WindAction Editorial

Browse in : [ Topics ]

• False conclusions based on flawed real estate studies
• Renewables replacing renewables, Again!
• Renewing public policy on renewables
• Bat-gate: Cover-up at the Beech Ridge wind facility
• Take my juice
• Block Island's blind actions
• Leap. Don't look.
• How do you spell Greenwashing?
• News Highlights
• Maine continues to choose wind over families
• There is no conspiracy
• Will Libertyville set a precedent?
• Substance vs. Style
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service no friend to birds
• How realistic is 20% wind energy?
• The wind controversy heats up
• Memo to the public: "Just shut up"
• Green energy and freedom
• The Cost of Mitigating Circumstances
• Wind turbines and health problems in Maine
• Energy policy and transmission
• This week's growing wind controversy
• Beware the "anti-wind zealots"
• Maine’s "wind rush" an abuse of the public trust
• Will 2008 news fuel 2009 policy?
• Inaction in Newburyport, MA
• Politics prevail in NY's energy arena
• Misrepresenting turbine impacts on property values
• The lie behind wind energy model ordinances
• Disturbing Assessment by US Forest Service
• Turbine risks and accountability
• Green jobs?
• Emissions: displaced, but not avoided
• Wind power, roads, and habitat loss
• An unsustainable Boom and Bust scenario
• Noble deflated
• Horse Creek wind farm: Noise report cover-up
• Wind power: the wayward child
• A 'Zoned' Zoning Application
• Legislative update: Energy Act of 2008
• Permanent destruction of our National Heritage
• Defiant board ignores town citizens: An update from Roxbury, ME
• Idaho wildlife supervisor unfairly demoted
• US Bureau of Land Management mischaracterizes public input as it caves to wind interests
• New Hampshire forces wind on local communities
• Let the production tax credit expire permanently
• Where's the Texas outrage?
• Wind running roughshod over Illinois
• Blowing away bird populations
• Bad bets by Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
• A property owner speaks out
• Turbine safety risks at Barrington, RI high school
• Wind wrongs in Roxbury, Maine
• Wind turbine noise impacts on health
• Wind Power and Influence in the Press
• DOE's 20% "Vision Thing"
• Wind energy and eminent domain
• Wind energy and road development
• US DOE influences local wind energy development
• Federal energy subsidies for wind
• Wind developer declares "War to end all wars" on locals
• Voices of Mars Hill
• Following land use regulations
• Renewables replacing renewables
• National Audubon wind power policy critique
• Wisconsin wind turbine siting
• Wind farms and OSHA
• Turbine failures
• EMS transport near wind turbines
• Wind power and eminent domain
• The PTC and the US Senate stimulus package
• The production tax credit
• USDA Forest Service rules pertaining to wind energy
• Conflicts of interest
• Bird populations declining in North America
• Projected costs for state RPS policies
• Bradley's take on wind power
• Wind energy in West Texas
• DOE property value study
• Transmission line loss
• Summary of noise studies
• Wind energy development on national forest lands
• CAISO wind generation forecast
• Electric grid interconnection request activity
• Wind power in Germany
• Green-e renewable energy program
• Content on the windaction.org site
• Promises of jobs
• Landowner agreements
• Bird mortality
• Who pays for the infrastructure?
• Economics and quality issues
• Eco-dream versus reality
• Migratory birds and bats
• Ecological impacts on bats

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.

1. The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) - May, 2003
   
2. Impacts of Windmill Visibility on Property Values in Madison County, New York by Ben Hoen - April 2006
   
3. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report by Ben Hoen, Ryan Wiser et. al. - Not released

Back to top

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Back to top

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."

Back to top

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.

Back to top

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.

Back to top

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. 

Back to top

This month the industry trade magazine North American Windpower published Ben Kelahan's essay "Prevailing Against Anti-Wind Sentiment" where Mr. Kelahan coaches wind developers on how to recognize and maneuver around local opposition groups. He warns "All it takes is an emotional trigger on a critical local issue" to provoke the same faceless cast of characters espousing the same tired NIMBY complaints. He mentions the nameless "anti-wind" websites that broadcast variants of the same arguments on why wind is a bad idea for every community.

Remarkably, Mr. Kelahan's focus is entirely on tactics. It's all about getting to the right people first, controlling the message, and keeping the very small, but very vocal minority of "anti's" in check. At no point in his essay does it occur to him, nor, presumably to his readers, that those asking questions about a project may actually have valid concerns.

This week's news covered several high-profile events that suggest others outside of Mr. Kelahan's circle may be seeing a different, more substantive debate pertaining to wind farm siting -- Substance over style -- instead of Mr. Kelahan's preferred "Style over substance".

1) In North Carolina, state senators are deliberating on a bill which -- as currently written -- will ban large-scale wind energy facilities in the western mountains. Three of the four democratic mountain senators are holding firm in their support of the bill. Sen. Martin Nesbitt told the press "allowing large wind turbines would destroy our crown jewel". An editorial in the local paper, which agrees with the turbine restrictions, made its case this way: "The locus of the debate isn't over wind power itself, but of size, scale and most of all - location. ... Here in the mountains, the challenges of wind farms are the challenges these mountains have faced for decades; how much change can be wrought before the fundamental nature, the very culture, of the mountains becomes lost? This goes beyond aesthetics. Wind farms require roads to move construction equipment, transmission lines to transport the power, etc."

2) In Ontario, the Oxford County Federation of Agriculture (OCFA) requested an interim control bylaw that would prevent any wind farms from being built within the county. OFCA president John Van Dorp told the press that his organization is doing "whatever we feel we can [to] stop development until such time as the medical concerns are (studied). More and more we're starting to have health issues in other areas that are (wind-farm) developments" Stating that OFCA has concerns about minimum setback distances he added, "We didn't initially support the (not-in-my-backyard) people, but maybe there's a valid reason why they don't want it in their backyards."

3) In Wyoming, the field office of the US Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a firm position opposing wind farms in Wyoming's core sage grouse population areas. Field office supervisor Brian Kelly makes clear in his letter to the State's Game and Fish Department that "Constructing wind farms in core areas, even for research purposes, prior to demonstrating it can be done with no impact to sage grouse, negates the usefulness of the core area concept as a conservation strategy and brings into question whether adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place to protect the species". The rules restricting development in the core area were developed in hopes of preventing the federal government from listing the sage grouse as a federally endangered or threatened species. The Service is unwilling to support mitigation options or ongoing scientific study concurrent with building and operating projects. 

4) In Australia, the press ignored a significant ruling by the federal government that declared the Stockyard Hill wind energy facility "could have a significant impact on protected species and communities". By this declaration, the project will now be subject to closer scrutiny requiring further detailed studies by the developer rather than relying on its initial submissions. In other news, the Hepburn Shire Council adopted wind turbine siting guidelines that require a minimum of 2km between any wind turbines and private homes.

There's no question this debate will continue in communities around the world. Despite the news of this week, we suspect Mr. Kelahan will continue to recommend "tactics as usual". We also suspect that he, and others, will likely never understand why wind energy development drives everyday people to take extraordinary actions in order to protect their "backyard".

Back to top

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.

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

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"

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

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. 

Back to top

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. 

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

Windaction.org has been tracking a number of controversial wind energy stories that we will be commenting on in future Wind Alert! newsletters.

These include:

a) Legislation proposed in Ontario Canada, Montana, and Wisconsin aimed at fast-tracking wind energy development and silencing the voices of those concerned about massive towers spanning the landscape.

b) Active and substantial public participation in Nevada, Maine, Illinois, and Canada by those seeking to have their concerns addressed before green-lighting of wind energy projects. Over 350 people tried to attend one hearing in Illinois before it was postponed due to overcrowding conditions.

c) A "wind farmer" in Cohocton, New York who broke his silence and spoke out about the unbearable wind turbine noise he is living with. He joins a chorus of others cited in our opinions section who took the time to tell their stories. 

d) The most oft reported story this week, the push to build an expansive transmission network to deliver renewable energy US-wide. Lisa Linowes of Windaction.org will be speaking on this topic next week at the 12th Annual Midwest Energy Conference in Chicago. Watch for her presentation, "Transmission to Everywhere", that focuses on the flaws and high costs of this effort.

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

This year, the City of Newburyport, Massachusetts paved the way for large-scale wind turbines within the city limits. A three-person subcommittee was formed in January, 2008 and charged with writing an ordinance governing the siting and construction of turbines.

The city's planning director, Nancy Colbert (no longer with the City), acknowledged in the press that "The structures can be obtrusive, and that is why it is even more important for the city to weigh in."

By March 5, according to minutes of the Newburyport Planning Board, the subcommittee reported "They are trying to fast track the zoning because they are expecting a proposal to be submitted soon and would like to have a zoning ordinance in place beforehand." By April, the City amended its zoning ordinance allowing turbines up to 400-feet in height with minimum setbacks of 150 feet from abutting property lines and 300-feet from residential zoning districts.

There's no question the ordinance was "fast-tracked", and perhaps tailor made to accommodate the expected proposal. In August, the City granted a special permit for Mark Richey to erect a 292-foot wind turbine located just 319-feet from the public pedestrian rail trail, 350-feet from heavily-traveled U.S. Route 1, and 800-feet from the nearest residence. Last month, Windaction.org highlighted some of the safety risks to the public should the Richey turbine be erected.

Immediately after the special permit was granted, two families living near the project site filed an appeal seeking to have the permit overturned. With the appeal still pending, Richey announced the turbine components had been secured and construction was to begin January 5th. 

Last week, one City Councilor sent a letter to fellow councilors asking that they take another look at the wind turbine ordinance stating there is "public safety concern affecting the health and welfare of our citizens with respect to industrial wind turbines" over 100 feet high. In addition, a petition containing two-hundred and seventy signatures was submitted to the Council in support of the request and the majority of residents who spoke at the December 29 Council meeting pleaded for action.

But the Council refused.

At-large Councilor Donna Holaday informed the residents that the City's attorneys advised no action due to the pending appeal. Pointing the finger of blame at all residents Holaday added "You have made a choice to file a lawsuit naming the city. We need to wait." (Only two families filed the appeal.)

Holaday's statements were grossly out of line and should outrage all citizens of Newburyport, no matter where they stand on the wind turbine issue.

Further, using the ineffectual excuse of pending litigation as the reason for delaying another look at the ordinance is unsupportable. At the point when the application for a special permit was submitted to the City, all actions pertaining to approvals and subsequent appeals became subject to the laws then on the books. Whether the ordinance were to be changed, rescinded, or a moratorium enacted, there would be no impact on how the appeal was dealt with in the courts, with one important exception and perhaps the true reason the Council is uninterested in acting now.

If the courts were to find in favor of the appellants and overturn the City's decision on the special permit, Mr. Richey's application might be subject to any new zoning changes. If the City took the time to enact even the most minor changes aimed at protecting the public, such changes could outlaw the proposed turbine, and for good reason. 

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

Iberdrola Renewables' Deerfield Wind application proposes to erect fifteen 2-MW turbines in Searsburg, Vermont. During technical hearings before the VT PSB this month a host of important topics were explored and tested including wildlife impacts, turbine noise, economic benefits, and transmission constraints. Evidence was also presented on the possible impact of turbines on property values.

Deerfield Wind's "expert" on economic impacts, Thomas Kavet, asserted in written testimony that "there is no objective empirical data that supports the contention that there will be negative aggregate property valuation impacts at the town, county, or regional levels as a result of the proposed wind farm." Kavet boosts that he conducted an "extensive literature review" of the topic and cites three reports to substantiate his conclusion of no negative impact as follows:

1. The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) - May, 2003
   
2. Impacts of Windmill Visibility on Property Values in Madison County, New York by Ben Hoen - April 2006
   
3. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report by Ryan Wiser et. al. - Not released

Windaction.org, a party to the Deerfield proceedings before the VT PSC, cross-examined Kavet on his testimony and revealed several important omissions in his analysis.

REPP Analysis:

Kavet characterized the REPP report as "extensive and particularly relevant on this topic" since the study included the Searsburg wind facility, an existing project adjacent to the proposed Deerfield site. Quoting from the REPP report, Kavet states "there is no significant evidence that the presence of the wind farms had a negative effect on residential property values" and that "average sales prices grew faster in the viewshed than in the comparable area" following construction of the wind turbines.

Kavet's review, however, failed to uncover the flaws in the REPP report and why its results have been widely criticized as "extremely weak, if not entirely misleading [Hoen]." Key flaws of the REPP report include a) the authors make no attempt to discern those properties in the study which have a view of the turbines from those with no view. In fact, sixty-six percent of the homes sampled in the REPP report do not see the wind facility at all; b) the REPP analysis makes 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; and 3) the sales transactions studied in the REPP report included all transactions including those where the buyer, seller, or both may have been unwilling parties (divorce, estate sales, sales between family members).

