blue highlands citizens coalition local control/responsible and informed decision-making local...

Blue Highlands Citizens Coalition www.bhcc.ca Local Control/Responsible and Informed Decision-Making

www.bhcc.ca

• Local Control

• Informed Decision-Making

• Responsible Decision-Making


PROPERTY VALUES


Study of 22 large wind parks located in 13 counties throughout the U.S. showed that values of neighbouring properties were not adversely affected.

Source: Superior Wind Energy Power Point Presentation May 12, 2003


“As the pace of wind power development has increased, opponents have raised claims in the media and at siting hearings that wind development will lower the value of property within view of the turbines. This is a serious charge that deserves to be seriously examined.”

Source: The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values Renewable Energy Policy ProjectAnalytical Report, May 2003


“Although there is some variation …, the results point to the same conclusion: the statistical evidence does not support a contention that property values within the view shed of wind developments suffer or perform poorer than in a comparable region.”

Source: The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values Renewable Energy Policy Project Analytical Report, May 2003


RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

• “desert flats and arid mountains”

• five miles from western edge of Palm Springs

• 3,067 turbines installed from 1981 to 2001

• new project installed a further 130 modern turbines

• turbines follow the route of Interstate 10

• sales data from 1996 to 2002

• 24% of population below poverty level

• 17,000 housing units

• median value: U.S. $87,900


CARSON COUNTY, TEXAS• Large agricultural farms• 80 turbines @ 230 feet• “area is just about dead flat”, right on the edge of the

Texas High Plains• county tax officer said that “most of the land in the

view shed are farms, and most residents work on the farms. Therefore, interest in housing values was wholly dependent on their proximity to farms with no concern for the wind towers”

• the County’s main claim to fame is the home of Pantex, the only nuclear armament production and disassembly facility in the U.S.



SOMERSET COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

• 6 turbines @ 210 feet

• 10% of properties can see the turbines

• County assessor: the “turbines outside Garret were noticeable, but because there were so few people residing there, he hasn’t seen much housing turnover to base an opinion”



KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

• region is known for its extensive wind farm development, which has been ongoing for over 2 decades

• 3,569 turbines installed from 1981 to 2002

• sales data reviewed for period from 1996 to 2002

• assessor said “over 30 years of wind development an industrial cement manufacturer, among other projects, was built close to site. The cement plant spewed out dust for 10 years or more until county and federal government inspectors required upgrades 15 years ago”.

• area is billed as having the “busiest single-tracked locomotive mainline in the world”

• assessor: “the area was so agricultural or lightly populated that it would be hard to isolate price changes due to the wind projects”

KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA


FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

• much of the area is “low income and rural”• 10 turbines @ 230 feet• land is owned primarily by one family who

also rents to a petroleum pumping company

• local economy is primarily agricultural or tourism related; ski lodges in the vicinity

• only 10% to 20% of residents have views of the turbines



There may be some support for the proposition that turbines have not materially impacted property values in areas where turbines have been installed.

But this appears to be a reflection of the sorts of areas in which the studied wind farms were located:

• low density• little to no scenery• many houses couldn’t see the turbines anyway • industrial land uses (railway, nuclear weapon

disarmament, cement manufacturing)• lower turbine heights


In order to help municipalities achieve environmental and economic benefits, the provincial government is supporting Brownfields cleanup and redevelopment. The Brownfields Statute Law Amendment Act, 2001 offers a framework for the renewal and revitalization of properties that are underused, abandoned or require environmental remediation before redevelopment.

Source: Ontario Government “Infosheet” (Spring 2003): “Could your Community Benefit from Wind Energy Development?”


What are Brownfields?

Brownfields are lands on which industrial or commercial activity took place in the past. They may be vacant, underused or abandoned. The soil and water may or may not be impacted by contaminants as a result of past practices and uses.

Source: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing


GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES


• Wind Power Production Incentive (Federal Government)

• Renewable Portfolio Standards (Ontario)

• Capital Tax, Property Tax, Corporate Tax and Sales Tax Holidays


Wind Power Production Incentive (Federal Government)

• $260,000,000 over 15 years

• financial support to an eligible developer for the installation of 1,000 megawatts of new capacity by March 31, 2007

• maximum amount payable to any eligible developer is $64,000,000

• Natural Resource Canada website lists a large number of applicants under the Wind Power Production Incentive; of these developers, Superior Wind Energy Inc. is the largest at an estimated capacity of 200 megawatts

Should possibly up to $64,000,000 in Federal Government funding alone be made available for a project in this area which will have significant and long lasting ramifications?


NIAGARA ESCARPMENT


The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.N.2:

Section 2: The purpose of this Act is to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment.


However, the benefits to the environment of a renewable, non-polluting use of wind power is a consideration as well. The use of “green” methods of power generation is an emerging issue, which the Niagara Escarpment Plan policies will have to balance against maintaining the visual resources of the Escarpment.


“The Niagara Escarpment Plan is an environmental land use plan that seeks to ensure that development is compatible with the physical, environmental and scenic resources of the Escarpment.”

“The big, rotating blades of a wind tower add a significant visual component to wind generation-type towers.”

Source: April 22, 2003 letter of NEC to Superior Wind Energy Inc.


“In reviewing the factors that influence the visual impact the proposed wind tower(s) may have on the landscape it is apparent that there would be very little ability to mitigate or minimize the visual impact of towers of the size, height and number proposed. It would appear that they would be visually prominent from many locations and in many directions. The policies of the Niagara Escarpment Plan pertaining to visual impact would not be easily satisfied.”

Source: April 22, 2003 letter of NEC to Superior Wind Energy Inc.


“The latest tower designs involve large structures approximately 300 feet high spaced about 1,650 feet apart in staggered rows. The blades are at least 100 feet across. Such towers, in addition to affecting the use of a park or open space area, will visually intrude on the landscape. The tower designs shown to staff were white in colour. An Escarpment park could be irrevocably altered by a wind farm development. Even a single tower could have far-reaching negative visual impacts.”

Source:NEC Staff Report dated May 15, 2003: Wind Power Development on Crown


“The negative aspects of wind generation would appear to far outweigh the need to locate the facilities on Escarpment parklands. It is therefore recommended that Crown and The Ministry Natural Resources lands in the Niagara Escarpment Plan are excluded as potential candidates for wind power generation. This can be justified on the basis of the environmental significance of the Escarpment and its associated park and open space areas. These lands, in principle, should be deemed unsuitable for wind power generation facilities.”

Source: NEC Staff Report dated May 15, 2003: Wind Power Development on Crown


THE LEASEIs it a good deal?


• 50 year term

• All of your land is leased

• number and siting of towers is not specified

• rights of first refusal, both in terms of:(a) lease renewal upon expiry of term(b) sale of land to anyone other than a spouse, brother,

sister, child or grandchild (and, upon a sale to any of these people, they become subject to the right of first refusal)

• company can assign the lease, in whole or in part, without restriction

• company can mortgage its lease rights to creditors of the company

• if expropriation occurs, the landowner needs to share the expropriation award with the company

• aggregate removal (@$0.50/ton for 35 years)


LAND LOCK-UP$100 per year

• All restrictions apply (including the company’s ability to mortgage the lease and exercise right of first refusal).

• What if another developer comes along? 49 developers have applied for Wind Power Production Incentive funding.


Mortality Rate Per Year

1999 2.04 birds/turbine2000 1.45 birds/turbine2001 1.16 birds/turbine

Source: Avian and Bat Mortality Associated with the Initial Phase of the Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming


The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing shall amend the Planning Act by December 31, 2003 to apply a provincial standard to zoning for windfarms/wind turbines and solar energy systems to make them immune from local municipal prohibition, and thereby allowed across Ontario “as of right”. Municipalities shall be allowed to specify reasonable conditions, such as spacing of turbine units….as part of site plan approval.

Source: Report of Select Committee on Alternative Fuels, 2002


utility-scale wind power plants require minimum average wind speeds of 6 metres per second

Source: AWEA FAQ’S


CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION

A 1.8 MW turbine can produce more than 5.2 million kWh in a year

Source: AWEA FAQ’S

Therefore, a 100 MW wind farm can produce 289 million kWh in a year.

Total 1999 Ontario Electricity Generation:

149,858,000,000 kWh

Source: Ontario Energy Board, 2001

289 million kWh = 0.19% of total Ontario electricity generation149,858 million kWh


“Green” Power

Development

Conservation of Natural

Habitat and Beauty

BALANCE


Business Interests/

Profitability

Local Residents Interests and Local

Issues

BALANCE

blue highlands citizens coalition local control/responsible and informed decision-making local...

Documents

local controlresponsible

informed decisionmaking

modern turbines turbines

effect of wind development

turbines county assessor

value of property

housing values

pace of wind power development