[ Property Values ] False conclusions based on flawed real estate studies
Wind energy proponents insist industrial scale wind turbines have no diminishing effect on nearby residential property values. They point to several analyses prepared in the last six years (including REPP1, Hoen2, and Hoen/Wiser3) as evidence of their claims.
These reports conclude that there is no significant relationship between distance from, or visibility of the windfarm on the sale prices of houses. However, as we've reported before, there is good reason not to place substantial weight on the findings.
The REPP report has been widely discredited due to key flaws in the methodology including the fact that sixty-six percent of the homes sampled did not see the wind facility at all and the analysis made no distinction between homes near the turbines and those five miles away thus assuming the effect of the turbines was equal on all properties regardless of proximity.
The Hoen 2006 master's thesis, while more legitimate, made clear its analysis only applied to homes near a windfarm in Fenner New York and communities similar to Fenner. Any general conclusion drawn about property impacts based on Hoen's 2006 report would be inaccurate.
And now here comes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) which has undertaken yet another study to show, once and for all, that utility-scale wind turbines do not harm property values.
In 2007, Ben Hoen teamed up with Dr. Ryan Wiser of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, to expand Hoen's master's work nationwide. By June of 2007, with no report in hand, Hoen broadcast his preliminary conclusions of their study at the American Wind Energy Association's (AWEA) annual meeting. Bottom line: "No negative effects found" on property values. In November 2007, DOE touted the same preliminary conclusions at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners' annual meeting and again, Hoen appeared at the 2008 AWEA meeting where he reaffirmed his conclusions.
The Hoen/Wiser report has yet to be released, but that hasn't stopped Hoen from distributing his findings whenever and wherever possible. And since 2007, wind developers have been submitting Hoen's unpublished conclusions to State and local boards as definitive proof that properties are unharmed by the towers.
This September, Windaction.org was one of about twenty reviewers to submit comments on Hoen's work. Our full report can be viewed here. After all the hype, what we found was sobering. Windaction.org's report to Wiser and Hoen identified serious flaws in their methodology, rendering the results of their study meaningless. The independent real estate appraisal experts we consulted quickly recognized that any qualified appraiser with any experience in the regression techniques utilized -- and who was not predisposed to a preferred outcome -- would easily discredit the report.
For one, the study failed to meet a basic assumption of a regression analysis i.e. that the database of sales transactions compared was reasonably homogeneous.
The "hedonic regression method" used by Hoen argues that one can determine the marginal contribution of specific independent variables -- i.e. view of the turbines -- to the sale price. However, when variables are omitted from the model, such as number of bedrooms, or improperly weighted in assessing contribution to house price it is not possible to understand the single effect of turbine view.
Homogeneous means that the houses included in any transactions were similar in market characteristics such as approximate size, age, quality, available amenities (schools, shopping, security, access to work and recreation, etc) and were examined in a similar economic setting (employment, availability and cost of financing, market growth or decline and the like), among other factors. Homogeneity of the marketplace is fundamental to the type of regression analysis Hoen used. It is well documented that these techniques are difficult to utilize on data sets that vary substantially due to differing characteristics.
In Hoen's study, the data set spanned nine different states across the United States and included 4,895 sales of which a subset of property characteristics were identified and then averaged to produce a composite home of 47 years in age with 1,628 square feet of finished living area above ground, 1.75 bathrooms situated on 1.09 acres and having an average condition. The data showed home sale prices ranging from as low as $10,492 to as high as $647,500.
The variation in house price alone indicated a failure to meet the requirement of homogeniality. But the problem in Hoen's study was more pervasive. When we looked at the 'age' characteristic for the homes in the report, the average age of the home at the time of the sale was 47 years with a standard deviation of 36. In other words, within one standard deviation, 68.2% of the homes in the data set ranged in age from 11 years to 83 years. We have no way of knowing how age influenced sale prices within the study's data set or whether age affected house price more or less than view of the turbines. The same can be said for other property characteristics like square footage of the home, number of baths, etc. Remarkably, Hoen did not even track the number of bedrooms per house transaction or whether the houses sold had garages.
In addition, since the data set was drawn from diverse locations across the country, applying the same weight to property characteristics was inappropriate. For example, fireplaces or finished basements in Texas may be perceived as less valuable than central air conditioning and the reverse may be true for the same characteristics found in homes in upstate New York. Nonetheless, Hoen did exactly that.
Appraisers are highly critical of hedonic analysis and have warned that causal conclusions drawn about a data set when utilizing this technique are often times unsupportable. This criticism applies in cases where those conducting the analysis make every effort to obtain a homogeneous data set and include important basic property characteristics. In Hoen's case, it is clear he had no interest in conducting a legitimate study to determine the impact of wind towers on property values. On the contrary, it appears the outcome was already predetermined back in 2007 when he raced to AWEA to promote his premature conclusions. With his "mission accomplished", unfortunately, he now has little incentive to release the final report.
- The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) - May, 2003
- Impacts of Windmill Visibility on Property Values in Madison County, New York by Ben Hoen - April 2006
- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report by Ben Hoen, Ryan Wiser et. al. - Not released
[ Impact on Wildlife | Impact on Bats ] Bat-gate: Cover-up at the Beech Ridge wind facility
Since 2003, with the discovery of significant bat kills at the Mountaineer wind energy facility sited on a forested ridgeline in West Virginia, the wind industry has been battling the issue of how best to predict and site wind facilities to avoid, or minimize the problem. High bat mortality has since been reported at project sites worldwide, particularly involving migratory species, prompting concerns of cumulative effects on bat populations.
World renown bat expert, Dr. Thomas H. Kunz, and others, in their peer-reviewed paper entitled "Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats", detailed the significant risk that industrial-scale wind turbines pose for migratory and local bat populations in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands region of the United States. The authors projected that by 2020, annual bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in this region alone could reach 111,000 bats. They also state that their preliminary projections of cumulative bat fatalities are "likely to be unrealistically low, especially as larger and increasing numbers of wind turbines are installed."
High bat mortality is not limited to the eastern region of the U.S. Drs. Kunz and Merlin Tuttle raised the red flag in Texas where limited or no studies are underway and researchers in Canada, where barotrauma was first identified, are also trying to quantify the problem. When the devastating bat-killing disease white-nose syndrome - which has now spread to much of the East Coast - is factored into the equation, it's easy to understand why leading bat experts are predicting truly dire consequences unless drastic changes are made in the way that wind power projects are sited and regulated.
With that background, we introduce the law suit filed by Animal Welfare Institute, Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, and others against Beech Ridge LLC.
At issue is whether the massive Beech Ridge project - consisting of over 120 industrial wind turbines spread out over 23 miles on multiple Appalachian ridges in Greenbrier County, West Virginia - will likely kill, wound, harm, harass, or otherwise "take" any federally endangered Indiana bats during the two decades that the turbines will operate. Discovery taken to date by the plaintiffs' attorneys reveals the scale of risk to bats as follows:
• that Defendants' own consultant - BHE Environmental ("BHE") - has predicted that more than 135,000 bats would be killed by the turbines, through a combination of direct impacts with the turbine blades and barotrauma;
• that such deaths will likely include other "myotis" species - the taxonomic group that includes Indiana bats - including such species that have been captured on the Beech Ridge site and that resemble the Indiana bat and share similar ecological characteristics;
• that other wind power projects built on Appalachian ridges - including the "Mountaineer" facility in West Virginia, which is close geographically to the Beech Ridge project - have had far higher rates of bat mortality than wind power projects located in other parts of the country, and that the available data reflect that Appalachian projects have killed higher percentages of myotis species than elsewhere in the country;
• that hundreds of Indiana bats presently hibernate in caves within ten miles of the project site - including some that are less than seven miles from turbine locations - and that there are no currently operating wind power projects closer to known Indiana bat hibernacula;
• that Indiana bats can and do migrate between summer roosting and foraging habitat much further than the distance between the hibernacula and the project site;
• that there is in fact "suitable" Indiana bat habitat on the project site itself, as confirmed by the parties' site inspection;
• that the 23 miles of Beech Ridge turbines will be physically located between known Indiana bat hibernacula to the south and east of the project and known Indiana summer foraging and roosting habitat to the west and north of the project;
• that Defendants performed no surveys whatsoever regarding Indiana bat - or, for that matter, any other bat - use of the site during the crucial Fall migration period although both the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") and WV DNR sent BHE letters urging that such surveys be performed.
Despite these facts, the developer asserted that Indiana bats were unlikely to be killed, injured, or otherwise taken because Indiana bats have never been detected on the project site itself.
But, in fact, pre-trial investigations uncovered that several such surveys were completed in July 2005. The developer now admits a subcontractor collected "ultrasound" data and the acoustic data sat in a file cabinet unanalyzed. Two experts for the Plaintiffs, Drs. Lynn Robbins and Michael Gannon have analyzed these long-hidden files and have determined that Indiana bats were almost certainly present on the site during the survey.
