Over the past few weeks, investigations in the Cardinal Hickory Creek transmission line (CHC) Appeal have begun digging deeper into allegations against former Public Service Commissioner Michael Huebsch. On June 26, facing court demands to reveal more information, the transmission owners made a highly unexpected maneuver. In a short letter¹ to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, the transmission owners exposed that Commissioner Heubsch had, indeed, been sharing secret, encrypted emails with employees from American Transmission Company, the WEC Energy Group (who owns 60% of ATC) and other parties who would benefit financially from CHC approval. Exacerbating chances of bias they attested the communications had occurred at the same time Heubsch was considering his vote on the transmission line.

This compounded existing public concern as it was previously determined that Huebsch had applied for the top position Dairyland Power Cooperative, another utility owner of CHC, only a few months after he voted for the line and took early leave of his Commission seat.

The transmission owners’ letter proceeds to boldly ask Chair Valcq and Commission Nowak to rescind (invalidate) the state agency’s 2019 approval of the controversial CHC transmission line, to consider a quick re-review of it and re-approve it, this time, without the participation of Commissioner Michael Huebsch.

Despite the fact that such a request is unprecedented, Chairperson Valcq and Commissioner Nowak wasted no time in granting the transmission builders’ their wish. Within three days they announced their intent to rescind the project and consider the utilities’ requests for re-review by seeking comments from the public and utility parties. Initial Comments were received by the PSC on Monday, July 12.

In written comments closely resembling the verbal suggestions of Commissioner Nowak eleven days earlier, the Transmission Owners escalated their request to not only rescind the first approval of CHC but, “to expeditiously re-vote on the existing record without Commissioner Huebsch’s participation [to] resolve any questions of bias while also helping to ensure that the Project can be timely put into service if it is re-approved.”²

The parties opposing CHC in the Circuit Court appeal, anticipated this escalation. On very short notice, written comments submitted to the PSC by Dane County, Organizations and individual intervenors were joined by those from more than 150 citizens, 54% of them from communities that would not be directly impacted by the massive line. Of the 120 comments that addressed whether the PSC or Circuit Court should act to invalidate CHC, 97% said the court should continue with its crucial, factual inquiries and should wrong doings be found, the court, not the PSC, should define the remedies.

Of the 141 commenters addressing the question of how thoroughly the transmission line proposal should be re-reviewed (assuming the Commissioners chose this), 98% said the second review should be comprehensive with updated evidence. Many asked that re-review allow the addition of new intervenors, thorough assessment of non-transmission alternatives, low voltage transmission alternatives, and assure that PSC staff engineers would have ample time to evaluate the utility data in order to reach their own, independent conclusions. After their review of the public comments, CHC opponents Driftless Area Land Conservancy and Wisconsin Wildlife Federation (DALC/WWF) observed that, “The overwhelming majority of these comments express dismay about the wrongdoing that has already come to light and distrust of the fairness and integrity of the PSC going forward,”³

The Transmission Owners’ comments made their intentions to escape the Court’s inquiry into bias unabashedly clear: “[R]escinding the CPCN and then re-voting will moot the pending state court action and/or deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction over that action …”⁴ DALC/WWF’s July 14^th Appeal Court filing cited legal precedent to the contrary, asserting that the PSC cannot escape the court’s jurisdiction and that with these actions, the PSC and utilities have commenced obstructions that Judge Frost warned he would not tolerate.

If the PSC ignores the overwhelming public majority opposing the PSC making a determination to rescind their approval of CHC, the Commission should have no reservations about conducting a full re-review. In their commitment, “to preserving the transparency, fairness, and integrity of all regulatory and judicial proceedings,”⁵ transmission owners should gladly submit their proposal for full re-test because they assure was, “continually studied for well over a decade and [] every time it has been studied, the need for the Project has increased.”⁶

Opposing intervenors state that any unwillingness by the Commission to proceed with a fair and transparent process would be a testament to collusion and bias on the part of regulators and utilities. This sentiment is clearly conveyed in Mark Mittelstadt’s public comment, “Any effort to ram a new CPCN through as quickly as possible, is another blatant display of commissioners’ bias for the developers.”⁷ To resolve the dark cloud of bias that has foreshadowed the project thus far, intervenor Chris Klopp suggests, “the public will be served much better by steps that, beyond question, lie above even the appearance of bias.”⁸

1 ATC and ITC Request to Reopen Record, https://apps.psc.wi.gov/pages/viewdoc.htm?docid=414396

2 At p.7, Applicants’ Initial Comments on Commission Notice of Intent to Rescind the Final Decision, https://apps.psc.wi.gov/pages/viewdoc.htm?docid=415806

3 At p. 7, Appellate Court filing, DANE COUNTY, IOWA COUNTY, VILLAGE OF MONTFORT, TOWN OF WYOMING, DRIFTLESS AREA LAND CONSERVANCY AND WISCONSIN WILDLIFE FEDERATION’S RESPONSE TO THE INTERVENOR-RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR LIMITED STAY AND STATUS CONFERENCE

4 At p. 4, Applicants’ Initial Comments on Commission Notice of Intent to Rescind the Final Decision, https://apps.psc.wi.gov/pages/viewdoc.htm?docid=415806

5 At p.2, ATC and ITC Request to Reopen Record, https://apps.psc.wi.gov/pages/viewdoc.htm?docid=414396

6 Id. at p. 7

7 Public Comment by Mark Mittelstadt, https://apps.psc.wi.gov/pages/viewdoc.htm?docid=415967

8 Intervenor Chris Klopp Initial Comments on Commissions Notice of Intent and Request for Comments, https://apps.psc.wi.gov/pages/viewdoc.htm?docid=415672

Background

The Congress passed the Energy Policy Act in 1992, allowing FERC¹ to manage electricity producers on the basis of market competition. While this had the effect of reducing the wholesale price of electricity from 5.6 cents to 2.9 cents (2005-2015) resulting in insignificant benefits to ratepayers,² it allowed public utilities to push for increasing amounts of infrastructure at the public’s expense. Currently, the lion’s share of an electric customers bill is the result of this infrastructure debt.³ Not only are electric bills increasing rapidly⁴, but there is no end in sight to the infrastructure that utilities are proposing. As Integrated Resource Planning went away with deregulation, and those in charge of monitoring our utilities’ accountability to electric customers side overwhelmingly with utility interests,⁵ we have a runaway train. The recent situation in Texas exemplifies how deregulation combined with no accountability is a dangerous mix.

Over the last 20 years, Transmission Owners have aggressively pushed for new transmission, even while energy usage has become flat and is expected to remain so in the foreseeable future.⁶ In the wake of Transmission Expansion damage to: the economics of communities; the health and endurance of the environment and ecosystems; and the lives and welfare of landowners, follows a legion of investors seeking to change the face of rural America. These investors are here by virtue of significant Federal subsidies for renewable energy projects and a chance to access new high voltage transmission (to reduce interconnection costs for utility-scale wind and solar facilities). In Wisconsin, utility-scale wind and solar facilities are primarily merchant power plants. The influx of these merchant power plants has pushed our rural Wisconsin communities to critical mass.

How Merchant Power Plants Arrive in our Communities

Merchant plant developers sneak into our communities under the veil of darkness, waiving large checks in front of struggling farmers and land owners, in exchange for them signing away most of their property rights along with their neighbor’s rights as well.⁷ Land owners are not made aware of important lease contract conditions giving the Developer control over their entire property, or negative impacts of the project they are planning to construct. When the Developer has the signatures they need, they begin the process of seeking the minimal regulatory review that is required in Wisconsin, only then alerting unsuspecting communities of their project proposal. At this juncture, it is virtually impossible for communities to have any say in the disaster that is about to hit them.

Incentives for Utility-Scale Wind and Solar Facilities

The Federal Government gives subsides to the investors in renewable energy power plants. Without these subsides, these plants would not even be proposed. Investors in these merchant plants need to take only minimal, if any real risk in developing these projects, because they are frequently purchased by public utilities,⁸ adding rate recovery and guaranteed rate of return, to the public’s already steep utility debt. Because this is a lucrative investment scenario for developers, we have so many of these projects popping up⁹ that we are creating far more generation than we need.¹⁰

In Wisconsin, merchant power plants undergo virtually no regulatory scrutiny. Making this worse, the Wisconsin PSC allows public utilities to purchase these merchant plants, even before they have received a permit or CPCN.¹¹ This is a loop-hole that the Commission is allowing public utilities to use,¹² to skirt a full CPCN process that would require consideration of need, economic viability, alternatives to the projects and engineering considerations. In effect, the public is robbed of its opportunity to participate in decisions for which the public will be financially responsible and expected to bear the negative impacts of.

