Because time seems to be running out on fossil fuels and the lure of non-polluting windpower is so seductive, some people are now promoting windpower initiatives at any cost, without investigating potential negative consequences-- and with no apparent knowledge of even recent environmental history......Throughout my experience, I could not substantiate a single claim developers made for industrial wind energy, including the one justifying its existence: that massive wind installations would meaningfully reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. When you understand this, you realize the wind business is not really that complex. But there are a lot of complicated issues swirling around it that obscure and distract from this main point, issues such as global warming, property values, the nature of wind leases, local revenues and taxes, wildlife, natural views, and a host of others. So how does one know the truth of it all? How does one go about separating the reality from spin?

Project Report Submitted to the Faculty of the Bard Center for Environmental Policy..in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Policy

Editor's Note: There are two recurring themes in this study: (1) the results are applicable only to Fenner and (2) much more research is needed.

What is clearly missing is a ‘sense of place’, a variable acknowledged by the author as important but left unaddressed. What we’re told is that Fenner is a ‘rural farming community’. We have no sense of what drives residents/prospective residents to live in (or, for that matter, to leave) Fenner. We have no sense of ‘public attitudes’, another variable the author clearly ties to property values but leaves unaddressed. What is noticeably missing are house sales within 0.75 miles of the wind plant, i.e. those that would presumably be most impacted by noise and shadow flicker.

In the absence of more authoritative studies, we know from press reports associated with wind plants and wind plant applications that ‘opposition’ appears to be lowest in ‘farming’ communities in which farmers view the turbines as a ‘cash crop’ and local municipalities covet the related taxes. We also know from these sources that opposition is greatest in communities that have something to ‘protect’, i.e. treasured/scenic natural assets (ridgelines, shorelines, unique/sensitive habitats), tourist/second home based economies and/or wildlife. Where these are issues, it is hardly a ‘leap of faith’ to surmise that property values will fare comparatively worse than in communities where these issues don’t exist and that properties specifically impacted by the turbines (view/noise/shadow flicker, etc) will fare the worst. As the author readily concedes, ‘public attitudes’ is an important determinant of property values and the opposition within these communities often reflects the prevailing public attitude towards wind turbines. After all, LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION is what real estate is all about.

Lastly, Hoen offers a useful critique (available below) of the REPP report that is often pointed to by wind turbine developers as evidence that wind plants do not adversely affect property values.

Compliments of Andrew Chapman, the attached pdf files contain extensive documentation particularly with respect to the impact of wind turbines on wildlife as part of an ongoing effort to prevent the construction of the Bald Hills Wind Farm, South Gippsland, Victoria. While it has been approved by the Victorian State Government the presence in the Bald Hills area of migratory species of national and international significance that are protected by treaties with Japan and China in the Bald Hills has placed the final decision in the hands of the Federal Government. This decision is pending.

Tom Hewson takes a very comprehensive look at the development issues associated with the proposed Baileyville Wind Farm in Illinois.

When considering local bylaws regulating wind turbine development, towns need to consider whether and to what degree they should be encouraged. The question of how much revenue they might generate for the town will be among the first issues raised. To determine this, there are many things a town with land suitable for commercial wind development needs to consider. Particular attention needs to be paid to long-term trends as well. This paper explores some of these factors and their implications.

Jon Boone is a intervenor in a Maryland Public Service Commission windpower case (No. 9008). On September 16, 2005, he formally submitted his direct testimony in this case. His testimony and attachments cover the gamut of issues surrounding the wind industry.

Jon Boone's response, published in The Caledonian Record in August 2005, to those who challenged the authenticity of his DVD "Life Under a Windplant".

"Is the 'jury' still out on the impact of WTGs on property value? Yes, though there does appear to be several indications that a loss in value to neighboring properties is a real possibility."

Q. Even considering all of those factors or weaknesses, what is your conclusion regarding the impact on residential property values from the proposed project?

