Eighteen months ago, Windaction.org reported that First Wind's Stetson wind facility (58-megawatts) in Maine would add no new renewable energy to the New England grid due to transmission constraints.

Last month, New York's Public Service Commission took an important first step toward understanding whether enormous new transmission deployment in the State to deliver renewable energy was warranted. In its October 20 order, the Commission acknowledged that of the nearly 1300 megawatts of wind energy installed in the State the majority of the development "occurred in a very small area(s) geographically and depended on the same bulk electric facilities to move the wind energy toward loads." The order went on to state that "these same facilities carry significant amounts of energy produced by hydro and combined cycle plants and that the renewable energy goals for the State will not be realizable if the energy from new renewable resources just replaces the energy produced by existing renewable resources." [Emphasis added]

New York's transmission policy is based on FERC's Standard Market Design ("SMD") which uses energy market prices to discourage power plants from being built long distances from New York City, the largest user of electricity. In simple terms, generators are paid less for their energy if their plant is located far from load. The intent of SMD is to ensure the most efficient use of transmission, to manage congestion, and to limit the development of costly power lines. Slide 14 of this presentation highlights the success of New York's policy where 80% of the new generation installed in the State since Y2000 was located close to the City.

Yet, State and Federal subsidies that encourage renewables regardless of where they're located or when they generate, are running counter to SMD. These generous subsidies are skewing the market such that renewable and wind energy facilities can afford to be located in remote areas despite the locational price penalties of SMD. The result? Rather than trying to keep the deployment of transmission to a minimum, wind energy facilities are fueling the race to build miles of new transmission capacity where none was needed before. Thousands of miles of new power lines are now proposed in New York and the Northeast alone with costs well into the billions for the purpose of delivering wind to urban areas. This same scenario is playing out all over North America.

In its order, the NY PSC prescribed a methodology for renewable project developers to detail their transmission needs, explain whether their output might be curtailed due to congestion on the power line, and what other power facilities might be displaced should their energy get on the grid.

The PSC states in its order that "by requiring a quantification and qualification as to whether other renewable energy will be displaced by a particular project and in what amounts, and by prescribing a methodology for project developers to use in providing such quantification and qualification, we can make more informed decisions and will have a metric to compare with study results to see if the industry is developing as projected. New transmission resources are expensive and, of equal importance, impose environmental costs in the form of land use effects, visual impacts, etc. Deployment of new transmission needs to be based on accurate knowledge."

A key statement in the order asserts "Provision of displacement information will assist us in determining the need for new facilities and guide the proper investment of ratepayer resources while ensuring minimum land use impacts."

The October 20 order makes clear that every megawatt hour of wind energy on the grid will NOT necessarily displace a megawatt hour of fossil fuel generation. Windaction.org suspects that of the nearly 1300 megawatts of wind installed in the State, the actual amount of fossil fuel displaced by wind is considerably less than what's currently assumed.

The NY PSC is on the right track by placing the public's interests ahead of those trying to build wind in the State. Windaction.org encourages the PSC to go further and look at adjusting the State's renewable subsidies to pay a better price to those renewables that can be built closer to load and able to meet peak electricity needs.

Back to top

The unpredictability of wind energy will become more problematic as the country aims to deliver more remotely-sited generation to population centers on the east and west coasts. The U.S. Department of Energy and others have argued that geographically dispersing wind turbines nationwide might help to dampen the broad swings in available wind energy, but this provides no assurances that the energy will be where we need it, when needed.

Massive new infrastructure at astronomical costs would be required. The US DOE envisions transforming millions of square miles of land into a massive wind energy facility with 19,000 miles of new 765 kv transmission lines criss-crossing the country to deliver the power. Up to 275,000 MW of redundant conventional-fuel generation would also be needed to ensure reliable dispatchable electricity.

Last week, Lisa Linowes of WindAction presented this dilemma and offered a solution at the Indiana State Bar Association's Fall Utility Law Seminar. (A copy of her presentation can be seen here).

