Local residents concerned wind bill would wipe out their work
UNION TOWNSHIP — Tom Alisankus’ blood pressure rises when discussion turns to a proposed bill to regulate wind energy.
The issue angers him, he said, because the proposed state regulations would remove local control, wiping out months of work by a study committee he chaired to write an local ordinance regulating wind energy in Union Township.
“This, again, is just legislation that would completely eviscerate everything that Union Township spent $40,000 doing,” he said, “and we did it because the state didn’t do it the first time, and that’s what bothers me so much.”
But proponents of the bill say it would allow “stalled” wind projects to get moving across the state, creating jobs and increasing renewable energy.
“The major challenge we face is inconsistency in ordinances across the state,” said Ben Schicker, director of marketing for EcoEnergy, a wind developer proposing projects in Rock County.
“What might be permitted in one county is not allowed in the other,” he said. “It’s important that people have a role in how projects are developed in their area, but we feel it’s also important to the state as a whole that we have uniform siting standards so there’s a level playing field.”
The bill being circulated by Sen. Jeff Plale, D-South Milwaukee, would have the state Public Service Commission develop statewide permitting standards. It’s the second time around for such a bill. A similar one failed to reach a vote a year ago.
Wind developers and environmental groups are backing the legislation.
EcoEnergy is supporting the bill because some places in the state have ordinances that are so strict they make it impossible to site any wind projects, Schicker said.
After Alisankus’ committee presented its ordinance last year, EcoEnergy officials said the requirement for a half-mile setback from homes eliminated any usable land in the township.
Schicker said the legislation would be good for the state and Rock County because it would create an attractive place to do business. Consistent standards encourage economic development, he said.
Rep. Brett Davis, R-Oregon, worked with the town of Union during its ordinance-writing process and plans to oppose the legislation if it goes through as written.
The missing element, he said, is respect for decisions already made by local governments.
Alisankus said the bill should at least include a grandfather clause allowing communities that have studied the issue to keep their ordinances.
“That’s almost like the consolation prize though,” he said.
Davis said the best chance for changes to a bill is at the committee level. He’s hoping the bill is referred to the rural affairs and renewable energy committee, of which he is a member.
Alisankus said members of the Union study committee spent hundreds of hours researching and traveling to wind farms. They aren’t against wind energy, he said.
“What we’re against is the idea that they can be sited in a way that’s dangerous to other people,” he said.
There’s so much talk of NIMBY—not in my backyard—folks, but lawmakers proposing the a state standard aren’t willing to go deeper to see the science and medical data that backs the Union ordinance, Alisankus said.
If the bill passes, Alisankus said he doesn’t trust the PSC to thoroughly research and take health and safety issues into account when writing a statewide standard.
HOW THE LAW MIGHT CHANGE
Existing law: Municipalities can restrict wind energy systems only for health or safety reasons but cannot impose rules that significantly increase the cost of the system or decrease its efficiency.
Siting wind turbine projects that would generate less than 100 MW is controlled by local ordinances. Projects of 100 MW or more go to the Public Service Commission for review and approval.
Proposed law: Siting of smaller projects, such as EcoEnergy’s proposed three-turbine project in Union Township, would be governed by a statewide standard. Projects of 100 MW or more would continue to be regulated by the PSC.
If the bill passes, the PSC would approve statewide rules, wiping out local ordinances if they are more restrictive.
Under the bill, the PSC would be advised on rule-making by a committee of:
-- Wind energy system developers
-- The public
-- Municipalities
-- Energy groups
-- Environmental groups
-- Realtors
-- Landowners who live near wind energy systems and who have not received compensation from the owners, operators or developers of wind energy systems.
The bill also would create an appeal procedure to the PSC on decisions made by local governments on wind energy projects.
Apr 22, 2009 at 10:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Property values…. Well you decide. Houses have been sale for over a year, some with “price reduced signs in front of them. One friend before the turbines were up had their property appraised at $315,000. After the turbines were up a realtor told them in order to sell their home they would need to price it at $200,000 or less. I think the wind energy companies are lying when they tell people, “Property values actually go up in a wind farm”.
