[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Changes made to Peru wind ordinance  

Credit:  Tom Standard, Special to the Sun Journal | www.sunjournal.com 18 September 2012 ~~

PERU – The town’s Industrial Wind Ordinance Committee on Tuesday night considered an attorney’s comments on its draft regulations for wind power projects.

Attorney Sally J. Daggett of the firm of Jensen, Baird, Gardner and Henry in Portland advised that the town has authority to enact reasonable regulations on the location of such projects but does not have the authority to expressly or effectively prohibit their construction.

EDP Renewables North America, LLC, of Houston, Texas, is considering building 25 to 35 turbines here, a representative told the committee earlier this year. The company received a permit in October 2011 to place a meteorological test tower off Black Mountain Road near the Sumner town line.

The town passed a moratorium on wind power projects while it writes and adopts the Peru Industrial Wind Energy Facility Ordinance.

Committee Chairman Jim Pulsifer pointed out there were three pillars to the draft ordinance: sound levels, setback distances and turbine height.

Daggett questioned whether there was sound scientific evidence to support the values proposed for these three aspects.

The committee considered each one and the technical support they had for their decisions.

The draft ordinance required a two-mile setback from the wind turbine base to the nearest nonparticipating parcel of land.

Warren McFawn said that distance effectively prohibits the construction of wind farms in Peru. He drew two-mile-radius circles, centered on just a few likely turbine sites on a Peru map and showed that they covered populated areas.

The committee agreed to a 1½-mile setback, provided that a more accurate map showed that it would not effectively prohibit wind farms.

Kevin Benedict said the two-mile setback was not overly restrictive, because there is provision in the ordinance for property owners within the setback to give the developer a waiver.

Committee member Philip Bretz presented a technical report indicating that the permissible sound levels listed in the draft were too high for the rural town. The draft has a decibel limit of 40 for daytime and 35 for nighttime.

Bretz proposed and the committee adopted limits of 35 decibels for daytime and 25 for nighttime.

After considerable discussion, the committee retained the 300-foot height restriction for turbine towers. Several members said technology exists to comply with this height limit.

Source:  Tom Standard, Special to the Sun Journal | www.sunjournal.com 18 September 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 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 $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


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