It is well established that the power market responds to market signals. Current policies which encourage renewable generation at the State level (renewable portfolio standards "RPS") and at the Federal level (production tax credit) reward all renewables equally for placing a megawatt of energy on the grid. There is no adjustment to the subsidy based on time of day or seasonal demand requirements nor is there an adjustment for location of the power facility.

This has created artificial and unsustainable market pressures. These policies are creating the very problems which system planners are scrambling to solve through more transmission and fast-tracking of projects they do not need.

If renewable subsidies discriminated between those renewables that produced close to load and during the time of day and year when the energy was most needed (i.e. capacity rather than energy), energy experts report the response in the market would be almost immediate. The need for expansive transmission would drop off. More renewables would be proposed for sites closer to our population centers and that can service our peak demand periods. Very likely, the market would dictate less wind turbines in remote areas, with a larger emphasis on urban towers and offshore wind.

This consumer-centric approach is aimed at meeting load needs. The market will decide which renewable solutions best meet the goal. Rather than seeing 125 MW of unpredictable wind built we might get 25 MW of reliable biomass; rather than remote solar generation in the Mojave desert requiring 100's of miles of new transmission, we may see a greater effort to build rooftop solar in California's cities. Reliable generation would mean less need for storage, less redundant generation, and a better opportunity for replacing fossil fuel generation with renewables rather than merely displacing some fuel.

While public policy regarding renewables has helped this emerging market, it's time these policies were amended to better suit the public's needs. It is time to abandon nebulous plans to reinvent our existing system to accommodate a bias towards unrealistic renewable sources, and adopt consumer-centric, market based policies that will move us towards real world, reliable solutions.

Back to top

This week, we decided to highlight Jonathan Fahey's piece "Take my juice" published September 7th in Forbes Magazine. Mr. Fahey does an excellent job explaining one of the serious consequences of deploying large quantities of wind on the grid. Read his article here (also provided below).

One unintended consequence of renewable energy: electricity that has to be given away.

The science fiction fantasy of abundant free electricity is finally coming true. Sort of. Thanks to cheap wind energy, in some parts of the country wholesale power prices are now dropping to zero or below at certain times of the day.

In West Texas electricity prices dropped to zero 11% of the time in the 12 months through May 2009, says Bernstein Research analyst Hugh Wynne. Three percent of the time in the same period, prices dropped to nothing or below in northern Illinois and New York. Overnight prices are also occasionally hitting zero in Ohio and California.

A few years ago this kind of aberrant pricing was rare. This is likely to occur more often as vast amounts of wind power come online in the next few years. It's an unintended consequence of renewable energy mandates, government subsidies and a race to build wind turbines whether or not the grid can handle the new capacity.

Wind is the cheapest way for utilities to meet the renewable energy mandates that exist in 28 states and the national mandate that may soon come from Congress. But Mother Nature does not respond to mandates. Wind turbines spin the most at night when demand is low--and least on sultry afternoons when power is needed.

If there is too much power on a grid, the operator drops the wholesale price to zero. Why don't power plants just shut down? Although natural-gas-fired plants can power down for a few hours, coal and nuclear plants, which account for most of the country's power production, cannot. Wind producers, meanwhile, have an incentive to produce power even if they have to pay someone to take it off their hands: Their fuel is free, and they get a federal tax credit of 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Free juice occurs most often in places with lots of wind turbines but few transmission lines to get it to big cities. The Texas grid operator, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, told developers a few years ago it could handle only 4.5 gigawatts of (peak) wind power. Developers built 8 gigs anyway. A $5 billion transmission system that could bring some of that wind to cities like Dallas won't be complete until 2013.

Developers are planning to add 35 gigawatts of wind capacity to the upper Midwest by 2015. This could hurt companies like Exelon ( EXC - news - people ) that operate lots of coal and nuke plants. "There is no regard for the physical requirements of the system," complains Michael Freeman, who negotiates power purchases and sales for an Exelon unit in Kennett Square, Pa.

In the long run, the wind power boom could push daytime prices higher. To balance fickle windmills, utilities will need more juice from gas-fired peaking plants. That intermittent power will be expensive.

Back to top

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.

Back to top

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.

Back to top

The debate surrounding wind energy development has reached a near fevered pitch particularly in the last few months. Below are just four of many stories Windaction.org is closely tracking, which together suggest the debate is becoming even more divisive.

