A Free-Market Energy Blog

Industrial Wind Siting: Getting Tough (Part 1: New York)

By Sherri Lange -- February 2, 2016

Abstract: Governor Andrew Cuomo, who supports an energy quota forcing New York to buy half of its energy from qualifying renewables by 2030, does not see the problems that would be caused by coating Upstate, Central and Western New York with sprawling, low-output, intrusive, bird-unfriendly wind turbines. All would be paying for the high upfront costs of the unneeded investment, including additional power lines that will be necessary to run the intermittent, unreliable wind energy from rural New York to New York City. Fortunately, the people are fighting back with proposed ordinances against wind turbines. This is not only good for residents and the environment, it is good for ratepayers across the state and taxpayers across the nation. (Part II tomorrow will overview Ohio’s wind turbine siting debate.)

The New York towns of Yates and Somerset are faced with the prospect of up to 70 massive turbines, 600–630 feet tall, which would tower over everything else. The project by APEX Clean Energy, Lighthouse Wind LLC, now has to deal with the implications of a new 54-page bylaw by Somerset that could well prove to be insurmountable.

Yates has already unanimously rejected the project. Stated Town Supervisor James Simon: “It puts the political and municipal opposition all in a monolithic setting.Both towns, both counties, both boards of health, Sen. Ortt, U.S. Congressman Collins, they’re against this project.”

Enter Somerset’s strongly placed and well researched proposed bylaw. The WIND ENERGY zoning bylaw is being viewed as thoughtful and detailed.  Here are some of our favorite inclusions or clauses (at times paraphrased or variously quoted). (The entire bylaw proposal, to be revisited Feb 1, is here.)

The preamble states the importance of what communities have faced with industrial wind proliferation:

Short-sighted planning has often resulted in creation of problem industries which adversely affect public health and quality of life, examples are found in Somerset, as well as many other areas of New York State, where abandoned buildings and brownfields exist, health has been adversely affected, pollution has been proliferated, quality of life has been diminished, aesthetics have been compromised and community character has been degraded. Commercial Wind Energy Facilities are not exempt from these problems and careful siting and protections are of paramount importance. Local communities have, through zoning, site plan approval, regulation and careful planning been primary protectors of their citizenry.

Also in the preamble to the bylaw sections is a reminder to the developer and permitting agencies that:

The town of Somerset is located on a major migration route for many species of birds, and is habitat for many species, both year round and seasonal. The bat population in the Town of Somerset is important and in distress. Commercial/Industrial Wind Energy Facilities are known to pose danger to birds and bats, and have been demonstrated to kill numerous members of both species annually.

Our favorite clauses follow (all references and quotes drawn from the bylaw already noted in the link):

    1. Residents have chosen to live here often because “of a love for rural pastoral lifestyle.” (This includes “boating, fishing, sailing, swimming, kayaking, hunting, hiking, cycling, snowmobiling, jogging, etc.”)
    2. The Town of Somerset acknowledges that “viability is highly dependent on State and Federal subsidies, and renewable energy companies are subject to economic pressure and potential bankruptcies. Funding and mechanism for removal when no longer operating, needs to be in place.”
    3. There should be due consideration to the stress placed on a community from such a development, including the disruption imposed on the area and the quality of life of residents.
    4. Detailed construction schedules, decommissioning plans and a solid complaints process to be included in the application. Include a MSDS (Manufacturer’s Safety and Data Sheet) “for every type and quantity of all materials used in the operation of all equipment including, but not limited to, all lubricants and coolants.”
    5. Shadow Flicker studies, and identification of where it may be caused and expected durations. Requirements are to eliminate or mitigate this interference, and developer is to detail how this will occur.
    6. Visual Impacts, Fire protection, Emergency Response Plans: “demonstrate visual impacts,” create in consultation with the Fire Department, a protection and emergency response plan.
    7. Noise Analysis/Study: to be prepared by a “qualified acoustical consultant documenting the noise levels associated with each proposed WECS…. at property lines and at the property line of the nearest residences not on the site for each residence in a 360 (degree) circle of the site. The noise analysis shall be performed according to the International Standard for Acoustic Noise Measurement Techniques for Wind Generators (IED 61400-11), or other procedure accepted by the Town Board, and shall include both a dBA analysis and dBC analysis.” (Please see our letter tomorrow to the OPSB, Ohio Power Siting Board, which details up-to-date expert opinions on setbacks and other siting and safety considerations.)
    8. A Property Value Analysis: To be performed by a “New York State licensed appraiser experienced in appraising rural properties of the type and nature typically found in the Town of Somerset evaluating the potential impact of the project on values of properties in the Town of Somerset, and in addition a proposed means to protect property owners from decreased in values caused by the establishment and operation of the proposed WECS, and to comply with the property value preservation subsection set forth in the ‘Standards for Commercial/Industrial WECS’ (H) Section of this law.”
    9. Ground Water Impacts: “An analysis of impacts on local ground water resources shall be prepared, regarding impacts anticipated during construction, reconstruction, modification, or operation decommissioning, and post decommissioning of each WECS. A geotechnical report shall be provided and shall include: soil and geologic characteristics of the Site based on Site sampling and testing, a bedrock profile within one (1) mile of the Site, information on depth of well, average flow rate, and with permission by owner, test of water equality for all wells within two (2) miles of the Site, grading criteria for ground preparation, cuts and fills, soil compaction, and a slope stability analysis.”
    10. Several detailed sections follow on potential and immediate and long-term impacts to local flora and fauna, micro and macro habitats, cultural, historical and archeological resources plans, addressing possible impacts and anticipated during construction and reconstruction, and operation. A further warning follows:

Any person owning, controlling or managing any building, structure or land who shall undertake a Wind Energy Facility in violation of this Local Law or, operates such facility in noncompliance with the terms and conditions of any permit issued pursuant to this Local Law, shall be guilty of a violation and subject to a fine of not more than $250.00 or to imprisonment for a period of not more than 15 days, or to both such fine and imprisonment. Every such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each week such violation shall continue.

