Planning for Wind Energy

Transcription

1 Planning for Wind Energy Suzanne Rynne, a i c p, Larry Flower, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller, a i c p, Editor American Planning Aociation Planning Adviory Service Report Number 566

2 Planning for Wind Energy i the reult of a collaborative partnerhip among the American Planning Aociation (APA), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the American Wind Energy Aociation (AWEA), and Clarion Aociate. Funding wa provided by the U.S. Department of Energy under award number DE-EE , a part of the 20% Wind by 2030: Overcoming the Challenge funding opportunity. The report wa developed under the aupice of the Green Communitie Reearch Center, one of APA National Center for Planning. The Center engage in reearch, policy, outreach, and education that advance green communitie through planning. For more information, viit APA National Center for Planning conduct policy-relevant reearch and education involving community health, natural and manmade hazard, and green communitie. For more detail, viit Suzanne Rynne, aicp, erved a the project manager. She i the manager of APA Green Communitie Reearch Center, a enior reearch aociate, and co-editor of PAS Memo. Larry Flower i the deputy director of ditributed and community wind at AWEA and wa previouly the technical director of Wind Powering America at NREL. He managed NREL and AWEA work on thi project while at each organization. Eric Lantz i an energy analyt at NREL who took the lead on NREL work on thi project following Flower move to AWEA. Erica Heller, aicp, contributed to thi report a a conultant to Clarion Aociate, working with Chritopher Duerken, managing director. Ruth Baranowki i a technical communication pecialit at NREL; Kevin Racktraw i principal at Racktraw Conulting; Kitty Fahey i a writer for the National Oceanic and Atmopheric Adminitration; Charle Newcomb i ection manager for wind and water development at NREL; Jim McElfih i enior attorney at the Environmental Law Intitute (ELI); Sara Geren i a law fellow at ELI; Kevin Porter i a enior analyt at Exeter Aociate; Sari Fink i an economit at Exeter Aociate; Dale Oborn i preident of Ditributed Generation Sytem; Anna Papke wa a reearch intern at APA; Kirtin Kuenzi i a reearch intern at APA; Joe MacDonald, aicp, wa program development enior aociate at APA; Ann F. Dillemuth, aicp, i a reearch aociate and co-editor of PAS Memo at APA. The author thank the many other individual who contributed to or upported thi project, particularly the planner, elected official, and other takeholder from caetudy communitie who participated in interview, hared document and image, and reviewed draft of the cae tudie. Special thank alo goe to the project partner who reviewed the entire report and provided thoughtful edit and comment, a well a the coping ympoium participant who worked with APA and project partner to develop the outline for the report: Jame Andrew, utilitie pecialit at the San Francico Public Utilitie Commiion; Jennifer Bank, offhore wind and iting pecialit at AWEA; Peggy Beltrone, preident of Exergy Integrated Sytem; Jame Damon, outreach coordinator at the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative; Lia Daniel, executive director of Windutry; and Paul Miller, director of planning, zoning, and building for DeKalb County, Illinoi. Diclaimer: Thi report wa prepared a an account of work ponored by an agency of the United State Government. Neither the United State Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employee, make any warranty, expre or implied, or aume any legal liability or reponibility for the accuracy, completene, or uefulne of any information, apparatu, product, or proce dicloed, or repreent that it ue would not infringe privately owned right. Reference herein to any pecific commercial product, proce, or ervice by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwie doe not necearily contitute or imply it endorement, recommendation, or favoring by the United State Government or any agency thereof. The view and opinion of author expreed herein do not necearily tate or reflect thoe of the United State Government or any agency thereof. The information provided in thi report i for informational purpoe and doe not contitute legal advice. Communitie hould conult local counel to ait in undertanding and adapting wind energy policie. Cover deign by Lia Barton; thi report i printed on recyclable paper. Cover photo: White Oak Wind Farm, McLean County, Illinoi; Brad Adam. Ued with permiion of the McLean County Department of Building and Zoning The Planning Adviory Service i a ubcription ervice offered by the Reearch Department of the American Planning Aociation. Four report are produced each year. Subcriber alo receive PAS Memo and PAS QuickNote, and they have acce to the Inquiry Anwering Service and other valuable benefit. To learn more, viit W. Paul Farmer, faicp, Chief Executive Officer; Sylvia Lewi, Director of Publication; William R. Klein, aicp, Director of Reearch. Planning Adviory Service Report are produced in the Reearch Department of APA. Timothy Mennel, Editor; Lia Barton, Deign Aociate. Miing and damaged print iue: Contact Cutomer Service, American Planning Aociation, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL ( or cutomerervice@planning.org) within 90 day of the publication date. Include the name of the publication, year, volume and iue number or month, and your name, mailing addre, and memberhip number if applicable. November 2011 by the American Planning Aociation. APA publication office i at 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL APA headquarter office i at th St., NW, Suite 750 Wet, Wahington, DC pareport@planning.org

3 PLANNING FOR WIND ENERGY Suzanne Rynne, aicp, Larry Flower, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller, aicp, editor table of content Chapter 1: Introduction...1 The Benefit of Wind... 3 The Role of Planning... 4 State Policy and Goal... 8 The Future of Wind and the Need for Stronger Local Policy...9 Chapter 2: Indutry Overview...11 Ditributed (Small) Wind...12 Midized Wind Turbine Utility-Scale Turbine Community Wind Location Utility-Scale Wind Project Cot and Economic Chapter 3: Addreing Concern Environmental and Ecological Concern Quality of Life Concern Chapter 4: Regulatory Environment State and Local Government Authority over Wind Facility Siting Tranmiion and Interconnection Chapter 5: Conidering Wind Energy in the Planning Proce Strategic Point of Intervention Chapter 6: Regulating Small-Scale Wind Energy Sytem at the Local Level Checklit for Ordinance Permit Proceing Element of a Small Wind Energy Ordinance... 79

4 Chapter 7: Permitting Utility-Scale Wind Energy Sytem at the Local Level Checklit for Ordinance Permit Proceing Element of a Utility-Scale Wind Project Permitting Proce Land Agreement Bond and Guarantee The Proce of Developing a Wind Energy Project Chapter 8: Leon Learned Appendix: Reult of the American Planning Aociation Survey of Current Practice, Challenge, and Reource Need Reource Lit Reference...131

5 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Larry Flower with Eric Lantz For centurie, the power of the wind ha been harneed for the benefit of humanity and commerce. In the United State, mechanical wind ytem pumped water and helped open the Great Plain to human ettlement and agricultural production during the In the early 20th century, wind charger brought light and communication technology to rural American houehold and buinee. Wind energy provided electricity to rural market prior to the development of federal hydropower dam, the aociated intertate tranmiion ytem, and the Rural Electrification Adminitration. 1

6 2 Planning for Wind Energy In the early 1980, wind energy firt began to penetrate wholeale electricity market. In California, Governor Jerry Brown implemented incentive that, in combination with federal tax credit and the federal Public Utilitie Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA), launched the contemporary wind electricity era. While the turbine were initially mall (on the order of 50 kilowatt) and le reliable than they are today, they were the genei of a dynamic and robut indutry. Improvement in technology reulted in larger, more efficient, and more reliable deign, a well a increaed ue (Figure 1.1). Today, the cot of wind energy i approximately 25 to 35 percent of what it wa in the early 1980 (DEA 1999, Krohn 2009). Figure 1.1. The growth of wind turbine ize and capacity, Source: NREL In the firt decade of the 21t century, wind energy moved into the maintream, emerging a a ignificant ource of power generation in Europe, the United State, and Aia (Figure 1.2). In the United State between 2000 and 2010, wind energy generation capacity grew from 2,500 megawatt (MW) to 40,000 MW (Wier and Bolinger 2011). The number of U.S. tate with at leat 100 MW of intalled capacity grew from four to 28, and half of thoe now have more than 1,000 MW intalled capacity (Figure 1.3; Wier and Bolinger 2011). Worldwide, intalled capacity ha grown to more than 194,000 MW; China and India together account for more than 55,000 MW (GWEC 2011). Figure 1.2. Annual and cumulative intalled wind power capacity in the United State Source: Wier and Bolinger 2011

7 Chapter 1. Introduction 3 Over the pat decade, wind energy ha become increaingly competitive with other ource of electricity. With natural ga price increaing throughout much of the early 2000, wind became directly competitive in many region. Regulatory commiion, which need to balance rate increae, electricity reliability requirement, and utility financial return, have been increaingly compelled to conider wind a an option in utility generation plan. Although falling natural ga price and the emergence of wholeale electricity market have made it more challenging for wind to compete in the pat, continued technology and improvement and production efficiencie ugget that wind i likely to maintain it competitive poition over the long term (Wier and Bolinger 2011). THE BENEFITS OF WIND The environmental benefit of wind energy are numerou and ignificant and for many advocate and green power purchaer they are the primary motivation for upporting wind energy. Wind energy, unlike foil fuel, produce no ulfur monoxide, nitric oxide, particulate, carbon dioxide, or mercury. Thee foil-fuel pollutant contribute to acid rain, mog, athma, climate change, and water pollution. Furthermore, wind energy require negligible amount of water, wherea thermal generator (including nuclear) are among the larget conumer of water in the United State. Water i a finite reource, and in many part of the country water i becoming a critical limiting reource. Thi i epecially true in the American Wet, where population growth and climate change are expected to place increaing preure on carce water reource. Additionally, wind energy require no mining, drilling, or tranportation of fuel, it create no hazardou wate, and it poe no rik of large-cale environmental contamination. Figure 1.3. Intalled U.S. wind power capacity (MW) by tate in 2000 and 2010 Source: NREL

8 4 Planning for Wind Energy A number of global event have made energy ecurity an increaingly critical topic, including the oil price hock of the 1970 and, more recently, increaing awarene of the Wet ignificant dependence on foreign ource of oil. Recent and ongoing dramatic economic growth in China and India ha placed further demand on the international foil-fuel upply. A a reult, homegrown reource, epecially thoe that are infinitely renewable, are increaingly appealing to government official, buine leader, and conumer. Moreover, dometic wind energy potential could theoretically provide more than nine time the nation current electricity ue (Elliot et al. 2010; EIA 2010). Only a handful of tate do not have developable wind reource (whether land-baed or offhore), and all tate have acce to wind energy through the intertate tranmiion ytem. The economic development benefit of wind energy may be the mot tangible bai for local and tate official interet in it. In addition to the direct alarie aociated with building and operating wind project, the wind energy indutry provide indirect job and benefit (e.g., component and material upplier, financing and banking, landowner leae payment, and property taxe) and induced job (e.g., in local hop, tranit, day care, and medical facilitie). For example, the firt 1,000 MW of wind developed in Colorado produced 1,700 contruction-related job-year and 300 permanent job, and the total impact on local economie over 20 year i expected to be $975 million (Reategui and Tegen 2008). At a time when America i economically treed, the new invetment and job brought by wind energy project are highly valued by tate and local official and buinee. When a tate land a manufacturer of a major wind component (e.g., blade, tower, nacelle) or convert an exiting manufacturing facility to make or proce ubcomponent, it further benefit from wind deployment in the form of killed manufacturing job. A an example, Iowa the tate with the econd larget amount of intalled wind generating capacity ha attracted a number of wind manufacturing facilitie. Figure 1.4 illutrate Figure 1.4. Economic development impact from increaed utilization of Iowa-baed wind turbine manufacturing (auming 2,400 MW of deployment) Source: Lantz and Tegen 2008 the ubtantial impact that local manufacturing bring to economic development. In the hypothetical cenario hown, where 2,400 MW of new wind power capacity i intalled in Iowa, acquiring 35 percent of the turbine from Iowa-baed manufacturer increae the total economic benefit by 55 percent (Lantz and Tegen 2008). THE ROLE OF PLANNING Sutainable energy need, global climate change, and air and water pollution are jut a few of the iue challenging today communitie. Planner taked with

9 Chapter 1. Introduction 5 eeing the big picture and thinking about the long term are integral player in addreing both economic competitivene and environmental protection. The mot effective energypolicy recommendation facilitate progreive citizen-level action, a well a deciion, regulation, and land-ue plan that direct energy market toward competitive, healthy, and afe practice. The planning profeion already recognize the urgency of uch iue a urban prawl, the degeneration of inner-ring uburb, and the diappearance of agricultural and open-pace land reource. To create truly utainable communitie, planner mut guide takeholder and communitie toward increaing energy conervation and renewable energy production while ignificantly reducing the ue of nonrenewable energy ource. Planner can help takeholder undertand the nexu between, on the one hand, today energy production and conumption and, on the other, future environmental condition, economic health, and quality of life. While planner exert only minimal influence on the election of energy ource, they can influence energy demand and facilitate new infratructure development in their communitie. Area of opportunity include the iting of energy generation and tranmiion facilitie, the ue of renewable energy, natural reource extraction practice, tranportation infratructure deign, reource conervation, indutrial development, wate management, and ite deign. In addition, planner can advance the adoption of reource utainability principle through comprehenive planning procee, a well a help communitie reduce the environmental impact of electric generation and conumption. In ome intance, planner can alo influence local energy deciion through the ue of ubidie and education. GREENSBURG, KANSAS The City of Greenburg, Kana, ha moved to the forefront of utainable community building in recent year. In 2007, an EF5 tornado leveled 95 percent of Greenburg and diplaced more than 500 reident, cutting it already mall population of 1,500 to 950. During the rebuilding proce, the community decided to reinvent itelf a America greenet community. With the planning help of FEMA Long-Term Community Recovery (LTCR) diviion, green-architecture firm BNIM & Aociate, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the community adopted goal related to building LEED-certified civic building, developing alternative energy ource, and more. Today, Greenburg ha more LEED Platinum rated building per capita than anywhere ele in the world, and boat renewable energy production from wind, olar, and geothermal ource. The city utainability goal were pelled out in the Greenburg and Kiowa County Long- Term Community Recovery Plan, adopted in A part of it utainable development component, the plan called for Greenburg to identify and utilize energy alternative. The plan further called for the city to identify city-wide energy generation option and create community opportunitie for renewable reource. Other planning-related document, including the 2008 Greenburg Sutainable Comprehenive Plan and Viion Plan, emphaized thee policie. Although dicuion of wind farm had taken place before the tornado, nothing had been eriouly conidered. Under the new plan, development of a wind farm became central to the city utainability initiative. Plan for the farm were dicued in city council meeting, which turned into public hearing. Although Greenburg ha iting regulation and ordinance for turbine within the city, the wind farm i located four mile outide of the city, where turbine are allowed by right. A number of takeholder group collaborated on the project. USDA Rural Source: City of Greenburg Development provided project funding through a rural infratructure grant for the city, and the farm wa originally developed, owned, and operated by John Deere Renewable. All of the energy produced by the wind farm i purchaed by the Kana Power Pool, which ditribute it back to Greenburg and 31 additional citie. In 2010, the farm wa purchaed in full by the Exelon Corporation. The Greenburg Wind Farm ha an average wind peed of 18 mph with MW turbine. Thi i enough to power 4,000 home, which exceed Greenburg need. About one-third of the energy credit are donated to the city, and the ret are old by carbon offet provider NativeEnergy to charter group including Ben & Jerry, Clif Bar, Green Mountain Coffee Roater, Stonyfield Farm, and the Kana Power Pool. Adopted in March 2011, the city new Sutainable Land Development Code permit mall wind energy ytem by right in all ditrict, ubject to tandard; it require etback equal to total ytem height from public right-of-way and property line, but it doe not impoe tower height limitation. Looking ahead, the comprehenive plan enviion citywide renewable energy generation a a new value propoition, attracting new buinee and indutrie to the city, and call for leveraging a green viion for economic development by encouraging the development of renewable energy baed buinee. For more information: Greenburg Long-Term Community Recovery Plan (2007). Available at burgk.org/reident/recovery-planning/long-term-community-recovery-plan. Greenburg Sutainable Comprehenive Mater Plan (2008). Energy; Future Land Ue and Policy. Available at utainable-comprehenive-mater-plan. Greenburg Sutainable Land Development Code (2011). Article 4, Alternative Energy Sytem; Section 4.2, Wind Energy Sytem. Available at government/permit-regulation/greenburg-utainable-land-development-codeview.

10 6 Planning for Wind Energy KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON Kittita County i a 2,315-quare-mile rural county in the center of Wahington State. Stretching from the Cacade Mountain to the deert and bounded on it eatern ide by the Columbia River, the county i known for it wind. It alo hot tranmiion infratructure that carrie hydroelectric power from the river, increaing it uitability for large-cale wind energy project. Four uch project have been built in the county, totaling more than 660 MW and 361 turbine, and a fifth ha been approved. Though reident largely upport wind power, recent override of county iting deciion by the tate ha caued ome controvery. Wind energy developer firt approached the county with a utility-cale development propoal in Kittita County land-ue code included a utilitie ection but nothing that pecifically addreed wind energy facilitie, o taff developed a Wind Farm Reource Overlay Zone ordinance that created a treamlined permitting proce for thi ue in certain context. Dan Valoff, Kittita County taff planner, explain that the ordinance pecifie Source: Wahington State Department of Fih and Wildlife; Wahington State Department of Natural Reource; Kittita County Code Title 17.61A; Kittita County GIS Zoning Data Set; Vantage Wind Power LLC Development Agreement Submittal the arid, mountainou, parely populated area in the eatern and outhern part of the county a preferred location for large-cale wind energy. For project in thoe location, the ordinance imply require developer to go through the county tandard development agreement proce, which entail one public hearing in front of the board of commiioner and environmental review. To ite a wind farm in other location within the county, however, developer mut obtain a comprehenive plan amendment and rezoning for the parcel before beginning the permitting proce. The county ha approved two wind farm within the overlay zone and ha not approved any project propoed for land outide thoe area. The tate, however, ha. Wahington State i one of a handful of tate that to ome extent preempt local control of wind energy project iting. Developer may chooe to bypa local juridiction and requet project certification from the tate Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), which prepare report on propoed project and make recommendation to the governor, who then may approve, reject, or order reconideration of project. Though the proce take into conideration local regulation and community input, the reult do not alway coincide with local wihe. When in 2007 the governor approved a large wind energy project initially denied by the Kittita County Board of Commiioner, local opponent filed uit, and in 2008 the tate upreme court upheld the governor approval, affirming EFSEC ability to preempt local authority in thi area (Reident Oppoed to Kittita Turbine v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 197 P.3d 1153). Two additional developer whoe initial propoal outide the deignated overlay zone were denied by the county have ince gone traight to EFSEC for approval rather than negotiate further with the county. Kirk Holme, director of public work for the county, note that local government can provide input to EFSEC they can petition EFSEC to change turbine location, for example and he report that EFSEC i fairly reponive: The pirit and intent of the tate law i not to kirt local building code and environmental law. However, review at the tate level may not capture all local concern and iue. Once a wind energy project i approved, the developer mut meet county development requirement and obtain local permit. Dan Davi, former plan examiner for Kittita County, emphaize the importance of the preapplication proce, which allow a developer to tart meeting a oon a poible with county taff: Thi get all the player at the table fire, public work, planner, public health to dicu the permitting iue. The developer then leave with a lit of item needed for building permit approval. Development or taffing agreement are required for the turbine, turbine footing, road building, mechanical equipment building, and any impact on county infratructure, uch a road. Davi recommend that local government be proactive in drawing up permit ubmittal requirement ahead of time. When developer get the green light, it typically been a very long approval proce and they come in ready to go and breathing down the neck of the building department but often they won t have all the required documentation, and it can take a ignificant amount of time to obtain all that information. If the building department ha all the requirement pelled out ahead of time and they ve communicated that in the preapplication proce, thi can ave a lot of time and money. It help both ide. Planner coordinate negotiation between the developer and variou county department: for example, the public work department work with contractor to rate road before and after turbine contruction, with contractor reponible for repairing any damage they caue, and the building department deal with plan review, permitting, and inpection. The public health department enforce water and eptic ytem requirement for any operation or maintenance building contructed. Planner alo (continued on page 7)

11 Chapter 1. Introduction 7 (continued from page 6) overee environmental review, which include archaeological and cultural reource urvey; monitoring of wildlife impact; contruction and tormwater dicharge BMP requirement; rare plant protection and noxiou weed abatement; and fire protection plan. The developer mut obtain approval from tate agencie, including the Department of Ecology for tormwater permit and the Department of Fih and Wildlife, which ha created bird and bat impact tandard for eatern Wahington and i involved with continuing data collection. The Yakima Indian Nation i alo involved in the archaeological review. The county i not involved in developer negotiation with individual landowner to leae land for project, however. Davi note that Kittita County ha found it more efficient and effective to iue building permit by tax parcel rather than for individual turbine, ince utility wind project can include more than 100 turbine. Where multiple turbine are ited on one parcel, the county give one building permit for the parcel. Thi cut down on paperwork and link the permit to the parcel. One challenge the county ha encountered i working with out-of-tate contractor who are unfamiliar with local condition and regulation. For example, Wahington critical area legilation provide pecific protection to environmentally enitive feature; out-of-tate contractor may not be aware of thee regulation. Holme emphaize that local agencie need to be prepared; he recommend etting up weekly contruction meeting and monitoring protocol to keep track of project activity. It i important to be proactive in other area a well. Kittita County i epecially concerned with reviewing the tructural engineering of turbine tower and foundation for project afety, and it include pecial inpection requirement up front in it development agreement. The county alo permit mall wind energy converion ytem (WECS) for acceory onite power generation by right in all zoning ditrict; mall WECS are popular with home owner on farmtead and ranchette and, Valoff add, with univerity profeor. Initially the county code required a building permit with no additional tandard provided. With the number of application growing, the county decided to create pecific tandard for thi ue, and Davi developed a mall wind ordinance to implify the permitting proce for hi department. The reulting ordinance etablihe a uer-friendly, over-the-counter proce for mall WECS. Davi laid out fairly pecific application requirement: applicant mut ubmit a ite plan, turbine decription, and engineering analyi addreing the tower, the tower foundation, and the connection of the tower to the foundation. Davi explain, Thi i a new technology, o we need to enure afety through pecific requirement and make ure all project have appropriate engineering. However, the county accommodate contractor who pecialize in mall WECS intallation; if contractor ubmit deign engineered for wort-cae development cenario for the whole county, they may then ue them a blanket deign for ubequent intallation, aving them the additional analye. Standard limit turbine height to 120 feet and impoe a etback requirement of 1.2 time the height of the turbine. There are currently no community wind facilitie in the county; a propoed community wind ordinance that would have allowed landowner to form conortium to build large turbine wa voted down in 2010 due to concern over viual impact of the large-cale turbine. In general, however, Kittita County reident upport wind energy. The mall turbine are very popular for peronal ue, and for the mot part the community appreciate the importance of the utility-cale project. However, aethetic are an iue for ome, a the placement of ome turbine ha marred the county mountain vita. Valoff explain, People like the turbine in the ditance in the preferred area, where they are far enough away to look good. With the tate-approved project, though, ome of the large turbine are really in people face, and people have concern. He add, It intereting to work on thee project conceptually, but you really need to ee the turbine being built to undertand how huge they really are you need to ee it to believe it. It a very large-cale proce and a very indutrial ue with the maintenance and operation tructure and ubtation needed. It important to ite large turbine in rural area with little population becaue of thi. Holme agree: Siting thee project i one thing, but contruction i another and there can be ignificant impact. He encourage local taff that lack wind energy permitting expertie to eek information and advice from other agencie a neceary to enure the bet poible project outcome. For more information: Kittita County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.61A, Wind Farm Reource Overlay Zone, and Chapter 17.61B, Small Wind Energy Sytem. Available at boc/countycode/title17.ap. Kittita County Community Development Service, Wind Farm Siting Application (for propoing a wind farm in the Wind Farm Reource Overlay zone, a provide[d] for in KCC 17.61A). Available at form/wind-farm-siting-application.pdf.

12 8 Planning for Wind Energy Figure 1.5. Renewable portfolio tandard in U.S. tate a of October 2011 Figure 1.6. Public benefit fund in U.S. tate a of October 2011 tate Policy and Goal Many tate have worked to provide an increaingly olid foundation for renewable energy. The renewable portfolio tandard (RPS) i the mot effective and mot popular of tate policie for the deployment of renewable. An RPS require a tate utilitie to include a certain percentage of renewable energy in their generation portfolio by a given year (Figure 1.5). Thee requirement can be intituted by the tate legilature (a in Ohio), the public utility regulatory commiion (a in New York), or through a ballot initiative (a in Colorado). In addition to a timetable, the requirement uually pecify penaltie for noncompliance. Depending on the tate, public power utilitie (i.e., co-op and municipal utilitie) may or may not be required to comply. Becaue wind energy i uually the renewable generation ource with the lowet wholeale cot, it often dominate the RPS portfolio. Additionally, many tate have etablihed fund to promote efficiency and the development of renewable technologie and related project. Often thee fund focu on ditributed generation, including wind (Figure 1.6). Some tate offer ale tax exemption or income tax credit, rebate, financing ubidie, and net metering (which allow a power producer to receive credit for electricity generated from an on-ite renewable ource uch a a reidential wind turbine). State may alo have policie in place (e.g., ale tax exemption, tate production tax credit) to upport development of community wind project. Community wind project are generally comparable to utilitycale project except that they include ome form of local ownerhip. They may be multimegawatt or imply one- or two-turbine project that erve local demand. In ome cae, community wind project may utilize maller 100-kW turbine or comparable mediumcale machine.

13 Chapter 1. Introduction 9 THE FUTURE OF WIND energy AND THE NEED FOR STRONGER LOCAL POLICY In 2006, Preident George W. Buh tated that the United State could produce up to 20 percent of it electricity from wind, though at the time it accounted for le than 1 percent. A collaboration among the U.S. Department of Energy, everal national lab (led by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory), and the wind indutry (including the American Wind Energy Aociation) wa ubequently taked with identifying more pecifically what a 20 percent wind future might entail, including quantifying the benefit and identifying the challenge, and how it might be achieved (DOE 2008). The team explored even key area: wind ytem technology, manufacturing and reource, tranmiion and grid integration, iting and environmental effect, market, policy, and benefit. It concluded that the 20 percent goal wa attainable by 2030 without any dramatic technology breakthrough and would provide many local and national benefit and efficiencie. Thi would, however, require ignificant deviation from buine a uual. The tudy cenario, along with the Energy Information Adminitration etimate of electricity demand in 2030, indicated that a 20 percent wind future would require 305,000 MW of wind energy, including 54,000 MW from offhore wind-power plant. The analyi indicated that there wa a much a 600,000 MW of developable wind reource at a cot of $40 to $60 per megawatt-hour. Forty-ix tate would have ubtantial wind development by 2030, including 35 that would have more than 1,000 MW intalled (Figure 1.7). The total footprint of land required for wind energy project wa etimated at about 50,000 quare kilometer, or about 80 percent of the ize of Wet Virginia. Turbine, ervice road, and related equipment would require between 1,000 and 2,500 quare kilometer, or le than the area of Rhode Iland. Thi cenario would alo require building 12,000 to 15,000 mile of new high-voltage tranmiion line (DOE 2008). Figure 1.7. Ditribution of intalled wind power capacity (GW) among tate under the 20% Wind by 2030 cenario Source: DOE 2008 In addition to addreing tranmiion infratructure need, other challenge include developing and enabling federal and tate policie, further developing U.S. manufacturing and human reource, treamlining iting and permitting procee, implementing modet technology improvement, improving utility coordination and ytemwide operational practice, and increaing ocial acceptance of wind facilitie (DOE 2008).

14 10 Planning for Wind Energy Thi PAS Report upport the aim of 20% Wind by 2030 by providing planner with the tool and trategie they need to help plan for, open, and reponibly develop wind energy market. Planner are uniquely poitioned to trengthen local wind energy policie by addreing market barrier at trategic point of intervention while alo enuring that iting and development tandard for wind energy facilitie and equipment are conitent with local community expectation. Thi report i intended to help community planner effect policy and regulatory change, build takeholder upport, and provide key technical information to public official.

15 CHAPTER 2 Indutry Overview Ruth Baranowki with Eric Lantz In 2010, the U.S. wind energy indutry intalled jut over 5,100 MW. Although comparable to intallation in 2007 and well above intallation prior to 2007, intallation in 2010 were down nearly 50 percent from thoe in 2009 and roughly 40 percent from 2008 (Wier and Bolinger 2011). Thi wa the firt year-to-year reduction in intallation ince Neverthele, intallation in 2010 did increae the country cumulative intalled capacity by 15 percent. At the end of the year, total U.S. wind power capacity exceeded 40,100 MW (Wier and Bolinger 2011). 11

16 12 Planning for Wind Energy The U.S. wind reource cover much of the country (Figure 2.1). The wind reource potential i greatet over much of the Great Plain, but wind development i occurring throughout much of the continental United State. (See Figure 1.3.) Development i affected by tate policy, regional market (i.e., exiting wholeale generation aet, demand for additional power capacity, and the mix of current regional power capacity), the wind reource, tranmiion acce, and other factor. Figure 2.1. The contiguou U.S. wind reource 80 meter above ground level Source: NREL and AWS Truepower The leading tate in term of intalled capacity include Texa, Iowa, California, Minneota, Wahington, and Oregon (Wier and Bolinger 2011). In 2010, Texa became the firt tate to urpa 10,000 MW, with a total of 10,085 MW of wind capacity intalled at year-end. Alo in 2010, the number of tate with utility-ize wind turbine intallation increaed to 38 following the addition of Delaware and Maryland. (See Figure 1.3, page 3.) Through 2010, 14 tate had more than 1,000 MW intalled. The wind indutry conit of a divere and multifaceted array of application and buine model. DISTRIBUTED (SMALL) WIND Ditributed wind energy ytem are ometime referred to a reidential or mall wind ytem and typically conit of turbine with capacitie up to 100 kw. Ditributed wind turbine are often intalled behind the meter meaning they erve on-ite conumption and are not deigned to ell power to a utility or wholeale power purchaer. Normally mounted on tower or pole, mall turbine can be ued to charge batterie and to power remote telecommunication ite and village. They alo power home, buinee, and iolated water pump that feed irrigation or livetock watering tank. Small wind turbine may be intalled alone a a primary ource of power or a part of a hybrid ytem. They are often net-metered. (See Chapter 1.) Hitorically, pecialized ditributor and intaller linked mall wind turbine manufacturer to conumer. However, today manufacturer may market directly to conumer, and ome turbine are now available at large-cale retailer uch a Lowe and The Home Depot. Unlike the broader indutry, the mall wind indutry experienced continued growth in 2010, up 26 percent. Table 2.1 (page 14) how that nearly

17 Chapter 2. Indutry Overview 13 CITY OF RENO AND WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA Reno, Nevada, population 219,636, i located in Wahoe County in the high deert at the foot of the Sierra Nevada. Nevada ha abundant olar and wind reource, and the wetern part of the tate experience the Wahoe Zephyr, an afternoon wind, mot ummer and midwinter day. Both the city and the county became intereted in developing wind energy regulation in the early With everal active intaller in the community, Reno had been proceing permit for mall wind energy converion ytem (WECS) ince the late After many year of requiring pecial ue permit for mall WECS, in 2008 the City adopted an ordinance making mall WECS an acceory ue permitted by right in all ditrict ubject to tandard. A building permit i required; application for wind turbine mut include tandard tructural drawing, engineering analye, and line drawing of electrical component. The ordinance impoe etback of 30 feet from front property line and 10 feet from ide and rear property line, et noie limit, require nonreflective, nonobtruive color, and allow for combined ue with tructure uch a communication tructure or flagpole. There are no height limit, and turbine are exempted from utility creening requirement. A required by tate law, home owner aociation (HOA) approval i required where applicable, though there are few HOA in Reno. Large wind energy ytem are not addreed in Reno code. In contrat, Wahoe County received fewer permit application than Reno until recent year and had no WECS tandard in place when in 2008 it received a propoal for a 44 MW wind farm on private land. The propoal wa approved in 2009 over ignificant public oppoition; the Virginia Peak wind farm will be the firt in the county when it i built. In 2010, the county amended it zoning ordinance to add tandard for both large and mall WECS. The ordinance define private wind machine a thoe with rated capacitie of 100 kw or le, and only one may be intalled on parcel maller than one acre. Any WECS with a rated capacity over 25 kw or greater than 75 feet tall on a parcel under five acre (100 feet in height if the parcel i greater than five acre) require a pecial ue permit. The ordinance et a minimum etback equal to the overall turbine height, but thi may be reduced with written conent of abutting property owner. It alo et noie, aethetic, and afety requirement for mall turbine. Commercial wind machine are conidered principal ue and are permitted a pecial ue in certain rural and indutrial ditrict. Permit application requirement are comprehenive and include ite plan, regrading and revegetation plan for temporary contruction road, drainage and eroion control plan, and FAA approval. The ordinance alo etablihe etback, noie and height limit, and aethetic tandard for commercial wind machine; additional requirement include potcontruction noie compliance tudie, potcontruction wildlife injury and mortality monitoring plan, and decommiioning performance ecuritie and plan. Nevada tate law require that zoning regulation be deigned to promote the ue of olar and wind energy, and it bar local government from adopting any regulation that prohibit or unreaonably retrict property owner from uing WECS. Becaue thi limit the ability of local government to regulate many apect of wind turbine, the regulation adopted by Reno and Wahoe are more favorable for WECS than thoe in ome communitie in other tate. Staff in both communitie reported very little controvery around the adoption of the regulation and uggeted a likely reaon wa that concerned partie quickly realized the limit of local control. In Reno, wind energy enjoy olid public upport, in part due to the wind reource in the area and in part becaue of the community independent treak. In fact, taff expected more oppoition to the ordinance than they aw; the idea of wind turbine ha been very well received. The City alo ent it permitting and inpection taff to a cla to train them in evaluating turbine application and built project. Reno city taff etimate that there are between 50 and 100 mall wind turbine operating within the city limit, with few known problem or complaint. The City ha developed extenive outreach program for alternative energy and ha intalled nine WECS, including two vertical turbine, at four city facilitie a energy-aving and demontration project. In early 2011, the city launched a green energy dahboard ( that how the energy generated from demontration wind and olar project in real time, a well a a wind reource map howing real-time and hitorical wind meaurement from 30 point in and around Reno. In contrat, according to Wahoe County planning taff, the iue of height and reulting viual impact ha been a challenge in adopting WECS regulation there, and wind energy continue to be controverial in part of the county. Recently, everal neighbor brought a lawuit in the ditrict court againt the owner of a 75-foot WECS, approved and intalled under county regulation (Foret Hill Subdiviion v. Sower, cae CV ). The neighbor alleged that the WECS wa a nuiance baed on aethetic impact alone. A county taffer wa called in a an expert witne. The judge ruled in favor of the neighbor, and it remain to be een if the WECS owner will appeal. Compared to Wahoe County, Reno ha had more and taller WECS for a longer period of time, and yet ha le controvery over their impact. There are many poible explanation for thi. Perhap different educational effort or community value about the importance of alternative energy generation explain the difference. Perhap in the relatively rural county, WECS are experienced a more viually diturbing than they are in the more viually cluttered city. Another poibility i that the taller WECS allowed in Reno actually create le viual impact to oberver on the ground, a they are farther from view. Finally, Reno reident may have grown accutomed to eeing WECS and thu (continued on page 14)

18 14 Planning for Wind Energy (continued from page 13) are not a bothered by them a are county reident, where WECS are a newer part of the landcape. Any combination of thee factor or ome other one may explain the different attitude toward WECS in thee two coterminou communitie. For more information: City of Reno Land Development Code (2011). Chapter 18.08, Article II, Section (e)(6)(d), Standard for Specific Acceory Ue Utilitie, Alternative Sytem. Available at apx?clientid=14345&tateid=28& tatename=nevada. Wahoe County Development Code (2011). Diviion 3, Article 326, Wind Machine. Available at publication_map_product/comdev code/comdevcode_index.htm. Table 2.1. Annual ale of mall wind turbine in the United State Number of Capacity Sale Revenue Year Turbine Addition (MW) (million) , , , , , , Source: AWEA 8,000 unit were old, contituting more than 25 MW of capacity with a value in exce of $139 million. Cumulative mall wind intallation now exceed 175 MW. Though total capacity continue to grow, the number of turbine old annually ha decreaed ince 2008, reflecting a hift toward larger turbine. The United State ha a robut mall wind manufacturing indutry, with 2010 ale capturing more than 80 percent of the market and even manufacturer reporting ale in exce of 1 MW (AWEA 2011b). The American Wind Energy Aociation (AWEA) etimate that cot for mall wind turbine average roughly $5,500 per kw. At thee cot, a typical 5-kW turbine may cot between $25,000 and $30,000 (AWEA 2011b). However, individual cot vary widely due to ite-pecific factor uch a zoning and permitting cot and interconnection fee. The payback period (the time during which the aving reulting from a ytem equal the cot of intalling it) can be a much a 30 year, depending on available incentive and the quality of the wind reource; however, well-ited mall wind turbine with incentive can pay for themelve within 15 year (Forythe et al. 2000). Becaue of thee long payback period, policy upport at the tate and federal level remain critical to the viability of the mall wind market egment. Small wind turbine for the urban environment, ometime known a built-environment wind turbine, have recently garnered ome attention. Often thee type of machine are building-integrated, buildingmounted, or ground-mounted ytem ued to offet energy cot or to diplay environmental commitment. Special engineering review are required for building integration in order to minimize tructural impact and maximize turbine performance. Built-environment wind turbine tend to experience higher turbulence than nonurban ytem, which can ignificantly affect turbine production and long-term reliability and hould not be dimied lightly. Built-environment turbine are largely expected to be a niche within the mall wind ector a uitable location with a valued wind reource and viable intallation ite are extremely difficult to find. Few juridiction have zoning ordinance that cover thi type of application, but planner hould be aware that propoal for built-environment wind turbine may arie. In an attempt to enure that the mall wind indutry will continue to develop utainably, the indutry ha initiated everal activitie. In 2006, a number of manufacturer and other intereted partie formed the Small Wind Certification Council (SWCC), which certifie mall wind turbine, a a way to build conumer confidence. In 2010, the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioner (NABCEP) etablihed a mall wind intaller certification exam to enure that intaller can uccefully and afely mount

19 Chapter 2. Indutry Overview 15 any mall wind electric ytem. The goal of thi undertaking i to further enure afety, quality, and conumer acceptance of mall wind intallation throughout the United State (AWEA 2011b). The Ditributed Wind Energy Aociation (DWEA) wa alo formed. In further upport of conumer, article for the National Electric Code 2011 were created; ome have revied language pecifically for mall wind turbine intallation. Part of the new article were modeled after exiting language pertaining to olar photovoltaic ytem. Although ditributed wind ha grown ubtantially over the five year (Table 2.1), thi market egment face a number of challenge. Along with cot, other concern alo impacting the market include: Zoning retriction (epecially for tructure height) Aethetic concern from neighbor Noie concern Proper aement of wind reource to allow turbine to achieve power production potential Warrantie (mall companie may not provide warrantie, and lender may require them) Availability of technician Availability of pare part In addition, the broader economic lowdown coupled with fragile tate and local policy incentive for mall wind ha reduced demand and introduced uncertainty into the ditributed wind market. MIDSIZED WIND TURBINES Midized turbine are ued at chool, farm, factorie, private and public facilitie, remote location, and on tribal land to generate electricity. The ize of thee turbine (100 kw to 1 MW) often allow them to be intalled where the electricity i to be ued, thu minimizing the need for new electric tranmiion line. Like ditributed (mall) FEDERAL TAX POLICY FOR WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Larry Flower and Eric Lantz Wind energy benefit drive both federal and tate policie upporting wind energy development. In 1992, Congre attempted to level the playing field between conventional generation technologie and renewable by creating a production tax credit (PTC) for commercial-cale renewable project, including wind. The PTC provided wind intallation with a 10-year credit of $0.015 per kilowatt-hour (adjuted for inflation) but had retrictive condition on the qualifying income againt which the credit could be applied. In general, large, for-profit corporation are in the bet poition to monetize the value of the tax credit; individual invetor are typically poorly poitioned and a a reult, have been largely unable to participate in financing for wind project. In addition, thi incentive wa not made a permanent part of the tax code. The PTC require periodic reauthorization by an act of Congre and ha expired on three occaion. A erie of lape and 12- to 24-month extenion in the early to mid-2000 generated ignificant uncertainty in the wind indutry and reulted in multiple boom-and-but cycle, with the effect of dicouraging long-term invetment (Wier et al. 2007). More recent two- and three-year extenion beginning in 2005 have upported ignificant new invetment in wind component manufacturing in the United State. By the end of 2010, the United State wa etimated to have 400 wind-material manufacturing facilitie in 42 tate, upporting 20,000 related job (AWEA 2011b). With the financial crah in 2008, the PTC lot much of it value a a ueful incentive a profit evaporated and liabilitie againt which the credit could be ued diappeared or were greatly diminihed. In order to maintain indutry momentum, policy maker provided invetor with the option of acceing a direct one-time grant payment from the U.S. Treaury via the 30 percent invetment tax credit (ITC), an incentive roughly comparable in value to the PTC but baed on initial capital expenditure rather than plant production. To receive the grant, wind project mut firt elect to take a 30 percent invetment tax credit (ITC) and then convert it to a direct payment from the Treaury. Wind project can continue to elect the 30 percent ITC through 2012, but the direct grant program expire at the end of Hitorically, wind project have not had acce to the 30 percent ITC, which allow the project owner a tax credit roughly equivalent to 30 percent of the capital expenditure aociated with the project. The ITC and it grant counterpart are generally more advantageou for low wind-peed ite, where power production per dollar inveted i lower. In contrat, the PTC, which provide a tax credit baed on actual production for a period of 10 year, require a much greater period of time to realize the value of the tax credit and entail production rik (i.e., if the facility doen t produce, no tax credit are generated). An additional federal policy incentive for which wind project are eligible i the Modified Accelerated Cot Reduction Sytem (MACRS), which allow capital-intenive wind project to fully depreciate their value in five year. Ditributed wind project (up to 100 kw) are typically not eligible for the PTC, which require ale of the electricity to an unrelated third party. However, they are eligible for the 30 percent ITC. There are, in actuality, two different ITC which have lightly different rule for ditributed wind. The buine energy ITC ha imilar rule around qualifying income a the PTC. The reidential renewable energy tax credit doe not have the ame retrictive rule limiting the type of income that can qualify for the tax credit. Ditributed wind project are owned primarily by mall buinee, nonprofit intitution (e.g., chool), and individual conumer. The ITC for ditributed wind extend to Another incentive for ditributed wind i the Department of Agriculture Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which tarted in The purpoe of REAP i to encourage agricultural producer and rural buinee to invet in renewable energy, both to ave money and to ell exce production to a local utility. REAP provide both grant and guaranteed loan.