Hoen Analysis:

Kavet praised Ben Hoen's analysis of property valuation changes associated with the Fenner wind facility (Madison County, NY) as "the most rigorous, unbiased study on this topic to date". Kavet quotes from the report as follows: "Contrary to the notion that adverse effects are universal, this report did not produce any significant relationship between distance from, or visibility of the windfarm and sale prices of homes." Although Kavet liberally applies Hoen's conclusions to the Deerfield project site, he omits one important point: Hoen's report makes clear that his analysis only applies to Fenner NY and communities similar to Fenner. Nowhere in Kavet's analysis does he raise this point nor does he try to justify how the Fenner study might apply to Searsburg, Vermont. 

Wiser Analysis:

Finally, Kavet hails the Wiser report as conclusive proof that properties are not negatively impacted by wind turbine development. He briefly acknowledges that Wiser's report has not been released yet, but that does not stop him from asserting: "There is no statistically significant evidence that views of wind turbines have a measurable impact on property resale values, even among properties in relatively close proximity to wind turbines."

In fact, Windaction.org is scheduled to be a reviewer of the Wiser report prior to its release. To date, all that's been circulated is a preliminary Powerpoint (PPT) presentation. In an e-mail correspondence between Ryan Wiser and Windaction.org (Oct 12, 2008), Dr. Wiser stated:

"Whenever we have given a [PowerPoint] PPT, we have carefully couched it as representing preliminary results that may or may not change. ...I have no real control over how our PPTs are being used and circulated. I would not personally distribute them widely, as I do not consider them the final word. That said, I am not surprised that others are using them, and I guess I have no real problem with it as long as it is couched as preliminary, intermediate findings; findings that may well change. Of course, I also understand that some wind developers may not offer those caveats, and am sorry."

It astonishes us how an 'expert' testifying under oath can draw such misleading conclusions from reports that have been widely criticized, are not transferable, and whose own authors insist are preliminary and inconclusive.

Back to top

In the last ten years, wind industry representatives have successfully laid the groundwork for expedited project review and approval in many States in the US. Reaching out to legislators and State agency directors, the industry argued that existing laws governing siting of electric power plants were unduly onerous when applied to wind facilities. After all, operating wind turbines do not produce air emissions or use/discharge water, the basis for these stricter laws.

To allay concerns over shortened review periods, developers proactively worked with environmentalists and large landowners to help establish guidelines governing the siting of wind plants. The guidelines, or model ordinances, were then presented to State officials with assurances that if developers adhered to them, projects would be safe for residents living near the turbines and less impacting on the natural environment. Although the guidelines did not carry the weight of law, they also helped provide continuity for wind projects subject to local review at the town or county level.

In theory, this proactive teamwork could have worked. But all is not "green" roses.

Wind energy developers count on the fact that few people have "experienced" a wind energy facility and thus cannot imagine the enormity of the towers even from one-mile away. At the same time, these developers know that turbines operate at a noise level that far exceeds the background noise of the rural zones in which they're erected.

We need only look at a few of the 'guidelines' in place to understand how consistent these model ordinances are from state to state and in all cases skewed in favor of wind.

In Michigan, the State Task Force working under the Department of Labor and Economic Growth, recommended in its "Siting Guidelines for Wind Energy Systems" that noise limits be set at 55 dBA or L90 + 5 dBA, whichever is higher. The setback distance from the property is the height of the tower including the blade in the vertical position, which for most turbines today would be about 400-feet. 

In Wisconsin, the State Task Force recommended 50 dBA for noise levels and tower setbacks of 1000-feet from the wall of a residence. And in Pennsylvania, the model ordinance, which carried the Gamesa stamp of approval, set noise limits at 55 dBA outside the home and setbacks of 1.1x the height of the turbine as measured at the wall of an occupied building.

In a recent questionnaire submitted to wind developers by Union Township in Wisconsin, the respondents defended these specifications with statements like:

"Turbines are sited to have maximum sound level of 45dBA, well below levels causing physical harm. Medical books on sound indicate sound levels above 80-90dBA cause physical (health) effects. The possible effects to a person's health due to "annoyance" are impossible to study in a scientific way, as these are often mostly psychosomatic, and are not caused by wind turbines as much as the individuals' obsession with a new item in their environment."

Community noise experts Kamperman and James took issue with this and published a formal response to the questionnaire, highlighting major deficiencies in the wind developers' statements, including:

* The tone and context of the statement implies that 45 dBA is fully compatible with the quiet rural community setting.

* No acknowledgement is made of the dramatic change this will be for the noise environment of nearby families.

* No mention is made of how the wind facility, once in operation, will raise evening and nighttime background sound levels from the existing background levels of 20 to 30 dBA to 45 dBA.

* There is no disclosure of the considerable low frequency content of the wind turbine sound; in fact, there are often claims to the contrary.

* They fail to warn that the home construction techniques used for modern wood frame homes result in walls and roofs that cannot block out a wind turbine's low frequencies.

* They do not disclose that the International Standards Organization (ISO) in ISO 1996-1971 recommends 25 dBA as the maximum night-time limit for rural communities. Sound levels of 40
dBA and above are only appropriate in suburban communities during the day and urban communities during day and night. There are no communities where 45 dBA is considered acceptable at night.

* Making statements outside their area of competence, wind industry advocates, without medical qualifications, label complaints of health effects as "psychosomatic" in a pejorative manner that implies the complaints can be discounted because they are not "really medical" conditions. Such a response cannot be considered to be based in fact.

So how do these model ordinances pass the muster and get approved?

The "stakeholders" involved were largely wind energy proponents, environmentalists, and landowners who might see turbines on their land. A significant group of stakeholders, the residents of targeted communities, likely had no idea such meetings were happening. If these model ordinances were to be reconsidered, it's a certainty that many people would step up and make their thoughts known.

Windaction.org strongly encourages States to revisit their guidelines and model ordinances now that we have experience with the effects of turbines built close to where people live. But in a next go around, the guidelines must be grounded in science and empirical evidence and not on data provided by the very people financially and ideologically vested in the outcome. While everyone is interested in seeing renewable energy get built, no one has the right to harm the health, safety, and welfare of others.

Back to top

In September, the U.S. Forest Service released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the first wind energy project proposed for national forest lands.

Iberdrola's Deerfield Wind application proposes to erect fifteen 2-MW turbines in the Green Mountain National Forest located in southern Vermont. The project site is adjacent to the older Searsburg project erected on private land in 1997.

A review of the DEIS reveals disturbing information regarding the Forest Service's assessment of this project's impacts in the context of the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA.

The "purpose and need" section appears designed to achieve a predetermined result of siting an industrial wind energy facility on Forest Service land adjacent to the existing Searsburg site. Justifications used for considering the project application include (quoting the document):

• "The Project would provide a reliable and much needed source of power, contributing to long-term cost stability, in a region where the availability of cost-stable resources is quickly diminishing", and
  

• "The addition of wind energy to the regional electric grid has the benefit of decreasing the emission of harmful air pollutants, and decreasing reliance on natural gas and other fossil fuels."

Neither statement is accurate nor is there any attempt to substantiate these assertions. The Forest Service has no basis for claiming the project will provide "long-term cost stability" given the unpredictability of the wind resource and Iberdrola's inability to secure a long-term power purchase agreement for the energy. Since the New England states are participants in the regional cap and trade program, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI, the Forest Service cannot claim emissions will decrease should the project be built. Emissions will only be displaced.

In the alternatives analysis, the Forest Service never contemplates an alternative where the project is built on private land, an obvious omission. The only three alternatives provided, including a 'No Build' option, reflect variants of the original. The message is clear -- the Forest Service is committed to seeing this project built here and built now.

But the most offensive aspect of the DEIS document is how it reads more like a repackaging of Iberdrola's application rather than a serious assessment under NEPA in many important topics including aesthetics, economic benefits, impact on wildlife and the natural environment, and safety (ice throw, blade and turbine failure). It appears the Forest Service shamelessly accepted Deerfield Wind's studies, with no apparent attempt to validate the assumptions and conclusions made by the developer on project benefits and impacts.

For example, on Noise impacts, the Forest Service accepts Iberdrola's recommendation that the Project meet a nighttime guideline for protection against sleep disturbance of 45 A-weighted sound pressure levels (dBA) averaged over an eight-hour night at the wall of nearby residences.

By doing so, the Forest Service ignores the growing body of data, detailing the risk of turbine noise in rural communities. WHO recommends that sound levels during nighttime and late evening hours be less than 30 dBA during sleeping periods and that for sounds containing a strong low frequency component (typical of wind turbines), WHO asserts these limits may need to be even lower to avoid health risks. They also recommend that the criteria use dBC frequency weighting instead of dBA for sources with low frequency content.

The Forest Service also fails to note that the International Standards Organization (ISO) in ISO 1996-1971 recommends 25 dBA as the maximum night-time limit for rural communities. Sound levels of 40 dBA and above are only appropriate in suburban communities during the day and urban communities during day and night. There are no communities under this standard where 45 dBA is considered acceptable at night.

It's not possible to determine whether the Forest Service willingly conceded its responsibility to Iberdrola in assessing the impacts of the project or whether it did so out of ignorance, but the outcome is the same.

If the Federal Government is serious about understanding and documenting the impacts of wind energy projects on our National Forests, the American public deserves more. This DEIS cannot be allowed to set a precedent. Windaction.org advises the Forest Service to scrap the Deerfield Wind DEIS and begin again, but this time with a focus on research, not reproduction.

If our readers share these concerns, please take a moment to e-mail your thoughts to the Forest Service. The deadline for comments is Friday, November 28.

Back to top

Late last year, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), the state's development agency for renewable energy, awarded a $474,340 grant to Mark Richey Woodworking and Design, Inc. of Newburyport MA, for the construction of a single 600KW (292-foot) industrial-scale wind turbine to be sited adjacent to the business.

Months later, in April 2008, the Town of Newburyport amended its zoning ordinance to allow wind turbines up to 400-feet tall with minimum setbacks of 150 feet from abutting property lines and 300-feet from residential zoning districts. The Richey turbine proposal was submitted to the town shortly thereafter and a special permit was approved in August paving the way for the turbine to be erected. The location of the turbine is 319-feet from the public pedestrian rail trail, 350-feet from heavily-traveled U.S. Route 1, and 800-feet from the nearest residence.

During the town's review hearing on the project, the developer addressed the risk of ice-shed as follows: "[the turbine] was a long way from the rail trail and if the ice did shed it would be directly below on the Richey property."

Wind turbine manufacturers disagree. According to GE Energy's Wind Application Engineering Group "wind energy production in cold climate provides the following formula for calculating a safe distance: 1.5 * (hub height + rotor diameter)". Based on this formula, the proposed turbine could fling ice 560-feet away, well into the area of the rail trail and traffic on Route 1. This e-mail characterizing ice-shed at the Searsburg, Vermont wind facility provides some insight into the problem. (Note: the turbines at Searsburg are 100-feet shorter than that planned for Newburyport).

Blade failure is another safety factor. Scott Larwood, who researched the history of turbine setbacks in California and the probabilities of rotor and blade failures, told Windaction.org that turbines slightly larger than the Richey tower should have a "safe" setback of 300 meters (987-feet). Turbine manufacturer, Vestas, writes in its Mechanical Operating and Maintenance Manual for the V90 3.0MW turbine that a "radius of 400m (1300 ft) from the turbine" is necessary to ensure safety. 

Blade failures, fire, and turbine collapse do happen and turbine debris can fly considerable distances beyond the setbacks established in the Newburyport ordinance.

When Windaction.org confronted MTC on this issue, public information officer Emily Dahl replied: "Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust's goal is to support the installation of renewable energy projects and expansion of the clean energy industry in Massachusetts for a cleaner environment and stronger economy. The Trust evaluates projects at a high level and seeks to support projects that have a high likelihood of success and are deemed suitable by the communities in which they are located. The Trust is not a permitting agency; rather, permitting decisions for wind turbines are in the hands of each community."

Windaction.org has found a consistent pattern across the U.S. of small communities approving wind turbine proposals with little consideration, or apparent understanding, of the serious safety risks of erecting towers near public areas, rights-of-way, and residences. Windaction.org is particularly critical of MTC for its public advocacy in seeding projects like the Newburyport wind turbine while shirking responsibility for informing the communities of these risks.

(Note: The distances referenced in this editorial pertain to the risks of flying debris from operating turbines. Setbacks to mitigate for turbine noise, shadow flicker and visual impacts are not considered.)

