Montcalm Wind Binder 1

Table of Contents Montcalm Wind Overview • Montcalm Wind Project Profile • Designing for Montcalm • Community-Based Wind Development • Frequently Asked Questions • Michigan Welcomes Wind (Isabella Wind Case Study) • Apex Clean Energy Overview • Montcalm Wind team members and contact information

Zoning for Wind Energy • Sample Zoning for Wind Energy Systems I Michigan State University Extension I October 2020 • Protecting Private Property Rights • Why Oklahoma Nuisance Lawsuit Deserves Your Attention I March 2017 • Do Wind Farms Constitute a Nuisance or Trespass? I The Legal Intelligencer I 2013

Wind Energy Benefits to Local Communities • Wind Energy Facts • Determining Myth from Fact I Wind Works Michigan • Wind Energy in Michigan I AWEA I 2020 • Wind Turbine Economic Impact: Local Employment I University of Michigan I April 2020 • Wind Builds the Future in Rural Communities I AWEA • Wind Benefits Agriculture I Wind Works Michigan I 2017 • REPORT: Farming the Wind: The Impact of Wind Energy on Farming I Sarah Mills, PhD, University of Michigan I 2014 • Benefits from Wind Development in Gratiot County I Greater Gratiot Development I 2019 • SPREADSHEET: Gratiot County, Michigan Wind Development Taxes Paid I Greater Gratiot Development I 2019 • Economic Benefits: Selections from the 2019 Wind Powers America Report I AWEA I 2019

Wind Energy and Health • Wind Energy and Health • REPORT: Can Wind Turbines Make You Sick? NOVA Next, PBS I June 2018 • REPORT: Wind Turbines and Human Health I Frontiers in Public Health I June 19, 2014 • REPORT: NHMRC Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health I National Health and Medical Research Council February 2015 • REPORT: Wind Turbines and Health:A Critical Review of the Scientific Literature I Massachusetts Institute of Technology I November 2014 • REPORT: Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel, Executive Summary I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; Massachusetts Department of Public Health I January 2012 • Wind Health Impacts Dismissed in Court I Energy and Policy Institute I August 2014

Wind Turbine Safety • Emergency Response Preparedness • Helicopters &Wind Turbines • Working with the FAA and Department of Defense • Safe radius requirements for wind turbines under normal and emergency operating conditions I Vestas I February 2019 • Creating an Emergency Response Plan for a wind energy facility I Vestas I April 2019

f"1

• REPORT: Ice Shedding and Ice Throw - Risk and Mitigation I GE Energy I 2006 • REPORT: Recommendations for Risk Assessments of Ice Throw and Blade Failure in Ontario I Garrad Hassan I May 2007

APEX CLEAN ENERGY

Property Values • Wind Energy and Property Values • Property Values Surge in Michigan Counties with wind energy—but why? I Midwest Energy News I April 2017 • Gratiot County Residential Property Values 2012-2020 • Michigan County Comparison — Installed Wind Capacity vs. Real Property SEV increase • REPORT: Relationship between Wind Turbines and Residential Property Values in Massachusetts, Executive Summary I University of Connecticut and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory I January 9, 2014 • REPORT: A Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Wind Energy Facilities on Surrounding Property Values in the United States I Ernest Orlando Berkeley National Laboratory I August 2013

Electricity Prices and Incentives • Controlling your Electricity Bill • Electricity Incentives Facts • Wind Power in the U.S. Electric Sector: Selections from the 2019 Wind Powers America Report I AWEA I 2019 • REPORT: Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis — Version 14.0 I Lazard I October 2020 • As wind energy prices plunge, Xcel refunds customers who paid a premium I Energy News I November 2020 • Renewable Energy Prices Hit Record Lows: How Can Utilities Benefit From Unstoppable Solar And Wind?

• REPORT: What Would Jefferson Do? The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America's Energy Future I Nancy Pfund and Ben Healey, DBL Investors I September 2011

Wildlife and the Environment • Wind Energy and Wildlife • What kills bald eagles in Michigan? Most comprehensive study ever has the answers I Detroit Free PressI August 7, 2020 • Environmental Benefits: Selections from the 2019 Wind Powers America Report I AWEA I 2019 • Wind Turbine Blades Don't Have To End Up In Landfills I Union of Concerned Scientists I October 30,2020 • Responsible Wind Power and Wildlife I National Wildlife Federation I January 2019 • ARTICLE: World's Top Serial Bird Killers Put Infamous Windmills to Sham I Bloomberg I April 21, 2014 • INFOGRAPH IC: Bad Kitty I Climate Desk I January 29, 2013 • REPORT: State of the Birds 2011 U.S. Department of Interior I 2014

Apex and Wind Energy in the News • Gratiot County wind farm development shows potential for Montcalm County • Isabella Wind named 2020 Project of the Year by Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council • Windmill bucks, savings to balance Isabella budget • Isabella wind to power Detroit Zoo • County to sign deal to back wind turbine decommissioning with $200,000 apiece • FAA rules new wind farm will pose 'no hazard' at Mt. Pleasant airport • County sets up wind turbine escrow accounts • DTE Energy Receives Approval to Buy Isabella Wind Projects from Apex Clean Energy • Wind deals are becoming even more popular with corporate renewables buyers • Consumers EnergY's New Renewable Energy Program Helps General Motors and Switch in Michigan • GM Operations in Southeast Michigan to Run on Solar and Wind Energy by 2023 • Steelcase Announces New Wind Power Investment with Apex Clean Energy • PepsiCo Targets 100% Renewable Electricity Globally • Port welcomes largest project in history • The wind energy industry brings jobs to Port Fisher Terminals along the Saginaw River

0

APEX CLEAN ENERGY

MONTCALM WIND re) PROJECT PROFILE

MONTCALM WIND

LOCATION: Montcalm County, Michigan TOTAL CAPACITY: Up to 375 MW NUMBER OF TURBINES: Up to 75 ANTICIPATED START DATE OF COMMERCIAL OPERATION: 2023 Apex Clean Energy is exploring the feasibility of constructing

BIG RAPIDS

Montcalm Wind, a wind energy project expected to generate up to 375 megawatts of clean, homegrown energy. Local wind data

MECOSTA

confirms that the area under consideration is ideal fora project of this size, which will produce enough safe, pollution-free energy to

MONTCtL4 WIND AREA OF NiEREST 1/

power up to 89,800 U.S. homes.

Apex is working with and taking input from local landowners, community leaders, and various stakeholders to design a project

KENT

_ _

that fits the unique attributes of Montcalm County, including

GRAND RAPIDS I

working safely around pivot irrigation systems. The project site has several key attributes: •

Verified wind resource

•

Expansive private land

•

Existing high-voltage transmission lines

•

Minimal environmental impacts

A Clean Economic Opportunity for Montcalm County Using an innovative, community-based lease that spreads some of the financial benefits from the project more broadly among landowners, Montcalm Wind will create jobs and generate an entirely new source of long-term revenue for local schools, government services, and property owners. The total direct financial impact to the community will be in the tens of millions of dollars over the life of the project, with additional indirect economic benefits to the local economy.

Landowners participating in the wind project will receive annual lease payments. These payments will continue over the projected 30+ year lifespan of the wind farm, injecting millions of dollars into the local economy to support local merchants, contractors, equipment suppliers, auto dealers, and others. The power from Montcalm Wind wil l be delivered into the Michigan electrical grid, reducing the need to import electricity from outside markets.

Local Economic Benefits

r.

•

Enough power for up to 89,800 U.S. homes (375 MW)

•

Hundreds of jobs and significant local spending during construction

•

Up to 15 full-time local jobs for operations and maintenance Taxpayers protected against decommissioning costs

• •

More than 30 years of annual revenue for the county, townships, landowners, and local schools, totaling tens of millions of dollars

•

Existing high-voltage power lines and highways would limit the need for new infrastructure

info@montcalmwind.com I (989) 787-3029 I montcalmwind.com

APEX CLEAN ENERGY

MONTCALM WIND Frequently Asked Questions

MONTCALM WIND

General Project FAQ What is Apex Clean Energy?

Apex Clean Energy is an independent renewable energy company based in Charlottesville, Virginia. We develop, construct, and operate wind and solar energy facilities across the country. Our team has completed over 5,000 MW of projects that are either under construction or in operation—that's enough energy to power over1.7 million American homes annually. Our partners have included major utilities, large corporations like IKEA, and even the U.S. Army and Department of Defense.

In Michigan, Apex Clean Energy oversaw the development and construction of the state's largest wind farm, Isabella Wind, a 385 MW project located in rural Isabella County.

How does wind power work?

Wind power captures the natural wind in our atmosphere and converts it into mechanical energy, then electricity. This is not exactly new technology. Humans have been harvesting the wind for centuries, starting with windmills to pump water, process grain, and generate power.

Today's wind turbine is a highly evolved version of a windmill. Modern wind turbines harness wind's kinetic energy and convert it into electricity. Most wind turbines have three blades and sit atop a steel tubular tower, and they range from 80-foot-tall models that can power a single home to utility-scale models that can be up to 700 feet tall and power thousands of homes.

Why here?

Michigan is an attractive market for wind energy and ranks12th in the nation for installed wind capacity. Montcalm County specifically has several key attributes that make the location ideal for wind energy development.

•

Verified wind resource (based on National Renewable Energy Laboratory data)

•

Expansive private land with interested farmers and landowners

•

Existing high-voltage transmission lines, limiting the need for new infrastructure

•

Proximity to state highways and transportation infrastructure

•

Avoids sensitive airspace and environmental areas

•

Demand from local utilities for renewable energy (DTE, Consumers Energy, among others)

•

Access to local skilled workforce

What is the project's size and scope?

Based on local transmission line capacity, the Montcalm Wind project is expected to have the capacity to generate up to 375 MW of home-grown Michigan clean energy, powering up to 85,000 homes annually, comparable to our 385 MW Isabella Wind project, located north of Montcalm County.

By utilizing the latest and most efficient wind turbine technology available, we expect Montcalm Wind to be able to generate that amount of electricity with substantially fewer turbines than were needed for Isabella Wind (fewer than 75 turbines compared to 136 for Isabella).

Each turbine would take up less than an acre of land on average, including its associated access road.

Approximately 50,000 acres of land could be leased as part of the project. Wind turbines and access roads would cover less than 1% of the land leased for the project.

How do I know if my land qualifies to be in the project?

We are currently evaluating land throughout Montcalm County across multiple townships. If you are interested in signing a wind easement on your land for the Montcalm Wind project, please contact Dan Paris at 989-506-6907.

If you live inside the project area, there is no minimum acreage required for a parcel to participate in the project (see below regarding our community-based lease).

Who benefits from the project? Just large landowners?

Apex uses an innovative, community-based lease for our projects in Michigan that spreads some of the financial benefits from the project more broadly among all participating landowners and residents. Under this model, anyone living in the project area is eligible to sign up and see direct monetary benefit from the project, whether you own 1,000 acres or just an acre and a home. Landowners and community members participating in the project will receive annual lease payments over the projected 30-plus-year lifespan of the wind farm, injecting millions of dollars into the local economy to support local merchants, contractors, equipment suppliers, auto dealers, and others. info@montcalmwind.com I (989) 787-3029 I montcalmwind.com

Naorif

MONTCALM WIND Frequently Asked Questions

MONTCALM WIND

What is the project timeline?

Montcalm Wind is still in the early stages of development, and that process will take several years. Pending further studies and successful permitting, the earliest anticipated date for the project to be constructed and operational would be late 2023.

Can you build this project without local approval?

No. Local townships have the authority to approve or deny permits for a wind project in this area. Wind farms do not have eminent domain and cannot touch private property without a formal easement agreement with the property owner.

Where will the power from Montcalm Wind go?

The power from Montcalm Wind would be delivered directly onto Michigan's electrical grid via a nearby local transmission line with available capacity In the Midwest, this grid is called MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator). MISO helps connect energy that powers the Midwest to ensure a stable and reliable grid. When you turn on your lights at home, you are pulling power from this robust system. Electricity from Montcalm Wind will mix with electricity from all other generators on the grid. The power generated by the project could be used locally or sent where it is needed depending on local and regional generation and electricity demand.

Will anything be placed on my property without my permission?

No. Project components will only be sited on private properties whose owners sign an agreement with Montcalm Wind. All agreements are fully voluntary between landowners and the project.

Will Apex sell the wind farm once it is built?

In Michigan, it is not uncommon for one of the local utilities (DTE or Consumers) to purchase a wind farm after the completion of construction and operate the facility alongside their other generation sources in the state. This is the case with the Isabella Wind farm, developed and constructed by Apex in Isabella County Michigan—that project was purchased by DIE. The sale of a project to another entity is not a cause for concern. Every agreement and contract signed by the project prior to any potential transfer of ownership will remain in place if a transfer takes place. Commitments to landowners and local governments remain in place and are fully enforceable under the law.

A unique aspect of Apex Clean Energy is that we develop, construct, and operate projects across the country. We currently operate1.6 GW of wind and solar facilities; an entity that purchases a project may retain Apex to manage the project operations, including local Operations and Maintenance staff as well as support from our 24/7 Remote Operations Control Center in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Where will the wind turbines be placed? When will the public be able to see a draft turbine layout?

It is very early in the development process, so we will not be able to assemble a proposed turbine layout for sometime. The project layout will also be dependent on the total number of project participants, required setbacks from township wind ordinances, wetland and environmental studies, and consultations with the FAA. Any layout is also subject to multiple revisions. Layouts are generally solidified in the very late stages of project development, and they are first shared with the participating landowners to identify and address any issues they may have with the project plan for their particular properties.

A detailed final site plan will be submitted when the project files for a special use permit with local townships.

What happens to the wind turbines at the end of their lifetime? Are landowners or the town responsible for taking them down? If something happens to Apex, would the wind farm be abandoned?

When a turbine reaches the end of its useful life it can be decommissioned (removed) or retrofitted ("repowered").

Typically, local ordinances require wind projects to submit plans for decommissioning the facility at the project owner's expense. A decommissioning bond is often posted in favor of the county or local jurisdiction and assessed based on the presumed per turbine cost of removal. Removal is then the responsibility of the project owner, whether that be the original developer, a utility, or another company that may own and operate the project in the future. If something happens to the project owner's finances in the future, that decommissioning bond is already in place to provide the resources to remove the turbines once they are no longer in use.

If the need to remove a turbine or close a wind farm does arise, every landowner who signs an agreement with Apex is protected from the cost and burden of decommissioning through a protected financial security outlined and required in the easement agreement The site must also be restored to the same condition that existed prior to construction upon decommissioning.

info@montcalmwind.com I (989) 787-3029 I montcalmwind.com

2

MONTCALM WIND Frequently Asked Questions

MONZEALM

Economic FAQ What economic impacts will the project have locally?

If approved, Montcalm Wind would be one of the largest economic development projects the county has seen in recent years. This includes hundreds of millions of dollars in construction spending, tens of millions of dollars in payments to landowners and community participants, and tens of millions of dollars in personal property tax payments to local school districts, Montcalm County, and township governments over the 30-plus year lifetime of the project.

We are currently engaged in an economic impact analysis to assemble projected revenue figures based on the area's local millages, but the total direct financial impact to the community will be in the tens of millions of dollars over the life of the project, with additional economic benefits to the local economy through construction and operations, including hundreds of jobs created during construction and up to 15 long-term, full-time, local jobs during operations.

Do wind farms pay taxes?

Yes, they do—Montcalm Wind will pay both Industrial Personal Property taxes and Utility Personal Property taxes on project facilities. This means the project will not only support local and county millages applied to personal property, but also education-related millages for both the Montcalm Intermediate School District (ISD) and local school district debt and sinking fund millages.

In some cases wind projects can also lower residents' property tax bills by increasing the tax base that school debt millages are applied to—lowering the bill for everyone else for the term of the debt.

Will this project raise my electric bill?

Quite the opposite. Wind energy is the cheapest form of new generation in most parts of the country and can actually help consumers save money. The cost of wind energy has dropped by over 700/0 since 2009 (Source: Lazard, "Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis," Version 14.0, November 2020).

For a wind project to be successful, there has to be a buyer for the power it will produce. Generally this electricity is purchased by utilities, manufacturers, universities, or municipalities that demand large amounts of energy. These large-scale customers buy wind power because: •

Wind energy is a cost competitive energy source. The input costs for wind don't change as the fuel for wind energy is free.

•

Once a project is built, the cost of producing energy remains constant, so power purchase contracts "lock in" a predictable, steady electricity rate for15 to 20 years.

•

Wind energy is clean, reducing pollution and its associated health impacts while helping meet local renewable energy goals.

Is this project subsidized by taxpayers?

Montcalm Wind is a privately funded energy project. No federal cash subsidies or ratepayer dollars will be used to build the project and, once built, the project will provide a long-term, competitive source of electricity for the state's utility grid.

Historically, all forms of energy have been incentivized in some fashion. Between 1950 and 2016, 65% of all energy subsidies went to conventional fuel sources. In fact, for every dollar spent on federal energy incentives, less than 3 cents in tax incentives have gone to support wind energy.

Wind energy is eligible for tax incentives via the Production Tax Credit (PTC). The PTC is similar to depreciation in how it decreases tax liability for a period of time during the operation of the project. The PTC has helped wind energy technology develop and become cost-competitive, and it is now in the process of being phased out for projects constructed after 2020.

Will the wind farm affect residential property values?

No. The latest and most robust studies show that wind farms do not increase or decrease residential property values. On the other hand, it is well-documented that wind farms drive community economic development and provide funding for local schools and services, which benefit all property owners in a hosting community.

A major independent study on this topic, released in August 2013 by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, analyzed more than 50,000 home sales near 67 wind facilities in 27 counties across nine states and was unable to uncover any impacts to nearby residential property values. For more, read the study at https://emp.lagovisites/all/files/lbn1-6362e.pdf.

info@montcalmwind.com I (989) 787-3029 I montcalmwind.com

3

MONTCALM WIND MONTCALM

Frequently Asked Questions

WIND

How Loud Is A Wind Turbine? PA

Environmental FAQ What does a wind farm sound like?

100181,-.

o dE34A) , 64-see

As wind turbine blades pass through the air, they make a sound that is often described as a "whoosh."

Measurements of this sound show that it is no louder than a kitchen refrigerator or a standard air conditioning unit at a distance of 1,000 feet.

Often the sound of a wind turbine on a windy day is indistinguishable from the sounds of the wind rustling through the trees and grass at these distances.

(See https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/listen-infographic) The project will comply with Apex's internal guidelines on sound as well as local township wind ordinance requirements related to sound limitations at residences.

What is low-frequency sound? What about "infrasound"?

Most low-frequency sound and "infrasound" produced by turbines is significantly below the human hearing threshold. Wind turbine infrasound levels are far lower than those experienced in everyday activities such as traveling in a vehicle, being by the ocean, or being out in the wind.

Scientific evidence confirms this sound is not dangerous, and that any low-frequency waves produced are not harmful to those nearby.

As reported in a recent study by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health: "... the weight of the evidence suggests no association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental health problems."

(Source: http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/energy/wind/turbine-impact- study.pdf)

What is shadow flicker?

This term refers to the shadows cast by wind turbine blades as they rotate in front of the sun, similar to the shadow cast by a tree blowing in the wind. By positioning wind turbines at a carefully calculated angle and distance from dwellings, Apex ensures that most homes in a project experience no shadowing at all. For those that do, shadowing will occur for no more than a few minutes per day, on average.

Shadowing does not occur on cloudy or foggy days and a typical local wind ordinance might limit shadow flicker to no more than 1°/a of all daylight hours over an entire year.

Some worry that this flicker can cause seizures in photosensitive individuals. However, according to the Epilepsy Foundation's research, the rate at which wind turbine shadows "flicker" is far below the frequency associated with seizures.

Will the wind farm be harmful to local wildlife and the environment?

Wind energy is one of the most environmentally friendly forms of electrical generation on the planet. That is because wind energy emits no air or water pollution, requires no mining or drilling for fuels, uses virtually no water, and creates no hazardous or radioactive waste. Clean, renewable wind energy also displaces harmful emissions from fossil fuel plants and offsets carbon emissions, making it a safer generation option for people, wildlife, and natural ecosystems.

While birds unfortunately do occasionally collide with turbine blades, modern wind farms are far less harmful to birds than buildings, communications towers, power lines, and vehicles. In fact, turbines account for only a small fraction, about 0.0003 0/a, of all human-related bird deaths. Housecats alone kill 2.4 billion birds a year. (Source: http://www.stateofthebirds.org/2014%20SotB_FINALlow-res.pdf) Nonetheless, Apex works hard to minimize avian impacts through responsible siting. We will work in close consultation with federal and state environmental agencies and use targeted conservation measures to ensure that the project has no significant effects on bird or bat populations.

How will the wind farm impact local deer populations and hunting?

9 110

The operating wind farm will have no impact on the deer population or hunting. Just as deer adapt to construction of new hoMes, buildings, and other new sights and sounds near their habitats, the deer population also becomes accustomed to wind farms. It is not uncommon to find deer and other wildlife feeding or resting near the bases of turbines. Cattle, horses, goats, and other livestock are also 100% compatible with wind energy technology. info@montcalmwind.com I (989)787-3029 I montcalmwind.com

4

MICHIGAN WELCOMES WIND October 2017

Bob Walton leans against the barn gate, his red polo shirt and ball cap bright against the shed's dim interior. The cows and calves inside are content to snack on hay and watch Walton out of the corner of their eyes.

"As long as I can climb on a tractor, I'm getting on and going," says the 70-yearold farmer. "There's just something about it, ya know?"

Even if you've never planted a seed, everyone can understand that feeling.

Walton has lived in Isabella County his entire life. His family has owned the land he farms for 34 years longer than that— longer still if you count the years before the Waltons were officially deeded the property in 1913. Centennial Farm began as a dairy operation but has gone through several iterations before settling as it exists today.

fl

"We're pretty small," Walton says, before

that's your livelihood: says Walton. 'Farm-

catching himself. "Not to city people—

ing is not always a lucrative profession."

they consider it big—but we're only 400 acres between my daughter, my son-inlaw, and myself."

Despite the challenges, Walton one day hopes to pass down the family property, and he's exploring different ways to leave

Each spring, they plant corn, soybeans,

a better Centennial Farm and Isabella

wheat, and hay, all to be harvested come

County for his grandchildren.

autumn. In between those backbreaking seasons of work, the farm is subject to Mother Nature's whims. Some years

In this pursuit, Walton has taken on responsibilities beyond his roles as a farm-

it's drought. Others it's pests. This year,

er, father, and grandfather. He ran for the

July brought heavy rain and harsh winds,

township board, and more recently be-

leaving fields flooded for days and rotting

came a member of a wind energy steering

some yields.

committee.

"You get discouraged sometimes when

After Apex Clean Energy approached his

you look at the crops, because you know

community, Walton and several others

Many people have never seen a wind turbine—much less stood next to one— so this summer, a group from Isabella County joined Apex team members on a visit to a nearby wind farm to learn about wind energy firsthand. The group took a tour of the operating facility and talked with people in the community about the turbines.

"It was really interesting and informative," said Judy Schumacher. "I really liked going up close to the wind towers. The swooshing sound is almost like the ocean. I don't see where that would be too much of a problem."

2

IT'S THE BEST CROP YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AND THE MOST PROFITABLE CROP YOU COULD EVER RAISE.

formed the steering committee to learn

The more the committee learned, the

about wind energy, determine how wind

more they envisioned wind energy in Is-

development would be received, and de-

abella County.

cide if it was right for their area. The group

"It's the best crop you're going to have

spent nearly a year meeting regularly,

and the most profitable crop you could

researching wind power, visiting wind

ever raise," says Walton. "We couldn't see

farms, and talking with landowners, farm-

where it was going to be a detriment to

ers, local officials, and attorneys.

the area."

Tax revenue from Isabella Wind, an Apex project, could amount to about $31 million over 25 years for local schools, townships, and the county. Landowner payments could total another $103 million, a significant investment for the community.

"The revenue to the area residents that are willing to lease will be very beneficial," says Walton. "It'll be extra income spent in our community that can help local businesses."

After months of work, the committee reached a decision: they wanted wind energy in Isabella County.

With legal counsel, the group reviewed leases from three different wind energy companies and selected Apex to work with.

"Apex was more willing to meet our terms and come up with what we felt was a better lease," says Walton. "In the lease, we try to protect the land and the landown-

3

Above: Walton (far left) and the other members of the wind energy steering committee meet with Apex representatives over breakfast at Roz's Diner in Rosebush, Michigan.

ers as much as try to get a bigger payout

better neighbors. Share that wealth," says

for the participants."

Walton.

One of the most significant and unique

But Isabella Wind is about much more

elements of the lease is a pooling agree-

than just revenue for Walton. The project represents a brighter future for his grand-

ment, a suggestion the committee took from other communities. This allows every landowner who signs up for the pro-

kids, a more sustainable legacy, and a more fruitful Centennial Farm.

based on their acreage, regardless of

"We don't really own this land," says Walton, gazing across the farm's rich, green soy-

whether they have a turbine on their land.

bean fields. "We're just the caretakers." 0

ject to receive a percentage of the payout

"In talking to the successful wind farms,

Watch a video about

all the landowners there said it makes a little less payment to the landowner that

the wind energy steering committee at apexcleanenergy.com/article/

has the windmill, but it makes for much

michigan-welcomes-wind.

4

Apex Clean Energy Solutions for a More Sustainable Future About Apex Apex Clean Energy develops, constructs, and operates utility-scale wind and solar power facilities across North America. Our team of more than 200 renewable energy experts uses a data-focused approach and an unrivaled portfolio of projects to create solutions for the world's most innovative and forward-thinking customers. Our mission is to accelerate the shift to clean energy.

$7 billion of clean energy facilities financed to date

Investing in the Clean Energy Economy Renewable energy is an economic powerhouse for communities in rural areas. It means revenue for landowners, jobs for local people, and tax revenue to fund local services.

•

Apex has invested in world-class clean energy resources—ideal locations for future wind, solar, and storage facilities—across more than

•

two dozen states, resulting in a portfolio that •

•

• • •

Wind Project Operating/Under Construction Solar Project

Delivering Customized Carbon Solutions

is at the forefront of the industry in terms of scale, quality, and potential impact.

More than17,000 MW currently under development

Apex partners with ESG-focused companies such as Facebook, McDonald's, Starbucks, IKEA, and Walmart to bring competitive power prices, steady returns, and clean, carbon-free energy to their operations.

Over the past decade, Apex has set the bar with

Powering the equivalent of over 2 million average U.S. homes

unique innovations, including one of the first proxy revenue swap financing arrangements, the U.S. Army's first and

For Corporate Clean Energy Procurement

largest hybrid renewable energy contract, the largest combined offtake serving corporate buyers with a single project, and other unprecedented, awardwinning power purchase and financial transactions.

0

APEX CLEAN ENERGY

apexcleanenergy.com

Montcalm Wind Team rirf Contact Information DEVELOPMENT: Albert Jongewaard, Project Development Manager (251) 402-6831 1 albert.jongewaards@apexcleanenergy.com Dan Paris, Lead Land Agent (989) 506-6907 1 dparisland@aol.com Cam Haskins, Land Agent (517) 202-1900 1 chaskins@realenergyservice.com PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT: Brian O'Shea, Public Engagement Manager (952) 393-2986 1 brian.oshea@apexcleanenergy.com Mel Christensen, Public Engagement Organizer (517) 582-2170 mel.christensen@apexcleanenergy.com I

• MONTCALM WIND

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series

Sample Zoning for Wind Energy Systems Original version: March 6, 2017 Last revised: October 6, 2020'

This document presents zoning ordinance sample amendments for utility scale wind energy systems (WES) and smaller wind electric generation systems for an individual business or home.

Contents Purpose and Use of Sample Zoning

2

Due Process

3

Related Case Law

10

Public Acceptance Factors Related to Wind Energy Development

11

Towards a Better Process

15

Sample Zoning Amendments for Wind Energy Systems

17

Authors

35

Appendix A: Wind Turbine Noise

36

Appendix B: Comparison of Regulation

42

Appendix C: Shadow Flicker, FAA Lighting

44

Appendix D: Summary of Michigan-Specific Wind Energy Research and Information

47

Appendix E: List of Revisions to this Document

48

"Thirty seven million acres is all the Michigan we will ever have" William G. Milliken

There are earlier versions of this document dating back to 2008. They should not be used. There are significant and important updates and changes to this version.

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series

Purpose and Use of Sample Zoning Background Michigan's entry into wind energy production started in 1996 with a single commercial wind turbine installed in Traverse City. In 2019, approximately 2000 megawatts (MW) are generated by wind energy in Michigan accounting for about 5% of the total energy produced.2 This document is designed for local units of governments in Michigan that are amending a zoning ordinance to include wind energy systems (WES) for the first time or amending an existing regulation. As of December 2019, less than half of all Michigan communities had adopted wind energy zoning ordinances (753 out of 1773 total units of government).3 This sample zoning resource was originally developed in 2008 and is periodically revised with the intent of striking a balance between the need for clean, renewable energy and the necessity to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. New research and technological advances around wind energy invite periodic revision. While some communities will choose to model zoning on similarly situated communities in Michigan, it is beneficial to consider recent research, experiences, standards, and regulations in the broadest context. This document refers to wind energy system regulations and research from Michigan, other states, Canada, and Europe.

Policy and Process This sample zoning resource begins with a discussion of due process, related case law, public acceptance factors related to wind energy development, and steps towards a better process. Wind energy proposals can bring controversy and the size of a project can be at a scale the community has not yet experienced.

Despite the large scale or changes to normal procedure, the basics of due process and reasonable regulation based on a plan still apply. The guidelines, court cases, and cautions in this document offer supplemental policy and process considerations for wind energy regulation.

Sample Zoning Sample zoning language is included as a resource for local governments to consider when amending the zoning ordinance to include WES. This document offers sample regulation for temporary anemometers, on-site, and utility-scale WES. Temporary anemometers are often installed as a precursor to a utilityscale WES to assess the wind resource. On-site WES, generally, are sized to primarily serve the needs of a single home, farm, or small business. Utility-scale WES are sized to provide power to wholesale or retail customers using the electric utility transmission and distribution grid to transport and deliver the wind generated electricity.

The sample zoning language offers a range of options and does not prescribe a specific set of zoning requirements. Michigan's land use patterns, average parcel sizes, and dwelling densities vary among communities, making a one-size-fits-all recommendation impractical. Additionally, grid-like road networks, major transmission lines, and natural features, can have the effect of creating a relatively more

2 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Michigan State Profile Estimates (2020). https://w-ww.eia.govistateianalvsis.ph.p?sid-NII

Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), Office of Climate and Energy, Zoning for Renewable Energy Database (2019). https://vk-ww.michigansoviclimateandenergyi0,4580,7-364-519951--,00.html

3

Land Use Series:Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 2 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series confined canvas for wind energy development in Michigan than in other areas of the country with significantly larger parcels or limited road networks.

Appendix This updated version also includes detailed information on wind turbine noise (Appendix A: Wind Turbine Noise) as certain aspects sound and noise regulation introduce complex regulatory language that may be unfamiliar. This is followed by a comparison of WES zoning regulation in Michigan communities and Midwestern states (Appendix B: Comparison of Regulation) and a more detailed look at shadow flicker and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) lighting (Appendix C: Shadow Flicker, FAA Lighting). An annotated bibliography of Michigan wind energy research (Appendix D: Summary of Michigan-Specific Wind Energy Research and Information) and revision history (Appendix E: List of Revisions to this Document) are also provided.

This is a fact sheet developed by educators within MSU Extension and was reviewed by outside agencies and experts. This work refers to university-based peer reviewed research, when available and conclusive, and based on the parameters of the law as it relates to the topic(s) in Michigan. This document is written for use in Michigan and is based only on Michigan law and statute. One should not assume the concepts and rules for zoning or other regulation by Michigan municipalities and counties apply in other states. This is not original research or a study proposing new findings or conclusions.

Due Process All the principles and rules for zoning apply to zoning regulations relating to WES. Strong opposition or support of a WES does not mean that basic due process and other rules do not apply. These issues are covered here because communities have been observed trying to circumvent these basic principles because of strong feelings for or against WES development in their jurisdiction.

Procedural Due Process Requirements for procedural due process,4 meaning going through all the notifications, rendering decisions based on standards in the zoning ordinance and competent and material evidence, and more, must be followed. Although wind energy developments can be controversial and potentially overwhelming to a rural community, there are no shortcuts or exceptions to following zoning procedures outlined by the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act.' A failure to follow procedural due process,6 such as improper noticing or an incomplete record of proceedings, is one of the fastest ways to land in court. Procedural due process errors might also include assigning alternates to serve on a planning commission (when there is no legal authority to do so) or missing addresses in the required noticing area for a public hearing. Communities reviewing a wind

4 U.S. Const., amend. V.;

Michigan Const. of 1963, Art. I, §17.

5 Schindler, K. (2013, July 22). "Due Process" is often a source of lost court cases in local government. MSU Extension. 2013.

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/due process is often a source of lost court cases in local crovernment Cornell Law School (n.d.). Procedural due process. In Legal Information Institute's Wex. Retrieved September 3, 2020, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wexd3rocedural due process Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems © Michigan State University Board of Trustees MSU Extension October 6,2020 Page 3 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series energy system application should work closely with an experienced municipal attorney to satisfy all procedural due process requirements.

Substantive Due Process When regulating property, one of the major concerns in the United States is that the regulation is not too restrictive thereby infringing on a person's private property rights, or regulating areas of personal life outside of what is appropriate for government.

Substantive due process has three key components: the substance of the regulation, that the regulation has a logical connection between the government's purpose and the regulation itself and that the regulation is the least amount possible while still achieving the public purpose of the regulation.

Substantive due process is one of the constitutional rights found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Substance of the Regulation An initial consideration for determining if substantive due process is met is whether the issue is a legitimate one for the government to regulate. Not every issue is a legitimate subject for local government regulation. For example, local government regulation that infringes on constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech or freedom of the press, would be out-of-bounds for a local ordinance. The regulation has to have a rational government purpose, or further a legitimate governmental interest in preserving public health, safety, and welfare.

A common example of this within zoning is sign regulation. The regulation of signs is permissible provided it is about placement, size, lighting and so on. If the regulation is based on the content of the sign, or what the sign says, that regulation conflicts with constitutionally protected free speech.7 Thus, regulation of signs must be content-neutral. Government cannot regulate what the sign says and cannot treat one sign differently than another based on what the sign says. Again, government must have the constitutional or statutory authority to regulate the subject in the first place.

Regulation Related to Purpose The second part of substantive due process is that the regulation relates to the government's purpose. In simple terms, that means the local government should be able to explain how the regulation accomplishes its purpose or goal. In Michigan, the master plan contains the vision, goals, objectives, and strategies upon which a zoning ordinance (regulation) is based. Within the master plan there are certain elements, comprising the zoning plan, which more directly tie regulations in zoning to goals and objectives in the master plan.

Zoning ordinances include a zoning map dividing the municipality or county into various zoning districts. The zoning plan elements of the master plan should clearly show how the master plan supports the configuration of those particular geographic areas. Supporting elements of the master plan include text and existing land use maps and analyses, the future land use map, projections showing future housing, commercial and industrial needs, natural resource attributes for working lands and so on.

7 US Const. amend.

I.

Land Use Series: Sarnpk Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 4 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series Least Regulation Local ordinance standards should be the least amount of regulation possible to achieve the public purpose. If research shows a minimal regulation will do the job, then that is all that should be required.

It would not be appropriate to require additional regulation beyond that minimum threshold.

With respect to WES regulation, this concept is easily explained with standards related to wind turbine noise. If research concludes that noise beyond a specified level can be harmful to human health, then that noise level is the least regulation to accomplish the public purpose of protecting health, safety, and welfare. Adopting a more stringent regulation that requires a lower noise level may go too far - beyond what is appropriate for government to regulate and defend if challenged in court.

Master Plan and Research As zoning must be based on a plan, the master plan process is the starting point for understanding local support for different types of renewable energy such as wind. The legitimacy of government regulation of WES is strengthened by a clear relationship between the master plan and the zoning ordinance.

Some communities specifically address renewable energy (such as solar and wind) in their master plans.8 Other communities do not, but still regulate WES through zoning. Communities that identify policy directions for renewable energy in their master plans are more clearly able to show the rational relationship between their zoning regulations and the government's purpose.

When planning for renewable energy, a community would be wise to seek public input on multiple forms of renewable energy such as solar, wind, geo-thermal, and biomass. This planning process may start with educating the public about different types of renewable energy, how renewable energy relates to climate change and related community goals, and possibly followed by a visual preference survey with photos of small, medium, and large-scale development (on-site vs. utility-scale, for example).

The 2020 Draft Huron County Master Plan includes survey results for resident preferences of various forms of renewable energy (solar, geothermal, wind, etc.). 9 Community preferences for type, location, and scale of renewable energy can help to assign various uses (or not) to specific zoning districts or an overlay zone. The plan also includes policies on decommissioning or repowering existing WES once they reach the end of their useful life.

The regulation of wind energy should also be informed by the most recent published, peer-reviewed research findings. This documentation ties to the substance of the regulation and how the regulation relates to the public purpose. As such, the master plan process sets the stage that frames and legitimizes particular zoning approaches.

8 Gratiot County. (2017). County-WideMaster Plan.

https://www.gogrowgratiot.org/uploads/9/5/3/0/95 30559/final gratiot master plan 1.14.19.pdf Objective 4.3, Strategy 4.3.2 "Continue to pursue alternative energy companies, market the County as an alternative energy industry hub." Objective 1.3, Strategy 1.3.7 "Pursue existing funding opportunities and create incentives for large farms to utilize, maintain, and create green energy."

9 Huron County. (2020). Master Plan Draft, 2020. https://590e4aa5-9f61-478f-8f4cd72a53f03ffb.filesusr.com/ugd/f69a3e ab4ea34605a1455e992278a4cd90ab7e.pdf Figures 20 and 21 "Alternative Energy Options" present the results of a survey question that asked "Through the zoning ordinance, Huron County should provide avenues to pursue the following alternative energy development:" with wind ranking higher than biomass and anaerobic digesters, but lower than solar, geothermal, and methane gas capture. The "Vision for Huron County-Goals and Action Items" contains a section on Renewable Energy Goals, including those for utility-scale Wind Energy.

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 5 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series

Accommodate All Land Uses A separate concept is that of accommodating all legitimate land uses in zoning. The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act requires a zoning ordinance to accommodate all legitimate land uses in the presence of a demonstrated need: A zoning ordinance or zoning decision shall not have the effect of totally prohibiting the establishment of a land use within a local unit of government in the presence of a demonstrated need for that land use within either that local unit of government or the surrounding area within the state, unless a location within the local unit of government does not exist where the use may be appropriately located or the use is unlawful.m There is a need for reliable, clean energy, as prescribed in Michigan's Clean and Renewable Energy and Energy Waste Reduction Act of 2008 (amended in 2016 with the new target of producing 35% of the state's electric needs through energy waste reduction and renewable energy sources by 20259. Local units of government must consider whether overly restrictive zoning regulations for utility-scale wind energy systems (or solar energy systems) amount to an unlawful exclusion of a land use where there is a demonstrated need (referred to as exclusionary zoning).

Isabella County used a Geographic Information System (GIS) to determine how different setbacks would change the potential number of turbines that could be built within a square mile section (if any at all).

Planners applied different setback distances using GIS datasets for roads, wetlands, water bodies, parcel lines, and primary dwellings. This mapping exercise illustrated how setbacks, between 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet, would substantially change the number and placement of utility-scale wind towers within a study area.0 A larger setback may have the effect of severely limiting or even excluding wind energy from a jurisdiction.

It is likely that some land uses cannot be reasonably accommodated in every local unit of government in Michigan. A local unit of government with concerns about excluding a specific land use in the presence of a demonstrated need, or severely limiting the extent or scale of a land use, should consult an experienced municipal attorney to better understand potential consequences.

Takings Local zoning cannot amount to a taking, which occurs if a regulation requires or permits physical invasion by others onto private property or is so sweeping that it, in effect, takes away all economically viable use of land.0 Property owners or wind energy developers might challenge a zoning ordinance in court by alleging that regulations are overly restrictive (i.e. unreasonable) and deprive them of economical use of In Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. Mich. Comp. Laws. 125.3207 (2006). http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mc1-125-3207 "Michigan Clean, Reliable, and Efficient Energy Act. Mich. Compl. Laws (PA 342 of 2016). Amends Act 295 of 2008. http://legislature.mi.gpv/doc.aspx?mcl-460-1001 Nieporte, Director of Isabella County Community Development. Interview (2019). Planners used a set of assumptions including each parcel under 10 acres being considered non-participating (did not sign a lease) and about 80% of parcels over 40 acres considered participating (did sign a lease).

13 Both state and federal constitutions prohibit taking of private property for public use without just compensation - U.S. Constitution, Amendment V. and Michigan Constitution 1963, Article 10 §2. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the government effectively takes a person's property by overburdening that property with regulations. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v.

Mahon, 260 US 393,415; 43 S Ct 158; 67 L Ed 2d 322 (1922). As has the Michigan Supreme Court. K & K Construction, Inc. v.

Department of Natural Resources, 456 Mich 570, 576; 575 NW2d 531 (1998). See also Land Use Series "Property Taking, Types and Analysis:" https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/property taking types and analysis 12 Tim

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 6 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series their property. Case law establishes that a regulatory taking only occurs if the regulation in question results in total (i.e. 100%) economic deprivation.i4

Equal Protection Zoning must provide equal protection of all persons affected by the laws.' Equal protection means similarly situated individuals are treated in a similar manner and bear no greater burdens than are imposed on others under like circumstances. Therefore, local zoning regulations must be applied uniformly across all the properties within a zoning district. It is common for wind energy regulations in the Midwest to include differential standards based on the presence of a wind energy lease or not (i.e. participating parcel vs. non-participating parcel). Such an approach does not violate equal protection because the property owner in this instance is electing to live under a different regulatory regime in exchange for monetary compensation from the wind energy developer or energy utility. However, it is not appropriate for local regulations to in any way require or otherwise coerce such payments as a condition of approval.

