www.windaction.org | WindAction Editorial

The study, produced in cooperation with the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and other stakeholders, explored a modeled energy scenario in which wind could supply 20% of the nation's electricity by 2030. DOE made clear in the report that the 20% scenario was neither a prediction nor a goal, but for wind proponents, the study served as the foundation for ongoing advocacy.

20% wind power by 2030 became a call to action and more. Absent a national renewables standard, AWEA heralded the 20% as a de facto mandate for wind.

The industry insists it's on track to reach 20% wind (up from 4% today), but such claims are neither realistic nor wise. Despite explosive growth in new wind installations in the last five years alone[1], challenges to further development have become more evident and will ultimately limit wind's expansion.

Since 2008, thousands of turbines have been sited in communities across the U.S. As more towers were erected, public acceptance of the massive facilities started to drop.

Earlier this year, both New Hampshire and Vermont sought statewide moratoria on wind farm development until the impacts could be better understood. Law suits are now pending against proposed and operating wind facilities in at least six state courts as well as at the federal level[2]. Ohio , North Carolina and others are revisiting their renewables mandates after wind has failed to deliver lower energy prices and jobs.

And this week, the reality of big wind splashed across media screens worldwide when AP reported that in Wyoming "a soaring golden eagle slams into a wind farm's spinning turbine [about once a month] and falls, mangled and lifeless, to the ground."

The public is increasingly wary of the wind industry's tactics and so is Congress. The 1-year, $12 billion extension of the wind production tax credit (PTC) secretly added to the Fiscal Cliff bill passed in January underscores how unpopular wind energy is on Capitol Hill. The PTC would likely not survive a standalone floor vote.

According to DOE's 2008 report, U.S. demand for electricity would reach 5.8 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) by 2030[3]. In order for wind to satisfy 20% (or 1.16-billion MWh) of this demand, 305,000 MW of installed wind operating at an annual average capacity factor of 43.4% would be needed. Yet, few existing wind plants in the U.S. come close to producing at this level.

The 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report "found that average capacity factors have been largely stagnant among projects built from 2006 through 2010"[4] at around 30%. In 2011, wind speeds improved raising the average capacity factor to 33%.

We examined 2012 monthly wind production data for 450+ operating wind plants in 34 states representing more than 40,000 MWs of installed capacity. All projects we looked at were in service for the entire year of 2012. The below map offers key insight into the effectiveness of wind at meeting demand by state.

Only three states, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Oklahoma, achieved average capacity factors over 40%. Most states, including California produced at under 30%.

Regional variations in production were also pronounced with the lowest average capacity factors[4] found on both the east and west coasts and the highest capacity factors, by state, found in the mountain and plain regions, correlating closely with NREL wind maps.

The claim that wind projects in the U.S. are achieving 30% average capacity factors nationally may be accurate but not meaningful when considering that state RPS mandates are based on local resources. For states like New York and Pennsylvania, where average capacity factors are in the low- to mid- 20% range, many more wind turbines and related infrastructure (transmission) will be needed to meet RPS mandates than originally forecasted resulting in increased costs and impacts. Couple this with the fact that wind production in most states is seasonal with summer months producing at half that of winter months and also concentrated during periods of low demand (night time) -- much of the energy arrives in excess of demand making it less useful and subject to curtailment.

More than half of the installed wind in the U.S. when measured in megawatts was built under the Section 1603 grant program which imposed no performance criteria on projects. Instead, the program substituted government largess for private investment, but with no accountability. Developers were rewarded for building turbines even in areas with marginal winds. The race to place projects in service before the end of 2012 was more about collecting 1603 grant money than producing quality wind facilities. Wind performance data for 2013 and 2014, when available, will reveal how much this will be a factor in lowering capacity factors.

The DOE is now stating that its revised report on wind energy will study U.S. energy policy as opposed to promoting it. "We want to deal in the realities [of the technology] and we also want to be sensitive to the concerns of the DOE's sister agencies," said Jose Zayas, the DOE's director of the wind and water power technologies office. This would be a departure from DOE's aggressive promotion of wind energy. It's essential the Department of Energy provide independent and comprehensive analysis that acknowledges the limitations and risks of relying on largely unpredictable and non-dispatchable energy sources. The public deserves answers and not unrealistic advocacy.

[1] At the end of 2007, installed wind in the U.S was about 16,500 MW. At the end of 2012, wind installations were at 60,000 MW.

[3] Given the precipitous decline in electricity demand since 2008, these figures will likely be throttled back in any revised study by DOE.

[4] Some of the reduced performance could be tied to transmission curtailment but this information is not publicly available.

After 20 years of tax credits, the production tax credit (PTC) was scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.

Neither the House nor the Senate saw fit to extend this overly generous corporate benefit when it was considered on its own merits and the PTC did, in fact, expire. Yet in the final hours of the fiscal cliff negotiations[1], a package of energy tax extenders[2] was surreptitiously added to the bill which assured the PTC a $12 billion, 1-year extension.

This move was done behind closed doors, without debate or opportunity for amendment and no obligation of the Congress to find a way to pay for it.

With this extension, a critical change to the PTC was introduced that relaxed the eligibility requirements for the credit. Renewable energy projects now need only 'commence construction' by January 1, 2014 to qualify for the credit, instead of projects being 'placed-in-service' by that date.

Since the law did not define what it means to 'commence construction', the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) must determine the intent of the Congress and develop clarifying guidance.

Not surprisingly, this is leading potential PTC beneficiaries and wind energy proponents to pressure the IRS to accelerate its rulemaking process. In February, 30 members of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC) sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Department of the Treasury encouraging them to act swiftly in issuing guidance on the eligibility qualifications for the credit. The American Wind Energy Association supports the IRS moving quickly to provide guidance that generally adheres to relaxed criteria adopted under the Section 1603 cash grant program.

Since the law is silent on when a qualifying project must go into service, the incentives for gaming the 'commence construction' requirement are substantial -- especially given the potential value of the tax credits in scale and duration, and the anticipated expiry of the program itself at the end of this year. David Burton, partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, has stated that developers who plan well and bank enough 2013 PTC-eligible component parts , "may be able to continue to construct PTC-eligible wind farms indefinitely." This particular form of regulatory 'gaming' would encumber taxpayers with subsidy obligations for projects that may not go into production for many years after the PTC provision has expired.

With the Treasury and the Department of Energy already under fire for their mishandling of the Section 1603 cash grants and Section 1705 loan guarantees, it is essential that Congress exercise its oversight responsibilities in this matter. Representative James Lankford, chair of the newly formed House Oversight Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements has already stated that his Subcommittee will be watching the PTC and not leave the rule making in the hands of Government regulators.

Based on past actions by the wind industry, there are several criteria for defining "commence construction" that deserve consideration:

At the end of 2012, lobbyists for the wind industry teamed with the Senate and the Administration to push through this latest extension of the PTC with no debate or opportunity for amendment. They turned pressure to avoid the putative fiscal cliff to their advantage, while leaving American taxpayers to pay the price. Unless Congress intervenes, it appears likely that the problems associated with the extension of this subsidy may be compounded – not alleviated – in the IRS rulemaking process.

This week, over two thousand American Taxpayers sent letters from nine different states with members on Chairman Lankford's Subcommittee asking that they follow through on the Chairman's public statements to oversee the IRS rulemaking process for the PTC.

[2] Energy tax extenders were part of the Senate Finance Committee mark-up of S. 3521 (112th): Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012 which was reported by the Committee but died with no vote or debate by the full Senate.

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley is convinced he's found the right formula for ensuring that his state becomes the first to site a wind facility off its coastline. Last week Maryland's House quietly approved HB 226. The Senate version (SB 275), although still in Committee, is also expected to pass despite much controversy over cost and risks to captive ratepayers–and back-door cronyism for developers and other special interests.

But don’t be fooled by the political victory. Despite the Governor’s grand claim that his bill will deliver offshore wind at an affordable price, the numbers tell a different story. O’Malley’s folly will deliver a paltry 80 megawatts of offshore wind at most, while draining billions of dollars from the State’s economy.

O'Malley's bill extends Maryland's 2007 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) by requiring up to 2.5% of the State's electricity load come from offshore wind.

Unlike other proposals, private wind developers needn't negotiate power purchase agreements with electricity suppliers to sell their energy. Instead, the bill establishes a ratepayer funded subsidy known as an OREC ('Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Credit') which pays a bundled price up to $190 per megawatt hour (MWh). Project owners, in turn, sell their energy and capacity to the power pool and refund the revenue back to ratepayers while retaining the environmental benefit.

This looks like a bureaucratic nightmare for the State but a sweet deal for developers who can waltz into Maryland waters knowing they have a guaranteed market for their power and certainty of price. The $190/MWh ORECs are more than three times the price of conventional generation -- including onshore wind! (Nonsolar Tier 1 RECs in Maryland are trading for only $4/MWh).

Two prior attempts at an offshore wind bill failed in large part due to added costs imposed on ratepayers, particularly those least able to subsidize a rich man's vision. And no pixie dust magically appeared since the last legislative session that made the price of offshore wind easier to swallow.

The Governor fostered support for his bill the old fashion way -- through handouts and hand-waving.

Earning the nod of those representing poorer districts meant packing the bill with millions in grants to boost small and minority-owned businesses that might involve themselves in the offshore sector.

The hand-waving came in the form of price caps on electricity bills - $1.50 per month for average residential customers and 1.5% total annual electric bills for nonresidential customers. By pitching the cost on a 'per-ratepayer' basis, there was no need to advertise the billions that $190/MWh energy adds up to[4].

But the caps meant limiting the project size. The largest project that could be built offshore without exceeding the caps is 211 MW (about 1% of load). At a 39.3% capacity factor, this equates to roughly 80 MW of output. Even at this reduced size, ratepayers will still incur nearly $2 billion in above-market energy prices over 20 years.

O'Malley boasts that wind energy carries a "fixed, stable, affordable rate that can be locked-in" over the next 20-30 years, but locking in prices at rates significantly above EIA's forecasts for average wholesale electricity prices makes no sense. Not to mention that the turbines will reach the end of their useful life before 20 years.

The Governor's larger vision banks on a hope that by being first with an operating project, Maryland would reap the benefits of becoming a regional manufacturing hub for offshore wind. He sees Maryland as jump-starting a new industry and insists the higher costs will return dividends in the form of private investment and more jobs.

His claims appear more hubris than real. Other states are vying for the same prize with Massachusetts already in the lead. And it's not clear whether the high price for offshore wind can be mitigated to the point where we will need more than one hub on the east coast.

There is also the question of future tax credits in an era of fiscal reform. The price caps built into O’Malley’s bill highlight the State’s concerns over cost. Without federal incentives, including the PTC and ITC, no wind will be built off Maryland’s shoreline. Both credits were extended for one-year as part of the fiscal cliff debate, but as federal legislators work to rein in costs, renewable subsidies are expected to be cut.

On the promise of job creation, it's likely O'Malley relied on NREL's JEDI modeling which reports only gross impacts and does not considered job losses or transfers associated with higher energy prices. Two-billion drained from an economy will have a negative impact.

In reading the bill's fiscal policy note, it appears the administration had two numbers it needed to make work -- the $190/MWh OREC price and the cap on individual ratepayers.

But even at $190/MWh it's not clear there's adequate revenue to build in deep waters at a scale that justifies private investment. It's time Maryland legislators recognize that other, more realistic alternatives exist that will deliver clean generation and not suck billions from ratepayers and taxpayers.

O'Malley's vision is bold but uncertain and he knows it. When asked whether it was possible for Maryland to see an offshore wind project by 2017, he responded this way: "There's a saying in the Koran that everything is possible in God's time, but nothing is for sure."

[1] Bundled pricing includes energy, capacity and RECs or environmental attribute.

[3] When Rhode Island's Public Utilities Commission (PUC) initially denied approval of the contract over cost, the legislature amended the law to constrain the PUC's ability to say no. Deepwater reapplied and the contract was approved, but the project is still not built. The high cost does not include transmission to deliver the energy.

