Are We Missing the Big Picture on Climate Change?

So Rebecca Solnit asks in today's New York Times Magazine, going on to show that she is indeed.

She begins by describing the remains of a bird scorched to death by the Ivanpah concentrated solar power facility, which has paved over a chunk of the desert "nearly five times the size of Central Park" (3,500 acres, to produce, according to Solnit, 392 megawatts of power at full capacity).

However, it can generate at that rate only when sun position and atmospheric conditions are ideal. The developers themselves project an average output of 30% capacity, or a total annual generation of just over 1,000,000 megawatt-hours. With an average household use of 10 megawatt-hours per year, that's equivalent to the electricity use of 100,000 households, not 140,000 as Solnit writes.

Therein lie her first manipulations of the story. Besides exaggerating the projected output of the Ivanpah facility and ignoring the fact that actual output has not been reported and is almost invariably much less than projected, as well as not considering the loss of at least 3,500 acres of desert habitat (new roads and transmission corridors were also built; desert tortoises were forcibly moved out), she uses the deceptive industry practice of expressing output in terms of "homes served". Domestic use of electricity represents only around 35% of the total. So in terms of total per-capita electricity use, the projected output of the Ivanpah facility would be equivalent to only the total amount used by the people from only 35,000 households.

And it would provide electricity for none at night. And electrical energy represents less than 40% of our total energy use. So the benefit in terms of reducing the use of other fuels becomes negligible. Considering the vast resources required to build the facility and the vast amount of land required to harness the energy, this hardly seems a wise path.

[Update:  In fact, the actual generation of electricity from the Ivanpah facility is reported to and by the Department of Energy. Those data can be daunting to sift through, but more than a month ago it was reported by Pete Danko at Breaking Energy that production was running well under 40% of what was projected (ie, less than 14,000 households, one tenth Solnit's claim), and that use of "auxiliary" natural gas had to be increased by 60%.]

Some waterfowl mistake that shining sea of mirrors for a real lake, so they try to land on it. But without water to launch themselves back into the air, they’re stranded, prey for coyotes or doomed to die of thirst or hunger. Other birds fly into Ivanpah, where, dazzled by glare, they collide with the mirrors or towers. Still others are scorched by the heat and fall to their deaths.

It’s this last form of avian death that became news. In August, The Atlantic described Ivanpah “incinerating” birds in flight; The Associated Press reported that wildlife investigators saw birds “ignite,” and that birds “burned and fell” every two minutes. Ivanpah’s corporate website noted that a death every two minutes would mean 100,000 dead birds a year, while only 321 dead and injured birds had been recovered. The actual number of deaths seems to be well above the power plant’s tally and far below the number reported by The Associated Press. But birds do die there, in many ways.

A second manipulation is in presenting the figure of "only 321" recovered bird corpses without context. Every such survey calculates an estimated "true" figure from such a sampling, considering imperfect recovery and loss to predators (such as the coyotes that Solnit mentions). In other words, Solnit's low figure, which she presents as final, is in fact only the starting point towards a much higher estimate.

But who cares, Solnit implies, because she's looking at the big picture. Let's not talk about what's actually happening at the Ivanpah facility, or whether the Ivanpah facility's benefits are enough to justify its harms, because climate change is a much bigger issue. And if you insist on worrying about the birds being killed there (or the displaced tortoises), you obviously don't care about climate change.

Supporters of fossil fuel and deniers of climate change love to trade in stories like the one about Ivanpah, individual tales that make renewable energy seem counterproductive, perverse. Stories cannot so readily capture the far larger avian death toll from coal, gas and nuclear power generation. Benjamin Sovacool, an energy-policy expert, looked into the deaths of birds at wind farms (where the blades can chop them down) and concluded that per gigawatt hour, nuclear power plants kill more than twice as many birds and fossil-fuel plants kill more than 30 times as many. He noted that over the course of a year fossil-fuel plants in the United States actually kill about 24 million birds, compared to 46,000 by wind farms. His calculations factor in climate change as part of their deadly impact.

That paragraph, typical of the logic of big energy apologists, is an absolute muddle. First, "individual tales" are precisely what make the climate change story compelling. So why write off these particular victims as something less? Yes, the toll from other sources of energy is much greater — that's because they represent a much greater proportion of our energy. Non-hydro renewable energy is still — and will likely always remain, because of its intermittency and variability — in the low single percentage points. And that's just electrical energy, which, recall, is less than 40% of total energy use.

So the question is not who kills more, but what can be done to kill less. Without meaningfully reducing our use of other fuels, giant wind and solar facilities are only adding to the toll, not reducing it.

Furthermore, the factoring of climate change in the calculation of bird deaths is the flip side of citing "only 321" bird corpses. It's meaningless. It's particularly questionable in the case of nuclear power, which does not emit carbon and so does not contribute to climate change (at least by that means).

Besides being manipulative, it is also simplistic, ignoring the fact that wind turbines, for example, are a particular danger to raptors (eagles, hawks, falcons, owls), whose populations (never mind the individuals!) are already challenged by habitat loss to humans. It ignores the toll on bats. And it ignores the huge increase of human land use (so much of it for supporting livestock, which represents massive deforestation, water depletion and pollution, and emissions of methane, which has 25 times the greenhouse effect of CO₂), ie, destruction of natural habitat, obviously the greatest barrier to plant and animal survival, resilience, and adaptation to climate change.

For a while our eyes were on the photographs of oil-soaked pelicans, victims of the 2010 BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. The devastation of the region is no longer news, but scientists, who track data for long unnewsworthy swathes of time, have found that the spill has killed more than 600,000 birds. It is still killing sea turtles and bottlenose dolphins and contaminating the seafood in areas where human beings fish. ... A recent Audubon Society report on climate change concludes: “Of the 588 North American bird species Audubon studied, more than half are likely to be in trouble. Our models indicate that 314 species will lose more than 50 percent of their current climatic range by 2080. Of the 314 species at risk from global warming, 126 of them are classified as climate endangered. These birds are projected to lose more than 50 percent of their current range by 2050.”

The latter part of the preceding excerpt points to the loss of habitat as being as much a problem as climate change. And the former part is relevant to oil use, but irrelevant to the toll at Ivanpah — because oil is used for transport and heating (and lubricating wind turbines and insulating their transformers), not for generating electricity. And again, these deaths are due to a catastrophic well blowout, not to climate change.

The technology for wind and solar farms can still be improved, but they are among the few remedies we have to the biggest problem humanity has ever faced. All over the world, renewable energy is proliferating — even on the plains of West Texas, there are now wind turbines among the fracking wells. Wind and solar are not only problems but solutions to the deadliness of the fossil fuel industry, whether it’s through routine devastation, as with tar sands, or catastrophic accidents, as with the BP spill, or the sabotage of the whole planetary system by climate change.

Having raising the unquestionable harms of an oil spill, now Solnit more directly contrasts it to wind and solar, even though, again, oil is not used for electricity. Even if wind and solar were everything their promoters claim (including the eternal canard that next year's technology and planning will solve all problems so don't worry about the continuing harm from last year's which if you think should be decommissioned you must really hate the planet), they would not change anything about oil at all. Insisting that wind and solar will save us almost seems a means of shrugging off the real problems of oil use, eg, that it is our use of it that drives all that drilling. Pave the desert with solar panels, string wind turbines across the mountain ridges: Just don't look, as Solnit's title suggests, at the big picture. Instead: Blame everything on climate change, and justify everything as fighting climate change.

She ends with a fire-and-brimstone vision of absolute calamity. She may not be wrong, but she would have us accept the deaths of birds and bats and the massive loss of habitat from building giant wind and solar projects as a distraction from the calamities due to climate change. That is exactly the self-rationalizing casuistry that guarantees — and justifies — only more calamity.

Update: 

• “Hunting, fishing and other forms of exploitation are a major factor in declines in animal populations .... Habitat degradation and loss are also dominant threats. Climate change is expected to become a bigger factor over time.” —Life ­– a status report, Nature 516, 158–161 (11 December 2014)

• “Before human populations swelled to the point at which we could denude whole forests and wipe out entire animal populations, extinction rates were at least ten times lower. And the future does not look any brighter. Climate change and the spread of invasive species (often facilitated by humans) will drive extinction rates only higher.” —Protect and serve, Nature 516, 144 (11 December 2014)

• ‘Many species are already critically endangered and close to extinction, including the Sumatran elephant, Amur leopard and mountain gorilla. But also in danger of vanishing from the wild, it now appears, are animals that are currently rated as merely being endangered: bonobos, bluefin tuna and loggerhead turtles, for example.
  
