Renewable-friendly ordinance faces strong headwinds

WASHINGTON — Public opinion and local policymaker attitudes appear evermore unfavorable for potential developers of a wind energy project tentatively planned in Washington County.

At a Board of Supervisors meeting March 5, representatives from Deriva Energy said the local government’s current draft of an ordinance governing Wind Energy Conversion Systems would make development of the turbines impossible for the area.

Eric Briones — the owner of energy consultant firm Sustainable Power Partners, which has worked with Deriva in Washington County — urged the elected officials to reconsider the proposed local law, arguing myriad benefits if the power source is developed. He said the company’s tentatively planned 200 MW wind farm could generate energy enough for 65,000 Iowa homes, dozens of long-term jobs after construction, and $40-$50 million in county tax revenue over 25 years.

"This scale of private industry investment in a community can help support local governments, provide valuable revenue for critical infrastructure including roads, bridges, schools, first responder capabilities and other government services,“ Briones said. ”As currently drafted, the Washington County wind ordinance would eliminate any potential development.“

Still, decision-makers appeared heavily skeptical of the company’s recommended revisions for the draft ordinance.

Conservative viewpoints clash over landowner rights

  Buy Photo

The debate over wind turbines has long pit two conservative viewpoints against one another: belief in a landowner’s right to use their property as they see fit, and their neighbor’s right to avoid encroachments on their own land.

Farmer Jeff Cuddeback, who owns land in the proposed project area, said the potential wind farm had an “invasive” aesthetic that would “forever change the landscape,” against the wishes of those living nearby.

“A project like this is going to pit neighbors against one another, which is never a good thing,” he said. “I tend to fall on a property rights perspective, but property rights cuts both ways.”

Specifically, developers have cited sections of Washington County’s proposed ordinance that would establish minimum distances between the generators and other property. While a previous version of the policy — debated in 2021 but never passed — required 1,500 foot setbacks for turbines from occupied structures, the current draft sets a minimum distance of half a mile, but allows waivers if every affected landowner within a half-mile agrees.

Supervisor Jack Seward Jr. pitched the revision several weeks ago. He said the energy developer should have no trouble convincing people to waive the setback requirement, if their claims of community benefits held water.

“If wind projects are such a good thing, and people are in favor of it, they are going to waive that half a mile, and you’re going to be able to have your wind farm,” he argued at a meeting in January. “If people are not willing to do that, then that’s a pretty good indication that the general population does not want a wind farm.”

Developers, however, argued that the extra red tape required for such a large setback would introduce too many chances of failure to justify investment in the project.

A half-mile setback is the highest of any county in the state, and Deriva Energy Director of Renewable Business Development Jeff Neves noted that every county with such a requirement had seen zero turbine development since its passage.

Instead, developers asked the county to revert to its previous 1,500-foot minimum, saying that would make development possible, and thus empower landowners to choose whether they wanted it or not.

Neves gave one anecdote about how a landowner with 10 acres could otherwise single-handedly prevent development sought by farms on hundreds of acres around their property.

“If you have enough people that will not participate, they will affect a lot more private property owners than just themselves,” Neves said. “And we know that there are going to be challenges getting everybody to participate no matter what we propose, and no matter how responsibly we develop and work with the neighbors. So if we know that this type of setback is the requirement, we’re just not going to be able to develop the project. And no other group would be able to do that either.”

That rhetoric did not sit well with Supervisor Marcus Fedler, who said the current draft’s stricter requirements were intentional.

"We do use a democratic process, but just because five people say something’s good, and one person says something’s bad, that doesn’t mean that we force that on the one person,“ he said. ”That one person has just as much right to the view out their bedroom window … as the five other people do. To have that conversation, I just don’t support that way of thinking.“

Property value matters in question

The other aspect of Washington County’s ordinance opposed by Deriva would require developers to provide a property value guarantee for nearby landowners if their real estate’s sale value declines due to the turbines.

The language requires a licensed third-party appraiser to determine whether a nearby turbine is responsible for the land’s change in value.

The U.S. Department of Energy, citing a handful of studies, says rural wind projects can temporarily reduce property values in a five-mile radius during construction, but have no lasting effect on real estate prices after they’re built.

Washington County Supervisors have voiced skepticism of that finding. Still, Fedler argued that if true, the study made the value guarantee a non-issue, since the precautionary policy would theoretically mean no additional costs to developers.

Deriva, however, disagrees. Briones said property value assessments were subjective, and that the clause would inject unpredictability into any construction plans.

“A development of this nature would open up a developer to an unknown number of future claims,” he said. “Even if not ultimately validated, it would still require an unknown amount of cost to address. No project can assume an unknown amount of cost as risk.”

Briones argued that the company plans to follow written good-neighbor agreements with non-participating landowners, saying the approach would ensure predictable investment, and still, “eclipse any of those short-term impacts” on property values.

Other ideological issues at play

In general, Supervisors and members of the public at the latest meeting appeared skeptical of wind energy, renewable power in general, and corporations that develop it.

Supervisor Stan Stoops said he recognized that the ordinance might prevent wind power development, but said his constituents appeared OK with that outcome, based on conversations he had while canvassing for re-election this year.

"Most said, ‘I think it’s a good project, but it’s not fit for this county,’“ he said. ”And I am going to vote according to my constituents. I say that with all due respect.“

There are some county residents who view wind farms favorably, though they haven’t been outspoken on the matter at public meetings. Brighton resident Lyle Stacy is one such resident, writing a letter to the editor published in The Southeast Iowa Union March 7, where he said he’d “rather see wind turbines than hog confinements” around the county’s homes and waterways.

Neves said he understood skepticism about renewable energy as a relatively new technology, but stressed that his company had every reason to believe the approach would prove both effective and profitable.

“We certainly have an ‘all of the above’ mindset, we invest in these types of projects because, on a levelized cost of electricity, they are as competitive as natural gas or solar, and so we do think they’re good investments,” he said. “And if you have more generation go into an area … you’re going to have more grid stability and you will have better pricing in the local and regional areas.”

Supervisors have yet to vote on the ordinance, but showed few signs of swaying based on developers’ appeals. Seward said he remained unconvinced.

“The only place this is actually putting any money is in the pockets of the developers, and the people that actually have the wind turbine on their property,” he claimed. “Yes, we will see some tax money in our county, but is it worth it? And there’s a lot of folks who’ve gone through this whole process, and when it was all said and done, said it wasn’t.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com