Dear IICC supporters and interested observers:
This past fall three townships in Clinton County (north of Lansing) determined that Clinton County zoning was not adequately protecting the health safety and welfare of their residents when the county considered a Special Land Use permit to Forest Hill Energy for the construction of an industrial wind plant.
It is the opinion of the IICC that FHE’s application did not meet the dictates of the county zoning ordinance and we testified to that effect before the county commissioners.
Nonetheless, the SLU was approved by 5-2.
The residents of Dallas, Bengal and Essex Townships petitioned their township trustee boards by overwhelming numbers to protect their health safety and welfare. Their boards complied with the wishes of the people by enacting Police Power Ordinance language that is consistent with protecting people from the ill effects of improperly sited industrial wind turbines.
(Mason County commissioners were not so wise and this is the result: http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/04/mason_county_wind-farm_neighbo.html)
FHE has decided to bring suit against the three rural townships. http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/comments/article/20130409/NEWS01/304090026/Suit-challenges-townships-powers-120M-wind-project
To our knowledge this is the first time that a PPO wind regulation ordinance has been so challenged in MI.
We know that restrictive zoning ordinances that essentially preclude industrial wind development from occurring in a given township have been challenged legally and the township prevailed. http://www.topplaw.com/files/Johnecheck%20v.%20Bay%20Township%20U.S.%20District%20Court%20Western%20District%20of%20Michigan.pdf
We feel strongly that these three rural townships have done the correct thing in responding to the clearly expressed will of their residents.
Further, we feel that FHE’s suit is fully consistent with the predatory tactics of wind developers across the state.
When wind developers prevail in their demands to build wind installations without adequate protection for the rural residents of those communities, the results are predictable: complaints about noise and health impacts, property value devastation and ultimately expensive litigation born by those thus afflicted.
We have seen this same scenario play out once already in Ubly, MI and now again in Mason County.
Thus,
We the statewide membership of the IICC reaffirm our petition to Governor Snyder to enact a moratorium on further wind development in the State of Michigan.
1. Due to intermittency, wind is powerless to replace baseload coal generation.
2. Because wind Power Purchase Agreements in MI are averaging $80/MWh but wind is generated in MISO primarily when the value of that energy to the grid is around $20.00/MWh, wind generation absolutely increases the cost of electricity and the price of doing business in Michigan. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/18239/RSCAS_2011_45.pdf?sequence=1
3. Wind is among the least cost effective means to avoid emissions from coal-fired generation.
4. Because wind cannot replace baseload fossil generation, wind’s environmental and human impacts are additive to coal’s alleged impacts.
5. Because MI’s wind resource is anemic compared to the Midwest, wind generation mandates like PA295 places MI at a cost disadvantage relative to MN, IA, WI, IL and IN.
6. Wind developer’s activities in MI have a foul record: conflict of interest worthy of a RICO investigation, zoning battles, referenda, recall and litigation all rending the fabric of our precious rural communities in two.
Wind energy is a high cost/low value proposition and should not retain its mandated seat at our energy table.
Sincerely,
Kevon Martis
Director
www.iiccusa.org
