by jboullion | Mar 26, 2013 | Uncategorized
|
Epic Systems of Verona has erected six
wind turbines along Kickaboo Road near
Highway 12 in the town of Springfield. |
A timely editorial (relating to the SB-71 proposal) in the Wisconsin State Journal about why Wisconsin should keep it’s wind siting rules intact. Find the original posting here.
The state regulation of wind farms that Wisconsin put in place a year ago improves on the previous patchwork of local regulations.
That’s one reason why lawmakers should leave the regulation intact and reject the latest proposal to turn back to the patchwork approach.
Here’s another reason: A return to patchwork regulation would threaten the public’s interest in developing clean, renewable energy.
Wisconsin’s wind farm regulations set standards for projects, including how far turbines must be set back from nearby homes and how noisy the turbines can be. If local governments develop their own regulations, they cannot be more restrictive than the state standards.
To develop the standards, the Public Service Commission considered a range of viewpoints and studied scientific evidence on the effects of wind turbines. The resulting regulations fairly protect local interests in safety and property rights as well as the general interest in taking advantage of a green energy source.
Nonetheless, wind farm opponents continue to argue for more restrictions. This month, a group of lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 71 to permit local governments to go beyond the state regulations. Bill supporters have seized upon a study of a Brown County wind farm. The study, conducted by acoustics experts, detected largely inaudible, low-frequency sound inside three homes near the wind turbines. The study also noted that some residents complained of health problems, such as nausea and headaches.
However, the study could link the noise in only one home to a turbine. Furthermore, the study could not attribute the health complaints to the noise. The indecisive findings do not offer evidence to change the state’s regulations.
Lawmakers should appreciate the perils of putting the regulatory burden for wind farms on local governments.
First, local governments typically lack the time and resources the PSC employed to study the issue. Before the state standards were developed, some local governments rushed into extreme regulation without scientific foundation. Trempealeau County required turbines to be set back one mile from neighboring homes. That restriction virtually banned wind farm development.
Second, without state standards, the wind energy industry faces the uncertainty of a varying collection of costly local regulation. The chilling effect deprives the state of wind power development.
The effects of wind turbines should continue to be examined. Regulations may need future updating. But Wisconsin cannot afford to go backward in regulation. Wind power is too important for its potential to improve energy security, reduce air pollution and boost economic development.
Find the original posting of this article here.
by jboullion | Mar 18, 2013 | Uncategorized
A great article from Tom Content at JS Online on the third-party ownership bill. Find the original article here.
State’s electric utilities oppose move to allow third-party solar financing
Wisconsin is missing out on a wave of solar power development that’s going on around the country.
One example: Kohl’s Department Stores around the country generate three times as much power as all the solar electricity being generated in Wisconsin today.
What’s driving the boom in other states is third-party financing, which allows a company such as SunEdison, a builder of solar power plants, to own the panels on the roof of a Kohl’s store. That’s not allowed in Wisconsin, but would be under a bill being drafted in Madison.
The proposal, backed by a group of clean energy companies and the Wisconsin Farmers Union, faces opposition from the lobbying group for the state’s electric utilities.
The utilities worry that such a change would open the door to more renewable energy and drive up costs for other ratepayers.
The legislation is being crafted by Rep. Chris Taylor (D-Madison) and Rep. Gary Tauchen (R-Bonduel). It’s expected to be among a host of energy issues that may come before the Legislature now that the debate over mining legislation is finished.
The change would exempt owners of renewable generation at a home or business from being regulated as a public utility. Supporters say it’s a low-cost step that would stimulate economic development in the form of increased investment by solar installers that have moved work to states that are encouraging renewable energy.
“This will open up the renewable energy market to companies that don’t have a lot of money lying around to finance clean energy projects,” said Michael Vickerman, policy director for Renew Wisconsin, a clean energy advocacy group.
For Renew Wisconsin, the effort could make up ground lost in recent years after the failure to expand the state’s renewable energy standard, and following moves by state regulators and utilities to shift their focus away from support for customer-owned renewable systems.
The markets where solar has taken off are dominated by those that permit third-party ownership, said Carl Siegrist, a solar energy consultant who was a renewable energy strategist at We Energies.
