Wisconsin’s wind energy and manufacturing community is bracing for what could be a major blow to the industry.
Gov. Scott Walker has introduced “Special Session Assembly Bill 9,” a bill that would trash state wind farm siting reform statutes developed in a consensus-based process just last year.
Instead of the 1,250-foot setback from residences required by last year’s consensus, the new proposal would require an 1,800-foot setback, not from homes, but from property lines, for all wind turbines. This will shut down the wind energy industry in Wisconsin – and there is no rationale, scientific basis for imposing such an extreme setback whatsoever.
The increased setback distance - which would be by far the most restrictive state-wide setback provision in the United States - is totally unrealistic given the size of property parcels in Wisconsin. The proposed setback distance is both without scientific merit and is punitive – designed to shut down the wind energy industry.
As a result of this bill, if passed, no wind projects proposed or under construction would move forward. This would mean the loss of over 700 megawatts of clean, wind energy projects currently planned in the state, $1.8 billion dollars of investment in the state and at least two million job-hours of wind project construction employment. Can you say “job-killer?”
Why is Gov. Walker intent on seeing jobs flee the state? Didn’t he state the opposite in his campaign for governor?
Even more damaging would be the impact on the future of wind turbine component manufacturing in Wisconsin, which has been growing steadily for the past few years. Turbine manufacturers and makers of major components want to locate factories (and jobs) close to where projects are being installed. States that are “open for business” and welcoming to wind energy, like Iowa, Kansas, and Texas, are reaping the bulk of the associated manufacturing jobs.
A growing number of Wisconsin companies have moved into the wind energy industry over the past few years to the point where 2,000-3,000 residents were employed in the wind energy industry at the end of 2009, counting both direct and indirect jobs in the industry in Wisconsin. The Spanish firm Ingeteam selected Milwaukee after an exhaustive search across the U.S. to locate a new manufacturing facility to build electrical generators for wind turbines. One of the reasons they considered in locating their new facility that will open this Spring (and ultimately employ 275 people in Milwaukee) is the proximity to wind turbine projects. With the new legislation proposed by Governor Walker, we should expect no new facilities to follow Ingeteam’s example.
Finally, there is the impact on rural communities. Just within the past few days, RENEW Wisconsin reported that owners of Wisconsin’s four largest wind energy projects paid out nearly $2.8 million, in 2010 alone, in rent to landowners hosting turbines and payments in lieu of property taxes to local governments. Those payments strengthen local communities across the state, especially when the state is having to cut back on spending due to the sluggish economy. As a RENEW Wisconsin spokesperson said, “It’s a much better deal for the state than sending dollars to Wyoming and West Virginia for the coal imported to Wisconsin to generate electricity.”
For all of the reasons noted above - investment, manufacturing jobs, revenue to local communities, and keeping energy dollars in-state - wind energy presents an unparalleled opportunity for Wisconsin. At least 21 factories are already at work manufacturing components for the wind energy industry and two more have been announced. What about energy supply? According to resource assessments from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Wisconsin’s wind resource could provide over four times the state’s total current electricity needs.
A Special Session on Jobs is a great and timely idea, but it makes no sense to use it as a vehicle to hamstring one of the few industries that is actually growing and bringing new jobs to Wisconsin. As a city, we’ve already lost Talgo, the manufacturer of light rail trains and those jobs will never materialize in Milwaukee as a result – the proposed bill would drive even more jobs out of the city and state. If anything, state officials and decision makers should be bending over to find ways to work with the wind energy industry to bring more wind projects, businesses, jobs, revenue, energy and opportunities and build a better future for Wisconsin.
Gov. Walker needs to explain his wanton attack on the wind energy industry in Wisconsin – and needs to explain why he is intent on driving jobs out of Wisconsin to neighboring states like Minnesota and Illinois.
Jeff Anthony is the director of business development for the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the national trade association for the wind energy industry in the United States, and he resides in Milwaukee.
8 Comments
Walker doesn't care about wind energy because the new rules were obviously drafted specifically to prevent more wind projects. He ha shown he doesn't want to grow the state's rail industry (which has already cost thousands of jobs) and now he doesn't want to grow the state's growing renewable energy industry (which could cost thousands of more jobs). I think our new governor needs to come out and inform us which industries he is willing to support and which ones he will only obstruct. If he really wants to create 250K jobs, he first needs to stop killing them and driving them away. In any case, our state will fall further behind because of his staggering short-sightedness. Next week I'm sure he will introduce legislation to changes Wisconsin's motto from "Forward" to "Backward."
It appears that our Governor is uncomfortable with things he doesn't understand, like high speed trains and soon to be evidenced, embryonic stem cell research.
When the President last night set a goal to have 80% of the country within reach of high speed rails, guess who will be among the 20%.
We are so blessed.
When wind farms are financially self sustaining, they have a place in Wisconsin. So long as tax dollars are required to keep them alive, they do not. At present, coal and natural gas resources are plentiful and cost effective. The free market will develop plenty of wind generators when it becomes profitable to do so.
I have a suggestion - We will build the windmills in Wisconsin and Illinios can put the wind farms in their state (Windy City, after all).
RE: the Billions that would have been spent maintaining the "high speed rail" can be put to a lot better use.
The set back of 1800 feet is wrong. Ny uses a 2,000 foot standard. Europeans typically use 1-1.5 kilometers. A better methodology is the use of maximum decibel and shadow flicker requirements. No more than 5 db at the residence wall closest to the turbine is the current recommendation. Probably about 2650 feet. The sound from these things will drive a person nuts.
This is inflammatory rhetoric aimed to make the Governor look bad. Wind energy is inefficient and lowers property values. Maybe we should have a headline for every bad idea that is rejected calling those job killer too! Thank goodness the state of Wisconsin has a Governor with the guts to to stand up to the highly subsidized wind industry! Great job Governor Walker!!!!!!!! You just saved the state of Wisconsin. I KNOW jobs can be created without the wind industry littering your beautiful state.
Though we need imagination to reach into the future, nothing like a vivid imagination when it comes to the "billions" that won't be spent on rail. Energy costs are going to go no where but up. Since most of the opposition to rail comes from the conservatives who blew billions on military adventures that do nothing for our economy, putting them in no position to lecture anybody.
Our foreign competition and other states are ready to eat our lunch. Sadly, Scott Walker is ready to serve it up.
Although, as a nation, we need to invest in renewable energy such as wind, what is the cost if we don't? That is to say what is the true cost of doing nothing except subsidizing security for oil supply with our military. What would be the tax payers net cost over a 20 year period if our energy mix shifted just 10%? A govenrnemt's primary responsibility is to create security and facilitate progress. Otherwise it should get out of the way. Remember to, that petro dollars have subsidized terrorists. It's time that we spend our taxes more wisely and subsidize something else.