Interview by Rikki Stancich

A newly proposed setback rule is threatening to make Wisconsin a  ‘wind development free zone’, compromising 3000 jobs and 700MW of planned projects in the state.

In December last year following a lengthy stakeholder process, Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission established a wind siting rule that set the minimum setback distance from neighboring residences at 3.1 times the height of a wind tower, or 1,250 ft. The rule, due to come into effect this March, was deemed workable by wind energy developers and other stakeholders. 

However, in a bid to address the state’s economic problems, Wisconsin's recently elected Republican Governor Scott Walker has called for a Special Session of the legislature focused on jobs and economic development issues. Included within the proposed legislation is a new rule that would increase the setback requirement for any wind turbine installed in the state of Wisconsin to 1,800 feet from any turbine to the nearest property line.

Not only does the latest proposed rule increase the setback distance by 550 feet, it also requires the setback to be measured from the nearest property line, rather than from neighboring residences.

The requirement would stop wind energy development in Wisconsin dead in its tracks, given that the proposal applies both to projects that have not received a permit and approved projects that have not yet started construction - none of which could comply with the setback standards and the real estate industry requirements contained within the proposal.

Industry bodies such as the American Wind Energy Association and renewable energy proponents such as RENEW Wisconsin, describe the proposed rule as a “job killer” that threatens to drive development activity worth US$1.8 billion out of state.

Wind Energy Update speaks to Michael Vickerman, Executive Director, RENEW, to learn more about the importance of wind energy in Wisconsin, the impact of the proposed setback rule and how the sector is responding, and why Wisconsin is one of the few US states to have imposed a setback rule.

Wind Energy Update: How important is Wisconsin, within the Great Lakes region, as a wind energy market?

Michael Vickerman: Wisconsin is an average sized state with an average-sized population, in relation to the rest of the US. It is representative of the entire US east of Mississippi insofar as the land units are smaller, there is a higher population density and the agricultural sector tends not to be as dominant.

There are some windy areas in the state and a fair amount of suitable for wind energy development. Around 469MW has been developed to date.

Relative to other states like Illinois, Wisconsin is lagging behind on developing its wind energy potential  - only Michigan lags further behind.

Wisconsin is well positioned to exploit its wind energy potential – we have windy areas near the load centres and the Northeastern part of the state dovetails with the best resource.

Wind Energy Update:  The new proposal would require wind turbines to be set back no less than 1800 feet (roughly 550 metres) from the property line. In view of the fact that large-scale wind projects are generally located in remote windy sites, which generally tend to be sparsely populated, how many projects does the rule actually effect?

Michael Vickerman: Between 10-12 projects are affected. Those not affected include projects already built or under construction. But the ruling would mean that no projects in the pipeline could go forward.

Siting turbines near populated areas brings an extra layer of challenges. A significant part of Wisconsin’s population – even in rural areas – are not farming community; they are commuter households, which tend to have particular views on land use. Commuter householders drive 20-30 miles to get to their job so that they can return to a nice, quiet place in the country. And their views tend to trump all others.

The farming community on the other hand would view wind farms as a form of land use that generates revenue. But there is not much cultural mixing between the farmers and the commuters.

Wind Energy Update: Is the new rule really likely to sound the death knell on Wisconsin's wind energy sector; or will it have the opposite effect, making wind energy more attractive by respecting stakeholder concerns over noise pollution and visual impact?

Michael Vickerman: The wind industry here is united in saying that the industry will be put out of business if the proposal goes through.

Wisconsin is dairy farm country, so you have a lot of small parcels of land. As such, 1800 ft from the property line is a long distance in Wisconsin. We have small farms here of around 160 – 180 acres. You need a square of 360 acres for a wind farm. That is a lot of land, and there are not that many farms with the requisite number of acres.

We don’t have cattle ranches here in Wisconsin. There are no pockets of land big enough and putting turbines out in Lake Michigan is not really an option at this stage, due to water depth and issues with shoreline property owners.

Wind Energy Update: Is there a possibility that the proposal could be overturned?

Michael Vickerman: We are trying to get the industry to speak to the legislature and speak to people with some influence and to make a counter-proposal that is palatable.

Wind Energy Update: The set back rule is unique to Wisconsin. Has there been a lot of local resistance to wind energy development in the state, to date?

Michael Vickerman: The experience here is that there is a clear majority of support for wind development  - even in West Wisconsin. However, the real estate lobby and the wind developers are in conflict over land development in general. The real estate lobby has a vested interest in preventing wind energy development.

The republicans swept the elections here  - they won every seat and so there is nothing out there that could act as a check to stop them making this set back rule happen.

The question is: do the Republicans really want to cause serious economic damage by imposing a de facto moratorium on wind energy development?

To respond to this article, please write to the editor:

Rikki Stancich: rstancich@gmail.com