Written by Jonathan Haughton, Douglas Giuffre and John Barrett, this report addresses the prospective impact on the Cape Cod economy of 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound. The study includes the responses of tourists and residents to the aesthetics of the proposed project as well as the result of a survey among tourists on the degree to which the project would influence their desire to visit the area. The authors conclude that 'caution' is in order. A follow-up study entitled "Free but Costly" An Economic Analysis of a Wind Farm in Nantucket Sound" was published in March 2004.

This is the study by Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) that is often pointed to by wind developers as evidence that industrial wind turbines do not adversely impact property values. Its methodology has been widely discredited. Hoen's critique is of particular interest and is included below. Hoen's own study of Fenner is available via the link provided at the end of Hoen's comments.

Study Objectives

Primary Analysis Questions:

1) Determine effect of wind turbines on residential property values

2) Determine economic impacts to local economy

3) Estimate new tax revenues for Kittitas County from proposed wind farm.

This study along with the REPP study are the two most often cited by wind developers to support their claim that industrial windplants do not adversely affect property values.

ECO-Northwest’s 1-month, $15,000 study, sponsored by the local business lobby organization, the Phoenix Group, has been met with deep skepticism in the Kittitas Valley. Regardless of how people feel about wind farms in this valley, most people recognize this report as simply a blatant endorsement of proposed local wind energy projects, bought and paid for by those behind these projects. A local newspaper story about ECO Northwest’s report titled “Are Wind Farm Benefits Full of Hot Air?” (The Yakima Herald-Republic, 10/2102) reflects this public skepticism about the impartiality of this study.

The report makes the incredible claim that property values will not be affected and the unsubstantiated claim that the county will receive millions of dollars in increased revenue. Although the wind energy companies state that they will hire only 22 people, the report manages to inflate this to 53 jobs and claims that these people will somehow result in an additional $4.2m being spent within the county.

ECO Northwest’s report also neglects to consider the effect of major wind farms on tourism, one of the most important factors in the local economy. It does not consider alternative locations for such projects, or alternative forms of renewable energy in Kittitas County, or whether the county will benefit from the power generated. Nor does it consider that the proposed location for these wind farms is an area that the city of Ellensburg will need for future expansion of its population, an area that will be closed off for housing if wind farms are built there.

The Tennessee Valley Authority proposes to construct and operate a wind farm in Tennessee. TVA also proposes to construct and operate a Regenesys™ Energy Storage facility near the selected wind farm site. The wind farm would demonstrate a technology for generating electric power with minimal environmental pollution to be marketed through TVA’s Green Power Switch® program and would consist of 13 to 16 wind turbines. The Regenesys facility would demonstrate an effective technology for storing the energy generated by the wind farm and releasing it at times of high energy demand.

This final environmental assessment examines the potential effects of building on Buffalo Mountain in Anderson County (Alternative 1), building on Stone Mountain in Johnson County (Alternative 2), or not building a 20 MW wind farm and associated energy storage facility (Alternative 3).

Appendix F: The Impact of Views on Property Values

"Widely varying opinions have been expressed about the potential impact of windfarms on the value of nearby property. For example, the proposed (now cancelled) Addison Wind Farm in Wisconsin became controversial, in part, over allegations about property values. Opponents argued that property values would depreciate significantly if the wind farm were built (Don Behm, 2001). On the other hand, RENEWWisconsin quoted several persons representing the real estate industry in other places in Wisconsin and Iowa where wind projects had been built, saying that such projects had no impact on property values (RENEWWisconsin, 2000)....

"After the wind turbines went online in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin, the Lincoln Township Board of Supervisors approved a moratorium on new turbine construction. The purpose of the moratorium was to delay new construction of wind turbines for eighteen months, giving the township the opportunity to assess the impacts of the 22 turbines installed by Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) and Madison Gas and Electric (MG&E), which went online in June 1999.

The following document summarizes some of the problems the Moratorium Committee faced in trying to address problems the township hadn't faced prior to turbine construction and some of the resulting changes the committee proposed as a result of its study. Verification of this information can be obtained from Lincoln Township officials.

Agenda. The Moratorium Committee met 39 times between January 17, 2000, and January 20, 2002, to (1) study the impact of wind factories on land, (2) study the impact on residents, and (3) review conditional use permits used to build two existing wind factories in Lincoln Township.

Survey. The committee conducted a survey on the perceived impacts of the wind turbines that was sent out to all property owners residing in the township. Each household received one vote. The results were presented on July 2, 2001, to the town board, two years after the wind factory construction.

This property value assurance plan was offerred by Canastota Wind Power LLC to certain landowners in the immediate vicinity of the Fenner Wind Farm.

Editor's Note: As the quality of the attached pdf file is poor, herewith a 'best efforts' re-typing of it.

