Shown above: A 2.5 MW wind turbine being installed for Pattern Wind LLC in New Mexico, the same company that proposing a high visibility wind system across a 250 square mile area in western Iowa and Lafayette counties, Wisconsin.
No-Upands.com is pleased to announce that Milwaukee-based videographer Charles Bensigner has produced a 3 minute video introducing the 600 MW Uplands Wind power plant proposal to the citizens of Wisconsin. With approximately 170 turbines 650 feet in height, the power plant would permeate many Wisconsin views of the world reknown Driftless area and establish the second largest power plant in the Midwest despite the area having far less than optimum wind resources.
In a recent letter to MARIA REDMOND head of Governor Ever’s Office of Sustainability and Clean Energy, Bensinger asks,
I’m wondering if you’re aware of the tremendous tension and public outcry occurring in certain rural Wisconsin communities regarding what appears to be the forcing of local communities to accept the construction of very large solar and wind farms promoted by out-of-state developers?
Bensinger attributes the underlying causes for the community strife,
[Sales a]gents for these developers often operate in a secretive manner to obtain land contract agreements with landowners, often pitting neighbors against each other and their local political representatives. Residents fear they will suffer deleterious health effects, business disruption and significant environmental impacts from wind and solar farms, loss of good farmland, property values, cherished viewscapes and a major reduction in their quality of life.
Bensinger is no newcomer to energy problem solving and the primacy of local economics. His is currently engaged with several projects with helping neighbors in his urban Milwaukee neighborhood improve the energy performance of their homes. He has found that electric bills in his neighborhood are often 2-3 times higher than bills in nearby neighborhoods. As Wisconsin rebates for efficiency and home improvements rank near the bottom of Midwest states, Bensinger believes that asking urban ratepayers to fund remote power plants is counter-productive on two fronts: (1) by adding new costs to bills that would be better directed to larger Focus on Energy rebates and (2) by under-cutting the development of local measures that would make Milwaukee neighborhoods decreasingly dependent on remote renewable power. The former Director of the Alternative Energy and Biofuels Center at Santa Fe Community College believes that, eventually, urban neighborhoods or clusters of 2-10 houses/businesses will be operating on locally owned micro-grids based on small scale generation technologies. He is particularly enthusiastic about Inductance Energy‘sEarth Engine but expects there to be many solutions far more affordable than the costly monopoly expansion model that Uplands Wind promotes.
Bensinger’s commitment to locally produced power applies to rural local economies as well. He called upon his rural ties in New Mexico to obtain photographs of turbines being installed by Pattern LLC, the same company proposing the Uplands power plant,
Through the, Wisconsin Video Hub, Bensigner and his cohort, Daniel Folkman, have documented important conferences and presentations pertaining to Wisconsin’s rural communities. Below is a sampling of the entries from their library:
Negative Impacts of Expansion Transmission Lines Town of Holland Clerk Marilyn Pedretti (La Crosse Co. WI) describes how their town was ill-prepared for dealing with the economic and other negative impacts from the presence of two 345 kV expansion transmission lines. 10 min, Mar 2018
More Wires to Serve Less Need? As legal counsel for the Town of Holland, Frank Jablonski describes the need to challenge Wisconsin Utilities and the Public Service Commission (PSC) purported “need” for additional power and power lines. 9 min, 2018
Our Distributed, Local-Based Energy Futures Drawing upon his experiences from authoring long term energy planning for San Diego, San Francisco and the state of North Carolina, Engineer Bill Powers describes the rapid progress being made in home, business and municipal developments of solar plus storage. He discusses the additional roles that energy efficiency and load management play in creating a right-sized electrical system. 12 min, Mar 2018
Executive Committee Must Approve Ordinance Upgrade Motion at March 9, 2021 Meeting
SOME RECENT HISTORY
At highest levels, Iowa County officials have known about the massive 600 MW Uplands Wind project for more than a year. To date, the County has yet to acknowledge the international developer’s large scale interests and is even on record as instructing inquiring County Supervisors to tell their constituents to phone Pattern Wind LLC for answers to their questions rather than expect the County to attain information.
Whether on purpose or not, County foot dragging furthered the ability of Pattern LLC sales agents to obtain leases from landowners nearly undetected by the public at large. Were these high officials aware that Pattern was getting closer and closer to obtaining the critical number of lease signatures so the massive proposal would clear transmission connection requirements and leap quickly to the review by the state with short review review by the County under an old, incomplete Wind Siting Ordinance? Speaking just for itself, the public record raises reasons for concern.