20 16 Planning for Wind Energy wind, they may be a part of a tand-alone power ytem or combined with other on-ite generation (e.g., dieel) in a hybrid ytem. Midized turbine are able to net meter in ome cae; however, they often exceed net-metering ize retriction. The midized turbine market ha truggled due to limited turbine availability and unfavorable project economic. Midized project repreent ignificant invetment, potentially a much a $1 $2 million. They may have difficulty capturing the economie of cale aociated with larger utility-cale project, and they generally cannot completely offet higher-cot retail electricity conumption, a i often the cae with ditributed wind. In repone to thee barrier, in 2010 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) deignated up to $6 million to advance midized wind turbine technology, with the intent of booting the peed and cale of deployment in thi market egment. Along with the primary barrier noted above, a hot of additional challenge alo affect the midized market ector, including: Significant equipment lead time Limited proof of technical viability and tandard warrantie, which are often required to finance project Availability of technician Availability of pare part Lack of regulatory upport/conideration Lack of tandardized interconnection policie and procedure Permitting/iting challenge UTILITY-SCALE TURBINES The U.S. wind indutry i dominated by the utility-cale market egment. Thi egment produce power for ale into wholeale power market around the country. Utility-cale turbine are large. Today, typical hub height are 80 meter (about 262 feet), with rotor diameter ranging from 80 meter to more than 100 meter. Typical capacitie range from 1.5 to 3 MW. Utility-cale turbine have increaed in ize ubtantially ince 2000, when hub height and rotor diameter were between 50 and 60 meter and average power wa le than 1 MW (Wier and Bolinger 2011). Since 2006, the utility-cale ector in the United State ha grown at a compound average rate of more than 28 percent. Moreover, with the exception of 2010, wind power ha been the econd-larget reource (by capacity) added to the U.S. electricity grid ince Thi period ha alo een the development of a robut dometic manufacturing ector. In 2006, dometic content in the U.S. wind indutry wa etimated at 35 percent; today it i on the order of 60 percent (Wier and Bolinger 2011). The outlook for the utility-cale ector i omewhat mixed. Looming policy expiration for the PTC, ITC, and Treaury grant program are expected to drive ignificant intallation in 2011 and 2012, but intallation could fall again in 2013 (ee idebar, page 15; Wier and Bolinger 2011). The indutry alo face competitive preure from other power generation reource namely, natural ga and ha been affected by the overall downturn in the U.S. economy, which ha reduced demand for power throughout much of the country. At the ame time, however, utility-cale wind cot are falling. While capital cot increaed teadily from 2004 to 2010, turbine price have come down 20 to 30 percent from their peak in 2008, and intalled project cot are alo beginning to retreat from their 2010 high (Wier and Bolinger 2011). (There i a lag time between change in turbine price and change in project capital cot, becaue of the

21 Chapter 2. Indutry Overview 17 GRATIOT COUNTY, MICHIGAN Michigan Gratiot County, population 42,476, ha become a trailblazer in regional planning in one of the nation tronget home-rule tate. A a reult, large-cale wind energy developer have been beating a teady path to it door, and the revenue promied by future wind farm development may help lift the county out of one of the wort economic receion to hit Michigan ince the Great Depreion. Led by local economic development organization Greater Gratiot Development and the management and elected leaderhip of the County and the municipalitie within it boundarie, the Gratiot community ha been a vanguard in preparing itelf for large wind development through planning. Gratiot County i located in the center of the tate, with more than three-quarter of it land in cropland, pature, or foret. The county wa once a hub for heavy indutry, but in the 1970 the lo of everal major employer and change to the automobile indutry and it upplier chain ent unemployment kyrocketing to 21 percent. In repone, Gratiot County and it contituent municipalitie worked with the private ector to incorporate Greater Gratiot Development, a nonprofit organization to coordinate economic development and related ervice throughout the county. Thu began a tradition of regional collaboration and planning that would erve the county well. In 2008, motivated by the worening economic receion, Greater Gratiot Development, under the direction of it preident, Don Schurr, obtained funding to involve the County and 21 municipalitie in a countywide mater planning effort. Thi would eventually reult in 2010 Gratiot Regional Excellence and Tranformation (GREAT) Plan, the firt countywide, locally developed, hared, adopted, and implemented plan in Michigan. Around the ame time, the wind indutry had begun howing interet in the county a a potential ite for development. The developer Wind Reource wa attracted by the exiting grid network of tranmiion line in place from the county legacy of heavy indutry and oil refining, and it tower tet in 2008 demontrated ufficient wind capacity for a feaible project. The timing wa perfect to integrate the development of wind energy regulation with the communitywide mater-planning proce. A economic committee chair of the mater plan project, Schurr introduced wind energy a a potential economic development trategy in the beginning of the planning proce and uggeted the group imultaneouly develop a wind energy ordinance to accommodate future wind energy development. Schurr further advocated for full and tranparent participation in the development of both: anybody who wanted to participate could do o. Dan Roman, the local Michigan State Univerity extenion director, organized a countywide wind energy education effort with the Gratiot County Farm Bureau for landowning farmer, which culminated in a large meeting with expert preentation on wind energy development. The County retained Spicer Engineering of neighboring Saginaw County to provide technical guidance. In May 2009, the county planning commiion unanimouly approved a wind energy ordinance applying to ix county-zoned townhip and erving a a model for other municipalitie. The ordinance focue olely on large-cale wind energy converion ytem deigned to upply energy to off-ite cutomer, and aim to protect landowner and the community while allowing wind farm project to be developed. It provide for the creation of Wind Energy Facility Overlay Ditrict (ee map) through zoning map amendment, in which wind farm are permitted ue with the granting of a Wind Energy Facilitie Permit through the pecial ue permitting proce. The ordinance further note that Wind Energy Facility Overlay Ditrict are intended a agricultural preervation meaure. Gratiot County wind energy overlay ditrict map Source: Gratiot County Required wind farm permit application material include a narrative of the propoed wind farm, a ite plan, and a decommiioning performance bond of at leat $1 million. The propoal mut comply with applicable water reource protection, eroion, and wetland ordinance, and it mut mitigate the project viual appearance through minimal lighting and undergrounding of electrical line where practicable. Turbine mut be et back by the greater of 1,000 feet or two time hub height from reidence and occupied building and by the greater of 400 feet or 1.5 time hub height from public road, railroad line, and rail to trail facilitie. To minimize diruption to agricultural activity, turbine and acce road iting i encouraged along internal property line, but a etback of 1.5 time hub height applie to property line of nonparticipating parcel. The tandard alo retrict hadow flicker to 30 hour per year, retrict noie to 55 dba at nearet habitable tructure, and require afety meaure (warning ign, no public or climbing acce to turbine). (See Chapter 7.) (continued on page 18)

22 18 Planning for Wind Energy (continued from page 17) Adoption of the wind energy ordinance created a conitent framework for wind energy development, increaing the attractivene of Gratiot County to wind energy developer who dread grappling with patchwork of differing local regulation. Groundwork for the firt wind energy facility permit, ought by Wind Reource in partnerhip with Invenergy, the country larget independent wind-energy generation company, wa laid by a erie of public meeting, including coffee and cookie gathering led by Wind Reource and Invenergy to allow the public and company repreentative to dicu wind turbine iue. Thee meeting culminated in a large public hearing at Breckenridge High School in March 2010 hoted by the four townhip in which Invenergy intended to ite the propoed wind farm. More than 400 people turned out to dicu paage of the countywide wind energy ordinance and potential impact uch a hadow flicker, future development, property value, noie, wildlife conideration, and impingement on geee flyway. For every voiced concern, other who had lived near wind turbine gave tetimony that perceived negative impact were unjutified. Invenergy taff howed diagram, model, data, and photograph of the wind farm contruction proce and wind farm currently in operation. The final reult wa a unanimou vote by the four townhip to approve the pecial ue permit for the project. Contruction for the Invenergy project i currently under way for 133 turbine; the company had already ecured a power purchae agreement with DTE Energy, the larget energy provider in Michigan. More than 200 familie are part of the leaing pool of Invenergy project, which include project neighbor without turbine on their parcel. Individual leae owner will receive proportional percentage of the gro proceed. The firt tage of the project will provide 150 killed contruction job, 15 full-time technician job, and $1.2 million in annual revenue for the county and municipalitie. Landowner will get $80 per acre for leaed pace and a percentage of gro royaltie. The project i expected to generate enough electricity to power 54,000 home annually. One local official etimate that property taxe generated by the project and royalty payment to leae owner could amount to $100 million over the next 20 year. Breckenridge city manager Jeff Otrander told the pre that hi community chool could capture up to $800,000 in the firt year. The Invenergy project i jut the beginning, according to Gratiot County official. A pecial permit application for a econd wind farm from locally initiated Beebe Wind, in partnerhip with Nordex of Germany, wa approved unanimouly in February 2011; the propoed project could encompa up to 100 turbine and produce 300 MW of energy. A third pecial permit for TradeWind Energy, a Kana-baed firm, ha been approved for a project of 150 MW. In addition, Invenergy i now looking at a econd project in Gratiot County of approximately 200 to 300 MW. The primary reaon for Gratiot County wind energy windfall continue to be a willing community, a viable wind reource, and good acce to tranmiion. The faltering economy in Gratiot County made the public more receptive to countywide planning and wind energy than they might otherwie have been; the vat majority of citizen at public hearing are in favor of bringing turbine to their rural communitie. Wind energy i an exciting alternative to the truggling automobile indutry and dependence on foreign oil, and one that i highly compatible with the county agricultural bae; farmer appreciate the farmland preervation apect of the wind ditrict overlay and the chance to diverify their income tream by hoting wind turbine on their propertie. Don Schurr make the point that planning ha made the difference: though Gratiot County i not the bet place in Michigan for wind, the fact that county communitie are all on the ame page when it come to regulating wind energy ha helped land them the tate larget wind farm, with more turbine (and more revenue) yet to come. For more information: Gratiot County Adopted Wind Ordinance. Available at Greater Gratiot Development. About U. Available at TradeWind Energy. Gratiot Farm Wind Project. Available at delay between the negotiation of turbine contract and power purchae agreement and completion of actual project.) Technology performance i alo continuing to improve; the increae in hub height and rotor diameter over the pat decade are driving up project production (per unit of intalled capacity) and reducing the cot of electricity produced by wind turbine. Falling capital cot and improved performance ugget that wind could be an increaingly competitive power generation reource. In addition to the high-level market driver of demand for electricity and competition from alternative generating reource, a number of additional barrier to utility-cale wind perit, including: Inconitent federal policy Acce to tranmiion Concern over impact to wildlife (including protected and unprotected pecie) Aethetic and nuiance concern from potential hot communitie Offhore Wind A ubet of the utility-cale wind indutry i offhore wind energy development. Although no offhore wind power plant exit in the United State today, there i ignificant interet in developing uch project. Through 2010, there were more than 2,000 MW in relatively late tage development (Wier and Bolinger 2011). The offhore wind reource i generally preferable due to higher wind peed and lower turbulence. With ignificant power demand located in major metropolitan area on both coat (e.g., New York City; Boton; Wahington, D.C.; Lo Angele; San Francico) and a robut coatal wind reource (Figure 2.2), offhore project alo can be placed cloer to large demand center, reducing the

23 Chapter 2. Indutry Overview 19 OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY Kitty Fahey In the coming month and year, local official and planner along the coat and Great Lake will be increaingly involved in preparing their communitie for the economic benefit and infratructure complexitie that offhore wind energy facilitie can bring. The National Offhore Wind Strategy, developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of the Interior (DOI), ha et ambitiou goal for thi technology 10 gigawatt of offhore wind-generating capacity by 2020, at an energy cot of 10 cent per kilowatt hour. (One gigawatt equal one billion watt.) Official aim for 54 gigawatt of offhore wind-generating capacity by 2030, at an energy cot of 7 cent per kilowatt-hour. The offhore area conidered for wind energy development lie on the U.S. outer continental helf and are held in the public trut therefore, thee area are not technically within the planning juridiction of local coatal communitie. However, a the offhore wind energy indutry progree, it will bring great economic opportunitie and alo great planning and infratructure challenge to onhore communitie nearby. For thi reaon, local official and planner will want to take part in converation about Figure 2.2. Map of the offhore U.S. wind reource, 90 meter above ea level Source: NREL / Schwartz et al where, when, and how offhore wind development proceed. National interet and activity in the development of offhore wind energy ha never been greater. In the pat everal year, the federal government ha et both a planning framework for offhore area and a regulatory proce for developing renewable energy in federal water, ay Adam Bode, a patial analyt with The Baldwin Group at the National Oceanic and Atmopheric Adminitration (NOAA) Coatal Service Center. The center develop tool and guide to ait coatal planner and other with iue related to planning of offhore area. Bode add that 29 tate and the Ditrict of Columbia have etablihed goal or law requiring a certain percentage of electricity to be upplied by renewable energy. Many of thee tate will find their goal hard to reach without adding renewable offhore wind energy and, to a leer degree, wave and current energy, he ay. Local official and planner are invited to become involved in tate-level dicuion on offhore wind energy development. The U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which ha juridiction over offhore wind energy development on the outer continental helf, i helping to form federal-tate tak force that will etablih offhore wind energy area (WEA). When an offhore area i deignated a WEA, it mean thi area ha a decreaed likelihood of cauing conflict among takeholder or having fatal flaw, ay Bode. But deignating a WEA i jut a tarting point much more feedback and invetigation will be needed to determine the very bet area, he ay. The tak force will aid communication between BOEM and tate, local, tribal, and federal takeholder regarding leaing and development iue on the outer continental helf. The tak force meeting welcome anyone and provide an opening for planner or any other ector and takeholder to keep updated on development, provide information and feedback, and lodge potential objection during the deciion-making proce. (To learn more about the progre of WEA tak force in variou tate, viit Program/State-Activitie/Index.apx.) Offhore Wind Require Planning Until recently, many coatal and Great Lake communitie were reluctant to dicu offhore wind energy development becaue it wa perceived to be prohibitively expenive, compared with landbaed wind energy farm. One government initiative i working to leen the obtacle that have tood in the way of offhore wind energy development. In early 2011, the DOE and DOI unveiled a plan to treamline the development of offhore wind energy a part of DOI Smart from the Start initiative (www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/new/new_detail.html?new_id=16709). The initiative make available more than $50 million in funding opportunitie intended to remove market barrier and peed development of next-generation technologie. A part of the initiative, four Mid-Atlantic WEA off the coat of Delaware, Maryland, New Jerey, and Virginia will undergo accelerated environmental review, with area off the North Atlantic and South Atlantic coat oon to follow. Offhore wind energy development i more expenive up front, but it till attractive in ome area becaue it cloe to the power demand center that are dene in population New Jerey i one example, ay Bode. There a great potential for the creation of killed local job in contruction, operation, and maintenance of offhore wind facilitie. For planner, thoe job will alo have alo big impact on local infratructure planning, he ay. One infratructure conideration concern offhore wind tower, which can be 400 feet tall. Deep-draft port will be needed to upport the traffic of large hip that intall and ervice the tower. Another complexity involve the connection to the power grid. A cable will have to run from the facilitie back to hore, where it plug into the grid. That cable i going to cro federal and tate water and the local juridiction. In addition, the community need to make ure that the grid connection point ha the capacity to handle the wattage coming in from the wind farm, add Bode. (continued on page 20)

24 20 Planning for Wind Energy (continued from page 19) The offhore-wind upply chain indutrie can be an economic boon to communitie, but they will alo involve intene infratructure planning. For the bet logitic and efficiency, the manufacturer of large component would be integrated alongide the port of deployment, a we ee in the European port today, ay Patrick Fullenkamp, the director of technical ervice for the Great Lake Wind Network, an international upplychain adviory group and manufacturer network. With the larger part and high cot and limitation to tranport [of offhore wind facilitie], the need for coatal manufacturing ite for heavy fabrication, cating, forging, compoite blade, [and] nacelle aembly will be required. Paul Wolff, a councilmember for the City of Tybee Iland, Georgia, i one of many local advocate who are involved in making offhore wind energy production a reality. A parent company of Georgia Power i in the proce of applying for two offhore leae to tet wind reource for a wind farm 10 mile off the Georgia coat. With all the development in offhore wind, coatal communitie will need to tart conidering the offhore environment in their local planning deciion, ay Wolff, adding that there are advantage to doing o. Aide from all the environmental benefit, the offhore wind indutry ha the potential to be a huge economic driver for an entire region. Wolff cite the United Kingdom, which i committed to expanding it offhore wind reource but lack a trong upply chain for all the component part that mut be manufactured in the coming decade. There are many opportunitie for U.S. companie and manufacturer, if we purue them, he ay. But before an offhore wind farm can be approved, a wide variety of community ector need to take part in the planning and development proce the fihing indutry, national ecurity interet, official leaing ubmerged land, coatal community developer, and agencie protecting critical habitat, to mention jut a few. Here, our meeting involve local reident, organization, city and county taff, and about a dozen agencie connected with port, fiherie, natural reource, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineer, and other, ay Wolff. Planning Tool for Offhore Area The NOAA Coatal Service Center provide guidance, tool, and data that can eae the learning curve for coatal official and planner who need to tart planning for offhore area ue. Some reource planner can ue to help plan for offhore wind energy development include the following: Multipurpoe Marine Cadatre ( Thi creening tool enable uer to find authoritative and relevant data and information to refine wind-energy ite earche, create and cutomize detailed map, and addre project idea with collaborator, regulator, and takeholder. To ee how the North Carolina Wind Energy Tak Force i uing the cadatre to help identify outer continental helf leae block uitable for wind energy iting, viit c03. The cadatre effort i led by the center and the BOEM. Offhore Renewable Energy Planning Site ( Thi webite feature information on many tool, guide, data et, and training that can ait anyone involved in finding the bet location for offhore renewable energy project. A ampling include CanVi, a viual imulation tool that can be ued to illutrate the viual impact of offhore wind turbine; the Benthic Terrain Modeler, which help uer examine the deepwater environment; and a guidebook, Marine Managed Area: Bet Practice for Boundary Making. Legilative Atla ( For organization intereted in coatal and marine patial planning and regional ocean management, the Legilative Atla provide quick acce to the complex et of law governing the nation ocean water. The atla enable uer to pinpoint and view on a map the law, policie, and juridiction that apply to their pecific coatal area. It alo offer uer the ability to acce and download law in the form of patial data. To learn more about the center ocean planning reource, viit need for new intertate tranmiion line. Offhore wind energy project exit primarily in Europe, where reduced land availability ha puhed developer toward offhore ite. Through 2010 there were approximately 2,950 MW of offhore wind capacity intalled in the European Union. Approximately 880 MW were added in 2010 (GWEC 2011). However, high cot for contruction, intallation, and operation and maintenance have preented barrier to the development of offhore wind in the United State. Cot are ubtantially higher a a reult of the more complex and material-intenive foundation and upport tructure required in the offhore environment, ignificantly greater logitic challenge (work at ea drive up cot both during intallation and while performing maintenance), and increaed electrical infratructure cot aociated with ubmarine electrical ytem (Junginger et al. 2004; UKERC 2010). The fact that much of the neceary upporting infratructure, including port and veel, ha yet to be built in the United State alo puhe cot higher, a equipment and veel may need to be brought in from other part of the world to do the work. Permitting and regulatory barrier and cot are alo ignificant in the United State. Cot uncertainty reulting from limited to zero experience contructing and operating an offhore wind facility in the United State alo force developer to be very conervative in their cot etimate. Thi puhe etimated cot even higher, particularly for thoe project that are vying to be firt. COMMUNITY WIND The community wind market egment differ from the other in that it refer pecifically to an ownerhip model rather than a type or ize of turbine. A uch, community wind project may

25 Chapter 2. Indutry Overview 21 MINWIND, ROCK COUNTY, MINNESOTA The Minwind community wind project are prime example of wind energy project planned, built, owned, and managed by local reident. Minwind i located in the outhwet corner of the tate, even mile from the town of Luverne in Rock County, Minneota. The area ha a long tradition of agricultural production. Minwind tarted taking hape in 2000, when local farmer began looking for a way to capitalize on the area wind reource. The community wind concept emerged a a potential trategy for developing thi reource in uch a way that the majority of the economic benefit would accrue to local farmer and reident. The group determined it would intall two wind energy project, Minwind I and Minwind II. The two project were et up a eparate limited liability corporation (LLC); thi ownerhip tructure enabled the project to take advantage of tax credit and other incentive. The local economic benefit of Minwind extended beyond local ownerhip of the project. Share in each project were old to local invetor; according to the LLC regulation, 85 percent of hare needed to be owned by local farmer, with the ret available to nonfarming local reident. Additionally, no ingle peron wa permitted to buy more than 15 percent of the hare. In only 12 day, all hare were purchaed by 66 invetor within Minneota. Throughout contruction, the LLC ued local labor, product, and upplier whenever poible. We wanted a farmer-owned project that would bring economic development, get farmer a return on their invetment, and ue local buinee and contractor to do the work, aid Mark Willer, CEO of Minwind and preident of Minwind I. Though the Minwind project were legally organized a LLC, they are run like cooperative in that they have voluntary, open memberhip and democratic member control. Capital raied from the ale of the hare wa ued toward development cot of the two project. Each project alo received loan from local bank, and a USDA Farm Bill Section 9006 renewable energy grant covered 10 percent of the intalled cot of the turbine (about $180,000). Minwind I and Minwind II then took advantage of a Minneota renewable production incentive that, over a period of 10 year, pay 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour for wind project up to 2 MW. (Minwind turbine are jut below thi capacity.) One of the more challenging apect of thi development wa negotiating a power purchae agreement with a power purchaer. The LLC initially had ome difficulty finding a power purchaer that wa willing and able to work with the community-owned Minwind project. After month of negotiation, Minwind tarted a 15-year contract with Alliant Energy, which ue the produced electricity to help atify renewable energy tandard in the nearby tate of Iowa and Wiconin. In Minneota, the tate Public Utilitie Commiion i reponible for regulating and approving large wind energy facilitie of over 5 MW, and mall ytem under thi threhold are permitted by local government, though they mut incorporate commiion-precribed general permit tandard in their procee. Eric Hartman, director of Rock County land management office, explained that the Minwind project were approved a conditional ue, with a public hearing required for each of the turbine during it development tage. According to Hartman, public opinion grew more and more poitive with each ubequent turbine. The Minwind model for community-owned wind energy ha been ucceful. After the firt two project were built, local interet wa at uch a high level that advocate began planning for additional Minwind LLC. Today there are nine Minwind project, each with an energy capacity of about 1.75 MW. Minwind I and II have two maller turbine each, while ubequent Minwind project have jut one larger turbine apiece. To thoe involved with Minwind, not only i thi project environmentally utainable, it i economically utainable a well, and it i a profitable buine venture for local farmer. According to Willer, the Minwind project were developed with many objective in mind, including generating renewable energy, creating local employment opportunitie, maintaining group ownerhip, keeping profit local, and participating in the future. In Minwind 10 year, it ha and continue to accomplih all of thee goal. For more information: Minneota Public Utilitie Commiion. Wind Tur bine Siting. Available at html. Minwind: Farmer-Owned. Available at Minwind I and II Project Rock County, Minneota. Available at minwind. Windutry. Minwind III IX, Luverne, MN: Community Wind Project. Available at minwind-iii-ix-luverne-mn-community-wind-project. Windutry Newletter Minwind I & II: Innovative Farmer-Owned Wind Project. Available at windutry.org/new/windutry-newletter-fall-2002.

26 22 Planning for Wind Energy utilize any of the variou turbine type (i.e., ditributed, midized, utility-cale, or offhore). The key element of a community wind project i ome form of local ownerhip or equity invetment, whether from local reident (e.g., farmer and rancher), college, tribal government, or local buinee. Thi ector account for about 2 percent of the overall wind indutry (Wier and Bolinger 2011). However, ome definition of the ector include project owned by municipal utilitie and rural electric cooperative, which boot the hare of the market. In theory, a community wind project may be of any ize o long a there i a local ownerhip component; in practice, community wind project are often maller than average utility-cale wind project. Community wind project face many of the ame barrier a thoe in the broader indutry; however, due to retriction on the type of income that can be ued to monetize the production and invetment tax credit (ee page 15), community wind project have tended to face more financing challenge (Bolinger 2011). In addition, mall community wind project may have difficulty achieving the economie of cale aociated with utility-cale project. Community wind, however, ha been oberved to hold ome advantage. Notably, community wind project are believed to enhance ocial acceptance by encouraging takeholder buy-in and participation (McLaren 2007) and ditributing economic benefit more broadly throughout the economy (Lantz and Tegen 2009). LOCATIONS Erica Heller, a i c p A more wind turbine technologie are developed, wind turbine can fit into an increaing variety of etting. Quieter, maller model can fit into more denely ettled area, while large, tethered turbine have uccefully been intalled in offhore location. Different context whether urban, rural, offhore, or off the grid raie particular iue for wind energy compatibility. Urban Small wind energy converion ytem (WECS) can fit in a wide variety of etting, including urbanized communitie. San Francico, Denver, and Chicago are large citie that permit a variety of mall WECS. A dicued in Chapter 6, reaonable tandard may readily be drafted to addre afety concern and other potential impact of mall WECS that make it poible to ite them cloe to other ue. A ignificant challenge for mall WECS in urban area i acce to good quality wind. The preence of numerou tructure and obtruction in urban area caue very turbulent wind at many urban ite, limiting the potential of mall WECS in thee area. The turbulence and obtruction reult in large difference in wind quality over hort ditance, making itepecific teting very important to cot-effectivene analyi. WECS technologie are being developed to take advantage of urban location and condition. (See Figure 2.3, page 24.) Some roof-mounted model are deigned to be placed in a row along the windward edge of flat commercial and indutrial rooftop, where they take advantage of the updraft from the building face. Micromodel may be mounted atop light pole in parking lot. However, wind acce and quality remain challenge in uch location. Studie that meaure the performance of urban and rooftop wind turbine indicate ubtantial concern for many urban ite due to turbulence. Therefore, it i not adviable at thi time for local government to limit allowable mall WECS to building-mounted model, even in urban etting.

27 Chapter 2. Indutry Overview 23 LINCOLN COUNTY, KANSAS Lincoln County, Kana, in the northern central region of the tate, i a rural county of 720 quare mile with a population jut under 3,500. Seeing the economic decline common to many other predominantly agricultural area of the Great Plain, county official decided in 2000 to look into their juridiction potential for wind energy. Thi wa before wind energy had gained much national attention, and the tate had yet to releae wind reource map and tudie, o the county wa heading into uncharted territory, recall Jennifer O Hare, county attorney: It wa really a graroot effort. The Economic Development Department and the Board of County Commiioner put up a meteorological tower to explore wind level in the county, and they invited other countie to join in but none wa intereted. It turned out that the wind reource in the county were very impreive, and the county official approached wind developer. Tranmiion line already ran through the county, which further increaed it attraction. The eventual outcome wa the Smoky Hill Wind Farm, the tate larget wind energy project, which began operating in Built in two phae, the project total 155 turbine with a 250 MW capacity and cover 26,000 acre involving 200 landowner in Lincoln and Ellworth countie. There i no zoning in the county and no planning or policy document, o the permitting proce conited mainly of the tandard development form required by the Board of County Commiioner and a few additional key negotiation: road maintenance, county land leae, and a PILOT agreement. The highway department worked out a road maintenance agreement with the developer that required documentation and repair of any road damage reulting from turbine contruction, a well a developer funding of any road upgrade required to truck the turbine to their ite. While reident enjoy the better road condition, O Hare point out that the county i now reponible for paying for the long-term maintenance of thoe road and ha had to adjut it annual budget accordingly. The board negotiated directly with the developer for leae agreement for the turbine on county land, but ince the bulk of the project wa built on private land the developer negotiated directly with thoe landowner. Due to the large amount of open land in the county, the developer wa able find enough intereted landowner while avoiding thoe who were not intereted or who oppoed the project. Some project landowner hot turbine on their property, but the developer alo leaed additional land a buffer to keep other wind farm from being built nearby. Finally, the county negotiated a PILOT agreement for the project. The initial agreement wa for $275,000 for the year of project completion and $200,000 for the ubequent nine year, with future PILOT to be negotiated baed on project expanion. In Kana, wind farm are not taxed, but tate tatute allow local government to accept PILOT intead. O Hare explain, PILOT erve a a gift that offet ome of the project tax liability and demontrate the good faith of the developer. But while PILOT typically go into a community general treaury, the board of commiioner took an innovative approach, creating the Windpower Economic Benefit (WEB) fund to enure direct benefit to the entire community. The fund i overeen by a five-member board repreenting the economic development department, the board of commiioner, and the county three ditrict. Each year the interet from the project PILOT i made available a untructured grant to local group, including the board itelf, the county economic development agency, chool, and community group. O Hare report, Thi i the fund firt year; the firt application ha come in from the hopital, and everal other community organization are preparing application. The WEB fund bylaw are deigned to enure that community goal will be forwarded through thi proce. Subequently, other Kana countie have followed Lincoln County lead and ued it PILOT agreement a a template. According to O Hare, public upport for the project i high and wa boltered by the proactive effort of a local landowner and farmer who advocated for the project early in the development proce. Small and rural with no oil, ga, or big buine preence, the county benefit from the financial reource that the wind farm bring in and ha worked to make ure that they go toward upporting the community quality of life. O Hare add, For children born in the community after the turbine went up, Kana ha alway had turbine there ha never been a time for them when the turbine weren t there. Thi experience ha really opened the eye of Kana reident to the renewable energy proce and hown them what Kana ha to offer in thi regard.

28 24 Planning for Wind Energy Figure 2.3. Small WECS generate enough energy to light thi parking lot in Lakewood, Colorado. Source: Erica Heller While denity and proximity of ue in urban area can add ome challenge for iting and operation of WECS, ome of the attribute of urban area enhance compatibility with WECS. Ambient noie in urbanized area, uch a in indutrial ditrict or near freeway, can mak the additional ound generated by WECS. Many urbanized area hot an array of viual obtruction uch a tranmiion line, cell tower, radio antenna, tall building, moketack, and billboard. It may be eaier for urban reident who are ued to uch viual clutter to accept WECS a part of the kyline than it i for rural reident accutomed to pritine view. Nonreidential urban uer with high energy demand may find that intalling a WECS i a cot-effective way to reduce energy bill. For example, WECS are a good fit with the character of indutrial zone and can provide power to energyintenive indutrial ue. In urban area, it may be beneficial or enhance community acceptance to define ubcategorie of mall WECS. Many different ize of mall WECS fit different cale of urban ue, from factorie to ingle-family home. An ordinance that retrict the energy output of mall WECS o that it primarily erve on-ite need i one effective way to cale WECS to the ue. However, in ome intance, a large uer, uch a a church, might be located in a reidential ditrict and ue enough energy to jutify a WECS large enough to feel out of cale with the neighborhood. Thu, urban communitie and thoe with a great deal of variety in character are more likely to take a more fine-grained approach to caling ize or output of WECS by zoning ditrict. Height limit in urban area often need to be higher than in rural area to enure that WECS have acce to le turbulent wind. In rural area, it may be poible to imply move WECS horizontally to avoid obtruction and turbulent wind, but in denely developed urban area with cluttered airpace, the only viable direction to go i up. Mechanim to protect intalled WECS wind acce againt future obtruction are alo important. Baic tructure height limit for each zoning ditrict can etablih certainty for potential WECS intaller, while exemption from the ditrict limit allow WECS to clear obtacle. At limited urban ite, uch a on area of high ground, along horeline, or adjacent to open area, wind may be quite conitent at lower elevation. In thee area, WECS may not need to be a high to function well. Rural Rural location are the traditional etting for wind turbine. The hitory of wind turbine begin with windmill in rural agricultural context. Today, utility-cale wind farm are located almot excluively in rural area where wind are trong and unimpeded. Small wind turbine alo continue to be located in agricultural and other rural etting. Overall, mall turbine fit more readily into rural area than urban location. Many of the ame concern and poible land-ue impact exit, but the greater eparation among rural land ue can help to reolve uch iue. Three land-ue conideration that merit dicuion in mall wind energy regulation for rural area are noie, etback, and viual impact. Noie impact in rural area may be conidered more annoying than in urban area due to lower ambient noie level. Standard for acceptable ound output typically pecify a level 10 to 15 db greater than the ambient baeline. In rural etting where typical lot ize are quite large, noie i often meaured at the nearet habitable tructure rather than at the property line. Thi meaurement location acknowledge that many area of a large lot may not be regularly ued for outdoor occupation or leiure and that turbine have le potential to create nuiance impact in a cornfield than in a backyard.

29 Chapter 2. Indutry Overview 25 In rural area with large lot, minimum etback are ometime larger than in urban area. Larger etback can create an additional buffer to reduce concern about noie and viual impact and increae acceptance of wind turbine. Where lot ize are typically larger, mot landowner can meet the larger etback, and thu it i reaonable to require them. In ome rural area, particularly agricultural one, etback are meaured from the nearet habitable tructure or public way rather than from the property line, much a with rural noie regulation. The iue of viual impact of mall turbine can be either more or le controverial in rural area than in more urban etting. In agricultural communitie, wind turbine are often readily accepted a a part of the working landcape. Many other rural communitie tend to take a minimalit approach to land-ue regulation in general, and intallation of mall wind turbine i accepted along with a wide range of other deciion about the ue of private property. However, unlike urban area, rural area can have more pritine viual environment. In ome rural communitie, mall wind turbine are perceived a an unwelcome intruion in the otherwie wide-open kyline. Small wind turbine may be controverial in thee area due to their potential impact on neighbor view. In thee communitie, viual impact analye may be required or pecific viewhed may be called out for pecial protection from turbine and other potential viual intruion. While ome communitie try to addre thi concern through retrictive height limit on turbine, thi practice everely limit wind turbine effectivene. (See Chapter 6.) Height limitation that keep mall wind turbine below the level of clean, trong wind are not an effective regulatory olution a they render turbine cot ineffective and thu function a a de facto prohibition. Off-Grid Mot often, mall WECS are grid-connected, meaning they feed into the exiting electricity grid rather than directly to the primary ue. Wind i variable, eaonal, and may not be well-timed with demand and uage. For example, wind may be bet on pring and autumn night, wherea peak demand occur on ummer weekday afternoon. Where a connection to the grid i available, it i the practical way to capture all the WECS output, which can be credited againt the electricity that i ued on-ite. In fact, ome citie and town require proof of utility approval of a grid connection a a ubmittal requirement for a mall WECS permit. However, WECS can alo erve area and ue where a grid connection i not practical or feaible. In ome agricultural ditrict, the popularity of WECS for farming application tem from the fact that they can provide ignificant power without the hale and expene of running long connector from tranmiion line through tilled farmland. One of the oldet application of windmill pumping water remain ueful on agricultural area becaue it uccefully overcome the temporal problem of wind energy. Energy generated by WECS i ued to pump groundwater into urface pond whenever the wind blow, for ue a needed by gravity feed. WECS are ued in other off-grid application a well, uch a at remote park facilitie and reidence uch a mountain cabin that have no poibility of grid connection. Occaionally, alternative energy purit that could connect to the grid prefer not to, a they object to the exchange of electron with a grid where power i primarily derived from foil fuel. Thee uer may eek to create off-grid ytem. Where mall WECS are not connected to the grid, owner typically addre the temporal challenge of wind energy by feeding power into battery ytem that tore energy during windy time for ue later. Often ue that

30 26 Planning for Wind Energy are not grid-connected couple mall WECS with other renewable energy option, uch a olar, to generate energy in a range of weather condition and eaon. UTILITY-SCALE WIND PROJECT COSTS AND ECONOMICS Kevin Racktraw Windpower generation cot have been decreaing over recent decade, enabling a rapid expanion of wind project worldwide a they have become more competitive with other electricity-generating option. However, both the cot of the average intalled wind project (Figure 2.4) and the reulting cot of energy produced (Figure 2.5) have actually rien over the pat five year. Figure 2.4. Wind power intalled cot trend Source: Wier and Bolinger 2010 Figure 2.5. Cumulative capacity-weighted average wind power price Source: Wier and Bolinger 2010 Depite thee trend, wind power i een a an attractive option by growing number of utilitie, a illutrated by it 37 percent annual average growth over the pat five year (WWEA 2010, 19). There are a number of reaon for wind energy continued growth uch a policy, improved turbine performance, the lack of fuel price rik, and many other but it i alo ignificant that mot other electricity-generation option have increaed in cot (though natural ga price have recently declined again). Baic of Wind Economic The cot of wind energy i determined by the intalled cot of the wind plant; the operating cot of the plant, including the cot of maintaining, repairing, inuring, and financing the project, taxe, and other project-related charge; the et of incentive that affect the final price of the power, the demand for wind power, or both; and the amount of wind that can be captured by the plant.

31 Chapter 2. Indutry Overview 27 Intalled Cot of the Wind Plant. The main cot element of a utilitycale wind plant are turbine (generator, nacelle, blade); tower; power tranformer, both at each turbine and at a ubtation; cable for carrying power and electronic ignal; ubtation and witching equipment to allow interconnection into a high-voltage grid; computer, fiber-optic network, office, torage facilitie; contruction cot (excavation, foundation, concrete, road, erection of turbine, trenching of power cable); development cot, including permitting; and financing cot, including contruction interet, inurance, legal, and other tranactional cot, although the intalled cot doe not include the cot of permanent financing. Figure 2.6 how a breakdown the major cot categorie of a typical 100-MW project in Note: * Aume no new high-voltage tranmiion ** Include development cot, legal, marketing, contruction interet but not return to debt or equity for permanent financing; Exclude tranportation and contruction *** Percentage baed on turbine cot of $1,100/ MW and $1,800/MW intalled. Source: Author proprietary wind cot model a informed by project experience and other ource including DOE 2008; Fingerh, Hand, and Laxon 2006; and Wier and Bollinger 2010 Figure 2.6. Breakdown of intalled wind project cot*** There can be ubtantial variation in the percentage from one project to another or from one year to another. When turbine price were higher, the percentage pent on turbine hardware wa cloer to 70 percent. Area that are relatively eay to contruct in (uch a flat, open farmland) could ee lower contruction percentage and, thu, higher percentage in turbine cot. Some project may alo require the contruction of new high-voltage tranmiion infratructure, which can be expenive depending on voltage and the length of the line. The tranmiion total could eaily be everal percent of a project cot if many mile of new line mut be built or if interconnection with tranmiion line higher than 230 kilovolt i required. To implify matter, thi analyi aume that no new tranmiion will need to be built. Development Cot, Uncertainty, and Rik. It i important for planner to undertand development cot. A developer often ha to invet million of dollar and everal year before a project i financed and ready for contruction. Thi invetment i very much at rik until the point at which financing i committed and contruction ha begun. Permitting cot are an important part of that equation, a they can amount to hundred of thouand if not million of dollar when local, tate, and federal requirement are taken into account. Redundant requirement raie cot and caue delay, o local planner hould enure they are not duplicating tate or federal permitting purpoe. Clarity and tability of requirement are crucial. From a developer perpective, very little i more detructive to the development proce than uncertain or changing requirement.

32 28 Planning for Wind Energy Operating Cot. The main operating cot are: Maintenance peronnel (labor, benefit) Maintenance equipment (truck, tool) Spare and replacement part Repair cot for turbine, road, cable, ubtation and related electrical equipment, and other project aet Inurance Management of the operation proce, including tracking of plant condition, and reporting to owner and other relevant partie Taxe (income and property taxe principally) Land cot (payment to landowner for property uage) Other payment to communitie and individual either a compenation or a voluntary community upport Finance payment (interet and principal on long-term debt, return to equity, fee) Other operation cot typically include the cot to deliver energy (tranmiion) from the project location to a cutomer, although there are ituation where energy i delivered only to the project point of connection to the grid rather than to a particular cutomer for a defined price. Thi ale of energy to the grid (alo known a elling to the market ) mean a lower cot for the project owner, ince there i no payment for tranmiion of energy to a ditant cutomer, but it alo mean that the price of the project produced energy i ubject to energy market variability. Mot energy market change on an hourly or even ubhourly bai. Wind Reource. Many area of the United State have trong enough wind to generate electricity, but the cot of generating power varie dramatically. The Midwet and Great Plain from the Dakota down through wet Texa have excellent reource, o the project with the lowet-cot energy generally are in thi region, while the eat and wet coat have motly moderate wind reource with a few pecific area that have trong reource (e.g., the Columbia River Gorge in the Northwet or the Tehachapi Mountain in California). Since wind generally are tronger at higher elevation, mot project in the eat have been built on top of mountain or ridge. While mountaintop project are more expenive to contruct, energy price in the eatern United State are alo higher, o wind project can till be competitive there. Wind reource offhore are alo excellent on the coat, though the cot of utilizing that reource i far higher than onhore and ha not been competitive to date. Incentive. Wind energy project can receive two ource of value from the tax code. The firt i five-year accelerated depreciation (Modified Accelerated Cot Recovery Sytem or MACRS), which i alo applicable to a wide variety of other high-technology aet uch a computer, aircraft, and petroleum drilling equipment. A econd tax incentive, which i targeted toward clean energy ource like wind, provide a project owner with a choice of either an invetment tax credit or a production tax credit. The current Production Tax Credit (PTC) in 2010 amounted to 2.2 cent/kwh of energy produced and i et to expire at the end of Thi tax credit can reduce the cot of the reulting output by 20 to 30 percent. The PTC i deigned to be extremely difficult for individual to ue, o typically only large corporation have the right kind and quantity of tax liability to utilize it efficiently. For recent project ( ), a cah grant ha been available in lieu of the tax credit. Thi wa created in repone to the economic receion and a lack of tax liability by corporation and i

33 Chapter 2. Indutry Overview 29 not likely to be extended after it expire at the end of The cah grant opened ownerhip to many new entitie beide large corporation, which introduced new financial model and brought many new (and maller) player into the buine. The cah grant/invetment tax credit implified the calculation of energy cot ince it could jut be deducted from the cot of the project once it wa complete. The PTC generate tax credit over a 10-year period, but ince the uer of it might not have a tax liability every year, the final cot of energy produced i uncertain. State alo provide incentive for wind project, often in the form of a corporate income-tax credit, but ome provide property tax abatement or exemption, ale tax exemption, or performance incentive much like the federal PTC. An excellent ummary of the variou tate incentive a well a detail about them and their enabling legilation can be found at Other incentive include tate or federal requirement to purchae wind energy. Thee mandate are often called Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and are in place in 30 tate, while another even tate have voluntary tandard in place. (See The federal government alo aim to purchae a portion of it energy from green ource 5 percent in 2011, going up to 7.5 percent in The tate RPS policie are generally conidered primary driver of renewable energy capacity in the United State, although ome tate, uch a Texa, have already exceeded their requirement and have added new capacity (mainly wind) for economic reaon. (Electricity price in Texa are et at the margin by natural ga, which meant everal year ago that electricity price were quite high. In thi environment, wind energy wa a very attractive option.) Wind Cot Trend The reaon for wind energy cot increae ince 2002 range from a declining exchange rate to increaed commodity price for teel and copper to increaed margin extracted throughout the wind turbine upply chain, including from key upplier of component uch a gearboxe and from experienced contruction firm that benefited from the extremely hot market from 2007 to Going forward, the U.S. market may be omewhat more inulated from exchange rate fluctuation becaue more blade, gearboxe, bearing, generator, electronic, and tower are being made dometically. Hitorically, European firm have dominated U.S. turbine upply, with only a couple of ignificant American turbine upplier in the field. Today, that picture i quite different (Figure 2.7). Figure 2.7. Import a a percentage of total wind equipment cot Source: Wier and Bollinger 2010

34 30 Planning for Wind Energy Impact of Economie of Scale on Wind Cot Figure 2.4 (page 26) how declining wind power price from 1999 through about 2005, while Figure 2.5 (page 26) how intalled project cot riing in 2001 and That wind power price fell depite riing intalled cot i principally due to economie of cale, both in term of project ize and in term of turbine ize. Another factor i the maturation of the indutry, including the entry of larger, better-capitalized developer who were able to improve efficiencie in the development proce a well a in the financing and contruction of project. From the practicing planner point of view, thi material hould be ueful in providing context for judging claim by developer that larger project are neceary to optimize the project economic. Turbine Size. The mot dramatic economy of cale achieved by the wind indutry i the increaing ize of wind turbine, mainly in term of the height of the tower, ize of the generator, and length of the blade. Eentially, the latet turbine are able to queeze more energy out of any given tower and foundation (Figure 1.1, page 2). Longer blade, for intance, increae the area from which energy i captured by the turbine. Think of the blade a the radiu of a circle that i harveted of energy by the moving blade. For every increment of additional blade length (r), the circle increae by a quared factor (a circle area i defined a πr 2 ). In ome cae, the increaed energy capture of the blade will alo allow a larger generator and gearbox to be ued o that the production capacity of any given turbine location can be much higher with only a moderate increae in cot, all of which lead to an overall lower cot of energy. Turbine Height. Size alo enable better economic becaue wind peed tend to increae with ditance from the earth urface, a factor that i called wind hear. There are limit on height, a tower get exponentially more expenive a they go up. Still, the average height of turbine tower ha grown over the lat decade from about 65 meter to about 80 meter (213 to 262 feet). Increaingly, tower are being built up to about 100 meter (328 feet) to try to improve energy production, and thu improve project economic, but cot i not the only limitation on tower height, a planner know. There are viewhed, aviation, radar, and wildlife iue that alo erve to limit tower height. Still, a technologie improve (and a tower and turbine get lighter o that foundation do not have to be a trong), there will be economic preure to increae the height of tower to take advantage of wind hear. Larger Project Size. Economie of cale can be achieved from larger project, on account of the larger capacity of each individual turbine and the number of turbine built at any given location. It i very expenive to bring in the big crane that are needed to erect wind turbine, a well a to mobilize crew and buy turbine and related material, o that the larger the project, the more efficient it i. Undertanding the Energy Price Context To undertand wind energy continuing competitivene with other energy technologie, we have to look a little more cloely at the number and at the broader context. Competitive doe not necearily mean that wind energy provide the lowet cot of electricity at a given moment. When utilitie or other major buyer of energy look at cot, they are looking at them over ome defined period uually at leat a few year, ometime a many a 20. For intance, when natural ga price are low, ga-fired project can claim extremely low cot. However, natural ga hitorically ha been an extremely volatile commodity (Figure 2.8), o over the life of a natural

35 Chapter 2. Indutry Overview 31 Figure 2.8. Ga price index, Source: Bureau of Labor Statitic ( ga fired plant, the cot might be quite a bit higher much of the time. Thi volatility require ome party to take the rik that natural ga price might pike, and energy buyer are often heitant to do o. For that reaon, it i not eay to buy natural ga for long period of time into the future mot contract lat only up to a few year becaue eller demand a ubtantial premium for that rik. The typical utility cutomer (ratepayer) who i a home owner (or renter) take that rik, a utilitie alway try to pa that cot on to the ratepayer. The cot of other conventional ource, uch a coal, roe enough over the Figure 2.9. Coal price index, Source: Bureau of Labor Statitic ( lat 10 year that wind relative poition remained trong (Figure 2.9). Coal alo ha ome price volatility aociated with it, particularly eatern coal from the Appalachian. (See overview/elec-ovr-coal-b-prb-pr.pdf.) One of the bigget uncertaintie for power ector invetment today i the potential implementation of ome kind of carbon control, whether a cap or a tax. Opinion on the likelihood of carbon contraint, a well a the cot impact of any uch control, vary widely, but the propect doe introduce ome additional uncertainty that invetor and utilitie have to take into account. Wind energy, by contrat, ha no fuel cot and ha relatively low operating cot, o once a project i built (and barring major unanticipated equipment failure), the owner can have a high degree of confidence in the cot of energy for many year into the future. Since wind energy cot are primarily hardware cot that are heavily influenced by the price of teel, copper, and other commoditie, they vary up to the point of turbine purchae and delivery, but wind technology typically ha limited expoure to uch cot over the project operating life. Like other technologie, wind component are ubject to failure due to unplanned tree, manufacturing iue, and wear and tear. Mot project will build a certain amount of unexpected component failure into their project pro forma. Failure that are not covered through third-party inurance, warrantie, or elf-inurance do expoe the

36 32 Planning for Wind Energy project owner to commodity and other market pricing rik at the time of the failure. Thi expoure can uually be mitigated through inurance or extended warranty product but in mot cae cannot be eliminated over the full life of the project. One of the bet way to think about wind energy value to electricity buyer and uer (that i, it competitivene) i a a portfolio diverification tool. Much like mot invetor want price-table product (e.g., certain bond, certificate of depoit, cah, etc.) in their portfolio to offet the volatility of tock, wind energy fixed-price character fit well in an energy portfolio with more volatile aet. At time of high natural-ga price, wind energy i often elected by utilitie and other electricity buyer a the mot economic option. At time of low natural-ga price, wind energy provide the hedge value that table-priced invetment do in a portfolio. The general rule ha been that wind energy will be mot competitive with natural ga at five or ix dollar per million BTU (mmbtu) or higher, though thi doe depend on the price of turbine. Natural-ga price are approximately $3.50 per mmbtu in the third quarter of 2011, and o natural ga ha a near-term price advantage. However, given natural ga price volatility, wind energy can till be a highly valued aet in a buyer portfolio. Cot Comparion of Electricity Option Thoe intereted in knowing more about wind energy competitivene often ak for comparion of the variou major generating option. Unfortunately, comparative energy cot are notoriouly hard to do fairly; many tudie exit, but they ue very different methodologie. It get even more complicated when tudie add cot for firming up wind variability from change in wind peed. The cot of uch firming can vary from one region to the next, but in mot area uch intermittency cot are relatively minor, on the order of one-tenth of a cent per kwh to half a cent per kwh. (See publication/upload/reliability-factheet-march-2011.pdf and Smith et al ) Some recent tudie can be found at However, mot uch tudie how wind a highly competitive with other ource over a 10- or 20-year period, particularly when emiion, hazardou wate, and fuel price volatility are taken into account. (See pro forma on page 33.) The following pro forma provide an example of expected revenue and expene for a 50 MW wind energy project over a 20-year period. Technology and financial aumption are included a well a expected incentive, helping to explain the year-to year variation in return on invetment.

