Resource Documents: U.S. (149 items)

RSSU.S.

Unless indicated otherwise, documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are shared here to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate. • The copyrights reside with the sources indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations.

Date added: January 14, 2020
Aesthetics, Economics, Environment, General, Property values, Siting, Technology, U.S., Wildlife •

Renewables, land use, and local opposition in the United States

Author: Gross, Samantha; and Brookings Institution

Decreasing greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector is crucial to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. The American public overwhelmingly favors renewable power, and the costs of wind and solar power have declined rapidly in recent years. However, inherent attributes of wind and solar generation make conflicts over land use and project siting more likely. Power plants and transmission lines will be located in areas not accustomed to industrial development, potentially creating opposition.

Wind and solar generation require at least 10 times as much land per unit of power produced than coal- or natural gas-fired power plants, including land disturbed to produce and transport the fossil fuels. Additionally, wind and solar generation are located where the resource availability is best instead of where is most convenient for people and infrastructure, since their “fuel” can’t be transported like fossil fuels. Siting of wind facilities is especially challenging. Modern wind turbines are huge; most new turbines being installed in the United States today are the height of a 35-story building. Wind resources are best in open plains and on ridgetops, locations where the turbines can be seen for long distances.

Even though people like wind and solar power in the abstract, some object to large projects near their homes, especially if they don’t financially benefit from the project. Transmission for renewable power can also be unpopular, and even more difficult to site when the power is just passing through an area, rather than directly benefiting local residents. This is an issue today building transmission to move wind power from the Great Plains and Upper Midwest states to cities in the east.

Technological and policy solutions can lessen the land use impact of renewable power and the resulting public opposition. Offshore wind eliminates land use, but it raises opposition among those concerned with the impact on the environment and scenic views. Building on previously disturbed land and combining renewable power with other land uses, like agriculture or building solar on rooftops, can minimize land use conflicts. Community involvement in project planning and regulations for land use and zoning can help to alleviate concerns. Nevertheless, there is no perfect way to produce electricity on an industrial scale. Policymakers must recognize these challenges and face them head-on as the nation transitions to a lower-carbon energy system.

Download original document: “Renewables, land use, and local opposition in the United States”

Date added: November 17, 2019
Economics, Law, Ohio, U.S. •

Wind leasing: an all or none proposition

Author: Thompson, Gene

[Editor’s note: The doctrine of correlative rights limits use of a common groundwater source to a share in proportion to the landowner’s property above it. Many states apply the doctrine to oil and gas fields as well. Gene Thompson argues here that it should also be applied to the extraction of wind power.]

Producing energy for everyday use has been a necessity for a long time. Oil Exploration and Production companies (E&Ps) have been at it for over 150 years. Wind farm companies have been at it for around 20 years. There are some regulations and laws still in the making that will guide both industries as they become more sophisticated and thus more productive. However, as of today, there is at least one big difference in the way the that the two industries operate. Unlike the wind industry, the oil companies are mandated to follow the doctrine of correlative rights. The wind companies are not.

The process of building a large oil drilling unit is very different than building a wind farm. When the oil company begins, they must gather leases, analyze plat maps, and then determine the best chances of finding a group of adjoining properties with a high percentage of neighbors that want to be part of the drilling unit. Before production can begin, the unit will need to contain 100% leased land. If not, the E&P must either reshape, relocate the unit boundaries or attempt to negotiate with any remaining unleased landowners. Sometimes it doesn’t work out and the holdouts are left outside the production zone. Essentially, the E&P sand the government legislators have both come to realize that not everyone wants to participate in a large-scale unitized drilling unit. When 50 to 100 landowners are asked to come together and cooperate with the development of a unit, it is inevitable that some landowners will hold out for varying reasons. More money, environmental concerns, and loss of peaceable enjoyment of the land are a few of the reasons. However, there are some instances where unleased, yet essential, land can be force pooled. That is a process wherein a landowner is forced to accept their just and equitable share of production. Additionally, prior to any force pooling, the holdout will have many opportunities to lease with competitors. This drives competition and is a win for the landowner. Ultimately, the State and E&P reserve the option to utilize rules of capture (correlative rights) and force pooling to bring the unit to completion. All states recognize that capturing our natural resources is for the greater good and is essential. Our laws consider it unfair for one unwilling landowner to have control over natural resource production that will ultimately benefit our society. And so, the majority claims correlative rights. Conversely, 95% of wind farm owners have zero correlative rights. Additionally, wind farm residents have no force pooling rules.