“Nearly three-fourths of the solar market last year came from third-party ownership,” said Siegrist, who discussed the proposal at the recent Sustainability Summit in Milwaukee.
At stores around the country, Kohl’s buys power from SunEdison, which built the panels on the roofs of the Kohl’s stores.
“If there was third-party ownership allowed, they would have it on every one of their stores in the state,” said Steve Johnson of solar energy developer Convergence Energy, which developed a solar project in Delavan.
Fears of cost shifting
Utilities are concerned that the proposal could lead to higher rates.
According to Bill Skewes, who heads the Wisconsin Utilities Association, the lobbying arm for the utility industry, the biggest concern is that utilities will see cost shifting because they will sell less power to customers who install solar systems.
The fixed costs of paying for the poles, wires and day-to-day business operations of the utility would then have to be spread across the remaining customers, he said in a memorandum to lawmakers on the issue.
“The customers who become partial customers because of a distributed generation agreement would be subsidized by the other customers on the utility system,” Skewes said.
Supporters of the renewable energy shift see potential for helping farmers address their phosphorus and manure challenges by enabling them to put up more anaerobic digesters.
But, Skewes said, “advocates that want to help farmers may, in the next breath, decry the utility rate increases that further discourage economic development at a time when Wisconsin is trying to foster job growth.”
Supporters concede that the shifts could help businesses that install solar generation avoid some of the rate pressure in Wisconsin, and it could result in reduced power sales by utilities.
At the same time, they note that utilities see lower sales every time a business takes steps to cut energy waste or replaces an incandescent light bulb with an LED bulb.
Making solar affordable
Nationwide and worldwide, solar development is booming, with solar generation now reaching more than 6,000 megawatts, or enough to supply 1 million homes, according to GTM Research.
While the price of solar systems is coming down quickly – it has fallen by 50% over five years – companies are conserving cash rather than looking for places to spend it.
So when an efficiency consultant such as Johnson Controls Inc. contracts with a building owner to help cut energy waste, the upfront cost is paid for by Johnson Controls, not the utility customer. The customer then pays Johnson back over time through the savings on energy bills.
The renewable proposal works the same way, said Amy Heart, solar program manager for the City of Milwaukee. The solar company would pay the upfront costs, with the customer paying a fixed price over time for the power generated by the panels.
“We see the opportunity to not only support our solar industry, but we also have the opportunity to reduce our energy costs and lock in those rates for a 10- to 20-year term, which is that consistency we’re looking for,” Heart said. “In the long run, if we can lower our energy bills for taxpayers, that’s the idea.”
It’s a way to lock in prices over time from solar, even if utility rates go up, Siegrist said.
The proposal also overcomes one of the biggest hurdles facing renewable energy – that its upfront cost makes it affordable to a select few.
(See the original posting of this article here.)
by jboullion | Mar 15, 2013 | Uncategorized
Doug Stingle, the MREA Development Director, wrote this great article on why Wisconsin needs options for third-party ownership – it’s clear we need Clean Energy Choice legislation to boost renewable markets. (See the original posting on SeeingRED here).
The US solar electric (PV) market is booming. In fact, according to the Solar Electric Industries Association (SEIA), the residential solar electric market grew 12% over the 2nd quarter of 2012 and had its largest quarter in history. Wow, that is some impressive growth that many industries would be boasting about for quite some time. Of course, the solar industry is proud of the market growth and does some bragging about their success.
However, living in Wisconsin, you would never hear about the growth of the solar market, because the solar market in Wisconsin is stagnant.
So where are all these solar panels getting installed? According to SEIA in the 3rd quarter of 2012 (the most recent period statistics are available), Wisconsin ranked 26th in installation of solar electric capacity. Unsurprisingly, California ranked number one for installed capacity of solar in 2012, with Arizona a close second. California is a sunny state with a great solar resource, but that is not completely what is driving the installations there. The number one driver of home-sited solar systems is a third-party ownership model.
How does this work? First, you contact Company X and let them know you are interested in solar on your house. Next, Company X does an assessment on your home to see if the solar resource is adequate, and then the company looks over your electric bills to properly size a system. Company X can then come back and offer you the opportunity to install solar on your house, with no upfront costs, and save money on your monthly electric bills.