Back to top

One compelling argument favoring wind energy development in rural areas is the opportunity for local economic benefits, especially jobs. Wind energy proponents fervently tout numbers showing hundreds of high-paying jobs created. But as with many of the benefits attributed to wind energy development, the details tell a different story.

Most of the jobs in a wind energy project are created during the construction phrase. These jobs are temporary lasting between 6 and 18 months. High-paying jobs, in particularly are usually filled by people who come to the area for short periods of time to assemble the towers, turbines, and associated electronics and to build substations and transmission lines necessary to connect wind turbines to the electric grid. Few permanent jobs are created.

Many wind companies publish their estimated employment numbers when trying to secure public support, however, they have no obligation to report actual employment so it can be difficult to confirm or refute their preconstruction estimates.

Larger project owners have the resources to pool their operational functions (purchasing parts, administrative, payroll, insurance, etc.) and can have centrally located crews to do maintenance on multiple projects. Smaller project owners sign maintenance contracts with turbine vendors that do not rely on local labor. For example, Vestas has its own turbine operations business.

Windaction.org received this report written by a gentleman laboring at a wind energy construction site in the United States:

"I went to the jobsite to check in yesterday afternoon. I noticed a lot of folks there who didn't speak English. I put on my mandatory hardhat, safety vest, hard-toed boots, and safety glasses, poured myself a cup of coffee and walked to the warm-up area. There we were given our daily safety talk.

This phase of construction is winding down and now they're 'energizing' the 90 or so turbines erected.

"After the safety talk and the pep talk, we formed a big circle. They put on loud music and a large fellow led us in stretches! Mind you the sun had still not risen and there were more than a hundred people there, about 15 men for every woman, all with hardhats, safety vests, steel-toed boots, and safety glasses on, all doing coordinated stretching.

"I asked someone in my office how many were from here. He said he was a local and that there were a few more. He said most of the early construction jobs, including site preparation labor positions were done by the locals. The actual design work plus the construction, erection of the towers, the energizing, and the operation, were all done by people who have been doing this type of work all over the world - they're trained and experienced, which means they're not from here. And the crews are from Spain, Poland, Germany, and Korea....

"So as usual, the low paying jobs go to us. The investment comes from out-of-state and largely from out-of-country. The profits go out-of-state and largely out-of-country. The workers come from out-of-state, and many from out-of-country.

"By the time the average person realizes what's happening, there will be huge wind farm facilities built across the state. They will all be financed, built, owned, and operated by out-of-state entities, and most of the energy will be sent out-of-state and the profits will largely go out-of-state and overseas. And we will be sitting here wondering what happened.

"Oh well, at least I have a job. I wonder if I'll be paid in Euros."

Back to top

It is fundamental that the benefits of any proposed wind energy facility outweigh its impacts. Since there are no intrinsic environmental benefits to erecting wind turbines on ridge lines, prairie lands or coastal areas, the benefits of wind-powered electricity are expected to accrue through the displacement of fossil fuel generation, and the offsetting of associated CO2 emissions and other pollutants.

In September, the ISO-NE, which holds responsibility for managing the electric grid system for the New England area, released its 2006 New England Marginal Emission Rate Analysis where it analyzed the annual marginal emission rates of the New England Generation System. The 2006 marginal emission rate values were calculated using actual 2006 hourly generation. 

Table 5.9 of the report states the average CO2 emissions for the entire six-state region was 993 lbs per megawatt hour (lbs/MWh) generated. Put another way 993 lbs/MWh of CO2 could be offset should electricity from wind-generation or other renewable energy sources displace the electricity which otherwise would be produced on the grid from power plants operating on the "margin". The ISO defines “marginal units” for energy and emissions purposes as largely oil and gas units that are needed in the event of higher load on the system.

Given that New England power plants emitted nearly 52-million tons of CO2 in 2006, according to the ISO, it would require nearly 10,000 MW of installed wind energy capacity -- more than 4,500 massive towers -- to offset or displace just 25% of New England's annual power plant emissions of CO2 for 2006.

However, the overriding issue is whether wind turbines will significantly REDUCE the CO2 emissions in New England.

Under New England's cap and trade program (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative - RGGI), owners of wind energy facilities could displace any CO2 emissions produced from another power source, and the generator may sell and/or transfer his unused emissions credits to another source. Thus CO2 emissions which are regulated under the RGGI cap and trade program may be transferred  but are never avoided.

Wind proponents are quick to proclaim the effect of wind generation on greenhouse gas emissions but Windaction.org warns these benefits are less apparent in the New England region for two important reasons:

1) New England relies heavily on clean natural gas for its marginal fuel source, which produces far less CO2 emissions than coal, for example. Any displacement of CO2 due to wind energy generation in the region would be far less than in other parts of the U.S.  which are more dependent on coal. Yet the negative environment, economic, and social impacts of a wind facility can be enormous.

2) Under the region’s cap and trade scheme, emissions are displaced but will never be avoided.

Back to top

The New York Times recently published "Thinking Anew About a Migratory Barrier: Roads" in which reporter Jim Robbins explores the impacts of road development on wildlife habitat at Glacier National Park in Montana.

Noting that scientists now understand the impacts of roads crisscrossing the landscape, Robbins writes "Some experts believe that habitat fragmentation, the slicing and dicing of large landscapes into small pieces with roads, homes and other development, is the biggest of all environmental problems."

Dr. Michael Soulé, retired biologist and founder of the Society for Conservation Biology is quoted: "It's bigger than climate change. While the serious effects from climate change are 30 years away, there's nothing left to save then if we don't deal with fragmentation. And the spearhead of fragmentation are roads."

For perspective as to the enormous roads which have been built along forested Appalachian ridgetops for industrial wind energy projects, Windaction.org examined these images prepared by Dan Boone, which provide before and after aerial photos of the very southern end of the NedPower windplant in West Virginia. The NedPower facility is the most recently constructed wind energy project in the mid-Atlantic region, comprised of 132 2-MW Gamesa wind turbines, each nearly 400 foot tall and a 3-blade rotor assembly with diameter of more than 260 feet.

The average width of the area bulldozed for the road corridor and other project infrastructure varies from about 75 to 100 feet. We estimate that over a square mile of forest was lost due to this one wind facility, about 650 acres, or roughly 5 acres of forest cleared on average for each wind turbine. The forest acreage loss is greatly exceeded by the amount of ecologically-significant "forest-interior" habitat that was eliminated by the extensive fragmentation of the area's forest coverage.

From an ecological perspective, roads create "edges" which severely affect "forest interior" wildlife.  For example, woodland birds which nest near forest "edges" are more likely 1) to have their eggs or young taken by scavengers/predators who disproportionately frequent "edges", and 2) to be "parasitized" by brown-headed cowbirds who lay their eggs in other birds' nests. In addition, there are a host of ecological concerns associated with created "edges" within the "forest interior" such as:

1) increased sunlight and evapotranspiration (drying) which changes vegetation structure and composition along the zone of forest that adjoins edges, with penetrating effects up to several hundreds of feet, and

2) greatly increased dispersal and colonization of forest edges by invasive, non-native species of plants and animals.

Wind developers typically downplay the size of the roads and press for mitigation to compensate for the impacts. But it's nonsensical to assume 'X' acres of disturbed forest-interior can be mitigated with 'Y' acres of some arbitrary parcel some distance away.

Trisha White, director of the Habitat and Highways Campaign for Defenders of Wildlife notes, "the downside of mitigating road impact is thinking that it heals all wounds. The biggest danger is thinking that we can put in new roads with crossings and things will be just fine. There are so many more impacts. Nothing could be more incorrect.”

Back to top

Along with our economic downturn and troubles on Wall Street, the market price for Massachusetts Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) has fallen 50% from its highs last spring.

Renewable energy goals for Massachusetts are mainly established through its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a legislated program that requires total sales of Retail electricity meet a minimum percentage of new renewable generation each year.

The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), a quasi-public agency responsible for promoting renewable generation in the State, actively provides public financing for renewable energy projects as one way to meet the State's clean energy goals. In return, MTC receives a portion of the RECs generated by these projects on a long term basis, and sells them.

On October 8, the MTC held an auction of its current year (2008) RECs and a forward sale of 2009 RECs. In total, MTC auctioned 7,683 Massachusetts and Connecticut renewable certificates from 2008 and 26,000 Massachusetts renewable certificates to be generated in 2009.

The results of the auction were mixed depending on your perspective. Wind projects in New York and Canada, racing to participate in the Massachusetts RPS market, have helped the state meet its goals, suggesting the RPS is working. With the minimum percentages met, prices dropped. The 2008 RECs sold at half of their value from a few months ago, and MTC was unable to secure an acceptable bid for its 2009 RECs, as the market anticipates further declines.

However, if wind and other renewable developers were anticipating high REC values, the economics of the RPS are no longer as attractive and could well slow or even stop development. The question becomes what will the State do in this situation?

Windaction.org warns we're in an unsustainable boom and bust scenario, that rewards speculators for playing the REC market rather than effectively producing useful reliable electricity.

Back to top

Citing credit woes, Noble Environmental Power LLC of Essex Connecticut announced last week that all work was suspended at its 14-turbine wind farm under construction in Bellmont, New York. The turbine foundations have already been laid at the site and Noble indicated work would not resume until summer 2009. Contractors for Noble have informed Windaction.org that, while the announcement was sudden, there were indications the firm was experiencing cash flow problems months ago.

Earlier this year, Noble filed plans to raise $375 million in an initial public offering (IPO). The share sale was to be underwritten by now bankrupt Lehman Brothers. Public reports of the IPO stated the company showed no revenue on its income statement and was nearly $1 billion in debt. The company has 282 megawatts in operating wind power projects in the U.S.

Noble Environmental, along with First Wind (formerly UPC Wind), is under investigation by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for alleged improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive practices. It is reported the company's credit woes partially stem from reluctance of financiers to invest in a company under investigation.

Noble's problems are not just legal and financial, they're also technical.  The company is experiencing problems with its Clinton and Ellenburg wind parks erected in Clinton County NY and online earlier this year. None of the 121 turbines have been operational for the last two weeks. The root cause of the shutdown has not been announced.

In these troubling economic times, Windaction.org strongly encourages communities and landowners involved with wind farm development to look out for themselves by ensuring decommissioning plans are filed prior to commencement of any construction. Such plans should be backed with bonds sufficient to cover the costs of restoring a site to its original condition and the full removal of scrap materials. Note, given dramatic fluctuations in scrap value and hauling costs, decommissioning plans should never allow the value of the scrap to be deducted from the projected turbine dismantling costs.

Back to top

PPM Energy's Horse Creek Wind Farm proposal, now suspended while NY State officials evaluate the potential high bat mortality from the turbines, is the center of a sobering debate concerning preconstruction sound study reports. The proposed project consists of sixty-two industrial wind turbines spanning the towns of Clayton and Orleans in upstate New York. Over 1000 residents reside within the project's proposed footprint.

In January 2007, shortly after the Town of Clayton adopted its Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance (Local Law 1) governing placement of turbines in the town, PPM released its Noise Analysis report on the project prepared by Global engineering giant CH2M HILL. The report's summary states: "The facilities steady state noise levels are predicted to comply with the Town of Clayton's Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance limit of 50 dBA at offsite residences." It further adds "the facilities noise level may exceed the existing levels by 6 dBA at lower wind speeds but maintains compliance with the Town of Clayton's Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance limit of 50 dBA". New York State guidelines suggest that sound level increases over existing background should not exceed 6 dBA. 

Serious and substantial complaints filed by Clayton residents regarding possible excessive and harmful noise impacts from the turbines prompted the Planning Board to hire acoustic engineering firm Cavanaugh Tocci Associates (CTA) of Sudbury MA to evaluate the CH2M HILL report. CTA was specifically requested to "re-evaluate noise impact per NYSDEC guidelines and Town of Clayton Local Law 1 2007 Wind Energy Facilities".

The completed CTA report was received by Clayton officials, Town Supervisor Justin Taylor and Planning Board Chairman Roland Baril, on or around February 15, 2008 but never released to other Planning Board members or the public. Apparently, CTA's report was deemed "too complicated" for review. Three Freedom of Information requests were filed with the town, including one from the local newspaper, and all were denied. Clayton Supervisor Mr. Taylor announced through the Town's engineering consultants Bernier & Carr Associates that CTA's report was sent back with the request that an executive summary be provided to help explain CTA's findings. CTA complied and delivered a 2-page summary on August 25. This summary was again held by Taylor and Baril.

During the Oct 1 regular meeting of the Clayton Planning Board, Planning Board Chairman Baril informed the attending residents as well as the Planning Board that it was the recommendation of Bernier & Carr Associates that CTA's report again be refused as too technical for public review and that CTA's executive summary would be the ONLY document released to other Board members. Taxpayers were welcome to a copy of the summary via a Freedom of Information request submitted to the Clayton Town Clerk.

