Today's Lansing State Journal has an update on the wind turbine issue in Clinton County:
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
ST. JOHNS — In a few days, another year will end without approval or rejection of a Chicago company’s proposal to erect 40 towering, utility-grade turbines to convert the winds of Clinton County to power for households, farms, industry and business.
And while 2013 is likely to see a decision on the $123 million project that dates to 2008, approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners still would not initiate construction.
Years of litigation might be a more accurate forecast.
“We’ve put forward a project that meets the requirements of the (county’s) zoning ordinance,” Tim Brown, managing member of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms LLC, said in a telephone interview from his Chicago office. “We hope the county’s ready to make a decision. It’s been quite some time.”
Planning Commission action was expected Dec. 13. Brown and about 150 other people, mostly landowners opposed to the project, gathered at the Clinton County Courthouse to hear whether Forest Hill’s application for a special-land-use permit would be endorsed or denied.
They departed quickly after only three of seven planning commission members showed up and the meeting was canceled.
The next meeting is scheduled for Jan. 10.
If approved, the permit request would advance to the Board of Commissioners, probably in February.
Brown said he does not have a problem with the county’s “very deliberate” review process.
Ordinances passed by the Dallas, Essex and Bengal township boards requiring towers to be shorter than the 427-foot-tall structures planned by Forest Hill and allowed by county zoning are of greater concern.
The township ordinances limit the height to 400 feet in Bengal, and 380 feet in Dallas and Essex. The townships also have stricter rules for noise and require greater setbacks than the county.
To read the rest of the article go here:
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
They also published an article on the issue yesterday:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
"ST. JOHNS — Ken Wieber, 49, grew up on the mixed-use dairy and cash-crop farm he operates on 540 acres in Clinton County, a few miles north and west of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms proposed wind-turbine project.
An active leader of the opposition, Wieber said he focused on the health, safety and property rights of residents living near the proposed project after the county “failed miserably” to do so in the recent revision of its zoning ordinance.
Wieber said the project’s opponents compromised on the zoning ordinance because “we realize we can’t stop these things (wind-turbine developments).”
“We understood early on that if we propose something that is entirely restrictive and unrealistic then we’re not going to get anywhere,” he said. “We have to allow wiggle room. We have to have a compromise in there somewhere.”
One of the biggest compromises, he said, was a zoning provision that allows neighboring landowners to waive the setback requirements that otherwise would prohibit erection of a tower on land leased to Forest Hill Energy.
If Forest Hill then had “to go out and get more waivers from the neighboring people and if that costs them more money, so be it,” Wieber said.
Apart from noise, tower heights and setbacks from property lines, Wieber questions the fundamental economics of industrial-grade wind-turbine farms.
“They always talk about this as ‘harvesting the wind’ or one more crop that they can harvest. The only thing being harvested here is the federal incentives. That’s what’s being harvested and that’s being done by Forest Hill Energy,” he said.
“Do we really want as a county or state or nation to base our future economy on an industry that provides an expensive, intermittent and inefficient product and is entirely depending on government subsidies for its existence?”
In floor remarks delivered to his U.S. Senate colleagues on Dec. 14, Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, echoed Wieber by criticizing the federal government and “the brazenness of those who have been receiving this giveaway money.”
To read the rest of the article go here:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
Showing posts with label lansing state journal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lansing state journal. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Lansing State Journal article on Clinton County turbines
Today on the front page of the Lansing State Journal is an article by Steven R. Reed:
Turbine tension: Ordinances may decide fate of Clinton Co wind-turbine project
The beginning of the article reads:
For four years, the developers of a $123 million, Clinton County wind-turbine farm have steered the project through opposition from some residents who learned their homes and property could be subject to the noise, ice throws, flickering shadows and financial impacts of 40 whirling towers each standing 427 feet tall.
At various times, Forest Hill Energy LLC has advanced, compromised and stood firm, depending on the reasonableness and financial consequences of the demands made by its leaseholders, local governments and project opponents.
By February, all of the local ordinances and licensing requirements created to address such developments likely will be finalized.
At that point, Forest Hills manager Tim Brown of Chicago and his investors could be forced to decide whether to build a smaller, quieter, safer — and therefore less profitable — project than envisioned.
Or, they might decide to abandon the project, sell it, or up the ante in an expensive court fight with no guarantee of success.
“It is a little surprising to see this project running into controversy when the Clinton County standards are far, far stronger than those in Gratiot County, where a much larger wind project, with taller turbines, is moving forward and seems to have widespread acceptance and no evidence of the kind of health and safety issues that the opponents to our project contend are common,” Brown said.
Or, as some opponents suggest, perhaps Forest Hill Energy’s attempt to build an industrial-grade wind-turbine farm in a more populous and prosperous suburban county predictably was perceived as a threat to the health, quality of life and financial well-being of homeowners living near the project and those in the path of its future expansion.
Project timeline
In summary, the last four years witnessed:
• The announcement of a 29-turbine project in 2008 and its expansion to 40 turbines in 2010.
• The sign-up by Forest Hill Energy of an estimated 27 or 28 landowners willing to host turbines in their fields in exchange for a signing bonus and a share of revenues from the future sale of electricity.
• The organization of grass-roots opposition centered in Dallas, Essex and Bengal townships.
• Creation in 2010 of a Clinton County zoning ordinance and the revision of the ordinance in 2011 to tighten the restrictions.