Corporate Land Grab

If we allow public utilities to acquire project after project from merchant developers, monopoly utilities will be the owners of large tracts of land in our communities. In Wisconsin, the 62 merchant power plants that are currently in the MISO queue, represent 340 square miles of directly impacted rural property which comes to 217,600 acres.¹³ What will happen when utilities own a controlling percentage of the property in a township or county? Will the Town or County board consider the will of the those actually living in these places or will utilities run the show at the expense of remaining landowners and residents? This is a very troubling possibility.

Addressing Climate Change

One might ask: How do we address climate change without these large wind and solar projects? Utility-Scale wind and solar will not save us from climate change. One reason for this is transmission. Our transmission grid is “open access,” meaning, the power that ends up in our outlets is determined by the electricity market. Fossil fuel sources frequently outcompete renewables in the market, which is why, after billions of dollars being spent on wind and solar projects and associated transmission, the percentage of power being delivered¹⁴ from these renewables is still less than 10%.¹⁵

Conversely, distributed generation (DG), primarily roof-top solar and solar plus battery storage, which generates electricity at or very near the customer using it, is much more efficient and cost effective. DG used directly at the home or business that has invested in it, is not subject to the transmission grid market and therefore 100% of that energy is used. The excess generation from a DG system, goes directly into a distribution line,¹⁶ where, in most cases, it travels a short distance before being delivered to another one the of local utility’s customers.¹⁷ Individuals and businesses who invest in DG generally employ energy efficiency, use minimization and often load management, to curtail their energy footprint. The outcome is far more carbon emission reduction per dollar than utility-scale power plants can provide.¹⁸ DG is not rate recovered and there is no guaranteed rate of return (profit), making it economical for ratepayers.

With the benefits of DG and the downsides of utility-scale power plants, it is natural to ask the question: “Why should we be covering good farmland with industrial structures and creating economic and environmental disasters for communities and landowners, when we could be putting solar panels on every roof, barn, business, over parking lots, etc., at a lower cost, with a greater benefit in carbon dioxide emission reductions? Why should the public “finance” a market for investors to profit on unlimited projects, for power that the public doesn’t even need?

Ultimately, individuals, businesses and communities will invest in roof-top solar and solar plus battery storage as a shear economic necessity (because electric rates will be so high). At that point, the public will still be on the hook to pay for the multitude of merchant plants for which no planning, or reasonable regulatory process has been required, even though these power plants will be obsolete. If we allow this to happen, our rural areas will be littered with large industrial factories, abandoned and leaving behind a staggering debt – Enron-Wisconsin style.

1 The Federal Energy Regulation Commission

2 Wisconsin Residential Electric Rates/National Average Rates/Wholesale Cost, p. 40, http://soulwisconsin.org/Resources/FootnoteHarbour.pdf#page=40

3 Spending Impacts on Rates, pdf p. 26, http://soulwisconsin.org/Resources/FootnoteHarbour.pdf#page=26

4 Wisconsin Residential Electric Rates/National Average Rates/Wholesale Cost, p. 40, http://soulwisconsin.org/Resources/FootnoteHarbour.pdf#page=40 Residential Electric Rates 2003-2015, pdf p.9, http://soulwisconsin.org/Resources/FootnoteHarbour.pdf#page=9

5 Governor Evers has now appointed both Rebecca Valcq, who has obvious entanglements with utility interests (longtime attorney for WE Energies, owner of the controlling share in ATC), and Tyler Huebner, who had so many conflicts of interest, that he had to recuse himself from 30 out of 39 cases that would come before him in his first year as a Commissioner. The Governor received a number of letters regarding the appointment of an objective and public sensitive Commissioner prior to this appointment. These appointments are very distressing to the public and continue to re-enforce a system that works for utilities and against the public (Evers nominates utility lawyer to PSC,” by Dave Cieslewicz, February 28, 2019 https://isthmus.com/news/news/can-psc-appointee-rebecca- cameron-valcq-be-unbiased/ “She is a lineman for the utilities, Evers’ Public Service Commission appointee sides with big energy” by Dave Cieslewicz August 29, 2019 https://isthmus.com/opinion/opinion/evers-public-service-commission-appointee-sides- with-big-energy/ New PSC Member Will Vote On Issues Affecting Former Employer, MacIver News Service, March 19, 2020 https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2020/03/new-psc-member-will-vote-on-issues-affecting-former-employer/

6 Wisconsin Electricity Use Dropping, 2001-2021 See EIA data, pdf p. 51, https://drive.google.com/file/d/150xv8LZvrZ1sIt9TDT7oeSCmU-Geg5DQ/view?usp=sharing

7 See Uplands public information mailer, under BUYER BEWARE! p 2 https://bit.ly/uplands-m

8 An example is Docket No. 6680-CE-182, Application of Wisconsin Power and Light Company for a Certificate of Authority for Acquisition, Construction, Installation, and Operation of Six Solar Electric Generation Facilities in Wisconsin) https://apps.psc.wi.gov/ERF/ERFsearch/content/searchResult.aspx?UTIL=6680&CASE=CE&SEQ=182&START=none&END=none&TYPE=none&SERVICE=none&KEY=none&NON=N

9 Maps: ”New Power Plants Sought for Rural Wisconsin Lands”, p 56-57, http://bit.ly/FootnoteHarbour_20210321

10 Table: “Wisconsin Power Plants Excess Capability,” p. 58, http://bit.ly/FootnoteHarbour_20210321

11 Certificate of Public Convenience affording Public Utilities the ability to use eminent domain

12 An example is Docket No. 6680-CE-182, Application of Wisconsin Power and Light Company for a Certificate of Authority for Acquisition, Construction, Installation, and Operation of Six Solar Electric Generation Facilities in Wisconsin)

13 Maps: ”New Power Plants Sought for Rural Wisconsin Lands”, p 56-57, http://bit.ly/FootnoteHarbour_20210321

14 By delivered, I am referring to what ends up in the customers outlet (the energy we actually use).

15 Table A1: “Capacity , Energy, Output, and Price-Setting by Fuel Type”, p 59, http://bit.ly/FootnoteHarbour_20210321

16 Again, avoiding the transmission grid market.

17 Leading to a much higher percentage of the generated electricity being used in comparison to utility-scale power plants.

18 Uplands Mailer, p 9, Table 3, https://bit.ly/uplands-m Chris Clack- Why Solar for All Costs Less: A Roadmap for the Lowest Cost Grid (exemplifies how, even with a small percentage of distributed energy, economics and carbon reductions increase) https://www.vibrantcleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WhyDERs_ES_Final.pdf

Residents of Iowa County Wisconsin which are experiencing unprecedented pressure for solar and wind power plants directed my attention to the story, County boundaries become barriers for community solar in Minnesota  by Midwest Energy News. MEN receives considerable funding from merchant power plant developers and new utility “steel in the ground” is very profitable these days. As many citizens get their speciality news from the web-based sources, it is important to notice who is funding the news we read.

Like never before, our dollars as energy customers can be used to either promote massive utility expansions or to expanded Focus on Energy rebates to help customers dramatically cut waste in our homes and businesses and grow power on-site and community owned solar. We are truly at a fork in the spending road. State policies can either acknowledge fair market competition where customers use equal rights and society evolves to a decentralized or “distributed” and right-sized grid or policy promotes states where enormous tracts of land are converted into utility districts.

It is stunning to pause and think that some states will have these huge districts and some will not. There will be very real winners and losers. Utility interests know this and justify billions in public “relations” campaigns that avoid to mention customer rights and economic powers in address of climate change and building our local economies.

This particular story,..  https://energynews.us/2021/03/24/county-boundaries-become-barriers-for-community-solar-in-minnesota/ (cleaned, safe link) is notable because it includes response from the affected public utility, Xcel, and introduces siting difficulties that solar developers are encountering.  As this news outlet is not motivated to reveal these concerns, it suggests the siting issues faced by merchant solar power plant developers are already systemic and politically/economically significant.

An important qualification: The installations the merchant solar developers seek in this story are not “community solar”— that is — the facilities are not owned by the customers or community entities. Instead, Xcel customers lease panels leased from the private solar developers who either own the arrays or sell them to Xcel. The story reveals that the solar credits leasing customers receive are considerably lower than customer panel ownership models. Instead of a ~$15 electric bill, Alliant reports the average bills are only ~60% lower at $51 per mo. 

Clearly, poor customer economics is an obstacle to all solar building and siting compatibilities are also front and center.  In rural parlance, bad deals are resulting from “middleman,” whether a public utility or a third party owner, walking away with too much of the profit. Sadly, the Minnesota law change being considered and promoted by the developers does not look at electric customer ownership opportunities. It would merely further merchant power plant development at disadvantage to Xcel power plant development. The story shows this competition is now occurring over solar installations from about 1 to 50 acres based on a 5 MW cap and land usage from 4 to 10 acres per MW.