According to the CTA executive summary, there are serious problems with the methodology employed by CH2M HILL in conducting its noise analysis whereby estimated background sound levels were overestimated. CTA also makes clear that participating property owners, those who've entered into lease agreements with PPM, should update their real estate deeds to reflect noise easements. CTA is clear that noise emanating from the turbines, even if compliant with Clayton's Local Law 1, will affect future property owners who might occupy a dwelling.

The problem of Wind Turbine noise is becoming more pronounced as turbines are built close to where people live. Windaction.org is tracking noise issues in numerous locations including Mars Hill, ME, Lowville, NY, Brownsville, WI, McLean County, IL, and Blair County and Meyersdale, PA, in the UK and Canada. In each of these cases, the question of noise was either never raised prior to the towers being erected or the residents were informed there would be no issue. It's remarkable the lengths PPM and some Clayton officials are going to just to avoid the question. Denying a problem exists in the face of growing evidence is unproductive and will ultimately harm the wind industry and its proponents.

Update: At Clayton's town board meeting on Oct 8, Supervisor Justin Taylor announced the CTA report would now be released to the public.

Back to top

Last June, Windaction.org commented on the US Department of Energy's report "20% Wind Power by 2030" touting wind power could supply 20% of the US electricity needs by 2030. Buried in the document was a remarkable admission - that wind power cannot replace the need for many "capacity resources", i.e. those generators that supply electricity during periods when we need it. In other words, while utilities are obligated to provide electricity, instantaneously, when customers demand it, wind does not, nor can it ever, do that.

We liken wind energy to the wayward child. It's unavailable when needed, shows up when unexpected, and when it does arrive it often behaves erratically. Thus, the wind cannot be relied on as a primary fuel source.

As installed wind capacity increases on the grid, up to ninety-percent of this amount may be required in the form of redundant, backup generation from more reliable sources (coal, gas) to ensure supply when the winds die out. Without such redundant power plants, utilities will not be able to meet peak demand, and grid reliability will be compromised.

Today, wind proponents are advocating we populate our rural open spaces, ridge tops, and coastal areas with thousands of massive turbines and added infrastructure (transmission). The impacts of this development on the natural environment and on those living near the towers are far from understood. The need for independent, unbiased study is crucial.

Yet, if the public knew what the DOE already knows -- that no number of towers erected would result in the decommissioning of an existing power plant, nor will they negate the need to build new, reliable generation - would they tolerate the potential harm these turbines cause? We highly doubt it.

Back to top

A zoning variance is an administrative exception to the land use regulations for a municipality. A property owner can obtain permission to "break" a zoning law if applying the existing law either renders his property unbuildable or otherwise causes hardship to the landowner. It is the burden of the applicant to justify the hardship claim.

Last June, Attorney Eliu Romero submitted an application to the Taos County, New Mexico Planning Commission seeking permission to erect sixty-five industrial wind turbines, each exceeding the maximum height permitted for structures in the county. At the public hearing on the application, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to postpone its decision in order to receive more technical information on the proposal.

Indeed! The responses Mr. Romero entered on the variance application suggest he has no knowledge of law pertaining to variance requests. Or worse. He blew off the planning process and ignored the minimum criteria required to protect the health, safety, and welfare of those affected by relaxing the laws.

Below are several responses in Mr. Romero's variance application (underlined):

Explain how the variance requested is not substantial: (left blank)

State how the failure of the Commission to grant the variance would result in such practical difficulties as to make it unreasonable to apply the strict letter of the regulations to the property which is the subject of the variance application: Denial of the variance would kill the project.

State how the granting of the variance will not create a danger to the public health, safety, or welfare: This is a true statement.

State how the granting of the variance will not cause extraordinary public expense, create a nuisance or cause a significant detriment to nearby properties: This is a true statement.

Mr. Romero's application was not only inadequate, it was inaccurate. He cited the turbine height as 284-feet rather than 384-feet, an inexcusable oversight considering he was seeking relief from the County's height ordinance.

Perhaps sometimes concepts behind zoning variances may be confusing, even to lawyers like Mr. Romero. However, Windaction.org was very surprised to learn that the County Planning Commission agreed to accept the grossly deficient application, deeming Mr. Romero's sloppy work sufficient to hold a public hearing.

Unfortunately, this is not a unique situation. Windaction.org has corresponded with many people across the U.S., Canada, and in Europe where similar "misunderstandings" have been allowed in the name of wind energy development. Planning Commission members do not seem to understand that by considering such variance requests, the Commissioners threaten the surrounding property owners and abuse the public's trust.

In September, the Taos Planning Commission voted again, deciding to continue the hearing until December 9 citing "a lack of technical information and time to digest it". A more appropriate action would have been to deny the application immediately, and respectfully ask that Mr. Romero not waste the public's time or resources.

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

This week, UNESCO, the cultural agency of the United Nations, threatened to act against Britain for failing to protect "world heritage sites". Their complaints included a proposed wind energy facility that would impact Neolithic sites on Orkney.

Also in the news, a wind project planned for public lands in Nevada would site seventy-two massive turbines overlooking the Comstock Historic District and Virginia City National Historic Landmark, the largest federally designated historic district in the United States.

In Virginia, Highland New Wind Development is fighting a condition of its approval requiring an archaeological study and viewshed analysis, among other studies. Of special concern is the impact the towers will have on Camp Allegheny, a Civil War battlefield atop Allegheny Mountain less than a mile from the project site.

Finally, Windaction.org was forwarded these photos (image1, image2) of Colorado's Pawnee Buttes, a site memorialized in the movie version of James Michener's epic Centennial. The Pawnee Grasslands have been changed forever with the construction of the Cedar Creek wind energy facility, a 275 turbine project that went online last January. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, who dedicated the Cedar Creek, praised the development calling it good for Colorado's economy, its environment, and energy independence. Apparently the honorable governor never stopped to consider whether it was good for the United States' heritage. And Windaction.org questions whether Ritter ever asked for concrete numbers that show the environmental and energy benefits of the project justified the industrialization of this historic area. 

Wind proponents are shrewd at creating pre-construction simulations that blunt the appearance of the massive towers through the use of simulated camera angles and long-distance views. First Wind (formerly UPC Wind) went one step further in disguising the visual impact of its Sheffield Wind project in Vermont using views up to the hub height only. When asked what turbine height they assumed in creating their visual exhibits they stated "We commonly rely on hub height rather than the tip of the blade... as the rotor top when extended vertically directly above the hub does not represent a fixed height or "top" as it is a moving element of the turbine... and viewshed analyses are based on fixed points."

From Britain's moors to the mountains of Maine and New Zealand, from the plains of Australia to the canyons of Idaho, those who cherish the natural beauty of our open spaces need to defend our viewsheds against the march of the turbines. Otherwise, our only option is to capture the images before they're lost, as recommended by our colleagues in Idaho.

Furthermore, if view sheds surrounding historic landmarks worldwide are so easily tossed aside in the name of renewable energy, how can we ever ensure "lesser" views are preserved. But in many cases, those approving the projects have no idea the scale and magnitude of the visual impacts and apparently have little regard for the heritage of hundreds, thousands, or millions of years ago, yet is so wantonly defaced or even demolished.

Back to top

Earlier this year, Windaction.org reported on efforts by Roxbury, Maine town officials, together with Independence Wind LLC, to push through zoning changes that would permit industrial wind development in the town. Shortly thereafter, the town residents voted overwhelmingly in favor of a citizen petition to adopt a 180-day moratorium on wind power development. The intent of the moratorium was to give the town time to rewrite the zoning to be consistent with the town's Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 1993), and provide appropriate protections for town residents.

Two weeks ago, the Roxbury planning board held a public hearing to present an updated ordinance. Remarkably, the wording was identical to the previous version. None of the changes expected by town residents were incorporated, and the ordinance remains illegal under Maine law which requires such ordinances be consistent with a town's Comprehensive Plan.

Rob Gardner of Independence Wind LLC, the wind developer in town, apparently speaking for the planning board, explained it would be better to modify the Comprehensive Plan and pass the ordinance as is, rather than adapt the ordinance. He described it as a "two-step process that could be handled at one town meeting." How convenient! He then introduced a municipal law attorney who explained the process to the audience.

WindAction.org is appalled by the arrogance of Independence Wind, LLC, and the apparent complacency of the Roxbury planning board, in ignoring the foresight offered in the town's Comprehensive Plan and the concerns of the town's citizenry. We encourage the residents of Roxbury to vote "No" on any proposed changes to the zoning and/or the Comprehensive Plan unless their health, safety, and welfare are ensured, and the "current character and environment" of Roxbury are preserved.

Back to top

Earlier this month, Supervisor David Parrish of the Idaho Fish and Game Department (IDF&G) was demoted after warning Southern Idaho's China Mountain wind energy facility would harm wildlife. His letter to the Times-News newspaper, written in response to an editorial published in the same paper, merely stated the 450 megawatt China Mountain facility, a project that will span 30,700 acres (including over 20,000 acres of public lands) in the Jarbidge Foothills "will have negative repercussions on Idaho's wildlife" and briefly explained why.

He ended his letter with a simple request to "Let the bureaucratic process work before passing judgment on whether the project is good for Idaho or Twin Falls County." By "bureaucratic process" Mr. Parrish was referring to the Federal Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) complex effort of collecting data in preparation for the draft environmental impact state (EIS) due out in 2010. The BLM initiated this effort in June. Little is known right now about the impacts of the project on the natural environment and Parrish's comments were entirely appropriate.

Apparently, his letter irked two state lawmakers with a vested interest in seeing the project get approved: Rep. Stephen Hartgen, former publisher of the Times-News newspaper and now a consultant for China Mountain Wind LLC and Sen. Bert Brackett whose nephew owns land on which part of the wind farm could be built.

While the axe was dropping on Mr. Parrish, no one at IDF&G or the legislature bothered to notice staff biologist Jim Mende's two appearances before the Bingham County Planning and Zoning Commission during its public review of Ridgeline Energy's wind energy project, a 150-turbine project proposed for the Wolverine Canyon area. Mr. Mende's official opinion helped convince the Bingham County planners to approve the project, twice, when first submitted and again on appeal.

But Mende's message, according to official minutes from the public hearings (Sep 26, 2007, Mar 26, 2008), was inconclusive and in some cases misleading. He wrongly stated that newer wind turbines have blade speeds that are slow enough for wildlife to avoid (in fact, blades travel up to 200 mph at the tip). He confirmed there was limited research available to conclude the project would be detrimental to wildlife, but speculated "if they do see a site is causing a particular problem, he thinks Ridgeline will address that with operations or alterations in their protocol." Representing IDF&G, Mende offered meaningless assurances that "he would encourage some language in the permit that would encourage the developer to continue discussions with Fish and Game." The minutes reflect no statements made regarding oversight or penalties for enforcement.

Windaction.org denounces the actions of IDF&G and advises Idahoans not be lulled into believing their State agencies responsible for protecting wildlife, are doing their job.

Unfortunately, Idaho is not unique when it comes to wind energy development. Windaction.org has found that those States where the Governors have declared their State will be "a leader in renewable energy" have had similar shifts in priorities, in the face of existing environmental and wildlife protection laws.

Back to top

In 2004, the U.S. Government Bureau of Land Management (BLM) granted Pacific Wind Development LLC (now Iberdrola/PPM) a 3-year Right-of-Way Temporary Use Permit for 17,617 acres of public lands for "wind energy testing and monitoring facilities". The testing right-of-way was permitted without the benefit of public notice or comments, apparently based on the assumption that wind testing would not prove controversial. Letters objecting to the right-of-way grant were submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity, the San Diego Sierra Club, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and others.

In December 2007 the BLM released an updated Eastern San Diego County Proposed Resource Management Plan (PRMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that allowed Iberdrola/PPM to develop wind energy in the vicinity of McCain Valley on 6,931 acres, reduced from the initial 17,617 acres granted. Opposition mounted and letters of protest were lodged with the bureau of which only one, written by Iberdrola/PPM, argued that more land should be granted.

In response to the protest letters, the BLM filed a public notice of "significant change" in the Federal Register last month in which it stated: "Concerns have been raised by the public that the Eastern San Diego County PRMP is overly restrictive regarding wind energy development and is not adequately responsive to national goals and directives... regarding renewable energy development on public lands". Per its public notice, the BLM now proposes downgrading an additional 13,000 acres of public land to allow for Iberdrola's development plans. The land in question is immediately adjacent to areas of critical environmental concern, and BLM Wilderness Areas.

