While observing the public comment session on Wisconsin’s Proposed Wind Siting Rules at the Public Service Commission on June 30 in Madison, Wis., I was struck by a number of realizations regarding how energy projects are developed and approved in the state.
The first of these realizations is that vested interests tend to make us short-sighted in our assessments of the situation. By its nature, this is detrimental to the process and is true of both sides of the debate. It was perplexing to see both sides of the debate color the information to support their own personal perspective. For example, when one side would take the position that rules need to be based on peer-reviewed science, rather than conjecture, the opposing side would assert that there is a dearth of peer-reviewed evidence supporting the opposition’s view. Furthermore, it became clear that a person’s belief colored their review of the proposed rules, and that an impartial review and concession of points would not be the order of the day.
These observations led to the realization of the second point: developing wind project siting rules is clearly essential for the state of Wisconsin. Moreover, this process is rightly placed in the hands of the Public Service Commission and the State Legislature. Developing effective renewable resources, including wind, to meet the state’s renewable portfolio standard is critical for our state to move forward. Without clear state-level guidance, however, developing such resources may well not happen.
If we leave the process to the jurisdiction of individual municipal governments, the system would be susceptible to gaming and manipulation by all sides of the debate, which will necessarily result in less than optimal distribution of resources for the state. Statewide rules that are developed based on open debate and reviewed by the Public Service Commission and the state Legislature would ensure that all competing opinions are heard and taken into consideration and a system that satisfies the greatest majority of needs will be developed.
This brings me to the third thing I concluded during my observations last week. That is, simply put, people are bound to come away from this process disappointed and if we allow a short-sighted perspective to dominate our thinking on the issue, the state will pay a significant price in the long-run. Clearly the best compromise is to aim to develop rules that satisfy the needs of the greatest number of stakeholders in the process and accept the reality that the results will necessarily leave dissatisfied participants on both sides of the issue. In other words, it is essential that our leadership, in their endeavor to craft wind siting rules, does not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
The final point that struck me is the passion of all the parties involved in this debate and the unique challenges of balancing the rights of the people seeking to produce renewable energy on their property, with the health and safety concerns of the people impacted by the installation of the turbines with the reality that it is essential for the state to develop renewable energy resources. To this end, I was pleased to hear the presentation by Rep. Ted Zigmunt, D-Francis Creek, of Wisconsin’s 2nd Assembly District. Zigmunt, whose district includes towns that are affected by a highly contested wind project, testified that in the development of wind siting rules the Public Service Commission and Legislature should take into consideration the legitimate health, safety and economic concerns presented by certain renewable projects.
Moreover, Zigmunt pointed out that the recently passed Wisconsin Act 406, signed into law by Gov. Jim Doyle earlier this year, allows for a number of new technologies including geothermal, solar thermal and solar daylighting to be classified as renewable — which in turn can help the state meet its renewable energy needs, particularly in spaces where traditional renewable projects like wind, may not be appropriate — whether because of economic, health or safety concerns.
Rep. Zigmunt’s testimony demonstrates the kind of thought leadership that can provide the template for developing Wisconsin’s energy future.