Noise: George Hessler of Hessler and Associates, and a handful of other sound experts, are regularly relied upon by wind developers to prepare pre-construction noise modeling studies intended to predict noise levels a wind facility will produce if built.

Invariably, Hessler et.al. report the same conclusions -- that turbine noise (usually at 45-50 decibels at receptor sites) will be at, or lower than, background noise levels in the community, and any noise produced by the turbines will likely be masked by the sound of the wind itself.

With 1200 MW of wind now installed in New York, and a growing body of noise complaints, New Yorkers know better than to trust their quality of life to Hessler's promises.

The residents of Cape Vincent, New York, hired Dr. Paul D. Schomer of Schomer & Associates Inc., to evaluate Hessler's work and to conduct his own background noise survey . Dr. Schomer is chairman of the International Organization for Standardization working group on environmental noise, chairman of the American National Standards committee on noise, and holds other leadership roles in noise measurement. His findings identified "tricks" used by Hessler to arrive at pre-determined conclusions. In Schomer's summary he explains how Hessler permitted summertime insect noise to contaminate the sound surveys to show background noise levels as high as 45-50 dB(A). In fact, Schomer's own survey showed noise levels in Cape Vincent to have an overall level of 30 dB (arithmetic average using A-weighted L90 levels). This included day, evening and night sound levels.

Windaction.org encourages all communities now reviewing pre-construction noise studies by Hessler and others to read Schomer's report and understand the damaging implications of Hessler's findings.

Aesthetics: Several weeks ago, Windaction.org posted an opinion piece by Stephen Bendit which appeared in the Denver Post. In his article entitled "Thinking twice about wind energy," Mr. Bendit recalls his experience hiking and camping at the Pawnee Buttes in Northeastern Colorado. He describes the 100-mile escarpment running east and west near the Wyoming and Nebraska borders as "an endless open landscape, wildflowers galore, a profusion of birds and wildlife, and endless stars at night with no light pollution."

When he arrived this year to hike and camp he found a very different place. At the trailhead he found windmills "as far as the eye could see."

Heading further east all the way to Sterling Colorado he "could not find one bit of the plateau without windmills." Seventy-five percent of the formation was "visually torn up" in Bendit's words. With nothing left to see, he turned around and went home.

If there is any doubt of what Mr. Bendit saw, this picture should prove the point. And now the land he once camped and hiked is forbidden territory , literally.

Those of us content to pay our utility company a small sum for the assurance that wind generated electrons are flowing on the grid would benefit by reading about Mr. Bendit's experience and looking at the pictures. Our open wilderness areas once believed sacred and safe from industrialization are now open for sale to wind developers. Sadly, we suspect most Americans have no idea how threatened our natural heritage is, in the name of renewable energy.

Energy Policy: Windaction.org has been reporting on Ontario's "Green Energy Act", an all-inclusive environmental law intended to expand renewable energy development in the Province, and streamline the siting process. Premier Dalton McGuinty hailed the law and pronounced "NIMBY is dead". Province-wide siting standards now overrule local bylaws and the Ontario provincial government is making sure, once and for all, that local debates on wind energy are silenced.

This month the Ontario government promulgated proposed new rules for the siting of wind projects including minimum setback distances of 550 meters from dwellings, and requirements to monitor and address low-frequency noise and vibrations from the turbines.

Windaction.org believes these initial rules show a good first effort by the Ontario government to understand and respond to the widely reported health effects of turbines on those living near the facilities. Yet, in a surprising piece by The Toronto Star the editorial board called the proposed rules an about-face by McGuinty that will undermine wind energy development and embolden an "alarmist, anti-wind lobby". Windaction.org can't help but wonder what entity met with the paper's editors just prior to this rant being published. Perhaps it was IPC Energy who we are told is canvassing Ontarians asking that letters be written to say the proposed setbacks exceed what's necessary.