The trial start date is set for Oct 21; Windaction.org will be watching these proceedings closely. This single project, if permitted to proceed, will pose an alarming risk to bats, including Indiana bats. But what sobers us most is that data involving the Indiana bat was never publicly revealed until a civil suit was filed and the right document requests made. There is no excuse for this cover-up by Beech Ridge LLC and its environmental consultant, BHE Environmental Inc., and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
[ General ] Block Island's blind actions
Last year, Rhode Island's Governor Carcieri entered his State into the race, wanting to become the first to see industrial scale wind turbines spinning off its coastline. His administration's initial step was to select Deepwater Wind as the preferred developer of two offshore projects. The first, a small pilot wind farm of 5-8 turbines to be sited in State waters within three miles of Block Island and the second, a 100+ turbine facility planned for fifteen miles off state shores in federal waters.
Deepwater wasted no time. In January, the company submitted a request to the New Shoreham Town Council on Block Island for a Special Temporary Permit to locate a mobile radar unit by the Southeast Lighthouse to study bird patterns. The request received little attention and was unanimously approved.
The following month, Deepwater submitted a second request for a Special Temporary Permit. This time, the company was seeking permission to erect a 180-foot tall meteorological tower necessary for assessing the wind resource in the area. The enormous tower proposed near the entrance of the Great Salt Pond on the island's west side would be the first significant physical sign of the company's plan to install turbines near the island. As can be expected, the residents of Block Island took notice.
On February 27, 2009, Attorney Mark J. Hagopian submitted a letter to the Council on behalf of several property owners in Town. His letter raised serious legal questions about the Council's use of Special Temporary Permits in approving Deepwater's requests. Such special permits, according to Town zoning (section 112), are reserved for "circumstances of emergency or other urgent necessity for the public health and safety" and may only be granted for a use or purpose that cannot be accomplished through the normal planning process.
Windaction.org fully concurs with Attorney Hagopian's assertion that "Deepwater's proposal is a run-of-the-mill request for the commercial use of property in a residential zone and is profit motivated". He correctly argues that there is no apparent reason for Deepwater to bypass the normal process and, in fact, the Council's willingness to act on Deepwater's request is not only unwise, it "violates fundamental notions of due process".
Despite Hagopian's letter, and the very vocal public objections voiced at the March 2 Council meeting, the vote was unanimous to grant Deepwater its second Special Temporary Permit.
A quick read of the meeting minutes reveals a level of ignorance about land use law and wind energy on the part of the Council that will almost certainly prove harmful to the residents of Block Island if left unaddressed.
Minutes of the March 2 meeting show that First Warden Kimberly Gaffett claimed to have conferred with the Town's Land Use attorney, Donald Packer, on the question of Special Temporary Permits and was informed they were lawful in this case. There is no record in the minutes that Parker provided his opinion in writing.
But the more disturbing comments came from Council member Dr. Peter Baute who reacted to whether Deepwater's request represented an urgent, public health necessity. The minutes state:
"Dr. Baute said the application was clearly an urgent necessity critical to the well-being of the town. Merchants and hotel owners, their employees, their families and customers, were critically impacted by the second highest electric rates in the country. The Island has a short season in competition with Newport, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and many other seaside resorts, and the electric bills put businesses at an enormous economic disadvantage. The spiking power bills and disappearing profit margins create stress, a medically unhealthy condition. The application for the met tower is one of the first steps to accessing reliable, price-stable power, which can relieve one cause of the Island's stress, and the Council should approve the tower application."
Dr. Baute's comments are more ranting than reasoned. How could a tower erected to gather yearly wind data for the benefit of a for-profit, private entity be deemed a public health emergency? In fact, Deepwater did not install the tower until August. And his claim that high electricity costs and shrinking profit margins were creating stress, and thus a medical emergency for the town is laughable. We note that no economic analysis of Deepwater's proposal was available to him at the time the vote was taken.
In fact, the true cost-benefit to island ratepayers is still under review. Case in point: Rhode Island's legislature voted this year to require island electricity customers to shoulder more of the wind farm's $20-million underwater cable cost because, according to members of the General Assembly, the island would be the primary beneficiary.
More information about Block Island's wind farm will be made available in the coming year. Windaction.org encourages the residents of Block Island to get the facts on the project and watch the Town Council's actions closely. Wishful thinking and fantasy on the part of the Council are no excuse for corrupting the plain reading of town laws or for substituting blind faith for facts.
[ Impact on People | Energy Policy ] Leap. Don't look.
This week, USA Today explored the renewables debate as it applied to public lands. In the article, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the man responsible for protecting and providing access to our nation's natural and cultural heritage, declared his Department the "real department of energy". In fact, staff at the Interior Department, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are working at his direction to fast-track the release of millions of acres of public land for a massive deployment of renewable energy projects. Developers from around the world are lined up waiting to take advantage of the Obama administration's ‘hurry-up and get it done' renewables policy.
Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington DC argued in the Wall Street Journal this month that the push for more renewable-energy projects was necessary to curb the country's dependence on foreign oil and its greenhouse-gas emissions. Statements like Mr. Grumet's fly around with such regularity that, at this point, no one, including the Journal, bothers to question their accuracy.
In fact, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that just 2% of the U.S. electric industry is powered by oil. The bulk of our electricity is sourced from coal, nuclear power, and natural gas. And anyone who caught a T. Boone Pickens' ad on television in the last year would know that eighty-percent of the natural gas consumed in the U.S is produced domestically with virtually all of the remaining 20% imported from Canada. As for carbon emissions, we encourage readers to reference energy expert Tom Hewson's report published this summer entitled "Calculating wind power's environmental benefits."
As the debate intensifies, Windaction.org is witnessing a growing backlash against alternative energy coming from most areas of the country. People who have raised concerns about property values, health effects, the adverse impacts to wildlife etc. are responding to years of being marginalized and dismissed as NIMBY ("not in my backyard"). The clash over whether to produce ‘nonpolluting domestic energy' or protect our natural environment is seen as a false choice borne out of a pie-in-the-sky belief that wind and solar can reliably power a substantial segment of this country.
The degradation these enormous sprawling industrial complexes bring to our cultural and visual resources is least understood. Our colleagues in Texas describe West Texas today as an alien landscape where one can drive for miles and miles and miles (and miles) and see nothing but wind turbines. The nighttime experience is even more surreal with the blinking red lights.
New Mexico artist and engineer Bill Dolson described his resistance to the appearance of "wind farms" as simply the fact that they are large, man-made structures imposed on an otherwise unmolested natural landscape.
His objection, he says, "is really more anthropological than aesthetic. Perhaps because of my training I have couched my objections in aesthetic terms, but really it is something else. What distresses me is a sense of the violation of the natural landscape by the works of man. It seems absolute to me, that no matter whether one likes or dislikes the visual appearance of wind facilities, that they are inherently and irrevocably artificial works of man and not elements of the natural landscape. Whether their presence hinders or improves the appearance of that landscape is really immaterial, because that landscape has forever been altered from its virgin condition. And that is my concern and my objection."
Washington's "hurry up and get it done" renewable energy policies coupled with the billions in taxpayer money available to anyone who shows up leaves no time for communities, businesses, or governments to consider the consequences of our actions. A policy director at a large U.S. utility told Windaction.org "we either get on the train or get run over by it." The renewables train has certainly left the station. The question is how many towers need to be erected, how many view sheds and cultural resources marred, how many dollars squandered and how many lives tainted by poor decisions before the train slows to a controllable rate.
[ Impact on People | Noise | Zoning/Planning ] Maine continues to choose wind over families
On March 27, 2009, residents of Mars Hill living within 3600 feet of First Wind's wind facility filed a civil complaint in Maine's Superior Court seeking relief from the "significant harm" caused by First Wind and others by the construction and operation of the site. Medical professionals recognize the health problems related to the turbines at Mars Hill are valid.
The past two and one-half years have been a trying and difficult time for the families of Mars Hill and their decision to file the suit was not an easy one. But it is also clear to Windaction.org that the State of Maine has washed its hands of Mars Hill, placing its pursuit of wind energy development ahead of the health, welfare, and safety of its residents. And the State's continuing down this path in Roxbury, Maine.
Here's the history: Shortly before the Mars Hill wind project went online in March 2007, problems of intrusive sound levels were reported despite repeated assurances by developer, First Wind, and town officials that there would be no noise. Andrew Fisk of the Bureau of Land & Water Quality at the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME-DEP), the agency which approved the facility, responded by requiring First Wind to conduct sound surveys during four seasons of operation to determine whether the project was in compliance with its permit. The permit allows the project to produce nighttime noise levels of 50 decibels at sensitive receptors near the homes. Resource Systems Engineering (RSE), who designed and conducted the pre-construction noise modeling study for First Wind was also engaged to conduct the subsequent monitoring studies.
When RES delivered its first sound survey report in June 2007, the residents, and others, raised questions related to the protocols used. ME-DEP hired Warren Brown of EnRad Consulting to peer-review and validate the survey work. Mr. Brown identified problems with the methodology employed by RSE but determined the findings to date were still substantially in compliance with the permit conditions.
RSE implemented some adjustments and the last two surveys were conducted in winter and spring 2008. It was not until December 5, 2008 that Warren Brown issued his final report to the State; the families received their copy of Brown's report on December 17, 2008 one day prior to a face-to-face meeting scheduled between the Mars Hill residents, First Wind representatives and Andrew Fisk to discuss Brown's findings. Other attendees at the meeting included Richard James of E-Coustic Solutions , an acoustics engineer engaged by the families to help sort through the noise issues, and Lisa Linowes of Windaction.org.