[4] This cost only applies to the energy price increases per household or business. State government budgets are projected to increase by $2.1 million annually to cover added energy costs for state agencies and the University System of Maryland. In addition, Maryland consumers can expect commercial and industrial businesses to pass the higher costs on to their customers.

First Circuit Court of Appeals rules that offshore wind is no match for reliable generation

It took a last minute change to a highly controversial bill and the last vote of the 112th Congress for Big Wind to eke out one more extension to the Production Tax Credit (PTC). With the dust now settling, it's worth examining what happened.

Following the November 6 presidential election, the wind industry anticipated a quick vote on the PTC that would provide a multi-year extension and remove the issue from the larger fiscal cliff negotiations. That did not happened and with 60+ tax provisions due to expire at the end of 2012 many parties are vying for the same dollars. With December 31 fast approaching, the likelihood of an extension was becoming more uncertain by the day.

On Thursday, December 21, just prior to Christmas and a full six weeks after the election, Speaker Boehner and House Republicans gave up trying to negotiate a fiscal cliff package with the White House and passed a bill that addressed spending cuts sufficient to avoid the sequester. Nothing in the House bill hinted at a PTC extension.

Harry Reid now had two bills on his desk -- the bill passed by the House on December 21 and the Senate finance committee tax-extender bill from August that was never scheduled for a floor vote. Reid knew he did not have the votes to pass either bill. He needed to come up with a compromise proposal that would also raise revenue and still pass both Chambers.

By this time, wind lobbyists had parked themselves in the Senate for one last push. And why not? The time and money spent to sway the outcome in the industry's favor would pay off in billions.

The White House and Harry Reid slow-walked the negotiations to the very end leading many to speculate that the Administration might prefer going over the cliff rather than concede ground to conservatives. Frustrated with Reid's inaction, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell reached out to Joe Biden and the closed-door negotiations began. No information was leaked but two things were clear: there were bigger issues facing the country -- bigger that the wind PTC, and no spending would be supported without a pay-for. Chances of a PTC extension were slim.

Since 'revenue acts' must originate in the House, McConnell and Biden gutted an existing tax bill previously passed by the House in August 8 (H.R. 8), and introduced the language that supported their agreement. At the White House's insistence, McConnell and Biden included the energy tax extenders found in the Senate Finance Committee bill, with no pay-fors.

It wasn't until late Monday, New Year's Eve, that we could even confirm the PTC was in the bill. By then, the vote was cooked in the Senate. Just before 2 A.M. New Year's Day, the Senate overwhelming voted aye (89-8).

The House was the best opportunity to make amendments but ultimately, other issues made garnering Republican support for an amended bill impossible. A crucial sticking point was the threshold on tax cuts being dropped to $450k from $1m. In a straight up-down vote, the bill passed the House with most Republican's voting no.

The 20-year old production tax credit received a $12 billion extension with no debate and no opportunity for amendment.

PTC is TOXIC: In the months leading up to the vote, the wind industry lost its shine and the wind PTC became a symbol of corporate cronyism and government waste. The public debate outside of Congress tagged the PTC as toxic. Discussion surrounding wind and the subsidy was not positive. By the end of 2012, investors were increasingly wary of the industry which rises and falls on votes by Congress.

Slower wind growth: We have long known that Section 1603 enacted under ARRA triggered a wind bubble in the years 2009-2012. As much as 90% of the wind installed in 2012 can be attributed to Section 1603, not the PTC. The PTC has never been able to drive wind development in the same way Section 1603 has -- especially with low natural gas prices. Also, the delays in getting the PTC extended will slow growth in 2013 and into 2014.

Reduced need for wind: As long as natural gas prices remain low, the wind industry will have a difficult time competing without costly above-market energy contracts. Since State RPS compliance is being met in many states, contracts will be harder to come by. Also, State RPS policies are under pressure in many parts of the country as legislators and utilities recognize that costly renewables are raising rates. Expect this to be a story in 2013. EIA's 2013 Annual Energy Outlook forecasts flat wind growth after 2012.

In this new Congress, the members will be taking a stab at Tax Reform. We anticipate an effort to see the PTC amended. For example, any project that's eligible for a State RPS should not receive the federal PTC. If a kwh of generation arrives at night during low-load conditions, it gets no PTC. There will also be debate over the change in eligibility where projects need only begin construction by the end of 2013 with no in-service date in the law. These changes in eligibility can be made as part of tax reform.

The wind industry received a 1-year reprieve by a hamstrung Congress but their subsidy is in the cross-fire. What Congress gives, it can easily take away.

The American Wind Energy Association's relentless, year-long lobbying campaign to secure extension of the wind production tax credit ("PTC") hit major headwinds last week which precipitated the abrupt resignation of its CEO, Denise Bode.

Branded the “Save USA Wind Jobs,” AWEA’s plan tried to stigmatize Congressional members from Red and windy states with the argument: oppose the PTC, and you oppose American jobs.

But rather than gaining support, resistance intensified to extending the PTC. With only two weeks remaining in 2012, it’s not certain what will happen with the subsidy, but one thing is clear: AWEA’s robotic jobs jab has chilled its effectiveness. Big Bucks cronyism does have its limits.

Prior to 2008, wind was still a niche resource. Under 15,000 megawatts of installed wind was eligible for the PTC and the price tag for the subsidy, in total for its first 15 years (1992-2007), was under $6 billion and less than $1 billion in any one year. Each time the PTC was up for renewal, Congress complied.

Since then, wind installations in the U.S. ballooned to over 50,000 megawatts and the carrying cost for a 1-year extension is now projected to be $12 billion .

In today's economic climate, AWEA's campaign messaging is withering under challenge.

The promise of wind jobs never materialized at the scale touted by AWEA calling into question the veracity of their models.

Claims that losing the PTC equated to a job-killing tax hike on the industry disregards the fact that the PTC, itself, is a tax borne by all Americans in an attempt to defray the high price of wind power where such capacity exists.

Assertions that the PTC "more than pays for itself in local, state and federal taxes over the life of the credits" ignores the fact that even after factoring in the PTC, localized economic benefits derived from operating wind projects are dwarfed by the significant above-market energy prices contracted for wind energy - particularly in this extended period of low natural gas prices.

The size of the subsidy relative to wholesale prices is also distorting competitive wholesale energy markets and harming the financial integrity of other, more reliable generation.

As the year wore on, AWEA and its surrogates added urgency to their message but never deviated from it. The public was hammered with warnings that the multi-billion dollar wind industry would face collapse if the production tax credit expired, leading some to question whether wind could ever stand on its own.

And where did that leave shareholders of Vestas, GE or any of the high-profiled turbine manufacturers? An industry built on government handouts exists at the political whim of those in office.

The market needed assurances, and in June, eight of the largest turbine manufacturers admitted they will adapt and grow, without the PTC. Even Vestas, which threatened to close shop in Colorado if the PTC expired, joined the other turbine makers in stating "they would not pull out even if Congress abandoned all renewable energy subsidies."

This story is much closer to the truth than AWEA's messages and is consistent with we are hearing in the market.

Unlike AWEA, companies in the wind industry have bottom-lines to worry about. Many, including Vestas and GE, are already preparing for a non-PTC business model. Layoffs have been scheduled, new markets in South American, Africa and elsewhere have been identified, and cash flow issues are being addressed through asset shedding and the possible partnering with other corporations.

Low natural gas prices and shrinking load demand will keep the industry focused on its bottom line for a while longer -- and that's a good thing.

We will also likely see the industry shift their business plans away from those based on tax avoidance to plans based on energy production - as they should be.

When Representative Pat Tiberi (R-OH), chairman of the House Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee asked AWEA in April to present a proposal for phasing-out the PTC, the trade group ignored the question. The idea of a phase-out fell outside the limits of their campaign messaging and thus, outside their ability to respond. Last week, the pressure for a proposal reached a peak and AWEA threw together a six-year, front-loaded extension with a price tag in the tens of billions.

The sheer ridiculousness of the proposal outraged Congressional members and may well have changed the debate on the topic. It's NO coincidence that within 24-hours of AWEA's poorly received proposal, Denise Bode bailed. A move that sudden suggests the industry thinks it's better off without her and probably without AWEA's inflexible, out-of-touch campaign.

As evidence of the changed game, the Washington Post two days ago gave AWEA’s signature proposal a big thumbs down:

The letters, resolutions, and advocacy statements by Congressional members who are on record supporting an extension of the PTC all sound like they were written by AWEA. If congressional members like Senator Grassley and Representative Kevin McCarthy based their comments and support on AWEA's lobbying campaign, this would be a good time to rethink their position. AWEA's unyielding messages are dated, and clearly 'stuck on stupid'.

It's time for the 20-year old subsidy to end. American taxpayers and ratepayers, and the wind industry itself, will be best served by letting the PTC expire.

Since 2009, the State of New Hampshire has reviewed three large-scale wind energy facilities totaling 177 megawatts. In each case, the project proponents engaged University of New Hampshire Professor and economist Ross Gittell and his research assistant, Matt Magnusson, to conduct economic impact studies to show the long-term (20-year) benefits the projects would deliver to the local area.

The UNH researchers relied on NREL's Jobs and Economic Development Impacts (JEDI) or similar linear spreadsheet models to assess job creation and economic impacts for the three projects: Granite Reliable Wind Park, Groton Wind and Antrim Wind. The methodologies and assumptions for the three studies appear nearly identical.

In all cases, their reports showed minor direct job opportunities (15 full-time equivalent positions for operations at the three sites) but substantially inflated indirect and induced job benefits relative to the local area.

The JEDI models purport to enable calculating the state or local economic impacts resulting from building a potential wind energy facility. However, JEDI only looks at the positive impacts of a project and assumes that money spent is always beneficial. But that is not a safe assumption.

The Navigant jobs study commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association, which uses JEDI models, suffers the same failures. It wasn't until Congressional members hammered NREL earlier this year over unsubstantiated and inflated job creation claims under the Section 1603 program that NREL finally updated its website to more publicly admit that JEDI models produce gross impacts and not net impacts.

In reviewing the methodologies for each of the UNH economic impact reports, we could find no indication that the models accounted for project costs. When we asked the UNH researchers if their report for Antrim Wind, for example, considered net impacts at first they said no, but later amended their response to say they looked at the costs and found there were none.

Apparently, Gittell and Magnusson do not think it's relevant that both the Granite Reliable Wind and Groton Wind projects have, or will receive approximately $111 million in Section 1603 grant money from the federal government; Antrim Wind expects to benefit from the production tax credit. Most economists would consider the federal subsidies to be a cost borne by U.S. taxpayers, including those residing in New Hampshire.

Gittell and Magnusson also ignore another substantial cost factor in their analyses -- the fact that the Granite Reliable and Groton wind projects each have long-term power purchase agreements with in-region utilities at contract prices that are well above market rates for wholesale electricity. Antrim Wind has made it clear it is also seeking a long-term purchase agreement which is required to obtain financing.

When asked if their Antrim Wind analysis considered the impact of above-market energy prices, Gittell replied that "there has been no contract for the sale of the power from the Antrim Wind Project at any price, therefore there is no foundation for the question and it cannot be answered." A convenient but misleading and badly informed answer.

Gittell's economic model utterly neglects the fact that onshore wind in New England demands between 9-11 cents per kWh, more than twice the wholesale price of natural gas, the fuel most likely to set the market price. More wind in the fuel mix will cause upward pressure on energy prices in New England for the life of the power purchase agreements.

Since wind energy largely produces during off-peak hours, when market prices are even lower, the delta between the contract price and the market price for the energy is even more pronounced.

And it looks like low natural gas prices will be the new normal for a long while. The Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2013, released last week, enforces the fact that we can expect low natural gas prices, facilitated by growing shale gas production, over the next 15 years!

Gittell, Magnusson and the developers for the three projects all insist wind provides a hedge against fluctuating energy prices. This may be true in some regions of the country but not in New England, where 90+% of the generation operates in the day-ahead market. Wind could have a marginal impact on prices in the real-time market but any benefit is entirely erased by the high-priced power contracts.

