2009
08.05.09 Wind siting reform gains strong bipartisan vote in committee
07.15.09 If It Is Broke Please Fix It: Wisconsin Needs Uniform Siting Standards
06.17.09 Wind Siting Reform Gains Strong Bipartisan Committee Vote – Wind for Wisconsin
06.17.09 Wind siting bill passes major legislative hurdle with strong bipartisan support – Clean Wisconsin
Date: June 17, 2009
Contact: Noah Seligman, 608-215-9370
The Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities passes AB 256, wind siting reform, on a 10-2 vote The 12-member Assembly Committee on Energy & Utilities voted 10-2 to advance AB 256 (Senate companion SB 185), wind siting reform, to the full Assembly. The vote was bipartisan, with six Democrats and four Republicans on the committee voting in favor of the bill. Wind siting reform has 20 cosponsors in the Assembly and 11 in the Senate, with support from both parties.
A substitute amendment was added on an 11-1 vote that would require the PSC to hold two public hearings outside of Dane County as part of its rule-making. The amendment also provided additional wildlife protections, technical changes, and inclusion of Smart Growth planning in regulating wind energy projects.
“The bipartisan committee approval demonstrates strong consensus on the need for wind siting reform,” said Curt Pawlisch, spokesman for Wind for Wisconsin. “Wind siting reform will be an engine for economic activity in Wisconsin, attract new investment opportunities, and support current state energy policy.”
SB 185/AB 256 directs the Public Service Commission (PSC) to initiate an administrative rule-making process to establish statewide siting standards for wind energy projects. The PSC is an independent regulatory agency dedicated to serving the public interest. The bill draft requires the PSC to establish an advisory committee of diverse interests to advise the Commission on the rules. The legislature will have the opportunity to review the proposed rules prior to their publication.
Wind for Wisconsin is optimistic that a floor vote in the Assembly would garner the same strong bipartisan support demonstrated in committee and among cosponsors.
###
From Wind for Wisconsin:
SB 185/AB 256 would direct the PSC to establish statewide siting standards for wind energy projects. Projects fewer than 100 MW in size would still be reviewed and approved by a local unit of government after the rules are adopted.
+ The status quo is the only approach to wind siting that would leave local control completely unchanged. The status quo has stalled over 600 MW of potential wind projects forfeiting thousands of Wisconsin jobs and millions of investment dollars.
+ The bill draft requires the PSC to establish an advisory committee of diverse interests to advise the Commission on the rules. Representatives from local units of government will be part of that advisory committee.
+ In 2006 the WTA passed a resolution at its annual convention entitled “Uniform Standards for Public Health or Safety of Wind Energy Systems.” The resolution called for uniform standards, and was the impetus for wind siting reform legislation.
+ The bill draft from the previous legislative session was negotiated with the Wisconsin Counties Association and the Wisconsin Towns Association. The WTA was in favor of wind siting reform last session while the WCA was neutral.1 The bill draft for the current legislative session is substantively similar.
+ An amendment from the Wisconsin Realtors Association (supported by Wind for Wisconsin) allows local governments to deny a project application if a project would be sited in an area that has been primarily designated for future residential or commercial development.2
+ Under SB 185/AB 256, local units of government would maintain their central role in the regulatory process for wind energy systems. Applications for wind energy projects under 100 MW in size would still be subject to review and approval at the local level.
Local governments would be responsible for enforcing permit standards. Local governments would maintain control over their roads including restoration requirements and regulating driveway use (access roads).
In the coming weeks, the state Legislature will have a chance to make it easier for clean energy creating wind turbines to proliferate in Wisconsin…Critics likely will charge that the bill is an attack on local control. However, it still lets local governments make wind-siting decisions, and allows those who disagree with them to appeal to the PSC and the courts.3
-Eau Claire Leader-Telegram
References
1 The WTA has registered in opposition in 2009. The WCA has remained neutral.
2 Maps adopted under s. 66.1001(2)(b) on or before June 1, 2009.
3 http://www.leadertelegram.com/story-opinions.asp?id=BJP8BE09JFU
Scientists conclude that there is no evidence wind turbines have an adverse impact on human health.(1) Wind opponents have circulated deceptive videos and misleading photos in an attempt to scare legislators into inaction.