Health effects: Windaction.org has reported on Dr. Michael Nissenbaum's work involving residents living near the Mars Hill wind energy facility in Mars Hill, Maine. Since presenting his preliminary findings before the Maine Medical Association, Dr. Nissenbaum expanded his study to further validate his research. In May, he published an editorial calling on the State of Maine to halt further permitting of wind farms until studies of their harmful effects can be completed. 

Rather than meeting with Dr. Nissenbaum to understand the methodology of his research, or better yet, meeting with those now harmed by the wind turbines in Mars Hill, the State's medical director, Dr. Dora Mills opted for politics as usual and posted her "findings" on the question of health effects in an editorial.

Dr. Mills argues that Maine's "highest-in-the-nation rates of asthma and cancer are thought to be at least partially due to pollution from our dependence on fossil fuel". Apparently, she's concluded that since the general suffering and poor health of Maine's residents is "at least partially due to" fossil fuels, the State should not investigate the health impacts of turbines near where people live. This is a surprising commentary given that Maine's peak summertime electricity consumption is one of the lowest nationwide at around 2200 MW and that renewables comprise a whopping 32% of the total installed electricity supply in the State. Even if fossil fuel were "at least partially" responsible for the ill health of Mainers, is it appropriate to erect turbines on every ridgeline before we fully understand the effects on people and property? 

In her piece, Dr. Mills attributes great faith in Maine's noise laws to protect residents from excessive turbine noise. However, she fails to acknowledge that Maine's DEP permits the Mars Hill facility to exceed allowed noise levels. And, despite the problems of Mars Hill, the State changed nothing when it approved the Stetson and Rollins Mountain wind projects. 

Unfortunately, Dr. Mills sounds more like a wind advocate than the objective medical professional hired to protect overall health of Maine's residents.

Individuals like Mr. Hessler, Premier McGuinty and Dr. Mills can be found worldwide; their actions and words deserve close scrutiny as the wind debate escalates. 

Back to top

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.

Back to top

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 encouraged investment in electric transmission and provided the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) with "backstop" siting authority under certain circumstances. Transmission operators responded by rapidly increasing their already aggressive transmission expansion efforts and incorporating "economic" projects in their plans. Economic transmission projects are those projects whose purpose extends beyond the ability to enhance reliability.

The Department of Energy also pushed for massive grid build-outs to promote wind generation and lower energy costs on the east coast. Conceptual plans were put in place that consider transforming the entire mid-section of the United States from North Dakota to Texas and Nevada to Ohio into a massive wind energy facility. Delivery of the power to the east and west coast states would require 19,000 miles of new 765 kv transmission lines towering 200 feet tall criss-crossing the Country. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced legislation this month that envisions a green-powered electricity transmission system to move the country in the direction of more renewables. But few in the public understand the massive scale - both in costs and impacts - should Reid's legislative concept gain traction.

The National "green" grid system was the topic of several presentations at the 12th annual Midwest Energy Conference in Chicago March 4-5 sponsored by the Midwest Chapter of the Energy Bar Association. The keynote speaker, FERC Commissioner Marc Spitzer, delivered a clear message to conference attendees that the states needed to take steps to support the plan or risk the federal government imposing siting decisions for them.

The message was sobering.

Windaction.org's executive director, Lisa Linowes presented her response to the proposed National grid in a slide presentation entitled "Transmission to Everywhere". In short, Windaction.org encouraged energy policy representatives to begin differentiating between the different forms of renewable energy with particular focus on those renewables best able to meet peak demand and/or be built closer to load. If the renewables subsidies can be adjusted to reward base load renewables the right market signals would be sent that would discourage the building of intermittent, unpredictable sources in remote locations and the need for thousands of miles of new transmission would diminish.

Windaction.org wishes to thank the Midwest Energy Bar Association for inviting us to participate at their conference. Ms. Linowes received a very positive response to her recommendations suggesting that those outside of Washington, DC have not fully vetted their grid ideas and that more public engagement is needed.

Back to top

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.

Back to top

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.

Back to top

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.

Back to top

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.

Back to top

Late Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed The Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act - H.R. 6899 .