In its detailed letter of protest to the BLM, the Boulevard Planning Group wrote "Any plans to industrialize (rape) our local public lands, especially at the expense of US taxpayers and local property owners, will be met with fierce scrutiny and opposition. We are not alone." Written comments on the changes to the PRMP will be accepted until August 27, 2008.

Windaction.org encourages all of its subscribers to join the Boulevard Planning Group and file protest comments with the BLM.

Back to top

The State of New Hampshire, long recognized for respecting local governance, stepped over the bounds last month when the Governor signed into law HB 310, a statute oddly described as “allowing municipalities to regulate small wind energy systems”. In fact, the law is designed to deliberately remove authority from municipalities by establishing prohibitions on what a community can and cannot regulate.

HB 310 asserts that any “ordinances or regulations adopted by municipalities to regulate the installation and operation of small wind energy systems shall not unreasonably limit such installations or unreasonably hinder the performance of such installations”. The statute defines unreasonable limits as those including:

1) restricting tower heights through a generic ordinance that does not specifically address small wind energy systems.

2) establishing turbine setbacks from property lines larger than 1.5x the system height (tower plus blade).

3) defining noise level limits lower than 55 decibels, as measured at the property line, or not allowing for limit overages during utility outages and severe wind storms.

In an apparent attempt to show its “green” credentials, the State of New Hampshire demonstrated surprising ignorance of the facts and arrogance in its authority. Had the bill’s sponsors bothered to look, they would have found a large body of stories nationwide detailing cases where other States wrestled with small wind systems. 

Consider these four recent news reports: 

Coming soon to a neighbor near you, a 200-foot wind tower? 
 
Wind turbines found to cause sickness
 
Neighbor's windmill lowers property value, civil board rules 
 
Trees Block Solar Panels, and a Feud Ends in Court 

The last article tells the story of a California man who sued his neighbors because their redwoods cast shadows on his solar panels. The court found in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the trees cut. Similar wording in HB 310 could easily create similar unfortunate circumstances.
 
Windaction.org has no issue with small wind systems if properly regulated and the health, safety, and welfare of surrounding property owners protected. As written, the State failed to comprehend the implications of HB 310 at the peril of New Hampshire residents. But worse, the State’s actions portend comparable reckless efforts to force industrial-scale wind turbines on rural New Hampshire communities.

Back to top

The wind industry's lobbying of Congress to extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC) reached a fevered-pitch last week when the Federal government took no action on the PTC before recessing for August break. Ralph Cavanagh, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's energy program called Congress' inaction a "criminally irresponsible failure", Sierra Club e-mailed marching orders to willing soldiers calling on them to demand their "do-nothing" representatives do something, and print media did its best to dutifully deliver the daily message: without the production tax credit, giant corporations now on the verge of unleashing an economic and environmental boom will go elsewhere, and our most desperate regions of the country will remain desperate.

After decades of receiving significant subsidies from ratepayers and taxpayers, and recent assertions by the American Wind Energy Association that wind is "no longer an alternative energy source, it's mainstream", the industry's cries portend something else: that wind energy is uneconomical and cannot survive without government intervention. The Federal cost to extend the production tax credit for a single year is $7 billion, the most expensive item in the energy bill debated last Spring. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) subsidies for wind dwarf most fuel types at $23.37 MWh. Yet, what do we get for this "investment"?

A) An intermittent, unreliable (but very sexy) energy resource that does not deliver electricity during the very time of day and year when we need it the most.

B) A resource built hundreds of miles from load centers requiring up to a trillion dollars in public dollars to string transmission lines through undeveloped rich habitat, and

C) The requirement that up to 90% of the electricity from wind be matched with redundant generation to ensure reliability when the winds die down.

Last week, Massachusetts Secretary of Energy Ian Bowles said "Renewable plants have an enormous subsidy under the renewable (energy) portfolio laws. If they still can't compete, they probably shouldn't be built."

Windaction.org couldn't agree more. It's time for our Federal representatives who support the production tax credit to hear from those who understand the economics behind "big wind". Contact your representatives today, and tell them "enough is enough".

Back to top

Pressure is mounting in the United States to construct new and extensive transmission lines necessary to transport wind energy from remote areas where it's generated to markets where it will be consumed. Power lines hundreds of miles long are proposed to criss-cross the country costing billions of dollars. While wind generators are willing to commit to building projects (heavily subsidized by federal tax credits), the cost of new transmission is expected to be borne by ratepayers and taxpayers in the different regions.

Last week, Texas regulators approved $4.93 billion in public dollars to be spent on a web of transmission lines slated to carry west Texas wind to east Texas. The plan is expected to cost residential electricity customers $4 extra per month to cover the cost. While Texas races to claim the moniker of "wind capital", little has been established as to the economic, environmental, and social impacts of this decision.

Contrast this with the debate occurring within the New England regional power pool. Last spring, several proposals were submitted to the ISO-New England to study whether costs for new transmission to remote areas can be regionalized. A key question before the ISO and the region as a whole is "Who is or should be responsible for paying for transmission system projects that are not focused on maintaining power system reliability, or reducing congestion, but instead are entirely or largely driven by the interconnection of new generation resources?" This is one of several questions posed by Paul Hibbard, Chairman of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, to the ISO-NE. In most cases, the new generating resources referenced by Chairman Hibbard are wind projects proposed for the far northern reaches of Maine and New Hampshire.

In his follow-up comments to the Economic Studies Working Group, Hibbard further notes "the [wind] industry is no longer one that needs to be pampered - wind resource development is now being driven not by local interests or wind wildcatters, but by institutions with extremely deep pockets and sophisticated development strategies" including FPL, T. Boone Pickens, Iberdrola, and Energias de Portugal (EDP).

It is well known that energy prices will be governed at least over the next few decades by the marginal price of the dominant fossil fuel(s) for a region -- which for New England is natural gas and some oil. If the ratepayers in New England and Texas are further asked to bear the mounting costs to construct transmission to remote, windy areas, the much touted "free fuel" starts to look very expensive in real dollars and in environmental costs. (Note: several reports in this week's newsletter focus on the impacts and opposition to new transmission lines).

In addition to socializing the huge costs, building new transmission inevitably involves arm-twisting and outright taking of private property. Texans are known to be at least as protective of their property rights as New Englanders, so where's the outrage?

Back to top

Windaction.org is closely tracking the controversies surrounding wind energy development in the State of Illinois. Six major projects have received substantial press coverage just in the last two months. The appeal of one project is headed to court; others are certain to follow suit.

Apparently seduced by potential tax revenues, County Board members have whitewashed objections to noise, property values, and compliance with existing land use regulations.

In January, residents of Illinois' Logan and Tazewell counties had a chance to learn about Horizon Wind's latest proposal, the Rail Splitter wind farm, a 67 turbine project spanning 11,000 acres in both counties. Confident the project would proceed unchallenged, Horizon announced construction would begin in June and the project operational by December 2008.

At hearings before the Zoning Board of Appeals for Logan and Tazewell, compelling testimony was delivered by expert witness Michael McCann who spoke about the impact to surrounding residential property values. The turbines would be sited within 1500 feet of neighboring property lines. Richard R. James, a noise control and acoustical consultant explained the flaws in the sound modeling software utilized by Horizon and demonstrated how the project would be out of compliance with the Illinois Pollution Control Standards regarding acceptable limits of noise. Further, Mr. James was clear that Horizon's practice of measuring sound at the wall of a residence, rather than the property line, was not supported by Illinois noise standards.

Despite testimony by McCann and James, the Zoning Boards for both counties recommended approval, and the County Commissioners readily complied.

In Logan County, Attorney Rick Porter pleaded for the Board to require Horizon Wind sign a property value guarantee with neighboring property owners. Such a guarantee would cost nothing to the County. Nor would there be any expected cost to the developer since it merely enforced what Horizon Wind had already promised -- that no properties would be devalued as a result of the turbines. Still the County refused.

Windaction.org encourages the residents of Logan and Tazewell to appeal the Rail Splitter project approval.

Windaction.org questions at what point the Counties will be forced to account for their actions. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has initiated an investigation into improper dealings between local governing boards and wind interests in New York State. Perhaps it's time Illinois' Attorney General consider similar action.

Back to top

On July 10, George Wallace of the American Bird Conservancy provided testimony before the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans where he stated “The wind industry is prepared to increase the number of turbines 30 fold over the next 20 years ... at the current estimated mortality rate, the wind industry will be killing 900,000 to 1.8 million birds per year. While this number is a relatively small percentage of the total number of birds estimated to live in North America, many of the bird species being killed are already declining for other reasons, and losses of more than a million birds per year would exacerbate these declines.”

Two recent news articles corroborate Dr. Wallace’s concerns. The first details the risks of wind development on the endangered Whooping Crane, of which only 525 birds exist on the planet.

Yet, according to Laurie Jodziewicz, AWEA's manager of siting policy, the wind industry will "continue to grow in the crane's migration corridor and should not be subject to regulations that don't apply to other industries."

The second article states, in general, avian populations are more at risk today than ever. “So drastically have overall migratory bird populations fallen that one scientist who compared weather satellite images over time, found that migrating bird flocks were 50 percent smaller than they were several years ago.”

The wind industry perpetuates claims that their experts have resolved how best to site the turbines where they will do the least damage. Talk is cheap, and this claim is unsubstantiated. The fact remains that avian and bat species populations are at risk from wind blades, towers and transmission infrastructure. The industry advocates the dangerous strategy of addressing mortality problems after the wind projects are operational, but what then?

Windaction.org calls on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and the respective State and Provincial agencies to stop acceding to wind developers and vigorously protect the resources under their watch.

Back to top

The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), a quasi-public agency tasked with encouraging renewable energy technologies in the State, is funded through a monthly systems benefit surcharge to all electricity users statewide. MTC has spent millions speculating on wind proposals, including $250k on the out-of-state Redington, Maine project which was denied a permit.

Windaction.org has watched MTC continuously speculate and pressure small towns into adopting community wind energy regardless of need and with no apparent understanding of competing community interests and land use restrictions.

Ratepayer money was gambled and spent before any final approvals for erection of wind turbines in the Town of Orleans. In 2005, MTC contracted to purchase two new Vestes V82 – 1.65 megawatt wind turbines for $5.28 million. They took delivery of the turbines nine months later on Sep 20, 2006 and warehoused them in Houston, TX at storage fees as high as $3,000 a month.

As it turns out, issues with sensitive watershed areas compromised the plan. Then the agency aggressively worked to get the turbines placed in Mattapoisett, MA and neighboring Fairhaven, MA, but public opposition to the giant structures too close to residential areas stymied that effort. Last month, Fairhaven residents filed a civil suit to keep the turbines out.

MTC is now looking to cut its losses and unload the turbines at the original purchase price, less the service warranty which has expired.

Perhaps it’s time for MTC to reevaluate its tactics and how best to implement its mission. Building green communities involves more than moving town to town and leaving a trail of turbines behind. The ratepayers of Massachusetts deserve more accountability from their quasi-public agencies.

Back to top

Logan County, IL is conducting public hearings on the 67-turbine Rail Splitter wind facility proposed by Horizon Wind. During hearings last week, public testimony was presented by Ed and Nancy Knittle, a couple now living within the view shed of Horizon's massive 240-turbine Twin Grove site in neighboring McLean County.

Prior to building their new home, the Knittle's testified they were assured by Horizon (then Zilkha Renewable Energy) the turbines "wouldn't be a disturbance" and that no more than one turbine would be visible from their home.

Based on these assurances, the Knittles signed an easement agreement with the developer, purchased a house lot, and built their new home. The agreement offered the Knittles $1000 per year and in exchange, Horizon secured permission to create "audio, visual, view, light, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, ice or other weather created hazards or other effect of any kind whatsoever resulting directly or indirectly" from the turbines over the Knittle's property. A confidentiality clause prohibited disclosure of the terms of the agreement.

At the hearing last week, the Knittles spoke out. "We can hear turbines while brushing our teeth. And we see flickering lights on our fireplace. It's extremely upsetting. ...They [Horizon] never told us about blade flicker or red flashing lights ... it's devastating. ...We were falsely misguided. I tried to honor and respect the company and keep this confidential, but I just can't do it anymore." 

Back to top

Last month, Barrington, RI voters approved plans to fund and erect a $2.4 million wind turbine to power the local high school. Town leaders anticipate the 600 KW turbine to supply a substantial portion of the school's energy demand. Windaction.org tried to determine a cost breakdown, expected electric generation, and suggested payback period but documentation on the Town's website showed numbers to be inconsistent and difficult to reconcile. For example, documents put the turbine cost at $1.4 million installed with published annual capacity factors varying between 19% and 25%. Further, no wind studies were done to gauge whether the marginal area winds meshed with periods of high demand.