Despite having only one day to review Brown's findings, the families were well aware that doubts about the project's compliance remained. Even in his vaguely worded report, it was apparent Brown still had concerns:
"It is the opinion of the reviewer that this 4th assessment of the project demonstrates compliance at nearly all bordering protected locations, except the protected location adjacent MP-8, as established in the Control of Noise rules and the variance given in Department Order L-21635-26-A-N/L-21365-TG-B-N, dated June 1, 2004. ...In instances where operation levels approach or exceed regulatory limits testing methodologies have not been sufficiently refined to adequately isolate operation sound levels."
And Rick James raised the point that RSE's sampling of turbine noise at 5 second intervals, outside the protocol defined under Maine State law which requires 1/8 of a second intervals, would mute, or even mask short duration repetitive sounds (thumping, whooshing, popping) generally accepted as a characteristic of all modern industrial wind turbines.
Despite these and other serious questions regarding the adequacy of the sound surveys, Fisk announced at the outset of the December 18 meeting that he had approved and mailed on that day, a letter to First Wind notifying the developer that the project was in compliance with its permit.
We disagree with Mr. Fisk.
And it's quite possible so does Mr. Brown. Meeting minutes taken during a March 5, 2009 conference call with Maine's Public Health Director Dr. Dora Mills, Andrew Fisk, Warren Brown and others reveals a very different situation. Here, Mr. Brown highlights concerns with existing studies and states "Wind turbine noise needs more investigation!" (exclamation included).
What's more intriguing from the meeting minutes are the statements by Dr. Mills who appears to be quarreling with Brown over whether turbine noise has any adverse health effects. While Mr. Brown is steadfast in raising his concerns, it is disconcerting to see how Dr. Mills carefully scripted her June 21 public comments after knowing what she was told just three months before.
Today we learned that the Record Hill wind energy facility in Roxbury Maine received conditional approval by the Maine DEP to proceed. Based on the brief glimpse afforded us by the meeting minutes, we can only guess what the internal debates were like within ME-DEP prior to ‘green-lighting' this project. What is obvious, however, is that Maine has picked its sides, and we can expect Roxbury to be a repeat of Mars Hill.
[ Impact on People | Noise ] There is no conspiracy
The divide between wind energy proponents and those seeking to protect the health and welfare of individuals from the ill-effects of the towers is increasing.
News accounts are published almost daily from around the world highlighting the serious problems of turbine noise and related adverse health effects, yet wind proponents like Ryan Schryver of Clean Wisconsin insist such reports are the work of a small, but vocal minority of people hell-bent on keeping turbines out of their viewshed. In an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio's Joy Cardin, Schryver dismissed health and safety concerns as exaggerated and argued that the focus on the issue was merely a tactic by wind power opponents in Wisconsin to encumber future proposals.
Perhaps Mr. Schryver is unaware that the health problems reported are not limited to Wisconsin. Or worse, he may believe there is a worldwide underground effort to coordinate the voices of those harmed by the turbines. We hate to disappoint, but there is no grand conspiracy in the works. The fact is there are legitimate problems with turbines sited too close to where people live. And the failure of governmental permitting agencies to acknowledge and address the issues will not silence those seeking to protect their families and communities.
[ Energy Policy ] How realistic is 20% wind energy?
A year ago the US Department of Energy released "20% wind power by 2030", a study that envisioned the US satisfying 20% of its electricity needs through wind power. This February, the Joint Coordinated System Plan 2008 (JCSP'08) proffered a conceptual regional transmission and generation system plan to meet 20% of the Eastern region of the United States' energy needs with wind.
DOE's report called for the deployment of 305,000 MW of wind by the year 2030. The JCSP assumed 229,000 MW of new wind capacity built by 2024. In either scenario, the proposals included the need to build thousands of miles of new transmission lines towering 200-feet tall to deliver the energy from the Midwestern region of the country to points East (and West).
Windaction.org has had several opportunities to publicly debate these scenarios with ranking US energy officials (not politicians) and what we learned, frankly, surprised us:
It is clear that most had not read the DOE report. Many dismissed it as "academic" and unrealistic. Others openly call the JCSP study nothing more than a wind advocacy plan. Both the ISO New England and New York ISO withdrew from the publication of the JCSP report and Ian Bowles, secretary of energy and environmental affairs for Massachusetts, published an editorial in the New York Times where he discouraged a "national grid system" for renewable energy, arguing for a better, lower cost option.
We agree.
Achieving widespread adoption of renewable (wind) energy is not as easy as the popular catch phrases "25 x 2025" and "20% by 2030" would have us believe. Nor will it be cheap. It is worth revisiting some of the assumptions in the DOE report:
1. Wind energy does not provide capacity; it requires separate redundant and reliable backup generation
Electricity production in the US is predicated on reliability, affordability, and security. The ability to produce capacity -- electricity on demand -- is fundamental, since electricity cannot be stored at bulk levels. Yet, the DOE report states "Wind is an energy resource, not a capacity resource." In other words, while utilities are obligated to provide electricity, instantaneously, when customers demand it, wind does not, nor can it ever, do that.
According to the DOE, as installed wind capacity increases as a percentage of energy on the grid, wind power cannot replace the need for many ‘capacity resources' and that any capacity value for wind is "a bonus, but not a necessity." Put another way, building 305,000 MW of wind to satisfy the 20% wind energy goal will be independent of our need to build additional electric generating plants needed to meet demand.
2. Unrealistic projected rate of growth
The DOE report forecasts 305,000 MW of wind development by 2030 including 54,000 MW of off-shore wind. Assuming a starting point of 28,000 MW of wind now installed in the US (with none offshore), over 13,000 MW of new wind would need to be installed year after year through to 2030 - an amount equivalent to nearly double the capacity installed in 2008, a banner year.
Even if the industry were able to overcome all manufacturing and construction barriers to meet this goal, other barriers still remain including a) the public's resistance to wind turbines sited on publicly-owned lands, national forests and wilderness areas; b) sustained and substantial taxpayer-funded subsidies to ensure project viability; and c) the requirement for expansive and expensive power lines to access remote areas of the country.
3. The numbers don't add up: Optimistic capacity factors will not meet the 20% goal
According to DOE, U.S. demand for electricity will reach 5.8 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) by 2030, with 20% or 1.16-billion MWh satisfied by wind.
Assuming DOE's figure of 305,000 MW of installed wind capacity, the entire fleet of wind turbines would need to operate at an annual average capacity factor of 43.4%. Yet, few existing wind plants in the U.S. today, and none east of the Mississippi, come close to meeting this level of annual average capacity. The fact remains that many U.S. wind projects located in areas touted as having outstanding wind resources now report average capacity factors under 25%.
What's realistic?
The true impact of a national renewable vision based on wind, whether DOE's or the JCSP, is in the public cost, both in dollars and in the impacts wrought by transforming our open spaces into massive industrial power plants with associated transmission and other infrastructure.
Too many people are acting as though the discussion is over and all we need to do is build. In fact, it has barely just begun. While we may need to diversity our nation's energy portfolio with viable alternatives to fossil fuel, we hope it's not too late to step back and establish realistic goals based on validated costs and benefits.
[ Energy Policy ] Green energy and freedom
Beware the wolf in green clothing. State and Provincial governments in the U.S. and Canada have been aggressively promoting legislation aimed at fast-tracking wind energy development and silencing the voices of those concerned about massive towers spanning the landscape. Windaction.org cites three examples of pending legislation below including commentary on the status of each.
Montana: House Bill 483 passed the State legislature with substantial bipartisan support and was sent to the Governor for signing. This is the second time the bill made it to the Governor's office; in the first go-around, the Governor vetoed it with minor technical amendments. Columnist George Ochenski recently described the bill as "the most egregious of the environmental destruction bills". In essence, HB 483 "masquerades as an effort to 'streamline' environmental permitting for energy facility projects" at the expense of the public's right to participate in the process.
In the face of a weaker economy and continuing job losses, HB 483 places power plant siting first, ahead of environmental and public concerns. Further, the governor appears to be putting the needs of Nevadans ahead of his state's own citizens, as more than half of the energy that Montana produces is exported to surrounding states.
Environmentalists and wilderness advocates who have spent a lifetime fighting to protect Montana from the harms of energy development are bracing to see their efforts trashed with the stroke of a pen.
Ontario, Canada: Late last February, the Ontario provincial government released its Green Energy Act (Bill 150). The intent of the Act, as advertised, is to accelerate the deployment of green energy projects within the province and to spur record "green" job creation. Premier Dalton McGuinty made it clear in public remarks that his government will prohibit communities from opposing wind energy facilities. In a moment of pure arrogance, he informed Ontario residents that NIMBYism will no longer prevail.
Apparently, Mr. McGuinty doesn't believe that those raising concern about wind energy facilities being built close to where they live and gather have valid reasons for their objections beyond a self-serving dislike of how the towers look. "Noise?" Prove it... "Property value diminution?" Sorry, don't believe it... "Shadow flicker?" For 10 minutes a day? - deal with it... "Public Safety?" Sorry, 400-meters is a more than adequate buffer from your home. And the list goes on.