The Act was passed largely along party lines (236 - 189) with thirteen Democrats joining Republicans in voting against the measure. The bill sponsored by John Dingell (D-MI) and Nick Rahall (D-WV), includes several highly controversial policy actions as follows:

1) States could permit drilling in waters between 50 and 100 miles offshore and the federal government can allow for drilling from 100 to 200 miles offshore;

2) Repeal of the current ban on leasing federal lands for oil shale production if states enact laws providing to such leases and production;

3)  A ONE year extension of the production tax credit for wind energy development thus extending the expiration date from Jan 1, 2009 to Jan 1, 2010. Tax incentives for renewable energy total $19 billion over ten years, including the one-year extension for wind energy at a cost of $7 billion.

4) Enact a federal renewable portfolio standard that requires power companies to generate 15% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

The cost of the tax incentives, according to the bill, are entirely offset by rolling back tax benefits to oil companies and by changing the tax treatment of foreign earnings of U.S. oil companies.

The Senate is scheduled to debate this bill later this week.

The controversial elements, including the limits on where offshore drilling can occur, the cost for renewable incentives, and a national renewable portfolio standard may well prove non-starters. It's worth noting that we are entering the election season and politics can be the determining factor, with both sides seeking to blame the other for failing to address the energy issues facing the country.

Windaction.org maintains that the PTC should be adjusted to incent those generators who can reliably produce electricity closer to load and at the time of day and year when the energy is most needed rather that rewarding those who place energy on the grid regardless of demand.

Back to top

Last week, the U.S. Department of Energy released a report announcing wind power can provide up to 20 percent of the nation's total electricity needs by 2030. Based on projected increases in electricity demand, the report states wind power would reach 300,000 megawatts by 2030, a 290,000 MW increase over that installed in the U.S. by the end 2006. To achieve these numbers, over 7,000 industrial wind turbines would need to be erected across the country every year for the next 23 years. The report labels the 20% vision "ambitious", but "feasible".

The report also openly acknowledges a fundamental limitation of wind. Section 4.1.6 states "Wind is an energy resource, not a capacity resource." Simply put, wind is not a resource they expect to be available on demand or to meet system peak loads. The report goes on to state "Wind power cannot replace the need for many 'capacity resources' ... that are available to be used when needed to meet peak load." It then adds that "if wind has some capacity value for reliability planning purposes, that should be viewed as a bonus, but not a necessity." This admission alone should lead some to question whether any large penetration of wind in the grid system is even worth considering.

Before DOE embarks on a mission to promote its 20% in 2030 vision, Windaction.org calls on the Agency to explain to the public how many additional megawatts of reliable (non-wind) generation will be needed to meet demand at those times of day and times of year when the wind is not blowing.

Back to top

Wind Powering America (WPA), part of the U.S. Department of Energy, is a governmental wind energy advocacy group committed to increasing the use of wind energy in the United States through funding of pro-wind non-profit organizations across the country. WPA released its 2007 annual summary report where it details its advocacy efforts and accomplishments by State. 

As part of this effort, Mr. Gary Seifert of DOE's Idaho National Laboratory Wind Power program and Wind Powering America travels the mountain states of Idaho and Montana advocating for large-scale wind development. Earlier this month Mr. Seifert -- "representing himself as a neutral party" -- showed up at public hearings held by the local Bingham County Zoning and Planning Commission. The proposal before the commission entails building 81 miles of road and erecting 150 wind turbines across the expansive Wolverine Canyon, an area designated as a Natural Resource/Agriculture district that does not permit industrial, energy-producing structures.

Attendees tell Windaction.org that Mr. Seifert's comments included unsupported claims that the proposal would not affect wildlife, would not be noisy, and would not decrease property values. The County commission voted 4-3 to approve the project citing Mr. Seifert's "expert" testimony. Windaction.org questions Mr. Seifert's appearance, a federal public servant, before a local land use board under the guise of neutrality. And members of the community deserve to see what studies, if any exist, that he relied on in making his claims about the Bingham County proposal.

Back to top

The lack of regional system planning coupled with the haphazard political approach to incentivizing renewables in New England may adversely impact the business of two renewable generation plants in the State of Maine.

