BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN

Direct – Town of Christiana – Cook

1

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN

In re the Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity of Koshkonong Solar Energy Center LLC Docket No: 9811-CE-100 to Construct a Solar Electric Generation Facility in the Town of Christiana and the Town of Deerfield, Dane County, Wisconsin

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MARK COOK

PSC REF#:425250Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

RECEIVED: 11/11/2021 11:22:31 AM


2

Q. Please state your name and business address. 1

A. My name is Mark Cook and I reside at 2142 Utica Rd, Cambridge, WI 53523. 2

Q. On whose behalf are you providing this testimony? 3

A. I am testifying on behalf of the Town of Christiana (“Town”). 4

Q. By whom are you employed and in what capacity? 5

A. I am the Owner and Senior Consultant at Mark Cook Consulting, (MCC). 6

Q. Please describe MCC. 7

A. MCC offers electrical consulting and inspection services for commercial, industrial, 8

agricultural, and residential applications. I provide service for Electric Cooperatives, Investor-9

Owned Distribution Companies, Municipal Electrical Utilities, and Transmission Companies. 10

Q. Please describe your responsibilities at MCC. 11

A. Among other services, I routinely provide these services on behalf of the designated 12

companies or agencies: 13

Electric Cooperatives & Municipalities 14

• Provide consulting services utilizing specialized (calibrated) equipment related to stray 15

voltage concerns or testing 16

• Perform electrical inspections. 17

• Expert witness/consultation services in stray voltage litigation. 18

Investor-Owned Utilities 19

• Assistance in testing and analyzing data. 20


Electric Transmission Companies 22


3

• Pre and post testing for regulatory compliance including system upgrades, solar farms, 1

wind farms, or other generation. 2

Electrical Inspections (Commercial, Industrial, Agricultural, & Residential) 3

• Farm Electrical Inspections 4

– Utility Isolation upon request inspections 5

– Electrical inspections for any change or upgrade 6

• Other Commercial Electrical Inspections 7

• Industrial Electrical Inspections 8

• Residential Electrical Inspections 9

• Infrared Capable 10

Investor-Owned Utilities 11

• Consultation, testing and analyzing data. We also offer expert witness services. 12


Electric Transmission Companies 14

• Pre and post testing for regulatory compliance including system upgrades, solar farms, 15

wind farms, or other generation. 16

Stray Voltage / Contact Voltage Training 17

• Public Speaking Engagements 18

• Onsite training available 19

• Large or small groups 20

Q. What is your relationship with the Town? 21

A. I am the Town Chairman. 22

Q. Please summarize your educational background and professional experience. 23


4

A. I am a graduate of the Wisconsin Rural Leadership Program - University of Wisconsin 1

Extension, Madison, WI. I have a Certificate in Organizational Leadership from Villanova 2

University. I have an MBA Certificate, in Financial Management, Statistics, Marketing & 3

Accounting from Tulane University and I received the Six Sigma Green Belt, Lean Management 4

Certification from Villanova University. 5

I have 40 years of experience in the electrical field, focusing on the provision of safe electricity to 6

others, working closely with Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Department of 7

Administration, Department of Safety and Professional Services, University of Wisconsin, and 8

Department of Commerce. Starting as an apprentice in 1976 to 1988, I progressed in the private 9

sector through journeyman to master electrician to senior management developing company 10

strategies and long-range plans, training and supervising staff, overseeing HR issues, budgeting, 11

estimating, accounting, banking, and customer relations, managed projects, creating wiring and 12

engineering layout diagrams, and providing design and drafting of commercial, industrial, and 13

agricultural electrical systems. 14

For a brief time thereafter, I worked for the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade & 15

Consumer Protection, where I participated as key member of State of Wisconsin DATCP and 16

PSCW Task Force conducting specification development, consultations, investigations, and 17

evaluations for preparation of electrical system plans and specifications for investor-owned and 18

cooperative providers, testified before state legislature, state agencies, and Governor’s office and 19

Co-authored reports to Wisconsin Legislature and Governor’s office. 20

From 1989 to 2012 I served as Senior General Manager and Electrical Inspector for the Wisconsin 21

Public Service Commission, responsible for electrical system design, electrical codes, construction 22

coordination, stray voltage, safety, conservation, NEV, inspection, regulation, compliance, and 23


5

technical reporting and transmission, wind, and bio-fuel projects. I directed business, legislative, 1

and regulatory affairs of the commission in compliance with codes and policies. I developed and 2

implemented long-range plans and strategies to meet future needs of members and customers. I 3

assisted in budget development and recommended dues and rates to achieve financial goals. I 4

prepared projects and specifications for rebuilding of electric distribution systems, oversaw 5

investigations, identified concerns, and acted as liaison between parties to mediate and resolve 6

issues. I introduced standardized screening and diagnostic measurement protocols and equipment 7

statewide. I managed program staff and provided leadership vision, guidance, coordination, 8

training, and coaching., and as media liaison, appeared in TV, radio, and print interviews. 9

From 2012 to the present, I have operated my consulting company, performing the services 10

outlined above. For my entire career, my expertise has employed the National Electrical Code 11

(NEC), the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), the State of Wisconsin’s administrative rules 12

and regulations, the standards and certification of the Underwriters Laboratories (UL), and the 13

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). 14

Q. What is the purpose of your testimony? 15

A. I am offering testimony related to whether the proposed Koshkonong Solar Project 16

(“proposed Project”) complies with the criteria in Wis. Stat. § 196.491 such that a Certificate of 17