If only energy and related land use concerns were that simplistic; and the meeting of carbon reduction goals and government sponsored job creation so easily achieved.
The quality of life and health of Ontario's communities and residents are under threat by the very people charged with protecting their interests. But when the Premier sees his fellow residents as part of the problem, something is very wrong.
Following considerable public and media outcry, the Premier recently showed signs he might soften his approach. Maybe so, but Windaction.org encourages the people of Ontario to continue informing the debate. Those seeking change (McGuinty) own the burden of proof - not the other way around. The bill is still before the Ontario legislature.
Wisconsin: In the past two years, a host of Wisconsin townships and counties adopted local ordinances governing the siting of wind energy facilities under 100 megawatts. These newly adopted local laws were more restrictive than the State's model ordinance as it pertains to setback distances and noise limits. The work of so many in Wisconsin to enact justifiable ordinances within the bounds of their authority has helped educate other communities across the United States and worldwide.
Wisconsin State legislators, intolerant of these efforts, moved quickly in early 2008 to pass a bill aimed at abolishing local authority and placing all wind siting control in the hands of the State's Public Service Commission. That bill failed, but Wisconsin citizens have been bracing for similar legislation to be offered, and this week it was. Senate Bill 185 was announced in a joint press release put out by its sponsors. In the release, Senator Plale bemoans those wind projects that are "victims of delay tactics and other obstructions". While not as abrasive as Ontario's McGuinty, his message, and that of his colleagues is clear: "Stay out of our way".
This is the second time in the last year that Wisconsin residents are forced to do battle against legislation that promises to industrialize their communities purely at the will and desire of developers. And, as in Montana and Ontario, the Wisconsin legislators are holding out the promise of jobs and economic opportunities with no substantiation for their claims.
Unfortunately, these examples of aggressive legislation are not unique, but representative of what's happening worldwide. Our civil liberties are at risk, and quickly being eroded in the name of green energy.
[ Impact on Wildlife | Impact on Landscape ] The Cost of Mitigating Circumstances
New Hampshire's Site Evaluation Committee is deliberating on Noble Environmental's proposal to erect a 99-megawatt wind energy facility in northern Coos County.
The project has caught the attention of several high profile environmental groups in the State including New Hampshire Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, and Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) - all of whom issued strong letters, and in the case of AMC, testimony, detailing the significant impacts to sensitive wildlife habitat should the project proceed. Biologists at New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHF&G) submitted equally strong testimony arguing the project will produce an unreasonable adverse effect on the natural environment.
The facts proffered by the above mentioned groups are consistent.
The project located on managed timber land spans four ridgelines. The bulk of the thirty-three turbines are slated for rare, pristine old-growth forest that, according to NH's Wildlife Action plan accounts for only about four-percent of the state's land area but whose habitat type supports sixty-six vertebrate species including several threatened species. In particular, this high-elevation spruce-fir forest is home to the Bicknell's thrush, American martin, and the three-toed woodpecker, all known to be resident at the project site. Tracks of the Canada lynx, now believed to be pioneering back to the State have been observed onsite.
The project proposes to build 33 miles of roads involving 50-foot ledge cuts and surface widths ranging from 24 to 150 feet wide. Noble's engineer confirmed under oath that this photo taken at the Kibby Mountain wind facility in Maine accurately represents what can be expected in New Hampshire.
The project also seeks to fill over thirteen (13) acres of wetlands including the destruction of eight vernal pools.
The US Army Corps of Engineers has informed Noble that the alternatives analysis conducted on the project is inadequate and more needs to be done to prove that the proposed site location and plan layout is the least impacting. Technical letters prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA concur with the Army Corps finding.
Still, Noble Environmental has resisted all requests to relocate or remove turbines that might reduce the environmental damage complaining that any changes to the plan will harm the project's economic viability. No concrete evidence has been supplied by Noble to substantiate this point.
But it would appear that by Noble holding firm at least two parties have caved to its will - AMC and NHF&G. In the final days leading up to the State hearings, AMC, NHF&G, and Noble hastily slapped together an agreement termed the High Elevation Mitigation Agreement. The key conditions of the agreement are simple:
1) Land surrounding one of the four turbine strings sited on one of the four peaks (Kelsey Mountain) will be deeded to the State of New Hampshire as conservation land.
2) Two offsite parcels totaling 260 acres will be deeded to the State.
3) Funds totaling $950,000 will be paid to NHF&G of which $200,000 will be used to conduct post-construction studies on the effects of wind facilities on high-elevation species and the remaining $750,000 will go towards purchasing additional conservation lands.
AMC's and NHF&G's firm opposition to certain turbine strings being constructed was not firm at all. When faced with a choice between managed commercial timbering in the area - a regulated industry active in the state for decades (and now green-certified) - and the project, the project was deemed the lesser evil.
This position taken by AMC and NHF&G is even more incredible after considering AMC's David Publicover's own statements that timbering at high elevations in New England typically produces low commercial value and the steep slopes significantly impede harvest due to cost. This aerial photo of the Kelsey ridgeline showing an area near-black with forest appears to validate this point.
The haste in which the agreement was negotiated and signed did not go unnoticed during the hearings. Windaction.org, a party to the proceedings before the State, had the opportunity to cross-examined AMC and NHF&G on the agreement, a summary of what was revealed detailed below:
Did AMC or NHF&G perform a trade-off analysis that looked at total acreage impacted by the project including forest interior habitat lost?
Answer - "No." NHF&G stated in testimony that 3747 acres of high-elevation habitat would be affected.
Did AMC or NHF&G consider how far into the forest the direct edge effects of building the road, turbine pads, and associated transmission would be felt?
Answer - "No." AMC's Dave Publicover added under oath that "We knew those edge effects were there. We knew approximately what they were. ...We weren't basing our mitigation on any specific, you know, mitigation acreage ratio."
Did AMC or NHF&G visit the mitigation land to determine the quality of the habitat and whether it was comparable to the habitat that would be lost?
Answer - "No." In fact, some of the mitigation land was recently timbered, confirmed in aerial photos obtained by Windaction.org.
Did AMC or NHF&G prepare a scope of work for any post-construction studies and did either validate whether the $200,000 was sufficient to cover costs including administrative costs?
Answer - "No."
Did either AMC or NHF&G consider how much land could be purchased for the $750,000 and the availability of comparable habitat elsewhere in the State that was not already protected?
Answer - "No." Under oath, NHF&G stated it was difficult to tell what landowners will demand for land but the Department knows of several properties that had recently been cut.
It remains to be seen whether the State of New Hampshire will endorse the agreement signed by NHF&G, AMC, and Noble Environmental. Windaction.org would hope the Committee will hold a higher standard for the State than what NHF&G and AMC have demonstrated. The lesson learned in this case is that we cannot assume those negotiating mitigation settlement agreements have the knowledge, experience, or commitment to protect the natural resources at stake, even when that's their job.
[ Impact on People | Noise ] Wind turbines and health problems in Maine
Earlier this month, Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, a radiologist at the Northern Maine Medical Center, conducted interviews with fifteen people living near the industrial wind energy facility in Mars Hill, Maine. The purpose of the interviews was to investigate and record the health effects on those living within 3500-feet of industrial-scale turbines.
On March 25, 2009, Dr. Nissenbaum presented his preliminary findings before the Maine Medical Association. The data, which he characterized as alarming, suggest the residents are experiencing serious health problems related to shadow flicker and noise emissions from the turbines near their homes. The onset of symptoms including sleep disturbance, headaches, dizziness, weight changes, possible increases in blood pressure, as well as increased prescription medication use, all appear to coincide with the time when the turbines were first turned on (December 2006).
Every individual interviewed by Dr. Nissenbaum reported that his or her quality of life had been negatively affected by the turbines. The residents all expressed new or increased feelings of stress, anger, irritability, depression, anxiety, and hopelessness. Quotes cited in the presentation included "Nobody will help us", "No one cares", and "It's very hard watching my child suffer".
While some deficiencies exist in the study as Dr. Nissenbaum details in his presentation, aspects of his findings stand out as being immediately significant. In an interview with Windaction.org, Dr. Nissenbaum asserted "The results for sleep disturbance, headaches, anger, feelings of hopelessness, and incidence of depression symptomatology in this group are so high that despite the small number, and the lack of a control and tests of statistical significance, they jump out at physicians as obviously being significant. The statistical significance tests would just be confirmatory in this case - gilding the lily, if you will".
He added "I did not even get into the issue of the sixteen children who live there. The WHO (World Health Organization) has identified children, along with the elderly, as being particularly susceptible. This would require a fair amount of time, and special expertise, as children manifest in many ways besides, or instead of, simple sleep disturbance including disturbed learning, acting out, etc."
The Medical Staff of Northern Maine Medical Center released a statement in March 2009 calling for the careful siting of wind turbines. Dr. Nissenbaum included an excerpt from that statement in his presentation as follows: "The State of Maine has a vast, unpopulated hinterland. There is little need to site industrial wind developments in proximity to residential communities if there is a risk of negative health effects. Quality of life, quality of place, and a healthful environment should be the right of all residents of Maine, including those of the rural north".
