Calibrating Palouse Wind Turbine Support

Guest essay by Becky Dickerson, former publisher of The Community Current serving St. John, WA

Forthright features occasional guest essays by local and regional authors. This is the first.

Can Whitman County Commissioners create a wind turbine code stringent enough to satisfy wary residents while at the same time yield to the demands of Washington state? The worst kept secret is how an industrial energy project can sidestep all county codes and submit their application to the state, undoubtedly guaranteeing approval.

Former commissioner Micheal Largent explains, “The state is driving the bus on the project.”

Seated commissioners Tom Handy and Art Swannack faced a full house at the February 3 hearing held in the Public Services Building in Colfax. Handy urged attendees to “keep emotions down” and said the hearing was “not whether you are for or against” the Steelhead America proposed Harvest Hills 45 wind turbine project planned for installation southwest of Kamiak Butte. Handy said commissioners wanted to hear “what you want included in the ordinance” that would regulate new commercial wind turbine construction in the county

Last month, commissioners placed a six-month moratorium on the project to give the county time to update current codes implemented for the Palouse Winds wind turbine farm outside of Oakesdale more than ten years ago.

The proposed Harvest Hills wind turbines will make the Palouse Winds turbines look like a child’s Erector Set both in scope and size, soaring over 200 feet higher from base to blade radius. While speaking the next day at a Q&A session held in the Lewis Center at Washington State University, Harvest Hills lead developer Shane Roche said these turbines would be 600 to 650 feet tall and produce three times the energy of the old Palouse Winds turbines.

Oakesdale farmer Brad Hodges wants the commissioners to consider what it’s like to farm “around these things” citing difficulty for crop dusters to fly between the wind turbines. An exasperated Hodges continued saying the rushed access roads tore up the ground making them unusable.

Commissioners listened to public comments for two hours, allowing dozens to voice their concerns while trying to steer the public away from rehashing the merits of the wind turbines. Handy and Swannack focused on requests for changes to current county codes. The crowd mostly cooperated.

Turbine proponents and Colfax area leaseholders Martin Marler and Greg Jones spoke in favor of the technology. Marler said the turbines don’t have any effect on birds at all and he did not understand why people were concerned about “a bulk of concrete in the ground. I don’t care,” he said offering no need to change current codes.

Studies by U.S. Fish and Wildlife do show that wind energy facilities kill birds and bats. Their research shows mortality rates vary among facilities and across regions with bats and songbirds taking the biggest hits. Studies also show relatively low raptor fatality rates are found at most modern wind energy developments in the Pacific Northwest. Certain species, found often on the Palouse, including red tail hawks and golden eagles, appear to have increased fatalities as they forage for prey near turbines. Common ravens appear to avoid collisions with turbines.

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife is currently updating Wind Power Guidelines last issued in 2009 to mitigate impacts.

According to Utility Smarts “that bulk of concrete” would be cast in place and measure 50-70 feet across, sometimes holding 500 yards of concrete and 300-500 tons of rebar to shape the base and eventually burrow into bedrock.

Nez Perce Tribal Member and Pullman resident Julian Matthews commented that the turbines were no more an eyesore than the Snake River Dams.

“This is not 1940 we need to look at the future of alternative energy which I think the ordinance is okay and the project should be supported by the county, and I think the ordinance should be supported by the county commissioners. (You) should be concerned for all of use not just the 1,200 residents who live on the outskirts of Colfax,” said Matthews.

Opponents ticked off concern after concern and pleaded with commissioners to reconsider turbine setbacks to be measured from property lines not distance to residence.

Ken Duft has lived on the Palouse for six decades and wants to see “These monsters” set back from natural landmarks like Steptoe Butte, Kamiak Butte and Palouse Falls “at least three miles, maybe five or seven miles.” Duft contends the entire project should be remanded back to the planning commission.

Many in the crowd echoed Duft’s concerns on increasing current setbacks for each wind turbine.

Kamiak Butte area resident Boyd Jeffries said the projects should not be allowed at all, “Agriculture is our heritage, I don’t think it’s honorable to have the land influenced by Big Government or Big Wind.”

State government set the stage for the debate in 2019 when Governor Jay Inslee signed the Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA). CETA was largely endorsed by Washington state voters last fall who did not repeal the measure relying on greenhouse free energy resources such as wind and solar.

Wind projects like Harvest Hills dangle the same carrot to communities across rural Washington: jobs and increased tax revenue for county governments. But the Palouse Winds corporate office in Oakesdale remains dark and residents say the project did not bring new families to this town of 395 people. “We see one guy come through each summer, that’s it,” said a local grocery store cashier.

Using the Palouse Winds project as evidence for increased tax revenue, Whitman County Assessor Wraylee Flodin says in 2014 the county collected $868,989 from the Palouse Winds project. Wind turbines are taxed as depreciating personal property. Revenue has steadily decreased each year since with a reported $701,079 in 2024.

Commissioners will use input from the Public Hearing to update rules for future wind farms in Whitman County. The Planning Commission will revise the code and send it back to the commissioners for approval.

Swannack does not expect a quick response from the Planning Commission and insisted it’s better to rely on a county code to define the project than to leave it to the state’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC).

“It’s better to have a county code to run under it than the state,” he said, “I still think the state will run over the top of us if the rest of our code does not say what the courts say.”

He continued, “I still believe we are stuck with what the courts have ruled in terms of what we are likely to pass regarding setbacks.”

By Becky Dickerson, educated farm wife and former publisher, The Community Current serving St. John, Wash. Responses welcome at educatedfarmwife@icloud.com