Guest Commentary

By Jeanine (Richardson) Kern

East Washingtonian Guest Columnist

As an incoming Freshman at Pomeroy High School, I memorized the FFA Creed, and those opening words still have meaning today: I believe in the future of farming (agriculture). I write this letter as someone who cares about the future of Garfield County, as a landowner representing Richardson Family Farm, LLC as managing member, and with insight into energy demands, and specifically renewable energy demands in the private sector. I am currently a Talent Acquisition Manager with one of the world's leading data center companies, with a portfolio of 260 data centers on six continents. I support recruiting initiatives for the energy sector including energy procurement and renewable energy initiatives. I share my insights as Garfield County landowners entertain wind and solar energy solicitations.

As a landowner, I defend personal property rights, to the extent that how I use my property does not negatively impact my neighbor. I understand and embrace exploring opportunities to increase and sustain revenue, however I do not support solar and wind initiatives as they are not viable long-term solutions. I feel so strongly against them, that I have come to see solar and wind farms as the modern-day equivalent of Biblical stoning or salting fields (2 Kings 3:25a They destroyed the towns, covered their good land with stones, Jeremiah 48:9a Spread salt on the ground to kill the crops), and wind turbines specifically as modern day Asherah poles (24 Biblical references from Exodus to Isaiah).

My experience in the data center industry has provided great insights into the demand side of energy. A single data center in the Seattle area requires $1 million in electricity monthly, and that's at relatively inexpensive Bonneville Power rates. With 260 data centers, my employer spends over $3 billion in electricity annually. Wind and solar won't come close to meeting that need, but my company has a renewable energy department dedicated to securing carbon credits, usually from the government, creating revenue to regulators, per The Paris Agreement established in 2015 under the Obama administration.

I was shocked to learn hydropower isn't eligible for carbon credits, as the initiative is for new technology, new infrastructure requiring new construction, not existing technology, regardless of how effective and efficient that technology, like hydropower, might be. It is the demand for these carbon credits that is driving solar and wind energy projects, not their viability to augment the demand for energy.

Energy-intensive industries like data centers are pursuing nuclear power, specifically small modular reactors like those that have been in use on Naval ships for more than 60 years. Meta, Amazon, Google and Microsoft have all publicly announced investment in nuclear power. This is important, as private industry is investing directly in nuclear power, whereas wind and solar demand is primarily due to the carbon credit government program, and I foresee nuclear power eclipsing wind and solar power in both demand and usage.

The incoming presidential administration will be far less supportive of government programs that don't make fiscal sense, and there is a tremendous risk that committing to a wind or solar project on farmland will result not in passive revenue but an abandoned project that will require tremendous remediation investment to return it to farmland, and even then, it won't be returned to the state it was originally.

As a landowner, I have questions about the functionality and feasibility of solar and wind projects. I understand the Appaloosa Solar Project will be north-facing. It does not make sense to place solar panels north-facing in the northern hemisphere. I asked some very pointed questions on a public social media forum which were answered privately with boilerplate responses that didn't address the questions. I suspect Garfield County does not have adequate staffing to research and vet solar and wind project applications, which may be a reason Garfield County has been targeted for these projects, the expectation of minimal pushback. I fully support the permitting moratorium as more and more issues are considered as it does not serve the people of Garfield County to proceed with permitting projects with so many unknowns.

From a practical perspective, wind turbines and the meteorological towers that precede wind turbines are already inhibiting aerial application of fungicides. Pete Fountain of Fountain Flying Service won't fly within ½ mile of existing wind turbines, and finds the turbines pull material away from the intended application area. As new wind turbines get taller with bigger rotor diameters, this will further impede aerial agricultural applicators. Pete says he can fly parallel to a row of wind turbines, but those placed in a staggered or circular pattern takes aerial application out of consideration for the surrounding farmland. He cited a 300-acre field with this configuration as an example, an easy aerial application without wind turbines, but a job he had to decline due to the proximity of wind turbines. Meteorological towers may be up to 200' in height but can take six months to make it through FAA processing onto aerial charts, making them a significant unknown risk to aerial agricultural applicators.

Wind turbine failure, contamination, and decommissioning outcomes for both solar panels and wind turbines must be considered. With wind turbines approaching 1000 feet tall and rotor diameter exceeding 700 feet, there is significant risk in contaminating neighboring property should a turbine tower fail and blades shatter. Also, there are many unknowns of the effects of solar panels and wind turbines once they are in place. A few of the known concerns are solar panel infrastructure-caused fires, wind turbine ultra-low frequency and electromagnetic biological effects, and like the limitation of aerial application of fungicides, how would neighboring wind turbines inhibit aerial firefighting on neighboring property?

These issues must be considered, at a minimum, in determining setbacks, but ideally as to whether solar and wind projects should be allowed in Garfield County at all. Is there really a safe setback? Setbacks as proposed in the Garfield County Zoning Ordinance are not stringent enough due to the potential negative impact on farmland, not just residences. Non-resident operators and livestock should have the same setback protection from wind turbine ultra-low frequency and electromagnetic biological effects as residents on non-participating farmland. Fire danger from either solar panel infrastructure or wind turbines knows no property line setback.

I appreciate your consideration of my insights and concerns of the negative impact solar and wind energy initiatives would have on the rich farmland of Garfield County.