A. Under certain circumstances as described in my report, the negative impact may be similar. Also, in significant view loss situations, as described in my report, I would conclude that, within a reasonable degree of professional certainty, land values may be negatively impacted 17% - 20%.

Editor's Note: Mr. Zarem argues that the appropriate methodology for estimating the 'view' impact of industrial wind turbines on property values is 'paired data analysis'- defined in the The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal as: “A quantitative technique used to identify and measure adjustments to the sale prices or rents of comparable properties; to apply this technique, sales or rental data on nearly identical properties are analyzed to isolate a single characteristic’s effect on value or rent.” In the absence of relevant view/turbine data, he derived an alternative paired data analysis for determining view impacts on property values due to wind turbines from Transmission Line view impacts on the prices of single-family residential lots in subdivisions...as...sufficient paired data isolating the effects of view loss due to Transmission Lines exist in the marketplace to reach reasonable conclusions as to market tendencies. This data isolates impacts due to view loss associated with Transmission Lines.

BBC Research & Consulting's 2005 report for the National Wind Coordinating Committee that studies 9 wind plant sitings in an effort to identify circumstances that distinguish welcomed projects from projects that were not accepted by communities.

The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University has studied the Cape Wind proposal in considerable detail, and offers the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Reference file no. NAE-2004-338-

1. A systematic cost-benefit analysis – missing from the DEIS – shows that, with 90% confidence, the costs of the project outweigh the benefits by between $83 million and $333 million, with a mean measure of net cost of $209 million (equivalent to 2.0 cents/kWh produced). This breaks down as: a. Cost of 9.06 cents/kWh (close to the DEIS estimate of 9.00 cents) b. Benefit of 7.06 cents/kWh, of which the savings are: fuel (4.95), capital and operating costs, (0.98), improvements in public health (1.02) and greater energy independence (0.10). The project is of interest to a private developer only because of subsidies of 4.04 cents/kWh, via accelerated depreciation allowances, Massachusetts “green credits,” and a possible Federal Production Tax Credit.

2. The DEIS conclusion of “no adverse impacts to tourism and recreation” is not supported by the data. a. The only tourism study considered in the DEIS, from Scotland, used a biased sample and does not report the most relevant results (i.e. how many would be deterred, or attracted, by the windmills). b. A Beacon Hill Institute survey of 497 randomly-selected tourists, undertaken in the relevant Cape Cod towns in summer of 2003, found that 5% would visit the Cape less, and 1% would visit more if the windmills were built. Using spending information, and an estimate of the number attracted to the Cape, the BHI study found a net loss in spending on the Cape of at least $57 million annually.

3. The DEIS conclusion that the project would not adversely affect property values is based on a flawed study, ignores other research, and is untenable. a. The DEIS discussion relies primarily on a study by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (whose goal is to “accelerate the use of renewable energy”) in 2003. Its conclusion that wind farms elsewhere in the United States did not harm property values relies on the use of an inappropriate counterfactual, and is largely based on much smaller projects. b. Even if wind farms are associated with higher property values, this is likely attributable to increased tax payments and royalties to local communities and owners – which makes them not comparable to the Cape Wind case (no royalties, minor local tax payments).

4. The DEIS estimates of the value of health improvements are greatly exaggerated (at $53 million annually). Our own estimates show health improvements of $7 million, and even this may be overstated. a. The DEIS assumes that the Cape Wind project would offset the dirtiest power plants in Massachusetts. This is incorrect, and it would be more appropriate to use the marginal emissions numbers from ISO-New England, which show avoided emissions that are one fifth as high for NOx and one seventh as high for SO2. b. The DEIS uses outdated emissions data (from 2000 rather than 2002). c. Even the $7 million may overstate the health benefits. BHI assumed that all of the output of the Cape Wind project would offset fossil fuel generation and its associated air pollution. However, it has been argued, convincingly, that the caps imposed by law and regulation on SO2 emissions would continue to be binding, and so the wind farm output would not lead to a reduction in SO2 emissions overall.