For example, let’s say you are paying $90 a month on your current utility bill. Company X can offer you the option of installing solar, and you pay Company X $80 a month as a result. Company X is the owner of the solar system, and you buy the energy produced from the solar array on your home. Company X is able to offer you the chance to reduce your electric bill and utilize solar, because the company is able to take a tax break on the installed system cost as well as sign a net-metering agreement with the local utility, allowing the company to sell any excess electricity generated by the solar system back to the utility.
Who wouldn’t want solar installed on their house and to pay less on their electric bills, all with no upfront cost? Almost everyone. So why aren’t thousands of Wisconsinites lining up to get solar on their roofs?
In Wisconsin we have just two options when it comes to electricity at our home:
- We connect to the local utility company.
- We generate and store our own power.
This gives the utility companies a virtual monopoly on power supply, as most people don’t have the resources to pay for all of the power up front. A third-party owned renewable energy generation system, as an option, is currently in legal limbo in Wisconsin.
The arrangement is neither legal nor illegal. The Public Service Commission in Wisconsin has advised that any power generating facility that is not owned by the same entity where it is located, is in fact, a utility and subject to utility regulations. This sort of legal gray area has a chilling effect on third-party owned solar systems, as companies aren’t keen on possibly facing legal action that would cut into their bottom line. Why take the chance on a possibly illegal installation in Wisconsin when this arrangement is perfectly legal in many other states?
In addition, this legal black hole is preventing schools and non-profits from partnering with a third-party who can take advantage of tax incentives that a non-profit cannot, to install solar at their location. Third-party owned renewable energy systems are great drivers of the market and are employing thousands of workers manufacturing solar components and installing systems.
The solar market is booming because of these third-party owned systems. How can we get more installed in Wisconsin and create homegrown energy and jobs?
We need clean energy choice legislation that allows third parties to own energy generation sited at customer locations and to not be regulated as a utility. Clean Energy Choice is a matter of fairness. We need to create competition in the energy market. Free market supporters can easily see this as a case of government being in the way of the free market.
Write, call or email your state representative and Governor Walker and tell them to make Wisconsin open for (renewable energy) business and to support giving Wisconsin residents a clean energy choice. Also visit
www.renewwisconsin.org and sign on to the letter of support for clean energy choice.
–Doug Stingle
(See the original posting of this article on SeeingRED here).
by jboullion | Mar 13, 2013 | Uncategorized
RENEW Wisconsin’s policy director, Michael Vickerman, is submitting the following statement in opposition of Senate Bill 71 at today’s hearing :
Statement of RENEW Wisconsin before the Government Operations, Public Works and Telecommunications Committee in Opposition to Senate Bill 71
March 13, 2013
Good afternoon, my name is Michael Vickerman, and I am submitting testimony today on behalf of RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit advocacy and education organization based in Madison.
Incorporated in 1991, RENEW acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. We have over 250 total members, and more than 100 businesses around the state, including Bleu Mont Dairy (Mount Horeb), Crave Brothers Farm (Waterloo), Convergence Energy (Lake Geneva), Current Electric (Brookfield), DVO, Inc. (Chilton), Emerging Energies (Hubertus), Energy Concepts (Hudson), Full Circle Farm (Seymour), Full Spectrum Solar (Madison), Kettle View Renewable Energy (Random Lake), Michels Wind Energy (Brownsville), Morse Group (Beloit), North American Hydro (Neshkoro), Northwind Renewable Energy LLC (Stevens Point), Pieper Foundation (Milwaukee), Organic Valley (LaFarge), Quantum Dairy (Weyauwega), Renewegy (Oshkosh), SunVest (Waukesha), Symbiont (Milwaukee), W.E.S. Engineering (Madison) and Werner Electric (Neenah).
On behalf of all our members that have an interest in advancing clean, locally produced, cost-effective wind generation, RENEW Wisconsin took the lead in bringing together diverse groups and companies and forging a broad and bipartisan coalition to support legislation establishing statewide permitting standards for all wind generators in the state of Wisconsin. The fruit of that labor, 2009 Act 40, was signed into law in September 2009. As directed by the Wind Siting Law, the Public Service Commission promulgated PSC 128, a rule that sets forth uniform, science-based standards for local government review and regulation of wind power systems in Wisconsin. PSC 128 took effect on March 16, 2012.
