Home Rule and Wind Power

It was reported on this blog that Andy Wells recommended that the Select Board formally oppose state bill H.4687, the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act, which trumps local zoning control of placement of turbines. Paul Swem replied that this was a "NIMBY" response to a greater good and that opposing it did not necessarily represent the will of the people. For the Select Board to oppose the legislation could even be illegal, Paul suggested.

Andy has experience with wind farm installations and has been involved with reform of turbine projects in other parts of the state that are sited too close to homes or that damage the environment. I'm a friend and neighbor of Andy's and I also share his cautious attitude. As a clean, renewable resource, wind is an attractive energy solution. But just the same, there's very good reason to be worried about a turbine in your backyard -- pejorative term aside. But to that issue in a moment.

What is at issue in front of the Select Board is relinquishing local zoning control. Home rule is a much treasured part of our Massachusetts town governments and any town should naturally be wary of losing local control and deferring to the state, which could mandate against the town's best interests. The law overrides town regulations on placement of industrial wind turbines as well as associated roads and transmission lines.

It is natural for the Select Board to oppose such power grabs regardless of opinions on wind farms. Furthermore, we elect the Select Board to represent us and expect the board to do their duty and take actions on behalf of the town -- including voicing dissent regarding proposed state legislation, which is legal and appropriate.

Now all that said, modern wind turbines are indeed a very big deal that we all should be worried about. Money, politics, and a poorly regulated industry combine to cast a pall over the expansion of wind energy into western Massachusetts. There is significant monetary incentives for developers and landowners to build turbines and this money is what is partly behind the legislative push for a law to expedite wind farms and it also is encouraging proposed turbine sites in less than ideal locations such as Ashfield. Furthermore, there is a major political effort in Boston to build thousands of new wind turbines in the state -- not much around Boston, of course, but on the coast and the western part of the state -- regions where small populations have little impact on legislative decisions. This new legislation will further erode our regional and local strength. Lastly, the wind energy industry is currently poorly regulated with respect to the impacts of turbines. We can have faith that the state will do the right thing and through this bill establish environmental regulations for wind turbines (as yet to be determined) that are appropriate across the commonwealth. We can hope that allowed exemptions to environmental safeguards will be in the best interests of all. Or we can take pause and worry that significant commercial and political interests will shape the use of wind energy in ways that will negatively impact our town's character, our property values, and well-being.

A decade ago many Ashfield residents were opposed to the construction of telecommunication towers. While that concern might have abated over time, I suspect that almost everyone still would object to a tower built, say, beside Ashfield Lake Beach or on the town common. Similarly, many would probably object to 200 foot turbines looming over our town center and pulsing light and noise 24 hours a day. All are extreme examples that would never likely come to pass, but this is exactly why we have local control of planning and zoning: to ensure that those things we value -- low noise and light, good health, an attractive, peaceful and sustainable community -- are maintained. And those values are all part of the total environmental equation.

I'm sure that all of us acknowledge the importance of energy independence and clean energy production, but that doesn't mean that all solutions regardless of impact are appropriate. I particularly resent the implication that challenging wind turbine plans is inappropriately sowing discontent at a time when the town should be healing from past disagreements. To question the placement of wind turbines and to resist relinquishing zoning authority to the state is part of wise and thoughtful self-government. I hope that all of the turbines that will be proposed in Ashfield will be adequately set back from residences to eliminate health concerns, minimize annoyances, and preserve our beautiful landscape. I suspect that there are appropriate locations to achieve these aims even in Ashfield, but I'm not naive enough to expect the state and developers to just get it right. Diligence is our responsibility.

David Kulp