A Texas company is proposing to develop a Wind Farm Enery Project in Newport, NC. This wind farm may consist of 50 windmills each which will be 450 feet tall. The NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is reported to be bending over backwards for this wind developer in supporting the project. Even to the extent of having the first meeting that DENR refused to classify as a planning or scoping meeting (so what was it) in Wilmington, NC (not in Newport where most people affected are). It is also not clear where our local NC House member, Representative Pat McElraft, stands on the Newport Wind Project. Some have expressed concern that because of her close relationship to House Speaker Thom Tillis who killed a key bill (H298) in the last session, Representative McElraft may be turning a blind-eye to the Newport Wind Project and the residents of Carteret County. We hope that is bunk!
Some Newport Town officials are reported to have attended the Wilmington meeting held by DENR. Someone reported they were dismayed at DENR’s support of the wind development company to the detriment to the Town of Newport and citizens of Carteret County. The Town of Newport plans to hold a meeting soon to discuss the project. As details emerge, we will keep you advised. The Town of Newport is also developing a local ordinance for projects such as this wind farm project that will need your review and input. Some have suggested that the Carteret County Commissioners via the County Planning Board need to develop strict standards for the county for these projects.
Below are some emails that have been circulated if you want to dig into the details of the project and the history a bit more.
*************************************************************************************************************************************
Yesterday (11/5/13: in Wilmington) was the first “official” state meeting regarding the proposed Newport wind project.
The new state “Wind Permitting” law,
H484, sets up DENR as being the lead state agency. What’s surprising is that this meeting is
not part of the H484 procedure.
DENR called together state and federal agencies, and major stakeholders, to hear what was essentially a sales pitch by the developer. Since H484 already gives the developer multiple opportunities to make his case (e.g. even with a “pre-application” meeting), it is puzzling why this was necessary, or advisable.
We continue to hope that (in regard to industrial wind energy), DENR will be the NC state agency that is an unabashed full-time advocate:
— to aggressively represent the rights of NC citizens (especially those proximate to industrial development),
— to protect the interests of NC military bases (since they are unable to defend themselves), and
— to fully safeguard the NC environment.
——————————————————————————————————
I continue to be encouraged that the Town of Newport will pass a quality citizen-oriented wind ordinance. (I’m also optimistic that Carteret County will upgrade their existing wind law, to be consistent with what Newport does.)
The challenge for any local jurisdiction is that there are some forty (40) negative impacts that may result from industrial wind energy! Since I was asked by the Town for my input on this highly technical matter, I put together a package for them to consider.
My recommendation was that their law focus on doing a good job with the four most important elements of the 40±, and I gave them sample words for each:
1) Property Value Guarantee,
2) Turbine Setbacks,
3) Acoustical Terms & Conditions, and
4) Environmental Protections.
An additional provision that I strongly encouraged them to add, was an Escrow Account. This developer funded account would provide the money for all town incurred expenses from application through decommissioning. This is extremely critical.
Since other NC & US communities have asked for the same help, I decided to put this material together in a generic way, that could benefit communities throughout the country. I’ll include you on the national email later this week that spells out the specifics for each of these matters identified above.
If the Newport law properly incorporates all of these elements, it will provide significant additional protections for their citizens, the environment — and the base at Cherry Point. We are hoping that the County will do the same.
Let me know any questions.
regards,
john droz, jr.
Morehead City, NC
[If there are others who you think would benefit from being on the Newport wind list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off the list, please let me know that too. You can selectively pass this on to others interested in promoting citizen rights, but this is not for publication without my written approval.]
***************************************************************************************************************************************
John,
You may know that Lt. Governor Dan Forest was in Swansboro on Monday for a Townhall meeting. I attended, as did about 75 other people including NC Senators Harry Brown and Bill Cook, and Representative George Cleveland. I commented about SB 3 and noted that House leadership had sent HB 298 into the black hole of several committees. George Cleveland at Forest’s request responded to my comments.
George stated that House leadership had indeed killed the bill 298 he and others had sponsored. He further stated that DENR was within their rights to hold the recent meeting in Wilmington although he told DENR that it made the whole process smell bad.
George further stated that Newport must pass strong requirements in their ordinance to combat the Newport Wind Project. He told me afterwards he had heard that the requirements being considered by the Town were rather weak. They need to get tougher. I think Geoge is willing to help in this regard. We also need to get Senator Sanderson and Representative McElraft engaged. Have you discuss this with either of them?
You have not mentioned who the wind developer is in your correspondence. I also think there must be someone in Newport who is supporting this insanity because they stand to make a buck. Who are these people?