37 Chapter 2. Indutry Overview 33

38 CHAPTER 3 Addreing Concern Eric Lantz with Charle Newcomb Survey of the general public typically find broad upport for wind energy; however, iting pecific wind energy project remain a challenge (Huber and Horbaty 2010). Local oppoition to wind energy project and ubequent iting challenge perit for many reaon. Wind energy i a low-denity reource, which increae it viibility acro the landcape and reult in far more individual iting deciion than a conventional highly centralized power-generating tation. Moreover, wind power introduce a moving element into the landcape (Wutenhagen et al. 2007). In rural area, where wind reource tend to be bet, a wind energy intallation may be the firt or mot viible indutrial development in a given locality. Individual community repone to thee and other iue may be influenced by factor including demographic, culture and hitory, the local economy, or interaction and experience with wind indutry repreentative (Huber and Horbaty 2010). 35

39 36 Planning for Wind Energy Common wind energy concern tend to fall into two major categorie: impact on quality of life, including potential degradation of the landcape and nuiance-related concern, and impact on the environment, primarily ecological and wildlife impact. Within thee broad categorie are numerou pecific concern ranging from the ditribution of economic benefit (e.g., landowner leae payment) to the potential for decreaed property value and avian and bat fatalitie. The wind energy indutry tend to label people who oppoe it project a NIMBY or individual who have taken Not in My Backyard poition. However, the literature ugget that thi phenomenon rarely exit; rather, people typically have real concern that if addreed properly can be reolved (e.g., Jone and Eier 2009, Wolink 2006, Devine-Wright 2005). In thi context, iting and planning for wind energy development require enitivity to the concern of a divere array of takeholder. It alo require attention to proce a well a to ubtantive iue (Huber and Horbaty 2010). Thi chapter dicue pecific wind energy iue that tend to concern individual and communitie, a well a typical mitigation trategie. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS Environmental concern about wind development have hitorically focued on direct avian impact, uch a raptor-turbine colliion. More recently, thee concern have broadened to include other wildlife, including bat, prairie chicken, and age groue. Quetion about ecological fragmentation, land requirement, and the magnitude of emiion reduction reulting from deployment of wind power have alo been raied. To ome extent, wildlife impact fall under traditional tate and federal regulatory cheme; however, iue uch a habitat fragmentation may not generate attention from regulator unle a pecific pecie i lited a endangered or otherwie protected. In general, concern lie primarily at the pecie or population level, but for endangered or migrating pecie impact to individual animal are alo a concern. Source: Kern County, California

40 Chapter 3. Addreing Concern 37 Wildlife Direct impact on avian and bat population continue to be a ignificant concern for the wind energy indutry and regulator. Fatalitie reulting from direct colliion are important, but diplacement and habitat fragmentation caued when animal avoid wind farm have alo emerged a iue, particularly for pecie that might be candidate for liting a endangered. In thi regard, project propoed in graland have caued the greatet concern, due to the potential for ignificant avoidance of project by prairie chicken and age groue (Shaffer and Johnon 2008). There i concern that thee pecie may be uniquely enitive to infratructure intallation and could avoid neting or brooding near them (NWCC 2010). A great deal of biological data ha been collected on the impact of wind facilitie on avian population. Literature urvey have etimated bird fatalitie to range from 0.95 to 14 per MW per year (NRC 2007; NWCC 2010). Data on raptor fatalitie clearly how le gro impact, with roughly 0 to 1 fatality per MW per year; however, thee event are often higher profile, a raptor tend to garner more public interet and in ome cae are protected (e.g., bald and golden eagle). Data collection on bat fatalitie ha taken place only in the lat few year, following large number of fatalitie at wind facilitie in the eatern United State. A review of more than 40 bat-related tudie ugget wide-ranging fatality rate, from 0 to 40 per MW per year (NWCC 2010). Early tudie (e.g., Arnett et al. 2008) indicate that bat fatalitie are highet among migratory pecie during migration period in late ummer and fall. Additional data are needed on bat fatalitie in other part of the country and among variou pecie of bat. The wind indutry often eek to put thee death in context by comparing the number of fatalitie reulting from wind turbine to thoe reulting from other human activitie. For example, the fraction of bird fatalitie from wind turbine ha been oberved to be everal order of magnitude below thoe from vehicle, window, communication tower, pollution, houe cat, and other anthropogenic caue (Erickon et al. 2005; NRC 2007). Such perpective i important, but the relative impact of wind energy could grow a the indutry look to intall ten or hundred of additional gigawatt of capacity. A the indutry ha acquired greater knowledge of it impact on avian population and developed mitigation trategie, concern over thee impact ha generally diminihed among biologit. Neverthele, the emergence of impact to bat and potential impact to the age groue and prairie chicken i expected to upport continued reearch of indutry impact on wildlife. Moreover, threat to lited endangered pecie or protected pecie uch a bald and golden eagle mut be eriouly conidered and planned for, a legal challenge on the bai of impact to protected pecie can be an effective mean of topping project. Mitigating Wildlife Concern. Undertanding the biological context for new wind development i critical to reducing rik to avian, bat, and other wildlife population. To a large extent, improved project planning and iting practice, baed on more than two decade of colliion reearch, ha facilitated dramatic reduction in the rate of avian fatalitie at mot wind plant. In addition, preliminary reearch focued on altering wind plant operation during period of low wind peed and at pecific time of the day or year ha hown promie, reducing bat fatalitie by a much a 80 percent (Arnett et al. 2009; Baerwald et al. 2009). However, additional reearch i neceary to confirm thee rate of effectivene. Future reearch i expected to focu increaingly on interaction between animal and turbine to evaluate how wind project affect normal wildlife behavior. Some developer have alo begun to compenate for their impact by developing mitigation bank typically ome form of habitat retoration area or preerve deigned to offet

41 38 Planning for Wind Energy WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND Wahington County, Maryland, ha made a concerted effort to go green for it reident. Official, with ignificant public input, have tailored the county zoning ordinance to accommodate alternative energy development in repone to local demand. The reult i a planning environment where alternative energy development i welcomed at a cale comfortable for both contituent and the development community. Wahington County i located on the eatern end of the Maryland panhandle, bordered by Pennylvania to the north and Wet Virginia to the outh. Noticeable interet in wind energy aroe there around 2007, coinciding with favorable tate and federal tax incentive cheme, a well a the maturation of the wind energy indutry. Two brother, both farmer from Smithburg in the eatern part of the county, were the mot vocal advocate. At that time, Wahington County zoning ordinance defined windmill in the context of dairy farm water-pumping machine, and county official realized they would need to update their ordinance to include wind turbine for electricity generation. Frotburg State Univerity, near Cumberland, developed a program to evaluate wind and olar energy reource in Wahington County. It compared the efficiency of wind to olar generation and found that mot of the county wa not a ignificant ource of wind energy; only two area (ridge on the eatern and wetern ide of the county) had an average wind peed of at leat 14 mph. However, becaue rapid advance in wind turbine technology have made power generation more attractive in area with le wind, county official decided to allow both olar energy and mall wind energy through a text amendment to the exiting zoning ordinance, while retricting commercial wind farm uch a thoe found in neighboring countie. On June 16, 2009, Wahington County uccefully amended it zoning ordinance to permit mall wind energy and olar collection ytem a acceory ue in all ditrict. The ordinance etablihed wind energy ytem etback equal to turbine height plu 20 feet from right-of-way and property line, and it et limit of two turbine per parcel, though in agricultural and conervation ditrict the limit wa et at twice the amount of the property annual electricity ued. Public involvement wa largely poitive. Energy conultant convened meeting to raie awarene of alternative energy, which attracted a core group of intereted citizen who provided input to county official during the proce. Official tried to addre every concern brought forward. Sound wa the bigget iue for ome, though it wa not a important to people in rural area. Thi proactive work meant few people raied iue at the time of ordinance adoption. More recently, the City of Hagertown adopted new ordinance language for both olar energy and wind energy development. Becaue Hagertown i more urban than mot of unincorporated Wahington County, ground-mounted wind turbine are retricted to commercial/indutrial or civic ue, while reidential area may have one microwind ytem per building limited to 15 kw of energy output and 10 feet in height above the highet point of the building. Nearly two year after the approval of Wahington County alternative energy proviion, official report that olar energy ha proven to be much more popular than wind energy. In fact, only two reidential wind turbine have been contructed (by the two farmer brother from Smithburg), while intallation of olar energy ytem ha been much more widepread, particularly among big-box retail tore including Staple, Kohl, and a locally owned copy tore. Even with a county reidential timulu program in place the firt ix month after the ordinance text amendment wa approved, no additional wind turbine were built. Meanwhile, only olar project have taken advantage of a 100-percent permitting fee credit for alternative energy development in the county. County official maintain that, depite the paucity of wind energy development in thee firt two year, intaller mut be more trongly regulated. They are concerned that intaller will try to convince people that wind energy development i a viable option in area where the data do not indicate adequate wind reource, reulting in abandoned reidential wind turbine marring the rural landcape. Official have conidered amending the ordinance to hold property owner reponible for either reactivating or removing abandoned wind turbine, but no action ha yet been taken. Wahington County demontrate the tenion inherent in area with local interet in alternative energy ource yet little wind reource. For more information: Hagertown Land Management Code (2011). Article 4, Section (K)(8), Supplementary Regulation Alternative Energy Source/Generator. Available at townmd.org/aet/plan_dev/article-4_jthrup.pdf. Wahington County Zoning Ordinance (2010). Article 4, Section 4.24, Small Wind Energy Sytem. Section 4.25, Solar Collection Sytem. Available at legal/zoningord_rev16.pdf.

42 Chapter 3. Addreing Concern 39 the impact of their project. Including proviion for mitigation bank in planning effort may ait in reolving objection to wind project put forth on the bai of wildlife impact. Land Requirement A modern wind energy facility coniting of hundred of megawatt of power generation will cover large wath of land. A a rule, 5 MW of wind power can be ited per quare kilometer. With a modern 2 3 MW turbine, thi tranlate to between 70 and 130 acre per turbine. Total land ue for individual project, however, i ultimately determined by turbine pacing requirement and local iting contraint. Turbine array are deigned to minimize production loe due to wind turbine wake. Terrain and the prevailing wind direction are critical feature in determining layout that minimize production loe. At the ame time, project developer mut take into account property line and leae agreement with landowner, etback requirement, and other landcape feature, including road. In ome cae, local iting contraint are the primary determinant of the minimum land area requirement. Analyi of actual wind project ha hown individual project denity to vary from 1.0 to 11.2 MW/km 2, with an overall average of 3.0 ± 1.7 MW/km 2 (Denholm et al. 2009). Depite the relatively large total footprint of a wind energy facility, the actual land requirement for wind turbine and aociated infratructure (e.g., acce road, operation and maintenance facilitie, ubtation) are rather modet. Only about 2 to 5 percent of the total land footprint of the facility i typically removed from ervice; the remaining land area may be ued for it traditional purpoe(), including farming and ranching. Source: Kern County, California Mitigating Land Requirement Concern. Turbine pacing requirement ugget that the total land area required for wind energy facilitie i unlikely to change ignificantly in the future. However, the indutry ha reduced it footprint by upcaling wind turbine technology. Individual turbine power-generating capacity ha grown from ten of kilowatt to multi-megawatt. Continued upcaling i likely to maintain thee trend, further reducing the number of turbine neceary to achieve a pecific project power-generating capacity in a given area. Providing map that how the cale of wind energy project relative to the total available land, a well a the number of turbine expected to

43 40 Planning for Wind Energy be placed within a given area, can be an effective trategy to illutrate that even widepread deployment of wind energy will not reult in total coverage of the landcape. Courtey of DOE/NREL; credit: Raymond David Emiion Advocate of wind power often highlight the greenhoue ga and other emiion benefit of wind energy. Critic often raie quetion about lifecycle and ytem-level emiion impact from adding wind energy to the power grid. Such quetion are focued more on the overall jutification for wind power than on planning per e, but undertanding them i important to developing a broader undertanding of wind power. Power production from wind turbine generate no emiion. However, wind energy project do generate emiion at different point in their life cycle. Detailed life-cycle aement look to capture all embodied emiion aociated with wind energy facilitie. A complete analyi need to take account of the emiion aociated with extracting and producing raw material (e.g., teel), manufacturing and tranporting material, and intalling, operating, and eventually decommiioning a wind energy facility. Such analye generally ugget that emiion from wind energy are relatively low, on the order of 4.6 to 27 gram of CO 2 equivalent (gco 2 eq) per kwh (Veta 2006; Voorpool 2000). Thi i in line with other renewable energy technologie, which have a median value of 4 to 46 gco 2 eq/ kwh. By contrat, the median value for foil fuel range from 469 to 1001 gco 2 eq/kwh (Edenhofer et al. 2011). Wind power plant alo affect the power ytem in which they operate. Analyi of ytem-level emiion impact focu on how introducing wind energy, which can have variable output level, affect total ytem emiion, including change in emiion rate for conventional generation. It ha been claimed that the variability of wind energy lead to decreaed operational efficiency among the exiting generation facilitie, thu increaing their emiion. In fact, a detailed literature review ha found that the

44 Chapter 3. Addreing Concern 41 LOCUST RIDGE, PENNSYLVANIA The Locut Ridge wind energy project, developed by Iberdrola Renewable, i pread over 8,000 leaed acre in Schuylkill County in Mahanoy, Wet Mahanoy, and Union townhip, a well a Conyngham Townhip in Columbia County, Pennylvania. It wa built in two phae: Phae 1, begun in 2006, conit of 13 turbine of 26 MW total capacity; Phae 2 added 51 turbine and 102 MW of capacity. Locut Ridge i the only wind energy facility in Mahanoy Townhip and the only completed wind farm in Schuylkill County, though a new county project i currently in development and another ha been propoed. Phae 1 of Locut Ridge wa developed by Joeph Green, now a project manager for Iberdrola Renewable and a local reident who knew the wind energy potential of it teep lope and ridge firthand. I m from thi area and live here, o I knew the landowner and the land and the local context. I d hunted on the land, o I knew that the wind wa there and the tranmiion line were there, that it wa a large tract of land without competing ue and that there were unlikely to be conflict with environmental iue in thi area, he ay. Sharon Chiao, chair of the Mahanoy Townhip Board of Supervior, explain that the townhip aw the wind farm project a a promiing exemplar of the future of clean energy production, omething epecially attractive in a region carred by more than 200 year of coal mining. However, at that time the project wa propoed, the townhip did not have it own zoning ordinance, and it ubdiviion and land development ordinance (SALDO) never contemplated wind energy development, according to Michael Pelechak, project manager at Alfred Benech and Company, which act a the municipal engineer for the Townhip. The bigget challenge, he ay, wa that there were no rule in place for thi type of development. The townhip aw the project a a benefit, o we were trying to move forward on the project yet tay within the ordinance and make ure that regulatory afeguard were in place. The proce of negotiating development approval in thi uncertain territory wa complex. Becaue Mahanoy Townhip did not have a zoning ordinance, Green firt needed to obtain a county zoning permit and bring it to the Townhip to obtain a land development permit. However, the county comprehenive plan did include a ection encouraging development of wind energy project. Green ay, For Locut Ridge I, we had to get a variance through the tandard variance proceeding. We had to demontrate that we had the right to get the variance by howing official that a wind farm wa reaonably imilar to other permitted ue. We looked at what wa currently permitted: cell tower, utilitie, and moketack were all vaguely imilar to wind farm. Then we had to go beyond that to prove that thi wa not a hardhip we d impoed on ourelve and that there were no other competing ue for the property. Once the county zoning permit wa obtained, the county and townhip SALDO provided checklit of item neceary to obtain the land development permit. Green alo had to obtain variou tate and federal approval, including a grid interconnection agreement from the regional tranmiion adminitrative body; Federal Aviation Adminitration permit for turbine lighting and ignaling; National Pollutant Dicharge Elimination Sytem (NPDES) permit addreing tate environmental concern; and Pennylvania Department of Tranportation permit for tate highway acce. According to Lia Mahall, county engineer and real etate director for Schuylkill County, once the zoning permit wa obtained the county role wa largely to review the project land development and tormwater plan and make ure that the developer had met all requirement and obtained all the permit; the bulk of the regulatory approval proce took place at the townhip level. Pelechak decribe the townhip land development permit a a three-plan proce ketch, preliminary, and final with each tage moving the project forward and delving deeper into pecific. The ketch plan lay out the general idea for the project and help the municipality identify any potential conflict or impact, while the preliminary plan develop the plan deign in more detail and reolve any identified conflict. Green remember that the unfamiliarity of thi land ue required extenive meeting with county and townhip official and taff. Jame J. Rhoade Jr., project manager for Alfred Benech, emphaize the importance of communication: The bet part about the project wa that the developer wa very cooperative and upfront with u he wa very proactive about addreing any iue, and hi engineer wa proactive a well. He really wanted the project to be ucceful, o he came and aked u how to make it work. Source: Iberdrola Renewable The main concern for both the county and townhip were tormwater management and afety. Five turbine were ited in the waterhed for the town public water upply, and the project wa cloe to everal drinking-water reervoir, o it wa vital to prevent any oil or chemical pill during contruction a well a to control eroion and edimentation. Green ued infiltration meaure rather than pipe to manage tormwater runoff, which require le infratructure contruction and are eaier to maintain. The Townhip required the ubtation area to be well protected with fencing, a the town wanted to make ure future hunting ue of the ridge-top area could continue. Pelechak remember careful negotiation on turbine iting: The turbine needed to be et back from the roadway for afety, in cae omething (continued on page 42)

45 42 Planning for Wind Energy (continued from page 41) happen and a turbine come crahing down. At the time, Pennylvania did not have a tate-level building code, o the town made it building permit contingent on plan ubmiion and fee payment. Since that time, both Schuylkill County and Mahanoy Townhip have adopted ordinance addreing wind energy facilitie both large and mall. Schuylkill County zoning ordinance permit mall acceory wind turbine for on-ite reidential ue in all ditrict ubject to baic tandard providing for etback from lot line and treet right-of-way equal to the height of the turbine; noie and height retriction; and abandonment. Renewable energy facilitie, or wind turbine a a principal ue, are permitted by right in indutrial and mining ditrict and a pecial exception ue in other ditrict, including agricultural. In 2007, Mahanoy Townhip adopted a tand-alone Wind Energy Facility Ordinance that deignate wind energy facilitie a permitted ue in commercial, indutrial, and agricultural ditrict and a pecial exception in reidential and conervation ditrict. The ordinance et out application requirement for the required wind energy permit and provide tandard addreing deign and intallation, etback and waiver option, ue of public road, noie and hadow flicker and waiver option, decommiioning, and public communication. Though the townhip ha not yet been approached for another large wind energy project, it i now prepared to addre thi ue in future. Chiao alo note that in the future the townhip will be more aggreive about puruing remuneration from wind energy developer, which pay no taxe on the power their turbine produce. For the Locut Ridge project, the Townhip charged a regitration fee of $1,500 per turbine, which Chiao now believe wa too little. Developer have to undertand that they ak a lot of communitie, and on thee multimillion-dollar project they hould give more back to the municipality. Both the Benech engineer and Green agree that having a good wind energy ordinance in place i vital to the ucce of wind energy implementation. Rhoade encourage municipalitie to adopt wind energy proviion firt, not to wait until they are approached with a project, aying, It important to have rule already in effect o the developer know what to do before they walk in the door. Green emphaize that approving wind energy facilitie doe not have to be a difficult proce: There are exiting fair and balanced ordinance out there that take into conideration all takeholder but aren t weighted againt development. He recommend Pennylvania model wind farm ordinance a a good example and ugget, If you want to encourage wind energy, adopt tandard that protect your community and clearly lay out the requirement for developer. Thi remove the regulatory rik; where the rule are pelled out, developer know that if they follow the rule there i a reaonable certainty that the project will move forward. Green add, Good developer are accutomed to following the rule etback, noie regulation to avoid any problem. Regulation do add cot, but the reult are good for everyone. For more information: Pennylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Energy and Technology. Model Wind Ordinance for Local Government. Available at Schuylkill County Zoning Ordinance (2010). Article 4, Additional Requirement for Specific Ue. Section 402(56), Additional Requirement for Specific Principal Ue Wind Turbine, Other than i Allowed for Wind Turbine a an Acceory Ue by Section 403. Section 403(D)(12), Additional Requirement for Acceory Ue Special Standard Wind Turbine. Available at reduction in theoretical maximum fuel aving for power ytem in which wind provide 20 percent of the total electricity generation ha been etimated to be on the order of 0 to 7 percent (Gro et al. 2006). At the moderate penetration level in place today, efficiency loe throughout the power ytem reulting from wind energy variable output only marginally offet the broader emiion aving from wind energy (Gro et al. 2006). (Since emiion are a function of fuel conumption and change in efficiency directly drive fuel conumption, a modet reduction in ytem efficiency i equivalent to a modet increae in ytemwide emiion.) Mitigating Emiion Concern. There may alway be ome emiion aociated with raw material extraction, manufacturing, intalling, maintaining, and decommiioning wind energy facilitie. However, increaing the efficiency of each proce and relying on increaed percentage of lowemiion energy to power thee procee are likely to reduce life-cycle emiion over the long term. In addition, a power ytem are able to more efficiently handle variable output generation, ytem-wide emiion benefit are alo likely to increae. In the end, emiion concern may be bet addreed by providing accurate and reliable report detailing the actual emiion reduction value of wind energy. QUALITY OF LIFE concern Human and ocial impact are primary ource of concern among communitie and localitie conidering wind energy project. Of greatet concern are often thoe impact that affect the ability of inhabitant to feel comfortable in and around their home. Such concern often focu on change to local landcape and aethetic, change in ambient or background ound level, creation of hadow

46 Chapter 3. Addreing Concern 43 flicker, and nighttime obtruction lighting. Reident are often alo concerned about how thee change might affect individual property value. At the ame time, not all wind energy impact are negative. Leae payment are typically paid out on an annual bai to landowner hoting wind turbine. In addition, wind project often contribute ignificantly to the local tax bae and may be ource of local job and buine activity. Moreover, project with hare of local ownerhip can reult in additional cah flow back to individual in the hot communitie. The combination of poitive and negative impact on human and their quality of life preent ignificant challenge for thoe attempting to plan for and implement wind energy development. Moreover, many of the widely recognized benefit of wind project (e.g., renewable fuel, low or zero emiion) accrue at a regional or even global level, while many of the le deirable externalitie (e.g., landcape change, indutrial development, ound) are felt in the immediate vicinity of a project. Courtey of DOE/NREL; credit: Patrick Corkery Local Economic Impact Wind energy project often provide ignificant ource of new income for local landowner and government, and they may generate increaed activity for local buinee. Property tax payment on the order of $7,000/MW and landowner leae payment on the order of $3,000/MW to $4,000/MW per year are not uncommon. Routine operation and maintenance work can often be carried out by local. However, becaue thee type of economic development impact are not alway ditributed widely within a given community, concern of ocial and economic jutice may urface. Nonparticipating project neighbor may experience many of the negative externalitie aociated with wind project but receive little or no direct economic benefit. Mitigating Concern Around Local Economic Impact. The uneven ditribution of economic development throughout a community can be mitigated in a variety of way. Community wind project project that incorporate local reident a actual invetor or hareholder have been oberved to increae public upport (e.g., Jone and Eier 2009; Zoellner et al. 2008; McLaren 2007; Devine-Wright 2005). In addition, good-neighbor payment and independent community fund have emerged a mechanim that can help more equitably ditribute a project economic development benefit. Good-neighbor payment provide compenation to individual who live in

47 44 Planning for Wind Energy APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY AND WATAUGA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Watauga County, North Carolina, population 51,709, lie in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountain in the northwetern corner of the tate. It hitory of wind energy tretche back to 1978, when NASA, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and General Electric partnered to intall a 240-foot, 2 MW turbine on Howard Knob, a peak overlooking Appalachian State Univerity. Known a the MOD 1 Program, thi turbine wa ued to generate electricity and gather data until 1982, when funding for the project expired. DOE offered the turbine to a local utility, which declined; with national interet in alternative energy waning, MOD 1 wa diaembled in That ame year, the North Carolina Legilature paed the Mountain Ridge Protection Act of 1983 in repone to intene public outcry regarding a condominium project developed on a mountain peak. Known informally a the North Carolina Ridge of the lat four year, and 70 percent of wetern North Carolina reident urveyed in 2010 felt placing wind turbine atop mountain ridge hould be encouraged or at leat allowed. Though there have not yet been any large wind farm application to tet Watauga County interpretation of the law, activity in thi area ha been parked by Appalachian State Univerity. Scanlin had tarted meauring the wind in 1984 upon hi arrival at the univerity and confirmed good wind reource on mountain ridgetop. In 2004, Scanlin received funding from the North Carolina State Energy Office to etablih a mall wind-turbine reearch facility in the county. Realizing the importance of a policy tet cae, Scanlin mobilized a wind working group to begin wind energy outreach and technical aement and approached Watauga County about developing a wind energy ordinance to give the project legitimacy and help regulate future development Source: Appalachian State Univerity Law, the act limit the height of development on top of protected ridge thoe at leat 3,000 feet in elevation and at leat 500 feet above the floor of the adjacent valley to no more than 35 feet above the ridge cret. According to Denni Scanlin, profeor at Appalachian State Univerity and taff member of the univerity Energy Center, the Mountain Ridge Protection Act ha been one of the bigget barrier to wind energy development in North Carolina. The act included exemption for electrical tranmiion tower and windmill, but left the definition of windmill and clear interpretation of the act applicability to wind energy development open to debate. The tate attorney general ha provided an informal opinion that though a olitary windmill would not violate the act, a wind farm would. The current interpretation of the act leave uch deciion to each county. Scanlin note that elected official have not yet been willing to clarify thi iue to facilitate wind energy development, though tatewide interet i growing: wind permitting bill have been introduced in the tate legilature each of wind energy ytem. The univerity provided technical upport while the county developed the regulatory language. The entire proce took everal month. Participant included the planning board, the Blue Ridge Parkway Diviion of Reource Planning and Profeional Service, the National Park Service, citizen with general interet, and property owner who ought to take advantage of reidential-cale wind energy. The ordinance the firt of it kind in North Carolina wa paed in The Watauga County ordinance addree both mall and large wind energy ytem. Small wind energy ytem, defined a a ingle turbine with a rated capacity of not more than 20 kw or multiple turbine on agricultural farm for on-ite conumption, are permitted by right ubject to requirement. Turbine height i limited to 135 feet, and the ordinance pecifie etback of one time turbine height from property line and 1.5 time turbine height from inhabited tructure; a building permit i alo required. Large wind energy ytem, defined a ytem of one or more turbine with a rated capacity of more than 20 kw, require a ite (continued on page 45)

48 Chapter 3. Addreing Concern 45 the vicinity of the turbine but who do not have a turbine on their property and therefore do not receive landowner leae payment. Community fund are typically initiated by the project developer and adminitered by an independent authority. Such fund may be deigned to finance all type of local community activitie but might entail upport for energy efficiency improvement, educational fair or event focued on energy, or reduced electricity rate for low-income reident, among other opportunitie. Working with local economic development official and other to competitively poition local ervice provider, contractor, and buinee will help increae the local ditribution of wind energy economic development benefit. The mitigation trategie uggeted here likely require effort beyond thoe of planner to be fully integrated into project and community development. However, by working with policy maker and community member to undertand and pecify the condition under which wind energy project may be authorized, planner can play a critical role in haping broader local and regional policy and encouraging the type of policie that will facilitate the future planning and development of wind energy. Aethetic For many individual, landcape, aethetic, culture, and ene of place are critical variable influencing acceptance and upport of wind energy project (Paqualetti 2002). People often have deep link to pecific landcape and may be bothered by change to them (Short 2002; Paqualetti 2002; Wutenhagen et al. 2007; Wolink 2007; Firetone et al. 2009). Compared to other renewable energy technologie, wind energy technology i relatively viible; moreover, it i often intalled on high point in the landcape (to capture the bet wind reource) and in rural region ometime noted particularly for their cenic or aethetic value. Modern wind turbine are alo dramatic new preence in the landcape and for ome are ymbol of indutrial development. A the indutry continue to mature, wind turbine rotor are expected to grow larger to capture economie of cale, and wind turbine tower are expected to grow taller to capture more productive wind. Both of thee feature are likely to make wind turbine more viible a well a viible over greater ditance. Such trend are likely to increae the aethetic impact of individual wind turbine, but by reducing the number of wind turbine neceary to produce a given amount of energy and increaing pacing between individual turbine, it may be poible to reduce the overall aethetic impact of a given project or the indutry in general. Mitigating Aethetic Impact. When aethetic concern, which are common to many type of infratructure project, are not addreed early on at the community level, condition become ripe for miinterpretation of information, diminihed public confidence, and increaed project cot, if extenive delay or ignificant project reconfiguration become neceary. The role of timely and thorough planning i fundamental to minimizing local concern over aethetic a well a actual aethetic impact. Planning i a primary pathway by which pecific area may be deignated for development or et aide for conervation. Area with particularly high cultural or aethetic value need to be identified and protected, both from wind energy and other indutrial infratructure, while area more amenable to landcape alteration hould be identified for development. In intance where federal fund are ued or where project are on federal land, the proce for determining potential aethetic impact i relatively well defined under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In other juridiction, clear definition of geographic cope and video or photo imulation have been required. Early engagement of nearby property owner and reident, effective and accurate forecating of a project viual impact, (continued from page 44) permit. The ordinance pell out detailed permit requirement, including a ite plan, an extenive analyi of potential impact and propoed mitigative meaure, and contruction and maintenance plan, and it include the National Park Service in reviewing and commenting on propoed ite within the Blue Ridge Parkway viewhed. A public hearing i required, and the ordinance provide conideration for the planning board deciion-making proce. Since 2006, there have been four wind energy application, all for mall ytem. Appalachian State ha alo joined in; tudent voted to increae their fee in 2004 and again in 2007 by five dollar per emeter to help fund renewable energy project on campu. Fund from thi initiative, along with contribution from the enior cla of 2009 and the local utility company, enabled the univerity to intall a 100 kw wind turbine, the larget in the outheatern United State. Completed in 2009, the turbine provide renewable power for the campu. For more information: Appalachian State Univerity North Carolina Wind Energy. Available at Appalachian State Univerity Renewable Energy Initiative. Available at Appalachian State Univerity New Appalachian Intall Wind Turbine on Campu. Univerity New, June 24. Available at North Carolina Mountain Ridge Protection Act of 1983 (Article 14, North Carolina State Statute). Available at tatute/nc/mountainridgeprotection.htm. Watauga County Ordinance to Regulate Wind Energy Sytem (2006). Available at document/watauga Countywind ordinance.pdf.

49 46 Planning for Wind Energy and factual dicuion with landowner and community reident are eential to maintain public trut around a potential project. Utilizing imilar turbine type to create conitency and uniformity within a project, electing turbine of higher generating capacity to require fewer turbine intallation for a given energy output, and placing a much electrical infratructure below grade a poible may alo help to minimize aethetic concern (Hohmeyer et al. 2005). Sound Along with viual aethetic, nuiance-related impact are alo aociated with wind energy project. The predominant nuiance concern, frequently noted in the media and among oppoition group, i the ound produced by wind turbine. Advance in technology have ignificantly reduced mechanical noie generated primarily by the gearbox and generator, but aerodynamic noie reulting from the paage of the wind over turbine blade remain ignificant. Environmental and community noie policie at tate and local level have been developed to protect the public from acute health impact (McCunney and Meyer 2007). However, exiting community noie policie have proven to be inufficient to avoid all noie complaint from individual who live in the immediate vicinity of wind turbine. In fact, noie complaint have emerged a a peritent problem around the world (Huber and Horbaty 2010). In addition, ome neighbor have claimed to have experienced acute health impact from wind turbine noie including internal puling, jitterine, nervoune, anxiety, nauea, chet tightne, and tachycardia (Pierpont 2010). Aide from a limited number of cae tudie, however, there i no epidemiological evidence of uch health effect (Colby et al. 2009; CMOH 2010; NMHRC 2010). Moreover, it ha been noted that many of the ymptom oberved in the few cae tudie that exit are, in actuality, common tre ymptom, which could potentially be induced by annoyance or other factor (Colby et al. 2009). Unlike other intermittent environmental noie ource uch a rail and air traffic, wind turbine appear to be omewhat more annoying at even very modet level (Pederen and Waye 2007; Pederen et al. 2009). In pecific condition where background ound level are low and wind hear i high, even higher level of annoyance may perit (Van den Berg 2004, 2008). It ha been uggeted that increaed enitivity to wind turbine noie may be the reult of pecific component of that noie that are uncommon in other ource of community noie, uch a audible puling, which ha been hown to increae annoyance from ound generated by locomotive (Kanterali and Walker 1988). At the ame time, reearch ha hown correlation not jut between noie annoyance and ound level but alo between noie annoyance and unrelated factor including prior attitude toward wind turbine, the viibility of the turbine, and whether or not individual receive direct financial payment from a project (Pederen and Waye 2007; Pederen et al. 2009). Mitigating Sound Impact. Perception of noie and annoyance are highly ubjective. However, the indutry ha ought to reduce noie emiion from turbine pecifically around the mechanical noie derived from the generator and gearbox. Reearch ha alo continued into alternative blade deign to reduce ound emiion (e.g., Lutz et al. 2006; Berg and Barone 2008; Barone and Berg 2010). Neverthele, it i unlikely that technological olution will ever completely eliminate noie from wind turbine. In thi context, proper planning and iting are critical to minimizing noie impact on hot communitie.

50 Chapter 3. Addreing Concern 47 In thi regard, predictive noie propagation model continue to advance and improve, allowing regulator and potential project neighbor to better undertand the level of noie they are likely to experience. Ue and continued refinement of thee model i likely to be increaingly important a project edge cloer to denely populated area. Additionally, ophiticated ound regulation can help to addre thoe pecific condition under which annoyance i likely to be greatet (i.e., period of high wind hear when there i little ground-level wind to mak wind turbine noie). Such regulation can alo place upper bound on the level of noie or the change from ambient noie reulting from wind energy facilitie (Batach et al. 2006). Etablihing generic etback between turbine and property line or building may alo allow for ufficient noie mitigation. Project developer may alo offer oundproofing for reidence that are particularly cloe to wind turbine. Shadow Flicker Another potential nuiance concern i hadow flicker, which occur from the motion of hadow cat by the rotating blade of a wind turbine. Under ome circumtance, hadow flicker i not unlike a low-frequency trobe light. According the Epilepy Foundation, hadow flicker i not at a high enough frequency to trigger photo-enitive epilepy; however, it may be botherome for individual ubjected to it for extended period of time. A turbine increae in height, their hadow alo grow, increaing the need to addre hadow flicker concern. Mitigating Shadow Flicker. Shadow flicker can generally be predicted with the ue of computer model, and it occurrence on place of human habitation can often be avoided by careful iting of wind turbine combined with trategic placement of vegetation. In extreme cae, ometime occurring at very northern or outhern latitude during the winter, turbine can be curtailed at pecific time of day to reduce annoyance level for neighbor (Hohmeyer et al. 2005). Although hadow flicker i one of the more eaily reolved nuiance challenge, early communication of thi concern to project neighbor who might be affected and how it will be addreed i important. Mot wind farm modeling oftware tool have feature that facilitate communication and mitigation of hadow flicker. Obtruction Lighting All tructure over 200 feet in height and tructure horter than 200 feet in height near airport require Federal Aviation Adminitration (FAA) notification and the intallation of obtruction marking light. Hitorically thee light can be clearly viible at ground level even at great ditance. Thu, obtruction lighting ha alo been a concern and a potential ource of annoyance for nearby reident. Mitigating Impact of Obtruction Lighting. Improvement in lighting and len technology in the lat five year have ignificantly reduced ground-level annoyance. Similarly, the indutry ha worked to ynchronize light acro wind plant, to coordinate with the FAA to minimize the number of light required within a wind plant, and to include aircraft proximity radar, which allow light to be turned off in the abence of air traffic. Communitie hould be aware that option for the lighting of wind project exit and know what option are available for the pecific wind project that affect them. Planner may work with the indutry to ait policy maker and regulator in developing appropriate rule, regulation, and technology pecification for wind energy project within their juridiction.

51 48 Planning for Wind Energy Property Value Another concern about wind energy facilitie i the potential reduction in property value near the turbine. The idea that property value could fall i not inconitent with what ha been een in other indutrial context. Development of conventional power plant and tranmiion line have reulted in reduction in nearby reidential property value (Simon 2006). While there have been few detailed tudie of thi in pecific relation to wind energy facilitie, publihed work ha found no evidence of widepread reduction in property value (Sim and Dent 2007; Sim et al. 2008; Hoen et al. 2009). Thi may ugget that indutry iting and etback practice are adequately protecting property owner. (A a comparion, propertie near tranmiion line ee drop in value within a hort ditance of the line, but the effect fade after about 100 meter [De Roier 2002].) Alternatively, traditional tatitical tool may be unable to identify property value lo among home that are proximate to wind energy facilitie becaue it i either too infrequent or of too little magnitude. Courtey of DOE/NREL; credit: Iberdrola Renewable Additional reearch ha been uggeted, focuing primarily on home within one mile of wind turbine ite. Such work i expected to provide greater inight into the impact of turbine on property value a the ditance between turbine and home become very mall and into the ditribution of impact over time. The latter i important to determine whether there are pecific period of ignificant concern (i.e., during development and contruction) and whether concern diminihe a local reident become more accutomed to living adjacent to wind turbine. Mitigating Property Value Concern. While there i a variety of potential mechanim to mitigate property value concern, there i little conenu within the indutry on what i ultimately neceary. In addition, becaue property value impact are omewhat derivative of other nuiance iue, mitigation of property value concern generally entail ue of all nuiance-pecific mitigation trategie. Neverthele, frequently noted mitigation trategie for property value concern include mandating generou etback from home, iuing good-neighbor payment, providing property value guarantee or protection plan, uing creening object including trategically placed vegetation and tree, and adding oundproofing to home.