Wildlife: I have seen one turkey and no deer since construction began on the turbines around our neighborhood. Two other neighbors near me have told me the same information.
For more factual education on life in a wind farm go to www.betterplan.squarespace.com and for health information go to www.windturbinesyndrome.com. Wind is not free. It creates terrible health issues.
Farmers read every word of a contract before considering signing a wind contract. The energy companies are leasing your FARM not the spot where the turbine is located and they generally contain gag orders keeping you from speaking out on negative issues once the large industrial wind turbines are up. Do you spray your crops by air? Find out if you will be able to spay by air after wind turbines are up on or around your property.
2009 LRB-1048/4 - Relating to regulation of wind energy systems (industrial wind turbines) and granting rule-making authority sponsored by Senators Jeff Plale & Randy Hopper, Representatives Jim Soletski & Phil Montgomery must be defeated or there will be many more Wisconsin residents suffering from improper wind turbine siting.
Apr 22, 2009 at 10:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
I live in the PSC approved Forward wind farm by Invenergy of Chicago, Illinois. It is horrible. I would like to use stronger words. EcoEnergy does not like inconsistency in ordinances? Townships for what ever the need whether it be for wind, signs, water quality etc. enacts ordinances to best fit their resident’s needs. Why should industrial wind turbines be any different? Eco also mentions stalled projects. They are unworthy projects so a better word would be terminated projects. People are getting educated to the lies of wind energy companies so Senator Plale is trying to circumvent well thought out legislation designed to protect the safety of particular town and county residents. The PSC did not do that for the residents of the Invenergy wind farm nor the Blue Sky project near Johnsburg. The PSC did no scientific study and stuck these large, noisy, unhealthy industrial wind turbines right up our hind end. Issues ignored by the PSC and Senator Plale and his sponsors: Health issues are: loss of sleep, interrupted sleep, headaches, dizziness, ringing and buzzing in the ears, lack of motivation, balance issues, nausea, loss of memory, tenseness, anxiety, no longer being able to dream due to improper sleep, tired most of the time and chest pains. All these issues go away when on vacation or gone to our cabin. The sound is like a jet flying over that never goes away or a Chinook helicopter lifting a load. In our house it is like listening to your heart in a stethoscope. Often we hear five of the industrial wind turbines both outside as well as inside our house. It is not just the sound, but the low frequency sound. Sometimes we do not hear the sound in the house, yet the body feels the sound. It’s interesting that sleep deprivation for the Iraqi prisoners is considered torture, yet for wind farm residents it is something we must endure for the betterment of society. Most residents of a wind farm would tell you that their quality of life is forever gone.
Shadow flicker by wind companies is said to be minimal and “can” be eliminated by computer modeling. You must have heard of “garbage in, garbage out” because shadow flicker is not minimal or is 41 minutes for six weeks at a time, twice a year minimal? That is what two friends of mine receive in this project not to mention others that also have serious shadow flicker problems.
To be continued……
Apr 19, 2009 at 11:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
I love it! Now it's about jobs. These guys (Eco) are making it up as they go.
Apr 19, 2009 at 9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Great idea! Come from miles away, Wipe out the opposition, Then rape their land. This is happening everywhere. We need wind power, the problem is the big corporations are the ones behind it and the governments are making it easy for them to further line their pockets. Yet the price for the consumer will not budge. We need our own turbines! hooked up to the "PUBLIC UTILITIES" (hmmm) Then MY cost goes down & I might even make a buck. Instead of making it easy for them, They should be make easy for US.