Public Convenience and Necessity should be issued, and if issued, what minimum conditions be 18

included in the CPCN to ensure public safety. 19

Do you sponsor any exhibits with your testimony? 20

A. Yes. I sponsor these exhibits: 21

Ex.-Christiana– Cook -1: Cook CV 22

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-2: Mitigation Techniques, Mark Cook – June, 2021 23


6

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-3 1065 Utility Circuits Intro, Mark Cook – May, 2019 1

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-4: Answers to Your Stray Voltage Questions – WPS 2011 2

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-5: Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion Into the Practices, 3

Policies and Procedures Concerning Stray Voltage for Electric 05-EI-106 Distribution Utilities in 4

Wisconsin– Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, August 1989 5

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-6: Phase II Stray Voltage Testing, Jim Lepinski – Public Service 6

Commission of Wisconsin, August, 2016 7

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-7: What do we know about Stray Voltage, Douglas J. Reinemann, 8

Ph.D., Professor of Biological Systems Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison, May 9

2009 10

Ex.-Christiana–Cook-8: Review of Literature, Douglas J. Reinemann, Ph.D., Professor of 11

Biological Systems Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison, November 2003 12

Ex.-Christiana–Cook-9: Installing Electrified Crowd Gates; A Self Help Guide – MERC 13

Ex.-Christiana– Cook -10: Installation and Operation of Electrific Fences, Cow Trainers and 14

Crowd Gates; A Self Help Guide – MERC 15

Ex.-Christiana– Cook -11: Commentary of Dairyland Electrical Industries in Response to PSC 16

Related to Proper Use of Neutral Isolators, November, 2018 17

Ex.-Christiana– Cook -12: PSC Staff Report – Phase II Stray Voltage Testing Protocol, 18

Reines and Cook, February 1999 19

Ex.-Christiana– Cook -13: Phase II Check Sheets, – Public Service Commission of 20

Wisconsin, June 2005 21


7

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-15 Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion Into the Practices, 1

Policies and Procedures Concerning Stray Voltage for Electric 05-EI-115 Distribution Utilities in 2

Wisconsin– Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, July 1996 3

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-16 Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion Into the Practices, 4

Policies and Procedures Concerning Electromagnetic Fields, Ground Currents, and Direct 5

Currents for Electric 05-EI-108, Distribution Utilities in Wisconsin– Public Service Commission 6

of Wisconsin, June 1995 7

Ex.-ChristianaCook-17: PSC Brief in State of Wisconsin Supreme Court, Hoffmann v. 8

Wisconsin Electric, 97-CV-144 – Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, May 2002 9

Ex.-Christiana– Cook -18: IEEE Guide to Understanding, Diagnosing, and Mitigating Stray 10

and Contact Voltage, Transmission and Distribution Committee of the IEEE Power and Energy 11

Society January 29, 2016 12

Ex.-Christiana– Cook -19: Definition: Adequate Level of Reliability for the Bulk Electric 13

System, North American Electric Reliability Corporation, March 26, 2013 14

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-20: National Electrical Safety Code Interpretations, IEEE 15

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-21: MISO’s Renewable Integration Impact Assessment, Executive 16

Summary, February, 2021 17

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-22: Voltage Stability of Power Systems with Renewable-Energy 18

Inverter-Based Generators: A Review, electronics, January 7, 2021. 19

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-23: Synchronization Instability of Inverter-Based Generation During 20

Asymmetrical Grid Faults, Xiuqiang He, Changjun He, Sisi Pan, Hua Geng, Feng Liu, July, 21

2021 22


8

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-24: The Impact of Inverter Based Systems on Power Grid Stability, 1

Vishnu Arayamparambil, Vinaya Mohanan, November, 2019 2

Ex.-Christiana– Cook-25: Reliability Planning Session Materials, NYSERDA, August 2, 3

2021 4

5 Q. Should the Commission grant a CPCN for the proposed Project? 6

A. Not only should the Commission deny the CPCN based upon the current application and 7

attendant submissions, but it is also my opinion that the Commission is barred from doing so by 8

statute. 9

Q. Why is the Commission barred from granting the CPCN at this time? 10

A. Under Wisconsin Statute §§ 196.491(3)(d)3t., the high-voltage transmission line provides 11

usage, service or increased regional reliability benefits to the wholesale and retail customers or 12

members in this state and the benefits of the high-voltage transmission line are reasonable in 13

relation to the cost of the high-voltage transmission line. Koshkonong Solar has presented 14

absolutely no information relating to the transmission lines that could inform the Commission 15

whether this standard has been met. 16

Q. It has been suggested that Wisconsin Statute §§ 196.491(3)(d)3m., 3r., 3t., and 5., and 17

196.49, do not apply to the proposed Project because the proposed Project does not involve 18

a high voltage transmission line designed for operation at a nominal voltage of 345 kilovolts 19

or more, and because Koshkonong Solar is not a public utility. Do you Agree? 20

A. No. 21

Q. Why not? 22

A. The Invenergy proposed connecting lines are really transmission lines hiding from the 23

Commission rules. The electric grid consists of two separate infrastructures: the higher voltage 24


9

transmission system and the lower voltage distribution system. Transmission lines in Wisconsin 1

range from 69 to 345 kilovolts (kV) and are used to minimize electrical losses over hundreds of 2

miles. Lines with higher voltages, such as 500 kV or 765 kV lines have to-date not been 3

constructed in Wisconsin but are in use in other Midwestern states. The lower voltage distribution 4

system draws electricity from the transmission lines and distributes it to individual customers. 5

Distribution lines range from 4 to 35 kV. The voltage that connects to your house is even lower, 6

at 120 or 240 volts. The Invenergy connecting lines do not serve customers therefore are by 7

definition transmission lines. Calling these lines anything else is just wrong. No customers equate 8

to transmission. 9

Q. What approvals are required for transmission of power? 10

A. Siting of transmission lines is a separate proceeding required by law. All noncustomer 11

connected lines are transmission lines, and regulations demand that all siting rules are followed. 12

