Wind Development in Pennsylvania COMMONWEALTH, Volume 19, Issue 1 (2017). © 2017 The Pennsylvania Political Science Association. ISSN 2469-7672 (online). http://dx.doi.org/10.15367/com.v19i1.134. All rights reserved. Wind Development in Pennsylvania A Reflection on State Policy SARAH BANAS MILLS University of Michigan While other states have continued to add wind turbines in recent years, there has been no new wind development in Pennsylvania since 2012. This article considers how state energy policy as well as local land-u se policies related to wind energy compare with other states as a way to understand how these poli- cies may be impacting wind development in the Keystone State, especially in light of the geographical characteristics of the state’s highest quality winds. Background In the past decade, the United States has seen exponential growth in the percentage of electricity that comes from renewable sources. In much of the country, this has meant a large surge in onshore wind energy proj- ects. Pennsylvania is no exception to this trend. In 2000, the state boasted just 10MW of installed wind capacity—a single wind farm of eight turbines in Somerset County. By 2009, the state’s total had risen to 748MW, a growth rate six times that of the United States as a whole (U.S. Department of Energy 2016a). Installed capacity in Pennsylvania ticked up again in 2012, when six new wind farms came online, bringing the total installed capacity to 1,340MW. Since then, however, while other states have added more than 14,000 MW of wind energy, wind development in Pennsylvania has flat- lined (see Figure 1). 70 sarah Banas mills This article does not attempt to identify a single cause for the stalling of wind development in the Commonwealth. Indeed, as previous analyses have shown, a multitude of factors affect the deployment of wind energy within a particular state (Bohn and Lant 2009; Fischlein et al. 2014). How- ever, this article aims to identify how Pennsylvania’s policies related to wind energy compare with other states, as a means of identifying possible factors hindering wind energy development. In particular, I first consider how spe- cific provisions in the state’s renewable energy standard compare nationally. I then discuss Pennsylvania’s decentralized regulatory regime for land- use decisions effecting the siting of turbines compared with policies that make siting decisions at the state level. I conclude by discussing how the geographi- cal characteristics of the state’s highest wind energy potential may warrant reconsidering these policies. Renewable Energy Policy At the state level, the most common policy for encouraging utilities to shift to renewable technologies has been the renewable portfolio standard (RPS). In general terms, this policy tool requires electric utilities operating within a state to increase the proportion of electricity that comes from renewable sources by a set deadline. Currently 29 states plus the District of Columbia have a compulsory RPS in place, while eight more states have voluntary standards or renewable energy goals (National Conference of State Legislatures 2016). The specifics, how- ever, vary from place to place, with respect to not only the overall required 1,600 80,000 70,000 )) (M W 1,400 (M W 60,000    yy 1,200 tti ci ac 1,000 50,000 a apC Ca p    dd inin 800 40,000 WW  600 30,000   edll lle d aa 400 tt ss 20,000 n InI   PA   200 10,000 U .S . 0 0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Calendar Year Pennsylvania U.S. Figure 1. Cumulative Installed Wind Capacity in Pennsylvania Compared to the United States, 2000–2015. (U.S. Department of Energy, “Installed Wind Capacity,” WINDExchange, 2016, available at http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/wind_installed_capacity.asp, accessed June 10, 2016.) Wind Development in Pennsylvania 71 proportion of energy that must come from renewable sources and the deadline for meeting the goal but also which technologies are considered “renewable.” Pennsylvania is in the majority of states, having passed a compulsory RPS entitled the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act of 2004. On its face, the law’s 18% mandate by 2021 is in the middle of the pack compared both nationally and to its neighbors. Pennsylvania’s RPS is not nearly as aggressive as neighboring New York’s 50% by 2030 standards, but is higher than the 10% by 2015 standards of both Michigan and Wisconsin (see Table 1). table 1. state renewable portfolio standards, sorted by required percentage of renewable energy state Goal nonrenewable alternatives allowed Hawaii 100% x 2045 Vermont 75% x 2032 Oregon 50% x 2040 California 50% x 2030 New York 50% x 2030 Maine 40% x 2017 Rhode Island 38.5% x 2035 Colorado 30% x 2020 yes Connecticut 27% x 2020 Minnesota 26.5% x 2025 Delaware 25% x 2026 Illinois 25% x 2026 Ohio 25% x 2026 yes Nevada 25% x 2025 New Hampshire 24.8% x 2025 New Jersey 20.38% x 2021 Maryland 20% x 2022 New Mexico 20% x 2020 Pennsylvania 18% x 2021 yes Arizona 15% x 2025 Missouri 15% x 2021 Massachusetts 15% x 2020 Washington 15% x 2020 Montana 15% x 2015 North Carolina 12.5% x 2021 Michigan 10% x 2015 yes Wisconsin 10% x 2015 Iowa 105MW Texas 5,880MW x 2015 Sources: Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Renewable Portfolio Standards, Raleigh, North Carolina State University, 2016. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Conference of State Legislatures. 72 sarah Banas mills However, like only three other states, Pennsylvania’s RPS allows non- renewable alternatives to count toward the total. Allowing these alterna- tives does not, in itself, reduce the deployment of wind or other renewable energy technologies. Michigan’s RPS, for example, counts energy generated by municipal solid waste—a nonrenewable—toward the goal, but the 2015 standard was met nearly exclusively through adding additional wind and solar energy (Talberg, Quackenbush, and Saari 2016). However, distinct from Michigan and Colorado, which treat select nonrenewables as one of many technologies that may be used to meet the requirement, Pennsylvania has a two- tier system with separate goals for each tier. The first tier, which includes traditional renewable technologies, including wind energy, must make up just 8% of the electricity generated in the state by 2021. By contrast, the second tier must account for 10% of the state’s generation mix by 2021 and must come from a separate list of technologies most of which are nonrenewables: waste coal, distributed generation systems, demand- side management, large- scale hydropower, municipal solid waste, and integrated combined coal gasifica- tion. As a result, among states with an RPS, Pennsylvania has the lowest stan- dard strictly for renewable energy. This comparatively low renewables mandate does not necessarily mean that Pennsylvania will lag other states in wind development. Indeed, Iowa has long surpassed its modest 105MW renewables mandate; it currently boasts 6,365MW of installed wind capacity (U.S. Department of Energy 2016a). Even so, while there has been significant study and debate about how much the national increase in wind energy development can be attributed to RPS policies (Menz and Vachon 2006; Shrimali, Lynes, and Indvik 2015; Staid and Guikema 2013), most energy analysts believe that a shift toward renewables would slow in the absence of robust RPS policies (U.S. Department of Energy 2015). Land-Use Regulation State energy policies such as the RPS are not the only regulations that may impact wind development in a particular state. Given the size of mod- ern utility- scale turbines—commonly 400 to 500 feet from turbine- tip to ground—it should not be surprising that, like other large structures in the built environment, wind projects are also subject to land- use regulation. Most often, this regulation is aimed at ensuring that turbines are safely sited in case of a catastrophic failure (e.g., loss of a turbine blade) or shedding of ice, as well as to minimize the noise and visual impacts to neighboring landowners. Such regulations usually take the form of minimum setback distances from roads, Wind Development in Pennsylvania 73 property lines, or inhabited structures and requirements for vegetative screen- ing to reduce both noise and shadow flicker (Andriano 2009). While land-u se regulations are applied to nearly every utility- scale energy facility, they can be particularly onerous on wind developments, given the geo- graphic scale required for economic viability. While a traditional power plant might be sited on a single parcel of perhaps a couple thousand acres, modern wind farms often spread over hundreds of parcels and tens of thousands of acres, increasing the likelihood that they would extend beyond the confines of a local municipality. When turbine- siting rules are set at the municipality level, developers on a single wind project may need to comply with land- use regulations of multiple jurisdictions, a situation that is less common for other energy infrastructure. As a result, it is not uncommon for states, when enacting an RPS, to also establish that all land- use regulation associated with wind facilities will hap- pen at the state level (Heibel 2016). Centralizing land- use regulation not only simplifies planning for these large footprint wind projects but also frees wind developers to identify project sites where they can maximize energy output— and subsequently minimize the cost of electricity—rather than factoring in whether obstructionist local regulations will delay approval. Theoretically this should allow for the most efficient allocation of energy infrastructure within the state, based on energy potential rather than local politics, helping to minimize the cost of the renewable mandate. Indeed, after a decade- long experiment with local- level energy siting, in 2011 New York