+ Wind energy is safe, secure, and reliable
+ Reject the fear campaign from wind opponents
+ SB 185/AB 256 would establish a responsible forum for reviewing scientific information regarding wind energy There are over 120 Gigawatts(2) of wind turbines installed worldwide, and since 2005, global wind generation capacity has more than doubled.
Currently, 76 countries are using commercial wind energy.(3) The U.S. military uses wind turbines to reduce fuel costs and the need for fuel shipments in dangerous areas.(4)
Wind turbines provide safe and reliable energy. At present there are well over 10,000utility-scale wind turbines installed and operating in North America, and tens of thousands of people who live and work in proximity to these wind turbines. Of these individuals, a very small number have claimed that their health has been adversely affected by wind turbines. Surveys of peer-reviewed scientific literature have consistently found no evidence linking wind turbines to human health concerns.
Wind power opponents frequently quote Nina Pierpont to frighten the public and convince decision makers that wind power is dangerous. Her view is not supported by scientists who specialize in acoustics, low frequency sound and related human health impacts. It is important to point out that Dr. Pierpont’s writings have not been published in peer-reviewed journals, a fact that raises questions as to the scientific validity of her research.
References
1 http://www.canwea.ca/media/release/release_e.php?newsId=37
2 1 Gigawatt = 1 billion watts.
3 http://www.wwindea.org/home/images/stories/worldwindenergyreport2008_s.pdf
4 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0907/p01s04-usmi.html
The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) has compiled a list of articles and publications on the subject from reputable sources in Europe and North America. Below are summaries of these articles:
1. “Infrasound from Wind Turbines – Fact, Fiction or Deception?” by Geoff Leventhall in Vol. 34 No.2 (2006) of the peer-reviewed journal Canadian Acoustics. This paper looks at the question of whether or not wind turbines produce infrasound at levels that can impact humans. It directly addresses assertions frequently made by Dr. Nina Pierpont, author of a recent book entitled “Wind Turbine Syndrome”. “In the USA, a high profile objector (Nina Pierpont of Malone NY) placed an advertisement in a local paper, consisting entirely of selected quotations from a previously published technical paper by van den Berg (Van den Berg 2004). However the comment “[i.e. infrasonic]”, as shown in Fig 3, was added in the first line of the first quotation in a manner which might mislead naive readers into believing that it was part of the original. The van den Berg paper was based on A-weighted measurements and had no connection with infrasound. So, not only is the advertisement displaying the advertiser’s self deception, but this has also been propagated to others who have read it.
[…] The comment, [i.e. infrasonic], added into Fig 3 gives incorrect information. Claims of infrasound are irrelevant and possibly harmful, should they lead to unnecessary fears.”
www.wind.appstate.edu/reports/06-06Leventhall-Infras-WT-CanAcoustics2.pdf
2. “Wind Turbine Facilities Noise Issues” by Dr. Ramani Ramakrishnan for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. This study looked into the claims made in the doctoral thesis of G.P. van den Berg, a source frequently cited by Dr. Pierpont. It concluded that: “The research work undertaken by G. P. van den Berg didn’t provide scientific evidence to support the few major hypotheses postulated concerning the wind turbine noise characteristics.”
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2008/Noise%20Report.pdf
3. “Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise”, A White Paper by Dr. Anthony Rodgers at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. This paper looked into the issue of both sound and infrasound (low frequency sound) and concluded “There is no reliable evidence that infrasound below the perception threshold produces physiological or psychological effects.”
4. “Research into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise”, University of Salford, UK, July 2007. This paper looked into claims that it was not infrasound, but “amplitude modulation” (AM) that presented problems. The paper concludes that “This shows that in terms of the number of people affected, wind farm noise is a small-scale problem compared with other types of noise; for example the number of complaints about industrial noise exceeds those about windfarms by around three orders of magnitude” and that “The low incidence of AM and the low numbers of people adversely affected make it difficult to justify further research funding in preference to other more widespread noise issues.” http://usir.salford.ac.uk/1554/1/Salford_Uni_Report_Turbine_Sound.pdf
5. “Electricity generation and health” in the peer-reviewed journal The Lancet. The paper concludes that “Forms of renewable energy generation are still in the early phases of their technological development, but most seem to be associated with few adverse effects on health” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17876910
6. “Health impact of wind turbines”, prepared by the Municipality of Chatham-Kent Health & Family Services Public Health Unit. This is a comprehensive review of available literature on the subject. This paper concludes and concurs with the original quote from Chatham-Kent’s Acting Medical Officer of Health, Dr. David olby: “In summary, as long as the Ministry of Environment Guidelines for location criteria of wind farms are followed, it is my opinion that there will be negligible adverse health impacts on Chatham-Kent citizens. Although opposition to wind farms on aesthetic grounds is a legitimate point of view, opposition to wind farms on the basis of potential adverse health consequences is not justified by the evidence.” http://www.chatham-kent.ca/NR/rdonlyres/CA6E8804-
D6FF-42A5-B93B-5229FA127875/7046/5a.pdf
7. Energy, sustainable development and health, World Health Organization, June 2004. The study finds that “Renewable sources, such as photovoltaic and wind energy, are associated with fewer health effects. […] The increased use of renewable energy, especially wind, solar and photovoltaic energy, will have positive health benefits, some of which have been estimated.” There is also a table on page 79 showing the relative health effects of nearly all sources of energy, which clearly shows wind as negligible. http://www.euro.who.int/document/eehc/ebakdoc08.pdf
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 12, 2009
The single biggest constraint on increasing wind generation of electricity in Wisconsin is the permitting process, according to Clean, Responsible Energy for Wisconsin’s Economy, a group working on implementing the recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming. And one of the biggest problems in the permitting process is local opposition to wind farms.
CREWE has said that over 600 megawatts of planned wind developments are stalled across Wisconsin “due to midstream changes in regulations and procedures.” The Journal Sentinel’s Thomas Content pointed out in an article on Monday that more than a dozen wind projects around the state have been slowed by local opposition.
That can’t continue. What’s needed, as CREWE officials argue, is regulatory reform and, specifically, uniform siting standards for all wind farms that would be built in the state. Such legislation has been introduced. It deserves adoption by the Legislature.
A report released Monday by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs said that cutting carbon dioxide emissions won’t be cheap, but delaying action on addressing global warming will be worse, both for the environment and the Midwest economy, according to another article by Content. The group is urging that the Midwest turn the challenge of energy and climate change into a competitive advantage and says enactment of greenhouse gas regulations is “essential to the Midwest’s future prosperity and competitiveness.”
A recent study has preliminarily concluded that winds may be slowing in parts of the country because of global warming. However, the findings are still speculative, and those changes appear to be less in states bordering the Great Lakes. Wind power, we’re confident, still can play a key part in a balanced energy mix and help to develop the green economy in Wisconsin and create new jobs.
Wisconsin has made significant progress on wind energy, but wind power still accounts for only about 5% of the power supply. That needs to be improved. Transportation difficulties, budget cuts and competition from other states are also obstacles to that improvement, and each needs to be dealt with.
But Wisconsin can improve its position, and the first step is approving uniform wind siting regulations for the state. Local officials and residents should still have a say, and not every project deserves approval. Some sites are clearly better than others. But the best way to deal with developing new sites is to have a uniform wind siting standard on which developers and energy companies can rely.
Wisconsin can do great things with wind and other alternative sources of energy. The time to start is now.