  ‘In each case, the finger of blame points directly at human activities. The continuing spread of agriculture is destroying millions of hectares of wild habitats every year, leaving animals without homes, while the introduction of invasive species, often helped by humans, is also devastating native populations. At the same time, pollution and overfishing are destroying marine ecosystems.
  
  ‘“Habitat destruction, pollution or overfishing either kills off wild creatures and plants or leaves them badly weakened,” said Derek Tittensor, a marine ecologist at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge. “The trouble is that in coming decades, the additional threat of worsening climate change will become more and more pronounced and could then kill off these survivors.”’ —Earth faces sixth ‘great extinction’ with 41% of amphibians set to go the way of the dodo, The Observer, 14 December 2014

Update: Ando Arike writes:  ‘The climate-change angle we usually ignore is the apocalyptic side of the human “success story” — our phenomenal growth in population to seven billion from one billion in little more than two centuries. But our cleverness in transforming fossil-fuel energy into labor-saving technology and high-yield agriculture has gone to our heads. It’s not just the climate denialists who are anti-science; it’s also those renewable-energy optimists who ignore basic laws of thermodynamics and entertain the fantasy that it will be possible for seven billion to live in the style of the American middle class. The new story we need to tell is “managed degrowth” — gradually but significantly paring down our demands for resources and learning to live within the ecological budget of the earth.’

Evil masterminds behind citizen opposition to evil masterminds

Here’s a mildly fun game. The New York Times’ crusade against Russia has become such a caricature of cold-war-era propaganda that it now resembles the tirades against the Koch brothers for forcing all of us to burn fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow and duping us into opposing the turning of our last rural and wild places into industrial wind and solar energy facilities.

On Nov. 30, the Times published an article by Andrew Higgins titled “Russian Money Suspected Behind Fracking Protests”. As with most such openly propagandistic pieces at the Times, the article is not opened to comments. The article is reminiscent of one at The Guardian on June 19 reporting then Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s claim that Russia is “secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking”. Yes, the choice is between fracking (injecting a slew of toxic chemicals into the ground at high pressure to fracture rocks and release deposits of methane, much of which is released into the air, with some 25 times the greenhouse gas effect of CO₂) and ... what, exactly?

In each of these articles, one can simply substitute Russia with Exxon, Putin with the Koch Brothers, and fracking with wind turbines and, as if they were written from a “Mad Libs” template, one has another typical article that avoids the actual issue involved, rather evoking a vague powerful network of “astroturf” organizations surely backed by a nefarious puppetmaster. The articles flip the power relationship to portray the frackers/wind developers as victims of the monstrous power of local opposition. The local officials who thought it was fine to sell out their communities are left scratching their heads, cursing (and having it dutifully reported) what they can only assume (out of their own worldview) to be “well financed and well organized” opposition instead of acknowledging the power of democracy and information. The lack of evidence for the charges only proves how powerful the evil geniuses behind it really are. The fact that people across the social and political spectrum unite against these developments is also presented as proof that they can only be paid agents – or gullible dupes – instead of recognized, even celebrated, as the populist power of a common cause.

In the Guardian article, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth laugh at Rasmussen’s claim. Maybe those groups should reconsider their own demonization campaigns against people who oppose large-scale wind and solar developments in rural and wild areas.

Renewable energy won’t reverse climate change

Ross Koningstein and David Fork, engineers at Google, write at IEEE Spectrum (excerpts):

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope ...

As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

[T]oday’s renewable energy sources are limited by suitable geography and their own intermittent power production. Wind farms, for example, make economic sense only in parts of the country with strong and steady winds. The study also showed continued fossil fuel use in transportation, agriculture, and construction.

RE<C invested in large-scale renewable energy projects and investigated a wide range of innovative technologies .... By 2011, however, it was clear that RE<C would not be able to deliver a technology that could compete economically with coal, and Google officially ended the initiative and shut down the related internal R&D projects. ...

In the energy innovation study’s best-case scenario, rapid advances in renewable energy technology bring down carbon dioxide emissions significantly. Yet because CO₂ lingers in the atmosphere for more than a century, reducing emissions means only that less gas is being added to the existing problem. We decided to combine our energy innovation study’s best-case scenario results with Hansen’s climate model to see whether a 55 percent emission cut by 2050 would bring the world back below that 350-ppm threshold. Our calculations revealed otherwise. Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO₂ levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm; they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use. So our best-case scenario, which was based on our most optimistic forecasts for renewable energy, would still result in severe climate change ...

Suppose for a moment that it had achieved the most extraordinary success possible, and that we had found cheap renewable energy technologies that could gradually replace all the world’s coal plants — a situation roughly equivalent to the energy innovation study’s best-case scenario. Even if that dream had come to pass, it still wouldn’t have solved climate change.

Incremental improvements to existing technologies aren’t enough; we need something truly disruptive to reverse climate change. What, then, is the energy technology that can meet the challenging cost targets? How will we remove CO₂ from the air? We don’t have the answers. Those technologies haven’t been invented yet.

[And then there's methane, with ~25 times the greenhouse gas equivalence of CO₂ and whose reduction would show effect in only a few years. Go vegan, people.]

Wind Turbines and Health: A Critical Review of a Critical Review of the Scientific Literature

J Occup Environ Med. 2014 Nov;56(11):e108-30. Robert J. McCunney, MD, MPH, Kenneth A. Mundt, PhD, W. David Colby, MD, Robert Dobie, MD, Kenneth Kaliski, BE, PE, and Mark Blais, PsyD

Objective: This review examines the literature related to health effects of wind turbines. Methods: We reviewed literature related to sound measurements near turbines, epidemiological and experimental studies, and factors associated with annoyance. Results: (1) Infrasound sound near wind turbines does not exceed audibility thresholds. (2) Epidemiological studies have shown associations between living near wind turbines and annoyance. (3) Infrasound and low-frequency sound do not present unique health risks. (4) Annoyance seems more strongly related to individual characteristics than noise from turbines. Discussion: Further areas of inquiry include enhanced noise characterization, analysis of predicted noise values contrasted with measured levels postinstallation, longitudinal assessments of health pre- and postinstallation, experimental studies in which subjects are “blinded” to the presence or absence of infrasound, and enhanced measurement techniques to evaluate annoyance.

Brief critique by Eric Rosenbloom:

“The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) funded this project ....” McCunney and Colby had already prepared a similar review for the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations (which are industry lobby groups) in 2009.

The paper consistently implies that the inaudibility of infrasound makes it nonproblematic, but by definition infrasound is inaudible and there is a substantial body of research showing that it is indeed harmful. The review ignores conference papers and so bypasses the issue of measurable infrasound inside homes as well as the unique characteristics of wind turbine noise as presented by many acousticians.

In its assessment of epidemiologic studies, the review rigorously critiques those that correlate wind turbine proximity and health problems while accepting without question those that find no such correlation (for example, a Polish study by industry consultants). In all cases that attempt to correlate complaints with noise levels, the latter are only estimated and characterized as continuous dBA tones. The paper picks out for special praise surveys that set out to prove “psychogenic” causes of health problems, which could not be more biased. This section concludes with a warning against the “mistaking of correlation with causation”, which only underscores the authors’ desperation to dismiss health problems as pre-existing and to ignore the consistent evidence that those health problems disappear when people move away or spend time away from the wind turbines (which they would no doubt only view as more evidence that they are indeed psychogenic, as if people willingly suffer physically in their homes but not when they are forced to abandon them). And again, they insist on the quotidian nature of wind turbine noise as being no different from ocean waves or air conditioning, ignoring the ever-growing documentation that it is indeed unique, and uniquely disturbing to many. As with other complaints, the review dismisses sleep disturbance as a fault of the sufferer, not the giant wind turbine thumping away all night. This bias is simply repeated in the next section that examines – and dismisses concerns about – infrasound and low-frequency noise. Again, the paper even denies that any infrasound and/or low-frequency noise (let alone that from wind turbines) can affect health, despite decades of research showing otherwise.

Continuing in this vein, the review of annoyance (a health effect according to the World Health Organization) examines only efforts to show it to be due only to the complainant’s psychology, not actual noise. The review unsurprisingly gives pride of place to the “nocebo” theory that nonsensically blames complaints on the publicity of them.