At the very least, the high cost of the New Hampshire wind power contracts will exceed the economic benefits touted by the UNH researchers and will serve as a drain on New England's regional economy. See Figure 2. Gittell's simplistic conclusion that the benefits of the operating projects will enrich the host communities and surrounding areas disregards the fact New Hampshire residents do not live in isolation. Many work, shop, and recreate in neighboring states and will be impacted by the high cost of these projects.

According to our analysis, the three projects (assuming Antrim Wind is erected) will result in significant costs to the New England region in above-market energy prices alone. Other costs related to property values, tourism, and impacts to the environment are also likely to arise.

There is no excuse for the sloppy work of Gittell and Magnusson who, in our opinion, have ceded their credibility for their wind clients. But shame on New Hampshire's energy siting board for not understanding the projects they're approving in the context of the larger regional power market.

We wish to thank William P. Short III* for his invaluable contribution to this editorial.

No one should be fooled by the American Wind Energy Association's laughable campaign depicting the multi-billion dollar wind industry on the verge of collapse without the production tax credit ("PTC"). Yes, we've seen some belt-tightening this year as the $23-billion infusion of Section 1603 grant money winds down. Low natural gas prices and shrinking load demand will keep the industry focused on its bottom line for a while longer -- and that's a good thing. Some industry players have already accounted for the PTC expiring while others are holding out for a last-minute reprieve.

Nonetheless, we recognize the political reality of divided government where self-interests might force compromise. In August, the Senate Finance Committee voted on a $12 billion, 1-year [1] extension but took no action to address the very harmful effects of the PTC on competitive wholesale energy markets. If House Republicans are compelled to find middle ground, it is essential the PTC be amended to correct for its flaws. Doing so will help relieve market distortions created by the PTC and ultimately lead to more reliable, least-cost renewable choices for taxpayers.

Nearly two decades ago, electric energy markets in most of the U.S. were highly regulated. Wholesale electricity prices were determined based on a generator's cost of installation plus direct production cost, and not on customer demand. Under deregulation, plant ownership shifted to independent power producers which, in turn, brought about competitive wholesale energy markets aimed at meeting consumer energy needs with the most reliable, least cost generation.

Once fully implemented, fossil‐fired generators responded to market price signals. New power plants were built to meet peak demand requirements while discouraging construction of excess capacity. Competitive energy pricing dissuaded generators from building power plants long distances from load centers, thus limiting the deployment of costly transmission. Improved management increased power plant efficiencies, operator profits and grid reliability while keeping retail prices in check. This coupled with air, water and other environmental rules led to U.S. energy resources becoming progressively cheaper, cleaner, safer, and with a smaller footprint.

But in just a few short years, energy policies in the United States, both at the federal and state levels, shifted in favor of building renewables, mainly wind. This has led to an explosion of expensive renewable resources that are variable, operating largely off-peak, off-season and located in rural and remote areas with limited transmission capacity [2].

Federal PTC and State RPS programs use what is called a "single price economic system" which pays renewable generators the same price for placing a megawatt-hour of energy on the grid. There is no adjustment to the subsidies based on time of day or seasonal demand requirements nor is there a meaningful adjustment for the location of the power facility.

The signals sent by the subsidies ($34/MWh on a pre‐tax basis for the federal PTC and as much as $60/MWh [3] for state RPS programs) dwarf energy pricing signals, and in many cases render the market price irrelevant. Consequently, we are incenting renewable generation built not where we need it and that operates when we need it the least.

These policies have created artificial and unsustainable market pressures, compelling system planners to respond with more transmission and a fast-tracking of renewable projects that may be, not only not needed, but actually of poor quality from a grid reliability perspective.

It is well established that traditional power markets respond to energy and capacity price signals. It's time we applied the same rules to the renewables market.

If renewable subsidies discriminated in favor of those resources that produce close to load and during the time of day and year when the energy is most needed we would expect the response in the market to be almost immediate. (The media took notice when FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller floated this idea before the election.)

The need for expansive wind-related transmission would drop off and more renewables would be proposed for sites closer to population centers and that can service peak demand periods. Rather than proposals to install 125 megawatts of unpredictable wind we might get 25 megawatts of baseload biomass; rather than remotely-sited solar generation in the Mojave desert requiring 100+ miles of new transmission, we may see a greater effort to build customer-sited rooftop resources in urban areas. Reliable generation would mean less need for storage, less redundant generation and a better opportunity for replacing permanently fossil fuel with renewables rather than merely displacing some fuel.

While public policy has helped the emerging renewables market, it is time these policies were amended to better suit the public's needs.

Congress should not extend the PTC "As Is." Rather, it should work to adjust the value of the PTC to incent renewable generation that's built closer to load and able to operate on-peak and on-season while discouraging the opposite behavior. And there are many frameworks for getting this done. Adopting a consumer-centric, market-based policy will, once again, lead to the best economic results for consumers.

*Mr. Short is an independent consultant with a practice that specializes in renewable energy in the New England states. Among his clients are wind, solar, hydroelectric, co-generation and biomass generators.
_____________________________________
Footnotes:

[1] The Senate Finance Committee approved a $12 billion extension of the PTC. The provision was advertised as a 1-year extension however, the provision also modified Section 45 of the tax code to allow wind energy facilities that begin construction before the end of 2013 to claim the 10-year credit. This is a significant deviation from the PTC which requires eligible projects to be in-service before the date of expiration. In practice, this change represents a multi-year extension.

[2] Page 4 of this document prepared by the authors shows a slide produced by the New York ISO that demonstrates how effective price signals discouraged the remote siting of power plants. In the period between 2000-2009, New York State increased its in-state generation by 7,650 MW with 80% (6,127 MW) built in the southeast region near New York City. Of the generation built in northern and western NY and behind a congested interface, 1,275 MWs were remote-sited wind generation which was more responsive to the subsidies than to market price signals.

[3] REC prices vary by region depending on how the RPS program is structured and whether compliance has been met. Currently Massachusetts Class I RECs are trading above $60 per megawatt hour.

The United States is in the midst of a fiscal crisis. If Congress and the White House are unable to reach agreement on spending by January 1, crushing tax increases and draconian budget cuts will go into effect sending the country's already weakened economy into another destructive recession.

Against this backdrop, the 23-member Governors' Wind Energy Coalition put aside their own states' $2+ trillion deficits[1] to deliver a message to Congress - extend the wind production tax credit (PTC).

The staged media event on Capitol Hill was a modern-day equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

In their letter, the governors acknowledge the wind industry is not yet competitive with other fuel sources but insist it will be "in the not-so-distant future."

They tout job claims, and potential losses, based on American Wind Energy Association employment models, and underscore the impact of losing the PTC by listing recent layoffs in Colorado (182 Vestas workers), Iowa (407 Siemens workers) and Pennsylvania (165 Gamesa workers).

The governors are convinced the wind subsidy should be a top priority for the country ahead of our military and other bread-and-butter issues but are unaware, or don't care, that American taxpayers are shouldering a large part of the cost.

Do they realize that by 2015, American taxpayers will have provided a cumulative $40 billion to the industrial wind energy industry in production tax credits and cash grants alone, the bulk of which will be distributed after 2010? Or that the open-ended subsidy of 2.2¢/kWh in after-tax income represents a pre-tax value (3.4¢/kWh) that's equal to, or more than the wholesale price of power in many regions of the country?

Why would the Governors demand billions more for an industry that, after over 20 years, has failed to establish itself as a self-sustaining contributor to meeting our energy needs?

It's no accident that all of the Governors who signed the letter hail from states with mandatory renewable portfolio standards (RPS) or from states adjacent to those with RPS policies.

State legislators who voted in favor of renewable mandates, did so after being convinced that adding alternative resources to the energy mix, particularly those with no fuel cost, would reduce fossil use, attract jobs and ultimately stabilize and lower energy prices. (Wind energy was seen by most as the dominant resource for meeting compliance.)

Researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Labs (LBNL) found that ‘Policy Impact' studies relied on by the states tended to underestimate the effect of adding high-cost renewables on retail rates and all of them failed to anticipate the persistent low natural gas prices we enjoy today.

Seventy-percent of the RPS cost studies that were examined forecasted minimal retail electricity rate increases - no more than 1% - while a number predicted electricity consumers would experience a cost savings.

In fact, the artificial no-compete power markets created by RPS policies drove up electricity prices and forced consumers to pay for energy they didn't need. In 2011 residential rates in states with mandates were 27% higher than those without mandates while industrial electricity prices were 23% higher.

The Governors know that the federal PTC disproportionately benefits States with renewable mandates by distributing the high cost of their policies to taxpayers at large. They also understand that eliminating the PTC will impose the full burden of costly renewable mandates squarely on the States who enacted them. If California, New York, and Minnesota mandate large wind development, it's appropriate they bear the full cost of their energy choices.

Iowa is an exception. Its capacity-based RPS was satisfied years ago with the installation of just 105 megawatts of wind capacity, leaving the state's two investor-owned utilities, including Warren Buffett's MidAmerican Energy, at liberty to sell most of their wind power to neighboring states -- which they do at prices significantly above market.

According to Mark Glaess, executive director of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association, which represents about 50 small utilities serving about 650,000 rural residents, its members lost more than $70 million in 2011 because of the high cost of wind power. "Right now we're paying for wind power we don't need, we can't use and can't sell," he said.

The production tax credit, which turns twenty years old this year, serves little purpose today other than to line the pockets of project owners and tax-advantaged investors and artificially mask the true price of wind power.

If the PTC were to expire, REC prices in states with RPS policies would likely go up for a while until the industry can implement necessary cost-cutting measures. States will respond by reexamining ways to rein-in RPS-related energy costs. We will also likely see the industry shift their business plans away from those based on tax avoidance to plans based on energy production - as they should be. American taxpayers and ratepayers would be best served by letting the PTC expire.

The Governors' self-serving pleas aside, there is no justification for wind projects eligible under any State RPS programs to receive the benefit of BOTH the State policies and the PTC wealth transfer from taxpayers. Congress has a responsibility to say NO.

[1] The 23-member Governors oversee states with a combined aggregate debt of more than $2 trillion for fiscal year 2011 including California and New York representing total debt of nearly $1 trillion.

Last month, unity was shattered within the wind industry when energy-giant Exelon Corporation broke ranks with other renewable-energy developers and asked Congress to let the production tax credit (PTC) expire in December. Exelon rightfully argued that the subsidy was distorting competitive wholesale energy markets and causing financial harm to other, more reliable clean energy sources.

In a fit of fury, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) voted Exelon "off the island" for insubordination and dismissed their complaint as self-serving, aimed at protecting Exelon's fleet of Midwest nuclear power plants. AWEA insisted that wind was benefiting ratepayers by driving down consumer electricity prices in the face of "expensive, inflexible generation" like nuclear and coal.

As usual, AWEA position is easily rebutted. Yes, Exelon is concerned about (bizarre) wind pricing on the rates received by its nuclear power plants. But the impact of large quantities of wind generation on energy markets extends beyond nuclear power, and on the whole is placing upward pressure on electricity prices.

In a competitive wholesale energy market, generators ‘bid in' firm levels of production for each hour of the power day. Grid operators match available generation with hourly demand and schedule resources as needed. The most expensive generation dispatched in an hour sets the marginal price of supply. In turn, all generators receive the same price per megawatt hour of production.

During periods of low demand, particularly at night, the most efficient, least cost base load facilities are run, including nuclear power and coal. These facilities may bid in at zero- or near-zero to ensure they're dispatched regardless of market price.

Problems arise when wind, which generates largely at night, floods the system with energy well in excess of demand. When there is a surplus of electricity relative to demand and no opportunity to dump the excess energy, i.e. transmission that can channel the energy elsewhere, prices could go negative.

In instances of excess energy, negative prices are a powerful market signal for generators to voluntarily curtail operation if possible. Wind turbines are easily turned off; nuclear power plants are not. However, since wind project owners do not receive the PTC when they're not producing, they would rather produce at a loss than not produce at all. But the PTC tells only part of the story.

In some cases the prices are fixed regardless the time of day the energy is delivered or number of years into the contract; others apply adjustments for on- and off-peak energy and may include annual escalators. In states where renewable portfolio standards have been adopted, utilities likely have no choice but to accept above market contract prices in order to ensure compliance with the mandates.

Within New England, wholesale pricing for onshore wind is between 9 and 11 cents per kilowatt hour. In the Midwest, contracts are around 6-7 cents per kilowatt hour and in regions with better wind regimes, gentler terrains and/or limited or no permit requirements the costs could run slightly lower. Wind agreements are negotiated after a project has taken full advantage of available federal incentives so the costs cited here would be even higher absent the PTC.

Adding large amounts of wind to a region can periodically reduce marginal electricity prices (even going negative) but the costs passed on to ratepayers are derived from the PPA's negotiated between utilities and wind plant owners. Regardless of when and at what price wind energy sells into the wholesale market, projects with power purchase agreements are assured a fixed price for their energy.

The wind industry insists long-term PPAs protect ratepayers from fuel price volatility. But the industry is ignoring our historical experience. The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) proved decades ago that long-term fixed price contracts at above market prices do not lead to lower costs for ratepayers. In fact, with PPAs in place, it's wind developers that are shielded entirely from market price fluctuations.

Negative prices further aggravate the situation by threatening the financial viability of our lowest-cost, most reliable resources.

Purchase agreements shift all risk to the ratepayers who are on the hook to pay the delta between market price and contract price. There is no cost benefit to the ratepayer-nor will there be until the end of the PPA, which by that time the turbines will have reached the end of their useful life. Meanwhile, wind developers reap the benefit of the PTC in addition to their contract price at the expense of ratepayers and other reliable generation.

This month, a coalition of brand name corporations sent Congressional leaders a letter urging extension of the wind production tax credit ('PTC'). It was the second such letter sent this year signed by many of the same companies and with the same message: Failure to extend the PTC will raise consumer electricity prices and harm the bottom lines of companies who purchase renewable energy.

The truth is that wind power -- with the PTC -- is already raising consumer prices and harming corporate bottom lines.

Wholesale contract prices for onshore wind are roughly two- to three times the price of more reliable generation making wind one of the most expensive power sources in the U.S. From 1992 to 2010, Americans were taxed approximately $7.9 billion to pay for the PTC. By 2015, the PTC will cost another $9.1 billion. Residential electricity rates in states with renewable mandates were 27% higher in 2011 than those without mandates, while industrial electricity prices were 23% higher. Wind energy is the primary fuel for meeting state mandates.

But it doesn't end there. In Vermont, government models show that above-market energy costs tied to renewables will increase the cost of production for Vermont businesses. Since the PTC supports poorly sited development in remote areas, ratepayers (and in some cases taxpayers) will also be saddled with costly new transmission lines needed to deliver the power.

Companies do NOT purchase renewable energy directly. They purchase low-cost renewable energy credits (REC), which are nothing more than paper 'attributes' representing renewable energy produced elsewhere. It doesn't matter where the project is located because the companies never consume the energy. Nor do they care if they buy from projects that slaughter thousands of bats and birds annually, destroy hundreds of acres of forest and important wildlife habitat, or harm those living nearby as long as their Senior VPs of Corporate Social Responsibility can claim 'green' in their product materials and annual reports.

Tens-of-thousands of people across the US are publicly objecting to an extension of the PTC because of the high cost and damaging impacts of wind energy development. Corporations who cloak themselves in the warmth of green energy through the purchase of RECs are fooling themselves if they believe consumers do not see through the silliness of their marketing tactics.

Of course, companies are free to play the green game, but it's hard to reconcile any corporate officer authorizing his company signing a letter filled with deceitful wind propaganda.

It turns out, the letters were NOT authored by any of the corporate signers, but by Ceres, an environmental group out of Boston, Massachusetts. Ceres boasts a board of directors that includes Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, Ashok Gupta of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Rev. William Somplatsky-Jarman, Coordinator for Social Witness Ministries of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Knowing the real authors of the letter helps explain its content, but it doesn't explain the apparent willful ignorance on the part of its signers. Corporations should be wary of aligning with agenda-driven groups who rely on deceit and misrepresentation in order to achieve their mission. If companies can be so reckless with their endorsements, perhaps investors and consumers should think twice about the quality of their products and shop someplace else.

Letter 1 signers: Annie’s Homegrown, Anvil Knitwear, Aspen Skiing Company, Ben & Jerry’s, Campbell Soup, Clif Bar, Levi Strauss & Co., New Belgium Brewing, Nike, Seventh Generation, Staples, Starbucks, Stonyfield Farm, The North Face, Yahoo! Inc.

Letter 2 signers: Akamai Technologies, Annie’s, Inc., Aspen Skiing Company, Ben & Jerry’s, Clif Bar, Johnson & Johnson, Jones Lang LaSalle, Levi Strauss & Co, New Belgium Brewing, The North Face, Pitney Bowes, Portland Trail Blazers, Seventh Generation, Sprint, Starbucks, Stonyfield Farm, Symantec, Timberland, Yahoo!

1. Bald Eagle killed at U.S. Wildlife Refuge. In March, a dead bald eagle was found below a small 10-kilowatt wind turbine at the Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge in Rock Hall, Md. Cause of death: blunt force trauma.

Windaction.org contacted Sarah Nystrom, the USF&WS Northern States Bald and Golden Eagle Coordinator to determine if any enforcement action would be taken. Ms. Nystrom replied "our Office of Law Enforcement has opted not to pursue criminal sanctions in this matter. The Office of Law Enforcement typically focuses its resources on investigating and prosecuting those who take migratory birds without identifying and implementing reasonable and effective measures to avoid the take. In this respect, the Office of Law Enforcement has treated the incident at the Service's Eastern Neck NWR as it would any similar incident at a non-federal wind energy facility." Apparently, this is the best we can expect from the U.S. Government.

2. Military readiness and turbine deployment. Over 1 year ago, Chief of Naval Operations W. R. Burke requested an assessment of the impact of wind turbine development near the Naval Air Station (NAS) Kingsville in Kingsville, Texas. In his reply memo, the Commander, Navy Installations Command, M.C. Vitale informed Burke that "a study of the degradation to NAS Kingsville RADAR and NAVAIDS caused by electromagnetic interference from nearby wind farms, determined installation of wind turbines would reduce Navy's ability to train aviators safely. The Study further predicted that Navy would graduate 24-31 fewer pilots annually." Half of the US naval pilots are trained at NAS Kingsville.

Nearly 600 industrial-scale wind turbines are proposed to be built between 5 and 25 miles of NAS Kingsville. The Navy has already de-tuned RADAR in the south quadrant of the base to eliminate the adverse effects of the Kenedy 1 wind facility. Further radar optimization to account for other wind facilities will degrade target sensitivity and could result in NAS Kingsville operations closing. No action was taken by Admiral Burke.

3. Wind farms and the price of Air Travel. The FAA re-routes air traffic due to false returns from wind turbine clutter. While NEXRAD radar data could show what appears to be significant weather that would require re-routing, pilots report not seeing weather in the area. The National Weather Service admits on its website that "this confusion causes unnecessary and expensive aircraft re-routing and excess fuel consumption."

4. Wind energy ups electricity rates in Princeton, Massachusetts. Brian Allen, general manager of Princeton Municipal Light Department (PMLD) in Princeton, MA admitted in a letter to ratepayers this month that the two-1.5 megawatt wind turbines owned by the Department had lost $1,875,000 since the turbines went online in January 2010. Rather than lowering electricity rates as promised, the turbines cost Princeton customers an additional $774,000 in 2011. Allen anticipates losses to continue at the rate of around $600,000 a year assuming current wholesale electricity rates, no need for extraordinary repairs and that both turbines continue operating. In August 2011, one of the two wind turbines was taken out of production due to a mechanical problem. It did not go back on line again until in July 2012.

5. Expecting more from wind. In order for the US to achieve 20% wind power by 2030, the entire fleet of U.S. wind turbines would need to operate with an annual average capacity factor of 43.4%. 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.

Wind proponents insist the industry is one of the fastest growing sectors of the American economy having doubled U.S. nameplate capacity since 2008.

But let's be clear: Recent growth in the industry is largely due to the massive infusion of public cash lavished on big wind under ARRA. Expiration of Section 1603 cash grants coupled with record-low natural gas prices, will likely collapse the stimulus-induced bubble and push installations back to mid-2000's levels. The production tax credit, if extended, will continue to offset above-market wholesale prices for wind power but the credit will not drive the same level of growth.

In the last ten years, more than half of the states adopted renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that encouraged development of home-grown low-emission generation. State legislators voted in favor of the mandates after being convinced by proponents that more renewable resources in the energy mix, particularly those with no fuel cost, would replace fossil use, attract jobs and ultimately stabilize and reduce energy prices.

But the artificial no-compete power markets created by RPS policies for self-selected renewable resources[1] drove up electricity prices and forced ratepayers to pay for energy they didn't need. In 2011 residential rates in states with mandates were 27% higher than those without mandates while industrial electricity prices were 23% higher.

The rapid run-up in installed wind since 2008, together with flat and declining energy demand, has resulted in state mandates being met and fewer utilities obligated to purchase wind at prices substantially above that of more reliable forms of generation. Factor in abundant supplies of low-cost natural gas, and it's unlikely wind energy will achieve price parity with coal or gas anytime soon, barring legislative actions that might raise the price of non-renewables.

The PTC offsets the high price of wind energy, giving the false impression that wind is competitive with other resources, but at 2.2¢/kWh, the subsidy's pre-tax value (3.5¢/kWh) equals, or exceeds the wholesale price of power in much of the country! Without the PTC, developers would need to substantially lower their capital costs and narrow the price gap with gas. However, cost reductions will carry the industry only so far.

The biggest impediment to wind achieving price parity with more reliable resources is the fuel source itself.

As long as wind farms operate at or under 30% capacity factors, there are too few hours of generation per year to spread the large upfront capital costs over. Energy sales alone are not sufficient to recoup capital costs or earn a profit because of two well known limitations of wind power. First, since wind typically generates at a time of day and year when the energy is least needed, the market price for its energy is low. Second, wind projects must be sited at the fuel source, which, for onshore wind is typically long distances from load. Locational constraints further lower the market value of wind's energy as well as drive up the cost of delivery (i.e. transmission).

Individual wind projects may still operate without the PTC or Section 1603 provided they're sited in areas with excellent, steady winds and within close proximity to existing transmission. But nationwide, such sites are increasingly rare.

Two technologies, if available, might enhance wind's value: forecasting and storage.

Efforts are underway to improve the predictability of wind energy through better forecasting tools. If grid-operators can more precisely anticipate when the wind will blow, how long it will blow, and at what speed and direction, it would aid in power dispatch schedules[2].

Improved storage technology can increase wind's usefulness as a capacity resource, but large-scale storage is prohibitively expensive and the technology is not fully proven. A DOE loan guarantee for $117 million went up in 'flames' in August when First Wind's 'innovative battery system' designed to flatten wide swings in wind output was destroyed by fire[3] releasing massive plumes of toxic smoke into the air. The industry predicts it's at least 10+ years away from breakthrough technology that can store nighttime generation for dispatch during peak hours.

Despite a relentless, year-long campaign by the wind industry to get the PTC renewed, there is a growing realization that the subsidy has outlived its usefulness and may be harmful in its current form. This week, utility-giant Exelon declared "the PTC is no longer needed and distorts competitive wholesale energy markets causing financial harm to other, more reliable clean energy sources." If Congress let the PTC expire, the industry would respond quickly by finding ways to make up for the revenue shortfall. Turbine manufacturers, for example, would likely be pressured to lower prices by as much as 25-30%[4] current levels. Developers will also turn to the states to recoup the rest of the funding via higher REC prices. Ultimately, costly government efforts to push rapid deployment of wind power, in spite of its inherent limitations, will falter and the industry will quietly shrink to a growth rate commensurate with the value of its energy.

[1] State RPS policies limit which renewable resources are eligible for meeting compliance.

[2] NREL found in Texas that total wind output could vary significantly in a short period, from almost 8,000 MW to near zero output. During periods of large variability, slight forecasting errors could have large consequences on system operations.

[3] This was the second fire involving the battery system since the project went online in March 2011.

[4] Assumes $1,200/kW pricing, a 30% capacity factor and half of the pre-tax value of the PTC ($35/mWh) recovered through reduced turbine prices.

The American Wind Energy Association pumped millions into an aggressive political campaign aimed at securing the PTC's extension. It released the Navigant jobs study, funded a full-time media war room and lined up President Obama, DOE's Secretary Chu and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as wind industry hucksters. Coordinated endorsement letters signed by the Governors' Wind Energy Coalition and brand name corporations were sent to Washington calling for immediate action while newspapers around the country published editorials rehashing the same talking points on why the PTC should be extended beyond 2012.

AWEA and its surrogates hit the topic hard, yet legislative efforts faltered. Even Mark Udall's regular pitch on the Senate floor went unnoticed.

It wasn't supposed to be this way and big wind's proponents seem shocked at the level of resistance encountered on Capitol Hill.

Carl Pope, former chair of the Sierra Club, blames the Tea Party. He's convinced its members will block anything that might help the nation's economy under Obama's watch.

In his Huffpo piece, Pope paints a dire economic picture of factories shutting, jobs lost and the unraveling of an entire manufacturing sector. By the end of his essay, Pope worked himself into an emotional fit calling the Tea Party behavior " unprecedented -- and unpatriotic."

Steve Thompson of German-based Availon, a wind industry service provider, wrote that letting the PTC lapse would "in effect impose a targeted tax increase on the wind industry, resulting in the loss of almost 40,000 American jobs."

And in a letter to Congressional leaders, Starbucks, Staples, Nike, Campbell Soup and many other name brand corporations argued that failure to extend the PTC would "tax our companies and thousands of others like us that purchase significant amounts of renewable energy and hurt our bottom lines at a time when the economy is struggling to recover."

The claims by Pope, Thompson and name brand America may be effective but they're also grossly misleading and deserve a response.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation ('JCT'), between 1992 and 2010, the cumulative cost of the PTC was approximately $7.9 billion. In the 2011-2015 budget window, the PTC is estimated to cost American taxpayers another $9.1 billion of which about 75% will be claimed by the wind industry. These costs are in addition to the anticipated $22.6 billion in direct cash outlays under the Section 1603 grant program which expired in 2011.

Carl Pope insists the industry and American workers will be harmed if the PTC is not extended but at no point does he consider the high cost of the subsidy or whether the country would be better served by spending the money elsewhere. In addition, wind's intermittency and remote siting mean that high upfront project costs and broad transmission expansion will place upward pressure on the price and delivery of the energy. Since the PTC is necessary to make wind projects economically viable, taxpayers deserve to know if they're getting the best value for their dollar.

Pope touts the fact that wind energy is "one of the fastest growing sectors of the American economy" but seems utterly unaware that the industry lost 10,000 jobs since 2009 or that the rapid growth was actually a bubble tied to the massive infusion of public cash lavished on big wind under ARRA. Expiration of Section 1603 coupled with record low natural gas prices, will certainly push the wind industry back to mid-2000s levels.

Thompson's self-centered claim that letting the PTC expire equates to imposing a tax on the wind industry is preposterous.

The PTC subsidizes wind project costs[1] by providing an outside revenue stream for investors and project owners. The credit, in turn, artificially shields ratepayers from the true price of wind power by spreading the cost to all U.S. taxpayers. Since the PTC reduces revenues to the federal government, taxpayers are forced to pay more in taxes to ease the burden of high-cost wind on ratepayers.

Eliminating the PTC relieves Americans at large of the high cost of big wind and places the burden squarely on ratepayers purchasing the energy. If states like Iowa, Colorado and Texas mandate large wind development, it's appropriate that ratepayers in those states bear the full cost of their energy choices. Only then can they begin to make informed decisions on whether wind is the best option for meeting their renewable mandates.

Thompson's assertion that nearly 40,000 American jobs will be lost is another AWEA talking point that cannot be substantiated as I discuss here.

Corporations like Starbucks, Staples, Nike and Campbell Soup generally don't invest directly in wind energy development. Rather, they sign contracts to purchase renewable energy credits (REC), the "environmental benefit" of renewable energy produced elsewhere. One REC is created for each megawatt-hour of energy generated from a renewable energy facility. Businesses and residents who match their energy consumption to the number of REC's purchased often claim they are 100 percent wind-powered.

RECs are usually certified under the National Green-E standard which means they're produced from fuel sources other than fossil fuels, nuclear and hydropower greater than 5 MW. A wind project that slaughters thousands of bats and birds annually, destroys hundreds of acres of forest or important wildlife habitat, levels mountaintops, impacts scenic view sheds or "dark sky" reserves or harms those living nearby is, nonetheless, eligible for the coveted "Green-E" stamp-of-approval without question or reservation.

Expiration of the PTC will likely drive up REC prices in states with renewable energy mandates. But bear in mind, state mandates apply to utility sales only. Private REC programs, which are entirely voluntary, are nothing more than PR opportunities for corporations to flaunt their "greenness" before an un-informed public.

Let's be clear. Starbucks, Staples and other corporations who plead to Congress that their bottom line will be impacted if the PTC is not extended are asking American taxpayers to subsidize their marketing programs.

The amount of misinformation driven by the wind industry and its surrogates has reached a point where the public and Congress are less willing to blindly follow AWEA's lead. Pope, Thompson, Starbucks et.al. appear to have embraced the idea of wind without even a basic understanding of the industry or the federal subsidies that drive it. Such willful ignorance will likely continue to plague the industry and leave its followers confused by the rising resistance to their efforts.

-----------------------------------
[1] At 2.2¢/kWh in after-tax income, the subsidy represents a pre-tax value of approximately 3.7¢/kWh which, in many regions of the country, equals or exceeds the wholesale price of power.

The American Wind Energy Association has made extending the Production Tax Credit ('PTC') its primary focus this year. Documents available on the trade group's website show that about $4 million of its 2012 budget ($30 million) was directed toward securing extension of the PTC. With job growth the number one political issue in the United States, AWEA's strategic plan calls for rebranding of the wind industry as an economic engine that will produce steady job growth, particularly in the manufacturing sector.

The problem for AWEA is that the industry's own record on job growth lacks credibility. Accurate information available in the public suggests the industry has inflated its overall job numbers.

Seventy-five percent of the Section 1603 largesse was lavished on big wind, yet, despite billions in public funding, the wind sector experienced a loss of 10,000 direct and indirect jobs in 2010 bringing AWEA's reported total to 75,000 jobs[1].

In April, NREL released its estimates of direct and indirect jobs created by projects receiving 1603 funding. The agency relied on the JEDI model ("Jobs and Economic Development Impacts") to estimate gross jobs, earnings, and economic output supported through the construction and operation of solar photovoltaic (PV) and large wind projects.

But an investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations rightly objected to NREL's conclusions. The Subcommittee found that NREL overstated the number of jobs created under 1603, that it failed to report on the more important net job creation, and ignored potential jobs that would be created given alternative spending of Federal funds. The key sticking point was that NREL did not validate its models using actual data from completed projects.

The Subcommittee concluded that models used to estimate job creation were no substitute for actual data and added: "The Section 1603 grant program was sold to the American people as a necessary stimulus jobs program, and yet, the Treasury and Energy Departments do not have the numbers to back up the Obama Administration's claims of its success in creating jobs."

Since NREL's JEDI model provides a gross analysis only, it does not consider how building a renewable energy facility might displace energy or associated jobs, earnings, and output related to other existing or planned energy generation resources (e.g., jobs lost or gained related to changes in electric utility revenues and increased consumer energy bills, among other impacts).

In other words, the model is one-sided, only considering the benefit side of a cost-benefit comparison and ignores everything else.

Apparently, AWEA is the only source of nationwide employment statistics in the United States for wind-related jobs.

Of the purported 75,000 direct and indirect jobs, the majority (around 60%) work in finance and consulting services, contracting and engineering services, and transportation and logistics. Twenty thousand are employed in wind-related manufacturing with the remaining jobs tied to construction and O&M.

But validating this information is not possible since no industry codes exist that isolate wind power establishments or wind turbine and wind components establishments. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) bundles wind-related manufacturers under the same code as the "Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units" manufacturing industry (NAICS 333611), which includes "establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing turbines (except aircraft) and complete turbine generator set units, such as steam, hydraulic, gas, and wind."

At the end of 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 26,218 total jobs in this industry. It's not credible that AWEA's estimated manufacturing jobs could represent the vast majority of employment under the NAICS 333611 classification.[2]

In December, AWEA commissioned Navigant Consulting, Inc. to study the impact of the PTC on job growth in the wind industry. The study, also based on the JEDI model, considered two scenarios, one where the PTC is extended for 4 years (2013-2016); the other where the PTC expires at the end of this year.

Navigant's model showed that extension of the PTC would provide a stable economic environment and allow the wind industry to grow to nearly 100,000 American jobs over four years, including a jump to 46,000 manufacturing positions. Expiration of the PTC showed a loss of 37,000 jobs.

The message to Congress was clear: extend the PTC or you will be blamed for American jobs being lost. Even Interior Secretary Salazar peddled AWEA's numbers despite the Congressional report that raised doubts about the model.

Recent statements by AWEA prompted us to look at the numbers even further. In May, AWEA's Denise Bode told Windpower Monthly that of the estimated 75,000 wind jobs, at least 30,000 were manufacturing jobs -- a jump of 10,000 jobs!

As it turns out, Navigant tabulated direct and indirect jobs but also quietly added INDUCED jobs -- those jobs created when the overall level of spending in an economy rises due to workers newly receiving incomes.

Factoring in 'induced employment' was a radical departure from job figures previously provided by AWEA. Induced job figures are more abstract and inherently unreliable but a convenient way to inflate job numbers. We could find no documentation that explained this change in job reporting nor was the change footnoted in the Navigant study.

We spoke with a Navigant represent who suggested AWEA might have been incorrectly treating 'induced jobs' as 'indirect jobs' in its prior reports but that would not explain the inflation in manufacturing jobs. Total job counts would have stayed about the same.

In looking at the Navigant modeled numbers, it appears the wind industry currently only provides 58,000 direct and indirect jobs, not 75,000. A four-year extension of the PTC could result in a possible 70,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2016 (scenario 2) -- 5,000 less than the number AWEA touts today!

The change in job counts raises serious credibility issues about the industry's employment strength. But the absolute numbers tell only a piece of the story. Since Navigant's study is based on JEDI, the job figures represent gross numbers and do not consider them in the context of the larger economy. In that sense, Navigant's findings, like NREL's study, tell us nothing about the true impact of the PTC.

But one thing does appear to be true: AWEA's job figures, dating back to least 2009, may be nothing more than figures pulled from thin air.

[1] Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reports (p. 7): "The American Wind Energy Association, meanwhile, estimates that the entire wind energy sector directly and indirectly employed 75,000 full-time workers in the United States at the end of 2010 - about 10,000 fewer full-time-equivalent jobs than in 2009, mostly due to the decrease in new wind power plant construction." A recent AWEA blog (February 3, 2012) confirms the 75,000 is still current.

[2] Wind manufacturing represents under 1% of the 11.5 million domestic manufacturing jobs in 2010.

Tens of thousands of acres across New York State have been transformed into sprawling electric generating facilities -- 18 in total -- where nearly 1,000 industrial-scale wind turbines consume the landscape and threaten communities in their way.