Financials aside, Windaction.org is most concern with the suggested placement of the turbine. According to published reports, the base of the 328-foot structure will be located roughly 200-feet from the high school building, between the football and baseball fields and at 500-feet (or less) from the nearest residence. Town reports justify the minimal setbacks with rhetoric like "In order to attract investment, this new industry cannot afford any failures so the machines have to be designed to meet extremely high safety standards and have thereby enjoyed an excellent safety record ..."

Windaction.org encourages Barrington residents to demand a more thorough investigation into the risks of placing turbines so close to where people gather. Turbine collapse, blade throw, ice drop, and fire are a few of the accidents reported in the US just in the last 10 months. See also: http://www.windaction.org/faqs/14347 . Turbine manufacturer Vestas recommends no less than 1,300-feet clearance for technicians. And noise is another important factor. The noise level of the 600 KW machine at hub height is 98 decibels, only slightly lower then the turbines installed at Mars Hill, ME.

Back to top

Independence Wind, LLC which includes Former Maine Governor Angus King as a principal, is seeking to build a 50 megawatt wind energy facility in rural Roxbury, Maine. King's authority to build the project is governed by a poorly-written zoning amendment rushed to the voters last March. The amendment permits industrial wind turbines, but establishes no setback buffers, noise limits, or other requirements necessary to protect the residents and real property from the large-scale development.

Just three weeks after the amendment passed, attorneys for a citizen's group submitted detailed letters to the town highlighting procedural illegalities pertaining to the March vote and other gross inadequacies with the zoning amendment itself. On June 17, the Town will vote again to consider a 180-day moratorium on the construction of wind energy facilities.

Independence Wind and Governor King, who stand to gain financially by the zoning amendment now in place, were involved in its adoption each step of the way, including King's presence at the March vote. As a former Chief of State and an attorney, Governor King knows the laws of his State, the importance of open and fair government, and the value of maintaining the public's trust -- all of which appear to have been abused in this process.

Windaction.org calls on Governor King and Roxbury's Select board to denounce the zoning amendment now on the books, endorse the moratorium, and make every effort to ensure a new ordinance is written that protects the rights and interests of Roxbury taxpayers.

Back to top

Last August, DeWayne and Elaine Wilkie purchased a home in Jefferson County in upstate New York, moving back to the area of Mrs. Wilkie's youth. They decided to move for medical reasons, as the constant noise and attendant vibrations surrounding Mr. Wilkie in his former community, Fort Lauderdale, FL, might negatively affect the pace maker/defibrillator inserted in his chest.

The Wilkies learned only after moving into their new home that they lived within the Horse Creek Wind Energy project site, a wind farm proposed by Iberdrola/PPM. The 130 megawatt, 62 wind turbine project is slated to span 11,800 acres in the towns of Clayton and Orleans.

No one disclosed to the Wilkies that their new home would be surrounded by turbines. While feeling betrayed and financially limited in their options, the Wilkies have not faced their biggest fear-- and the fear of their doctors.

Mr. Wilkie's doctors consulted with electrophysiologist Dr. Osman, as Mr. Wilkie's medical report states : "[Dr. Osman] has concerns that low frequency noise range of these wind turbines could interfere with the proper functioning of Mr. Wilkie's AIC defibrillator leading to shutting down of the device".

The American Wind Energy Association dismisses the hazard, stating it "does not have scientific information to prove and establish that it [low-frequency noise] is a widespread problem".

Windaction.org asserts the comments by the electrophysiologist pertaining to Mr. Wilkie's pace maker cannot and should not be ignored. Without established legislation regarding wind turbine noise, vibration, and other possible turbine emissions, reviewing boards should take great care in determining setback distances between wind turbines and human occupied buildings. The town boards of Clayton and Orleans are now aware of Mr. Wilkie's situation. The question is whether they will knowingly allow the wind turbines to be sited within harms way and become life threatening to Mr. Wilkie and others like him.

Back to top

Giant utility, Florida Power and Light (FPL) is proposing a six-turbine wind energy facility for Hutchinson Island, a barrier island off the east coast of Florida. The project site is home to about 180 species of birds and animals including 36 species that are endangered or threatened. The proposal has been met with considerable opposition by area residents and environmental groups .

In a May 19 letter to St. Lucie County (FL) Board of County Commissioners, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) expressed its apparent support for the FPL wind project. An article about the letter in Scripps Treasure Coast Newspaper was originally headlined "Turbine plan gains support from National Resources Defense Council".

Members of the Save St. Lucie Alliance, a local citizen organization, responded to the letter and press coverage by contacting the letter's author, Nathanael Greene, director of renewable energy policy for NRDC. Mr. Greene disclosed that FPL had asked him to write the letter, and admitted he had no knowledge of the project site nor did he understand the potential environmental impacts should the turbines get built. He stated his intent was to express NRDC's support for wind energy in general, not this project specifically.

Mr. Greene phoned the reporter to correct the record and a correction has since been published in the paper. The updated article with new headline, "National Resources Defense Council urges fair hearing for FPL wind turbine plan", includes a sidebar stating "This article has been modified from its original version... The council has not taken a position on the [wind project]".

WindAction.org applauds local citizens, like the Save St. Lucie Alliance, willing to investigate suspicious press reports and take action to correct the record where necessary.

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

Last month, at a special meeting of the Prattsburgh, NY town board, the board voted 3-2 to adopt a resolution authorizing commencement of eminent domain proceedings against landowners unwilling to sign easement agreements with UPC Wind (recently renamed First Wind), a private wind energy developer seeking to erect 36 turbines across dozens of private parcels in town. Following a presentation by UPC on the project plan, the board voted on the resolution. Windaction.org was told that public input from the nearly 100 attendees was explicitly prohibited. An unidentified uniformed individual was on hand to subdue anyone trying to speak.

The resolution cited names and addresses of eight landowners whose property will be condemned to allow UPC Wind to construct, install, and operate underground electrical lines between the wind turbines, and from the turbines to the project substation. Without their consent, the project was stalled.

Just prior to the vote, Board member Charles Shick requested that Town Supervisor Harold McConnell recuse himself stating McConnell admitted to accepting "real estate commissions in at least one land deal last fall involving UPC." McConnell refused and cast the tie-breaking vote. With the deed done, McConnell informed attendees they will be able to express their concerns at a public hearing of the Board to be scheduled within thirty days.

Armed with the threat of eminent domain, UPC Wind and its agents wasted no time pursuing the affected landowners. Windaction.org has learned that landowners are being told to accept a negotiated settlement with UPC rather than lose control of their land by force. As of this writing, we know of one landowner who has caved to UPC's pressure.

Prattsburgh, NY, UPC/First Wind, and Eminent Domain: an update

Last week, Windaction.org reported on the April 21 vote by the Prattsburgh, NY Town Board to initiate eminent domain proceedings against eight (8) specific properties in town and other properties, if needed, as referenced in the resolution adopted. The Board's action was intended to force residents in the community to concede control of their land to UPC Wind (recently renamed First Wind), a private wind energy developer seeking to erect 36 turbines across dozens of private parcels. 

The Board has since scheduled a public hearing for Thursday, May 22, to permit public input on this matter. Those property owners who wish to challenge the condemnation of their property may only do so based on the issues, facts and objections raised at the hearing on the 22nd. Blindsided by the board's vote last month, property owners have only 30 days to understand the gravity of the situation and to mount a fight for their rights. It remains to be seen whether the "public good" will be served by a land taking, but one thing is for sure: These happenings in Plattsburgh, NY, set a dangerous precedent.

Back to top

Wind energy developers commonly downplay the impact of road construction through proposed project areas. For most ridgeline project proposals which Windaction.org has reviewed, applicants quietly state that roads will only require 11-meters (36-feet) width during construction, and quickly add that these areas will be allowed to re-vegetate back to 16-foot mountain trails. Yet, a reading of the actual road plans tells a very different story, as do actual results at completed developments.

First, be cognizant that 36-foot wide roads are as wide as a 3-lane interstate highway in the U.S. Given steep slopes and the potential for damaging runoff, comprehensive measures are needed to prevent erosion - all of which adds to the width of the cleared area. The road's subsurface and related compaction of road surface will likely prohibit re-growth beyond shallow grasses; it is questionable whether the impacted area will ever return to a forested state for decades.

The application for the Deerfield Wind project in the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont, a 42.5 megawatt (17 turbine) facility, will add approximately five linear miles of expansive road with a minimum 38-foot surface width. Windaction.org determined through discovery that the actual ridgeline roads would vary between forty and 160-feet.

Aerial photos of the Bear Creek, PA facility, an operating 12-turbine, 24 megawatt site clearly show a road structure that is nearly 100-feet wide. As do photos from Mars Hill that show clearings up to 100-feet wide. Road development at Pennsylvania's Allegheny Ridge wind site suffered 100-150 foot corridors cut through the forest. These are typical examples.

Windaction.org encourages reviewers to be mindful of the extent of road development impacts particularly in areas that are undisturbed. The true impacts should be scrutinized and developers held accountable prior to approving any project permits.

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

This month, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released an important analysis on Federal energy subsidies with a focus on electricity production. The total Federal energy-specific subsidies to all forms of energy was estimated at $16.6 billion for fiscal year 2007, more than double the estimated amounts in 1999 as calculated in 2007 dollars.

Windaction.org was most interested in Table ES5 of the Executive Summary which itemizes subsidies paid per fuel-type as measured in megawatt hours (MWh) of generation. A subset of the table is listed below:

Wind proponents are quick to discuss absolute amounts paid in subsidies for coal, nuclear, and other traditional sources of generation. But when measured using a common unit (per MWh), subsidies for wind dwarf most fuel types at $23.37 MWh. Currently, wind receives 14+ times the subsidy paid for nuclear and a whopping 53x that of coal.

It's also apparent the Federal government does NOT treat all renewables equally. Subsidies for wind far exceed those paid for Biomass, Geothermal, Hydro, and Landfill gas combined.

Yet, given the unpredictable, intermittent nature of the fuel source, wind energy is the least able, of all renewables, to reliably supply generation during peak periods. Further, wind requires companion generation to address low or no winds conditions, and extensive, costly transmission upgrades to deliver power long distances to load centers.

Back to top

Within two days of the vote by Wisconsin's Calumet County Board of Supervisors to amend its wind energy ordinance governing safe placement of commercial turbines, Midwest Wind Energy's Tom Swierczewski distributed a memorandum to select landowners in the county in which he laid out his strategy to bypass local authorities and file an application with the State's Public Service Commission (PSC). According to Midwest's website, the company has now decided to nearly double the Stony Brook Wind Farm proposal in order to meet the State's minimum requirement of 100+ megawatts for the PSC to assert jurisdiction.

Swierczewski states it's "in our best interest to combine all of the turbine locations we have secured in the Towns of Brothertown and Stockbridge in this application." Pitting neighbor against neighbor, he encourages landowners to assist him in locating others to sign up more turbine locations. Perhaps Midwest has reason for optimism. Tim LeMonds, the PSC's director of governmental and public affairs, stated recently the "PSC would take the town's concerns into consideration..." but, admitted that "when it comes to large wind farm projects, the PSC refuses little."

In an attempt to ambush local authority, Mr. Swierczewski's memo states: "Midwest Wind Energy is fully committed to this effort as we now see this as "the war to end all wars" regarding wind power in Wisconsin", and that "we have every confidence that Stony Brook will eventually get built."

Back to top

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and wind energy developers insist a modern wind facility at a distance of 1000 feet produces a sound no louder than a kitchen refrigerator. This comparison is recited over and over in public hearings throughout the U.S. and worldwide. The residents of Mars Hill, Maine have pages of documentation from UPC Wind highlighting the developer's assertion that the 42MW, 28-turbine facility would not produce noise.

Having now "lived" with the turbines for four full seasons of the year, the Mars Hill residents within 3000 feet of the turbines have a consistent refrain: "Noise is a real problem". Residents of Mars Hill recently submitted letters to the towns of Byron and Roxbury Maine, who were considering changes to their land use regulations to permit turbines.

• Todd Letter
• Fletcher Letter
• Boyd Letter
• Harris Letter
• Cowperthwaite Letter
• Burtchell Letter 

The developers proposing the Byron/Roxbury wind facility made similar statements to those of UPC Wind in Mars Hill ("Wind turbines are usually audible only within a few hundred feet." )

Windaction.org encourages everyone to read these letters, written by people who would have no reason to publicize their plight except to inform others who may learn from the mistakes made by the Mars Hill community.

In a recent press article, Paul Gaynor, CEO and president of UPC Wind stated: "I know there was an expectation [in Mars Hill] about what these were going to sound like. These are big structures and they do make sound." We wonder if Mr. Gaynor understands that it was UPC who set the expectation about sound. It is now time for Mr. Gaynor to accept responsibility for the problems at Mars Hill, to proactively resolve the issues and to speak publicly about the risks in building turbines too close to where people live.

Back to top

Throughout much of the United States (and other countries) siting of wind energy development is governed primarily through local land use regulations as adopted by a host town or county. In jurisdictions with no regulations, there are no rules regarding height limitations, setback buffer requirements, noise enforcement guidelines, or other standards necessary to ensure the safe placement and operation of the turbines. Even with regulations in place, rural towns rarely have experience in large-scale developments, and their land use boards often fail to exercise the full scope of their authority to regulate wind towers.

But a more dangerous circumstance pertaining to wind development exists - one Windaction.org has observed across the US. That is the apparent and blatant disregard by some local board members for the laws on the books. In some cases, the board members do not understand the purpose, intent, and letter of the existing laws in their town or county. In other cases, members are well aware of the laws but freely bend them to ensure a specific outcome.

Last week, the planning commission for Bingham County, Idaho held a public hearing on a proposal to build 81 miles of road and erect 150 wind turbines across more than 17,600 acres of Wolverine Canyon. This area is locally designated as a Natural Resource/Agriculture district which, by definition, does not permit industrial, energy-producing, structures. Yet, last fall, this same application was approved by the planning commission, and later withdrawn by the developer only after it was revealed that several abutting property owners were not notified of the proposal (a technicality unrelated to the land use issues).

It is unclear how the planning commission could have approved the original application since the towers are not a 'permitted use' in the NR/A district, nor can we understand how the plan could be accepted for public hearing again last week if it continues to be in violation of existing land use regulations.

Windaction.org encourages all residents of a community to understand your local regulations and ensure your local boards respect and follow the laws as adopted, including permitted uses, height limits, setbacks, noise, safety, etc.

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

National Audubon’s newly released position statement on wind energy development is short, sweet, and dangerous.  Notable deficiencies in the Statement include:

1) Audubon’s use of italics of the word "population" in an apparent effort by Audubon to a) limit concern over wind plant development's impact to wildlife species and b) discourage concern over the numbers killed.  The notion that only "population" level impacts should be of concern is an unacceptable flaw in this document since no one can determine what constitutes a "population" for most species of nocturnal migrant songbirds or bats. 

2) Audubon asserts that “habitat impacts” can occur and fails to acknowledge the considerable habitat loss that IS OCCURRING.  The document omits the term “fragmentation" when describing impacts of wind energy development and appears to only grudgingly concede there may be impacts.

3) Audubon's call for guidelines is weak, and represents thinking that is several years behind the times.  Guidelines that do not require mandatory compliance by the wind industry are meaningless. We question whether Audubon understands that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has had wind/wildlife guidelines available for 5 years and that this voluntary guidance has been largely ignored by the wind industry.

4) Most egregious is Audubon’s failure to recognize the threat of wind energy development on our national forests and state-owned lands. Audubon should be calling for a ban on wind development on public lands as long as suitable privately-owned lands are available. Further, Audubon should be insisting that wind projects on public lands comply with more stringent siting and monitoring requirements than any provided via "guidelines".
(Analysis by D. Daniel Boone)

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

Last month, Oregon's Occupational Safety and Health Division (OR-OSHA) released its report on the wind turbine collapse at the Klondike III wind facility that left one worker dead and another seriously injured. Oregon OSHA fined Siemens Power Generation Inc. $10,500 for safety violations and multiple errors in Seimens' training and procedures.

Now that safety problems have been identified at one site, it's reasonable to question whether similar deficiencies exist at other Seimens sites or even nationwide, regardless the companies involved. Windaction.org encourages each reader to send a copy of the OR-OSHA citation to your State OSHA office along with a list of wind projects proposed or under construction in that State. Recent press reports highlighting the lack of trained personal to work at wind sites warrants a pro-active stance by OSHA State offices.

Back to top

Last Friday, a Vestas wind turbine in Denmark was caught on video blowing apart in high wind conditions. It's been reported that the braking system failed on the unit causing the blades to speed out of control.

In August 2007, a catastrophic failure at the Klondike III wind farm in Oregon killed one person and injured another. Preliminary reports found the turbine went into "over speed operation" before collapsing.    

These failures were two of several in the last six months. Others include:
1) Fenner blade break (NY)  
2) Turbine blade shredded (PA)
3) Turbine burns (Iowa)
4) Steelwinds wind farm disabled (NY)
5) Turbine collapse (UK)

Six months ago, Business Week published "The Dangers of Wind Power". The article opened with: "As wind turbines multiply around the globe, the number of dangerous accidents is also climbing, causing critics to question overall safety." As developers race to install turbines closer and closer to where people live, the cost of such accidents are certain to grow. Still, wind proponents continue to press for limited setbacks from residences.

Back to top

A retired EMS pilot in Wisconsin was interviewed by the Calumet County ad hoc committee regarding emergency medical transport within the vicinity of industrial wind turbines. The pilot substantiates several warnings including:

1. EMS pilots will most likely not land anywhere in the County where turbines are located;
   
2. Pilots require a minimum of 500 feet above a known object to fly safely over it. If an object is 500 feet tall, an EMS helicopter would need to be 1,000 feet to fly over it, thus limiting flights to days when there is a cloud ceiling of 1,000 feet or greater;
   
3. FAA lighting on turbines calls for lights at the top of the tower with unlit blades extending 100 to 200 feet beyond. It would be impossible to make a safe passage through an area where there could be 50 or 100 turbines.

Ms. Ann Younger-Crandall, program manager for ThedaStar Air Medical in Wisconsin indirectly confirmed some of these warning in her Dec 8, 2007 letter to the local paper, but ends with assurances that "no one in Calumet County should be denied air medical transport because of the construction of wind turbines within the county." Ms. Younger-Crandall's use of the word "should" is interesting, but unconvincing. As the pilot stated in his interview, "Do you want to be the one who has to tell the parents why their child is going to die? Because you can't fly into an area anymore to safely pick them up."

Back to top

Property owners in Oswego County, NY were notified last week that Babcock & Brown, an Australia wind developer with twenty wind farms in the U.S., could execute eminent domain to secure a 150-foot wide swath across private land needed to erect transmission lines to a proposed wind project on Galloo Island.

This is not the first time international wind concerns have threatened property owners with eminent domain. Early last year, Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tonbridge Power Inc. of Toronto, Ontario, advertised its right of eminent domain to secure land to build a 203-mile "merchant" transmission line across cropland. Three wind energy developers have reserved MATL's transmission capacity and plan wind parks all along the MATL line beginning in 2008.

Three years ago, the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) granted Scottish Power, a Scottish-owned corporation, the power of eminent domain for the purpose of building transmission lines from their Elk River wind energy facility. The KCC granted the authority with no public hearing. With the exception of notices sent to other utilities, the entire process was quietly accomplished in less than three weeks.

Back to top

The Recorder newspaper published an interview with Judge Theodore Morrison, retiring member of Virginia's State Corporation Commission (SCC). Judge Morrison served on the Commission when it reviewed and conditionally permitted the controversial 39-megawatt Highland New Wind Development wind energy facility proposed for Allegheny Mountain in Virginia. Judge Morrison's comments are worth noting given the aggressive campaign now underway by the wind industry to pressure Congress into renewing the Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) as part of the Economic Stimulus Package.

In his interview, Morrison referred to the Highland Wind project as "symbolic" in the larger scheme of electricity demand. "It was only for 40 measly megawatts ... People shouldn't think we can get away from large [conventional power] plants with these," he said, adding that "I wish people would get realistic about the promise of renewables."

Energy expert Thomas Tanton notes that up to 65% of wind turbine installations are foreign sourced. Thus, if the extension were to be added to the Stimulus package, the only economies "truly stimulated" would be those countries (Denmark, Germany and India) that have the lion's share of the world turbine market."

The US Senate will be voting this week on a stimulus package. It's time for all of us to contact Congress and ask our representatives to get realistic about what the American taxpayers gain in return for the billions in public dollars spent on wind energy subsidies.

Back to top

The wind industry has continuously lobbied Congress to enact a long-term extension of the federal production tax credit (PTC) since the incentive was first introduced in 1992. The PTC now represents up to one-third the return on a given wind farm. While it's true that fossil fuel generation also receives federal subsidies, when measured on a per kilowatt hour basis, wind is paid significantly more for a very minor percentage of overall generation (1% of U.S. consumption).

The question becomes whether the public is receiving value in return for the billions "invested" to date. Three basic limitations of wind generation suggest the investment may not be worth it:

• wind energy can only supplement other fuels, mainly natural gas, and does not eliminate the need to build conventional power plants with reliable generation;
• wind projects built far from population centers require enormous investments in transmission, a separate cost passed on to ratepayers;
• reports consistently show that as the need for electricity rises, output from most US wind farms drops (it's out of sync with time of day, time of year demand).

The PTC should encourage reliable, usable generation produced close to where and when the energy is consumed. Presently, the PTC does not!

Back to top

The USDA's Forest Service proposes to make sweeping changes to its internal directives governing wildlife monitoring and special use authorizations. These proposed changes will greatly facilitate the siting of industrial wind turbines within our National Forests. The new language contained in the Forest Service Manual section now lists the Forest Service's #1 goal as: "Authorize wind energy facilities on National Forest System lands to help meet the nation's energy needs." The Service has declared these proposed revisions as "non-significant", thus exempting this policy action from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, i.e. no Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) needed to evaluate the cumulative impacts of these extensive policy revisions. Please write to insist that the Forest Service not finalize these proposed revisions until they complete an EIS - as should be required pursuant to the letter and intent of NEPA.

The deadline for comments is Jan 23. Please contact us at info@windaction.org with questions or to sign on to a joint letter.

Back to top

Wind energy developers are increasingly benefiting from local town officers who have a conflict of interest in seeing developments built on their own lands. News of such conflicts emerged during the past year from communities in New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, and elsewhere.

In the town of Burke NY, two town board members voting on a proposed Wind Energy Facilities Law were exposed as clearly having "direct pecuniary interest in the placement of wind towers", according to a letter filed by an attorney representing citizens of Burke. The letter asserts "Town Board member Arnold Lobdell is a party to an Option and Lease Agreement with Jericho Rise Wind Farm, LLC.," and "Town Board member David Vincent has entered into an Easement Agreement with Noble Chateaugay Windpark LLC." (see agreements)

Such conflict is destructive to the democratic process and should not be tolerated anywhere in the United States of America. In the case of Burke NY, WindAction.org and others recommends swift action be taken by the Town Board to disavow the draft wind energy facilities law, and re-initiate the effort from scratch with the conflicted members removed from the process.

Back to top

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) aired this segment on the dramatic decline in bird populations across North America.

The segment, entitled Bye Bye Birdies, explains how modern trends in farming, forestry and housing are destroying tens of millions of common birds. Overwhelming evidence suggests the species of birds mentioned in the video are disappearing in response to the continual and methodical loss and degradation of their habitat - involving their nesting areas, wintering areas and along their migration paths. Today, most migratory songbirds encounter and must get around cell phone and other tall communication towers during their twice yearly sojourn to the south and back. Now, huge wind turbines are being erected by the thousands (and, based on regional interconnection queues, soon to be tens of thousands), which will add to the cumulative stress and strain songbird populations are suffering.

Wind energy advocates continue to assert that modern wind turbines are kinder and gentler to avian life. However, news reports from Texas, California, and Australia this past week alone suggest risk to migratory birds is real and growing.

Back to top

More than half the states in the U.S. have adopted a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requiring a percentage of electric generation come from renewable sources. A Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study found that 62% of the renewable generation needed to satisfy these RPSs will come from wind, with Texas and the Midwestern States seeing 94% compliance coming from wind energy.

Adoption of RPS policies hinges on state-sponsored studies that project the costs and benefits of RPS programs. Berkeley Lab researchers found that, across all state studies, the methodologies used in determining projected electricity rate impacts, environmental effects, and public benefits were limited and failed to account for key costs including:

1. transmission and integration costs for wind energy,
2. fluctuating capacity values,
3. increasing capital costs for the turbines, and
4. likelihood that coal-fired generation, not natural gas, will drive wholesale market prices in some regions.

In an interview, Berkeley Lab researcher Ryan Wiser said that "many of the studies were designed with the explicit intent to either influence legislative processes or, alternatively, to potentially affect the design of RPS policies as established by regulatory agencies."

According to the report the "disparity between study expectations and current market reality suggests that the actual cost impacts of state RPS policies may significantly exceed those estimated in our sample of studies, especially if higher wind costs persist."

