by jboullion | Feb 10, 2011 | Uncategorized
John Backus, owner of St Croix Valley Sustainability Solutions LLC, Somerset, submitted the following testimony during a public hearing of the Joint Committee on Review of Administrative Rules on February 9, 2011:
Committee Members,
To start, let me thank the committee for entertaining my testimony as it relates to the committees consideration of Uniform Wind Siting Rules in Wisconsin. If not for a wind conference in the state of Illinois, coupled with business meetings related to wind projects, I would be meeting with you today. Assuming the business climate in Wisconsin is supportive of renewable energy development I hope to expand my business in Wisconsin by partnering with a third party turbine supplier to expand the scope of renewable energy options available to Wisconsin: homeowners, commercial businesses, agricultural operations, and educational entities.
Outside of ready capital no single hurdle is greater for my business then the uncertainty related to the myriad of zoning rules and regulations that are currently promulgated by different cities and counties across the state of Wisconsin. In 2009 I welcomed Wisconsin Act 40 knowing full well the benefits of certainty in how wind energy systems, both large and small, could be installed in this state. I also welcomed accountabilities that would require, among other things, that non-functional, or abandoned wind energy systems, would be taken down in a timely fashion.
While it is certain that the PSC rules do not meet all of my expectations they are none-the-less a carefully considered balance of concerns, needs, and requirements. The PSC advisory board represented a broad array of interests and provided ample opportunity for public comment. To stop the implementation of the March 1, 2011 PSC Uniform Wind Siting Rules would damage my business interests, and no doubt the business interests of many others in this state. As I see this decision, the committee is presented with an opportunity to promote: private capital expenditures, job creation, and stability in an economy that is not expanding fast enough for the average Wisconsin worker.
Assuming the adoption of the PSC Uniform Wind Siting Rules, the benefits to this state are significant. First, the rules will reward the risk taking entrepreneurs in Wisconsin that are only asking for certainty in opportunity. Second, wind energy in this state is too valuable a natural resource to not be tapped in a responsible and transparent fashion. Third, now is the time for Wisconsin’s legislative leaders to demonstrate that they will create, through their actions, a business climate in Wisconsin that is Open for “All” Businesses. In closing, I ask that the committee allow implementation of the PSC Uniform Wind Siting Rules on March 1, 2011.
by jboullion | Feb 8, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an article by Jim Dulzo on the Web site of Michigan Land Use Institute:
. . . when they could not find an independent organization willing to underwrite such a study, they paid for it themselves. AWEA [American Wind Energy Association] and CanWEA [Canada Wind Energy Associaiton] assembled eight scientists and doctors to survey the available scientific literature on the known health effects of living near wind turbines.
Collectively, the eight have strong research or clinical experience in public health, otolaryngology, noise-induced hearing loss, balance and hearing disorders, clinical medicine, audiology, infrasound acoustics, industrial sound pathology, wind and turbine physics, and turbine sound measurement and siting.
Their review of 140 different studies and papers issued in 2009, largely from Europe, where wind farms are common and located quite close to residential areas, is called Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects; An Expert Panel Review.
The panel points out that the environment and our bodies are awash in infrasound, much of it naturally occurring. It finds Dr. Pierpont’s list of maladies too poorly characterized to be medically useful. It finds a markedly stronger correlation between subjects’ claimed turbine syndrome symptoms and their initial attitudes toward turbines than between their symptoms and their level of exposure to turbine sounds.
Windpower opponents quickly attacked the industry funded findings as biased, something that Mike Klepinger, who formerly worked at Michigan State University Extension Service, where he wrote the agency’s wind turbine siting guidelines, says is not surprising.
“Of course, whenever you invite industry into a panel, the whole panel becomes suspect,” Mr. Klepinger said in an interview with Great Lakes Bulletin News Service. “They say, ‘It couldn’t possibly be operating scientifically.’ But you look at the who’s who on the [panel] list, and you kind of have to give the industry an A-plus for trying to make the panel objective.”
Their three major conclusions:
- “There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.
- “The ground-borne vibrations from wind turbines are too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.
- “The sounds emitted by wind turbines are not unique. There is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds and the panel’s experience with sound exposures in occupational settings, that sounds from wind turbines could plausibly have direct adverse health consequences.”
by jboullion | Feb 8, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an article by Jim Dulzo on the Web site of Michigan Land Use Institute:
. . . when they could not find an independent organization willing to underwrite such a study, they paid for it themselves. AWEA [American Wind Energy Association] and CanWEA [Canada Wind Energy Associaiton] assembled eight scientists and doctors to survey the available scientific literature on the known health effects of living near wind turbines.