In 196.378 (1) (h) 1. h., “solar energy system" means equipment which directly converts and then 13

transfers or stores solar energy into usable forms of thermal or electrical energy but does not 14

include equipment or components that would be present as part of a conventional energy system 15

or a system that operates without mechanical means. This means that all wire transmission lines, 16

battery systems and transformers are not included in the legislation. Clearly these systems are not 17

exempt. 18

Q. Transmission lines aside, are there other reasons for your opinion that the 19

Commission should not grant a CPCN for the proposed Project? 20

A. Yes, numerous. 21

Q. What is the first reason for your opinion. 22


10

A. First, under Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3. the design and location and route associated with 1

the proposed Project must be in the public interest considering alternative sources of supply, 2

alternative locations or routes, individual hardships, engineering, economic, safety, reliability and 3

environmental factors, except that the commission may not consider alternative sources of supply 4

or engineering or economic factors if the application is for a wholesale merchant plant. 5

Q. Before delving into the restrictions under this statute, do you consider this proposed 6

Project to be a wholesale merchant plant? 7

A. No 8

Q. Why not? 9

A. Under Wis. Stat. § 196.491(1)(w) a wholesale merchant plant" electric generating 10

equipment and associated facilities in this state that do not provide service to any retail customer 11

and that are owned and operated by an affiliated interest of a public utility or person that is not a 12

public utility. A wholesale merchant plant does not include an electric generating facility or an 13

improvement to an electric generating facility that is subject to a leased generation contract. A 14

“leased generation contract” means a contract or arrangement or set of contracts or arrangements 15

under which an affiliated interest of a public utility agrees with the public utility to construct or 16

improve an electric generating facility and to lease to the public utility land and the facility for 17

operation by the public utility. It is quite evident that Koshkonong Solar has no intent to own and 18

operate the electric generating equipment and associated facilities after substantial completion 19

based upon the Joint Application of Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Public 20

Service Corporation, and Madison Gas and Electric Company for Approval to Acquire Ownership 21

Interests in the Koshkonong Solar Electric Generation Facility in the Town of Christiana and the 22


11

Town of Deerfield, Dane County, Wisconsin – Docket No. 5-BS-258. Further, the proposed 1

arrangement is the functional equivalent to a leased generation contract or arrangement. 2

Q. Are there other reasons why the criteria under Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3. are not 3

met? 4

A. Yes, my testimony will largely focus on public safety, which will also factor in engineering 5

(as in design to ensure safety) and reliability. 6

Q. Please explain. 7

A. There are two aspects related to safety that are my primary concerns; safety of the general 8

public and worker safety. It must first be noted that Koshkonong Solar has provided no engineering 9

detail related to precise design, materials, means and methods that would enable anyone to analyze 10

whether this proposed Project can be constructed and operated safely, consistent with all applicable 11

codes. Their general presentation has been “Trust us, we will make sure that we comply with all 12

codes and regulations.” This does not permit the Commission to make an express finding that the 13

design and location and route associated with the proposed Project will be in public interest 14

considering engineering, safety and reliability. This is even more concerning in that the 15

Commission has no real expertise related to solar facilities post CPCN determination, nor the staff 16

expertise, resources and intent to inspect project construction and operation to ensure public safety 17

and code compliance. So the Commission simply cannot make a finding related to public safety. 18

Q. What are your concerns related to the safety of the general public and workers on 19

site? 20

A. In order to ensure public safety, it is imperative that the proposed Project comply strictly 21

with all applicable codes. 22


12

Q. How does the new Article 691 electric code impact construction and operation of 1

speculator built solar power plants and battery storage units. 2

A. High standards ensure the success of any industry. This could not be truer for the electrical 3

industry. And as I have said to colleagues, commissions, legislatures, university audiences, and 4

courts throughout my career, “electricity is safety.” I, as a code expert, do not believe these solar 5

plants can be built code compliant and safely. Work with me to inspect a few plants already in 6

service. You should open a safety investigation to make sure the system can fail safe, and that fault 7

current can be managed properly. It is too late when investigating a catastrophic event. Nobody 8

is looking because everyone thinks the developers are utilities. They are not! Non-utility 9

developers do not get the regulatory scrutiny that utility companies get. This is an illusion that 10

impacts public safety, listing requirements, federal OSHA laws, NEC and the NESC. The NEC 11

(Vol2) was drafted with the intent that governmental authorities exercising jurisdiction over 12

electrical installations could apply it. Additionally, it was drafted as a blueprint for insurance 13

inspectors. The NEC was “intended to be suitable for mandatory application,” subject only to 14

variances where it was “assured” that effective safety and maintenance procedures were in place. 15

On May 29, 1971, the U.S. federal government, through OSHA and the Assistant Secretary of 16

Labor, adopted “as national consensus standards” much of the National Electrical Code. Installing 17

millions of solar panels and associated equipment in possible violation of code makes everyone 18

involved culpable. As a Township, we oppose this kind of liability. The language OSHA used was 19

clear cut: “All electrical equipment and wiring shall conform to the requirements of the National 20

Electrical Code, NFPA 70-1971” (page 3431) – requirements OSHA called “necessary for safety” 21

(page 3432). OSHA also clarified that the NEC standards were meant to “safeguard any person 22

who is an employee of an employer” (page 3432) – thereby placing a duty on employers to comply 23