Cannot Delegate Legislative Decisions A local elected body cannot delegate away its legislative authority. In practice, this may occur if a zoning standard includes a requirement for neighbors to sign off as a condition of approval. A zoning ordinance provision may be invalidated if it effectively delegates the legislative power, originally given by the people to a legislative body, to a narrow segment of the community.'6

Police Power Versus Zoning For purposes of this discussion there are two different types of ordinances: (1) police power ordinances (sometimes referred to as regulatory ordinances) and (2) zoning ordinances. The two types of ordinances deal with entirely different subjects and have different procedures for adoption. If a police power ordinance purports to regulate use of land, then it is a zoning ordinance and will be struck down if not adopted according to the procedures in the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, and vice versa.17

14

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001)

15 U.S. Const,

amend. IV.

h is more to consider about delegating away legislative authority as pointed out in Howard Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Waldo, 168 Mich. App. 565, 573-74, 425 N.W.2d 180, 184 (1988): "Zoning ordinances have been invalidated when a consent provision, in effect, delegates the legislative power, originally given by the people to a legislative body, to a narrow segment of the community. City of Eastlake v Forest City Enterprises, Inc, 426 U.S. 668, 677; 96 S Ct 2358; 49 L Ed 2d 132 (1976). However, not all consent provisions are invalid. As stated in Cady v Detroit, 289 Mich 499,515; 286 NW 805 (1939): "A distinction is made between ordinances or regulations which leave the enactment of the law to individuals and ordinances or regulations prohibitory in character but which permit the prohibition to be modified with the consent of the persons who are to be most affected by such modification." 43 CJ, p 246.

If such consent is used for no greater purpose than to waive a restriction which the legislative authority itself has created and in which creation it has made provision for waiver, such consent is generally regarded as being within constitutional limitations. City of East Lansing v Smith, 277 Mich 495 [269 NW 573 (1936)].

Here, the consent provision does not delegate legislative power to a narrow segment of the community. Rather, it merely requires a waiver as the first step in an administrative procedure authorized by the zoning ordinance."

17 In Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms, LLC. v. Township of Bengal Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished, No. 319134, December 4,2014), the court expressed a jurisdictional hierarchy as follows: 16

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems C Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 7 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act reads: Except as otherwise provided under this act, an ordinance adopted under this act [a zoning ordinance] shall be controlling in the case of any inconsistencies between the [zoning] ordinance and an ordinance adopted under any other law.18 The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act also preserves the historical priority of township zoning over county zoning. It reads: Except as otherwise provided under this act, a township that has enacted a zoning ordinance under this act is not subject to an [zoning] ordinance, rule or regulation adopted by a county under this act."

Conflict of Interest Conflict of interest is common among members of the legislative body and/or the planning commission when rural wind energy projects are being considered. This may be the case because wind energy developments span large geographic areas and often involve many separate landowners, some of which may be elected or appointed local officials. The legislative body or planning commission may have existing rules or bylaws on what constitutes a conflict of interest for one of its members and how a conflict of interest is handled. Planning commissions are required to have bylaws with rules on handling a conflict of interest.20 If no such rules or bylaws are in place, they should be established and would apply to all matters before the board or commission.

A conflict of interest for the board or commission member could, among other things, result from: 1. Relationship: A. The member is the applicant B. A member's relative is the applicant (how distant a relative should be defined in the board rules or bylaws.)

2. Proximity: A. The member is the property owner B. The member's property is adjacent, or within a certain proximity to the land under consideration. Proximity could be established in the board rules or bylaws.

3. Financial:

County police power ordinances. (Counties have very limited police power ordinance adoption authority. See "County government powers are very limited:' https://w,ww.canr.msu.edulnews/county government powers arc very limited) • Municipal (Township, city, and village) police power ordinances will supersede the above ordinances.

County zoning ordinance will supersede each of the above ordinances.

Township zoning ordinance will supersede each of the above ordinances (except townships and counties do not have general jurisdiction within the boundaries of a village or city).

18 Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. Mich. Comp. Laws. 125.3210 (2006). http://legislature.mi.govidoe.aspx?mel-125-3210 19 Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. Mich. Comp. Laws. 125.3209 (2006). http://legis1ature.mi.govidoc.aspx?mc1-125-3209 20 Michigan Planning Enabling Act. Mich. Comp. Laws. 125.3815 (2008). http://legislaturc.mi.govidoc.aspx?mc1-125-3815 •

Also see the MSU Extension Sample Bylaws for a Planning Commission: https://www.canr.msu.edwresourcesisample le bylaws for a planning commission Land Use Series:Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I c Michigan State University Board of Trustees 1 MS LI Extension October 6,2020 Page 8 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series A. The member (or relative) stands to gain or lose financially by the decision of the decisionmaking body.

Involvement of the community's attorney that is experienced in municipal (planning and zoning) law is advised when a conflict of interest issue presents itself for one or more board members (such as they have signed a lease or easement with a wind energy company).

Neutrality As with any zoning issue, members of the planning commission and zoning board of appeals should not announce or conclude publicly they are for or against a WES or wind energy project before the public hearing and all the information has been presented and deliberated, findings of fact have been adopted and reasons in support of the decision formulated, and a motion containing a decision has been made and seconded.

Just like any issue, members have the task of remaining neutral so that an applicant's due process rights are upheld. When this has not been done, disgruntled applicants have applied to circuit court asking the judge to remove the member of the planning commission or appeals board who is displaying bias by announcing his or her favor or opposition to a wind energy project.

Special land use standards can invite and encourage differing viewpoints coming into the meeting (as compared to appeals board variance standards). Outside of the public hearing, however, members of the planning commission or appeals board should remain neutral for all pending administrative decisions.

It is not appropriate for a planning commission member or an appeals board member to say "I'm going to vote against X no matter what because I dislike X." Following the hearing and discussion of facts relating to standards in the ordinance, it is fine for a planning commissioner or zoning board of appeals member to express an opinion that is factually based such as, "I don't think that your evidence describing no risk to the community is convincing or meets this standard in the ordinance."

A healthy outcome of deliberation and debate during a public meeting is being able to consider a change of approach or opinion. It is okay (and normal) for opinions to change through a public hearing process.

The job of the planning commission and zoning board of appeals is to thoroughly review the request according to the ordinance standards and make a decision. Dialogue and debate help to shape that decision.

When tensions are high, a planning commission or legislative body may be less inclined to deliberate or share opinions. The chairperson will have to provide strong leadership here to make sure that the public, the applicant, and the board feel safe and supported when offering opinions and questions.

Must approve if all standards are met Like any land use application, whether a permitted use or a special use under the local zoning ordinance, a WES application must be granted if the applicant satisfies the standards and conditions set forth in the zoning ordinance. To protect the public interest and to assure compliance with the ordinance, reasonable conditions may be imposed as a requirement for approval."

Leases and Easements Developers may not own the property on which wind turbines sit, but instead sign private leases or easements with landowners that convey certain rights from the landowner to the developer. Zoning has 21 Michigan

Zoning Enabling Act. Mich. Comp. Laws. 125.3504 (2006). http://1egis1aturc.mi.gov/doc.aspx?rncLI253504

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 9 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series no authority to require specific content or performance within a lease or easement or enforce the provisions of a lease or easement among private parties. Leases and easements are binding legal agreements that define what is required of each party, such as tax payments, revenue payments to the landowner, access to the property, expiration of the agreement, and options for renewal. There may be agreements with landowners who will not have a wind turbine on their property but who made an agreement with the wind developer, for example, to not construct another structure such as a cellular tower that might alter access to the wind resource. Furthermore, these agreements can be secured by one party/developer and then sold to another.

Related Case Law Utility-scale WES have been very controversial in some communities. Even so, there has been relatively few published court opinions that have precedential value." In Tuscola Wind III, LLC v. Alma- Charter Township et al.23 the court upheld the township's regulation of wind energy development. This 2017 opinion emphasizes the importance of defining a noise descriptor (such as Leg, L90) to determine zoning compliance rather than specifying only a maximum sound level (such as 45 dBA) without a noise descriptor. The Township prevailed in representing that they interpreted their ordinance sound level of 45 dBA as an Lmax, (the maximum sound level during a measurement period or a noise event) although it was not written in the ordinance. See Appendix A: Wind Turbine Noise for definitions of various sound descriptors.

In a second case, Tuscola Wind III, LLC v. Ellington Township et al.,24 the court found the Township's wind energy moratorium enacted by resolution, not by ordinance was in violation of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. The court concluded that a 2015 ordinance in effect prior to the "invalid" moratorium was the standard of review, but recognized there was no timeline in the ordinance for the township to act, so it could wait to consider the application until after adoption of a subsequent, more restrictive amendment to the zoning ordinance was enacted. Additional arguments around due process, injunctive relief, and the Open Meetings Act were dismissed or found to be moot.

These cases were heard by the United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division.25 Typically, a federal district court's interpretation of state law (as opposed to federal law) is not binding on state courts, although state courts may adopt their reasoning as persuasive. Thus, for example, if a case is construing the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, it will not have any precedential effect on Michigan courts.

n The March/April 2020 issue of Planning & Zoning News reviews several Michigan court cases involving wind energy. Copies can be ordered at: http://pznews.net/.

23 Tuscola Wind III, LLC v. Almer Charter Twp., 327 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (E.D. Mich. 2018) U.S. District Court, Eastern District of MI, Northern Division 24 Tuscola Wind III, LLC v. Ellington Twp., Case No. 17-cv-11025 (ED. Mich. Jul. 27, 2018) U.S. District Court, Eastern District of MI, Northern Division 25 The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals takes the position that the doctrine of stare decisis makes a federal district court decision binding precedent in future cases in the same court (until reversed, vacated, or disapproved by a superior court, overruled by the court that made it, or rendered irrelevant by changes in the positive law). Copy of opinion: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTSrnied-1 17-cv-10497/pdf/USCOURTS- mied-1 17-cv-10497-1.pdf.

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I 0 Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 10 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series In a published Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, Ansel v. Delta County Planning Commission,26 appellants expressed concern over noise and shadow flicker that turbines "would be expected to produce"27 and the plaintiff asserted that they were not aggrieved parties and lacked standing to appeal the decision to Circuit Court (the ZBA is not authorized to hear appeals of special land use permits in Delta County, so the party appealed the matter directly to Circuit Court). The Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the appellants lacked standing to appeal because they failed to show they suffered special damages or unique harm not common to other property owners. To be an aggrieved party, one must "show damages of a special character distinct and different from the injury suffered by the public generally."28 Although maps were available that specified the anticipated noise and flicker on particular properties, the "...appellants happen to be residents scattered about the community whose objections...are more apparently driven by concerns of a general nature than by expected consequences of operation of the turbines peculiar to themselves."29 An unpublished opinion from the Michigan Court of Appeals regarding an attempt to regulate wind energy by police power (i.e. regulatory) ordinance is worth mentioning too, Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms, LLC v Bengal Twp., Dallas Twp., and Essex Twp.33 After Forest Hill applied for a special land use permit under the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance, Bengal, Dallas and Essex Townships, who were subject to the county zoning ordinance, each adopted a wind energy ordinance under the Township Ordinances Act." These regulatory ordinances had the effect of prohibiting Forest Hill's proposal due to height, setback, noise, and shadow fficker standards. Forest Hill filed a lawsuit and the Court of Appeals ultimately agreed with the trial court's finding that the townships' ordinances actually constituted zoning ordinances, and that because the townships' ordinances were not enacted under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, the county ordinance was controlling.

Public Acceptance Factors Related to Wind Energy Development Development and siting of a large wind energy project can be one of the more controversial issues that a rural community faces. However, not all wind energy projects are controversial. Community acceptance factors are complex and varied.32 One analysis of North American wind energy research over the past 30 years identified six factors that help explain wind energy acceptance by individuals living near proposed or existing wind energy developments: (1) socioeconomic aspects; (2) sound annoyance and health risk perceptions; (3) visual/landscape aspects, annoyance, and place attachment; (4) environmental concerns

26 Ansell v. Delta County Planning Comm'n, 2020 Mich. App. LEXIS 3688, 2020 WL 3005856 (Court of Appeals of Michigan June 4,2020, Decided) 27 Ansell v. Delta Cnty. Planning Comm' n, p. 5 28 Olsen v. Jude & Reed, LLC, 325

Mich. App. 170, 924 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)

29 Ansell v. Delta Cnty. Planning Comm' n, p. 5

3° Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms, LLC, LLC v. Twp. of Bengal, 2014 Mich. App. LEXIS 2380 (Court of Appeals of Michigan December 4, 2014, Decided) 31 Township Ordinances Act.

Mich. Compl. Laws (PA 246 of 1945). http://lcgislature.rni.gov/doc.aspx?rncl-Act-246-of -1945

Fournis, Y. & Fortin, M.J. (2017). From social 'acceptance' to social 'acceptability' of wind energy projects: Towards a territorial perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2015.1133406.

32

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I 0 Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page11 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series and attitudes; (5) distance from turbines; and (6) perceptions of planning process, fairness, and trust."

The relationships between each of these factors and public acceptance of wind energy developments are briefly summarized in the following sections.

Socioeconomic Aspects Research points to both potential positive and negative economic impacts from wind energy development. Studies on this theme explore impacts on local job creation, local tax revenue, landowner compensation, impacts on tourism, electricity bills, and property value impacts.

Economic benefits and negative economic impacts of wind energy developments - and the extent to which community members put weight into each - vary from place to place. One consistent theme in how individuals respond to wind development proposals relates to the concept of distributional justice, referring to the distribution of the costs and benefits of wind energy developments.34 Some of these concerns are on the distribution of benefits and costs between the host community and the greater region or society at large. This can include concern that rural communities are bearing the burden of reaching renewable energy goals with projects owned my multinational (i.e., non-local) corporations and producing much more power than the rural community itself needs, thus having that power exported to an urban area."

There is also often concern about clistributional justice between those residents who would receive direct compensation from the wind developers and those who would not. A nationwide study by Firestone et al.36 and a study of Michigan windfarms by Mills et al.37 find this direct compensation important in influencing attitudes toward wind energy projects. As a result, developers have broadened the geographic extent of royalty payments to include residents within the entire area of a project. While this does tend to influence attitudes positively, it also has the effect of increasing the number of township board or planning commission members who may have a conflict of interest.

Sound Annoyance and Health Risk Perception There are two key strands of research connecting how noise from wind turbines impacts an individual's attitude about wind turbines: those related to annoyance and direct impacts to human health.

There is evidence that the sound generated by wind turbines causes more annoyance than a similar sound produced from some other source. Research of U.S. wind turbines by Haac et al.38 showed that while an individual's annoyance with wind turbine sound is linked to measured turbine noise levels, annoyance is Rand, J. & Hoen, B. (2017). Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned?

Energy Research & Social Science, 29,135-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.019 34 Rand, J. & Hoen, B. (2017). Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned?

Energy Research & Social Science, 29, 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.019 35 Groth, T.M. & Vogt, C. (2014). Residents' perceptions of wind turbines: an analysis of two townships in Michigan. Energy Policy, 65, 251-260. https://dotorgi10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.055 36 Firestone, J., Hoen, B., Rand, J., Elliott, D., Htbner, G., & Pohl, J. (2017). Reconsidering barriers to wind power projects: community engagement, developer transparency and place. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20(3), 370-386. https://dotorg/.10.1080/1523908X.2017.1418656 37 MillS, S., Bessette, D., & Smith, H. (2019). Exploring landowners' post-construction changes in perceptions of wind energy in Michigan. Land Ilse Policy, 82, 754-762 https:'/doi.org/10.1016jlanduscpol.2019.01.010 38 Haac, T.R., Kaliski, K., Landis, M., Hoen, B., Rand, J., Firestone, J., Elliott, D., Hubner, G., Pohl, J. (2019). Wind turbine audibility and noise annoyance in a national U.S. survey: Individual perception and influencing factors, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 146, 1124-1141. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5121309 33

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 12 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series better explained by how the individual felt about the visual appearance of the wind turbine (i.e., those who reported disapproving of the looks of wind turbines were also more likely to report being annoyed by their sound) and whether or not the individual was receiving direct compensation.

As to direct health risk, although an individual's perception of health risk increases their opposition to wind turbines, Rand and Hoen (2017) write "Recent epidemiological research concludes that wind turbine sound and infrasound are not directly related to adverse human health effects or sleep quality."

Even so, since the perception of health risk plays a role in acceptance of wind energy facilities, project developers may see value in addressing these concerns through appropriate changes to project design beyond what local regulations might minimally regulate.

Visual/Landscape, Annoyance, and Place Attachment The idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder is true for wind turbines. Many studies of public opinion in host communities of utility-scale WES have found negative perceptions of turbine impact on scenic beauty. Research found that this opposition to wind energy development is most common when individuals feel that the turbines threaten what makes a particular landscape special, and is particularly evident in places where people have strong attachment to the landscape." Recent research, for example, found more opposition to wind energy in landscapes that are national parks or other protected areas.4° However, the negative reaction to turbines within a landscape is not universal. Many agricultural communities have shown moderate to high support for wind energy, as residents see wind turbines as protecting the rural farming character of the landscape by preventing suburban expansion, or see them as another productive use of the land.41 Related research suggests that wind turbines in operation are perceived more positively as compared to when not operating and idle.42 Other research finds that some perceive the visual impact of wind energy facilities to be symbolic and positive, a way of showing progress or a commitment to the environment.'"

How well wind turbines might be perceived to fit within the landscape may vary from community to community, and even within communities. As a result, it is not uncommon to see modern-day discussions about wind energy resembling those that gave rise to Right to Farm laws 40 years ago: trying to balance the rights of those who see the land for productive uses and those who value it for other reasons, including but not limited to aesthetics. With this in mind, local officials should consider how their local master plans and zoning ordinance provisions balance these competing landscape views and apply that logic to WES, as appropriate and legally defensible.

39 Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The Role of Place Attachment and Place Identity in Explaining Placeprotective Action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19, 426-441. https://doi.org/10.1002/easp.1004

Giordono, L.S., Boudet, H.S., Karmazina, A., Taylor, C.L., & Steel, B.S. (2018). Opposition "overblown"? Community response to wind energy siting in the Western United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 43,119-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.016 Banas Mills, S., Borick, C., Gore, C., & Rabe, B.G. (2014, April). "Wind Energy Development in the Great Lakes Region: Current Issues and Public Opinion." Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy No. 8. Centerfor Local, State, and Urban Policy, Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. https://papers.ssm.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract id=2652865 Fergen, J. & Jacquet, J. (2016). Beauty in motion: Expectations, attitudes, and values of wind energy development in the rural U.S. Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 133-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.09.003 ' Mulvaney, K.K., Woodson, P., & Stalker Prokopy, L (2013). A tale of three counties: Understanding wind development in the rural Midwestern United States. Energy Policy, 56, 322-330. https://dotorg/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.064 42

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I CMichiganState University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 13 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series

Environmental Concerns and Attitudes It is common for environmental concerns to be brought up both by proponents and opponents of wind energy. Wind energy development—like any other development—will have impacts on wildlife, particularly during construction. While many wildlife will return following construction, that may not be the case if the project impacts niche habitat. There are also often concerns over the long-term impact on birds and bats, and there is no shortage of research estimating bird and bat fatalities.44 There is also research putting these fatalities in perspective of other human activities.45 Further, many environmental organizations, including the National Audubon Society, support properly sited wind energy, as it helps mitigate climate change, which poses an even graver threat to species.46 The American Wind Wildlife Institute, a collaboration that includes equal representation of environmental organizations and wind energy developers, includes numerous research studies and recommendations on best practices to avoid conflict with wildlife.

Distance from Turbines As Rand and Hoen (2017) write in their review of research articles on wind energy perceptions, "researchers have consistently examined the hypothesis that those living closest to turbines will have the most negative attitudes about the local wind facility. These studies, however, have produced no clear consensus" (p. 142).47 In some cases, those nearest the turbines had more positive views; in other cases, these nearest neighbors had more negative views. As suggested in a paper based on a study of Michigan windfarms, this is likely because many previous studies do not take into account that the most intense impacts—both positive and negative—often accrue to those nearest the turbines.48 While those closest to the turbines may be the most likely to hear the turbines, they are also the most likely to be financially compensated. As a result, the distribution of those nearest neighbors who receive compensation versus those that do not across the projects that have been studied may lead these conflicting research findings.

Again, this is likely among the reasons wind developers have broadened the geographic extent of royalty payments to include residents within the entire area of a project.

Perceptions of Planning Process, Fairness, and Trust Countless studies point to community trust in the wind energy development siting process as being extremely important to public acceptance or acceptability. Indeed, research from Michigan finds that attitudes about the siting process to be even more important to perceptions about wind energy than whether or not the respondent is financially compensated by a wind developer.49 Further, this research 44 American Wind Wildlife Institute. (2017, June). Wind Turbine Interactions with Wildlife and Their Habitats: A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions. Washington, D.C. https://awwi.org/wpcontent,u_ploads /2017 '07/AWWI -Wind -Wildlife- Interactions-Summary-Jun e- 2017,pdf 45 Zimmerling, J., Pomeroy, A., d'Entremont, M., & Francis, C. (2013). Canadian estimate of bird mortality due to collisions and direct habitat loss associated with wind turbine developments. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 8(2) 10. hap:, ,dx.doi.orga0.5751/ACE- 00609-080210 Sovacool, B. K. (2013). The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update. Renewable Energy, 49,19-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renenc.2012.01.074 47 Rand, J. & Hoen, B. (2017). Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned?

Energy Research & Social Science, 29,135-148. https://doiorg/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.019 48 MillS, S., Bessette, D., and Smith, H. (2019). Exploring landowners' post-construction changes in perceptions of wind energy in Michigan. Land Use Policy, 82, 754-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.010 49 MillS, S., Bessette, D., and Smith, H. (2019). Exploring landowners' post-construction changes in perceptions of wind energy in Michigan. Land Use Policy, 82, 754-762. https://dotorg'10.101611andusepol.2019.01.010

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems 10 Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6, 2020 Page14 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series found that attitudes about process fairness have impacts not just in the short-term (i.e., about how contentious the process is or whether or not a wind project gets built), but can shape how residents feel about a wind energy project long after the project has been built.

A study from 2017 provides a useful summary on procedural fairness in the wind energy development process and its relationship to the overall community attitudes associated with wind projects.5° Researchers find that 1) a developer being open and transparent, 2) a community having a say in the planning process, and 3) a community being able to influence the outcome are all statistically significant predictors of a process perceived as being fair.

Trust and sense of fairness are directly tied to meaningful public engagement in the siting and decisionmaking process. This includes both actions taken by wind developers as well as those taken by local officials (i.e., planning commissioners and township/county board members).51 If kept out of the siting, review, and decision-making process, community members may perceive that concerns related to anticipated effects are not being addressed and costs and benefits are not being fairly distributed across the community and with the developer. This can lead to community members feeling that local officials are not listening to them and the community as a whole is being treated unfairly, which can result in opposition directed both at the developer and the policymakers who reviewed the project.52 As a result, it is imperative that local governments follow a process that is open and allows for meaningful participation by members of the community (discussed in further detail below). Additionally, wind energy developers "...have to negotiate expectations with host communities and articulate a shared vision for a project. This requires interacting with a wider segment of the public than NGOs or municipal decision makers and making concerted efforts to learn the history and culture of a place" (p. 29). 3

Towards a Better Process Research recommends wind developers and local governments provide meaningful education, collaborative discussions, and robust public participation opportunities very early in the process in order to lessen friction among parties. Very early in this context means prior to wind studies or installation of anemometer towers, etc.54 When communities plan and zone for wind energy facilities prior to a project being proposed, they have the benefit of time to more thoughtfully consider whether, how, and where it fits within their community. Proactive planning can also send a message to wind developers that your community would welcome a renewable energy development or not. If a developer has already submitted

5° Firestone, J., Hoen, B., Rand, J., Elliott, D., Hagler, G., & Pohl, J. (2017). Reconsidering barriers to wind power projects: community engagement, developer transparency and place. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20(3), 370-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2017.1418656 51 Bidwell, D. (2013). The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy. Energy Policy, 58, 189199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.010 52 Ellis, G., Barry, J. & Robinson, C. (2007). Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(4), 517-551. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701402075 53 Fast, S. & Mabee, W. (2015). Place-making and trust-building: The influence of policy on host community responses to windfarms. Energy Policy, 81, 27-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.008 54 Romich, E., Hall, P. & Beyea, W. (2013 December 18). Utility Scale Renewable Energy Development - Project Siting & Conflict Resolution. Recorded webinar. North Central Regional Centerfor Rural Development. https://www.canr.msu.eduincrcrd/webinars/chronological archive/index

Land Use Series:Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page15 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series an application in a community, there are still steps that can be taken to help increase public involvement in the siting process.

Community-Wide Education The time to increase awareness and to educate and inform people about wind energy development is ideally before a project application is submitted or land easement acquisition starts." Education should not have a goal to convert or persuade members of the community to oppose or support a wind energy project, but rather to provide fact-based information about the benefits and negative impacts of wind energy. Educational efforts can include open houses with experts or a storefront where representatives of the project are accessible. Education should be about: 1. Wind energy generally, 2. Siting issues, 3. Findings from published academic research and peer-reviewed studies, and 4. Possibly include tours of existing wind energy developments.

This education should be done by a trusted third party, not the developer, not the local government, not the local chamber or economic development office, all which may be perceived as on one side of the issue.

This may be a role for Michigan State University Extension, a community college, other universities, League of Women Voters or similar organizations.

Process for Drafting the Zoning Ordinance While planning commissions typically operate via public hearings, as required by the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, this format has certain shortcomings, particularly while drafting zoning ordinance amendments related to WES. For example, public hearings invite for or against comments and do not allow or encourage the planning commission to engage in a conversation with community members or other interested stakeholders.

As with other types of development, there are a variety of public engagement techniques for collecting public opinion on potential land uses and appropriate standards. These, however, should be conducted before an application for that type of development is submitted.56 For a complex issue such as wind energy development, focus or working groups, made up of community members, including local planning commissioner(s) and developers, could be formed by the local unit of government to dig deeper into key issues and concerns. A list of potential discussion topics is included in

to this approach. Developers want to get easements as quietly and as quickly as possible. The belief is publicity just raises the price of leases for a developer. However, there are examples where education before the project application or land easement acquisition starts has worked, e.g., early John Deere wind energy projects in Huron County and other developers in Gratiot County, Michigan.

56 Further Reading from Michigan State University Extension on public participation: The Public Hearing is the worst way to involve the public: https://www.cantinsu.edu/news/the public hearing is the worst way to involve the public Before settling for a public hearing, consider the continuum of public involvement: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/before settling for a public hearing consider the continuum of public invol Increasing public participation in the planning process: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/increasing public participation in the planning process

55 There may be push-back

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 16 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series a "Lessons Learned" document from the first decade of wind development in Michigan. ' These groups would provide a better opportunity for dialogue than the more rigid public hearing format, particularly with regard to a proposed zoning amendment. Focus groups or other intentional facilitated sessions, when organized by a unit of government, would be subject to the Open Meetings Act and Freedom of Information Act. To reiterate, focus groups would be appropriate for a zoning amendment process in instances where a zoning application has yet to be submitted. Exparte communication (discussing the business of the public body outside of a public meeting) would become an issue if planning commissioners were meeting in a focus group after a developer had submitted an application for a wind energy system.

Process for Evaluating Zoning Applications Once a zoning application for a wind development is submitted, local officials still have a role to play in helping ensure that the community understands the planning process. One important role of the planning commission is articulating to the public what amount of discretion they have once a zoning application is submitted.

In many cases, the public hearing format can lead to a perception of lack of fairness, especially when a clear majority of the comments are opposed or in support of a certain proposal and the planning commission makes a decision contrary to the opinion of the majority of the public in the room during the formal hearing. This is not an outcome unique to wind energy development. This is all too often the outcome of new development proposals because the planning commission is an administrative body that has the primary responsibility to uphold and apply the ordinance as written. Community members, however, rarely know that this is the case. In these situations, the planning commission should be clear to remind the public that the planning commission has very little discretion in applying the ordinance standards. Instead, they are obliged to review the application against the current ordinance standards and render a decision as to whether the development proposal satisfies all applicable ordinance standards. If the proposal satisfies those standArds, it must be approved; if it does not satisfy one or more standard, it must be denied. Further, while planning commissioners may be tempted to ignore points made in public comments that do not pertain to the ordinance standards before them, it may be helpful to acknowledge those points and to, again, educate the public on why the commission cannot consider them in evaluating the proposal.

Sample Zoning Amendments for Wind Energy Systems The following is offered as sample zoning ordinance amendment language. It is intended as a starting point for a community to use when considering this issue.

This sample ordinance is not a definitive recommendation by the authors or MSU Extension. A sample is a starting point for discussion and development of an ordinance or ordinance amendment that is 57 Wind Energy Stakeholder Committee. (2018 January).

Lessons Learned: Community Engagement for Wind Energy Development in Michigan, Wind Energy Stakeholder Committee (WESC). https://staticl.squarespace.com/static/564236bce4b00b392cc6131d/t/5a848c6771e10b7697cb6c50/1.518636136391/Lessons+Le arned WESC+Report Final.pdf Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page17of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series appropriate for a particular community. That means any numerical standard (dimensional standard) offered in the sample zoning amendment is just a starting point for discussion.

The commentary shown in highlighted boxes in the sample ordinance is intended to provide more detailed information to aid local policy decisions around numeric standards or other regulation.

This document is written for use in Michigan and is based only on Michigan law and statute. One should not assume the concepts and rules for an ordinance by Michigan municipalities and counties apply in other states. In most cases they do not. First, consider the following: •

If zoning exists in a city, village, township, or county, then a zoning ordinance amendment must be adopted pursuant to the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. A step-by-step checklist of procedures to amend a zoning ordinance is available from Michigan State University Extension's Land Use Series: "Checklist # 4 58: For Adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (including some PUDs) in Michigan".59

•

In a township with county zoning the township, or residents of the township, must work with the county planning commission to consider a zoning amendment to the county's zoning ordinance pursuant to the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. Checklist #4 is also applicable here.

•

Where there is a Joint Planning Commission the municipality must work with the joint planning commission to amend a zoning ordinance pursuant to the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Joint Municipal Planning Act, and the local Joint Planning Ordinance and Agreement.

Checklist #4 is also applicable here.

•

If zoning does not exist, then it is not possible to adopt these regulations apart from the adoption of a complete zoning ordinance establishing rules and creating the public offices and bodies necessary pursuant to the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act.

Options for Ordinance Structure There are different ways for a WES to be classified in a zoning ordinance. The zoning classification for a WES is influenced by the height and scale (on-site v. utility-scale) of the systems, and the potential for impact to neighboring properties. Communities typically use two or more of the following regulatory approaches for different types of WES: •

Permitted use: Often used for on-site systems under a certain height, often approved administratively with basic site plan or plot plan.

•

Special land use (system): Used for utility-scale systems as one application for the entire system. Although dozens or hundreds of turbines may be included under one application, community members can object to the placement of specific turbines or request turbine specific mitigations.

•

Special land use (individual turbine): Applications are submitted and reviewed for each wind turbine generator (this is not a common approach). Some communities designate larger on-site systems (such as those over 90 feet) as a special land use.

May 31). Check List #4 For Adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (including some PUDs) in Michigan. Michigan State University Extension. https://www.canr.msu.eduiresources/check list 4 for adoption of a zoning ordinance amendment including some pu 59 Also see MSU Extension article "Amending a zoning ordinance requires adopting an ordinance" at: https://wmv.canr.msu.eduinewsiamending a zoning ordinance requires adopting an ordinance

58 Schindler, K. (2016

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems 0 Michigan State University Board of Trustees1MSU Extension I October 6, 2020 Page 18 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series • Overlay district: A specific zoning district that applies over underlying zoning districts that specifies areas for wind development and uses the site plan review process rather than a special land use approval process (Huron and Gratiot County are examples of this approach and it is discussed in more detail below).

•

Planned unit development (PUD): This option has not been utilized in Michigan to date,

but it offers yet another approach to design a wind energy system that meets performance standards designed for overall community benefit.

The sample provided here uses the special land use approach, but there are others to consider. The sample zoning for utility-scale WES is written with the following assumptions: a) The municipality has a site plan review process in its zoning ordinance and follows it. b) The municipality's attorney whom is experienced in municipal law (planning and zoning) will review any proposed amendments before they are adopted.

The Overlay Zoning Approach An alternative option to the special land use provided in this sample zoning ordinance, is the overlay zoning district approach. The method uses zoning amendments (map and text) to identify and approve land areas suitable for wind energy development. Some overlay zoning districts are considered floating and are not mapped until the applicant requests a map amendment. Once land is approved in the wind energy overlay district classification, the wind turbine locations and other features of the development (like access roads) are subject only to site plan review procedures. A benefit of the overlay district is that it allows for more careful targeting of sections of the township or county that are appropriate for the use, rather than allowing for WES in the entirety of the Agriculture district (some of which may have an agresidential character as compared to areas dominated by agricultural production).

The overlay zoning approach can be used to craft predictable and transparent WES regulation and it can be tailored in many ways. In Huron County, as one example, WES are classified as a permitted use and the overlay district regulation details required studies, setbacks, sound standards, and site plan requirements. This approach offers an option to remove the discretionary standards common to the special land use process, such as "will be harmonious with the essential character or the area" or "will not be hazardous or disturbing" When conditions on a permit are tied to these types of broad discretionary standards, rather than putting the standards into the ordinance language, it can create a less predictable and potentially more inefficient process.6°

Definitions Add the following definitions to Section 503' (or the section of the zoning ordinance that defines words used in the ordinance).

A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL means the sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting network, expressed as dB(A) or dBA.

6° Huron County. (n.d.) Wind Facility Overlay District Zoning. Retrieved September 3, 2020 from https://www.dropbox.com/s/37850k50b328cctiWincP/020Energy%20Facility%200verlay%20Zoning%20Revised%200rdia nce.pdf?d1-0 61 This number system comes from the MSU Extension zoning ordinance codification system found here: https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/organization and codification of a zoning ordinance. A community should stick to their own numbering system.

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 19 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series AMBIENT SOUND means the all-encompassing sound associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sound from many sources near and far, as defined by ANSI S12.9 Part 3, current revision.

ANEMOMETER TOWER means a freestanding tower containing instrumentation such as anemometers that is designed to provide present moment wind data for use by the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system which is an accessory land use to a utility-scale wind energy system. Also includes the same equipment for evaluating wind characteristics in preparation of or evaluation of construction of on-site wind energy system and utility-scale WES. ANSI means the American National Standards Institute.

BACKGROUND SOUND means sound from all sources except the source of interest. dBA means the sound pressure level in decibels using the "A" weighted scale defined by ANSI. DECIBEL means a unit used to measure the intensity of a sound or the power level of an electric signal by comparing it with a given level on a logarithmic scale.

END OF USEFUL LIFE means the end of the manufacturer's recommended useful life of the product, when lease or easements expire, the WES or parts of the WES are abandoned for 12 months or more, or power purchase agreements expire.

Commentary. The end of useful life provision provides direction to the next generation of planners as to what will happen in 20-30 years when a WES owner requests to re-tool (such as install new equipment to extend the life of the project), modify, or remove the project. [End of commentary] HEIGHT means the distance between the base of the wind turbine tower at grade to the tip of the blade at its highest reach.

HORIZONTAL AXIS WIND TURBINE means a wind turbine that utilizes a main rotor shaft and electrical generator at the top of the tower and points into the wind for optimal operation.

IEC means the International Electrotechnical Commission.

Commentary. The IEC is the leading global organization that prepares and publishes international standards for all electrical, electronic, and related technologies. [End of commentary] ISO means the International Organization for Standardization.

Commentary. ISO is a network of the national standards institutes of 156 countries. [End of commentary] LAYDOWN AREA means a designated area where turbine components are temporarily stored prior to erection. A central laydown area may be used for the project or there may be several laydown areas.

A laydown area may be used temporarily during construction or may be a permanent feature of the WES development.

Leq means the equivalent average sound level for the measurement period of time.

Ln, PERCENTILE-EXCEEDED SOUND LEVEL means the A-weighted sound pressure level which is exceeded by a specified percent of the time period during which a measurement is made, denoted as LXX and expressed as dBA. (For example a 10-Percentile-Exceeded Sound Level shall mean the Aweighted sound pressure level which is exceeded 10 percent of the time period during which a measurement is made, denoted as L10 and expressed as dBA. L90 denotes the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time period.)

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems ©Michigan State University Board of Trustees MSU Extension October 6,2020 Page 20 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series PARTICIPATING PARCEL means one or more parcels under a lease or easement for development of a utility-scale WES62.

NON-PARTICIPATING PARCEL means a parcel for which there is not a signed lease or easement for development of a utility-scale WES associated with the applicant project.

ROTOR means an element of a WES that acts as a multi-bladed airfoil assembly, thereby extracting through rotation, kinetic energy directly from the wind.

ON-SITE WIND ENERGY SYSTEM (WES) means a land use for generating electric power from wind and is often an accessory use that is intended to primarily serve the needs of the consumer on-site or an adjacent property.

SHADOW FLICKER means alternating changes in light intensity caused by the moving blade of a WES casting shadows on the ground and stationary objects, such as but not limited to a window at a dwelling.

SOUND PRESSURE means the difference at a given point between the pressure produced by sound energy and the atmospheric pressure, expressed as pascals (Pa).

SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL means twenty times the logarithm to the base 10, of the ratio of the root-mean-square sound pressure to the reference pressure of twenty micropascals, expressed as decibels (dB). Unless expressed with reference to a specific weighing network (such as dBA), the unit dB shall refer to an un-weighted measurement.

UTILITY-SCALE WIND ENERGY SYSTEM (WES) means a land use for generating power by use of wind at multiple tower locations in a community and includes accessory uses such as but not limited to a SCADA Tower, electric substation. A utility-scale WES is designed and built to provide electricity to the electric utility.

VERTICLE AXIS WIND TURBINE means a wind turbine utilizing a vertical rotor shaft, these are often mounted the ground or a building and do not need to point into the wind to be effective.

WES means wind energy system (see on-site WES and utility-scale WES).

WIND SITE ASSESSMENT means an assessment to determine the wind speeds at a specific site and the feasibility of using that site for construction of a WES. WIND TURBINE means a group of component parts used to convert wind energy into electricity and includes the tower, base, rotor, nacelle, and blades.

62 Note: earlier versions of this document, described this concept as a lease unit. A -pool" or -pooled parcels" may also describe a group of parcels under lease or easement.

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems

Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension October 6,2020 Page 21 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series

General Provisions (On-Site WES/Temporary Towers) Add to Article 10 subpart 107 (on-site WES) and 108 (Temporary towers)" the following provisions for small WES and temporary towers as a use by right. That means a special use permit is not required. Permanent anemometers included as part of utility-scale WES are included in sections on utility-scale WES. 107. An on-site WES is a permitted or accessory use which shall meet the following standards: A. Designed to primarily serve the needs of a home, agriculture, or small business or to test wind or other environmental conditions in the area for a period not to exceed 3 years from the date the permit is issued.

Commentary: A way to differentiate between on-site and utility-scale WES is height or electrical generation capacity of the generators. Due to changes in efficiency and technology, it is recommended to use height rather than rated capacity to classify on-site WES in a zoning ordinance. Height in this sample ordinance refers to the tower height plus the length of the blade at its highest reach. On-site WES tower heights generally range between 30 to 70 feet. Nearby trees may require an increase in the tower height to adequately capture the wind resource. Not all on-site WES are on towers, smaller systems are often mounted directly to the peak of a building or other structure, such as a pole. Larger on-site WES between 70 to 120 feet could be used to serve more energy intensive principal uses, such as agricultural operations. A community may choose to designate these taller systems as a special land use and may exempt smaller, mounted systems from requiring a zoning permit as shown below. [End of commentary] B. Height: Total height for on-site WES shall not exceed

[for example: 66, 90, or 120] feet.

C. On-Site System Exception: On-site WES mounted to existing structures (such as a roof or pole) [for example: 8] feet or less above the highest point of the structure are exempt from that extend this zoning ordinance.

D. Property Setback: The horizontal distance between the base of an on-site WES and the owner's [for example: 1.11 times height. No part of the WES structure, property lines shall be no less than [for example: 25] feet to the owner's property including guy wire anchors, may extend closer than lines, or the distance of the required setback in the respective zoning district, whichever results in a greater setback.

Commentary: The property setback for on-site systems is intended to protect neighbors from potential noise and/or in the unlikely event of a tower failure. A setback relative to the height as opposed to the same setback distance for all property (such as 50 feet) helps to maintain an appropriate relationship between the height of the on-site system and the subject property. Due to the wind resource, trees, topography, lot size, and many other factors, some properties will be more well-suited to on-site WES. The turbine setback must have a rational basis and purpose, that protects health, safety, and welfare. Review the local zoning setbacks for on-site television antennas/Wi-Fi towers — a similar setback rule for on-site WES may be appropriate. [End of commentary] E. Sound Pressure Level: The audible sound from an on-site WES shall not exceed [for example: property line or dwelling] closest to the WES. minute) at the

dBA L

(_-

This number system shown here comes from the MSU Extension zoning ordinance codification system found here: A community should stick to their own numbering system.

63

httpsii\v-ww.canransu.eduiresourcesiorganization and codification of a zoning ordinance.

Land Use Series:Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension October 6,2020 Page 22 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series Commentary: For example (above) the audible sound from an on-site WES shall not exceed 45 dBA Leg (10 minute) at the property line closest to the WES. Manufacturers of on-site

turbines provide a maximum predicted sound level as part of the documentation given to the owner or installer. A zoning administrator can ask for this information upon application to verify sound levels will meet the regulation. It is unlikely that the owner of the on-site WES will be able to afford a detailed sound study, like those required of a utility-scale WES. The manufacturer's predicted sound level is important documentation to keep in the file should a complaint arise. In the event that two or more on-site systems are requested for the same property, additional detail may be needed from the manufacturer to obtain the cumulative sound level contributed by more than one turbine. [End of commentary] F. Construction Codes, Towers, and Interconnection Standards: On-site WES towers shall comply with all applicable state construction and electrical codes and local building permit requirements. An interconnected on-site WES shall comply with Michigan Public Service Commission and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission standards. Off-grid systems are exempt from this requirement.