On December 18, 2008, Andrew Fisk of Maine's Department of Environmental Protection informed the residents the State had sent a letter to First Wind stating the wind facility was “currently in compliance with the Control of Noise rules". The State of Maine has washed its hands of the problems of Mars Hill, leaving the families to suffer.
[ Energy Policy ] Beware the "anti-wind zealots"
Frank Maisano, spokesperson for wind energy developers in the State of Maryland, wrote a letter to Maryland's Times-News paper calling on "anti-wind zealots" to "stop delaying the potential opportunities that provide such important economic and environmental benefits." In his letter, Maisano suggests that concerns expressed by Maryland residents relating to turbine safety, noise, and the environment are unfounded and that Maryland's "zealots" own sole responsibility for why the State is behind its neighbors, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, in numbers of turbines installed. Currently, Maryland has no operating wind facilities.
Maisano's letter comes on the heels of another by Steven Sullivan, public relations adviser to wind developers, where Sullivan pokes fun, insults, and belittles those who worry about the impacts of multiple, massive towers built within 2500-feet of the wall of their homes. He scoffs at Dr. Nina Pierpont's investigation into the growing body of complaints from residents experiencing health problems after living near the turbines and grumbles that a "cadre of organized, technologically savvy, anti-wind organizations" is spreading misinformation and lies about wind faster than proponents can respond.
Maisano's and Sullivan's comments are remarkable in their utter indifference to what's happening around them.
This week's Wind Alert! newsletter itself features more than ten items relating to health, safety, and environmental impacts of big wind with titles including: "Something in the wind as mystery illnesses rise" (Japan), "Environmental concerns roadblock to renewable energy" (USA), "Farmer vs. Missouri's First Wind Farm" (Missouri) and "Doctor calls for health studies on windmill farms" (Canada). Windaction.org has collected volumes of substantiated material addressing the potential risks and actual impacts of industrial-scale wind towers on people and the environment.
For decades, wind energy development worldwide represented little more than a niche market, despite billions paid out in public dollars necessary to keep the industry afloat. Even today, following record growth in the last three years, wind energy contributes nominal amounts to U.S. energy needs -- at around 1% -- and without continued infusions of public funds the industry would collapse.
Every electric power plant online in the United States, including hydroelectric and other renewable facilities, is subject to enormous regulatory oversight. As new projects are proposed, environmental and citizen groups fill the hearing rooms exercising their right to participate. The laws allow for public involvement and, while project proponents may not like or believe the evidence submitted, they expect compromise and often times respect the bright lines they should not cross. When agreement cannot be met, all sides recognize that appeals are a legal, rightful part of the process.
Apparently, wind energy developers and their advisers do not believe they should be held to the same standards regardless their assertions that wind is a mainstream option for electric generation. Instead they rely on scrappy, mean-spirited tactics typically resorted to by those on the losing side of a debate.
Back in 2007 when Congress was considering establishing standards for wind energy development that would provide protections for wildlife resources, industry advocates vehemently denounced the action claiming such provisions would destroy the wind market. The words of Maisano and Sullivan reveal the same thinking at play today, even after the industry's successes of 2008. But efforts to deny that people and the environment are being harmed by the turbines or using megaphones to shout down their concerns will not make the problems go away.
Windaction.org has to wonder why Frank Maisano, in particular, is upset with the residents in Maryland for expressing their concerns. Maisano knows full well that passage of Senate Bill SB 566 (2007), designed to fast-track approval of wind facilities sized at 70 MW or under, essentially prohibited public engagement beyond a token hearing called by the Maryland Public Service Commission (MD PSC). He ignores the fact that the MD PSC, the State's Office of Public Counsel and the Department of Natural Resources all testified against SB 566 and that under the law, there is no role for the MD PSC to consider public safety, the economy of the State, the conservation of natural resources, or the preservation of environmental quality as normally would be required with the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN).
Mr. Maisano's active lobbying in Maryland has successfully bound the hands of the very governmental bodies slated to protect the interests of the State's residents and its wildlife - and he calls members of the public "anti-wind zealots"!
Since enactment of SB 566, the MD PSC has given a green light to one wind energy facility and the groundwork has been laid for a second to be approved.
The first was Clipper Wind's re-application to the MD PSC last March, which allowed the project to "escape" the permit conditions placed on an original 101-MW wind facility when it received a CPCN in 2003. The MD PSC had little choice but to fast-track Clipper under SB 566 when it reapplied with a 70 MW plan (twenty-eight 2.5-MW turbines) to be built on Backbone Mountain a few miles north on the same ridge as occupied by the Mountaineer wind facility in West Virginia. FPL Energy's Mountaineer project, with 44 turbines, is well known for slaughtering thousands of bats yearly.
The second proposal likely to be approved by the MD PSC is slated for Dan's Mountain in Allegany County, MD atop a high ridge that is regionally recognized as being part of the Allegheny Front. The fast-tracking of these wind facilities left no opportunity for an evidentiary hearing or for the human and environmental impacts of the projects to be fully considered.
Mr. Maisano and Mr. Sullivan are not unique. Windaction.org finds evidence of their tactics throughout the United States such as in Maine, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin where State legislation has been put forth to limit the rights of the public to be heard on wind proposals. The attraction of wind energy development comes with costly impacts. Until the wind industry acknowledges this fact -and- takes the necessary steps to avoid or minimize negative impacts, the ranks of "anti-wind zealots" will continue to swell.
[ Impact on Landscape | Impact on People | Energy Policy ] Maine’s "wind rush" an abuse of the public trust
Last week, First Wind (formerly UPC Wind) hosted a ribbon-cutting ceremony at its newest wind farm in New England, the Stetson wind energy facility located in Danforth, Maine. The event celebrated completion of the 38-turbine (57-megawatt) facility and was attended by 100 state and local officials including Maine's Governor Baldacci, construction company representatives, and local business owners.
The Governor addressed the crowd by praising his administration's proactive agenda on wind power development and the State's willingness "...to change for the future while safeguarding its natural resources."
Washington County Commissioner Chris Gardner thanked First Wind for its investment and called the company "tremendous stewards of our environmental resources and, most importantly, the public trust."
The public fawning by Maine's officials is typical of what we've come to expect from Baldacci and other politicos in Maine and its neighboring States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, but in this case one needn't dig too deep to realize the "feel-good" messages belie the harsh realities surrounding Stetson.
The Stetson wind project involved two separate permit applications submitted to two different State regulatory bodies. The primary application covering the wind farm itself was submitted to and approved by Maine's Land Use Regulatory Commission (LURC). The second, known as the "Line 56 Project", detailed construction of a 38-mile, 115 kV (Line 56) transmission line from Stetson Wind to the Keene Road substation in Chester, Maine and was approved by the State's Department of Environmental Protection (ME-DEP).
According to the "Line 56 Project" application, the 38-mile line involved impacts to 81.1 acres of wetlands including crossing the Penobscot River, the Mattagodus Stream Wildlife Management Area1, and the Mattawamkeag River twice! Windaction.org wonders whether Governor Baldacci was even aware of what his ME-DEP approved when he praised Maine for "safeguarding its natural resources". Impacts to the natural environment notwithstanding, First Wind described the aesthetic impact of building Line 56 as ‘Low' despite the fact that 173 dwellings were located within 300-feet of the line.
But the situation surrounding Stetson is more dire.
In June 2007, three months prior to First Wind submitting its application for permission to construct Line 56, the final draft copy of the Interconnection System Impact Study was released detailing the local- and grid- wide impacts to the New England power grid should Stetson feed 57 MW to the grid. The findings of the study were clear.
The System Impact Study asserted Stetson would have "no significant system impact to the stability, reliability, and operating characteristics" of the New England transmission system but that conclusion tells only part of the story. The study also showed that the existing transmission Line 64, into which Line 56 would feed, was at full capacity (151 MW) servicing Brookfield Power's 126 MW hydroelectric system and Indeck's 25 MW biomass power plant - both base load renewable generators. With the introduction of Stetson energy into Line 64, energy output from Brookfield and/or Indeck would have to be significantly curtailed resulting in a 0 MW net gain in renewable generation for the region. Put another way, Stetson Wind, an intermittent unpredictable generator, could displace existing reliable base load renewables.
In its March 13, 2008 letter to the ME-DEP, Brookfield Power New England LLC correctly stated through its attorney Matthew D. Manahan that "It is not in the public interest for new intermittent renewable generation to be constructed and to pass over Line 56 if it simply displaces existing renewable generation - that can provide capacity to Maine - on another transmission line, Line 64."
Regardless the environmental, visual and transmission impacts of Line 56, ME-DEP granted First Wind the permit.
It's not certain how much, if any of Stetson's 57 MWs of wind energy will ever reach the New England power grid, but according to a recent article in the Bangor Daily News, the ISO-New England and Maine state officials assured Brookfield and Indeck that the established power generators' needs would come first when the Stetson Mountain project goes active. Brookfield Renewable Power Inc.'s general manager told the paper "In layman's terms, they [First Wind] were going to have to take a back seat to our transmission needs." That may be true, but Windaction.org wonders whether First Wind's banker, HSH Nordbank, who wrote a letter endorsing First Wind and the Stetson proposal to ME DEP is aware of this fact. And did Governor Baldacci know this last week when he bowed before the massive towers.