Collectively, the eight have strong research or clinical experience in public health, otolaryngology, noise-induced hearing loss, balance and hearing disorders, clinical medicine, audiology, infrasound acoustics, industrial sound pathology, wind and turbine physics, and turbine sound measurement and siting.
Their review of 140 different studies and papers issued in 2009, largely from Europe, where wind farms are common and located quite close to residential areas, is called Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects; An Expert Panel Review.
The panel points out that the environment and our bodies are awash in infrasound, much of it naturally occurring. It finds Dr. Pierpont’s list of maladies too poorly characterized to be medically useful. It finds a markedly stronger correlation between subjects’ claimed turbine syndrome symptoms and their initial attitudes toward turbines than between their symptoms and their level of exposure to turbine sounds.
Windpower opponents quickly attacked the industry funded findings as biased, something that Mike Klepinger, who formerly worked at Michigan State University Extension Service, where he wrote the agency’s wind turbine siting guidelines, says is not surprising.
“Of course, whenever you invite industry into a panel, the whole panel becomes suspect,” Mr. Klepinger said in an interview with Great Lakes Bulletin News Service. “They say, ‘It couldn’t possibly be operating scientifically.’ But you look at the who’s who on the [panel] list, and you kind of have to give the industry an A-plus for trying to make the panel objective.”
Their three major conclusions:
- “There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.
- “The ground-borne vibrations from wind turbines are too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.
- “The sounds emitted by wind turbines are not unique. There is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds and the panel’s experience with sound exposures in occupational settings, that sounds from wind turbines could plausibly have direct adverse health consequences.”
by jboullion | Feb 7, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an article by Heidi Clausen in The Country Today:
TURTLE LAKE – After some setbacks, ground will be broken this spring for an anaerobic cogeneration facility aimed at solving a growing dilemma for northwestern Wisconsin dairy plants.
GreenWhey Energy Inc. is on target to begin construction in late March or early April on a 70,000-square-foot digester plant in Turtle Lake that will recycle wastewater from dairy and food processing, turning it into renewable energy and fertilizer.
The plant, scheduled to be operating by Nov. 1, will employ eight to 10 people.
Along with helping the dairy industry turn a liability into a commodity, the plant is designed to reduce the load on Turtle Lake’s wastewater treatment plant.
GreenWhey is a privately held company spearheaded by Tom Ludy, who founded Lake Country Dairy in Turtle Lake in 2001.
Ludy outlined the company’s plans in a public meeting Jan. 25 attended by about 50 people in Turtle Lake. Ludy said the meeting was held to address any concerns about the project before construction begins.
GreenWhey would be the second project of its kind in Wisconsin and is unique in its number of investors, Ludy said. A similar whey digester facility at Kraft Foods in Beaver Dam is owned by the municipality.
State officials and dairy companies across Wisconsin are watching the GreenWhey project closely in hopes that this type of project could help the dairy industry manage wastewater more sustainably.
The approximately $15 million project is being financed by private investors, grants and low-interest government loans.
by jboullion | Feb 7, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an article by Kevin Lee in The Daily Reporter:
MADISON — Local contractors seeking to build a new wave of wind energy sites are still holding their collective breath.
Gov. Scott Walker has put the brakes on legislation to push back the minimum distance between wind turbines and property lines, but a joint legislative committee may take up the matter on Wednesday.
Wes Slaymaker, who is helping to construct the Cashton Greens wind energy site in Monroe County, said Walker’s legislation would have disrupted proposed projects preparing for construction.
“As (the proposal) was written, it was kind of a moratorium on wind (energy) in the state. So I guess there is still a bit of a cloud, but now the cloud has moved over to the edge of the horizon, it’s not right over the top of our heads,” he said.
As of now, a state rule that takes effect in March will establish that wind sites must be 1,250 feet away from property lines. Walker wanted to push that distance back to 1,800 feet, which energy wind advocates say would be among the most restrictive limits in the country.
The tougher siting restriction, one of the proposals the governor pushed as part of his special session to improve the state’s economy, has not received a public committee hearing, a typical first step for new legislation.
“We’ll pursue action with the Legislature outside of the special session,” Walker said. “But again, I want to see the wind industry like any other industry be able to be effective here in the state of Wisconsin. I just want to find a way to balance that with the needs of individual property rights in the state as well.”