The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University has studied the Cape Wind proposal in considerable detail, and offers the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Reference file no. NAE-2004-338-1:

1. A systematic cost-benefit analysis – missing from the DEIS – shows that, with 90% confidence, the costs of the project outweigh the benefits by between $83 million and $333 million, with a mean measure of net cost of $209 million (equivalent to 2.0 cents/kWh produced).

2. The DEIS conclusion of “no adverse impacts to tourism and recreation” is not supported by the data.

3. The DEIS conclusion that the project would not adversely affect property values is based on a flawed study, ignores other research, and is untenable.

4. The DEIS estimates of the value of health improvements are greatly exaggerated (at $53 million annually). Our own estimates show health improvements of $7 million, and even this may be overstated.

It is noteworthy that this study does not answer the basic question of how wind turbines affect property values. George Sterzinger, executive director of REPP, admitted as much in response to critics who stressed that the study contains no proof that wind farms were the reason for the changes in property values: “ We have no idea”…noting REPP did not have enough time or money to answer that question. (Cape Cod Times 6/20/03).

Written by Douglas Giuffre, Jonathan Haughton, David Tuerck and John Barrett, this report analyses in economic terms the costs and benefits of a proposed 130 turbine wind plant in Nantucket Sound. It concludes that the economic costs substantially exceed the associated economic gains. This is a follow-up study to one published by Beacon Hill in October 2003 entitled "Blowing in the Wind: Offshore Wind and the Cape Cod Economy"

Researched and written by Eleanor Tillinghast of Green Berkshires Inc. this is a comprehensive study of the probable impact of industrial wind plants on the rural character, quality-of-life and economy of the Berkshires in western Massachusetts. Specific issues addressed include visual aesthetics, tourism, property values, public roads and public safety.

I have reviewed Beacon Hill’s two reports, i.e. 'Free But Costly: An Economic Analysis of A Wind Farm in Nantucket Sound" (March 2004) and ‘Blowing in the Wind' (October 2003) which focused primarily on tourism and property values. The complete reports are available from www.beaconhill.org. The following consists of two parts. Part I addresses some key findings as well as some thoughts on methodology. Part II focuses on what may or may not be applicable to Glebe.

Q. In your experience, do adjacent land uses affect property values?

A. Yes. It's been my experience property values are directly affected by neighboring land uses. For example, property uses that create noise, light, glare, and other such nuisances often negatively affect property values.

Executive Summary

-60% of the sample suggested that wind farms decrease the value of residential properties where the development is within view

-67% of the sample indicated that the negative impact on property prices starts when a planning application to erect a wind farm is made

-The main factors cited for the negative impact on property values are:

o visual impact of wind farm after completion

o fear of blight

o the proximity of a property to a wind farm

-Once a wind farm is completed, the negative impact on property values continues but becomes less severe after two years or so after completion

.....

-The survey suggests that wind farms do not impact on residential property values in a uniform way. The circumstances of each development can be different

-This report points to a need for further research to track the impact of wind farms and to examine in particular whether the nature of any adverse impact diminishes as wind farms become an increasingly familiar part of the rural scene.

This letter, written by Tom Hewson, responds to a New York State resident who had inquired about the impact of industrial wind turbines on property values. The letter specifically critiques the REPP study. It provides as well an overview of other studies that existed as of Fall 2003.

"The issue simply comes down to nuisance and aesthetics. If the project creates a nuisance (noise, shadow flicker, TV/cell phone interference, radar interference), it can cause lower property values to adversely affected areas. People can simply apply their own personal evaluation criteria to determine the extent of the property change. What would it be worth to you? Generally, the bigger the nuisance, the larger the devaluation. Localities can minimize nuisances from wind projects by setting minimum setbacks, proper location siting and noise limits. My concern with the REPP study is that it doesn't try to examine the nuisance effect by selecting a large 5 mile area."