As a Keating Township supervisor, I’ve spent the past several months hearing about the Black Cherry Wind Project and listening to voices from both sides — landowners who welcome the idea of hosting turbines and neighbors who are deeply worried about the lasting impact on their homes, their property and their quality of life.

But my interest in this issue didn’t start with the Black Cherry project. I’ve been studying utility-scale wind and solar energy for a couple of years now. Looking at how it has affected other rural communities, how different ordinances have held up under legal and public scrutiny and what happens when a township doesn’t have a plan in place early enough.

This statement isn’t on behalf of the township board. It’s my personal opinion, but it comes from a place of experience, reflection and concern for our wider region.

I want to be clear, I’m not looking to shut the door on wind energy development or companies like the one proposing the Black Cherry Project. I welcome new ideas, private investment and projects that could bring long-term benefits to our area. But I also believe that any project of this scale must respect the people who already live here, and operate on terms that protect, not exploit, our rural communities.

Wind turbines don’t just pay for themselves. They are supported by public subsidies. Federal tax credits, accelerated depreciation and infrastructure incentives make these projects viable. So when someone agrees to host a turbine, everyone around them — neighbors and taxpayers — ends up helping fund it, whether they benefit from it or not.

That’s why I believe so strongly in the ordinance we passed in Keating a year ago. It’s not anti-wind, it’s pro-choice and pro-protection.

We require:

— 20× hub height setbacks from homes

— 10× turbine height from property lines

— A waiver process that lets neighboring landowners say “yes” to closer turbines, but also protects those who don’t consent

This structure still allows wind development, but only when those most impacted have a voice and a choice.

Other townships are considering setbacks as short as 1,500 feet. That might sound like a reasonable middle ground, but I don’t think it’s enough. These turbines are 600+ feet tall, topped with flashing red FAA strobes that will change the character of our ridgelines and our night skies for generations. You won’t be able to ignore them and you shouldn’t force the closest residents to accept them unless they’ve agreed to it.

Some have argued that wind turbines are no more intrusive than oil and gas well pads, and on the surface, that may seem like a fair comparison. Both require roads, infrastructure and clearing. But anyone who has lived near a well pad knows that once the drilling is done, it gets quiet. The rig comes down. The traffic slows. In most cases, you wouldn’t even know it’s there.

A wind turbine, on the other hand, never goes away. It spins 24 hours a day, can emit a pulsing hum that’s carried on the wind and remains a massive, moving structure that dominates the view from every surrounding hill, field and window. Add in flashing lights at night, and the comparison falls apart quickly.

There’s also been talk of each township receiving $125,000 a year from the developer as a “community benefit.” That number might sound generous, until you realize that the Black Cherry project is reportedly planning 60 to 100 turbines across several townships. If just 20 or 30 of those turbines are placed in one township, that $125,000 breaks down to $4,000 to $6,000 per turbine per year, while each turbine could generate $170,000 to $500,000 per year in electricity sales, bolstered by federal tax credits.

Is that a fair trade? Is that payment locked in for 30 years? Does it adjust for inflation or increase if more turbines are added later? These are basic questions that deserve real answers before anything gets signed.

Keating’s approach is also shaped by our past. We’ve lived through more than 150 years of oil and gas development. We’ve seen the legacy of abandoned wells, pipelines, rusting equipment and disappearing companies. We’ve also seen how quickly industries move on, leaving small townships and rural residents to clean up the mess.

That’s why our ordinance doesn’t just regulate setbacks. It also requires real decommissioning funds. Not promises. Not projections. We demand financial security in escrow or bonded form, based on third-party engineering estimates and updated regularly. Because we’ve learned the hard way that if you don’t protect yourself upfront, you’re the one holding the bag in the end.

And yet, despite the scale and complexity of these projects, Pennsylvania has no statewide standards for wind turbine placement, sound, lighting or decommissioning. The same state that regulates how close an oil or gas well can be to a house or stream provides no guidance for 600-foot-tall wind turbines with 30-year impacts. That leaves small rural townships like ours to fend for ourselves. Writing our own ordinances, hiring our own experts and defending our decisions with our own limited resources.

That’s not fair to municipalities, and it’s not fair to our residents.

A lot of the public outrage that has been directed towards local officials I feel is misplaced. Our state representatives have failed to address this subject in a timely fashion to establish state wide guidelines and protections.

I’ve spoken with many supervisors from neighboring townships, people I respect, who are also trying to do the right thing. They, like us, are doing their best to wrangle a challenge that’s frankly larger than any one township should have to deal with alone. They’re trying to balance property rights, protect public health and weigh the promise of a new income stream that we all sorely need. I believe we can get there, but only if we support each other and set smart policies before the pressure builds too far.

I understand why some people are excited. Large-scale projects sound like big opportunities. And maybe some will be. But the greater-good argument only works when it actually benefits the greater number of people, and doesn’t leave unwilling neighbors paying the price in noise, light, lost property value and a changed way of life.

Economic development is important. But it shouldn’t come at the cost of coercing people into something they never signed up for.

To the supervisors and residents of any other township still considering whether to pass an ordinance or where to set your setbacks: please take a hard look at what we’ve done in Keating. You can support landowner rights while still protecting neighbor rights. You can welcome investment while still demanding transparency and accountability. You can say “yes” to wind, without saying “no” to your own residents.

One of my favorite parts of being a working supervisor is getting to drive around our township every day. Whether I’m checking roads, responding to a call, or just passing through on a quiet morning, I’m constantly reminded of how beautiful this place really is. The views from the tops of our hills are breathtaking. It’s a landscape that grounds you. And I believe we have a responsibility to protect that. Not just for ourselves, but for the people who will be taking in those same ridgelines for generations.

Let’s be smart. Let’s be careful. Let’s protect what’s worth protecting, before it’s gone.