Senate wind energy bill withdrawn
MADISON — Residents who studied and wrote an ordinance to regulate wind energy in Union Township were relieved Wednesday to hear a proposed bill that would override their regulations would not pass, for now.
The proposal in the state Senate would have given the state’s Public Service Commission the authority to create rules regulating commercial wind energy systems. It carried support from the PSC, the wind industry including developer EcoEnergy, and it developed out of Gov. Jim Doyle’s global warming task force.
At the last minute, however, an amendment brought forward to create a special citizen siting board gained bipartisan support. The proposal sought to create a board similar to the state’s livestock siting review board to have rule-making authority and hear appeals, said Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, D-Alma, who co-sponsored the amendment.
The original bill was removed from the floor Wednesday, sending it to a scheduling committee, she said.
Vinehout proposed the amendment because the state needs to balance the competing interests of having renewable energy and having citizen participation, she said. Everyone is supportive of renewable energy, and citizens have the expertise to discuss regulations, she said.
Eric Kallisto, executive assistant to the PSC chair, said he was “deeply disappointed” the bill did not pass.
“This was, in our opinion, one of the easier pieces of legislation coming down the pike as far as global warming and energy issues,” he said. “We recognize it was late in the session. Despite that, we thought it had the right mix of people supporting it.”
He said the PSC will continue to push the issue and work with those who oppose the bill so that it is approved in the next session.
“We’re very open to any process that will get everyone to the table to resolve that,” he said.
Local opponents of the proposed bill said it was being rushed by bringing it forward and holding public hearings within two weeks of the end of the legislative session, which is today.
Town of Union wind study committee chair Tom Alisankus said he thinks legislators heard citizens’ calls to take a longer look at the issue.
“People were actually no longer just listening to what was being told to them by the wind energy proponents,” he said. “They were actually looking at things like the research we did, the actual facts that have been surfaced.”
Vinehout said it’s time to bring the sponsors of the bill and its opponents together to revise the bill and develop a good policy and political decision.
Mar 14, 2008 at 7:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is an open letter of thanks to the people who make up our local governments. I never knew much about what you did, or how hard you worked or what went on at town hall meetings. I never knew how much I was taking for granted until our home was threatened.
I live in a valley below the beautiful hills of Magnolia Township where wind developers want to put 67 turbines. There are real problems with these huge machines. The low frequency thudding noise they make at night has driven people from their homes. Sound really carries in our valley. I did enough research to realize that if the turbines were put in too close to where we live, we’d have to leave our home too.
But how close is too close? Who decides this? Right now it’s our local government.
Last week at the state capitol, a bill came before the senate that would strip our local government of this deciding power and hand it to the Public Service Commission. The PSC believes a wind turbine that is 40 stories tall and has a blade span wider than a 747 can be placed 1000 feet from my door. The bill didn’t pass, but it didn’t fail either. It will come up again next session.
Why didn’t it pass? Because with less than 48 hours notice, Wisconsin town and county supervisors, chairpersons, clerks, planning and zoning board members, citizens appointed to study committees and other local officials came from all over the state to testify against the bill at the capitol. They sat in the hearing room for two long days listening to the PSC, the power companies, wind lobbyists and developers tell them they were inadequate, confused, uneducated and incapable of making intelligent decisions about regulating industry in their own communities. I know this because I was there. Both days. And when members of our local governments were finally given a chance to speak, boy did they prove all of those people wrong. Their testimony was intelligent, informed and to me at least, deeply moving.
You can bet I will go to my town meetings from now on! Thank you to all of you in local government who work so very hard for so very little. I finally get it!
Mar 13, 2008 at 5:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
I believe the state government can work. This issue requires much more study and planning. These 40 story wind turbines are huge and need careful siting to serve all citizens. EcoEnergy is a company that wants to sell the wind turbines to a Spanish company and then leaves the area to sell more turbines. They are not going to pay for the energy or live with or decommission them after 30 years. That will be the people of Wisconsin who should make the choices.
What is Governor Doyle thinking? We need efficient and acceptable energy sources that are eco friendly for all.
Mar 13, 2008 at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gharri--You are right, it is very complex. Our research shows that wind is second to none--but ONLY when all turbines are operating at maximum wind speed, which in our area, isn't that often. As you start 'subtracting' the variables away from maximum efficiency, you end up with numbers that aren't really that impressive. They are o.k., just not as impressive as the industry would have you believe--because the numbers they usually cite are a reflection of when everything is working perfectly.
Having said that, if wind is still going to be part of an overall plan, that's o.k. with everyone I know who is working on this--But let's just site them SAFELY. That's where the industry and 'us' part ways. They have a different idea of what SAFE is, though they have provided ZERO science to back up their contentions. What we have proposed IS backed up. For example, during the Assembly hearing on this issue last week, Rep. Davis asked at least one of the industry spokespeople if they had scientific support for THEIR numbers. The reply was, "I think we do." Rep. Davis asked for a copy by the end of the day; to my knowledge, he never got it. (And the reason is, because it doesn't exist--at least not to support their numbers.)
Thanks for taking an interest, though. It's important that people get ALL the information, and stay informed--like you.
Mar 13, 2008 at 3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
The P.S.C. stood idley by when they were part of the committee that created the state Model Draft Ordinance, which was widely disseminated and supported by the wind energy proponents. To this day, the P.S.C. and wind industry still support the provisions of that document, which calls for only a 1,000 ft. setback from residences (even General Electric, the largest manufacturer of this size wind turbine, recommends a much longer setback). In response to our open records request, the P.S.C. could not provide ANY scientific/medical documentation that supported such short setbacks. One person associated with that committee said he "assumed" 1,000 feet would be enough.
So, it was ridiculous to support a law, drafted at the 11th hour, that would take away local authority, and give it ALL to the P.S.C. It was the 'local authority' (Union Twsp. Committee, among many others) that disclosed this; more importantly, it was the 'local authority' that did the research and provided the scientific/medical documentation that identifies and addresses the health and safety issues ignored by the 'state', via the P.S.C.
Fortunately, enough senators worked hard to do their homework on the issue, and came up with the right answer.
Mar 13, 2008 at 3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wind versus coal, wind as a renewable source, wind farms messing up the environment -- it's all pretty complex. Here's a guy with the best, most comprehensive case for wind power that I've seen:
http://digits.hrblock.com/ssDigits/digit...
Mar 13, 2008 at 2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Shut'er down, LaVerne, she's blowin' oil!"
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.