Wind ordinance back on radar for Washington County Supervisors

WASHINGTON — After months in limbo, a handful of policies written to govern wind turbines in Washington County will be back on the supervisors’ agenda next week.

An ordinance dealing with setbacks, lighting, and other rules for the renewable electric generators — as well as a road use agreement template governing their construction and decommissioning rules governing their demolition — were ready for a vote in February, before seemingly disappearing from the county’s to-do list in March, after prospective developer Deriva Energy encouraged reconsideration of some language in the local laws.

The draft policies have been on the back burner since then, however, and officials say they’ve made no revisions in the intervening months. Board of Supervisors Chair Richard Young instructed the county auditor on Tuesday to put the items on next week’s meeting agenda.

“We have to act on this, one way or another, so that that company knows,” Young said.

Most of the ordinance is fairly straightforward, and aligns with industry standards, according to representatives from Deriva, although the company took issue with two parts of the proposed code last winter.

First were the setbacks. Washington County’s draft ordinance would require turbines to be built at least half a mile from any inhabitable building, unless that building’s owner signed a waiver allowing construction closer. That’s far greater than Deriva’s preference: the company lobbied officials to adopt a 1,500-foot setback, noting that no Iowa county with a half-mile setback has seen wind energy developments since enacting such requirements.

Supervisor Jack Seward Jr. has previously argued that wide setbacks with waivers would ensure turbines were not forced upon unwilling community members.

“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 said 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.”

Second was a “property value guarantee” written into Washington’s draft ordinance. The language would require a wind turbine developer to reimburse any unaffiliated landowners within two miles of a turbine, if they could prove that the generator forced them to sell land at a below-market rate.

Deriva said the clause was redundant, citing U.S. Department of Energy findings which said wind turbines had no long-term effect on property values. Still, the company said the language opened developers up to unpredictable levels of risk, which made it impossible to justify investment. Supervisor Marcus Fedler has argued that the clause wouldn’t harm investors at all, if the company was right about the non-impact on property values.

Deriva and its affiliates have not meaningfully engaged with county officials since the topic last came up in March, according to Deriva Energy Director of Renewable Business Development Jeff Neves. The company appears skeptical about any changes in its favor.

“Since the county obviously did not want to work with or support development, we have not advanced any new efforts,” he said in an email.

Washington County Supervisors — all Republicans — have voiced skepticism about renewable energy projects in the past, and have offered little evidence to suggest they’d reject the draft ordinance over its potential to deter wind farms.

Most of the rhetoric at Washington County Supervisor meetings — whether from elected officials or members of the public — has fought against turbine development. Community members have argued the generators would have an “invasive” aesthetic, or spark disputes between neighboring farms. Others, like Supervisor Jack Seward Jr., accused renewable energy projects of co-opting taxpayer dollars through their use of state and federal subsidies or tax breaks.

Still, there is a chance that some board members vote the measures down.

Supervisor Stan Stoops said earlier this year that the ordinance over-regulated what farmers could do with their own land, in stark contrast to the county’s decision to abolish zoning requirements several years ago. Young, meanwhile, has previously stated concerns that the property value guarantee clause could prove unenforceable. At Tuesday’s meeting, several supervisors said they were worried state lawmakers might gut local authority over turbines in the next legislative session.

Eric Briones — the owner of energy consultant firm Sustainable Power Partners, which has worked with Deriva in Washington County — has urged elected officials to consider potential revenue from turbine development. He estimated that a 200 MW facility in Washington County could generate dozens of jobs, as well as $40-$50 million in county tax revenue over 25 years. That argument may look increasingly persuasive as local government officials struggle to trim their budgets to align with state-mandated tax cuts.

"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 in March, before adding, ”as currently drafted, the Washington County wind ordinance would eliminate any potential development.“

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com