52 Chapter 3. Addreing Concern 49 Other Factor Influencing Project Succe and Concern Along with wildlife, aethetic, and nuiance concern, ome communitie and individual have raied iue related to procedural deign and to the perceived jutice (or injutice) of the development and mitigation proce. Open, tranparent communication and participatory development are highly valued by local takeholder and are mot likely to bring about project ucce (Jone and Eier 2009; McLaren 2007; Zoellner et al. 2008; Wolink 2007). Moreover, project with high level of public participation are more likely to achieve ucce and generate a table network of local project upporter (McLaren 2007). Thee ame theme of open, tranparent, and participatory procee are alo of utmot importance during planning and when identifying area to be excluded from or opened up to development (Wolink 2007; McLaren 2007). Ditance from the project and time are alo likely to influence the level of concern individual have over a given project. With regard to ditance, the evidence i omewhat mixed, with ome tudie (e.g., Warren et al. 2005; Simon 1996) oberving increaing acceptance with proximity and among thoe who are more familiar with wind turbine. In contrat, Van der Hort (2007) and Swofford and Slattery (2010) found that opinion about wind energy may be lower among thoe living in the immediate proximity of a wind facility. Over time, the evidence appear to ugget that perception of project become more poitive and concern diminih a project neighbor become more accutomed to living in and among a wind energy project (Warren et al. 2005). Impact to radar ytem are another ource of public concern and preent a planning challenge for wind energy. Wind turbine can ometime affect reception and detection of radar ignal, making them difficult to ditinguih from aircraft or weather and ultimately reulting in ecurity and afety concern for civilian and military aviation (Krug and Lewke 2009). The primary takeholder affected by radar iue include the FAA, the Department of Defene, and the Department of Homeland Security (AWEA 2008a). Iue with radar are often the reult of dated technology. In ome cae, updated oftware can reolve iue, while other may require new hardware a well (Brenner et al. 2008). Technological olution uch a tealth blade may be another alternative (Matthew et al. 2007). Regulatory olution focued on aviation equipment may alo offer ome potential to mitigate radar-related concern among uer and operator of radar. Depite the potential for variou olution, coordinating an accepted and adequate repone among the takeholder i expected to take ome time. In the near term, planner eeking to identify pecific area for wind deployment are likely to be bet erved by avoiding thoe area where radar conflict exit. Concluion Siting and planning for wind energy development i a ignificant challenge, and concern are wide-ranging and often ubjective. In addition, there are a number of variable that planner may not be able to influence or control for. Neverthele, proactive planning can help communitie and region begin to prepare for wind energy and tackle thee iue in a contructive manner. Moreover, planner mut be capable of communicating the iue around wind energy and developing olution that are appropriate for each context and community. Planning for wind energy project ideally begin early and entail tranparent fact-baed dicuion, with a much engagement from local reident a poible. In addition, it i important for local planning authoritie to undertand and communicate why wind energy i neceary and how it fit into the broader energy portfolio in the tate or region. Dicuion of impact

53 50 Planning for Wind Energy i mot ucceful and productive when it include dicuion of poitive and negative attribute alike. Clear and honet communication and education can go a long way toward mitigating local wind power concern. Such a multi-takeholder, tranparent, and participatory proce i fundamental becaue the integrity of proce i a important a pecific ubtantive iue. Neverthele, developing workable olution to individual concern i alo important. For thi reaon, planning effort hould not be a one-time endeavor, policie hould remain flexible o that wind turbine tandard can incorporate new information, and planner hould work to tay abreat of the mot recent experience emerging from the wind indutry. Courtey of DOE/NREL; credit: Iberdrola Renewable

54 Chapter 3. Addreing Concern 51 Iue: Wildlife WIND CONCERNS SUMMARY Concern: Wind turbine kill bird and bat and fragment habitat. Reearch: Wind turbine generally poe rik to individual, not population. With repect pecifically to bird, tudie have hown that wind turbine are reponible for far fewer fatalitie than other human infratructure and activitie (e.g., vehicle, window, communication tower, pollution, and houe cat). In the cae of bat, more data are needed, but concern ha emerged primarily from a limited number of exceptionally high fatality event. There i little wind-pecific cientific reearch to either ubtantiate or refute concern relating to habitat fragmentation. Improved project planning and iting ha ignificantly reduced wind energy wildlife impact, however, and to enure compliance with tate and federal wildlife policie, the wind indutry continue to fund cientific reearch with the purpoe of further minimizing wind project impact to wildlife and habitat. Iue: Land requirement Concern: Wind energy will overtake the landcape and prevent otherwie productive ue of land. Reearch: A modern 2 3 MW turbine typically require between 70 and 130 acre for iting, but in practice thi ha ranged from 22 to 250 acre per turbine. Total land ue for individual project i ultimately determined by turbine pacing requirement and local iting contraint. The vat majority of thi land can continue to be ued for agriculture, ranching, or other ue; only about 3 to 5 percent of the overall footprint of a wind energy facility i occupied by turbine, road, or other infratructure and removed from ervice. Iue: Emiion aving Concern: Emiion reduction from wind energy are not real or are ignificantly le than advocate claim. Reearch: Even when conidering life-cycle emiion (i.e., emiion reulting from extracting and producing raw material, manufacturing and tranporting equipment, and intalling, operating, and decommiioning the facility), emiion impact from wind energy are ignificantly lower, in ome cae a much a an order of magnitude lower, than conventional foil fuel life-cycle emiion. The integration of variable output wind energy into the grid ytem may reult in efficiency loe and increaed fuel conumption for ome exiting generation; however, for power ytem that have a much a 20 percent of their electricity upplied by wind thee efficiency loe have been etimated to offet only a mall fraction (roughly 0 7 percent) of the overall emiion aving of wind energy. Iue: Socioeconomic impact Concern: Electricity rate will go up, and economic benefit will not be realized by the local community. Reearch: Over the pat five year, contracted power price for wind energy have been within the range oberved in wholeale power market acro the country. Integrating wind energy into the power ytem ha hown to be modet in cot (on the order of 10 percent) even for power ytem that have 20 to 30 percent of their electricity coming from wind. Rate impact in tate with renewable portfolio tandard, which often require olar power a well, have generally been limited to 1.5 percent or below. Property taxe, landowner leae payment, and local operation and maintenance job are the primary form of direct communitybaed economic benefit. Tax and leae payment are frequently on the order of $3,000 to $7,000 per MW. Good neighbor payment and community fund are other vehicle that can help economic benefit from wind energy project flow throughout the community. Wind farm development can alo lead to job for local ervice provider, contractor, and buinee, reulting in increaed economic development for local communitie. When local reident directly invet in project (e.g., community wind) local economic development i further enhanced by the return of project profit to the hot community. Iue: Aethetic Concern: Wind turbine will ruin view and harm the integrity of the cultural landcape. Reearch: Wind energy facilitie are often quite viible; however, repone to wind power are highly ubjective. Some ee wind energy a a ymbol of technological advancement and energy independence, while other ee only new indutrial development. Technique exit to accurately portray and evaluate aethetic impact; uch viual impact analye can help local reident better undertand exactly what a project might look like. Proper planning and avoidance of pecific highly valued aethetic area i alo important. Iue: Sound Concern: Sound from wind turbine i annoying and will dirupt leep; it may alo caue health impact. Reearch: Wind energy facilitie, like other land ue, are ubject to tate or local environmental noie guideline deigned to protect individual from acute noie-related health impact. In addition, there i no widepread evidence of acute health impact from wind energy ound in the literature. At the ame time, individual living in cloe proximity to wind turbine may find the noie they generate annoying, and in ome cae it can dirupt leep. While thoe individual that report annoyance are in the minority, proper iting and planning are critical in mitigating potential project noie iue. (continued on page 52)

55 52 Planning for Wind Energy (continued from page 51) Iue: Shadow flicker Concern: Shadow flicker i diruptive and annoying and prevent reaonable enjoyment of the land in and around wind project. Reearch: Peron ubjected to hadow flicker for long period of time are likely to find it botherome. However, hadow flicker i eaily modeled and can generally be avoided with proper planning and iting. Becaue of the eae with which hadow flicker can be predicted and ultimately mitigated, many localitie pecifically addre hadow flicker in local ordinance. Iue: Obtruction lighting Concern: Obtruction lighting will be highly viible and generate a ignificant nuiance for the community. Reearch: Improvement in lighting and len technology have ignificantly reduced the ground-level impact of wind turbine obtruction lighting. The indutry continue to develop new technology to minimize diturbance from obtruction lighting, including proximity enor that allow the light to be turned off when no aircraft are in the vicinity. Iue: Property value Concern: Wind project will negatively affect property value. Reearch: There ha been little peruaive evidence to date of widepread propertyvalue impact from wind turbine. However, becaue uch trend are not unprecedented in other indutrial context and effect ometime fade very quickly (e.g., tranmiion line), additional reearch focuing pecifically on home in very cloe proximity to wind turbine i needed. Iue: Radar and electromagnetic interference Concern: Wind turbine will interfere with televiion ignal and could potentially jeopardize afe aviation navigation. Reearch: In ome cae, wind turbine can caue electromagnetic interference, but thee problem can largely be reolved with precontruction analyi and proper iting. Impact on military and aviation radar preent more ignificant problem. Generally, however, turbine are not allowed to be built in location where they may potentially affect aviation afety. Though a variety of technical and regulatory olution to radar interference exit, coordinating an acceptable olution with the multiple federal agencie involved i likely to require ome time. For the time being, therefore, avoid wind energy development in area where conflict with aviation or military radar ytem are expected.

56 52 Planning for Wind Energy (continued from page 51) Iue: Shadow flicker Concern: Shadow flicker i diruptive and annoying and prevent reaonable enjoyment of the land in and around wind project. Reearch: Peron ubjected to hadow flicker for long period of time are likely to find it botherome. However, hadow flicker i eaily modeled and can generally be avoided with proper planning and iting. Becaue of the eae with which hadow flicker can be predicted and ultimately mitigated, many localitie pecifically addre hadow flicker in local ordinance. Iue: Obtruction lighting Concern: Obtruction lighting will be highly viible and generate a ignificant nuiance for the community. Reearch: Improvement in lighting and len technology have ignificantly reduced the ground-level impact of wind turbine obtruction lighting. The indutry continue to develop new technology to minimize diturbance from obtruction lighting, including proximity enor that allow the light to be turned off when no aircraft are in the vicinity. Iue: Property value Concern: Wind project will negatively affect property value. Reearch: There ha been little peruaive evidence to date of widepread propertyvalue impact from wind turbine. However, becaue uch trend are not unprecedented in other indutrial context and effect ometime fade very quickly (e.g., tranmiion line), additional reearch focuing pecifically on home in very cloe proximity to wind turbine i needed. Iue: Radar and electromagnetic interference Concern: Wind turbine will interfere with televiion ignal and could potentially jeopardize afe aviation navigation. Reearch: In ome cae, wind turbine can caue electromagnetic interference, but thee problem can largely be reolved with precontruction analyi and proper iting. Impact on military and aviation radar preent more ignificant problem. Generally, however, turbine are not allowed to be built in location where they may potentially affect aviation afety. Though a variety of technical and regulatory olution to radar interference exit, coordinating an acceptable olution with the multiple federal agencie involved i likely to require ome time. For the time being, therefore, avoid wind energy development in area where conflict with aviation or military radar ytem are expected.

57 CHAPTER 4 Regulatory Environment State lawmaker have allocated authority to regulate the iting of wind facilitie in different way. In more than half the tate, local government are olely reponible for regulation that govern the iting of all wind power generating facilitie, mot often uing their land-ue planning, zoning, and related permitting authoritie. Nearly all the remaining tate alo give local government ubtantive role in mall and noncommercial wind facility iting deciion, or make local government approval neceary but not olely ufficient to meet tate requirement. A ignificant minority of tate confer upon tate iting bodie or commiion concurrent, preemptive, or excluive authority over iting larger generating facilitie. 53

58 54 Planning for Wind Energy kana Kana, which ha more than 1,000 MW of intalled wind-generating capacity, i one tate where local government are excluively reponible for iting all type of wind energy generating facilitie. Thi mean that local government can decide to reject wind power a a permiible land ue. For example, Waubanee County, an 800-quare-mile county in the cenic Flint Hill, adopted an initial moratorium on conditional ue permit for commercial wind energy facilitie in order to conider reviion to it land-ue plan and zoning ordinance. In 2004, the county board of commiioner adopted an updated comprehenive plan and revied zoning ordinance. While the county planning commiion had recommended allowing commercial wind facilitie a a conditional ue, the board intead adopted an ordinance prohibiting commercial wind project, defined a facilitie able to generate 100 kw or taller than 120 feet, or project with multiple turbine. Landowner and wind-right holder filed uit, and in 2009 the Kana Supreme Court upheld the county zoning ordinance, finding that the board deciion to prohibit commercial wind wa within it legilative dicretion and that it wa reaonably upported by the record. The court noted that a total ban might be unwie but wa not illegal and that the county action wa not exprely nor impliedly preempted by tate law (Zimmerman v. Bd. of County Comm r, 289 Kan. 926, 218 P. 3d 400 [2009]). STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY OVER WIND FACILITY SITING Jim McElfih and Sara Geren State have choen different mechanim for controlling local regulation, different threhold and ceiling for the ize of facilitie ubject to uch regulation, and different prioritie for the content of iting regulation (McElfih and Geren 2011). Thi ha led to a tremendou variety in local government role in wind energy iting deciion. (See Table 4.1, oppoite page.) Local Siting In the mot common approach to wind facility iting, local government are olely reponible for iting wind facilitie, and tate law doe not limit their regulatory power. (See idebar.) State land-ue planning and zoning enabling law allow local government to engage in land-ue regulation, which include the regulation of wind facility iting. Thi governance model i the default ituation in tate that do not have utility iting board or legilation pecific to wind facility iting. Even where tate government take an active role in permitting wind facilitie, local government uually have excluive control over the iting of mall (and ometime medium-ized) wind facilitie, which typically do not fall under tate juridiction. Thi model of regulation give local planner and governing bodie the mot freedom in promoting local interet. It allow local government to limit wind energy facilitie to particular zone and location and to precribe condition for their contruction, operation, and decommiioning or to prohibit them altogether. Local deciion maker who trongly upport wind power development can facilitate rapid project approval by etablihing clear rule, tandard, and procedure for uch facilitie. By the ame token, local official in tate that allow local control may find it very difficult to deal effectively with wind energy propoal if uch local regulation and guidance have not been etablihed. Communitie hould be proactive in introducing wind energy into the comprehenive planning proce and developing local regulation that clearly define where and in what manner wind energy ytem are appropriate. Local government operating under thi model of autonomy will need to develop expertie (either on their profeional taff or by engaging conultant) to draft ordinance, evaluate application, and devie and apply appropriate permit condition. Additional regulation may alo apply in tate where local government have juridiction over iting. For example, in ome tate, a tate public utility commiion or board mut make determination about new generating capacity or ability to connect to the power grid deciion that will indirectly affect wind facility iting. The tate may authorize electricity production through a certificate of need without conidering land ue or iting iue. For example, a commercial energy-generating facility cannot be built in North Carolina unle the Utilitie Commiion iue a certificate that public convenience and neceity require, or will require, uch contruction (N.C. Gen. Stat ). The commiion iue certificate baed on the need for new upplie of electricity and the anticipated cot of the propoed facilitie, while iting permit remain the reponibility of local government. In addition, tate board and commiion are often reponible for tranmiion iting policie, which may drive developer to build facilitie in particular location. In area with ignificant wind reource and current or planned tranmiion line, planner hould prepare for ignificant interet from wind energy developer. Where particular reource uch a wetland, tate water, wildlife protection area, or threatened and endangered pecie are affected, tate environmental permitting or other review may apply in addition to local

59 Chapter 4. Regulatory Environment 55 Table 4.1: State and local government authority over wind energy facility iting Local iting authority State Local iting authority Dual permitting State iting plu pecial contraint Alabama Alaka Arizona All All All Arkana All California Over 50 kw Under 50 kw Colorado Net-metered All but net-metered a Connecticut Under 1 MW Over 1 MW a Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii All All All All (but dual in ome ue ditrict) State Land Ue Commiion ome ditrict Idaho All Illinoi All commercial-cale End-uer ytem Indiana All Iowa Under 25 MW Over 25 MW Kana All Kentucky Under 10 MW Over 10 MW Louiiana Maine Maryland All Project under 20 acre in municipality Under 70 MW Project over 20 acre in municipality Over 70 MW, in general Land Ue Regulation Commiion ite in unorganized area Maachuett Under 100 MW Over 100 MW b Michigan Minneota Miiippi Miouri Montana All Under 5 MW All All All Countie may permit 5 25 MW if tate delegate Over 25 MW; 5 25 MW if not delegated to county c Nebraka Under 2.5 MW Over 2.5 MW Nevada All commercial-cale End-uer ytem New Hamphire 100 kw 30 MW Under 100 kw Over 30 MW c New Jerey All End-uer ytem; and wind power eligible for variance a inherently beneficial ue State permit or permit by rule needed in coatal zone New Mexico Under 300 MW Over 300 MW a New York Under 25 MW, retriction mut be required by law Over 25 MW a, c (continued)

60 56 Planning for Wind Energy Table 4.1: (continued) State Local iting authority Local iting authority plu pecial contraint Dual permitting State iting North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon All Under 60 MW Under 5 MW All Under 35 MW, unle developer election Pennylvania All All but net-metered a Over 35 MW, and where developer of maller facility elect a, b Rhode Iland Under 40 MW Over 1 MW a South Carolina South Dakota Tenneee Texa Utah Vermont Virginia Wahington All Under 100 MW All All All Under 5 MW All, unle developer elect tate review Decommiioning required Setback required Deferential review in energy overlay zone Over 100 MW Department of Environmental Quality permitby-rule for MW; over 100 MW, State Corporation Commiion iting Over 60 MW b Over 5 MW Wet Virginia End-uer ytem All commercial-cale Wiconin Under 1 MW MW Over 100 MW Wyoming Under 0.5 MW a State may preempt local deciion in limited circumtance. b Incorporate local tandard c Mut conider local plan and ordinance Over 0.5 MW but fewer than 30 turbine 30 or more turbine All c All, with developer election a ; expedited iting when conitent with local plan and ordinance

61 Chapter 4. Regulatory Environment 57 land-ue deciion-making procee. Some tate (e.g., California, Wahington, Hawaii, Maachuett, New York, and Montana) alo apply environmental impact review requirement to tate or local permitting and iting. A number of tate bodie or aociation have developed handbook, model ordinance, or guide to ait local government in developing wind energy regulation. Such reource have been developed by tate bodie in Kana, Maine, Maachuett, Michigan, New Jerey, New York, Oregon, Pennylvania, South Dakota, Utah, and Wiconin, and by other organization or intitution in Illinoi, Minneota, and North Carolina. (See reource lit.) Local Siting within State-Defined Contraint In tate where local government iue the only iting permit for wind energy facilitie (or for certain ize of wind facilitie), legilature have taken a variety of approache to circumcribe local iting authority. Some have focued on protecting wind energy ytem from local regulation that they view a epecially burdenome, epecially mall ytem under defined capacity threhold and ytem that are ued for on-ite power by the landowner (end-uer ytem) or that allow net metering. For example, Nevada enabling law prohibit local government from adopting an ordinance, regulation or plan or tak[ing] any other action that prohibit or unreaonably retrict end-uer ytem. Nevada define an unreaonable retriction a one that ignificantly decreae the ytem performance or efficiency without allowing a comparable alternative. Regulation concerning height, noie, afety, or FAA compliance are permitted regardle of whether they meet thi tet (Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann ). Similarly, New Hamphire prevent municipalitie from adopting regulation that unreaonably limit the intallation or performance of mall ytem that generate fewer than 100 kw and produce energy for on-ite conumption (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 674:62 66). New Hamphire definition of unreaonable limit i much broader than Nevada, however: it prohibit municipalitie from applying noie limit under 55 dba, generic height retriction that do not pecifically addre wind ytem, and etback of more than 150 percent of ytem height. California ha taken a lightly different approach to promoting mall wind energy ytem. The tate allow countie to regulate ytem that generate fewer than 50 kw, but local ordinance may not be more retrictive than a et of condition pecified in the law. For intance, etback requirement may not be greater than the height of the ytem (Cal. Gov. Code ). Illinoi give incorporated municipalitie almot total control over wind energy iting within their juridiction, which include adjacent unincorporated area within 1.5 mile of municipal boundarie. County enabling law explicitly allow countie to etablih tandard for wind facilitie, including height retriction and retriction on the number of turbine in a given area. However, etback requirement for end-uer ytem cannot be greater than 110 percent of ytem height (55 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/ ; 65 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/ ). Several other tate have focued on limiting local regulatory action that might impede the development of medium or large wind facilitie. Wiconin ha developed but not yet implemented the mot comprehenive and detailed limitation on local deciion affecting wind iting. In 2009, newly updated tate legilation ordered the tate Public Service Commiion (PSC) to develop rule for iting facilitie with generating capacitie from 1 to 100 MW, addreing iue uch a etback, noie, flicker, decommiioning, and application procedure, with the aitance of a Wind Siting Council compoed of a variety of takeholder (Wi. Stat (4g)). Previouly,

62 58 Planning for Wind Energy local government had limited authority to regulate wind iting, and tate judicial deciion had cat further doubt on their ability to precribe local tandard. Under the 2009 legilation, local wind energy ordinance cannot be more retrictive than the new PSC rule (Wi. Stat (4)(g)). However, in March 2011 the Wiconin legilature upended the PSC rule before they could go into effect, leaving local regulation in uncertain tatu. In Wyoming, local permitting for wind facilitie with capacitie over 0.5 MW mut comply with a detailed et of tate requirement (Wyo. Stat (a)(ii)).To obtain a local permit, applicant mut provide emergency management and decommiioning plan, certify that there will be no advertiing on the equipment, meet a uite of etback requirement, and comply with other rule (Wyo. Stat ). A tate permit i required for facilitie with more than 30 turbine. The tate Indutrial Siting Council provide technical aitance to help countie evaluate the potentially ignificant environmental, ocial, or economic impact of wind development. Minneota offer a one-top permitting ytem for wind energy facilitie with generating capacitie over 5 MW, with the Public Utilitie Commiion typically reponible for iuing permit and enuring that applicant comply with both local and tate requirement. Minneota legilation allow the PUC to delegate authority to the countie to permit facilitie up to 25 MW. Countie mut apply the PUC iting tandard, but they hare the PUC dicretion to grant variance in the public interet. The PUC provide the countie with technical aitance (Minn. Stat. 216F.08). Courtey of DOE/NREL; credit: Iberdrola Renewable In New Jerey, the legilature, while recognizing that wind project are ubject to local zoning, ha made it eaier for wind project proponent to get variance from local zoning ordinance. Under New Jerey land-ue law, a zoning variance may be granted when zoning board find (1) pecial reaon exit for the variance; and (2) the variance can be granted without ubtantial detriment to the public good and will not ubtantially impair the intent and the purpoe of the zone plan and zoning ordinance (N.J. Stat. 40:55D-70(d)). However, for an inherently beneficial ue, which include a wind, olar or photovoltaic energy facility or tructure, the firt requirement i preumed to be met, and the econd requirement i met if the project would not caue a ubtantial detriment to the public good (N.J. Stat. 40:55D-4). In Wahington, where a developer may chooe whether to obtain a iting permit from the local government or the tate Energy Facility Site Evaluation

63 Chapter 4. Regulatory Environment 59 Council, tate law encourage countie to create energy overlay zone, which i a formal plan enacted by the county legilative authority that etablihe uitable area for iting renewable reource project baed on currently available reource and exiting infratructure with enitivity to advere environmental impact (Wah. Rev. Code 36.70C.020). If the deciion to ite a wind facility in thee pecial zone i challenged, a court mut uphold the iting deciion a long a either the ordinance for the zone i conitent with the tate Department of Fih and Wildlife guideline or the county ha prepared an environmental impact tatement on the overlay zone with mitigation a required (Wah. Rev. Code 36.70C.130). Some tate have enacted requirement that apply directly to wind facilitie, regardle of the permitting or iting authority. In South Dakota, tate law impoe a etback requirement on wind turbine taller than 75 feet. Thee turbine hall be et back at leat five hundred feet or 1.1 time the height of the tower, whichever ditance i greater, from any urrounding property line (S.D. Codified Law ). Oklahoma tate law require defined decommiioning action for commercial wind facilitie within 12 month of project abandonment or ceation of ue (Okla. Stat. tit. 17, ). Dual Authority In everal tate, applicant mut obtain iting permit from both local and tate permitting authoritie for larger project or project of certain type, while local government retain excluive control over maller facilitie. The threhold for tate certification varie widely. In Colorado, all commercial power-generating facilitie require a PUC permit. In New Mexico, only facilitie with generating capacitie over 300 MW mut eek tate approval. Local and tate permitting procee may operate independently, but tate permitting may till affect local planner approache. The tate iting proce may create delay in the permitting and approval proce that are not preent in tate where local government have excluive juridiction. Converely, tate requirement may lighten the load of local government in their evaluation of complex project. For intance, under Virginia tate permit-by-rule proviion, applicant mut perform precribed wildlife urvey and mitigate wildlife impact for wind facilitie over 5 MW (Va. Code et eq.), leening the need for local regulation to addre thi iue. In Hawaii, the tate land-ue law empower the State Land Ue Commiion (LUC) to categorize all land into one of four ditrict: urban, rural, agricultural, or conervation. Certain ue in certain ditrict require tate pecial ue permitting a well a local approval; ome ue are approved by tatute, uch a wind energy facilitie in agricultural ditrict (Hawaii Rev. Stat (d)(4), (d)(7)). In general, the dual-authority approach imply aure that project will not go forward unle they atify both tate and local concern. In a few tate with dual-permitting cheme, however, the tate iting body can ometime preempt local deciion or requirement. For intance, if a local government in Colorado denie an application for a commercial wind facility or impoe unreaonable condition, the applicant may appeal to the tate Public Utilitie Commiion. The commiion may override the local deciion if it find that the condition impoed by a local government action unreaonably impair the ability of a public utility or power authority to provide afe, reliable, and economical ervice (Colo. Rev. Stat ). In addition, application for tate iting permit mut include all relevant local permit, which are automatically deemed approved if they are not iued within 180 day of a preliminary application or 90 day of a final application

64 60 Planning for Wind Energy The City of Lamar, population 7,804, i located in Prower County in the outheatern corner of Colorado. It provide a good example of how a maller wind project can piggyback on the development of a larger one nearby. In 2003, Prower County began contruction on the Colorado Green Wind Power Project at that time the fifth-larget wind farm in the world with MW turbine 20 mile outh of Lamar. Local official became intereted in the project, and the city commiioned it own wind farm in February The local power utility wa able to benefit from economie of cale and local knowledge gathered during the Colorado Green project in order to intall and operate everal utilitycale turbine for it own ue. The Lamar Wind Energy Project conit of four 1.5-MW wind turbine. Three are owned by local utility Lamar Light and Power (LL&P), and the fourth i owned by the Arkana River Power Authority (ARPA), a local joint-action agency upplying wholeale energy to it ix municipal member. All of the electricity generated by the turbine feed directly into ARPA power ditribution, where the electricity may or may not be dipered into Lamar. Rick Rigel, uperintendent of LL&P, believe Lamar deciion to piggyback on the Colorado Green Project wa an excellent deciion for their mall city, a they were able to purchae wind turbine from General Electric (GE) at Colorado Green group price. Lamar alo truck a five-year contract with GE Wind Energy diviion for maintenance ervice. When the contract expired in late 2009, GE wa not intereted in renewal, o the city wa forced to earch for another way to maintain their four turbine. Rigel wa fortunate in meeting Jim Gill, a pat employee of GE who wa experienced in wind turbine contruction and clean energy. Gill wa immediately hired a head of maintenance, and hi current team conit of three volunteer from Lamar who are dedicated to learning the kill of turbine upkeep. Thi benefit LL&P a well a the municipality, a local involvement with the turbine bring a ene of community to the area. The turbine are located four to five mile from the center of town, on land leaed directly from local farmer. The city zoning regulation have allowed wind energy converion ytem (WECS) ince 1986 a ue permitted in any ditrict ubject to requirement, including etback from lot line ranging from 100 to 385 feet baed on turbine rotor diameter, height limit of 20 feet above maximum ditrict height retriction, and additional aethetic and afety tandard. Rigel and Gill report that citizen upport ha been poitive and that landowner lined up to hot the turbine. Rigel noted that the high cot of turbine i alway an iue, but thi did not top Lamar from moving forward with the proce; the city iued 20-year general revenue bond for $6 million to fund turbine intallation. Load balance fee increaed initial operating cot, which poed a challenge. The Lamar Wind Energy Project produce enough electricity to erve about 14 to 15 percent of the city energy need, and i working at high capacity with great reliability. Lamar Light and Power i proud of it wind farm, a it tand a proof that mall utility companie can in fact own and operate wind energy project uccefully. For more information: Lamar City Code (2000). Chapter 16, Article XVII, Section , Wind Energy Converion Sytem (WECS). Available at LAMAR, COLORADO upload/%7b2c7bfe48-dd8b-4fbc-a1fe-a5860d05d92d%7d.pdf. Lamar Light and Power. Generation Portfolio. Available at power.com/generation_portfolio.html. Prower County Development. Colorado Green Wind Power Project. Available at (Colo. Rev. Stat ). (For a cae tudy from Colorado, ee the idebar.) State Siting In thi approach, permitting larger wind energy facilitie i the ole reponibility of tate authoritie, though again, local government uually retain juridiction over maller facilitie under pecific threhold. Within thi category, there i great variety in how local planner and deciion maker can influence the tate iting proce. Where tate permitting board are directed by tate law to conider or apply local regulation, local planner hould take advantage of the opportunity and include clear tandard to make ure that community concern are taken into account by tate deciion maker. For intance, Rhode Iland Energy Facility Siting Board i reponible for iuing all licene and permit for energy-generating facilitie over 40 MW, but applicant mut demontrate that they comply with all local rule and ordinance. Local official have the opportunity to iue an adviory opinion on the application of their regulation (R.I. Gen. Law ). Wahington tate iting council ha authority to approve wind energy facilitie that chooe to eek approval from the tate regardle of the generating capacity of the project. Approval puruant to thi proce preempt other regulation of facility location, contruction, and operation condition, although the council mut include condition to protect tate or local governmental interet, including thoe that it preempt or uperede (Rev. Code Wah ). The Supreme Court of Wahington upheld an EFSEC deciion that impoed etback that were le than thoe than a county board had required (Reident Oppoed to Kittita Turbine v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 165 Wa.2d 275, 197 P.3d 1153 [2008]).

65 Chapter 4. Regulatory Environment 61 TOWN OF FENNER, MADISON COUNTY, NEW YORK Madion County i home to everal ucceful wind-energy project. A county of 70,000 reident in uptate New York, it ha been involved in clean energy generation ince the Madion County hot 43 utility wind turbine on three wind farm and numerou reidential turbine. It larget wind project, panning more than 2,000 acre of farmland privately leaed from fourteen eparate landowner, i located in the Town of Fenner, 40 mile outheat of Syracue. With MW turbine in ue, Fenner Wind Farm produce an etimated 89,000 megawatt-hour per year, enough to power approximately 10,000 houehold. A primarily rural town with an agriculture-baed economy, Fenner future-oriented thinking i demontrated in it comprehenive plan. The plan place the development of alternative agricultural and renewable energy enterprie alongide the preervation of rural character and quality of life a prime concern of the town land-ue regulatory effort, and it recommend the conideration of zoning proviion to promote alternative energy initiative. According to town upervior Ruell Cary, Fenner road to wind farm development began in 1998 with prodding from a repreentative from the Atlantic Renewable Energy Company, a large purveyor of wind energy on the Eat Coat. Studie conducted over two year howed that the area had average wind peed of 18 mph, enough to utain wind turbine. A grant from the New York State Energy Reearch and Development Authority (NYSERDA) helped offet the capital cot of the Fenner project, which wa developed by Enel North America and Atlantic Renewable Energy. The project wa conidered a public utility ue and went through the pecial ue permit proce to enure appropriate turbine iting; multiple public hearing and information meeting were held to inform the community about the project and anwer quetion from reident. In 2000, Fenner amended it land-ue regulation to pecifically addre wind energy. The amendment deignate a lit of pecific tax map parcel a Ditrict C, in which wind power electricity generation and tranmiion facilitie are permitted a pecial ue. It further provide pecial criteria for commercial wind facilitie, addreing electromagnetic and telecommunication interference, FAA lighting, noie, and afety iue, and it require viual impact analye for project. The amendment etablihe etback of 1.5 time tructure height from property line and tructure; a proviion wa added in 2001 to allow reduction of thi requirement in cae where two adjacent C Ditrict propertie both hot turbine or where the property owner record a development eaement retricting ue within a reduced etback area. The wind farm wa completed in December 2001 and operated uneventfully until 2009, when one of the turbine collaped into an empty field. The wind farm wa taken offline for eight month for analyi and repair. Though engineer were unable to determine the caue of the collape, no one wa hurt, and Enel reinforced the bae on all remaining turbine before reuming operation. No further problem with the turbine have been reported. Public repone to the project ha been overwhelmingly poitive. Though the turbine are very viible throughout the area and ome reident conider them eyeore, Cary note that wind energy i een a jut another crop in the community, and local farmer are reimbured for hoting turbine on their propertie. In 2001, the Fenner Renewable Energy Education (FREE) Center, a hand-on mueum dedicated to green energy, opened it door. A tate-of-the-art facility in the proce of becoming LEED certified, it ha been a tourit attraction for the community, drawing local choolchildren and viitor from acro the country. Located on a donated plot of farmland two acre in area, it i only 50 yard away from a turbine the cloet one can afely be to a turbine anywhere in the nation without a hardhat. In December 2010, Fenner received the Outtanding Government Leader Award, part of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York Sutainable Energy Leaderhip Award, for being a leader in green energy. The town take pride in it wind farm and the priority it place on educating other about renewable energy. For more information: Town of Fenner Comprehenive Plan (2009). Available at Plan.pdf. Town of Fenner Local Law No (2000). Available at Town of Fenner. Local Law No (2001). Available at Fenner Receive Outtanding Government Leader Award Madion County New York New. November 10. Available at Fenner Renewable Energy Education (FREE) Center. Available at Fenner Turbine Spinning Again After Eight Motionle Month WSYR New. December 27. Available at Fenner Wind Power Project Info Sheet. Available at heet1.pdf.

66 62 Planning for Wind Energy New York until 2011 provided ubtantial leeway to local government for regulation of wind facility iting, but it limited ome of the iting retriction that local government might impoe. State law exprely preerved the authority of local government to apply zoning ordinance, building code, and certain tate environmental law over thee facilitie, but it precluded local government from impoing any condition or requirement not provided by thee law and ordinance (N.Y. Energy Law (2)). In 2011, recognizing that thi approach had produced varying reult for large wind facility iting, the tate legilature adopted a one-top tate iting board proce for energy facility iting over 25 MW, retaining primacy of local regulation only for maller facilitie. The even-member New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment will conit of five permanent member plu two member appointed for each proceeding from the community where the propoed facility would be located. The law provide that the board will take into account local requirement and conider evidence from local government upporting uch requirement but will preempt requirement it deem unreaonably burdenome (Power NY Act of 2011, 12, codified at N.Y. Pub. Serv. L. 160 et eq.). Some tate board are empowered to ite large wind energy facilitie without regard to local ordinance and plan. One example i in Ohio, where the Power Siting Board ha excluive authority to ite wind energy facilitie over 5 MW (ORC Ann ). The legilature did not make local regulation a mandatory conideration in the board deciion making proce. Further, the law explicitly tate that no other agency or political ubdiviion may impoe any permit requirement or condition on facilitie under the board juridiction. Other tate iting board mut conider local plan and ordinance but are not bound to make their deciion conitent with local rule. The Vermont Public Service Board i one of the rare tate agencie excluively reponible for iting all wind energy facilitie regardle of ize. The board may iue a iting permit only for project that it determine will not unduly interfere with the orderly development of an area (30 V.S.A. 248). The board mut give due conideration to, but i not required to comply with, the recommendation of municipal and regional planning commiion and the content of municipal plan (In re UPC Vermont Wind LLC, 2009 Vt. 19 [2009]). State and local government have engaged in a great deal of new law making a wind energy at all cale enter the marketplace. State government have attempted to balance recognition of local concern againt tate goal to increae the availability of renewable electric power and reduce greenhoue ga emiion. Many local government have adopted new ordinance with very little previou expoure to wind technologie, impact, and need. Fortunately, planner and elected official now have a wealth of technical information on which to draw, a well a numerou tate and local practice to conult for guidance. But the legal landcape i far from uniform. TRANSMISSION and interconnection Kevin Porter and Sari Fink Tranmiion Tranmiion refer to the bulk tranfer of electrical power over high-voltage line from generating plant to ubtation. Thi i different from ditribution line that take the electric power from ubtation to the final conumer. New tranmiion i particularly important for wind energy. Wind power project

67 Chapter 4. Regulatory Environment 63 mut locate in area with ufficient wind reource, which often do not have high level of electricity demand and may not have adequate tranmiion infratructure in place. In addition, there i alo a mimatch between the relatively hort timeframe needed to develop a wind power project compared to the longer timeframe typically required to build new tranmiion. Thi ection briefly decribe the regulation and iting of tranmiion in the United State. Thi ection alo decribe how generator, including wind power generator, are interconnected to the electric grid. Tranmiion Regulation in the United State. The United State ha a complex and multijuridictional approach toward regulating the electricity indutry. Regulation of tranmiion, and of the electricity indutry in general, i divided among the federal government, tate, and local governing board, depending on the context. Federal entitie involved with tranmiion include the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commiion (FERC): wholeale electricity market and intertate tranmiion and generation rate North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC): maintenance of electric reliability through iuance of tandard, with overight by FERC U.S. Department of Energy (DOE): national interet electric tranmiion corridor and ale and tranmiion of electricity to foreign countrie, among other thing U.S. Department of Agriculture (including the U.S. Foret Service) and the Department of Interior (including the Bureau of Land Management): rightof-way and land-ue management on federal land, a well a financing and overight of federal power marketing adminitration Federal Utilitie and Power Marketing Adminitration: operation of federal hydroelectric facilitie and adminitration of their tranmiion network In general, FERC regulate intertate electric wholeale tranaction and determine wholeale tranmiion and generation rate (i.e., generation and tranmiion between market participant, not the generation or ditribution of electricity to the ultimate conumer). Alaka, Hawaii, and mot of Texa are exempt from FERC juridiction a they are not linked to the main interconnection in the United State. Another one-third of tranmiion facilitie in the United State are not owned by FERC-juridictional entitie (typically municipal utilitie, power marketing adminitration, or rural electric cooperative) and are not ubject to FERC regulation. FERC require FERC-juridictional tranmiion provider to participate in local and regional tranmiion planning. State regulate bundled retail rate (i.e., for generation, tranmiion and ditribution) for entitie under their juridiction, which typically include invetorowned electric utilitie. Some tate may alo include municipal utilitie and rural electric cooperative. State alo have juridiction over ditribution line that erve end-ue cutomer directly (Daryanian et al. 2009). Tranmiion Siting. State are currently reponible for iting tranmiion, with the exception of the federal power marketing adminitration and the Tenneee Valley Authority, which have their own iting reponibilitie. In addition, federal approval from agencie uch a the U.S. Foret Service or the Bureau of Reclamation i required if a propoed tranmiion facility croe federal land. Alo, FERC can tep in to approve the iting and contruction of tranmiion project in the DOE-deignated Mid-Atlantic and Southwet Area national interet electric tranmiion corridor, though it ha not yet done o.

68 64 Planning for Wind Energy CALIFORNIA RENEWABLE ENERGY TRANSMISSION INITIATIVE The California Renewable Energy Tranmiion Initiative (RETI), launched in 2007, wa a tatewide effort by energy takeholder to plan for the tranmiion project neceary to link potential renewable energy project to the grid. State mandate called for retail electrical upplier to obtain 20 percent of their energy from renewable ource by 2010, o RETI wa formed to help plan for the tranmiion infratructure needed to enable rapid development of the tate renewable reource area. RETI reult were intended to point to the highet-priority tranmiion project needed to connect renewable energy reource located in remote location to the tatewide highvoltage tranmiion grid. RETI wa a joint effort among the California Public Utilitie Commiion (CPUC), the Energy Commiion, the California Independent Sytem Operator (California ISO), invetor-owned utilitie, and public utilitie. It planning objective were to identify the tate Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ), determine which one were prioritie for development, refine analye of thoe, conidering both economic and environmental attribute, and develop a tatewide conceptual tranmiion plan. Perhap the mot ditinctive and important feature of RETI wa it focu on collaborative takeholder involvement and the open, tranparent nature of the proce. Rich Ferguon, RETI coordinator, emphaize that the RETI proce differed ignificantly from what had come before: The uual utility planning proce i a very taff-driven operation, creating a document that the outide world then react to. RETI wa very different; it wa takeholder-driven from day one. The initiative wa overeen by a coordinating committee made up of repreentative from tate regulatory agencie and utility repreentative, but the primary working group, the Stakeholder Steering Committee (SSC), compried repreentative of tranmiion owner and provider; generator; utilitie and power purchaer; (continued on page 65) Tranmiion iting i compli cated, due to the geographic reach of tranmiion project and impact on the environment, land ue, wildlife, and local and regional economie. Each tate typically addree tranmiion iting in it tatute. After required environmental, ocioeconomic, or other tudie have been performed, a utility may proceed with contruction of a line if no challenge are filed after a pecified time period. Generally, the utility mut prove that the propoed tranmiion line meet a demontrated need (uually for maintaining electric reliability), and the reponible tate agency mut rule on whether the tranmiion facility i neceary and whether it meet the public interet (Meyer and Sedano 2002). The proce begin when a utility requet a certificate of convenience and neceity (CPCN; different term may be ued in different tate) from the iting agency, generally the tate public utility commiion, to contruct a tranmiion facility. Although it may vary by tate, the CPCN require information on the propoed tranmiion project, uch a a general decription; etimated cot; expected contruction date; length of contruction; projected in ervice date; a map of the propoed location; information on alternative that were aeed and the reaon why they were eliminated; and jutification for the propoed tranmiion facility. Utilitie may alo need to demontrate prudent avoidance of certain problem by, for example, minimizing expoure to electromagnetic field. CPCN application alo may require an environmental aement that evaluate the potential impact of the propoed tranmiion line, uch a potential diruption of habitat, impact on tate- or federal-lited endangered or threatened pecie, and ocioeconomic or viibility impact. If the propoed tranmiion project croe or involve federal land, then an environmental impact tatement or environmental aement under the National Environmental Policy Act will be required. Depending on the tate, local government may alo have reponibility for approving or denying propoed tranmiion facilitie. They are often given a particular time frame (e.g., 120 day), after which the utility CPCN application i approved if the local government doe not act. Should the local government deny the application, the utility can appeal the deciion to a tate regulatory body, typically the tate public utility commiion. In ome tate, thee bodie may have tatutory authority to overrule local government deciion on the iting of generation and tranmiion facilitie. The time needed to develop a tranmiion line depend on the iting and permitting proce and the time needed for contruction. Project that cro everal tate and are ubject to multiple tate juridiction are more complicated and take more time. In thee ituation, the actual contruction can take le time than iting and permitting. Propoed new tranmiion project can become controverial if project opponent believe the tranmiion project will have negative impact on electric rate, the environment, property right and value, or tate and federal land. Diagreement may alo occur over whether the utility ha ignificantly and fairly evaluated potential alternative. For mall tranmiion project or upgrade of exiting tranmiion project, regulatory approval can uually be obtained in a year or le. For long-ditance tranmiion project, however, the approval proce i longer, although the amount of time varie for each propoed tranmiion line. For example, the American Tranmiion Company 220-mile tranmiion line from Duluth, Minneota, to Wauau, Wiconin, took eight year to be approved but only two year to build, and American Electric Power 765- kv, 90-mile tranmiion line from Wet Virginia to Virginia took 14 year to receive regulatory approval. In contrat, wind project typically take one to three year to be approved and built. Lack of tranmiion can be a ignifi-

69 Chapter 4. Regulatory Environment 65 cant impediment to development of new wind project; companie developing wind project in area lacking ufficient tranmiion often have no choice but to wait until new tranmiion i available (Daryanian et al. 2009). Interconnection Generator Interconnection. Planner hould alo be aware that interconnecting new generation facilitie to the electric grid i another important factor for large wind energy project. FERC ha juridiction over entitie that own, control, or operate intertate tranmiion facilitie, while mot ditributed generation facilitie are governed by tate law and procedure. The majority of large generation (greater than 20 MW) interconnection in the continental United State are ultimately ubject to FERC juridiction and approval, though the actual tranmiion tudie are typically performed by tranmiion owner. Three tudie are required in the interconnection proce, each involving more detail and financial commitment than the previou one. Firt, a feaibility tudy provide a high-level look at a project choen point of entry into the grid. Next, an interconnection ytem impact tudy goe into greater detail and evaluate the impact of the propoed project on ytem reliability. Finally, an interconnection facilitie tudy identifie required equipment, engineering, procurement, and contruction work, and it etimate cot and timeframe of any neceary grid upgrade or improvement. The vat majority of mall reidential and commercial ytem (thoe having a capacity of 20 MW or le) interconnect with utilitylevel ditribution ytem and are therefore under the juridiction of tate-level regulation. State-level interconnection procedure for non-ferc juridictional project have et variou ize limit ranging from fewer than 100 kw to 80 (continued from page 64) local, tate, and federal permitting agencie; Native American tribe; and environmental and public interet organization. Finally, the work of the group wa open to review by all participant and any other intereted partie. Another important feature of RETI wa it equal focu on environmental and economic factor. A ome of the lengthiet battle over utility and tranmiion infratructure development are fought over environmental impact, bringing thoe conideration to the forefront of the planning proce i vital. The RETI group developed a methodology that quantified both economic factor and environmental impact and analyzed more than 30 CREZ area on a bubble chart with x- and y-axe of environmental core and economic ranking core, repectively (Figure 4.1). The CREZ in the lower left quadrant of the chart had both the fewet environmental concern and the lowet cot and highet economic value per unit energy production; they therefore emerged a priority area for tranmiion development. Figure 4.1. CREZ economic and environmental core Source: RETI Stakeholder Steering Committee Note: Area of the bubble are proportional to CREZ energy. Laen South CREZ i off the right ide of the chart. (Economic Score = 18, Environmental Score = 19.50, Energy = 1051 GWh) San Diego North Central CREZ i off the right ide of the chart. (Economic Score = 15, Environmental Score = 22.3, Energy = 502 GWh) Victorville and Round Mountain-B are coincident The RETI proce wa thu able to produce plan that could generate upport from both the energy and environmental ector. It alo raied the level of awarene about the importance of environmental iue among utility planner and tranmiion engineer, group that typically do not conider thee iue in their technical planning. The analye produced by RETI are now being ued to inform the next level of tranmiion planning and implementation carried out by group uch a the California Tranmiion Planning Group, the California ISO, and the California Public Utilitie Commiion. For more information, ee

70 66 Planning for Wind Energy MW facilitie, while ome procedure contain no pecified ize limit and can therefore be ued to interconnect any project a long a the interconnection doe not fall under FERC juridiction. Table 4.2 outline the variou tate procedure ize limitation. Facilitie ized 20 MW or maller do not often interconnect to tranmiion line that fall under FERC juridiction, but becaue connecting generation facilitie in the 5 to 20 MW range to the ditribution ytem may be difficult, ome generation facilitie in thi capacity range do connect to FERC-regulated tranmiion line. A of July 2010, all but eight tate had created ome type of tate interconnection procedure. Table 4.2. State interconnection procedure ize limitation Size Limit (MW) none State California, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maachuett, Michigan, New Jerey, North Carolina, Pennylvania, Vermont 80 Iowa, New Mexico 20 Connecticut, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, Wahington 15 Wiconin 10 Arizona*, Colorado, Ditrict of Columbia, Illinoi, Maryland, Minneota, South Dakota, Texa 2 Florida, New York, Oregon**, Wet Virginia, Utah** 1 Delaware Under 500 kw No tate procedure Arkana, Georgia, Kana, Louiiana, Miouri, Montana, Nebraka, New Hamphire, South Carolina, Wyoming Alabama, Alaka, Idaho, Oklahoma, Miiippi, North Dakota, Rhode Iland, Tenneee Source: Fink, Porter, and Roger 2010 *Arizona Corporate Commiion procedure are till voluntary and recommended only. The utilitie have implemented variou ize limit. **Oregon and Utah impoe a eparate 25 kw ize limit on reidential ytem. There i currently no tandard-form tate interconnection procedure; requirement vary greatly from tate to tate. State interconnection procedure often incorporate certain general characteritic, including applicability, tandard agreement and application procee, expedited proceing for maller ytem, interconnection cot, and inurance requirement. Some tate procedure apply only to certain type of utilitie or certain technologie, mot often renewable energy ditributed reource. Standard agreement can facilitate generator interconnection by enuring that project applicant know exactly what to expect and what i required with repect to their application. Simplified tandard agreement for mall ditributed-generation ytem, along with implified technical creening that permit ytem to interconnect without further tudie a long a they meet certain requirement, are particularly important for mall-buine and reidential cutomer, a they can be deterred by complex procedure and long legal document. Mot tate interconnection procedure have created everal level of review and documentation baed on ytem ize, with implified procee for maller inverter-baed ytem. Interconnection cot for ditributed generator include related application and connection fee and engineering, technical, and equipment charge; tate procedure generally outline which cot the cutomer are reponible for paying. Some tate alo require cutomer to carry additional liability inurance, but becaue liability inurance i uually included in mot tandard mall buine and home owner inurance policie, many tate imply pecify how much general liability inurance a project owner mut carry, intead of requiring additional inurance for the ditributed generation ytem.