Here are some promoted observations:

* City and suburban neighborhoods are resisting 1-50 acre solar installations. Of course, solar needs to occupy open spaces. Lands with greater natural assets have higher cultural and aesthetic value compared lands with industrial build-outs. This understandable, universal reluctance to add infrastructure to landscapes contains a key lesson the story overlooks: state energy policy needs to fully incentivize electric customers who can site more panels without controversy to do so. In most of WI, utilities are allowed to economically cripple installations that produce more power than is used by paying ~.03 per kWh for the produced solar power.  (SOUL discussion of these policies before the PSC of Wisconsin July 2020 and January 2021 ).

* Solar developers are already running low on cost effective locations near substations.  Xcel points out there is still plenty of developable land around the Minneapolis/St Paul urban areas,.. The developers point out their solar arrays are mostly providing power to commercial and industrial customers—areas with a higher concentration of substations.  To be profitable, solar installations must be sized to match local demand, or “load.”  The most-cost effective siting for solar is where the power is used such as a home or business. Midwest Energy News does not represent this constituency. Not surprising, there is already significant competition between utilities (and between customers and both of these utilities) for most cost effective locations near substations.  Ultimately, Xcel owns the substations and can either grant development by another utility or do it themselves.  

* All of the above is consistent with what we are seeing in Wisconsin. Our public utilities are starting to team up with merchant power plant developers to build smaller systems that crowd out home, business and community-owned solar. For example, Alliant has announced it wants to build and own smaller solar installations near its substations in Dodgeville and Baraboo. Power generated by the panels that customers can only lease for a maximum of 20 years is credited at a fixed rate of only 6.3 cents per kWh — only 50% of full retail credit customers would get if ratepayer ownership was allowed. As explained above, there is a limited amount of lowest cost solar that can be added “behind” every substation. Note that Xcel (and other public utilities) suddenly stop complaining about the “high cost” of solar when the utility would own it.

SOUL is uncertain whether intervenors will be able to participate in Docket 1-AC-256  “Section 119 rule making,” but the new rules established by the Commission are likely to either propel or limit investment in distributed grid modernization in Wisconsin. 

On February 8, Wisconsin Public Service Commission staff posted a memo from Governor Ever’s office announcing it would allow the Commission to explore regulation changes pursuant to Wis. Stat. §227.135(2): “relating to rules for interconnecting distributed generation facilities (Wis.
Admin. Code ch. PSC 119).

To date, Wisconsin energy law has remained silent on the matter of the economic value of solar power in Wisconsin. PSC CODE 119 RULES FOR INTERCONNECTING DISTRIBUTED GENERATION FACILITIES makes no mention of rates or other economic arrangements between solar customer and the customer’s electric utility utility. Filings in an associated PSC “Parallel Generation” docket have revealed that most utilities reward customers retail rate for the solar power they produce up to the amount equal to the gird power power they consume. However, the price Wisconsin utilities credit for generation above this amount ranges greatly from about 3 to 12 cents per kWh.

Solar customers point to larger rate amounts observing that what is possible for one utility should be possible for all utilities. Because the excess solar generation rate is not regulated in Wisconsin, solar customers facing small credits are forced to install marginally-sized arrays resulting in systems that are less effective at displacing use of grid supplied power and reducing CO2 emissions over time. In contrast, customers receiving near retail rate for excess generation tend to install larger arrays allowing more carbon-laden grid supplied power to be be displaced by solar power each day.

SOUL is uncertain whether intervenors will be able to participate in Docket 1-AC-256  “Section 119 rule making,” but for these reasons and others, the new rules established by the Commission are likely to either propel or limit investment in distributed grid modernization in Wisconsin. 

 A high price determination by the Commission, e.g. from 8-15 cents per kilowatt hour, will make investment in distributed solar and storage in Wisconsin more economic, safer, flexibly expandable and economically just. 

But utility interests argue this range in rates is 300 to 500% too high.  In essence, they pose that homeowner production of solar power has no other value other than what utilities define as “fuel costs.”  In 2020, fuel costs in MISO and Wisconsin were 2.3 cents per kWh. The “fuel costs” that utilities propose to equate are blind to utility capital investment in power plants, transmission, distribution and other utility-investments. The utilities’ limited range of considerations undercut the value of electric customer capital, the technical advantages their solar and battery systems add to the grid and their investments adds value by reducing demand for new power plants, transmission and distribution. 

A low price determination by the Commission, e.g. from 2-5 cents per kilowatt hour, will make investment in distributed solar in Wisconsin less economic, riskier, less expandable and economically less just.

If the rates determined by the new PSC rules fall with the two ranges described here, it is fair to observe that the PSC’s ruling will determine whether Wisconsin’a local economies immediately start developing distributed electric services or do so, inevitably, after wasteful and inexcusable delay.  

Very few residents of Iowa and Lafayette Counties in Wisconsin are aware that a Canadian-owned, multinational corporation, Pattern LLC,¹ has salespeople on the ground courting landowners to exchange a few hundred dollars for signed agreements so that Pattern can build about 86, ~650 foot high² Wind Turbines. Unless landowners slow down and make an effort to understand underlying liabilities and chose to not sign agreements, Pattern LLC will be enabled to hurry though weak, county-level reviews³ without sufficient accountabilities. Next, Pattern would submit application to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin where, despite the state’s over-abundance of generation, Commissioners rarely encounter a new power plant they don’t approve of. Further, a “merchant” power plant as Pattern LLC seeks, despite its whopping 300 MW size, would not not evaluated for need, its economic competitiveness with end user alternatives for CO2 reduction and impact on Wisconsin electric bills.

Following are some, high order, landowner, local economic and health concerns that landowners, their affected neighbors and their elected officials are likely not yet familiar with:

• The most common complaint with large wind turbines is persistent noise often described as a, “continuous jet engine.” Sub-sonic pulses described as, ”hammering” can also materialize.⁴ Sustained noise 3-7 times louder⁵ than natural settings have caused severe loss of sleep, debilitating nausea, headaches, decline in ambition, memory loss, depression and other personal afflictions that have forced families to re-locate.⁶ In addition to scientific studies these WI interviews⁷ are useful to watch.

• At present, Iowa and Lafayette County Wind Ordinances provide no protections against large WT noise and sub-sonic hammering. At the very least, citizens must demand their County quickly adopt Wisconsin’s (PSC Code Section 128) suggested day and night noise limits (50 and 45 dBA) into their county level Wind Ordinances to at least create legal grounds for address. Landowners, Towns, Villages and Cities would be prudent to contact their County Planning and Zoning Committees and request inclusion of all provisions under State Code 128 into their County Wind Ordinances, ASAP.⁸

• There are complex negative impacts from large wind turbines that extend well beyond the minimum 1250 feet⁹ distance from residences that Wisconsin allows. There is a trend among municipalities across the county to increase this “setback” distance to a minimum of 3000 ft.¹⁰ Worsening risks, wording in landowner contracts allows the developer the option to position wind turbines wherever they want on the signee’s land. This makes acting neighborly and consulting with one’s neighbors before signing into a blind exercise. Landowners cannot even guess where negative impacts might occur and where new construction on neighbors’ properties would become illegal or imprudent– all at considerable distance.

• Following the inability to list and sell impacted properties¹¹ and net losses in tax bases even with infusion of state tax dollar subsidies,¹² the second most common complaint is shadow flicker disorientation from the rotating blades.¹³ Developers claim they can avoid this but the modeling is far from perfect. County ordinances lack minimal¹⁴ State Law flicker protections for large turbines which still allow impacts on all animals.¹⁵ Under current ordinances and contracts, Pattern is not obligated to accommodate landowner concerns until the turbines are built. “Mitigations” are often, “pointless.”¹⁶

• Historically, un-compromised land appreciates in value about 4% per year.¹⁷ When a turbine is added and property value drops 15%,¹⁸ Pattern’s estimated per MW payments may not cover this loss if the property is sold. Over 40 years, with a 15% sale loss included in revenue estimates, one turbine on a 160 acre parcel produces about one-third of Pattern’s estimates.¹⁹

• In address of climate change, improving electric customer efficiencies and home/local power reduces CO2 emissions far more cost effectively because use of grid power averaging only 9% wind power is greatly eliminated.²⁰ If the approximate, $900 million total cost of the Uplands Wind System were spent, instead, on Focus on Energy solar panel rebates for WI homes, this would remove three times more CO2 emissions than Uplands and save solar households ~$107 per month.²¹

• Further, a Harvard study²² analyzing hundreds of WT systems found that area ground temperature at night increase as much 2.7 degrees resulting in higher dwelling cooling costs and altered natural habitats. Farmers report significant health issues with livestock²³, extensive soil compaction²⁴, reduced wildlife populations²⁵. Utilities document significant bird and bat kills.²⁶

SAVE OUR UNIQUE LANDS – DO NOT SIGN WITH PATTERN LLC

For footnotes, visit: http://bit.ly/Uplands-3 Questions? Contact: info@SOULWisconsin.org or 608-625-4949