Now consider that another 1,500 giant towers will need to be erected by 2015 in order to satisfy the state's 30% renewable energy mandate.

New York's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) can be credited with most of the wind development in the state. Officials insist the policy has helped New York diversify its energy resources and will ultimately lower electricity prices but such claims are more rhetoric than real. New York's RPS has already exceeded original budget projections, it's current renewable targets are unrealistic, and claims that prices will drop are predicated on a flawed understanding of how the New York wholesale power market operates.

New York first enacted its renewable energy mandate in 2004 through regulations adopted by the Public Service Commission (PSC). At the time, about 19.3% percent of electricity retailed in the state was derived from renewable resources, with the vast majority coming from large-scale hydroelectric facilities upstate and in Canada. The PSC ordered the state reach a 25% renewables target by 2013 which meant an incremental increase of 10.0 million megawatt hours (MWh) from projects built after 2003.

Unlike market-driven programs in other states, New York's RPS[1] uses a government-administered central procurement system to acquire renewable "attributes" from qualified projects. Projects selected through a competitive-bid process receive long-term contracts to sell their renewable attributes to the state. One megawatt hour of generation produces a single renewable attribute. These payments[2] serve as an added revenue stream for project owners. Funding for the RPS comes from fees charged on the monthly electric bills of NY ratepayers.

When the RPS was enacted, the Public Service Commission established a budget of up to $741.5 million to acquire the renewable attributes. It also defined yearly incremental RPS targets measured in megawatt hours.

In a 2009 mid-course review of the program, a number of serious performance issues were raised.

The program had nearly exceeded its entire initial budget while just half of the renewable attributes anticipated at that time were under contract[3]. Other questions raised in the review involved the cost of necessary transmission to meet renewable goals and whether the program would ultimately reduce electricity prices as claimed.

But rather than scale back the RPS or take more time to fully assess the program's costs and benefits, the Commission insisted there were substantial qualitative benefits and ordered the goal increased to 30% by 2015[4] and the budget expanded.

At the start of 2012, New York had 4.67 million megawatt hours of large-scale projects under contract representing about 2% of the state's generation. Most NY-sited wind energy facilities were under contract[5][6]. In total, wind is the dominate fuel in the RPS, representing 80% of all renewable fuels.

Since projects are awarded RPS contracts before they're built, the state must estimate operating capacity factors on intermittent resources. For wind, if a project fails to meet a minimum obligation (80% of the contracted energy) for three consecutive years the contract amounts could be reduced. The Noble Clinton, Ellenburg and Bliss wind facilities were all reduced by one-third for this reason.

We reviewed the contracted figures against actual production for operating wind projects and found that, in all but one case, the state significantly overestimated project capacity factors (see table). If the inflated capacity factors were adjusted downward to more accurately reflect wind's poor performance, the state would need to contract even more generation to meet the mandates. In general, New York's wind resource has proven marginal with annual average capacity factors ranging between 22-23% across all projects.

State officials insist the RPS will reduce electricity prices through a mechanism known as 'price suppression' whereby renewables with no fuel cost displace more expensive power in the wholesale market.

This argument may sound convincing but completely ignores how the wholesale market operates in New York.

The New York power market uses a day-ahead auction where generators are required to offer firm levels of production for each hour of the next power day. The energy price, in turn, is determined based on those bidding into the system; all generators receive the same price per MWh of production. Significant penalties are applied if a generator is unable to meet his commitment.

Because of its intermittency, wind typically does not operate in the day-ahead market preferring the real-time (spot) market which carries no penalties for non-performance. The real-time market represents less than 10% of available generation Since the price paid over ninety-percent of the generation is established 24-hours in advance, any participation from wind will have only a marginal impact on prices limited to the real-time market. Generators that bid in day-ahead who can back down are likely to do so to the greatest extent possible in order to save fuel and other costs. Since generators in the day-ahead market are still guaranteed payment, any price suppression from wind would be limited to the spot market. Thus, any downward pressure on pricing will go largely unnoticed.

Ultimately, New York's RPS will cost ratepayers billions of dollars to support the construction of new generation. And if the state continues to rely on wind as the dominate resource, more turbines will be necessary to make up for low capacity factors. The program is up for review again in 2013. It's time for the PSC to remove the rose-colored glasses and acknowledge the program for what it is: Regulatory Capture at its finest.

1. NY's RPS supports two tiers of projects, Main Tier and Customer-sited Tier. Main Tier projects include those built to meet grid-scale energy needs. Customer-Sited Tier applications support smaller behind-the-meter renewable generation. The bulk of the electricity needed to reach the RPS mandate comes from Main Tier resources.

2. Attribute prices ranged from as low as $14.75/MWh in 2007 to as high as $28.70/MWh in 2011.

3. The PSC forecasted 5.79 million MWh by the end of 2009. The state had acquired 3.03 million MWhs.

4. The incremental increase of only 0.4 million megawatt hours needed to reach the 30% target assumes that New York reaches significant energy efficiency goals aimed at reducing electricity needs in the state. If energy efficiency were not included in the analysis, the state would require 17.0 million MWh of new renewable generation to meet the RPS.

5. New York typically signs 10-year contracts for 95% of the energy from large wind projects. The Cohocton/Dutch Hill contracted less. Maple Ridge 1 contracted 100%. (see table)

6. Actual annual generation (MWh) varies in NY due to the variable nature of renewable energy, including hydroelectric. Demand in NY also dropped since the RPS was enacted. Since the RPS was enacted, renewables in the state increased from around 19.3% to about 23% today, including all generation.

The debate surrounding the Production Tax Credit (PTC) intensified last quarter following several high-profile attempts by Congress to extend the credit before it expires at year-end. Industry warnings of precipitous declines in clean-tech investment and imminent job losses have reached a fevered pitch. The New York Times, for example, reflexively accused budget-hawks in Congress of being preoccupied with safeguarding the dominance of the oil and gas industries.

The idea that wind, which represents less than 3% of total electricity generation in the country after huge taxpayer benefits and state mandates, could threaten the continued use of fossil fuels in electric generation is fantasy. It demonstrates a general ignorance about wind energy's purpose and its limited contribution to our energy portfolio.

While we might forgive a newspaper editor's misunderstanding of the complexities of renewable energy policy, it's quite another thing to see the same level of ignorance on display on Capitol Hill by the very people tasked with understanding and voting on these policies.

Last month, the House Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures invited fellow House members to speak on behalf of bills they introduced or co-sponsored that would extend more than sixty expiring tax provisions, including the PTC. Of the nearly thirty witnesses who testified, one-third pressed for immediate extension of the credit.

Representatives Bass (R-NH) and Welch (D-VT) from New England, Deutch of Florida, Reichert of Washington and others repeatedly echoed the same AWEA talking points about job creation, the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuel, risks of climate change and, my favorite, economic opportunity for their state.

Like the Times, they touted the importance of the U.S. remaining a strong global clean energy market.

And like the Times, not one of those advocating for the PTC had a clue the role of the subsidy in the power market or the likely outcome if the subsidy were to expire. Either that, or political expediency ruled the day and they didn't care.

In the early 1990′s following enactment of the PTC there was no demand for wind power. States did not have renewable mandates and by time the Asian Financial crisis hit, oil prices collapsed taking with them any financial incentive to install costly renewables. When energy prices recovered somewhat there was an uptick in wind development but it was concentrated in four states with renewable programs - California, Iowa, Minnesota and Texas.

In the years 2000, 2002 and 2004, the PTC expired and wind development stalled but in that same period, energy prices were fluctuating, the 9/11 terrorist attack shocked the US economy and we slipped into recession. Claims that expiration of the credit alone caused wind development to stall are overly simplistic. In fact, given available data, it's impossible to isolate the PTC's affect. Some energy experts maintain the PTC was largely irrelevant in those years.

After 2004, the subsidy may have contributed to growth, but so did State policies mandating renewables.[1].

When states adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) [2] as a means of addressing climate change wind installations showed marked growth. Legislators believed claims made by wind proponents that wind, with no fuel costs, would protect ratepayers from dramatic swings in fuel prices, and eventually stabilize and lower energy prices. In return, they envisioned a transition to more renewables, the decommissioning of older fossil plants and cleaner air.

But wind is an unpredictable, non-dispatchable resource that's built long distances from load and largely delivers energy at a time of day and year when least needed. With high upfront costs and fewer hours to spread the cost over, wind cannot compete with reliable, lower-priced fossil and nuclear generation. It's inherently a low-value resource, that demands above market prices.

The PTC subsidizes project capital costs by providing an outside revenue stream [3] for investors and project owners. The credit, in turn, artificially shields ratepayers from the true price of wind power.

RPS policies created demand for wind [4] by establishing non-competitive segments of the power market for qualifying renewables. Today, over half of the states have RPS policies which apply to more than 50-percent of total U.S. electricity load.

The PTC and RPS combined provide the wind industry a market for its energy and a means of shielding ratepayers from the true cost of their product. But the PTC disproportionately benefits ratepayers in States with renewable mandates by distributing the high cost of wind to taxpayers at large.

Some complain that Americans are double-paying for wind - once through above-market energy prices and again in their taxes, but this is not true. In fact, we are paying the true price of wind allocated in both the rate-base and the tax-base. If the PTC were to expire, people living in Georgia, Wyoming and other states with no RPS policies would rightfully be relieved of subsidizing policies enacted in other states. But what would happen in states with mandates?

Existing wind projects that are still collecting the PTC would not be impacted, but proposals for new wind would be under pressure to significantly lower their capital costs and improve their production numbers in order to account for the lost federal revenue. In addition, the value of the renewable energy credits would likely increase thus placing even more upward pressure on renewable energy prices. Legislatures will be forced to confront the real cost of wind power and evaluate whether the policy will ever deliver on goals originally envisioned.

The AWEA insists the PTC is an effective tool to keep electricity rates low. In fact, it is nothing more than a cost imposed on all taxpayers in order to accommodate development of a politically well-connected, high-priced, low-value resource that cannot meet our electric capacity needs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]Wind also benefited from rising natural gas prices (over $5 per million BTU) making wind power contracts an attractive way to displace higher-cost natural gas generation.

[2]RPS policies mandate utilities supply a minimum percentage of their customer load with electricity from qualified renewable sources.

[3]The open-ended subsidy of 2.2¢/kWh in after-tax income represents a pre-tax value of approximately 3.7¢/kWh.. The PTC is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and therefore is scaled each year. Today, the PTC costs US taxpayers $1.5 billion per year.

The health and safety of those living in proximity to industrial wind turbines are at risk due to a lack of objective, practicable siting standards.

Given the lucrative and enabling energy policies now in place to promote renewable generation across the U.S., local communities are under significant pressure to develop land use regulations aimed at protecting their residents from poorly siting industrial wind plants. Inevitably, such efforts invite difficult technical questions regarding turbine noise, shadow-flicker, decommissioning and a host of others related to building and operating industrial power plants.

The controversy surrounding wind energy development complicates the siting issue making it difficult to know what or who to believe when it comes to standards. A review of existing wind ordinances adopted in other communities is helpful but standards that might work in one area are not necessarily right for another given population densities, terrain, and other environmental considerations.

Rules and regulations guiding the siting of wind energy projects essentially do not exist as James Luce, chairman of the Washington State Energy Facility Siting Council, made clear in the Council's October 2011 order recommending conditional approval of the Whistling Ridge wind plant.

A lack of guidelines does not mean a lack of evidence. But guaranteeing the evidence is taken seriously by review boards is another matter.

This is certainly the case regarding wind turbine noise. Despite extensive expert testimony that credibly demonstrates the flaws inherent in noise predicting models used by the wind industry, the methods are still utilized.

In two separate proceedings before the Vermont Public Service Board -- Deerfield Wind and Kingdom Community Wind -- Kenneth Kaliski of RSG, Inc. modeled turbine noise emissions at different points within several thousand feet of the proposed towers. Kaliski relied on the Cadna A software tool used by the wind industry, which is based on the ISO 9613-2 standard for sound prediction.