With that in mind, it is important to note that If the residents of a proposed area of development are heavily divided on oil production, the towel gets thrown in early on and the oil company keeps looking for clusters of landowners that want to participate. Lands that are chosen for development must pass EPA surveys and observe established rules for the industry. As a unit nears completion, the correlative rights doctrine comes into play as a tool to guarantee the rights of the majority. Generally, when landowners become informed of their rights and the value of their resources, development gets much easier. Better informed people are more willing to sign leases and participate in the production of oil. That is yet another difference between wind and oil production. Although similar, both industries encumber large clusters of acreage to capture a resource. Unfairly, yet with the government’s blessing, the wind industry pays disproportionately to very few. The oil industry pays proportionately to all.

The success of energy development either succeeds or fails depending how the rules are applied. In Ohio, wind energy is getting tremendous opposition because the industry is held to an entirely different set of standards. Perhaps that has something to do with legislators that do not have enough experience to understand the old drilling rules (150 years in the making) versus the relatively new rules for wind (20 years in the making). It’s no secret that noncompensated landowners in wind farms feel cheated and bullied. The absence of correlative rights for wind farm members is extraordinary.

Comparing wind to oil, the rules for wind farms dictate that profit be paid only to turbine hosts, and the majority of landowners will receive not one nickel. The majority will never be able to sign a lease with a competitor. They will never have a “cash-generating turbine” on their land. The only sharing aspect for wind farm inclusion is that the majority will share equally the burden of any ill effects. Their right to capture is worthless and is totally lost. The noncompensated wind farm resident has no voice as the state conveys our tax dollars to the wind company for support along with the exclusive right to capture. Hence, thousands of acres become stranded from any future production as one company monopolizes the production zone with the blessing of ill-informed or misguided state regulators. Consider this: If every person that lies within the bounds of a wind farm wanted to build their own industrial turbine, they could not because of setback rules. In contrast, the government would never consider allowing an oil company an exclusive right to drill and to then pay only to the landowner that hosts the wellhead. The wind turbine host enjoys that exact scenario to their exclusive benefit. If legislators can see fit to ensure fairness to every landowner that is encumbered in an oil drilling unit, then why not have similar protective rules for the wind farms?

The rule for force pooling in the oil industry wasn’t created until 1965, after 100+ years of drilling. After years of abuse and inappropriate interpretation, public awareness worked to drive a change. Since we now live in the information age, it shouldn’t take us 100 years to wise up to the wind companies. Our legislators must be aware of the inconsistent rules for energy production. The rules for wind farms need to be updated to keep pace with the changes in technology and rapid development. If the wind industry and our government expect landowners to go green and buy into the turbine idea, then they both need to take a lesson from the rules set forth in the oil industry and then consider the upside of sharing the profit fairly.

Gene Thompson
Tiffin, Ohio

Date added: November 15, 2019
Aesthetics, California, Impacts •

Letter from City of Rio Dell to County of Humboldt Planning Commission in opposition to wind energy project

Author: City of Rio Dell, Calif.

The City of Rio Dell is writing in response to the Humboldt Wind Energy Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed project. As you know the project is proposed to be located immediately south and southwest of the City and the Town of Scotia on Monument and Bear River Ridges.

As stated in our letter dated June 5, 2019, a copy attached hereto, regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), the City supports alternative renewable energy, including wind energy. However, as documented in the FEIR, the proposed location will result in a number of unavoidable and significant impacts, obviously including visual impacts. These iron giants will dominate the visual landscape of the entire region, including the communities of Rio Dell, Scotia, Fortuna, the Eel River valley and the entire north coast. Some believe these iron giants will be seen from as far away as Trinidad, Kneeland, Fickle Hill, Bridgeville and even Black Lassic in Trinity County.

Humboldt County hosts one of the most beautiful landscapes in the State, if not the entire Country. Millions of travelers from all over the world come to Humboldt County each year to enjoy its scenic qualities, redwoods, rivers and beaches. The forested ridge tops, open meadows and the Scotia‐Rio Dell bluffs surrounding Rio Dell create a visually stunning landscape. These views are represented on the Rio Dell city seal. If the Planning Commission and/or the Board of Supervisors approves this project, residents and visitors alike will ask “Why did you allow this project at this location?”

Many residents choose to live in Rio Dell and in fact Humboldt County due to its outstanding visual surroundings. The project if approved and built will have a dramatic adverse change not only to the City’s surroundings, but to the entire region. The City believes the project will impact current and potentially future residents desire to live in Rio Dell, Scotia, Fortuna, Loleta and surrounding areas, materially affecting property values in the City. It’s very likely that the increase property taxes from the Humboldt Wind project will be offset by the decreased property values in the surrounding areas.