Windaction.org has learned that UPC Wind's Stetson Mountain project, a 57MW wind energy facility now under construction, is scheduled to feed into a congested transmission line ("Line 64") that services two other generators: a) Brookfield Power's 126MW hydroelectric system and b) Indeck's 25MW biomass power plant, both baseload renewable facilities. The constraints of Line 64 will force energy output from Brookfield and/or Indeck to be significantly curtailed with a possible 0 MW net gain in renewable generation for the region. Put another way, Stetson Wind, an intermittent unpredictable renewable, will displace existing reliable baseload renewables.

According to the 2007 Interconnection System Impact Study conducted for the ISO New England, the UPC proposal will have "no significant system impact to the stability, reliability, and operating characteristics" of the New England transmission system and that no network upgrades are needed except at the Project's interconnection point.

The consequences of the Line 64 congestion may prove even more dire. If the Brookfield or Indeck merchant plants become financially unviable operating at the reduced output (see Section 5.1.2 of the study), they may be forced to shut down thus undermining regional energy goals and result in a significant net loss of jobs.

Back to top

In the past year, several Wisconsin townships and counties  established study committees to evaluate and recommend local ordinances for smaller renewable energy projects (as provided by State law for projects under 100 megawatts). Having carefully studied the State's draft Model Wind Ordinance, these committees found the Model to have serious flaws and unfounded recommendations, as revealed in this video segment.

New local laws were passed pertaining to turbine placement which were more restrictive than the State's model. The municipalities sought to protect public health and safety through larger setbacks and more comprehensive sound-level limits. WindAction.org applauds those who dedicated long hours to researching the facts, and enacted justifiable ordinances within the bounds of their authority.

However, Wisconsin State legislators, intolerant of these efforts, moved quickly this month to rush Assembly Bill 899 / Senate Bill 544 designed to abolish local authority and place all wind siting control in the hands of the State's Public Service Commission. In a 4-3 vote on March 7, SB544 was voted from committee onto the Senate floor for passage. WindAction.org cautions that adoption of SB544 would be a mistake.

Back to top

The U.S. Forest Service is proposing new directives pertaining to wind energy development on national forest system (NFS) lands.  To date, there are no wind energy facilities on forest lands so this direction will set the rules for an entirely new public land use across all national forests and grasslands. The Federal Register notice and other information about this matter can be accessed at http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2007-09-24-E7-18715

IWA and others are raising issue with the proposed Forest Service policy. Our main concerns are:

1)     Failure to assess environmental impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
2)     Failure to consult with US Fish & Wildlife Service under Endangered Species Act (ESA);
3)     Wildlife monitoring guidance grants too much discretion to local Forest Service officials and wind energy developers;
4)     Forest Service has determined these directives will have no economic impact on small business (tourism, etc.), despite lack of assessment under NEPA.

The deadline for filing comments to the Forest Service is November 23, 2007, but a request will soon be filed for a 60-day extension. Please contact Judy Rodd (roddj@hotmail.com) of Friends of Blackwater (WV) if your group can lend support to this request for extension. Judy will need your group's name, contact person, address, and e-mail/phone number. Thank you for your help.

Back to top

By the end of 2005, Germany's installed capacity of wind energy connected to the grid represented 18,300MW. The control area for transmission operator E.ON Netz GmbH included close to 7,600MW or 41% of the total installed. According to E.ON Netz's report entitled Data and Facts Relating to Wind Power in Germany (see: http://www.windaction.org/documents/11871), wind availability for 2005 was below average. This helps explain why the average wind power feed-in within E.ON's control area for that year was only 1327 MW, or 18%. The lowest feed-in for 2005 was 8MW (0.1% capacity) and occurred just after noon on May 5, 2005.

In its 2005 Wind Report (see: http://www.windaction.org/documents/461) E.ON Netz stated that as wind power capacity increased, the corresponding contribution of wind power to guaranteed capacity on the grid will fall continuously to around 4% by the year 2020. Said another way, if Germany achieves its forecast of 48,000 MW of wind by 2020, a mere 2000MW of traditional generation (coal, gas, nuclear) will be replaced by wind turbines. Given wind's fickle, unpredictable nature and the lack of viable large-scale energy storage technology, wind power will not negate the need to build more reliable power generation.

Back to top