13

with the NEC. There is no gray area in any of this. The NEC is authoritative, indeed, a “mandatory 1

federal standard, binding under force of legal sanctions. 2

NEC is only acceptable when it is “approved”, which is defined as “acceptable to the authority 3

having jurisdiction. In my Township that is the Town Board. As an elected Township Chairman, 4

I must ensure the safety of all electrical work in this Township. I will require proper listing and 5

compliance with all codes related to the project. Inspections will be conducted and OSHA laws 6

followed. 7

Q. Does the NEC address large scale photovoltaic facilities? 8

A. Yes. Code language was formally added in 2017. The Scope is covered in NEC 691.1. By 9

definition, Electric Supply Stations containing the generating stations and substations, including 10

their associated generator, storage battery, transformer, and switchgear areas are covered. 11

Solar plants are generating stations. The code states in 691.2 that a plant wherein electric energy 12

is produced by conversion from some other form of energy (e.g., chemical, nuclear, solar, wind, 13

mechanical, or hydraulic) by means of suitable apparatus are generation facilities. 14

Q. Does the NEC provide direction for standards and industry best practices? 15

A. Yes. NEC 691.6 covers design criteria. Documentation of the electrical portion of the 16

engineered design of the electric supply station shall be stamped and provided upon request of the 17

AHJ. Additional stamped independent engineering reports detailing compliance of the design with 18

applicable electrical standards and industry practice shall be provided upon request of the AHJ. 19

The independent engineer shall be a licensed professional electrical engineer retained by the 20

system owner or installer. This documentation shall include details of conformance of the design 21

with Article 690, and any alternative methods to Article 690, or other articles of this Code. 22

Q. Is it your intention and duty to require compliance with NEC 691.6? 23


14

A. Absolutely. I fully expect the Commission to support my duty as Town Chair and join me 1

to ensure compliance. NEC 691.6 requires that a professional engineer report all aspects of the 2

design criteria. Large scale PV facilities installed and operated for the sole purpose of providing 3

electric supply to a system operated by a regulated utility for the transfer of electric energy must 4

be installed to the highest safety standards. There should not be disagreements about safety. NFPA 5

70 is a minimum standard that protects the public and electrical professionals as required by 6

OSHA. 7

Q. Does the NEC have other special requirements for projects like this? 8

A. NEC 691.4 covers Special Requirements for Large-Scale PV Electric Supply Stations. 9

Large-scale PV electric supply stations shall be accessible only to authorized personnel and 10

comply with: 11

• Electrical circuits and equipment shall be maintained and operated only by qualified 12

personnel. Informational Note: Refer to NFPA 70E-2018, Standard for Electrical Safety in 13

the Workplace, for electrical safety requirements. Access to PV electric supply stations 14

shall be restricted by fencing or other adequate means in accordance with 110.31. 15

• Field-applied hazard markings shall be applied in accordance with 110.21(B). 16

• The connection between the PV electric supply station and the system operated by a utility 17

for the transfer of electrical energy shall be through medium-or high voltage switch gear, 18

substation, switch yard, or similar methods whose sole purpose shall be to safely and 19

effectively interconnect the two systems. 20

• The electrical loads within the PV electric supply station shall only be used to power 21

auxiliary equipment for the generation of the PV power. 22

• Large-scale PV electric supply stations shall not be installed on buildings. 23


15

NEC 691.7 states that documentation that the construction of the electric supply station conforms 1

to the electrical engineered design shall be provided upon request of the AHJ. Additional stamped 2

independent engineering reports detailing the construction conforms with this Code, applicable 3

standards and industry practice shall be provided upon request of the AHJ. The independent 4

engineer shall be a licensed professional electrical engineer retained by the system owner or 5

installer. This documentation, where requested, shall be available before commercial operation of 6

the station. 7

NEC 691.10 covers Arc-Fault Mitigation. PV systems that do not comply with the requirements 8

of 690.11 shall include details of fire mitigation plans to address dc arc-faults in the documentation 9

required in 691.6. 10

NEC 691.11 requires Fence Bonding and Grounding. Fence grounding requirements and details 11

shall be included in the documentation required in 691.6. 12

NEC 250.194 for fence bonding and grounding will be strictly enforced to minimize step and touch 13

potential hazards. Again, all electrical equipment shall be approved for installation and be listed 14

and labeled. 15

Q. Please provide information about the unified safety issues of IEEE and the NFPA. 16

A. The NESC (Vol 1) is a code that deals, for the most part, with voltages above 600 V – and 17

often voltages significantly higher than that. Unlike the NEC (Vol2), the NESC is published by 18

the IEEE and updated every 5 years. Topics include transmission and distribution – power 19

substations, power and communication overhead lines, and power and communication 20

underground lines. The provisions of this code are considered necessary to protect the public and 21

utility workers “during the installation, operation, and maintenance of electrical/communication 22


16

supply lines and equipment employed by utilities such as public or private electric supply 1

companies.” 2

Q. It is well documented in this state that safety and reliability drive the public interest. 3

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin was the nation’s first state to regulate utilities. 4

Please provide the most significant safety risk associated with the ever-changing world of 5

regulation. 6

A. The Township and the Commission must ensure that no part of any equipment installed 7

from the solar panels to the batteries to the transmission system will be ungrounded or unbonded 8

at any time. The PSCW is the sole state agency with the authority to duly administer the NESC in 9

this state as it relates to the proposed Project. The electric code exists exclusively for safety 10

reasons. They are mandatory and have the force and effect of law. Electrical power systems have 11

been and always must be grounded to earth in Wisconsin. Grounding is the single most important 12

element of any electrical system in this nation, and it must be maintained in a way that, when the 13

system fails, it fails in such a manner as to be as safe as possible. A grounded electrical system 14

design is implicit for all transformations as a matter of minimum safety. For safety reasons, 15