1 https://investors.patternenergy.com/financial-information/quarterly-results and https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pattern-energy-enters-agreement-to-be-acquired-by-canada-pension-plan-investment-board-300950682.html

2Pattern is not yet publicizing turbine height information. October 2018 letters to prospective property owners near Montfort concerning the “Red Barn” wind power plant, specify total turbine heights ranging from 459 to 656 feet. Larger units are usually sought because they are more dollar efficient. For comparison, the existing turbines along Highway 18 east of Montfort are 329 feet high https://www.we-energies.com/home/montfort-wind-energy-center.htm

3County level reviews of power plant proposals are fundamental to granting necessary county permits before the proposal goes to the state Public Service Commission. All public concerns and interests must be spelled out in County Ordinances in order to require address by Pattern LLC. These include providing in-depth financial accountabilities, requiring site-specific studies of potential health impacts and specifying public information meetings to be required. Iowa County’s Wind Siting Ordinance can be accessed here: https://bit.ly/IowaCo-Wind-Ord Lafayette County’s here: https://bit.ly/LafayetteCo-Wind-Ord

4These impacts are usefully described in the five Interviews with Wisconsin Wind Farm Residents conducted by Tim Harmann of Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy. https://bit.ly/WI_Wind_Interviews

5The quieter the background sounds are, the louder the introduced noise seems. The 3-6 times difference in apparent loudness with and without a wind turbine is based on agricultural settings having natural sound levels at night of 27-30dB(A) or lower. WI law permits wind turbine noise at residencies at night to be as high as 46 dB(A). In Iowa, landowners have measured turbine noise at their homes in excess of 70 dB(A). Each 6 dB(A) increase is perceived as a doubling in loudness. The Wisconsin permitted 46 dB(A) level is 19 dB(A) greater or 3 times louder than natural sounds at night. The difference masks many natural sounds, makes energy efficiencies like sleeping with window open at night impossible and causes many persons to experience sleep loss. If the noise should reach 70 dB(A), the additional 24 dB(A), would make the turbine noise more than seven greater than natural, rural sounds at night. Dr. Robert Rand discusses the sub-sonic phenomena starting at 1 hour, 27 minutes into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kvoZO-DEho&feature=youtu.be

6Families were obliged to move when the much smaller Shirley Wind system with 8, 2.5 MW turbines was installed. https://www.wbay.com/content/news/Brown-County-Board-meeting-on-Shirley-Wind-Farm-444039653.html See video of the special public health meeting that was held in 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kvoZO-DEho&feature=youtu.be

7Interviews with Wisconsin Wind Farm Residents, conducted by Tim Harmann of Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy. https://bit.ly/WI_Wind_Interviews

8Iowa 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

9Wisconsin PSC Code Section 128.13 and referenced Table 1: http://bit.ly/WI_128_SetbackTable1

10Wind Turbine Safety Setbacks Now Exceeding 3000 Feet, http://bit.ly/MuniSetbacksGreaterthan3000ft

11See interview with Jim Volmer starting at 04:54 https://bit.ly/WI_Wind_Interviews

12Land that houses power plants does not pay property taxes in Wisconsin. If the 300 MW power plant is approved, state tax dollars would be diverted to cover a portion of lost tax revenue. The financial ability of this subsidy to cover lost tax revenue losses has not been demonstrated and may not unless counties ask for accountability. Further, these diverted state tax dollars contain no compensation for equally significant tax base losses as properties within the counties and municipalities are sold at declined property values. SOUL estimates an average annual decline of $1 to $2.6 million in property devaluations spread across the immediately affected jurisdictions. See Tab 2 of downloadable spreadsheet at: http://bit.ly/PropertyTaxDevaluationImpacts The bottom of the range is based on Wisconsin’s historical sales rate of .6% of agricultural land being sold each year (27%, cumulatively, over 40 years) and a modest 5% decline in property values within one mile of turbines. The higher range is based on a .9% per year sales rate (40% over 40 years) and a, still modest, 10% decline in property values.

13See multiple video documents by landowners; interview with Elizabeth Eberts starting at 03:34 Wisconsin Wind Farm Residents https://bit.ly/WI_Wind_Interviews

14Wisconsin PSC Code Section 128.15 permits up to 30 hours a year http://bit.ly/WI_128_Flicker This standard is particularly challenging to meet when turbines are placed on hills above valleys where shadow projections can reach many residences, work places, livestock, natural habitats are recreational resources at large distances.

15 Wisconsin poultry farmer Jim Vollmer describes large losses at his chicken operation starting at 02:00 https://bit.ly/WI_Wind_InterviewsThe article, Do Wind Turbines Harm Animals?contains a number of links to landowner accounts.

16See multiple interviews with landowners; interview with Elizabeth Eberts starting at 03:34 Wisconsin Wind Farm Residents https://bit.ly/WI_Wind_Interviews

17Appreciation rate based on sales, http://bit.ly/WI_Ag_Land_Sales_4_Percent . From 2000-2018, the value of agricultural land in Wisconsin increased more than 6% per year from $1,804 to $5,818 per acre. From 2014 to 2018, values rose 4% per year. It is safe to assume continuation of the 4% appreciation rate as, “[The Covid-19] virus is impacting how we spend money, how we shop and, perhaps, even where we want to live. Data from Realtor.com shows suggests people are interested in moving and there seems to be an increasing appeal in properties outside of cities. The Realtor.com figures, which compared June, 2020 to June of 2019, found that homes in rural and suburban zip codes saw the biggest jump in average views per property. Homes in urban zip codes had a 19 percent increase in views compared to last year. But homes in suburban zip codes had a much larger 30 percent jump. And homes in rural zip codes saw a 34 percent increase.” See http://bit.ly/Covid_34_percent_increase_rural_living

18 As shown in this comparison by McCann, http://bit.ly/WindTurbinePropertyValueImpactKielischMcCann studies of wind turbine impacts on property values funded by wind and utility interests conclude there is a modest negative impact on values while those done by independent evaluators show very significant range of losses from 15-45% and an average of 29%.

19Pattern’s estimate $4000 per MW annual payment (with 1.9% per year increase) is not guaranteed and subject to other losses. The estimated net income from land leased for wind turbine use, conducted by SOUL incorporates impacts two, likely payment reductions: (a) A 15% decline in property value endured if property has to be sold within the 40 year term; (b) Continuation of the historical decline in wholesale electricity pricing at 6.3% per year, the rate from 2005-2019. The table at the top of Tab 1 of SOUL’s spreadsheet, http://bit.ly/PropertyTaxDevaluationImpacts suggests the adjusted revenue with a property changing hands over 40 years is much lower than the figures in Pattern’s estimated payment schedules for a 3.5 MW wind turbine located on a parcel of 160 acres. See table in spreadsheet showing net average annual turbine income / loss with property devaluation factored in if the parcel is sold 5, 10, 20, 30 and 40 years after turbine installation. Because the turbine affects the value of the whole land parcel, turbine payments in this example are not large enough to make up for the property devaluation if the property is sold before 8 years. If sold in year 40, the adjusted revenue over would be about 33-35% the amount in Pattern’s payment schedule . Key assumptions in this analysis include: Land payment of $4,000 per MW escalated at 1.9% per year over 40 years; 2022 property value set at: $4,000 per acre; size of land parcel affected by WT siting: 160 acres; Turbine size: 3.5 MW; Agricultural land unaffected by wind turbine appreciating in value 4% per year from 2022 to 2062; and 3 acres of land occupied by turbine and access roads removed from agricultural rental at $400 per acre per year in 2022 and rental fee increasing at the rate of 2.5% per year. Landowners can customize most spreadsheet assumptions to estimate the impacts.

20This percentage is up from 5% in 2010 and after billions spent on utility transmission and power plant expansions. See Table1: Capacity, Energy Output, and Price-Setting by Fuel Type, Energy Output Share, “2019 STATE OF THE MARKET REPORT FOR THE MISO ELECTRICITY MARKETS at page 30, https://www.potomaceconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2019-MISO-SOM_Report_Final_6-16-20r1.pdf#page=30

21Alternatively directing dollars to enlarging Focus on Energy rebates creates no net cost to Wisconsin electric customers because every rebate dollar results in three dollars saved in avoided energy costs. In contrast, Wisconsin electric customers do assume the costs of power plants connected to the grid. Investing the same amount as the Uplands Wind proposal, instead, into Wisconsin’s heralded but under-funded, Focus on Energy program (PSCW SEA pdf p. 67) would assist home, farm and business owners make energy efficiency and on-site solar improvements. Dollar for dollar, these rebate-aided, money saving investments by customers are more cost effective at reducing CO2 emissions because they directly reduce use of grid-supplied power. In contrast, the power from wind turbines only increases the relatively small percentage of renewable energy in Wisconsin’s grid. For details about the Focus on Energy rebate based alternative that is more land and climate change friendly, download this spreadsheet at: http://bit.ly/SOUL_UplandsVsFOE_CO2 The economic/CO2 comparison is sim ilar to analysis done for the 300 MW Badger Hollow solar power plant as analyzed here: https://bit.ly/SeriousAbtC02-Pt1

22 Large-scale wind power would require more land and cause more environmental impact than previously thought http://bit.ly/HarvardHeatStudyOverview “Harvard University researchers find that the transition to wind or solar power in the United States would require five to 20 times more land area than previously thought, and if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm average surface temperatures. . . Keith and Miller established a baseline for the 2012-2014 U.S. climate using a standard weather forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S. electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius, with the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures increased by up to 1.5 degrees C. This warming is the result of wind turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft while simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion. . . the warming effect is predominantly local to the wind farm.” The complete study by Harvard researchers is linked in the overview.