Through last Fall, the Planning and Zoning Committee ignored requests by Committee members to ask the multi-national developer to hold public information meetings.
To help speed-up the process of bringing the County’s 2014 Wind Siting Ordinance up to current state standards, a citizen intervenor involved with the appeal of the Cardinal Hickory Creek transmission line, drafted an updated Wind Siting Ordinance carefully weaving in missing, allowable protections from PSC Code 128 into the County’s existing document. In early December, the Planning and Zoning Committee, with higher officials present, hardly gave the updated Ordinance a glance. After more delays, the Planning and Zoning Committee voted to table the entire Ordinance update initiative on January 26, 2021.
Having seen enough inaction, 86 citizens “zoomed” into February 15, 2021 Iowa County Board Meeting with more than 20 using the public comment period to voice concerns about the proposed 600 MW Uplands wind power plant proposal. Most emphasized that after months of inexplicable delay, the County must act immediately to update its 2014 Wind Siting Ordinance. Later in the meeting of the full board, a number of County Supervisors clarified these requests by requesting that the Planning and Zoning Committee resume its work updating the 2014 Wind Siting Ordinance.
With citizen caution still running high, on February 25, the Planning and Zoning Committee heard many more, precise and informed requests during the public comment period at the start of the meeting. The Chair of the Committee responded by simply stating that public comments would receive no reply and that Pattern’s proposal and the Ordinance Update were not on meeting agenda and will not be discussed,
Over the course of a year, Iowa County’s silence and inaction has supported Pattern LLC make steady gains towards its for-profit interests while public interests have yet to be acknowledged– not to mention supported or pursued. In September, the County Chair acknowledged that he is employed on a daily basis helping the efforts of wind developers. When letters were sent to County Supervisors by No-Uplands volunteers suggesting it would be appropriate for the Chair to recuse (remove) himself from all discussion of the matter due possible conflict of interest, the Chair responded that the attack on him was unwarranted. He stated that because his work in currently in North Illinois, no conflict in determining wind development regulation in Iowa County exists.
How close is Pattern LLC to attaining landowner signatures for 75% of the land required for the approximate 250 square mile study area in both Iowa and Lafayette County? This is merely one many key questions that citizens have and elected officials, by duty and position are obligated to determine for the sake of public safety, health and long term welfare of the County’s local economies.
SOME NECESSARY ACTIONS
Patience is no longer an option. The only way the citizens of Iowa County can expect any representation in this upheaval is to phone their county supervisors and use a technique that demands written accountabilities and action. Here is an outline of the proven technique:
1) Unless one personally knows members of the Iowa County Executive Conmmittee Ron Benish, Dave Gollon, Jeremy Meek, Dan Nankee or Curt Peterson, phone your personal County Supervisor: https://www.iowacounty.org/media/Directory%202019.pdf
2) Introduce yourself including where you live.
3) To engage the Supervisor in discussion, prepare and ask 1-3, short clearly stated questions about Uplands details and impacts. Its best to read some materials first and personally determine what missing information is most important to you.
4) If your Supervisor suggests asking someone else, you have the option to politely say, “OK. I will do that, but as my Supervisor, I want you to experience the difficulty of obtaining factual information and to possess the information you need to make decisions in the best interests of your constituents.”
5) If your Supervisor rattles off information that is not accountable, in writing in the County’s public record, you have the option to politely say, “That is interesting. Can you send me a link to the source for that information? I still want you to research my questions.
7) Tell your Supervisor you will phone he or she back in 10-14 days for answers to your questions if you don’t hear from he or she earlier.
8) Conclude the call and the follow-up email by asking the Supervisor to immediately call one of the members of the Executive Committee ( Ron Benish, Dave Gollon, Jeremy Meek, Dan Nankee or Curt Peterson) and ask the member to ask the Chair add a motion to the March 9, 2021 Meeting agenda that would require the County to act immediately to update its 2014 Wind Siting Ordinance to include all available health, safety and other protections allowable in State Code.
