Sunday, October 2 2022 Sign In   |    Register
 

News Quick Search


 

News


Front Page
Power News
Today's News
Yesterday's News
Week of Sep 26
Week of Sep 19
Week of Sep 12
Week of Sep 05
Week of Aug 29
By Topic
By News Partner
Gas News
News Customization
Feedback

 

Pro Plus(+)


Add on products to your professional subscription.
  • Energy Archive News
  •  



    Home > News > Power News > News Article

    Share by Email E-mail Printer Friendly Print

    Generating controversy Generating controversy Proposed wind farm dispute continues in rural Ohio: Crawford County voters likely will decide whether plan calling for 50-80 turbines can proceed.


    August 5, 2022 - Peter Krouse - pkrouse@cleveland.com

     

      BUCYRUS — When the Ohio Legislature passed Senate Bill 52 last summer, it gave local authorities the ability to quash proposed wind farms rather than leave their fate to the Ohio Power Siting Board.

      The Crawford County commissioners took advantage of that law in May when they created a wind farm exclusion zone to prevent Apex Clean Energy from moving ahead with its proposed 300-megawatt Honey Creek Wind project north of the county seat of Bucyrus, about 105 miles southwest of Cleveland.

      But rather than give up on its plans for the wind farm, Apex is taking advantage of another aspect of Senate Bill 52 — going straight to the voters through a referendum to reverse the commissioners’ action. That would enable the Virginia-based company to submit its wind farm proposal to the Siting Board, which must approve all utility-scale power projects.

      Apex appears to have enough valid signatures for the question to be placed on the Nov. 8 ballot, Crawford County Commissioner Larry Schmidt said.

      “Had they not gotten the signatures, that in itself would have been a referendum,” Schmidt said. “But they did get the signatures and it will be on the ballot and everybody will get a choice.”

      Apex estimates that the project will require 50 to 80 turbines and that they will be about 600 feet high when measured from the ground to the tip of a blade projecting straight up.

      While other exclusion zones have been created by Ohio counties, the Honey Creek project represents the first challenge via referendum.

      CONTROVERSY over WIND FARMS

      Wind farms have become controversial in Ohio since several popped up in the state, primarily in the northwest counties of Paulding and Van Wert.

      In response to rural concerns, the Ohio Legislature in 2021 passed SB 52, which along with stricter setback requirements subsequently made large-scale wind projects in the state a tough sell.

      But Apex believes wind is still viable, thanks in part to taller turbines that can generate more megawatts than shorter turbines, allowing for fewer of them to make a project economically feasible.

      The commissioners created the exclusion zone after being petitioned by an anti-wind group, said Doug Weisenauer, who has served as a county commissioner for 14 years.

      Weisenauer, a one-time farmer who lives in the area where the wind farm would be located, opposed the exclusion zone but it passed, 2-1. He said questions of zoning should be left to the people, not the commissioners, and that creating the exclusion zone was no guarantee that enough signatures would be obtained to allow for a referendum.

      He also said excluding wind farms deprives property owners of a way to earn income and that it amounts to government seizure.

      “It has nothing to do with me being pro-wind or anti-wind,” he said. “It’s free enterprise. This is a free country.”

      Fellow Commissioner Larry Schmidt, who sold his NAPA Auto Parts store before becoming a commissioner two years ago, was less willing to discuss his views.

      He said the reason he voted for the exclusion zone was because he wanted the people to decide and the only way that could happen is if an exclusion zone were created first, thus allowing for a referendum to follow.

      “Personally, I just want people to have the right to vote on it,” he said.

      Commissioner Tim Ley, who also voted for the exclusion zone, could not be reached.

      Weisenauer said he believes the rural areas of the county are pretty well split on the issue, but County Prosecutor Matthew Crall said that was not the case at a public hearing held at the Crawford County Fairgrounds prior to the commission creating the exclusion zone.

      Crall, who presided over the hearing, said there were maybe 1,000 people in attendance and that it appeared about 80% of them were for the exclusion zone and that speakers were about 2-to-1 for it.

      One of the complaints was that the turbines would be among the tallest in the county, “higher than the Statue of Liberty,” Crall said.

      $$COMPETING VIEWS

      The website Crawfordantiwind.com lists a number of concerns in somewhat sensational fashion. Apex plans to hold a public information session on the project Wednesday from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Trillium Event Center in Bucyrus.

      Weisenhauer, for one, said he is not paying attention to the various claims either side is making.

      “I’ve done my research. I’ve done my own homework,” he said. “I have not listened to the propaganda from either side. I make my own decisions.”

      All sources of energy have their advantages and disadvantages, he said. “There is no full-proof answer.”

      Weisenhauer said it’s no different than back in the 1930s when power lines and telephone polls started popping up along the roadside ditches.

      “People were upset about that,” he said. “They didn’t want to look at it.”

      Crall said that while the exclusion zone only pertains to rural areas and not municipalities, such as the cities of Bucyrus and Galeon and several villages, voters everywhere in the county will be able to participate in the referendum.

    TOP

    Other Articles - Utility Business / General


    TOP

       Home  -  Feedback  -  Contact Us  -  Safe Sender  -  About Energy Central   
    Copyright © 1996-2022 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
    Energy Central® and Energy Central Professional® are registered trademarks of CyberTech, Incorporated. Data and information is provided for informational purposes only, and is not intended for trading purposes. CyberTech does not warrant that the information or services of Energy Central will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error free or uninterrupted; nor shall CyberTech be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages (including lost data, information or profits) sustained or incurred in connection with the use of, operation of, or inability to use Energy Central. Other terms of use may apply. Membership information is confidential and subject to our privacy agreement.