In its conclusion, the review cites the World Health Organization’s Night Noise Guidelines as a non sequitur vindication that wind turbine noise is not a problem, but fails to note that those guidelines specify an outside limit of 30 dB, which no jurisdiction on earth enforces, let alone regulation of amplitude modulation and infrasound, or even adequate setback distances, all of which the wind power industry fiercely fights (eg). The review itself makes no siting or regulatory recommendations (which might harm the industry paying for this review), instead placing the entire blame for problems on those who suffer them. A shameful performance.

Wind turbine setback and noise regulations since 2010

These changes in and new wind turbine regulations since 2010 do not include moratoria and bans. See also the list at Windpowergrab and the Renewable Energy Rejection Database (USA). All ordinances in USA: WindExchange (Dept. of Energy) wind energy ordinances database; NREL: Wind Ordinances, Wind Regulations by Region; NCSL: State approaches to wind facility siting (local or state-level).

[note:  1,000 ft = 305 m; 550 m = 1,804 ft; 1,000 m = 1 km = 3,281 ft = 0.62 mi; 1 mi = 1.61 km = 5,280 ft;  about decibels (dB)]

• Pottawattamie County, Iowa, February 27, 2024:  setbacks 1/2 mi from nonparticipating homes, 1.1× height from participating homes, 1,500 ft from lot lines and public rights of way, 3 mi to incorporated municipalities, airport property, conservation partks, and habitat areas; 412 ft max height; noise limit 40 dBA 1-hour LEq 25 ft outside nonparticipating home; max 30 hours/year shadow flicker at nonparticipating home [link]

• Slovakia, January 2024:  setback 3 km from inhabited areas [link]

• Jefferson County, Nebraska, March 23, 2023:  setback 1 mi from nonparticipating homes, incorporated towns, schools, churches, and state-owned recreation areas [link]

• Buffalo County, Nebraska, March 14, 2023:  setbacks 3 mi from agriculture residential zoned property, nonparticipating property, church, hospital, pool, or park, 5 mi from villages, cities, and wildlife preservation and management areas, 2 mi from burial sites, Platte River, and South Loup River [link]

• Poland, March 2023 [effective July 2, 2024]:  setback 700 m [2,300 ft] from houses [link]

• Iowa, January 9, 2023 [proposed]:  setback from dwelling or nonparticipating property greater of 1.5× height or 5,000 ft [link]

• Woodbury County, Iowa, August 23, 2022:  setback from residences increased from 1,250 ft to 2,500 ft [link]

• Stockbridge Township, Michigan, August 2022:  height limit 400 ft [link]

• Cumberland County, Nova Scotia, June 22, 2022:  setback from dwellings increased from 600 to 1,000 m; 3.2 km from main Wentworth Valley road [link]

• Grand Forks County, North Dakota, June 2022:  setback increased from 1/4 to 1/2 mi; shadow flicker limited to 30 h/yr [link]

• Leroy Township, Michigan, May 8, 2022:  height limit 400 ft [link]

• Gage County, Nebraska, Nov. 17, 2021:  noise limit at residence reduced to 40 dB (from 45) daytime and 37 dBA (from 40) nighttime (10pm–7am), or 3 dBA max 10-minute Leq above ambient [link]

• Ohio, Oct. 11, 2021:  counties have right to veto, ban, and limit projects; several counties subsequently prohibited wind projects ≥5 MW in 2022 [link]

• Vermillion County, Indiana, Sep. 28, 2021:  setback 2 mi from property lines and roads; noise limit 32 dBA [link]

• Ford County, Illinois, Sep. 17, 2021:  setbacks 3,000 ft from property line, 1.5 mi from municipality; noise limit 40 dB (Laeq) 9pm–6am; no shadow flicker at neighboring residence [link]

• Sidney Township, Michigan, July 5, 2021:  300 ft height limit; setback 3,000 ft or 5× height [sic] from nonparticipating property line or right-of-way, 2.5 mi from lake or pond; noise limits of 40 dBA Leq (1 sec) and 50 dBC Leq (1 sec) and no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; no radio, TV, or other interference [link]

• Pierson Township, Michigan, June 15, 2021:  setback 4× height from occupied structures and property lines, 39 dBA limit and no shadow flicker on neighboring property [link]

• Boone County, Missouri, November 4, 2021:  80 m (~263 ft) hub height limit; setback 1,750 ft from property line or public right-of-way; noise limits at property line 50 dBA daytime (7am–10pm), 40 dBA nighttime (10pm-7am), 45 dBA adjusted total day-night (Ldn; 10 dBA added to nighttime level) [link]

• Dakota County, Nebraska, July 26, 2021:  change of setbacks from 2,700 ft to 2 mi from neighboring residence, from 600 ft to 2 mi from wetlands and other conservation lands [link]

• Ellington Township, Michigan, July 2021:  setbacks 5× height from property lines, 3× height from roads; 40 dBA limit and no shadow flicker on neighboring property [link]

• Worth County, Iowa, approved by Planning and Zoning Commission June 25, 2021:  at nonparticipating property: distance greater of 1,600 ft, 3.75× height, or manufacturer’s safety distance, noise limit greater of ambient or 45 dBA/60 dBC 6am–10pm, 40 dBA/60 dBC 10pm–6am, no shadow flicker; setbacks from eagle nest greater of 1,600 ft, 3.75× height, or manufacturer’s safety distance, 1/2 mi from public recreation area, significant body of water, and habitat >40 acres, 1 mi from public recreation area [link]

• Clarion County, Pennsylvania, May 25, 2021:  at nonparticipating residence: distance 5× height, noise limit 45 dBA, no shadow flicker [link]

• Kansas, introduced Feb. 24, 2021:  SB 279: setbacks greater of 7,920 ft (1-1/2 mi) or 12× height from residential property or public building, greater of 3 mi or 12× height from any airport, wildlife refuge, public hunting area, or public park, and greater of 5,280 ft (1 mi) or 10× height from nonparticipating property line [link]

• Vulcan County, Alberta, Canada, Jan. 27, 2021 [proposed]:  45 dBA noise limit at property line; 800 m setback from nonparticipating residence [link]

• Burt County, Nebraska, 2020:  setback greater of 3.5× height or 1,800 ft from dwelling [link]

• Wheeler County, Nebraska, Dec. 9, 2020:  5 mi setback from any dwelling, 1/2 mi distance between turbines, height limit 299 ft [link]

• Piatt County, Illinois, Dec. 9, 2020:  46 dBA noise limit outside of homes [link]

• Ireland, Nov. 24, 2020 [Wind Turbine Regulation Bill reintroduced]:  10× height setback from any dwelling, no shadow flicker at dwelling, noise limits per WHO community noise guidelines [link]

• Reno County, Kansas, Nov. 19, 2020:  setback from residence greater of 2,000 ft or 4× height [link]

• Edgar County, Illinois, Nov. 4, 2020:  increased setback to 3,250 ft from primary structures [link]

• Piatt County, Illinois, Oct. 22, 2020 [subject to county board approval]:  increased setback from greater of 1.1× height or 1,600 ft to nonparticipating structure to greater of 1.3× height or 1,600 ft to nonparticipating property line [link]

• Gage County, Nebraska, Sept. 9, 2020:  increased setback to nonparticipating residence from 3/8 mi to 1 mi [link]

• Batavia Township, Michigan, Sept. 1, 2020:  height limit 330 ft [link]

• Reno County, Kansas, Aug. 2020 [proposed]:  40-dB annual average noise limit at any principal building (participating property or not) [link]

• Hughes County, South Dakota, Aug. 17, 2020:  setback 1/2 mi or 4.9× turbine height from any occupied structure; 45-dB noise limit [link]

• Brown County, Nebraska, May 2020:  setback 1 mi from property lines and roads [link]

• North Dakota, Mar. 2020 [subject to Attorney General review and approval of legislative Administrative Rules Committee]:  45 dB noise limit 100 ft from residence [link]

• Fremont County, Iowa, May 2020 [proposed]:  setbacks 1,500 ft from participating residence, 2,000 ft from nonparticating residence, 1,000 ft from nonparticipating property line, 1 mi from incorporated cities, 3 mi from Mississippi River [link]

• North Dakota, Mar. 2020 [subject to Attorney General review and approval of legislative Administrative Rules Committee]:  45 dB noise limit 100 ft from residence [link]

• Honolulu (Oahu), Hawaii, Mar. 2020 [subject to full city council approval]:  setback 5 mi from nonparticipating property lines [link]

• Matteson Township, Michigan, Mar. 4, 2020:  setbacks 1.25 mi from nonparticipating property line, 4× height to any residence; 328-ft height limit; noise limit 45 dB(A) or 55 db(C) at nonparticipating property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; allowed only in general agricultural, light agricultural, and research industrial zoning districts [link]