The below letter will be mailed with additional materials to all Iowa County Supervisors no later than Feb 12, 2021. You can co-sign the letter by adding your name and contact information here: https://bit.ly/Co-Sign-IA-Co-Board-Ltr-202102 . Further explanation about current ordinance shortfalls can be found in this post; Interested persons are also encouraged to attend the ZOOM County Board meeting on February 16, 2021 and may speak, briefly, towards the start of the meeting. See info on Calendar
– – – – – – – –
Dear Iowa County Supervisor,
We are writing in response to the January 26th, Iowa County Zoning Committee discussion and action on the proposed revisions to the Iowa County Wind Energy System Siting Ordinance (the Ordinance). The Zoning Committee tabled further action on revising the 2014 Ordinance. This Ordinance is out of date and was not written to address larger wind facilities like the 600 MW project being proposed by Pattern, which threatens to make our rural farming community into an industrial setting. I am requesting that revisions to the Ordinance be pursued and that this issue be added to the agenda of the February 16, 2021 Iowa County Board Meeting for further discussion. It is important that the full County Board have an opportunity to understand the importance of revising the Ordinance, especially with the looming possibility of the Pattern proposal (see attached documentation on the project). Some of the salient issues with the County’s Ordinance is that:
It does not contain any protections for the public on noise or shadow flicker, both of which are documented to cause significant health effects.
It does not address signal interference or stray voltage issues.
Many of the process requirements are missing for complaint resolution, public input opportunities and the ability to bill the wind developer for activities that the County may undertake related to a proposed or existing project.
We also request that Chairman John Meyers recuse himself from the discussion and all future actions involving the Ordinance because of his openly stated conflicts of interest involving wind system developers. (Meyers has openly stated that he works, on a “daily basis” directly with, or for, wind system developers.) The public deserves an unbiased decision on matters of such importance.
It is disturbing that the County does not see protection of the public as a primary responsibility. It is also disappointing that, after determining to limit inclusion of protections for the public, the Zoning Committee felt it was not important to bring these impactful findings to the attention of the entire board. If Pattern submits an application to the County, the existing Ordinance is beyond ill-equipped to deal with it, because it omits important tools the County can use: in billing developers; establishing a decommissioning fund; and protecting the public. The County may well find itself in debt after processing the proposed project, under the current Ordinance and associated resolution. Some facts about the State Code (PSC128) on Wind Energy Systems as they relate to the Ordinance:
The public protections in State Code (PSC 128) must be incorporated into local ordinances for them to be enforceable. The PSC will not enforce these provisions (suggested in proposed revisions) to the County’s Ordinance.
Choosing not to revise the Ordinance will not protect the county from being sued.The existing Ordinance without revision leaves the county at greater financial risk,due to lack of authority to charge wind developers for county reviews.The suggested revisions contain that authority.
Even though the State Code does not allow the County to be more restrictive, it outlines a number of requirements that the County can provide to protect residents and avoid potential expenses. The suggested revisions contain these requirements. Examples of these requirements are standards for noise and shadow flicker (from PSC 128.14, PSC 128.15), a complaint process that actually gives the public some recourse (from PSC 128.40, PSC 128.41), language that helps the County to cover costs of review, etc. (from PSC 128.32 (5). 128.36 (2), suggestions for updating the resolution that defines specifics on what the County can charge the developer.
As a legislative body, which the county is, the fact that many decisions made by the County can be contested should be nothing new. That an aggrieved party has the ability to appeal a County decision on Wind Systems to the PSC does not eliminate all County authority. The County does have a say on whether to incorporate and provide protections for county residents that are allowed in State Code.
Refusing to update the County’s Ordinance does not limit liability to the county or its duty to protect the public interest. Without protections added to the Ordinance, residents that become physically ill from living in proximity to a wind turbine may be forced to sell their property at a significant loss, or worse have to abandon their property because they cannot sell it. There are real life examples of these occurrences.
While landowners decide whether to sign a lease agreement, this does not eliminate the County’s duty to protect ALL landowners or eliminate the County’s authority to do so under the State Code. The county should consider their responsibility to protect landowners who choose not to participate in hosting wind turbines. Non-participating landowners are not the ones who are threatening their community with extreme changes, such as going from a rural character to an industrial setting or threatening their neighbor’s property values or land use decisions. Zoning requirements are established for the express purpose of moderating situations where a landowner’s personal choices about their property interfere with the rights of their neighbor’s. The Board should also consider that it is common for those who sign lease agreements to have second thoughts when they discover the many downsides to the agreement, not disclosed by savvy landsmen.