• Application to the county by Forest Hill Energy for a still-pending, special-use permit to build and operate the wind turbines.
• Passage by the Dallas (September) and Essex (October) township boards of wind-turbine ordinances that are more restrictive than the county’s. Bengal Township has a similarly more-restrictive ordinance under consideration.
Ordinances key
Those for and against the project agree the township ordinances are forcing the issue like nothing else had.
The township ordinances “are not intended to facilitate the development of the wind farms” and “would not work for a project like ours,” said Brown, the developer. “We’re going to have to examine the situation with the townships pretty extensively.”
The townships’ setback provisions and height restrictions would prevent placement of 427-feet-tall turbines in the townships, Brown said.
“They (township boards) know exactly what our heights are … so they’re deliberately picking heights that don’t accommodate what our plan is,” he said.
If Forest Hill’s plans comply with the county’s ordinance but conflict with the townships’ ordinances, which ordinance rules?
“There’s really no doubt about that particular issue. Townships can adopt stricter ordinances,” said Okemos attorney William Fahey, who wrote the “police protective ordinances” adopted by the Dallas and Essex township boards.
The ordinance passed by Clinton County’s Board of Commissioners “says in it three different times that it defers to any stricter ordinances that are adopted,” Fahey said.
Though Clinton County has taken a less-restrictive stance, Forest Hill Energy cannot count on the county as a partner in any court fight with the townships.
“What the townships elected to do is their own business,” Clinton County Administrator Ryan Wood said. “We don’t have a conflict with the townships. If their ordinance is challenged, it won’t be by us.”
To read the rest of the article go here:
Turbine tension: Ordinances may decide fate of Clinton Co wind-turbine project
Turbine tension: Ordinances may decide fate of Clinton Co wind-turbine project
The beginning of the article reads:
For four years, the developers of a $123 million, Clinton County wind-turbine farm have steered the project through opposition from some residents who learned their homes and property could be subject to the noise, ice throws, flickering shadows and financial impacts of 40 whirling towers each standing 427 feet tall.
At various times, Forest Hill Energy LLC has advanced, compromised and stood firm, depending on the reasonableness and financial consequences of the demands made by its leaseholders, local governments and project opponents.
By February, all of the local ordinances and licensing requirements created to address such developments likely will be finalized.
At that point, Forest Hills manager Tim Brown of Chicago and his investors could be forced to decide whether to build a smaller, quieter, safer — and therefore less profitable — project than envisioned.
Or, they might decide to abandon the project, sell it, or up the ante in an expensive court fight with no guarantee of success.
“It is a little surprising to see this project running into controversy when the Clinton County standards are far, far stronger than those in Gratiot County, where a much larger wind project, with taller turbines, is moving forward and seems to have widespread acceptance and no evidence of the kind of health and safety issues that the opponents to our project contend are common,” Brown said.
Or, as some opponents suggest, perhaps Forest Hill Energy’s attempt to build an industrial-grade wind-turbine farm in a more populous and prosperous suburban county predictably was perceived as a threat to the health, quality of life and financial well-being of homeowners living near the project and those in the path of its future expansion.
Project timeline
In summary, the last four years witnessed:
• The announcement of a 29-turbine project in 2008 and its expansion to 40 turbines in 2010.
• The sign-up by Forest Hill Energy of an estimated 27 or 28 landowners willing to host turbines in their fields in exchange for a signing bonus and a share of revenues from the future sale of electricity.
• The organization of grass-roots opposition centered in Dallas, Essex and Bengal townships.
• Creation in 2010 of a Clinton County zoning ordinance and the revision of the ordinance in 2011 to tighten the restrictions.
• Application to the county by Forest Hill Energy for a still-pending, special-use permit to build and operate the wind turbines.
• Passage by the Dallas (September) and Essex (October) township boards of wind-turbine ordinances that are more restrictive than the county’s. Bengal Township has a similarly more-restrictive ordinance under consideration.
Ordinances key
Those for and against the project agree the township ordinances are forcing the issue like nothing else had.
The township ordinances “are not intended to facilitate the development of the wind farms” and “would not work for a project like ours,” said Brown, the developer. “We’re going to have to examine the situation with the townships pretty extensively.”
The townships’ setback provisions and height restrictions would prevent placement of 427-feet-tall turbines in the townships, Brown said.
“They (township boards) know exactly what our heights are … so they’re deliberately picking heights that don’t accommodate what our plan is,” he said.
If Forest Hill’s plans comply with the county’s ordinance but conflict with the townships’ ordinances, which ordinance rules?
“There’s really no doubt about that particular issue. Townships can adopt stricter ordinances,” said Okemos attorney William Fahey, who wrote the “police protective ordinances” adopted by the Dallas and Essex township boards.
The ordinance passed by Clinton County’s Board of Commissioners “says in it three different times that it defers to any stricter ordinances that are adopted,” Fahey said.
Though Clinton County has taken a less-restrictive stance, Forest Hill Energy cannot count on the county as a partner in any court fight with the townships.
“What the townships elected to do is their own business,” Clinton County Administrator Ryan Wood said. “We don’t have a conflict with the townships. If their ordinance is challenged, it won’t be by us.”
To read the rest of the article go here:
Turbine tension: Ordinances may decide fate of Clinton Co wind-turbine project
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)