• Farmersville, New York, Feb. 10, 2020:  height limit 455 ft, setbacks 3,000 ft to property line or well, 2,000 ft to roads, 1 mi to churches and schools including Amish homes and home schools; noise limit lower of 45 dBA at property line and 45 dBA outside dwelling or ambient + 10 dB(A), 10 dB added to nighttime (10pm–7am) levels; noise measurement specified, including C-weighted; shadow flicker on nonparticipating property limited to 8 hours/year and 1 hour/month; property value guarantee and decommissioning provisions [link]

• Seville Township, Michigan, Jan. 13, 2020:  1,640-ft setback from nonparticipating property line [link]

• Jefferson Davis Parish, Louisiana, Jan. 13, 2020:  3 mi from business or residence [link]

• Farmersville and Freedom, New York, Jan. 6, 2020:  2019 law revoked, reverting from 600-ft height limit, 1.3× height setback at property line, and 50-dBA noise limit to 450-ft height limit.  Proposed [approved Jan. 30, 2020, by Cattaraugus County Planning Board]:  height limit 455 ft, setbacks 3,000 ft to property line, 2,000 ft to roads, 1 mi to churches; noise limit lower of 45 dBA at property line and 45 dBA outside dwelling or ambient + 10 dB(A), 10 dB added to nighttime (10pm–7am) levels; noise measurement specified, including C-weighted; shadow flicker on nonparticipating property limited to 8 hours/year and 1 hour/month; property value guarantee and decommissioning provisions [link]

• Fell Township, Pennsylvania, Jan. 6, 2020:  setback 5× total height to property line, minimum 1,500 ft; noise limit at property line 45–55 dB, 42–52 dB 10pm–7am [link]

• Mills County, Iowa, 2019:  height limits 80 ft, 150 ft in commercial zones, 200 ft in industrial zones [link]

• North Rhine–Westphalia, Germany, 2019 [subject to public comment]:  setback 1.5 km from municipalities; banned from forests [link]

• Ireland, Dec. 12, 2019 [subject to public consultation]:  setback 4× total height to residences, minimum 500 m; noise limit (L_90,10 min) outside sensitive properties (e.g., residences) lesser of 5 dBA above existing 30–38 dBA background noise or 43 dBA, with penalties for tonal noise and amplitude modulation and a threshold for low-frequency noise; no shadow flicker at sensitive properties [link]

• Sanford, New York, Dec. 10, 2019: setbacks 3× height from all permanent structures and off-site property lines, rights of way, easements, public ways, power lines, gas wells, and state lands, greater of 1,500 ft or 3× height from all off-site schools, hospitals, places of worship, places of public assembly, and residential structures; noise limits at nonparticipating property line of 45 dBA Leq (8-hour), 40 dBA average annual nighttime level, no audible prominent tone, no human-perceptible vibrations, 65 dB Leq at full-octave frequency bands of 16, 31.5, and 63 Hz, and 40 dBA (1-hour) from substation equipment; maximum shadow flicker 30 min/day, 30 h/year [link]

• Sherwood Township, Michigan, Dec. 5, 2019:  height limit 330 ft; setbacks 5× height to nonparticipating property, 1 mi from village, 2 mi from environmentally sensitive areas [link]

• Posey County, Indiana, Nov. 25, 2019 [subject to town and County Commission approvals]:  noise limit greater of 45 dB or 5 dB over ambient (L₉₀) at nonparticipating property line more than 10% of any hour; no shadow flicker at nonparticipating residence [link]; Jan. 3, 2021:  10 mi distance from Doppler radar site [link]

• Thomas County, Nebraska, Oct. 2021:  setback 3 mi from property lines, roads, and wetlands; noise limit 35 dbA at residence [link]

• Hamilton County, Nebraska, Sep. 19, 2021:  setback 2 mi from property line [link]

• Portland, New York, Aug. 8, 2020:  setbacks 1,600 ft from residences, 1/2 mi from county parks [link]

• Casnovia Township, Michigan, Oct. 2019:  setback 4× total height to nonparticipating property line; height limit 500 ft; 39 dBA nighttime noise limit and no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property [link]

• Madison County, Iowa, Aug. 8, 2019:  Board of Health recommendation of 1.5 mi setback from nonparticipating property line, 2,100 ft from participating property line, 40 dBA noise limit at property line [link]; Sept. 8, 2019: County Board approves [link]

• Montgomery County, Indiana, June 10, 2019:  setbacks greater of 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) or 5× height to property line (Board of Zoning Appeals may increase to 3,200 ft) and 1 mi from towns and schools; 32 dB(A) noise limit at property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; wells within 1 mi to be tested before and after [link]

• Jasper County, Indiana, May 7, 2019:  setbacks greater of 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) or 6.5× height to nonparticipating property lines and 1 mi from nonparticipating existing residences, platted subdivisions, “institutional land uses” (e.g., schools), Iroquois and Kankakee Rivers, and confined feed lots; 35 dB(A) noise limit at nonparticipating property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating properties [link]

• Sherwood Township, Michigan, June 13, 2019:  height limit 300 ft; setbacks 5× height to property line, 1/2 mi from water, 1 mi from Village of Sherwood, 2 mi from environmentally sensitive areas [link]

• Monitor Township, Michigan, effective Apr. 29, 2019:  change of setback from 750 ft to 2,000 ft to nonparticipating or 1,640 ft to participating property line or right-of-way; no shadow flicker or strobe effect on nonparticipating property; no stray voltage; noise limits (L_max) 45 dBA and 55 dBC at property line or anywhere within neighboring property, no detectable sound pressures of 0.1-20 Hz [link]

• Worth, New York, Apr. 3, 2019:  setback 5× height to property lines, structures, and roads; 35 dB(A) noise limit during day, 25 dB(A) at night (7pm–7am) [link]

• Lancaster County, Nebraska, Feb. 19, 2019:  change of setback from 1,000 ft to property line to 1 mi to residence (to ensure sound limits established in 2015) [link]

• Kansas, introduced Feb. 12, 2019:  HB 2273: setbacks greater of 7,920 ft (1-1/2 mi) or 12× height from residential property lines or public building, greater of 3 mi or 12× height from any airport, wildlife refuge, public hunting area, or public park, and minimum 1,500 ft from any property line [link]

• Nebraska, introduced Jan. 16, 2019 [subject to legislative approval]:  LB373: requires hosting counties to have wind ordinances restricting wind turbines within 3 mi of residence without owner’s permission and addressing noise and decommissioning [link]

• Saline County, Nebraska, 2018:  setback 1/2 mi from neighboring dwelling; noise limit 40 dBA (10-min average) at any dwelling [link]

• Redfield, New York, Dec. 11, 2018:  setback 5× height to property lines, structures, and roads; 35 dB(A) noise limit during day, 25 dB(A) at night (7pm–7am) [link]

• Henry County, Indiana, Nov. 14, 2018:  setback 4 mi from town lines: Blountsville, Cadiz, Greensboro, Kennard, Lewisville, Mount Summit, Springport, Straughn, Sulphur Springs, Mooreland [link]

• Richland, New York, Nov. 13, 2018:  setback 1 mi from property line; height limit 500 ft; 35 dB(A) (for more than 5 minutes) noise limit at residences [link]

• Adair County, Iowa, Oct. 24, 2018:  setback 2,000 ft to nonparticipating home, 800 ft to property line [link]

• Kosciusko County, Indiana, Oct. 16 2018:  setback greater of 3,960 ft or 6.5× height to property line, right-of-way, or power line, 1 mi from community or municipality boundary; 32 dB(A) noise limit at property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; no detectable vibration in nearby structures or that could damage wells; no interference with TV, radio, GPS, etc.; property value guarantees within 2 mi; notification to all within 5 mi [link]

• Adams County, Nebraska, Oct. 2, 2018:  setback 2,400 ft to neighboring dwelling, 6,000 ft from turbines not owned by applicant [link]

• Paint Township, Pennsylvania, Aug. 7, 2018:  height limit 335 ft; setback 1.5× height to buildings and roads, 2,500 ft to property line [link]

• Greenwood, Maine, Aug. 6, 2018:  added height limit of 250 ft; lowered noise limits at nonparticipating property lines from 55 dB during day and 42 dB at night to, respectively, 35 and 25 dB; increased setback to nonparticipating property lines from 1.5× height to 1 mi per 100 ft height [link]