71 Chapter 4. Regulatory Environment 67 Several entitie have developed model interconnection rule to ait tate regulator in creating interconnection procedure for mall and ditributed generation, including the Intertate Renewable Energy Council (IREC), a nonprofit organization that create and promote the adoption of uniform renewable energy tandard. The IREC procedure were originally publihed in 2006 and updated in 2009; they incorporate the bet approache and feature found in previou model. The model offer four level of review, three of which are baed on project ize (IREC 2009). Mot applicable to maller wind energy ytem are Level 1, a et of implified creen for inverter-baed ytem with a capacity of 25 kw or le, and Level 2, a et of creen for ytem with a capacity of 2 MW or le, including thoe below 25 kw that did not pa Level 1 creening. Implication for Planner Tranmiion and interconnection are vital to the development of new wind project. New tranmiion will be needed in many cae for the ucceful development of new wind energy capacity. Planner hould be aware of what authority their local government ha over the iting of generation and tranmiion aet and how thi relate to tate iting authority. A noted, local government may have authority to approve the iting of generation and tranmiion facilitie in conjunction with tate regulatory agencie, but in other cae tate regulatory agencie may override local government agencie. Planner hould alo eek to provide input to electric utilitie a they plan for new tranmiion or ditribution facilitie. Planner can provide feedback on how potential facilitie may or may not be conitent with current plan by requiring public notice and local hearing for tranmiion facilitie propoed by the tate, a well a by intervening and filing comment in tate regulatory docket regarding propoed tranmiion facilitie. Planner hould requet that ponor of propoed tranmiion facilitie comprehenively evaluate alternative, including nontranmiion alternative uch a energy efficiency or undergrounding propoed tranmiion line, although that i generally much more expenive than intalling overhead tranmiion line (Fink, Porter, and Roger 2010).

72 CHAPTER 5 Conidering Wind Energy in the Planning Proce Suzanne Rynne, a i c p How can planner addre wind energy in the community planning proce? Planner have many opportunitie in the planning proce and in their day-to-day work to make a difference when it come to wind energy. Thi chapter decribe what planner do and where in the planning proce opportunitie exit to effect change. Since planner tend to deal with iue comprehenively, uggetion are provided both pecifically with regard to wind a well a more broadly to renewable energy. Planner hould think about wind energy within the broader cheme of renewable energy, energy policy, climate goal, and utainability a it applie to their communitie. Thee trategic point of intervention hould alo be communicated to thoe who may not be a familiar with the planning and community development procee. 69

73 70 Planning for Wind Energy Strategic Point of Intervention Long-Range Community Viioning and Goal Setting Planner often conduct viioning exercie that produce long-term goal and objective that community leader look to when conidering policie and action. Community viioning i often the firt tep in developing a comprehenive, neighborhood, or downtown plan. Whether part of a planning proce or on it own, viioning i an important firt chance to identify new opportunitie and prioritie related to wind energy. Here are ome idea for how planner can integrate wind energy into the viioning proce: Survey citizen attitude. Gauge the level of awarene and importance of wind energy to community member. In a community urvey, for intance, ak quetion uch a, Are you in favor of renewable energy generation in the community? Hold community workhop. Conider how wind energy can be addreed through interactive forum. For example, in community workhop, create an exercie to gauge the level of upport for renewable-energy option uch a olar panel and wind turbine. Viualization technique could alo be utilized to how viual impact of wind turbine in variou location. Connect community goal. Determine how wind energy i connected to other community goal and value. Review a lit of thee goal and value or a draft viion tatement. For example, i utainability or economic development part of the viion? I your community concerned about climate change or intereted in increaing local energy production? What about agricultural land preervation? How doe wind energy fit into thee goal or help your community achieve thee goal? Dicu thee connection with community member. Communitie may alo ue a viioning proce to dicu new or exiting goal and target. For example, if a community or tate ha et a target for GHG emiion reduction or a renewable-energy portfolio tandard, the viioning proce can be a good venue for dicuing idea about how to tart meeting thoe goal or interim target and figuring out what role wind energy play in that regard. Plan Making Planning department prepare plan of all kind. They recommend action involving infratructure and facilitie, land-ue pattern, open pace, tranportation option, houing choice and affordability, and much more. Examining comprehenive plan and other planning document to ee if renewable energy i addreed and integrated into them i an important tep. Aement and Analyi. An initial tep in almot any planning proce i a baeline aement and analyi of exiting condition and trend. Etablihing the baeline for energy ue i critical to being able to track and meaure progre toward goal. A good baeline meaure of a community energy ue will take account of not jut the amount it ue but alo the mix of renewable and nonrenewable ource. Thee aement can be ummarized and included in an overall plan, for eay reference and connection to goal and policie that repond to them. Comprehenive Plan. The comprehenive plan i a guiding document for the future of an entire community. It etablihe goal and prioritie and lay out action tep for meeting thoe goal. Planner hould conider including an energy element in the comprehenive plan, integrating thee iue within

74 Chapter 5. Conidering Wind Energy in the Planning Proce 71 other element, or both. Devoting an element to thee iue may provide focu and allow communitie to more eaily amend an exiting comprehenive plan. However, planner hould alo conider how energy ue relate to other iue and element in the comprehenive plan, uch a land ue. Some tate provide guidance on preparing local comprehenive plan, and communitie hould refer to thi guidance in conidering how to addre wind energy in their plan. Area Plan. In addition to a comprehenive plan, many communitie alo have more pecific area plan uch a neighborhood plan, downtown plan, redevelopment ditrict plan, and corridor plan that might alo incorporate wind energy. Planner hould conider whether there are uitable location for wind energy development and what policie might help it fit into other plan. Functional Plan. Functional plan focu on a ingle iue or et of iue uch a tranportation or open pace rather than a geographic area. Some functional plan are prepared by a municipality or a public or private pecial-purpoe entity, uch a a utility, an authority, or a chool ditrict. A community utainability plan, climate action plan, or energy plan may provide an overview of energy ue and ource (uch a wind) in a community, a well a trategie for enuring energy ecurity in the future. Standard, Policie, and Incentive Planner write and amend tandard, policie, and incentive that have an important influence on what, where, and how thing get built and what, where, and how land and building are preerved. When updating regulation, planner hould conider how zoning code, building code, ubdiviion code, and other regulation and ordinance addre wind energy. McLEAN COUNTY, ILLINOIS McLean County, Illinoi, population 169,572, i a trongly agricultural county in the center of the tate. It i home to two major wind farm: Twin Grove and White Oak. Twin Grove, developed in two phae, conit of MW turbine, for an intalled capacity of 198 MW in each phae. White Oak include MW turbine, with a total intalled capacity of 150 MW. Combined, the intalled capacity at thee two wind farm i enough to power approximately 153,000 home. McLean County initially became intereted in wind energy in 2004 when it wa approached by wind farm developer. Since then, it ha amended the zoning ordinance to allow commercial wind energy a a pecial permit major-utility ue, ubject to certain tandard. Thee include a 2,000-foot ditancing requirement from reidential ditrict, height limit of 499 feet (or 200 feet if within 1.5 mile of a municipality with a population of 25,000 or more), and other afety and aethetic requirement. According to Philip Dick, director of building and zoning, the flexibility of the pecial ue proce ha contributed to the ucce of wind energy development in the county. He add that by not adopting exhautive wind energy regulation, the County can employ the pecial ue proce to explore the poibility of wind farm while till requiring developer to prepare neceary tudie and meet baic condition applicable to all pecial ue. Ued with permiion of the McLean County Department of Building and Zoning Another factor contributing to ucceful implementation of the wind farm i the county and community acceptance of wind energy development a a compatible ue in agricultural zoning ditrict; wind energy i jut another reource to harvet. Some objection have come from nonfarm reident in rural area, but becaue the county limit reidential development in agricultural area thi i not a large ource of oppoition. The County alo ue the public hearing proce to addre individual concern uch a noie and drainage on acce road, in repone to which developer have relocated propoed turbine to help mitigate potential impact. Landowner alo benefit from leae payment for the turbine on their propertie, and the County benefit from the increaed property tax revenue, a portion of which goe to local chool. With interet in wind energy continuing to grow, county official updated the zoning ordinance to addre mall wind energy ytem a well, uing a model wind energy ordinance written for Illinoi a guidance. Small wind ytem are now a permitted ue in all zoning ditrict ubject to tandard, including etback of 110 percent of turbine height from right-of-way and property line, noie limit of 60 decibel at cloet property line, and height limit ranging from 50 to 150 feet baed on parcel ize. If the propoed ite i in a crop-duting agricultural area, applicant mut alo notify crop-duting buinee prior to ubmitting their building permit application. Additionally, the mot recent update to the McLean County Regional Comprehenive Plan reference the area wind energy reource and recent wind energy development, noting that wind energy development can complement the county agricultural heritage while offering ignificant tax dollar to the County a well a rental income to individual farmer. (continued on page 72)

75 72 Planning for Wind Energy (continued from page 71) For more information: Model Ordinance Regulating the Siting of Wind Energy Converion Sytem in Illinoi (2003). Available at pdf/windordinace.pdf. McLean County Regional Comprehenive Plan: A Guide to Senible Growth Through Regional Cooperation (2009). Available at plan/reg_plan.pdf. McLean County Zoning Ordinance (2010). Article 6, Section , Ue Standard Utility, Major; Section , Ue Standard Small Wind Energy Sytem. Available at View.apx?DID=45. Development Code Zoning Code. Perhap the mot important regulatory tool for development in a community, the zoning code typically etablihe permitted ue in variou location and provide tandard for intenity of ue, uch a lot ize, floor area ratio, etback, building height, and permitted acceory tructure. Planner hould develop tandard that upport appropriate wind energy development and remove unintended barrier to it, uch a by updating height retriction. Wind Energy Ordinance. Many communitie opt to ue a tand-alone ordinance or eparate chapter of the municipal code to enact tandard for wind turbine. Planner hould enure that the ordinance doe not conflict with the zoning regulation and clearly tate which regulation ha primacy hould a conflict be dicovered in the future. Incentive. There are a number of incentive available from federal and tate ource, a well a utilitie, that promote energy efficiency and the ue of renewable energy. The Databae of State Incentive for Renewable Energy (DSIRE), for example, provide link to information on many incentive program that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency ( Planner hould conider creating a fact heet with information on available incentive for developer and reident, a thee incentive can be helpful in meeting energy goal. Local government alo can create their own incentive. Thee may include expedited plan review for project that meet or exceed etablihed objective; a waiver of permit fee, rebate, or other financial incentive to developer whoe project meet predetermined tandard; and proviion of technical aitance to help developer meet new goal and tandard. Development Work. Planner play an important role in development in their communitie. They review project application for conitency with applicable plan and regulation and may be involved in public-private partnerhip to develop new project. In reviewing private development project, planner ae whether tandard in ordinance and regulation have been met. Thu, a checklit of energy tandard or goal for new project can be helpful. If the goal are not mandatory, an expedited plan review and permit-proceing track for project that meet or exceed thoe goal can be an effective tool. Public Invetment Citie and countie undertake major invetment in infratructure and community facilitie. Planner hould conider whether wind energy play a role here alo for example, a wind turbine might provide power to a local chool while alo erving a an educational tool. Similarly, intalling a wind turbine at a public facility uch a a ewer plant might reduce energy cot uncertainty for the municipality over the long term. Education and Outreach The importance of education and outreach in implementing wind energy hould not be overlooked. Community education and outreach activitie often happen within each of the point of intervention highlighted in thi chapter. Communitie alo hold eparate education and outreach program for important iue. In general, planner hould conider way to engage the public in dicuing wind energy and provide educational forum for citizen to learn about wind energy. Public hearing hould alo be held when major wind project are in development, to allow community member to expre their concern. Holding thee hearing early in the proce a well a throughout the proce can help in undertanding and addreing community concern. (See the cae tudie for example.)

76 In addition, planner hould conider how to reach out to other agencie and takeholder that influence and affect wind energy development. Thee might be neighboring juridiction, chool ditrict, tranportation agencie, and local utilitie. Involve them early in local planning procee, get their input and feedback on new policie, regulation, and development, and work with them to implement new tandard. Furthermore, participate a thee agencie create their own policy document to enure that wind energy and other local planning concern are addreed. Chapter 5. Conidering Wind Energy in the Planning Proce 73

77 CHAPTER 6 Regulating Small-Scale Wind Energy Sytem at the Local Level Erica Heller, a i c p Small wind energy converion ytem (WECS) are defined in the wind indutry a thoe with a rated output capacity of 100 kw of le. Unfortunately, thi definition ay little about the ize or characteritic of mall WECS. Local planner more typically conider mall WECS a thoe that are ued to provide on-ite power. Thi indicate both that mall WECS are an acceory ue and begin to etablih a framework that tie the ize limitation of mall WECS to the power need of the home, farm, or buine that i the primary uer. 75

78 76 Planning for Wind Energy Small WECS come in a wide range of ize and tyle. Figure 6.1 depict a range of traditional fan or horizontal-tyle mall WECS. Figure 6.2 how another tyle of mall WECS. Small WECS technology i changing rapidly a new product are developed to enter thi emerging market. While thi dynamim can create new poibilitie for how and where wind turbine are placed, it can alo make writing mall WECS regulation more challenging, a planner try to addre a range of exiting and potential configuration. Figure 6.1. Different kind of fan-tyle mall WECS Source: AWEA Figure 6.2. A vertical-tyle mall WECS Source: AWEA Checklit for Ordinance One recurring theme in ucceful wind energy implementation i the importance of having a local wind energy ordinance in place to clarify and treamline the WECS approval proce. Not having an ordinance in place can delay project review. There are a number of model wind energy ordinance

79 Chapter 6. Regulating Small-Scale Wind Energy Sytem at the Local Level 77 available, written by variou organization and tate to erve a guideline for communitie. With the right ordinance language, planner can allow and encourage context-appropriate wind energy development while etting tandard that protect communitie from unwanted impact. Though every community hould create a wind energy ordinance appropriate to it pecific context and policy directive, there are common element to uch ordinance. The following ordinance framework i baed upon a review of model wind energy ordinance and wind energy ytem permitting guidebook. A typical mall wind energy ytem ordinance contain the following element: Definition. Thee typically pecify that the ytem i intended to produce energy for on-ite conumption, though the ordinance hould allow for the poibility of revere or net-metering, where electricity produced by the ytem that exceed demand may be old back to the utility or credited to the property utility bill. A noted above, mall ytem are often defined by the maximum-rated capacity of the turbine a well; kilowatt threhold ued by variou ordinance range from 5 to 100 kw. Allowed ue. Many ordinance allow mall wind energy ytem by right in all ditrict a acceory ue, a long a development tandard are met. For ytem that may not meet all requirement, communitie may allow approval through the conditional or pecial ue proce. Setback. In order to reduce noie and viual impact and to minimize the light rik of a poible tower collape, communitie require that freetanding turbine be et back from tructure, property line, or public rightof-way a certain ditance, typically equal to the height of the tower. Tower height. Some ordinance limit mall wind energy ytem to pecific height for example, anywhere from 65 to 150 feet while other ordinance exempt wind energy ytem from ditrict limit or allow them to exceed thoe limit by a pecified amount. In ome cae, turbine height i controlled indirectly through etback requirement. Placing abolute height limit on tower can ometime prevent full utilization of the wind reource. Viual appearance. Ordinance typically pecify that turbine not be lighted unle required by the Federal Aviation Adminitration (FAA) though mall reidential turbine will uually fall under the 200-foot threhold above which FAA lighting i required and that any ignage on them other than turbine manufacturer or owner identification be prohibited. Some alo pecify that turbine be an off-white or gray color with a nonreflective finih. Sound. In order to avoid potential noie impact for neighbor, ordinance typically require that audible ound from the turbine at the property line not exceed maximum noie limit etablihed elewhere in the zoning code. Some ordinance et pecific noie threhold, often 40 dba to 55 dba. Some allow exception for hort-term event like torm when ambient noie increae. Safety. For afety reaon, ordinance typically require turbine to be deigned and ecured o a to prevent unauthorized climbing for example, by prohibiting climbing aid from the firt eight or 12 feet of the turbine pole. Approved wind turbine deign. Some ordinance require that turbine be of a model approved by tate tandard or a recognized certification program. With the rapid proliferation of mall WECS technology, certification provide a reaurance that the elected turbine ha a afe and effective deign.

80 78 Planning for Wind Energy Abandonment. If the turbine i inoperable for a certain period of time, typically ix month to one year, mot ordinance require the owner to remove it to prevent a potential nuiance or afety hazard. Permitting proce and requirement. See below. Other element that appear in ome ordinance but le frequently than the element above include the following: Number per lot. Some ordinance retrict mall wind energy ytem to one per lot. While thi might be appropriate in dene urban environment, thi may prohibit maximum ue of wind reource on larger or more rural reidential propertie. Minimum lot ize. Some ordinance retrict mall wind energy ytem to lot over a certain ize threhold, often one acre. However, etting uch a threhold may limit reident full utilization of wind energy technology where noie and etback tandard adequately protect neighbor from nuiance impact; etback requirement alo indirectly act to limit turbine placement on mall lot. Blade clearance. Some ordinance pecify that turbine blade mut come no cloer to the ground than a certain ditance for example, 30 feet and alo et minimum ditance from the blade to tructure and tree. Automatic overpeed control. Some ordinance require that turbine be equipped with an automatic hutoff to prevent turbine from pinning too quickly in high-wind-peed or torm condition. Electromagnetic interference avoidance. Although thi i primarily a concern with large WECS, ome mall WECS ordinance pecify that turbine mut not caue radio or televiion interference and mut be modified to eliminate any interference if they are found to do o. Compliance with law and regulation. Some ordinance include a blanket tatement that propoed turbine contruction and operation mut conform with local, tate, and federal requirement, including building code, electrical code, and FAA requirement. Maintenance. Some ordinance pecify that turbine mut be maintained in baic working order. Inurance. Some ordinance require owner of mall wind energy ytem to hold liability inurance of a certain amount, though typically mall wind ytem can be added to exiting home-owner policie a an appurtenant tructure. Permit Proceing Becaue the impact of mall, reidential-cale wind turbine are often minimal, local permitting procee for thee ue can be treamlined and implified to reduce barrier to their implementation. A a by-right acceory ue, mall wind energy ytem may be handled adminitratively via the building or zoning permit application proce through which compliance with the development tandard laid out in the ordinance i demontrated. Ordinance hould alo require documentation to enure afe turbine intallation and operation, uch a the following: a written decription of the turbine; a ite plan howing the planned location of the turbine on the parcel and it relation to other tructure, property line, public right-of-way, and overhead utility line;

81 Chapter 6. Regulating Small-Scale Wind Energy Sytem at the Local Level 79 manufacturer- or engineer-certified drawing or plan demontrating compliance with the Uniform Building Code; electrical component drawing, typically provided by the manufacturer, demontrating compliance with the National Electric Code; evidence that the utility ha been informed of the intent to interconnect the turbine to the grid, in cae where grid interconnection will occur; and for building-mounted mall wind energy ytem, a certified tructural analyi of the roof or wall. In general, planner hould enure that permit requirement are a imple and traightforward a poible, to minimize obtacle to home owner and commercial developer who wih to implement mall-cale wind energy on their propertie. The development tandard laid out in a good ordinance for mall wind energy ytem will enure that thee by-right intallation will have no nuiance impact on neighboring propertie, and the conditional or pecial ue proce hould effectively handle turbine application with the potential for more ignificant impact. Element of a mall wind energy ordinance WECS regulation mut addre potential impact on neighboring propertie, including location, height, aethetic, ound, and afety. Thi ection preent regulation that localitie may ue to addre uch impact. When writing WECS regulation, planner hould conider what broadly imilar ue are regulated in the community and write imilar regulation for WECS. STAND-ALONE OR INTEGRATED ORDINANCE? Both tand-alone WECS ordinance and tandard that are integrated into exiting zoning code can be effective regulation for mall WECS. Overall, the content of either i more important than the form. However, there are everal advantage to integrating WECS regulation into an exiting zoning ordinance. Firt, thi location i often eaier for applicant to find and acce than a tand-alone ordinance. Second, applicant often find it eaier to undertand where and how the ue i allowed when mall WECS are clearly defined a acceory ue and integrated into the exiting tructure of ue regulation. Finally, it i often eaier for planner, who mut review the permit, to adminiter an integrated regulation than a tand-alone ordinance. Ditrict and Ue The firt conideration of many planner drafting WECS ordinance i what ditrict they may fit into and whether the ue hould be proceed a a permitted by-right ue or a a conditional ue. Zoning Ditrict. Every WECS ordinance mut addre the zoning ditrict in which mall WECS are allowed. In the pat, many communitie firt WECS permit application came from reidential property owner, and ome communitie ordinance addreed only reidential and agricultural zoning ditrict a location for WECS. However, nonreidential zoning ditrict can provide great location for mall WECS. They are often le controverial, a potential impact are more imilar to other nonreidential ue. The noie of a mall WECS for example, may be inditinguihable from the other ue and urrounding feature uch a highway in a commercial or indutrial ditrict. In addition, an increaing number of communitie are finding that the firt WECS applicant are commercial property owner. In ome cae, they are WECS intaller who want an on-ite demontration model. In other, a local buine may either be intereted in attracting poitive attention or looking to offet energy cot. Thu, localitie crafting ordinance hould addre a wide range of poible zoning ditrict a location for mall WECS. Acceory Ue Subject to Standard. The purpoe of a mall WECS i typically to provide power to a primary on-ite ue. A uch, mall WECS are acceory ue and hould be deignated a uch. In agricultural area the primary ue (e.g., raiing crop) may not be aociated with a tructure, but nonethele mall WECS are ancillary to it. There i ongoing debate about whether wind energy development, particularly at the reidential cale, hould be allowed by-right according to the zoning ordinance or only a a pecial ue, requiring more careful review and iuance of a pecial ue permit. Small WECS potential impact are

82 80 Planning for Wind Energy reaonably predictable and it i very poible to draft tandard to addre them. Therefore, many mall wind expert recommend that mall WECS be deignated a by-right ue ubject to performance tandard, rather than a conditional ue. Deignation a a by-right ue ubject to tandard provide ubtantial reaurance to applicant and intaller that each mall WECS application will receive fair and conitent treatment, and dicourage would-be NIM- BY. If a WECS fail to meet the performance tandard (uch a maximum noie level) after intallation, the iued permit may be conidered null and the community can immediately take enforcement action. To provide regulatory flexibility, a propoed mall WECS that doe not meet the performance meaure of the ue tandard may be reviewed a a conditional ue. The American Wind Energy Aociation (AWEA) advocate that mall wind energy development hould be a permitted ue, requiring only a permit that allow a mall wind ytem by default, provided it meet applicable deign tandard, uch a thoe applied commonly to flagpole, church teeple, and grain ilo (AWEA 2008b). AWEA advocate againt treatment of mall wind energy development a a pecial or conditional ue, for which intallation i allowed under certain condition identified in the tatute. Thi option uually require a more detailed decription of the project from the applicant and often involve a public hearing. A hearing can diadvantage both the zoning board and potential owner, however, ince each application mut be decided on a cae-by-cae bai and educational effort mut begin from cratch. Thi proce can cot potential mall-turbine owner thouand of dollar and take hundred of hour to accomplih (AWEA 2008b). Table 8.1 (page 111) indicate which cae-tudy communitie in thi report have allowed wind energy development by right veru through the pecial ue proce and at which cale. The note to the table provide detail about cae-tudy communitie that have made exception to the by right veru pecial ue dichotomy. In line with the recommendation of AWEA, mot cae-tudy communitie allow mall wind energy ytem by-right and do not require a pecial ue permit. Every location i different, and planner need community takeholder input to uccefully incorporate wind energy development into any local land-ue regulation. A few communitie, uch a Anchorage, Alaka, have made notification and approval by neighbor whether a imple majority or larger percentage a criteria for adminitrative permit approval. If the local community ha an etablihed precedent of requiring neighbor approval for ancillary ue, uch a proviion may be reaonable for WECS. However, thi approach alo ha the potential to pit neighbor againt each other and invite a fight over every mall WECS application. Therefore, and becaue mall WECS impact can readily be regulated through tandard, many mall wind indutry expert do not recommend thi approach. In contrat, adminitrative review reduce permit review time, fee, and public reource needed for hearing. Location and Setback Mot mall WECS regulation include tandard to addre where a mall WECS may be placed within a lot. The mot common location tandard i a etback tandard. A noted, etback tandard equal to the total height of the turbine are the mot common, while ome add an additional factor uch a 1.1 time the total height. Total height i defined a maximum height of the turbine meaured with the rotor blade() in the tallet operational poition. The etback mot often i meaured from property line, but in more rural juridiction may be etablihed from other home. Setback may alo be etablihed from roadway, power line, rail line, and other conveyance.

83 Chapter 6. Regulating Small-Scale Wind Energy Sytem at the Local Level 81 San Bernardino County, California San Bernardino County, California, ha permitted more mall wind energy ytem and ha been regulating thi ue for longer than almot any community in the nation. Thi large Southern California county ha a total population of more than two million people, 296,285 of whom live in unincorporated area. The county firt adopted tandard for mall wind energy converion ytem (WECS) in Prior to that, it regulated them through an exception to the height limitation of the code. The county ha revied it WECS regulation twice ince 2002, mot recently in In recent year, it ha typically proceed everal mall WECS permit each month, and a of February 2011 had iued more than 230 permit for mall WECS. All California local government are ubject to tate law AB1207, adopted in 2001, which etablihe procedure and tandard for permitting mall WECS. The intent of the law i to prohibit local government from enacting regulation that would limit property owner from generating alternative energy for their own ue. Local government WECS regulation may be le retrictive but not more retrictive than the guidance in tate law. San Bernardino County ha addreed wind energy in local land-ue document a well a through incentive. The general plan et goal that encourage the ue of alternative energy reource, etablihing a policy bai of trong upport for alternative energy tempered by concern about environmental impact uch a wildlife impact and water ue. According to local official, thi upport ha led the planning commiion to approve mot WECS application. A part of policy implementation for energy efficiency, the county ha etablihed a program to waive building permit fee on alternative energy technologie, including WECS. The money i allocated on a firt-come, firt-erved bai each fical year, up to a maximum of $5,000 per project (ignificantly more than the cot of a typical mall WECS permit). Since it inception in 2007 through June 2010, the county had waived $150,987 in fee. The fical year budget allocation for the program i $45,000. San Bernardino County doe not define the ize of WECS baed on rated output. The county treat all acceory WECS defined a thoe that generate energy for on-ite ue a by-right ue ubject to tandard. WECS that generate power intended for offite uer are regulated a renewable energy facilitie through the conditional ue permit proce. San Bernardino County acceory WECS tandard allow a baeline of one WECS per parcel, though in 2010 the ordinance wa amended to allow more turbine; on larger parcel, one WECS for every 10 acre up to a maximum of three i allowable, and for turbine under 50 feet in height, two per five acre are allowed, with an additional turbine allowed for every additional five acre up to a maximum of five. In reidential ditrict, WECS are limited in height to 52.5 feet, though elewhere allowed height range from 65 to 120 feet, depending on the zoning ditrict and region (valley, mountain, or deert). Setback were originally et at 125 percent of turbine height but in 2007 were reduced to a ditance equal to turbine height. Compliance with noie performance tandard i required. The ordinance goe into more detail around viual effect and location: turbine may not obtruct view of adjacent property owner, mut be placed below ridgeline when viewed from deignated cenic corridor, and may not be located in cenic corridor or on deignated hitoric propertie. The 2002 ordinance included a proviion that WECS mut be earthtone in color; thi wa amended to nonreflective, non-obtruive in 2007, and the entire proviion wa deleted in the 2010 reviion after repreentative of the Bergey Windpower company whoe turbine are a ignature bright-yellow color uggeted that the proviion unfairly affected their company. In addition, the permitting proce wa changed to adminitrative review from the original building permit requirement in 2007, and a neighbor-notification proviion wa added. In 2010, the county added a chapter to it zoning ordinance for large renewable energy generation facilitie, including pecific tandard for wind energy development. Renewable energy facilitie are permitted a conditional ue in reource conervation, agriculture, floodway, rural living, indutrial, and intitutional ditrict. The ordinance impoe turbine height limit of 500 feet and a number of etback requirement, including San Bernardino Land Ue Service Department the leer of two time turbine height or 500 feet to exterior project boundarie; the greater of 1.5 time turbine height or 1,500 feet from off-ite reidence; one time turbine height from on-ite reidence; and 1.5 time turbine height from treet, rail, trail, or public acce eaement. The ordinance alo require FAA compliance and clearance from the Department of Defene and provide detailed decommiioning requirement. The County ha revied it regulation over time in repone to both change in the tate law and local experience. Height limit balance the deire of local intaller and owner who puh for higher limit againt the concern of other property owner who want to reduce aethetic impact. Initially, the county required a imple building permit for WECS, but thi wa changed to adminitrative review after an intalled turbine that had been approved (continued on page 82)

84 82 Planning for Wind Energy (continued from page 81) through a building permit on a property in a hilly neighborhood tretched up almot directly in front of the picture window of a neighbor houe up the hill, blocking hi view. Thi led to conenu in the county that adminitrative ite plan review wa needed to approve the location of the WECS. The county choe adminitrative review, rather than a conditional ue permit a allowed by tate law, to peed permit deciion time and keep permit cot low. San Bernardino County continue to adapt it mall WECS regulation to repond to evolving technology. A of early 2011, the county wa in the proce of conidering additional reviion to better addre microturbine. The intent, according to Jim Squire, aitant director of the Land Ue Service Department, i to adapt the tandard to addre the mallet WECS, a they appear to fit into more urbanized area with few potential impact on neighbor. For more information: County of San Bernadino 2007 General Plan. Section V, Part 7, Energy. Available at ehlu/dept/planning/document/ FINALGeneralPlanText3-1-07_w_ Image.pdf. County of San Bernadino 2007 Development Code (amended 2011). Diviion 4, Chapter 85.18, Acceory Wind Energy Sytem Permit; Chapter 84.26, Wind Energy Sytem Acceory; Chapter 84.29, Section , Renewable Energy Generation Facilitie: Wind Energy Development Standard. Available at ehlu/dept/planning/document/ developmentcode.pdf. Other location tandard may be ued to add pecificity about iting in relationhip to land feature and view. Becaue WECS need to be ited for optimal wind acce, prohibiting them from ridge, bluff, horeline, and other viible area i not recommended. However, ome communitie do retrict WECS within pecific highly cenic area, epecially when uch area have been deignated a being of particular importance in policy and planning document. For example, the State of Vermont doe not allow localitie to retrict mall WECS baed on aethetic except from deignated hitoric area and cenic byway. Some communitie have enacted protection for important viewhed of unique local feature, uch a from the civic center to a mountaintop. Retriction from viual encroachment in thee area alo apply to WECS. The San Bernardino County, California, WECS ordinance wa amended to require ite plan review of mall WECS after one turbine in a hilly neighborhood ended up in front of the picture window of an uphill neighbor. The county adopted a more dicretionary approach to approval, which had been iued through building permit alone, and now require ite plan check to review viual impact. (See idebar.) Height Height tandard for mall WECS are often the mot controverial regulation that local planner addre. WECS mut be placed higher than urrounding obtruction to allow them to function properly. However, controvery arie over how height may increae viual impact of the WECS and how much viual impact i acceptable to the neighbor and the community at large. It i not uncommon for mall WECS ordinance to limit turbine height to the limit for other tructure in the zoning ditrict. However, thi may limit the ability of WECS to produce energy. WECS are highly enitive to relatively mall variation in wind peed and turbulence, which can be ignificantly affected by height and location within a parcel. (See Chapter 1.) The minimum clearance required for mall WECS to function properly i 25 to 35 vertical feet above all urrounding obtruction that are within 300 horizontal feet. In the vat majority of location and ituation, applying zoning ditrict height limit to mall WECS will make them o inefficient a to be economically impractical. In eence, uch a height retriction amount to a de facto prohibition on mall WECS in mot reidential and commercial zoning ditrict. In acknowledgment of thi fact, everal tate, including California, Nevada, Wiconin, New Jerey, and Michigan, have paed law that limit the ability of local government to prohibit WECS or adopt WECS regulation that ubtantially impede their functionality. One way, then, to addre height i to exempt mall WECS from zoning ditrict height limitation imilar to other common ue and projection, uch a chimney, flagpole, radio antenna, power tranmiion tower, moketack, and wirele communication tower. Some communitie uch a the City of Reno, Nevada, limit height only through etback requirement or through a combination of etback requirement and a generou maximum height. For example, the City of Alexandria, Minneota, ue a 1.1-time etback a the height tandard up to a maximum of 175 feet. On a mall lot, uch a etback requirement will dictate the maximum height of a mall WECS. For example, a WECS located at the center of a 120-foot-quare lot that meet thi etback requirement can be no taller than 109 feet. In mot cae, the center of mall lot are occupied by the primary tructure, meaning the WECS mut be placed cloer to the property line and i thu ubject to a lower maximum height in order to meet the etback requirement. Uing the etback requirement a the effective height limitation i an elegant and practical way to tie the cale of allowed WECS to the denity of development and to tailor it to the unique iting opportunitie and limitation of a pecific parcel.

85 Chapter 6. Regulating Small-Scale Wind Energy Sytem at the Local Level 83 Blade clearance from the ground i another height conideration, particularly on commercial or intitutional propertie where member of the public have acce to the ite. Such regulation apply to blade of any orientation. Common ene, protection of property, and liability concern enure that the vat majority of owner intall WECS uch that the lowet point of the pinning blade are well above any level that would make them eay to tamper with or that would interfere with the normal activitie of peron or vehicle. Still, ome localitie chooe to pecify a minimum WECS blade clearance height, uch a 25 feet. Aethetic In addition to the viual impact poed by height, the aethetic of a turbine may increae or reduce it viual impact or reaction to it. The color or tyle of a WECS and what ignage may be poted on it are aethetic concern. Some communitie have ought to reduce viual impact by requiring that WECS blend into the urrounding environment, with mixed ucce. An early verion of the WECS regulation in San Bernardino County, California, precribed earth tone to blend with mountain or foret background. (See cae tudy, page 81.) While the viual backdrop of a given WECS depend on the location and perpective of the viewer, from mot perpective WECS are framed againt the ky, particularly if they are allowed to reach a height that clear nearby wind obtruction. Baed on tudie that how that white or matte gray color blend in bet againt a range of kie, ome mall WECS ordinance (uch a Rocheter, Minneota ) now require thee color. However, becaue ome manufacturer of mall WECS differentiate themelve in the marketplace with ignature color bright yellow, in the cae of the Bergey company color regulation could be viewed a unfair to a particular manufacturer. Repreentative of Bergey uccefully encouraged San Bernardino County to add dicretionary flexibility to it WECS color tandard. A typically noncontroverial and fairly common retriction i to prohibit commercial ignage on WECS tructure or blade. Thi i particularly common in reidential area, while ome communitie allow ignage on WECS in commercial or indutrial area. Some communitie retrict all commercial ignage while exprely allowing electrical warning and other afety ign. Some communitie, out of aethetic concern, dictate what tyle of WECS may be allowed by ditrict. For example, ome urban communitie including Chicago dictate that only rooftop-mounted WECS may be intalled in reidential ditrict. Thi i problematic for everal reaon. Firt, technology i rapidly changing in the mall WECS market, and pecific tyle requirement are likely to become outdated. Alo, the variation in the wind microclimate at a pecific ite or location may caue one tyle of WECS to be ignificantly more productive than another. Thi fact trongly ugget that qualified wind expert, rather than planner, hould elect the bet WECS technology for an applicant ite. Precription for roof-mounted WECS are particularly quetionable, a a tudy of uch ytem in the United Kingdom howed that many of thee unit ubtantially underperformed manufacturer projection (Encraft 2009). The Henderon, New York, WECS ordinance trike a balance by allowing roof-mounted WECS in mot zoning ditrict with a treamlined approval proce, a well a free-tanding mall WECS in many of the zoning ditrict ubject to additional tandard and dicretionary review. Even communitie that do not intentionally precribe a certain tyle of mall WECS may find their regulation are written in language that aume fan-like rotor blade. Thee regulation can be challenging to apply when preparing and reviewing an application for a newer technology or configuration, uch a vertical or helix-type WECS. The City of Reno, Nevada, which i home to one of the manufacturer of vertically oriented mall WECS, ha taken care to draft it mall WECS regulation to make them applicable to a variety of tyle of mall WECS.

