by jboullion | Jan 24, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an article by Kari Lydersen in Midwest Energy News:
One of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s first actions in office was to declare the state “Open for Business,” vowing to lure industry and create a quarter-million jobs.
But legislation Walker proposed as part of this initiative could strangle a growing state industry – wind power – with a stringent siting rule likely to make major future development nearly impossible.
Why would a pro-business governor support a plan that wind experts say would likely shoot down 11 proposed projects representing a $1.8 billion investment?
Wind developers and advocates say it is because of the influence of the state’s powerful real estate industry, whose leaders say wind turbines significantly decrease property values and prevent agricultural and open land from being transformed into residential
developments . . . .
Wisconsin Realtors Association chief lobbyist Tom Larson said Realtors were “definitely” the driving force behind the wind siting portion of Walker’s bill. He and other prominent Realtors also lobbied against the Wisconsin Public Service Commission’s new wind siting rule, set to take effect March 1, which created uniform statewide standards, including a setback of 1,250 feet from homes. . . .
“This is more of a land use fight than an energy fight,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin and a member of the state’s wind siting council. “The Realtors are afraid wind generation will slow down the conversion of agricultural land to residential land. They’re trying to drive a stake through the heart of wind development before the next project is permitted.”
by jboullion | Jan 24, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an article by Kari Lydersen in Midwest Energy News:
One of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s first actions in office was to declare the state “Open for Business,” vowing to lure industry and create a quarter-million jobs.
But legislation Walker proposed as part of this initiative could strangle a growing state industry – wind power – with a stringent siting rule likely to make major future development nearly impossible.
Why would a pro-business governor support a plan that wind experts say would likely shoot down 11 proposed projects representing a $1.8 billion investment?
Wind developers and advocates say it is because of the influence of the state’s powerful real estate industry, whose leaders say wind turbines significantly decrease property values and prevent agricultural and open land from being transformed into residential
developments . . . .
Wisconsin Realtors Association chief lobbyist Tom Larson said Realtors were “definitely” the driving force behind the wind siting portion of Walker’s bill. He and other prominent Realtors also lobbied against the Wisconsin Public Service Commission’s new wind siting rule, set to take effect March 1, which created uniform statewide standards, including a setback of 1,250 feet from homes. . . .
“This is more of a land use fight than an energy fight,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin and a member of the state’s wind siting council. “The Realtors are afraid wind generation will slow down the conversion of agricultural land to residential land. They’re trying to drive a stake through the heart of wind development before the next project is permitted.”
by jboullion | Jan 24, 2011 | Uncategorized
From a news release issued by The Illinois Wind Energy Association:
(CHICAGO) — Today the Illinois Wind Energy Association (IWEA) invited wind power developers working in Wisconsin to focus their efforts on Illinois, where Governor Pat Quinn and the Illinois General Assembly have worked to streamline regulations for the wind energy business.
Wind developers have been apprehensive about investing in Wisconsin since Governor Scott Walker proposed legislation that would effectively ban wind development from the Badger State. With these new job-destroying regulations on the table, IWEA is happy to highlight the much more business-friendly climate just to the south.
Recently introduced in the Wisconsin legislature, the War on Wind Initiative would dramatically extend setback distances from wind turbines in the state. If adopted, the bill would mandate a minimum setback requirement of 1,800 feet from neighboring property lines, far exceeding the setback distance from occupied dwellings specified in a rule issued by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
“Even the strictest county setbacks in Illinois are nowhere near as extreme as what Wisconsin would have if this bill passes,” said IWEA Executive Director Kevin Borgia. “Illinois has no statewide minimum setbacks.”
As Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, said to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel last week, “it is one of the most onerous regulations we have ever seen.”
“In light of Wisconsin’s War on Wind, IWEA invites developers to focus their resources on Illinois,” Borgia said. “Businesses with wind farm proposals in both states are likely to focus their efforts on locations with the most beneficial regulatory climate. If the legislation is adopted, that location will not be Wisconsin.”
by jboullion | Jan 24, 2011 | Uncategorized
In the fall of 2007, Grant County landowners received a survey conducted by The Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.
Question 30 on the survey asked respondents if Grant County jurisdictions should pursue Ethanol Plants, Solar Energy or Wind Energy alternatives as a form of economic development.
Data compiled from those surveys shows overwhelming support for Wind and Solar Energy with marginal support for Ethanol. The proposed White Oak Wind Farm falls within Smelser Township, Cuba City, Hazel Green, Hazel Green Township and Dickeyville.
Grant County should pursue:
|
Ethanol
plants |
Solar
energy |
Wind
energy |
| Strongly agree |
22% |
39% |
48% |
| Agree |
33% |
45% |
43% |
| Disagree |
23% |
5% |
2% |
| Strongly dis. |
9% |
1% |
2% |
| No opinion |
13% |
10% |
6% |
by jboullion | Jan 21, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an article by in The Chippewa Herald:
Gov. Scott Walker scrapped plans Thursday to convert a power plant to run on natural fuels such as wood chips and paper pellets, a move that could save up to $100 million but drew stern criticism from at least one environmental group.
The decision affects the Charter Street Heating Plant on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. Its coal-fired burners will be retired next year and were to be replaced with two boilers that run on natural gas and a third that would burn biomass, state officials said.
However, Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said only the natural-gas burners will be installed.
“We have decided not to proceed with the biomass boiler in order to save the state taxpayers money,” he said in a statement. The savings would come from avoiding construction costs of about $100 million, he said. It was not clear whether the third planned boiler would be replaced or the two natural gas boilers would produce enough power on their own.
Jeff Plale, an administrator for the state Division of State Facilities, said Walker and Huebsch realized there were cheaper ways to meet the university’s heating needs while still being environmentally friendly.
“Natural gas is a clean source of energy, certainly cleaner than coal,” Plale said. “That plant is going to be a whole lot cleaner than it is today. Couple that with being able to save $100 million during a very difficult budget and I think the people of Wisconsin come out better.”
In 2008, then-Gov. Jim Doyle announced that the plant would switch from coal to biomass in part to settle a Sierra Club lawsuit claiming that the plant violated air-pollution laws. Thursday’s move does not risk reopening the lawsuit because the plant is still moving away from coal.
The decision to walk away from biomass shows a lack of long-term thinking, Sierra Club spokeswoman Jennifer Feyerherm said. She called it another in a string of Walker’s actions that kills jobs and wastes money while missing a chance to develop greener solutions.
“This was a way to keep money local, to keep the investment in Wisconsin,” she said. “While up front it may seem to cost more, it would have kept the money local, created a green infrastructure and created local jobs.”
She said the jobs would include growing and harvesting the biomass, converting it into a form that could burned and transporting it to the plant.
