DOE program recognizes Vickerman for wind advocacy

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 4, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Wind Energy Advocacy Award Presented to RENEW Wisconsin Director

RENEW Wisconsin Executive Director Michael Vickerman was presented with an award by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Powering America program. Vickerman received the Midwest Regional Wind Advocacy Award at the program’s annual state summit following the WINDPOWER 2010 Conference & Exhibition in Dallas, Texas. At this event, Wind Powering America recognized wind energy advocates in three regions across the country: East, West and Midwest.

The award cites Vickerman’s “vision and creative leadership in RENEW and his leadership of the Wisconsin Wind Working Group.” Under the auspices of Wind Powering America, RENEW Wisconsin has been facilitating the Wisconsin Wind Working Group since 2007.

“Recognition by one’s peers is a tremendous honor,” Vickerman said, “and it’s especially sweet coming from a national program that serves wind energy advocacy and education networks in 38 states.

“I am particularly pleased that the award specifically recognizes RENEW Wisconsin, which has been the state’s leading voice for strong renewable energy policies since 1991,” Vickerman said. “Wisconsin is a regional leader in many aspects involving renewable energy, and RENEW Wisconsin has been instrumental in making that happen.”

Wind Powering America is a national initiative to dramatically increase the use of wind energy in the United States. Through various partnerships and programs, it aspires to enhance power generation options as well as protect the local environment and increase our energy and national security.

“We in Wisconsin are indebted to Wind Powering America for providing us with the tools to put wind energy development in our state on a sustainable growth trajectory,” Vickerman said.

END

RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

Canadian company’s first U.S. turbine spins plenty of power for cranberry farm

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 24, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Ry Thompson
Seventh Generation Energy Systems
608.467.0123
thompson@seventhgenergy.org

Alicia Leinberger
Seventh Generation Energy Systems
608-333-5375
alicia@seventhgenergy.org

Canadian company’s first U.S. turbine spins plenty of power for cranberry farm

Dentist Frederick Prehn, owner of Prehn Cranberry Marsh near Tomah, wanted the power that the cranberry farm paid for without having to pay the utility.

“The second order of business, I wanted a turbine that has a history of working in low wind speed,” said Prehn.

A 35-kilowatt (kW) Canadian turbine, perched on a 140-foot-tall tower, accomplishes both. The first of its model line ever manufactured by Endurance Wind Power, Prehn’s wind generator underwent five months of testing at the company’s Quebec manufacturing facility.

“Wind speeds are all relative,” Prehn said. “The wind speed in the cranberry bog isn’t as good as the Great Lakes, but I’m amazed. I’ve gone through all the data I can gather, and the turbine is producing pretty well.”

“The Endurance fits Wisconsin’s climate conditions,” according to Ry Thompson, a project manager with Seventh Generation Energy, Madison, which installed the turbine.

“We’ve been eager to install one of these,” Thompson said. “It’s a very well-designed, durable machine and the 30-foot long blades make it suitable to lower wind speed environments, as are common in Wisconsin,” Thompson said.

“This should be a very popular turbine among farmers, schools, small municipalities, and manufacturing facilities,” he added.

The generator begins to produce electricity when the wind blows just under 8 miles per hour (mph). With an estimated average wind speed of 12.5 mph at his location, Prehn expects to harvest as much as 85,000 kilowatt hours of electricity – more than 150 percent of the amount he needs. The turbine powers a shop, three homes, and two wells. The excess energy is sold to the Oakdale Electric Cooperative, the farm’s local utility.

In addition, Seventh Generation installed a 5 kW solar electric system at the farm. “Some days the turbine produces goose eggs, and the solar system continues to crank out the electricity, and there’s no maintenance,” Prehn said.

“This is a shining example of home-grown energy,” stated Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit advocate for all types of renewable energy.

“Installations like these help reduce Wisconsin’s dependence on coal from Wyoming which is transported here using oil from the Gulf of Mexico,” Vickerman said.

Prehn apparently agrees. He already has a contract with Seventh Generation to install a second Endurance turbine that will be slightly larger than the first.

END

RENEW Wisconsin (http://www.renewwisconsin.org/) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

A Cruel Month for Clean Energy

A commentary
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
May 4, 2010

Renewable energy businesses and activists entered the month of April with high hopes of seeing the State Legislature pass the Clean Energy Jobs Act (CEJA), a comprehensive bill designed to propel Wisconsin toward energy independence, along the way creating thousands of new jobs and strengthening the sustainable energy marketplace. This comprehensive bill would have raised the renewable energy content of electricity sold in Wisconsin, while stepping up ratepayer support for smaller-scale renewable energy installations throughout the state.

