Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wind Solar Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers 500-foot residential setbacks for wind and solar after testimony from farmers and residents
Summary
House File 1859, amended from a 1-mile proposal to a 500-foot setback, drew testimony on noise, property values, decommissioning and farm operations. The committee approved the amendments and laid the bill over.
Representative Burkel brought House File 1859 to the Energy Committee with an amendment that reduced the originally proposed 1-mile residential setback to 500 feet for wind and solar projects; the sponsor said the change was meant to open negotiation while addressing constituents’ concerns.
Local residents and farmers testified at length. Paul Dezingo, who identified himself as a farmer from Kennedy, Minnesota, said, “This peace and quiet is now threatened by the planned wind farm that will surround my home,” and urged a larger setback or the option for households to sign waivers allowing closer siting. He raised decommissioning concerns and said turbines often are taxed only when they are generating revenue.
Nathan Dahl, senior field manager with the Minnesota Land and Liberty Coalition, argued that uniform statewide setbacks risk overriding local planning and that counties are better positioned to set rules. He noted lease payments and a state energy production tax that he said keeps money in counties where projects operate.
Attorney Carol Overland described the policy questions the bill seeks to address as primarily noise regulation issues. She cited state noise guidance and MPCA standards and said historical cases in Minnesota showed communities forced to seek settlements when noise exceeded allowable levels; she told the committee, “Minnesota rules 70 30 0 0 4 0… it's an MPCA rule that you can have no more than 50 decibels at night.” Overland also raised concerns about modeling inputs used in noise studies and the need for consistent standards.
Other testimony described operational conflicts: crop-spraying aircraft and farm operations that may be hindered by tall turbines, risks of ice throw from blades in winter, shadow flicker, and visual and wildlife impacts. Committee members and testifiers discussed county authority, township road ordinances, and the practical differences between wind and solar siting and impacts.
The committee voted to approve the sponsor’s DE amendment and an A1 amendment, and then laid House File 1859, as amended, over for further consideration.
Ending: Lawmakers signaled desire for further study on noise standards, county-level authority, decommissioning requirements and the operational impacts of large turbines on farming practices before adopting a statewide statutory setback.