The county cannot avoid liabilities that may result from developers siting wind facilities in the County. The County would have costs and their authority to recover those costs from wind developers is in the proposed revisions that the Zoning Committee decided to table! The county is placing risks on the public by refusing to include protections for the public in their Ordinance.
Uplands Wind would change the face of Iowa County and the lifestyle we currently have, we need the Ordinance revised now!
NOTE: Interested parties may co-sign a joint letter to the Iowa County Board that will be mailed to all Supervisors no later than February 12, 2021 here: https://bit.ly/Co-Sign-IA-Co-Board-Ltr-202102 . Interested persons are also encouraged to attend the ZOOM County Board meeting on February 16, 2021 and may speak, briefly, towards the start of the meeting. See info on Calendar
= = = = = = = =
Uplands Wind is a 600 MW wind turbine proposal by Pattern, consisting of approximately 170+ wind turbines, 600-700 feet tall covering 30,000 acres in Iowa and LaFayette Counties. Because merchant power plant developers are not required to notify a community prior to seeking out lease agreements with landowners, it wasn’t until September 2020, after Pattern gave a Power Point presentation to the Iowa County Zoning Committee. that some of us became fully aware of the project. It became obvious, upon review of the Iowa County Wind Energy System Siting Ordinance (the Ordinance), that revision to this Ordinance were needed. Some of the reasons that revisions to the Ordinance are needed include:
The Ordinance is dated (from 2014);
The resolution establishing fees for review is also dated and would not cover present day costs for subcontracting review, etc. to professional subcontractors;
The Ordinance did not contain public protections for noise, flicker, signal interference or stray voltage and lacked a complete and comprehensive complaint process to give the public redress for problems that may occur;
The Ordinance was weak in the area of notification of the public, information and public hearing opportunities for the public or documentation (that may be useful in complaint or appeal processes);
The Ordinance did not contain all of the financial protections allowing the County to cover its’ costs for reviewing applications, decommissioning, and other regulatory roles.
Between September and November of 2020, I put together suggested revisions (Revisions) to the Ordinance which primarily involved adding all of the missing requirements from PSC 128, into the Ordinance. In November, these Revisions were presented to Scott Godfrey, County Planning Department Director and Zoning Committee member.
The Revisions were presented to the County Zoning Committee on December 2cnd (2020). Zoning Committee discussion including:
Concerns raised about workload:
Potential liabilities;
Importance of protecting citizens and having a modern Ordinance when a modern project makes an application.
The possibility of an injunction to new applications until revisions to the Ordinance could be completed;
One statement from a Supervisor regarding protections of the public being made to satisfy “complainers”.
Agreement to begin serious discussions at the next meeting (which was cancelled and finally convened on January 26th)
At the next Iowa County Zoning meeting, on January 26th, the issue of revising the county’s 7- year old Ordinance was tabled after brief discussion. Some of the issues discussed by Zoning Committee members (Members) at this meeting were:
Because the County cannot make their Ordinance more restrictive than State Code, Members questioned whether those standards that the county can enforce are of enough public benefit to offset the cost and liability. The truth is, if county residents experience health effects (from noise or shadow flicker), signal interference (with any electronic device) or stray voltage issues, they would have NO RECOURSE. County residents could bear a financial burden for review and management of Wind systems under the existing Ordinance.
Members stated that appeals to a county decision under its ordinance ultimately can be appealed to the Public Service Commission, so the county doesn’t have the final say on an issue. The truth is, decisions made by the County, as a legislative body, can be contested. This should not be a new concept for County Supervisors. That an aggrieved party has the ability to appeal a County decision on Wind Systems to the PSC does not eliminate all County authority. The County does have a say on whether to incorporate and provide protections for county residents that are allowed in State Code.
Members questioned the value of having an Ordinance at all, given the limits to authority in statute and the liability it creates for the county. The truth is, refusing to update the County’s Ordinance does not limit liability to the county or its duty to protect the public interest. Without protections added to the Ordinance, residents that become physically ill from living in proximity to a wind turbine may be forced to sell their property at a significant loss, or worse have to abandon their property because they cannot sell it. There are real life examples of these occurrences.