Wisconsin has adopted a stricter interpretation of the NESC, imposing more stringent grounding 16

requirements than any other state. In Wisconsin, ungrounded systems are not allowed. One cannot 17

connect floating systems to the grid. Inverters and batteries must be solidly bonded and grounded. 18

In the event the Commission does not reserve enforcement authority, the Town will enforce all 19

standards and codes. 20

The rule that commercial and industrial power supply systems need to be 'grounded' has been a 21

universal industry standard for a very long time. For all electrical systems, the basis of this standard 22

has one fundamental theme:- that of safety - i.e., the protection of both humans and animals and 23


17

the prevention of fire by electrical causes. Electrical engineers and electricians usually understand 1

this concept well, but the general public may be confused as to why this is necessary and how it 2

came about. The prime reason for grounding is safety. 3

Since the distribution system in Wisconsin was established to serve this state was created as a 4

multigrounded network, code requires that it remain a multigrounded network in its entirety. The 5

Commission must mandate that the primary neutral and secondary grounding system will never be 6

floated or operated as ungrounded. 7

The only safe and reliable configuration for a system designed to deliver electric energy to in 8

Wisconsin is the multi-grounded distribution system. Again, grounding is the single most 9

important element of the electrical system in this nation, and it must be maintained for the sake of 10

safety for persons and animals in proximity to our electrical system. 11

It is critical to us that we agree that the overall grounding philosophy in both electrical codebooks 12

NEC and NESC is essentially the same. They are: (1) to ensure that through solid grounding 13

techniques the voltages to ground of the phase conductors are limited during normal operations, 14

(2) that line voltages are stabilized, and (3) that overvoltages due to causes such as lightning, 15

switching surges, static, accidental contact with higher voltage systems, line-to-ground faults, 16

resonant conditions, and restriking ground faults are minimized. 17

One can never guarantee that any electrical system will forever remain as intact and pristine as it 18

was upon installation. Physical objects deteriorate with age and adverse weather conditions, 19

accidents happen, and sometimes the electrical system can experience a fault. Effective grounding 20

has been purposely created by code authors, and by knowledgeable practitioners (electricians, 21

linemen, engineers, etc.), to provide a suitable fault current path so protective devices may operate 22

as intended. This affords us a reasonable level of safety from the consequences of that fault 23


18

condition. However, because the earth is physically resistive to some unknown degree in each 1

circumstance, this path through ground (as referenced below) cannot be relied upon as the sole 2

fault current path for safe electrical system operation. Other purposely installed components used 3

in conjunction with a well-grounded electrical system provide the complete measure of safety 4

required. By code, this fault current path must be permanent and electrically continuous, it must 5

be capable of safely carrying the maximum fault current likely to be imposed upon it, and it must 6

be of such low impedance that the operation of an overcurrent protective device (fuse, cutout or 7

breaker, e.g.) will surely occur when needed. The NESC states in Rule 215B5a: "Supply circuits 8

shall not be designated to use the earth normally as the sole conductor for any part of the circuit.” 9

I have firsthand experience with this important issue related to solar and battery systems. The 10

industry is attempting to bring lower cost and less safe equipment into this country to save money. 11

The only safe and reliable configuration for a system designed to deliver electric energy to 12

consumers in Wisconsin is the multi-grounded distribution system. The Commission needs to 13

understand clearly that these cheap systems are unsafe and the most dangerous code violations 14

imaginable. The Commission must ensure that no such violations happen in the Township; 15

however, it is my opinion that none of the solar plants approved and installed today in the State of 16

Wisconsin and elsewhere meet code. I have warned developers and utilities about these safety 17

hazards. They do not believe that the Commission will take the time to look. Solar is, to date, 18

unchallenged by the Commission, and the private companies know this. Moving forward with 19

these unknowns is irresponsible. Taking the word of those that stand to profit from the quick 20

installation of these power plants is a dangerous intention. Sending employees into these unknown 21

conditions violates law. 22


19

The Commission has a duty to make sure these plants are installed safely. They must be designed 1

to be fail safe and be inspected at every turn. For years, I was the only professional associated with 2

the Commission who could inspect both the secondary (customer) and the primary (utility), and I 3

do not believe anyone has been secured to perform this important work. Through testing, 4

inspection, certification, and validation of all types of products, the Commission achieves its 5

mission. Anything less is unthinkable. People and property are at serious risk. Line crews are 6

prohibited from connecting hazards to the system by Federal law. 7

In conclusion, NESC is a minimum safety standard. Regardless of "system" transformation, an 8

equipment grounding/grounded conductor (primary neutral conductor) must be installed with the 9

primary ungrounded phase (intentionally ungrounded) system conductors for reasons of safety. 10

This conductor may or may not be used as a current carrying grounded neutral, but it shall be 11

available, permanent, and electrically continuous. Ungrounded delta systems are prohibited. 12

Q. Can you further explain your overview of the less known rules of safety in this 13

country? 14

A. Properly trained electricians and electrical installers are well aware of Underwriters 15

Laboratories (UL), the nonprofit organization that runs the world’s largest and best-known 16

independent equipment and device testing laboratory. UL has always been committed to global 17

safety. custom-made electrical equipment needs to bear UL marks. NEC Article 110-2 deals with 18

this requirement. Analysis of that rule notes OSHA’s “strong insistence on” listing/labeling for 19

component parts of custom equipment. Further analysis states that “it seems to be a reasonable 20

conclusion from the whole rule itself that custom-equipment assemblies must make maximum use 21

of ‘listed,’ ‘labeled,’ or ‘certified’ components. The inverters and batteries that the non-utility 22

contractors will install fall under this category. 23


20

“Equipment” is ‘labeled’ if there is attached to it a label, symbol, or other identifying mark of a 1

nationally recognized testing laboratory which, (a) makes periodic inspections of the production 2

of such equipment, and (b) whose labeling indicates compliance with nationally recognized 3

standards or tests to determine safe use in a specified manner.” (Federal Register, Volume 37, 4