Apr 19, 2009 at 8:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
I want to thank the Gazette for keeping our community informed regarding the shenannigans South Milwaukee Senator Plale has been up to again. It is sad to think that in this day and age that self profit through bad legislation can even be tolerated by an elected state government. How soon we forget the stories of Enron and the state of California. How soon we forget about predatory and sub-prime mortgage loans, hedge funds, and banks and businesses too big to fail, but so worthy of our bailouts. But, here comes some of most corporate welfare laden, Tamminy Hall style, trust enableling legislation we've seen since the railroads came through. Call Senator Robson, Senator Erpenbach, and Represenatives Davis, Hixson, Sheridan, & Benedict and let them know local control over renewable energy industries is best decided at a local level where people and the community are directly effected. Please remember the PSC has less to say over the necessity and environmentally beneficial effectiveness of private merchant LLCs like "EcoEnergy" than our publicly regulated utilities. Wind developers want Enron sized profits and don't care about health and safety, or the fact that industrial wind power can't stop or slow the burning of coal. My wife and I have cut our electrical consumption by 20-25% just by unplugging what were not using and turning off switches. It is not that big of a deal to do one's part with out handing over the state to greedy worthless wind developers. Keep local control Rock County!
Apr 19, 2009 at 3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Whatever your views are on the particular subject of Wind Turbine Siting, please consider this particular Bill's larger impact of an erosion of citizens’ opportunity to participate in their democracy. From all accounts, the process the Town of Union and its residents followed in writing its Large Wind Turbine Ordinance was transparent and open to all (including EcoEnergy). Decisions were based on legitimate research, scientific evidence and the open, participatory debate thereof. Isn't this what the democratic process should be?
If the democratic process is to be changed, as it will if this bill passes, then please consider the potential consequences of that change. Who will benefit and who will lose out by limiting access for local citizens to participate? (By the way, all of us are “local” someplace. By advocating for the limitation of rural, Township residents participation in this particular situation, you may well be pushing for a limitation of your own democratic participation opportunities in your own “local” area in the future.).
Why limit ideas and debate, as this legislation proposes? Why accept the Bill’s underlying, unquestioned assumption that local, rural peoples’ ideas are less worthy, less informed or less reasoned than the ideas of corporate representatives or lobbyists (who stand to profit handsomely if this legislation passes). Why accept the Bill’s assumption that “local” people are not up to the task of studying, debating and deciding complex and important issues.
Who is "our government" if it doesn't include us, the local citizens? Regardless of your particular opinion on Wind Turbine siting, please consider where the removal of local citizens from actively participating in the democratic process will take us as a society. Changing the democratic system is not something we should take lightly or allow powerful corporations and their lobbyist to do simply because they do not like the outcome of our longstanding and well established democratic process.
We can simultaneously solve our energy issues AND preserve our democratic process and principles - unfortunately the State Wind Siting Reform bill will do neither. Please advocate for keeping "we the people" included in our democratic process by calling your state legislator and asking them not to support the State Wind Siting Reform bill.
Apr 19, 2009 at 2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
EcoEnergy states there is a "requirement" for a 1/2 mile setback in the Town of Union's Ordinance. This is not a factual statement. The Town of Union ordinance allows for landowners hosting turbines, as well as neighboring landowners who choose to do so, to agree to a lesser setback than 1/2 mile from their home. Hence, a ½ mile set back is not required, should the landowner choose otherwise. Please read the ordinance rather than rely on Utility companies or their lobbyists (Renew Wisconsin, Michael Vickerman) to tell you what it says.
The Town of Union volunteer citizen Wind Turbine Study Committee reviewed hundreds of pages of literature that cautioned about wind turbine impact on human health. Where the PSC’s Draft Model Wind Ordinance for Wisconsin uses setbacks of 1,000 feet from dwellings, the Committee found studies and reports from governments (including the US Congressional Research Service), physicians, and professional societies that stipulate setbacks of ½ mile or more in order to protect human health (10 of those sources recommend setbacks of 1 mile or more). To learn how the PSC arrived at their recommendation the Town had to submit a Freedom of Information request and discovered there was no rationale for the 1,000 foot setback—the distance had been provided by a Florida utility.
The duty of government is to protect its citizens—in this case, to protect the health and safety of Wisconsin residents from unhealthy effects of large wind turbines. The Town of Union's ordinance does not unduly limit what people may do on their own property; rather it addresses the impacts on neighboring residents. The residents in need of protection are those on neighboring properties who may be affected by the noise or hazard that come with the installation of large wind turbines. These residences are provided protection by the required 1/2 mile setback.