Members stated the decision of whether the county sites a wind facility is between the landowner and developer. The truth is, while landowners decide whether to sign a lease agreement, this does not eliminate the County’s duty to protect ALL landowners or eliminate the County’s authority to do so under the State Code. The county should consider their responsibility to protect landowners who choose not to participate in hosting wind turbines. Non-participating landowners are not the ones who are threatening their community with extreme changes, such as going from a rural character to an industrial setting or threatening their neighbor’s property values or land use decisions. Zoning requirements are established for the express purpose of moderating situations where a landowner’s personal choices about their property interfere with the rights of their neighbor’s. The Board should also consider that it is common for those who sign lease agreements to have second thoughts when they discover the many downsides to the agreement, not disclosed by savvy landsmen.
Members discussed the concern of liability, in the form of suits, from wind developers or from residents (“complainers”). There was also concern over workload and whether the cost of adding requirements was worth it. The truth is, the county cannot avoid liabilities that may result from developers siting wind facilities in the County. The County would have costs and their authority to recover those costs from wind developers is in the proposed revisions that the Zoning Committee decided to table! The county is placing risks on the public by refusing to include protections for the public in their Ordinance.
There were some dissenting voices to these feeble and self-serving rationales for avoiding revisions to the Ordinance, but they were not able to carry the day and the Zoning Committee decided to table revisions to the Ordinance.
It is disturbing that the County does not see protection of the public as a primary responsibility. It is also disappointing that, after determining to limit inclusion of protections for the public, the Zoning Committee felt it was not important to bring these impactful findings to the attention of the entire board. If Pattern submits an application to the County, the existing Ordinance is beyond ill-equipped to deal with it, because it omits important tools the County can use: in billing developers; establishing a decommissioning fund; and protecting the public. The County may well find itself in debt after processing the proposed project, under the current Ordinance and associated resolution.
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP CONVINCE THE FULL COUNTY BOARD TO REVISITREVISIONS TO THE ORDINANCE?
Call, write or email your (all) County Supervisor and express concern, disappointment, outrage, etc., at the Zoning Committee’s failure to add critical protections for the public into their out of date Ordinance.Requesting that revisions to the Ordinance be pursued and that this issue be added to the agenda of the February 16, 2021 Iowa County Board Meeting for further discussion.
Request that Chairman John Meyers recuse himself from the discussion and all future actions involving the Ordinance because of his openly stated conflicts of interest involving wind system developers. (Meyers has openly stated that he works, on a “daily basis” directly with, or for, wind system developers.) The public deserves an unbiased decision on matters of such importance.
Write an LTE, asking the county to add the proposed revisions.
Come to the next County Board Meeting and tell the entire Board why revisions are important and necessary and how disappointed you are that the zoning committee is more concerned about liability and workload than protecting the public from harm.
Or Sign the letter to Iowa County Supervisors, County Planning Director and Corporate Council AT: http://bit.ly/Co-Sign-IA-Co-Board-Ltr-202102Text entry instructions on top. This must be done ASAP, because the next County board meeting is coming up, and it would be good to get this on the Agenda. Folks can also call the clerk, (608) 935-0399, and ask that this topic be put on the Agenda of the February 16, 2021 Iowa County Board Meeting.
What Points to Make
Without the proposed revisions incorporated into the current Ordinance, key protections for the public will not exist for Iowa County Residents.
The public protections in State Code (PSC 128) MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO LOCAL ORDINANCES FOR THEM TO BE ENFORCEABLE. The PSC WILL NOT ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS SUGGESTED to be ADDED in PROPOSED REVISIONS to the countys’ wind Ordinance.
Refusing to revise the Wind Ordinance will not protect the county from being sued. Keeping the existing ordinance without revision leaves the county at great financial risk, due to lack of authority to charge wind developers for county reviews. The suggested revisions contain the authority for the county to charge developers for review, etc.
I hear Dolly Parton singing “Here you come again,” as another ‘Green Energy’ intrusion despoils our community.
When the Badger Hollow industrial solar factory (Cobb/Montfort) was introduced, questions were asked: Why would some of the finest farmland on the face of the earth be allowed to be buried under solar panels?What are the safeguards to those harmed by that intrusion to be justly compensated for their loss?
The answer from the Iowa County Board was, “A man should be able to do with his property as he sees fit.” And then voted to allow any industrial solar panel to be placed within spitting distance from a line fence or home. The Wisconsin legislature stood mute.
Three farm families became intervenors and took those and additional concerns to the Public Service Commission where their concerns were introduced to the callousness of our unelected PSC regulators and a legislature that intentionally allows the moneyed interests to financially rape the ratepayers of Wisconsin.