G. Aviation and Airports: Where applicable, on-site WES shall comply with Federal Aviation Administration requirements, the Michigan Airport Zoning Act (Public Act 23 of 1950, MCL 259.431 et seq.), the Michigan Tall Structures Act (Public Act 259 of 1959, MCL 259.481 et seq.), and local jurisdiction airport overlay zone regulations.

Commentary: Structural and electrical safety issues are addressed by reference to these other

codes. Depending on the height of the tower and distance to the airport, FAA, Michigan Tall Structures, and/or local airport zoning permits may not be required. [End of commentary] H. Safety: An on-site WES shall have automatic braking, governing, or a feathering system to prevent uncontrolled rotation or over speeding. All wind towers shall have lightning protection. If a tower is supported by guy wires, the wires shall be clearly visible to a height of at least six feet above the guy wire anchors.

I. Ground Clearance: The minimum vertical blade tip clearance from grade shall be [for example: 20] feet for a horizontal axis wind turbine'''. Vertical axis wind turbines are exempt from this ground clearance provision, but sufficient clearance should be maintained for the safety of people, animals, machinery, or others that may traverse under or near the vertical turbine.

108. Temporary Towers (temporary anemometers for wind testing, bat testing towers) A

Height: Temporary anemometers or other temporary testing towers (such as for bat studies) shall not exceed feet [for example: 200].

B

Setback: The horizontal distance between the base of a temporary anemometer tower and the owner's property lines shall be no less than [for example: 1.11 times height. No part of the tower structure, including guy wire anchors, may extend closer than [for example: 25] feet to the owner's property lines, or the distance of the required setback in the respective zoning district, whichever results in a greater setback.

C

Construction Codes, Towers, and Interconnection Standards: Temporary towers shall comply with all applicable state construction and electrical codes.

D

Aviation and Airports: Where applicable, temporary anemometers shall comply with Federal Aviation Administration requirements, the Michigan Airport Zoning Act (Public Act 23 of 1950, MCL 259.431 et seq.), the

64 Rynne, S., Flowers, L., Lantz, E., & Heller, E. (ed.) (2011). Planningfor Wind Energy. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report Number, 566. https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9026890/

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems l© Michigan State University Board of Trustees MSU Extension lOctober 6,2020 Page 23 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series Michigan Tall Structures Act (Public Act 259 of 1959, MCL 259.481 et seq.), and local jurisdiction airport overlay zone regulations.

E

Performance Guarantee: The Planning Commission shall obtain a performance guarantee for a temporary anemometer or other temporary tower in an amount sufficient to guarantee removal of the tower at the end of three years. The performance guarantee shall be obtained in compliance with Section of this ordinance.

Commentary: It is typical for a developer to test the wind resource for a year or more in an effort to determine if an area is well-suited for wind development. More than one tower may be necessary. Wind testing is done by using temporary towers to record wind speeds and directions at higher heights. In Mason County, a temporary bat tower was also erected to monitor bat activity prior to submittal of a WES application65. [End of commentary]

Resolution Approving Utility Grid Wind Energy System, Special Land Use, Part B (12) Impacts on Bird and Bat Species; Study Required, ht tps: //www.ma soneounty. ne t/departm ents/zoning/lake-winds-ene rgv-park ht ml

65

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 24 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series Special Use Standards Add a section to Article 16 (the part of the zoning ordinance for specific special use permit standards) to regulate utility-scale wind energy system (WES) which may include Anemometer Towers accessory to the proposed Utility-Scale WES. 1609 Utility-Scale WES (including permanent Anemometer Towers accessory to the project).

A. Setbacks: 1. An Anemometer Tower shall be setback a distance equal to a property line or road right-of-way.

[for example: 1.1] times height from

[for example: the closest point of the base of the wind 2. A wind turbine setback shall be measured from turbine to the [property line] or [inhabited structure]] and shall not exceed: i.

[for example: 1.1 or 1.5] times the Road right of way: A horizontal distance equal to feet [for example 500] from the edge of the road right-of-way, whichever is height or greater;

ii.

Non-participating parcels: A horizontal distance equal to [property line] or [dwelling]; times height] from the

iii.

[for example: 1,100 feet or 2.5 times Participating parcels: A horizontal distance equal to height (something less than 2. ii above) from the [property line] or [dwelling];

[for example: 1,300 feet or 3

Commentary: Setback to property line or dwelling: Deciding whether setbacks are measured to a property line or a dwelling is a common issue when crafting a zoning ordinance for WES. Some communities use setbacks to dwellings or inhabited structures, others use setbacks to property lines, and some use a combination of both (See Appendix A: Wind Turbine Noise for more information on setbacks). When using both, there may be a setback to a dwelling for a participating parcel and a setback to a property line for a non-participating parcel. In Michigan, wind development has generally occurred in areas with around 2 to 2.5 times height or 1,000 to 1,250 foot setbacks to a dwelling or property line.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can be a helpful tool to model various setbacks from roads, property lines, dwellings, and natural features (lakes, rivers, natural areas). Seeing how setback distances change the viability or the density of a WES can help a Planning Commission determine a point at which a combination of setbacks would allow for, or potentially exclude, wind energy development.

Participating and non-participating properties: Property owners that enter into a lease or easement agreement with a wind energy developer are referred to here as participating properties. Those that were asked but declined, or those that were never approached, are nonparticipating. It is important to remember that not all properties that are impacted by a WES will have been approached about signing a lease or easement. This is certainly the case for properties lying just outside the boundaries of the wind development. With this in mind, some communities adopt separate standards for each type of property, with more restrictive standards applied to non-participating properties and that approach is used here (Appendix A: Wind Turbine Noise, Table 1: Utility-Scale Wind Energy Zoning Regulation Comparison in Michigan).

The purpose for doing so is to further minimize nuisance for those not receiving compensation from the wind energy development and create an incentive for developers to work with property owners in the vicinity of the project.

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems 10 Michigan State University Board of Trustees MSLI Extension October 6, 2020 Page 25 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series Setback distances vary: Setback distances vary among Michigan communities and other Midwestern states (Appendix A: Wind Turbine Noise, Table 2: Comparison of Midwestern State Standards Regulating Wind Energy Development). Land use patterns and parcel sizes in the area can impact local regulation. In many parts of Europe where land use controls and patterns restrict residential development in rural areas, 500 meters (1,640 feet) to 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) for a setback is common66. The Canadian province of Ontario starts at a 550 meters (1,804 feet) and the setback increases with wind turbine sound power and the number of turbines within 3 kilometers (1.86 miles) . In Michigan and nearby Midwestern states where a system of roads bordering one mile sections are common, the constraints on development are different. This is where the use of GIS can be helpful in Michigan to illustrate local opportunities or constraints.

Setback to roads and other infrastructure: In addition to setbacks to road right of way (ROW), some communities adopt setbacks to railroads, major gas lines, and electrical transmission lines, such as 1.1 times turbine/tower height. In the absence of these additional setbacks, the location of transmission lines and railroads should be shown on site plans and communication between the developer and major utilities/railways can be facilitated through the site plan review process. [End of commentary] 3. A Wind Turbine is not subject to property line setbacks for common property lines of two or more participating parcels, except road right-of-way setbacks shall apply.

B. Height: WES are not subject to height limitations found in Section [this is the height standard applied to buildings and signs in the zoning district, such as a maximum of 30' or 401

Commentary: Modern utility scale wind turbines include a tower (90 to 110 meters) and blades (45 to 55 meters) for a total height of about 440 to 550 feet. Generally, wind turbines are getting taller and more powerful. Where a single turbine might have produced 1.4 megawatts (MW) in the early 2000s, a modern onshore wind turbine can produce 2.5 to 3 MW. Using this example, building a 100 MW wind farm two decades ago would require about 70 turbines. In 2020, 33 to 40 turbines would be needed to produce the same amount of energy. If a community limits turbine height to 200, 300, or even 400 feet, they may be excluding modern utility-scale wind development and/or creating an incentive to site more, smaller turbines. [End of commentary] C. Accessory Uses: An Operations and Maintenance Office building, a sub-station, or ancillary equipment shall comply with property setback requirements of the respective zoning district.

Overhead transmission lines and power poles shall comply with the setback and placement requirements applicable to public utilities.

D. Laydown Area: A centralized temporary laydown area for wind turbine component parts and other related equipment shall comply with property-setback requirements of the district and be detailed in the application.

E. Sound Pressure Level: The sound pressure level shall not exceed the following: dBA L_ (_-minute) 1. Non-participating property: Sound from a WES shall not exceed [dwelling] or [property line] of a non-participating property. If the average measured at the 'Summary of Wind Energy Policies by Country (2012) Minnesota Environmental Review of Energy Projects, Minnesota Department of Commerce, https://mn.gov/ecrai 67 Ontario Environmental and Energy. (n.d.). Chapter 3: Required setbacks for wind turbines. In Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals. https: /www.ontario.ca!documcnt/technicaLguidc-rdncwable-cr1ergy- approvals/required-setback-windturbines# Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 26 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series dBA L_ (_-minute) the standard shall be background background sound pressure level exceeds [for example: 5 or 101 dBA. sound dBA plus dBA L_ L -minute) measured at 2. Participating property: Sound from a WES shall not exceed average background sound property.

If the [dwelling] or [property line] of a participating the dBA L_ (_-minute) the standard shall be background sound dBA plus pressure level exceeds [for example: 5 or 101 dBA. 3. Sound measurement methodology: Sound pressure level measurements shall be performed by a third party, qualified professional selected by the developer and approved by the Planning Commission. Testing shall be performed according to the procedures in the most current version of ANSI S12.18 and ANSI S12.9 Part 3. All sound pressure levels shall be measured with a sound meter that meets or exceeds the most current version of ANSI S1.4 specifications for a Type II sound meter.

4. Post-construction sound survey: A post-construction sound survey shall commence within the first year of operation to document levels of sound emitted from wind turbines. The study will be designed to verify compliance with sound standards applicable to this ordinance. The WES owner shall provide SCADA data during the testing period to the sound consultant completing the study.

Commentary: Choosing a regulation and methodology for post-construction sound compliance testing should involve an acoustic consultant with a background in wind turbine noise compliance testing. The testing methodology should be related to the regulation and public purpose and be detailed enough that if two acousticians are tasked with compliance testing at the same location at the same time, they would end up with similar results. If the ordinance provides no detail on how the testing will be performed, the details will have to be negotiated at a later date. An acoustic consultant can provide details and recommendations on the most recent methodologies (such as using attended and unattended measurement), number of testing locations, times of day/night, and data needed to determine compliance. The detail required and necessary tailoring to the regulation precludes a full outline of compliance testing methodology here.

See Mason and Huron County's ordinances in the Michigan Zoning Database". [End of commentary] F. Safety: Utility-scale WES shall be designed to prevent unauthorized access to electrical and mechanical components and shall have access doors that are kept securely locked at all times when service personnel are not present. All spent lubricants and cooling fluids shall be properly and safely removed in a timely manner from the site of the WES. A sign shall be posted near the tower or Operations and Maintenance Office building that will contain emergency contact information. A sign shall be placed at the road access to a wind turbine to warn visitors about the potential danger of falling ice. The minimum vertical blade tip clearance from grade shall be [for example: 20] feet for a WES employing a horizontal axis rotor.

G. Construction Codes, Towers, and Interconnection Standards: Utility-scale WES shall comply with all applicable state construction and electrical codes and local building permit requirements.

H. Pre-Application Permits: Utility-scale WES shall comply with applicable utility, Michigan Public Service Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission interconnection standards, FAA requirements, and tall structures requirements, including but not limited to: 1. Aviation and Airport

68

Michigan Department of Energy, Great Lakes, and Environment. (2019). Michigan Zoning Database (April 1, 2019) [Data set]. https://www-.michigan.gox- ic1imateandenergv."0,4580,7-364- 519951--,00.html Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I 0 Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 27 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series i.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. The minimum FAA lighting standards shall not be exceeded. The lighting plan submitted to the FAA shall include an Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS) for the utility-scale WES. The tower shaft shall not be illuminated unless required by the FAA.

ii.

Michigan Airport Zoning Act (Public Act 23 of 1950 as amended, MCL 259.431 et seq.).

iii.

Michigan Tall Structures Act (Public Act 259 of 1959 as amended, MCL 259.481 et seq.).

iv.

Local jurisdiction airport overlay zone regulations.

Commentary: For additional commentary on FAA standards and Aircraft Detection Lighting Systems (ADLS) see "FAA lighting" in Appendix C: Shadow Flicker, FAA Lighting. [End of commentary.]

2. Environment: The application will demonstrate mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts on the natural environment including, but not limited to wetlands and other fragile ecosystems, historical and cultural sites, and antiquities, as identified in the Environmental Analysis. The application shall demonstrate compliance with: i.

Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (Act 451 of 1994, MCL 324.101 et seq.) (including but not limited to: Part 31 Water Resources Protection (MCL 324.3101 et seq.),

ii.

Part 91 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control (MCL 324.9101 et seq.)

iii.

Part 301 Inland Lakes and Streams (MCL 324.30101 et seq.)

iv.

Part 303 Wetlands (MCL 324.30301 et seq.)

v.

Part 323 Shoreland Protection and Management (MCL 324.32301 et seq.)

vi.

Part 325 Great Lakes Submerged Lands (MCL 324.32501 at seq.)

vii.

Part 353 Sand Dunes Protection and Management (MCL 324.35301 et seq.)

Commentary: Environmental issues are complex. These guidelines identify areas that should be addressed in an Environmental Impact Assessment, but do not specify how the assessment should be conducted. Site specific issues should determine which issues are emphasized and studied indepth in the assessment. There are a number of state and federal laws that may apply depending on the site. [End of commentary] 3. Avian and Wildlife Impact: Site plan and other documents and drawings shall provide mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts on avians and wildlife, as identified in the Avian and Wildlife Impact analysis. i.

The application shall demonstrate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines.

ii.

Applicants must comply with applicable sections of the Federal Endangered Species Act and Michigan's endangered species protection laws (NREPA, Act 451 of 1994, Part 365).

iii.

The applicant or the applicant's impact assessment must show consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding federally listed species and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for state listed species. Early coordination with state and federal agencies is recommended.

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems © Michigan State University Board of Trustees MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 28 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series Commentary: Wind turbines do kill birds in some areas, but they are not a major contributor

to bird mortality69. According to research published in 2015, an estimated 234,000 birds were killed annually in the US from wind turbines. This is below other causes of direct bird mortality, including communication towers (6.6 million), building collisions (599 million) and cats (2.4 billion).7° This sample zoning requires an Avian and Wildlife Impact Analysis but does not specify how the analysis should be conducted. Site specific issues should determine which issues are emphasized in the analysis. To assist applicants to minimize, eliminate, or mitigate potential adverse impacts, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed the Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (2012).a If the local government desires more structure to the analysis requirements, the Potential Impact Index developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides a framework for evaluating a project's impact on wildlife. [End of commentary] of this Ordinance, shall be H. Performance Security: Performance security, pursuant to Section provided for the applicant to make repairs to public roads damaged by the construction of the WES. [County or Township], the applicant may enter In lieu of a performance security agreement with into a road use agreement with the County Road Commission to cover the costs of all road damage resulting from the construction of the WES.

Commentary: Many ordinances defer to the County Road Commission to enter into a separate road use agreement with the developer or project owner because public roadways in Michigan are under the jurisdiction of Michigan Department of Transportation or the County Road Commission. A road use agreement typically specifies a performance guarantee, detailed documentation/videos/photos of roadway condition before and after construction, road intersection modifications to accommodate the enlarged turning radius associated with turbine component transport, and more. The local Road Commission should provide feedback on this ordinance provision to help shape a regulation around performance guarantees for public road repairs. [End of commentary] I. Utilities: Electric transmission lines extending from a wind turbine to a sub-station should be placed underground to a minimum depth of feet to allow for continued farming and existing land use operations in the vicinity of the WES, and to prevent avian collisions and electrocutions. All other above-ground lines, transformers, or conductors should comply with the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) published guidelines72 to reduce avian mortality.

J. Visual Impact: Utility-scale WES projects shall use tubular towers and all utility-scale WES in a project shall be finished in a single, non-reflective, matte finish, color approved by the Planning Commission. A project shall be constructed using WES components (tower, nacelle, blade) of similar design, size, operation, and appearance throughout the project. An area of square feet or [for example: 5] percent of the nacelle [on one or two sides] may be used for a sign, such as for turbine identification or other insignia. The applicant shall avoid state or federal scenic areas and significant visual resources listed in the local unit of government's Master Plan.

69 Breining, Greg (2020)

Power or Prairie? It doesn't have to be an either/or. Living Bird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 65.

Loss, S., Will, T. & Marra, P. (2015). Direct Mortality of Birds from Anthropogenic Causes. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 46, 99-120.

7°

71 U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. https://www.fws.gnsiecological-services/es-librarylpdfsAVEG final.pdf 72 Avian Power Line Interaction Committee & US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2005). Avian Protection Plan (APP) Guidelines. https://www.aplic.orghipload s/files/26 3 4/ A P Pgu delin es final -draft Apr12005.pdf Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems 10 Michigan State University Board of Trustees1MSU Extension October 6,2020 Page 29 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series Commentary: These guidelines try to address visual impact issues by providing some design standards around color and finish and by limiting commercial advertising. Allowing for signage on a turbine is optional; the content of a small identification sign on a turbine (letters, numbers, logos, corporate insignia) cannot be dictated by the zoning ordinance and are protected by the 1st Amendment.73 [End of commentary] K. Shadow Flicker: Shadow flicker shall not exceed [for example: 30] hours per year and/or [for example: 30] minutes per day measured to the exterior wall of a dwelling or other occupied building on a non-participating parcel. Mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential impacts from shadow flicker, as identified in the Shadow Flicker Impact Analysis for human-occupied structures, shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Change the proposed location of the wind energy tower; or 2. The utility-scale WES shall be turned off by manufacturer approved automated system during the period of time an inhabited structure receives shadow flicker; or 3. The utility-scale WES shall be turned off during flicker events after flicker on an inhabited structure; or

hours/year of shadow

4. There is screening (forest, other building(s), topography, window treatments/blinds) which shields the inhabited structure from a direct line of sight to the rotors causing shadow flicker.

Commentary: See Appendix C: Shadow Flicker, FAA Lighting for more information on Shadow Flicker. [End of commentary] L. Signal Interference: No utility-scale WES shall be installed in any location where its proximity to existing fixed broadcast, retransmission, or reception antennae for radio, television, or wireless phone or other personal communication systems would produce interference with signal transmission or reception unless the applicant provides a replacement signal to the affected party that will restore reception to at least the level present before operation of the WES. No utility-scale WES shall be installed in any location within the line of sight of an existing microwave communications link where operation of the WES is likely to produce electromagnetic interference in the link's operation.

M. Decommissioning: A planning commission approved decommissioning plan indicating 1) the anticipated life of the project, 2) the estimated decommissioning costs net of salvage value in current dollars, 3) the method of ensuring that funds will be available for decommissioning and restoration, 4) the anticipated manner in which the project will be decommissioned and the site restored, and 5) the review of the amount of the performance guarantee based on inflation and current removal costs [for example 3 or 5] years, for the life of the project, and approved by the to be completed every [legislative body] board.

Commentary: A periodic review of the amount required to remove the system (such as every 3

to 5 years) will ensure adequate funds are available to cover decommissioning costs 20 to 30 years down the road. A review might also be triggered by a change of ownership, for example.

The ordinance should specify which body is responsible for approving the amount of the performance guarantee; the planning commission could recommend an amount with the legislative body making the final decision. A community could review how performance guarantees are handled for other types of developments, such as landscaping guarantees, and discuss how this could be similar or require a higher level of review. [End of commentary]

73 Reed, et al v. Town of Gilbert, AZ et al., 135 S. Ct. 2218, 576 U.S.

(2015)

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 30 o149

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series N. Complaint Resolution: A complaint resolution plan shall be presented to the planning commission and approved prior to approval of a special land use permit. The complaint resolution program will describe how the developer receives, responds, and resolves complaints that may arise from the operation of the WES. The complaint resolution plan shall include appropriate timelines for response and other detailed information (such as forms, and contact information). As a condition of filing a complaint, a landowner must allow the staff or designated agents and WES owner or agents on the subject property for further investigation.

0. Annual Maintenance Review: The WES shall be maintained and kept in a safe working condition.

The WES owner shall certify on an annual basis that all turbines are operating under normal conditions. Non-operational turbines at the time of the annual review, shall be identified and provided an expected date to resolve the maintenance issue. A wind turbine generator that has not been operational for over 12 months shall be considered abandoned and a violation of the special land use permit.

P. End of Useful Life: At the end of the useful life of the WES, the system owner: 1. Shall follow the decommissioning plan approved by the Planning Commission under Section [from local government ordinance] and remove the system as indicated in the most recent approved plan; or, 2. Amend the decommissioning plan with Planning Commission approval and proceed with P.1 above; or, 3.The [local unit of government] reserves the right to approve, deny, or modify an application to modify an existing WES at the end of useful life, in whole or in part, based on ordinance standards at the time of the request. Expenses for legal services and other studies resulting from an application to modify or repower a WES will be reimbursed to the [local unit of government] by the WES owner in compliance with established escrow policy.

Commentary: There are many scenarios that could occur at the end of useful life of a WES, other than decommissioning and removal. In Minnesota, several projects74 constructed in the late 1990s or early 2000s are being repowered with new wind turbines75. For the Jeffers Wind Energy Center Repower Project in Minnesota, 2.5 MW turbines are being replaced with a 2.2 MW turbines. There are no examples in Michigan, to date, of repowering or replacing an existing WES. During the initial special land use permit review, a municipal attorney could help to frame a process for a request to repower or modify the proposed WES at the end of useful life. [End of commentary]

Minnesota Department of Commerce. (n.d.) Wind Turbines, Open Projects. Environmental Review of Energy Projects.

Retrieved September 3, 2020 from https://mn.govicommerccienergyfacilities/#turbine 75 Minnesota Department of Commerce. (n.d.) Jeffers Wind Repowering Project. Environmental Review of Energy Projects.

Retrieved September 3, 2020 from https://mn.govJeera/webiproject/13517/

74

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems 0 Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 31 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series Site Plan Review Add a section to Article 94 (the part of the zoning ordinance covering what is included in a site plan) to include additional items which should be shown on a site plan, and included in supporting documents for utility-scale WES, which may also include permanent anemometer towers.

9408. Site Plans for Utility-Scale WES.

Commentary: Site Plan required (at the time of application): As indicated earlier, this sample is written with the assumption that site plans are already a requirement in the zoning ordinance. Further, that the site plan and/or permit application requires basic information such as parcel identification including property boundaries, scale, north point, natural features, water bodies, location of structures and access drives (existing and proposed), neighboring drives, buildings, etc., topography, existing and proposed utilities, landscaping, buffering features, soils data, and so on.

Scale/Format Modifications: The applicant is required to produce site plans and studies that are both readable and useable for the staff, Planning Commission, and the public. It is reasonable to request large-scale composite maps (such as on a 36-inch x 48-inch format) of the entire project and more detailed site plans (such as 1:100 or 1:200 scale) for each wind turbine or grouping of turbines. Participating and non-participating parcels should be identified on the composite maps (especially when an ordinance requires different standards for these two groups). Some communities have minimum site plan requirements (such as a 1:100 scale) that may need to be amended to accommodate these unique, large-area projects.

Obtain all other permits first: Most zoning ordinances require (and if they don't, it is a best practice) that all other applicable permits be obtained prior to submission of the site plan, or at least the site plan will include the same information that will be required by other agencies for review. This includes local airport zoning permits, Michigan Tall Structures, FAA, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife/MDNR consultation for avian and bat studies.

Fees/Escrow: Application fees and a site plan review fee may need to be modified to cover the cost of review for a Utility Scale WES. The work is substantially more time consuming than a typical application on which most fees are based. A revised fee schedule must be adopted by the legislative body of the local unit of government. In addition, many communities have an escrow deposit system to cover costs of more involved special use permit reviews. As with all fees, the amount must be set by the legislative body to cover anticipated actual cost of the application review and not more. [End of commentary] Site plans and supporting documents for permanent Anemometer Tower or utility-scale WES shall include the following additional information: A. Documentation that construction code, tower, interconnection (if applicable), and safety requirements have been reviewed and the submitted site plan is prepared to show compliance with these issues as applicable: 1. Proof of the applicant's public liability insurance for the project.

2. A copy of that portion of all the applicant's lease(s) with the land owner(s) granting authority to install the Anemometer Tower and/or utility-scale WES; legal description of the property(ies).

3. The construction schedule including details of all phases.

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension October 6,2020 Page 32 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series 4. Participating and non-participating parcels within the project area boundary and non-participating parcels extending a quarter-mile beyond the edge of the project boundary.

5. The location, height, and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures and fencing.

6. The location, grades, and dimensions of all temporary and permanent roads from the nearest county or state maintained road.

7. The location, grade, and dimension of all temporary or permanent laydown areas for turbine component parts (if in a central location).

8. All new infrastructure above ground related to the project.

9. A copy of Manufacturers' Material Safety Data Sheet(s) which shall include the type and quantity of all materials used in the operation of all equipment including, but not limited to, all lubricants and coolants.

B. Sound Modeling Study: A copy of a predictive noise modeling and analysis report showing sound levels at various distances. The modeling must show compliance with sound standards applicable to this ordinance. The modeling study shall use turbine locations identical to the site plans submitted with this application. The analysis will show that the WES will not exceed the permitted sound pressure levels under any conditions. The noise modeling and analysis should utilize the methods outlined in ISO 9613-2 (or most recent version), including sound power levels determined using IEC 61400-11.

Commentary: Maps of sound modeling isolines are effective in showing anticipated sound levels and can be shared with the public early in the process. Predicted sound is usually expressed in 35, 40, 45, 50 dBA intervals. With the use of GIS both sound and flicker maps can be overlaid on a parcel layer map and shared with the public. [End of commentary]

C. Transportation Plan: A detailed road modification plan to accommodate delivery of components of the WES along existing and proposed roads and return of those roads and adjacent lands to their original condition after construction.

D. Visual Impact Simulation and Materials: A visual impact simulation showing the completed WES from multiple angles, locations and scales. The simulation should show the non-reflective, low-gloss finish of a finished turbine and be a neutral color such as white, off-white, or gray. The application shall include a sample of finished component materials to demonstrate finish and color of wind turbine components.

E. Environment Analysis: An analysis by a third party qualified professional shall be included in the application to identify and assess any potential impacts on the natural environment including, but not limited to wetlands and other fragile ecosystems, historical and cultural sites, and antiquities. The analysis shall identify all appropriate measures to minimize, eliminate or mitigate adverse the impacts identified and show those measures on the site plan, where applicable. The applicant shall identify and evaluate the significance of any net effects or concerns that will remain after mitigation efforts.

F. Avian and Wildlife Impact Analysis: The application shall include an Avian and Wildlife Impact Analysis by a third party qualified professional to identify and assess any potential impacts on wildlife and endangered species. The applicant shall take appropriate measures to minimize, eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts identified in the analysis, and shall show those measures on the site plan.

The applicant shall evaluate the significance of any net effects or concerns that will remain after mitigation efforts. The analysis must show consultation and evaluation based on applicable U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (2012 or latest version).

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I 0 Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 33 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series 1. At a minimum, the analysis shall include a thorough review of existing information regarding species, potential habitats, and sites requiring special scrutiny (such as endangered or threatened species habitat or other known special habitat) in the vicinity of the project area. Where appropriate, surveys for bats, raptors, and general avian use should be conducted. The analysis shall include the potential effects on species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act and Michigan's endangered species protection laws (NREPA, Act 451 of 1994, Part 365).

2. The analysis shall indicate whether a post construction wildlife mortality study will be conducted and, if not, the reasons why such a study does not need to be conducted.

G. Shadow Flicker Study: The application shall include a shadow flicker analysis extending [for example: 5,280] feet or [for example: 20] times the rotor diameter (whichever is less) from proposed wind turbine generator locations. The study shall indicate all modeling assumptions. The site plan and study shall describe the predicted annual amount of flicker on inhabited structures on non-participating properties impacted by shadow flicker. The study shall detail one, or more mitigation strategies to comply with the hour per year regulation.

Commentary: A community can require a shadow flicker analysis tailored to their regulation.

Shadow flicker modeling can produce a very detailed, predictive analysis for each inhabited structure. Some communities find that having detailed shadow flicker modeling data is important when responding to flicker complaints or undertaking enforcement efforts. See Shadow Flicker in Appendix C: Shadow Flicker, FAA Lighting. [End of commentary] H. Decommissioning Plan: A decommissioning plan shall be included in the site plan application.

I. Complaint Resolution Plan: The application shall include a description of a complaint resolution process including forms, phone numbers, and timelines for complaint referral, response, and resolution. The plan must be approved by the Planning Commission.

Commentary: A complaint resolution plan or regulation is optional. The benefit of requiring a plan is that it provides a pro-active measure to anticipate issues from the WES, such as with shadow flicker or unexpected changes in television reception. A complaint resolution plan as part of the site plan documentation a) assists landowners/local unit of government/WES owner with the details and methods needed to submit a complaint b) allows the local unit of government and the system owner to work out a shared agreement on expected timelines for resolution and c) allows the community and system owner a way to track complaints from start to finish. Some may view this as unnecessary because if the complaint stems from a zoning violation, then it falls on the local unit of government to enforce the regulation. If the complaint is not a zoning violation, then it should not be regulated here. Another concern is that the complaint resolution requirement is arbitrary, particularly if wind energy is the only special land use with a complaint resolution requirement. [End of commentary]

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I 0 Michigan State University Board of Trustees MSLI Extension I October 6,2020 Page 34 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series

Authors This publication was developed in collaboration by: • •

Bradley Neumann, AICP, Senior Educator, Michigan State University Extension, Government and Community Vitality Mary Reilly, AICP, Educator, Michigan State University Extension, Government and Community Vitality

Reviewers to this 2020 version include: • Jeff Smith, Director/Zoning Administrator/Building Official, Huron County Building and Zoning.

• Sarah Banas Mills, Ph.D., Senior Project Manager, Ford School of Policy and Graham Sustainability Institute, University of Michigan • Mike Hankard, (only acoustic content), Hankard Environmental, Inc. • Brian Ross, AICP, LEED Green Associate, Senior Program Director, Great Plains Institute • Tyler Augst, Educator, Michigan State University Extension, Government and Community Vitality Reviewers and Authors of prior versions of this document: • • • • • • •

(Author) Kurt H. Schindler, AICP, Distinguished Senior Educator (past author; retired), Government and Public Policy Wendy Walker, Esq., [former] Educator, Government and Public Policy Richard M. Wilson, Jr. Esq. Mika Meyers, PLC. Manistee, Michigan David Ivan, Ph.D., Director for Community, Food and Environment Institute of MSU Extension.

Ken Kaliski, (only on acoustic content) Senior Director, Resources Systems Group (RSG) Inc. John Sarver, Energy Office (retired), Michigan Dept. of Labor and Economic Growth Mark Wyckoff, FAICP, Professor (retired), MSU Land Policy Institute

To find contact information for authors or other MSU Extension experts use this web page: https://www.canr.msu.edu/outreach/experts/. msu is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer, committed to achieving excellence through a diverse workforce and inclusive culture that

encourages all people to reach their full potential. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, religion, age, height, weight, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, family status or veteran status. Issued in furtherance of MSU Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Jeffrey W. Dwyer, Director, MSU Extension, East Lansing, MI 48824. This information is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by MSU Extension or bias against those not mentioned. The name 4-H and the emblem consisting of a four-leaf clover with stem and the Hon each leaflet are protected under Title 18 U SC 707.

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6, 2020 Page 35 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series

Appendix A: Wind Turbine Noise Wind Turbine Noise Noise issues can be a technically complex aspect of WES. Many planners, appointed officials, and elected leaders that have dealt with WES in Michigan find themselves trying to learn more about wind turbine noise, and quickly. What they may find is that the study of sound is highly technical and uses unfamiliar language. The purpose of this section is to provide background information on wind turbine noise and commonly used terminology that may be presented by citizens or sound experts.

Setting a maximum sound level in an ordinance speaks to volume or loudness measured in decibels, but this is not the only characteristic of sound. Pitch, tone, and rhythm also characterize sound. Quiet, rhythmic sounds can be highly annoying (mosquito, dripping sink) and louder sounds can be quite enjoyable (waterfalls, music).

Wind turbine noise can invite detailed regulation, often beyond a simple decibel level (such as 45 dBA).

This is because the noise produced by wind turbines differs from other power generation facilities in how it is created, how it is propagated, and how it is perceived.76 Measuring wind turbine sound is a unique and speciali7ed field among acousticians and requires special attention when regulating WES. Regulation of noise, defined as unwanted sound or sound determined to be unpleasant, tends to focus on volume or sound pressure, expressed as a maximum decibel (dB) limit. Sound maximums shown as dBA mean that the sound is measured based on the A-frequency weighted scale, a scale that most closely represents what humans typically hear (the A-weighting scale mimics the fact that humans are more sensitive to higher frequency sound than to low frequency sound). It is most common for wind turbine ordinances to use the A-weighted scale, expressed in dB(A) or dBA. This sample ordinance uses the dBA scale with the goal of regulating audible sound.

Infrasound (1 to 20 Hz) and low frequency (20 to 200 Hz) sound generated by WES may be a public concern. Questions may arise around using the dBC scale in regulation as the C-scale is better suited to measure low frequency sound. Communities that desire to regulate with the dBC scale (in addition to dBA) should only do so with the consultation of an acoustician experienced in measuring wind turbine noise.

Sound Studies and Standards There are documented health issues with excessive noise exposure from a range of different noise sources.

Noise standards may consider the potential for bodily injury, long term health effects, interference with speech, sleep, and other activities. Many noise standards parallel the United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) workplace safety regulations. The 1974 standards from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicate that 55 dBA Ldn is too low to produce hearing loss or long-term health effects.7 76 Hessler, D. (2011). Best Practice Guidelinesfor Assessing Sound Emissions from Proposed Wind Farms and Measuring Performance of Completed Projects. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. https://www.michigan.gov/documentslenergyAILUI9 NARIJC 420200 7,pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Protective Noise Levels: Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document. htt s://ne is.e a ov/Exe/Z -NET.exe/20012HG5.TXT?Z TActionD=Z Document&Client-EPA&Index=1976+Thru+1980&Do

7 U.S.

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees 1 MS LI Extension October 6,2020 Page 36 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series There have been no updated noise standards, such as for WES, published by any agency within the United States government since those 1974 standards (at a federal level). The World Health Organization (WHO), other nations, and states have published recommendations specific to WES or determined thresholds at which annoyance and/or health effects occur. Several studies have found statistical associations between high degrees of annoyance toward noise and self-reported health effects that include, but are not limited to, migraines, heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension."

In a 2019 study, researchers found that outdoor audibility of turbine sound was "overwhelmingly dependent on turbine sound level, [but] noise annoyance was best explained by visual disapproval" (p.

1124).79 Meaning that wind turbine sound levels are not necessarily the strongest predictor of what causes annoyance from wind turbines.

The Canadian government undertook a multi-year research study in 2012 carried out by Health Canada and Statistics Canada called the Wind Turbine Noise & Health Study "to explore the relationship between exposure to sound levels produced from wind turbines and the extent of health effects reported by, and objectively measured in, those living near wind turbines" (2014 para. 3).80 The Health Canada study included survey results from 1,238 households in Ontario and Prince Edward Island living near wind turbines. Several peer-reviewed journal articles resulted from the study, one of which concluded at the highest wind turbine noise levels (40-46 dBA) 16.5% in the Ontario study and 6.3% in the Prince Edward Island study were very or extremely annoyed by the wind turbine noise." Wind turbine noise is not the only factor that contributes to annoyance, other factors such as distance to turbines, changes to views, and monetary benefit have can increase or decrease in annoyance. 82 The 2018 World Health Organization (WHO) Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region provide a conditional recommendation" of 45 dBA (Lden) for wind turbine noise. The 2018 WHO guideline is specific to wind turbine noise and further states "To reduce health effects, the Guidance Development Group conditionally recommends that policymakers implement suitable measures to

cs=&Querv=&Time-&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&OField lo nth=&QFieldDay=&IntQField0p=0&ExtQField0p=0&XmlQuery-&File=D9'03M/05CzyfilescY05CIndex%20Datifio5C76thru8 0%5CTxt 5C00000008105C20012HG5.txt&UserANONYN1OUS&Password-anonymous&SortNlethod=h%7C &MaximumDocuments=l&FuzzyDcgrec=0&ImagcQuality=r75g8475g8/x150y150g16/i425&Displarhpfr&DefSeckPage-x& SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back-ZyActionS&BackDesc-Results%20pagc&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyP URL 78 Michaud, D.S., Keith, S.E., Feder, K. & Voicescu, S.A. (2016). Personal and situational variables associated with wind turbine noise annoyance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(3), 1455-1466. https://doi.org/10.112111.4942390 79 Haac, R., Kaliski, K., Landis, M., Hoen, R., Rand, J., Firestone, J., Elliott, D. & Hubner, G. (2019). Wind turbine audibility and noise annoyance in a national U.S. Survey: Individual perception and influencing factors. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 146,1124-1141. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5121309 80 Health Canada. (2014 May 10). Wind Turbine Noise. https://www.canada.ca/en/health- canada/services/health- riskssafety/radiation/everyday-things-emit-radiation/wind-turbine-noise.html 81 Michaud, D.S., Feder, K., Keith, S.E., & Voicescu, S.A. (2016). Exposure to wind turbine noise: Perceptual responses and reported health effects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(3), 1443-1454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4942391 Michaud, D.S., Feder, K., Keith, S.E., & Voicescu, S.A. (2016). Personal and situational variables associated with wind turbine noise annoyance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(3), 1455-1466. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4942390 83 World Health Organization. "Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region." 2018. Within the Guidelines, a "strong recommendation" can be adopted as policy in most situations. A conditional recommendation (as given for wind turbine noise) "requires a policy-making process with substantial debate and involvement of various stakeholders. There is less certainty of the efficacy owing to the lower quality of evidence of a net benefit... meaning there may be circumstances or settings in which it will not apply" (p. 23). http://www.euro.who.intien/publicationsiabstracts/environmental-noiseguidelines-for-the- european - region-2018 82

Land Use Series:Sample ZoningforWincl Energy Systems I ID Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 370f49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series reduce noise exposure from wind turbines in the population exposed to levels above the guideline values for average noise exposure."

Sound Descriptors It is important to consider the sound descriptor and sound level together when writing regulation. The regulation should be based on current studies, such as the WHO recommendation, peer reviewed research, and other studies specific to wind energy such as the Health Canada" study. Sound descriptors are the way in which sound is quantified, analyzed, and described. Leg and L50 are the descriptors most commonly used for wind energy (Figure 1, Common Sound Descriptors).

Some Michigan communities have adopted regulation using the Lmax descriptor, which is a different standard than Leg or other sound descriptors that average sound pressure over a period of time (such as 10 minutes or one hour). Lmax measures the instantaneous, loudest sound coming from a WES, such as within 1 second. Communities adopting a lower sound level maximum (40 dB or lower) in combination with an Lmax descriptor are adopting a standard that is not supported by long-term studies. By design, long-term noise studies that describe the impact of WES on health (sleep, annoyance) are based on descriptors that average sound (Leg, Lden, or Lnight,outside which is the Les over the entire night) and use measurements over the course of hours, days, and years—not seconds. Those seeking to regulate with Lmax descriptor should first consult with an acoustician and review Tuscola Wind III, LLC, v. Almer Charter Township.6

In addition, the commonly used ISO 9613-2 standard (Acoustics-Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors) uses Leg to model predicted sound pressure level at a receiver in pre-construction sound studies, as does the IEC 61400-11 standard used to measure the noise output of a single turbine.

Figure 1. Common Sound Descriptors dB means decibels. dBA means A-weighted decibels, relative loudness of sounds reducing low frequency sounds because the human ear is less sensitive to low audio frequencies.

L means sound level.

Lio is the sound level that is exceeded 10% of the time. For 10% of the time, the noise has a sound pressure level above L10 L50 means the sound level exceeded 50% of the time. It represents the median sound level and is the statistical mid-point of the noise readings.

L.90 means the sound level that

is exceeded 90% of the time. For 90% of the time, the

noise is above this level.

Lan is an equivalent sound level, day-night average, over a 24-hour period where a 10 dB penalty is added to nighttime sounds (10 pm to 7 am) Lden is an equivalent sound level, day-evening-night average, over a 24-hour period at the most exposed facade, outdoors; a 10 dB penalty is added to night time noise and 5 dB 84 Health Canada. (2014). Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study. https://www.c an ada.c a/en/health -c an adalse rvices/health -risks safety/radiatio n/everyday-things-emit-radiation/wind- turbine-noise/wind-turbine-noise- health-study-summaryresults.html

85 Tuscola Wind III, LLC, v. Almer Charter Township, et al, US District Court, Eastern District of MI, Norther Division, Case No. 17cv-11025 (2018) Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I c Michigan State University Board of Trustees MSU Extension October 6,2020 Page 38 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series penalty is added to evening noise (7pm to lOpm).

L.ax means the maximum sound pressure level associated with an individual noise event.

Lnight,outside means the equivalent outdoor sound pressure level associated with a particular type of noise source during nighttime (at least 8 hours), calculated over a period of a year.