Unfortunately, on April 22, the State Senate adjourned for the year without taking action on the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill, effectively killing the measure and leaving hundreds of businesses and individuals who campaigned for the bill empty-handed.

If life imitates poetry, then the line that opens T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land—“April is the cruelest month”—aptly encapsulates the evolution of a campaign that overcame many obstacles in the final weeks only to be undermined by the unwillingness of Senate leaders to schedule a vote on the bill. The sense of anticipation that began the month was swept away by a combination of personal feuds, extreme partisanship, and increasingly polarized public attitudes toward climate change. That the bill’s demise coincided with the 40th anniversary of Earth Day was seen by supporters as an especially cruel twist of fate.

It certainly didn’t help matters that the some of the state’s most politically entrenched constituencies banded together to fight CEJA at every stage of the process. Among the hard-core opponents were Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the Paper Council and the Farm Bureau. Their vociferous opposition scuttled bipartisanship, eliminating the possibility that a Republican legislator would vote for the bill.

Working hand-in-glove with vitriolic right-wing radio talk show hosts, the opposition supplied their grassroots faithful with a smorgasbord of exaggerated claims, hyperbole, outright fantasy, and pseudoscience. Though the analysis purporting to document the opposition’s assertions set a new low in academic rigor, it succeeded in its aim, which was to plant the seeds of fear among certain legislators about the ultimate cost of this legislation before the bill was even introduced.

Working just as vigorously for the Clean Energy Jobs Act, a broad spectrum of interests answered the requests for help. Whether they were one-person solar installation businesses or Fortune 500 corporations like Milwaukee-based Johnson Controls, CEJA supporters wrote letters, made phone calls, and corralled their legislators at the Capitol on several days during March and April.

In dozens of face-to-face meetings with their representatives, CEJA supporters made the case for this bill by bringing out their own experiences as business owners, farmers, educators, builders, and skilled tradesmen. They presented a local and highly personal angle to the clean energy policy debate that many legislators had not appreciated before. Their passion and energy were instrumental in giving this bill a fighting chance for passage at the end of the session. Unfortunately, the campaign could not overcome the pique of the Senate Democrats.

One legislator who kept pushing this ambitious bill up the legislative hill until the very last day was Assembly representative Spencer Black, who was one of the four principal authors of the measure. CEJA supporters are indebted to Rep. Black for his vigorous leadership and his determined efforts to round up support among his compatriots for passing this bill.

Two rays of sunlight did manage to pierce through the heavy clouds at the close of April, prompted by the dedication of the two largest wind turbines owned by Wisconsin schools. In each case, the school erected a 100-kilowatt Northwind turbine manufactured by Vermont-based Northern Power Systems. One serves Wausau East High School while the other feeds power to the Madison Area Technical College’s Fort Atkinson branch. The turbines will offset a significant fraction of the electricity consumed at each school.

Located well within the city limits of Wausau and Fort Atkinson, these 155-foot-tall wind generators eloquently testify to the breadth and depth of public support for renewable energy across Wisconsin. Next January, the Legislature will witness the return of clean energy supporters with similar legislation for strengthening Wisconsin’s renewable energy marketplace. In the meantime, we will be working hard to achieve a very different outcome.

END

Michael Vickerman is the executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization headquartered in Madison. For more information on Wisconsin renewable energy policy, visit RENEW’s web site at: www.renewwisconsin.org.

Impressions of the Wind Siting Council’s Tour of Wind Development

The Wind Siting Advisory Committee, created to advise the Public Service Commission on statewide wind siting standards, toured Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center and Forward Wind Center on May 4, 2010, to gain first hand knowledge of turbine impacts.

Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin’s executive director, prepared the following commentary on his impressions of the tour:

Impressions of the Wind Siting Council’s Tour of Wind Development in Fond du Lac County
by Michael Vickerman
May 5, 2010

Stop 1 – Home of Larry Wunsch, council member, pilot, and wind project opponent

A member of the Wind Siting Council and a critic of windpower, Larry lives on a 60-acre parcel located on the northern edge of the Forward project along Hwy F. On his 60 acres you’ll find a six-year-old 2,200 square-foot house, a hangar, a airplane, an airstrip, and 50 acres of rentable ag land, all zoned agricultural. The property is for sale; the asking price is $600,000. You can take a digital tour of his property by visiting http://www.fdlairstrip.com. Observe that not a single turbine shows up in any of the images on his web site. As you will appreciate later on in this document, editing out the wind turbines was not an easy feat to pull off.