Kaliski knows the ISO 9613-2 standard was never validated for wind turbine noise but insisted its use was appropriate. He argued that by using another tool, the "CONCAWE algorithm," in conjunction with Cadna A he could more accurately predict turbine sound levels. He calibrated his 'modified' ISO method using sound data from a wind farm in Kansas but admitted on cross that he never calculated a "standard confidence interval" before applying his findings to projects in Vermont. He provided no data supporting how his modeled data in Kansas compared to actual sound data surveyed at the Kansas site, nor did he attempt to explain how the mountainous topography, different ground and atmospheric conditions, and foliage found in Vermont compared to that of Kansas and what adjustments he made (and potential errors introduced) to account for the differences.

In short, Kaliski used modeling software (Cadna A) outside its accepted parameters, applied a second tool previously tested at a site located on flat farm land, threw in undocumented adjustments for the Vermont setting and declared his noise predictions accurate for the Vermont sites because he said so -- with no way for any independent party to validate his work.

The flaws in Kaliski's work were obvious but ignored by the Vermont Public Service Board. Instead, the Board imposed a post-construction noise limit on the projects that was itself, non-standard. Neither wind project is in-service at this time but we have good reason to expect operating noise levels will prove problematic for nearby residents.

This same 'standard-less' approach appears to have guided the Ohio Power Siting Board when it approved the Buckeye Wind LLC application to construct a wind facility in Champaign County, Ohio. The Board's order was upheld in a 4-3 decision by the Ohio Supreme Court but the two dissenting opinions were appropriately critical.

On the question of public safety, Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton cited the risks of blade shear. Buckeye assured the Siting Board that a "shorn blade could fly only 500 feet", 41 feet less than the minimum setback from neighboring properties. But when the Board's staff asked Buckeye for supporting data, testimony revealed that Buckeye's prediction pertained to a different, smaller turbine, and that "no such calculation existed" for the proposed turbines.

The Buckeye wind project is not built but the company's flawed testimony on blade shear has already been demonstrated in the field. On April 26, two blades on a Vestas V90 1.8 MW wind turbine sited at a different project in Ohio shattered under high wind conditions catapulting blade debris up to 1,300 feet from the turbine's foundation.

The wind industry insists its turbines safely co-exist with birds; that the risk of bird mortality at a modern wind energy facility is low due to proper pre-construction assessments.

On Friday morning September 30 at 9:30 AM it was surprising to personally witness the destruction of a flight of Canadian Geese by one of the Wolfe Island turbines.

Here is what happened from a clear view second floor window at our home on Tibbetts Point Rd [Cape Vincent, NY]. I watched geese lift off and form up along the shore of Wolfe Island. At about a hundred feet of altitude they wheeled into the wind, headed in a west/southwesterly direction. As their climb into a headwind slowly took them over Wolfe the wind speed gauge at our house continued to read a strong and steady 22-25 mph. It was overcast. The river was rolling.

Crossing Wolfe they flew into the plane of spinning turbine blades. This one turbine is directly across from our home and closer to us at about a mile and a half. Through 8X binoculars the carnage was mesmerizing.

Imagine a scene of blade impacts repeatedly knocking dark puffs of feathers against a grey sky. With such a strong wind, limp bodies seemed to be blown backwards out of the turbine. Amazingly the rear of the flight followed into the blades. They seemed oblivious to the destruction of their leaders. With strong headwinds slowing their passage the period of danger and destruction was prolonged. After about two thirds entered this gauntlet the flight finally broke off, lost it's V shape and scattered.

I called loudly to my wife to run upstairs but by then it was over. The time was ten maybe fifteen seconds. It was strange to sit and watch this happen in silence. I could hear none of their honking. It seemed so odd to witness movements that suddenly changed from the beauty of ordered flight to instant plunging death. It made such an impression that details were entered into my log that day.

Those log details and recalled impressions are now shared. Draw from them what you will.

This story is not unique. In December, New York resident Kelly Johnson-Eilola described the horror she witnessed when traveling upstate New York near Noble Environmental's Ellenburg wind energy facility.

I drove through some very thick fog. As I traveled state Route 190 from Ellenburg to Brainardsville my fog lights illuminated one of the grizzliest scenes I have experienced. I counted 15 bloody, mutilated corpses of snow geese spread out over several miles.

I counted only those on the road because those were the only ones I could see due to the heavy fog. I do not know how many more were spread across the yards and crossroads.

Shortly after passing state Route 374, I noticed there were no more dead birds. I only saw the dead birds as I drove near the wind turbines.

The big corporation and landowners who stand to make large sums of money putting up wind towers of monstrous heights in the towns of Hopkinton and Parishville keep telling us that the towers are safe.

The wind industry propaganda says that windows kill more birds than wind turbines. How many geese have flown into your windows? I can’t say I have ever known that to happen.

But I do know that last night a whole flock of geese flying over the woods and farms their ancestors have always traveled were smashed, battered and thrown to their death.

I can only pray that no humans were injured when the falling dead geese struck them or their vehicles.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that 440,000 birds are killed yearly by wind turbines and related infrastructure. The events described here are not isolated incidents. What is unique is that the destruction was witnessed and made public.

The Big Wind lobby has descended on Washington DC and its objective is singular -- secure a four-year extension of the Production Tax Credit ('PTC'), the 20-year ‘temporary' subsidy most credited for market growth in the wind sector. The PTC is due to expire at the end of this year.

For the last month, the industry poured millions of dollars into its nationwide campaign aimed at convincing the public that any lapse in the subsidy would prove a crushing blow to American jobs. Most of the ads targeted Congressional House members who resisted the industry's demands for their PTC earmark. The cry for action reached a fevered pitch last week as Congress negotiated the payroll tax bill, viewed by many as the last best chance to attach an extension of the PTC before November's presidential election.

Politicos from wind-friendly states like Iowa and Kansas wrote letters repeating the same tired talking points about jobs. It was embarrassing to see these politicians blindly repeat what they were told with no apparent understanding of the costs and impacts of their pro-wind policies. They clearly viewed their support of the PTC as safe politically. Not so fast.

Last week the American public proved that support of the PTC was, well, complicated. Thousands of Americans from eigtheen states signed letters to Congress asking their representatives to vote NO on extending the PTC.

1. Since the PTC was adopted in 1992, its annual cost has ballooned from $5 million a year in 1998 to over $1 billion annually today. The open-ended subsidy of 2.2¢/kWh in after-tax income represents a pre-tax value of approximately 3.7¢/kWh, which in many regions of the country equals, or exceeds the wholesale price of power!

2. If the PTC were to sunset, taxpayers would still be obligated to cover nearly $10 billion in tax credits for wind projects built in the last decade. This debt is in addition to the nearly $20 billion already accrued for wind projects built under Section 1603.

3. Despite the billions in public funding since 2008, the wind sector lost 10,000 direct and indirect jobs, bringing the total to 75,000 jobs.[1] In states like Vermont, government models have shown that above-market energy costs tied to renewables have the deleterious effect of reshuffling consumer spending and increasing the cost of production for Vermont businesses. These increased costs reduce any positive employment impacts of renewable energy capital investment.

Even if we accept that earmarks for big wind are still appropriate, the PTC is highly inefficient and should, at least, be updated to respond to current market conditions. For example, since it is uniform across the country the PTC supports poorly sited wind development in some areas while in other areas pays for projects that would have been built regardless of the credit.

The policy also ignores other crucial factors driving wind development in the U.S. including State mandates and energy prices. With more than half the states demanding renewable development, some policy experts question why projects receive benefits from both State renewable portfolio policies and the PTC. Good question!

Last week Congress listened to the American public and said 'no' to extending the PTC. By all accounts, the Big Wind lobby was stunned by the vote and has now pulled out all the stops to pressure Congress to vote for an extension as soon as possible. This time, their pressure will be met with an equivalent response from Americans nationwide who are determined to stop this unneeded, wasteful spending perpetuated by lazy, thoughtless politicians.

The message from taxpayers is simple: The cost of the PTC is excessive, the benefits elusive and, big wind's pitiful performance as measured against industry promises makes this entitlement an easy one to sunset.

--------
[1] Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reports (p. 7): "The American Wind Energy Association, meanwhile, estimates that the entire wind energy sector directly and indirectly employed 75,000 full-time workers in the United States at the end of 2010 - about 10,000 fewer full-time-equivalent jobs than in 2009, mostly due to the decrease in new wind power plant construction." A recent AWEA blog (February 3, 2012) confirms the 75,000 is still current.

If you haven't heard from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), you probably will.

Ominous, scary ads are running nationwide warning of the crushing blow to American jobs if Congress fails to extend the Production Tax Credit (‘PTC'), the 20-year ‘temporary' subsidy most credited for market growth in the wind sector. The PTC is due to expire at the end of this year.

Most of the ads target particular House members who, so far, have resisted the industry's demands for their PTC earmark. The pressure is particularly heated right now as Congress negotiates the payroll tax holiday bill, which is viewed by many as the last best chance to attach an extension of the PTC before November's presidential election.

AWEA is also leaning on its friends to do its bidding. Politicos from wind-friendly states like Iowa and Kansas have written letters to members of the Congressional conference committee that's now hashing out the tax bill. The letters repeat the same tired talking points about jobs.

It's embarrassing to see these politicians blindly repeat what they've been told with no apparent understanding of the costs and impacts of pro-wind policies.

Do you think Senator Harkin or Governor Brownback realize that since the PTC was adopted in 1992, its annual cost has ballooned from $5 million a year in 1998 to over $1 billion annually today. Or that this open-ended subsidy of 2.2¢/kWh in after-tax income represents a pre-tax value of approximately 3.7¢/kWh? In many regions of the country the PTC equals, or exceeds the wholesale price of power!

Even if the PTC were to sunset, taxpayers are still obligated to cover nearly $10 billion in tax credits for wind projects built in the last decade. This is in addition to the nearly $20 billion in debt already accrued for wind projects built under Section 1603.

Like AWEA's ads, our windy politicos complain about the loss of jobs if big wind is not coddled further by the government. How would they respond if told that despite the billions in public funding since 2008, the wind sector lost 10,000 direct and indirect jobs, bringing the total to 75,000 jobs? [1]

Or that States like Vermont have found that above-market energy costs tied to renewables have the deleterious effects of reshuffling consumer spending and increasing the cost of production for Vermont businesses". These increased costs reduces any positive employment impacts of renewable energy capital investment.

It takes only 0.1 jobs per megawatt to operate a wind plant. Most of the sector's jobs are temporary construction positions with less than 20,000 involved in the manufacture of industrial parts that could be used in turbines.

If we accept that earmarks for the wind industry are still appropriate, the PTC is highly inefficient and should, at least, be updated to respond to current market conditions. For example, since it is uniform across the country the PTC supports poorly sited wind development in some areas while in other areas pays for projects that would have been built regardless of the credit.

The policy also ignores other crucial factors driving wind development in the U.S. including State mandates and energy prices. With more than half the states mandating renewable development, some policy experts question why projects receive benefits from both State renewable portfolio policies and the PTC. Good question.

Finding politicians to mouth support for big wind is not hard. But the American public is not as easily manipulated. In a letter last week to a Nevada newspaper one reader responded to AWEA's call to action by contacting his Representative, Joe Heck, and asking him to "kill all the tax breaks and subsidies for wind, solar, and ethanol energy," adding that "if they cannot stand alone without government help, they will have to reinvent their technology or go out of business."

This weekend, a letter signed by over 200 ranchers and residents was sent to the Nevadan congressional delegation, asking that they vote NO on any further extensions of the PTC. Similar letters were sent from states across the U.S. representing over two-thousand signers.

When Enron (the parent of Enron Wind Corp.) declared bankruptcy in 2001, the government said no to a bailout, and 4,000 workers were laid off in Houston, Texas and elsewhere around the world. But on that day forward, economies became more efficient with skilled employees leaving failure to gain viable consumer-driven employment. Today, mirage "green" jobs can go to real jobs in the booming real energy industry.

