$55M Champaign County wind project may be in jeopardy, but
some neighbors want it to stop.
Everpower Renewables has spent as much as $10 million in
Ohio to get a trio of wind projects ready for construction, including in
Champaign County, but two recently signed laws are making the firm reconsider
if their investment is still worth the effort.
Wind energy advocates said the laws put the future of wind
energy in Ohio in jeopardy, potentially stalling or killing as many as 10
shovel-ready projects that could mean $2.5 billion in investment in the state,
along with as much as $20 million in combined tax payments to local governments
and lease payments to property owners.
But opponents to the wind farms argue the current law is
unsafe because it allows the turbines to be too close to homes and could lead
to skyrocketing utility bills for consumers.
Statewide, both sides said they are gearing up for a
protracted fight over how electricity will be developed and delivered in the
state in the years ahead.
“It’s divided the community, no doubt,” said Paul Black, of
Mechanicsburg, who wants to lease farmland he owns for turbines.
In jeopardy?
In Champaign County, Everpower has been working since at
least 2008 to develop two phases of the Buckeye Wind Project.
Combined, the two phases include 100 turbines that would
produce enough energy to power about 50,000 homes a year. Both phases have been
approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board, but opponents want the Ohio Supreme
Court to reconsider that decision for the second phase.
Everpower has said the Buckeye project could pump $55
million into the local economy although opponents dispute that number.
The company is also developing the Scioto Ridge Wind Farm, a
176-turbine project in Logan and Hardin counties.
It’s still too early to say whether the legislation will
mean the end of the Buckeye wind farm, said Michael Speerschneider, a spokesman
for Everpower.
The project is in jeopardy because the state legislation
will freeze current mandates for renewable energy, he said, making it harder to
find a buyer for the electricity produced by the turbines. Everpower doesn’t
have a timeline for when it will decide whether to move ahead or kill the
projects.
“It’s very early,” Speerschneider said. “We’re still trying
to figure out what it all means and if we can work through it. It could very
well be something that leads to having a lot more difficulty in completing the
projects.”
Opponents like Irene Peace of Cable said she hopes the state
laws are a sign to the wind companies that the projects aren’t welcome in areas
like Champaign County.
“They’ve stayed and we’re hoping what’s going on now is the
push they need to just pack up and leave,” Peace said.
Long fight ahead
At the heart of the debate are two recently signed laws that
will take effect later this year.
Senate Bill 310 will freeze Ohio’s renewable energy mandates
for two years and create a panel to study whether to change the state’s energy
laws. House Bill 483, which could have a bigger effect on wind developers, would
significantly increase how far a wind turbine must be from a neighboring
property.
Ohio’s current renewable energy law called for a quarter of
the state’s energy to come from alternative sources by 2025, with half of that
coming from renewables such as wind and solar. The law also required utilities
to encourage energy efficiency, for example by offering customers rebates to
purchase efficient appliances.
Wind industry officials say the law was working as intended,
increasing investment in renewable energy and creating jobs in manufacturing
and construction to build parts and construct the wind farms.
Wind energy has become much more efficient in recent years,
industry leaders say, providing more stability and reducing costs for
residents.
The new laws will create long-term uncertainty among
investors, likely driving projects to other states for at least the next two
years, said Peter Kelley, vice president of public affairs for the American
Wind Energy Association. It also sets up a long fight about the issue in
Columbus.
“We’d say it starts a two-year debate and we plan to win the
debate,” Kelley said. “I don’t think we can afford to wait two years.”
Ohio SB 310 allows lawmakers to take an extended look at the
state’s renewable energy requirement to see if the laws make sense for
consumers, said Ohio Sen. president Keith Faber, R-Celina, whose district
includes Champaign County. The renewable mandates might make sense, he said,
but the state needs to determine whether the wind farms are a good investment for
consumers.
“They’re getting multiple subsidies,” Faber said of the wind
farms. “The question is when is enough enough and when should they be viable.”
Setbacks
Twelve wind farms have been approved statewide, but only two
in northwest Ohio are operational. The two-year freeze likely won’t affect
those projects, including the 152-turbine Blue Creek Wind Farm in Van Wert and
Paulding counties, said Dan Litchfield, project developer with Iberdrola
Renewables.
But it will deter future investment, he said.
“We’re not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing
because it may mean that our project is the last one built for some time,” he
said. “If someone wants to buy wind power generated within Ohio, we’re the only
game in town.”
More concerning, he said, is HB 483, which increases the
distance turbines must be set back from homes. If that law had been in place,
only 12 of the 152 turbines at Blue Creek could have been built. Iberdrola
planned to develop the nearby Dog Creek Wind Farm with 50 turbines, but with the
new setbacks only seven can be built.