23Wisconsin farmer Jim Vollmer starting at 02:00 https://bit.ly/WI_Wind_Interviews The article, Do Wind Turbines Harm Animals? contains many links to other accounts.

24Compaction: See Wisconsin farmer, Alan Haas, starting at 44 seconds: https://bit.ly/WI_Wind_Interviews

25Wildlife populations: Wisconsin farmer Jim Vollmer starting at 3:44: https://bit.ly/WI_Wind_Interviews

26A 2018 estimate of bird and bat killing paid for by wind developer MidAmerica for 22 of their Iowa wind turbine systems over 30 years ranges from 961,635 to 1,188,075 avoidable deaths including two protected bat species, water fowl, raptors and song birds. (Data from .pdf page 155, Table 5.4-1; http://bit.ly/BirdBatTakingsPermit_MidAmerica )

Wind developers are making their way through large parts of Iowa and Lafayette counties persuading landowners to sign lease easements for large industrial wind turbines (WTs). What Pattern Energies is proposing is to site a 300 MW WT project of approximately 86 WTs. While Patterns’ sales associates have a talent for making land owners believe this is a good deal for them, I would suggest extreme caution before signing anything, and have an attorney (familiar with these matters), review the documents. WT’s have many downsides, including extreme noise, health effects, property value losses, land use issues for participants and their neighbors and community issues such as loss of tourism.

Having complete information is essential to making a decision that you won’t regret. The decisions that landowners make, will affect their neighbors and community. I encourage landowners:

• Not to sign;
• To demand that their county update their ordinance on wind systems to include all the protections outlined in the state code (PSC 128);
• Ask your county or town to hold a public information meeting, prior to the Patterns’ application being filed (this can be done safely using Zoom electronic conferencing);
• Share information with your neighbors.

The WTs being proposed are approximately 600-700’ tall (twice as tall as the Statue of Liberty), and would be seen 30 miles away. They create high noise levels and cause shadow flicker (that can cause headaches), air pulses (that can cause nausea) and stray voltage. Construction and maintenance activities cause soil compaction and damage agricultural drainage. Land use can be severely restricted for both leasing landowners and their neighbors. The actual turbine location (once determined by Pattern) defines where new construction is possible or restricted.

If Pattern is able to push this project through without residents being fully informed and with county ordinances in place that do not protect landowners, residents will be living with the repercussions for at least 40 years.

One might ask “What can local governments do for me if I have questions or concerns? Your local government may not be planning to offer anything prior to Pattern filing an application. If citizens want to have input and get information prior to the application, they will have to ask for a public information meeting. It is important that your County government update their wind system ordinance based on state code (PSC 128). If county governments do not act, and their ordinance does not include all of the measures that the state code outlines to protect citizens, then citizens will not receive those protections. Iowa County does have a Wind System ordinance, but their ordinance fails to include any of the protections for citizens except how close a WT can be placed to structures or property lines. Municipal governments can enact similar ordinances, which would offer residents some protections if their county fails to act.

Citizens may wonder “Do the requirements in the state code protect me and my community?” Sadly, PSC 128 provides minimal protections and most are complaint processes for problems that have already occurred after WTs are in place. State code does place limits on distance (set-backs), noise and shadow flicker.

At a meeting of the Iowa County Executive Committee on September 8^th, when a County Supervisor inquired about keeping the public informed, and posed: “Probably because of COVID, there won’t be any public information meetings until they’ve got this all wrapped up, and then they’ll tell people?” Chairman Meyers said “Yes, correct.” With respect to questions citizens are asking supervisors, Meyers stated “They should be calling Pattern”. Pattern has no motivation to identify issues for the public that may cause them to be concerned. Meyers also noted with regard to the technical details of siting WTs, “I do it on a daily basis” referring to his professional connection. This connection raises the issue of conflicts of interest that should concern citizens.

       Through Fall 2019 and early Winter 2020, a team of five, volunteer citizen public intervenors accomplished what no organizations, public utilities, government entities or law firms had previously achieved. 1 They uncovered and exposed costs and benefits of region-wide utility expansion “planning” designed to study the addition transmission lines, remotely located power plants towards the goal of reducing CO2 emissions over time.

        This article takes their findings and allows Wisconsin and Midwestern electric customers to: (1) see how these proposed costs would affect their personal electric bills and associated CO2 emission reductions and (2) compare these results with much smaller rebate additions to their state energy efficiency programs and, (3) Combine this with “going solar” at their home or business. Before getting to the personal calculator, lets examine some shocking findings the intervenors learned about planning done by utility interests through the Midcontinent Independent System Operator or, MISO:

• Most utilities in the Midwest don’t do energy planning. They rely, primarily, on annual, collective, Midwest Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) conducted for and by utility interests. ² The planning assumes that utilities will spend many billions on new power plants and these assumptions are never submitted for professional review by impartial parties.
• MISO’s planning does not include input from affected electric ratepayers who would pay down the high interest debt on the utility investments over coming decades.  Before the State of Iowa began its review of MISO’s Cardinal Hickory Creek transmission proposal that intervenors participated in, Iowa State Representative Charles Isenhart asked MISO planners to meet and talk with Iowa ratepayers and elected officials who wanted to learn about costs, CO2 emission impacts and other information. MISO rejected the request of the elected official whose district was directly impacted.
• The opening paragraphs of MISO’s planning publicity asserts that MISO MTEP planning is designed to create net benefits. For more than 10 years, state utility commissions in the Midwest have falsely assumed that “net” means ratepayers would receive savings from MISO’s planning.  Instead,”net” refers only to very small, potential wholesale power savings over 40 years under favorable economic conditions eventually offsetting the building costs of the transmission line. The potential pennies per month in wholesale cost savings does not account for about $16.60 per month ratepayers would assume over 15 years for the new power plant-related costs. ³
• Klopp also found that, savings from “cheap wind energy” would not exceed 35 cents per month savings for the average Midwest household. This isolated calculation not only ignores the $16.60 per month to pay for the the new power plants but that an equal amount of that new generation is added fossil fuel generation.⁴ 
• It was confirmed in the proceeding that wind generation provided only 8% of the power in Midwest outlets in 2018 and that fossil fuel generation is still providing about 70%.⁵
• In return for ratepayers committing $200-272 billion towards new power plants, MISO utilities forecast that regional CO2 emissions would drop a mere 3.8%-5.8% in the year 2031 for the 42 million customers these utilities served.⁶.
• Using discovery and cross-examination to uncover other assumptions in the planning, intervenors found that utilities forecasted investment in energy efficiency and distributed solar to not grow from current levels through 2031. As a result, lowered demand for power from efficiency improvements in home and businesses is ignored along with developments of solar and battery storage for the next 15 years.⁷
   

Where Do Midwest States Currently Stand in Terms of CO2 Reduction Goals?

        The below graphic shows three conditions: CO2 reduction progress from 2005-2018 (brown line), post-2018 reduction based on continuing our existing measures (orange line) and the red line shows the additional measures required to reach a significant 50% reduction in power plant related CO2 emissions in the year 2031 relative to 2018. 2018 was used because its the last year of reliable data and 2031 matches the reference year of MISO’s planning which make comparison of benefits more accurate.

      Existing measures producing a decline in CO2 emissions of 2% per year is based on continuing the 2005-2018 trend in emissions from Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin. The red line, “Additional Measures” target of a 50% reduction from 2018 to 2031 gives states a respectable start towards 100% reduction by 2050. The 1.8% per year decline in annual electricity use required to hit this target is within the performance realm of the better state energy efficiency programs.

The energy reduction capabilities of energy efficiency programs in the US are annually tracked by the American Council for Energy Efficient Economies.⁸ Selected, 2018 state data has been assembled in the below table and averaged. Across the seven states, an averaged payment of $1.59 per month has been reducing annual energy at the rate 1.06% per year. Massachusetts’ Accelerated program is included to show that considerably higher reduction rates are possible.

By offering very attractive rebates for efficiency and distributed solar improvements, public instruction of conservation skills and by financially rewarding MA utilities to meet reduction targets, 2005-2018 CO2 emissions in Massachusetts have decreased at a rate almost three times faster than in Midwest states. Massachusetts is now embracing battery storage and modern load management in order to, “not only change how we supply energy, but how we use energy as we shift our focus to strategic electrification and reducing peak demand in order to create a cleaner electric grid” ⁹ Judson said. With roughly the same number of electric customers as WI, MA will invest $2.8 billion over three years towards end user improvements to obtain $8.6 billion in savings and other benefits. New power plants only add cost with no net return.

Compare Regional Utility Spending vs. Energy Efficiency/Solar Investments USING YOUR ELECTRIC BILL

    Download the spreadsheet to your computer with the below steps and to make personal adjustments to it.

1. As shown below, click once on “File” to open the pull down window.
2. Hold the cursor over the word “Download” until a window opens.
3. Click on the string, “Microsoft Excel (.xlsx)”
4. A download window will open allowing you store the file where you want it on your computer.
5. Double-click on the downloaded file to open it.

To customize the Calculator to match your electric bill, access a recent electric bill. Find the number reflecting your total monthly usage in kilowatt-hour or “kWh” units. If you cannot find it, the average monthly residential usage for Wisconsin is about 700 kWh. Find the rate per kWh you pay and write this number down, If you cannot find the rate, the Wisconsin average is .14 dollars or 14 cents. Look for the “facility fee” or “electric service charge,” amount on your bill. If you cannot find it, use $8.00. Follow the below steps to enter these numbers into the calculator sheet that looks like this:

1. In the Step 1 section, double-click in the white box. Enter “KWh” monthly number of monthly use,
2. In the Step 2 section, hover the cursor to the right of the number in the larger white box until an arrow appears, Click on the arrow and select the amount you will spend on Focus on Energy from the choices provided, Select $4.26 for an accelerated program, $2.71 for a program that is double the current size, $1.15 to match the current program funding and $6.60 for the maximum accelerated amount.
3. Also in the Step 2 section, hover the cursor to the right of the number in the white, “Your kWh Rate” box. Click on the arrow and select a dollar value close to your rate. Double-click in the white box in the lower right and enter the amount of your electric service charge.
4. The financial and CO2 emission impacts of adding a right-sized SOLAR array to your house, farm or business are automatically estimated in the bottom section, ADDED HOME SOLAR FOR NET ZERO CARBON. If you have another cost per watt you want to use for the solar installation, enter in the box to the right of “Change Price as Needed.”

     Comparing the Impacts

The middle section is a comparison of your electric bill total, today, to two spending paths: With Energy Efficiency and with Proposed $200-$272 Billion for Regional Utility Expansions. The comparisons feature future, estimated Electric Bills in the year 2031, percentage cost increases (excluding solar) relative to doing nothing. At the far right is the total CO2 reduction the measures would make in year 2031. Differing CO2 reduction from just the two paths, are displayed under “Additional CO2 Reduction.”

The bottom section shows the benefits that would come from “going solar” at home or business in combination with the Focus on Energy or other energy efficiency program spending selected in step 2. The solar installation is automatically sized to match or offset the amount of power needed to operate the house or business to produce zero net carbon emissions. The combined efficiency and solar resources realize a virtual” or mathematically -computed, 100% reduction in CO2 emission impacts. Increasingly, adding battery storage to home and business systems will enable actual, 0% carbon impacts. The section also computes the very substantial energy saving or losses and the amount of one’s monthly electric bill in 2031.

Below is a comparison of the economic and environmental impacts of the different spending paths based on 2018 average, residential use of 700 kWh per month at Wisconsin’s average rate and service fee.

Set Your Own Standard and Inform Your Wisconsin Lawmakers About Your Progress

        In his first proposed budget as Wisconsin Governor, Tony Evers proposed lifting the 1.2% spending cap on Wisconsin’s under-founded Focus on Energy Program. Lawmakers let this improvement slip-by– not because of opposition to his suggestion but for lack of ratepayers speaking up for it. Over the last several months, calls to increase Focus on Energy rebates have accelerated. The measure is a high priority in the Governor’s Task Force on Climate Change discussions and a top recommendation of the Wisconsin Academy following their Climate Fast Forward Conference discussions. In its current Strategic Energy Assessment, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission observes that Wisconsin’s Focus on Energy program is the #1 program in the US based on energy use reduction per dollar invested. The PSC states it has found a way to (very modestly) increase funding to the Focus on Energy program to try an accelerate it under the existing paltry amount of $1.15 per month.

       Because we have focused ratepayer dollars on expanding our utilities’ assets, household affordability of electric service in Wisconsin is probably the highest in the Midwest when the high service fees are factored in. The high cost is making Wisconsin businesses increasingly uncompetitive with similar businesses in other states. As soon as Lawmakers recognize the net greater affordability over time, the profound emission reductions and the local job growth that would stem from a modern, accelerated efficiency program, they will vote to approve one. It is mostly a question of how soon will they act, not whether they will act.

       Large changes usually come from the bottom-up. Wisconsin utilities are resistant to a modern energy efficiency program because current state laws encourage them to promote growth in use which, today, means more waste and emissions. As Massachusetts has demonstrated, there is plenty of money for utility profits on the better path. It is decrease in demand that makes coal power plants cost ineffective and shut down– not more, “lower cost” power. In truth, all wholesale power is “cheap,” from 2.6 to 4 cents per kWh, or only 25% of the electric bill. As SOUL’s recent comments to the PSC demonstrate, the utilities’ default “planning” to add $3.2 billion in new power plants, even with many renewable ones, is extraordinarily cost and environmentally in-effective.¹⁰ Mirroring regional utilities’ lethargic environmental planning, Wisconsin utilities project only a 2.5% reduction in CO2 emissions from 2020-2030.

Wisconsin, cannot wait to change– to wait for the rising political will of rightfully angered communities responding to backwards high voltage expansion transmission lines and locally debilitating five square mile solar power plants in order to achieve fair and respectful energy laws. Affordability and expedience aims to waste less and need less. A better world is passionate about our better selves with voices far louder and more effective than spurts of frustration, anger and silent cynicism.

NOTES

Question:

What business would make a similar investment seven times and not stop to check its performance?

Answer:

One that is guaranteed 10.2% return no matter what the performance is.

Collectively, the electric customers or ratepayers of Wisconsin utilities function as one, big investment business. We spend more than $7 billion per year for four, basic expenses:¹

• 45-60% ($50-65/mo) Payment on debt for power plants, transmission/distribution lines and other, grid-related costs. These costs were previously approved by either the Wisconsin Public Service Commission or commissions in other states.

• 25-30% for “wholesale power”  ($30/mo)

• 15% to one’s utility (~$15/mo)

• 1.2% ($1.20/mo) for our collective Energy Efficiency rebate pool (Focus on Energy)

Guess which of these four percentages on electric bills has proven to be the most effective at reducing CO2 emissions?

Since 2006, Wisconsin electric ratepayer have invested in and built seven expansion transmission lines. All of the lines promised to deliver savings and faster reduction of CO2 emissions associated with our electricity use.²

The companies who sold us these products, American Transmission Co (ATC), Xcel Energy, ITC-Midwest and Dairyland Power Cooperative will not reveal their full costs or describe the impacts on average, monthly Wisconsin electric bills in traditional ways that customers can evaluate. This is the equivalent to a retailer refusing to describe or reimburse customers for products they sell. When asked to rule on this imbalance the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin is on record defending utility refusal.³

In contrast, Wisconsin law requires the performance of our Focus on Energy efficiency investments to be audited every four years, yet we lack accountability for the much larger amounts we pay every month towards expansion transmission lines.⁴ We do, however, have three indicators that costs have far outpaced the builders’ estimated savings:

• Absence of bragging. If energy savings existed, successful transmission builders would be foregrounding this evidence in their endless stream of proposals.⁵

• Our electric bills. Since 2006, Wisconsin rates have risen much faster than the national average and are the second highest in the Midwest. Since 2012, the fixed cost “meter fee” for each customer has risen an average of 9% per year⁶.

• Flat and declining use has negated potential savings. In 2007, Transmission builders developers warned that the cost of the Paddock Rockdale 345 kV expansion line between Beloit and Madison (visible from I-39) would add to Wisconsin electric bills unless state electricity use increased at least .5% per year (one half of one percent) in coming decades. Costs for this line and others are now pilling up as state electricity use averages .8% per year less than builders predicted as necessary to produce net benefits.

In 2019, Five Wisconsin lawmakers asked the Wisconsin Public Service Commissioners to test the economic performance of past expansion transmission lines to inform the review of the Cardinal Hickory Creek proposal but the agency failed to respond.⁷]

Section II: Can We Get a Deal for Us?