• Dekalb County, Illinois, July 12, 2018 [approved by Board, 19-3, Nov. 21, 2018 (link)]:  setback 6× total height to property line, 3 mi to municipality; height limit 500 ft; noise limit of 35 dBA during day (7am–10pm) and 30 dBA at night; no shadow flicker or flash; no radiofrequency or electromagnetic interference [link]

• North Dakota, July 1, 2018:  decommission and land reclamation plan, cost estimates, and financial assurance required [link]

• Ingersoll Township, Michigan, May 14, 2018:  [link]

• Beaver Township, Michigan, May 14, 2018:  setback 4× total height to property line, public roads, and transmission lines; height limit 500 ft; noise limit 45 dBA L_max or 55 dBC L_max (or ambient plus 5 dB if greater) at property line [link]

• Shiawassee County, Michigan, May 8, 2018 [subject to County Board of Commissioners approval]:  setback 3.5× total height to nonparticipating property line (changed from 1.5×); height limit 450 ft (changed from 600 ft); 45 dB noise limit at property line (changed from 55 dB); no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property (changed from 20 hours/year) [link]

• Almer Township, Michigan, Apr. 2018:  setback 4× total height to nonparticipating property line; height limit 500 ft; 45 dBA noise limit at property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; no stray voltage; decommissioning bond; all concrete to be removed [link]

• Tennessee, Apr. 24, 2018:  setback 5× total height to nonparticipating property line; height limit 500 ft [link]

• Miami County, Indiana, Apr. 11, 2018:  change of setback from 1,000 ft to 2,000 ft to property line [link]

• DeWitt County, Illinois, Apr. 19, 2018:  change of setback from 1,500 ft to 2,000 ft to houses [link]

• Pierce County, Nebraska, Mar. 26, 2018:  setback 2,700 ft to houses [link]

• Maroa, Illinois, Mar. 26, 2018:  setback 1.5 mi from city border [link]

• Hopkinton, New York, Apr. 26, 2018:  setback 5× total height to property line; 40 dBA noise limit at nonparticipating residence [link]

• Burnside Township, Michigan, Feb. 26, 2018:  change of sound limit to 45 dBA L_max (maximum) at property line [link]

• Yates, New York, Feb. 8, 2018:  change of setback to nonparticipating property line from 3× height to greater of 6× height or 1/2 mi; greater of 6× height or 1/2 mi to residences, public rights of way, and boundaries with other towns; 1 mi to village boundaries, schools, churches, and cemeteries; 3 mi from Lake Ontario shoreline (per US Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation); change of noise limit from 45 dBA during day (7am–8pm) and 40 dBA at night to 42 dBA during day and 39 dBA at night (per Vermont Public Service Board recommendation) [link]

• Somerset, New York, Jan. 29, 2018:  height limit 150 ft; industrial zones only; setback greater of 1/2 mi or 6× height to public roads, property lines, and residences; 3 mi from Lake Ontario shoreline; 42 dBA limit during day (7am–9pm), 35 dBA at night [link]

• Wabash County, Indiana, Dec. 18, 2017:  32 dBA limit outside of primary structures; no vibrations detectable on nonparticipant property; no shadow flicker on nonparticipant property; setbacks 3/4 mi to nonparticipant residential structure, 1/2  to nonparticipant business structure, 3/8 mi to participant residence, greater of 1,000 ft or 2× height to public roads [link]

• Rochester, Indiana, Dec. 4, 2017:  setback 3 mi from city limits [link]

• Vermont, Nov. 22, 2017:  42 dBA limit 95% of the time 100 ft to nonparticipating residence during day (7am–9pm), 39 dBA at night (9pm–7am; goal to achieve interior sound level of ≤30 dB) [link]

• Stanton County, Nebraska, Nov. 2017:  setback 2,700 ft from nonparticipating residence [link]

• Dixfield, Maine, Nov. 7, 2017:  setbacks 2,000 ft to property line, 4,000 ft to occupied building or scenic or special resource; sound limits at property line of 42 dBA at night (7–7), 55 dBA at day within 4,000 ft; 5 dBA added to any average 10-minute sound level in which a tonal sound occurs, 5 dBA added to any average 10-minute sound level in which ≥5 short-duration repetitive sounds occur [link]

• Clark County, South Dakota, Aug. 14, 2017 [subject to appeal ruling]:  change of setback from 1,000 ft to 3,960 ft (3/4 mi) to residences [link]

• Antelope County, Nebraska [subject to county commission approval]:  change of setback from 2,000 ft to 2,700 ft to nonparticipating residence; maximum of 2 turbines within 4,000 ft of nonparticipating residence [link]

• Parishville, New York, June 22, 2017:  setback 5× total height to property line; 45 dBA noise limit at nonparticipating residence during day (7am–7pm), 35 dBA at night (7pm–7am) [link]

• Bethel, Maine, June 14, 2017:  setback 2 mi to property line; 25 dBA limit at property line 7pm–7am, 35 dBA 7am–7pm; height limit 250 ft [link]

• Walworth County, South Dakota, May 10, 2017:  setback 2 mi to off-site residence, business, or church [link]

• Lincoln County, South Dakota, May 2, 2017 [upheld by referendum, July 18, 2017 (link)]:  setback 1/2 mi to homes; 45 dB limit at property line; shadow flicker limits [link]

• North Dakota, June 5, 2017:  aircraft detection required to minimize lighting at night [link]

• Clayton County, New York, Apr. 26, 2017:  own use only; setback 5.5× height to property line [link]

• Livingston County, Illinois, Apr. 20, 2017:  setback to participating homes changed from 1,200 ft to greater of 3,250 ft or 6× height; setback to property line 1,640 ft; state Pollution Control Board noise limits measured at residential property line [link]

• County Westmeath, Ireland, Jan. 31, 2017:  setbacks from homes 500 m for heights >25 m to 50 m, 1,000 m for heights >50 m to 100 m, 1,500 m for heights >100 m to 150 m, and >2 km for heights ≥150 m [link]

• Rush County, Indiana, Dec. 16, 2016:  project approved with setback 2,640 ft to nonparticipating property lines and height limit 200 ft; 32 dB limit at propertly line; no shadow flicker on neighboring property [link]

• Wayne County, Indiana, Dec. 7, 2016:  zoning variance required for every turbine; large turbines not permitted: >100 ft tall, >50 kW, blade sweep >30 ft [link]

• Hagerstown, Indiana, Nov. 22, 2016:  no structures over 100 ft height within 2 mi of town (extension of airport regulation) [link]

• Sand Beach Township, Michigan, Oct. 2016 [approved by referendum, 413-80, May 2, 2017 (link)]:  40 dB limit at hosting residences during day, 35 dB at night; 35 dB and 30 dB for nonhosting residences [link]

• Wabash County, Indiana, Oct. 17, 2016:  32 dBA limit outside of primary structures; shadow flicker at residential and business structures limited to 15 minutes per day, 4 days per year; setback 1/2 mi to nonparticipating residential or business structure [link]

• Clayton County, New York, Sept. 27, 2016:  setback 1 mi to any structure, roadway, or property line; developers required to pay property owners for any damages or decreases in property value [link]

• Palo Alto County, Iowa, Sept. 27, 2016:  setback 1,500 ft to dwellings and cemeteries [link]

• L’Anse Township, Michigan, Aug. 10, 2016:  setback to nonparticipating property line (without easement) changed from 1,000 ft to 2,540 ft; height limit 500 ft [link]

• County Laois, Ireland, Aug. 5, 2016 [augmented Mar. 29, 2017, by total ban (link)]:  setback 1.5 km to schools, dwellings, community centers, and public roads [link]

• Newfield, New York, July 24, 2016:  setback 1,760 ft or 3× blade radius to property line without lease or easement [link]

• Tipton County, Indiana, July 2016:  setbacks 2,640 ft from residences, 1,500 ft from property lines [link]

• Letcher Township, South Dakota, June 8, 2016; effective July 1, 2016:  setbacks 1 mi to nonparticipating residence and 1,500 ft to property line [link]

• Poland, May 2016 (revoked to 700 m setback March 2023):  setback 10× total height of turbine to housing [link]

• Gage County, Nebraska, Mar. 30, 2016:  45 dB limit at nonparticipating properties during day, 40 dB at night (10pm–7am); setback 3/8 mi to nonparticipating residence [link]

• New Hampshire, Dec. 15, 2015:  sound limits: greater of 45 dBA_L90 or 5 dBA above background level during day (8–8), 40 dBA during day, greater of 40 dBA_L90 or 5 dBA above background level at night at any temporary or permanent residence; shadow flicker: no more than 8 hours per year at or in any residence, learning space, workplace, health care setting, outdoor or indoor public gathering area, or other occupied building [link]