In addition, to the visual impacts, the FEIR concludes that the project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to:

Air Quality
Biological Resources, including Marbled Murrelets and Raptors
Cultural Resources, including Tribal Cultural Resources

The City still has a number of other concerns associated with the proposed project, including timberland conversion, increased fire danger, significant amounts of grading, erosion, geologic stability and sediment discharges into the Eel River. The City’s primary water source (an infiltration gallery) is just a couple miles downstream from the project site.

The applicant is requesting and the FEIR supports earth moving activities during the winter months. The City believes this is reckless and irresponsible given the significant amount of required grading, the erosion hazard ratings of the soils and the geologic instability of the area. The sediment discharge into to the creeks and rivers will be significant even with wet‐weather Beast Management Practices (BMP’s). The City is not aware that the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Order No. 97‐03‐DWQ, “Waste Discharge Requirements” (WDRs).

The City continues to have concerns regarding the use of local roads to access the site. Although the FEIR states that heavy truck and equipment traffic would be restricted from using City roads, without seeing the recommended Conditions of Approval or the required Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), it’s all but impossible for the City to understand how this will be enforced. There is no consideration of Monument Road as an alternate and emergency access should the Jordan Creek road experience closures. There is no mention of these towers attracting visitors. Traffic would have to go through the City to get to Monument Road.

In regards to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), the City is disappointed that it was not included in the FEIR as required by Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. Without this important component of the FEIR, it is very difficult if not impossible for the City, the public and decision makers to determine how effective the proposed Mitigation Measures will be. It should be noted that the agreement between the County and Environmental Consultant AECOM, clearly states (Board Item C‐20, June 19, 2018, page 34) that the required MMRP would be included in the FEIR.

The County’s consultant (AECOM) informed the County as part of their proposal that “Because the project may result in impacts to federally and state listed‐bird species, such as the marbled murrelet, and the northern spotted owl, the project will (emphasis added) require an Endangered Species Act (ESA) incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Endangered Species Act, Section 2080.1 concurrence or Section 2081 permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFWS).” AECOM further states that a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) would be required as well. See Board Item C‐20, June 19, 2018, page 19. To date, the City and the rest of the community is not aware of the apparently required Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that the County’s environmental consultant told them was required over a year ago.

The City still believes the project is being fast‐tracked at the community’s expense in favor of big business. A prime example is the fact that the FEIR was released on November 4th and the Planning Commission will hold its first meeting on November 7th. The FEIR contains almost 900 pages not including the almost 6,000 pages of comments and associated reference materials that were submitted in response to the DEIR. It is unfathomable that the public and the decision makers have four days to review the document before the Planning Commission meeting.

The City supports the concerns and the opposition of the project expressed by a number of State and Federal Agencies, organizations and thousands of Humboldt County residents. Below is a list of some of those agencies and organizations:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California State Lands Commission
Wiyot Tribe
Redwood Region Audubon Society
North Coast Environmental Center
California Native Plant Society
Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club
North Coast Bat Working Group
The Lost Cost League
Marbled Murrelet Friends
Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters
U.S. Department of the Interior
California Department of Conservation
California Coastal Commission
Yurok Tribe
Environmental Protection Information Center
Friends of the Eel River
California Native Plant Society
American Bird Conservancy
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics
Siskiyou Land Conservancy
Defenders of Wildlife
The Wildlife Society

Required CUP Findings

Pursuant to Section 312‐17 et. seq. of the Humboldt County Zoning Regulations in order to approve the project, the Planning Commission must find:

The proposed development and conditions under which it may be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. [emphasis added]

Obviously, the City believes this finding cannot be made. It’s very clear to this City Council that there is no doubt that the proposed project, if approved, will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and will be materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity. The increased fire danger, biological impacts, sediment discharge and visual impacts are all detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare to our communities, residents and environment.

In addition, the project will affect property values, having a direct and substantial impact on the materially wellbeing of the City of Rio Dell. According to a September 2015 article, “Do Wind Turbines Lower Property Values?” in Forbes Magazine, it’s “clear that wind power DOES impact property values”. The article refers to a long list of other articles, studies and court cases documenting how wind power does affect property values. A copy was provided in the City’s June 5, 2019 comments on the DEIR.

In addition the Commission must also make the following Supplemental Findings:

Agricultural Use; §312‐18.1.1: The proposed use will not impair the continued agricultural use on the subject property or on adjacent lands or the economic viability of agricultural operations on the site.

Timber Use; § 312‐21.1.1: The proposed use will not significantly detract from, or inhibit the growing and harvesting of timber on the site or on adjacent properties.