86 84 Planning for Wind Energy ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA Rockingham County, population 76,314, lie on Virginia wetern border adjoining Wet Virginia, tretching from the Shenandoah Valley wet to the Appalachian Mountain. Much of the wetern part of the county lie within the George Wahington National Foret. Wind energy i not a new concept in thi region. Farmer have long ued mall windmill to pump water on dairy farm; ome of thee windmill are till in ue by Mennonite in the eatern valley. In the early 2000, wind energy developer tarted howing interet in the region, and by 2004 the County had developed and approved an ordinance limiting wind energy ytem to fewer than 65 or 80 feet in height. Four or five mall wind project were permitted under thi ordinance. However, preure on the county to enact further regulation intenified when a group of landowner in the northwetern portion of the county approached the Dominion Power utility about poible development of a wind farm. Studie howed a high-wind reource corridor along Appalachian ridge top in the wetern portion of the county, and federal ubidie and the U.S. Department of Energy 20% Wind by 2030 initiative were driving additional development interet. The landowner were joined by Maachuett-baed wind energy developer Solaya in aking the county to develop regulation for large wind energy development. The udden interet wa a wake-up call for Rockingham County official. They looked to other Shenandoah Valley juridiction for leon and found the experience of nearby Highland County epecially intructive. A recent wind farm propoal there had triggered pecial ue permit review becaue of tower height. But becaue the county did not have large wind energy development regulation in place, the propoal went through Virginia State Corporation Commiion review proce, which limited local official control over the final outcome. Although Highland County ha ince adopted local regulation regarding large-cale wind, Rockingham County official did not want to follow the ame path; they decided to purue large-cale wind energy regulation through proactive collaboration. To tackle thi iue, the Rockingham County Board of Supervior convened a divere working group compriing developer, local citizen, conervationit, county official, utilitie, and expert uch a Dr. Jonathan Mile, director of the Virginia Center for Wind Energy at Jame Madion Univerity. The working group pent over a year developing an ordinance to addre both commercial- and reidential-cale wind energy development. Citizen and conervation group were eager to gain developer perpective and inight on financing, other project they had done, and regulation in other tate. Member of the working group felt it wa better to hah out debate in committee rather than try to reolve difference or tackle tougher iue in public hearing. The group wretled with everal concern. To tudy the environmental impact of wind energy, they viited a wind farm at Mount Storm, Wet Virginia, to examine how that project addreed poten- tial effect on bird and endangered pecie; they then decided to include Endangered Specie Act language within the final ordinance. Noie wa a concern for many and wa dicued at length, though the group felt it lacked the technical expertie and undertanding to come to any concluion. Recreational uer of the national foret feared that wind farm development might alter the area and limit opportunitie for bird watching, hunting, horeback riding, and other activitie, but the group wa able to agree on condition to prevent uch negative impact. Developer and citizen diagreed on minimum etback requirement, neceitating in-depth examination of the technical iue involved. Some participant felt that developer greater repreentation within the group reulted in recommended etback language that favored the development perpective. However, other felt the total compoition of the group enured that no ingle interet wa overrepreented. Depite difference among the participant, the proce wa congenial and provided opportunitie for member to network and reolve iue. The working group ultimately produced a draft ordinance, which wa refined by the planning commiion, board of upervior, and the public through everal hearing. Though ome member of the group were more atified with the final product than other, all agreed it wa better to keep regulation local intead of deferring that power to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The new ordinance wa adopted in November It retained proviion for mall wind energy ytem, limiting turbine to no more than 80 feet in height and 100 kw in output and allowing them by right with adminitrative review in certain zoning ditrict. The ordinance added new language to addre large-cale wind energy ytem, allowing them a pecial ue in agricultural and public ervice zoning ditrict, ubject to local environmental a well a tate and federal requirement. The ordinance et turbine height limit of 500 feet and etback of 125 percent of tructure height from nonparticipating property line and the greater of 160 percent of tructure height or 800 feet from tructure or public ue area. The review proce require two public information hearing, one before application ubmiion and the other prior to the pecial ue permit public hearing. The ordinance alo provide for project decommiioning and retoration of project ite. Depite Rockingham County effort, there ha been ome criticim of both it approach and the end reult. While County official did pa an ordinance that regulated both mall and large wind energy development, ome critic including John Hutchinon, aicp, of the Jenning Gap Partnerhip, who prepared a report on wind development in the Shenandoah Valley for the Rockingham Community Alliance felt county official and the working group idetepped the larger iue of comprehenive planning for wind farm. Commercial-cale wind energy facilitie have potential for ignificant impact on the valley, and uch major new ue hould require a more comprehenive zoning overhaul. However, even critic acknowledge that Rockingham County i better off with the new regulation than without them. (continued on page 85)

87 Chapter 6. Regulating Small-Scale Wind Energy Sytem at the Local Level 85 Sound Although noie i often one of the firt concern raied by neighbor and other wary of mall WECS, it i readily addreed by newer technology and traightforward regulation. Mot modern mall turbine are quite quiet. The ound output of a 2 kw WECS (a ize that i often appropriate to erve a ingle-family reidence) i typically about 55 dba at a ditance of 50 feet away from the hub. Thi ditance may be in any direction, including tanding directly below a 50-foot tall WECS. Fifty-five dba i about the level of a kitchen refrigerator a level above which a converation can eaily be maintained. Many communitie generally applicable noie regulation prohibit noie above 50 to 65 dba from any ue a meaured at the property line. Thee regulation addre mall WECS noie adequately in tandard condition. However, in tormy condition, ound output from mall WECS may be higher, a i background noie uch a wind in the tree. (Such weather event themelve typically reduce neighbor tendency to engage in outdoor backyard activitie where they would be annoyed by increae in WECS ound output.) Good location for WECS may alo be found in environment that are relatively noiy, uch a indutrial ditrict or near highway. In uch environment, it may not make ene to trictly limit WECS to 55 dba. In order to addre the range of poible environment and event that reaonably accommodate more ound from WECS, many mall WECS ordinance, including that of City of Hay, Kana, include a context-enitive ound tandard uch a 55 dba or 10 decibel greater than ambient noie. Safety The afety of mall WECS hould be taken eriouly by anyone drafting a WECS ordinance. Even o, it i important not to create fear-driven or overly burdenome requirement that do not reflect real rik. Since mot mall WECS are deigned by certified electrical engineer, manufactured by reputable companie, and intalled by competent building technician, there i no more jutification to require individual teting and certification of each unit and it intallation than there would be for other mall home machinery (e.g., furnace). However, in the fat-growing market for mall WECS, there have been ome le reputable, lower-cot entrant into the market that may not be contructed with rigorou afety element. The indutry i reponding with a voluntary certification ytem for mall WECS. (See idebar, page 87.) It i appropriate to require incluion of tandard electrical drawing from the manufacturer and for footing inpection by competent building official. While it i common for oil ample and wet tamp to be required for large WECS, mall WECS tructural load are more imilar to flagpole and cell tower. In area with tandard oil condition not including gravel, and, or muck no oil tudy i needed for mall WECS. Many mall WECS ordinance including AWEA mall wind model ordinance (available in AWEA 2008b) require mall WECS to have manual override braking. Thi i a mechanical ytem that can top WECS blade from pinning if wind condition are o extreme that the electrical braking ytem fail. Another afety concern, particularly in reidential neighborhood, i that mall WECS might attract climber. While ome communitie require mall fenced area around the bae of WECS, thee are difficult to maintain for the owner and often ineffective. A more effective and le expenive alternative i to remove or block climbing feature below a reaonable height. On pole and many tower, climbing peg or rung hould be removed below 12 feet. On lattice tructure, heet of olid metal or wood can be affixed to block climbing. Some indutry expert ugget that a Danger: High Voltage ign may be an effective way to deter climber. (continued from page 84) Thi may not be the final word on wind energy development in the county, however. According to local wind energy expert, the key to wind in wetern Virginia ret with the federal government becaue of it extenive public land holding there. Mot of the high ridge in the area are owned by the National Park Service or the Foret Service, and deciion by thoe agencie will uperede local government action on their land. A forthcoming National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) report on wind energy development within federally owned park and foret land i expected to etablih wind energy policy for public land in the mountainou region along the Virginia Wet Virginia border. For more information: Rockingham County Code (2011). Chapter 17, Article XII, Diviion I, Small Wind Energy Sytem; Diviion II, Large Wind Energy Sytem. Available at bae=12196&doc_action=whatnew. Local Ordinance to Regulate Wind Energy Project (2009). Prepared by John Hutchinon, aicp, for the Shenan doah Valley Network and the Rockingham Community Alliance for Preervation. Available at department/bos/patagenda/ /Windmill_Att3.pdf.

88 86 Planning for Wind Energy CITY OF HAYS, KANSAS The City of Hay, Kana, i located in Elli County; with a population of 20,510, it i the larget city in the northwetern part of the tate. It lie jut 60 mile wet of the Smokey Hill wind farm in nearby Lincoln County. In 2009, a wind farm wa propoed in Elli County not far from Hay. The project became contentiou due in part to a lack of county regulation. Thi motivated the city uperintendent of planning, inpection, and enforcement, Jee Rohr, to purue regulation for Hay before the city might face a imilar application unprepared. Hay ha no policy guidance in place regarding alternative energy reource, though the city intend to addre wind energy in the current comprehenive plan update. Though uch guidance would have been helpful in crafting wind energy regulation, the planning taff drew from model ordinance, other communitie ordinance, and APA publication Zoning Practice to craft their regulation, which were refined through community outreach and public hearing. The reulting ordinance, adopted in 2010, allow wind energy converion ytem (WECS) a pecial ue within all ditrict, ubject to trong but uncomplicated tandard. It et height limit the mot contentiou iue in developing the ordinance of 45 feet in reidential ditrict and 125 feet in nonreidential ditrict and the city three-mile buffer zone. The regulation require etback of 1.1 time total turbine height, limit noie to 55 db or 10 db above ambient condition, retrict acce by climbing, require ubmittal of electrical and engineering drawing a provided by the manufacturer, prohibit ue of WECS a ignage, and provide for removal of any abandoned WECS. Public opinion wa generally in favor of mall WECS there i already one mall turbine operating within the city limit but not large turbine; accordingly, the 125-foot height retriction effectively prohibit utility-cale turbine and community wind project from the area under the City juridiction. Soon after adoption of the ordinance, Fort Hay State Univerity (FHSU), which i located in the three-mile buffer zone, began to invetigate intalling a larger WECS on it campu to offet utility cot. Studie howed that intalling foot turbine a required by height limitation wa not a cot-effective alternative to two 500-foot turbine, o the univerity aked the City to conider a height exception for the project. City taff and official generally upported the concept, but though mot of the community upported a WECS taller than 125 feet on the FSHU ite, they oppoed taller WECS anywhere ele in the City juridiction. Official could not find a legally defenible way to allow a height exception only for the FHSU ite, o they rejected the propoal. FHSU ha not ince brought forward an application for the maller turbine. When aked, Rohr agreed that it may be poible to etablih policy in the comprehenive plan that would provide a ound bai for allowing 500-foot tall WECS at FHSU while maintaining the 125-foot limit in the remainder of Hay buffer zone. Once the new plan i adopted, the community will make appropriate reviion to achieve conitency. The proce of developing a wind energy ordinance in Hay ha not followed the ideal tep of etting broad land-ue policy objective before implementing detailed regulation. Rather, it i typical of the iterative, incremental proce mot communitie mut purue for WECS and other emerging area of land-ue planning. For more information: City of Hay Code of Ordinance (2011). Chapter 71, Article X, Wind Energy Converion Sytem. Available at tateid=16&tatename=kana. Many communitie require that mall WECS be removed if abandoned for a period of time. In the near term, removal requirement enure that a community doe not experience viual impact from WECS that are not erving ueful purpoe. Such regulation alo prevent potential hazard from unmaintained mall WECS that might otherwie be left to fall into direpair. Removal regulation typically ue the community tandard etablihed definition of an abandoned ue. The Anchorage, Alaka, ordinance, for example, include a removal requirement for mall WECS if the ue i dicontinued for 12 month. However, if a community tandard definition of a dicontinued ue employ a hort duration (e.g., three or ix month) and local condition limit WECS ue to particular eaon, a longer duration hould be allowed for mall WECS than for other ue. The removal requirement and procedure hould parallel thoe for imilar abandoned tructure or ue, uch a billboard. Removal cot for dicontinued mall WECS are not great enough to warrant controverial bonding or ecrow holding a may be ued for large wind farm. Though afety conideration for large WECS related to interference with airpace and electronic communication rarely apply to mall WECS, around airport and military intallation it may be appropriate to conult uch agencie, particularly for turbine larger than 10 kw. Similarly, pecial conideration and review may be warranted in cloe proximity to airport, helipad, or military facilitie or where ground elevation increae rapidly under etablihed flight path, uch a on hill or mountainide within a mile of an air facility. Wildlife Impact Small WECS have very limited wildlife impact. Their blade area imply do not create a much of a hazard a thoe of larger WECS, and there i typically plenty of maneuvering room around them. Ground diturbance i alo minimal. The

89 Chapter 6. Regulating Small-Scale Wind Energy Sytem at the Local Level 87 number of bird killed annually by WECS i fewer than by houecat or gla window and door (Kerry & Curlinger n.d.). Even the Audubon Society ha iued tatement in upport of well-located WECS (Audubon 2006). However, in area with known endangered or critical pecie habitat where a community ha ignificantly retricted other type of development, mall WECS hould alo be conidered for retriction. Quantity Standard Some local regulation addre the number of mall WECS both how many WECS may be allowed and what amount of energy may be generated. Early iteration of both type of tandard were often unintentionally too trict. Better model are uggeted below. The number of WECS per lot i often a local concern and thu i addreed in many code. Many firt-generation WECS ordinance limit mall WECS to one per lot. Though it i much more cot-effective to intall one large mall WECS than multiple maller WECS, ome owner might be inclined to intall multiple WECS uch a WECS intaller who want everal a demontration or a heavy energy uer. A maximum number of WECS per area of land more preciely addree the impact concern of multiple WECS than a per lot limit. Lot ize may vary greatly, particularly in indutrial and agricultural area. A for other tandard, additional WECS per acre can be conidered a conditional ue in unuual circumtance. The Municipality of Anchorage, Alaka, allow one WECS per lot ubject to ue tandard in many zoning ditrict, while additional mall WECS may be approved a a conditional ue. (See page 88.) Regulation of the quantity of WECS energy output relate to their definition a acceory ue. Net metering regulation are often very effective at limiting the ize and energy production of a mall WECS to a level that i well CERTIFICATION FOR SMALL WECS Several indutry, governmental, and advocacy group are working to etablih a certification ytem for mall WECS. Foremot among thee appear to be the Small Wind Certification Council (SWCC; In 2010, the SWCC began taking application for certification. By April 2010, 21 manufacturer had applied for certification of 25 mall WECS model. SWCC certification will be iued only for model that meet the American Wind Energy Aociation mall WECS durability and afety tandard, and they will reult in label that inform conumer about the model rated energy output, power, and ound output. The certification proce i omewhat lengthy (one to two year) in order to thoroughly tet all the parameter, particularly real-world performance. Once certification i complete for a wide range of mall WECS model, zoning ordinance may be written to require certified mall WECS. USE DATA TO COUNTER DRAMA Carefully conider the ource of anecdote and video that depict WECS falling over, breaking apart, catching on fire, or failing. Several video clip can eaily be found online that how WECS failing. Many of them originally come from tet facilitie (which i why a camera wa focued on the WECS at the moment of failure!). Such video are not necearily proof of the hazard of WECS. Rather, they may repreent the reponible effort of manufacturer to thoroughly tet new WECS model and technologie prior to marketing them. There are very few documented intance of intalled WECS failing due to mechanical, electrical, or tructural failure. Courtey of DOE/NREL; credit: Firt Wind

90 88 Planning for Wind Energy CITY AND BOROUGH OF ANCHORAGE, ALASKA The impetu for the City and Borough of Anchorage, Alaka, population 286,174, to adopt wind energy regulation wa a common one: everal property owner intereted in intalling turbine had approached the municipality about obtaining permit. The tate had been promoting alternative energy, and everal turbine had been intalled in rural communitie. Intaller baed in Anchorage aked the City to provide regulation to create certainty for potential cutomer. In 2008, the municipality decided not to accept more permit application until appropriate regulation could be adopted. Staff began reearching and drafting an ordinance. The proce took more than one year. The reulting ordinance allow WECS ubject to tandard in mot zoning ditrict with adminitrative ite plan review. Small WECS are limited to a rated output of 10 kw in reidential ditrict and 25 kw in nonreidential ditrict. They are conditional ue in medium-to-high denity reidential ditrict or in cae where the applicant want to intall more than one WECS on a ingle property. The ordinance alo allow utility-cale WECS a conditional ue in certain indutrial and infratructure ditrict. It require analye of wildlife impact, viual impact, and noie, a well a hadow flicker tudie if the WECS will be located within 1,300 feet of habitable building; it provide for etback of three time WECS height from reidential property line. The mot challenging iue in crafting the mall WECS ordinance proved to be concern regarding viual impact and turbine looming over neighbor propertie. To addre thee concern, the Anchorage ordinance require a viual impact analyi. The municipality alo conidered etablihing a minimum lot ize but eventually ettled on a etback of 1.5 time total WECS height. Finally, the ordinance require written conent from a imple majority of abutting reidential property owner. The ordinance wa adopted in Augut There wa no public oppoition voiced to the ordinance at the adoption hearing, unuual for uch a ubtantive iue. Review fee in Anchorage were reduced in early 2011, bringing the fee for mall WECS adminitrative review from $3,300 down to about $1,600. Since adopting the WECS ordinance, the City ha received one propoal for a mall WECS intallation from Scott McKim, a teacher at Begich Middle School intereted in intalling a demontration project through the Wind for School program of Wind Powering America and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( Student learned about wind energy ytem and, a part of the required olicitation for neighbor conent, hoted an open houe to anwer any concern about WECS. They have not received any objection to the propoal. According to McKim, he ha had a good experience working with the municipality and did not find the WECS regulation onerou, though the adminitrative fee are fairly high. (The Alaka adminitrator of the Wind for School program indicated that other citie had been willing to waive uch fee for chool demontration project.) In early 2011, the chool received funding from the tate to match the Wind for School grant, and the project will move forward. For more information: Anchorage Municipal Code (2011). Title 21, Section , Small Wind Energy Converion Sytem; Section , Small Wind Energy Converion Sytem Multiple Free-Standing Tower; Section , Utility Wind Energy Converion Sytem. Available at tateid=2&tatename=alaka. matched to a property primary ue. However, uch regulation vary ignificantly acro tate and utilitie. Local regulation language hould not be o pecific or retrictive a to force owner to intall a WECS on the bai of it maximum theoretical output in an ideal year rather than the realitic output in an average year. For example, an ordinance could ay Energy produced by an acceory WECS hall primarily erve the on-ite ue rather than trictly limiting energy production to an amount not more than the demand of the primary ue. Such language acknowledge variable annual condition and production. In addition, it allow a property owner to occaionally provide exce energy to the grid, which ha poitive community and ocietal benefit. Concluion Small WECS regulation need not be lengthy or epecially complex to thoroughly addre the potential impact of thi ue. In fact, one of the mot important conideration in drafting a mall WECS ordinance may be to undertand how the potential impact differ from large WECS o a not to include unneceary or onerou requirement for mall WECS. Small WECS can be allowed in a wide range of zoning ditrict. They can be regulated effectively a by-right acceory ue ubject to tandard. Local tandard mut balance the viual impact of mall WECS againt WECS functional need for wind acce. Small WECS are a ubtantial invetment on the part of a property owner. A for all ue, local government regulation for mall WECS hould be crafted to minimize the time and expene required for application completion review while protecting the community from negative impact.

91 CHAPTER 7 Permitting Utility-Scale Wind Energy Sytem at the Local Level Kevin Racktraw Large, utility-cale wind energy ytem have different impact than mall ytem, and they require a completely different et of ordinance requirement to protect local communitie from potential negative impact of turbine iting and contruction. Utility turbine are much larger, often everal hundred feet tall, and wind farm uually involve multiple turbine, ometime more than 100, panning hundred or thouand of acre. Road mut be contructed to acce each turbine ite, and the heavy contruction equipment and large truck ued to bring turbine component to thoe ite can damage exiting local road. Electrical ubtation and grid interconnection infratructure mut alo be contructed. 89

92 90 Planning for Wind Energy Checklit for Ordinance A community can bet prepare to addre uch propoal through ordinance language pecifically targeted at thi ue. Typical ordinance for large wind energy ytem include the following element: Definition. Large wind energy ytem are often defined a compriing one or more turbine for the purpoe of generating electricity for commercial ale. Large ytem are alo often defined in term of capacity typically over 1 MW. Allowed ue. Ordinance tend to require conditional or pecial ue approval for large wind energy ytem, and they often limit thi ue to rural and indutrial ditrict. Communitie looking to encourage utility wind project may make thi ue a by-right principal or acceory ue in certain rural and indutrial ditrict; ome have created wind energy overlay ditrict to encourage the location of large wind project in certain area. Setback. A with mall wind energy ytem, ordinance often provide etback requirement in term of the height of the turbine, often lightly more than the height of the turbine. Some ordinance alo provide for etback of abolute ditance, uch a 1,000 feet from inhabited tructure. Setback are typically required from tructure, property line, and public road or right-of-way. Ordinance may allow for etback to be decreaed with igned agreement from landowner. Tower height. In many cae, large wind energy ordinance do not et height retriction on commercial turbine, a turbine have tended to become ever taller a technology ha evolved. Electromagnetic interference. Turbine mut not caue microwave, televiion, radio, or navigation interference. Near military intallation, radar interference hould alo be conidered. Viual appearance. A i the cae with mall wind energy ytem, many ordinance require that large turbine be of neutral color and nonreflective finih; that they be lighted per FAA guideline with no additional lighting allowed; and that ignage be limited to turbine manufacturer, facility owner or operator, and emergency contact information. Noie. Ordinance typically require audible turbine noie to be below pecific ound threhold at property line, often 40 dba to 55 dba. More detailed noie tandard may cat threhold in term of ambient noie level. Shadow flicker. Shadow flicker can be an iue with large turbine. It extent will change with the angle of the un over the coure of a year. Though turbine are uually ited to avoid hadow flicker on neighboring tructure and the complaint that thi may caue, ome ordinance include proviion limiting hadow flicker on neighboring propertie within a certain ditance of turbine, often 2,500 feet, to a certain number of hour per year, often 30. Ordinance may allow both noie and hadow flicker retriction to be waived with the igned conent of affected property owner. Minimum ground clearance. Some ordinance pecify minimum ground clearance of turbine blade, uually between 12 and 50 feet. Safety. Large turbine mut be deigned to prevent unauthorized climbing; fencing of electrical ubtation and other utility tructure i alo required. Some ordinance require operator to pot emergency contact information at the facility. Decommiioning. Ordinance for large wind energy ytem require developer to decommiion turbine if they are no longer being ued. Ordinance may pecify when decommiioning mut be commenced

93 Chapter 7. Permitting Utility-Scale Wind Energy Sytem 91 and completed relative to the end of the turbine ueful life, a well a the degree to which the ite and any connecting road mut be retored following removal of the turbine. Many ordinance require financial aurance in the form of decommiioning bond, letter of credit, or other guarantie to enure that developer are held reponible for the ultimate fate of their project. Permitting procee and requirement. See below. Ordinance for large wind energy ytem differ further from mall wind energy ordinance in that they typically addre landcape-cale impact reulting from turbine contruction. Common proviion include the following: Road protection. Mot ordinance require developer to inventory exiting road condition before contruction begin and to repair any damage caued during the coure of turbine contruction. Site clearance. Some ordinance pecify that vegetation clearing and land diturbance during contruction are to be kept to the abolute minimum neceary. Soil eroion and edimentation control. Soil eroion, edimentation control, and tormwater management are often addreed by tate environmental requirement, though ome local ordinance require that appropriate eroion control and tormwater management meaure be taken throughout the road and ite contruction proce. Source: Kern County, California Permit Proceing Though the permitting proce for large wind energy ytem can be lengthy, it need not be overly complex. Mot often, thee project are handled through the conditional or pecial ue permitting proce. A with mot other large commercial project, developer are reponible for obtaining the neceary local, tate, and federal permit and demontrating compliance with development tandard. The role of the planner i to coordinate thi proce and make ure that all the application requirement are met, a well a to help both developer and local official undertand the tandard. The permitting proce hould provide a way to enure that potential negative impact are identified, addreed, and mitigated if neceary. Pre-

94 92 Planning for Wind Energy KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Kern County, population 839,600, ha long been at the forefront of energy production. Throughout the 20th century, the oil and natural ga indutrie have ignificantly contributed to the region economic and indutrial growth, and in recent decade Kern County ha turned it focu to renewable energy ource, particularly wind. A the home of Tehachapi Pa, one of everal identified notable wind reource area in California, the county i trongly poitioned to lead the way in planning for and developing wind energy project. Extending from the mountain to the deert in the outhern Central Valley of California, Kern County i bet known for it concentration of utility-cale wind energy project; a of 2010, there were 34 wind farm in the Tehachapi wind reource area. According to Lorelei Oviatt, the county director of planning and community development, largecale wind energy development firt caught the attention of reident and public official in the 1980 with the introduction of federal and tate tax credit deigned to pur wind development. The county aw contruction of everal wind farm at thi time, and wind energy development ha continued ever ince. Oviatt note that a new era of wind project materialized in Kern County after 2000, when project originally built in the 1980 reached the end of their ueful live and more modern and efficient wind development replaced them. County planning activitie reflect local government and citizen interet in promoting and enabling wind energy development. The 2007 general plan devote a chapter to energy development activitie within the county; a ubection addree wind energy excluively, calling for the afe and orderly development of wind energy a a clean method of generating electricity while providing for the protection of the environment and outlining pecific police and implementation meaure to achieve thi goal. Local land ue regulation compliment the goal laid out in the general plan. In 1986, the county added a Wind Energy (WE) Combining Ditrict to it zoning ordinance, etting parameter for the development of utility-cale wind project. The WE ditrict function a overlay zoning that may be combined with agricultural, indutrial, natural reource, foretry, or etate ditrict claification. In mot cae a minimum 20-acre parcel ize applie. Detailed development tandard for the ditrict addre lot ize, etback, height limit, parking, ign, ditance between tructure, maintenance and abandonment, and permitting requirement. The zoning ordinance alo include proviion for reidential-cale wind turbine; a mall wind energy permit ytem i required for intallation, and baic height, etback, and noie retriction apply. Local regulation alo addre the complexity of iting wind energy project in proximity to military intallation. Edward Air Force Bae and the China Lake Naval Air Weapon Station are located in the eatern corner of the county, o a key iue in planning for wind energy here i making ure propoed wind project will not interfere with thee intallation. The County ha partnered with military peronnel to identify location where wind turbine could compromie military activitie; the zoning ordinance include a military review requirement map delineating portion of the county where propoed tructure over pecified height threhold mut undergo review by military peronnel. Kern County i alo within the tate R-2508 Joint Land Ue Study (JLUS) area, a cooperative planning effort among military and urrounding communitie to achieve compatibility between military miion activitie and neighboring civilian communitie. To encourage wind energy development, the county ue a permitting proce that i time- and cot-efficient for both developer and local government. Once a propoed wind energy project ite i rezoned to the WE ditrict a tep requiring both environmental review and public hearing, which can take up to a year wind energy ytem are a byright ue and developer can ecure the needed project approval quickly, Source: Kern County, California with the relevant permit iued over the counter. In addition, a team of county taff member are aigned to wind development applicant, helping to proce permit, providing early feedback on propoal, and timing the permitting proce to meet other deadline a developer may have with lender or invetor. According to Oviatt, thi team approach i very efficient; it enure that everal taff member are knowledgeable about each project and allow taff to proce multiple propoal concurrently. The combination of treamlined permitting and the county direct approach to working with developer ha reulted in a proce that minimize delay and offer a welcome degree of certainty to developer. Wind energy project within Kern County have generally met with trong public upport, in part due to the hot of benefit that wind energy development ha brought to many takeholder. Wind farm contruction and manufacturing have booted buine for many local indutrie and mall buine owner, private property owner have benefitted from land leae agreement with developer, and local college have developed new training program for wind turbine technician. Some individual have voiced oppoition to ome of the wind energy project, but Oviatt ay that mot concern relate to pecific iue that the planning department i able to addre with mediation or compromie. Given the number of wind farm already operating within the county boundarie, it i clear that Kern County i well on it way to realizing the wind energy goal laid out in the 2007 general plan. The growth of the wind energy indutry in Kern i not without complication, a increaed power generation ha raied iue related to interconnection and tranmiion that mut be addreed. Overall, however, the outlook for continued wind energy development in Kern County i poitive. For additional information: Kern County General Plan (2007). Part 5.4.2, Wind Energy Development Available at Kern County Zoning Ordinance (2009). Figure , Military Review Requirement Map; Chapter 19.08, Section , Small Wind Energy Sytem; Chapter 19.64, Wind Energy (WE) Combining Ditrict. Available at

95 Chapter 7. Permitting Utility-Scale Wind Energy Sytem 93 application conference between developer and key local taff member are recommended. At thee, planner can enure that everyone involved undertand the permit requirement and development tandard. Developer may not be familiar with requirement particular to certain tate or local juridiction. Developer and local official mut agree on clear tandard for development and expectation for impact mitigation during and after contruction, whether through a lit of condition or a development agreement. Large wind energy ytem require ignificant upporting documentation from local, tate, and federal ource. Permitting documentation requirement for thee project may include: A ite map and plan of all turbine location, including the location of tructure, road, utility infratructure, tree cover, and other ignificant environmental feature Landowner leae-agreement documentation Environmental permit, which can include eroion control and tormwater management permit from tate department of environmental protection Utility interconnection agreement FAA approval and lighting plan Highway acce permit from tate department of tranportation Bird, bat, or other wildlife impact tudie and monitoring agreement, uually coordinated with the U.S. Fih and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Road condition inventory and repair agreement Shadow flicker analye Noie tudie Viualization or viewhed impact tudie Decommiioning plan Perhap mot important, planner hould enure they have the information and reource they need for an informed review of development application for large wind energy ytem. Many of the planner interviewed for the cae tudie in thi report recommended contacting colleague in other juridiction that have uccefully addreed thi iue to learn from their experience. Element of a utility-cale wind project permitting proce Environmental Iue The major environmental impact to be addreed for a utility-cale wind project include: wildlife, particularly bird and bat but alo other enitive wildlife pecie enitive plant habitat, particularly wetland and other enitive area change in water quality or flow that might caue oil eroion or require management (e.g., tormwater control) Both the contruction and operational phae need to be included in the analyi. The tandard to be followed will depend on project ize and location. For intance, a ingle utility-cale turbine require conideration

96 94 Planning for Wind Energy of it immediate impact but i unlikely to need a broader tudy of bird migration. Larger project need more rigorou analyi, and project near enitive pecie or habitat alo need additional tudy. If federal land are affected, a more exacting analyi under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) i needed. Otherwie, the federal role i largely adviory a to whether federally lited pecie might be affected by the project. State may have a proce requiring environmental analyi and a determination of no ignificant impact before approval, but ome tate have relatively few proce requirement. Localitie, in turn, vary dramatically in their effort to protect environmental reource. Some rely heavily on tate to deal with the major iue, while other have detailed tandard that in ome cae duplicate federal or tate law. A potential miing piece i conideration of any local environmental reource that are not addreed by tate or federal agencie. If water quality i a particular iue locally, for intance, it i reaonable for the planner to enure that appropriate information on thoe impact be gathered and ubmitted in parallel with any work done at the tate level. Thi i mot likely to be a concern in tate where there i no overarching or environmental permit required to build and operate a wind farm. Still, many tate and local agencie are left without a clear framework to approach an environmental evaluation of a propoed wind project. A major piece of guidance for wind project come from the USFWS Draft Land- Baed Wind Energy Guideline ( Thi i the latet in a erie of draft voluntary guideline that the USFWS ha written in conjunction with the indutry and wildlife advocate. The USFWS plan to iue final guidance in the near future. The prior guidance ha been ued a a baeline for environmental analyi of wind project by a wide variety of actor, from developer and their conultant to local, tate, and federal official charged with evaluating environmental iue with wind project, a well a by nongovernmental organization concerned with wildlife iue. Wiconin guideline, for intance, are deigned to upplement the USFWS guideline while drawing attention to iue and reource that are important in the tate. The guideline take a tiered approach to analyi with an initial creening that put ite into categorie of low, moderate, and higher rik. Each tier then require a different level of analytical rigor. There are pecific recommendation on methodologie to ue, which generally have been adopted by the indutry a the baic framework of project environmental analyi. There i till dipute about the reaonablene of ome pecific recommendation. Still, the bulk of the recommendation are being adopted broadly depite their voluntary nature. All wind project will go through an environmental creening proce by the developer to determine if there are any red flag that ugget a ite i not developable. Some developer are more thorough than other, however, o it may be difficult for a planner to determine how much work ha actually been done on thi front in the abence of explicit requirement or dicloure. Virtually all invetor and lender in wind project today, particularly the large corporation that provide tax equity for larger project (over $100 million), will require a ubtantial and rigorou environmental analyi. They want to enure that the project i not in violation of any law or regulation. They alo want to enure that reaonable effort have been made to meet commonly accepted tandard, in order to avoid or mitigate the poibility of any enforcement action hould there be a violation. The USFWS draft guideline have been widely adopted becaue they repreent a clear tandard of care that invetor and lender believe will largely protect them from ignificant enforcement action (abent evidence of negligent, carele, or knowingly illegal behavior).

97 Chapter 7. Permitting Utility-Scale Wind Energy Sytem 95 CASCADE COUNTY, MONTANA Cacade County, population 81,327, i located in central Montana, at the upper reache of the Miouri River. Well known for it wind one-third of the county 2,700 quare mile experience trong and predictable cla 4 wind Cacade County i home to more than 400 wind turbine, with more on the way. Wind energy ha had a trong champion in former county commiioner Peggy Beltrone. Though wind wa not part of her platform when he became the firt woman to erve on the commiion in the mid-1990, the need to diverify the county revenue tream wa brought to the fore when a local energy company proteted it tax bill by withholding taxe $14 million over even year on it five hydroelectric dam in Great Fall, the county eat. In 2001, Beltrone viited a wind farm under contruction in Pincher Creek, Alberta, and realized that wind energy and tax income from large turbine ited within the county had the potential to boot the local economy and help counter the crippling effect of poverty on her region. Beltrone ued her political pull to get other on board. She aked Cacade County GIS technician Eric Spangenberg to develop an electronic map of the county uing wind energy data recently developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Releaed in 2002, thi wind reource map wa a firt-of-it-kind effort to accurately overlay the ditribution of wind reource on land ownerhip and other record at a fine cale. Further refinement wa provided by other county employee, uch a Doug Johnon, then-director of the Weed and Moquito Department, who contributed hi experience with wind condition and local landowner, gained a hi crew prayed peticide and herbicide on property throughout the county. The online wind reource map promied to have week off development time for potential wind energy developer, but Beltrone wanted to actively promote Cacade County a a ripe opportunity for wind energy. She launched a marketing program in 2002, printing and ditributing brochure about Cacade County wind energy development potential uing exiting taff reource and le than $400 of additional fund. One reult of thi marketing trategy wa an American Wind Energy Aociation funded county wind-energy information radio tation, advertied by ign on a 50-kW wind turbine powering one of the county public work facilitie. In 2005, the county one of the few in the tate with a zoning code developed and approved a comprehenive wind energy ordinance that treamlined the permitting proce for developer. The ordinance differentiate between commercial wind energy ytem deigned to generate power for ale and off-ite ue and noncommercial ytem primarily for on-ite energy generation and ue. Reidential and mall wind energy ytem of fewer than 50 kw are permitted by right a principle ue in agricultural ditrict and acceory ue in rural reidential, buine, mixed ue, and indutrial ditrict ubject to certain condition, including etback from property boundarie equal to tower height plu blade height plu 20 feet, ditancing requirement of 1,000 feet from other Madelyn Krezowki tructure, noie limitation at property line ranging from 50 dba to 75 dba, and other general afety condition. Subject to the ame condition (except the property line etback), commercial wind facilitie of 1 MW or le are permitted principal ue in the agricultural ditrict with pecial permit required for thoe more than 1 MW. The tandard pecial ue permit requirement including a preapplication meeting, pecific documentation material, and a public hearing apply; the ordinance doe not pecify any pecial application material. Cacade County effort yielded reult. In 2003, Montanabaed Exergy Development Group partnered with a local contruction company to build Montana firt commercial wind project at the company nearby aphalt plant. State aitance helped fund intallation of an anemometer tower at the ite for data collection, reducing project cot for the developer. Three year later, the ixturbine, 9 MW Horehoe Bend Wind Park came online, replacing a 3 MW dieel generator that had been powering the aphalt plant. The National Aociation of Countie (NACo) recognized Cacade County in 2006 with a Sutainable Communitie Award for the wind energy marketing program. Subequent uccee include the election of Great Fall by Gaelectric, an Irih wind development company, for it North American office, and announcement of a new 100-mile tranmiion line dubbed the Green Line to help relieve the current electricity bottleneck outh of Great Fall. Invenergy, developer of the Judith Gap Wind Farm in Wheatland County (formerly the larget in Montana) recently received county approval of the 16-turbine, 24 MW Big Otter Wind Farm near Belt, Montana; thi project ha the potential to grow to between 200 and 300 MW in future phae. (continued on page 96)

98 96 Planning for Wind Energy (continued from page 95) Although the momentum for wind energy development in Cacade County continue, ign of waning interet and increaing reitance from certain group within the county have urfaced. According to county official, quetion about mall wind development have tapered off ince 2009 due to economic condition, although interet in large wind development remain. Beltrone left her poition a county commiioner in June 2010 to work for a private wind energy developer. Furthermore, recent wind energy development propoal have been met with greater reitance from property owner who fear the lo of million-dollar view. Within the pat few month, Cacade County official have contemplated charging impact fee for wind energy development. Another challenge to wind energy development ha come from the U.S. Department of Defene (DOD). Malmtrom Air Force Bae, Cacade County, and the City of Great Fall are examining growing concern about potential wind energy development near the bae in a Joint Land Ue Study. DOD want to produce a Red-Yellow-Green map for wind energy development in the county to how area of military concern. Red repreent area where wind energy development hould be prohibited, yellow indicate a need for careful review and potential retriction, and green ignal area acceptable for wind energy development with appropriate review. Thi type of map currently exit for ome military intallation in California. Additionally, DOD want to triple the width of the current launch facility buffer around the bae from 1,200 feet to 3,600 feet, within which wind energy development and other incompatible land ue would be prohibited. According to Rick Solander of DOD, public workhop held in February 2011 to educate Cacade County official and takeholder about miion requirement and procedure were very productive. The military hope to involve wind energy developer in future dicuion. Over the lat decade, Cacade County ha proven itelf to be fertile ground for wind energy development, which ha brought economic benefit to the area. The Horehoe Bend wind farm generate $150,000 in property taxe per year, and every 100 MW of intalled capacity i etimated to create eight new well-paying job. The early fluh of development ha ince been tempered, however, by recent call for impact fee on developer and puhback by the military and property owner eeking to protect their view. The coming year will tell whether Cacade County wind indutry will continue to grow or if increaing oppoition will low future expanion of wind energy development in one of the nation windiet place. For additional information: Cacade County Zoning Regulation (2009). Section , , Available at Cacade County Wind Power Map. Available at Webite/WindPower.pdf. Cacade County Wind. Available at Cacade County Wind Power: Put Wind to Work for You. Promotional brochure available at Grubb, Alex Gaelectric Hope Green Line Will Help Move Energy. KRTV New, December 3. Available at Malmtrom Air Force Bae JLUS. Available at Puckett, Karl Cacade County Zoning Board Ok Belt-Area Wind Farm. Great Fall Tribune, December 18. Available at cacade-county-zoning-board-ok-belt-area-wind-farm. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind Powering America National Aociation of Countie (NACo) honor Cacade County a a National Leader in Creating Sutainable Communitie. Available at Cultural Iue The main concern in thi category are impact on hitoric propertie and on archaeological artifact that may be diturbed by contruction. Many tate have an agency that deal with hitoric propertie, and ome have tandard to which all new activitie mut conform. Becaue of wind turbine height, there will often be ome hitoric propertie from which one or more turbine will be viible, imilar to cell tower and other large commercial tructure. Since moving turbine location to be completely out of view can be difficult, mitigation may be limited to putting up creen (e.g., tree, fence) to hield a given property from the view. Aethetic (Viewhed) Iue Unle a juridiction ha explicit law or regulation controlling it viewhed, thi i a particularly thorny iue for planner. Without explicit regulation, there are few objective tandard to refer to, and in many way thi come down to peronal preference and property right. Some believe any change to the landcape are an affront to their property right, even if the tructure i on not on their property. Other believe that they have the right to do anything on their property a long a there i no phyical impact to the neighbor. Sometime there i a clear community preference, but more often there i a trong minority view on one ide or the other. Mot guidance recommend taking aethetic into conideration in the deign of the project, particularly the location and look of ancillary facilitie uch a torage building, office, tranmiion or ditribution wire, and ubtation. AWEA guideline ugget uing turbine and tower with uniform appearance, including color; limiting ue of prominent commercial marking; putting power cable

99 Chapter 7. Permitting Utility-Scale Wind Energy Sytem 97 underground where feaible; and ynchronizing turbine lighting where poible. All of thee help to mitigate the viual intruion. The rule of thumb among developer i that intruion on the landcape can be accepted by mot communitie if the benefit outweigh the cot, preferably by a ubtantial margin, but conenu tend to be difficult to achieve. Land-Ue Iue Mot tate or localitie have procee for managing the compatibility of new commercial activitie with exiting land ue. However, feedback from the community can be very ueful for planner and developer in figuring out how to create the bet balance of interet. For intance, one community that would hot a new project had a long tradition of people riding four-wheeled recreational vehicle in farm field and on ome of the hill near where turbine would be. Thee uer were concerned that the guy wire ued on meteorological tower would create a hazard. It turned out to be relatively eay to firt mark the wire near ground level with colorful marker and then to witch over time to unguyed tower. Contraint map are ueful tool for mapping out where land-ue conflict might exit and where other concern (uch a environmentally enitive area) might exit. Typically, developer map out all contraint in a ingle map or on layer that can be added or ubtracted from a map, including all etback (from building, property boundarie, tranmiion line, road, microwave beam path, etc.). Modern GIS mapping capabilitie make thi a powerful tool for project deign and for conforming to and documenting regulatory requirement. Sound Iue While ound i objectively meaurable, the impact of ound on human i far more ubjective, which give rie to ome difficult iue in the context of a wind project. There are alo many different way to meaure ound, and there i no agreement on an objective tandard for objectionable ound. Moreover, ome turbine are noiier than other, and topography, vegetation, and atmopheric condition can alo affect how ound travel. Sound tandard exit in many juridiction; where they do not, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tandard erve a a default. Juridiction with a pecific ound tandard at a particular location (property boundary or home) tend to rely on turbine etback from home or property boundarie to control noie iue. The typical etback ha been 1,000 feet from home unle the home owner agree otherwie, but ome juridiction have adopted greater etback, often becaue of concern raied by a community. At a certain point, particularly in area with mall parcel, a larger ound etback can eentially block wind project ince the allowable footprint for turbine placement i too mall. Sound iue are difficult to mitigate once a project i built. Adding ound inulation to the nacelle of a turbine can lower the mechanical noie it emit. However, the aerodynamic noie from the blade i often the chief ource of complaint, and that cannot be mitigated at the turbine without contraining it operation, uch a limiting ue to nighttime hour. Thi can be cotly for the operator, who may favor other option, uch a compenation. There are everal mitigation tool that can be ued at reidential tructure, uch a uing vegetation creen or uing ound-deadening material, but uch meaure do not deal with the entire ound pectrum, o their efficacy depend on the ound emitted by a particular turbine and the circumtance of and around a particular tructure.