• Freedom, Maine, Nov. 17, 2015:  13× height setback to property line, 4× height to public roads, 2,500 ft to special resources; sound limits 5 dBA above preconstruction ambient level, 40 dBA during day, and 35 dBA at night at property line, and 20 dBC above preconstruction ambient dBA level at property line and inside dwellings [link]

• Lancaster County, Nebraska, Nov. 10, 2015:  sound limits at exterior wall of dwellings 40 dBA and 3 dBA above background (by 10-minute average, L_eq,10min) from 7am to 10pm, 37 dBA from 10pm to 7am [link]

• Boone County, Illinois, Nov. 4, 2015:  change of setback from 1,000 ft to 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) to property line [link]

• Emmet County, Michigan, Oct. 15, 2015:  change of setback from 1,000 ft to 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) to property line [link]

• Oklahoma, Aug. 21, 2015:  set back 1.5 mi from public school, hospital, or airport [link]

• Catlin, New York, July 9, 2015:  height limit 400 ft;, noise limit 40 dBA at property line [link]

• Rush County, Indiana, July 1, 2015 (upheld by trial court May 27, 2016, appeals court Feb. 14, 2017, and supreme court May 25, 2017 [link]):  project approved with change of setback to 2,300 ft to residences and property line [link]

• Peru, Massachusetts, June 6, 2015:  height limit [link]

• Garden Township, Michigan, June 1, 2015:  35 dBA or 50 dBC limit at property line from 10pm to 6am [link]

• Iroquois County, Illinois, Apr. 14, 2015:  change of setback to property line from 1,500 ft to 12 rotor diameters [link]

• Cleburne County, Alabama, Feb. 9, 2015 [needs state approval]:  2,500 ft setback to property line, 40 dB sound limit [link]

• Howard County, Indiana, Jan. 5, 2015:  change of setback from 1,500 ft to 2,000 ft from property line and noise limit at neighboring residence from 50 dBA to 40 dBA [link]

• Pictou County, Nova Scotia, Jan. 5, 2015:  1,000 m setback, 600 m with consent of homeowner [link]

• Bavaria, Germany, Nov. 21, 2014:  10× height setback to homes, 800 m to other dwellings [link]

• Adams Township, Michigan, Oct. 2014, affirmed Apr. 13, 2015 [link]:  3,000 ft setback to lines, roads, and homes [link]

• Plympton-Wyoming, Ontario, Oct. 8, 2014; repealed under threat of lawsuit May 27, 2015 [link]:  50 dB average, +10 dB peak infrasound limit inside dwellings; 15 dBC or 20 dB infrasound limit over dBA level inside or outside dwellings; amplitude modulation limit indoors of 2 mPa RMS for 10 seconds out of any 40 seconds [link]

• Mason County, Kentucky, Sept. 30, 2014:  wind turbines >50 kW in already-designated industrial zones only; 1 mi setback of turbines, substations, and maintenance/operation facilities to property line, residences/regularly used buildings, residential zones, rights of way, wetlands, etc.; 30 dBA and 50 dbC limits at property line [link]

• Buckland, Massachusetts, Sept. 25, 2014:  limits of 250 kW capacity and 120 ft height, setbacks 360 ft to property line and half-mile to off-site residence [link]

• County Offaly, Ireland, Sept. 15, 2014:  setback 2 km from towns and villages [link]

• Fairview Township, Pennsylvania, Aug. 4, 2014:  height limit 350 ft, setbacks 1,500 ft to property lines and bodies of water, 1.1× height to roads [link]

• Dallas County, Iowa, July 29, 2014:  setbacks 2,640 ft from residence, school, hospital, church, or public library, 2 mi from sensitive natural resource areas, wildlife management areas, prairies, wetlands, forested areas, etc.; 30 dBA noise limit at property line of any dwelling, school, hospital, church, or public library [link]

• County Donegal, Ireland, June 30, 2014 [cancelled by Minister Oct. 6, 2016; reinstated Mar. 27, 2017]:  setback 10× tip height to places of residence or public assembly [link]

• Ohio, June 16, 2014:  change of setback (1,125 ft from blade tip) to property line (from house) [link]

• Schoolcraft County, Michigan, June 5, 2014:  setbacks 3,960 ft (3/4-mi) to dwellings and businesses, 1 mi to scenic areas, parks, highways; 35 dB(A) limit at property line, ambient plus 5 dB limit at dwellings [link]

• Etowah County, Alabama, Mar. 19, 2014:  40 dB limit at property line, 2,500 ft setback from property line [link]

• Cherokee County, Alabama, Mar. 18, 2014:  40 dB limit at property line, 2,500 ft setback from property line [link]

• DeKalb County, Alabama:  40 dB limit at property line, 2,500 ft setback from property line [link]

• Granville, Pennsylvania, May 5, 2014:  setbacks 2,000 ft to property line and participating residence and 2,500 ft to nonparticipating residence, 45 dBA or 45 dBC limit at property line [link]

• Carteret County, North Carolina, Feb. 26, 2014:  change of setback to 1 mi (from 6× height), plus 275 ft height limit and 35 dB limit (for more than 5 min) at property line [link]

• Iredell County, North Carolina:  350 ft height limit, 30 dB noise limit at property line [link]

• Ashe County, North Carolina:  199 ft height limit [link]

• County Offaly, Ireland, Sept. 15, 2014:  setback 2 km from towns and villages [link]

• Kentucky, 2014:  setbacks 1,000 ft from property lines, 2,000 ft from residential neighborhood, school, hospital, or nursing home facility [link]

• Eastern Kings, Prince Edward Island, 2013:  setbacks 4× height to participating dwelling, 3,280 ft (1,000 m) to nonparticipating dwelling [link]

• Saxony, Germany, July 12, 2013:  setback 1,000 m to residence [link]

• Noble County, Indiana, May 2013:  3/4 mi to residence [link]

• Whitley County, Indiana, May 2013:  greater of 1/2 mi or 6.5× height to residence [link]

• Woodstock, Maine, Mar. 25, 2013:  setback 1 mi to property line; 35 dBA limit at property line 7pm–7am, 45 dBA 7am–7pm [link]

• Crook County, Wyoming, June 6, 2012:  setbacks greater of 5× height or 1 mi from residence, 1/2 mi from city or town [link]

• Pratt County, Kansas, May 12, 2012:  3,960 ft to residence [link]

• Wisconsin, Mar. 15, 2012:  1.1× height to property line, 1,250 ft to any residence [link]

• Bingham County, Idaho, 2012:  3× height to property line, 1 mi platted Town sites and cities [link]

• Haut-Saint-Laurent, Montérégie, Québéc, Jan. 9, 2013:  2 km setback [link]

• Denmark, Dec. 15, 2011:  addition of 20 dB low-frequency (10–160 Hz) limit (day and night) inside homes [link]

• Frankfort, Maine, Dec. 1, 2011:  1 mi setback to property line, noise limits within 2 mi 35 dB day, 25 dB night [link] [repeal rejected Nov. 4, 2014; link]

• Victoria, Australia, Aug. 29, 2011:  2 km setback without consent of homeowner [link]; reduced to 1 km Mar. 2015 [link]

• Umatilla County, Oregon, June 28, 2011:  change of setback to 2 mi from “urban grown boundary”, 1 mi from "unincorporated community" zones (from 3,520 ft) [link]

• Barnstable County (Cape Cod), Massachusetts, Apr. 20, 2011:  10× rotor diameter to property line [link]

• Centerville Township, Michigan, Aug. 18, 2010:  height limit 199 ft; setback 10× rotor diameter to property line or road; noise limits at property line 35 dBA or 5 dBA above background during day, 3 dBA above background at night, with low-frequency limits and tonality penalty [link]

• Klickitat County, Washington, Aug. 17, 2010:  setback 1,600 ft to residences [link]

• Allegany County, Maryland, Jan. 1, 2010:  setbacks 2,000 ft to homes, 5,000 ft to schools [link]

• Dixmont, Maine, 2009:  setback 2,500 ft from neighboring residential property line [link]

• Kearny County, Kansas, 2009:  setback 2,000 ft from property line [link]

Wind Health Impacts Dismissed in Court?