The Wind Siting Reform bill brushes aside a quality ordinance, written in full compliance with the law and democratic process by the Town of Union and replaces it with a corporate lobbyist influenced process that concentrates decision making power into the hands of a very few, unelected people – none of whom could tell you much, if anything about the Town of Union, or the people living there.
Apr 19, 2009 at 11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
I think the information in this article under Existing Law may be misleading. As it reads, I interpret this to mean that health & safety reasons can be imposed but only if it does not significantly increase the cost of the system. This is not the case. Under State Statute 66.0401, there are three elements, however, only one needs to be satisfied. The statute states that no restrictions can be placed on wind energy systems unless the restriction satisfies one (1) of the following:
a)Serves to preserve or protect the public health or safety OR
b)Does not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency OR
c)Allows for an alternative system of comparable cost and efficiency
This means only one element needs to be satisfied. Therefore health and safety restrictions can be imposed regardless of cost. It would be a sad day if health & safety is forfeited because of cost! Wind developers may want communities to think there are restrictions in regard to health & safety. They are wrong. Thank you to all the communties in the state that have worked long hours conducting research and creating wind ordinances to protect their residents.
Apr 19, 2009 at 8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
If the wind developers main concern is inconsistency, not inaccuracy in local ordinances, why is that such a huge problem. Every town, village, city is governed unique to their location. Every locally created ordinance should be different, it demonstrates that local governing bodies looked at the factors specific to their jurisdiction, and created an ordinance accordingly.
If anyone you know is involved in local government in Rock county or anywhere in this state, make them aware of this, as they should be the most vocal opponents of this bill. The state is slowly setting a precedent that local control is soon to be a thing of the past.
If this bill passes, local governments will be just as relevant as the Maytag man.
Apr 19, 2009 at 7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Everyone should be fighting hard to stop the siting reform legislation. If wind developers are able to eradicate local control what will they ask for next? The power of emanate domain, probably. Developer think they shoulb be able to take anything they want. Developers pay about $4500.00 to the landowner to site a turbine saying they will use one half acre but, the landowner must sign up 100’s of acres of his land for up to 100 years. This is nothing short of a land swindle. The wind developer’s contract is bulletproof and the farmer becomes a tenant on his own property.
What is a stalled wind project? It is every location that has ever been picked by a wind developer. If a developer encounters any resistance from local residents concerned about their health, safety, or property values, it is immediately labeled as stalled. How many times in your life have you gotten everything you wanted? Wisconsin had a 7 fold increase in wind poweer in 2008. Stalled, I don't think so.
Local governments have been very consistent in their efforts to control the adverse health effects caused by wind turbines. The PCS has been very consistent in their efforts to let wind developers do whatever they want to the citizens of Wisconsin. The PSC did have a model ordinance that was poorly written and favored wind developers. The model ordinance had a 50dB maximum sound limit. About a year ago it was pulled from every state web site and buried. Why? The sound section must have been too strong for the developers. What the PSC is now approving for developers is a 50dB average noise level with no specified time period. That means a turbine could produce any amount of noise and residents will never be able to do anything about it. Consider that nighttime noise in a rural area is about 25dB and an increase to 50 dB is 5 times as loud.
The most important reason to maintain local control of turbine siting is a one size fits all standard will never work. The land use in Union, Rock Co., and Wisconsin is so diverse that each turbine site must be evaluated by local government officials. Wisconsin can’t be all things to all people. We do not have a wind resource. Wind energy is highly subsidized, not reliable, not dispatchable, and intermittent. The odds of wind power being available during peak load times are less than 5%. In these hard economic times as tax payers and rate payers we can’t afford to support wind energy. Wisconsin has a tremendous biomass resource that can produce all the renewable energy we need at a fraction of the cost of wind. Moreover this biomass approach will create real long term jobs for Wisconsin residents.
Trust the Town government officials that you have elected to protect your health, safety, and property values.
Call write or better yet visit your state Sen. and Rep. and tell them not to support the siting reform legislation.
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.