Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association

RESOURCE

From our current May 2010 edition -- Local opposition groups spring up to oppose wind power developers

by Steve Downer

Editor’s note: The following article was written in largely from numerous press reports in regards to wind power development in the state.

It appears the bloom is off the windpower rose.

Wind farm developers in the St. Cloud area and southeastern Minnesota have run into stiff opposition from local citizens. Communities are divided. Opposition groups have sprung up. In an ironic twist, there is now a perception that developers are using the machinery of state government to ram wind farm development through the regulatory process, despite concerns expressed by local residents.

The state Legislature hitched Minnesota’s energy future to wind power in 2007 when it decreed that renewable energy must make up at least 25 percent of the energy sold in the state by 2025.

Now you can add local political difficulties to the technical and financial challenges of reaching that goal.

Case in point: Goodhue Wind. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission April 15 in a unanimous decision accepted Goodhue Wind as a Community-Based Energy Development (C-BED) and issued a draft site permit for the project.

According to a press release from project developers, the Goodhue project “is being spearheaded by the American Wind Energy Alliance (AWA), a joint venture founded by Mesa Power Group LLC with the support of General Electric. Mesa Power Group was started by legendary energy executive T. Boone Pickens, one of the nation’s most visible proponents of renewable energy, in particular wind energy.”

AWA Goodhue is reportedly incorporated in Texas.

Mesa Power, as owner of the Goodhue wind project, is helping finance the project and is also supplying the project with 52 GE wind turbines. The project encompasses 12,000 acres. The company hopes to break ground late this year.

When it accepted Goodhue Wind as C-BED and issued a draft site permit, the MPUC also accepted Xcel Energy’s pricing on the Power Purchase Agreements and denied requests for a contested case hearing.

The Minnesota Office of Energy Security will hold a local hearing in Goodhue County, probably in mid-June, to take public comments on the draft permit. A final permit may be issued following those steps.

Goodhue Wind Truth, an opposition group, requested a one year moratorium on wind farm development and sought to amend the county’s wind farm ordinance, particularly in regards to increasing setbacks.

The county board April 19, in a five hour meeting, rejected those requests but created a subcommittee that was given a month to address numerous issues around wind energy. An earlier meeting took six hours. One county commissioner admitted to being “really unsettled” by the issues on the table.

State and county siting authority is a big issue. The Goodhue project must be permitted by the state and is generally considered outside the scope of county authority, but the county does have input. Counties can adopt ordinances more stringent than state law but the MPUC can overrule these ordinances.

Goodhue County was presented with a petition signed by 200 residents asking county officials to place a yearlong moratorium on wind projects. The developer has 215 residents signed up to participate.

(In another bit of irony, Goodhue Wind Truth, the opposition group, was represented by Carol Overland, an attorney who has also been critical of coal-fired power plant proposals, arguing in part that wind power could fill the state’s energy requirements. Overland has also founded and represents NoCapX, a group opposing electric transmission developments being made in large part to support wind power development.)

According to the Red Wing Republican Eagle, “In recent months, developers and their critics have argued over nearly every aspect of wind development, including whether potential health risks exist, possible affects on real estate values, claims wind farms would provide an economic boost to the county and what affects turbines would have on the county’s scenery.

“If county officials go on to impose new regulations stiffer than those required by state law—namely .6 mile setbacks, which would be significantly stricter than the state’s 500-foot requirement—it’s unclear if they’ll hold up.”

The City of Zumbrota has debated adopting a two-mile windfarm buffer. The city is concerned the giant turbines may restrict future city growth in what are envisioned as prime development areas.

This is in response to a proposal by Horizon Wind, which is planning an 80,000 acre wind farm that stretches from Kenyon to Zumbrota and has 17,000 acres signed on. Zumbrota Mayor Rich Bauer was quoted as saying, “The state is shamefully inadequate in how they’ve handled this. We’ve spent a quarter of a million dollars to put water and sewer in across the highway. Wind companies can put towers on the properties . . . and we will be stopped dead in our tracks.”

“We are between a rock and a hard place,” another councilor was quoted as saying. “I feel threatened.”

City Administrator Neil Jensen said, “This is by far the most political motion you are going to have to make. It is a crying shame it has torn people apart.”

An agreement was reached with National Wind which would have guaranteed a two-mile turbine buffer around the northern edge of the city, with the exception of three to four turbines on the northwest corner. The motion to accept the agreement failed on a 3-2 vote.

Another group, Olmsted Wind Truth, is opposing a 300-megawatt wind farm being proposed by Colorado-based RES-Americas.

A resident living within the footprint of a Paynesville wind project expressed concerns in regards to visual pollution, real estate, hunting, health and community cohesiveness. She summed it up by saying: “Finally, the last issue is our American landscape. Our rural landscape will never be the same. We will look out our back yard and never see the peacefulness and solitude of the countryside.”

While some county officials have expressed concern they would be overruled by the MPUC, MPUC Commissioner J. Dennis O’Brien was quoted in Finance and Commerce as saying the decision-making power belongs to state lawmakers, not the MPUC.

None of which promises to help local folks much.