Number 32, Part I, page 3432.) The NEC is straightforward: “Listed or labeled equipment shall be 5

used or installed in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.” And 6

product rules that appear in UL literature “are, in effect, mandatory NEC requirements.” The 7

Commission should require inspection of all aspects of this proposed Project and any equipment 8

and assembly not fixed with an attached label should be prohibited. 9

Field modifications are “not acceptable unless such field modification is recognized by UL and 10

spelled out very carefully in the manufacturers’ literature and on the label of the equipment itself.” 11

Clearly the NEC, incorporated into federal law, forbids installers from performing any field 12

modifications to internal components of electrical equipment unless both (1) UL specifically 13

recognizes what the electrician is doing (in advance) and (2) there is support from the manufacturer 14

for this unusual practice. I have never seen both of these conditions met in my entire career. In 15

fact, one reason inspections of equipment is done, per the NEC, is to detect any alterations as part 16

of ensuring safety. (NEC Section 90-6 ) Trained professionals inspect to make sure alterations are 17

not done – they do not affirmatively alter the equipment. While UL does permit remanufacturing 18

of electrical equipment in some specific cases, this is not the same as “listing” the equipment. The 19

remanufactured product must be “classified.” Whoever remanufactures the product must be 20

certified by UL and also must perform field inspections to verify compliance to UL. This process 21

cannot be achieved by an installer performing a field modification. 22


21

UL explains the ban on field modification simply: like most things electrical, it is a matter of 1

safety. When an electrician or installer attempts to “repair” or “modify” listed equipment, UL no 2

longer knows if the product is as safe as it was when UL evaluated it. So unless UL itself comes 3

out and re-tests the modified equipment, UL will not vouch that the product continues to meet the 4

high standards UL is known for. It is almost never worth UL’s time to go out and redo costly 5

testing on equipment that – in plain language – has been tampered with. The usual course is to 6

void the listing. 7

If the UL listing is voided, all bets are off. This will lead to other consequences, namely loss of 8

manufacturers’ warranties and negative insurance consequences. And if the de-listed, improperly 9

field modified product malfunctions, worse possibilities are in store – loss of power (for example, 10

to hospitals keeping people alive with electrical devices), fire, shock, burns, electrocution, and 11

death. Thus, no reasonable installer should field modify electrical equipment. For the very same 12

reasons, contractors should not allow their employees to conduct field modifications – and no 13

sensible inspector or regulator should let field modifications go unreported. The consequences are 14

too dire and go against the core safety values of our profession. 15

The rule against field modification has yet another layer for electricians and installer whose work 16

takes them to a Class I or Class II Hazardous Location – a “Special Occupancy” as set apart and 17

defined in Chapter 5 of the NEC. Class II. In those locations’ switches, circuit breakers, motor 18

controllers, fuses, relays, and all other current-interrupting devices “shall be approved as a 19

complete assembly”. All equipment installed in Class II locations “shall be able to function at full 20

rating without developing surface temperatures high enough to cause excessive dehydration or 21

gradual carbonization of any organic dust deposits that may occur. From this code provision if a 22

full assembly (like a box with internal components) overheats or becomes carbonized, the product 23


22

would no longer be considered functional. The equipment thus would no longer be approved, and 1

it could not be listed – it would have to be replaced with a full “assembly” listed as described 2

above. Any field modification would once again be a code violation. Inverters and batteries will 3

fall under this code. Nobody is looking. Wishing for a safe installation or assuming safety 4

standards are implemented is negligence on the Commissions part. Codes are critical for safety 5

and cannot be ignored. 6

Q. Has mandatory stray voltage testing been routinely required by the PSCW, and 7

should it be mandated here? 8

A. Yes. Before and after testing with reporting to the Town and the PSCW for review must be 9

mandatory. Annual testing if requested by the landowners, farmers or the township needs to be 10

part of the directive. Any mitigation allowed by rule and law as required and approved by the 11

township must be included. Damage recovery must be available from the contractor for the life of 12

the facility. 13

Q. What testing method must be required pre and post construction? 14

A. The Phase II protocol was developed to provide stray voltage investigators with a tool to 15

collect a reasonable set of data useful in the analysis of the quantity and “quality” of stray voltage 16

that may be present under a variety of conditions, and the source of such stray voltage. Utilities 17

in this state understand this test method is required in Wisconsin and will be applied to all stray 18

voltage inquiries. 19

Q. Will solar increase flicker problems in our community? 20

A. Yes. Power quality issues are a real concern with solar plants. The Commission must adjust 21

its oversight of utilities according to the level of new problems created by emerging technology. 22

Large scale solar plants are untested, and the problems created by their installation is an ambiguity. 23