In evaluating the merits of SB 71, RENEW asks the Committee to consider the following points:
- In terms of setback distances as well as maximum allowable sound levels and shadow flicker duration, PSC 128 is the strictest statewide standard for permitting windpower systems in the United States. The provisions in PSC 128 are, on balance, stricter than the conditions specified in the prior permits issued by local governments or the PSC.
- The statewide rule is the culmination of two uninterrupted years of agency involvement in wind siting proceedings. It is the product of a highly deliberative process that elicited substantial input from the Wind Siting Council and the public. The Siting Council looked at all the health-related studies that were in the public domain at that time, and tailored its recommendations accordingly. The record built on the major issues is nothing short of encyclopedic.
- All 412 utility-scale wind turbines currently operating in Wisconsin were permitted before PSC 128 took effect a year ago. Because PSC 128 does not have a track record, there is no factual foundation for asserting that PSC 128 inadequately protects public health and safety.
- An independent expert panel established by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Public Health gave wind a clean bill of health in January 2012, based on analyzing all available scientific studies. The agencies stated: “There is no evidence for a set of health effects from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’…we conclude the weight of the evidence suggests no association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental health problems.” This is as true today as it was 14 months ago.
- The PSC rule was intended to provide wind energy developers with regulatory certainty — a clearly defined set of requirements which they must comply with in order to obtain a permit. This lack of certainty and predictability in the local permitting process would be paralyzing to wind developers and would bring wind development to a standstill.
- The PSC rule was intended to provide wind energy developers with regulatory certainty — a clearly defined set of requirements which they must comply with in order to obtain a permit. Allowing local governments to opt out of PSC 128 would undermine the chief rationale for the Wind Siting Law–uniform standards consistently applied across all jurisdictions in Wisconsin. This lack of certainty, consistency and predictability in the local permitting process would be paralyzing to wind developers and would bring wind development to a standstill.
- Allowing local governments to opt out of PSC 128 would jeopardize current proposals that have been configured to conform with PSC 128. It is extremely challenging to redesign windpower projects to meet different standards than those that informed the original proposal.
Restricting windpower development in Wisconsin will result in a net loss of construction and manufacturing opportunities in the clean energy sector, dry up investment and business start-up opportunities here at home, deprive local governments of a stable source of local payments, and force young adults committed to this career path to relocate to other states. In addition, passage of this bill would further exacerbate Wisconsin’s dangerous overreliance on imported fossil fuels, causing certain environmental harm.
For the reasons enumerated above, RENEW Wisconsin urges rejection of SB 71.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Vickerman
Program and Policy Director
March 13, 2013
by jboullion | Mar 12, 2013 | Uncategorized
More on SB-71 (see our previous action alert post). You can also find RENEW’s testimony, opposing this bill, submitted at the hearing March 13. Below is an editorial published in the Sheboygan Press:
It has been a year since the Wisconsin Legislature reinstated a controversial rule that uniformly regulates wind energy operations in the state. The rule — PSC 128 — spells out what is allowed and not allowed for wind turbines throughout Wisconsin.
It accounts for such factors as size and allowable setbacks from roadways and buildings.
The Public Service Commission rule is not perfect, but is preferable to the patchwork approach it replaced. Now, a group of state lawmakers seeks to again allow municipalities greater latitude in skirting the PSC rules. It is a bad idea.
The Legislature’s primary opponent of current wind siting rules is state Sen. Frank Lasee. The Ledgeview Republican’s crusade includes advocacy on behalf of several 1st Senate District families who say they have suffered negative health effects from large wind turbines on or near their properties, including in Manitowoc and Brown counties.
Similar concerns are expressed in Sheboygan County, where EEW Services is proposing the four-turbine Windy Acres wind farm in the towns of Sherman and Holland. The effect of wind turbines on human health has been a subject of controversy for many years. Study results have proven inconclusive, however, and cannot at this point form the basis of policy changes.
Read on…