100 98 Planning for Wind Energy Shadow Flicker Shadow flicker i created by the movement of a wind turbine blade between the un and a receptor. With reaonable etback, hadow flicker occur only when the un i low in the ky and for relatively few hour a year typically a tiny fraction of daylight hour. Still, for thoe who are affected, it can be diorienting and annoying. Much like ound, the impact of hadow flicker i highly ubjective. Some find it highly troubling while other are not bothered at all, and the recipient dipoition toward the project will largely determine the degree of annoyance. Some claim have been made that hadow flicker can create epileptic eizure, but thee have not proved to have any evidentiary bai. 1 Mitigation option for hadow flicker are alo imilar to thoe for ound in that there i little that can be done after contruction other than curtail operation or ue vegetation or other creen inide or outide an affected houe, and compenation to the affected party a appropriate. Some juridiction have tried to et tandard for a maximum number of hour per year that hadow flicker can occur at a given location, but there i no conenu on what that level hould be. Setback continue to be the default olution for dealing with hadow flicker, although again there i a great deal of variation on what that ditance i. Shadow flicker i reaonably eay to model, with far le uncertainty than with ound, o a planner could ak for a color-coded map howing how many hour the area urrounding a wind project would be ubjected to with a given etback. Standard hould differentiate between reidence and rarely occupied tructure or location uch a hed, field, or road. Safety Concern Safety concern with wind project uually revolve around the potential collape of a turbine tower, the throwing of a blade, or the linging of ice from turbine blade. There i now enough operating hitory in enough location around the world that reaonable probabilitie can be etablihed for thee event. The probability of injury or property damage from any of thee event i extremely mall, but the reidual rik can be minimized with reaonable etback. The 1,000-foot etback became a tandard in part becaue it create a ubtantial margin of afety. Some juridiction have attempted to mandate deign tandard or certification, but they mut be able to adapt uch requirement to a rapidly changing market. A noted, etback are often the default protection on afety iue. Thoe concerned about thi iue hould focu on the track record and financial olidity of the developer and the eventual project owner, ince the owner aume the liability for operation. In circumtance where the project owner i not known until development i motly complete, development approval can be made contingent on the owner meeting a certain tandard. In any event, uch tandard are notoriouly hard to write in a way that doe not create problematic inflexibility. Virtually all guideline agree on certain afety recommendation: poting of emergency contact information at variou location throughout the project; poting warning ign about falling ice during winter; locking turbine door to prevent unauthorized acce; and avoiding tructure near turbine that would allow unauthorized people to climb them. Contruction Impact Contruction i ometime an afterthought in the iting proce, but it can ignificantly affect the immediate community. Contruction noie can be managed by etting reaonable hour for the loudet activitie. Dut i a frequent ource of complaint from any contruction activity, o dut up

101 Chapter 7. Permitting Utility-Scale Wind Energy Sytem 99 Source: Kern County, California preion procedure hould be dicued early in the proce. Developer can be aked for a contruction timetable with pecific activitie, uch a delivery of turbine equipment or movement of large crane, called out to allow variou department of local and tate agencie to coordinate their activitie. Since chedule inevitably change, good communication among the partie i key to a ucceful relationhip between the developer or owner and the reponible agencie. Good practice alo involve notifying neighbor of upcoming road blockage or contruction work o that they can work around the contraint. Once again, good communication in advance of and during contruction i crucial. Emergency Condition Mot local emergency repone crew in rural area have no experience dealing with emergencie in tall tructure, much le in wind turbine, o it i important to work out emergency plan covering all reaonable cenario well in advance of contruction. Fire are rare in wind turbine, but they have occurred, and local agencie reponible for emergency repone will need a plan for reponding to one. Injurie can alo occur in the tower or nacelle, o crew require knowledge of how to rapidly get to and move affected individual in a afe manner. A written plan approved by the appropriate agencie will go a long way toward afe project operation. Decommiioning Concern When a project i at the end of it operational life, turbine and aociated infratructure hould be decommiioned and removed. Landowner, communitie, and reponible official will want to enure that the cot of decommiioning doe not fall on landowner or the community. Mot project require the project owner to take reponibility for decommiioning, and ome require a financial intrument to enure completion of the proce. Mot decommiioning language in eaement or in regulation i very general, ince a a rule decommiioning bond have not exited or have been extremely expenive. Thu, a bond or imilar financial intrument i typically the language of choice. Some juridiction have aked for a fund often a inking fund paid into over time by the project owner to be etablihed and held in uch a way that it become payable to the landowner or the appropriate government agency hould the project owner fail to decommiion the project in a timely

102 100 Planning for Wind Energy manner. The ize of the fund i uually baed on the net cot of decommiioning, accounting for a very conervative alvage value of the equipment. Developer and alvage expert maintain that decommiioning can actually make money, ince the alvage value of the turbine and related equipment typically exceed the cot of removal. Still, mot juridiction want to have ome cah on hand to cover other cenario. The end of a turbine operational life i uually defined a occurring once it ha ceaed operation for ome defined period, often a year. Since ome component have lead time of ix month or more, horter time period would be problematic for a project owner unle there i an automatic waiver proce that can be triggered, perhap upon evidence of an order. Some guideline deal pecifically with what tandard the removal hould meet for intance, whether all road hould be removed and reeeded. Some pecify native plant for reeeding, which i rapidly becoming tandard operating procedure for developer. It alo can make ene to allow the landowner to elect to keep ome or all of the infratructure item uch a road or even turbine ince they may be valuable aet. Economic Iue Economic iue do not pecifically affect the iting and deign of the project, but they do inform converation about the cot and benefit of a project. All economic cot and benefit hould be communicated to the public. Some benefit are obviou (taxe, payment to landowner, charitable contribution by the developer to the community), and there are relatively clear contruction-period benefit (labor ued, upplie purchaed, ervice contract). Ongoing benefit can include the purchae of material to repair road, accounting ervice, the money pent by maintenance peronnel and project contractor in the community on food and lodging, and o on. Cot alo need to be addreed, uch a who will pay for wear and tear on road during contruction and any repair involving large crane and truck. Communitie that rely on tourim are often unure of the overall impact of a project, o evaluation of imilar communitie can be very helpful, and ome limited tudie do exit. While not often covered in iting guideline, economic iue are till an important backdrop to the community converation that planner upport, participate in, and ometime orchetrate. Land Agreement Mot developer ue eaement on property rather than buying land or leaing it. Every developer ue a different form of land eaement, which create ome confuion among landowner and any public agencie or other partie that might be intereted in repreenting landowner interet. Mot eaement hare certain common feature, but there i huge variety in what i offered to landowner in financial term, length of contract, and protection. Landowner often are not aware of tandard wind-indutry contract term unle they have done ubtantial reearch or know omeone who ha negotiated a contract, but it i eay to get acce to tandard contract via the Internet. Some iting guideline alo available through the web give very pecific guidance on what hould and hould not be in an eaement. The Windutry iting guideline provide a template eaement for all partie (Windutry n.d.a). Some guideline give pecific uggetion for the maximum period over which evaluation of the project can take place, a well a maximum timeframe for the operational period. Other imply point out the pro and con of different approache.the mot landowner-friendly guideline ugget that all information in eaement hould be made public, which

103 Chapter 7. Permitting Utility-Scale Wind Energy Sytem 101 Source: Kern County, California ha real benefit but can create a difficult dynamic. If a developer i trying to accommodate particular concern of ome landowner, every conceion that a developer make then become a matter of public record, which could make the developer le likely to agree to conceion. If ome landowner have more valuable aet than other and thu are paid more, it can create tenion among neighbor. Juridiction that are conidering a requirement to make eaement public hould be cognizant of the plue and minue. Providing a template agreement to landowner can have educational value, but requiring the ue of a preapproved agreement can be problematic. Every developer ha it own view of what kind of eaement can be financed. In fact, ome developer get preapproval of their eaement from invetor or lender to enure there are no urprie. The language in an eaement, however, change over time baed on judicial deciion and on the reult of recent financing. Providing a required eaement will almot certainly require the developer to come back and renegotiate the eaement, omething that neither the developer nor mot landowner want to do. There are ome central point regarding eaement that many guideline agree on: 1. Evaluation, feaibility, or option period hould be limited to a reaonable time. Five to even year i common and ufficient for mot of the United State, but it i not uncommon in ome part (the Northeat and California, for example) for it to take that long or longer to get a project ready for contruction. An additional option period i not unreaonable but hould alo have a higher compenation level. 2. Landowner hould be aware that tandard operating period are 30 to 40 year in mot location longer period do not need to be prohibited but hould receive additional crutiny. 3. Landowner hould not have legal liability for anything done by the developer or project owner and vice vera, o explicit indemnitie and appropriate inurance requirement hould be included.

104 102 Planning for Wind Energy 4. If production-baed payment (royaltie) are part of the eaement, the landowner hould have the right to ee documentation of the production and have a repreentation from the project owner that the record are accurate. 5. Decommiioning hould be the reponibility of the project owner (unle a landowner explicitly agree otherwie), and language to that effect hould be in the agreement. A pecific pledge of fund for decommiioning from the project owner i appropriate but hould alo be reaonable. If the owner hould fail to remove the facility, any decommiioning fund hould be payable to the landowner firt and then to the juridiction, hould the landowner not take action. At leat one guidebook ugget that wind right (and any income aociated with them) hould not be everable from the land. It i legally complicated to eparate wind right and to enure that that fact i properly communicated to the next owner. It can alo create unforeeen problem for future owner. Bond and Guarantee While bond and other financial guarantee mechanim are not commonly ued during the development proce, they can become relevant during the contruction and operational phae. Language requiring uch financial mechanim hould be broad enough to allow flexibility in how the fund are provided, ince bond may be expenive or not available. In the contruction or precontruction phae, localitie typically will require a bond to be poted to cover potential road damage from the heavy traffic aociated with a wind project. The road department or it equivalent uually work with the developer contruction plan and any related permit ubmiion to determine the timing and likely impact of contruction-related activitie on the road. Once an amount for road repair ha been determined, the developer uually provide a bond or cah payment. The locality will then hold that amount until hortly after contruction ha finihed and road repair have been completed. Additional amount might be required if contruction i to take place during period of frot or high precipitation, or if truck weight are near the deign limit of the road. More frequently, movement of heavy load will not be able to begin until after the frot period. Broader contruction bond could be utilized for pecial circumtance uch a protecting enitive reource (e.g., drinking water), if thoe are potentially threatened by contruction activitie. In thi cae, bond might be tructured to cover remediation cot. During the operational phae of the project, bond or other guarantee are not common except for any upport of decommiioning requirement. A dicued, decommiioning bond are often not commercially available, o other financial mechanim (inking fund, cah depoit, pledge of other aet) hould be allowed. THE PROCESS of developing a wind energy project Larry Flower and Dale Oborn With the growth of the wind indutry, planning and zoning official, legilator, and other elected official are increaingly confronted by advocate for and opponent of the iting of wind turbine. Thi ection define the iue that planner may confront when a wind project i propoed, and it explain planner relationhip to the precontruction development proce of wind developer. With thi information, planner can better undertand how and

105 Chapter 7. Permitting Utility-Scale Wind Energy Sytem 103 COMMUNITY WIND PROJECTS Larry Flower Community wind project typically range from a ingle turbine up to everal ten of MW. There are a wide variety of community wind application, including electricity-ue reduction on a farm or ranch or in a buine, chool, or community facility; diverification of upply for a rural electric cooperative or municipal utility; and ale by a community-baed independent power producer (IPP) or limited liability corporation (LLC) to a local electricity upplier. AWEA etimate that 5.6 percent of the utility-cale wind market at the end of 2010 conited of community wind project. A number of innovative buine model and policie have emerged over the lat decade, deigned primarily to addre the inability of many individual invetor (i.e., local) to effectively utilize the Production Tax Credit (PTC), which require the ue of paive income. (See page 15.) The Minwind model (ee page 21) aroe from a group of Minneota farmer who formed an LLC baed on the ethanol co-op model. The Minneota Flip wa deigned to make ue of the PTC appetite of larger companie and then flip the majority ownerhip to local after 10 to 12 year, once the PTC wa fully monetized. Several variation on the Flip model, in which an organization with ufficient tax appetite join ownerhip with local invetor, have emerged. In Colorado, the piggyback model wa employed to take advantage of the economic of cale in manufacturing, contruction, and operation of a nearby conventional large project. (See page 60.) South Dakota ha taken the piggyback tructure a tep farther and ha old hare to tate reident of the minor portion of a large project. Some innovative leae tructure allowed under the Invetment Tax Credit (ITC) / cah grant federal incentive have alo emerged, a wind project have been eligible for thee incentive ince Any project owned by a rural electric cooperative (REC) or municipal utility qualifie a a community wind project, ince the utility owner are local; thee project are often financed by conventional public power ource. The main benefit of community wind project that are driving the market are increaed local economic development and local control. When at leat ome of the owner are local, a greater percentage of the project revenue flow to local people, buinee, and intitution. The direct, indirect, and induced income tream from contruction and operation can be up to three time thoe of conventional out-of-tate-owned project (Lantz and Tegen 2009). The actual magnitude of increaed economic benefit depend on the availability of local, qualified labor and material upplie, a well a on the ownerhip tructure and financing detail. Local control alo often help in iting and izing project to uit local interet. Other benefit include the ene of community created when a place produce ome of it own energy, a well a the feeling of independence that come with it. People may alo feel that they are contributing to improved local (and global) air quality, a well a protecting the local waterhed through water aving. Becaue of community wind project maller cale, they ometime do not require expenive and time-conuming tranmiion upgrade, and often they can be connected to the ditribution grid eaily. The maller project ize can reduce the poible environ- mental impact on wildlife and cenic view; however, community wind project till mut abide by local ordinance, a well a tate and federal environmental regulation. A in conventional ownerhip tructure, both federal and tate policie are important driver. While the PTC ha had limited value to community wind project, the recent U.S. Treaury grant wa particularly effective in Andrew Stern helping community wind project remain competitive. The 30 percent ITC ha broader application to community wind project, a local can make better ue of it than of the PTC. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) ha been effective in reducing the predevelopment and intallation cot of rural community wind project through grant and guaranteed loan. At the tate level, there are 29 tate with tandard requiring utilitie to include a certain amount of renewable in their portfolio, but thee do not pecify a particular level of commitment to community wind project. Minneota led the way in community wind project by requiring Northern State Power (now Xcel Energy) to purchae 100 MW from community wind project of 2 MW or le at a reaonable tariff, combined with production incentive payment. Several tate have incentivized community wind project through communitybaed energy development (CBED) legilation. While iting of community wind project hould be le challenging than that of larger, conventional project, community wind project do have ome ditinctive feature of which the planner hould be aware: They are partially or wholly owned and controlled by local companie, organization, or citizen. They provide for up to three time more local economic development benefit than conventional, third party owned project. They are uually maller than conventional project. They often partially erve the electricity need of the community. They are often connected to the electrical ditribution line and do not require a eparate overhead tranmiion line. Project till need to meet local code and ordinance, atify federal and tate rule and regulation, and incorporate good iting practice particularly early, frequent, and reponive community involvement. The tandard iue of economic (epecially rate impact), aethetic, etback, ound, wildlife impact, property value, radar, infratructure impact, impact on cultural and hitorical reource, and land ue apply to community wind project a much a to any other. A particularly thorny iue i the impact aement of community wind project on avian and bat pecie, for which there i little data. (See alo page 37.) Community wind project are often ited cloe to communitie and thu are often in view of owner and nonowner alike. It i reaonable to expect le reitance to a community wind project (continued on page 104)

106 104 Planning for Wind Energy (continued from page 103) from thoe connected to it. However, there are alway individual or group who reit change, epecially to the landcape. Diverity of opinion within a community can be a delicate iue for local planner and official. Three challenge to community wind project are competitive economic, utility reitance to purchaing their electricity, and iting requirement and regulation. The generally maller ize of community wind project make it harder for them to compete with conventional MW project in a competitive market. Additionally, utilitie eem more inclined to make one or two large purchae to meet their need or requirement, intead of many maller purchae. And there i a movement among invetor-owned utilitie to own their own wind project, rather than purchaing power from a third party. Public power producer (co-op and rural municipalitie) eem to be the perfect fit for community wind project, a they are alo locally owned, benefit from the economic development of community wind project, and often have maller load and growth. But mot of them are not ubject to their tate renewable-energy portfolio tandard requirement and often ee wind a too expenive. Interet in community wind i preading acro the country a wind takeholder eek more direct involvement in the wind energy future. Local buine leader and official ee community wind project a mean to generate economic development while tabilizing energy price and improving the local and regional environment. Policie on iting, way of improving competitive economic, and developing utility demand are all neceary for community wind to meet it enormou market potential. when local planning and development review procedure interact with the wind development proce. There are five key activitie aociated with the ucceful development of a wind energy facility: (1) acquiring land right; (2) completing wind reource tudie; (3) obtaining environmental and land-ue permit; (4) tudying, analyzing, and obtaining tranmiion right; and (5) completing a power purchae agreement (PPA) or a facilitie ale agreement. Planning and zoning official may conider each of thee when contemplating ordinance and regulation, but ome of the pecific detail are the focu of tate and federal agencie; duplication of effort may not be worthwhile. Acquiring Land Right Developer and the finance community require that pecific right be granted by a landowner for the development, contruction, operation and maintenance, and reclamation of a wind energy facility. The key one are the right of ingre to and egre from the property; right to tudy the wind reource and contruct and operate the wind facility for a pecific term (generally greater than 35 year); and the right to collect and tranmit off the property the electricity produced by the facility. For thee right, the landowner i compenated by the developer. Since thee agreement are between the developer and the landowner and reult in no new built tructure or change in land ue, public official often have very limited influence over them. However, ome tate government have enacted legilation to define certain term of thee agreement. Wind Studie Authoritative wind tudie require the intallation of calibrated wind peed and direction intrument. Thee intrument are placed on a meteorological tower typically 60 meter (196 feet) high and require no excavation or concrete, a they are upported by guy wire and crew-in anchor. Depending on the ize of the project area, multiple tower may be warranted. Some countie have enacted permitting requirement for thee tower. The requirement may include aviation marking, obtruction ball, and in ome cae lighting, which may require incremental power upplie. Tower over 200 feet tall require a determination from the Federal Aviation Adminitration (FAA) a to what lighting i required. A long a thee tower are located at leat 200 feet from a property line, they generally have minimal impact on neighbor. Some countie have implemented an environmental permitting proce for thee tower. A building permit i alo uually required. Environmental Permit The cope of environmental permitting i heavily dependent on the ownerhip of the land being developed: private, tate, or federal. If the project i located on private or tate land, the tate agency that overee the protection of enitive plant and animal pecie hould be conulted by the developer early in the proce. Often, thee agencie will requet or require that certain data be collected before rendering an opinion on the environmental uitability of the ite. If federal land or fund are involved, federal regulation (e.g., NEPA) or agencie (e.g., the U.S. Fih and Wildlife Service) will play role. On the pecific cae of avian and bat impact, ee Chapter 3. Developer will cutomarily hire qualified biologit and botanit to conduct a preliminary ite aement known a a fatal flaw analyi. Thee analyt will review the area, identify potential enitive pecie within it, and interview local expert. Thi tudy provide the developer with the neceary tool to work with both tate and federal enforcement agencie to determine what further tudie are needed. The developer will conduct thee tudie and report periodically to the enforcement agencie. Similar tudie may

107 Chapter 7. Permitting Utility-Scale Wind Energy Sytem 105 TOWN OF HULL, MASSACHUSETTS Glen Cooper Hull, Maachuett, a town of 11,000 reident, i home to two large municipally owned wind turbine. Hull I i a 660 kw turbine commiioned in 2001; Hull II, a 1.8 MW turbine, wa commiioned in 2006 and it on top of a former 13-acre landfill, the firt uch iting in the nation. The turbine are owned and operated by the local power utility, Hull Municipal Light Plant (HMLP), and produce approximately 10 percent of Hull electric need. An urban and coatal environment Boton i only 10 mile away acro the peninula make thee wind project ditinctive. Hull ha a long hitory of harneing wind energy; community member have referred to the Hull I ite a Windmill Point for nearly 200 year. In the 19th and 20th centurie, wind wa ued in thi region to power mechanical tak, uch a pumping water and grinding grain. Windmill have occupied what i now the Hull I ite ince the 1820, pumping water that wa then evaporated to yield alt ued to preerve and pack fih. Modern effort to harvet wind energy in Hull began in the 1980 when a mall wind turbine wa intalled near the local high chool to offet the chool electricity ue. Thi turbine functioned effectively for year, reducing the high chool electricity bill by 30 percent, but uffered irreparable damage in 1997 after a heavy torm. Shortly thereafter, local takeholder began invetigating the poibility of repowering the ite with a utility-cale turbine owned and operated by HMLP. The community began the planning proce for the Hull I turbine in From the beginning, intereted reident were a ignificant part of the effort; they formed the group Citizen Advocate for Renewable Energy (CARE) and advocated for HMLP involvement. In 1998, the Univerity of Maachuett at Amhert Renewable Energy Reearch Laboratory (RERL) and the Maachuett Diviion of Energy Reource conducted a detailed technical analyi for a potential new turbine at Windmill Point. Following the poitive reult of the tudy and growing media interet, HMLP, CARE, RERL, and other takeholder preented the propoal at a townwide public meeting in Apart from one oppoed reident, public opinion wa trongly poitive, o HMLP went ahead. By the end of December 2001, Hull I wa built and generating power. A imilar cooperative proce wa followed in developing Hull II, which came online in May In Maachuett, municipal light plant are exempt from zoning requirement, and Hull zoning bylaw do not addre wind energy. Documentation required before turbine contruction could begin included FAA permit, New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Interconnect Sytem Impact Study Agreement, and Maachuett Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) permit and Environmental Impact Study (EIS) report. The Hull community wind energy project have received trong public upport and are conidered ucceful example of community wind energy intallation. In 2007, Hull won the U.S. Department of Energy Wind Power Pioneer Award, which commended the Town outtanding leaderhip in advancing wind power and engaging the entire community in it wind power project. Additional wind energy development may be in Hull future; HMLP, RERL, and the Maachuett Technology Collaborative have propoed a four-turbine, MW offhore wind farm that could provide 100 percent of Hull energy need, though it future i uncertain due to ecalating cot projection. For more information: Hull Municipal Light Plant. Hull Wind Turbine Information and Hull Wind Offhore Preentation. Available at Hull Wind. Available at Manwell, J. F., et al Wind Turbine Siting in an Urban Environment: The Hull, MA 660 kw Turbine. Preentation at the American Wind Energy Aociation Windpower conference, May. Available at publihed/2003/awea_hull_2003.pdf. Manwell, J. F., et al Hull Wind II: A Cae Study of the Development of a Second Large Wind Turbine Intallation in the Town of Hull, MA. Preentation at the American Wind Energy Aociation Windpower conference, June. Available at publication/publihed/2006/ AWEA%202006%20Hull%20II.pdf.

108 106 Planning for Wind Energy Working with Wind energy Developer: Advice from a wind energy indutry expert Kevin Racktraw Thi ection i deigned to help planner undertand the perpective and motivation of developer in the hope of engendering better communication that will be beneficial to both ide of the relationhip. The propect of profit can be a ource of tenion between community member (including planning official) and developer. Wind development i a cotly and multiyear proce. It i not unuual for a developer to pend three to five year in development and to accrue between $2 million and $5 million in development cot. It i commonly accepted in the indutry that a developer might pend $1 million to $2 million fully developing a project in relatively eay-to-permit area, wherea in more complicated area uch a California or part of the Eat, a developer can pend double or triple that amount. Generally, the greater the population and the larger the number of competing land ue in a community, the longer and more expenive the proce will be. However, project located cloer to load (uer) can often be more profitable than one in remote area. It i important to recognize that mot development cot are at rik meaning that there i no guarantee of any return of inveted capital until the project i old or achieve long-term financing until financing i committed. That in turn typically require all permit in hand, all land control complete, turbine on order (or at leat reerved), a contruction firm committed, and a contract to ell power from the project over 10 to 20 year. Many project never ee the light of day even after million of dollar have been pent on them. Thi i why mot development i completed by large and well-capitalized firm that can afford to wait through month or year of inevitable delay. Thi alo help explain why developer are reluctant to give up on a project. Project that do make it to the finih line can appear to be quite profitable, but they need to be in order to make up for the many that mi. It i not uncommon for developer to have three to five project in the work for each one that i finihed. At it bet, development i carried out with early and extenive communication among all affected partie. However, there are everal factor that tend to inhibit open communication between developer and planner or regulator at the local, tate, and federal level. Competition among Developer Developer create the mot value by finding an area with good wind reource and then developing it at the lowet reaonable cot. Competitor for a ite bid to ign landowner and create a race to get control of a ite. Nobody like pending ten or hundred of thouand of dollar in the early tage to find out that omeone ele ha wooped in and captured ite control. For thi reaon, developer tend to like keeping a low profile until they have confidence they have a good ite. Senitive Information Developer are loath to give up certain kind of information, particularly wind reource data, cot of energy projection, and development cot. Aking for that information i like aking oil propector where they have found oil, what the oil quality i, and how much it will cot to get it out of the ground. Making uch information public i tantamount to handing it to competitor. Uncertainty about Project Impact and Deign When a developer firt get intereted in a ite, uually very little i known about it. Until the developer ha more knowledge of the ite, in particular any red-flag iue, it i reluctant to be in the public eye. Thi may manifet a a reticence to come before planner and other government repreentative. Mot developer like to peak from a poition of knowledge in order to engender confidence. (continued on page 107) be conducted for iue related to archeological and hitoric preervation. In mot cae, the local permitting authoritie are not directly involved in uch tudie, but they may require the reult from the tudie a part of the local permit application. They may occaionally require a letter from the tate agency commenting on the project. Local planning and zoning ordinance often contain language requiring developer to addre environmental impact. Land-Ue Permitting Private land i the purview of local official. Some juridiction have recognized the economic development potential of wind energy. In many rural countie, even a project of fewer than 15 wind turbine can be the larget property tax payer. Many windy citie and countie have enacted iting ordinance. In addition to economic development, local official are concerned with the health, afety, and concern of their reident. Conequently, their regulatory focu i on the impact of wind turbine from ound, proximity to neighbor, ite acce and contruction traffic, viewhed, hadow flicker, and property value. (See Chapter 6.) In conideration of a land-ue application, local official hould evaluate the planned interconnection route to the tranmiion ytem. (See Chapter 4.) In large project, thee generation feeder may be many mile long and may cro multiple countie. Thee line are ubject to tate or federal environmental review, but local official will alo need to review the application. Setback are typically not required for uch line. For lower-voltage collection ytem, thee line are uually below ground and hould be buried deep enough to avoid conflict with utilitie, farm plow, and other land ue.

109 Chapter 7. Permitting Utility-Scale Wind Energy Sytem 107 (continued from page 106) Another area of uncertainty i project deign. Initial location of turbine, a well a other project infratructure uch a ubtation or road, are often jut guee and will be modified numerou time baed on wind reource aement, environmental contraint, etback, land control, and o on. Developer tend to keep project layout cloe to their vet until they need to dicloe them in permit application. A preliminary project deign can create expectation that might not be fulfilled, create unneceary rift among neighbor, or create anxiety about a location. Thi reticence, of coure, ha to be balanced with the public right to information, and good developer will work to enure that affected neighbor are compenated in ome way or otherwie have their iue addreed. Uncertainty Impact on Developer Cooperation There i typically ome tenion between a developer, who want to avoid pending money and time, and a planner, who want to enure that tandard are met or procedure are followed. Having a clear approval proce in place with pecific deadline for repone help mitigate thi tremendouly. If the approval proce i ill-defined, chedule and budget can be unpredictable. Incentive Once a project i determined to be viable, well-capitalized developer are often willing to pend money to meet requirement for approval. However, developer will alway keep an eye out for way to do thing fater a well a cheaper. One of the main reaon that developer are concerned with peed i that the Production Tax Credit (PTC; ee Chapter 2) uually run on a one- to three-year cycle. A developer doe not want to be million of dollar into a project and have the main tax credit expire, with no certainty that it will be extended on the ame bai. Expiration of the PTC can ubtract million of dollar of value from a project often ten of million for any project above about 50 MW. Thu, at the end of a given tax credit cycle there i a big puh among developer to get project contructed. Thi create tenion with longer-term procee uch a environmental tudie that can extend for more than a year. Good developer will not cut corner, but the preure to get a project finihed in a given year when the PTC expire can be ignificant. Thi i another reaon why developer hould be well capitalized o they can wait out thee tax-credit extenion when neceary. The Value of Uniform and Well-Organized Documentation Good developer create project aet that do not have mey project documentation with lot of pecial and ometime unclear condition. Invetor and lender want project that have uniform documentation that can be evaluated eaily. To manage rik and be able to create a valuable project aet in an eaement, for intance, developer need conitency in the agreement language. Thi create a diincentive for developer to negotiate every detail in an agreement, a it would make it more difficult for an invetor to undertand. It i alo difficult to complete land negotiation when landowner believe that every item i negotiable. The ame thing applie to permit. Smaller localitie ometime have an informal permitting proce. However, bank and invetor have a very hard time accepting any permit or other documentation that i not clear, pecific, and official. When a developer ay that a bare-bone permit i not ufficient, he or he i not being direpectful of local tradition but merely recognizing that it i le painful and expenive to create proper documentation at the outet. Source: Kern County, California (continued on page 108)

110 108 Planning for Wind Energy (continued from page 107) Recommendation for Working with Developer If there are no wind project in development or propoed in your juridiction, take time now to develop your guideline for them. Work toward a clear approval proce with a timetable for approval from your agency and any other you coordinate with. Thi will et a good foundation for interacting with developer. Developer are appreciative of good, olid proce even if it include particular they do not like. Coordinate your proce with other agencie at the local and higher level. To the degree poible, try to avoid duplication of effort by accepting information ubmitted to another agency. Thi can help both the developer and your own taff, ince there ha uually been another et of eye (or two or three) that ha reviewed the material, particularly if it i a larger juridiction, uch a the tate. If there are wind project in development in your juridiction, it i not too late to develop a good, predictable proce. Do not heitate to ak developer how to accommodate their interet in treamlining while meeting your obligation for thoroughne and integrity. Developer will accept reaonable effort to etablih good proce. You may not accept what they want to do, and you hould tell them that, but it will give you valuable inight into how they view your exiting proce, a well a into what ha worked in other juridiction. Convening a group of developer and other takeholder (optimally with an experienced mediator) may be the mot effective way of getting valuable input for developing or modifying a proce. It ometime take a while for uch a proce to get moving a you build trut with the participant. Check with your counterpart in other juridiction that do have wind project to ee what ha worked and not worked for them. Etablih a proce for protection of confidential information. Even if developer are not aked for uch information, it help build trut in you and your agency if a formal proce i in place. Thi i another area where it i ueful to ak developer what they conider confidential and would need protected. Thi avoid potential conflict at a later and perhap more time-contrained point. When pecific requirement are being planned, particularly deign-related item uch a etback, get feedback from developer, conultant with project experience, and counterpart who have experience with wind development. There are core of example of eemingly reaonable and well-meaning requirement that turn out to be unworkable or even challengeable in court. It i much harder and detructive to a cooperative relationhip with developer to change requirement after they are announced than to get good input in advance. Try to give developer a head up on any ignificant proce change or requirement in the work. That could make your job more difficult ince they might try to lobby againt the change, but in mot cae it hould build trut. Regular, open communication will encourage developer to give you a head up a well when thing change on their ide. Some municipalitie require a reclamation bond before iuing a permit, o that if the project top or never tart operation, the municipality may remove the equipment. However, in the lat 15 year no commercial wind facilitie have been abandoned in a way that reclamation fund were needed. Other Review and Requirement Radar. In conidering the application for a hazard determination for a wind project, the FAA evaluate proximity to airport, military flight path, and Department of Homeland Security radar intallation. Typically, if the project i cloer than ix nautical mile from an airport of any ize, a negotiation may be required. Smaller community airport tend to be more flexible than commercial one, while military contraint tend to be pecific to the ite and miion of the facility. Interconnection and Tranmiion Studie. Three tudie are required by the Federal Energy Commiion (FERC): (1) a feaibility tudy; (2) a ytem impact tudy; and (3) a facilitie upgrade tudy. (See Chapter 4.) FERC require a depoit for thee tudie of $165,000 for a project of 20 MW or more. ENDNOTE 1. According to the American Epilepy Foundation, the range of frequencie mot likely to caue epileptic eizure i 5 to 30 Hz. The foundation recommend that epileptic keep any expoure to flahe to le than 2 Hz (AEF n.d.). Shadow flicker from wind turbine ha a frequency between 0.5 Hz and 1.25 Hz (Noble Environmental Power n.d.).

111 CHAPTER 8 Leon Learned Suzanne Rynne, a i c p, with Erica Heller, a i c p, Ann F. Dillemuth, a i c p, Joe MacDonald, a i c p, Kirtin Kuenzi, and Anna Papke Thi report include 20 cae tudie from acro the country that were developed baed on extenive reearch and interview with individual involved with thoe project. While their torie have been told eparately throughout the report, thi chapter draw ome overarching leon in planning for wind energy from their collective experience, looking at common theme, imilar leon learned, and repeated obervation. 109

112 110 Planning for Wind Energy In general: Learn from other planner who have experience with wind energy project. Many planner who now have ignificant expertie with wind energy project learned by forging new path in the early year of wind energy development. Today, planner who are encountering their firt wind energy project application can and hould learn from thee pioneer. Contact planner in juridiction that have already addreed thi land ue to ak for advice; in mot cae, they will be glad to hare the leon they have learned. Addre wind energy ytem in the comprehenive plan. The firt propoal for wind energy project can be difficult, epecially if there are no tandard for thi ue in place. A tatement of upport for alternative energy technologie, including wind energy, in the comprehenive plan can help bolter jutification for approving thi unfamiliar ue for the firt time, a planner for Mahanoy Townhip, Pennylvania, found when faced with the firt development application for wind energy the area had een. (See Table 8.1.) Source: City of Greenburg If your community doe not yet have wind energy tandard in place, it i better to adopt an ordinance proactively than to be caught unprepared. There are many model code and good ample ordinance from communitie large and mall that planner can ue to help draft wind energy tandard that fit their communitie need. It i better to have a thorough dicuion of thi iue and put tandard in place to be ready for any future wind energy development propoal than to be unprepared and have to cramble to figure out how to addre thi ue the firt time a wind energy developer propoe a project. Having a wind energy ordinance in place alo ignal to developer the level of community acceptance when deciding whether to explore potential project and give them better guidance in developing a ucceful wind energy project application. Partnerhip between local government and nongovernment expert can be extremely helpful for the development of wind energy regulation and development planning. The cae tudie highlight not jut what the local government and contituent were able to accomplih but alo the ucceful

113 Chapter 8. Leon Learned 111 TABLE 8.1. ZONING TREATMENT OF WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN CASE STUDY COMMUNITIES Large (Commercial) Wind Small (Reidential) Wind Community By-Right Special By-Right Special Anchorage, Alaka a x x x Appalachian State Univerity/ Watauga County, North Carolina x x Cacade County, Montana b x x x Gratiot County, Michigan c x Greenburg, Kana d x Hay, Kana e x Hull, Maachuett f x x Kern County, California x x Lamar, Colorado x x Madion County, New York g x Rockingham County, Virginia x x San Bernardino, California x x Wahington County, Maryland h x Wahoe County, Nevada i x x x Note: a The Anchorage Municipal Code permit ingle mall Wind Energy Converion Sytem (WECS) in deignated rural and reidential ditrict. However, two or three mall WECS may be intalled only in deignated mixed and indutrial ditrict a a conditional ue. b Cacade County permit mall WECS in deignated ditrict and ingle large WECS in agricultural ditrict. However, large wind farm may be intalled in agricultural ditrict only with a pecial ue permit. c Gratiot County ordinance requirement apply to all Wind Energy Converion Facilitie, which hall be permitted a a pecial ue in a Wind Energy Facility Overlay Ditrict. Small wind facilitie are not addreed in the county ordinance. d Greenburg Sutainable Land Development Code permit mall WECS in all zoning ditrict that permit tructure. However, the Greenburg regulation do not addre large WECS. e Hay allow WECS a a pecial ue throughout the community, but trong height retriction (125 feet in nonreidential area and 45 feet in reidential area) effectively prohibit utility or community wind. f Hull community wind project at the municipal power plant are not ubject to zoning regulation. However, the State of Maachuett developed a Model A-of-Right Zoning Ordinance or Bylaw: Allowing Ue of Wind Energy Facilitie in 2009 ( g The Town of Fenner in Madion County granted utility-cale wind turbine pecial ue zoning permit through a erie of public hearing. h Wahington County Sutainable Land Development Code permit mall WECS in all zoning ditrict. However, the Wahington County ordinance doe not addre large WECS. i Wahoe County code permit mall wind energy ytem by right, o long a the ytem meet certain output, height, and lot ize retriction. Otherwie, a pecial ue permit i required. Commercial-cale wind i permitted in deignated ditrict.

114 112 Planning for Wind Energy Richard Vander Veen, Wind Reource, engaging citizen in a wind-related converation, June Kerry Battle interaction between local official and other community leader: academic leader and tudent from nearby intitution of higher learning, national wind energy expert, and collaborative ytem advocate. Wind energy development may be a big change for communitie, and the inight and upport of nongovernment intitution and individual who recognize wind energy value for the community can help. Allow opportunitie to hear and addre public concern. Effort to get all people to and all iue on the table mean fewer urprie and le reitance down the road. Dialogue among a wide array of takeholder provide early opportunitie for people to raie concern and for developer and official to addre thoe concern. For large wind energy project, it i important to provide thee opportunitie on a project-by-project bai; for mall wind energy, planner hould reach out and eek input during the policy-etting and regulation-development tage. Wind energy i not a new concept. Wind ha hitorically been captured to power ailboat and machine uch a grain grinder and water pump. Modern cience in the 20th century ha parked new ue for wind, and it ha emerged a the fatet-growing ource of energy in the world. Technological advance have improved turbine capacity and performance, bringing thi form of clean energy and it benefit to the forefront of a culture increaingly focued on utainability. Wind turbine hold out the promie of a reliable, renewable energy ource for the foreeeable future. For utility-cale wind energy development: Early and thorough communication between taff and developer i key. Due to the cale and complexity of large wind project, it i important for planning taff to begin converation with wind project developer a early in the proce a poible and to pull together a team of taff from other department, uch a public work, that will be involved in the permitting or inpection proce. Thi benefit all partie: developer will leave with a better undertanding of the requirement for project approval, and taff can help hape propoal to better mitigate any potential negative impact.

115 Chapter 8. Leon Learned 113 Interdepartmental coordination i important. Again, due to the cale and complexity of large wind project, everal local government department are likely to be involved in the permitting and inpection proce. Forming an interdepartmental team of key taff help keep all member informed of the development propoal progre and better enure that nothing i overlooked. Wind energy can help local economie. Large wind energy project can provide economic value to communitie in a variety of way. Due to the current nature of electricity and the grid, the energy produced by a utility turbine doe not alway tay jut in that community, but property taxe and leae payment to owner of land where turbine have been ited do. Contruction and maintenance of wind farm alo create both hort- and long-term job, and wind farm can alo generate tourim dollar, a in the cae of Fenner, New York. And through alternative ownerhip tructure uch a limited liability companie (LLC), local reident can partner to develop and manage utility wind project, a ha been the cae with Minneota nine farmer-owned Minwind project. For mall-cale, reidential wind energy development: Adopt mall-cale wind energy ytem tandard. Unlike for large wind where negotiated agreement are the norm, for mall wind energy adopting written tandard i an effective way to enure that project are compatible with their urrounding. Potential nuiance impact are well undertood and can be effectively controlled through appropriate regulation. Source: Kern County, California Enure that adopted regulation actually allow functional wind energy ytem to be built. Small wind energy project can be extremely enitive to minor change in location and height. Allowing appropriate variation for height and iting for mall wind turbine i eential to enure adequate acce to wind and effective harveting of energy. Planner hould undertand that adopting an otherwie olid mall wind ordinance that overly contrain

116 114 Planning for Wind Energy Source: Kern County, California height i actually a long, time-conuming way to ay no to wind energy development. Set up a traightforward, tandardized application proce. If a permit i required for mall-cale project, the permitting proce doe not need to be complicated, a long a mall-cale wind ytem comply with baic tandard for afety. For mall wind project, complicated and time-conuming permitting procee can add up to 10 or 20 percent to total project cot. In Kittita County, for example, planner et up a uer-friendly, over-thecounter permitting proce, making it eay for reident to obtain permit through ubmitting the required information.

117 Appendix Reult of the American Planning Aociation Survey of Current Practice, Challenge, and Reource Need Anna Papke, Ann F. Dillemuth, a i c p, and Suzanne Rynne, a i c p A part of the firt phae of developing thi PAS Report, the American Planning Aociation (APA) conducted an informal urvey of it memberhip to ae the current tate of wind energy planning in communitie acro the country; dicover what challenge planner are facing in planning for, regulating, and implementing wind energy facilitie; and ak what information or reource would be mot helpful to them in planning for wind energy. SURVEY BACKGROUND The urvey wa conducted online uing Zoomerang. It wa targeted at planner who are grappling with wind energy planning in their work or communitie. APA launched the urvey on July 2, 2010, and announced it to APA approximately 40,000 member in the July 6 edition of APA Interact, APA bimonthly e-newletter. An invitation to take the urvey wa alo poted on the main page of the APA webite, a well a the project page, and wa ed to 61 planner who had attended the Planning for Wind Energy facilitated dicuion eion at the 2010 National Planning Conference. The urvey remained open throughout the duration of the project. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attitude and Experience with Wind Over four-fifth of repondent reported poitive attitude toward wind energy, though ome expreed reervation about potential negative impact of thi technology and the complexity of the iue involved. Three-fifth of repondent etimated that public opinion toward wind energy in their communitie wa more poitive than negative, though not overwhelmingly o. Over two-third of repondent had worked on a wind energy ordinance; over half reported that their communitie had drafted ordinance, with jut under one-quarter of repondent reporting viioning and plan writing involving wind energy iue. Planner are the local government taff mot likely to be engaged in wind energy iue. Over two-third of repondent reported working with mall wind energy ytem, compared to jut under half working with large wind energy ytem. Similarly, fourfifth had an interet in mall wind energy ytem veru jut over half reporting an interet in large wind energy ytem. Only one-third of repondent reported addreing community wind in their communitie, but almot two-third wanted more information on thi topic. Current Practice Defined ize threhold for mall wind energy ytem varied from 10 to 100 kw, and a few communitie have added a micro wind category for ytem under 5 kw. Setback requirement, height limit, and noie threhold are common ordinance proviion for mall and community wind energy ytem. Large wind ordinance alo commonly include abandonment claue and require environmental review. More repondent (50 percent) reported mall wind energy project in their communitie than large project (24 percent) or community project (14 percent). One-third of repondent had yet to ee wind energy turbine intalled in their communitie. 115

118 116 Planning for Wind Energy Succee and Challenge Repondent found that having a good ordinance in place and trong public education and outreach effort were important in uccefully implementing wind energy ytem. Repondent top five mot commonly identified challenge were cenic and aethetic impact, noie impact, height retriction, wildlife impact, and property value iue. Public concern and a lack of information about wind energy ytem were alo mentioned. Information Need Repondent mot commonly identified iue of importance were information on mall wind energy ytem, managing public concern, noie impact, cenic and aethetic impact, technical information about wind power generation, and mapping of optimal wind condition within a juridiction. Repondent feel that there i a lack of good information and helpful reource available; they requeted model and ample ordinance language, cae tudie, and information on potential impact of wind turbine. SURVEY DETAILS Here i a more detailed decription of the quetion we aked and the reult we received. Survey Repondent To begin, we aked repondent to tell u about themelve, to gain a better ene of the context in which they are addreing wind energy iue. Of the 180 urvey repone received through September 15, 2010, 135 (84 percent) identified themelve a APA member, and 91 (57 percent) were AICP-certified planner. The majority of repondent (87 percent) were public-ector planner, with 10 percent from the private ector, 2 percent from academia, 1 percent from nonprofit, and 6 percent from other ector, including the federal government. (Repondent could elect more than one repone to thi quetion.) All tate except Alabama, Arizona, Kana, Kentucky, Montana, New Hamphire, North Dakota, and Wet Virginia were repreented, and a few repone came from outide the United State. Jut under half of the repondent (43 percent) work in both rural and urban context, with 27 percent working in only an urban context and 27 percent working only in a rural etting. More than half of repondent work with mall or medium-ized municipalitie (29 and 27 percent, repectively), 40 percent work at the county level, and around 10 percent each work in large citie (100,000+ population), region, and the federal government. (Repondent could elect more than one category.) Attitude Toward Wind Energy We aked repondent to tell u how they and their communitie viewed wind energy. Repondent reported largely poitive attitude toward wind energy (85 percent veru 12 percent neutral and 4 percent negative), with 41 percent indicating a very poitive attitude. We then aked repondent about their experience with wind energy. Jut over half reported poitive experience, with only 11 percent reporting a very poitive experience. Neutral repone were 28 percent, and negative repone were 17 percent. Four percent reported a very negative experience. (See Figure A.1.) When aked what had influenced their experience with wind energy, repondent cited a general interet in environmental or utainability iue; concern about climate change, energy independence, and utainability were common repone. Some repondent mentioned reearch performed by agencie uch a APA or the American Wind Energy Aociation, a well a their peronal reearch on wind energy. Public interet in, demand for, or reitance to alternative energy wa a factor for ome repondent. Other repone included potential cot aving aociated with wind energy, awarene of communitie with ucceful wind energy project, concern about the objectivity of information available from wind energy proponent, and improvement in wind energy technology.

119 Appendix: Reult of the American Planning Aociation Survey 117 Attitude toward wind energy Experience with wind energy 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% Figure A.1. Attitude toward and experience with wind energy 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Very Poitive Somewhat Poitive Neutral Somewhat Negative Very Negative When aked to etimate level of public interet in wind energy within their communitie, repondent reported moderate (34 percent) to high (42 percent, with 18 percent reporting very high ) interet level; one-quarter reported ome to very low interet. We then aked repondent to etimate the percentage of public opinion for and againt wind energy in their community. More than half (60 percent) of repone reported more community upport than oppoition, 20 percent reported equal level of upport and oppoition, and 15 percent reported more oppoition than upport. Of the repone howing a majority of community upport, more than half were in the 60 to 70 percent upport range. Involvement with Wind Energy Planning To ae the current tate of wind energy planning, we aked repondent everal quetion about the type of wind energy planning activitie with which they have been involved. Ordinance writing wa the mot common activity of repondent, followed by reearch and data collection. (See Table A.1.) Table A-1. Involvement in wind energy planning activitie Percent of Activity Repondent Ordinance writing 68 Reearch/data collection 56 Project review 33 Public outreach 29 Project development 19 No involvement 6 Note: Repondent were able to elect more than one repone. We alo aked repondent to tell u how their communitie had addreed wind energy planning. The mot common repone (Table A.2) were adoption or development of wind energy ordinance and codification of wind energy permitting tandard. Other communitie addreed wind energy in their viioning procee, etablihed comprehenive plan policie on thi topic, or conducted public outreach and education program. Only a handful of repondent indicated that their communitie were working on financial or development incentive or wind acce eaement iue.