Fourteen of the 15 council members were present at Larry Wunsch’s house. Also gathering there were PSC staff, a film crew from WI Public Television, Bill Rakocy’s partners at Emerging Energies (Tim Osterberg and Jay Mundinger) a smattering of local wind critics (Gerry Meyer and Curt Kindschuh), two WINDCOWS representatives from Manitowoc County (Dave and Lynn Korinek), Lynda Barry from Rock County, furiously taking notes, and a few others whom I didn’t recognize.

I came a few minutes late, and missed some of Larry’s opening remarks. From what I gleaned from others, Larry mentioned that he poured much if not all of his personal savings into acquiring this property some 11 years ago. Between the appearance of his property and the tidbits of information he provided yesterday, I would characterize Larry’s parcel as investment property on which he built his dream house, which is set back about 100 yards from the road. The property tax levy on his 60-acre parcel is quite modest — $5,400 per year. At some point in the future, his plan was to subdivide the ag land into residential properties.

The wind was blowing from the west-southwest. My educated guess is that the winds were clocking in about 10 – 14 miles/hour.

The closest turbine to Larry’s house is located practically due west at a distance of 1,100 feet. I honestly could not hear the wind turbine from where I stood, about 50 feet east of the house. I was surprised by this, because I had stopped at the Blue Sky Green Field operations center on the way to Larry’s house, and there I could clearly hear the Vestas V-82 turbine that is 1,100 feet away from the building entrance.

There was no shadow flicker to experience, due to the generally cloudy conditions at Forward as well as the time of day.

There was no missing the visual impact of the Forward project looking south from where we gathered, which was in front of Larry’s hangar. There were easily 50 turbines viewable from that vantage point. Moreover, off in the eastern horizon, the Cedar Ridge turbines were plainly visible, although their visual impact was slight compared to the panorama of Forward turbines from east to west. Since he owned the property before the wind turbines were constructed, the change in his south-facing viewshed must have been dramatic, to say the least.

No one had any difficulty hearing Larry or any other speaker during the tour stop. Maybe others were able to perceive sound coming from the turbines, but I certainly wasn’t. We were able to make out a plethora of other sounds while we were there, including a very loud plane flying overhead, occasional bird chatter, random mooing of cows and, at one point, a helicopter buzzing over the turbines. The bucolic sounds of the countryside were in no way disturbed or distorted by whooshing noise.

There was some talk attempting to distinguish the sound signature of a Vestas V-82 from that of a GE 1.5 MW. I would say that the Vestas turbines produce a more pronounced aerodynamic sound than the GE turbines. Compared with a Vestas V-82, the sounds from a GE turbine are more likely to emanate from inside the nacelle. Others may have a different take on this point.

Because she had a pressing engagement later in the morning, We Energies’ Tanya Holler-Muench also spoke to the group while it was assembled at Larry’s house. She provided details about the mitigation measures that We Energies employs in response to citizen complaints. For example, she mentioned that the most effective technique they use to minimize shadow flicker is a room-darkening cellulose window shade that blocks the shadow from penetrating into the interior. She also explained We Energies’ procedures for dealing with radio interference and TV signal interference.

Stop 2 – Blue Sky Green Field Operations Center

On the way to the operations center, the clouds broke up and the sun shone through. We assembled at the operations center, where We Energies’ Andy Hesselbach delivered a brief presentation on WE’s generation profile and the construction of the Blue Sky Green Field in 2007-2008, and its performance since. The turbines were achieving availability ratings of 99% or better. According to Andy, wind farm production was tracking close to preconstruction estimates, and that April had been a good month for wind. (An aside: it was a hell of a good month for solar too.)
Somebody asked Andy a question about the notorious Vestas safety manual, which wind opponents have used to justify their arguments that wind turbines should be no closer than 1,300 feet to a property line. Andy said that We Energies had obtained from Vestas a letter that clarifies some of the more confusing aspects of the manual. I asked Andy to circulate that letter to the entire Council.

