Wind energy vs. wind energy - Solar, Wind and Land: Conflicts in Renewable Energy Development - page 70

downwind site (D 1 ) and at Site U 2 . This is the optimal siting scheme under
the given set of assumptions, having a combined value of $600,000—more
than any other possible pairing of upwind and downwind sites.
This option-based policy would also produce the optimal siting
arrangement if the best wind resources at stake were on Parcel U, the
upwind parcel, instead of on Parcel D. To illustrate this important point,
suppose that Site D 1 were instead worth only $200,000 without wake
interference and $125,000 with interference, as shown on Figure 3.9 below.
If all other assumptions remained the same, Downwind Developer would
be willing to pay no more than $50,000 to make the waivable setback
permanent under this scenario because it would only lose that amount
if it sited its turbine at Site D 2 instead of at Site D 1 . So long as the local
government's determined valuation of the upwind site was at least $50,000,
Downwind Developer would thus elect not to exercise its option to make
the waivable setback permanent. The local government would record a
“Notice of Waiver of Wake Setback” to provide constructive notice that the
relevant wake setback had been waived, and turbines would ultimately be
installed at Sites U 1 and D 2 —the most productive siting scheme under this
revised set of facts.
In both of the above-described scenarios, the use of waivable wake
setbacks would enable the parties to peaceably resolve their turbine wake
interference conflicts while maximizing the productive value of the wind
resources involved. Landowners operating under such a policy would still
be free to reach voluntary agreements to settle siting disputes. However,

Predominant
wind direction

Parcel D

Parcel U

(3 rotor
diameters)

Waivable
setbacks

Property
line

(5 rotor
diameters)

Site D 1
($200,000 or $125,000)

Site U 2
($200,000)

Site D 2
($150,000)

Site U 1
($300,000)

Safety
setbacks

Figure 3.9 Effect of waivable setbacks under an option-based policy (scenario #2:
best wind resources situated on upwind site)