Rensselaer Adventures

This blog reports events and interesting tidbits from Rensselaer, Indiana and the surrounding area.

Monday, August 20, 2018

Proposed changes to the wind farm ordinance (long)

The Jasper County Plan Commission is expecting a big turnout at its next meeting, scheduled to be held next Monday at the Fairgrounds rather than the Court House. On the agenda is a discussion of revisions to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding windmills. The windmill part of the UDO was revised in November so it was a surprise to see the item back up for discussion. I heard that those who oppose wind farms were the source of the changes, which are being brought to the Commission by its chairman, Gerrit DeVries.

I stopped by the County Planning office to see what changes were being proposed. I got a ten pages document with the existing ordinance and proposed changes. In looking at the changes, my past life with economics intruded. Economists like things that increase value and dislike things that decrease value. When we make decisions for ourselves, we try to do so in ways that increase value, so if we spend $10 to buy a product, we are acting as if all other possible uses of that $10 have less value to us. However, there are cases in which costs of an action are not taken into account but rather passed on to other people. These situations involve what economists have named "externalities" and they are the primary justification for zoning and other restrictions on land use. Another possible justification of regulation is to protect people from themselves, but many and perhaps most economists have dislike paternalism justifications.

With that in mind, let us see what changes are proposed. There are a lot of them, so this is a long post.

20.30.140
The old language says that the overlay district is to be applied to A1 and A2 districts. The proposal eliminates A1 and A2 and substitutes A3. A3 is intensive agriculture and is mostly used for CAFOs. I do not think this change was thought out. It suggests that thousands of acres would have to be A3 for a wind farm.
A new section is added: D. Special Exception: "The application for the WFO District to any lot does not relieve the requirement for a Special Exception for each utility-grade wind turbine location." What is the point of the rest of the section if this is included?

20.30.170
New section: "B 4. Top Soil Preservation Plan: There shall be an installation plan approved by the Zoning Administrator that adequately preserves and provides for the restoration of topsoil for all staging and construction activities." I do not see externalities involved here. Why should the individual land owners be responsible for making sure that this is included in any contracts they sign? In a letter to the editor of the Rensselaer Republican arguing for the proposed changes, three concerned citizens of Jasper County state, “We are not trying to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their property, as long as what they doesn’t infringe on our own property rights.” This provision does tell people what they can or cannot do with their property even though it does not infringe on other's property rights.

There are a lot of changes in setbacks, 2030.170 I. Setbacks are justified by externalities. The proper setback distances should be determined by studies and analysis of how much surrounding landowners are affected. The distances are not something that economics can say much about.

2030.170 I 2 a. Setback from property lines: "a.... minimum of one and one-half times the hub height of the turbine from any property line of a participating landowner and a non on-site, above ground utility and each utility grade wind turbine system shall be located the greater of 2640 feet or six and one-half (6.5) times the hub hight of the turbine from any non-participating property line." I do not see why there should be any setback required from the property line of a participating landowner. They have signed a contract with the wind-turbine operator, so there are no external effects here. Further, the next section seem to directly contradict the restriction on setbacks to property lines of participating landowners: "Utility-grade wind turbines within a wind farm may encroach into property line setbacks between two (2) participating owner's properties."

c. Changes setbacks for on-site buildings. (I am not sure why these setbacks are in the existing code--there seems to be no external effects. If I want a wind turbine next to my house, why should I not be allowed to have one there?) The proposal changes language from tip-of-the-blade height to the hub height and it is not clear to me what the effect of that is.

d. Setbacks from Off-Site Land Use. There are multiple sections here and some big changes.

 d i. The minimum setback to an existing residential dwelling is changed from 1000 feet to 1 mile. The change adds that the dwelling be non-participating. It strikes out the following: "The owner of an existing, neighboring single-family dwelling unit may grant permission, in writing or recorded with the Jasper County Recorder, waiving the setback requirement to their home. However, under no circumstances shall a utility grade wind turbine system be closer than 1.1 times the tip height to a single family dwelling." At the presentation on wind farms at the June Plan Commission meeting, speaker Kevon Martis argued for long setbacks but said that people within the setbacks should be allowed to grant waivers. Striking this passage seems to be contrary to the approach he advocated, and he was a speaker invited by those critical of wind farms. Maybe the thought behind the change is that any such users should become participating land owners.

d ii. Changes 1000 feet to 1 mile for land zoned for residential or institution use.

d iii. Changes 1320 feet to 1 mile for land platted for a subdivision and strikes the qualifier "with ten (10) or more lots."

Adds d iiii. "A minimum of 1,000 feet from any non-participating private tile of [sic] drain.

Adds d v. "A minimum of two (2) miles from the Iroquois and Kankakee rivers."

Adds d vi. "A minimum of three and one-half (3.5) miles from any existing Confined Animal Feeding Operation."

f. Existing language sets a no-turbine zone for the Jasper-Pulaski Fish and Wildlife area as north of CR 400N and east of CR 100W. The proposed changes set a setback of 6 miles from any public conservation lands. (The existing setbacks were set in April, 2016.)

In section K 1. Noise. The existing code sets a limit of 60 decibels modeled to a residence. The proposal changes that to 35 decibels at the property line.

New Section k 6. "Shadow Flicker: "The flickering effect caused by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) required signal light or sunlight combined with the turning of the rotor shaft shall not be permitted on an off-site, non-participating property." Does that mean if one can see the signal lights, the turbine is in violation?

Section O Drainage
 1. Requires that any drainage within 1000 feet of any wind turbine location or construction activities be inspected and scoped prior to and after installation, with expense born by operator.