Still, none of these issues have dampened First Wind's plans to build Stetson II, a 17-turbine 25.5 MW facility. According to published documents submitted to LURC in November 2008, Stetson II will connect to the same substation as Stetson I and has no need for additional transmission. (The same holds for First Wind's proposed 60 MW Rollins Wind project.)
First Wind's Stetson II (and Rollins Wind) will further exacerbate the congestion on Line 64, and its energy may never get to the New England grid.
But apparently, First Wind is confident it will still get Maine's permission to build Stetson II.
Windaction.org has learned First Wind has already taken delivery of Stetson II's seventeen turbines. These photos (photo1, photo2) dated December 20, 2008 show the turbine components on the Stetson Mountain leased property and at the old staging area for Stetson I.
With powerful wind proponents like Governor Baldacci and First Wind's Chief Development Officer Kurt Adams (former chairman of Maine's Public Utilities Commission, Maine's primary regulator of transmission infrastructure), First Wind has no reason to sweat the hard questions. But to be safe, Bill LD 199 was introduced in the legislature to squash all possible local obstacles. The summary of LD 199 states:
"The bill grants the state-level wind power siting authority, which is the Department of Environmental Protection or the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission depending on the location of a given wind power development, sole jurisdiction for approving the construction and initial operation of a wind energy development. Specifically, the bill prohibits any other state or local governmental entity from requiring any approval, permit or other condition for the construction or initial operation of a wind energy development that has been certified or permitted by the wind power siting authority."
Contrary to Washington County Commissioner Chris Gardner praise of First Wind as "tremendous stewards ...of the public trust", in fact, First Wind, and those Maine officials entrusted to protect the environment and the health, safety, and welfare of the residents have shown nothing but contempt for the public trust.
Unfortunately, it will be Maine's citizens and the greater New England region who pay the price for Baldacci's ignorance, Kurt Adams audacity, and First Wind's arrogance.
1The Mattagodus wetland system includes one of New England’s most ecologically significant fens (groundwater-fed wetlands), at least ten endangered and threatened species including the Clayton’s copper butterfly (which only occurs at ten sites in the world), and a rare mayfly species whose only known occurrence is in Maine.
[ Energy Policy ] Will 2008 news fuel 2009 policy?
As the New Year begins, we thought it might be beneficial to our Windaction.org visitors and subscribers to take a look back at 2008 and see how the wind energy debate shaped up over the course of the last year.
Worldwide, installed wind energy capacity reached 120,000 megawatts (MW), an increase of 26,000 MW since 2007. Here in the United States, wind grew by over 6000 MW and now exceeds 22,000 MW installed. Most of this development, spurred by generous tax subsidies and established renewable energy goals, was conceived, planned for, and approved in the years leading up to 2008.
Since January 1, 2008, our subscriber list has doubled, reflecting the growth in wind energy development. Our subscribers include wind developers, environmentalists, wildlife and energy experts, decision makers, stakeholders, and people who are affected, positively or negatively, by the projects. The Windaction.org database of news articles, opinion pieces, documents etc. also expanded to just over 19,500 entries including more than 6,000 additions in the past year. We communicate weekly with the press and others who are tracking wind project development at all stages.
Based on news postings and e-mail, the areas of the world experiencing the most development and controversy include the United States, Canada, Europe (in particular the UK and Ireland), New Zealand and Australia. Within the United States, 2008 saw a groundswell of concern coming from States we had previously not heard from -- Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, California, Idaho, Nevada, and Minnesota. Others, including Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Illinois, Washington and Texas, continued to be at the forefront of the debate. Interestingly, while Minnesota and California have long encouraged wind development, it was not until 2008 that Windaction.org developed lasting contacts with concerned residents in these states - an indicator that resistance to the turbines is growing there as well.
With each new wind facility proposed, Windaction receives inquires from those living nearby. Rarely are people narrowly focused on the visual impacts or aesthetics (NIMBY) of the towers, a characterization commonly asserted by wind proponents and the press. Rather, people express substantive worries related to their health, safety, and quality of life, particularly when project plans involve siting 450-foot towers within 2000-feet of a residence and as little as 500-feet from property lines.
Since wind facilities are typically approved through the local planning and zoning process, e-mails we receive include questions about the process and how residents can go about getting their voices heard. But more disheartening, people are e-mailing us about the growing distrust of government officials tasked with reviewing and approving the plans - and with good reason.
Those sitting on the town and county boards seldom have any experience with power plant siting, nor are they equipped to evaluate the extensive and complex issues related to turbine noise, flicker, property value impacts, decommissioning, tax benefits and risks. Small town boards, in particular, are easy prey for the smooth-talking wind representatives intent on getting their way; Windaction.org has tracked numerous examples of developers manipulating local boards. New York State is a hot bed for this activity, prompting Attorney General Cuomo to step in and reassert order and fairness into the process with his Code of Conduct for wind energy companies working in the state. But New York is not alone. The public, and not so public, antics of wind developers span nationwide. One of the more blatant cases involves former Maine Governor Angus King who for the last year, as a private citizen, has been trying to ram through zoning changes in Roxbury, Maine to permit industrial turbines over the objections of Roxbury property owners.
By the beginning of 2008, Windaction.org began to notice a shift in the debate at the grassroots level. Until then, there was little continuity in the news stories. Discreet local news events detailing individual wind farm proposals and related controversies were the norm with limited reporting in the national press. But in 2008, something changed. People in rural areas were becoming increasingly aware of projects proposed for their communities and were starting to engage more quickly by talking with their neighbors and searching the web for details. More and more anecdotal information was coming to light in 2008, a reflection of the number of turbines built closer to where people live, a growing anger at turbine noise and other consequences of living near the towers, and the desire to get the word out.
Residents of Mars Hill in Maine wrote letters to those in Roxbury Maine encouraging them to ask questions and demand answers of their town board and State agencies. Gordon Yancey and his family captured national press attention with their story of how the Maple Ridge wind facility in New York tore their family and the community apart. Gerry Meyer's story in Wisconsin was picked up by USA Today after he cataloged the impacts of the turbines on his family and how his life had changed for the worse. Jane Davis in the UK shared her experiences with the turbines and why she abandoned her home. Gail Meir of Italy and Barbara Ashbee-Lormand of Ontario Canada documented similar experiences. Rene Taylor, who lives with her family in the shadows of Horizon Wind's Twin Grove facility in Illinois, wrote how their quality of life had been harmed and why Mrs. Taylor now commits hours of her time helping others in Illinois and elsewhere to learn more about the projects before they're constructed. And Dr. Nina Pierpont has worked tirelessly over the last several years investigating "Wind Turbine Syndrome", a condition in humans marked by headaches, sleeping difficulty, concentration and behavioral problems which she believes is triggered by the effects of turbines' low-frequency noise and vibration on the inner ear.
After witnessing what others were dealing with post-construction, communities also started to recognize the importance in moving cautiously when reviewing wind projects. Promises of tax revenues and jobs piqued interest, but residents understood how critical it was to balance possible benefits against the environmental, societal, and economic impacts of industrializing enormous swaths of land in their area. Others doubted the idea of building expansive onshore wind facilities hundreds of miles from load centers only to reap a trickle of intermittent, unpredictable energy.
In 2008 we saw townships and counties throughout Wisconsin adopt local laws to protect the health and safety of their residents, despite State laws prohibiting municipalities from restricting wind projects except under very narrow conditions. Elsewhere, communities sought change via elections, replacing the people sitting on local and county boards.
As more people and communities raised public concerns, wind developers responded by seeking ways to fast-track the approval process. They lobbied State agencies and politicos to legislate for the rapid expansion of wind development in the interest of meeting State renewable energy goals. Rural residents, who were doing their part locally to protect themselves, had limited knowledge of what was happening at their State houses hundreds of miles away, but the result was very real. A number of States have already responded with laws and goals that favor massive wind development without stopping to consider the consequences (or viability) of their actions. Windaction.org has observed firsthand the growing impatience at the State and Federal levels with those who report concerns about the towers. Residents in areas targeted for wind development are dismissed as misinformed while others are accused of being shortsighted, or worse, selfish and anti-Earth. Energy policy has become politicized and the goals are more about the urgent need to go green and build wind facilities, than about meeting our energy needs through clean, reliable, and cost-effective methods.
President-elect Obama is sending strong signals that he will "stimulate" the economy and put people back to work by transforming United States' energy generation, once and for all, into renewables and wind. Perhaps Obama and his staffers believe that enough money thrown at any ideal goal will make it happen. Or that lofty goals repeated enough will make the difference. But nowhere in Obama's "New Energy for America Plan" is there an analysis of his plan or details of the risks. Nor does he seem to care. Perhaps we are to accept that our political leaders, turned energy experts and economists, have already considered the issues -- but don’t count on it. And if the new administration is relying on the report "20% Wind Energy by 2030" coauthored by AWEA and the Department of Energy, we have much to discuss.
Before we race to dump billions of dollars into building a new electricity infrastructure that will criss-cross our open spaces with wind turbines and associated transmission, lining the pockets of T. Boone Pickens and a handful of corporations, it would be prudent for our local, state, and federal governments to consider the controversies wind has wrought in rural areas and to understand why everyday people have put their lives on hold to fight these developments and help others. The time has come for the United States to remove the rose-colored glasses, to stop with the platitudes and wishful thinking, and to finally understand that energy policy cannot be driven by emotion and superficial assumptions.