reinstated state- level control for land- use regulation of large (over 25MW) wind facilities to allow the state to stay on track to meet its aggressive RPS (Kass et al. 2011; Wind Energy Law Blog 2011). By contrast, in Pennsylvania, wind turbine siting is regulated by each of the state’s 2,500+ local governments. While the state, in collaboration with electric utilities, developed a model wind zoning ordinance as guidance (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 2006), localities are welcome to adopt alternate regulations. This local control of wind siting is relatively common in states that have a tradition of home rule, and in particular where there is no state- level utility siting board (Rynne et al. 2011). Further, this is the regulatory model in Texas, the nation’s top wind energy producing state. The rationale for local siting is that it affords communities the power to set standards for wind projects so that any wind development helps meet the land- use goals of that commu- nity. While this may lead to restrictive local standards that effectively block (i.e., “zone out”) wind development in communities with high wind potential (Devine- Wright 2011), it also provides opportunities for less- windy localities 74 sarah Banas mills keen on accepting wind development to entice wind developers by enacting comparatively lax regulation (Rynne et al. 2011). Which of these scenarios is more likely to play out in any state, though, largely depends on the geography of a state’s viable wind resources, and how the land is currently used in those locations. Geography and Public Acceptance While the literature on community acceptance of wind energy is still growing, there have been some studies on factors that influence an individual’s attitude toward wind development. In particular, individuals’ attachment to the land- scape has been shown in number studies to increase their opposition to wind energy (Jacquet 2012; Otto and Leibenath 2014; Park and Selman 2011). By contrast, landowners who value their land more for its utility (e.g., as a work- ing landscape) and less for its scenic value are more likely to support wind energy (van der Horst 2007; Veelen and Haggett 2016). The logical extension is that when a state’s windiest places are also valued for their scenery—such as vacation destinations, recreational areas, or suburbanizing communities on the urban fringe—local communities are more likely to oppose wind develop- ment. By contrast, when the state has viable wind resources in working land- scapes—such as farmland, ranchland, or mining areas—local communities are more likely to support wind development, largely for the economic benefits it brings to individual landowners and local governments (Kahn 2013). Pennsylvania’s best wind resources are concentrated in three areas: in Erie County in the extreme northwest of the state, following the ridgeline of the Allegheny Mountains through the central part of the state, and along scat- tered ridges in the northeast corner (U.S. Department of Energy 2016b). To date, Pennsylvania’s wind development has been exclusively in the Alleghenies and mountains of northeastern Pennsylvania, largely in areas with a history of energy extraction and distant from large population centers. While there are still undoubtedly viable sites along more remote ridgelines (particularly in the western Alleghenies), most of the untapped wind potential lies in areas closer to recreational or residential communities. And these sites are being met with fierce opposition both in the Lehigh Valley (Radzievich 2016) as well as in Erie County (Myers 2015), where projects have been cancelled due to restrictive local ordinances or public opposition. As mentioned previously, though, local control also provides an opportu- nity for communities in less- windy locations to attract wind development to their community. However, this works only where there are ample locations with viable wind speeds. Pennsylvania, in comparison to states to its north Wind Development in Pennsylvania 75 and west, has relatively modest wind resources (U.S. Department of Energy 2016b), with the best second- tier wind resources in the state available in iso- lated pockets in the counties along the northern border with New York State, and in Lancaster and York Counties in the southeast. And there does appear to be at least some interest in wind energy in both of these regions. A township in Potter County in north-c entral Pennsylvania has cited community- level economic benefits of wind development—specifically payments by the wind developer to the township government—in its review of a proposed wind farm (Davis 2016). Meanwhile, farther south, in Lancaster County, the Frey Farm Landfill currently operates two utility- scale wind turbines. There might also be opportunities to discuss how wind energy might complement this region’s long-s tanding goals of preserving farmland (Mulvaney, Woodson, and