I am sure FPL Energy and Foley & Lardner will malign this evidence just as they have maligned everything else we have ever said or done. Let them bring on the proof that can convince you that our property values and indeed the tax base of the entire town will not decline if this project were to be built. If FPL Energy and its advocates cannot prove this important fact—then I believe the Plan Commission has a duty to protect all of us, our investments in our homes and property, the Town’s tax base and our future by DENYING FPL Energy’s request for a Conditional Use Permit.

Written in 2000 by the Country Guardian, the UK's leading 'action group', this report addresses comprehensively wind issues in the UK. As one of the first papers of its kind, it is generally viewed as a 'classic' and 'required reading' for those interested in becoming thoroughly familiar with the diverse impacts of industrial wind.

"The main idea of wind power is to produce electricity without air pollution and without using exhaustible natural resources. However, wind power involves certain costs. These costs are among other things due to the fact that windmills stand as a foreign element in the open landscape. Some people are of the opinion that windmills in an open landscape impinge on the recreative element of the landscape. In addition to this, windmills give off noise that, depending on the wind direction and distance from the windmill, can be a nuisance for those living in the vicinity.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate how great the costs are from the visual effect and noise of the windmills. In order to make it possible to compare these costs with other costs and gains in relation to windmills, these costs are reckoned in cash terms. This has been done partly on the basis of the willingness to pay for getting rid of the windmills of people living in the vicinity (the interview method or contingent valuation), and partly using a survey of house prices in the vicinity of the windmills (the house price method or hedonic pricing) as a starting point."

The town supervisor talks of how the record shows, where there is municipal water service, the building of homes will follow. What he fails to mention is that where there is the possibility of an industrial wind park that the "for sale" signs start to show up in the area as one can plainly see when driving through the village of Cape Vincent, including the one on Mr. Rienbeck's house which has been for sale for well over a year.

My house and land is in Prattsburgh, across from turbine sites for the Ecogen wind project, and my wife owns adjacent property in Naples, Ontario County. I've heard some people say "what's happening in the hills with the wind turbines won't affect me." What these folks may not yet realize is that, if these turbines are allowed to damage the value of adjacent properties, their taxes will go up. And the first step in this one-two process has just started.

The state of Massachusetts through the Green Communities Act is about to set standards for responsible development of land-based commercial wind turbines. The current standards for setbacks are the least protective in the world. Many of the communities south of Boston have seen concerned citizens' groups spring up in protest of the placement of commercial wind turbines too close to residential property.

Property values must ultimately be determined through professional appraisals and, if necessary, appeals. Meanwhile to confirm the obvious, ask a prospective buyer if they would still be interested in purchasing your home after learning that wind turbines will be constructed within the view shed of your property. Wyoming County landowners who are planning to "escape" the future onslaught of wind farms must be advised that the marketing of potentially encumbered property requires full disclosure ...Do not sacrifice your quality of life and that of your children as well as your most important financial investment by remaining passive and silent.

A landmark court ruling has ordered that Jane Davis be given a discount on her council tax because her £170,000 home has been rendered worthless by a wind turbine 1,000 yards away. This is effectively an official admission that wind farms, which are accused of 'spoiling countryside views and producing a deafening roar', have a negative effect on house prices. ...One of these impacts is of course safety. In June this year a 16-foot wind turbine blade smashed through a farmhouse roof in Northern Ireland as the farmer and his family slept inside.

Whether the reports of health hazards are true or not is almost irrelevant. Just the fact that many people are truly concerned about the potential health effects of living near a wind farm, or the electromagnetic radiation from high voltage electrical wires, is reason enough to try to avoid buying a property that is close to power lines. It's a simple law of economics: As demand for a product goes down, so does its price. When you have a certain number of people avoiding a certain property, for whatever reason, the price of that property will be negatively affected.

As a veteran of the wind turbine war over East Hill in Cherry Valley, I have advice for residents of Fulton and Richmondville.

Given two identical houses at the same price, one with wind turbines on the horizon, which would you buy? No prizes for guessing that the twirling monsters would be a deterrent. But the British Wind Energy Association dismisses this as a "myth about windfarms - their impact on house prices". It is hardly surprising that a trade organisation uses "spin" to sell its windmills, but I wonder how it will react to the news in Denmark's Copenhagen Post (July 30) that its government is drafting a proposal suggesting that "homeowners living in the shadow of the 150-metre giants be compensated for lost property value where values have been brought down by the presence of nearby wind turbines".

There is a person near here who has had most everything done to his house to try to keep the noise out. The power company, from what I understand, is paying for trying to keep the noise out in his home. Nothing has worked. He still has the constant noise in his home. Unfortunately, the tower is on the neighbor's land. He is just going to have to put up with it. I had two couples come out looking at lots and both of them wanted front lots or lots at the top of the hill. When the women got here and looked around, they looked at the view to the north and to the south. No way, they said. We are not going to look at those towers the rest of our lives and both couples left. One of the couples bought 40 acres. The other couple would not buy around the wind charger area.