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 And since 2007, wind developers have been submitting Hoen's unpublished conclusions to State and local boards as definitive proof that properties are unharmed by the towers.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last month, New Hampshire's Gov. John Lynch announced that 25-percent of the electricity powering the state's government buildings will now come from wind power.
Following a competitive bidding process the state signed a $4.4 million load-service contract with ConEdison Solutions , to supply electricity from both renewable and traditional fuel suppliers in the period from July 1, 2009 to May 31, 2010.
Lynch touted the agreement as "...another step in our efforts to protect our economy and our natural resources by ensuring 25 percent of the electricity used by state government comes from clean, renewable wind power."
The specifics of the contract are straightforward. The state locked-in its purchase of 47,352,000 kilowatt hours (kwh) at a fixed price of 9.2 cents per kwh. The price was all-inclusive and did not distinguish between electricity acquired from wind versus that from other fuel sources. Any added charges associated with transmission or distribution of the energy were excluded from the price and will be billed separately by the local utility.
The state's Energy Manager, Karen Rantamaki, told Windaction.org that New Hampshire had been purchasing its electricity from Unitil Corporation. When asked what the State would have paid in electricity costs had it stayed with Unitil she directed us to Unitil's website.
What we found surprised us.
Unitil's large customer prices are well below 9.2 cents per kwh. And with natural gas prices at a seven-year low and expected to remain depressed for the next 6-18 months, we anticipate electricity prices to remain stable[1]. New Hampshire's decision to sign with ConEdison appears less about saving taxpayer money and more about buying wind.
So what exactly did New Hampshire purchase for the higher electricity prices? Not much.
According to ConEdison Solutions, the "wind power" it sells is derived from its partnership with Community Energy, Inc., (owned by Spanish energy giant Iberdrola S.A.) who buys and sells renewable energy credits (RECs) from around the country.
We asked ConEdison Solutions the following four simple questions that NH's Ms. Rantamaki could not answer for us.
Question 1: Where are the wind facilities located that will be supplying the electricity?
Answer: The bulk of the RECs ConEdison sold in the last year came from Texas.
Question 2: When will the electricity be generated?
Answer: All renewable energy credits ConEdison sells are certified by GREEN-E. According to GREEN-E, certified RECs "include only renewables that are generated in the calendar year in which the REC is sold, the first three months of the following calendar year, or the last six months of the prior calendar year". For New Hampshire, the wind energy must be produced in the period from July 1, 2008 to March 31, 2010.
Question 3: What is the price of each REC?
Answer: National Green-e Certified Wind RECs are trading between 0.0012 cents and 0.0015 cents per kilowatt hour. At 0.0015 cents per kwh, the RECs acquired by New Hampshire would have a total market value of just under $18,000.
Question 4: Since the wind projects are already operational, are there any assurances that the money paid for the RECs will go toward expanding wind power facilities?
Answer: No. There are no stipulations on how revenue earned through the sale of RECs is to be spent.
Given these facts, we wonder if Governor Lynch is even aware of the misrepresentations in his claim above.
For example:
1. Electricity produced by turbines in Texas stays in Texas. The ConEdison agreement will have no effect on the state's consumption of fossil fuel.
2. GREEN-E certified RECS sold to New Hampshire could well have been "created" entirely in the year leading up the contract being signed, demonstrating the irrelevancy of the ConEdison agreement relating to wind.
3. There is no way to show how paying higher electricity prices will protect the state's economy or its natural resources. In fact, the higher price per kwh locked-in with ConEdison will result in costs far exceeding the market value of the contracted RECs.
At a time when the state is struggling to meet its budget, the pricey ConEdison contract does nothing more than raise electricity prices, line the corporate pockets of REC brokers ConEdison Solutions and Community Energy, and provide Lynch the PR opportunity to flaunt his "greenness" before an un-informed public -- Greenwashing at its best!
[1] According to the ISO-New England's August 7, 2009 presentation (Slide 54), wholesale electricity prices in the region are closely tied to natural gas prices.
There are several news stories we've been following that we thought important to highlight this week given the similarities to other cases our readers are involved with.
IDAHO
In August, 2008, the Bingham County Idaho Board of Commissioners unanimously approved a special permit allowing the construction of a 150-turbine wind "farm" on nearly 20,000 acres along Wolverine Canyon. At the time, Commissioner Wayne Brower told news outlets that it was a "tough decision", but the "need for renewable energy won out". The area where the wind facility is proposed is locally designated as a Natural Resource/ Agriculture district which, by definition, does not permit industrial, energy-producing, structures.
County residents appealed the decision claiming conflict of interest involving two of the County Board members. They also argued that an industrial wind plant was not an agricultural use under County zoning, thus should not be permitted.