Pro- kopy 2013; Union of Concerned Scientists 2003), but there is little evidence that such discussions are underway. Absent a greater push for wind develop- ment in these locations, the prospects for substantial future wind develop- ment in Pennsylvania under its current land- use regime are likely limited. Conclusion Taken in isolation, nothing about Pennsylvania’s energy or land- use policies would explain why the state has seen a four- year drought of wind develop- ment while the nation as a whole has increased its wind capacity 24% in this time. The state does have a policy in place mandating an increase in renewable energy, and the state’s policy to delegate land- use authority for wind develop- ment to local units is not uncommon. However, given the state’s relatively modest wind potential and the geographic location of the state’s best wind resources in areas that may be predisposed to oppose wind development, without changes to state policy, it is likely that wind development will be lim- ited in the state. Strengthening the state’s RPS to either exclude nonrenewable alternative energy sources or increase the percentage that must come from renewables would put Pennsylvania on par with the mandates set by other states, but it might also increase the price of electricity if utility companies are unable to find communities willing to accept wind development. Altering land- use regulation to give the state more power to overrule local govern- ments that wish to completely block wind development would help to over- come this problem, but it would likely be a difficult sell in a state that so values local land- use control. Shifts to state policy, though, may not be the only ways to increase the deployment of wind energy in the state. Increased governmental or non- governmental, proactive outreach (to communities with more modest wind 76 sarah Banas mills potential that may be predisposed to support local wind development for its attendant local economic benefits) may lead to local land- use regulations that favor wind development and help entice wind developers to these commu- nities. Additionally, technological advances in wind energy technology may increase the number of communities across the state where utility- scale wind turbines can be viably sited. As a result, there is no reason to believe that wind development in Pennsylvania has hit its peak; it just may need a nudge to break from its current plateau. REFERENCES Andriano, Jennifer R. 2009. “The Power of Wind: Current Legal Issues in Siting for Wind Power.” Planning and Environmental Law 61 (5): 3–13. Bohn, Christiane, and Christopher Lant. 2009. “Welcoming the Wind? Determinants of Wind Power Development among U.S. States.” Professional Geographer 61 (1): 87–100. Davis, Alex. 2016. “Wind Turbines Being Planned for Potter County.” Bradford Era. Avail- able at www.bradfordera.com/news/wind- turbines- being- planned- for- potter- county/ article_28418aaa-02b8-11e6-aaf6-a31ac9a04d3c.html. Accessed October 1, 2016. Devine- Wright, Patrick. 2011. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Partici- pation. London: Earthscan. Fischlein, Miriam, Andrea M. Feldpausch- Parker, Tarla R. Peterson, Jennie C. Stephens, and Elizabeth J. Wilson. 2014. “Which Way Does the Wind Blow? Analysing the State Context for Renewable Energy Deployment in the United States.” Environmental Policy and Governance 24 (May/June): 169–187. Heibel, Jesse, and Jocelyn Durkay. 2016. “State Legislative Approaches to Wind Energy Facility Siting.” National Conference of State Legislatures. November 1. Available at www.ncsl.org/research/energy/state-wind-energy-siting.aspx#statutes. Accessed November 10, 2016. Jacquet, Jeffrey B. 2012. “Landowner Attitudes toward Natural Gas and Wind Farm Devel- opment in Northern Pennsylvania.” Energy Policy 50 (November): 677–688. Available at http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301421512006702. Accessed Novem- ber 27, 2013. Kahn, Matthew E. 2013. “Local Non- market Quality of Life Dynamics in New Wind Farms Communities.” Energy Policy 59 (August): 800–807. Available at http://linking hub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301421513002875. Accessed June 28, 2013. Kass, Stephen L., Christine A. Fazio, Ethan I. Strell, and Victor J. Gallo. 2011. “New York Legislature Passes Article X Bill for Siting of Major Electric Generating Facili- ties.” Client Advisory, June 24. Available at www.clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=337. Accessed December 10, 2016. Menz, Fredric C., and Stephan Vachon. 2006. “The Effectiveness of Different Policy Regimes for Promoting Wind Power: Experiences from the States.” Energy Policy 34 (September): 1786–1796. Available at http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0301421505000091. Accessed June 28, 2013. Mulvaney, Kate K., Patrick Woodson, and Linda Stalker Prokopy. 