[ Impact on People | Zoning/Planning ] Inaction in Newburyport, MA
This year, the City of Newburyport, Massachusetts paved the way for large-scale wind turbines within the city limits. A three-person subcommittee was formed in January, 2008 and charged with writing an ordinance governing the siting and construction of turbines.
The city's planning director, Nancy Colbert (no longer with the City), acknowledged in the press that "The structures can be obtrusive, and that is why it is even more important for the city to weigh in."
By March 5, according to minutes of the Newburyport Planning Board, the subcommittee reported "They are trying to fast track the zoning because they are expecting a proposal to be submitted soon and would like to have a zoning ordinance in place beforehand." By April, the City amended its zoning ordinance allowing turbines up to 400-feet in height with minimum setbacks of 150 feet from abutting property lines and 300-feet from residential zoning districts.
There's no question the ordinance was "fast-tracked", and perhaps tailor made to accommodate the expected proposal. In August, the City granted a special permit for Mark Richey to erect a 292-foot wind turbine located just 319-feet from the public pedestrian rail trail, 350-feet from heavily-traveled U.S. Route 1, and 800-feet from the nearest residence. Last month, Windaction.org highlighted some of the safety risks to the public should the Richey turbine be erected.
Immediately after the special permit was granted, two families living near the project site filed an appeal seeking to have the permit overturned. With the appeal still pending, Richey announced the turbine components had been secured and construction was to begin January 5th.
Last week, one City Councilor sent a letter to fellow councilors asking that they take another look at the wind turbine ordinance stating there is "public safety concern affecting the health and welfare of our citizens with respect to industrial wind turbines" over 100 feet high. In addition, a petition containing two-hundred and seventy signatures was submitted to the Council in support of the request and the majority of residents who spoke at the December 29 Council meeting pleaded for action.
At-large Councilor Donna Holaday informed the residents that the City's attorneys advised no action due to the pending appeal. Pointing the finger of blame at all residents Holaday added "You have made a choice to file a lawsuit naming the city. We need to wait." (Only two families filed the appeal.)
Holaday's statements were grossly out of line and should outrage all citizens of Newburyport, no matter where they stand on the wind turbine issue.
Further, using the ineffectual excuse of pending litigation as the reason for delaying another look at the ordinance is unsupportable. At the point when the application for a special permit was submitted to the City, all actions pertaining to approvals and subsequent appeals became subject to the laws then on the books. Whether the ordinance were to be changed, rescinded, or a moratorium enacted, there would be no impact on how the appeal was dealt with in the courts, with one important exception and perhaps the true reason the Council is uninterested in acting now.
If the courts were to find in favor of the appellants and overturn the City's decision on the special permit, Mr. Richey's application might be subject to any new zoning changes. If the City took the time to enact even the most minor changes aimed at protecting the public, such changes could outlaw the proposed turbine, and for good reason.
[ Energy Policy ] Politics prevail in NY's energy arena
New York’s ISO1 has a new person at the helm, Steve Whitley, whose long career spans decades in energy and electric generation. There is no question Whitley knows the energy market, what it means to plan for and deliver reliable electricity, and the factors which impact cost and dependability of the system.
Whitley enters the NY region at a time when the State boasts 706.8 megawatts of installed wind energy capacity and nearly 500 massive wind turbines spanning the northern, central, and western regions of the State. An additional 590 megawatts of wind energy is under construction with over 8000 megawatts in the queue waiting for the opportunity to proceed. Wind energy development is widely celebrated by New York’s regulators and political leaders as an economic driver in the State that promises jobs and billions in investment to otherwise depressed areas. This is in spite of enormous vocal opposition to the projects expressed in communities across the State.
NY Studies have clearly shown that onshore winds tend to blow more at night when electric demand is at its lowest. Due to transmission constraints, operators of massive wind facilities have to choose between shutting down or paying fees to the grid operator for the privilege of continuing to pump energy onto the lines (as reported earlier this summer by Matthew Wald in the New York Times). Without viable technologies able to store large quantities of energy, the wind resource in New York is poorly utilized.
It is up to Mr. Whitley, in part, to resolve these issues and ensure New York ratepayers continue to receive reliable, cost-effective service. And he is one of few with the knowledge and experience to offer New York regulators and political leaders straight talk on the topic.
Yet, in a recent interview, Mr. Whitley fervently expressed his enthusiasm for wind power and advocated at least two solutions that he hopes will address the existing limitations of wind:
1) Plug-in hybrid cars: By rigorously promoting the use of plug-in hybrid cars, Whitley sees an opportunity for consumers to use the energy generated during periods of low demand to charge cars overnight. In other words, the solution is to have wind generation (and production) match electric car storage capacity in New York. This idea may look good on paper, and perhaps even appear economically feasible when oil was trading at $150/bbl, but how many New Yorkers are prepared to ditch their current transportation and pay $8000 to $20,000 more for a plug-in car they don't really need? And are thousands of wind turbines canvassing New York's landscape the best way to fuel cars?
2) Hydro Quebec connection: Whitley’s other grand scheme is equally difficult to swallow. Here, he envisions an extensive array of transmission lines moving wind energy from New York -to- Canada, for storage (e.g. in hydro-pump-storage), and expanding the Canada to NY transmission for re-importation. Thus, New York will sell wind energy to Hydro Quebec for next to nothing, to store the night-generated energy, and then buy it back at a much higher price when needed in the form of hydroelectric power.
It’s difficult for us to imagine Whitley, whose career spans decades in the energy business, being cowed into embracing such speculative fantasies. The solutions he’s offering New Yorkers appear more political than honest. It’s time for our political leaders and regulators to look to experienced energy experts like Whitley who can tell them the truth about our energy choices. Unfortunately, it seems Whitley opted for political expediency rather than using his position to educate others on the realities of his “solutions”. Windaction.org, who has tremendous respect for Mr. Whitley, can only hope that he balances his ardor for wind with cold facts when the media spotlight is not in the room.
1The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) is the entity responsible for overseeing the state’s electrical grid and wholesale electricity market.
[ Impact on Wildlife | Impact on Landscape ] Disturbing Assessment by US Forest Service
In September, the U.S. Forest Service released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the first wind energy project proposed for national forest lands.
Iberdrola's Deerfield Wind application proposes to erect fifteen 2-MW turbines in the Green Mountain National Forest located in southern Vermont. The project site is adjacent to the older Searsburg project erected on private land in 1997.
A review of the DEIS reveals disturbing information regarding the Forest Service's assessment of this project's impacts in the context of the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA.
The "purpose and need" section appears designed to achieve a predetermined result of siting an industrial wind energy facility on Forest Service land adjacent to the existing Searsburg site. Justifications used for considering the project application include (quoting the document):
- "The Project would provide a reliable and much needed source of power, contributing to long-term cost stability, in a region where the availability of cost-stable resources is quickly diminishing", and
- "The addition of wind energy to the regional electric grid has the benefit of decreasing the emission of harmful air pollutants, and decreasing reliance on natural gas and other fossil fuels."
Neither statement is accurate nor is there any attempt to substantiate these assertions. The Forest Service has no basis for claiming the project will provide "long-term cost stability" given the unpredictability of the wind resource and Iberdrola's inability to secure a long-term power purchase agreement for the energy. Since the New England states are participants in the regional cap and trade program, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI, the Forest Service cannot claim emissions will decrease should the project be built. Emissions will only be displaced.
In the alternatives analysis, the Forest Service never contemplates an alternative where the project is built on private land, an obvious omission. The only three alternatives provided, including a 'No Build' option, reflect variants of the original. The message is clear -- the Forest Service is committed to seeing this project built here and built now.
But the most offensive aspect of the DEIS document is how it reads more like a repackaging of Iberdrola's application rather than a serious assessment under NEPA in many important topics including aesthetics, economic benefits, impact on wildlife and the natural environment, and safety (ice throw, blade and turbine failure). It appears the Forest Service shamelessly accepted Deerfield Wind's studies, with no apparent attempt to validate the assumptions and conclusions made by the developer on project benefits and impacts.
For example, on Noise impacts, the Forest Service accepts Iberdrola's recommendation that the Project meet a nighttime guideline for protection against sleep disturbance of 45 A-weighted sound pressure levels (dBA) averaged over an eight-hour night at the wall of nearby residences.
By doing so, the Forest Service ignores the growing body of data, detailing the risk of turbine noise in rural communities. WHO recommends that sound levels during nighttime and late evening hours be less than 30 dBA during sleeping periods and that for sounds containing a strong low frequency component (typical of wind turbines), WHO asserts these limits may need to be even lower to avoid health risks. They also recommend that the criteria use dBC frequency weighting instead of dBA for sources with low frequency content.
The Forest Service also fails to note that the International Standards Organization (ISO) in ISO 1996-1971 recommends 25 dBA as the maximum night-time limit for rural communities. Sound levels of 40 dBA and above are only appropriate in suburban communities during the day and urban communities during day and night. There are no communities under this standard where 45 dBA is considered acceptable at night.