This week Bingham County Judge Richard St. Clair ruled in favor of the residents. According to his 38-page ruling, the Judge found that several errors were made by the County Board which rendered the proceedings unlawful under Idaho law. The developer, Ridgeline Energy, must now reapply for a special permit.
In the meantime, the Bingham Planning and Zoning board drafted a new wind ordinance that establishes setback requirements. We hope that after two years of controversy surrounding this wind proposal the County will take the time to listen to those residents who will be negatively impacted by the development and find a way to address their concerns through the county ordinance.
ILLINOIS
Earlier this summer we reported on a story from Libertyville, IL involving a 120-foot tall, 50 kilowatt Entegrity wind turbine erected within 250-feet of residential properties. Despite assurances from the owner, Aldridge Electric, and Libertyville officials, that the turbine would be quiet and blade/shadow flicker would not be a problem, the noise and other nuisances proved unbearable to the neighbors. A civil suit was filed and in July Lake County Judge Mitchell Hoffman issued his final compromise ruling confirming the turbine was causing harm to nearby residents and ordered turbine operation restricted to weekdays between the hours of 9am to 3pm.
The transcript of the Judge's decision includes important information on nuisance law in Illinois. Since this decision, Libertyville officials voted to impose a six-month moratorium; Village Trustees asked the village's plan commission to consider possible changes to the rules governing electric power-generating facilities.
RHODE ISLAND
The State of Rhode Island, in its aggressive pursuit of wind energy development, announced the selection of Deepwater Wind to develop a privately financed project off Rhode Island's coast. Deepwater is currently moving forward with a pilot project to be sited within 2 miles of Block Island.
Public reaction to industrial-scale wind turbines is largely untested in Rhode Island, but the State is well aware of the powerful opposition that delayed the Cape Wind proposal in nearby Massachusetts. To gauge public acceptance of the turbines, surveys were sent to 1,484 voters on Block Island. Of the 547 surveys completed and returned, an overwhelming number supported the siting of the project either onshore or offshore, with one important condition - that the facility would be far enough away to be "impossible to hear".
RI residents need to be aware of reported noise problems at similar projects. Windaction.org is in close contact with residents of Cape Vincent, New York which is situated 2-3 miles from Wolfe Island off the coast of Ontario. Eighty-six turbines were erected and commissioned on the island this spring.
One Cape Vincent resident wrote this:
"From the Village of Cape Vincent the turbines on Wolfe Island can easily be heard. The sound is like a jet flying over at altitude and it is very distinct. It also resembles the sounds emanating from outside a large, busy city. If you are in a calm spot protected from the wind the sound is really clear."
This week, our contact reported that "atmospheric conditions were just right last night. At 6 to 7 miles away the turbines could be heard. Loudest so far."
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.
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.
The public push for renewable energy solutions has quickly filtered into the business and personal market and more and more communities are finding themselves confronted with some of the same land use issues we see with utility-scale turbines. Establishing appropriate siting standards to address minimum lot size, maximum tower heights, property line setbacks, and noise levels are essential in ensuring adjacent properties are not harmed and the health and safety of the public are maintained.
In a few instances, communities made the conscious decision to move slowly, enacting moratoria until reasonable regulatory protections are developed. But this is not the norm. Rather, we are finding communities racing to adopt land use laws aimed at inviting the turbines but with little regard for the impacts. In an extreme example, the State of New Hampshire applied the heavy-hand of "governance" and imposed standards on its communities that prohibited "unreasonable limits" on turbine installations related to tower height, setbacks, and noise. In every case where regulations were pushed through to accommodate turbine use, including in New Hampshire, Windaction.org found little justification for the standards adopted.
This reckless approach to permitting small wind systems was certain to lead to a court case, and that's exactly what happened in Libertyville, Illinois.
The residents of Libertyville, IL have been struggling since April with the decision made by Libertyville officials to permit Aldridge Electric to erect a 50 kilowatt Entegrity wind turbine to help power the business. The 120-foot structure is located as close as 250-feet1 to a residential property. Despite assertions by Aldridge Electric and officials of Libertyville that the turbine would be quiet and blade/shadow flicker would not be a problem, in fact, the noise and other nuisances have proven unbearable to the neighbors.
In May, Chicago Attorney Richard Porter filed this motion on behalf of the residents seeking a temporary and permanent shut down of the turbine. He argues in the filing that procedural errors made by Libertyville officials in approving the special permit violated his clients' rights of due process and that the operating turbine has, and continues to endanger the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the public.