Leg means equivalent sound level over a given period of time (e.g., one hour) - average of all sound. For example, Leg 1 hour is the average noise level over one hour. See: https://www.thwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/resources/thwahep17053.pdf

Sound Levels and Measurement When selecting a maximum sound level, a community should ask if it is defensible, reasonable, and supported by evidence or research. After a sound level is determined, it should be accompanied by a testing methodology that can verify compliance with the regulation. Huron County is one example approach with a detailed measurement methodology. 86 Mason County is another example approach.87 Wind turbine noise measurement for compliance purposes is a highly sophisticated endeavor requiring specific sound measurement equipment, a knowledge of complex mathematical calculations, and experience applying ANSI and ISO standards to measure wind turbine noise. Measuring noise from WES poses unique challenges different from measuring other kinds of noise. Relatively few acousticians have this expertise.

A local enforcement official will not have the expertise or tools to measure wind turbine noise for making a determination of compliance or non-compliance. However, a local zoning enforcement officer may be an asset to help diagnose a complaint and inform the need for additional sound testing by an acoustic expert (often from out-of-state and at some expense). For example, some zoning administrators in Michigan have worked under the guidance of an acoustician to take short term measurements using a Type 1 sound level meter. These short-term measurements helped to provide more clarity and direction as to whether an acoustician was needed to perform additional testing. A local zoning administrator may also be helpful in scouting measurement locations for post-construction studies for access or other obvious issues that may interfere with sound testing, such as a barking dog.

Sound Measurement to the Dwelling or Property Line Communities in Michigan typically measure sound from either the property line, near the exterior wall of a dwelling, or other distance defining a curtilage" around the perimeter of dwelling. The required setback to the wind turbine (being from the house or property line) is often mirrored for the noise regulation. For example, if a participating property setback from a wind turbine is measured to the dwelling, sound is also measured at the dwelling. Sound maximums measured to property lines would preserve the existing soundscape when outside in a yard or walking the property and may support future development options. Measuring sound levels at the dwelling protects the place where people spend the 86

Huron County. (n.d.) Wind Facility Overlay District Zoning. Retrieved September 3, 2020 from

https://www.dropbox.com/s/37850k50b328cct/Wind°/020Energy%20Facilitv0/0200verlap020Zonineb20Revised%200rdia nce.pdf?d1=0 87 Mason County. (n.d) Zoning Oridinance Section 17.70, Utility Grid Wind Energy Systems Zoning Ordinance (Wind Turbines). Retrieved September 3, 2020, from hap://www.masoncounty.neduserfilcs/filcmanager/1494/ 88 Curtilage means the land immediately surrounding a house including any closely associated buildings or structures.

Land Use Series:Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I ©Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6, 2020 Page 39 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series most time and provides a greater level of flexibility in locating wind turbines. Some standards apply at the residence at the most exposed facade, such as the WHO's, which includes sleep disturbance as a measured health outcome89.

Another approach is to measure noise at a distance of about 50 feet toward the wind tower from the dwelling. This 50-foot buffer would be considered the curtilage. This avoids excessive regulation of noise on large parcels where no one resides, but still covers a dwelling and a defined area around the house where people may spend time outside on their decks, in their gardens, etc. It also satisfies the typical requirement of acoustical measurement standards to stay away from large reflective surfaces, such as a building.

The number and location of sites used in compliance testing must be consistent with the regulation, such as measuring at the dwelling if the ordinance specifies the sound maximum is measured at the dwelling.

Whatever noise standard or measurement is used, it is important that the regulation has the following attributes:90 • Relevant. The regulation is based on adopted ordinance or other law that is within requirements of substantive due process and reflects the way humans hear and react to sound.

• Repeatable. It is important for the method for taking sound measurements produce similar results under similar conditions, including when measured by other parties.

• Predictable. This is so that, during the design, the developer and community have a reasonable expectation of the noise standard requirement and resulting noise which can be modeled with a high degree of confidence.

• Implementable. An acoustician experienced in wind turbine sound will perform sound compliance testing and sound modeling. Consider the possibility of using both attended and unattended measurements in order to obtain enough data to determine compliance.9' Opportunities for compliance testing are dictated by meteorological conditions and are relatively limited during the course of a year. Consultants look for periods with low ground wind combined with high hub height winds, so the turbines are operating at full power with limited extraneous noise at ground level. Sound testing is avoided on a typical windy day or stormy/gusty day where winds are high at ground level. Low-level ground wind is a prerequisite of acceptable testing methodology. Testing is also generally done at night to avoid other background noise, such as traffic and the activities of residents.

Relative Sound Standards Rather than a maximum sound level (such as 45 dBA Leg) some communities opt for a relative sound standard. This is typically expressed as something like 5 decibels above the background sound level. In Massachusetts, wind energy facilities are regulated by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental

89 World Health Organization. -Environmental Noise

Guidelines for the European Region." 2018. (p. 85) http://www.euro.who.int/en/publicationslabstracts/environmental-noise-guidelines-for- the-european-region- 2018 9° Resource Systems Group. (2016) Massachusetts Study on Wind Turbine Acoustics. Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Retrieved September 3, 2020 from https:hrethys.pnnl.govisitesidefault/TilesipublicationsIRSG-2016- Report.pdf 91 Attended testing allows for a technician to tag extraneous noise in real time (such as a car passing) but requires that all meteorological conditions support meeting ANSI standards (low ground wind, high hub height wind), and consultants are on site; this can be difficult to predict. Unattended testing means leaving equipment on-site for several days to capture data without a person present. With unattended measurement, a tape recorder is used and the data is analyzed at a later date to remove extraneous sounds. A combination of attended and unattended measurement is a compliance testing option.

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 40 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series Protection air pollution regulations where noise sources are limited to 10 decibels over ambient sound levels.

Relative noise standards create a variable sound maximum throughout the project as ambient noise levels can change from day to day and location to location. Atmospheric conditions, corn or tree leaves rustling, traffic, and insects can significantly change background sound levels day to day and season to season.

Because of this, a relative sound standard is more difficult to determine compliance with.

For example, if a community opts for a 10 dB over background noise standard, the maximum noise regulation could range from 36 dBA in the quietest areas to 55+ dBA in the areas near a busier road. Preconstruction sound studies would be essential when using relative sound standards because setbacks to dwellings or property lines could vary significantly to achieve compliance. Some communities opt to lockin the pre-construction background noise measurements for future compliance testing postconstruction. A more common approach is to turn wind turbines on and off during post-construction compliance testing to obtain background sound during the testing. On-off testing can be difficult to execute, particularly when wind speed and/or direction changes over the course of a several hour testing period.

Sound Mitigation It is best practice that a WES be initially designed and built to meet the noise regulation using conservative estimates and worst-case scenario conditions. This would include environmental conditions such as wind shear and ground cover. Standard departures of 1 to 2 dB from the manufacturer's sound power levels for a given WES model are also be taken into account."

The purpose of wind turbine setbacks is, among other things, to support compliance with a sound standard. Multiple turbines, a downwind orientation to predominant wind direction, and other environmental factors can increase the audibility of wind turbines. Sound modeling can account for this variability.

After wind turbines are erected, noise mitigation options are limited. Turbine manufacturers offer some variation of Noise Reduced Operations (NRO) modes which can typically reduce sound emissions by 1 to 3 dB". NRO modes decrease sound by changing the orientation of the turbine blades in relation to the wind and cause a slight decrease in turbine power production. In addition, serrated edges can be affixed to blades if not already present.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 310 CMR 7.10. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/reg pub/pdf1300/310007a.pdf Keith, S.E., Feder, K. Voicescu, S.A., & Soulchovtsev, V. (2016). Wind turbine sound power measurements. TheJournal of the Acoustical Society of America, Volume 139(3), 1431. https://dotorg/10.1121/1.4942405 92

94 Ofelia J., Rosen, M.A., Naterer, G., (2011 November). Noise Pollution Prevention in Wind Turbines; Status and Recent Advances, presented at the 1st World Sustainability Forum, November 2011. Retrieved September 3, 2020 from https://seiforum.net/manuscripts/623/original.pdf

Land Use Series:Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension October 6,2020 Page 41 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series

Appendix B: Comparison of Regulation Regulations vary among communities Depending on local conditions, setbacks can play a major role in allowing, limiting, or functionally prohibiting a WES. Michigan communities represent a variety of landscapes, population densities, lot sizes, agriculture types, topographies, and coastlines. Among Michigan local units of government, WES regulations for setbacks, sound, and other regulations are highly variable (See Table 1). Unlike other Midwestern states (See Table 2), Michigan does not have a state agency charged with wind energy siting or regulation of WES noise.

In addition to setbacks, the Tables 1 and 2 below include sound maximums and where the sound is measured from (property line or dwelling). Measuring to the property line is perhaps done for the public purpose of unspoiled use and enjoyment of one's property. Measuring to the dwelling is perhaps done to minimize nighttime noise disturbance. It is reasonable that the noise standards associated with these two measurement points and associated public purposes would be different.

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees MSLI Extension I October 6, 2020 Page 42 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series TABLE 1: Utility Scale Wind Energy Zoning Regulation Comparison in Michigan95 Jurisdiction

Type

Setback to participating parcel

Setback to nonparticipating parcel

Setback to ROW

Sound maximum

Gratiot County*

Overlay District

2 X height or 1,000 feet (whichever is greater) to inhabited building

Minimum of 1.5 X height to the property line of non-participating

The greater of 400 feet or 1.5 X height

55 dBA at the habitable structure closest to the wind energy system

Huron County**

Overlay District

1,320 feet to inhabited structure

1,640 feet to inhabited structure

The greater of 500 feet or 1.5 X height

45 dBA non participating (day/night); 45 dBA day, 50 dBA night (10 pm to 7 am) for participating (Leg10-minute)

Isabella County*

SLU

2 X height or 1,000 feet (whichever is greater) to inhabited building

Same setback as participating.

The greater of 400 feet or 1.5 X height

50 dBA not calculated as an average" at non-participating property line

Mason County**

SLU

3 X height to inhabited structure

4 X height to property line

1.5 X height

45 dBA for non-participating property line; 55 dBA to participating inhabited structure (Leg 10-minute)

Schookraft County

SLU

3 X height to inhabited structure

6 X height to property line

6 X height to State ROW, 2 X height to other ROW

45 dBA participating / 35 dBA non-participating

Ellington Township

SLU

None

5 X height to property line of non-participating property (with waiver option)

3 X height

40 dBA (Leg 1-second) or (50 dB(C) Leg 1-second) on any non-participating property (with waiver option)

Long Lake Township

SLU

2 X height to property line and 1.25 X height to inhabited structure (max height 199feet)

2 X height to property line (max height 199feet)

2 X height

10 decibels over ambient baseline sound level at the property line

Riga Township

SLU

2.5 X height to inhabited structure, waiver option allowing up to 2 X height

4 X height to property line, can be waived up to 2.5 X height

1.5 X height

40 dBA (10 pm to 6 am), 45 dBA (6 am to 10 pm) at property line of nonparticipating parcel

*WES projects were approved under these listed ordinance requirements. **Huron and Mason Counties approved WES under less restrictive setbacks than those in the current regulation listed here.

1 were not selected for the purpose of directing the reader to model ordinances, but zoning regulations in Michigan variation in local rather to illustrate

95 These communities referenced in Table

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MS U Extension October 6, 2020 Page 43 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series TABLE 2: Comparison of Selected Midwestern State Standards Regulating Wind Energy Development Sound maximum Setback to non-participating Setback Approving Setback to State to ROW participating property regulation body property Ohio

Ohio Power Siting Board

1.1 X height from participating property line,

1125 feet plus the length of the turbine blade at 90-degrees (about 1300 feet) measured to the property line.

1.1 X height

Ambient plus 5 dBA and/or a 24 hour Leq of max of 50 dBA

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Public Service Commission

1.1 X height from participating residences.

The lesser of 1250 feet or 3.1 X tip height from occupied community buildings and non-participating residences.

1.1 X height

45 dBA (10 pm to 6 am applied as onehour Leq), 50 dBA (6 am to 10 pm). A community may adopt a less restrictive standard.

Illinois

Local unit of government,

Determined by local jurisdiction

Determined by local jurisdiction.

Determined by local jurisdiction,

Illinois Pollution Control Board limits sound by octave band sound pressure levels, onehour Leq.

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

500 feet plus the distance required to meet the state noise standard

3 rotor diameters (RD) (760 to 985 feet) for secondary wind axis (typically east-west) and 5 RD (1280 to 1640 ft) for primary wind axis (typically north-south) for turbines with 78 to 100 meter rotor diameter.

250 feet

50 dBA (night) L50 one-hour.

(sound only)

Minnesota

Appendix C: Shadow Flicker, FAA Lighting Shadow flicker is a shadow that is cast by the spinning wind turbine blades which causes a strobe effect to be cast on a dwelling window or similar structure. There is no scientific evidence that shadow flicker causes seizures96. There may be some increased risk of seizure with smaller wind turbines that interrupt sunlight more than three times per second97. Despite the lack of health effects, shadow flicker is often cited as a public concern and can result in annoyance.

96 Harding, G., Harding, P., & Wilkins, A. (2008). Wind turbines, flicker, and photosensitive epilepsy: Characterizing the flashing that may precipitate seizures and optimizing guidelines to prevent them. Epilepsia 49(6), 1095-1098. https://cloi.orgi10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01563.x

97 Smedley, A.R.D., Webb, A.R., Wilkins, A.J. (2010). Potential of wind turbines to elicit seizures under various meteorological conditions. Epilepsia, 51(7), 1146-1151. https://doi.org/10.111141528 -1167.2009.02402.x

Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems 10 Michigan State University Board of Trustees1MSU Extension l October 6,2020 Page 44 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series A 2016 article based on data from the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise & Health Study sought to better understand how exposure to shadow fficker correlates with an annoyance response. The study found that exposure to wind turbine noise, blinking lights, and concerns for physical safety were better predictors of annoyance caused by shadow flicker than the level of shadow flicker exposure modeled to be present .

In general, the farther away the turbine is from a particular observation point the less the duration of the fficker, the less intense the flicker (i.e. it is more diffuse and so bothers a smaller percentage of people), and the lower the likelihood it is observed because of various obstructions, such as trees, structures, topography, etc. that block the shadow. Atmospheric conditions play a role in the distance flicker travels.

Clear, dry weather (i.e., a sunny day in winter) is when flicker will be most noticeable at longer distances.

Haze, humidity, fog, and partial clouds diminish flicker intensity and length of travel.

Wind energy developments in the United States are commonly designed for a maximum shadow flicker of 30 minutes a day or 30 hours per year measured on a dwelling. Most Michigan communities and Midwestern states have adopted a standard of 30 hours per year of actual shadow flicker on a dwelling.

This 30 hours metric is based on a German standard.99 The German standard, however, is an astronomical maximum of 30 hours per year and eight(8) hours per year maximum of actual shadow fficker". The astronomical maximum refers to a theoretical condition where the sun is always shining, wind turbines are always operating, the blades are oriented to make maximum shadow fficker, and there are no obstacles (buildings, vegetation, etc.) between the turbine and the shadow receptor (e.g. an occupied dwelling).

Computer models calculate an astronomical maximum and then apply a reality factor (depending on the location, dominant wind direction, available sunny days, etc.) to estimate actual shadow flicker.n Flicker mitigation technology continues to advance and allows for turbines to be turned off when flicker may occur on a receptor. This involves the use of computer modeling and light sensors on a turbine to alert the turbine if the conditions exist to create a shadow or not. In Mason County's experience with Vestas systemsm, fficker mitigation technology was effective for minimizing or eliminating shadow flicker on inhabited structures. With available technology, it is possible to adopt a flicker standard lower than 30 hours per year.

Many communities require that flicker mitigation technology be installed on turbines predicted to cause shadow fficker above the maximum allowable amount. Other forms of fficker mitigation may include moving a wind turbine in the design phase or the installation of window treatments and/or large trees/shrubs after construction and at the expense of the WES owner. In Huron County, some owner/operators voluntarily turned off turbines for the duration of a predicted shadow flicker event when a complaint was received. Other owner/operators in nearby developments chose not to turn off the turbines when the flicker event(s) were within regulatory compliance.

98 Voicescu, S.A., Michauda, D.S., & Feder, K. (2016). Estimating annoyance to calculated wind turbine shadow flicker is improved when variables associated with wind turbine noise exposure are considered. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(3), 1480. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4942403 99 WEA-Schattenwurf-Hinweise (German). '°° Update of UK Shadow Flicker Evidence Base, Department of Energy and Climate Change (2010); p.14. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uktgovernment/uploads/system/uploadslattachment data/file/48052/1416 -update-ukshadow- flicker-evidence-base.pdf 1°1 Haugen, International Review; p.6.

102 Mason County adopted a 10 hour flicker maximum per year, then lowered the limit to zero hours/year based on the effectiveness of the Vestas shadow detection technology and time/resources needed to enforce a 10 hour/year maximum.

Land Use Series:Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6, 2020 Page 45 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series For ease of enforcement, modeling, and mitigation technology, this sample ordinance recommends regulating shadow fficker at the dwelling rather than the property line.

Shadow Flicker Travel The distance that shadow flicker can travel is dependent on a number of conditions such as topography, obstructions (trees, structures), height of turbine, and blade length. Based on multiple field observations in Mason County, fficker from a 476-foot turbine located a mile (5,280 feet) away is visible and perceptible. Due to these observations, Mason County adopted regulations to require flicker modeling at 20 times the rotor diameter: 2,000 meters (6,561 feet) for a 50 meter (164 foot) blade, which is twice the industry standard of 10 times the rotor diameter.

In another study, a wind turbine with a blade 45 meters (148 feet) long and 2 meters (6.6 feet) wide, produced shadow flicker visible up to a distance of 1.4 kilometers (4,593 feet), with weak shadow casting observed at a distance of 2 kilometers (6,562 feet).K3 This sample zoning presents a sample standard of requiring shadow flicker modeling to a distance or 20 times rotor diameter based on experience in Mason County. This is a conservative approach that will provide a community with a more accurate assessment of total shadow fficker impacts when enforcing an hours/year maximum. A 10-foot rotor diameter model can also be used, but it may result in an under prediction of total flicker and/or some individuals may experience flicker that were not modeled to receive it.

FAA Lighting and ADLS The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires obstruction lighting on wind turbines characterized by red, blinking lights located on top of the nacelle. Obstruction lighting is synchronized to go on and off at the same time. Lighting plans are submitted to the FAA for review and approval. FAA authority supersedes local zoning on obstruction lighting.

Not every wind turbine may be required to have obstruction lighting within a utility-scale WES. The FAA reviews the perimeter of the WES and clusters of turbines within the development to determine which turbines are required to have lighting. Turbines that are above 499 feet to the tip of the blade at the highest reach are required to have slightly different lighting configurations than those below 499 feet.

A newer technology known as Aircraft Detection Lighting Systems (ADLS) provides a potential alternative to night time lighting that operates all night, every night. ADLS is a sensor-based system designed to detect aircraft as they approach. When an aircraft approaches, it activates the obstruction lights until they are no longer needed.

The FAA reviews and approves ADLS applications on a case-by-case basis. A local unit of government cannot require the FAA to approve an ADLS application, but it may require the applicant to submit an ADLS application for FAA review. The FAA reviews the application for proximity to airports, lowaltitude ffight routes, military training areas, and other areas of frequent flight activity. The FAA can approve, modify, adjust, or deny an application. Some portions of a WES may be approved for an ADLS while other areas are required to maintain obstruction lighting during night time hours. m4

1°3 Katsaprakakis, D.A. (2012). A review of the environmental and human impacts from wind parks. A case study for the Prefecture of Lasithi, Crete. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,16(5), 2850-2863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rscr.2012.02.041.

104 US Department of Transportation. (2015). Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular No: 70/7460-1L, Obstruction Marking and Lighting. Retrieved September 3, 2020 from https://www.faa.govidocumentlibrary/media/advisory circular/ac 70 7460-11 .pdf Land Use Series:Sampk Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension I October 6,2020 Page 46 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series

Appendix D: Summary of Michigan-Specific Wind Energy Research and Information The Michigan Office of Climate and Energym maintains resources on wind energy, as well as Michigan Wind Energy Resource Maps prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy.w6 Other Michigan-specific academic research is listed here in an attempt to provide a comprehensive list of locally relevant information. Not all of the resources are published in peer-reviewed journals, however all research is from academic institutions. Michigan-specific academic resources include: Adelaja, S. & Hailu, Y.G. (2008). Renewable energy development and implications to agricultural viability. Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, Orlando, FL, July 2008. Retrieved September 3, 2020 from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/6132/2/470566.pdf Adelaja, S., Hailu,Y.G., Warbach, J., Klepinger, M., McKeown, C., Calnin, B., & Fulkerson, M. (2007). Meeting Michigan's 2015 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS): Wind Turbines Required and Projected Land Usage. Michigan State University Land Policy Institute.'w Banas Mills, S., Borick, C., Gore, C., & Rabe, B.G. (2014, April). "Wind Energy Development in the Great Lakes Region: Current Issues and Public Opinion." Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy No. 8. Centerfor Local, State, and Urban Policy, Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id-2652865 Bidwell, D. (2016). The effects of information on public attitudes toward renewable energy.

Environment and Behavior, 48(6), 743-768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514554696 Bidwell, D. (2013). The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy. Energy Policy, 58, 189-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.010 Groth, T.M. & Vogt, C. (2014). Residents' perceptions of wind turbines: an analysis of two townships in Michigan. Energy Policy, 65, 251-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.055 Michigan State University Land Policy Institute & Great Lakes Commission. (2011). Wind Farm Development in Coastal Communities Integrated Assessment Factsheet Series . Available at: https://www.canr.msu.edu/planning/zoning ordinance resources/wind-energy-alternativeenergy#perl Michigan State University Land Policy Institute. Renewable Energy Policy Program. 2007-2013 Archive. Accessed April 2020: https://www.canr.msu.edu/landpolicy/programarchive/renewable energy policy program/ Mills, S. (2015 January). Farming the Wind: The impact of wind energy on Farming - Summary Survey Results. Centerfor Local, State, and Urban Policy, Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. Retrieved April 2020: http://closup.umich.eduiwind/fanning-the-wind-the-impact-ofwind-energy-on-farming.php Mills, S. (February 2017). "Views of Wind Development from Michigan's Windfarm Communities Landowner Survey Summary." Centerfor Local, State, and Urban Policy, Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. Retrieved September 3, 2020 from 1°5 Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (n.d.) Office of Climate and Energy: Overview. Retrieved September 3, 2020 from https://www.michigan.goviclimateandenerg 1°6 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. (n.d.) Wind Energy in Michigan. Retrieved September 3, 2020 from https://windexchange.energy.govistatesimi 1°7 For a copy of this report contact: charron@msu.edu. For other MSU Land Policy Institute energy related materials see https://www.canr.msu.eduilandpolicy/program-archive/renewable energy policy program Land Use Series: Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension October 6,2020 Page 47 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series https://staticl.squarespace.com/static/564236bce4b00b392cc6131d/t/575b315d9f7266050a4143a a/1465594217864/Sarah+Mills+Summary+Findings.pdf Mills, S., Homer, D., & Ivacko, T. (2014 July). Wind power as a community issue in Michigan.

Michigan Public Policy Survey. Centerfor Local, State, and Urban Policy, Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. Retrieved September 3, 2020 from http://closup.umich.edu/michiganpublic-policy-survey/34/wind-power-as-a-community-issue-in-michigan/ Nordman, E., VanderMolen, J., Gajewski, B., Isely, P., Fan, Y., Koches, J., Damm, S., Ferguson, A., & Schoolmaster, C. (2015). An integrated assessment for wind energy in Lake Michigan coastal counties. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 11(2), 287-297. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1602 Phadke, R., Manning, C., Buchanan, A., DeJong, E., & Camplair, N. (2011 August 6). Michigan Wind Energy Landscape Symposium - Workshop Report. Macalester College - Understanding Wind Initiative. Retrieved September 3, 2020 from https://www.macalester.edu/windenergy/symposia/MISymposiumWorkshopReport.pdf Nordman, E. (n.d.) West Michigan Wind Assessment. Grand Valley State University Retrieved September 3, 2020 from https://vv-ww.gvsu.edu/wind/ Wind Energy Resource Zone Board. (2009). Final Report of the Michigan Wind Energy Resource Zone Board. Retrieved September 3 2020 from https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/final report of the michigan wind energy resource zone board

Appendix E: List of Revisions to this Document August 24,2017: • • •

Many non-substantive edits throughout.

Additional reviewers of this material: Sarver, Ivan, Banas-Mills, Kaliski, and Wyckoff.

Added disclaimers indicating this is not a new study, not recommendations by MSU or MSUE (it is a sample, not a model, zoning ordinance) and disclaimers and assumptions about use of sample ordinance language.

• Updated and more detail about the 2008 sample zoning and this document.

• Considerable additional information in the introductory material and sample ordinance on regulation of noise, with suggestion to move noise regulation to a police power ordinance, importance of specifying method of measuring noise, location of noise measurement (edge of the curtilage), differentiation of the decibel level depending on method and location of measurement, complexity of noise standards (consult/hire an acoustic specialist) and attributes for the same."

• Changing the sample ordinance to present a range of possible standards (rather than a single numeric standard) for a community to consider and adopt what is appropriate for the respective zoning district, community, and so on.

1°8 The March 6, 2018 version of the Sample Zoning had problems that resulted in confusion and misinterpretation. The March version of this document was a substantial update from a 2008 document issued by the State of Michigan on the same topic (Michigan Siting Guidelines for Wind Energy Systems).

Specifically, research and definitions related to noise measurement and regulation needed to be updated and expanded.

The intent with any work by MSUE is to provide (1) the current university-based (peer reviewed, double blind, repeatable, published) research and (2) the legal parameters on a topic.

Land Use Series:Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I © Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension October 6,2020 Page 48 of 49

Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series • • • • • •

In the sample ordinance a differentiation between a parcel setback for wind energy towers and a required distance from the edge of a unit boundary - now handling those as two separate distinct standards.m9 Added definitions to the sample ordinance.

Additional options for addressing shadow flicker.

Use of a sound modeling study and shadow flicker study as part of the application.

Further explanation of the use of Mason and Huron Counties in the document.

Further vetting of cited resources (adding some and removing some).

September 2020

• Added new state and federal cases to "Court and Case Law." • Added caution to use a very specific measurement methodology tied to the public purpose of the regulation for sound measurements.

• Added summary of additional research on public engagement and education.

• Added detail on sound regulation, sound descriptors to a new Appendix A. • Added FAA and ADLS information to an Appendix C. • Added comparative regulatory table Appendix B. • Added section on leases and easements (zoning has no authority).

• Added information on relative sound standards.

• Removed noise compliance tied to a police power ordinance (rather than regulating in the zoning ordinance).

• Moved history of the sample zoning document to a new Appendix E. • Replaced language about a lease unit boundary with participating and nonparticipating standards • Modified "commentary" on performance guarantees and many other sections.

• Added commentary (in footnote) cautioning against property owners or neighbors waiving or reducing zoning standards (page 7).

• Added new language about "End of Life" of a wind energy system • Additional reviewers, Sarah Banas Mills, Jeff Smith, Brian Ross, Tyler Augst, Mike Hankard (Hankard Environmental, Inc.) (sound only).

1°9 The March 6, 2018 version of the Sample Zoning had problems that resulted in confusion and misinterpretation. The March version of this document was a substantial update from a 2008 document issued by the State of Michigan on the same topic (Michigan Siting Guidelines for Wind Energy Systems).

Specifically, the use of the word 'setback' in connection with the lease unit boundary concept needed to be clarified. The zoning setbacks and distance from lease unit boundaries are two different things, The March 2017 version of the document did not make a clear distinction between a property line setback and a distance required from a lease unit boundary. (We should not have used the word "setback" for both, and do not in the August Version). The August version tries to clarify this, but does not change the original intent in any material way. For example, the March version introduced a minimum distance from a lease unit boundary of 1,640 feet. The August version introduced a distance from a lease unit boundary of 1,000 feet or more based on an observed shortest distance from one wind generator to another wind generator from a sampling of 28 built wind generator pairs near Pigeon, Ludington, and Ithaca, Michigan. (Also, we did not want to give a single distance (prescriptive) but rather a range so the community makes an informed decision as to what is right for them.)

A definition for a lease unit boundary, which includes compensated buffer properties, was also added to the August version of the document. The August version actually increases the suggested distance to consider as a possible lease unit boundary distance to anything 1,000 feet or greater and makes a clearer distinction between lease unit boundary distance and property line setback.

Land Use Series:Sample Zoningfor Wind Energy Systems I 0 Michigan State University Board of Trustees I MSU Extension October 6,2020 Page 49 of 49

PROTECTING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS Many wind energy facilities, including Montcalm Wind, are developed on private property. These projects can only be built if the owners of that property have voluntarily determined that hosting turbines represents the best use of their property. In the U.S., our laws protect private property rights and ensure that private landowners have the right to make the decision to locate a turbine on their property, much as they have the right to locate a silo, barn, or other agricultural structure there. Because wind turbines present no health or safety risks to owners of neighboring properties, courts across the land have determined that the decision to host a turbine on one's property is within his or her private property rights.

What is "Trespass Zoning"?

-Trespass zoning" is a term invented by anti-wind activists to promote the claim that a private property owner does not have the right to use his land as he sees fit, because it may impact a neighbor. For those living in agricultural communities, this concept should be quite alarming. This principle could mean, for example, that a farmer could be prevented from keeping cattle on his property, because a neighbor complained that the cows' odor was disturbing his right to enjoy his property as he wishes.

Because this concept represents such a slippery slope, legal precedent has been set stating that as long as a property owner's use of his land is safe and does not pose a danger to his neighbors, he is within his rights to use his property as he sees fit.

Wind turbines are one of the safest forms of electrical generation available.

They emit no pollution, use no water, and produce abundant energy without the negative health impacts associated with other forms of energy generation. From a typical neighboring property, the sounds a wind turbine emits will be comparable in volume to those emitted by a household refrigerator.

While some neighbors may not like the look of turbines, that personal preference is not sufficient to supersede the property right of an individual to put his land to this productive use.

Furthermore, there are no zoning restrictions or setback distances in Montcalm County that would prevent a landowner from building something somewhere on his property just because there is a wind turbine on the property next door. A landowner's rights to build a home, barn, or other structure on his property would not be affected in any way by the presence of turbines nearby.

info@MontcalmWind.com I 989-787.3029 I MontcalmWind.com

O APEX CLEAN ENERGY

Why Oklahoma Nuisance Lawsuit Deserves Your Attention issues.nawindpower.com/article/oklahoma-nuisance-lawsuit-deserves-attention

Despite the fact that wind energy projects bring great economic benefits to the rural communities in which they are located, local opponents of these projects have occasionally sought to fight them, and sometimes, they have done so through the courts. Nationwide, there have been few reported decisions dealing with an opponent's efforts to stop development of a wind project. But more recently, significant case law is beginning to develop, as nuisance and permitting cases related to wind energy are becoming more common.

A recent example of wind opponents trying to disrupt development of a wind project under a nuisance law theory is the Oklahoma case of Terra Walker v. Kingfisher Wind. The Walker litigation represents one of a rising number of wind nuisance cases, generally initiated by "not in my backyard" landowners who do not want to look at nearby turbines.

Ten years ago, there was only one case in West Virginia and a handful in Texas dealing with nuisance claims against utility-scale wind projects. Since then, the Rankin v. FPL Energy case in Texas has become the most commonly cited case. In Rankin, a Texas appellate court held that aesthetic impact is not admissible as evidence of a nuisance. Most states take the same approach to aesthetic impact and do not allow nuisance claims to move forward when they are based solely on an individual's preference against looking at wind turbines. A valid nuisance claim requires a substantial interference with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property. As a result, opponents of wind projects have had to become creative in submitting evidence as to why and how wind farms may create a nuisance. Nuisance claims in general are very fact-specific, but thus far, most plaintiffs have failed to provide concrete, objective evidence of impacts that would qualify a wind farm as a nuisance.

The Walker court's opinion on nuisance law provides some additional guidance on nuisance cases. In this case, neighboring landowners opposed the Kingfisher Wind project in Kingfisher and Canadian Counties, Okla.

In Walker, the Oklahoma Wind Action Association and seven individual landowner plaintiffs sought to enjoin Kingfisher Wind LLC from the construction and subsequent operation of a wind farm under theories of anticipatory nuisance and anticipatory trespass.

The plaintiffs' claim for anticipatory trespass did not survive a motion to dismiss, the court finding the claim to be "too speculative" to support a plausible claim. As support for their

1/4

anticipatory nuisance claim, the plaintiffs alleged that the 149 turbines would cause adverse health effects, emit noise, cause "shadow flicker" and destroy the natural landscape.

The plaintiffs supported these allegations with two expert opinions — one from a radiologist opining on potential medical impacts resulting from the wind project and one from an acoustical engineer opining on the potential impacts from sound coming from the wind project — and sought a 1.72-mile setback of the project from their properties.

The plaintiffs' evidence focused almost entirely on adverse health effects caused by "shadow flicker" and sound from the turbines, as well as the aesthetic annoyance caused by the project generally. Despite the fact that the plaintiffs had a full opportunity to take discovery and present expert opinion on the potential impacts of the wind project, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to make the requisite showing of likely harm — a reasonable probability that an injury would occur beyond mere speculation — and substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiffs' property was not found.

Moreover, already hesitant to grant extraordinary relief in any case, the court declined to do so not only because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate likely harm, but also because the balance of the hardships between the parties could not be viewed as favoring the plaintiffs, given the massive costs already expended in the then-operational project. The court suggested that this was due, in part, to the plaintiffs' related failure to request a preliminary injunction before or during construction.

In support of their anticipatory nuisance claim, the Walker plaintiffs relied "almost entirely on asserted adverse health effects and annoyance."

This is generally a common tactic among nuisance plaintiffs, who attempt to rely on generalized scientific studies or scientific work of questionable validity to assert potential health effects associated with various alleged nuisance conditions. Nuisance plaintiffs may rely on such health effects evidence both to support claims for injunctive relief and to support often unbounded demands for compensatory damages for the "annoyance" allegedly caused by such health effects. In opposing summary judgment on their anticipatory nuisance claim, the Walker plaintiffs presented the opinions of two experts concerning alleged health effects caused by wind farms.

Like in many other cases, these experts failed to tailor their opinions to the facts of the Walker case. Instead, the two experts provided generalized opinions concerning plaintiffs who lived within a particular geographic radius of the wind farm that did not include examinations of any plaintiffs, review of their medical records or any investigation specific to the actual wind farm at issue. As a result, the Walker court found the harm alleged by the plaintiffs to be "speculative at best" and granted summary judgment in favor of the 2/4

defendant. The decision highlights the important role that experts play in supporting nuisance claims and keeps the door open for defendants to fight nuisance claims as speculative where plaintiffs' experts fail to tailor their work to the facts of the case or rest on generic opinions applicable to wide classes of individuals.

The Walker opinion is in line with recent decisions in several other states where landowners have attempted to claim that neighboring wind farms are a nuisance. These cases are important for the wind industry, as well as the energy industry as a whole. Even though anticipatory nuisance claims are not ordinarily upheld, they can often delay projects, add additional costs and impact project financing, particularly where the plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction before the project begins in earnest. And, of course, courts may entertain nuisance cases once the project is in operations where actual proof of injury can be shown.

Historically, the doctrines of anticipatory nuisance and trespass, although long recognized, have been seldom utilized. In recent years, however, the plaintiffs' bar has discovered that such anticipatory suits are potentially a powerful weapon, not only because they might prevent development from going forward at all, but also because such cases can impact project financing and slow construction.

As a result, industry players have been served with more and more such suits over the past few years in an attempt by opponents and their counsels to normalize this tactic. These nuisance suits have posed a threat to several industries, including the wind generation industry and companies involved in oil and gas drilling, and many in these industries are rightly concerned about this strategy to block development. Litigation of this sort can make it very difficult for a project to obtain tax equity or debt financing unless the sponsor is willing to indemnify the investor and has the credit support to back up that indemnification. In many cases, it is difficult for a sponsor to take such a risk.

Even if the developer ultimately wins the litigation, delays in financing could lead to the project missing key construction deadlines, as well as deadlines related to PTC qualification or power purchase agreement-guaranteed completion dates. The costs of litigation can also significantly affect the economics of a project. Even if the plaintiffs know their case may ultimately be unsuccessful, many hope that a nuisance case might be enough to convince a developer to look elsewhere due to the cost and delays. The ruling in the Walker case should help encourage investors that frivolous suits of this nature represent less of a threat to successful wind farm completion than previously appreciated.

The Walker court joined a number of other courts that have rejected the anticipatory nuisance tactic. The Walker decision is important because successful prosecution and injunction of an anticipatory nuisance and trespass case could legitimize this tactic and

3/4

potentially lead to a much bigger industry problem. Thus far, defendants have been able to largely defeat these claims, and the hope for developers is that plaintiffs will soon abandon this misguided tool. The Walker decision is another step in that direction.

If the plaintiffs had been successful in the Walker litigation, lenders and investors likely would have increased the level of scrutiny on wind projects, particularly when project facilities were to be located near residential uses of non-participating landowners; and developers would have incurred additional project costs related to either leasing more land than would normally be necessary for a project and/or obtaining easements from nonparticipating landowners in order to create buffers around projects so as to avoid nuisance claims.

Ultimately, what can a wind project do to avoid issues with nuisance? One hope is that, as case law such as Walker continues to develop, it will make it easier for developers to have the cases dismissed quickly. If a project is built and approved in an area with zoning ordinances, that would give some additional protection against nuisance claims.

Developers should also strive to gain local support for the project, even from landowners who will not have turbines on their property. Community outreach and an understanding of the economic impact of wind farms on property taxes and job creation will help gain support and may dissuade opponents from filing claims. Gaining the support of county judges and other local officials may also have an impact.

In the end, however, where neighboring landowners are intent on trying to impede development of a project under a nuisance theory, project proponents can look to a growing body of case law rejecting plaintiffs' claims for nuisance where the evidence fails to suggest a reasonable probability that an actual injury will occur.

Becky Diffen is an attorney with McGuire Woods' energy industry team. She can be reached at bdffen@mcguirewoods.com. Other McGuire Woods attorneys who contributed to this article include partners Trent Taylor, Marvin Rogers, Jay Hughes, Tennille Checkovich and Jonathan Blank.

4/4

4 I Construction Law

TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2013

Do Wind Farms Constitute a Nuisance or Trespass?

BY JASON L. RICHEY AND JACQUELYN S. BRYAN sp,ciai to the Legal he expansion of wind energy in the United States over the last decade as resulted in the development of approximately 20 wind farms throughout Pennsylvania. The regulation of these wind farms has generally been performed by the local authorities in whose jurisdictions they are located. It is well known that wind farms from time to time make noise, produce vibrations or create a "flicker" or "strobe" effect (which occurs when the sun is near the horizon and alternating shadows of light and dark are reflected by a wind turbine's blades), all of which have the potential to be heard or seen on properties neighboring the wind farm.

As such, wind farm developers often conduct noise and vibration studies during the development stage to minimize noise and ensure that any noise generated will be within local ordinance limits. Additionally, developers generally attempt to design wind farms to minimize any flicker or strobe effect from the wind turbines.

Nonetheless, even if developers take these precautions and comply with local ordinances, wind farms may find themselves subject to lawsuits filed on behalf of neighbors to enjoin the wind farm's acted-

the viability of a nuisance or trespass cause of action against a wind farm.

PRIVATE NUISANCE

T

RICHEY BRYAN JASON L RICHEY, a partner in KM. Gates' Pittsburgh office, maintains an active and broad litigation and arbitration practice and has a focus in the areas of construction, real estate and commercial law.

JACQUELYN S. BRYAN, an associate in the firm's Pittsburgh office, concentrates her practice in the area ofcommercial litigation, with a particular focus in the construction and insurance coverage practice areas. ties or to recover damages allegedly caused by the wind farm's operations. In some cases, plaintiffs may even file such a lawsuit simply because they do not like the aesthetic look of the wind farm. The two common-law causes of action most likely to be asserted by neighbors are the doctrines of private nuisance and trespass to land. However, no Pennsylvania appellate court has yet issued a published decision on

An examination of current Pennsylvania law and decisions from other states indicates that a private nuisance cause of action against a wind farm in Pennsylvania may not be viable. A private nuisance is a nontrespassory invasion of another's private use and enjoyment of its land. In Pennsylvania, the invasion must (1) be either "(a) intentional and unreasonable, or (b) unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling liability for negligent or reckless conduct, or for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities," and (2) cause the plaintiff "significant harm," as in Kapiak v. Russo, 676 A.2d 270, 272 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996). According to the Restatement (Second) of Toils, "significant harm" is that sort of harm "that would be suffered by a normal person in the community or by property in normal condition and used for a normal purpose."

Pennsylvania courts should not find that noise, vibrations or flicker produced by a wind farm during operation were produced "intentionally and unreasonably." Wind farms obviously do not operate "for the purpose of causing" noise, vibrations or flicker, as in the Second Restatement, but rather for the purpose of generating clean

energy. Additionally, given the widespread support among many different constituencies for renewable forms of energy, plaintiffs will face an uphill battle in arguing that any such invasion, absent extreme circumstances, is "unreasonable" under Pennsylvania law (such unreasonableness being determined through a balancing of the wind farm's utility to the gravity of its harm). Finally, even plaintiffs who argue that the wind farm's invasion was unintentional will have to establish that the wind farm's conduct was negligent or reckless, or abnormally dangerous, which would be difficult to do.

Cases in other states indicate that nuisance claims based solely on visual impact should not be successful. For example, Texas courts have held that they will not recognize private nuisance causes of action based solely on the aesthetic impact of a wind farm, as in Ladd v. Silver Star I Power Partners, No. 11-11-00188-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 6065 (Tex. App. 2013), which reaffirmed that Texas law will not uphold standalone visual impact nuisance claims when homeowners do not like the appearance of windmills. Rankin v. FPL Energy, 266 S.W.3d 506,513 (Tex. App. 2008), held that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury to exclude from its consideration the aesthetic impact of the wind farm.