It's not possible to determine whether the Forest Service willingly conceded its responsibility to Iberdrola in assessing the impacts of the project or whether it did so out of ignorance, but the outcome is the same.
If the Federal Government is serious about understanding and documenting the impacts of wind energy projects on our National Forests, the American public deserves more. This DEIS cannot be allowed to set a precedent. Windaction.org advises the Forest Service to scrap the Deerfield Wind DEIS and begin again, but this time with a focus on research, not reproduction.
If our readers share these concerns, please take a moment to e-mail your thoughts to the Forest Service. The deadline for comments is Friday, November 28.
[ Safety | Icing ] Turbine risks and accountability
Late last year, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), the state's development agency for renewable energy, awarded a $474,340 grant to Mark Richey Woodworking and Design, Inc. of Newburyport MA, for the construction of a single 600KW (292-foot) industrial-scale wind turbine to be sited adjacent to the business.
Months later, in April 2008, the Town of Newburyport amended its zoning ordinance to allow wind turbines up to 400-feet tall with minimum setbacks of 150 feet from abutting property lines and 300-feet from residential zoning districts. The Richey turbine proposal was submitted to the town shortly thereafter and a special permit was approved in August paving the way for the turbine to be erected. The location of the turbine is 319-feet from the public pedestrian rail trail, 350-feet from heavily-traveled U.S. Route 1, and 800-feet from the nearest residence.
During the town's review hearing on the project, the developer addressed the risk of ice-shed as follows: "[the turbine] was a long way from the rail trail and if the ice did shed it would be directly below on the Richey property."
Wind turbine manufacturers disagree. According to GE Energy's Wind Application Engineering Group "wind energy production in cold climate provides the following formula for calculating a safe distance: 1.5 * (hub height + rotor diameter)". Based on this formula, the proposed turbine could fling ice 560-feet away, well into the area of the rail trail and traffic on Route 1. This e-mail characterizing ice-shed at the Searsburg, Vermont wind facility provides some insight into the problem. (Note: the turbines at Searsburg are 100-feet shorter than that planned for Newburyport).
Blade failure is another safety factor. Scott Larwood, who researched the history of turbine setbacks in California and the probabilities of rotor and blade failures, told Windaction.org that turbines slightly larger than the Richey tower should have a "safe" setback of 300 meters (987-feet). Turbine manufacturer, Vestas, writes in its Mechanical Operating and Maintenance Manual for the V90 3.0MW turbine that a "radius of 400m (1300 ft) from the turbine" is necessary to ensure safety.
Blade failures, fire, and turbine collapse do happen and turbine debris can fly considerable distances beyond the setbacks established in the Newburyport ordinance.
When Windaction.org confronted MTC on this issue, public information officer Emily Dahl replied: "Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust's goal is to support the installation of renewable energy projects and expansion of the clean energy industry in Massachusetts for a cleaner environment and stronger economy. The Trust evaluates projects at a high level and seeks to support projects that have a high likelihood of success and are deemed suitable by the communities in which they are located. The Trust is not a permitting agency; rather, permitting decisions for wind turbines are in the hands of each community."
Windaction.org has found a consistent pattern across the U.S. of small communities approving wind turbine proposals with little consideration, or apparent understanding, of the serious safety risks of erecting towers near public areas, rights-of-way, and residences. Windaction.org is particularly critical of MTC for its public advocacy in seeding projects like the Newburyport wind turbine while shirking responsibility for informing the communities of these risks.
(Note: The distances referenced in this editorial pertain to the risks of flying debris from operating turbines. Setbacks to mitigate for turbine noise, shadow flicker and visual impacts are not considered.)
[ Tax Breaks & Subsidies ] An unsustainable Boom and Bust scenario
Along with our economic downturn and troubles on Wall Street, the market price for Massachusetts Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) has fallen 50% from its highs last spring.
Renewable energy goals for Massachusetts are mainly established through its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a legislated program that requires total sales of Retail electricity meet a minimum percentage of new renewable generation each year.
The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), a quasi-public agency responsible for promoting renewable generation in the State, actively provides public financing for renewable energy projects as one way to meet the State's clean energy goals. In return, MTC receives a portion of the RECs generated by these projects on a long term basis, and sells them.
On October 8, the MTC held an auction of its current year (2008) RECs and a forward sale of 2009 RECs. In total, MTC auctioned 7,683 Massachusetts and Connecticut renewable certificates from 2008 and 26,000 Massachusetts renewable certificates to be generated in 2009.
The results of the auction were mixed depending on your perspective. Wind projects in New York and Canada, racing to participate in the Massachusetts RPS market, have helped the state meet its goals, suggesting the RPS is working. With the minimum percentages met, prices dropped. The 2008 RECs sold at half of their value from a few months ago, and MTC was unable to secure an acceptable bid for its 2009 RECs, as the market anticipates further declines.
However, if wind and other renewable developers were anticipating high REC values, the economics of the RPS are no longer as attractive and could well slow or even stop development. The question becomes what will the State do in this situation?
Windaction.org warns we're in an unsustainable boom and bust scenario, that rewards speculators for playing the REC market rather than effectively producing useful reliable electricity.
[ Impact on Economy ] Noble deflated
Citing credit woes, Noble Environmental Power LLC of Essex Connecticut announced last week that all work was suspended at its 14-turbine wind farm under construction in Bellmont, New York. The turbine foundations have already been laid at the site and Noble indicated work would not resume until summer 2009. Contractors for Noble have informed Windaction.org that, while the announcement was sudden, there were indications the firm was experiencing cash flow problems months ago.
Earlier this year, Noble filed plans to raise $375 million in an initial public offering (IPO). The share sale was to be underwritten by now bankrupt Lehman Brothers. Public reports of the IPO stated the company showed no revenue on its income statement and was nearly $1 billion in debt. The company has 282 megawatts in operating wind power projects in the U.S.
Noble Environmental, along with First Wind (formerly UPC Wind), is under investigation by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for alleged improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive practices. It is reported the company's credit woes partially stem from reluctance of financiers to invest in a company under investigation.
Noble's problems are not just legal and financial, they're also technical. The company is experiencing problems with its Clinton and Ellenburg wind parks erected in Clinton County NY and online earlier this year. None of the 121 turbines have been operational for the last two weeks. The root cause of the shutdown has not been announced.
In these troubling economic times, Windaction.org strongly encourages communities and landowners involved with wind farm development to look out for themselves by ensuring decommissioning plans are filed prior to commencement of any construction. Such plans should be backed with bonds sufficient to cover the costs of restoring a site to its original condition and the full removal of scrap materials. Note, given dramatic fluctuations in scrap value and hauling costs, decommissioning plans should never allow the value of the scrap to be deducted from the projected turbine dismantling costs.
[ Impact on Landscape | Impact on Views ] Permanent destruction of our National Heritage
This week, UNESCO, the cultural agency of the United Nations, threatened to act against Britain for failing to protect "world heritage sites". Their complaints included a proposed wind energy facility that would impact Neolithic sites on Orkney.
Also in the news, a wind project planned for public lands in Nevada would site seventy-two massive turbines overlooking the Comstock Historic District and Virginia City National Historic Landmark, the largest federally designated historic district in the United States.
In Virginia, Highland New Wind Development is fighting a condition of its approval requiring an archaeological study and viewshed analysis, among other studies. Of special concern is the impact the towers will have on Camp Allegheny, a Civil War battlefield atop Allegheny Mountain less than a mile from the project site.
Finally, Windaction.org was forwarded these photos (image1, image2) of Colorado's Pawnee Buttes, a site memorialized in the movie version of James Michener's epic Centennial. The Pawnee Grasslands have been changed forever with the construction of the Cedar Creek wind energy facility, a 275 turbine project that went online last January. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, who dedicated the Cedar Creek, praised the development calling it good for Colorado's economy, its environment, and energy independence. Apparently the honorable governor never stopped to consider whether it was good for the United States' heritage. And Windaction.org questions whether Ritter ever asked for concrete numbers that show the environmental and energy benefits of the project justified the industrialization of this historic area.
Wind proponents are shrewd at creating pre-construction simulations that blunt the appearance of the massive towers through the use of simulated camera angles and long-distance views. First Wind (formerly UPC Wind) went one step further in disguising the visual impact of its Sheffield Wind project in Vermont using views up to the hub height only. When asked what turbine height they assumed in creating their visual exhibits they stated "We commonly rely on hub height rather than the tip of the blade... as the rotor top when extended vertically directly above the hub does not represent a fixed height or "top" as it is a moving element of the turbine... and viewshed analyses are based on fixed points."
From Britain's moors to the mountains of Maine and New Zealand, from the plains of Australia to the canyons of Idaho, those who cherish the natural beauty of our open spaces need to defend our viewsheds against the march of the turbines. Otherwise, our only option is to capture the images before they're lost, as recommended by our colleagues in Idaho.
Furthermore, if view sheds surrounding historic landmarks worldwide are so easily tossed aside in the name of renewable energy, how can we ever ensure "lesser" views are preserved. But in many cases, those approving the projects have no idea the scale and magnitude of the visual impacts and apparently have little regard for the heritage of hundreds, thousands, or millions of years ago, yet is so wantonly defaced or even demolished.
- Options :
- View Archives