Let me know what I can do to help.
Ken
***************************************************************************************************************************************
To: Pat Gorman….Newport Town Planning Board Member
The picture is getting clearer on this project. John Droz, Jr. called today (physicist) and made the following points:
1. SB 3 (from Perdue’s administration) started this stuff to allow wind energy projects.
2. The Republicans did not overturn SB 3 in this last session. They came up with HB 298 to overturn Perdue’s laws.
3. Mike Hager with support from George Cleveland sponsored HB 298.
4. We would not be having this converstation today on wind energy in Newport if HB 298 had passed. Due to Republican infighting the bill failed.
5. Thom Tillis is the one who actually killed the bill in the House….he didn’t want it. He assigned this bill to 4 different hearings (the bill got derailed in the 3rd
hearing).
6. A Blue Ribbon Energy Group was recommended. There has been no follow-through on this. The Gov. appoints 10-12 for this group which has not been done.
Now about 6 months, nothing done.
7. John Droz met with four representatives from Newport this past week (2 hours) and recommended that the Newport Ordinance include:
A. a statement related to property value protection for those around the proposed project. Usually this statement properly worded (to protect protect values)
will cause a business to back-off from applying…..because it will devalue property close-by.
B. Include a 1 mile Set-Back. The current 1300 ft. plus the addtional 1250 feet for a total of 2550 feet is inadequate. It is not unreasonable to mandate a 1
mile set-back when you are dealing with 500 ft. tall structures and they have 7,000 plus acres to work with (according to the last News Times article). The
current set-back rule is a little less than 1/2 mile, which is inadequate with structures this tall and 50 of them.
C. Noise…..include more recommended by Mr. Droz.
D. Wildlife….he recommended addtional points.
E. Mr. Droz gave this group about 10 studies with research to back up the points.
It is becoming obvious that some Republicans want wind energy and some don’t. Plus Tillis wants all of the votes he can get so he wants anything that threaten that to be placed on the back burner. So Newport needs to be tough on the ordinances….real tough.
Some group needs to sponsor a Community Forum on this and invite John Droz to speak. It needs public exposure —-totally transparent!!!!
He has a 1-1/2 hour movie on a town similar in size to Newport and what happened with them. Then there should be about an hour Q & A session after that. If Newport takes this lightly, there will be 50 turbines whirling in Newport. The Tax Credit angle also needs exposure and how this whole process works—interesting on how the money works.
Melvin Bright
*********************************************************************************************************************
This is the first emailing about the proposed Newport (NC) wind project. At this time over a hundred people have signed up for this list. If there are others who you think would benefit, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off, please let me know that too. (BTW you can selectively pass this on to others interested in promoting citizen rights, but this is not for publication without my written approval.)
I decided it was time to appeal to the DENR Secretary (John Skvarla), before things got too far off the rails. See below for my version of a polite (but pointed) email that I sent him today.
I know John a little and he seems to be trying to do the right thing. Not sure how much he is aware of what is transpiring with Newport’s situation, and don’t know if he is so busy with other issues that he may be prevented from paying much attention.
My email to him (below) will give you a good idea of what my concerns are at this point.
To get a basic understanding of how we got here, please at least peruse the following (the more you read the better you’ll understand):
1 – Senate Bill 3: a 2007 NC law that mandates a certain % of renewables. The real-world consequences of this are:
a) most of this requirement will be met by wind energy (for a variety of reasons), and
b) ALL of that wind energy will be on the coast (onshore or offshore), due to the Ridge Act which protects NC mountains. (There is no comparable law that protects the NC coast.)
2 – Senate Bill 3 is a poor idea for many reasons. Here I explain some of the economic and environmentalproblems.
3 – “Affordable & Reliable Energy Act” (H298): a good 2013 proposal to fix Senate Bill 3. It got put off for political reasons.
4 – “Wind Permitting Bill” (H484): a 2013 NC law which was intended to protect NC military, but it really doesn’t.
5 – The document I sent to legislators about the deficiencies with H484 — which are legion.
Soooo, both Senate Bill 3 and H484 need major surgery.
Until H484 is fixed, the burden will be on towns (and counties) to write a detailed and effective wind law. I’ve sent the Newport people a package of information to do just that, and I’ll show you that in the next list mailing.
If you read my recommended background material here (above), that will give you a good understanding of what is going on in Newport, and my recommendations to the town will make a lot more sense.
Let me know any questions.
physicist & environmental advocate
PS — remember these are 450± foot tall structures in Mill Creek, where the trees are about 75± feet tall.
