anything,” Vickerman said.
by jboullion | Jan 21, 2010 | Uncategorized
From an article by Kryssy Pease, Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, in the Coulee News:
Electric heaters, which have long been a bad deal for most people trying to lower their energy bills, are an even worse deal in Wisconsin this winter because of falling prices for natural gas.
But that doesn’t stop manufacturers of electric heaters from using newspaper and Internet ads — some of which feature home-repair guru Bob Vila and pictures of Amish craftsmen — to attract buyers by promising big savings.
Jack Brennan, 70, of Green Bay, bought two $350 EdenPURE electric heaters after seeing an ad that vowed to “cut your heating bill by up to 50 percent.” When his next bill came from Wisconsin Public Service, it was three times higher than normal.
“I almost died,” Brennan said. “A gal from (Wisconsin) Public Service called me and she said, ‘What are you doing? What did you buy?’ When I told her I bought two of those heaters, she said, ‘Well, you just answered the question.’ “
Steve Kraus, media relations manager at Madison Gas and Electric, said ads promising big savings “are very deceptive,” but spokesmen from two major electric heater companies said they stand by their products.
by jboullion | Jan 20, 2010 | Uncategorized
From an article by Dee Hall in the La Crosse Tribune:
MADISON — The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is dragging its heels in addressing charges that four University of Wisconsin System coal-fired plants are violating the federal Clean Air Act, an environmental group says.
The Sierra Club alleged in comments last summer that the heating plants at the La Crosse, Eau Claire, Stevens Point and Stout campuses have undergone millions of dollars worth of upgrades that should trigger additional pollution controls.
A consultant’s report commissioned by the state Department of Admini-stration disagreed, concluding that the $16.8 million in changes at the four facilities don’t qualify as “major modifications.“
Officials at the DNR, which issues operating permits for the four plants, say they’re still evaluating the comments.
Jeff Johnson, environmental engineering supervisor for the air-management program at the DNR’s regional office in Eau Claire, said the permit reviews are “complicated” and it will take time to evaluate the written comments filed by the Sierra Club and others expected from the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency.
“I do not have all the information on how the comments from Sierra Club and EPA will be handled, but do know we have a small task force working on resolving these issues,” Johnson said.
Charges that state-owned power plants are violating the federal clean-air law come at an awkward time for Gov. Jim Doyle, who late last year unveiled his Clean Energy Jobs Act. It calls for 25 percent of the state’s energy to come from wind, solar, biomass or other renewable sources by 2025. At the end of 2008, the state was at nearly 5 percent.
Wisconsin currently relies heavily on coal, which is a major source of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change.
‘We can only move so fast’
While the overwhelming majority of that coal is burned by private utilities, the state owns 15 coal-fired plants that serve UW campuses, state treatment facilities and prisons and state-owned buildings in Madison including the Capitol. The plants provide steam to heat the buildings, and some generate electricity and chilled water for cooling.
“Clearly one of the first and best steps he (Doyle) could take is to clean up the state of Wisconsin facilities,” said Jennifer Feyerherm, director of the Sierra Club’s Wisconsin Clean Energy Campaign. “It seems like the first logical step for someone who wants to take the lead on global warming.”