Wind Farms continues on 9

Corn. PL 2001). As such, a plaintiff will enter the plaintiff's land, particularly if the need to be able to show that the wind farm wind farm is in compliance with all applicaused an "ent[ryl" by some "thing" onto its cable laws.

Moreover, a plaintiff who "came to the Additionally, the intrusion must be a tanland, and acted with the "desire to cause the nuisance" (i.e., a plaintiff who purchased consequences of [its] act" or a "belie[f] gible intrusion onto the plaintiff's land. property after the wind farm was erected or those consequences [were] substantially Unauthorized intangible intrusions (e.g., knew or should have known that the wind noise, vibrations or flicker effect) are not certain to result." farm would be erected) will likely carry a TRESPASS As discussed above, wind farms are built likely to constitute a trespass. Indeed, harm Similarly, existing case law suggests that heavier burden in establishing a wind farm's liability in a nuisance claim, as in Rassier v. plaintiffs are unlikely to be successful in for the purpose of creating energy — not caused by nontangible objects can, at best, Houim, 488 N.W.2d 635, 638 (N.D. 1992), asserting trespass causes of action against intentionally causing harm to neighbors. be considered actionable under the docwhich applied the common-law "coming to wind farms in Pennsylvania. Trespass to Developers go through a permitting pro- trine of nuisance, which is a nontrespassory the nuisance" doctrine to bar a resident's land is an intentional tort. A trespass occurs cess and governmental procedures to build invasion of another's interest in the private private nuisance claim, and Chase v. Eldred when one intentionally enters land in the and operate wind farms. As a result, it will use and enjoyment of land. Adams v.

Borough, 902 A.2d 992, 1001 (Pa. Conunw. possession of another or causes a thing to likely be difficult for plaintiffs to point to a Cleveland-Clffi• Iron, 602 N.W.2d 215, 222 Ct 2006), which recognized the common- do so, per the Second Restatement and Bruni motive or reason or to offer an explanation (Mich. Ct. App. 1999), distinguished Wind Farms continues on 10 v. Exxon, 52 Pa. D. & C.4th 484, 503 (Pa. as to how a wind farm acted intentionally to law "coming to the nuisance" doctrine.

Wind Farms continued from 4

In sum, it is likely to be extremely difficult for plaintiffs to show that a wind farm constructed and operated in compliance with local ordinances and other laws constitutes a private nuisance under the law.

Wind Fanns continued from 9

from wind farms are not likely to satisfy the elements of a cause of action for trespass.

Moreover, the mere threat of an entry onto the plaintiff's land will almost certainly be insufficient to sustain a plaintiff's trespass claim. Mu:care& v. Ogle County Board of Commissioners, 610 F.3d 416, 425 (7th Cir. 2010), found that a resident's nuisance and trespass claims were not ripe, and the resi-

between trespass and nuisance by stating that "recovery for trespass to land ... is available only upon proof of unauthorized direct and immediate intrusion of a physical, tangible object onto land."

As such, complaints of intangible invasions such as noise, vibrations or flicker

dent's fear of "blade throw" was "too metaphysical."

ENSURING COMPLIANCE Wind farm developers should conduct detailed noise and vibration studies during the development stage to ensure they are in compliance with all local noise ordinances and are minimizing any potential impact to

neighbors from operations. If plaintiffs attorneys in Pennsylvania (like those in other states) file suits against wind farms based on common-law causes of action, courts should not expand such doctrines to allow attacks on wind farms that are in compliance with the law and offer the state an important and growing source of energy to its diverse energy portfolio. •

WIND ENERGY FACTS Operating wind power capacity in the United States now stands at over 105 gigawatts (GW), enough to power 32 million average American homes.'

More than nine GW of wind energy facilities came online in the United States in 2019, constituting 390/0 of all new utilityscale power generation installations. This made wind energy the largest contributor to new power generation in the country that year. Over the past 10 years, wind energy has made up 300/0 of total utility-scale power plant installations.2

Fact: Wind energy can help consumers save money.

The cost of electricity from wind has dropped 700/0 in the past 10 years, and it is now the cheapest source of electricity in many places across the United States.3 Utility-scale renewable energy prices are now significantly below those for coal and gas generation, and they are less than half the cost of nuclear. This means that building new wind energy generation is cheaper than running existing coal plants. By adding more wind energy to their systems, utilities can help make sure that the consumer costs of energy remain stable or decrease overtime.

on—Unsulaskezed Analysis

"Yell.. Cos, el Eeemy C Mad. ran.*

entvgy generation tatenologies Solat

sessmtitiye wen convene...generation tesenekogles ends es*

circumstances Sass

Ros.antal &At Pv—Roonop ce.;

Sew Pli—nan eSn vmssv.

VV. Gas Realuse

smo

!Anew

Eve 454' •

SO

525

SSW

$68

550

575

MO

5125

SISO

5170

We

5220

5256

5275

tevelee4 Coe MON

4

Fact: Wind energy is reliable.

(13

end

carl

Source: Lazard. "Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis.' Version 13.0. November 2019.

In 2019, wind energy became the largest source of renewable electricity in the United States, generating over 7% of the country's electricity. To put that into perspective, wind now generates enough electricity to meet the demands of California (the world's fourth-largest economy) and New Jersey combined. Six states—Iowa, Kansas, Maine, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota —each generated more than 200/0 of their electricity from wind last year, and in Iowa and Kansas, wind is now the single largest source of electricity generation, producing over 40% of each state's electricity.4

Fact: Wind farms have a limited impact on birds.

Wind farms are sited to avoid critical bird migratory paths and to minimize impacts on sensitive species. Wind farms cause far fewer bird deaths than communications towers and other types of infrastructure, and they play an important part in offsetting the emissions that are causing global temperatures to rise, an effect that scientists expect may put two-thirds of North American birds at increasing risk of extinction., Wind energy is responsible for less than 0.01 percent of humancaused bird fatalities.6

Fact: Wind energy generation is one of the world's healthiest sources of electricity.

Government- and university-sponsored studies around the world have repeatedly confirmed that modern, properly sited wind turbines pose no threat to public health. A growing number of studies reviewed by independent experts on wind energy and health have reached the same conclusion. A recent Canadian study examined potential impacts of wind turbine sound among people living in close proximity to wind energy facilities. Based on self-reported data from those living near turbines, the study found no evidence that wind turbine sound has any effect on sleep, illnesses, chronic health conditions, perceived stress, or quality of life.7 Furthermore, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health have found that renewable energy generation could have health benefits worth millions of dollars a year.8

info®apexcleanenergy.com I 434.220.7595 I apexcleanenergy.com

0

APEX

CLEAN ENERGY

Wind power saves water and reduces emissions.

Every year, wind projects save 102 billion gallons of water

Wind is now , providing 7% of U.S. electricity. The U.S. has enough installed wind capacity to power 32 million homes.

"i#3.

and avoid 198 million metric tons of CO2, 232,000 metric tons of SO2, and 168,000 metric tons of NO,.

Wind avoids CO2 emissions equivalent to

..

srtillion

70% lower cost THAN 10 YEARS

Wind power tops following third strongest year for wind power installations.

Wind supports economic development, delivering over

$1.6 billion -every year in state and local tax payments and landowner lease payments.

Iowa and Kansas generate more electricity from wind turbines than any other technology. Both states generate over 40% of their electricity production from wind power.

over 20%

120,000 workers.

IN NEW INVESTMENT

billion

That's enough to power another 15 million homes when these projects come online.

Demand for wind energy set new record as utilities and corporate buyers announced nearly

Powering American Jobs ,..„0/ 1"—"anft"" Wind power is and blue with projects or manufacturing in 70% of congressional districts and jobs in

all 50 states.

AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION

Wind is the most affordable source of new electricity in many parts of the country as costs continue to fall.

Wind power growth is set to continue with over 44 GW of wind power in the near-term pipeline. These projects represent

Wind energy delivers of the electricity produced in six states

Wind supports domestic manufacturing with over 530 factories in 43 states employing 26,000 people.

In total, the U.S. wind industry directly employs

AWE((

Wind power was the #1 choice of new utility-scale power generation in 2019, capturing 39% of new additions. Over the past decade, wind power represents 30% of utility-scale power plant installations.

Offshore wind power continues to build momentum as states are targeting over 25 GW of offshore wind after announcing over 16 GW of new targets in 2019.

f0

Fact: Wind energy incentives are smaller than those given to other energy sources.

Between 1950 and 2016, 65% of all energy subsidies went to conventional fuel sources.9 In fact, for every dollar spent on federal energy incentives, wind energy receives less than 3 cents.1° Wind energy's most significant incentive, the production tax credit (PTC), has helped wind energy technology develop and become cost-competitive, and it is now in the process of being phased out.

Fact: Wind farms do not affect property values of nearby homes.

Numerous local and national analyses of property values near wind energy facilities show that wind facilities do not harm nearby property values. The largest of these studies was conducted in 2013 by a team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; after analyzing 50,000 U.S. home sales near 67 wind facilities in 27 U.S. counties, it found no evidence that home values were adversely affected."

olt

SOURCES 1. American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Annual Market Report 2019. https://www.awea.org/resources/publications-and-reports/market-reports.

2. Ibid.

3. Lazard, "Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis," Version 13.0, November 2019. https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/1azards-levelized-cost-of-energyversion-130-vtpdf.

4. AWEA, Annual Market Report 2019, https://www.awea.org/resources/publications-and-reports/market-reports.

5. National Audubon Society, "Survival By Degrees: 389 Bird Species on the Brink," https://www.audubon.org/climate/survivalbydegrees.

6. AWEA, "Wild life & Wind power," https://www.awea.org/Awea/media/Resources/ Facto/o20Sheets/AWEA_WiIdlife-a nd-Wind power- FINAL.pdf.

7. Health Canada, "Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results," https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-riskssafety/radiation/everyday-things-emit-radiation/wind-turbine-noise/wind-turbine-noise-health-study-summary-results.html.

8. J. Buonocore et al., "Health and climate benefits of different energy-efficiency and renewable energy choices,- Nature Climate Change vol. 6 (2016). pp.

100-105, https://www.nature.com/articles/nc1imate2771. a Nuclear Energy Institute, "Two Thirds of a Century and $1 Trillion+ U.S. Energy Incentives," https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/ resources/reports-and-briefs/analysis-of-us-energy-incentives-1950-2016.pdf. io. American Wind Energy Association, "New analysis: Wind energy less than 3 percent of all federal energy incentives," https://www.aweablog.org/14419-2.

11. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, "A Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Wind Energy Facilities on Surrounding Property Values in the United States," http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbn1-6362e.pdf.

info@apexcleanenergy.com I 434.220.7595 I apexcleanenergy.com

0

APEX CLEAN ENERGY

Ind Works Michigan

A COMMUN TY CONVERSATION ABOUT WIND

FARMS

Determining Myth from Fact There are many common arguments against wind energy that come up when new projects are being discussed and considered. This document responds to these claims.

Argument: Wind energy is not economical in Michigan Response: Wind energy is now cheaper to produce thin new coal or natural gas power plants in Michigan.

The cost of wind energy has significantly decreased in Michigan since 2009.

In 2016, the average cost of utility-owned wind projects was $55.58 per megawatt- hour.

Weighted Average Cost Comparison Commission Approval Power Purchase Company Owned 2016 $55.58 N/A 2015 $50.00 $45.00 2014 N/A N/A 2013 $55.95 $50.04 2012 $52.50 $49.25 2011 $60.90 $67.16 2010 $104.00 $97.33 2009 N/A $115.00 Total $73.58 $69.73 Table: Michigan Public Service Commission'

In contrast, the cost to build a new coal power plant is $133 per megawatt-hour2 and the cost to build a new combined cycle natural gas plant is $56.40 per megawatt-hour.3

Argument: Wind energy is not reliable; it requires 'back-up' Response: The grid provides backup for all types of energy — wind is not unique and doesn't require new natural gas generation.

The integrated power system was developed was so that all power plants could back up all other power plants. The vast electricity grid is a backup for windfarms on calm days in the same way that it is a backup for coal plants when they need maintenance. And in fact, weather models now allow very accurate day-ahead forecasting of windfarm electricity production — this can actually make it easier and less costly to backup wind energy than conventional fossil production.4 Watch this video for an explanation of how this balancing works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSiCRZcinfE. In Michigan, the need for generation that can be turned on quickly (like backup natural gas plants) is "little to none."'

Numerous studies indicate the total system reliability cost of integrating wind energy ranges from $1.30 to $5.20/MWh.6 1 Michigan Public Service Commission. 2017. http://www.michigan.goy/documents/mpsc/MPSC PA295 Renewable Energy Report Feb 2017 551772 7.pdf 2 Michigan Public Service Commission. 2016. https://www.michigan.goy/documents/mpsc/PA 295 Renewable Energy Report 2-1216 514511 7.pdf 3 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2016. http://www.eia.goy/outlooksiaeo/electricity generation.cfm 4 Dumas, J. 2012. http://www.ercot.com/contentinews/presentations/2012/Dumas IPPSA March13.pdf 5 American Wind Energy Association. 2015. http://awea.files.cms-plus.corn/AWEA Reliability White Paper - 2-12-15.pdf

(

-

Argument: Why can't we just use coal?

Response: Michigan spends billions of dollars every year importing fossil fuels.

There are no active coal mines in Michigan. Instead, we import coal from other states like Wyoming and Montana. Each year, Michigan spends more than $22 billion on fossil fuels imported from other states — that is lost money from our state.' By generating more of our electricity from local wind energy, we can avoid paying for imported fossil fuels.

Argument: Wind turbines don't really reduce air pollution.

Response: Wind energy greatly reduces emissions of air pollutants including carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and toxic metals like mercury.

Some have sought, without evidence, to undermine the large environmental benefits of wind energy by propagating the myth that wind's pollution reductions are smaller than expected because wind changes the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants. However, because wind makes up such a small portion of our electricity generation in the U.S., the variability in wind energy has very little impact on the cycling and efficiency of fossil power plants.

For example, a recent study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory studied hourly emissions across the Western U.S. and found that efficiency of fossil plants had a "negligible" impact on the emissions saved by wind energy.8 With wind and solar providing 33 percent of the electricity in the Western U.S., one megawatt-hour of wind energy reduces carbon emissions by more than 1190 pounds.

Argument: Windfarms encroach on neighboring landowners resulting in "trespass zoning."

VUlt i US, irt is a L- ei r SOiS . i'espass Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition.

Like telephone poles, electric distribution lines, street-lighting, radio antenna and telecommunication towers, wind turbines have the potential to enter into the space of neighboring land in the rare event of a catastrophic failure. As is the case for other common infrastructure, wind companies and utilities are prepared to respond to any failures.

There are no zoning restrictions in Michigan that are imposed on neighboring landowners. You are not prohibited from building structures, farming, or otherwise using your land because there are wind turbines on a neighbor's property.

Despite the arguments made by the proponents of "trespass zoning," there are no zoning restrictions or setback distances for wind turbines that affect adjoining property.

6 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2015. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/61911.pdf 7 Michigan Public Service Commission. 2011. http://www.dleg.statermi.us/mpsareports/energyienergyoverview/ 8 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2010. https://www.nrel.gov/grid/wwsis.html

WIND ENERGY IN MICHIGAN

Michigan has been successful in attracting investment for wind energy manufacturing and large wind energy projects.

Michigan has over 2,400 MW of installed wind power and ranks 13th in the nation for installed capacity.

The state has also attracted significant investment into the wind energy supply chain. There are 26 manufacturing facilities producing components for the wind industry, including Ventower Industries, a wind tower manufacturing facility sited on a former brownfield site in Monroe. State utilities have proactively invested in wind projects to help the state reach its RPS target, with DTE Electric Company ranking 6th in the nation for utility ownership of wind power capacity.

03 Jobs & Economic Benefits The U.S. wind industry is a major economic development driver. In addition to job creation and billions of dollars in project investment, the wind industry invests heavily in local communities, providing significant revenue in the form of property, state, and local taxes.

C/)

• • • •

Direct wind industry jobs in 2019: 4,001 to 5,000 Capital investment in wind projects through 2019*: $4.2 billion Annual state and local tax payments by wind projects": $31 million Annual land lease payments: $16 million *Based on state and national averages from LBNL, NREL. *"Based on member data. Includes PILOT payments.

Wind-Related Manufacturing Over 500 manufacturing facilities in the U.S. make products for the wind industry, from blades, towers, and turbine nacelles to raw components such as fiberglass and steel.

• Number of active manufacturing facilities in the state: 26 American Wind Energy Association I awea.org

I

—Online Wind Project

POWERED BY

nrilQ

Wind-related Manufacturing Facility

CJ) Wind Projects as of Q3 2020 • Installed wind capacity: 2,459 MW • • • •

State rank for installed wind capacity: 13th Number of wind turbines: 1,273 » State rank for number of wind turbines: 13th Wind projects online: 28 (Projects larger than 10 MW: 26) Wind capacity under construction: 772 MW Wind capacity in advanced development: 0 MW

m Wind Generation In 2019, wind energy provided 5.00% of all in-state electricity production.

0 Cn

•

State rank for share of electricity: 22nd

•

Equivalent number of homes powered by wind in 2019: 533,300

Wind Energy Potential •

Land-based technical wind potential at 80 m hub height: 81,311 MW (Source: AWS Truepower, NREL)

•

Offshore net technical wind potential at 100 m hub height: 57,331 MW (Source: NREL)

Environmental Benefits Wind energy reduces emissions and water consumption by avoiding generation from fossil-fuel power plants.

• In-state carbon dioxide emissions avoided in 2019*: 4.4 million metric tons >> Equivalent cars' worth of emissions avoided: 930,000 • In-state water consumption savings in 2019**: 2.4 billion gallons *Estimated using Aurora power sector model. "*Based on national average water consumption factors for coal and gas plants.

13 Renewable Portfolio Standard

0 0

Michigan first enacted a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in 2008 requiring 10% renewable energy by 2015. After achieving the target in 2015, the state expanded the standard in 2016, requiring state electricity providers to generate 15% of their sales from renewable energy sources by 2021.

1111111111 1111111

American Wind Energy Association I awea.org

AWEA

AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION

"Clean Energy in Michigan" Series, Number 2

Wind Turbine Economic Impact: Local Employment

By Leah Adelman, University of Michigan

Questions: How many local jobs are created by wind turbines?

What kinds of jobs are created by wind turbines?

Background Many energy and environmental advocates tout the job benefits of renewable energy—and they aren't exaggerating. Overall, there are an estimated 111,000 jobs in the wind industryl, and Wind Turbine Technician is reported to be the second-fastestgrowing profession, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics'.

However, not all—or even most—of the jobs in the wind energy industry are in the communities that host wind farms. For example, Clean Jobs America reported that 56% of wind jobs are in manufacturing and construction'. Further, not all wind energy jobs are long-term jobs. While some construction jobs are long-term as workers follow new projects from site to site, other jobs associated with the construction of wind turbines are temporary.

What is often of most interest to communities who are considering hosting wind energy projects is how many long-term local jobs will be created.

Estimating Long-Term Local Jobs Based on interviews with the operators of wind energy projects in Michigan, each windfarm tends to have between 7 and 11 employees per 100 MW4'5. So a 200MW windfarm would likely bring 14-22 long-term full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs to the cornmunity.

Smaller projects tend to have more FTE employees per 100 MW while larger projects tend to have fewer FTE employees per 100 MW. This implies that there are economies of scale for wind projects; as projects grow bigger, the number of employees added may plateau.

W10" 1111 or.

ICAOLC MICHIGAN DEPARTMENt Of ENVIRONMENT, GREAt LAKES AND ENERG

Acknowledgement This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy and the Michigan Energy Office (MEO) under Award Number EE00007478.

The Clean Energy in Michigan series provides case studies and fact sheets answering common questions about clean energy projects in Michigan.

GRAHAM SUSTMNABILRY INSTITUTE UNIVILIMITI OP MICHIGAN

Find this document and more about the project online at graham.umich.edu/climate-energy/energy-futures.

155MWM," .-,17.3'Jatis (2 isr‘ine 111>iiri..tinii s4ellitiisY:'

Lae Vilndsinali fork

8 technicians, 2 part-tirn• engineers, 1 part-Ome

-

ins Ronmoble En.gY DiE .348.21,4Ni(4ll DTE combined) 25 Jobs

Map shows the location of four wind energy employers

There are usually one or two managerial positions per wind project and the rest are wind turbine technicians, sometimes called wind specialists.

Statewide, this translates into about 10% of the estimated 2,000-3,000 total wind jobs in Michigan being in the communities that host wind projects.

Other local jobs To be sure, these aren't the only local jobs that might result from wind development.

Construction jobs are a one-time economic stimulus that accounts for the majority of the jobs created by wind development. A project manager at Barton Malow, the construction contractor for Apple Blossom Wind Farm in Huron County, indicated that there were 130 construction jobs at peak (for a project of 100 MW), and that 94% of the workers were from Michigan, though not necessarily from Huron County°.

Often, local firms are hired during the construction phase for aggregate hauling and excavation. There are also local jobs added in the hospitality and service industries during the construction period, to accommodate construction workers that come into the area.

There are also "induced jobs" from landowners spending lease revenues in local businesses, and local governments spending new tax revenues from wind development on construction projects or other services. These, however, can be trickier to tie directly to a specific wind development.

1

•

https://www.e2.org/reports/clean-jobs-america-2019/

2

https://www.b1s.gov/emp/tables/fastest-growing-occupations.htm

3

https://www.e2.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/E2-2019-Clean-Jobs-America.pdf

4

Employee numbers put in per 100 MW to standardize between larger and smaller wind projects

6

Information complete for 34% of Michigan's wind capacity https://geronimoenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Econ-Impact-AppleBlossom-email.pdf

46932-APR-20

Wind Builds the Future in Rural Communities Communities across the country, particularly those in rural areas, currently face a barrage of challenges as they seek to build vibrant local economies.

Attracting and retaining young people, adequately funding schools, and providing essential services have all proved difficult in recent years. And that was before the COVID-19-induced recession added another layer of uncertainty. However, some communities are overcoming these obstacles better than others—those hosting wind projects.

Wind Builds the Future in Rural Communities Wind projects pay over $1.6 billion in state and local taxes and landowner lease payments every year, and this number only goes up as more wind projects come online.

This critical revenue helps bridge budget shortfalls and allows communities to invest in their future, providing new resources to expand opportunities in their schools and social services. The jobs needed to build, operate and maintain wind projects offer young people careers that will support their families without needing to leave home, and lease payments provide farmers and ranchers a drought-proof cash crop that stabilizes agricultural economies.

The following case studies, spanning nine states, provide specific examples of local benefits wind projects create, and highlight the many ways wind is building a prosperous future.

O'BRIEN COUNTY, IOWA Nancy McDowell, O'Brien County Supervisor Nestled near the heart of the "wind belt" in the northwest corner of Iowa, lies a county known as one of the most wind-friendly areas in the state—O'Brien County. Since 2016, O'Brien County has hosted three wind farms, Highland '&11 and O'Brien, producing over 500 MW of energy, putting them in the top three counties for total wind capacity in the state. O'Brien county has been vital to Iowa's wind energy success story and continues to play a role in the state's national leadership in utilizing this natural resource.

Between the added valuation and increased taxes, we were able to actually reduce tax rates when many counties in Iowa were having to raise taxes immensely to cover increased costs.

O'Brien County has looked to wind energy to grow its tax base, attract and retain a younger population, create jobs and provide valuable revenue to landowners who have been impacted by the struggling farm economy. The county has seen substantial increases in funding for its schools, a decrease in its property taxes, and a boost to the locals' pocketbook, which has allowed many of the county's farmers to pay off debts, expand their operations and send their children off to college.

During the construction of these wind farms, O'Brien County saw a massive economic boom. For three years, the county saw hundreds of workers dine and shop at its local businesses, rent and buy housing and utilize the local recreation. Many of these workers chose to stay in the county permanently to raise their families.

Challenges remain, however, for O'Brien. Like with other small, rural counties, O'Brien has an aging population, a lack of affordable housing and has too many job openings to fill with people. While wind energy has helped stimulant parts of the local economy, kept taxes low, and retain some of its younger population, it will take more to alleviate some of these local stresses.

American Wind Energy Association I awea.org

1___ AWEA.

AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION

• Left: Construction of Highland Wind Farm Photo: ©Brian Barkley 2015

Despite these challenges, the community has welcomed the benefits wind energy has brought to help sustain the county, while others feel the strain. COVID-19, while a hiccup in the road, has not burdened the county's budget, due in part of the revenue coming from its wind farms. O'Brien County Supervisor, Nancy McDowell, says their wind projects have been "very reassuring" and a "critical" part to their budget. McDowell adds, "Between the added valuation and increased taxes, we were able to actually reduce tax rates when many counties in Iowa were having to raise taxes immensely to cover increased costs'

CHEROKEE COUNTY, IOWA Bill Anderson, Cherokee County Economic Development Cherokee County, situated in northwestern Iowa, is an emerging wind energy leader in the state. The newly built 200 MW Glaciers Edge wind farm is one of two Iowa wind projects with purchase power agreements from corporate tech giant Google. Google's investment has resulted in 25 new jobs and $1.5 million in annual property tax payments to the county, and a second phase of this project is currently under development.

Like with many smaller rural counties, Cherokee has faced challenges making the resources and infrastructure available to execute large-scale economic development projects, which is why Glaciers Edge is a success story. The collaborative spirit between the county government and the developer to bring this project to fruition has resulted in a diversified and vibrant local economy.

Attracting and retaining a workforce also continues to be a challenge, but thanks to generous donors, the county now offers the Cherokee County Promise Fund which helps with tuition for those attending Western Iowa Tech Community College. All of this is an effort to provide a high quality of life, which then fosters growth in the county.

Another hurdle the county has had to face is the COVID-19 crisis, American Wind Energy Association I awea.org

1111Above: Glaciers Edge Wind Farm Photo: ©Cherokee Area Economic Development CorporationLeft: • Left: Bill Anderson (Cherokee Area Economic Development) and Jacob Bossman (State Representative and Senator Grassley regional director) stand in front of a wind turbine blade where a signing ceremony was held to commemorate the completion of Google's Glacier's Edge Wind Project

which forced area small businesses to close their doors. While the county has now regained some footing with their community support to "buy local," many of the county's business leaders are still experiencing issues with sales and disruption to the supply chain.

Despite all of this, there is an optimistic view the endures among Cherokee's residents because of projects like Glaciers Edge, which has steadied the county's economic ship. Because of the economic benefits the project delivers to the community, such as funding for the school district and lease payments to landowner, many residents are looking forward to the second phase of Glaciers Edge Wind Project.

2

FORD/LIVINGSTON COUNTY, ILLINOIS Jeff Bryan, Tri Point School District Superintendent Prior to the investment from the wind industry in our community, we had been forced to cut our school staffing back to the bare bones. We had let 10 teachers go and downsized our support staff. Even with those measures we were running a $300,000 operating deficit while grappling with unpredictable state funding. Under those circumstances, it's extremely difficult to retain talented teaching staff and offer our students the opportunities and support services they deserve.

The roller coaster of state funding for our district is certainly going to worsen in the current economic environment. The loss of tax revenue during COVID-19 and added costs to governments at all levels cast a huge shadow over future funding levels. Locally, we're also facing added costs to assist our students and teachers with online learning.

And we are being proactive about developing creative solutions to provide our teachers and families the best possible safe-guards next year. Steps such as enabling remote teaching should we need to provide precautionary quarantines for a teacher or class anything we can do to avoid forcing teachers to take precautionary sick days and further disrupt their students learning.

With those funds, we have our own, local stream of funding allowing us to confidently make long-term investments in our district. To date, we have hired teachers, improved our buildings, and upgraded our technology.

The wind farms in our district have been life-changing for our students, our teachers, and the future of our district. The two wind farms in our district together generated over $2 million in revenue in their first year on our tax rolls. We will see more than $3 million in revenue over the life of these projects.

With those funds, we have our own, local stream of funding allowing us to confidently make long-term investments in our district. To date, we have hired teachers, improved our buildings, and upgraded our technology.

LOGAN COUNTY, ILLINOIS William Thomas, Logan County Economic Development Partnership Logan County is no stranger to the economic benefits of wind development. With three wind farms operational today and a fourth under construction, it is enjoying significant new funding to invest in our communities, in services for our residents, and in long-term community revitalization for our towns and villages.

With Covid-19 impacting our local businesses, schools, and our two local colleges, we are fortunate to have the extra layer of American Wind Energy Association I awea.org

This newer source of revenue is more important than ever during uncertain economic times, including the COVID-19 pandemic. We're fortunate to have an extra layer of certainty in our budgets as a result of the local wind projects. certainty in local budgets that harvesting wind provides. Reliable, locally controlled revenue sources allow us to continue major projects in the county, even in difficult economic times - including the renovation of county buildings and the construction of a new high school in Mt. Pulaski.

In addition to the significant tax revenues for basic services, the wind industry is an important new community partner for our region. The industry has responded to numerous local charities in need - often without recognition. Hill Topper wind farm, the most recently completed project, contributed $110,000 to area economic development, allowing for the creation of a local food coop and renovation of historic buildings, including the historic former courthouse where Abraham Lincoln once practiced law in Mt. Pulaski.

The wind projects in our region generate hundreds of millions of dollars in capital spending across the state, and tens of millions of dollars in payments to landowners over the life of each wind farm. Our partnership with the wind industry also presents an important opportunity for future growth and prosperity outside the energy sector. Expanded access to clean and reliable new sources of energy make Logan County more attractive to additional new investment from industries of all kinds.

The Logan County Economic Development Partnership is proud to partner with the wind industry and further add to the diversity of energy that is helping Logan County and Central Illinois grow and prosper.

TIOGA (WILLIAMS COUNTY), NORTH DAKOTA Dennis Lindahl, Director of Economic Development Here in Tioga, we're looking to the future. Our city has focused a strategy on building a foundation for creating a community that 1 addresses quality of life issues. We first spent a few years focusing ' on developing and growing local activities, especially focused on education. We developed and financed successful programs for 21stcentury workforce like "Drone Camp for Kids:' now in its 5th year.

Once activities were vibrant we turned our focus onto building facilities to host events, which led to our $5.2 million dollar Community Center with an indoor play area and library, new police department, and new museum. The pandemic is posing challenges to the use of our new facilities, but the low population density and the increasing ability of people to work from home is now viewed as a potential asset to the offerings in our community.

This has brought us to our final focus, which is attracting 3

(.."". A wind project fits directly into what Tioga is seeking: jobs with a focus on skilled trades — mechanics, construction workers, electricians, and plumbers —that include using advanced technology and making use of our focus on STEM certification programs that we have invested in heavily.

reducing our annual utility costs and allowing us to achieve more energy independence. Especially in the wake of COVID-19, the cost savings and the measure of self-reliance provided by wind energy are a huge weight off our shoulders.

industries. We now have a foundation for creating quality in people's lives and feel confident with our 'total package' of offerings and are courting several potential industries, which are showing tremendous promise.

While we work on support for the larger project, the plan in motion to install our 1.5 MW wind turbine is just one example of a growing shift towards alternative energy sources by Native American tribes. Around the country, more and more tribes are beginning to take advantage of renewable energy projects as a way to power our communities into the future. Wind energy and other forms of renewables can provide not only the energy independence and lower electricity costs that we're seeing right here on Spirit Lake Reservation, but also new job opportunities for locals and even the possibility of additional revenue streams - all while continuing to preserve our land for the next generation.

One of those promising industries that we've begun to partner with is the renewable energy industry. Our area's first wind development is expected to be fully operational by the end of this year, and has brought new construction jobs and new funding for community resources with it. This project alone will help to support volunteer fire districts, school districts, and a community college in Williams and Mountrail counties, representing a significant investment into towns like Tioga.

Ultimately, our ability to invest in wind energy will allow us to be able to invest in other priorities in the long run while furthering our commitment to sustainability. The utilization of wind power in our community is estimated to save us almost $500,000 per year, which can be redirected toward other programs and services for our tribe.

Those savings are a powerful tool to have at our disposal during economic downturns, and our shift to wind is one that we will be proud of for decades to come.

A wind project fits directly into what Tioga is seeking: 21st century jobs with a focus on skilled trades-- mechanics, construction tooloN workers, electricians, and plumbers—that include using advanced technology and making use of our focus on STEM certification programs that we have invested in heavily. We're excited to continue to pursue opportunities with wind, and to see just what the future holds.

SPIRIT LAKE TRIBE, NORTH DAKOTA Ryan Brown, Project Manager, Spirit Lake Tribe The Spirit Lake Tribe's commitment to wind energy aligns closely with our values as a community. We have a longstanding commitment to environmental preservation and energy efficiency - in fact, we completed construction on the first net-zero school on tribal land (and the first in North Dakota) three years ago, meaning that our school produces more energy than it consumes each year.

But this project also makes economic sense for our tribe and our broader community. The proposed project on our tribal land provides almost two-thirds of our energy needs, dramatically

The project on our tribal land provides almost two-thirds of our energy needs, dramatically reducing our annual utility costs and allowing us to achieve more energy independence.

Especially in the wake of COVID-19, the cost savings and the measure of selfreliance provided by wind are a huge weight off our shoulders.

American Wind Energy Association I awea.org

FORD COUNTY, KANSAS Joann Knight, Ford County Economic Development Southwestern Kansas sees some of the highest average wind speeds in the nation, and we've been able to turn this natural advantage into a new stream of revenue for rural communities throughout the area. Ford County in particular is home to one of the first wind developments in Kansas, and has been a hotspot of wind energy ever since.

The first phase of the Spearville Wind Energy Facility was just the third wind project to come online in our state, and it brought millions of dollars to Ford County and Spearville township. Over the life of the project, this first phase alone is expected to result in almost $15 million of funds in total, including more than $5 million for the local school district, almost $4 million to Ford County, and $3 million to Dodge City Community College.

These investments into our county's rural communities were just the tip of the iceberg. Since then, Ford County has seen two expansions of the Spearville project, and three additional developments - Ironwood, Western Plains, and Bloom Wind Farm - have all come to town, bringing additional revenue and strengthening our main streets, schools, and government services.

Each of these projects brings construction jobs and an influx of capital investment, as well as long-term maintenance jobs and added revenue for related local companies. For example, the construction of the Western Plains wind farm resulted in about 200 temporary jobs and three dozen permanent jobs in the community. The development also created additional economic 4

Particularly in uncertain economic times, our towns and counties can rely on wind to keep the lights on - both literally and figuratively. opportunity throughout the supply chain - most notably, business for local Hutchison nacelle manufacturer Siemens Gannesa.

In short, wind developments have been a huge source of economic growth for Ford County and for other rural communities in western Kansas and across the country.

Particularly in uncertain economic times, our towns and counties can rely on wind to keep the lights on - both literally and figuratively.

PRATT COUNTY, KANSAS Kim DeClue, Pratt County Economic Development Pratt County is proud to be a part of Kansas' success in wind power. Our county is already home to some of the best winds in the nation, and we look forward to continuing to develop our position as a leader in renewable and sustainable energy.

Each wind development brings a variety of economic benefits to our area, from an influx of capital investment to both short-term and long-term jobs. For example, the most recent completed project in our county created 250 jobs during construction in late 2018 and continues to power a dozen maintenance jobs while operational. We're also fortunate to benefit from World Wind & Solar's presence in our county - they not only provide maintenance services for existing developments, but also are committed to training technicians across the country with their mobile university.

Proceeds from our wind projects have also already helped fund 20 different taxing entities that provide community resources for Pratt County, from the animal shelter to the county's museum to the local community college. Soon, we'll also see progress on one of our largest projects to date supported by wind energy revenue: the county's new Public Safety Center. The new building will provide more necessary space and resources for the county's emergency medical services, fire and rescue, and emergency operations center teams. Wind power has proven to be a valuable partner in making these types of crucial investments into our communities and serving our citizens.

Wind has already driven growth in Pratt County and in other rural communities across the country, and Kansas is poised to take advantage of even more economic benefits as our wind footprint continues to grow. Just last year wind became the largest source of energy in our state, and only one other state in the nation generates more of their energy from wind power. This continued progress continues to open doors to steady streams of revenue for rural communities like ours, and paves the way towards a more forward-thinking future for Kansas.

American Wind Energy Association I awea.org

TORRANCE COUNTY, NEW MEXICO Wayne Johnson, County Manager In Torrance County the challenges faced are those common to much of rural America: transportation, job creation opportunities which makes workforce development challenging, and the ability to attract new businesses outside of core established industries.

Infrastructure as a whole is a challenge - everything from water to roads to rail access - those are all challenges for Torrance County. It's all tied together.

Torrance County's tax base is not built on GRT (gross receipts tax) as far as its budget is concerned. The County is heavily reliant on property taxes, but that generally changes exposure of a crisis like the COVID-19 crisis to a later exposure if at all. The County has had unexpected expenses related to the crisis.

Having wind projects in Torrance County has absolutely helped the County ride out the crisis and is going to help secure the County's economic future. There are currently two operational wind projects in Torrance County that are budgeted into overall revenue mix.. There are six more coming online before the end of 2021. None of that money is in the budget currently.

Between existing wind projects, lagging indicators of health, constructions projects and additional workers in the County, the County may not feel the GRT changes in the budgetary process.

With the latest projects coming online by the end of 2021, Torrance County anticipates a 30% increase in overall revenue as compared to the operating budget. Wind is a commodity in Torrance County and we are maximizing it.

SWEETINATER, NOLAN COUNTY, TEXAS Formed in the late-90s around the Trent-Mesa project, the Sweetwater Enterprise for Economic Development (SEED) works with nine projects in Nolan County and the surrounding region. Ken Becker, Executive Director at SEED MDD, has seen • Kevin Carter, president of the Amarillo the landscape go from no Economic Development Corporation. towers in 1998 to more than 1,300 in 2010 with more in the construction phase. The current turbines can produce over 2,000 megawatts of clean, renewable energy that is keeping the AC on during these 100 degree plus days in Texas.

Outside of energy generation, wind plays a vital role in local economies and the job market - Becker noted that despite the pandemic and oil and gas downturn, wind has remained a stable source of good-paying, technical jobs that help power I communities in more ways than one. "I think the challenge

5

OLDHAM, RANDALL AND POTTER COUNTIES, TEXAS Wind makes an impact in every community it calls home - from clean power to high-paying jobs, wind offers a wide array of benefits beyond the homes and businesses it powers. Across the Texas Panhandle, including Amarillo, one of wind's documented benefits is the positive effect on the area's tax base.

These jobs offer young workers the ability to provide a good living and high quality of life for their families, an opportunity that wasn't always available in rural settings. for everybody is how are we going to operate, and do these challenges change the way we do things," said Becker. "We've been at this for 20 years, so it doesn't feel like a new industry for us anymore. We're part of the critical baseload renewable energy industry and we're not going to let the pandemic alter our course, a course people are relying on for power and jobs:' For the Becker's, wind is a family affair; Ken's two son-in-law's worked in the wind industry and traveled the United States. His daughter taught at Texas State Technical College and had wind students in her classes. Wind energy has afforded Ken's grandson, a wind technician in training, the opportunity to travel around the country and witness firsthand the profound impact wind has on communities nationwide. Becker also acknowledges wind's role in bringing families back to rural communities, saying "These jobs offer young workers the ability to provide a good living and high quality of life for their families, an opportunity that wasn't always available in rural settings:' As home to the most wind turbines in the region, Nolan County is a premier example of the widespread, positive effect wind has on Texas communities and the nation. If Texas were to be a country, it would be ranked as the 5th largest producer of wind energy in the world, and Nolan County alone would be the 28th ranked country on that list.

• Kevin Carter, president of the Amarillo Economic Development Corporation.

American Wind Energy Association awea.org

Coupled with the lowest unemployment in the state, the Panhandle's wind industry presence helps distinguish the region as an economic outlier. "It goes back to our fundamental mission to build up Amarillo, which includes recruiting wind projects and manufacturers that contribute to a stronger tax base for many of the surrounding counties:' said Kevin Carter, president of the Amarillo Economic Development Corporation. "Wind is creating regional wealth for these tax entities, and the capital expenditure has created more jobs."

Carter also addressed wind's staying power in the face of economic adversity, noting how wind's presence in the area means new jobs from wind manufacturers, new opportunities for students and workers and the ability to revitalize local economies. "These projects can have a big impact without using a drop of water, and that's a big reason our corner of Texas has been so receptive to wind. Neighboring counties like Oldham, Deaf Smith and Carson are traditionally ranching and farming communities that don't see major economic growth, and we appreciate the stable jobs and opportunities that our people can rely on," said Carter.

In next door Oldham County, wind is responsible for more than a billion dollars in community investment, and it has recently seen the expansion of that through repowering, which extends the lifespan of projects while contributing to the economy through temporary jobs to upgrade the turbines, community investment and stable, well-paying jobs.

Judge Don Allred of Oldham County has helped secure several wind projects in his county and recognizes the importance of the industry in the area. "Because Wildorado Wind Ranch was repowered, Oldham County is guaranteed to continue seeing great jobs, land-lease payments to landowners, and low tax rates that benefit our community:' said Allred. "Wind energy has been and continues to be an irreplaceable resource for Oldham County:'

HOLT COUNTY, NEBRASKA Holt County, the eastern gateway to Nebraska's Sandhills region, is one of the state's windiest counties and home to Nebraska's largest wind farm, Grand Prairie. The 400 MW project online in 2016. Since then, it has meant new jobs and new farm income for area residents, an expanded sales

In a county with a population of around 10,200 people, fifty families can make a world of difference.

6

base for local small businesses, and added tax revenues for local governments and schools.

Darby Paxton, director of Holt County Economic Development, says wind energy initially breathed new life into the regional economy and has helped sustain it during the pandemic.

"From the increase in stays in hotel rooms to goods and services to spending money in local shops and restaurants, it is hard to find a local small business that does not boast of the increase in sales since the start of wind farm production: he explains. "Wind energy is now a part of the community. I shudder to think of how our businesses would have survived the latest pandemic without the increase in permanent residents in Holt County. In a county with a population of around 10,200 people, 50 families can make a world of difference!'