By Eric Rosenbloom, President, National Wind Watch:

At the renewable energy industry PR site Energy & Policy Institute, dead-ender Mike Barnard claims that whenever concerns of health impacts from industrial wind turbine noise are raised at law, they are rejected. In the 49 cases from English-speaking countries that he presents, however, only 2 involved an operating wind energy facility. And in both, the facility was found to be in violation of the law. The rest involve only the existing legal framework for approving industrial wind facilities, which involves the weighing of often competing interests — and the evidence shows most clearly that national, state, or provincial interests generally trump local concerns in the matter of energy development.

Almost all of the remaining 47 (or 44, since 2 of them are duplicates and 1 is the transcript of the hearing for one of the listed cases) involve appeals of project approvals, and the issue concerns only the possibility of health impacts despite the government’s judgement and the developer’s reassurances. Oddly, 11 of them do not even consider health effects or they consider them only very narrowly (eg, shadow flicker, autism). And several of them recognize that should health effects occur, they should indeed be taken seriously. One of the rulings (Heritage Wind Farm Development Inc., Decision on Preliminary Question, Decision 2011-239, Alberta, 2012) dismisses the developer’s wish to operate the turbines at night, in violation of the conditions of the project approval. Another ruling (Hulme v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor, 2011) upholds amplitude modulation (“whooshing”) noise conditions that have prevented the developer from proceeding despite project approval.

As stated in Fata v. Director, Ministry of the Environment (Ontario, 2014), “Tribunals are creatures of statute.” The laws guiding the permitting of large wind energy facilities are narrow and virtually arbitrary regarding setbacks and noise limits. Until the facility is actually operating, the developer’s word is golden and the regulations are generous. After construction, the resulting impacts are weighed against the burden on the developer to mitigate them. Nonetheless, as noted above, in both post-construction cases presented by Barnard, the courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

Furthermore, Barnard completely ignores the many cases that have been settled out of court, the energy company buying the plaintiff’s property rather than defending the charges of adverse health effects in public. Such settlements also typically impose gag orders on the sellers. Two examples are the purchase of several homes in Ontario and the home of Jane and Julian Davis in England.

Then there is the non–English-speaking world. One pertinent example is from Portugal, where the Supreme Court in 2013 ordered the shutting down and removal of 4 turbines near a farm because of sleep disturbance and other health effects. In late 2011, Denmark added limits of indoor low-frequency noise to its regulations, recognizing one of the unique characteristics of wind turbine noise and its health impacts. In July 2021, the Toulouse (France) Court of Appeal rewarded a couple 110,000 euros in compensation for the health impacts from noise and flashing from neighboring wind turbines.

Update: On March 25, 2022, the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, ruled that noise from the Bald Hills Wind Farm at Tarwin Lower created a nuisance to its neighbors, ordering damages and an injunction to stop emitting noise at night: “Noise from the turbines on the wind farm has caused a substantial interference with both plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their land, specifically, their ability to sleep undisturbed at night in their own beds in their own homes.”

Update: On March 8, 2024, the High Court of Ireland ruled that noise from wind turbines in Ballyduff, Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford, created unreasonable interference to its neighbors. “I find that two features in particular of the WTN [wind turbine noise] AM [amplitude modulation] render the WTN an unreasonable interference. First, there are frequent and sustained periods during which the AM manifests typical AM values at a level widely acknowledged to be associated with high levels of annoyance. Second, this WTN displays periods of thump AM. The oral evidence of all four plaintiffs and the Webster-Rollo diary entries all suggest that thump AM, together with its association vibration, is the most intrusive quality of the WTN. This thump AM vastly adds to the nuisance posed by the wind farm. In combination, I find that this is WTN which reasonable people would find it impossible to habituate to.”

Far from exhaustive, Barnard’s list is also not representative of legal opinion, ignoring planning decisions and regulations that consider the adverse health effects of wind turbine noise. Just one example is a North Lincolnshire project that was “rejected because of the ‘serious effect’ it would have on eight-year-old autistic twin boys living nearby”, based on the evidence from an existing project behind their home. [Also see: search for “health” and “noise” in news items at National Wind Watch tagged “victories”]

In the tables below, only the last columns (“comments”) have been added to the originals.

Australia

Case	Project	Location	Year	Type	Decision	comments
Cherry Tree Farm Pty Ltd. v. Mitchell Shire Council	Cherry Tree	Victoria	2013	Civil	In favor of developer	[bad link in original] permit application (allowed, with conditions, including noise limits) – “The Tribunal has no doubt that some people who live close to a wind turbine experience adverse health effects … there is not sufficient evidence to establish that the proportion of the population residing in proximity to a wind farm which experiences adverse health effects is large enough to warrant refusal of a land use that is positively encouraged by planning policy. … This view is strengthened when the proximity is required to be no less than 2 kilometres.” [emphasis added]
Paltridge and Ors v. District Council of Grant and Anor	Allendale East	South Australia	2011	Environment	Against developer (visual amenity)	appeal of planning consent (upheld)
Cherry Tree Farm Pty Ltd v. Mitchell Shire Council	Cherry Tree	Victoria	2013	Civil	In favor of developer	[bad link in original; apparently duplicate entry of Cherry Tree Farm Pty Ltd. v. Mitchell Shire Council (2013), above]
Quinn & Ors v. Regional Council of Goyder & Anor	Hallett	South Australia	2010	Environment	In favor of developer	appeal of planning consent – ‘[T]he framers of the Development Plan must have known that, even in a sparsely populated rural area such as the locality of the proposed wind farm, there will be residents who will be able to hear the turbines, and a small percentage of those residents are likely to be annoyed.’ (ie, tough)
King & Anor v. Minister for Planning; Parkesbourne-Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc v. Minister for Planning; Gullen Range Wind Farm Pty Limited v. Minister for Planning	Gullen Range	New South Wales	2010	Environment	In favor of developer	3 appeals of project approval, none regarding health
The Sisters Wind Farm Pty Ltd v. Moyne SC	Sisters Wind Farm	Victoria	2010	Civil	Against developer (exceeds updated noise standards)	appeal of permit refusal (dismissed) – ‘It is our view that actual adverse health effects aside from the annoyance aspects of noise impact remain unproven. We do however accept that certain individuals have a much higher sensitivity to noise than others, but the impact of noise from the turbines, which is a fluctuating rather than a steady noise, does cause significant distress even at a low noise level.’
Acciona Energy Oceania Pty Ltd v. Corangamite SC	Newfield	Victoria	2008	Civil	In favor of developer	appeal of permit refusal (upheld) – ‘There is no evidence of health impacts that persuades us that rejection of the permit application is warranted given the proposal’s compliance with the applicable standards. [emphasis added] If there are significant issues arising then there needs to be some independent assessment and documentation leading, if required, to variations in the standards applied in Victoria.’
Perry v. Hepburn SC	Hepburn Wind	Victoria	2007	Civil	In favor of developer	appeal of permit approval (dismissed) – ‘There is no evidence of health impacts that persuades us that rejection of the permit application is warranted given the proposal’s compliance with the applicable standards.’ [emphasis added]
Synergy Wind Pty Ltd v. Wellington SC	Yarram	Victoria	2007	Civil	In favor of developer	appeal of permit refusal (dismissed), health concerns raised only in reference to shadow flicker
Thackeray v. Shire of South Gippsland	Toora	Victoria	2001	Civil	In favor of developer	appeal of permit approval (dismissed), health concerns not raised
Hislop & Ors v. Glenelg SC	Cape Bridgewater	Victoria	1998	Civil	In favor of developer	permit application (approved), health concerns not raised

