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 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.”
by jboullion | Feb 7, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
The state Legislature moved with remarkable speed during its special session to enact proposals advocated by Gov. Scott Walker.
The single great exception: a bill to restrict development of wind farms.
Of 10 bills considered by the Legislature in the special session that began Jan. 4, the wind siting bill is the only one that didn’t clear the state Assembly.
Legislative leaders last week decided to stop consideration of the Walker bill, saying they would move to address wind siting in a different way. The move came one week after Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby, announced its opposition to the wind siting bill. It’s the only plank of Walker’s special session platform that WMC opposed.
The energy proposal runs counter to Walker’s jobs agenda because it threatens to block several large wind power projects, with an investment valued at $500 million, this year and next, wind power advocates say. But Walker is concerned about the cost of wind power and says the state needs to have a better balance between wind development and property rights. . . .
The Wisconsin Realtors Association said it worked with Walker’s transition team to craft a proposal that would effectively block the PSC’s standard, which was established after eight months of study. The Concerned Realtors Committee was a key backer of Walker’s gubernatorial campaign, donating more than $43,000 in 2010, campaign finance records show.
The governor’s bill was backed by the Wisconsin Builders Association and Wisconsin Towns Association as well as local community groups that have organized to block wind farms, such as the one Chicago-based Invenergy has proposed in Brown County. . . .
The focus on the issue now shifts to a public hearing Wednesday before a legislative committee that reviews rules like the one forwarded by the PSC.
“There are still members of our caucus who have an interest in making a change,” said Andrew Welhouse, spokesman for state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau). “The final discussions on what that change is and what route that change is going to take through the Legislature is not determined. It’s still a work in progress.”
“There are lots of discussions going on on how to come up with a compromise,” state Sen. Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay) said.
He considers the 1,250-foot setback insufficient. But Cowles, who was the author of a bill that resulted in more renewable energy springing up across the state, doesn’t want to see wind development halted.
The Walker bill was met with a barrage of criticism, not only from WMC but also from wind energy developers, advocacy groups and wind energy manufacturer Tower Tech Systems in Manitowoc, which President Barack Obama visited last month. Tower Tech joined other suppliers in raising concerns about the chilling effect the bill would have on jobs and investment.
Talk of a compromise doesn’t please Jeff Anthony, a former We Energies renewable energy strategist who is now director of business development at the American Wind Energy Association.
“From our perspective, the compromise is what we’ve been working on the past two years,” Anthony said. “The compromise went through the legislative process and the regulatory process.”
Wind developers initially sought a setback of 1,000 feet from homes before the PSC adopted a 1,250-foot setback.
