Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Assembly Bill 256

Regulation of wind energy systems and granting rule-making authority

Topics: County: Ordinance, Electric utility, Energy conservation, Municipality: Ordinance, Public Service Commission

Stopped before the full Assembly voted

The recommended passing it, but the full Assembly never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    May 5, 2009

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Assembly never voted on it.

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Under current law, a city, village, town, or county (political subdivision) may not place any restrictions on the installation or use of an energy system (a solar energy system or a wind energy system) unless the restriction is for health or safety reasons, does not significantly increase the cost of the system or decrease its efficiency, or allows for an alternative comparable system. Current law defines "wind energy system" as equipment that converts and then stores or transfers energy from the wind into usable forms of energy.

This bill requires the Public Service Commission (PSC) to promulgate rules establishing common standards for political subdivisions to regulate the construction and operation of wind energy systems. The bill also revises the definition of "wind energy system" to include associated facilities of the equipment specified under current law. The PSC's rules must specify the restrictions a political subdivision may impose on the installation or use of such a system, and may include subjects such as visual appearance, setback distances, decommissioning, shadow flicker, electrical connections to the power grid, and interference with radio, telephone, or television signals. The PSC must also promulgate rules specifying requirements and procedures for a political subdivision to enforce such restrictions.

Read the full summary

If a political subdivision chooses to regulate such systems, its ordinances may not be more restrictive than the PSC rules. The bill also specifies various standards, procedures for applicants, and approval timelines for political subdivisions that must be contained in a political subdivision's ordinance regulating the systems.

The bill prohibits a political subdivision from prohibiting or restricting any person from conducting tests to determine the suitability of a site for the possible placement of a wind energy system, although the political subdivision may petition the PSC to impose reasonable restrictions on the testing.

With regard to a proposed wind energy system that is one megawatt or larger, the bill provides that any person who is aggrieved by a political subdivision's decision or enforcement action may seek review by the PSC. If the PSC determines that the political subdivision's decision or enforcement action does not comply with the agency's rules or is unreasonable, it must issue a superseding decision and order an appropriate remedy. The PSC's decision or order may be appealed to circuit court.

The bill specifies that if a county enacts an ordinance relating to the construction or operation of a wind energy system, as provided by the bill, the county ordinance applies only in the unincorporated parts of the county, except that if a town enacts a similar ordinance, the more restrictive terms of the two ordinances apply to the town.

Finally, the bill does not affect a provision under current law that exempts certain electric generating facilities from local ordinances. Under current law, a person may not construct an electric generating facility with a nominal operating capacity of 100 megawatts or more unless the PSC grants a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) to the person. If the PSC has granted a CPCN to such a facility, and if installation or utilization of the facility is precluded or inhibited by a local ordinance, current law provides that the installation and utilization of the facility may nevertheless proceed. Because this bill does not affect that provision, the authority of a political subdivision to regulate a wind energy system under the bill is limited to those wind energy systems with a nominal operating capacity of less than 100 megawatts. However, the bill requires the PSC to consider the restrictions specified in the rules described above when the PSC determines whether to grant a CPCN to a wind energy system with a nominal operating capacity of 100 megawatts or more.

Who's behind it

20 lawmakers are its ⁠. 13 are Democrats, 6 are Republicans and 1 is a Independent.

11 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 31 names

Authors (20)

Signed on in support (11)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

How lawmakers voted

There was one vote on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities vote on an amendment

Passed, 11 to 1 · Jul 8, 2009

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Energy and Utilities, Ayes 11, Noes 1”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 28, 2010

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Jul 8, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  3. Jul 8, 2009

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 10 to 2.

  4. May 12, 2009

    The committee held a public hearing.

  5. May 12, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  6. May 5, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities.

  7. May 5, 2009

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. May 5, 2009 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Soletski, Parisi, Montgomery, Black, Clark, Hilgenberg, Honadel, Mason, Molepske Jr., Pasch, Pocan, Richards, Roys, Smith, Spanbauer, Stone, Suder, Townsend, Vruwink and Wood;Cosponsored by Senators Plale, Hopper, Coggs, Hansen, Holperin, Kreitlow, Miller, Risser, Sullivan, Taylor and Wirch

  2. May 5, 2009 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Energy and Utilities

  3. May 12, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. May 12, 2009 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Jun 17, 2009 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  6. Jun 17, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by committee on Energy and Utilities

  7. Jun 26, 2009 · Assembly

    LRB correction (Assembly substitute amendment 1)

  8. Jul 8, 2009 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Energy and Utilities, Ayes 11, Noes 1

  9. Jul 8, 2009 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Energy and Utilities, Ayes 10, Noes 2

  10. Jul 8, 2009 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  11. Sep 10, 2009 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 9-16-2009 by committee on Rules

  12. Sep 15, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Representative Soletski

  13. Sep 15, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representative Wood

  14. Sep 16, 2009 · Assembly

    Laid on the table

  15. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote