Residents and activist group appeal council’s decision on new turbine

By Wiley Wood

On March 6, the Connecticut Siting Council approved the construction of a new turbine on Flagg Hill. Considerably taller than the two existing ones, and generating roughly as much energy as the other two combined, it will sit just within the Colebrook border on the Norfolk line, on land soon to be acquired by the developer.

The tower of the new turbine will be 420 feet high, and the tip of the blade in the vertical position 647 feet high. Regulations adopted by the State of Connecticut in 2014 for the siting of wind turbines set a minimum distance from neighboring property lines of 1.5 times the total height of the structure. The intention is to give abutters reasonable protection from blade shear, tower collapse, ice throw and noise. These regulations would require the proposed turbine, an Enercon 4.2, to be almost 1,000 feet from any neighboring property. Yet the site of the new turbine is only 321 feet from the property line of Julia and Jonathan Gold in Norfolk.

The wind regulations are held not to apply to the Enercon 4.2. The council approved a smaller third turbine, on a different but adjoining property, back in 2011—when there were still no wind regulations. And the developer, BNE Energy, Inc., has presented its proposal for the new turbine as a minor modification of the original plan, although the Enercon 4.2 is a different piece of equipment and will sit on a different hilltop, on a different property. The siting council has embraced BNE’s view.

The Golds, and four siblings who call themselves the Grant Swamp Group and who also own land only a few hundred feet from the proposed turbine, are joining with the activist group FairWindCT to appeal the council’s decision. A third abutter, The Nature Conservancy, decided not to join the action.

FairWindCT’s petition argues that the Enercon 4.2 infringes the property rights of the new abutters; that the public’s due process was denied when all requests for intervenor status in the matter were brushed aside; and that the siting council’s procedure was irregular, both because the decision was rendered by a staff member without the express participation of the council and that it was okayed as a modification of an earlier approval. FairWind’s petition also notes that no environmental survey of the new property was conducted.

 “There is no basis in the council’s enabling statutes,” says environmental lawyer Keith Ainsworth, “for a staffer to make a ruling to relocate a major facility and move it to a new property, creating new abutters.” He believes that despite the the Connecticut Siting Council’s broad authority over the siting of utility infrastructure, it has overstepped its authority in this case.

“Utilities are a public good,” says Ainsworth. “That’s a given. And in the case of wind turbines, renewable energy infrastructure is a benefit to society. But it doesn’t mean that you can pull down all the barriers. Context matters. Process matters. You can’t just say these things are good, and they can go anywhere.”

Asked for this article why the council did not hold a vote on BNE’s new turbine, Executive Director Melanie Bachman said that revisions to Development and Management (D&M) Plans were routinely reviewed and approved by siting council staff. BNE presented the new turbine as a modification to a D&M Plan.

Ainsworth notes that the council has had a high level of success in court fighting off appeals to its decisions, in part because the statutes grant it so much power. “But they’ve never pushed this far,” says Ainsworth, “they’ve never gone so far beyond any interpretation of their enabling legislation.”

Julia Gold, whose house will now be unexpectedly close to the third turbine, said, “This shouldn’t happen to anyone. The council’s decision is allowing BNE to take away our reasonable property rights. A huge part of our land is in a high-risk area, according to the turbine manufacturer’s own safety guidelines.”

“I sympathize with the Golds,” says Colebrook’s first selectman, Tom McKeon. “They bought the land, and now the turbine is right there. The height bothers me. This turbine wasn’t in the original application. It shouldn’t be rubberstamped.”

Pressed about the Golds’ situation, BNE Chairman Paul Corey pointed to the fact that they bought their house in 2018 “adjacent” to an existing wind farm. “Frankly,” said Corey, “if the Golds didn’t want to be next to a wind turbine, they should have bought somewhere else.” He added, “We view the turbine as very positive.”

The Nature Conservancy, though not a party to the FairWindCT petition, asked for intervenor status in the BNE matter, citing irregularities in the council’s procedure, but was denied. A spokesman, David Gumbart, says that the organization “believes that the deployment of renewable energy can and should be done in ways that protect both natural habitats and public due process.”

The Connecticut Siting Council will accept public comment on FairWindCT’s petition until July 31. Letters should be sent by email to siting.council@ct.gov and cc’d to melanie.bachman@ct.gov with the subject line “Petition 1408—Public Comment.”