Section P
2 Some minor changes to road planning and usage.

Section Q. A new addition:
"7. Surety for Damages Related to Decommissioning. The operator of any utility-grade wind turbine shall secure and provide a performance bond or submit and escrow deposit in the amount of 1,000,000 per turbine to endure [sic] the proper decommissioning and removal of the turbine, as well as restoration of top soil prior to installation."

Meanwhile, Benton and White Counties continue adding turbines with little or no public discontent. The latest addition to the Meadow Lake Wind Farm will have turbines that reach 570 feet. It was highlighted in Saturday's Rensselaer Republican.

Property rights are society's way of regulating usage of property. They come with restrictions and those restrictions often are due to externalities. Externalities work both ways. If we give people living in the countryside the right to erect tall wind turbines, we infringe on the perceived rights of neighbors to quiet, scenic views, and whatever other damages they believe the existence of wind turbines causes them. However, if we give the neighbors the right to quiet, scenic views and avoidance of other problems caused by wind turbines, we infringe on the perceived rights of those who want to erect wind turbines on their property. Economist Ronald Coase won a Nobel prize in large part for realizing in the imaginary world in which negotiation and transactions were costless, it would not matter how those property rights were allocated in deciding whether the wind turbines were built or not.

7 comments:

Gary said...

Just to fill you in on what is happening in our neighboring counties:
Allen County: banned industrial wind turbines
Boone County: banned industrial wind turbines
Clinton County - moratorium on commercial wind development
Delaware County - 150 ft. height restriction for wind turbines
Fulton County - banned industrial wind turbines
Marshall County - banned industrial wind turbines
Miami County - 2,000 ft. setbacks to property lines and roads
Noble County - 3,960 ft. setbacks
Rush County - 2,300 ft. setbacks to property lines
Tipton County - 2,640 ft. setbacks
Wabash County - 3,960 ft. setbacks, zero shadow flicker, 32 dBA noise limit
Wayne County - banned industrial wind turbines
Wells County - banned industrial wind turbines
Whitley County - 2,640 ft. setback or 6.5 X height of tower, whichever is greater, decommissioning money up front (no bonds allowed)
Pulaski County – Plan Commission just sent recommendation to Commissioners to ban wind turbines
Jasper County – still has 1000 foot setbacks

Gary said...

When third parties find the side effects useful or desirable, the externalities are positive externalities. When the side effects are harmful or undesirable, they are negative externalities. An externality can be positive to some and negative to others--if Maria is playing very loud music in her apartment with cardboard thin walls, she gives positive externalities to those who like the music and negative externalities to those who do not like it. Once you start looking for externalities, you find them everywhere.

The real question in my mind is what are Maria's reactions to the negative externalities effecting those who do not like the music and find it disturbing? Does she have any sense of caring, or just doesn't give a rat's behind because it's all for "self" and her alone? Does she have any feeling of compassion? How can we express love for our neighbor in that way? Your response to how a negative externality hurts others defines one's character. Similarly, how the negatives of an Industrial Wind Operation touches property owners around you.

Ed said...

The joys of NIMBY (not in my backyard). Has there been any discussion of the amount of tax revenue to the county that this might impact? It does appear to be a plan to kill wind operations in the county in a round-about way (instead of just bluntly stating that you don't want any opportunity for this type of economy).

Gary said...

What is more important? The potential of some money coming into the County, or preventing harm to those who will be effected in a negative way? What is the greater good? What would you prefer to see in your political office holder or appointed board member if you were the one facing the negative "externalities" mentioned by the writer of this blog? Think that over. Read the posts of those in other counties who now have moved away due to the negatives of which they had very little say. All for a few bucks. And when it comes to Wind Operations being subsidized by government Production Tax Credits, (the only way it is profitable to build), which is coming out of your pocket already, how much money do you really think is going to come into Jasper County anyway? Perhaps you believe the Tax Credit money is "Obama Money" and it's all FREE? Hold a little pinwheel turbine in your hand and blow on it. It will spin, but only until you run out of breath. Then it's dead.

Mary Pitstick said...

First of all let me say that I am not for or against wind energy or having a wind farm in Jasper county. But I do think it is too soon to be making an irrevocable decision. A great many people are affected who are offered no compensation.

If you want to see a perfect example, drive over toward Goodland and turn south at the intersection of US 24 and county road 600 East. You will see a large substation that feeds into the high lines. But keep driving south and take note of the huge poles on BOTH sides of the road. The first house is less than 100 feet from these poles and cables carrying a tremendous amount of electricity. Someone in Jasper County will most likely have the same situation in front of their home.

Do we know where the substations will be located and where they will feed into the grid? Don't be fooled by the pristine look of a windmill in a field. There are underground cables that have to surface somewhere and it is not a pretty sight.

Anonymous said...

It is just a matter of time before sources for energy such as wind/solar/hydro will be extremely necessary as the world uses up the other natural resources which are quickly depleting. There will always be fights for/against it. Eventually, we will have no choice if we want to turn on a light bulb to see in the dark.

Anonymous said...

I am not against using renewable energy sources. However,I have a family member who has CRPS/RSD (http://www.rsdhope.org/what-is-crps1.html) a side effect of that disease is a condition known as Allodynia (can lead to the triggering of a pain response from stimuli which do not normally provoke pain).
From all the research I've done on large scale wind turbines, they cause a lot of health issues which would exacerbate her condition. We are only one family that would be affected by a property owners choice to allow a windmill to be built on their property. So all I want is for the commissioners and the property owners to think about how putting in just one of these super wind turbines would affect one person and her family.