Several other people working at the Operations Center also spoke, including Art Ondrejka, Vestas’ maintenance manager. Art presented a local face to the project. He was already living in the project zone when Vestas hired him. The house where he lives is within a quarter-mile (1,320 feet) of four turbines, but his family is not bothered by their proximity. He stressed that WE and Vestas use local contractors and vendors whenever possible.

The overall impression conveyed by the We Energies-Vestas team is that Blue Sky Green Field is a well-managed project and that We Energies is a responsible project owner, effectively balancing the objective of maximizing facility output with the obligation to be a good neighbor to area residents.

After the presentations were concluded, the group walked to the turbine closest to the operations center. As we approached the turbine we spotted two red-tailed hawks wheeling above the turbine, looking not the least bit alarmed. The wind started to pick up then. The turbine door was opened and a few Council members and PSC staff stepped inside. Others gathered about 200 feet from the turbine to talk. Even though everyone was quite conscious of the whooshing blades (and an audible chirping sound with each revolution), we were able to converse with each other without having to raise our voices or cup our ears. Not far away, one of the Council members, a wind opponent, was listening to messages on his mobile. No one, including the opponents, seemed troubled by our proximity to the turbine. Given how quick they are to misrepresent the contents of the Vestas safety manual, they seemed not at all worried about what harm might befall them being only 200 feet from a spinning industrial monster. The two WINDCOWS representatives were tagging along and they didn’t seem the least bit fazed either.

Renewable Energy Not Responsible for MGE Rate Increase

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 27, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Renewable Energy Not Responsible for MGE Rate Increase

Higher costs associated with fossil fuel generation are driving Madison Gas & Electric’s costs higher, according to testimony submitted by company witnesses. The utility filed an application last week with the Public Service Commission (PSC) to collect an additional $32.2 million through a 9% increase in electric rates starting January 2011.

The bulk of the rate increase can be attributed to expenses associated with burning coal to generate electricity. A 22% owner of the 1,020-megawatt (MW) Columbia Generating Station near Portage, Madison Gas & Electric (MGE) and the owner plant owners plan to retrofit the 35-year-old facility to reduce airborne emissions. The cost of Columbia’s environmental retrofit is expected to total $640 million, of which MGE’s share is about $140 million.

MGE also owns an 8% share of the state’s newest coal-fired station, the 1,230-MW Elm Road Generating Station located in Oak Creek. A portion of the proposed rate hike would cover lease payments and other expenses at that plant.

MGE’s application does not attribute any portion of its proposed rate hike to renewable energy sources. However, MGE plans to increase the premium associated with its voluntary Green Power Tomorrow program from 1.25 cents per kilowatt-hour to 2 cents. RENEW estimates that the premium hike will collect more than $1 million in 2011 from the approximately 10,000 customers participating in the program.

According to the utility’s web site, 10% of MGE’s electric customers purchase some or all of their electricity from renewable resources. Moreover, Green Power Tomorrow has the second highest participation rate of all investor-owned utilities in the country according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Not surprisingly, MGE anticipates subscribership in Green Power Tomorrow to decrease if the PSC approves the higher premium. Currently, the program accounts for about 5% of total electric sales. Program subscribers include the City of Madison, State of Wisconsin, Dane County Regional Airport, Madison West High School, Goodman Community Center and Home Savings Bank.

According to MGE, sinking fossil fuel prices have widened the difference between wholesale power costs and the cost of supplying customers with renewable energy. However, it is worth remembering that the cost of supplying power from MGE’s renewable energy assets, such as its Rosiere installation in Kewaunee County and Top of Iowa project, did not increase last year and will not increase in the foreseeable future.

“Even though the cost of MGE’s windpower supplies is not going up, Green Power Tomorrow customers will take a double hit if the PSC approves this rate increase and request for higher premiums,” said RENEW Wisconsin executive Director Michael Vickerman. “It’s a ‘heads-I-win-tails-you-lose’ proposition that will wind up rewarding customers who drop out of the renewable energy program because coal is cheaper.”

“It would be short-sighted to penalize renewable energy purchasers just because fossil fuel prices are in a temporary slump,” Vickerman said. “But if MGE is allowed to institute this penalty at the same time it imposes the cost of cleaning up an older coal-fired generator on all of its customers, including its Green Power Tomorrow subscribers, it would have a profoundly negative impact on the renewable energy marketplace going forward.”

“This is the wrong time to be throwing up barriers to renewable energy development. We at RENEW will fight proposals that reward fossil fuel use and penalize renewable energy,” Vickerman added.

END
RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.