23

Q. The dominant source of all or virtually all non-periodic 3 kilohertz [kHz] to 30 kHz 1

signals is lightning. Are you concerned about introduction of lightning strikes in the area 2

from solar plants? 3

A. Yes. Globally, lightning is the most common source of non-periodic signals on earth. 4

Lightning occurs on average more than 50 times per second globally. Signals from lightning travel 5

great distances such that they can be received at distances of more than 6,200 miles (10,000 6

kilometers [km]) away from their origin. Radiated lightning caused signals propagate in an 7

electromagnetic waveguide that is formed between the earth and the ionosphere. These radiated 8

signals induce a voltage in all conductors including solar plants. The voltage of these signal will 9

depend on the energy, location, and characteristics of the causative lightning stroke and on the 10

size, orientation, composition, and other characteristics of the conductor and its grounding 11

characteristics. In general, a larger receiving conductor (or equivalently a longer triggering metal 12

conductor) will result in a larger recorded lightening voltage. Again, inspection and strict 13

compliance with codes is the only security measure we have. 14

Q. Should there be a requirement for fiber optics between inverters to ensure fast and 15

reliable operations of the system? 16

A. Yes. Cellular is not acceptable. It is imperative that a high degree of emphasis on controls 17

and instrumentation for the solar plant and battery systems is employed. In this Township ,we 18

understand that getting clear, accurate data in a timely manner is critical to managing automated 19

systems. A SCADA system designed and implemented properly will provide advanced 20

visualization and data monitoring, from multiple systems and components. The Commission must 21

require to the Applicant to log site data to compare what happened yesterday, last month, and last 22


24

year. and to provide the Township this data when requested. Industry standard data must be at 1 1

second intervals. This data cannot be over written and must be kept for 7 years. 2

Q. Are the proposed battery systems a fire risk? 3

A. Yes. I serve on the area Fire Commission as an officer. It is our expectation that the PSCW 4

will order the Applicant to provide whatever is needed to ensure that our community will have the 5

tools we need to battle fire risk and firefighter safety. 6

Q. Should the Commission require an independent consultant to set a neutral to earth 7

voltage (NEV) standard at pre-construction levels. 8

A. Yes. Zero tolerance for NEV increases will be tolerated. Pre-testing cost by Invenergy, 9

testing design a township approved consultant. This includes all solar equipment and transmission. 10

Cost of mitigation must be borne by Invenergy. The method of mitigation should require approval 11

by the Town. 12

Q. What are your concerns related to reliability of the proposed Project? 13

A. The grid’s ability to maintain stable operation is adversely impacted, primarily when 14

renewable resources are clustered in one region of the transmission system. As inverter-based 15

resources displace conventional generators, the grid loses the stability contributions of physically 16

spinning conventional units. A combination of multiple technologies — such as high-voltage direct 17

current (HVDC) lines, synchronous condensers, motor-generator sets and emerging technology 18

such as grid-forming inverters — are needed to provide support, along with operational and market 19

changes to identify and react to this risk as it occurs. Solar regulation has leap frogged actual 20

experience with impacts on the grid from introduction of this technology, therefore more stringent 21

scrutiny and safeguards should be mandated until additional work is performed. 22


25

Additional work is needed to transform the way MISO and the power system are planned and 1

operated to continue to maximize reliability and value creation across the region in a high 2

renewable system. RIIA has shown that while there are challenges, the MISO region can achieve 3

renewable penetration of at least 50% with transformational change and coordinated action 4

amongst all participants.1 5

6

“In 2019, the governor signed an executive order that established a state Office of Sustainability 7

and Clean Energy and set a goal that all electricity consumed in the state be 100% carbon-free by 8

2050.” 9

10

…and there is substantial cause for concern. At what point will we (or have we) reach(ed) that 11

50% point mentioned in the MISO report and where is the assurance that the “transformational 12

change and coordinated action” is on pace to ensure the stability of Wisconsin’s electric power 13

system. While the transition to green power is generally accepted as the proper direction to 14

proceed, is the pace too aggressive in terms of the power grid reliability and stability? 15

16

The flexibility of renewable resources to support the reactive power requirements in the network 17

is not adequate. Stop and think. 18

Q. Based upon your review, do you have an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of 19

certainty in your profession as to whether the proposed Project poses an unreasonable safety 20

risk to the general public and to workers? 21

1 …and this statement in the recently published Wisconsin State Energy Profile:


26

A. Yes. It is my opinion based upon what has been filed with the Commission in this docket 1

to this point that the proposed Project poses an unreasonable safety risk to the general public and 2

to workers. 3

Q. Do you have concerns related to economic factors under Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3.? 4

A. Property other than agricultural land is valued according to the principle of "highest and 5

best use," or the use that will produce the greatest net return to the property owner over a reasonable 6

period. This means that properties are valued with respect both to their current use and to other 7

possible uses. A 1974 amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution permits agricultural property to 8

be valued differently, and a 1995 law change requires that agricultural land shall be assessed 9

according to the income that could be generated from its rental for agricultural use." [s. 10

70.32(2r)(c), Wisconsin Statutes] Why would we allow property tax relief to Utilities or out of 11

State Solar Power Plant Speculator's? 12

Wisconsin Law has been effective in providing needed property tax relief for agriculture land used 13

for growing crops for several years. Utilities do not need tax relief. Solar Contractors do not need 14

tax relief. They should not benefit from this rural property tax relief even if the law allows it. The 15

law is a minimum standard and utilities can always do more. This large-scale solar power plant 16

should fund our schools, not hide from the duty. 17

Property tax exemptions are based on a theory of mutual consideration: the public relieves an 18

organization of its property tax burden when it provides a public benefit. (noting that, generally, 19

organizations are relieved of their tax burden when they “provide a benefit to the taxpaying 20

community”).” How does that apply to us? Where is the benefit to our schools? These solar plants 21

are taking away our culture and there is no benefit in that. Public benefit and solar don’t go 22


27

together. Residents of my Township have not paid Town taxes in 15 years so no benefit to the 1

taxpaying community. Tax exemption is off target in this Township. 2

Q. If approved, would the proposed Project comply with Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)6. and 3

not unreasonably interfere with the orderly land use and development plans for the Town? 4

A. The proposed Project directly conflicts with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan (see -5

Koshkonong Solar-Application Appendix I: Town of Christiana Comprehensive Plan) While the 6