In light of these findings, windaction.org encourages all state studies receive a second look. Legislators and the public deserve to know the true costs of these programs.

Back to top

Robert Bradley, in his seminal policy paper entitled Renewable Energy Not Cheap, Not "Green", discusses the Department of Energy's 1976 study which estimated wind power could supply nearly 20% of the U.S. electricity by 1995. By 1996, wind represented 1/10th of 1 percent share with clear signs the market was in decline. In 1997 Enron entered the picture with its purchase of Zond, one of the largest developers of wind generation. This, coupled with new state and federal restructuring initiatives that funneled billions into new subsidies for wind and other renewables, resuscitated the near-dead market.

Yet, the inherent flaws of wind energy that made it economically unviable in the 1990's still exist today. Bradley wrote "because wind power's high up-front capital costs and erratic opportunity to convert wind to electricity more than cancel out the fact that there is no energy cost for naturally blowing wind. Low capacity factors, and still lower dependable on-peak capacity factors, are a source of wind power's cost problem." Much of Bradley's paper applies today and it's well worth reading.

Back to top

Two different, but very similar news reports (CBS News: Winds of change blow in Texas and NPR: Winds of change blow into Roscoe, Texas) were published in the last two weeks. Each highlighted the economic opportunities resulting from wind energy development in West Texas and the revitalization of otherwise land-rich, resource-poor communities of the State. CBS termed it a "wind energy gold rush".

These stories stand in stark contrast to the message offered in this short video from the same area. Further, not all landowners who lease land for wind development continue to support their decision after the turbines are operational. This paid ad, which appeared in a Wisconsin paper in October 2007, tells a disheartening story of a landowner who recognized the fallout of his decision after the damage was done.

Back to top

The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) has undertaken a study to determine the impact of utility-scale wind turbines on property values. In June 2007, the preliminary results of the study presented at the American Wind Energy Association's (AWEA) annual meeting showed "No effects found" on property values.

The study analyzes four sites, including areas in Somerset County and Wayne County, PA which are already highly-industrialized including active and reclaimed strip mines. This is in direct contrast with target sites like rural Lempster, NH not included in the EERE study. The topographical map of Lempster reveals a site with no industrialization and located at least fifteen miles from the nearest interstate highway.

While the final EERE report is not due until 2008, the preliminary results rushed to the AWEA annual meeting appear suspect, insufficiently sampled, and overly generalized.

Back to top

The transmission and distribution grid system within the United States loses approximately 7.2% of the energy to resistance. Given 500,000 MW of energy available on the U.S. grid system, up to 36,000 MW may be lost, representing nearly 3x the installed capacity of wind in the country. If wind facilities are built far from load centers and the energy delivered via an extensive transmission network, it's reasonable to ask how much of this energy actually reaches its destination.

Back to top

Several important studies pertaining to noise and utility-scale wind turbines are listed below. Others can by found on www.windaction.org by searching on the keyword 'noise'.

Health effects of wind turbine noise - Dr. Nina Pierpont, March 2006

The sound of high winds: the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise - G. P. van den Berg, May 2006

Wind Turbine Syndrome: Noise, shadow flicker, and health - Dr. Nina Pierpont, June 2006 (see pages 7-14 out of 20)

Location, Location, Location - The UK Noise Association, July 2006

Wind Turbines, Noise and Health - Dr. Amanda Harry, Feb 2007

Infrasound and low frequency noise dose responses: Contributions - Mariana Alves-Pereiraa and Nuno A. A. Castelo Branco, Aug 2007

Public health and noise exposure: the importance of low frequency noise - Mariana Alves-Pereiraa and Nuno A. A. Castelo Branco, Aug 2007

Wind Farm Noise and Regulations in the Eastern United States - Hilkat Soysal and Oguz Soysal, Sept 2007

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

According to California ISO's Integration of Renewable Resources draft report (http://www.windaction.org/documents/12510) wind generation on a typical summer day peaks during periods of low demand and is at its lowest production levels when electricity demand is high.

This graph (http://www.windaction.org/pictures/12515) shows the variation of average hourly wind generation and actual wind generation (red dots) at the time of the daily system peak demand for the month of July 2006.

The report further states that while the daily summer pattern of high demand and low wind is predictable, the actual hourly wind generation output can vary significantly from one day to the next. As more wind is added to a grid region, the impact of this variability becomes more pronounced. Even with advanced wind forecasting in place and available five minutes ahead, wind could vary by hundreds of megawatts in the time it takes to respond to the forecast.

Back to top

An analysis of grid interconnection requests within U.S. portions of North America reveals that proposed wind energy development as of October 2007 totals up to 164,900 MW. This information, based on data compiled within the last two months, is regionally distributed as follows (rounded to the nearest 100 MW):

New England (NE ISO): 2,100 MW
New York (NY ISO): 6,800 MW
Mid-Atlantic region (PJM): 24,500 MW (includes northern IN and IL)
Mid-West region (MISO): 65,500 MW
Texas (ERCOT): 35,500 MW (most of TX)
Southcentral region (SPP): 19,300 MW (mostly comprised of KS and OK, but also TX panhandle)
Western region (WECC): 11,200 MW (entire western US)

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

The Green-e Renewable Energy Program's seal of approval is provided to all wind and other renewable energy projects which adhere to a set of national standards and pay a fee. According to the Green-e website ( http://www.green-e.org/ ), "The Green-e logo is the most trusted symbol in America for high quality renewable energy. The logo is backed by the Green-e program, the nation's leading independent certification and verification program from the Center for Resource Solutions."

However, the only "environmental" criteria used to determine whether a renewable energy project qualifies for "green-e" certification is if it generates electricity from fuel sources other than fossil fuels, nuclear and hydropower greater than 5 MW (see: http://www.windaction.org/documents/12207). If a wind project slaughters thousands of bats and birds annually, destroys hundreds of acres of forest or important wildlife habitat, is built on public land, or impacts a scenic viewshed or "dark sky" reserve, the facility, nonetheless, would be awarded the coveted "Green-e" marketing stamp-of-approval without questions or reservations.

Back to top

The windaction.org database contains over 21,000 items selectively culled from sources all over the world.

When a News event spurs multiple articles, we do not simply post every write-up. Each article is reviewed and usually the best single article for that News is selected.

Opinion pieces and letters that are posted meet strict editorial guidelines. Only those that are well written by informed and experienced authors are selected.

Documents, images, and other entries in our resource library are carefully reviewed for accuracy and credibility, and as much as possible, bring something new to the debate.

It is important that our visitors have confidence that content from windaction.org stands up under scrutiny.

If you have any questions regarding an item on the site, or if you are having difficulty locating a particular resource, please e-mail us at info@windaction.org.

Back to top

The wind industry has incented rural communities to host wind energy installations with promises of jobs for local workers, the bulk of which are short-term, construction-related positions. After the facility is operational, only 1-2 people are employed full-time near the site per 50 megawatts of installed capacity. The facility largely runs unattended and is monitored remotely from locations in Europe and elsewhere.

Contrast this with a typical biomass facility that provides 20 full-time positions at the operating plant and another 2 positions per megawatt capacity (40+ people) in the woods conducting fuel procurement (ref. Ridgewood Renewable Power of New Jersey). But even temporary local construction jobs for wind plants may be proving elusive, as this letter from the Ironworkers Local 33 in New York demonstrates. See: http://www.windaction.org/documents/11901.

Back to top

Wind developers encumber the private land on which they propose to build a wind plant through a legal contract referred to as a Wind Energy Easement Agreement. Landowners often sign these agreements without first receiving advice from an attorney. An attorney reviewed one such agreement. His comments, embedded in this document http://www.windaction.org/documents/11774 , highlight the common pitfalls of signing without legal advice.

A second contract, often referred to as a Good Neighbor Agreement, might be executed between a developer and landowners who own property near the project site but whose land will not host turbines. One agreement can be found at http://www.windaction.org/documents/11807 along with comments provided by an attorney. Other examples of agreements can be found on windaction.org at http://www.windaction.org/documents/2435

Back to top

Wind proponents regularly assert that bird mortality at wind energy sites averages at a low 2.3 birds per turbine per year. These collision figures were derived from outdated, and inadequate bird mortality studies conducted at land-based wind projects in western United States. William R. Evans, well-known ornithologist with expertise in nocturnal bird migration provided a critique of these studies in his 2004 testimony on the Chautauqua (NY) proposal ( http://www.windaction.org/documents/11726 ) where he states the Erickson, et.al. 2001 studies are "now widely seen as prematurely conceived."

Evans continues, "the high mortality figures associated with cats and windows predominantly involve plentiful species that are common in suburban and residential neighborhoods or in the vicinity of farms, whereas the species killed at commercial wind turbine facilities and communications towers are largely neotropical migrant songbirds; species of conservation concern that nest in our wild lands."

Recent bird mortality research from Europe ( http://www.windaction.org/documents/11725 ) found that collisions can vary substantially between sites with mortality as high as 103 to 309 birds/turbine/year. The researchers state that "[mortality] results of individual wind farms can not be generalized" but that "the collision mortality is mostly related to the number of (flying) birds present (at rotor height)". The Erickson et.al. numbers are inappropriately used by proponents to bolster their claims that pre-construction avian surveys are an unnecessary expense.

Back to top

In the rush to legislate renewable energy mandates, state legislators failed to consider needed infrastructure. Onshore wind plants are typically built hundreds of miles from load centers in areas with little or no transmission. Now states are scrambling to socialize the cost of transmission, a cost normally borne by the generators. Burdening ratepayers with this is contrary to the rules and recommendations held by utility commissioners as recently as a few years ago. Comments to FERC by the New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners and the Vermont Department of Public Service ( http://www.windaction.org/documents/11629 ) make the point this way:

"If a generator is not required to pay for transmission upgrades and the cost is instead to be socialized across all load, then generators will choose their location based on other factors, such as where land is cheaper or emissions permitting is easier, rather than where good transmission planning or market economics would dictate. On the other hand, if the cost of transmission associated with locating in these other areas were borne by the generators themselves, these economic tradeoffs would be internalized and economic location would be more likely to occur. As currently proposed, the costs are not borne by generators, which could lead to uneconomic grid expansion."

Further skewing the economics, in the case of wind, 70% of the costly transmission line's capacity will be un-utilized.

Back to top

In a July 9, 2007 Wall Street Journal article ( http://www.windaction.org/news/10617 ), wind power was described as "basically a cottage industry, until recently", and the race to build wind facilities worldwide has created a turbine shortage. Manufacturing of the turbines, and their 8000 specialty parts, is being squeezed, raising prices and the potential for quality problems.

Current reports from Germany ( http://www.windaction.org/news/11519 ) detail quality problems with installed turbines, "...wind power providers and experts are now concerned. The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim... Fractures form along the rotors, or even in the foundation after only limited operation". Last week, a Siemens wind turbine at PPM's Kondike III site in Oregon collapsed killing one person and seriously injuring a second ( http://www.windaction.org/news/11547 ).

Back to top

Energy policymakers in Massachusetts, Delaware, and elsewhere see a future where 1000’s of giant wind turbines, blades reaching to 300-feet in length, will populate the deep waters off the U.S. coast from Maine to Cape Hatteras (NC) and beyond. They envision wind energy as the primary source of electricity for eastern population centers. The fickle nature of wind will be 'corrected' by building new onshore gas plants that generate during low wind conditions.

Little has been voiced publicly about this eco-dream. Is it even possible using existing infrastructure? or will a new super-grid need to be created? How much of the enormous cost will be borne by the public? While money is being expended today, have there been policy and technical discussions reviewing the feasibility? There is very limited experience worldwide for deep-water wind development and none in the U.S. It's worth noting that the near-shore Cape Wind (MA) and LIPA (NY) projects, both heavily reliant on public subsidies and existing infrastructure, will each cost nearly a billion dollars to build. The one Texas offshore proposal, with subsidies, has been deemed economically unviable and scrapped by the developer.

Back to top

New York's Maple Ridge wind energy facility (195 turbines) will slaughter up to 10,000 migratory birds and bats annually. The collision rate reported after the first fall season mortality survey were 34.12 targets per turbine or 6700 collisions, 72% of which are migrating bats (see: http://www.windaction.org/documents/8533 ). IWA estimates yearly collisions to rise to 10,000 after accounting for spring migration and other year-round migrants. Reports that cite the number of carcasses recovered are not representative of the number of birds and bats actually killed.

Back to top

Dr. Thomas H. Kunz and others, in their peer-reviewed paper entitled “Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses”, detail 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 project that by 2020, annual bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in this region alone can reach 111,000 bats. Kunz and others 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.” (See http://www.windaction.org/documents/11179 )

Back to top