Canada

Case	Project	Location	Year	Type	Decision	comments
Fata v. Director, Ministry of the Environment	Bow Lake	Ontario	2014	Environment	In favor of developer	appeals of project approval (dismissed) – ‘Tribunals are creatures of statute.’
13-124 Kroeplin v. MOE	Armow	Ontario	2014	Environment	In favor of developer	[bad link in original] appeals of project approval (dismissed)
13-096 Platinum Produce Company v. MOE	South Kent	Ontario	2014	Environment	In favor of developer	appeal of project approval (dismissed)
Drennan v. Director, Ministry of the Environment	K2 Wind Huron County	Ontario	2014	Environment	In favor of developer	appeals of project approval (dismissed)
Ostrander Point GP Inc. and another v. Prince Edward County Field Naturalists and another	Ostrander Point	Ontario	2014	Higher	In favor of developer	[bad link in original] appeal of revocation of project approval (upheld), appeal of dismissal of appeal regarding harm to birds and alvar (dismissed), and appeal of dismissal of appeal regarding harm to human health (dismissed)
1646658 Alberta Ltd., Bull Creek Wind Project	Bull Creek	Alberta	2014	Utility	In favor of developer	[bad link in original] application for project approval (approved)
Wrightman v. Director, Ministry of the Environment	Adelaide	Ontario	2014	Environment	In favor of developer	appeals of project approval (dismissed)
Bain v. Director, Ministry of the Environment	Ernestown Wind Farm	Ontario	2014	Environment	In favor of developer	[no link in original] appeals of project approval (dismissed)
Bovaird v. Director, Ministry of the Environment	Melancthon Extension	Ontario	2013	Environment	In favor of developer	appeal of project approval (dismissed)
Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County v. Director, Ministry of the Environment	Ostrander Point	Ontario	2013	Environment	Against developer due to endangered turtle	appeals of project approval (dismissed regarding human health; allowed regarding plant life, animal life or natural environment) – overturned in Ostrander Point GP Inc. and another v. Prince Edward County Field Naturalists and another (2014), above
Monture v. Director, Ministry of the Environment	Haldimand Summerhaven project	Ontario	2012	Environment	In favor of developer	appeals of project approval (dismissed)
Monture v. Director, Ministry of the Environment (Monture 2)	Haldimand Grand Renewable Wind	Ontario	2012	Environment	In favor of developer	appeals of project approval (dismissed)
Chatham-Kent Wind Action Inc. v. Director, Ministry of the Environment	South Kent	Ontario	2012	Environment	In favor of developer	appeal of project approval (dismissed)
Heritage Wind Farm Development Inc., Decision on Preliminary Question, Decision 2011-239	Heritage Wind Farm	Alberta	2012	Utility	Against developer	application for variance of approval condition to shut down turbines at night (dismissed)
Erickson v. Director, Ministry of the Environment	Chatham Kent Suncor	Ontario	2011	Environment	In favor of developer	appeals of project approval (dismissed) – ‘While the Appellants were not successful in their appeals, the Tribunal notes that their involvement and that of the Respondents, has served to advance the state of the debate about wind turbines and human health. This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree. The question that should be asked is: What protections, such as permissible noise levels or setback distances, are appropriate to protect human health? … Just because the Appellants have not succeeded in their appeals, that is no excuse to close the book on further research. On the contrary, further research should help resolve some of the significant questions that the Appellants have raised.’
Hanna v. Ontario (Attorney General)	Wind farm enabling legislation	Ontario	2011	Higher	In favor of industry	challenge of provincial setback requirements (dismissed) – ‘[U]nder s. 11 of the EBR, the minister must take every reasonable step to consider all ten principles, a process which involves a policy-laden weighing and balancing of competing principles. … The health concerns for persons living in proximity to wind turbines cannot be denigrated, but they do not trump all other considerations. … It is not the court's function to question the wisdom of the minister's decision, or even whether it was reasonable. If the minister followed the process mandated by s. 11 of the EBR, his decision is unassailable on a judicial review application.’
McKinnon v. RMs Martin and Moosomin, Red Lily Wind	Red Lily	Saskatchewan	2010	Civil	In favor of developer	motion for injunction (dismissed)

New Zealand

Case	Project	Location	Year	Type	Decision	comments
New Zealand Wind Farms Limited v. Palmerston North City Council	Te Rere Hau	Palmerston North	2013	Higher	In favor of developer	[link same as Palmerston North City Council v. New Zealand Windfarms Limited (2012), below]
Meridian Energy Limited v. Hurunui Bistrict and Canterbury Regional Councils	Hurunui	North Canterbury	2013	Environment	In favor of developer	application for project consent (granted)
Palmerston North City Council v. New Zealand Windfarms Limited	Te Rere Hau	New Zealand	2012	Environment	Against developer	challenge of noise compliance (granted) – update, Dec. 2017
Mainpower NZ Limited v. Hurunui District Council	Mt. Cass	Canterbury	2011	Environment	In favor of developer	appeal of consent refusal (upheld) – ‘we accept that there can be no guarantee of absolute protection for the health and wellbeing of their child [with autism]’ (only health concern raised)
Rangitikei Guardians Society Inc v. Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council	Project Central Wind	Taihape	2010	Environment	In favor of developer	[no link in original] appeal of project consent (dismissed)

United Kingdom

Case	Project	Location	Year	Type	Decision	comments
South Northamptonshire Council & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor	Spring Farm Ridge	Northamptonshire	2013	Higher	Against developer	appeal of upheld appeal of planning refusal (upheld), health concerns not raised
Hulme v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor	Den Brook	Devon	2011	Higher	In favor of developer	appeal of conditions of redetermined planning approval (upheld appeal of dismissed appeal of upheld appeal of planning refusal (dismissed) – upheld amplitude modulation noise condition, health concerns not raised
Barnes & Anor v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government	Crosslands Farm	Cumbria	2010	Higher	In favor of developer	appeal of upheld appeal of planning refusal (rejected), health concerns not raised
Tegni Cymru Cyf v. The Welsh Ministers & Anor	Gorsedd Bran	Denbighshire	2010	Higher	In favor of developer	appeal of rejected appeal of planning refusal (upheld), health concerns not raised
Hulme, R (on the application of) v. Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government	Den Brook	Devon	2010	Higher	In favor of developer	[hearing of Hulme v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor (2011), above]
Tegni Cymru Cyf v. The Welsh Ministers & Anor	Gorsedd Bran	Denbighshire	2010	Higher	Against developer	appeal of Tegni Cymru Cyf v. The Welsh Ministers & Anor (2010), above, health concerns not raised
The Friends of Hethel Ltd, R (on the application of) v. Ecotricity	Lotus Cars	Norfolk	2009	Higher	In favor of developer	appeal of planning permission, health concerns not raised
North Devon District Council, R (on the application of) v. Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform & Anor	Fullabrook Down	Devon	2008	Higher	In favor of developer	appeal and application for judicial review of planning permission (appeal dismissed, permission to apply for judicial review granted), health concerns not raised
CRE Energy Ltd Re: A Decision Of The Scottish Ministers [2006] ScotCS CSOH_131 (29 August 2006)	Borrowston	Scotland	2006	Higher	Against developer	appeal of planning refusal, health concerns not raised

United States

Case	Project	Location	Year	Type	Decision	comments
Town of Falmouth v. Town of Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals & others	Falmouth	Massachusetts	2013	Higher	Against developer	motion for injunction (allowed) – turbines off 7pm-7am Mon-Sat, Sun, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's – update: complete shutdown ordered in June 2017
Lawrence J. Frigault et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Town of Richfield Planning Board et al., Apellants-Respondents, et al., Respondent.	Monticello Winds	New York	2013	Higher	In favor of developer	appeal of upheld appeal of permit approval (upheld), health concerns not raised
The Blue Mountain Alliance; Norm Kralman; Richard Jolly; Dave Price; Robin Severe; and Cindy Severe, Petitioners, v. Energy Facility Siting Council; and Site Certificate Holder Helix Windpower Facility, LLC. Respondents.	Helix Wind Power Facility	Oregon	2013	Higher	In favor of developer	appeal of certificate approval ignoring country setback ordinance, health concerns not specifically raised
Friends of Maine Mountains v. Board of Environmental Protection	Saddleback Ridge	Maine	2012	Higher	Against developer	appeal of permit approval (upheld) – ‘Because the Board is responsible for regulating sound levels in order to minimize health impacts—and because when doing so it determined that the appropriate nighttime sound level limit to minimize health impacts is 42 dBA—the Board abused its discretion by approving Saddleback's permit applications.’
Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury et al. v. Board of Environmental Protection et al.	Record Hill	Maine	2011	Higher	In favor of developer	appeal of permit approval (dismissed)
Application of Buckeye Wind, LLC., for a Certificate to Construct Wind–Powered Electric Generation Facilities in Champaign County, Ohio; Union Neighbors United et al., Appellants; Power Siting Board et al., Appellees	Champaign County	Ohio	2010	Higher	In favor of developer	appeal of project approval (dismissed), health concerns not raised – ‘the board acted in accordance with all pertinent statutes and regulations’
Arthur and Elke Plaxton, Appellants v. Lycoming County Zoning Hearing Board and Laurel Hill Wind Energy, LLC.	Laurel Ridge	Pennsylvania	2009	Higher	In favor of developer	challenge of county zoning amendments (dismissed), health concerns not specifically raised
Roberts v. Manitowoc County Board of Adjustment	Twin Creeks Wind Park	Wisconsin	2006	Higher	In favor of developer	appeal of permit approval (dismissed), health concerns not specifically raised

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, human rights