When those same voices, as intervenors and joined now by others, questioned the validity of the building of the Cardinal Hickory Creek 345 kV (CHC) transmission line boondoggle, which would carve an open wound through Southwest Wisconsin, again the question was asked: Where were the safeguards that allowed those harmed by the construction of that high powerline be justly compensated?
And what were some of the voices heard from the Iowa County Board? “Not one single penny,” for resisting CHC was the answer. Fortunately, some of that body were seeing the true picture unfolding and moved to fight the powerline. And of course, the PSC led by Tony Earl’s handpicked PSC chairperson, again sided with the moneyed interests to circumvent the will of the people, when over 1000 people showed up to testify against the CHC.
Another question lays at the feet of our community at large, Where are the safeguards that protect our homelands here in Southwest Wisconsin from the intrusion of another moneyed venture that will affect the beauty, livability, and treasures of our community for at least the next two generations of our children?
Those sightlines of the Uplands Winds project with (170+) 650 foot tall towers (over twice the height of the Statue of Liberty or WDMP) would be visible from Madison to south of Dubuque, all day and blinking every night, for the next 40 years or more.
For those landowners wishing to participate, where are the safeguards to those that are harmed by this construction? What is the true cost to our families, our neighbors, our treasures, and our communities?
Has there been any due diligence, by any governmental body, that protects us from the harmful connotations of the so-called ‘Green Energy’ foisted onto our doorsteps?
Do not be fooled by any protections said to be overseen by our legislators or Governor, as their voices have already been cast by their past actions. They side with the money and against the common man. Every Time.
The PSC does not protect you. It’s sole function is to give legal cover to those wishing to pimp your pocketbook.
Ask yourself if you are willing to be financially raped one more time?
Fate of Second Largest Wind Installation in the Midwest in the hands of 50 Wisconsin landowners.
Published in Dodgeville Chronicle, December 31, 2020
Too few residents of Southwest Wisconsin are aware that a Canadian-owned, multinational corporation, Pattern LLC,2 has salespersons on the ground encouraging landowners to sign agree-ments allowing the company to construct at least 1703, industrial-scale wind turbines across Iowa and Lafayette Counties. With heights of around 650 feet, views of the system would permeate the natural horizon from the outskirts of Madison to the bluffs of the Mis-sisippi River4 negatively affect-ing property values over 250 square miles of the Driftless area.5
Were it not for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission publishing Pattern paperwork in late November6, no one would have learned that the fate of the proposal essentially rests on the signatures of about 507 landowners who are likely to be insufficiently informed. In the experience of Iowa farmer, Mason Fleenor, looking back on his decision observed,
“Nobody knew they were going to be this loud, or hurt our property values or be this big. . . No one wants to build around these windmills so you just cut your economic activity down. . . I just want to see the countryside.”8
Local and state taxes are no longer collected for land with wind turbines. Independent studies estimate property value losses from 15 to 45%.9 Landowners and local officials must stop and consider that the diverted state tax dollar payments to partially cover these losses would fall at least $100 million short over 40 years if only 1% of the affected properties were sold per year at a 10% loss.10
Local tax bases would be forever compromised causing mill rates to soar at the same time compatible, agricultural, residential and business development vanishes.
Keep in mind that unaffected farmland in Wisconsin appreciates in value at the rate of about 4% per year. Landowners pondering the possibility of net income from a 40 year wind turbine lease are encouraged to do the property devaluation math (and get an experienced attorney to carefully review the 60 page contract!). Should the value of one’s land drop at the national average, it would take decades of lease payments to make up for this loss.11 The “option agreement” also forces a landowner to give up rights to determine where turbines, wide access roads and electrical lines would be located12. This uncertainty makes it impossible to accurately in-form neighbors of pending hard ships, not to mention, obtain their informed blessings.
Readers with any doubt that turbine noise thoroughly shatters natural soundscapes and peaceful living are encouraged to spend some time internet searching for personal video testimony about “wind turbine noise.”13 Wisconsin state code allows turbines to generate 45 dBA sound levels during the night and 50 dBA during the day.14 The turbine sound described as a “hovering plane”15 is about four times louder than quiet sounds that comprise natural sounds.16 The resulting sleeplessness, nausea, disorientation and depression has forced Wisconsin families to vacate their homes and farms with turbines half the size of those being proposed.17 Follow this search with “wind turbine shadow flicker,” an equally disruptive experience that Wisconsin code also allows households to endure. 18
Video maker Jim Harmon with property owner, Alan Haas, describing changes in community relations after the addition of 88 wind turbines, three on his property in 2008, “Even sweet little, old ladies get angry as hell now;, and that’s no joke either.”