William Tielke, chairman of the Holt County Board of Supervisors, agrees. "When you get a business that adds people to a region, like the windfarms, it helps every business on Main Street. Rural Nebraska needs people: Additionally, in a county where agriculture is the dominant industry, wind energy has provided a crucial boost to farmers at a time when commodity markets have gone from bad to worse.

"It has absolutely made a difference: said Mike Zakrewzki, a Holt County farmer and landowner. "As the ag sector cycled lower and lower, I have had more and more people come up to me and express interest and desire in hosting turbines. Having supplemental income that isn't tied to our agricultural cycles has been a godsend to our Grande Prairie neighborhood, and I sincerely hope we can build more renewable projects to help ensure a healthy future for rural Nebraska: Amy Shane, Superintendent of O'Neill Schools, says taxes paid

by Grand Prairie have helped finance a long overdue school expansion. "The nameplate capacity tax has replaced funds that would otherwise have to be generated through property tax asking. This has assisted in our being able to complete an addition at our high school!' She also notes the opportunities the industry has created for her graduates. "Wind energy has created jobs for some of our young graduates and brought other workers to our region: Zakrewski says evidence of this is easily apparent and provides hope for the future. "With the wind project, I now see kids on a daily basis who grew up here that have returned home to become turbine technicians. They are raising their families here, filling our schools, churches and stores. It's heartwarming to see, and it's exactly what rural areas like ours desperately needed!'

ANTELOPE COUNTY, NEBRASKA Nestled amidst the rolling hills of northeast Nebraska, Antelope County is the highest producing farm commodity county in the state. It is now also the top wind energy production county, approaching nearly 800 MW in wind energy capacity within county lines.

American Wind Energy Association I awea.org

II Lauren Sheridan-Simonsen, director of the Neligh Economic Development Office

The wind energy industry has integrated itself well, says Lauren Sheridan-Simonsen, director of the Neligh Economic Development Office. "We have experienced great relationships with local wind energy professionals who are involved in the local community and generously support local non-profit organizations: said Sheridan-Simonsen. "The money from wind energy companies is definitely making it easier for landowners and producers to stay afloat. The benefits to local schools, AG societies and fire departments is a great benefit during the challenges we have faced over the past several years.

The business that wind energy brings to local communities helps keep small business in business. Restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, hair salons, gyms, medical/dental/ chiropractic clinics, mom and pop shops and motels have truly benefited from the wind energy community:

I had just moved home after college and was looking for something I saw as a career rather than a job," Briese said. "The job opportunities created are vital to drawing in younger generations. I can't think of any other industry in smaller communities that creates jobs like the wind industry has.

Former Antelope County Board of Commissioners chairman and area farmer and landowner Leroy Kerkman says the county benefits as a whole, particularly by way of property tax relief, and that wind farms have become a natural part of the area's landscape. "I have experience with wind farm development both as a farmer and an elected official: Kerkman said. "Done the right way, wind energy development can benefit everyone. I live near turbines and they've become just another part of the landscape. In the meantime, they create home-grown energy and broaden our county's tax base, easing the property tax burden on landowners!'

And Chelsey Briese, an operations support facilitator for one of the county's wind farms, said wind energy is a game-changer for younger people wanting to build careers and raise families in rural places. "I had just moved home after college and was looking for something I saw as a career rather than a job: Briese said. "The job opportunities created are vital to drawing in younger generations. I can't think of any other industry in smaller

7

44.0.0i

communities that creates jobs like the wind industry hasf Briese thinks wind energy will only continue to help rural Nebraska grow, if the opportunity it presents is embraced as such. "The resource and potential are here, why not capitalize on it?"

BENTON COUNTY, INDIANA Paul Jackson, Benton County Economic Development Corporation It's no secret that our rural communities have faced a number of challenges over the years - but in Benton County, solutions have emerged by the power harvested from its fields. It's only been relatively recently that new developments like increased access to high-speed internet and a shifting culture around remote work have begun to alter the way people earn a living, but this change is difficult to achieve in rural areas.

Paul Jackson, Economic Development Director in Benton County, believes that infrastructure plays an important role in the conditions of rural America. As Jackson pointed out, "almost everything is run through the internet these daysf Not only do rural areas face economic problems, but they also struggle to retain their population. Jackson stated that most kids in rural communities will not return after graduating high school and heading to college. For the sake of their future, Benton County desperately needed updated infrastructure, and they were able to afford it with the help of the county's wind farms.

Many rural communities, like Benton County, lack reliable access to high-speed internet. Nearby wind farms helped to rectify this inequity, providing over $1million of the $6.2 million it cost to complete the project to run fiber optic line through communities in Benton County. This infusion of tax revenue from nearby wind farms helped offset the shortfall between a grant from the state and the full project cost. According to Jackson, Benton County's new fiber optic network will provide high speed, low-cost internet to 75-80 percent of its citizens by the end of 2020. The remaining 20 percent will have similar access through new wireless towers in the area. This undertaking, made possible in part by nearby wind farms, will make e-learning a new reality for Benton County residents and help attract new local business.

The rural internet improvements were just the tip of the iceberg as advancements have been taking place over the past decade.

Thanks to wind energy, Benton County was able to allocate $3 million to their local school corporation, advancing the quality of education. Since 2007 the wind farms in Benton County have generated $38.4 million for road improvements. By 2038, $26 million will be spent upgrading emergency vehicles and training EMTs to become paramedics. All of this revenue and investment has fueled the creation of 95 new jobs and the construction of a new tourism center, all while providing 988 MW of clean energy to the grid. Wind power has provided a level of economic stability and will do so for decades to come.

Benton County is an excellent example of the benefits of wind energy. Their wind farms have not only generated tens of millions of dollars for improving the county, but also help in the small steps American Wind Energy Association awea.org

II Randolph County, Indiana we are taking toward reducing our carbon footprint. Wind energy offers rural communities across Indiana a unique opportunity to attract businesses, provide local residents with good-paying jobs, and build up a local tax base in a sustainable way. That much is clear from the success of wind energy in Benton County.

RANDOLPH COUNTY, INDIANA Ceann Bales, Executive Director Randolph County Community & Economic Development Corporation It's not uncommon for rural communities to struggle as manufacturers close their doors and young people seek other opportunities due to the lack of good paying jobs. The tax base as a result also suffers, leaving local governments to scrounge for financial resources to support the infrastructure and operations of the community. These struggles have only been exacerbated by the pandemic, causing further strain on local businesses.

In Randolph County, funding for local government has taken a hit through a 30% loss in the gas tax with fewer people driving to work. The local income tax, which helps keep property taxes low, is also falling. The county projects a million-dollar shortfall heading into 2021, something that is unfortunately not unique to counties across rural America.

However, there is hope for counties like Randolph - counties with wind farms in their communities. The wind projects in the county have helped to overcome some of the struggles of a decreasing manufacturing base, and in turn, provide for high paying jobs, helping to retain young people. The wind turbines require

8

inspections and maintenance, which is a skilled trade.

Annual tax payments provided

by EDP Renewables has helped purchase much-needed equipment for the community, such as a new ambulance for the county's emergency medical services. Farmers also benefit from the wind farm, receiving lease payments for hosting wind turbines on their land, leaving 98% of the land undisturbed.

Furthermore, the wind projects provide annual payments for three of the five schools in the county. Each school has used its funds to update facilities and upgrade technology in order to improve the education children receive.

"The income generated by the wind in Randolph County have been instrumental in helping the county navigate the negative financial impact of the pandemic:' said Ceann Bales, Executive Director of the Randolph County Community and Economic Development Corporation. "The farms will continue to generate income for our county, provide high paying jobs for our youth, and help ensure our rural schools prepare our youth for either the workforce, technical degrees, or college."

CAMPBELL COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA Andrew Van Kuren, Campbell County Economic Development Corporation There is no shortage of wind in Campbell County South Dakota and with it comes great opportunity. In December 2015, the Campbell County Wind Farm was completed with 55 turbines

• Construction crews work on turbine construction for the Buffalo Ridge Wind Farm in Deuel and Brookings counties. South Dakota will soon be home to hundreds more wind towers across the state. Photo: Courtesy of Steven Wegman

being brought online generating 95 MW. The farm produces enough electricity to power approximately 25,000 homes for a year. With 700 homes in Campbell County, all of the electricity generated by the turbines runs through Basin Electric Power Cooperative. More is yet to come as Con Ed Development will soon begin phase two of the project to construct an additional 38 turbines, which are even more efficient with the advancements in technology.

Wind power has significantly increased the tax base for Campbell County. The original 55 turbines have been generating over $300,000 in local taxes every year. The Pollock-Mobridge School District and Campbell County are both receiving over $150,000 in taxes from the wind farm every year. The tax revenues will nearly double with Phase 2. The wind farms have also created about six full-time jobs in the region, which is significant considering the population of Campbell County is 1,466 people.

Development of wind energy has not been without some controversy in the community, but the county commissioners did it right - they took their time, they did their research, and they are applying knowledge they learned through the first phase of the project to implement zoning ordinances to meet industry standards and will apply zoning regulations to all aspects of the county, not just wind farms.

The many benefits seen by the county have proven valuable to Campbell County and should serve as a model to other counties in South Dakota.

le Campbell County South Dakota.

American Wind Energy Association I awea.org

9

DEUEL COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA

M Left and Below: Deuel County South Dakota.

Joan Sacrison, Executive Director Deuel Area Development Corporation Deuel County is a small county in east central South Dakota with a giant wind energy portfolio. This rural county of 4,365 people is now experiencing a major economic boom in wind development that is generating millions of dollars in new tax revenue and creating hundreds of new jobs.

In spite of the global pandemic, the county experienced a 616% increase in taxable sales, according to the South Dakota Department of Revenue. April of 2020 brought a windfall of nearly $32 million in taxable sales, whereas those same sales totaled roughly $4.5 million just a year ago.

With the influx of construction jobs and the development of dozens of permanent jobs in the county that pay good salaries, the local real estate market has turned around as most properties have been purchased, the local motel has been full, and the campgrounds are in full swing due to the presence of wind energy workers. This has had a domino effect at the local grocery stores and restaurants that have also benefited from increased sales.

Wind energy is a long-term business that benefits farmers and landowners in rural areas, too, by providing lease payments to landowners.

There is no shortage of wind farms in Deuel County. Avangrid developed the Buffalo Ridge II Wind Farm in 2010 with 24 turbines and generates of 210 MW of energy, and last Fall, Avangrid's Tatanka Ridge wind farm was approved, adding 56 more turbines to the county. NextEra Energy just began construction of the Crowned Ridge II wind farm that will consist of 29 turbines that will

American Wind Energy Association I awea.org

generate 300 MW of power. And finally, Invenergy is in the process of developing the Deuel Harvest Wind Farm that will consist of approximately 120 wind turbines for a total capacity of 300 MW that will produce enough energy to power 90,000 homes annually.

Deuel County has benefited tremendously as a result of wind energy development and is excited for the many benefits that will continue to permeate throughout the community for years to come.

AWEAI

WIiERICAN ND ENERGY ASSOCIATION

-4fatic 4

Ind Works Michigan

A CCMMUN TY CONVERSATION ABOUT WIND

FARMS

Wind benefits agriculture Windfarms provide an array of benefits to farmers and farming communities.

• Stable income for farmers — one that is drought resistant and flood proof • Keeps land in agriculture — preserving family farms and protecting open spaces

Wind helps farming communities Field work conducted in Michigan's Thumb by the University of Michigan's Ford Policy Schooll finds that landowners with wind turbines on their property: Question: Since 2008, about how much money have you spend on...

•

•

•

•

Invest twice as much money Average of those in their farms —in home Average of all with turbines responses improvements, outbuildings, on their property farm equipment -- than $41,970 $26,897 ...improvements to your home?

I landowners in townships 36,521 $71,780 ...improvements to your outbuilcf without windfarms. ...improvements to your field drainage $25,321 $57,863 Bought more farmland in and irrigation? the last 5 years than other ...purchasing new or used farm $125,027 $279,539 landowners. equipment?

Are more likely to believe that their land will be farmed in the future and less likely to believe their land will go idle than other landowners.

Are more likely to have a succession plan in place for their farm than other landowners.

Windfarms can improve crop production New research from Iowa State University indicates that windfarms actually improve crop production. Corn and soybeans benefit from the turbulence produced by wind turbines by decreasing temperatures during the day and increasing temperatures at night.2

Windfarms benefit everyone Windfarms benefit our nation, state and local communities by improving our economy, environment and human health.

• • • •

New capital investments in rural communities generate tax revenues and landowner income.

Windfarm tax revenue supports schools, local government and an array of community services.

Farmers typically invest their money locally and the increased income and revenues help local businesses including restaurants, auto and farm implement dealers, farm service providers, etc.

Clean wind energy reduces air and water pollution that are harmful to human health.

1 Mills, S. 2015. https://goo.gl/roA8fb.

2 http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2016/12/09/windturbulence

SUMMARY SURVEY RESULTS

Farming the Wind: The Impact of Wind Energy on Farming Sarah Mills, PhD

In February 2014, owners of farmland in 14 townships in Michigan were sent a mail survey about their opinions of wind energy, recent investments in their homes and farms, and their future plans for their land. A total of 1,210 landowners-72% of all of those who received the survey—responded. Some of these landowners live in townships with a windfarm, while others live where there are no large wind turbines. The aim of the survey was to understand what impact the wind turbines were having on the landowners in the windfarm communities by comparing their survey answers to those from landowners in townships without wind turbines. In summary, the survey data show: •

Landowners with wind turbines on their property: o

o o o o o

invested twice as much money in their farms—in home improvements, outbuildings, farm equipment, and drainage/irrigation—in the last 5 years than their neighbors and landowners in townships without windfarms. bought more farmland in the last 5 years than other landowners. are more likely to believe that their land will be farmed in the future and less likely to believe their land will go idle than other landowners. are more likely to have a succession plan in place for their farm than other landowners. are more convinced of the positive impacts of turbines and less convinced of the negative impacts than other landowners. report both pros and cons on the impact of the turbines on their ease of farming, but most said that it was neither easier nor more difficult to farm around the turbines.

Overall, landowners in all townships—with and without windfarms—believe more in the positive impacts of wind turbines than in the negative impacts. o While landowners with wind turbines on their property see wind turbines in the most positive light, landowners in windfarm townships who do not have turbines on their property have opinions that are similar to landowners in the townships where there is no windfarm.

Most landowners think that landowners should have a great deal of authority in deciding where wind turbines are sited. o

The majority think that local governments and the state should have some authority, but think that the federal government should have no authority in such decisions.

The data for many of these survey questions are on the following pages. Additional analysis, including findings from interviews with county and township officials and a review of zoning ordinances, is included in the full project report which will be available online in the coming months. You can request a link to this report by emailing Sarah Mills at sbmills@umich.edu.

RERAly.11.1,,!:i;CFiRID SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY SARAH MILLS, PHD CENTER FOR LOCAL, STATE, AND URBAN POLICY (CLOSUP) UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN GERALD R. FORD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY (734) 6 I 5-53 I 5 SBMILLS@UMICH.EDU

Question: How strongly do you agree or disagree with each statement about wind turbines?

Wind turbines...

29°/o

provide revenues for and owners

63%

4%

create jobs

64%

12%

42%

reduce nearby property values

12°/o

43%

17°/o

38%

2% 5%

11%

21%

170/0

26%

30°/o

+ I

27%

41

preserve rural land

14%

31%

+ produce visual or aesthetic problems I

37%

ra

47%

create noise pollution

48%

help limit climate change

54%

disrupt bird migration

22%

cause human health problems

12% 15%

disrupt local weather patterns

8113%

56%

59%

20%

31%

11%

25%

16%

MI

_L

I Strongly

disagree

I Disagree

Agree

I

Strongly agree

Question: How much authority should each of these groups have for deciding where wind turbines are sited?

2% 4%

69°.

I

A great deal of authority Some authority

I

41%

Landowners

Local governments

State governments

Federal government

No authority

Question: For how much longer do you think you will own any farmland in this county?

Question: How do you think most of your land in this county will be used when you sell it?

3%

I 1-10 years

I

21-30 years

11-20 years

I

I

30+ years

No

I

I

Yes

SARAH MILLS, PHD

Developed

Idle or recreation

I

Other

Question: Since 2008, have you purchased any additional farmland and, if so, how many acres?

Question: Do you have a succession plan in place for your land?

I

Farmed

I

Did not buy

<40 acres

40-79 acres

I

80+ acres

FARMING THE WIND: THE IMPACT OF WIND ENERGY ON FARMING

SUMMARY SURVEY RESULTS

Farming the Wind: The Impact of Wind Energy on Farming Sarah Mills, PhD

Question: Since 2008, about how much money have you spent on...

Average of all responses

Average of those with turbines on their property

...improvements to your home?

$26,897

$41,970

...improvements to your outbuildings?

$36,521

$71,780

...improvements to your field drainage and irrigation?

$25,321

$57,863

...purchasing new or used farm equipment?

$125,027

$279,539

Asked only of landowners with turbines on their property Question: Are fields with turbines easier or more difficult to farm?

More difficult I

SARAH MILLS, PHD

I

Both easier and I more difficult

Easier

I

No difference

FARMING THE WIND: THE IMPACT OF WIND ENERGY ON FARMING

Benefits from Wind Developmen in Gratiot County Gratiot County is home to three wind farms: Gratiot County Wind, LLC, Beebe Renewable Energy, LLC, and Pine River Wind Energy. Two additional wind farms will go online in the 2020 tax year: Polaris and Gratiot Farms. Tax revenue and employment data for each project is outlined below.

Gratiot County Wind, LLC

Beebe Renewable Energy, LLC

133 GE turbines

Pine River Wind Energy (Gratiot County portion)

55 Nordex turbines

29 GE turbines

•

2 FTE jobs at the maintenance and operations facility

Employment counted under Gratiot County Wind

Initial investment: $318 million

•

Initial investment: $230 million

Initial investment: $105 million

Since 2012, tax revenue generated $30.5 million, including:

•

Since 2012, tax revenue generated $14.7 million, including:

Since 2019, tax revenue generated $669,308:

26 FTE jobs at the maintenance and operations facility

$212,000 to Gratiot County

$10.9 million to Gratiot County

$5.37 million to Gratiot County

$3.88 million to local townships/cities

$2.5 million to local townships/cities

$56,000 to local townships

$6.8 million to local school districts and regional service districts

$401,000 to local school districts and regional service districts

$15.75 million to local school districts and regional service districts

0

For a total of $379 million increase to Gratiot County's tax base and $49 million in tax revenue since 201 Indirect benefits to Gratiot County include: •

500 temporary skilled construction jobs

•

Wind investment was used to leverage a grant to complete infrastructure for the Breckenridge Industrial, Technology and Agribusiness Park, where there are currently over 100 new FTE positions 350 families participate in land royalty payments that equate to a new industrial payroll with approximately 25 jobs Road upgrades, grid improvements and new electrical substations make the area attractive for new businesses

•

Positive media attention / tourism

•

County reputation for collaborative action / proof of ability to accomplish large and complex projects

*Accurate and up-to-date as of 07/2020 For more information on Wind Development in Gratiot County, Michigan, please visit ggdi.gratiot.oraf wind-alternative-energy/, or contact:

Rifle Riveri Wind ITC transmission line

Grafi / of/County /Wind, LLC

Sr. Louis

Breakenndge

Alma Gratiot County Wind/ Beebe Renewable Energy hhaoa Beebe Renewable Energy, LLC

Tradewind Permitted for constructton

8)

ITC transmis ion line Ashley

Greater Gratiot Development, Inc. 136 South Main, Ithaca. MI 48847 Ph: (9891 875-2083 www.gratiot.org

ola

tuft Mticdotion Mica County Operating

County Senior Operating

County Parks

County Libraries

Agriculture / ECOrIOTIC Development

Road Patrol

City of Ithaca Operating

Village of Breckenridge Operating

City of St. Louis Operating

North Star Two Total (Op. / Fire & Rescue / Rd.)

[Wheeler Tuvp.

Lafayette Twp. Total re Total (Op.!

Rescue Op. Roads S, Bridges) and Eq. /Rd.(

Bethany Twp Op,

Pine River Twp (OP. / Fire)

Hamilton Twp. Emerson Twp. Total (Op. / Total (0, / Fire Roads & Bridge / Rd. / Hat)) /Flre)

Beebe Community Wind Fart Exelon / Beebe:

$

81,876,30100 $

81,805,90200

IMIERMEN

$

70,403,80000 $

70,403,800.00

IIME3=11MEE

$

74,944,900.00 $

74,944,90000

Gratiot County Wind Farm: DTE: InvenergY/ Gratiol Wind.

Pine River Wind.

DTE:

$ 26,780,400.00 d development.

Electric upgrades to ITC (METC): FINAL TOTALS

26,780400.00

$

11,293,100.83 $

$

265,298,503.00 $

Merrill Schools Op.

$

6,626.

$

148,111.39

NMEZ001IMEMENNIMME $

17,385.78

$

9,354.22

0

13,373.98

$

12034.07

$

12,051.03

IMEMCEI

NIMMUMMINIMIMEIEME

IIMMICIONZIMEMMEMIIMEMEME

11iMIIIIIIEMEIMEMIIIMEMINME

11111111111111

1,57262

$

$

47,526.60

$

11,293 100.00 265,228,102.00 IMMIMEM

Shepherd Schools Op.

Alma Schools Op.

In rr

il MOM MD EMME MM=IMEEMIIMMIIIMEIMIIMEMMIIMIMEMEM Total revenue tti Gratlot Coun serviCes: $2 v 695.33 Total to Villa, Cit service

Breckenridge Schools Op.

Ithaca Schools Op.

Sr. Louis Schools Op

Ithaca Sinking Fund

Merrill Schools Debt

Shepherd chools Debt

Alma Schools Debt

Breckenridge Schools Debt

Ithaca Schools Debt/Bond

$ 28 004.39

183,055.65 IA62MMUMMEM1ME=11M3=MMEIRMIZEM Total revenue to various townshks and townshh services: 728 086.29

St Louis Schools GIFIESD (Including bee.

Debt Ed. Millage) 1

State Education Tax (distributed back locally through State Aid Fund) ,

Saginaw RES°

2015 AN UAL TOTAL

Beebe Communay Wind Fr Exelon / Beebe.

Cratiot County Wind Farm: Invenergy / Gratiot Wind: Pine River Wind: DTE: Electric upgrades Our wind d

IMI=MUNIMINUMININII IIEWECIIMIIIIMMEMEIMIMMENNIEIN=EIMIIIIIMIIIIMMIEMEMEMIIINIMENIBMINE=MEMIIIMIMINIIMMEME=1=111=1= EMEEMIII IIMIEMEMINEM03aNfuEI IILMINIME=1EMI=MEC=1 NEI MEMIIMMEMBI60:oEI1=11101111!NEW=IIIIIMIIMEMNIIIME L— —L syao12w0IL 95i.owe.I 5 m.o.

ENNI729EIEI MEMMINNE111•111MEMEMMLUE=IEME8dsb0tDIEMME=11=1111MIMILIIIIIMEMEM31=11111= ,443.59 $ 28,313.55 $ 669,308.55 - $ .20 $ $ 669,308.55 $ 6,463.08 $ 14,040 70,633.99 $ 126,80 74 $ 5

ITC (MUG): FINAL TOTALS

imil=liwmilm=11•=1M:=1

$ "M a " Total revenue to local school districts' o•eratIons & slnkln : fund: $753004.35

armarba

FIMMEIIMMITIFINKOXIMEMITIEW=11110=11111=11•111111MMEMILIIIIIIMIEMIIIMINN=113=1 $ 6,241,405.00 Total revenue to local school districts debt bond : 974 555.35

Total to SET: $194,484.60

Total to re : ional school districts: 61,304927.51

au)

ugu, Feledutigua

tid Completed Turbine Count (2019):

County Operating

County Senior Operating

County Parks

County Libraries

Road Patrol

Agriculture / Economic Development

City of Ithaca Operating

Village of Breckenridge Operating

City of Sr. Louis Operating

North Star Twp. Total (Op / Fire & Rescue / Rd.)

Wheeler Twp. Total (Op. / Fire & Rescue Op. and Ea. ) Rd.)

Lafayette Twp. Total (Op. / oads & Bridges)

Bethany TwO Op.

Pine River Two (OP. / Fire)

Hamilton Tv/11.'; Emerson Twp. Total (Op / Total (Op / Fire Roads & Bridge5 / Rd. / Hall) / Fire)

Beebe Community Wind Farm.

Exelon / Beebe: Gratlot County Wind Wind Farm: DTE

in—ergy/0"1.1Wi^d Pine bluer Wind

Gratiot County Wind: 56 in Wheeler, 46 In Bethany, 23 in Emerson, 7 in Lafayette,

EINE=1111112=1111111=1E1111111=1B1=35111111EZEIEWICEMIENNECEMIMMMI1111111111111111 05e6,t'340'11:11MINEIMINEMMEE=1111111N=41111111=21 & 1 in St. Louis.

EINEMETIMEW=CIREMEEMEMMEM=11211=1E1111322312111111111111E1 1111111MMEMB IENE30E03uEINIMIIIIIMMIZIEMINIM1111111111111 111111 Beebe Wind: 25 in North Star, E1111111=E1=3:113112=1HICEMMEZEIBIEMBEINIE3=11111 11111111E5iEI0IMEININI=111131111111111111111BE3,euDpI 25 in Emerson, & Sin Hamilton.

DTE EIME=1111111 Electric upgrades for wind development

=

1EINEEZIE

111112MEIBIREMEMI=SIBIEEMEMEIMIIIIIIIIIM1111111111113111111111111111101•11111=1111

11EMEE1011=111111110111111E111111111

ITC (METC)

Pine River Wind: 27 in Pine River & 2 in Bethany.

FINAL TOTALS

26,826.97 12

EIMMEMEMZE=IIEWM=1112.EMEIFE1=11M=IIIMMEMIDIEWEE3

MT=

11212EITZ=1111111111111111111111111111111

8OnIliYdlFT48180

$5

j9

=EIFEMMEIFNMZEMS

$

$

207,630.30 FINEMMIIIMEMEE1M2=11

1•11111111

.0:99.

s and townshi

ervices:

257,058.M

02 282.90

217 Total **Total numbers include turbines,

Merrill Schools Op.

Shepherd Schools Op.

Alma Schools Op.

Breckenridge Schools Op.

Ithaca Schools Op.

St. Louts Schools Op

Ithaca Sinking Fund

Merrill Schools Debt

Shepherd Schools Debt

Alma Schools Debt

Breckenridge Schools Debt

Ithaca Schools Debt/Bond

St. Louis Schools Debt

GIRESD (including Pop. Ed. 'Unlace)

Saginaw RES',

Beebe Cam mu n lty Wind Farm Exelon / Beebe Grataat County WI nd Wind Farm DTE. 'nye e'DY / G'...

Pine River W.nd

" nd

DIE

1111=1111111=1111MINIIIIEIMIll $

F1500 TOTALS

CUMULA IV A ES PAM, (20 2 2025)

office & maintenance facilities, and utility lines/substations (as applicable to project).

011111111E=1111111M111111111MINNEE=1ESE=

11=1111111211111=MINIMIEIIIMIIIMMINIIIMEINIMINT=IIIME

IMMOMMEMINIIIIIMEMIII 1111=IEE=1 IIIIIIMELINIIIIIIIII=INIMME=111111ENE90rot4.3,II IE1111•1111111111111=1E11•11111=1E 11 13E11111111MMEM111111EIMEIE11/2=1121=EIEMEMEEM113111111111111 1EICCEIBIESIIIINEMEIMINIE=E1111•13231111111111111=3E1=1 11111111111111111MMEMEIMMIEMINIUMEIMEME111111•11111111M1111 IN II IIIM2M 11 111 111 1111WME NIE $ Z005,772.35

Electric upgrades for wind developent m ITC (MEIC)-

600 60987

State Eduation Tax (distributed back locally ' through State Aid Fund) ;

6 46 08

BIEMECIMIIIIIIIIIIIIMIll

ll

il

11111111111111111=1111311

14,040.60

11111=1

=MIIMILEM lEIMMEIFMXIMMIMMMILINNINEINI $ 49,062,950.84 11 1EZEMEEMEMEMMIn Total to re: lOnal school distriCts: $11,284 817.38 IIMMEIREMEI

FIEMEMEI $ 87%54083 $ 2,265,034.59 1117=11111.2=UMM=IFEEMAIIMMOMM=1 EllEMEIFIMMEEMZEMI Total revenue to local school districts' o•erations &sinkin: fund: $5,422,358.96 Total revenue to local school dist debt/bond $7,298,153.93

*Accurate and current as of 3/17/20.

26 806 04

82

Greater Gratiot Development, Inc. 136 South Main, Ithaca, MI 48847 Ph: (989) 875-2083 www.gratlotorg

U.S.) Wind Manufacturing Figure 96: Active Wind-Related Manufacturing Facilities in 2019

U.S. Wind Manufacturing In 2019, over 530 wind-related manufacturing facilities across 43 states made products for the U.S. wind energy industry.

VT

NH

MA

The U.S. wind energy supply chain contains seven utility-scale blade facilities, nine tower facilities, and three turbine nacelle assembly facilities, all spread across 12 states.

DE MD

Turbine manufacturers with at least one American manufacturing facility built 95% of the wind power capacity installed in the U.S. in 2019.

KY

,

--

• • TN .

41. ,•-- • •--• •1• • SC , • • • 41.0 Ms AL io GA LA • • • • • -'._ %la._ • • •.

FL, •

AR

In 2019, major manufacturing facilities had the capability to produce approximately 15,000 MW of turbine nacelles, more than 11,400 individual blades and around 3,650 towers annually.

?‘ 1 GU

HI

PR • •••":

• Vs

• Active Wind-Related Manufacturing Facility

44 •

Installed Capacity 0 to 100 MW

>100 mw to 1,000 MW

[71 >1,000 MW to 5,000 MW • >5,000 MW to 10,000 MW • >10,000 MW

Wind Turbine & Component Manufacturing in the U.S. In 2019, over 530 wind-related manufacturing facilities serviced the wind industry.

The geographic diversity of the wind-related manufacturing footprint is vast, with facilities spread across 43 states.

94

Wind Powers America Annual Report 2019 AWEA

The current U.S. wind industry supply chain is capable of producing the vast majority of the more than 8,000 components required for turbine assembly.

.S. Wind Manufacturing I Figure 97: Major Wind-related Manufacturing Facility Locations, Operational Year End 2019

A Blade Facilities GE Renewable Energy, Little Rock, AR GE Renewable Energy, Grand Forks, ND Molded Fiber Glass, Aberdeen, SD Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, Fort Madison, IA TPI Composites, Newton, IA Vestas, Windsor, CO Vestas, Brighton, CO • Turbine GE Energy, Pensacola, FL Siemens, Hutchinson, KS Vestas, Brighton, CO

Broadwind Towers, Abilene, TX Broadwind Towers, Manitowoc, WI GRI Renewable Industries, Amarillo, TX Marmen Energy, Brandon, SD Arcosa, Newton, IA Arcosa, Clinton, IL Arcosa, Tulsa, OK Ventower, Monroe, MI Vestas, Pueblo, CO

Wind Powers America Annual Report 2019 'WEA

3 Economic Benefits of U.S. Wind Energy Figure 103: Direct U.S. Wind Jobs over Time 120,000

Economic Benefits of U.S. Wind Energy

120,000

In

The U.S. wind energy industry directly employs 120,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs supporting wind project planning, siting, development, construction, component manufacturing, and operations.

Wind jobs have increased at a coenpound annual growth rate of 16% since 2013; adding 70,000 jobs in those six years.

-C C •— 4-,

10,000

LLI 1u_

In

GI -O E >, o 4-, Ec

60,000

1.5 "0

40,000

ww

›. * 0 tri

20,000

The U.S. wind industry built projects representing $14 billion worth of investment in 2019. Cumulatively, the industry has invested over $208 billion in wind projects around the country.

Annually, the U.S. wind industry pays over $1.6 billion to state and local governments and private landowners in the form of tax payments and land lease payments. In 2019, U.S. wind projects paid approximately $706 million in lease payments to landowners and an estimated $912 million in state and local taxes.

Rural areas host more than 99% of the U.S. wind fleet, with 86% of that total located in low-income counties. Wind developers continue to build in low-income counties, with 75% of projects currently under construction or in advanced development planned for these areas.

10/I Wind Powers America Annual Report 2019 AWEA

11

1

80,000

C 3

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

• Other Jobs PI Operations & Maintenance

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Li Construction, Development, Transportation Manufacturing and Supply Chain

Employment in the U.S. Wind Energy Industry The U.S. wind energy industry has created more than 70,000 jobs since 2013. At the end of 2019, the wind industry directly employed 120,000 FTE jobs supporting wind project planning, siting, development, construction, component manufacturing, supply chain activities, and operations.

Continued growth in wind employment is attributable to strong development activity, the emergence of the offshore wind industry, as well

as the need for more personnel to operate and maintain the 59,300 utility-scale wind turbines currently installed in the U.S. The installation of 3,582 wind turbines in 2019, as well as the significant number of wind projects under construction and in advanced development, required 50,000 jobs associated with development, transportation, and construction. With more than 44,000 MW in the near-term pipeline, steady job growth is expected in the coming years.

Economic Benefits of U.S. Wind Energy Figure 104: Direct Wind Jobs by State

<500

ri 501 to 1,000 1,001 to 2,000 r

2,001 to 3,000

III 3,001 to 4,000 IN 4,001 to 5,000 III 5,001 to 6,000 • 6,001 to 7,000 II 7,001 to 8,000 II 8,001 to 9,000 II 9,001 to 10,000 Ill 25,001 to 26,000

Wind Powers America Annual Report 2019 105 CNEA

Eco)nomic Benefits of U.S. Wind Energy ... Employment in the U.S. Wind Energy Industry r The U.S. wind fleet requires a skilled workforce of wind technicians, field managers, engineers, warranty teams, control room operators and trained analysts. Wind turbine technicians— representing the second fastest growing job in the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of Labor—monitor and maintain wind turbines and ensure they continue to function properly.

Thousands of additional employees are required to control operations, provide repair and replacement services, manufacture or refurbish replacement parts, or provide financial management for operational wind projects. Operation jobs across the U.S. wind fleet total 23,000.

0. There are more than 26,000 wind-related manufacturing jobs in the U.S., representing 22% of the wind industry workforce. These jobs are associated with the manufacturing of wind components, as well as the production of raw inputs like composites and steel. Manufacturing and supply chains jobs are spread across more than 530 U.S. manufacturing facilities in 43 states serving the industry. r- The U.S. wind energy industry requires a diversity of skills, with many highly-skilled and high-wage opportunities available. Examples of the needed skills in the U.S. wind energy industry include: • Development: site selection analysts, siting and permitting professionals, biology and ecology scientists, real estate and land agents, and resource assessment experts

I 06 Wind Powers America Annual Report 2019 AWEA

• Engineering: civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers • Construction: general contracting, project management, equipment operators, iron workers and linemen • Transportation: truck, rail, and barge operators, logistics professionals, and crane operators • Manufacturing and supply chain: raw material miners, welders, fabricators, machinists, and assembly workers • Finance and legal: project finance, legal, and insurance professionals • Asset management and operations: wind turbine technicians, field and regional managers, component repair and monitoring employees, maintenance service providers, and control room operators r The wind industry supports jobs in every U.S. state. States with the most wind jobs typically have both strong installation activity and a thriving manufacturing sector. r Texas, the center of the U.S. wind industry, continues to lead the nation in wind jobs, with over 25,000 employed in the industry. Texas has a robust manufacturing base, and the state experienced strong wind construction activity, as it led the nation in new wind power installations in 2019.

Iowa is home to over 9,000 wind industry jobs, placing second in both wind jobs and installed capacity. These jobs come from Iowa's strong wind energy supply chain plus a high volume of construction and development activities. r Illinois is home to over 8,000 wind industry jobs, placing third in wind employment. Not only does Illinois have a large wind fleet and strong development activity, it is also home to a number of wind development, manufacturing, and service companies.

Colorado is fourth in terms of wind jobs with over 7,000. In addition to strong project activity, Colorado is also a major wind manufacturing hub, home to factories owned by companies like Creative Foam Corp., O'Neal Steel Inc. and Vestas. r Indiana has more than 1,400 MW under construction or in advanced development.

Combined with an installed capacity of 2,300 MW and a robust wind-related manufacturing base, Indiana claims fifth position for wind employment.

Economic Benefits of U.S. Wind Energy I Economic Investment by U.S. Wind Energy Industry

Figure 105: U.S. Wind Power Project Investment over Time

The 9,137 MW of wind power installed in 2019 represents nearly $14 billion in project investment.

The U.S. wind industry has invested more than $208 billion in wind energy projects since the industry's inception.

P Texas is home to the most investment of any state at over $53 billion. Rounding out the top five states are Iowa at $19 billion, Oklahoma and California at $15 billion, and Kansas at $11 billion.

The value of a wind project doesn't end at direct investment; it also flows toward the local community through annual tax payments and landowner lease payments. In 2019, the wind industry paid an estimated $912 million in state and local taxes.

Combined with annual lease payments, the wind industry contributes over $1.6 billion to state and local governments and private landowners every year. k As a capital-intensive industry, renewables pay substantial property taxes, even after incentives are factored into the equation. For example, in Texas, where localities have the flexibility to provide tax incentives for renewable energy, the wind industry

Annual Investment (in billions, 2019$)

30

The U.S. wind industry is a major economic development driver across the country, especially in rural areas. In addition to billions of dollars in project investment, the wind industry invests heavily in local communities, providing significant revenue in the form of property, state and local taxes, landlease payments as well as job creation.

25

20

15

10

5

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

paid an estimated $183 million in property tax payments in 2019. The next highest state property tax payments are California at $66 million and Iowa at $56 million.

P. Seventy-two percent of the industry's state tax contributions come in the form of property taxes or payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT). PILOT payments are collected in areas without a property tax or where a tax abatement is offered. In many states where the industry is operating, property tax or PILOT payments go directly to school districts or other special jurisdictions and help fill crucial local budgetary needs. The remaining 28% of the tax

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

1 2017

2018

2019

contributions come from sales, use and other forms of taxes.

The tax totals presented in this report only represent contributions from wind energy generation facilities and do not account for contributions from the vast supply chain providing goods and services that enable wind power generation. These supportive activities bring additional value to both local governments and states. `e Wind projects deliver more than $706 million annually in landowner payments to local farmers, ranchers and others who lease their lands to project Wind Powers America Annual Report 2019 I 07 ^ WEA

I

Economic Benefits of U.S. Wind Energy Figure 106: Cumulative Investment in Wind Energy Projects

WA $6.5 billion MT $1.6 billion

ND $6.9 billion

$317 million MN $7.9 billion

OR $7.3 billion ID $2.2 billion WY $3.3 billion

SD $3.0 billion

WI $1.6 billion

UT $896 million

AZ $603 million

NY $4.2 billion

MI $4.2 billion

NE $3.8 billion

NV $323 million CA $15.2 billion

vr

PA $3.1 billion OH $1.4 billion

NM $3.4 billion

SC GA

FL

108 Wind Powers America Annual Report 2019 AWEA

NJ $16 million

MD $417 million

TX $53.1 billion

HI $436 million

RI $378 million CT $9 million

NC $343 million

TN $41 million

AL

AK $136 million

NH $437 million MA $267 million

DE $5 million

WV $1.5 billion

CO $7.6 billion

ME $1.9 billion

PR $267 million

<$100 million $100 million to <$500 million fl $500 million to <$1 billion lel $1 billion to <$5 billion II $5 billion to <$10 billion • >$10 billion • >$50 billion

Economic Benefits of U.S. Wind Energy I Figure 107: Annual Lease Payments to Landowners by Wind Projects

WA $20 million MT $6 million

ND $22 million

OR $25 million ID $7 million WY $11 million NV $1 million CA , $46 million "

SD $10 million

VT $1 million MN $26 million

NE $15 million UT $3 million

AZ $2 million

CO $14 million

NM $12 million

KS $36 million

WI $8 million

MI S16 million

IA $69 million

MO $10 million

NY $14 million PA $11 million

OH $6 million WV $5 million

IL $37 million 1--

RI <$1 million CT <$1 million NJ <$1 million DE <$1 million MD $1 million

VA

SC

AR MS

AL

<$1 million $1 million -$5 million MI $5 million -$10 million • $10 million - $20 million • $20 million - $60 million • >$60 million

GA

TX $192 million 40 *14.

HI 'lel $1 million

NH $2 million MA <$1 million

NC $1 million

TN <$1 million

OK $48 million

ME

FL PR <$1 million

Source: Project owner records where available, estimates otherwise. Based on payments for calendar year 2018

Wind Powers America Annual Report 2019 109 CWEA

I

3 Economic Benefits of U.S. Wind Energy Figure 108: State and Local Tax Payments by Wind Projects

... Economic Investment by U.S. Wind Energy Industry developers. Because wind turbines themselves occupy little space on the ground, much of the land is retained for its primary agricultural or ranching purposes. As a result, farmers and ranchers consider wind energy to be a "cash crop," acting as supplemental income.

VT $1 million

$4 million MN $21 million

$51 million

NH $4 million MA $1 million

NY $28 million

<$1 million

$9 million

Landowners in ten states currently receive lease payments totaling more than $20 million each year.

Texas leads the nation followed by Iowa, Oklahoma, California, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Oregon, North Dakota, and Washington. Over $10 million is delivered in annual payments to landowners in 19 states, while landowners in 34 states receive more than $1 million annually.

ME $17 million

$19 million

RI $2 million

$8 million PA

$2 million

$61 million

NE 512

<$1 million

CT <$1 million NJ <$1 million DE

$2 million

MD $2 million

$86 million

VA NC

$1 million

TN <$1 million 5107 million

The significant revision to land-owner lease payments compared to 2018 is the result of an AWEA survey collecting land-lease payment data directly from project owners.

Sc AL

GA

5285 million

FL AK <$1 million

HI <$1 million

<$3 million NI $3 million -$10 million F1 $10 million -$15 million MI $15 million -$30 million

M $30 million -$60 million II $60 million -$100 million • >$100 million

Source: Project owner records where available, estimates otherwise. Based on payments for calendar year 2018

110 Wind Powers America Annual Report 2019 AWEA

WIND ENERGY AND HEALTH SYNOPSIS ARTICLE: Can Wind Turbines Make You Sick? I NOVA Next, PBS I June 2018 "Twenty-five peer-reviewed studies have found that living near wind turbines does not pose a risk on human health."

Article providing an overview and list of Twenty-five peer-reviewed studies which have found that living near wind turbines does not pose a risk on human health. The studies looked at a range of alleged health effects ranging from hearing loss, nausea, and sleep disorders to dizziness, blood pressure, tinnitus, and more.

REPORT: Wind Turbines and Human Health I Frontiers in Public Health I June 19, 2014 "Based on the findings and scientific merit of the available studies, the weight of evidence suggests that when sited properly, wind turbines are not related to adverse health [effects]."

This study reviewed the 60 scientific peer-reviewed articles relating to noise, electromagnetic frequency, and shadow flicker. There was no evidence demonstrating a causal link between living in proximity to wind turbines and more serious physiological health effects.

Report: NH M RC Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health I National Health and Medical Research Council I February 2015 "There is no reliable or consistent evidence that wind farms directly cause adverse health effects in humans."

The National Health and Medical Research Council (N H M RC) in Australia conducted a study in 2014 that looked at 4000 papers regarding wind turbines and health effects. N H MRC's final conclusion was that there was no direct evidence that exposure to wind farms was associated with any adverse health effects.

e.-N)

REPORT: Wind Turbines and Health: A Critical Review of the Scientific Literature I MIT I November 2014 "No clear or consistent association is seen between noise from wind turbines and any reported disease or other indicator of harm to human health."

In November 2014, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) completed a scientific review of the literature regarding wind turbine noise and found that infrasound levels near wind turbines do not exceed audibility thresholds.

They also found that infrasound and low-frequency sound do not present unique health risks.

REPORT: Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel, Executive Summary I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; Massachusetts Department of Public Health I January 2012 "Scientific evidence suggests that shadow flicker (from the rotating blades of wind turbines] does not pose a risk for eliciting seizures as a result of photic simulation" The panel conducted an evaluation going through existing peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature, popular media, and public comments received by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

REPORT: Wind Health Impacts Dismissed in Court I Energy and Policy Institute I August 2014 "Over the past several years, anti-wind campaigners without credentials or experience related to wind energy and its effects on humans have attempted to elevate themselves into the role of expert witnesses in civil suits, Environmental Review Tribunals (ERT) in Canada, and Environmental Resources and Development (ERD) proceedings in Australia. This report singles out16 individuals based on the courts' dismissal of their expertise or evidence."

This report catalogues the outcomes of 49 attempts by wind farm opponents to use the courts or legal remedies to stop developments based on alleged health impacts. In all but one case, these attempts have failed, and for good reason: wind farms do not cause health problems.

Health & Environmental Benefits: 2019 Wind Powers America Report 1 AWEA 1 2019 Selected figures including CO2, S02, and NOx Emissions avoided by wind energy as well as water consumption avoided.

WIND ENERGY AND HEALTH More than 54,000 wind turbines are in operation in the United States today, safely generating electricity for our nation.

Wind energy is one of the healthiest forms of energy generation in the world because it releases no greenhouse gases, soot, or carbon into the atmosphere; it also does not consume valuable freshwater or produce water pollution. Apex wind projects are built in full compliance with local, state, and federal safety regulations to protect the health and welfare of landowners, maintenance teams, and others.

Key Findings from Health Impact Studies Government- and university-sponsored studies around the The World Health Organization, which classifies diseases, does not recognize wind turbine modern, properly sited world have repeatedly confirmed that syndrome, nor does any other medical institution. wind turbines pose no threat to public health. A growing number of studies reviewed by independent experts on wind energy and health have reached the same conclusion. A recent Canadian study examined potential impacts of wind turbine sound among people living in close proximity to wind energy facilities. Based on self-reported data from those living near turbines, the study found no evidence that wind turbine sound has any effect on sleep, illnesses, chronic health conditions, perceived stress, or quality of life.'

Wind Turbine Sound The sound of wind turbine blades passing through the air is often described as a "whoosh." If properly constructed at approved setback distances, the sound does not result in any health concerns. Scientific evidence confirms that this sound is not detrimental and that any low-frequency or infrasound waves produced are not harmful to those nearby.2 Noise from wind turbines, including low-frequency noise and infrasound, is similar to noise from many other natural and human-made sources. There is no reliable or consistent evidence that proximity to wind farms directly causes health effects.3 "... infrasound emitted by wind turbines is minimal and of no consequence ... Further, numerous reports have concluded that there is no evidence of health effects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by wind turbines."4

Shadow Flicker This term refers to the shadows cast by wind turbine blades as they rotate in front of the sun. By positioning wind turbines at a carefully calculated angle and distance from dwellings, Apex ensures that most homes in a project experience no shadowing at all. For those that do, shadowing should occur for no more than a few minutes per day, on average. Shadowing does not occur on cloudy or foggy days.

The risk of ice striking a home 984 feet from a turbine is extremely low—researchers estimate that if it happens at all, it is only likely to occur once every 625 years.

While some have claimed that shadow flicker can create risk of seizures in photosensitive individuals, scientific evidence suggests that shadow flicker does not pose a risk of inducing seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy!, 1. Health Canada, "Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results," https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmentalworkplace-health/noise/wind-turbine-noise/wind-turbine-noise-health-study-summary-results.html.

2. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, "Wind Turbines and Health-MIT," November 2014.

3. Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council, "Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health," February 2015.

4. Frontiers in Public Health, "Wind Turbines and Human Health," June 2014.

info@apexcleanenergy.com I 434.220.7595 I apexcleanenergy.com

0

APEX CLEAN ENERGY

Can Wind Turbines Make You Sick? — NOVA Next I PBS

6/28/18, 9:14 AM

nWind Turbines Make You Sick? k?

By Kelsey Tsipis on

Wed, 27 Jun 2018

The amount of wind power generated in America has nearly doubled in recent years. Today, the United States ranks first in the world for electricity generated from wind, according to the Department of Energy. But for some, the shifting winds of the renewable energy revolution isn't a pleasant one.

In places like Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont where industrial wind turbine projects have recently been introduced, residents have reported symptoms such as nausea, sleep disorders, fatigue, and increased stress that they account to a low-frequency hum—a combination of audible bass sounds and inaudible vibrations—generated by the turbines. In one instance, an air '#.1111444 ) traffic controller attributed a near-fatal mistake on the insomnia and stress he experienced after a wind turbine was installed near his home in Falmouth, Massachusetts.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/can-wind-turbines-make-you-sick/

Page 1 of 6

Can Wind Turbines Make You Sick? — NOVA Next I PBS

6/28/18, 9:14 AM

Twenty-five peer-reviewed studies have found that living near wind turbines does not pose a risk on human health.

As public support for renewable energy technologies like wind gains traction, some local communities are putting their foot down, arguing that these efforts shouldn't come at the expense of their health. But whether the sound, audible or inaudible, actually impacts human health remains a deeply contested issue.

Scientific consensus suggests it does not. Twenty-five peer-reviewed studies have found that living near wind turbines does not pose a risk on human health. The studies looked at a range of health effects from hearing loss, nausea, and sleep disorders to dizziness, blood pressure, tinnitus, and more.

Recently, a new study using retrospective data reported that stress, as measured by hair cortisol levels, was not associated with proximity to wind turbines.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/can-wind-turbines-make-you-sick/

Page 2 of 6

Can Wind Turbines Make You Sick? — NOVA Next I PBS

6/28/18, 9:14 AM

The study, published in the June issue of The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, found no direct link between residents' distance from wind turbines in Ontario and Prince Edward Island and sleep disturbances, blood pressure, or stress. The stress levels were both self-reported and measured via hair cortisol levels, a hormone secreted under stress that prepares the body for its fight-or-flight response.

"It's not that we don't believe that people aren't feeling well or aren't sleeping well," said Sandra Sulsky, one of the study's co-authors and an epidemiologist at Ramboll, an international engineering consultancy company. "What we don't know is how that is related to presence or absence of a wind turbine."

The study used publically available data from a 2013 public health survey commissioned by the Canadian government, called the Community Noise and Health Survey, which is the only large-scale study on both subjective (selfreported symptoms) and objective (cortisol levels, blood pressure, heart rate, sleep monitoring) health outcomes in relation to living near wind turbines.

Both the original 2013 study and new retrospective analysis found that wind turbine noise and proximity, respectively, were not associated with any adverse outcomes except for annoyance.

However, the results of the two studies deviated in one interesting way. The recent analysis found that the closer the respondents lived to wind turbines the lower they ranked the quality of life of their environment. The original study found no link between sound levels and these quality of life ratings.

Though because there is no baseline data for the sample, Sulsky said, it's difficult to distinguish whether respondents were dissatisfied before the wind turbines were installed.

"But it does suggest that there's something other than sound itself that influences those perceptions," Sulsky said. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/can-wind-turbines-make-you-sick/

Page 3 of 6

Can Wind Turbines Make You Sick? — NOVA Next I PBS

6/28/18, 9:14 AM

With no proven biological basis for the reported symptoms, some have pointed to the "nocebo effect" as the cause of the complaints. The nocebo effect is akin to the placebo effect, where an individual's positive perception towards a drug or treatment produces positive results, except in the nocebo effect, it's negative attitudes and negative results.

The idea that a nocebo effect may be driving people's reported problems is backed up by a 2014 study that pointed out that health complaints are more common in areas with the most negative publicity about the alleged harmful effects of turbines. A large-scale population survey in the Netherlands found that reports of stress and sleep disturbance were more common in areas where the turbines were visible.

For those living in the shadows of the wind turbines, there is little debate that the turbines have damaged their previously bucolic way of life. Annette Smith, the head of the group Vermonters for a Clean Environment and a long-time critic of industrial wind projects, said the projects have "destroyed the community."

"If you just talk to people who live around these things, there's no question that people are getting sick," Smith said.

Through the grassroots organization she heads, Smith has helped organize public hearings for residents who report serious illnesses as well as lost hobbies such as gardening due to infrasound vibrations. In one case, a resident named Luann Therrien, who lives less than a mile from a 400-foot turbine, said she initially supported the wind projects.

"We were not against the turbines before they went in [but after] we were dizzy, had vertigo like you wouldn't believe," she said at one hearing.

One theory from residents as to why these effects don't show up in the studies http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/can-wind-turbines-make-you-sick/

Page 4 of 6

Can Wind Turbines Make You Sick? — NOVA Next I PBS

6/28/18, 9:14 AM

is that the Vermont mountains funnel the sound in a way that the flatlands of rs ) the Midwest do not. Others say some people may just be more susceptible than others to the inaudible noise, like sea sickness.

In response to these lobbying efforts, Smith said the utility companies have shown no willingness to talk about tangible solutions, such as real-time monitoring of noise, like what happens at airports. "They just deny it happens," she said.

Apart from noise, Smith has what she calls "a menu" of other issues with industrial wind projects in residential areas. She cites the environmental effects of building roads and blasting ridge lines, changes to the topography of the land, and changes in wildlife populations. Smith, who lives "off the grid" with solar panels and the occasional diesel generator supplying her electricity, questions whether a commitment to this carbon-free source of electricity comes at too large of an expense to the rural communities that house them.

"We're all expected to solve the energy issues of the world if we don't want wind," Smith said. "And I think that there are many other ways of developing and getting energy that people aren't sacrificed or getting sick or leaving their homes... or being ridiculed."

As to whether complaints from nearby residents will put a halt to wind power's expanse in the U.S., recent data suggest they will not. From 2011 to 2016 electricity generated from wind turbines rose from 120 million to 226 million megawatt hours in the United States—a rise that also has not produced an increase in evidence of adverse health outcomes.

"It's natural to look for causes, and something that seems to be new in the environment is a natural conclusion to draw," Sulsky said. "But so far the evidence doesn't support a causal association." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/can-wind-turbines-make-you-sick/

Page 5 of 6

Summary of main conclusions reached in 25 reviews of the research literature on wind farms and health.

Compiled by Prof Simon Chapman, School of Public Health and Teresa Simonetti, Sydney University Medical School simon.chapman@sydney.edu.au Updated 10 April 2015.

1. Council of Canadian Academies (2015). Understanding the evidence. Wind Turbine Noise.

2. Schmidt JH, Klokker M (2014) Health effects related to wind turbine noise exposure: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 9(12): e114183. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114183 3. 2014: McCunney RJ, Mundt KA, Colby WD, Dobie R, Kaliski K, Blais M. Wind turbines and health: a critical review of the scientific literature. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine 2014; 56(11):pe108-130.

4. 2014: Knopper LD, Olson CA, McCallum LC, Whitfield Aslund ML, Berger RG, Souweine K, McDaniel M. Wind turbines and human health. Frontiers in Public Health 2014; 19 June 5. 2014: Arra I, Lynn H, Barker K, Ogbuneke C, Regalado S. Systematic review 2013: association between wind turbines and human distress. Cureus 6(5): e183. doi:10.7759/cureus.183 [Note: this review is a very poor quality paper published in a non-indexed, pay-to-publish journal. A detailed critique of it can be found at the end of this file.]

6. 2014: National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia). University of Adelaide full report (296pp) and draft consultation report (26pp). Final Report (Feb 15 2015) 7. 2013: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. (in Finnish) — summary at end of document 8. 2013: Department of Health, Victoria (Australia) Wind farms, sound and health.

9. 2012: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Independent Expert Science Panel Releases Report on Potential Health Effects of Wind Turbines 10. 2012: Oregon Wind Energy Health Impact Assessment.

11. 2011: Fiumicelli D. Windfarm noise dose-response: a literature review. Acoustics Bulletin 2011; Nov/Dec:26-34 [copies available from simon.chapman@sydney.edu.au] 12. 2011: Bolin K et al. Infrasound and low frequency noise from wind turbines: exposure and health effects. Environmental Res Let 2011; 13. 2010: Knopper LD, 011sen CA. Health effects and wind turbines: a review of the literature. Environmental Health 2010; 10:78 14. 2010: UK Health Protection Agency Report on the health effects of infrasound 15. 2010: NHMRC (Australia) Rapid Review of the evidence 16. 2010: Chief Medical Officer of Health in Ontario 17. 2010: UK Health Protection Agency. Environmental noise and health in the UK. A report by the Ad Hoc Expert Group on Noise and Health. (this report is about all environmental noise)

18. 2009: Minnesota Department of Health. Environmental Health Division. Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines.

19. 2009: Colby et al. Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review.

20. 2008: Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit.

21. 2007: National Research Council (USA): Impact of wind energy development on humans (Chapter 4: pp97-120) of: Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects.

22. 2006: Context and Opinion Related to the Health Effects of Noise Generated by Wind Turbines, Agence Francaise de Securite Sanitaire de l'Environnement et du Travail(Affset), 2006. (in French only) 23. 2005: Jakobsen J. Infrasound emission from wind turbines. .1 Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 2005; 24(3):145-155 24. 2004: Leventhall G. Low frequency noise and annoyance. Noise & Health 2004;.6(23):59-72 25. 2003: Eja Pedersen's Review for the Swedish EPA

Reviews of the evidence - extracted highlights Direct health effects from noise and WTS •

"There is no consistent evidence that noise from wind turbines—whether estimated in models or using distance as a proxy —is associated with self-reported human health effects. Isolated associations may be due to confounding, bias or chance."

NHMRC (2014) full report

•

"There are no direct pathological effects from wind farms and that any potential impact on humans can be minimised by following existing planning guidelines." Source: NHMRC 2010 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ files nhmrapublicationsiattachmentsjnew0048 evidence review wind turbines and health.pdf

•

"There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects." Source: Colby 2009 review http://199.88.77.35/EFiles/docs/CD/PlanCom/10 0426 IT 100416160206.pdf

•

"... surveys of peer-reviewed scientific literature have consistently found no evidence linking wind turbines to human health concerns." Source: CanWEA http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/CanWEA%20%20Addressing%20concerns%20with%20wind%20turbines%20and%20human%2Ohealt h.pdf

•

"There is insufficient evidence that the noise from wind turbines is directly... causing health problems or disease." Source: Massachusetts review http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wincliturbine impact study.pdf

2

•

"There is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds and... sound exposures in occupational settings, that the sounds from wind turbines could plausibly have direct adverse health consequences." Source: Colby 2009 review http://199.88.77.35/EFiles/docs/CD/PlanCom/10 0426 IT 100416160206.pdf

•

while some people living near wind turbines report symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, and sleep disturbance, the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects. The sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects..." Source: Ontario CMOH Report http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry reports/wind turbine/w ind turbine.pdf

•

"... the audible noise created by a wind turbine, constructed at the approved setback distance does not pose a health impact concern."Source: Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit http://www.harvestingwindsupport.com/blog/wpcontent/uploads/2011/03/Chatham-KentHealth-and-Wind-.pdf

•

There is no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a "Wind Turbine Syndrome." Source: Massachusetts review http://www.mass.govidep/energy/wind/turbine impact study.pdf

•

"... there is not an association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental health problems." Source: Massachusetts review http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/turbine impact study.pdf

•

"Evidence that environmental noise damages mental health is... inconclusive." Source: Ad Hoc Expert Group on Noise and Health http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb C/1279888026747

•

"...no association was found between road traffic noise and overall psychological distress..."Source: Ad Hoc Expert Group on Noise and Health http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb C/1279888026747

•

"To date, no peer reviewed scientific journal articles demonstrate a causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise (audible, low frequency noise, or infrasound) they emit and resulting physiological health effects." Source: Knopper&011son review http://www.ehiournaI.net/content/pdf/1476-069X-10-78.pdf "... there is no scientific evidence that noise at levels created by wind turbines could cause health problems other than annoyance..." Source: Eja Pedersen 2003 Review http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5308-6.pdf "None of the... evidence reviewed suggests an association between noise from wind turbines and pain and stiffness, diabetes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, hearing

3

impairment, cardiovascular disease, and headache/migraine." Source: Massachusetts review http://www.mass.govidep/energy/wind/turbine impact study.pdf "...there are no evidences that noise from wind turbines could cause cardiovascular and psycho-physiological effects." Source: Eja Pedersen 2003 Review http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5308-6.pdf "...there was no evidence that environmental noise was related to raised blood pressure..."Source: Ad Hoc Expert Group on Noise and Health http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb C/1279888026747 •

"The health impact of the noise created by wind turbines has been studied and debated for decades with no definitive evidence supporting harm to the human ear." Source: Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit http://www.harvestingwindsupport.com/blog/wpcontent/uploads/2011/03/Chatham-KentHealth-and-Wind-.pdf

•

"The electromagnetic fields produced by the generation and export of electricity from a wind farm do not pose a threat to public health..."Source: NHMRC 2010 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ files nhmrc/publications/attachments/new0048 evidence review wind turbines and health.pdf

•

"... no consistent associations were found between wind turbine noise exposure and symptom reporting, e.g. chronic disease, headaches, tinnitus and undue tiredness."

Source: Bolin et al 2011 Review http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/6/3/035103/pdf/1748-9326 6 3 035103.pdf

•

"... low level frequency noise or infrasound emitted by wind turbines is minimal and of no consequence... Further, numerous reports have concluded that there is no evidence of health effects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by wind turbines." Source: NHMRC 2010 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ files nhmrc/publications/attachments/new0048 evidence review wind turbines and health.pdf

•

"... renewable energy generation is associated with few adverse health effects compared with the well documented health burdens of polluting forms of electricity generation..." Source: NHMRC 2010 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ files nhmrc/publications/attachments/new0048 evidence review wind turbines and health.pdf

•

"Although opposition to wind farms on aesthetic grounds is a legitimate point of view, opposition to wind farms on the basis of potential adverse health consequences is not justified by the evidence." Source: Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit http://www.harvestingwindsupport.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ChathamKentHealth-and-Wind-.pdf

•

"What is apparent is that numerous websites have been constructed by individuals or groups to support or oppose the development of wind turbine projects, or media sites

4

reporting on the debate. Often these websites state the perceived impacts on, or benefits to, human health to support the position of the individual or group hosting the website. The majority of information posted on these websites cannot be traced back to a scientific, peer-reviewed source and is typically anecdotal in nature. In some cases, the information contained on and propagated by Internet websites and the media is not supported, or is even refuted, by scientific research. This serves to spread misconceptions about the potential impacts of wind energy on human health..." Source: Knopper&011son review http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069X-10-78.pdf

•

Afsset was mandated by the Ministries responsible for health and the environment to conduct a critical analysis of a report issued by the Academie nationale de medicine that advocated the use of a minimum 1,500 metre setback distance for 2.5 MW wind turbines or more. The Affset report concluded that "It appears that the noise emitted by wind turbines is not sufficient to result in direct health consequences as far as auditory effects are concerned. [...] A review of the data on noise measured in proximity to wind turbines, sound propagation simulations and field surveys demonstrates that a permanent definition of a minimum 1,500 m setback distance from homes, even when limited to windmills of more than 2.5 MW, does not reflect the reality of exposure to noise and does not seem relevant."

Annoyance •

"... wind turbine noise is comparatively lower than road traffic, trains, construction activities, and industrial noise."Source: Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit http://www.harvestingwindsupport.corniblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ChathamKentHealth-and-Wind-.pdf

•

"There is consistent evidence that noise from wind turbines—whether estimated in models or using distance as a proxy—is associated with annoyance, and reasonable consistency that it is associated with sleep disturbance and poorer sleep quality and quality of life. However, it is unclear whether the observed associations are due to wind turbine noise or plausible confounders" NHMRC (2014) full report

•

"The perception of noise depends in part on the individual - on a person's hearing acuity and upon his or her subjective tolerance for or dislike of a particular type of noise. For example, a persistent "whoosh" might be a soothing sound to some people even as it annoys others."Source: NRC 2007 http://www.vawind.org/assets/nrc/nrc wind report 050307.pdf

•

"... some people might find [wind turbine noise annoying. It has been suggested that annoyance may be a reaction to the characteristic "swishing" or fluctuating nature of wind turbine sound rather than to the intensity of sound." Source: Ontario CMOH Report

5

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry reports/wind turbine/w ind turbine.pdf •

"... being annoyed can lead to increasing feelings of powerlessness and frustration, which is widely believed to be at least potentially associated with adverse health effects over the longer term."Source: Ad Hoc Expert Group on Noise and Health http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb C/1279888026747

•

"Wind turbine annoyance has been statistically associated with wind turbine noise, but found to be more strongly related to visual impact, attitude to wind turbines and sensitivity to noise." Source: Knopper&011son review http://www.ehiournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069X-10-78.pdf

•

"... self reported health effects like feeling tense, stressed, and irritable, were associated with noise annoyance and not to noise itself..." Source: Knopper&011son review http://www.ehiournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069X-10-78.pdf

•

"... many of the self reported health effects are associated with numerous issues, many of which can be attributed to anxiety and annoyance." Source: Knopper&011son review http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069X-1O-78.pdf

•

"To date, no peer reviewed articles demonstrate a direct causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise they emit and resulting physiological health effects. If anything, reported health effects are likely attributed to a number of environmental stressors that result in an annoyed/stressed state in a segment of the population." Source: Knopper&011son review http://www.ehiournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069X40-78.pdf

•

"... some community studies are biased towards over-reporting of symptoms because of an explicit link between...noise and symptoms in the questions inviting people to remember and report more symptoms because of concern about noise." Source: Ad Hoc Expert Group on Noise and Health http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb C/1279888026747

•

"... it is probable that some persons will inevitably exhibit negative responses to turbine noise wherever and whenever it is audible, no matter what the noise level." Source: Fiumicelli review abstract

•

"The major source of uncertainty in our assessment is related to the subjective nature of response to sound, and variability in how people perceive, respond to, and cope with sound." Source: Oregon review http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/TrackingAssessment/Healthlmpa ctAssessment/Documents/Oregon%20Wind%20Energy%20HIA%20Public%20comment. pdf

•

"... sleep difficulties, as well as feelings of uneasiness, associated with noise annoyance could be an effect of the exposure to noise, although it could just as well be that

6

respondents with sleeping difficulties more easily appraised the noise as annoying."

Source: NHMRC 2010 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ files nhmrc/publications/attachments/new0048 evidence review wind turbines and health.pdf •

"Even noise that falls within known safety limits is subjective to the recipient and will be received and subsequently perceived positively or negatively."Source: Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit http://www.harvestingwindsupport.com/blog/wpcontent/uploads/2011/03/Chatham-KentHealth-and-Winckpdf

•

"... annoyance was strongly correlated with a negative attitude toward the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape..." Source: NHMRC 2010 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ files nhmrc/publications/attachments/new0048 evidence review wind turbines and health.pdf

•

"Respondents tended to report more annoyance when they also noted a negative effect on landscape, and ability to see the turbines was strongly related to the probability of annoyance."Source: Minnesota Health Dept 2009 http://www.hea Ith.state.mn.us/divs/eh/haza rdous/topics/windturbines.pdf

•

"[It is proposed that annoyance is not a direct health effect but an indication that a person's capacity to cope is under threat. The person has to resolve the threat or their coping capacity is undermined, leading to stress related health effects... Some people are very annoyed at quite low levels of noise, whilst other are not annoyed by high levels." Source: NHMRC 2010 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ files nhmrc/publications/attachments/new0048 evidence review wind turbines and health.pdf

•

"Further, sounds, such as repetitive but low intensity noise, can evoke different responses from individuals... Some people can dismiss and ignore the signal, while for others, the signal will grow and become more apparent and unpleasant over time...

These reactions may have little relationship to will or intent, and more to do with previous exposure history and personality." Source: Minnesota Health Dept 2009 http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/windturbines.pdf

•

"Stress and annoyance from noise often do not correlate with loudness. This may suggest [that other factors impact an individual's reaction to noise.., individuals with an interest in a project and individuals who have some control over an environmental noise are less likely to find a noise annoying or stressful." Source: Minnesota Health Dept 2009 http://www.health.state.mn.usklivs/ehlhazardousItopics/windturbines.pdf

•

"There is a possibility of learned aversion to low frequency noise, leading to annoyance and stress..." Source: Leventhall 2005 review http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=14631741;vear=2004;volume=6;issue=23;spage=59;epage=72;aulast=Leventhall

7

•

"Noise produced by wind turbines generally is not a major concern for humans beyond a half mile or so because various measures to reduce noise have been implemented in the design of modern turbines."Source: NRC 2007 http://www.vawind.oreassets/nrc/nrc wind report 050307.pdf

•

"Noise... levels from an onshore wind project are typically in the 35-45 dB(A) range at a distance of about 300 meters... These are relatively low noise or sound-pressure levels compared with other common sources such as a busy office (- 60 dB(A)), and with nighttime ambient noise levels in the countryside ("20-40 dB(A))." Source: NRC 2007 http://www.vawind.org/assets/nrc/nrc wind report 050307.pdf

•

"Complaints about low frequency noise come from a small number of people but the degree of distress can be quite high. There is no firm evidence that exposure to this type of sound causes damage to health, in the physical sense, but some people are certainly very sensitive to it." Source: Ad Hoc Expert Group on Noise and Health http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb C/1279888026747

•

"... there is the theoretical possibility that annoyance may lead to stress responses and then to illness. If there is no annoyance then there can be no mechanism for any increase in stress hormones by this pathway... if stress-related adverse health effects are mediated solely through annoyance then any mitigation plan which reduces annoyance would be equally effective in reducing any consequent adverse health effects. It would make no difference whether annoyance reduction was achieved through actual reductions in sound levels, or by changes in attitude brought about by some other means." Source: Ad Hoc Expert Group on Noise and Health http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb C/1279888026747

Infrasound •

•

•

"Infrasound is audible when the sound levels are high enough. The hearing threshold for infrasound is much higher than other frequencies. Infrasound from wind farms is at levels well below the hearing threshold and is therefore inaudible to neighbouring residents. There is no evidence that sound which is at inaudible levels can have a physiological effect on the human body . This is the case for sound at any frequency, including infrasound." http://docs.heaIth.vic.gov.a u/docs/doc/5593AE74A5B486F2CA257 B5E0014E33C/$Fl LE/Wind%20farms,%20s0und%20a nd%20%20hea1th%20%20Technical%20informat1on%2OWEB.pdf

"Claims that infrasound from wind turbines directly impacts the vestibular system have not been demonstrated scientifically.., evidence shows that the infrasound levels near wind turbines cannot impact the vestibular system." http://www.mass.gov/dep/public/press/0112wind.htm "There is no evidence that infrasound ... [from wind turbines ... contributes to perceived annoyance or other health effects." Source: Bolin et al 2011 Review http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/035103/pdf/1748-9326 6 3 035103.pdf

8

•

"There is no consistent evidence of any physiological or behavioural effect of acute exposure to infrasound in humans." Source: UK HPA Report http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb C/1265028759369

•

"... self reported health effects of people living near wind turbines are more likely attributed to physical manifestation from an annoyed state than from infrasound."

Source: Knopper&011son review http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069X-1078.pdf

•

"... infrasound from current generation upwind model turbines [is well below the pressure sound levels at which known health effects occur. Further, there is no scientific evidence to date that vibration from low frequency wind turbine noise causes adverse health effects." Source: Ontario CMOH Report http://www.health.goy.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry reports/wind turbine/w ind turbine.pdf

•

"It would appear... that infrasound alone is hardly responsible for the complaints.., from people living up to two km from the large downwind turbines." Source: Jakobsen 2005 review http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/w6r4226247q6p416/

•

"From a critical survey of all known published measurement results of infrasoundfrom wind turbines it is found that wind turbines of contemporary design with therotor placed upwind produce very low levels of infrasound. Even quite close to theseturbines the infrasound level is far below relevant assessment criteria, including thelimit of perception."Source:Jakobsen 2005 review http://multiscience.metapress.com/content/w6r4226247q6p416/

•

"With older downwind turbines, some infrasound also is emitted each time a rotor blade interacts with the disturbed wind behind the tower, but it is believed that the energy at these low frequencies is insufficient to pose a health hazard." Source: NRC 2007 http://www.vawind.org/assets/nrcinrc wind report 050307.pdf

Shadow flicker •

"Scientific evidence suggests that shadow flicker [from the rotating blades of wind turbines does not pose a risk for eliciting seizures as a result of photic stimulation."

Source: Massachusetts review http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/turbine impact study.pdf

•

Shadow flicker from wind turbines.., is unlikely to cause adverse health impacts in the general population. The low flicker rate from wind turbines is unlikely to trigger seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy. Further, the available scientific evidence suggests that very few individuals will be annoyed by the low flicker frequencies expected from most modern wind turbines." Source: Oregon review http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthvEnvironments/TrackingAssessmenthealthImpa

9

ctAssessment/Documents/Oregon%20Wind%20Energy%2OHIA%20Public%20comment. pdf •

"Flicker frequency due to a turbine is on the order of the rotor frequency (i.e., 0.6-1.0 Hz), which is harmless to humans. According to the Epilepsy Foundation, only frequencies above 10 Hz are likely to cause epileptic seizures." Source: NRC 2007 http://www.vawind.ordassets/nrc/nrc wind report 050307.pdf

Community & social response to wind turbines •

The perception of sound as noise is a subjective response that is influenced by factors related to the sound, the person, and the social/environmental setting. These factors result in considerable variability in how people perceive and respond to sound... Factors that are consistently associated with negative community response are fear of a noise source... [and noise sensitivity..." Source: Oregon review http://public.hea Ith.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironnnents/TrackingAssessment/Healthlm pa ctAssessment/Documents/Oregon%20Wind%20Energy%20HIA%20Public%20comment. pdf

•

"Wind energy developments could indirectly result in positive health impacts... if they increase local employment, personal income, and community-wide income and revenue. However, these positive effects may be diminished if there are real or perceived increases in income inequality within a community." Source: Oregon review http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/TrackingAssessment/HealthImpa ctAssessment/Documents/Oregon%20Wind%20Energy%2OHIA%20Public%20comment. pdf

•

"Effective public participation in and direct benefits from wind energy projects (such as receiving electricity from the neighboring wind turbines) have been shown to result in less annoyance in general and better public acceptance overall." Source: Massachusetts review http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/turbine impact study.pdf

•

"... people who benefit economically from wind turbines [are less likely to report noise annoyance, despite exposure to similar sound levels as those people who [are not economically benefiting." Source: NHMRC 2010 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ files nhmrc/publications/attachments/new0048 evidence review wind turbines and health.pdf

•

"Landowners... may perceive and respond differently (potentially more favorably) to increased sound levels from a wind turbine facility, particularly if they benefit from the facility or have good relations with the developer..." Source: Oregon review http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/TrackingAssessment/HealthImpa ctAssessment/Documents/Oregon%20Wind%20Energy%20HIA%20Public%20comment. pdf

•

"The level of annoyance or disturbance experienced by those hearing wind turbine sound is influenced by individuals perceptions of other aspects of wind energy facilities,

10

such as turbine visibility, visual impacts, trust, fairness and equity, and the level of community engagement during the planning process." Source: Oregon review http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthvEnvironments/TrackingAssessment/HealthImpa ctAssessment/Documents/Oregon%20Wind%20Energy%20HIA%20Public%20comment. pdf •

"Wind energy facilities.., can indirectly result in positive health impacts by reducing emissions of [green house gases and harmful air pollutants, and... Communities near fossil-fuel based power plants that are displaced by wind energy could experience reduced risks for respiratory illness, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and premature death." Source: Oregon review http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthvEnvironments/TrackingAssessment/HealthImpa ctAssessment/Documents/Oregon%20Wind%20Energy%2OHIA%20Public%20comment. pdf

•

"The environmental and human-health risk reduction benefits of wind-powered electricity generation accrue through its displacement of electricity generation using other energy sources (e.g., fossil fuels), thus displacing the adverse effects of those other generators." Source: NRC 2007 http://www.vawind.org/assets/nrc/nrc wind report 050307.pdf

•

"Community engagement at the outset of planning for wind turbines is important and may alleviate health concerns about wind farms. Concerns about fairness and equity may also influence attitudes towards wind farms and allegationsabout effects on health. These factors deserve greater attention in future developments." Source: Ontario CMOH Report http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry reports/wind turbine/w ind turbine.pdf

Summary of 2013 VIA Finnish report VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland has published a new study with a conclusion that wind turbines do not cause any adverse health effects. The study consisted of a review of nearly 50 scientific research articles conducted in Europe, USA, Australia and New Zealand over the past 10 years.

Due to the increased number of wind power projects in Finland, a growing concern has arisen among the public regarding the possible negative impacts wind energy production may have on human health. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland conducted a comprehensive literature review covering nearly 50 scientific research articles. The review concluded that in the light of current scientific research, there is no evidence to show that the infrasound produced by modern wind turbines is anything but harmless.

The sound of a nearby wind farm is does not possess such qualities or volume that it would cause physical symptoms to humans. The study also concluded that the infra sounds below the auditory threshold does not constitute a health hazard. Additionally, most of the infra sound caused by a wind farm is mixed with other infra sound from the environment and

11

does therefore not cause any additional exposure. According to the research articles reviewed, the low frequency sound with potential hazardous health impacts would have to be of a higher volume than that caused by wind farms, in order to have an impact on our health. Also, concern that shadow flicker may cause epileptic seizures are overruled in the research material. Such seizures cannot be caused by the type of flicker the slow rotation speed of the wind turbine blades produce.

12

Commentary: Major problems with recent systematic review on wind farms and distress.

Simon Chapman AO PhD FASSA Professor of Public Health University of Sydney simon.chapman@sydney.edu.au

At least 20 reviews of the evidence on whether wind turbines cause health problems including stress have been published since 2003 (1). Cureus recently published another (2) where the authors referenced none of these.

Highlights of the findings of these reviews may be found here (1). The most recent (2014) review by Australia's peak health and medical agency, The National Health and Medical Research Council (3) concluded:

"There is no consistent evidence that noise from wind turbines.., is associated with self reported human health effects. Isolated associations may be due to confounding, bias or chance. There is consistent evidence that noise from wind turbines —whether estimated in models or using distance as a proxy—is associated with annoyance, and reasonable consistency that it is associated with sleep disturbance and poorer sleep quality and quality of life. However, it is unclear whether the observed associations are due to wind turbine noise or plausible confounders." and "The association between estimated noise level and annoyance was significantly affected by the visual attitude of the individual (i.e. whether they found wind farms beautiful, or ugly and unnatural) in the three studies that assessed this as a potential confounding factor.

Residents in [one] study with a negative attitude to the visual impact of wind farms on the landscape had over 14 times the odds of being annoyed compared with those people without a negative visual attitude. ...This means that factors other than the noise produced by wind turbines contribute to the annoyance experienced by survey respondents."

Against this background, I was curious to see what a new systematic review would conclude.

According to the Cureus website, the new paper was peer reviewed. This is difficult to understand because of the sheer volume of major and minor problems it contains.

Together, these make its contribution valueless to scholarly understanding of the

13

phenomenon of noise and health complaints about wind farms. The paper shows many signs of poor understanding of the subject matter of their review, of critical appraisal methods, of some basic conventions in systematic reviewing, of structuring in scientific writing, and much more besides.

The problems commence in the first line of the abstract where the confusing statement is made that "the proximity of wind turbines to residential areas has been associated with a higher level of complaints compared to the general population." I assume here that they are trying to say that those living near turbines have a higher prevalence of health complaints like sleep disturbance and general "human distress" than in the wider population. The prevalence of sleeping problems in general populations is as high as 33% (4) and reference material exists that quantifies the prevalence of many health problems in general populations (5, 6). Instead, the authors support their statement with a reference to a small qualitative study of 15 people both affected and unaffected by turbines (7). No conclusions about the prevalence of health problems in communities near turbines or in matched comparison populations can be drawn from that paper. I know of no published evidence that would allow such a statement to be made.

The authors state that their search strategy located 18 eligible papers but that these were based on six original studies. They explain that the 12 non-original "studies" (several of which were reviews or commentaries) were then excluded. Yet in their "key results" they proceed to describe the characteristics of all 18 papers and thus act as if these were not excluded ("All 18 peer-reviewed studies captured in our review found an association...").

The authors do not appear to understand what an "outcome" is. The abstract lists "outcome" variables that are not outcomes at all (such as study quality and journal name).

These are independent variables, not dependent ones.

Their eligibility criteria for study selection are perplexing. What for example, is the difference between "peer-reviewed studies" and "studies published in peer-reviewed journals"? So too, is their noting that they searched the Cochrane Library for relevant studies. The Cochrane Library is a repository of reviews of evidence for health interventions, not for data on the prevalence of health complaints.

The authors seem not to understand the difference between studies and trials. For obvious reasons, there have been no trials conducted in this area.

Their main conclusions are that:

14

An association exists between wind turbines and distress in humans.

The existence of a dose-response relationship (between distance from wind turbines and distress) and the consistency of the association across studies .. argues for the credibility of this association.

The first conclusion is very imprecise and sweeping and ripe for being megaphoned by antiwind farm interest groups as if it actually meant something. One of the six original studies reviewed (Salt & Hullar) (8) should have never been included in this review — see below. The Nissenbaum et a study (9) is listed as of moderate quality with a low risk of bias. Yet all three authors and two out of three reviewers of that paper are members of Society for Wind Vigilance, an anti-wind organization. Nissenbaum has been raising health concerns in study areas for several years, potentially biasing collected data. Neither of these problems is mentioned in this review. Two critiques of this study were published in Noise and Health pointing out the very poor quality of the results, analysis and the overstatements of conclusions (10, 11).

The Shepherd et al study (12) which the authors rate as of "high" quality, failed to make any mention that the small wind farm community involved had for years been subjected to a local wind farm opposition group fomenting anxiety about health issues (13). Indeed, with one exception (14), the five studies referenced were performed in areas where complaints of annoyance were being raised. But such farms are unlikely to be representative of all wind farms. As our work shows, over nearly 65% of wind farms in Australia have never received a single complaint (15), and 73% of complainants in Australia are concentrated around just 6/51 farms. The failure of the authors to note this fundamental problem of study sample selection bias is another major problem.

Among the five "original" studies they considered satisfied their selection criteria was a paper by Salt & Hullar (8). This paper is not in any way a "study" of "the association between wind turbines and human distress." It reports no original empirical data and is essentially a backgrounder on infrasound and the "possibility" that wind turbine might create auditory distress. It is unfathomable why this paper was included in the data set.

Table 2 purports to be a meaningful summary of the findings of these six studies on the association between turbine exposure and "distress". I would defy anyone to make any sense of the Table, particularly the column headed "does [sic] response".

By way of comparison to the lack of detail provided by the authors of this review, it is instructive to look at the results from the Dutch study which formed the basis of the

15

Pedersen 2009 paper(14) which were further analysed by Bakker et al (16) who noted that sleep disturbance was assessed by a question dealing with the frequency of sleep disturbance by environmental sound ("how often are you disturbed by sound?"). Two thirds of all respondents reported not being disturbed by any sound at all. Disturbance by traffic noise or other mechanical sound was reported by 15.2% of the respondents. Disturbance by the sound of people and of animals was reported by 13.4% of the respondents. Relevantly, disturbance by the sound of wind turbines was reported by only 4.7% of the respondents (6% in areas deemed to be quiet and 4% in areas deemed to be noisy). Bakker and colleagues (16) note that it was not clear from the study if there was a primary source causing sleep disturbance and how respondents attributed being awakened by different environmental sound sources. What was clear was that wind turbines were less frequently reported as a sleep disturbing sound source, than other environmental sounds irrespective of the area type (quiet versus noisy). Analysis showed that among respondents who could hear wind turbine sound, annoyance was the only factor that predicted sleep disturbance.