Wisconsin electric customers are committed to conservation and environmental goals,..

A 2018 study⁸ by the American Council for Energy Efficient Economies (ACEEE) shows that Wisconsin electric customer commitment to reducing use and lowering CO2 is high by all standards. Even at its current, under-funded level, Wisconsin’s Focus on Energy program reduces electricity waste at the impressive rate of .7% per year. The annual amount compares very favorably with programs and public participation in other states when performance per dollar invested is ranked. ¹⁴

It’s crucial to keep in mind that the harmful CO2 emissions are part and part and parcel of the grid-supplied power in our outlets. In 2017, power in the Midwest averaged 8% renewable energy with 73% coming from fossil fuel generation. By 2019, after additional billions spent on expansion transmission lines and remote power plants the percentage in the Midwest had increased only 1%.¹⁰ A drive in almost any direction in Wisconsin will encounter a massive transmission line system promised to make good on environmental goals that has failed.

“The cheapest energy is the energy you don’t use in the first place.” – Sheryl Crow

Though most Wisconsinites share a traditional, “waste not, want not,” sensibility, many households do not yet practice the simplest of conservation awarenesses. For example, household electricity consumption drops tends to drop about 13% when someone in the household tracks usage from month to month. Add to this, a number of low and no cost improvements and the household reduction can achieve 30%^.11 These, combined with increasingly better habits, automatic timers and replacing a few inefficient appliances can reduce use 50% or more.¹² Unlike the non-guaranteed, estimates that utilities make, these CO2 reductions and dollar savings are both maximized and assured.

Data in The American Council for Energy Efficient Economies report, reveals Wisconsin electric customers’ ability to leverage energy efficiency rebates to slash usage.¹³ While Wisconsin ranks sixth in reduced electricity use per rebate dollar invested, the state ranks low, 36^th among 46 participating states, in the amount of rebate dollars made available for state customers to purchase the most efficient appliances and make other dwelling and business improvements. Only South Dakota’s per capita rebate amounts are smaller among midwestern states.

Unfortunate confusion persists around the source of funding for Wisconsin’s Focus on Energy program with some state lawmakers believing the program runs on utility donations or taxes.¹⁵ In reality, the program exists through monthly payments made by Wisconsin electric customers into a rebate pool that customers and businesses draw from to help them afford higher efficiency appliances, energy improvements to dwellings and modern energy savings tools and on-site solar. The rebates better enable customers to make over 90% of the resulting investments without passing these costs to ratepayers.

Question:

Environmentally, how effective are these appliance, equipment, dwelling and behavioral and solar improvements at reducing CO2?

Combining state data from ACEEE’s report with state CO2 emission records from the US Department of Energy, it becomes evident that states with accelerated energy efficiency programs are also leading the way in CO2 reduction.¹⁶

These programs are successful because ratepayers and businesses are highly motivated to realize significant savings over time. The emission reductions are dramatic because using significantly less power means less dependence on the source of the problem– grid supplied power that is 68-75% fossil fuel generation. A key difference in higher-funded or “accelerated” efficiency programs is the greater degree of public education and outreach. Unlike Wisconsin, accelerated programs provide impartial, non-business affiliated energy conservation and efficiency specialists to help home and business owners develop objective improvement plans. Renters also participate through incentives offered landlords and apartment building owners. Industries with heavy reliance on electric power such as dairy farm operations are offered highly specialized rebates. With every passing year, Wisconsin’s Focus on Energy program falls further and further behind. Other states are slashing use and adding distributed solar at rates that directly avoid the transmission and power plant utility expansions that plague Wisconsin electric bills. It has been six years since retiring PSC Wisconsin Commissioner Eric Callisto advised in his dissenting opinion regarding a historic cost increase for Madison Gas and Electric customers:

“I think we should …evaluate placing a fair and transparent value on distributed generation, and at least start down the discussion path of the role of regulated utilities in a future with flat load growth, increased distributed generation and more robust consumer involvement in energy choices.¹⁷“

Section III: Big is Big

With utilities in Wisconsin posing many more renewable energy and natural gas power plants,..

Dropping costs of solar panels and the prospect of affordable battery storage has more people considering “going solar” than ever before.²¹ As previously mentioned, solar that is distributed to home, farm, business and community-serving locations has the added advantage of avoiding CO2 emissions at a faster rate. The benefit can also be dramatically amplified when households and businesses shift their heavier uses of power to solar production hours of the day.

In contrast, the CO2 reduction abilities of utility-scale renewables is limited. Adding renewables to the grid further increases grid dependency and the tremendous amount of wasted energy inherent in the fossil fuel generation. More than 60% of the energy used to generate power with the coal and natural gas power plants that supply 68-75% of our power to Wisconsin literally goes up in wasted heat and CO2 and other harmful gasses.

Thus, when a household or business uses conservation or efficiency to reduce use of 1 kWh hour of power, it avoids the equivalent of nearly 3 kWh’s of comprehensively measured energy with associated negative environmental/climate change impacts.

In the early 1980’s, utility interests began widespread public relations campaigns inferring that renewable energy added to the grid somehow replaces of fossil fuel generation. In 2005, Wisconsin joined MISO, a massive electricity market of utility interests who plan costly grid expansions proffering the same replacement advertisements. After 45 years and billions in new costs, the attainment of only 9% renewable energy in Midwest outlets deserves wide criticism. Had the same billions been placed into customer or demand side energy efficiencies and CO2 reduction maximized distributed generation, many Midwest communities could be on the verge of zero carbon emissions associated with electricity use. The clear path before us was never replacing “dirty” power plants with “cleaner” ones but removing waste and dependence on a for-profit, monopolized electric market with no inherent motivation to make significant environmental progress. The Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSCW) has furthered our utilities’ absolute monopolization of not only electric customer dollars and more recently, large expanses of state lands and local economies. The ability to hold off the next stage of unnecessary monopolization of land and local economies rests cultural understandings of the same, superior alternatives.

By ignoring that public demand for power is dropping and could drop much faster, decision-making at Public Service Commission of Wisconsin continues to bolster absolute control of utilities. Contradictorily, within a one year span of time, the PSCW approved a 625 MW natural gas power plant in Superior, Wisconsin ²² and more than 500 MW in massive solar power plants without mention of fossil fuel generation retirement. The 300 MW Badger Hollow solar power plant covering 4-5 square miles of prime farmland with a million solar panels near Montfort, in Southwestern WI is used here to compare results from the alternative efficiency and distributed path. The comparison provides both the monetary but environmental bottom lines by forecasting CO2 emission reductions over the 30 year lifespans of the investments.

With more that 47 million megawatt hours of Wisconsin fossil fuel generation to replace under antiquated PSCW thinking, ²³ it is crucial for Wisconsinites to place utility scale solar power plant land requirements into perspective. At a conservative land use rate of 8 acres per utility scale solar MW, more than 400 square miles of Wisconsin land would need to be permanently blanketed with solar panels. It is worth driving on State Highway 18 west of Dodgeville, WI for a personal experience of two, continuous miles of solar panels being constructed between the Cobb and Montfort. The first hand encounter will leave no doubt that solar power plants on this scale permanently transform rural communities as properties are converted to utility ownership and the former agricultural economy disintegrated. Prior to PSCW decision-making, all solar power plants of this scale have been located in sparse, arid areas.

At an inclusive cost of about $504 million that would be passed to Wisconsin ratepayers, the 300 MW Badger-Hollow solar power plant would avoid about 6 million metric of C02 emissions over its expected lifespan of 30 years. Distributed across Wisconsin’s 2.6 million residential customers, Badger-Hollow would would add about 14 cents per month over the three decades, A simple, tested alternative is to apply the same millions to rebates through the Focus on Energy Program to stimulate more electric customers to go solar. The program currently offers a 26 cent per watt solar rebate fund that is exhausted every year. $504 million in rebates could assist more than 380,000 households to install 5 kW solar arrays which, together, would avoid 50 million tons of C02 emissions– 8 times more than Badger Hollow.

With solar panels now offsetting rising electricity costs in these homes, saving would average about $72 per month over 30 years including paying for the initial investment. The table includes two examples where the rebate incentives are increased to 52 cents and 90 cents per watt of the estimated $2.50 per watt for residential rooftop solar installations. Even when rebate incentives are substantially increased the environmental benefits are profoundly greater. Unlike Badger-Hollow which only adds to electric bills, the estimated $76 per month savings per solar household amounts $27,000 in energy savings Across all 190,000 solar homes, more than $5 billion in energy savings would be realized.