Lake County Judge Mitchell Hoffmann, in his initial ruling last June, granted the injunction to turn the turbine off. Last week Judge Hoffmann issued his final compromise ruling where he confirmed the turbine was negatively affecting the neighbors and ordered that turbine operation be restricted to weekdays only during the hours of 9am to 3pm.
This action by the Illinois court should be applauded.
It remains to be seen whether the Illinois courts would consider similar action if the case involved an industrial wind facility and the opportunity for millions in county revenues at stake. We may find out soon enough.
A group of Illinois residents is suing Dekalb County over its recent decision to permit NextEra (formerly FPL Energy) to construct and operate a massive industrial-scale wind energy facility adjacent to their homes. Although the Dekalb County residents are not living with the impacts of the towers yet, they, like their counterparts in Libertyville, have fully documented procedural irregularities that paved the way for the project's approval.
1 A resident of Libertyville supplied Windaction.org with the corrected distance of 250-feet.
This week, Cleveland Plain Dealer bird blogger, Jim McCarty, wrote a delightful article on the successes of Audubon's Seabird Restoration Program in nurturing and tracking the return of rare seabirds to Maine's coastal areas. Mr. McCarty is obviously a bird enthusiast who has spent time researching and writing about the risks to migrating birds should a "string of colossal power-producing windmills" be erected in Lake Erie.
This week he offered an update to his research by reporting on the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") Advisory Committee now preparing turbine siting guidelines designed to protect birds from wind turbines. He wrote that this action by USFWS "came in response to pressure from environmental conservation groups" including the National Audubon Society and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and opined that a "bird-friendly boost from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" will convince wind proponents to make necessary concessions in order to protect our feathered friends.
Unfortunately, Mr. McCarty's optimistic explanation for why USFWS established the Advisory Committee reflects a rewrite of history dating back to 2003. Windaction.org warns that he and other wildlife activists not take any solace in the Committee's work for a host of reasons.
A time line of the events as they relate to this Committee may help reveal why skepticism of its work product is warranted.
May, 2003: The US Fish and Wildlife Service released its Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacted from Wind Turbines. USFWS regional directors were informed that "wind energy facilities can adversely impact wildlife, especially birds and bats, and their habitats. More facilities with larger turbines can lead to cumulative effects that will initiate or contribute to the decline of some wildlife populations." The Service made it clear that the guidelines did not negate or otherwise weaken existing federal laws protecting wildlife. The guidelines called for a minimum of three years of preconstruction studies to assess risk to migrating birds.
January 2006: The wind industry viewed the USFWS Guidelines as "impractical, inappropriately restrictive, and developed without adequate industry input". A letter surfaced, authored by Mark Sinclair of Clean Energy States Alliance, a wind advocacy group, announcing a collaborative process for resolving wind/wildlife conflicts. His letter stated the outcome of this process "may result in a product that is significantly different than the existing USFWS Interim Guidance". Members of the collaborative included USFWS, the American Wind Energy Association - the powerful wind industry trade group - National Audubon Society, Sinclair's Clean Energy States Alliance, and others. The meetings were not publicly noticed, nor were they open to the public. Laurie Jodziewicz, spokeswoman for AWEA, said the point of the group was to "develop guidelines that everyone could agree on."
Make no mistake. This effort was not triggered by environmental conservation groups. To the contrary, such groups, including National Audubon, were complicit in the industry's effort to weaken our national Guidelines.
January 31, 2006: The founders of Windaction.org with others sent a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton inquiring about the collaborative process and asking whether USFWS intended to "comply with the basic openness and accountability provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA"), 5 U.S.C. App 2." FACA applies to any committee established or utilized by one or more agencies in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the Federal Government. Its provisions also require that committees be fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the function to be performed.
We were rightly concerned that closed-door meetings would simply be an opportunity for the wind industry and its advocates to force revisions of the agency's Guidance in a manner that made turbine siting and operation easier, but detrimental to wildlife.
February 9, 2006: Scheduled first meeting of the Collaborative. Upon receipt of our January 31 letter, the process was canceled.
March 2007: The USFWS announced it would be forming an Advisory Committee based on FACA. The intent of the Committee was to evaluate and develop guidelines for the safe siting of wind energy facilities.
October 2007: The Committee and members list were formally announced. Of the 22 members (including Mark Sinclair) none possessed research expertise or experience involving bat interactions with wind turbines nor expertise in bird impacts especially with respect to effects on migratory birds using the Appalachian mountain ridges in the eastern U.S. Other expert deficiencies were glaring.
January 17, 2008: Windaction.org and others submitted a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorn informing him that the composition of the committee was illegally skewed in favor of wind industry representatives and the selection process ignored leading experts on critical wildlife impacts.