And there are better alternatives for address of climate change and for our pocketbooks.
Wisconsin already has more electrical power plants than we can use.19 (Table 2). As electric customers, we must pay the high interest debt on existing and added power plants over 40 or more years whether fully utilized or not. Pattern’s inferred electric bill savings from the “zero fuel costs”20 of wind power compare very poorly to directly addressing our CO2 and economic challenges with familiar alternatives. If the approximate, 40 year, $1.8 billion cost21 for the 600 MW Uplands wind power plant was invested, instead, into dramatically increased Focus on Energy rebates for efficiency and solar power improvements for our homes, farms and businesses, this would eliminate about 115 million metric tons of CO2 emissions over 40 years compared to 58 million metric tons from the intrusive power plant.22 (Table 3). Alternatively doubling the home/business solar panel incentive to 52 cents of the approximate $2.50 per watt cost could empower about 450,000 households to “go solar” and save an average of $143 per month.23 Creating attractive appliance and equipment rebates for Wisconsin families and businesses would enable long overdue efficiency and dwelling improvements with the superior environmental results.24
The federal report also confirms that the 600 MW wind system is fully dependent on building the Cardinal Hickory Creek 345 kV expansion trans-mission line which Iowa and Dane Counties are trying to appeal in court. 2526
Immediate sharing of these findings is critical as Pattern salespeople are working daily to get the 50 additional contract signatures before February 24, 2021.27 Hopefully, both the Iowa and Lafayette County Boards will act quickly to at least add the minimal, still insufficient protections from state code to their Wind Ordinances.28
The additional signed agreements from landowners would allow Pattern to take their power plant proposal directly to the PSC for likely approval as state laws do not require such plants to be evaluated for need or require that benefits from alternative investments be compared.29
— by Rob Danielson, Secretary, SOUL of Wisconsin PO Box 146 La Farge, WI 54639 608.625.4949 info@SOULWisconsin.org
FOOTNOTES
1 The 162 Megawatt (MW) Glacier Hills Wind power plant is Wisconsin’s largest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Wisconsin Only the 801 Megawatt (MW) Meadow Lake power plant near Chalmers, Indiana would be larger in Midwest states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_the_United_States
3 According to Pattern’s filing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2020, the Uplands wind system would be 600 Megawatts (MW). https://bit.ly/FERC-ER21-30-000-20201005 The estimated minimum number of turbines was determined by dividing this number by 3.5 MW assumed to be the size of the largest, modern turbines. (600 MW / 3.5 MW = 171.4 turbines)
4 See map of the Uplands project area, above, and as inserted into a highlands area view scape map at p.4 of https://bit.ly/Uplands-editorial Pattern LLC has not yet publicized turbine height information. October 2018 materials distributed to prospective property participants near Montfort, WI concerning the Red Barn wind power plant, specify turbine heights ranging from 459 to 656 feet. Viewed from highland positions, objects that are 650 feet high can be seen for 38.7 miles, line of sight. https://planetcalc.com/1198/ Nocturnal visibility from highland locations would extend more than 30 miles based on lights mounted at a rotor hight of 410’. For reference, the smaller, 2 MW wind turbines at Quilt Block in the Town on Seymour in Lafayette County can easily be seen from Montfort, Wisconsin, 24 miles away.
5 The measurement of 250 square miles is an approximation based on Pattern’s Uplands study area map in the company’s August, 2020 presentation to the Iowa County Planning & Zoning Committee. A larger view of the blue outlined area is embedded in the middle image on page 5 at http://bit.ly/UplandsPowerpointForIACo202008
7 FERC’s publication indicates the Pattern LLC reported to have signed about 15,000 acres of property under “site control” of the 30,000 acres required by regional transmission owners under the auspices of MISO. https://bit.ly/FERC-ER21-30-000-20201005 According to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, the size of the average farm in Wisconsin is 221 acres. https://datcp.wi.gov/Pages/Publications/WIAgStatistics.aspx Dividing the remaining 15,000 acres into 221 acre sized parcels suggests an average of 67.8 agricultural property owners would be involved. The estimation of 50 assumes the company will focus on property owners with larger parcels for greater siting flexibilities and fewer affected neighbors.
