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 editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal on wind turbine setback requirements would kill jobs and hurt the state’s renewable energy portfolio. The Legislature should reject it.
If Gov. Scott Walker is serious about creating jobs in Wisconsin – and we believe he is – he should not turn his back on job-creation opportunities that are available in green industries. Yet he seems to be doing exactly that, a primary example of which is proposed regulation that could effectively kill wind energy production in Wisconsin.
Walker’s proposal would require an 1,800-foot setback for wind turbines from nearby properties. Wind farm developers and supporters say that such a requirement would kill or severely curtail 10 of the 12 wind projects underway or proposed. That means a loss in jobs; it also means a significant reduction in the amount of renewable energy that would be available to the state in coming years.
Given the reality of climate change and likely new regulations that will be needed to mitigate the human factor in climate change, reducing renewable energy alternatives is a very bad idea.
Walker’s proposal also overturns the good work of an advisory committee and the state Public Service Commission that spent the past two years coming up with a less restrictive setback requirement of 1,250 feet for large turbines. As Keith Reopelle of Clean Wisconsin noted in an op-ed on Wednesday, the PSC held six rounds of public comments and received input from all the major stakeholders.
Some of those stakeholders may have been unhappy with the consensus that was reached, but the result was a reasonable compromise after an open process. To throw that all out and replace the PSC rule with the most restrictive statewide setback regulations in the country would be a mistake.
Walker seems to be reacting to a fear that wind turbines lower property values and limit development. But a 2009 study by the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found no evidence “that home prices surrounding wind facilities are consistently, measurably and significantly affected by either the view of wind facilities or the distance of the home to those facilities.”