The National Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that at least 33% of the electrical power needs can be derived from rooftop solar.²⁴ Under Massachusetts’ higher rebates for energy efficiency and distributed solar investments, home and business solar installations have exceeded 1500 MW. ²⁵

Section IV: Past Time to Re-Invigorate Focus on Energy

In 2009, Wisconsin lawmakers voted to ramp up the Focus on Energy Program in several steps exceeding the doubled funding level considered here. Unfortunately, the improvement was soon nixed by then Governor-elect Walker. In 2018, Governor Evers asked Wisconsin lawmakers to remove the current 1.2% cap on the program but the improvement has yet to introduced for action.²⁶ No doubt, it will require wide requests from ratepayers and businesses to wake up lawmakers but the lack of a diverse energy economy in Wisconsin compared to Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota will become very apparent within a few years.

Another policy update looms on the horizon for Wisconsin as well. Most states with accelerated energy efficiency programs have policies that reward utilities for reaching defined energy reduction goals. The utilities are also rewarded for Greenhouse Gas Emission reductions. The money for these payments comes from sharing a slice of the substantial monetary benefits of the accelerated energy efficiency, dwelling improvements and distributed energy programs. The policy is called “de-coupling” because it minimizes the loss of revenue that a utility would normally feel when energy sales decline. De-coupling can take place with other rate structure changes to enable more competition between utilities and companies that make improvements on the home, business and community level. In our present “coupled” state, Wisconsin PSC practice and laws encourage undesirable behaviors from the utilities they regulate: they oppose measures that lower power consumption and cash flow to utilities; they have new steel in the ground build prejudice because, currently, it is the only measure that guarantees monetary rewards, while holding key fossil fuel generation power plants, the utilities do not target CO2 emission reduction because there is no money in it, and; utilities will not consider downsizing and right-sizing even when appropriate because the PSC only incentivizes utility growth.

Eventually, the rate of capital building will force electric service costs high enough to force the commission to shift focus and follow the steps of other states. Even at today’s costs, consumers who do the math see how much they can save over time by going solar and battery storage is catching up quickly. In sum, there is so much money to be saved through efficiency and generation self-sufficiency that the Commission will be forced to recognize it. Utilities already do; they are not going to leave the feed trough as long as the PSC keeps filling it up with ratepayer dollars.

Where does Focus on Energy stand today? Auditors who assess the performance of the Focus on Energy program note the significant reduction in use per ratepayer dollar spent but consistently suggest that public outreach and conservation education could be significantly improved. Focus has begun some measures in this regard such as free, basic household energy efficiency kits, email announcements, offering community-based workshops and suggestion box. If you have not yet ordered one of the free efficiency kits with LED bulbs, low flow shower heads and smart power strips, doing so will also place you on their email list. Remember to mention the importance of the efficiency/local power path and Focus on Energy when communicating with lawmakers and the PSCW.

Some groups, including Renew Wisconsin propose that Wisconsin ratepayers need to support rapid utility expansion and the efficiency path at the same time. Their all of the above stance foresees no substantial changes other than huge tracts of land being gobbled up utilities. The forecast assumes Wisconsin ratepayers will be content with continually escalating costs and poor CO2 reduction performance.

________________________________________________________________________________

1 In theory, Wisconsin lawmakers define what kinds of power plant and transmission investments ratepayers can be required to make. In practice, the three Commissioners heading the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin make the final spending decisions monetarily affecting electric bill decades after the Commissioners’ terms are complete. Wisconsin Commissioners are appointed for six year terms by the Governor. In some states, Commissioners represent specific areas in the state and are elected by citizens in those areas. Electric bill percentages: See http://soulwisconsin.org/Resources/FootnoteHarbour.pdf#page=42 and this 2011 MISO account: https://apps.psc.wi.gov/pages/viewdoc.htm?docid=370481 at p.86, Table 2.6-2: Comparison of BAUMLDE future retail rate to current [rates] in early, 2011. Generation Production or wholesale energy makes up 25% of the average Midwest retail electric bill. Together, Generation and Transmission account for 45% of the retail electric charges. The trend of high annual growth rates for power plant and transmission costs in Wisconsin can be seen at https://apps.psc.wi.gov/pages/viewdoc.htm?docid=364956 at .pdf p.60-61, Figure 25 Eight-year Annual Growth, Rate of Revenue Requirement Components—Major IOUs (%).

2 Net energy cost savings & environmental benefits claimed, 2007-2018 http://soulwisconsin.org/Resources/FootnoteHarbour.pdf#page=46

3 To date, transmission builders refuse to provide customers, state lawmakers and the PSC evidence that their products deliver the benefits they promise even when formally requested by intervenors representing public interests. See response to data request 15, pdf p. 48 http://apps.psc.wi.gov/pages/viewdoc.htm?docid=360493 and transcript of a special PSC hearing to compel transmission builders to provide ratepayer level impacts at starting at p. 202 https://apps.psc.wi.gov/pages/viewdoc.htm?docid=364604

4 WI Transmission Expansion Spending table excerpted, pdf p. 40 http://soulwisconsin.org/Resources/FootnoteHarbour.pdf#page=40

5 List of expansion transmission lines proposed and approved in Wisconsin http://soulwisconsin.org/Resources/FootnoteHarbour.pdf#page=44

6 Wisconsin Utilities, 2012-2016 Fixed Fee Increases, http://soulwisconsin.org/Resources/FootnoteHarbour.pdf#page=13 Fixed cost payments for Milwaukee ratepayers ranked second highest among US cities in 2016: https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/Caught-in-a-Fix.pdf#page=12

7 (Bipartisan, Wisconsin State Legislators) Request for Economic Performance Testing of Expansion Transmission Lines, http://apps.psc.wi.gov/pages/viewdoc.htm?docid=361228

8 The 2018 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, ttps://aceee.org/research-report/u1808

9 Writes engineer Bill Powers regarding the Badger-Coulee transmission line proposal, “The cost of the no-wires alternatives to offset the 0.22 percent per year peak load growth scenario, at $3.37 million (Load Management), $9.45 million (Energy Efficiency), and $18.75 million (community solar), are a fraction of the $190.9 million identified by ATC to upgrade LV segments as an alternative to B-C.” pdf p. 46, http://bit.ly/Powers-Direct

10 MISO 2016 State of the Market Report, excerpt on pdf p.36 http://soulwisconsin.org/Resources/FootnoteHarbour.pdf#page=36 See .pdf p. 30, Table 1: Capacity, Energy Output, and Price-Setting by Fuel Type, 2019 STATE OF THE MARKET REPORT FOR THE MISO ELECTRICITY MARKETS https://www.potomaceconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2019-MISO-SOM_Report_Final_6-16-20r1.pdf

11 SOUL’s free, “Wisconsin Meter Watch” initiative has demonstrated that households are capable of very significant reductions without compromising comfort or quality of life. http://soulwisconsin.org/Documents/13X13_EfficiencyHandout.pdf

12 Electric hot water heaters, common to rural Wisconsin average about 30% of household use. Replacing an electric heater with an on demand propane water heater not only eliminates significant demand for electrical power but reduces associated CO2 emissions by 1/3 to 1/5.

13 On p.10, ACEEE points out “..the third tier Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin are tied for 29th. Small improvements in energy efficiency will likely have a significant effect on the rankings of states in these middle tiers.”

14 State annual, incremental reduction in use, by percentage divided by the rebate dollars collected for this purpose.

15 Why Did WI Utilities Bother to Cut WI’s Energy Efficiency Program a Mere 7%? http://soulwisconsin.org/Documents/7-percent_EE-First_ForknRoad.pdf

16 Only 2017 spending is compared in this graphic. State groupings are used due to significant differences in CO2 emission accounting from state to state and the fact that some states monetarily reward utilities for CO2 reduction.

17 MGE PSC Order .pdf p. 133, http://psc.wi.gov/apps35/ERF_view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=226563

21 Rural Northern Wisconsin Logs Record-Setting Solar Group Buy, Kari Lydersen, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/wisconsin/articles/2018-12-08/rural-northern-wisconsin-logs-record-setting-solar-group-buy

22 Utility regulators approve controversial $700M natural gas plant in Superior https://bit.ly/625MW_SuperiorGasPlant

23 68% of Wisconsin’s 69 million megawatt-hours (MWH) in 2018 was fossil fuel generation. See EIA graph at https://bit.ly/WI_Generation_EIA

24 See p.47 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70901.pdf#page=47 Rooftop Solar Technical Potential for Low-to-Moderate Income Households in the United States. Wisconsin land use involved to meet 100% 2016 Wisconsin net generation with utility scale solar or alternatively, utility scale wind turbines. https://gallery.mailchimp.com/b59cfca00987b6608bf82d01f/images/f3e99378-77d8-4f1f-bd87-050a691d8526.png

25 Developing a Post-1,600 MW Solar Incentive Program: Evaluating Needed Incentive Levels and Potential Policy Alternatives, https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/10/nf/developing-a-post-1600-mw-solar-incentive-program.pdf

26 Governor Tony Evers proposes carbon-free electricity by 2050, Chris Hubbuch, Wisconsin State Journal, http://bit.ly/Evers_MoreEEConservation