Plan was adopted in 2010, the Town is currently updating and readopting the Plan in substantially 7

the same form (the community vision has not changed in the past decade).and is not intent now to 8

revise or deviate from this Plan. 9

Q. Why is the proposed Project in direct conflict with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan? 10

A. The proposed Project will be located within 4,600 acres of land either leased by 11

Koshkonong Solar or are under Purchase Option within a 6,384-acre area. Thus, there will between 12

7.2 to 10 square miles of industrial utility power plant displacing prime agricultural lands, the vast 13

majority within the Town of Christiana. It cannot rationally be argued that an industrial utility 14

power plant is the same as agricultural use. Indeed, it is completely eliminating agricultural use 15

for decades – it is the inapposite. The Town of Christiana comprises about 35.5 square miles and 16

has within it the RockGen Energy Center, a 460-megawatt natural gas fired peaking power plant 17

located on about 20 acres. In addition, more than our share of the Town is dedicated to electrical 18

transmission lines. Thus, if this proposed project is approved, the entire Town of Christiana would 19

be tied directly to utility use – something never contemplated under Town zoning and totally 20

unconscionable. It is patently unfair to completely obliterate a Town with such massive elimination 21

of agricultural land when Town planning is almost exclusively focused on preservation of 22

exclusive agricultural use. 23


28

Q. Isn’t it true that the Wisconsin Supreme Court carefully reviewed the Wisconsin laws 1

that define “agricultural land” and “agricultural use. 2

A. Yes. The Court determined that the statutes were clear. Under Wis. Stat. § 70.32(2)(c)1g. 3

“agricultural land” means “land, exclusive of buildings and improvements and the land necessary 4

for their location and convenience, that is devoted primarily to agricultural use.” The Court 5

reviewed several statutes and tax code regulations regarding the definition of “agricultural use.” 6

What none of the statutes or tax code regulations require is the marketing, selling, or profiting 7

from growing crops. All that is required under the statutes and tax code regulations is the growing 8

of the relevant crops. Does poorly written, unfair legislation trump the court? Electricity is not a 9

crop. 10

Q. Understanding what qualifies as “agricultural land” is important when alternatives 11

like the proposed Photovoltaic Power Station classification should create a significantly 12

higher property tax. What is your opinion on this import policy matter? 13

A. Since 2000, agricultural land has been valued solely based on its use in farming under use 14

value assessment provisions. Clearly, Solar Contractors are not farmers, Utilities are not farmers, 15

solar is not a crop, electricity is not a crop, farmers are not utility companies. Invenergy is not a 16

utility. Solar will produce the greatest net return to the property, taking 3000 acres and making it 17

unusable for any other purpose. 18

Q. Isn’t it true that our options for growth is significantly interrupted by this proposal? 19

A. Yes. Understand that while the primary goals of the Town of Christiana Land Use Plan are 20

to preserve productive farmlands, the rural lifestyle and agricultural business character of the 21

Town, and to protect farm operations from conflict with incompatible land uses, non-farm 22

commercial uses are discouraged in the town, except in the Highway 12/18 corridor within 1.5 23


29

miles of the Village of Cambridge western boundary. Conditional zoning approval would ensure 1

that any commercial use fits with the rural character of the town. Such conditional approval may 2

include, but is not limited to, deed restrictions limiting the range of permitted uses, hours of 3

operation, or Chapter 8: Land Use 42 design considerations, along with prohibitions against 4

additional division of land or ownership. All parties must preserve the Highway 12/18 corridor so 5

Cambridge can grow towards Madison. 6

Q. If this proposed solar facility is built on agricultural land, will it eliminating 7

livelihoods, and reducing local food production? 8

A. This land-use change is scary and is stirring tensions in our rural community. Farmers who 9

rent land will find themselves in competition with solar energy. This project will change food 10

production for decades. Wisconsin lost 638 dairy farms last year. We believe that large scale solar 11

plants drive dairy farms out of business. Crop land used to feed the animals is lost, places to spread 12

waste is gone. These are undeniable facts. 13

Q. Much of your testimony is based on safety and design. Do you have any other non-14

technical issues you would like to address more major issue, what would they be? 15

A. I am concerned about impacts on our school district. Solar projects like this kill area 16

growth. Schools need revenue not tied to enrollment. Declining enrollment will be inevitable. The 17

economics of operating a school district is not scalable in the sense that there is a baseline cost that 18

must be met – State revenue is tied to enrollment and losing students due to elimination of growth 19

and folks leaving the area combined with loss of tax revenue associated with conversion to utility 20

use will have a devastating impact on our schools. 21

This questionable rush for solar is leading us to uninformed, dangerous decision making. We need 22

to slow down and stop listening to developers. Employers are responsible for employee safety. 23


30

The Commission is responsible for everything else. Unions should forbid skilled labor from 1

working on this system until we better understand the environment, we are sending them into. 2

Code is a minimum safety standard. 3

Rural landowners’ rights are not absolute, for with ownership go certain responsibilities, such as 4

paying taxes, being liable for suits brought against the property, and abiding by the laws of the 5

land. If these laws include zoning laws, building codes, and environmental protection laws, you 6

will find that your rights to use and irreversible changes are not unlimited. The people have a say 7

in the zoning and taxes. 8

Legitimate interests need to be included in this approach. If we are to address all the concerns 9

appropriate for a community agriculture culture, the Commission needs to recognize that the 10

immediate users of the land, the local community, the environmental community, future 11

generations, and all stake holders have legitimate interests. 12

Q. Does this conclude your testimony? 13

A. Yes. 14

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN

Documents

Transcript of BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN