Roanoke Tea Party

Thanks to Eldon Karr, who has done a wonderful job of delving into the details of this agreement. This article is based on his work…and I have quoted his work in several areas…as well as extensive quotes from the actual ordinance which you can read, with Eldon’s notes here. Wind Ordinance 0711 Eldon’s markup (1)

We have one week till the big windmill meeting (and the Godsey Primary BTW).

Please remember that the points that are being argued next Tuesday night are around the specific language of the code which is attached here with some notes from Eldon. Broad arguments about the role of government funding of projects like this (as correct as they are) won’t matter. Emotional pleas won’t work. Insulting the board won’t help.

Effective arguments in this case need to be focused on the actual code changes being proposed and issues with the specific language. We need a good showing of educated and informed citizens so bone up. I find it humorous (in a dark way mind you) that the press always portrays tea party people as dopey crazy people, when we all know we are the ones with the facts and information together. Let’s show them again on Tuesday, August 23 (after you vote/volunteer for Tripp)

So please review this information and prepare your 3 minutes based on information provided here as well in these additional articles.

Economic Viability Has Not Been Adequately or Independently Verified.

Roanoke County has not yet conducted a cost‐benefit evaluation of an unfamiliar land use that will radically alter such large areas of land. The County’s Comprehensive Plan is designed, in large part, for protection of our view sheds and ridgelines. The plan also describes as a primary concern, the protection and preservation of agricultural and forest lands. One of our Supervisors has pointed out that the development of the ordinance related to wind turbines obligated the Board to seek the “highest and best use” for the land areas of the County. As the amendment now stands, it assumes the installation of large numbers of utility scale wind turbines is a wise and beneficial use of large areas of land in our County. Based on the data in this article, that is not a safe assumption. As it now stands, the amendment has not been developed with detailed consideration of the economic viability of claimed benefits vs. the sacrifice of such large areas of mountains and forests.

Roanoke County is being coerced by the state to “encourage”  wind farm development assuming these wind farms will good for the county, the state and the county. The language of the amendment speaks to this by requiring the county to not “unreasonably interfere..with the development of independent renewable energy sources.” While the county should not be an activist in this matter, they should be a steward of the counties interests and not take the word of entities that have a vested interest in the creation of a Poor Mountain Wind Farm.

To that end, The county should sanction detailed independent studies before agreeing to this amendment that would  impact such a large amount of land area, via turbine access way and grid expansion. We are NOT considering just 15 or 18 turbines here; we are committing ourselves to radical lifestyle and environmental changes with the wind industry anticipating thousands of industrial wind turbines throughout Virginia by 2020.

The county is relying much of their decision making on the information provided by the potential builders.It is naïve to think that an applicant would provide any evidence, whether it is certified by a“licensed professional” or not, that would show cause to jeopardize the completion of the project. Few, if any, of our Roanoke County Planning staff, Planning Commissioners or Supervisors have practiced the levels of engineering or science that is required to make the judgments called for. Therefore, such advice must remain fully independent of the applicant’s influence. The cost of acquiring such study and advice should be borne solely by the County. Based upon the size of the proposed project, the application fees for this project should provide the County with adequate revenue to fund such studies. We should not be taking the word of groups (including local environmental groups) that have a vested financial and/or emotional interest in the completion of this project.

The Process For Decommissioning  of Windmills Is Not Well Defined

To the counties credit, they do have a clause requiring any builder to bear the cost  for any restoration if the turbines are decommissioned.  There are two issues with the language.

1. A clause details the allowable ways a company could secure the funding necessary to decommission a windmill.  According to the proposed amendment, the County would accept a “…letter of credit, corporate guarantees, or other form of financial assurance as may be mutually acceptable to the applicant and the County.” What good will “corporate guarantees” be if the company is bankrupt in a few years?

2. The formula for the amount that needs to be carried in a bond will be determined by factoring the “Decommissioning Cost, that being Gross Decommissioning Cost minus Salvage value.”  As Eldon sums up perfectly, “the restoration of the land  is an expense that is difficult to estimate ten or twenty years in the future. If you begin by subtracting the hardware cost of each turbine from the initial construction project cost, it will undoubtedly be greater, and then factored by dynamic economic conditions. Salvage value, ten or twenty years into the future is an even more elusive figure to estimate. Why is the County negotiating “salvage value” away prior to any applicant coming forward?” Or have they already discussed this? There have been numerous conversations about this project as the county site confirms. Have there been conversations already on exactly how this will work? The key is that the bond needs to be large enough to reasonably restore an area back to it’s natural state if a windmill is decommissioned. Based on the significant environmental impacts of these projects and the sheer scope of the windmills that are potentially in play, that cost would be significant.

Light, Sound, Flicker Rates and Communication Issues

Noise:

“Large wind energy systems and utility wind energy systems shall not exceed 60 decibels (dB(A)), as measured from the closest non-participating property line. Based upon site specific considerations, the Board of Supervisorsmay modify the decibel level during the special use permit process. An analysis,prepared by an acoustical engineer with a professional engineering license in theCommonwealth of Virginia,shall be provided to demonstrate compliance with this noise standard.”

This begs several questions…

1. 60 decibels is approximately as loud as normal conversation from a person just a few feet away. That is pretty loud in the middle of the night. Won’t that impact residents in the area on their immediate boundaries?

2. When will “the professionally licensed engineer” demonstrate compliance? Before they are built?? After?? Will there be ongoing compliance requirements? Is the purpose of the special use permit to allow the wind generators to continue if the levels exceed 60 decibels? How much above 60 decibels will the noise need to be to require action? What actions, short of shutting down the windmills can be taken to mitigate noise levels?

Shadowing/Flicker:

“Large wind energy systems and utility wind energy systems shall be sited in a manner that minimizes shadowing and flicker impacts. The applicant has the burden of proving that this effect does not have significant adverse impacts on neighboring or adjacent uses through the appropriate siting ofthe facility or through mitigation.”

This also begs some questions: How will they prove this until they build it? How would they mitigate shadow/flicker impacts short of shutting the windmills down?

Lighting:

“Large wind energy systems and utility wind energy systems shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) or an appropriate authority.”

If the FAA requires lighting, there will be no way for the county to adjust this as the FAA rules will trump local nuisance statutes.

Communication Interference:

“Large wind energy systems and utility wind energysystems shall be sited in a manner that minimizes the disruption or loss of radio,telephone, television or similar signals or service. If loss or disruption occurs dueto the operation of the large wind energy system or utility wind energy system,the applicant shall be required to provide appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that the signal or service is restored within 24 hours.”

So the county will allow the construction of windmills that might cause a communication failure and then allow the company causing the failure 24 hours to “mitigate” the disaster? What penalties would ensure if this were to happen, other than whatever the cost for mitigation?

Setbacks

“Large wind energy systems and utility wind energy systems shall be setback a distance of one hundred ten percent (110%) of the height of the windenergy system from all adjoining non-participating property lines, and shall be setback a distance of 2,640 feet from existing dwelling units on non-participating properties. The Board of Supervisors may modify the required setbacks from property lines and existing dwelling units as appropriate based on site specificconsiderations during the special use permit process.Setbacks shall be measured from the base of the tower of the wind energy system.”

How will the ’2640 feet setbacks affect property values? Will there be significant property that will become unusable due to these setbacks?

This is our first blush of issues. If we come up with additional points we will share. If you come up with additional points, feel free to share.

The more people we can get there on 8-23, the better. Please consider coming and speaking on this issue. Come with the facts and let’s stop this windmill boondoggle.

Chip Tarbutton

Roanoke Tea Party