Alliant Energy updates Marathon County advisory panel on Hub City Wind Farm; committee, residents press for studies and protections

Alliant Energy representatives briefed Marathon County’s Alternative Energy Local Impact Advisory Committee on the status of the proposed Hub City Wind Farm and answered questions about timelines, turbine size and required studies.

"We received an extensive list of questions and we intend to respond to every single one," said Ben Tanka, Alliant’s project manager, who told the committee the developer had prepared roughly 105 Q&A responses and submitted a statutory "180‑day notice" to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin on June 12. He said the notice is required by state statute if turbine tip heights may exceed 600 feet and that a subsequent 90‑day filing would create a PSC docket with more detailed requirements and noticing to residents.

Why the committee matters: the advisory panel was created by the county board to collect concerns and opportunities about this specific project and forward them to the county executive committee before the panel’s charter expires on July 13. The panel does not itself approve or deny permits.

Permitting, scope and equipment: Tanka said the 180‑day notice included a turbine count range and a preliminary map; the developer provided a working range of about 25–45 turbines while noting the final count remains under refinement. He described the two candidate turbine platforms under consideration and said hub and blade dimensions are similar across the models being evaluated, which has allowed some interchangeability at proposed locations. Reported candidate heights discussed in the meeting ranged from about 589 feet to 680 feet.

Regulatory process and studies: Tanka said Alliant will include a project‑specific market impact analysis in its PSC application and expects expert testimony on that study. He pointed committee members to a 2024 wind‑siting council report for background on property‑value, sound and decommissioning issues and said Alliant will perform hydrology, wetland delineations and migratory‑bird studies as part of its application process. He emphasized that some studies (for example, migratory bird monitoring) will be completed before the company’s application is finalized.

Road use, construction and local agreements: Alliant described customary pre‑construction road surveys, negotiated road‑use agreements and a process for documenting damage, temporary repairs and final restoration. The presenter said road‑use agreements typically set haul routes, notification windows, seasonal restrictions, and payment/penalty schedules and stressed that local institutional knowledge can materially affect route selection.

Groundwater, wetlands and spill prevention: Alliant said standard erosion control and storm‑water best management practices would be applied, that hydrology and wetland delineations are underway and that DNR oversight will be part of permit review. The company described secondary containment and SPCC (spill prevention, control and countermeasure) planning and estimated gearbox oil volumes of roughly 75–130 gallons per turbine based on comparable machines.

Decommissioning and financial security: Tanka said the project owner would be responsible for decommissioning and that state rules typically require posting financial assurance; the company also intends to prepare and update decommissioning cost estimates during the project life.

Points of friction and county authority: Committee members repeatedly sought detail on how and when Joint Development Agreements (JDAs) or road‑use agreements would be negotiated. Several members noted uncertainty about what is negotiable before a PSC application is filed and whether a county moratorium would be effective for a project anticipated to seek state CPCN review. Alliant’s position, as stated in the meeting, is that the county is not the primary permitting authority for a project of the scale discussed and that the PSC process will govern certificate issuance.

What comes next: County staff summarized public input collection (a June 17 public forum with roughly 151 participants and an online survey with 1,395 responses) and said compiled comments and open‑ended survey responses will be appended to the advisory committee’s report to the executive committee. The advisory committee will meet again on July 9 to finalize the report that must be submitted prior to the committee’s July 13 expiration.

Why it matters: The developer’s filings with the PSC will determine formal permit review and scope, but the committee and residents sought binding local protections (road restoration funding, groundwater baseline testing, independent wildlife and health studies, and enforceable financial assurances in any local agreement) as conditions they want considered by county leaders before any JDA is advanced.

Ending: The committee did not take action to enter a JDA; its next step is to deliver the compiled public comments and its findings to the executive committee for further deliberation.