• Home
• Wind Energy Landscape Symposia
  • Our Reports
  • Guide to Conducting a Wind Energy Symposium
• Maps
• Wind Controversy Case Studies
• Visual Impact Assessment
• Creative Responses to the Aesthetics of Wind Energy
• Additional Resources

 

 Comments and questions to:
 phadke@macalester.edu

 

Case Studies: Controversial Wind Farms

  
All of the below wind projects have been identified as contentious on the grounds of aesthetic impact. Our definition of aesthetic impact includes issues regarding the perceived loss of property values, the loss of recreational opportunities, wildlife impacts in protected areas that are enjoyed by tourists and local residents, and in some cases sound pollution. The information is based on the current status of construction (August 2008). The table below includes an assessment of the level of controversy surrounding each project. The case studies are coded as:

• Little opposition - The wind farm was opposed by a few individuals using traditional avenues of engagement, predominantly based in print media (letters to the editor, opinion editorials and press interviews), public comments submitted in response to an environmental impact review and participation in public hearings.
• Moderately contentious - The wind farm was opposed by many individuals, who may have organized as a grassroots coalition against the project. Those opposing the project have engaged in a variety of pressure techniques including letters to the editors, public comments submitted in response to an environmental impact statement, the development of websites that help network and organize opposition, and the issuance of counter simulations and data regarding the project.
• Highly contentious - The wind farm was opposed by many individuals often represented by several organized groups. These groups used diverse means to try to prevent the project, including lawsuits, the formation of political parties, the creation of alternative impact statements and visualizations, and the participation at public hearings and the submission of public comments.

Wind Farm	Location	Scale	Developer	Level of Controversy	Status
Elk River Wind	Butler County, KS	100 Turbines 150 MW	Iberdrola	Moderately contentious	Completed
Forward Wind Energy Center	Fond Du Lac and Dodge Counties, WI	86 Turbines 129 MW	Invenergy	Highly contentious	Completed
Horse Hollow	Taylor and Nolan Counties, TX	421 Turbines 735 MW	FPL Energy	Moderately contentious	Completed
Wild Horse Wind	Kittitas County, WA	127 Turbines 230 MW	EDP Renewables	Little opposition	Completed
Cohocton Wind	Steuben County, NY	35 Turbines 87 MW	First Wind	Highly contentious	Completed
Highland Wind	Highland County, VA	20 Turbines 40 MW	Highland New Wind Development	Highly contentious	Approved and under construction
Valley County Wind Energy Project	Valley County, MT	~6 turbines 10 MW	GreenHunter	Moderately contentious	Scaled back from 500 MW project to 10 MW test facility and completed
Redington / Black Nubble Wind	Franklin County, ME	18 Turbines 54 MW	Maine Mountain Power	Highly contentious	Delayed
Jordanville Wind Farm	Jordanville, NY	49 Turbines 98 MW	Community Energy / Iberdrola	Highly contentious	Scaled back from 65 turbines and delayed
Cascade Wind	Wasco County, OR	40 Turbines 60 MW	First Wind	Highly contentious	Cancelled