—————————————————————————————–
I’ve tried mightily not to bother you, but I’m concerned about what is going on with regards to the proposed Newport wind project.
When the “Wind Permitting” bill (H484) was being debated earlier in the year, I informed legislators and DENR people that quite a few things needed to be tightened up, to have this bill do the job it should do — protect NC military bases, citizens, and the environment.
[Here is the document where I outlined all the problematic issues. This was sent to all key DENR people, and legislators.]
Unfortunately, those fixes did not get incorporated.
I was told by several legislators and DENR people that they were happy getting any statewide wind permitting measure passed, so “something was better than nothing.” A low bar to be sure, and that is what we got.
What that means is that it is now in the lap of small towns like Newport to write a technical ordinance to fill in the significant gaps left by H484. That’s not right, and DENR should be bending over backwards to rectify these deficiencies — as much as possible within the law. So far that effort is not evident.
[BTW, I was also personally promised by some DENR people that the department would correct the weaknesses in H484 in the next session. I hope so.]
The biggest reason for anxiety right now, is that Newport is a statewide test case for H484 — so setting proper precedents is extremely important. Here are some of my concerns so far:
1 – From the DENR people I have spoken to I understand that they have been in communication with the developer, and have received some documentation from the developer, starting in July. On the other hand, what I understand from the Town is that have received very little on this project, and what they did get was months later. Although this may be allowable in the porous H484, in my view DENR should be including the Town in ALL correspondence with the developer, materials received from the developer, etc — immediately as they are received. {Yes, I realize that this obvious requirement is not mandated in H484 — but DENR is certainly within its rights to do provide better communication than specified in the law.}
2 – On Tuesday, November 5th, a “Scoping Meeting” is scheduled. In my contrarian view, the developer’s pre-application materials should be sent out to all “Scoping Meeting” attendees — at least a week in advance of said meeting. Only then can they be prepared to make intelligent observations at that get-together. As it is, these people are attending this meeting blind, as they have very little of substance. {Yes, I realize that this logical recommendation is not mandated in H484 — however it is not precluded either.}
3 – The DENR person coordinating this told me that the developer’s materials would be handed out at the meeting — which means the developer has the materials ready to go. Without attendees being properly prepared, the impression given here is that this is essentially a marketing opportunity for the developer to make a sales pitch to the attendees (who will be unprepared to answer) — under the sponsorship of DENR. {Yes, I realize that this is how H484 set it up — however nothing prevents DENR from improving on the law.}
4 – Tuesday’s “Scoping Meeting” is a closed gathering (by invitation only), and will be held in Wilmington. The excuse the DENR person gave for the closed meeting is that the room only holds 35 people. It seems to me that the meeting should have been in Morehead City, near where the project is proposed for. I can assure you that there are spaces available in MHC that will accommodate more than 35 people. {Yes, I realize that H484 foolishly didn’t require the Scoping Meeting to be near the proposed project site — but DENR would have been within its rights to arrange it to be closer.}
5 – I couldn’t get a straight answer as to whether an appropriate DHHS person was on the list of invitees at the “Scoping Meeting”. Health considerations for this type of industrial project are paramount, so a competent DHHS person should be a fully involved participant throughout this process. {Yes, I realize that H484 didn’t require DHHS to be an active party — an egregious error in the bill. However, DENR is not precluded from adding other qualified parties to the process, and DHHS is a key one. I believe that Layton Long is one DHHS person handling wind energy.}
6 – If you re-review the prior five items, one message comes through: in their interpretation of H484, DENR has shown more concern for rule adherence, as vs what’s in the best interest of the community affected by this project. That might be appropriate for a well-written and time-tested law. However, H484 is neither, so DENR should keep the Big Picture in focus.
We still have a way to go here, but as a consumer advocate, I am disappointed by this start.
My hope is that there will be a change in the perspective of the DENR people involved with wind energy. Instead of them trying to adhere to the literal, bare minimum translation of H484, how about acting in the spirit of the law, and the mission of the Department?
The NC Department of Commerce is already established as the official state advocate for such ventures. As such it is their bailiwick to grease the skids for such corporations who are trying to make a killing here.
In regard to industrial wind energy, what is needed is a NC state agency that is an unabashed full-time advocate:
— to aggressively represent the rights of NC citizens (especially those proximate to industrial development),
— to protect the interests of NC military bases (since they are unable to defend themselves), and
— to adequately safeguard the NC environment.
My appeal to you is to see that DENR actively takes on those roles — all of which DENR has the prerogative to do, while still adhering to the terms and conditions of H484.
Let me know any questions.
Morehead City, NC