The authors speculated that being annoyed might contribute to a person's sensitivity for any environmental sound, and the reaction might be caused by the combination of all sounds present. It might also be the case that people annoyed by wind turbine noise attribute their experience of sleep disturbance to wind turbine noise, even if that was not the source of their awakening.

Swathes of the paper are given over to descriptions of their efforts to rate the levels of evidence in the four reviewed studies. But they never ever describe their approach in any way that might permit replication of how they went about such rating. How was level of evidence actually determined? It should have been explicitly defined in the text. Their discussion of the risk of bias across studies is bizarre. "The quality of the study could be confounded by journal name and author". Surely the authors mean here that the evaluation of the quality of the study could be biased by this knowledge. The term "confounded" has another meaning.

Their "key results" consist of no more than five bullet points. These read like draft notes-toself (eg: None of these studies captured in our review found any association (potential publication bias)".

The authors chose to use the term "distress" instead of "annoyance". The American Medical Dictionary defines distress as 1. Mental or physical suffering or anguish or 2. Severe strain resulting from exhaustion or trauma. Annoyance on the other hand is defined as 1. The act of annoying or the state of being annoyed or 2. A cause of irritation or vexation; a nuisance.

(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright 2000) and is generally identified as a highly subjective state in medical literature. It is clear that the authors chose a stronger term than was used by the majority of studies. Most literature refers to annoyance, while the referenced alternative of "Wind Turbine Syndrome" was coined in a vanity press published case study with extraordinary weaknesses of selection bias, methodology and analysis (17). Similarly, "extreme annoyance" is rarely used in the

16

literature. Annoyance is by far the most commonly used term in the material referenced, so it is unclear why "distress" was chosen.

The paper is riddled with imprecise, mangled and contradictory language. For example: key finding 1: "All 18 peer-reviewed studies captured in our review found an association..." and key finding 2: "None of these studies captured in our review found any association (potential publication bias)"; infelicitous prose: "these complaints are coined in research"; "There might be a theoretical incline to give studies in high impact journals higher quality..."; basic grammatical errors: "the study's principle outcome"; "there was no missing data." It is unconventionally structured with extremely scant results and methods sections providing no adequate explanations of how key decisions on quality or bias were made.

The publication of this very poor paper is regrettable.

Acknowledgements: Fiona Crichton, Cornelia Baines and Mike Bernard each contributed comments to me for this response.

Competing interests: Simon Chapman receives no financial or in-kind support from any company, individual or agency associated with wind energy.

References

1.

Chapman S, Simonetti T. Summary of main conclusions reached in 20 reviews of the research literature on wind farms and health. Sydney University eScholarship respository: University of Sydney; 2014; Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/10559.

Arra I, Lynn H, Barker K, Ogbuneke C, Regalado S. Systematic review 2013: 2.

Association between wind turbines and human distress. 2014; Available from: http://www.cureus.com/articles/2457-systematic-review-2013-association-between-windturbines-and-human-distress?utrn_medium=email&utm_source=transaction .U6DaMi90xT5.

3.

Merlin T, Newton S, Ellery B, Milverton J, Farah C. Systematic review of the human health effects of wind farms. Canberra: National Health and Medical Reserach Council; 2014; Available from: https://http://www.nhmrc.gov.auLfiles_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh54_systemati c_review_of_the_human_health_effects_of_wind_farms_december_2013.pdf.

4.

Bartlett DJ, Marshall NS, Williams A, Grunstein RR. Predictors of primary medical care consultation for sleep disorders. Sleep medicine. 2008;9(8):857-64. Epub 2007/11/06.

Rief W, Barsky AJ, Glombiewski JA, Nestoriuc Y, Glaesmer H, Braehler E. Assessing 5. general side effects in clinical trials: reference data from the general population.

Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(4):405-15. Epub 2011/03/29.

Petrie KJ, Faasse K, Crichton F, Grey A. How common are symptoms? Evidence from 6. a New Zealand national telephone survey. BMJ open. 2014;4(6):e005374. Epub 2014/06/15.

17

7.

Pedersen E, Hallberg LR-M, Waye KP. Living in the vicinity of wind turines - a grounded theory study. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2007;4:49-63.

Salt AN, Hullar TE. Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and 8. wind turbines. Hearing research. 2010;268(1-2):12-21. Epub 2010/06/22.

Nissenbaum MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on 9. sleep and health. Noise Health. 201244(60):237-43. Epub 2012/11/03.

10.

011son CA, Knopper LD, McCallum LC, Whitfield-Aslund ML. Are the findings of "Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health" supported? Noise Health.

2013;15(63):148-50. Epub 2013/04/11.

11.

Barnard M. Issues of wind turbine noise. Noise Health. 2013;15(63):150-2. Epub 2013/04/11.

12.

Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, Dirks KN, Hill EM. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life. Noise Health. 2011;13(54):333-9. Epub 2011/10/01.

13.

Anon. Makara Guardians. Wikipedia; Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makara_Guardians.

14.

Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R, Bouma J. Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

2009;126(2):634-43. Epub 2009/07/31.

15.

Chapman S, St George A, Waller K, Cakic V. The pattern of complaints about Australian wind farms does not match the establishment and distribution of turbines: support for the psychogenic, 'communicated disease' hypothesis. PloS one.

2013;8(10):e76584. Epub 2013/10/23.

16.

Bakker RH, Pedersen E, van den Berg GP, Stewart RE, Lok W, Bouma J. Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and psychological distress. Science of the Total Environment. 2012;425:42-51.

17.

Pierpont N. Wind Turbine Syndrome. A report on a natural experiment. Santa Fe: KSelected Books; 2009.

18

Using residential proximity to wind turbines as an alternative exposure measure to investigate the association between wind turbines and human health Rebecca Barry, Sandra I. Sulsky, and Nancy Kreiger

Citation: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 143, 3278 (2018); doi: 10.1121/1.5039840 View online: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5039840 View Table of Contents: http://asa.scitation.org/toc/jas/143/6 Published by the Acoustical Society of America

Articles you may be interested in Perceptual evaluation of measures of spectral variance The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 143, 3300 (2018); 10.1121/1.5040484 Low-frequency outdoor—indoor noise level difference for wind turbine assessment The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 143, EL206 (2018); 10.1121/1.5027018 Experimental investigations on sound energy propagation in acoustically coupled volumes using a high-spatial resolution scanning system The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 143, EL437 (2018); 10.1121/1.5040886 Indoor noise annoyance due to 3-5 megawatt wind turbines—An exposure—response relationship The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 142, 2185 (2017); 10.1121/1.5006903 Use of the kurtosis statistic in an evaluation of the effects of noise and solvent exposures on the hearing thresholds of workers: An exploratory study The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 143, 1704 (2018); 10.1121/1.5028368 Observations of wind-generated noise by the tropical cyclone The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 143, 3312 (2018); 10.1121/1.5039838

CrossMark

Using residential proximity to wind turbines as an alternative exposure measure to investigate the association between wind turbines and human health Rebecca Barry,1 Sandra I. Sulsky,2 and Nancy Kreigerl 'University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2Ramboll Environ US Corporation, Amherst, Massachusetts, 01002 USA (Received 23 February 2018; revised 8 May 2018; accepted 10 May 2018; published online 5 June 2018) This analysis uses data from the Community Noise and Health Study developed by Statistics Canada to investigate the association between residential proximity to wind turbines and health-related outcomes in a dataset that also provides objective measures of wind turbine noise. The findings indicate that residential proximity to wind turbines is correlated with annoyance and health-related quality of life measures. These associations differ in some respects from associations with noise measurements.

Results can be used to support discussions between communities and wind-turbine developers regarding potential health effects of wind turbines. 2018 Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5039840 Pages: 3278-3282

[AKCL] I. INTRODUCTION Despite support for developing renewable energy sources, wind farm projects have been the subject of controversy.

The human health concerns that have been raised have been attributed to exposures to audible sound, low-frequency sound pressures (i.e., sub-audible or "infra-sound"), vibrations and shadow flicker patterns from the rotation of the blades (Feder et al., 2015; McCunney et al., 2014; Michaud et al., 2012).

To date, the epidemiological literature has demonstrated an association between wind turbine noise and annoyance, between wind turbine noise and quality of life indicators, and between wind turbine noise and sleep disturbances (Michaud etal., 2016; Onakpoya etal., 2015).

Health Canada and Statistics Canada conducted a study of wind turbines and health, the Community Noise and Health Survey (CNHS), which included both objective and subjective measures of health and exposure (Feder et al., 2015; Michaud et al., 2012). Several rigorous analyses have been published that examine the relationship between objective measures of wind turbine noise (WTN) and self-reported sleep-related measures, quality of life indicators, stress-related responses, health effects, and annoyance.

The main exposure used in the Community Noise and Health Survey was modelled outdoor A-weighted wind turbine sound pressure levels using the ISO 9613-1 and the ISO 9613-2 (Feder et al., 2015; Keith et al., 2016). This measure is based on manufacturers' octave band sound power spectra at an assumed wind speed of 8 m/s. It assumes that the dwelling is located downwind of the sound source, that there is a stable atmosphere, and that there is a moderate ground based temperature inversion (Feder et al., 2015; Keith et al., 2016). The manufacturers' sound power levels were validated for 10 of the 399 wind turbines included in the study (Keith et al., 2016). Published findings from the Community Noise and Health Survey suggest that wind turbine noise is not associated with any adverse outcomes except for annoyance (Michaud et al., 2016).

3278

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 143(6), June 2018

A-weighted measures are a standard method of quantifying exposure to wind turbine noise, although there is some debate over which noise measurement approach is the most appropriate to relate to human response (Keith et al., 2016).

If the reported annoyance is not due to noise, then sound pressure levels may serve as a surrogate for factors that are more closely associated with annoyance. We aimed to evaluate whether some aspect of living in proximity to wind turbines, perhaps summarized as a subjective experience, may explain the health and annoyance effects of WTN that have been reported in the CNHS and other studies. The CNHS dataset allows for direct comparison between analyses that evaluate the association between the objective WTN measure (i.e., sound pressure levels), and analyses evaluating residential distance to wind turbines as a measure that might capture at least some of the subjective element of wind turbine (WT) exposure.

II. METHODS A. Study sample The study sample comprised people living in proximity to a wind turbine in Ontario or Prince Edward Island, who participated in the CNHS, a one-time survey conducted in 2012-2013. The sample size was 1238 people. Sampling methods are described in multiple previous papers by Michaud et al. (2012, 2015, 2016). To summarize, all homes within 600 m of wind turbine were selected, and homes up to 10 km from wind turbines were randomly selected. One participant from each residence who was between ages 18-79 yr was selected randomly to participate. No substitutions were permitted. The response rate was 78.9% (Michaud etal., 2012).

B. Analysis Distance to wind turbines in kilometres was used as the primary predictor to build each of the models. Distance was modelled as a continuous variable and log-transformed to

0001-4966/2018/143(6)/3278/5/$30.00

0 2018 Acoustical Society of America

normalize the distribution. The outcomes of interest included quality of life indicators in the environmental, physical, social, and psychological domains measured using the WHOQ0LBREF (WHOQOL Group, 1998). The environment domain included the following facets: financial resources, freedom, physical safety and security, social care, home environment, opportunities for new skills and information, recreation, and leisure activities. The physical health domain included the following facets: activities of daily living, energy and fatigue, mobility, dependence on medicinal substances, pain and discomfort, sleep and rest, and work capacity. The social relationships domain included: personal relationships, social support, and sexual activity. The psychological domain included: body image, negative and positive feelings, self-esteem, and spirituality, thinking, learning, memory and concentration. Other outcomes of interest included reported annoyance, sleep measures (rate of awakenings, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, awakenings after sleep onset, and total sleep time) measured with sleep actigraphs, sleep quality measured using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, blood pressure, hair cortisol levels, perceived stress measured using the perceived stress scale and heart rate.

Potential covariates were explored through multiple individual multivariable analyses where each potential covariate was modelled to predict the outcomes of interest. If the p-value for the relationship between the potential covariate and the outcome of interest was less than 0.20, the covariate was included in the final model (Jewell, 2003). Then, stepwise elimination was performed to exclude covariates with a p-value greater than 0.10. Potential for interaction terms and effect modification by province were examined. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used for repeated-measures data. For each outcome, province and reported personal benefit were forced in the final models; this is consistent with the methods described by Michaud et al. (Michaud, 2015; Michaud et al., 2016). A second analysis was also completed where distance was substituted as the primary predictor in models previously developed by Michaud et al. and Feder et al. (Feder et al., 2015; Michaud, 2015; Michaud et al., 2016). This was a direct substitution, and the final models are identical, with the same covariates as those obtained using modelled WTN as the primary predictor of interest. Data management and analysis was completed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, 2013).

III. RESULTS Results suggest that proximity to wind turbines is inversely associated with the environment domain quality of life score (fl= —1.23, SE = 0.145, p= 0.046). This association suggests that every kilometre a person lives further away from a wind turbine is associated with a 1.23 point increase in score on the environmental health quality of life scale (Table I). A higher score is indicative of a higher environmental quality of life. The marginal means presented in this table show the group means for levels of each variable, controlling for all other covariates in the model. For example, people who report experiencing migraines have a lower mean environmental quality of life score (mean score = 15.18) compared to J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 143(6), June 2018

those that do not report having migraines (mean score = 15.55, p <0.001), when accounting for all other covariates.

Distance to wind turbines was also found to be strongly associated with increased annoyance (OR = 0.19; 95% CI =0.07, 0.53, p = 0.001). This suggests that the odds of reporting being annoyed by a turbine are reduced by about 20% for every kilometer a person lives further away from a wind turbine (Table II).

In models where proximity to wind turbines was directly substituted into the models developed using modelled wind turbine noise, the association between distance to wind turbines and annoyance was also statistically significant and demonstrated a decrease in the likelihood of annoyance with increasing residential distance from the turbine (OR = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.84, p= 0.022). Michaud et al. also found a significant association between wind turbine noise and annoyance (OR = 2.38, 95% CI: 1.42, 3.99) (Michaud et al., 2016). There was a positive association between distance to wind turbines and the scores for the physical health quality of life domain (fl = 1.26, SE = 0.20, p =- 0.043) where there was not a significant association between wind turbine noise and physical health [Least squared means (LSM) = 13.111 95% CI: 12.32, 13.90 for <25 dB vs LSM = 13.45, 95% CI: 12.81, 14.10 for 40-46 dB, p= 0.1689] (Feder et al., 2015).

There were no statistically significant associations found between residential proximity to wind turbines and the other outcomes.

IV. DISCUSSION These results show that living closer in proximity to wind turbines is negatively correlated with self-rated environmental quality of life and physical health quality of life. These findings suggest that the mechanism of effect may not be noise, or not noise alone, and may include visual sight, vibrations, shadow flicker, sub-audible low frequency sound, or mechanisms that include individual subjective experiences and attitudes towards wind turbines. These data are consistent with findings published by Shepherd et al. who reported that those living within 2 km of a wind turbine scored lower on both physical and environmental domains also measured using the WHOQOL-BREF, than those in a comparison group among people living in semirural New Zealand (Shepherd et al., 2011). These findings are also consistent with the findings by Onakpoya et al. where a systematic review demonstrated an association between wind turbine noise and annoyance, and between wind turbine noise and quality of life measures (using varied instruments; Onakpoya et al., 2015). The difference in findings for the different exposure measures (modeled noise vs residential distance) could also be due to characteristics of the measurements, however. Specifically, distance is measured on a continuous scale, whereas wind turbine noise was also measured on a continuous scale but then categorized, ignoring variation within each category. Also, modelled sound measures were based on multiple measures (including distance) and therefore possibly susceptible to greater measurement error.

The associations between residential distance to wind turbines and both environmental and physical quality of life scores could indicate visual disturbances due to the presence of Barry et al.

3279

TABLE I. Environment domain modelled with distance as primary predictor and wind turbine noise as a primary predictor.

Variable

Groups in variable

Distance to wind turbine WTN levels (dB)

Income

Property ownership Facade type

Number of years hearing wind turbines

Wind turbine annoyance Visual annoyance to turbines Turbine shadow flicker annoyance Alcohol use

Smoking status

Migraines Dizziness Tinnitus Chronic pain Asthma High blood pressure Diagnosed sleep disorder

# 140

1.23 (0.145)a

0.046

15.27 (14.69-15.85) 15.46(15.00-15.94)

0.285

Yes

15.42(14.80-16.04)

0.618

No <24 25-44 44-64 65+ <High school Trade/certificate/college University <60k 60-100k >100k Own Rent Fully bricked Partially bricked No brick/other Do not hear wind turbines Less than 1 year 1 year or more Yes No High Low High Low None <3 Times per month 1-3 Times/week >4 Times/week Current Former Never Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

15.31 (14.85-15.76) 15.78 (15.03-16.53) 14.95 (14.42-15.48) 14.93 (14.43-15.43) 15.81 (15.25-16.37)

Personal benefit from having wind turbine in the area

Level of education

p-Value

<25 25-<30 30-<35 35-<40 40-46 PEI ON

Province

Age group

Marginal mean?

(95% Cl) (R2 = 0.24, n = 985)

14.79 (14.29-15.30) 15.44(14.90-15.98) 15.86 (15.31-16.42) 15.54(15.05-16.03) 15.19 (14.62-15.77) 15.60(15.07-16.12) 15.26 (14.68-15.85) 15.24(14.74-15.74)

15.64(15.15-16.13) 15.09(14.45-15.73) 15.18 (14.65-15.71) 15.55 (15.03-16.07) 15.11 (14.59-15.62) 15.63 (15.01-16.23) 15.32(14.78-15.86) 15.23 (14.73-15.75) 15.65 (15.11-16.19) 15.25 (14.66-15.85) 15.04(14.50-15.58) 15.45 (14.92-15.98) 15.61 (15.08-16.13) 15.18(14.65-15.71) 15.55 (15.03-16.07) 15.11 (14.58-15.64) 15.63 (15.11-16.14) 15.16(14.63-15.68) 15.58 (15.06-16.10) 15.10(14.59-15.63) 15.62(15.11-16.14) 15.11 (14.49-15.72) 15.63 (15.15-16.10) 15.22(14.68-15.77) 15.50(15.01-16.00) 15.07 (14.48-15.66) 15.66 (15.17-16.15)

<0.001

<0.001

0.091 0.046

Marginal meansb (95% CI) (R2=024 n = 985)

16.28 (15.58-16.98) 15.71 (14.99-16.44) 15.75 (15.16-16.34) 15.82(15.28-16.36) 15.73 (15.17-16.28) 15.76(15.15-16.36) 15.96(15.45-16.47)

0.368

15.92(15.26-16.57)

0.632

15.80 (15.31-16.29) 16.34(15.56-17.12) 15.45 (14.90-16.00) 15.42(14.89-15.95) 16.22(15.63-16.82) 15.60(15.06-16.14) 15.67(15.13-16.21) 16.31 (15.63-16.99) 15.33 (14.78-15.89) 15.95 (15.37-16.52) 16.29(15.72-16.87) 16.05(15.52-16.58) 15.66(15.06-16.27) 16.09(15.53-16.64) 15.74(15.12-16.35) 15.75 (15.21-16.30) 15.89(15.38-16.39) 16.10(15.35-16.86) 15.59(15.05-16.12)

0.055 0.002

<0.0001

<0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 0.030

0.276

<0.001

0.023

<0.001

0.059 0.079

0.073

0.001

<0.0001 0.005

p-Value

15.58 (14.97-16.18) 16.14(15.60-16.68) 16.08(15.43-16.73) 15.64(15.11-16.16) 15.79(15.22-16.37) 15.73(15.19-16.28) 16.14 (15.56-16.72) 15.77(15.15-16.39) 15.56(14.98-16.13) 15.95 (15.39-16.51) 16.07 (15.51-16.62) 15.68(15.12-16.24) 16.04(15.49-16.59) 15.58 (15.01-16.21) 16.14(15.59-16.69) 15.65 (15.09-16.21) 16.06(15.51-16.62) 15.60(15.04-16.16) 16.12(15.57-16.66) 15.61 (14.96-16.25) 16.11 (15.60-16.622)

0.092 0.069

0.013

0.035 0.001 0.013 0.001 0.037

0.044 0.010

15.51 (14.89-16.14) 16.20(15.68-16.73)

0.002

'Distance as primary predictor. bWind turbine noise as a primary predictor.

3280

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 143 (6), June 2018

Barry etal.

TABLE 11. Multiple logistic regression model.

Multiple logistic regression model' (n= 1086, R2 = 0.62, H-L p = 0.428) Variable Distance to wind turbine (per km) Wind turbine noise (dB) Province Closure of bedroom window due to wind turbines Hear traffic noise Annoyance with blinking lights Annoyance with vibrations, rattles Visual annoyance to wind turbine Closure of bedroom window due to road traffic Sensitivity to noise Concerned about physical safety Complaint about wind turbine Air conditioner in dwelling Window type (ref = single pane) Double pane Triple pane Tinnitus Environmental quality of life domain Psychological quality of life domain

OR (CI) 0.19(0.07-0.53)

p-value 0.001

12.13 (2.14-68.21) 5.03 (1.80-14.05) 0.36(0.15-0.85)

0.005 0.002 0.021

3.79 (1.14-12.61) 6.89(3.41-13.95) 0.39(0.16-0.95) 3.27 (1.56-4.86) 2.59(1.13-5.93) 3.45 (0.92-12.94) 0.40(0.14-1.13)

0.030 <0.001 0.037 0.002 0.024 0.067 0.083

0.062(0.10-3.99) 0.06(001-0.84) 2.43 (1.18-5.03) 0.73 (0.60-0.88) 1.15 (0.99-1.34)

0.616 0.037 0.016 0.001 0.063

Multiple logistic regression model" (n = 934, R2 = 0.58, H-L p = 0.702) OR (CI)

p-value

2.38 (1.42-3.99) 4.98 (1.15-21.58) 8.45 (3.67-19.46)

0.001 0.032 <0.001

3.26(1.40-7.56) 3.99 (1.22-13.07) 2.77 (1.22-6.29) 0.42(0.17-1.05) 2.11(0.97-4.59) 2.56(1.08-6.07) 3.22 (0.85-12.20)

0.006 0.023 0.015 0.063 0.061 0.033 0.085

'Annoyance outcome with distance to wind turbine. bAnnoyance outcome with wind turbine noise.

turbines, greater disturbances or stresses at a neighbourhoodwide level, or the effects of poor relations with the wind power companies. Alternatively, the wind turbines might have been situated in locations where quality of life and environmental factors were already compromised. The cross-sectional design of the survey will not distinguish between effects caused by and those simply correlated with distance to the turbines.

The association found between proximity to wind turbines and annoyance is consistent with the findings reported

by Michaud et al. (2016) where modelled WIN was found to be associated with annoyance (OR =-- 2.38; 95% CI: 1.42, 3.99; Table II). Our findings strengthen the argument that wind turbines are associated with annoyance, as this association is now found with both modelled A-weighted sound pressure levels and with residential distance to wind turbines. Other research has found that individuals reporting annoyance due to environmental noise also report health conditions including ischemic heart disease, depression, and migraines (Babisch et al., 2003; Maschke and Niemann, 2007). A recent study conducted in China found that noise sensitivity, attitudes towards the visual impact of wind turbines on the surrounding landscape, general opinions on wind turbines and noise intensity moderates the relationship between WTN and annoyance (Song et al., 2016).

Together, these data suggest that preventive measures, including positive engagement between the community and the wind power companies, could reduce annoyance among residents.

Our analysis has limitations. Raw sound data were not available to us with the Community Noise and Health dams- t.

Only background-level noises and the modelled wind turbine sound were. Therefore, it was not possible to model sound using alternative methods, such as using G-weighted modelled J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 143(6), June 2018

sound, which would better account for low frequency sound waves (Jakobsen, 2001). Additional limitations are that the CNHS was a cross-sectional study and causality cannot be inferred, and that it may be subject to volunteer bias, where those who have strong feelings about wind turbines—either negative or positive—may be more likely to participate in the survey. Additionally, "survivor bias" may be present as those most affected by WTN may be more likely to have moved away from the wind turbines. Our team did not have access to information about those who were not included in the final study sample, although Michaud et al. reported that response rates did not vary by province or by proximity to wind turbines (Michaud, 2015). Finally, we did not have access to environmental quality scores prior to the installation of the wind turbines. It is possible that neighbourhoods closer in proximity to wind turbines already had conditions that result in perceived lower environmental and physical health quality of life prior to the installation of the wind turbines.

Through using an alternative wind turbine exposure measurement, this analysis demonstrated that living in close proximity to wind turbines is associated with lower environmental and physical quality of life measures. It also strengthened the notion that wind turbines are associated with annoyance, by finding a significant association between closer residential proximity to wind turbines and increased annoyance. Future research could focus on alternative exposures related to wind turbines that may be related to human health besides noise.

Studies that examine outcomes prior to and following wind turbine installations may be better positioned to examine the potential causal association between wind turbines and health, and should include both specific, objective exposure measures and validated measures of the subjective experience of living near a wind farm.

Barry etal.

3281

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The funding source is an industry agreement with Ramboll Environ U.S. Corporation. Its mandate is to bring scientific credibility to decision-making processes. The funding source was not involved in collection or analysis of the data, and did not make the decision to submit the article for publication. Dr. Sandra Sulsky, a principal at Ramboll Environ, was involved in interpretation and writing of the report and has provided a conflict of interest statement. This research was supported by funds to the Canadian Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN) from the Social Science and Humanities research Council (SSHRC), the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR), the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), and Statistics Canada. Although the research and analysis are based on data from Statistics Canada, the opinions expressed do not represent the views of Statistics Canada or the Canadian Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN). R.B. was paid as a Research Assistant through an industry agreement with Ramboll Environ U.S. Corporation.

This funding was delivered through the University of Toronto and not contingent on study findings. S.I.S. is employed by Ramboll Environ, a consultancy that has opined on the health effects of wind turbine exposure and provides services to the wind energy industry. N.K. has no conflict of interest to declare.

Babisch, W., Ising, H., and Gallacher, J. E. J. (2003). "Health status as a potential effect modifier of the relation between noise annoyance and incidence of ischaemic heart disease," Occup. Environ. Med. 60,739-745.

Feder, K., Michaud, D. S., Keith, S. E., Voicescu, S. A., Marro, L., Than, J., Guay, M., Detming, A., Bower, T. J., Lavigne, E., Whelan, C., and van den Berg, F. (2015). "An assessment of quality of life using the WHOQOL-BREF among participants living in the vicinity of wind turbines," Environ. Res. 142,227-238.

3282

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 143(6), June 2018

Jakobsen, J. (2001). "Danish guidelines on environmental low frequency noise, infrasound and vibration," Low Freq. Noise, Vib. Act. Control 20(3), 141-148.

Jewell, N. (2003). "Goodness of fit tests for logistic regression models and model building," in Statistics for Epidemiology (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL), pp. 246-250.

Keith, S. E., Feder, K., Voicescu, S. A., Soukhovtsev, V., Denning, A., Tsang, J., Broner, N., Richarz, W., and van den Berg, F. (2016). "Wind turbine sound power measurements," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 139(3), 1431-1435.

Maschke, C., and Niemann, H. (2007). "Health effects of annoyance induced by neighbour noise," Noise Control Eng. J. 55(3), 348-356.

McCunney, R. J., Mundt, K. A., Colby, W. D., Dobie, R., Kaliski, K., and Blais, M. (2014). "Wind turbines and health: A critical review of the scientific literature," J. Occup. Environ. Med. 56(11), e108—e130.

Michaud, D. S. (2015). "Wind turbine noise and health study: Summary of results," in 6th International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Glasgow.

Michaud, D. S., Keith, S. E., Feder, K., and Bower, T. (2012). "Health impacts and exposure to wind turbine noise: Research design and noise exposure assessment," in INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, pp. 10297-10304.

Michaud, D. S., Keith, S. E., Feder, K., Voicescu, S. A., Marro, L., Than, J., Guay, M., Bower, T., Denning, A., Lavigine, E., Whelan, C., Janssen, S. A., Leroux, T., and van den Berg, F. (2016). "Personal and situational variables associated with wind turbine noise annoyance," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 139(3), 1455-1466.

Onakpoya, I. J., O'Sullivan, J., Thompson, M. J., and Heneghan, C. J. (2015). "The effect of wind turbine noise on sleep and quality of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies," Environ.

Int. 82,1-9.

SAS Institute (2013). The SAS System for Windows 9.4. Cary, NC. Shepherd, D., McBride, D., Welch, D., Dirks, K. N., and Hill, E. M. (2011).

"Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life," Noise Health 13(54), 333-339.

Song, K., Di, G., Xu, Y., and Chen, X. (2016). "Community survey on noise impacts induced by 2 MW wind turbines in China," J. Low Freq. Noise, Vib. Act. Control 35(4) 279-290.

The WHOQOL Group. (1998). "Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment," Psycho!. Med. 28(3), 551-558.

Barry etal.

arczaaq rin

REVIEW ARTICLE published: 19 June 2014 doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00063

PUBLIC HEALTH

Wind turbines and human health Loren D. Knopperl *, Christopher A. (Ekon', Lindsay C. McCallum', Melissa L. Whitfield Aslund', Robert G. Berger', Kathleen Souweine2 and Mary McDaniel2 ' lntrinsik Environmental Sciences Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada lntrinsik Environmental Sciences Inc., Venice, CA, USA

2

Edited by: Jimmy Thomas Efird, East Carolina Heart Institute, USA Reviewed by: Marianne Cockroft, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA Yong Ma, George Washington University USA *Coffespondence: Loren D. Knopper, Intrinsik Environmental Sciences Inc., Hurontario Street 6605, Suite 500, Mississauga, ON L5T 0A3, Canada e-mail: Iknopper@intrinsik.com

The association between wind turbines and health effects is highly debated. Some argue that reported health effects are related to wind turbine operation [electromagnetic fields (EMF), shadow flicker, audible noise, low-frequency noise, infrasound]. Others suggest that when turbines are sited correctly, effects are more likely attributable to a number of subjective variables that result in an annoyed/stressed state. In this review, we provide a bibliographic-like summary and analysis of the science around this issue specifically in terms of noise (including audible, low-frequency noise, and infrasound), EMF, and shadow flicker. Now there are roughly 60 scientific peer-reviewed articles on this issue.The available scientific evidence suggests that EMF, shadow flicker, low-frequency noise, and infrasound from wind turbines are not likely to affect human health; some studies have found that audible noise from wind turbines can be annoying to some. Annoyance may be associated with some self-reported health effects (e.g., sleep disturbance) especially at sound pressure levels >40 dB(A). Because environmental noise above certain levels is a recognized factor in a number of health issues, siting restrictions have been implemented in many jurisdictions to limit noise exposure. These setbacks should help alleviate annoyance from noise. Subjective variables (attitudes and expectations) are also linked to annoyance and have the potential to facilitate other health complaints via the nocebo effect. Therefore, it is possible that a segment of the population may remain annoyed (or report other health impacts) even when noise limits are enforced. Based on the findings and scientific merit of the available studies, the weight of evidence suggests that when sited properly, wind turbines are not related to adverse health. Stemming from this review, we provide a number of recommended best practices for wind turbine development in the context of human health.

Keywords: wind turbines, human health, noise, electromagnetic fields, annoyance, infrasound, low-frequency noise, shadow flicker

INTRODUCTION Wind power has been harnessed as a source of energy around the world for decades. Reliance on this form of energy is increasing.

In 1996, the global cumulative installed wind power capacity was 6,100 MW; in 2011, that value had grown to 238,126 MW and at the end of 2013 it was 318,137 MW (1). While public attitude is generally overwhelmingly in favor of wind energy, this support does not always translate into local acceptance of projects by all involved (2). Opposition groups point to a number of issues concerning wind turbines, and possible effects on human health is one of the most commonly discussed. Indeed, a small proportion of people that live near wind turbines have reported adverse health effects such as (but not limited to) ringing in ears, headaches, lack of concentration, vertigo, and sleep disruption that they attribute to the wind turbines. This collection of effects has received the colloquial name "Wind Turbine Syndrome" (3).

The reason for the self-reported health effects is highly debated and information fueling this debate is found primarily in four sources: peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals, government agency reports, legal proceedings, and the popular literature and internet. Some argue that reported health effects

www.frontiersin.org

are related wind turbine operational effects [e.g., electromagnetic fields (EMF), shadow flicker from rotor blades, audible noise, low-frequency noise (LFN) and infrasound]; others suggest that when turbines are sited correctly, reported effects are more likely attributable to a number of subjective variables, including nocebo responses, where the etiology of the self-reported effect is in beliefs and expectations rather than a physiologically harmful entity (48). In 2011, Knopper and 011son (9) published a review that contrasted the human health effects that had been purported to be caused by wind turbines in popular literature sources with what had been reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature as well as by various government agencies. At that time, only 15 articles in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that specifically addressed issues related to human health and wind turbines were available [i.e., (4,3, 10-22)].

Based on their review, Knopper and 011son (9) concluded that although there was evidence to suggest that wind turbines can be a source of annoyance to some people, there was no evidence demonstrating a direct causal link between living in proximity to wind turbines and more serious physiological health effects. Furthermore, although annoyance has been statistically significantly

June 2014 I Volume 2 I Article 63 I 1

Knopper et al.

associated with wind turbine noise [especially at sound pressure levels >40 dB(A)1, a convincing body of evidence exists to show that annoyance is more strongly related to visual cues and attitude than to wind turbine noise itself. In particular, this was highlighted by the fact that people who benefit economically from wind turbines (e.g., those who have leased their property to wind farm developers) reported significantly lower levels of annoyance than those who received no economic benefit, despite increased proximity to the turbines and exposure to similar (or louder) sound levels.

In the years following the publication of Knopper and 011son (9), the debate surrounding the relationship between wind turbines and human health has continued, both in the public and within the scientific community. In this review, we provide a bibliographic-like summary and analysis of the science around this issue specifically in terms of noise (including audible, LFN, and infrasound), EMF, and shadow flicker. Stemming from this review, we provide weight of evidence conclusions and a number of best practices for wind turbine development in the context of human health.

METHODS The authors worked with a professional Health Sciences Information Specialist to develop a search strategy of the literature.

Combinations of key words (i.e., annoyance, noise, environmental change, sleep disturbance, epilepsy, stress, health effect(s), wind farm(s), infrasound, wind turbines(s), LFN, EMF, wind turbine syndrome, neighborhood change) were entered into PubMed, the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledgesm and Google. No date restrictions were entered and literature was assessed up to the submission date of this manuscript (April 2014). The review was conducted in the spirit of the evaluation process outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

As of the publication date of this review, there are close to 60 scientific peer-reviewed articles on the topic. Sources of information other than peer-reviewed scientific literature (e.g., websites, opinion pieces, conference proceedings, unpublished documents) were purposely excluded in this review because they are often unreliable and provide information that is typically anecdotal in nature or not traceable to scientific sources. A general summary, and key words of the articles reviewed herein, are presented in Table 1. These summaries provide results as they were reported by the authors of the articles and are without secondary interpretation.

Through the systematic review process, it was evident that there was significant variability in both the measures of exposure (i.e., proximity to turbines, field noise measures, lab noise measures, or magnetic field measurements) and the health outcomes examined (i.e., annoyance, sleep scores, and various quality of life metrics). The methodological heterogeneity in study designs across the selected health-based investigations inhibited a quantitative combination of results. In other words, meta-analytic methods were not appropriate for this updated systematic review of the literature on wind turbine and health effect. Rather qualitative interpretation is provided.

RESULTS OVERALL NOISE Knopper and 011son (9) reviewed a number of studies that examined the noise levels produced by wind turbines, perception of Frontiers in Public Health! Epidemiology

Wind turbines and human health

wind turbine noise, and/or responses to wind turbine noise [e.g., (4,5, 10, 12, 13, 15-18, 21)]. The results of more recent studies that investigated wind turbine noise with respect to potential human health effects are summarized below in chronological order of publication.

Shepherd et al. (23): Shepherd et al. reported on a crosssectional study comparing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of people living in proximity (i.e., <2 km) to a wind farm to a control group living >8 kin away from the nearest wind farm. It involved self-administered questionnaires that included the World Health Organization (WHO) quality of life scale, in semi-rural New Zealand. The turbine group was drawn from residents of 56 homes in South Makara Valley, all within 2 km of a wind turbine.

General outdoor noise levels in the area, obtained from a conference proceeding by Botha (33), were reported to range from 24 to 54 dB(A). The comparison group was taken from 250 homes in a geographically and socioeconomically matched area, at least 8 km from any wind farm in the region. General outdoor noise levels for the comparison group were not reported. The questionnaire was named the "2010 Well-being and Neighborhood Survey" in order to mask the true intent of the study and reduce bias against wind turbines. This is similar to the work of Pedersen in Europe, in that the surveys were not explicitly about wind turbines. Response rates were 34% from the Turbine group (number of participants n= 39) and 32% from the Comparison group (n= 158).

Overall, Shepherd et al. reported statistically worse (p < 0.05) scores in the Turbine group for physical HRQOL, environmental QOL and HRQOL in general. There was no statistical difference in social or psychological scores. Based on these results, the authors concluded that "utility-scale" wind energy generation was not without adverse health impacts on nearby residents and suggested setback distances need to be >2 km in hilly terrain. However, there are a number of limitations in this study that undermine the conclusion stated above. One key concern is that the results were based on only a limited number of participants (n-= 39) for the Turbine group. In comparison, the survey datasets compiled in Sweden and the Netherlands by Pedersen and Persson Waye (4, 5) and Pedersen et al. (1 7), respectively, involved a total of 1,755 respondents overall. In these surveys, the only response found to be significantly related to A-weighted wind turbine noise exposure was annoyance, even though a number of physiological and psychological variables were also investigated. In addition, Shepherd et al. did not discuss the impact of participants' attitudes or visual cues that may have influenced the reports of decreased HRQOL. Given that other studies have indicated that annoyance was more closely related to visual cues and attitude, this could provide further explanation of why overall HRQOL scores were lower in the Turbine group. Presumably all residents within 2 km of a turbine would be able to see one, or more, of the turbines. Furthermore, although it was implied in the title of the article that noise from wind turbines was causing the observed effects, the study did not include either measured or estimated wind turbine noise exposure values for the individual survey respondents. Therefore, they were unable to demonstrate a dose—response relationship between the observed responses and exposure to wind turbine noise. In light of this, as recognized by Shepherd et al. (23), it is possible that the observed effects were driven by other causes such as conflicts between the community and the wind farm developers rather than a direct June 2014 IVolume 2 I Article 63 I 2

Wind turbines and human health

Knopper et al.

Table ii General summary of reviewed articles.

General topic

Authors

Source

Key words

Audible noise

Shepherd et al. (23)

Noise and Health

Health-related quality of life (HROOL)

Janssen et al.

(24)

General summary Cross-sectional study involving questionnaires about quality of life living near and away from turbines. Statistically significant differences were noted in some HRQOL scores; residents within 2 km of a turbine reporting lower overall quality of life, physical quality of life, and environmental quality of life

Journal of

Annoyance,

Expanded on the datasets collected by Pedersen and Persson Waye (4, 5) and

the Acoustical Society of America

economic benefit,

Pedersen et al. (17) in Sweden and the Netherlands. Authors evaluated self-reported annoyance indoors and outdoors compared to sound levels (Lden) from wind turbines. Like the authors before them who relied on these datasets,

sensitivity, visual cues

found that annoyance decreased with economic benefit and may have increased with noise sensitivity, visibility, and age. In comparison to other sources of environmental noise, annoyance due to wind turbine noise was found at relatively low noise exposure levels

Verheijen et al.

(25)

Science of the Total

Annoyance, noise

Objective was to assess proposed Dutch standards for wind turbine noise and

limits

consequences for people and feasibility of meeting energy policy targets.

Authors used a combination of audible and low-frequency noise models and functions to predict existing level of severely annoyed people living around

Environment

existing wind turbines in the Netherlands. Found that at 45 dB(Lden) severe annoyance due to low-frequency noise unlikely; suggested that this noise limit is suitable as a trade-off between the need for protection against noise annoyance and the feasibility of national targets for renewable energy Bakker et al.

(26)

Science of

Annoyance,

the Total

distress, economic

Environment

benefit, sleep disturbance

A dose—response relationship was found between immission levels of wind turbine sound and self-reported noise annoyance. Sound exposure was also related to sleep disturbance and psychological distress among those who reported that they could hear the sound, however not directly but with noise annoyance. Respondents living in areas with other background sounds were less affected than respondents in quiet areas. Found that people, animals, traffic and mechanical sounds were more often identified as a source of sleep disturbance than wind turbines

Nissenbaum et al. (27)

Noise and Health

Epworth

Purpose of the investigations was to determine the relationship between

Sleepiness Score (ESS), Pittsburgh

reported adverse health effects and wind turbines among residents of two rural communities. Participants living 375-1,400 m and 3.3-6.6 km were given questionnaires to obtain data about sleep quality, daytime sleepiness and general physical and mental health. Authors reported that when compared to people

Sleep Quality Index (PSOI), SF36v2

living further away than 1.4 km from wind turbines, those people living within 1.4 km of wind turbines had worse sleep, were sleepier during the day and had worse mental health scores

011son et al.

(28)

Noise and Health

Rebuttal to Nissenbaum et al. (27)

Suggested that Nissenbaum et al. (27) extended their conclusions and discussion beyond the statistical findings of their study and that they did not demonstrated a statistical link between wind turbines — distance — sleep quality — sleepiness and health. In fact, their own statistical findings suggest that although, scores may be statistically different between near and far groups for sleep quality and sleepiness, they are no different than those reported in the general population.

The claims of causation by the authors (i.e., wind turbine noise) for negative scores are not supported by their data

Barnard (29)

Noise and Health

Rebuttal to Nissenbaum et al. (27)

Pointed out a number of problems with Nissenbaum et al. (27) study and suggested that data presented do not justify the very strong conclusions reached by the authors (Continued)

www.frontiersin.org

June 2014 'Volume 2) Article 63 I 3