8 Video interview by Zach Boyden-Holmes with Mason Fleenor (Ida Grove, IA) from Des Moines Register article, “Is wind power saving rural Iowa or wrecking it?” by Donnelle Eller, and Kevin Hardy, April 20, 2017 http://bit.ly/WindWreckingIowa_DesMoinesRegister
9 See comparison of utility-funded and independent studies of wind turbine impacts on property values collected by McCann: http://bit.ly/WindTurbinePropertyValueImpactKielischMcCann Utility studies pose there are modest negative impact on values while those conducted by independent evaluators show very significant range of losses from 15-45% with an average of 29%.
12 “Section 2.2 Wind Energy Conversion Systems . . . The exact location of such wind energy conversion systems shall be determined by the Developer in its sole discretion. . . ” and discretionary location rights in Section 2.3 Transmission Facilities and Roads with 80’ easement strips for electrical lines and up to 20’ widths for access roads. The contract also enables the Developer to add transformers, battery storage facilities and relocate equipment at sole discretion.
17Wisconsin Wind Turbines Declared Health Hazard First of its kind ruling; similar to Michigan situation, By Jack Spencer, November 8, 2014, Michigan Capitol Confidential https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/20690
19 See Table, Wisconsin Power Plants Excess Capability, pdf p. 5, https://bit.ly/Uplands-editorial Data in the table compiled from announced new power plants and retirements in Wisconsin Public Service Commission 2020-2026 Strategic Energy Assessmenthttps://apps.psc.wi.gov/ERF/ERFview/viewdoc.aspx?docid=390854 , new plants sought in the MISO Interconnection Queue https://www.misoenergy.org/planning/generator-interconnection/GI_Queue/gi-interactive-queue/ US Department of Energy (EIA) Form 861 and SEDS records for WI, US census and inflation data.
20 From Uplands Wind FAQ, “How does wind energy affect the cost of energy? The cost of electricity from wind energy is predictable and stable because there are no fuel costs, unlike conventional forms of energy where the cost of fuel can fluctuate significantly over time. Once a wind farm project is built, the price of electricity from the project is set for the duration of its power purchase agreement.” https://uplandswind.com/faq/
22 See table, Uplands 600 MW Wind System vs. Accelerated FOE Incentive, pdf p. 5 https://bit.ly/Uplands-editorial and associated spreadsheet, https://bit.ly/CompareEndUserAlternative
25 From pdf p. 2 FERC November, 2020 communication, “Pattern Energy Wind states that, on June 22, 2020, it submitted two generator interconnection requests to MISO to interconnect the Project via two queue positions: (1) an interconnection to American Transmission Company’s Hill Valley to Cardinal 345 kV line; and (2) an interconnection to the Hill Valley 345 kV substation.” https://bit.ly/FERC-ER21-30-000-20201005 Note: The Hill Valley substation near Montfort does not exist today. It is a central component of the Cardinal Hickory Creek 345 kV transmission line.
28 Iowa County Draft Updated Wind Ordinance starting on pdf. p. 68 https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/107/attachments/9206.pdf Contact information for Iowa and Lafayette County Wind Ordnance matters: Iowa Co. Supervisor Districts, map: https://www.iowacounty.org/media/Districts.pdf Iowa Co. Supervisors contacts: https://www.iowacounty.org/departments/countyboard/county-board-members Iowa County Planning & Development 222 N. Iowa St. Dodgeville, WI 53533 608-935-0398; Lafayette County Planning and Zoning Committee: 626 Main Street, Darlington, WI 53530, 608-776-3836 Lafayette Co. Map of Supervisor Districts: http://lafay.maps.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/2c8f689496e3499aaea639ffd2fac00d/data Lafayette County Supervisor contacts: https://www.lafayettecountywi.org/bos
29 Pattern LLC is considered a non-public utility or “merchant” developer. Proposals by merchant power plant developers do not have to prove need to meet power inadequacies or evaluate alternatives such as electric customer investment in home and local energy improvements. State laws also allow merchant power plant developers to take their proposals directly to the PSC for review and approval after obtaining 75% of the necessary land or “site control,” “Option Agreements” with landowners. For more on MISO site control policy, see .pdf p. 20, 21, Generation Interconnection Business Practices Manual BPM-015-r21 Effective Date: OCT-16-2019 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UzsdEJQqiky-6rxIxIXTfbEtDjF0WKm4/view?usp=sharing