OF SPECIAL NOTE: Wildlife Impacts

 An analysis of impacts on local wildlife shall be prepared, addressing impacts anticipated during construction, reconstruction, modification, or operation of each WECS. Wildlife impacts to be considered shall include, at a minimum, anticipated impacts on flying creatures (birds, bats, insects), as well as wild creatures existing at ground level. An assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the local flora and fauna.

The analysis will include migratory and resident avian species and bat species. The scope of such assessment shall take into consideration New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service studies, standards and recommendations and must at a minimum consist of pre-construction data of three years, and literature/ studies/survey for threatened and endangered and species of concern and migratory species that provide relevant information on critical flyways and migration routes, and shall describe the potential impacts of any proposed facilities on bird and bat species, and an avoidance or mitigation plan to address any impacts, as well as plans for three-year post-installation studies.

These reports shall provide sufficient information to allow the Town Board to make a determination on any mitigation conditions or a denial of permits as provided in standards for Commercial/Industrial WECS Section.” (Our suggestion: that these three year pre and post studies be performed by independent and respected wildlife and wind turbine experts.)


Other communities across the way, such as in the UK, have been successful in beating back projects with bylaws. In 2011, a Germany developer was not able to proceed: the project was deemed “too big, having too much potential for impact on the people living there, and because it would ‘spoil’ the countryside.”

Hopefully, Somerset’s advance restrictions on any wind project will pay off in preserved “spaces.”

Community vigilance by way of bylaws is obviously putting pressure on wind turbine projects: Apex is already “considering” its options regarding the Lighthouse Wind LLC.



Letter from Al Isselhard, Co-founding member of Great Lakes Wind Truth












  1. Suzanne Albright  

    Thanks for this thorough, well worded summary of the newly proposed law in Somerset, NY. It was introduced last night at a Somerset Town Board meeting, and Supervisor Dan Engert was open and transparent enough to allow public attendance and comment. Sadly but not unexpectedly, Apex representatives, Dan Fitzgerald and Taylor Quarles, turned the meeting into a three ring circus, bringing outsiders, iron workers wearing Apex caps, to overtake and disrupt the meeting. Supervisor Engert allowed the meeting to be moved to a larger facility, again promoting transparency. As noted in Ms. Lange’s article, this law is intended to protect innocent citizens from the bullying and ultimate consumption by wind companies. Apex demonstrated that bullying and attempted overtaking of this community by their inappropriate actions last night. Thanks Sherri, for once again sharing information that is timely, articulately presented, and educational.


  2. Sherri Lange  

    Many thanks, Suzanne Albright. If you don’t know who this lady is: a tireless campaigner for truth and justice, and a key leader in saving the Great Lakes from industrial wind.

    Reading yours and Cindy’s messages about the meeting really brought home my own experiences on Lake Ontario….re the THES, Toronto Hydro Energy Services badly botched so called community consultation meetings. Keep them running. If you have not had adequate consultation, and there is any law whatsoever mandating this, there is 90% of the time, then put them to that task: even if it takes four or five meetings.

    The second meeting, first had to be postponed as too many objectors showed up at a tiny church venue, was in a high school auditorium that seated over 1000. Three hundred seniors had to be seated outside in the cafeteria….too many of us. But some of “us” were not us. They were bused in from the downtown areas that are Liberal and green washed. Six massive buses! full to the brim. Children holding banners, literally crying, Save My Planet! We could not get to the mikes until 10:00 p.m. and many just left in disgust. This is what they do. Bully, pervert, obscure, and try to shut up those who own the community, who live there, who are the true custodians of nature and lifeblood of the area. Third meeting also had to be postponed, and fourth meeting was controlled by the card system. You put your questions on a card, and hand them to the moderator. Of course they say, oh this question is the same as the last, and put it aside. Talk about a system to pervert the true meaning of “consultation.” We all have our war stories. But we kept on pointing out their “consultation” flaws, and eventually I think they got tired of our meeting after meeting requests….eventually it got really bold and as you know, communities implode a bit. Just from the raw nerves, and wondering and plotting on which method will save them.

    You are amazing, and the Lakes both sides owe you a big thank you. You, Al, Tom and Tom, Dick, Roy….one major Great Lakes machine. I think Somerset has a good chance. Looking forward to Yates’ bylaw as well!


  3. Industrial Wind Siting: Getting Tough (Part 1: New York) | Mothers Against Wind Turbines Inc.  

    […] read more: Master Resource,By Sherri Lange — February 2, 2016 […]


Leave a Reply