Shortly after, Dr. Clait Braun declined his appointment to the Committee telling Windaction.org that one reason was that the Committee was stacked in favor of wind interests. Others declined participation leaving a few openings. In response to our letter, the Service scrambled to fill the slots with bat "experts".
March 6, 2008: USFWS Career Deputy Director Ken Stansell responded in a proforma letter stating "We believe the selection of the members met the goal of achieving balance" among geographic regions, wildlife interests and industry interests.
January and April, 2009: The first few drafts of the guidelines were released by the Committee for public comment.
May 11, 2009: Windaction.org and others submitted a second letter to Secretary Salizar requesting he immediately suspend work on the committee citing excessive industry influence in preparing the Committee's draft recommendations.
To date, our concerns with the Committee's membership have been ignored.
Scientists have written to USFWS expressing concern with the draft guidelines including Dr. Shawn Smallwood, a prominent biologist in the area of impacts of wind turbines on avian life. Those familiar with the history of the Committee and the 'agendas' of its individual members have little faith that its work product will serve any value in protecting vulnerable wildlife resources - a job we would have thought to be the highest priority for the USFWS.
Windaction.org encourages greater Congressional oversight by the House Natural Resources Committee. Some States are being more proactive than the Feds. For instance, Mr. McCarty and other bird enthusiasts may wish to look to New York State for its guidance released in January 2009.
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.
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.
The trend at all levels of governance is clear: Deployment of wind energy facilities will be expedited and no location deemed to be suitable by the industry will be denied.
Laws are being written and adopted that legally ban public participation from the decision process. In the remaining venues where communities can intervene, the enormous financial burden of "fighting city hall" is often prohibitive. Even when objections are recognized and validated by the decision makers, projects still get approved.
Memo to the public: "Just shut up"
This list of recent public actions represents only a small fraction of what Windaction.org is tracking daily.
United Kingdom: In March, Britain's Climate Change Minister Ed Miliband asserted that opposing wind farms should be as "socially unacceptable" as not wearing seat belts or failing to stop at a crosswalk.
In the State of Maine, psychiatrist Richard Jennings used a similar manipulative analogy when he advocated wind power before the State's Wind Power Task Force.
Memo to the public: "Just shut up"
Canada: This week, Ontario Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman reminded the public that the newly adopted Green Energy Act outlaws any resistance to the siting of wind energy facilities by municipalities regardless their concerns. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's edict that "NIMBYism will no longer prevail" sparked fears that all expressed concerns will be viewed as illegitimate or inconsequential.
Memo to the public: "Just shut up"
Illinois: Following a March 21 hearing which lasted a grueling 19 hours, DeKalb County hearing officer David Dockus recommended the County Planning and Zoning Committee deny a permit for NextEra Energy Resources' (formerly FPL Energy) proposed 151-turbine wind energy plant. NextEra submitted supplemental information to address some of the concerns, prompting a second hearing.
NextEra offered no witnesses for cross-examination at the second hearing. Dockus reversed his position and recommended the permit be approved.
The citizen group ‘Citizens for Open Government' filed a Motion to Dismiss detailing how NextEra's Application failed to meet the criteria for a permit and would require existing laws be ignored. Instead, the motion was ignored by Dockus and the County.
Memo to the public: "Just shut up"
New Hampshire: In March, Counsel for the Public Peter Roth eloquently delivered closing comments before the State's Site Evaluation Committee considering Noble Environmental's proposal to construct a 99 megawatt wind energy facility in Coos County. The project, located on some of the region's most sensitive mountain habitat, will negatively impact at least three State endangered or threatened species.
Having objectively weighed the evidence on behalf of the public, Mr. Roth concluded at the hearings "...based on what I've seen of the evidence, I don't think the Applicant has met its burden ...I honestly believe that this Project creates more impact than the power it will do [generate] is worth."
Shortly thereafter, State Attorney General Kelly Ayotte under political pressure, reversed Mr. Roth calling his statements "a misunderstanding". In the final memo to the Committee, Roth changed his position and delivered a letter of support with conditions - most of which were entirely ignored by the Committee.
Memo to the public: "Just shut up"
Massachusetts: The governor and legislature are moving quickly to pass a bill to promote industrial wind development in every community within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The legislation removes all local zoning control and veto power over onshore wind power plants at least 2 megawatts (MW) and shifts permitting authority to the state Energy Facilities Siting Board.
The Siting Board has never turned down a power plant application, according to records in its online database.
The proposed legislation also aims to reverse constitutional protections of public lands (including state forests, reservations, and parks) for industrial wind development, without public say. Similar legislation is pending in Wisconsin and New York.
Memo to the public: "Just shut up"
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.
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.
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.
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.