The proposed project will in fact impair the agricultural use of the properties. Each turbine will have a graded 350’ x 350’ pad (2.8 acres). It is assumed these graded pads will be fenced‐ off for security purposes. The will result in the loss of 132+/− acres of grazing land.

The proposed project will in fact inhibit the growing and harvesting on timber. Tree removal associated with the widening of the access roads and transmission line will inhibit (eliminate) the growing and harvesting of timber.

Another supplemental finding that applies in the Coastal Zone and not the inland areas of the County should be applied County wide. See below:

Wind Electrical Generating Facilities; §312‐31.3.1: The facility will have no significant adverse impact on sensitive habitat resources.

There is no opportunity for the adoption of a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the required findings.

Should the project be approved, the City is concerned regarding the removal of the WTGs after the projects life (30+/− years). Apparently the removal of WTGs has been an issue in a number of communities throughout the Country and in fact the world. The City recommends, if the project or one of its alternatives is approved that a Performance Bond be required to ensure the visual blight (WTGs), the foundations, transmission facilities are removed and the natural contours restored.

For the reasons discussed herein the City of Rio Dell officially opposes the proposed Humboldt Wind Energy project and recommends the “No Project” alternative.

Sincerely,
~~~
Debra Garnes
Mayor
City of Rio Dell
November 12, 2019

To:
Robert Morris
Chairperson
County of Humboldt Planning Commission
Eureka, California

Subject:
Humboldt Wind Energy Project
Case No. PLN‐13999
Environmental Impact Report; SCH 2018072076

Copy:
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
Humboldt Redwood Company
Russ Ranch and Timber Company

Download original document: “Letter from City of Rio Dell to County of Humboldt Planning Commission in opposition to wind energy project”

Date added: November 14, 2019
Safety, U.S. •

Wind Farms and Public Use Airports – Why the FAA Fails to Ensure Air Safety

Author: Armstrong, Alan

The explosion of wind turbine developments across the United States does not bode well for the continued viability of many public use airports.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM

Increasingly, wind farms with wind turbine generators (WTGs) nearly 500 feet above ground level litter the landscape. However, the disturbing reality is that these wind farms are being built in close physical proximity to public use airports. Because of their height and their interference with radar sites used by air traffic control and interference with normal traffic flow patterns, the construction of wind farms near public use airports is an existential threat to those airports. The erection of wind turbine generators near public use airports invariably leads to the following:

Interference with radar used to provide radar services to pilots operating aircraft in and out of the airport with “clutter” and other signal disturbances having an adverse impact on the ability of air traffic control to provide services to pilots;

Alterations of the traffic flow for VFR traffic operating in and out of the airport resulting in a “bottle neck” of traffic flow with a concomitant loss of separation between aircraft and the WTGs and aircraft and other aircraft;

Penetrations of “imaginary surfaces” designed to assure pilots operating aircraft separation from fixed objects such as WTGs and antennae that may present collision hazards in low visibility conditions;

An increase in the climb gradient for aircraft departing the airport in an effort to prevent departing aircraft from impacting the WTGs; and

An increase in the minimum descent altitudes and/or decision heights at which pilots may operate their aircraft when conducting instrument approach procedures into the airport.

The net result of these adverse effects is to make the airport a less safe and efficient destination whether for flight training purposes, refueling, or remaining overnight. Consequently, pilots, based upon their interest in self-preservation and the desire to avoid being impaled in the blades of a wind turbine generator, will select airports other than airports surrounded by wind turbine generators for fuel stops, remaining overnight, and for flight training purposes.

Although the airport sponsor has an obligation under FAA Sponsor Grant Assurance No. 20 to keep the approaches and departures from the airport safe and clear of obstructions, the reality is that the FAA Obstacle Evaluation Group overrides those concerns and invariably rules in favor of the wind farm developer by issuing a Determination of No Hazard (DNH). In the DNH, the FAA will concede that the wind turbine generators interfere with radar, elevate the minimum descent altitudes, require increased climb gradients, and the host of other problems, but will still conclude there are no “adverse consequences” to the erection of wind turbine generators in close physical proximity to a public use airport. This simply is a reality. The FAA Obstacle Evaluation Group invariably finds in favor of the developer and demonstrates no interest in protecting the safety of the airport, even though the airport sponsor has promised the FAA Airports Division to keep the airport safe and free of obstructions.

HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED

The developer of a wind farm is required to file with the FAA a Form 7460-1 if the wind farm will be built in the vicinity of a public use airport. Generally, in response to the filing of the form, the FAA renders a Notice of Presumed Hazard (NPH). The NPH catalogs all the problems the erection of the wind farm will present to the airport such as increasing the climb gradients, increasing the minimum descent altitudes, adverse impact on radar facilities employed by air traffic control in providing radar services to pilots operating to and from the airport, and a host of other problems that are presented by the erection of WTGs in the vicinity of the airport. However, the Obstacle Evaluation Group of the FAA invariably states in the NPH that a different result might be achieved if an aeronautical study were conducted. An aeronautical study is conducted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §44718, 14 C.F.R. §77.29, and FAA Order JO 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters (“the Handbook”). The aeronautical study is supposed to consider the impact on arriving and departing IFR and VFR flights, the impact on the public use airport, the impact on traffic capacity at the airport or planned airports, the impact on the minimum obstacle clearance altitudes, the minimum flight instrument rules altitudes, the impact on approved or planned instrument approach procedures and departure procedures, the potential effect on ATC radar including the physical or electromagnetic effects on air navigation facilities, and the cumulative effect of the wind turbine generators when combined with the effects of other existing or proposed structures.

While there are clear, engineering and scientific principles in determining whether structures are obstructions to air navigation, those clear, empirical considerations vanish with the execution of an aeronautical study which gives the person conducting the study the latitude to determine whether or not obstructions to air navigation that penetrate imaginary surfaces have an “adverse effect” on safety. While the FAA pretends in the Handbook that its primary objective is to ensure safety in air navigation, in reality its primary goal is to enable developers of wind turbine generators and others who create obstructions to air navigation to put their structures in place. In fact, the conciliatory nature with which the Obstacle Evaluation Group views penetrations to imaginary surfaces is borne out by the fact that it seeks to resolve the issues through “negotiations” with the sponsor. Why is this? The answer is simple. The FAA does not want to spend its precious resources fighting with developers of wind turbine generators. That economic burden falls on the city or county that owns the airport or on public interest groups that seek to preserve and protect the airport. That is of no concern to the FAA. Moreover, while the airport sponsor must keep the approaches and departure surfaces of the airport safe and free of obstructions to comply with the Sponsor Grant Assurances, the Obstacle Evaluation Group frequently frustrates those obligations and responsibilities of the airport sponsor.

It is troubling that the FAA views itself as an enabler of developers who seek to construct wind turbine generators. However, this is a reality. Moreover, time and time again, the FAA has been reversed because it has demonstrated it does not understand its own Handbook. This is precisely what happened in Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts v. Federal Aviation Administration, 659 F.3d 28, 36 (D.C. Cir. 2011) where the FAA was reversed and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia declared:

The FAA repeatedly notes in its brief that the Handbook “largely consists of criteria rather than rules to follow.” Respondent’s Br. at 40. We agree. Any sensible reading of the Handbook, and of §6-3-8(c)(1) in particular, would indicate there is more than one way in which the wind farm can pose a hazard to VFR operations. Indeed, other sections of the Handbook, especially when read in light of some of the evidence noted above, suggest that the project may very well be such a hazard. Here, by abandoning its own established procedure, see D&F Alfonso Realty Trust v. Garvey, 216 F.3d 1191, 1197 (D.C. Cir. 2000), the FAA catapulted over the real issues and the analytical work required by its Handbook.

659 F.3d at 36.

THE STATE COURT OPTION

The laws in the various jurisdictions vary. In some states, if the FAA issues a determination of no hazard, the state officials rubber-stamp the FAA determination and issue a permit to erect the wind turbine generators. Further, in some states, there are local airport authorities with airport zoning rules, and until and unless the wind turbine generator developer obtains a determination of no hazard, a variance from the zoning ordinances cannot be obtained. On the other hand, in the State of Iowa, even though there is a determination of no hazard, the local airport zoning board can preclude the erection of an obstruction in navigable airspace, a fact borne out by the decision of the Supreme Court of Iowa In the Carroll Airport Commission v. Danner, 927 N.W.2d 635 (IA 2019). The Iowa Supreme Court reasoned that the FAA airspace regulations do not occupy the field to such an extent that the field is preempted by FAA regulations and further concluded that regulating navigable airspace is a joint endeavor between the FAA and state government.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The explosion of wind turbine developments across the United States does not bode well for the continued viability of many public use airports. The operators of those airports are going to have to appreciate the legal and regulatory milieu in which they find themselves and garner the resources to combat the proliferation of wind turbine generators in and around their airports. Otherwise, their airports may face extinction.

Alan Armstrong
Oct 17, 2019
alanarmstronglaw.com

Earlier Documents »

Click here to send in ordinances, contracts, research, testimony, presentations, etc.
Or see Contact page for more anonymous options.