“With the two actions of the legislature, it’s almost like
that option has been taken off the table,” Litchfield said.
The Buckeye farm was approved before the new laws took
effect, meaning the setback laws do not apply.
But the new laws also include a provision in which the
tougher setbacks take effect if changes are made to the wind farm proposal. The
law isn’t clear on whether changes like a new model of turbine, for example,
could trigger the setbacks to take effect.
The cost of leasing the land, combined with far fewer
turbines, would mean the project would no longer be economically viable,
Speerschneider said.
“If those setbacks did apply, then I think that would go a
long way to killing the project, and we probably never would have started the
project if that’s what the setbacks were to begin with,” he said.
Unsafe in residential areas
Wind advocates like AWEA argue Ohio’s setbacks already
compare favorably with other states.
But the distance from homes has long been a point of
contention for opponents, who argue the wind farms are unsafe in relatively
residential areas.
“House Bill 483 comes about from the grass roots community
who have relentlessly educated and pressured lawmakers over the past six years
since the state pre-empted wind turbine zoning authority from townships,” said
Tom Stacy, an opponent who tracks wind farms throughout the state. “The Ohio Power
Siting Board did a horrible job from day one by ignoring health and safety
literature, as well as wind industry recommendations.”
Residents on both sides of the debate see the setbacks as a
property rights issue. Black, of Mechanicsburg, would have two turbines on
about 200 acres of farmland he owns.
The turbine leases will provide an additional source of
income for his farm, and he said the new law will prevent him from deciding
whether to allow turbines on his own property. The new laws are a legislative
effort to prevent new wind development in the state, he said, and it’s still
unclear to him whether the Buckeye project will move forward.
“I don’t believe it’s dead yet,” Black said. “It might be on
life support but its not dead.”
But Peace, of Cable, also sees property rights as key to the
debate. She raised concerns that the turbines near her home could harm her
property values and be an eyesore in the community. She also is concerned about
safety, worried that a blade or a turbine could fall.
Residents on both sides of the debate said the issue has
caused irreparable harm to several friendships since the project was
introduced.
Both sides said the fight will likely continue while the
two-year freeze is in place.
“We’re not going to give up,” Peace said. “It’s just a fight
that needs to go on until it can’t.”
By the numbers
100 — Approximate number of total turbines in Champaign
County Buckeye Wind project
10 — Number of projects certified by Ohio Power Siting Board
2 — Number of operational wind farms in Ohio
$2.5 billion — Estimated capital investment in Ohio wind
farms
Source: Everpower Renewables, American Wind Energy
Association
Unmatched Coverage
The Springfield News-Sun has provided award-winning coverage
of the Buckeye Wind Project in Champaign County, from the earliest stages of
its development to disputes in Ohio’s courts. The paper will continue to dig
into the project as state legislators and industry officials shape the future
of wind energy in Ohio.
• June 10, 2008 – Everpower Renewables hosts an information
session for the public to introduce its Buckeye Wind Project at Triad High
School in North Lewisburg.
• June 27, 2008 — Opponents from Union Neighbors United file
a complaint with the Ohio Power Siting Board, arguing info provided at the
public hearing on June 10 was, “vague and inadequate.” UNU also asks the siting
board to require the wind company to host a more thorough public meeting.
• April 24, 2009 — Everpower officially submits its
application for the Buckeye Wind Farm to the Ohio Power Siting Board.
• May 11, 2009 — UNU files a motion to intervene in the
case, citing a “Direct and substantial interest in these proceedings due to the
potential visual, aesthetic, safety and nuisance impacts of the project.”
Champaign County and several townships seek to intervene in the case later that
year.
• March 22, 2010 — The Ohio Power Siting Board approves the
first phase of the Buckeye Wind Project.
• Sept. 3, 2010 — UNU appeals the decision to the Ohio
Supreme Court. Champaign County, along with Goshen, Salem and Union Twps., also
appeal parts of the decision on Sept. 10.
• March 6, 2012 – The Ohio Supreme Court upholds the siting
board’s ruling, allowing the first phase of the Buckeye Wind Project to move
forward.
• May 15, 2012 — Everpower Renewables files its application
for the second phase of the Buckeye Wind Farm.
• May 28, 2013 — The Ohio Power Siting Board approves the
second phase of the Buckeye Wind Project.
• Nov. 26, 2013 — Champaign County, along with Goshen, Union
and Urbana Twps., appeal the state’s decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. UNU
also appeals on Nov. 27. The case is still pending before the Ohio Supreme
Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment