[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

when your community is targeted


RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Wind farm doesn’t have to follow setback rules 

Credit:  Article by: JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY , Star Tribune | www.startribune.com 25 June 2012 ~~

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Monday that a controversial wind farm proposed for Goodhue County does not have to abide by setback rules established by county commissioners because state regulators had good cause to disregard them when it granted a permit for the project.

The appeal was filed by a group of citizens who have been fighting the 50-turbine energy project for two years, arguing that noise and “shadow flicker” from the 400-foot high turbines could harm the health of nearby residents.

In its decision, the appeals court said that state law requires the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to accept county ordinances – unless the commission has good cause not to apply them.

In this case, the county wanted the company, AWA Goodhue Wind, to put the towers at least 10 rotor diameters back from property lines, or about 2,700 feet. Instead, in 2011 the PUC decided after a three-day hearing before an administrative law judge that the setback only had to be 1,500 feet.

The county’s rule would have made the project impossible to construct, the PUC found, and there was no evidence that shadow flicker or noise would cause harm to residents. County officials testified that the 10-rotor setback was designed to eliminate all noise and flicker exposure in order to avoid the costs of modeling and measuring the actual impact.

The citizen’s group, called the Coalition for Sensible Siting, said it was disappointed by the court ruling, but had not decided whether to appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the wind company is still trying to meet a separate set of requirements laid out by the PUC and the federal government on a plan to protect local wildlife. The project has raised concerns about its potential impact on eagles, because it is considered a high-use area for the federally protected birds and some species of bats.

Construction has been delayed while the company conducts research to determine the potential impact on wildlife, and how the project can be designed to protect them, a requirement of the PUC permit.

It is also applying for a permit with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that would protect it from legal action if any eagles are killed by the turbines.

Source:  Article by: JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY , Star Tribune | www.startribune.com 25 June 2012

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational 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. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky