Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Whiners gonna whine
Next Post: A look at the US Attorney’s latest filing in the corruption case against the ComEd Four
Posted in:
* From April of 2019…
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker earlier this month signed into law a bill, HB 2988, that gives counties and municipalities sole authority for establishing standards to develop wind farms in the state.
The law, which went into immediate effect, stipulates that only a county may enact zoning regulations in rural areas outside of the jurisdiction of incorporated cities, even if there are not county-wide zoning regulations. The law resolves a dispute that arose last year in Douglas County where EDP Renewables North America wants to build a 200 MW wind farm.
* From the Illinois Farm Bureau’s candidate forum last year…
Q: As governor, would you support legislation to create statewide controls over the siting of wind or solar projects?
Pritzker: No. In fact I’ve specifically avoided that. I don’t think that’s the way. We’ve got to have a continuous conversation, the one that we’ve been having for years now, between the state and local governments and local control, so that we decide together about siting.
* Yesterday…
A bill protecting Illinois-based clean energy projects from a growing number of local bans passed today during the Illinois General Assembly’s lame duck legislative session. HB4412 was drafted to prevent counties from enacting preemptive local ordinances that outright ban local wind and solar projects, hindering the state’s new climate goals set forth in the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act (CEJA). The bill passed by a vote of 33 to 17 in the Senate and 73 to 36 in the House.
“We’ve seen an uptick in radical misinformation campaigns taking root here in Illinois that aim to obstruct the progress we have made in CEJA by banning local wind and solar clean energy projects,” said Jen Walling, executive director of the Illinois Environmental Council. “Unaddressed, these out-of-state fear-mongers will compromise the state’s ability to meet our climate goals and realize the financial savings, job creation, economic development, and grid reliability secured in CEJA.”
With the passage of HB4412, the legislature successfully removed overburdensome local wind and solar siting regulations while prioritizing protections for endangered species and natural areas and encouraging conservation practices at utility-scale clean energy sites.
“I was proud to cast my vote for CEJA, and I’m proud to have brought forward legislative solutions like HB4412 to ensure that Illinois remains on track to meet our climate, jobs and justice goals secured in our nation-leading climate bill,” said State Rep. Robyn Gabel.
“The General Assembly was proactive in passing HB4412, taking necessary action to defend the economic, equity and climate benefits secured in CEJA by directly confronting counterproductive bans on clean energy,” Walling continued. “Now our state can continue plugging away at the implementation of CEJA without having to play whack-a-mole every time fossil fuel interests introduce an ordinance intended to delay our clean energy future.”
Over a dozen local bans have passed in Illinois counties to date. HB4412 would not only prevent future bans but would also take precedence over current bans, clearing the way for rapid clean energy development across the state, helping Illinois meet its climate goals, and helping communities address potential capacity shortfalls.
“Illinoisans expect the General Assembly to anticipate problems and generate policy solutions that ensure the best outcomes for our communities, and HB4412 is a prime example of that work,” said State Sen. Bill Cunningham. “With this legislation, we’re bringing clean energy jobs and opportunities to people across Illinois.”
HB4412 heads next to Gov. JB Pritzker’s desk for his signature.
* Sponsoring Rep. Robyn Gabel said during a committee hearing yesterday that Gov. Pritzker will sign the bill. I confirmed that with the governor’s office. And when I asked how this was not a flip-flop from the 2022 campaign, I was told this…
Local governments will still have the ability to put in place local regulations regarding permits and there is nothing that requires they grant permits for wind projects. The Governor believes this bill reflects a middle ground that still allows for local control over permitting while removing barriers on the path to a clean energy future for the state.
* “Where is the local control?” Rep. Gabel was asked during floor debate last night. Her response…
As I said, these permits have to be passed by these county organizations, has to be passed by the zoning board of appeals, the full county board, it has to receive a road use agreement and building permits from the county.
More than 70 counties filed in opposition to the bill.
Illinois is the fifth largest wind power producer in the country.
Your thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:04 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Whiners gonna whine
Next Post: A look at the US Attorney’s latest filing in the corruption case against the ComEd Four
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
When two-thirds of counties are trying to outright ban wind power in o own the libs, that is not the continuous conversation the Governor was likely hoping for.
This is an essential set of backstop, it seems, that essentially says you can do a lot of things, but you can’t do worse than this. It’s the proper role for the state.
Comment by Ok Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:10 am
I don’t see this as a “flip-flop”. There is a difference between banning something and regulating it.
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:12 am
OK- Please cite the ordinances that are currently on 2/3rds of the counties’ books in Illinois, or any county in Illinois, that outright bans wind power in their county. I’m not being snarky, I honestly want to know. Because, that was the whole premise behind this legislative move.
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:19 am
Elections have consequences. All those windmills will overshadow the Fire Pritzker signs.
Comment by Franklin Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:21 am
Counties are creations of the state, not vice versa.
Some, not all, counties are demonstrably acting in bad faith to prevent the will of the state to expand renewable power. To allow them to continue would mean giving a veto on state policy to local government.
Finally, were I a Pritzker flak, beyond the observation they and Rep. Gabel offered that the counties still have a role to play in the process, you could also credibly say that when the governor made his statement he was not aware of just how badly some of the counties were abusing their zoning discretion in the service of a political ideology out of the mainstream.
Much debate about who said it originally (Churchill, Keynes, Samuelson, etc.), but “When the information changes, I change my mind. What do you do?”
Comment by Moe Berg Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:22 am
===Please cite the ordinances that are currently on 2/3rds of the counties’ books in Illinois, or any county in Illinois, that outright bans wind power in their county.===
Nowhere is that claim made in this post. Try a reading comprehension class.
IEC: “Over a dozen local bans have passed in Illinois counties to date”
Just because 70+ counties slipped in as opponents doesn’t mean they all have bans on the books.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:25 am
This is not an “own the libs” movement. Objections to wind farms have been ongoing since their inception.
It is somewhat ironic that the Environmental Council blamed out-of-state people, when the vast majority (maybe all) of the industrial wind industry is made up of out-of-state companies.
Comment by rtov Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:26 am
From the post- “Over a dozen local bans have passed in Illinois counties to date. HB4412 would not only prevent future bans but would also take precedence over current bans, clearing the way for rapid clean energy development across the state, helping Illinois meet its climate goals, and helping communities address potential capacity shortfalls.”
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:30 am
And I was responding, initially, to OK’s comment.
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:31 am
===And I was responding, initially===
By further spreading a falsehood.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:31 am
You have to live next to one of these things to truly understand the impact. It is easy to say put them up if they don’t impact you or your neighbors.
Comment by Windy Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:32 am
The Governor’s statement: “there is nothing that requires they grant permits for wind projects.
The Bill: “siting approval shall be granted if it meets these standards”.
Comment by rtov Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:35 am
Fine… What are the detailed bans being referred to? One cannot just say there are bans and not provide proof. Just because things may not be built fast enough for some folks is not proof. 1A on NPR today had an excellent program on building out renewables, outages, and the grid. Worth a listen to put all of this into context.
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:38 am
You don’t have to use the word ban to know it’s a ban. If a county proposes almost mile long setbacks for each turbine, it’s a ban. And they have.
Comment by New Day Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:44 am
@New Day
= If a county proposes almost mile long setbacks for each turbine, it’s a ban. And they have.=
And why should they not be allowed to?
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:53 am
New Day- Variances and special conditions attached to a Special Use Permit are allowed in zoning. If a company, or individual for that matter, wants to apply for either or both of those routes in their application process, those routes already exist in counties. And, just to be clear, variances and special conditions are not the same thing. But that’s a whole other topic.
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:58 am
“We will give you local control, as long as you do what we say and give us the outcome we want”
Yeah, it tracks
Comment by JB13 Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:22 pm
1. What is the reason to oppose a wind farm?
2. Counties (and municipalities too for that matter) oppose any and all infringements on their authorities on principle. I wouldn’t read too much into them slipping in opposition.
Comment by Just Me 2 Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:24 pm
Agree with others. I don’t see a flip-flop as there is a difference between controlling the siting of a project, and completely prohibiting a project.
A lot of local governments are run as mini-kingdoms, especially in the more rural parts of the state - but not exclusively. Places behaving like this occasionally need reminders that they are next in line to the state government, not at the front of the line.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:25 pm
I’m surprised the recent tornados down here didn’t come up during debates, as it has been stated the windfarms compromised doppler radar for advance notifications. Not that that has anything to do with the bill itself, but I did expect it to be brought up by some Republicans
Comment by Matty Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:29 pm
“when the vast majority (maybe all) of the industrial wind industry is made up of out-of-state companies”
I’m no fan of this bill. But for the record in Elgin Il, along Big Timber road you will find two huge plants, owned by Flender and Winergy. Both companies have recently merged and they are a leading producer of gearboxes for wind energy.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:30 pm
–it has been stated the windfarms compromised doppler radar for advance notifications.–
I don’t think a professional meteorologist would ever make such a claim.
Doppler has various tilt angles, and the circulation of a tornado often first shows up in higher elevations before coming to the ground. While the common radar most people see on the news is the lowest tilt, and has not only wind turbines, but insects, birds, clocktowers, airplanes and literally anything in the air; that is not the tilt angle that is relied upon for early detection and warning of a tornado. There are also modes that determine Differential Reflectivity, Correlation Coefficient, and Specific Differential Phase for each tilt/elevation. Each of those modes is unbothered by wind turbines at even the lowest tilt. It is much more complicated than just ‘radar’.
–but I did expect it to be brought up by some Republicans–
True. It has no basis in fact or reality, so yes I expect such things from them as well.
Southern IL does need *more* radar sites though, as that part of the county is one of the least well covered by radar in any form. Maybe some of those state reps at the federal level could do something useful and start to lobby for better warning infrastructure in their areas. That would be useful to the residents, which means I don’t expect anything like that out of the Mary Millers in the state. They are much more likely to blame turbines for the outcomes of their lack of infrastructure attention and spending…
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:43 pm
Those saying this is not a flip flop have responses that are issue-based. They want wind power so they are saying it is fine. If it was an issue they didn’t agree with and a Repub. Gov flip-flopped like this, they would be calling foul. Just because you agree with the issue, does not mean JB didn’t go back on his word.
Comment by JustAThought Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:45 pm
Just replying to Windy. Living next to coal mines and oil refineries are worse. But the main question that detractors don’t answer is…where will our electricity come from. It’s always someone else’s property, in some other State or just somewhere else. And then when prices go up, there is an outcry. For everyone, instead of just complaining, how about solutions that just doesn’t try to make it someone else’s problem.
Comment by Appears Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:45 pm
Matty- WCIA had a deep dive yesterday on that topic. https://tinyurl.com/z8rxkaux
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:56 pm
Check back in in 20 years on this see how many times these wind facilities companies have changed hands? Then see who gets left holding the bag when the assets begin to fail and its to expensive to remove/ replace. They will be abandoned without subsidization for removal will rot in place. Will rate payers get tapped again for the removal ?
Comment by NorthSideNoMore Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:56 pm
Is this a flip-flop. Of course.
Another possible way of seeing this: protecting landowner rights in some counties that have had more lenient standards than these state standards, where wind companies are rushing in and competing to capture the territory, signing leases and applying for utility grid connections.
But the rushing of this legislation sparks questions about how much input the public was allowed, who actually was involved in crafting the standards, how much advice and consent was offered state agencies like IDNR and INPC (e.g. on setbacks from conservation areas and nature preserves, which ended up being way too lenient), how much input was allowed from the counties, etc.
I understand the rationale for pushing this legislation. The misinformation campaigns against wind and solar projects, funded by fossil fuel interests, needed a quick counter-power play, flip-flop included.
Comment by vole Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:57 pm
—NorthSideNoMore—
Who pays for the oil fields and coal mines (and the pollution) left behind when the companies walk away from them? Answer: it’s not the companies.
Comment by Appears Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:04 pm
I don’t care if it’s a flip flop. Conditions change, positions change with them. There’s a very obvious campaign in these tiny counties to try to outright ban wind power, using some of the goofiest misinformation you’ll ever hear, some of it echoed here. It’s reasonable to create this kind of backstop
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:29 pm
“… radical misinformation campaigns … .”
Who / what are behind them?
Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:34 pm
Pritzker, Willams and Cunningham all flip flopped during this lame duck session. Absolutely.
The disregard and disrespect for thousands of Illinois folks who showed up at county Special Use Permit hearings across (rural) Illinois to testify and share their real life experiences, (unpaid) research regarding aquifers, radar data contamination, drainage tiles, wildlife/landscape displacement and “takes.” These were attempts to protect our rural environment and landscape.
It was pointed out decommissioning wasn’t a state concern on the floor. The counties will be stuck with that clean up. 10’s of thousands of tons of concrete in our farmland from each turbine, let alone the non-recycled towers stuck in this black dirt. Go on about your green energy. The decommissioning plans/estimates from these wind companies of current wind tower complexes are laughable.
Piatt County’s zoning board was in the midst of a decision about a wind tower complex. Our state leaders intentionally blew that local decision up.
Representative Keicher asked why Lake Michigan isn’t part of this. The east coast, other countries are already doing off shore. I believe the word “elite” was brought up.
California, here we come. Higher electricity bills, fees and blackouts. Count on it.
Comment by Sury Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:50 pm
A total flip flop by the governor. Our county just spent over a year debating/discussing the wind ordinance that was just passed less than two months ago. And now this . . . ugh . . . I hope our county board does not approve ANY wind turbine projects in our county (Coles) - but I fear that is coming soon.
Comment by Blues Fan Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:51 pm
“ I hope our county board does not approve ANY wind turbine projects in our county.”
And that’s why the state had to step in. People who clearly just oppose wind energy shouldn’t get to dictate what landowners do and n their own property. If reason had prevailed, this wouldn’t be necessary
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:59 pm
“People who clearly just oppose wind energy shouldn’t get to dictate what landowners do and n their own property. If reason had prevailed, this wouldn’t be necessary”
Talk to the non-participating landowners surrounded by the bad decisions of non-resident participating landowners. Those folks (the majority of rural residents) might lean towards liking their property rights too. Post construction and living with it, the participating landowners can’t talk about their decision in a negative way. It’s in their lease contract.
Comment by Sury Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 2:14 pm
= Those saying this is not a flip flop have responses that are issue-based. They want wind power so they are saying it is fine. =
Not so. I don’t think it’s a flip-flop and I’d be happy if I never saw another wind farm.
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 2:17 pm
“the participating landowners can’t talk about their decision in a negative way.”
As somebody with 2 turbines on our farm for the last 11 years, if I had something negative to say, I’d say it, especially in an anonymous setting like this. The only time we even think about it is when we get a check and when somebody tells these goofy lies about them. These “concerns” haven’t changed since we went thru this before they were built. The shadow flicker never became a problem, our crops didn’t wilt, we haven’t gotten cancer, sleep patterns haven’t been disrupted, but the opponents keep saying the same untrue stuff that wasn’t true a decade ago.
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 2:31 pm
This is a flip-flop from the Governor, but it’s one he should make. We are on a ticking clock for climate change and letting tiny feifdoms across the state draw a red line based on misinformation and refuse to help fix the problem is effectively submitting to the demands of ecological terrorists.
The counties were given room to operate. They abused it. So they should lose it.
Comment by Shibboleth Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 2:52 pm
=I hope our county board does not approve ANY wind turbine projects in our county=
Echoing SWIL_Voter. You are part of the problem this bill is solving. Stop it. Grow up and see the thermometer.
Comment by Shibboleth Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 2:55 pm
To another point though, I have a meteorologist in the family.
=I don’t think a professional meteorologist would ever make such a claim.=
https://www.roc.noaa.gov/WSR88D/WindFarm/TurbinesImpactOn.aspx?wid=dev&fbclid=IwAR1n7ScWx8CSut0ho02VYlboCEUEUR2BZyRUGvqbiSWKfyo0w7i-aUWWqdA
Windfarms do have a notable impact on radar, but this is primarily if they are sited too close to the radar itself. There are workarounds, but we need to ensure that while we are siting many locations for wind farms, they need to be appropriately far from weather radars.
To quote the NOAA resource above, “Wind turbine clutter has not had a major negative impact on forecast or warning operations, yet. However, with more and larger wind turbines coming on line, radars in some parts of the country will have multiple wind farms in their line of sight. Cumulative negative impacts should be anticipated – which, at some point, may become sufficient to compromise the ability of radar data users to perform their missions.”
Comment by Shibboleth Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 3:05 pm
Last comment (apologies for four in a row).
The key to my last comment is not to confirm conspiracies that wind farms themselves inherently harm weather reporting, or that they even did in past storms. It is that they could, if siting is not done correctly.
Counties being allowed to fully ban windmills is like using a hammer on a nail. Appropriate siting is the solution for the radar issue, not outright bans.
I expect the state will be taking this into account and expect to be in contact with my legislators if this is not the case.
Comment by Shibboleth Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 3:11 pm
Outright prohibition of wind/solar developments or establishing extreme setbacks is the way counties have limited wind/solar developments. If the state wanted to fix that problem, the bill should have been limited to establishing uniform setbacks. This bill goes too far and is confusing and contradictory. I think it sets the state up for some long-term risk by removing the ability of counties to require effective and enforceable decommissioning plans beyond the Dept of Agriculture’s AIMAs. Will the Governor authorize the Dept of AG to litigate non-compliance with the AIMAs or will the locals be left holding the bag? While well intentioned, the bill is overkill and goes beyond what was needed to address the issue they are trying to solve.
Comment by Observation Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 3:17 pm
=This is not an “own the libs” movement. Objections to wind farms have been ongoing since their inception.=
This.
For 10 years I often on my commute drove past a hand painted 4×8 a farmer put up that said “No Boone County Wind Farm”. I haven’t driven past there since the pandemic started, I don’t go that way anymore, but for all I know it’s still up.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 3:25 pm
Anon @3:25 was me.
Comment by Jaguar Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 3:26 pm
Amazing to me that people are so accepting of these foul looking hunks of steel that are besmirching the look of our state.
Comment by Windy Plains Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 4:01 pm
The sponsor agreed a majority of counties had the setbacks that are in this bill. No one has even looked at the 15 they targeted to see that 14 of them are waivable.
Comment by Harvey Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 4:01 pm
Illinois Farm Bureau members should never join again. The harmed the landowners that have wind and solar as well as the non participants by backing this bill.
Comment by Liberty Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 4:03 pm
Yes, he flip flopped. Have the audio to prove it. But it was before the election so………..
Comment by Sally Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 4:04 pm
Liberty….Illinois Farm Bureau opposed the bill. They testified against it in committee.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 4:18 pm
Anonymous-they only opposed SOME OF THE BILL not the county rights to zone. As in the past.
Comment by Liberty Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 6:36 pm
I have not read the bills, but this sounds like a NIMBY problem to me. Honestly, I’m not sure I’d want a wind farm on my property line either. On the other hand, I like electricity, and the power has to come from somewhere. As long as it’s not in my backyard.
Comment by Labradoodle Dad Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 8:04 pm