120 118 Planning for Wind Energy Table A.2. How repondent communitie have addreed wind energy Percent of Activity Repondent Ordinance adopted or pending 58 Permitting tandard codified 29 Policie etablihed in comprehenive plan 24 Dicued in viioning proce 23 Public education or outreach program 21 Nothing 15 Financial or development incentive program 7 Acce or eaement ordinance adopted or pending 5 Note: Repondent were able to elect more than one repone. Finally, we aked where wind energy expertie lay within local government taff (Table A.3), and the majority of repondent reported that planner filled thi role. One-third of repondent reported that no local government taff ha wind energy expertie. Conultant were ued a local wind energy expert for 18 percent of repondent, with other noting the role of engineer, building inpector, attorney, and energy or utainability manager. Table A.3. Local Government Staff with Expertie in Wind Energy Percent of Poition Repondent Planner 55 No local experience 33 Conultant 18 Engineer 16 Building inpector 11 Energy manager 10 Attorney 10 Note: Repondent were able to elect more than one repone. Wind Energy Sytem Scale We aked repondent to tell u what type of wind energy ytem were being implemented within their communitie (Figure A.2). Mot communitie categorize wind energy ytem baed on generating capacity of a turbine or wind energy project, and we ued common ize threhold of le than 100 kw for mall (ditributed)/reidential wind energy ytem, 100 kw to 1 MW for community wind energy ytem, and greater than 1 MW for large or utility-cale wind energy ytem. Mot repondent (69 percent) reported mall-cale ytem in their communitie; le than half (42 percent) were working with large wind ytem, and jut over one-third (36 percent) reported local community wind ytem. For 15 percent of repondent, wind energy ytem were not being addreed. Becaue there i a wide range of definition for different cale of wind energy, however, we alo aked repondent to tell u if their ize threhold or definition differed from thoe we provided. A number of repondent reported that their ordinance et a lower threhold for mall wind energy ytem; thee number ranged from 10 to 25 kw. In addition, everal repondent included a category of micro or mini wind energy ytem ytem with a generating capacity of 10 kw or le. Other characteritic for differentiating among ytem type included turbine height and whether the energy generated by the ytem wa ued onite or old to other uer.

121 Appendix: Reult of the American Planning Aociation Survey % 70% 60% 50% 40% Figure A.2. Categorie of wind energy ytem in repondent communitie 30% 20% 10% 0% Small/Reidential (e.g.,<100kw) Community (e.g., 100kW 1MW) Large/Utility (e.g., >1MW) Wind energy not addreed Note: Repondent were able to elect more than one repone. Wind Energy Ordinance We alo aked quetion relating to the content of local ordinance regulating mall, community, and large-cale wind energy ytem (Table A.4). It wa unclear, however, whether a lack of repone meant that the community ordinance did not include that proviion or whether the community did not regulate that wind energy ytem cale at all. Table A.4. Local ordinance proviion for wind energy Percent Percent Small/ Percent Large/ Regulation Reidential Community Utility-Scale Permitted a a primary ue Permitted a an acceory ue Permitted a a conditional or pecial ue Retricted from certain ditrict Retricted from certain viewhed Noie threhold Setback Height limit Abandonment claue Decommiioning board Separate reidential and nonreidential tandard 18 n/a n/a Separate tand-alone and buildingmounted ytem tandard 19 n/a n/a Environmental review n/a n/a 22 Property value guarantee proviion n/a n/a 1 Road maintenance or repair proviion n/a n/a 13 Development agreement n/a n/a 9 Coordination with other level of government n/a n/a 21 Prohibited Not regulated Other proviion Note: Repondent were able to elect more than one repone.

122 120 Planning for Wind Energy For mall wind energy ytem, the five mot commonly cited proviion in ue by repondent communitie were etback (56 percent), height limit (51 percent), permitting a an acceory ue (38 percent), noie threhold (37 percent), and permitting a a conditional or pecial ue (35 percent). Eighteen percent of repondent aid mall wind energy ytem were not regulated in their communitie. For community wind energy ytem, the five mot commonly cited proviion in ue by repondent communitie were etback (32 percent), permitting a a conditional or pecial ue (30 percent), noie threhold (23 percent), height limit (23 percent), and retricting from certain ditrict (18 percent). Thirty-two percent of repondent aid community wind energy ytem were not regulated in their communitie. For large wind energy ytem, the five mot commonly cited proviion in ue by repondent communitie were permitting a a conditional or pecial ue (31 percent), etback (31 percent), abandonment claue (22 percent), environmental review (22 percent), and height limit (21 percent). One-quarter of repondent reported that large-cale wind energy ytem were not regulated in their communitie. Finally, we aked about other regulation that might affect the regulation of wind energy at the local level (Table A.5). Table A.5. other regulation affecting local regulation of wind energy Percent of Regulation Repondent State environmental regulation 41 State wind regulation 33 Federal environmental regulation 28 None 25 Federal military regulation 16 Neighboring juridiction wind regulation 12 Neighboring juridiction environmental regulation 4 Note: Repondent were able to elect more than one repone. Though one-fourth of repondent reported that no other regulation affected local regulation of wind energy, other did indicate ome level of neceary intergovernmental coordination. State environmental regulation were cited by 41 percent of repondent, while 33 percent reported tate wind energy regulation in effect. Federal regulation were next on the lit, with 28 percent of repondent noting federal environmental regulation and 16 percent indicating federal military regulation. Only 12 percent of repondent noted that neighboring juridiction wind regulation affected their own, with 4 percent liting neighboring juridiction environmental regulation. Several repondent added FAA and FCC regulation to their lit. Wind Energy Project We aked repondent to lit how many mall, community, and large-cale wind energy project had been developed in their communitie. Of the 146 comment ubmitted, half noted at leat one mall-cale project, while 24 percent noted large-cale project, and only 14 percent noted community-cale project. Among thoe repondent noting mall-cale wind, 78 percent counted fewer than 10 project. One-third of repondent did not have any wind energy project currently in their communitie. Wind energy project in repondent communitie ranged in ize from mall reidential turbine to very large wind farm. Thirty-nine repondent reported that the larget project in the community wa a reidential turbine. In term of energy output, the larget project reported wa an 800 MW, 267-turbine project. We provided a lit of challenge to wind energy development, and aked repondent to tell u which they had encountered in their communitie (Table A.6). The five mot

123 Appendix: Reult of the American Planning Aociation Survey 121 Table A.6. challenge to wind energy development Percent of Challenge Repondent Scenic or aethetic impact 71 Noie impact 63 Height retriction 55 Wildlife impact 48 Property value 45 Safety and ecurity iue 36 Tranmiion or grid connection 36 Inufficient technical information 33 Cot 30 Lack of coordination between level or agencie of government 26 Health iue 24 Other 22 Lack of public or private interet in wind energy development 20 Lack of financial incentive 14 Note: Repondent were able to elect more than one repone. common challenge faced by repondent were cenic and aethetic impact (71 percent), noie impact (63 percent), height retriction (55 percent), wildlife impact (48 percent), and property value iue (45 percent). Repondent were then aked to comment about pecific challenge they had faced regarding variou cale of wind energy. Their comment tended to focu on thee iue: Uncertaintie in the community about wind energy Lack of objective information on wind energy Public concern over potential impact, particularly noie, aethetic, afety, and hadow flicker Prohibitive cot or lack of knowledge of financing mechanim Interaction among local, tate, and federal regulation Availability of tranmiion line We alo aked repondent to comment about any barrier to wind energy implementation they had encountered within exiting ordinance. Thi brought out thee iue: Ordinance doe not addre wind turbine Ordinance prohibit turbine altogether or prohibit certain type of turbine (e.g., roof-mounted ytem) Ordinance contain retriction that limit ability to intall wind turbine (e.g. height limit, minimum lot ize, etback) Ordinance contain one et of tandard for all ytem ize Wind Energy Planning Succe Storie We aked repondent to tell u about the policie, trategie, or action regarding wind energy implementation that had worked well. Many repondent uggeted having a good local ordinance that addree wind energy, whether thi meant writing a new et of regulation for wind or updating an exiting wind energy ordinance. Conveying accurate and meaningful information about wind project wa alo a key element of implementation. Repondent reported that taking field trip to exiting wind energy project, inviting

124 122 Planning for Wind Energy wind energy developer to give preentation, dieminating wind energy fact heet, and demontrating the financial benefit of wind turbine have aided them in implementing wind energy. Finally, keeping the public involved and fotering a cooperative relationhip among reident, local government, and wind energy developer were helpful. Important Iue and Reource Needed To ae which iue planner think are the mot preing in the field, we aked repondent to rank each item on a lit of wind energy related iue a very important, omewhat important, neutral, omewhat unimportant, or very unimportant (Table A.7). When very important and omewhat important repone were added together, the top iue were information on mall wind energy ytem (82 percent), managing public concern (82 percent), noie impact (77 percent), cenic and aethetic impact (75 percent), and technical information about wind power generation and mapping of optimal wind condition within a juridiction (both at 73 percent). Information on large wind energy ytem wa cited by 53 percent of repondent, and 61 percent cited interet in information on community wind energy ytem. Model ordinance language wa choen by 62 percent of repondent. We alo invited repondent to tell u what they believed were the key iue facing planner in regulating wind energy. Survey taker mot commonly identified the following iue: A lack of accurate, nonbiaed information about wind energy The need to educate the public about wind energy Table A.7. Important wind energy iue Percent Percent Percent Percent Very Somewhat Percent Somewhat Very Important Important Neutral Unimportant Unimportant Information on mall or reidential wind energy Managing public concern Noie impact Scenic or aethetic impact Data on or mapping of optimal wind condition within a juridiction Technical information about wind power generation Information on or evaluation of different wind ytem Environmental benefit of wind a a renewable reource Impact on property value Wildlife impact Cot-benefit analyi Model ordinance language Information on community energy Safety and ecurity iue Cot Information on large or utility-cale wind energy Tranmiion cot or impact Availability of utility program Health iue Financing option

125 Appendix: Reult of the American Planning Aociation Survey 123 Local ordinance that prohibit, limit, or inadequately addre wind energy The need to undertand and properly addre impact uch a noie, hadow flicker, aethetic, and wildlife habitat The need to trike the proper balance between the benefit and the potential impact of wind energy Difficultie planning for and regulating wind energy in the face of continual technological innovation Finally, we aked urvey repondent to ugget reource and information that would ait them in implementing wind energy project. Their repone indicated that there i a general lack of information available on planning for and regulating wind energy. In addition to baic information about wind energy, repondent were looking for model and ample ordinance language; cae tudie of communitie that have implemented wind energy; iting guideline; information on potential impact of wind turbine; hard data, particularly on wind reource, performance of wind turbine, and wildlife impact; and information on financing option. See the urvey quetion at

126 Reource Lit Anna Papke, Ann F. Dillemuth, a i c p, and Suzanne Rynne, a i c p PLANNING AND REGULATING American Planning Aociation Planning and Zoning for Renewable Energy. Planning Adviory Service Eential Info Packet 18. Available at infopacket. Compilation of information on renewable energy include article, model ordinance, and local ordinance for wind energy Permitting and Standard for Wind Power. Audioweb conference CD-ROM. Faculty: Erica Heller, aicp, Clarion Aociate of Colorado, and Ron Stimmel, American Wind Energy Aociation. Available at CD-ROM include an audio recording, program trancript, and PowerPoint preentation from the national conference eion Renewable Local Energy. Webinar CD-ROM. Faculty: Gary Feldman, City of Berkeley, California; Erica Heller, aicp, Clarion Aociate of Colorado; Roger Taylor, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Suzanne Rynne, aicp, American Planning Aociation (moderator). Available at Addree how communitie can encourage development of renewable energy infratructure through plan and land ue regulation Andrew, C. J Energy Converion Goe Local: Implication for Planner. Journal of the American Planning Aociation 74(2): Propoe a new conceptual framework for energy planning, which will allow planner to better addre a multitude of iue in thi area of planning Andriano, J. R The Power of Wind: Current Legal Iue in Siting for Wind Power. Planning and Environmental Law 61(5). Provide a legal perpective on many wind-related iue, including writing ordinance for wind energy, enacting moratorium on wind development, and addreing aethetic and environmental impact Bet, A Tranmiion Boot. Planning. February. Available at planning/2010/feb/tranmiion.htm. Dicue the implication that wind power and other alternative energy ource have for the nation tranmiion grid Davi, A., J. Roger, and P. Frumhoff Putting Wind to Work. Planning. October. Available at Give a general overview of the tate of wind energy in the United State Duerken, C., et al Renewable Energy: Wind (Small- and Large-Scale). Section 8.1 in Sutainable Community Development Code. Beta Verion 1.2. Denver: Rocky Mountain Land Ue Intitute. Available at code-framework/model-code. Preent trategie to remove obtacle, create incentive, and enact tandard to encourage wind energy ytem development Green, J., and M. Sagrillo Zoning for Ditributed Wind Power Breaking Down Barrier. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Conference Paper Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at purl/ qrsmh. Addree the challenge that multilevel, conflicting, or overlapping land-ue regulation preent for widepread implementation of ditributed wind energy ytem Heller, E. 2008a. Urban Wind Turbine. Zoning Practice. July. Overview of iue to take into account when drafting a zoning ordinance for mall wind turbine in urban communitie 125

127 126 Planning for Wind Energy. 2008b. Wind and Solar Production and the Sutainable Development Code. Rocky Mountain Land Ue Intitute Sutainable Community Development Code Reearch Monologue Serie: Energy. Denver: Rocky Mountain Land Ue Intitute. Available at Provide a ummary of wind and olar energy technology and dicue challenge to and olution for implementation Homy, G Earth, Wind, and Fire. Planning. Augut/September. Available at Dicue barrier to the development of alternative energy ource Merriam, D Regulating Backyard Wind Turbine. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 10(2): Dicue way in which local government may need to regulate mall wind energy ytem; include ample ordinance language Mill, A., R. Wier, and K. Porter The Cot of Tranmiion for Wind Energy: A Review of Tranmiion Planning Studie. Berkeley, Calif.: Ernet Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Available at Examine 40 tranmiion planning tudie and draw ome concluion about the cot of expanding the tranmiion grid to accommodate expanded wind energy development National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Technical Conideration in Siting Wind Development: NWCC Reearch Meeting. Wahington, D.C., December 1 2. Available at Summarize the proceeding of a 2005 NWCC reearch meeting focued on wind turbine iting practice and their environmental impact Wind Power Facility Siting Cae Studie: Community Repone. Prepared by BBC Reearch and Conulting. Wahington, D.C.: NWCC. Available at A compilation of cae tudie that examine the development proce of nine wind energy project; author pay particular attention to the level of community acceptance received by the project and the evolution of community perception during the development proce State of the Art in Wind Siting: A Seminar. Meeting proceeding, Wahington, D.C., October Available at Technical information on everal topic in wind iting, including viual impact, acoutic impact, radar interference, property value, and icing GUIDELINES AND TOOLKITS American Wind Energy Aociation (AWEA). 2008a. In the Public Interet: How and Why to Permit for Small Wind Sytem. A Guide for State and Local Government. Available at: Overview of iue related to permitting wind converion ytem within municipalitie; dicue bet practice for zoning for wind ytem and include a model wind ordinance. 2008b. Policie to Promote Small Wind Turbine: A Menu for State and Local Government. Wahington, D.C.: AWEA. Available at upload/policie_to_promote_small_wind_turbine.pdf. Preent a erie of policie for local government that upport increaed ue of wind turbine in their communitie. 2008c. Wind Energy Siting Handbook. Wahington, D.C.: AWEA. Available at A guidebook for developer of large-cale wind energy project that addree the environmental apect of iting

128 Reource Lit 127 Amu, P., et al Permitting Small Wind Turbine: A Handbook Learning from the California Experience. Wahington, D.C.: AWEA. Available at Provide an overview of mall wind energy ytem, information on the intallation proce, permitting mall wind ytem under California regulation, a model ordinance, and a reource and reference lit Cotanti, M., et al Wind Energy Guide for County Commiioner. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy. Available at Cover the development and implementation of utility-cale wind project (greater than 600 kw), with particular emphai on information relevant to county commiioner and other county-level official Kana Energy Council Wind Energy Siting Handbook: Guideline Option for Kana Citie and Countie. Available at book.pdf. Provide a checklit of general wind energy development iue and concern, a well a pecific regulatory option and application template adopted by four Kana countie. Kubert, C., et al Community Wind Financing. Chicago: Environmental Law & Policy Center. Available at Dicue financing mechanim for community wind project; author addre debt and equity ource, federal and tate program/incentive for wind energy, tax tructure, and more National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Permitting of Wind Energy Facilitie: A Handbook. Wahington, D.C.: NWCC. Available at publication/permitting2002.pdf. Dicue element of the permitting proce, with information on both the overall tructure of the proce and pecific trategie; include everal cae tudie Wiedman, J Community Renewable: Model Program Rule. Latham, N.Y.: Intertate Renewable Energy Council. Available at upload/2010/11/ IREC-Community-Renewable-Report _FINAL.pdf. Guideline addreing adminitrative and operating iue for community-owned renewable energy project Windutry Wind Project Calculator. Available at An Excel pro forma template to help would-be wind energy developer calculate cot and return of pecific project; include link to other financial calculator Community Wind Toolbox. Available at WindToolbox. A comprehenive guide to planning and implementing community wind project IMPACTS OF WIND ENERGY AND WIND TURBINES Albert, D. J A Primer for Addreing Wind Turbine Noie. Southfield, Mich.: Lawrence Technological Univerity. Available at 8A7F-CFA2D0C272DE/AddreingWindTurbineNoie.pdf. Detailed examination of ound produced by wind turbine, it impact, and the variou way to regulate it Colby, W. D., et al Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effect: An Expert Panel Review. Wahington, D.C.: AWEA and Canadian Wind Energy Aociation. Available at A technical dicuion of noie impact of wind turbine

129 128 Planning for Wind Energy Hoen, B., et al The Impact of Wind Power Project on Reidential Property Value in the United State: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analyi. Berkeley, Calif.: Ernet Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologie Diviion. Available at Study of the effect of wind turbine upon property value found no widepread property value impact reulting from the preence of wind turbine Roger, A. L., J. F. Manwell, and S. Wright Wind Turbine Acoutic Noie. White paper. Amhert: Univerity of Maachuett Renewable Energy Reearch Laboratory. Available at Noie_Rev2006.pdf. Detailed paper on the amount and nature of ound generated by wind turbine U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wind Energy Development Programmatic EIS. Available at Material related to the BLM aement of the environmental impact of wind energy project on BLM-owned land in the wetern United State U.S. Fih and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wind Turbine Guideline Adviory Committee Wind Turbine Adviory Committee Recommendation. Arlington, Va.: USFWS Diviion of Habitat and Reource Conervation. Available at windpower/wind_turbine_guideline_adviory_committee_recommendation_ Secretary.pdf. Updated verion of the USFWS guideline for wind energy development include a ection on policy recommendation a well a pecific guideline MODEL WIND ENERGY ORDINANCES Chicago Environmental Law Clinic and Baker & McKenzie Model Ordinance Regulating the Siting of Wind Energy Converion Sytem in Illinoi. Available at Model ordinance eek to encourage further wind energy development in Illinoi by providing a common et of tandard for wind energy developer, local government, and reident Daniel, K Wind Energy Model Ordinance Option. Albany, N.Y.: New York Energy Reearch and Development Authority. Available at wind/toolkit/2_windenergymodel.pdf. Provide ample ordinance language for writing large wind energy ytem ordinance Iowa League of Citie Small Wind Innovation Zone Model Ordinance. Available at Ordinance.pdf. Model ordinance for Iowa communitie promote ue of mall wind energy ytem for on-ite electricity ue Lawton, C Commercial Wind Energy Facility and Wind Acce Model Ordinance. Town of Barton, Wahington County, Wiconin. Available at wp-content/upload/wind-energy-model-ord.doc. Dicue commercial wind energy facility iting ordinance iue and provide ordinance framework Maine State Planning Office Model Wind Energy Facility Ordinance. Available at Detailed model ordinance for wind energy facilitie; include definition for different type of wind energy facilitie baed on output Maachuett Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affair and Maachuett Diviion of Energy Reource. n.d. Model Amendment to a Zoning Ordinance or By-law: Small Wind Energy Sytem. Available at model-allow-wind-mall.pdf. Concie model mall wind ytem ordinance to provide guidance to citie and town

130 Reource Lit Companion Document to Model Amendment to a Zoning Ordinance or By-law: Allowing Wind Facilitie by Special Permit. Available at doc/doer/renew/allow-wind-by-permit-companion.pdf. Model development tandard and commentary for utility-cale and on-ite project Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth, Energy Office Sample Zoning for Wind Energy Sytem. Available at michigan_department_of_energy_growth.pdf. Guideline to ait local government in rural area to develop iting requirement for both on-ite and utility wind energy ytem Minneota Project, The Model Wind Ordinance. Available at Model wind ordinance developed by everal Minneota countie; companion document alo available New Hamphire Office of Energy and Planning Small Wind Energy Sytem. Available at Model ordinance developed to help New Hamphire communitie draft mall wind energy ytem regulation that conform to tate law New Jerey Board of Public Utilitie, Office of Clean Energy Draft New Jerey Small Wind Energy Sytem Ordinance. Fifth verion. Available at file/file/smallwindmodelordinance pdf. Model ordinance developed a a permitted ue ordinance; can alo be ued a a conditional ue ordinance North Carolina Wind Working Group Model Wind Ordinance for Wind Energy Facilitie in North Carolina. Available at NC_Model_Wind_Ordinance_June_2008_FINAL.pdf. Model ordinance with proviion for mall, medium, and large wind energy facilitie Oregon Department of Energy A Model Ordinance for Energy Project. Verion 2. Available at Guide for Oregon citie and countie on iting wind, olar, bioma, geothermal, and cogeneration project, electric power tranmiion and ditribution line, and other large power production facilitie Pennylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Energy and Technology Development Model Wind Ordinance for Local Government. Available at Provide model ordinance language for amendment to an exiting zoning code, ubdiviion/land development regulation for wind energy ytem, and freetanding ordinance South Dakota Public Utilitie Commiion Draft Model Ordinance for Siting of Wind Energy Sytem (WES). Available at EnergyOrdinance.pdf. Model ordinance for large wind energy ytem Utah State Energy Office Utah Model Wind Ordinance. Available at A bet-practice document for citie and countie to conider when developing their own wind ordinance Univerity of Wiconin Extenion and Focu on Energy Small Wind Energy Sytem Model Ordinance. Available at www3.uwm.edu/dept/hwec/publication/cabinet/ energy/small%20wind%20energy%20sytem%20model%20ordinance.pdf. Small wind energy ytem model ordinance for local town and countie (predate the 2009 reviion to wind facility iting law)

131 130 Planning for Wind Energy LOCAL WIND ENERGY ORDINANCES Geneee/Finger Lake Regional Planning Council. n.d. Reource. Availalble at Lit local wind energy ordinance from New York State and provide additional wind-related ordinance Oteri, F An Overview of Exiting Wind Energy Ordinance. Technical Report NREL/ TP Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at Include ummary and analye of ordinance from Illinoi, Kana, Michigan, Minneota, New York, Pennylvania, South Dakota, Wiconin, and Utah U.S. Department of Energy, Wind Powering America Wind Energy Ordinance. Available at A databae of over 100 local wind energy ordinance from communitie acro the country WEBSITES American Wind Energy Aociation: Nonprofit organization that promote and advocate for wind energy development acro the United State; webite ha extenive reource on variou apect of wind energy Databae of State Incentive for Renewable and Efficiency (DSIRE): Extenive databae of local, tate, and federal incentive and policie for renewable energy, organized by tate Intertate Renewable Energy Council. Small Wind Energy. Available at A clearinghoue for mall wind new National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Wind Reearch. Available at NREL pecialize in reearch and development related to alternative energy and energy efficiency; thi page provide link to NREL work on wind energy National Wind Coordinating Collaborative: Webite contain many reource and report promoting the U.S. market for commercial wind energy, with particular emphai on tranmiion, wildlife, and iting concern Salkin, Patty. Law of the Land: A Blog on Land Ue and Zoning. Archive for the Wind Development Category. Available at wind-development. Commentary on and link to recent legal cae related to wind energy development U.S. Department of Energy. Wind. Available at Contain link to the DOE wind energy program and reearch effort. Wind Powering America. Available at Department of Energy initiative to ubtantially increae the production and ue of wind energy in the United State; webite contain information on Wind Powering America varied program area, a well a additional reource on wind energy. Wind Program. Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/wind. Webite for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy wind power program Windutry: Nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting community-developed and communityowned wind energy project; provide a clearinghoue of information on community wind

132 Reference American Epilepy Foundation (AEF). n.d. Epilepy in the New. Available at cfm. American Wind Energy Aociation (AWEA). 2008a. American Wind Energy Aociation Siting Handbook Available at b. In the Public Interet: How and Why to Permit for Small Wind Sytem: A Guide for State and Local Government. Available at a. AWEA Global Market Study Fact Sheet. Wahington D.C.: AWEA b. U.S. Wind Indutry Annual Market Report Year Ending Wahington D.C.: AWEA. Arnett, E. B., W. K. Brown, W. P. Erickon, J. K. Fiedler, B. L. Hamilton, T. H. Henry, A. Jain, G. D. Johnon, J. Kern, and R. R. Koford Pattern of Bat Fatalitie at Wind Energy Facilitie in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1): Arnett, E. B., M. Shirmacher, M. M. P. Huo, and J. P. Haye Effectivene of Changing Wind Turbine Cut-In Speed to Reduce Bat Fatalitie at Wind Facilitie: 2008 Annual Report. Prepared for the Bat and Wind Energy Cooperative and the Pennylvania Game Commiion. Autin, Tex.: Bat Conervation International. April. Audubon Statement on Wind Power Audubon Magazine. November December. Available at Baerwald, E. F., J. Edworthy, M. Holder, and R. M. r. Barclay A Large-Scale Mitigation Experiment to Reduce Bat Fatalitie at Wind Energy Facilitie. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): Barone, M., and D. E. Berg Blade Noie Reearch at Sandia National Lab. Albuquerque, N.M.: Sandia National Laboratory. Available at Batach, M., J. van-dam, B. Søndergaard, and A. Roger Wind Turbine Noie An Overview. Canadian Acoutic 34: Berg, D. E., and M. Barone Aerodynamic and Aeroacoutic Propertie of a Flatback Airfoil (Will It Rumble or Whiper?). Preentation at WindPower 2008, Houton, June. Bolinger, M Community Wind: Once Again Puhing the Envelope of Project Finance. LBNL-4103E. Berkeley, Calif: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Available at Brenner, M., S. Cazare, M. Cornwall, F. Dyon, D. Eardley, P. Horowitz, D. Long, J. Sullivan, J. Veecky, and P. Weinberger Wind Farm and Radar. McLean, Va.: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) of Ontario The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbine. Toronto: Queen Printer for Ontario. Available at en/public/publication/minitry_report/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdf. Colby, W. D., R. Dobie, G. Leventhall, D. M. Lipcomb, R. J. McCunney, M. T. Seilo, and B. Søndergaard Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effect: An Expert Panel Review. Wahington, D.C.: AWEA and Canadian Wind Energy Aociation. Danih Energy Agency (DEA) Wind Power in Denmark: Technologie, Policie, and Reult. Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at Foryning_UK/Wind_Power99.pdf. Daryanian, Bahman, Donna Painter, and Patrick Brin Renewable Energy Development Infratructure Project: Regulatory and Economic Analyi. Colorado Governor Energy Office, September 21. Available at pdf/redi_rwbeck%5b1%5d.pdf. 131

133 132 Planning for Wind Energy Denholm, P., M. Hand, M. Jackon, and S. Ong Land-Ue Requirement of Modern Wind Power Plant in the United State. Augut. NREL/TP-6A Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at De Roier, F Power Line, Viual Encumbrance and Houe Value: A Micropatial Approach to Impact Meaurement. Journal of Real Etate Reearch 23(3): Devine-Wright, P Beyond NIMBYim: Toward an Integrated Framework for Undertanding Public Perception of Wind Energy. Wind Energy 7: Edenhofer, O., R. Pich-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, D. Arvizu, T. Bruckner, J. Chritenen, et al Summary for Policy Maker. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Source and Climate Change Mitigation, ed. O. Edenhofer, R. Pich-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matcho, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, et al. New York: Cambridge Univerity Pre. Available at Elliot, D., M. Schwartz, S. Hayme, D. Heimiller, G. Scott, and L. Flower and 100 Meter Wind Energy Reource Potential for the United State. NREL/PO Preented at Windpower 2010 in Dalla, Texa, May Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at wind_map/poter_2010.pdf. Encraft Warwick Wind Trial Project, final report. Available at trial.org.uk/2.html. Erickon, W. P., G. D. Johnon, and D. P. Young Jr A Summary and Comparion of Bird Mortality from Anthropogenic Caue with an Emphai on Colliion. PSW-GTR-191. Wahington, D.C.: U.S. Foret Service. Fingerh, L., M. Hand, and A. Laxon Wind Turbine Deign Cot and Scaling Model. NREL/TP December. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at Fink, Sari, Kevin Porter, and Jennifer Roger The Relevance of Generation Interconnection Procedure to Feed-in Tariff in the United State. October. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at Firetone, J., W. Kempton, and A. Krueger Public Acceptance of Offhore Wind Power Project in the USA. Wind Energy 12: Forythe, T., J. Gilbert, and P. Tu Economic of Grid Connected Small Wind Turbine in the Dometic Market. NREL/CP Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) Global Wind Report: Annual Market Update Bruel, Belgium: GWEC. Available at Gro, R., P. Heptontall, D. Anderon, T. Green, M. Leach, and J. Skea The Cot and Impact of Intermittency: An Aement of the Evidence on the Cot and Impact of Intermittent Generation on the Britih Electricity Network. London: Imperial College London. Hoen, B., R. Wier, P. Capper, M. Thayer, and G. Sethi The Impact of Wind Power Project on Reidential Property Value in the United State: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analyi. LBNL-2829E. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Hohmeyer, O., D. Mora, and F. Wetzig Wind Energy: The Fact. Volume 4. Bruel, Belgium: European Wind Energy Aociation. Huber, S., and R. Horbaty State-of-the-Art Report, IEA Wind Tak 28: Social Acceptance of Wind Energy. Pari: International Energy Agency. Available at Intertate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) Model Interconnection Procedure: 2009 Edition. Available at Interconnection-Procedure-2010final.pdf. Jone, C., and R. Eier Identifying Predictor of Attitude Toward Local Onhore Development with Reference to an Englih Cae Study. Energy Policy 37(11): Junginger M., A. Faaij, and W. C. Turkenburg Cot Reduction Propect for Offhore Wind Farm. Wind Engineering 28:

134 Reference 133 Kana Energy Council Wind Energy Siting Handbook: Guideline Option for Kana Citie and Countie. Special report April 5. Available at report/wind_iting_handbook.pdf. Kanterali, C., and J. G. Walker The Identification and Subjective Effect of Amplitude Modulation in Dieel Engine Exhaut Noie. Journal of Sound and Vibration 120(2): Kerry & Curlinger, LLC. n.d. What Kill Bird? Available at bird.htm. Krohn, S., ed., with P.-E. Morthot and S. Awerbuch The Economic of Wind Energy: A Report by the European Wind Energy Aociation. Bruel, Belgium: European Wind Energy Aociation. Available at Krug, F., and B. Lewke Electromagnetic Interference on Large Wind Turbine. Energie 2: Lantz, E., and S. Tegen Variable Affecting Economic Development of Wind Energy. NREL/CP Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at Economic Development Impact of Community Wind Project: A Review and Empirical Evaluation. NREL/CP Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at Lutz, T., A. Herrig, W. Wörz, M. Kamruzzaman, and E. Krämer Deign and Wind-Tunnel Verification of Low-Noie Airfoil for Wind Turbine. AIAA Journal 45: Maachuett, State of, Department of Energy Reource and Executive Office of Environmental Affair Maachuett Model Amendment to a Zoning Ordinance or Bylaw. October. Available at model-wind-bylaw-0810.pdf and Matthew, J., J. Pinto, and C. Sarno Stealth Solution to Solve the Radar-Wind Farm Interaction Problem. Preentation at the Loughborough Antenna and Propagation conference, Loughborough, U.K., April 2 7. Available at tamp/tamp.jp?tp=&arnumber= McCunney, R. J., and J. Meyer Occupational Expoure to Noie. In Environmental and Occupational Medicine. 4th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott William and Wilkin. McElfih, Jame M., Jr., and Sara Geren State Enabling Legilation for Commercial-Scale Wind Power Siting and the Local Government Role. Wahington, D.C.: Environmental Law Intitute. McLaren Loring, J Wind Energy Planning in England, Wale and Denmark: Factor Influencing Project Succe. Energy Policy 35(4): Meyer, David, and Richard Sedano Tranmiion Siting and Permitting. In National Tranmiion Grid Study Iue Paper. Wahington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. Available at National Health and Medical Reearch Council (NHMRC) of the Autralian Government Wind Turbine and Health: A Rapid Review of Evidence. Canberra: NHMRC. Available at evidence_review_wind_turbine_and_health.pdf. National Reearch Council (NRC) Environmental Impact of Wind-Energy Project. Wahington, D.C.: National Academie Pre. National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Wind Energy Facility Siting Cae Studie: Community Repone. June. Available at NWCC_Siting_Cae_Studie_Final.pdf State Siting and Permitting of Wind Energy Facilitie. April. Available at

135 134 Planning for Wind Energy State of the Art in Wind Siting: A Seminar. October Available at www. nationalwind.org/aet/publication/nwcc_siting_cae_studie_final.pdf Wind Turbine Interaction with Bird, Bat, and Their Habitat: A Summary of Reearch Reult and Priority Quetion. Available at Noble Environmental Power. n.d. Wind Fact Sheet no. 4: Shadow Flicker. Available at Paqualetti, M. J Living with Wind Power in a Hotile Landcape. Pp in Wind Power in View: Energy Landcape in a Crowded World, ed. M. Paqualetti, P. Gipe, and R. W. Righter. San Diego: Academic Pre. Pederen, E., F. Van den berg, R. Bakker, and J. Bouma Repone to Noie from Modern Wind Farm in the Netherland. Journal of the Acoutical Society of America 126(2): Pederen, E., and K. P. Waye Wind Turbine Noie, Annoyance and Self-Reported Health and Well-Being in Different Living Environment. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 64: Pierpont, N Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment. Santa Fe, N.M.: K-Selected Book. Reategui, S., and S. Tegen Economic Development Impact of Colorado Firt 1000 Megawatt of Wind Energy. NREL/CP Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at Rhode Iland, State of Terretrial Wind Turbine Siting Report. January 13. Available at Schwartz, M., D. Heimiller, S. Hayme, and W. Muial Aement of Offhore Wind Energy Reource for the United State. NREL/TP June. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at Shaffer, J. A., and D. H. Johnon Diplacement Effect of Wind Development on Graland Bird in the Northern Great Plain. Preentation at Wind Wildlife Reearch Meeting VII, Milwaukee, October Short, L Wind Power and Englih Landcape Identity. Pp in Wind Power in View: Energy Landcape in a Crowded World, ed. M. Paqualetti, P. Gipe, and R. W. Righter. San Diego: Academic Pre. Simon, A. M A Summary of Reearch Conducted into Attitude to Wind Power from London: Planning and Reearch for the Britih Wind Energy Aociation. Simon, R Peer Reviewed Evidence on Property Value Impact by Source of Contamination: When Bad Thing Happen To Good Property. Wahington, D.C.: Environmental Law Intitute Pre. May. Sim, S., and P. Dent Property Stigma: Wind Farm Are Jut the Latet Fahion. Journal of Property Invetment and Finance 25(6): Sim, S., P. Dent, and G. R. Okrochi Modeling the Impact of Wind Farm on Houe Price in the UK. International Journal of Strategic Property Management 12(4): Smith, J. C., M. R. Milligan, E. A. DeMeo, and B. Paron Utility Wind Integration and Operating Impact State of the Art. IEEE Tranaction on Power Sytem 22(3): Augut 2007: Swofford, J., and M. Slattery Public Attitude of Wind Energy in Texa: Local Communitie in Cloe Proximity to Wind Farm and Their Effect on Deciion-making. Energy Policy 38: U.K. Energy Reearch Centre (UKERC) Great Expectation: The Cot of Offhore Wind in UK Water Undertanding the Pat and Projecting the Future. September. London: UKE- RC. Available at

136 Reference 135 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) % Wind Energy by 2030: Increaing Wind Energy Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply. DOE/GO Wahington, D.C.: DOE. Available at U.S. Energy Information Adminitration (EIA) International Energy Statitic: Electricity Generation Statitic. Available at IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=12. Van den Berg, G Effect of the Wind Profile at Night on Wind Turbine Sound. Journal of Sound and Vibration 277: Wind Turbine Power and Sound in Relation to Atmopheric Stability. Wind Energy 11(2): Van der Hort, D NIMBY or Not? Exploring the Relevance of Location and the Politic of Voiced Opinion in Renewable Energy Siting Controverie. Energy Policy 35(5): Veta Wind Sytem A/S Life Cycle Aement of Electricity Delivered from an Onhore Power Plant Baed on Veta V MW Turbine. Rander, Denmark: Veta. Voorpool, K Energy Content and Indirect Greenhoue Ga Emiion Embedded in Emiion-free Power Plant: Reult for the Low Countrie. Applied Energy 67(3): Warren, C., C. Lumden, S. O Dowd, and R. Birnie Green on Green : Public Perception of Wind Power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 48(6): Windutry. n.d.a. Community Wind Toolbox. Chapter 5: Siting Guideline and Chapter 7: Leae and Eaement. Available at and Windutry. n.d.b. Wind Energy Eaement and Leae: Bibliography. Available at See alo Wier, R., and M. Bolinger Wind Technologie Market Report. DOE/GO Augut. Wahington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available at Wind Technologie Market Report. DOE/GO Wahington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdf/51783.pdf. Wier, R., M. Bolinger, and G. Barboe Uing the Federal Production Tax Credit to Build a Durable Market for Wind Power in the United State. LBNL Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Available at emp/report/63583.pdf. Wolink, M Invalid Theory Impede Our Undertanding: A Critique on the Peritence of the Language of NIMBY. Tranaction of the Intitute of Britih Geographer 31: Planning of Renewable Scheme: Deliberative and Fair Deciion-Making on Landcape Iue intead of Reproachful Accuation of Non-cooperation. Energy Policy 35(5): World Wind Energy Aociation (WWEA) World Wind Energy Report. Available at Wütenhagen, R., M. Wolink, and M. Bürer Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Innovation: An Introduction to the Concept. Energy Policy 35(5): Zoellner, J., P. Schweizer-Rie, and C. Wemheuer Public Acceptance of Renewable Energie: Reult from Cae Studie in Germany. Energy Policy 36(11):

137 recent planning adviory ervice report American Planning Aociation Making Great Communitie Happen The American Planning Aociation provide leaderhip in the development of vital communitie by advocating excellence in community planning, promoting education and citizen empowerment, and providing the tool and upport neceary to effect poitive change. 523/524. Croroad, Hamlet, Village, Town (revied edition). Randall Arendt. April pp E-Government. Jennifer Evan-Cowley and Maria Manta Conroy. May pp Codifying New Urbanim. Congre for the New Urbanim. May pp Street Graphic and the Law. Daniel Mandelker with Andrew Bertucci and William Ewald. Augut pp Too Big, Boring, or Ugly: Planning and Deign Tool to Combat Monotony, the Too-big Houe, and Teardown. Lane Kendig. December pp. 529/530. Planning for Wildfire. Jame Schwab and Stuart Meck. February pp Planning for the Unexpected: Land-Ue Development and Rik. Laurie Johnon, Laura Dwelley Samant, and Suzanne Frew. February pp Parking Cah Out. Donald C. Shoup. March pp. 533/534. Landlide Hazard and Planning. Jame C. Schwab, Paula L. Gori, and Sanjay Jeer, Project Editor. September pp The Four Supreme Court Land-Ue Deciion of 2005: Separating Fact from Fiction. Augut pp Placemaking on a Budget: Improving Small Town, Neighborhood, and Downtown Without Spending a Lot of Money. Al Zelinka and Suan Jackon Harden. December pp Meeting the Big Box Challenge: Planning, Deign, and Regulatory Strategie. Jennifer Evan-Cowley. March pp Project Rating/Recognition Program for Supporting Smart Growth Form of Development. Dougla R. Porter and Matthew R. Cuddy. May pp. 539/540. Integrating Planning and Public Health: Tool and Strategie To Create Healthy Place. Marya Morri, General Editor. Augut pp An Economic Development Toolbox: Strategie and Method. Terry Moore, Stuart Meck, and Jame Ebenhoh. October pp Planning Iue for On-ite and Decentralized Watewater Treatment. Wayne M. Feiden and Eric S. Winkler. November pp. 543/544. Planning Active Communitie. Marya Morri, General Editor. December pp Planned Unit Development. Daniel R. Mandelker. March pp. 546/547. The Land Ue/Tranportation Connection. Terry Moore and Paul Thorne, with Bruce Appleyard. June pp Zoning a a Barrier to Multifamily Houing Devel opment. Garrett Knaap, Stuart Meck, Terry Moore, and Robert Parker. July pp. 549/550. Fair and Healthy Land Ue: Environmental Ju tice and Planning. Craig Anthony Arnold. October pp From Recreation to Re-creation: New Direction in Park and Open Space Sytem Planning. Megan Lewi, General Editor. January pp Great Place in America: Great Street and Neigh borhood, 2007 Deignee. April pp Planner and the Cenu: Cenu 2010, ACS, Factfinder, and Undertanding Growth. Chritopher Williamon. July pp A Planner Guide to Community and Regional Food Planning: Tranforming Food Environment, Facilitating Healthy Eating. Samina Raja, Branden Born, and Jeica Kozlowki Ruell. Augut pp Planning the Urban Foret: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development. Jame C. Schwab, General Editor. January pp Smart Code: Model Land-Development Regulation. Marya Morri, General Editor. April pp Tranportation Infratructure: The Challenge of Rebuilding America. Marlon G. Boarnet, Editor. July pp Planning for a New Energy and Climate Future. Scott Shuford, Suzanne Rynne, and Jan Mueller. February pp Complete Street: Bet Policy and Implementation Practice. Barbara McCann and Suzanne Rynne, Editor. March pp Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Bet Practice into Planning. Jame C. Schwab, Editor. May pp Fical Impact Analyi: Methodologie for Planner. L. Caron Bie II. September pp Planner and Plane: Airport and Land-Ue Compatibility. Suan M. Schalk, with Stephanie A. D. Ward. November pp Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sutainable Place. Kimberley Hodgon, Marcia Caton Campbell, and Martin Bailkey. January pp E-Government (revied edition). Jennifer Evan-Cowley and Joeph Kitchen. April pp Aeing Sutainability: A Guide for Local Government. Wayne M. Feiden, with Eliabeth Hamin. July pp Planning for Wind Energy. Suzanne Rynne, Larry Flower, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller, Editor. November pp. For price information, pleae go to APAPlanningBook.com or call

138 of pecial interet Smart Code PAS 556. Marya Morri, a i c p, ed pp. $72 Thi report i a guide to the development of model mart growth ordinance, including model that may be adapted by local government to implement pecial planning policie for multimodal tranportation, infill development, affordable houing, and other bet practice in planning and development regulation. A ued here, mart growth ordinance and mart growth development code mean regulation intended to achieve a variety of objective, including encouraging mixed ue, preerving open pace and environmentally enitive area, providing a choice of houing type and tranportation mode, and making the development review proce more predictable. Planning for a New Energy and Climate Future PAS 558. Scott Shuford, Suzanne Rynne, a i c p, and Jan Mueller pp. $60. Thi report preent fundamental information about energy and climate change, provide a framework for how to integrate energy and climate into the planning proce, and offer trategie for communitie to addre energy and climate acro a variety of iue, including development pattern, tranportation, and economic development. Cae tudie illutrate communitie that have already begun taking tep in thee area. Planner and Plane PAS 562. Suan M. Schalk, a i c p, with Stephanie A. D. Ward, a i c p pp. $40. Link between community planning and airport planning are neceary and often overlooked. If an airport i to be fully ueful and effective, it mut be carefully and regularly conidered in the community planning proce; converely, airport planning mut undertand and conider the need and concern of the communitie that urround, abut, and make ue of the airport. The premie of thi PAS Report i that airport planner and community planner mut work together a partner during the development of planning procee in order to weave a community viion, trategie, and value together with thoe embedded in airport planning. Aeing Sutainability PAS 565. Wayne M. Feiden, f a i c p, with Eliabeth Hamin pp. $48. Do a web earch for utainable development and you get million of hit. Everyone want utainability; green i the new black. The word i o overued it mean everything and nothing. In 1987 the United Nation aid utainable development meet the need of the preent without compromiing the ability of future generation to meet their own need. But in recent year, greenwahing ha made the term ubiquitou -- and upect. Thi PAS Report tackle two of the bigget quetion facing planner today: What i utainable development, and how do we know when it working? Doe it benefit the environment? Build community equity? Boot the economy? Thi report trip away the rhetoric to how how local communitie can benchmark utainability and make it a meaurable goal.

139