2013. “A Tale of Three Counties: Understanding Wind Development in the Rural Midwestern United Wind Development in Pennsylvania 77 States.” Energy Policy 56 (May): 322–330. Available at http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S0301421512011317. Accessed November 13, 2013. Myers, Valerie. 2015. “Plans for Wind Farm in North East Shelved.” GoErie.com, Janu- ary 20. Available at www.goerie.com/article/20150120/NEWS02/301199911. Accessed October 1, 2016. National Conference of State Legislature. 2016. “State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Goals.” Available at www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable- portfolio- standards .aspx. Accessed July 10, 2016. Otto, Antje, and Markus Leibenath. 2014. “The Interrelation between Collective Identi- ties and Place Concepts in Local Wind Energy Conflicts.” Local Environment 19 (6): 660–676. Available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13549839.2013 .868871. Accessed July 15, 2014. Park, Jung Jin, and Paul Selman. 2011. “Attitudes toward Rural Landscape Change in England.” Environment and Behavior 43 (March): 182–206. Available at http://eab .sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0013916509355123. Accessed March 14, 2012. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. Model Wind Ordinance for Local Governments. Harrisburg. Available at www.pawindenergynow.org/pa/ Model_Wind_Ordinance_Final_3_21_06.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2016. Radzievich, Nicole. 2016. “Hurling ‘Boos,’ Hundreds Oppose Wind Farm on Bethlehem’s Watershed at Zoning Hearing.” Morning Call, June 24. Available at www.mcall.com/ news/local/bethlehem/mc-bethlehem-turbine-hearing-continues-20160624-story .html. Accessed October 1, 2016. Rynne, Suzanne, Larry Flowers, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller. 2011. Planning for Wind Energy. Chicago: American Planning Association. Shrimali, Gireesh, Melissa Lynes, and Joe Indvik. 2015. “Wind Energy Deployment in the U.S.: An Empirical Analysis of the Role of Federal and State Policies.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (March): 796–806. Available at www.sciencedirect .com/science/article/pii/S1364032114010193. Accessed October 1, 2016. Staid, Andrea, and Seth D. Guikema. 2013. “Statistical Analysis of Installed Wind Capac- ity in the United States.” Energy Policy 60 (September): 378–385. Available at http:// linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030142151300428X. Accessed November 20, 2013. Talberg, Sally A., John D. Quackenbush, and Norman J. Saari. 2016. Report on the Imple- mentation of the P.A. 295 Renewable Energy Standard and the Cost- Effectiveness of the Energy Standards. Lansing, MI: Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Michigan Public Service Commission. Available at www.michigan.gov/ documents/mpsc/PA_295_Renewable_Energy_Report_2–12–16_514511_7 .pdf?20160212112723%29. Accessed October 1, 2016. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2003. Farming the Wind: Wind Power and Agriculture. Available at http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart- energy-s olutions/increase -renewables/farming-the-wind-wind-power.html#.WG4cymczWM8. Accessed Janu- ary 5, 2017. U.S. Department of Energy. 2015. Wind Vision. A New Era for Wind Power in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. ———. 2016a. “Installed Wind Capacity.” WINDExchange. Available at http://apps2.eere .energy.gov/wind/windexchange/wind_installed_capacity.asp. Accessed June 10, 2016. 78 sarah Banas mills ———. 2016b. “Potential Wind Capacity.” WINDExchange. Available at http://apps2.eere .energy.gov/wind/windexchange/windmaps/resource_potential.asp. Accessed December 10, 2016. van der Horst, Dan. 2007. “NIMBY or Not? Exploring the Relevance of Location and the Politics of Voiced Opinions in Renewable Energy Siting Controversies.” Energy Policy 35 (May): 2705–2714. Available at http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0301421506004848. Accessed April 24, 2012. van Veelen, Bregje, and Claire Haggett. 2016. “Uncommon Ground: The Role of Different Place Attachments in Explaining Community Renewable Energy Projects.” Sociologia Ruralis. doi:10.1111/soru.12128. Wind Energy Law Blog. 2011. “New York Streamlines Power Plant Siting—Boon to Renew- able Energy.” Available at http://windpowerlaw.info/2011/06/30/new- york- streamlines -power-plant-siting-boon-to-renewable-energy. Accessed December 10, 2016. sarah Banas mills, PhD, is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), housed in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. She serves as project manager for the center’s survey programs, including the National Surveys on Energy and Environment (NSEE); teaches classes on energy and environmental policy; and is continuing her own research on the impacts of wind energy on rural communities. Her recent work has been published in State and Local Government Review.