The PTC is one earmark many Americans know about, and their opinion of it is remarkably consistent: The cost of the PTC is excessive, the benefits elusive and frankly, big wind's pitiful performance measured against industry promises makes this entitlement an easy one to sunset.

First Run Features to release award-winning documentary

Opens Friday, February 3rd 2012 at New York's Quad Cinema and other cities nationally as well as on select VOD platforms

Wind power...it's sustainable...it burns no fossil fuels...it produces no air pollution. What's more, it cuts down dependency on foreign oil. That's what the residents of Meredith, New York first thought when a wind developer looked to supplement the rural farm town's failing economy with a farm of their own - that of 40 industrial wind turbines.

WINDFALL, Laura Israel's richly photographed feature-length film, documents how this proposal brutally divides the people of Meredith as they fight over the future of their community. Attracted at first to the financial incentives that would seemingly boost their dying economy, many residents grow alarmed once they discover that the 400-foot high windmills slated for Meredith may bring side effects they never dreamed of. Opposition intensifies when they discover that the fiscal model for wind energy development produces huge profits, not for host towns like Meredith, but for a mysterious group of outside investors, aided and abetted by huge tax breaks and Wall Street sleight-of-hand.

Israel also turns her camera on Tug Hill, New York, another small upstate town, where wind power is a done deal. Tug Hill's 195 wind turbines create low frequency "whomping" sounds and strobe-like effects, which have significantly downgraded the quality of life and in some cases, the health of wind turbine neighbors unable to sell their homes. Meanwhile, the Meredith Town Board pushes to put their wind turbine plan through.

With wind development in the United States growing annually at 39 percent, WINDFALL, is an eye-opener that should be required viewing for anyone concerned about the environment and the future of renewable energy.

Director Laura Israel was born in New Jersey and after earning a degree in film from NYU, she edited music videos for Lou Reed, Keith Richards, David Byrne, New Order, Patti Smith, Ziggy Marley, Sonic Youth and many others. Laura has worked as photographer/filmmaker Robert Frank's editor for two decades. The films have screened all over the world and won many awards. She also edited Stephanie Black's feature documentary Africa Unite; Life For a Child directed by Academy Award-nominated DP Ed Lachman; and Music of Regret, by photographer Laurie Simmons. Editing credits include advertising and television promo campaigns that have garnered AICP awards, International Film and TV awards, a GLAAD award, an Emmy award, and a Monitor award for editing. This is Laura Israel's first film as director, and she was named one of Filmmaker Magazine's 25 New Faces of Independent Film. Laura is currently working on her next film, a documentary about Robert Frank.

Founded in 1979, First Run Features is one of American's notable distributors of documentary and foreign films. Recent releases include Jason Cohn's and Bill Jersey's EAMES: THE ARCHITECT AND THE PAINTER, DA Pennebaker's and Chris Hegedus's KINGS OF PASTRY, Ken Bowser's PHIL OCHS: THERE BUT FOR FORTUNE, Joe Berlinger's CRUDE, and Judith Ehrlich's and Rick Goldsmith's Academy Award-nominated THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICA: DANIEL ELLSBERG AND THE PENTAGON PAPERS.

SnagFilms will be the exclusive digital on-demand distributor for WINDFALL across all platforms.

World Premiere at Toronto International Film Festival 2010
WINNER: Grand Prize, Doc NYC 2010
HONORABLE MENTION: Talking Pictures Festival 2010
WINNER: Best Documentary, Woods Hole Film Festival 2011
OFFICIAL SELECTION: IDFA Green Screen Competition 2010
Screened in 30 festivals internationally since TIFF

"Beautifully produced, elegantly structured, edited authoritatively, with unforgettable characters."
-Patricia Aufderheide, Center for Social Media

"Fascinating, insightful, and fair. An intimate portrait of one New York community in heavy battle."
-Stewart Nusbaumer, Huffington Post

"The film isn't agenda-driven advocacy, but an invitation to think critically about an alternative energy source often presented as a panacea." - Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star Tribune

"Never alarmist or patronizing...strung so tightly and effortlessly together that it's hard to believe this is a first-time filmmaker at hand." -Christopher Bell, The Playlist, Indiewire

"Provides a much-needed view of the growing backlash against the rapid expansion of the wind industry." -Robert Bryce, Energy Tribune

"Emotionally charged human conflict that results in a genuine cliffhanger."
-Ann Hornaday, Washington Post

Wednesday January 11th, 11 a.m.
Quad Cinema
34 W. 13th Street, New York, NY 10011

Director/Producer: Laura Israel
Director of Photography: Brian Jackson
Producer: Autumn Tarleton
Co-Producer: Stacey Foster
Executive Producer: Don Faller
Production Services: Doublewide Media
Art Direction: Alex Bingham
Editors: Laura Israel, Stacey Foster, Alex Bingham
Technical Advisor: Lisa Linowes
Animation: Deen Modino
Voice Over: Chuck Coggins
Soundtrack Composer: Wade Schuman
Music Supervisor: Olivier Conan
Music: Hazmat Modine, Barbès Records

The wind industry is once again pressing Congress for a last minute extension of the Section 1603 subsidy.

And why not? 'Tis the season for giving and the approach of "Ask and ye shall receive" has worked pretty well for the industry so far, especially with a contingent of members happy to be led around by any entity cloaking itself in 'green'. Who better to do the leading than the American Wind Energy Association ('AWEA'), the trade group increasingly dominated by wind turbine manufacturers -- most of whom are headquartered in Europe and Asia. Any reasonable assessment of the 1603 grant program would be lost entirely on this crowd but there are facts that make any discussion of an extension foolhardy.

High Cost: The treasury reports it's already distributed $9.6 billion in cash grants during the period from 2009 to October 31, 2011. Of this, 80% ($7.6 billion) was awarded to wind developers. Since the grants are not public until projects are placed in service, taxpayers can not know the true cost of 1603 until 2014 or later. Based on projects currently under construction, total outlay for wind alone will reach nearly $20 billion. This is without an extension. If Congress agrees to extend 1603 by 1 year, this figure would be much larger. Remember, we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar to pay for this program.

Exaggerated Job Claims: The wind industry insists 1603 is essential for creating jobs but this claim is not supported by the facts. It takes only 0.1 jobs per megawatt to operate a wind facility. Of the 12.3 gigawatts installed with 1603 funds, about 1200 permanent jobs were created. Most of the 75,000 jobs reported by the industry are temporary construction positions as evidenced by the number of jobs lost in 2010 when building slowed (10,000 jobs were lost).

Low energy production: The Treasury assumes that 1603-funded wind projects operate with a 30% capacity factor but this is not accurate. Five wind facilities in New York, for example, received $300 million in grants and operated 25% BELOW this level in 2010. Section 1603 imposes no performance criteria. Instead, the program substitutes government largess for private investment, but with NO accountability taxpayers are left carrying all the risk.

Inflated Turbine Pricing: Upfront cash grants provide minimal incentive to negotiate lower prices with suppliers. In fact, the higher the capital costs the more 1603 money available. With turbines representing 55+% of project costs, manufacturers are encouraged to keep prices high.

There are cheaper, more effective opportunities for achieving clean energy goals that will also help the economy. Direct cash outlays go in the wrong direction by rewarding higher construction costs, higher energy pricing, and marginal to poor performance. It's time for Section 1603 grants to expire.

In recent weeks, wind developer Terra-Gen terminated plans to build its Horseshoe Wind Farm in Illinois, NextERA suspended the permitting process for a 150-megawatt project in South Dakota and Iberdrola announced its Desert Wind Energy Project in North Carolina was delayed and might be scrapped altogether. In each case, company officials blamed current market conditions and the inability to secure a long-term power contract with area utilities.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) insists the industry is at risk of a slow-down if Congress does not act quickly to extend the production tax credit (PTC), the federal incentive most often credited for market growth in the wind sector. The PTC expires at the end of 2012.

But if the PTC were to expire, the damage would be less than what AWEA claims.

The industry has clearly grown addicted to the production tax credit but our findings suggest that attributing market activity to the PTC is overly simplistic and fails to consider other crucial factors driving development in the U.S.

The PTC was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to stimulate use of renewable technologies for power generation by providing a production-based credit for the first 10 years of project operations. Initially set at 1.5¢/kWh, the credit is adjusted annually for inflation and today stands at 2.2¢/kWh.

When adopted, the House Ways and Means Committee insisted on an expiration date (June 30, 1999) to give Congress an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the credit in meeting its goal.

In each of the five years following the PTC's enactment wind capacity declined. It wasn't until 1998 and 1999 before the trend drifted upward. (see chart)

While it's possible the market needed time to respond to the new subsidy, other more significant factors likely stalled growth.

The U.S. was awash in generation and oil prices were low and stable. Deregulation shifted plant ownership to independent power producers which led to improved plant management and increased efficiencies. This was particularly true for nuclear power where average capacity factors grew from 66% in 1990 to over 90% currently.

The demand for renewable energy largely didn't exist except in States with programs that encouraged renewable generation. It's no accident that the bulk of new wind built in 1998-99 occurred in four states with renewable programs -- California, Iowa, Minnesota and Texas.

When the Asian Financial crisis hit in 1997, oil prices collapsed taking with them any financial incentive to build new renewable generation. The PTC expired in 1999, the same year oil prices bottomed out, and new wind installations went bust the following year.

AWEA has complained for ten years that expiration of the PTC in 1999 caused development to slow calling it the boom-bust cycle. Yet given available data, it's impossible to isolate the factors that contributed to the decline. Clearly other macroeconomic issues played a crucial role. Some energy experts maintain the PTC was largely irrelevant in those years.

After 2004, the PTC may have contributed to growth in the wind market, but so did State policies mandating renewables . Wind benefited from rising natural gas prices as well (over $5 per million BTU) making wind power contracts an attractive way to displace higher-cost natural gas generation.

By the middle of 2008 the U.S. economy stumbled and energy prices dropped off quickly. With incomes falling, tax-based policy incentives lost much of their effectiveness as tax equity investors disappeared. Section 1603 cash grants created under the 2009 stimulus were designed to fill the void by granting project owners payouts equal to 30 percent of a project's qualifying cost. Wind proponents and the Department of Energy advertised the grants as PTC-equivalents without the middle man, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Wind capacity ballooned to nearly 45,000 megawatts with over 30,000 megawatts brought online in the last four years .

Section 1603 is expected to expire this year and the wind industry has again turned its attention to extending the production tax credit (PTC). Ditlev Engel, chief executive officer of Vestas Wind Systems A/S complained that U.S. turbine sales may "fall off a cliff" unless lawmakers extend tax credits beyond 2012.

The 2008 recession slowed economic growth causing demand for electricity to drop. Many States, including California, are now signaling their renewable mandates are being met which will weaken demand for wind. Recent discoveries of abundant shale gas reserves are expected to keep gas prices low and stable through to 2020 and likely longer. Since natural gas is among the important elements in determining the competitiveness of wind, low gas prices will generally reduce wind's attractiveness as a 'fuel saver'. These are the market conditions Terra-Gen, NextERA, Iberdrola and others are facing. In fact, the Energy Information Administration is now forecasting flat growth in the wind sector for the next ten years regardless of what happens with the PTC.

The production tax credit largely benefits corporate investors and wind project owners. For investors like General Electric, the credit is an open-ended subsidy offered for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. Because the PTC directly reduces the amount of federal income taxes paid, it should be thought of as providing 2.2¢/kWh of after-tax income (in 2011 dollars).

This represents a pre-tax value of approximately 3.7¢/kWh (assumes a 40% marginal tax rate). When measured relative to the price of wholesale power, the PTC is exceptionally generous.

In New England, for example, where wholesale electricity prices are currently around 5.5¢/kWh, the subsidy equals nearly 75% percent of the power price. In areas where coal-fired power predominates, the subsidy on a pre-tax basis is approximately EQUAL to the wholesale price of electricity. Bear this in mind next time AWEA claims cost parity with non-renewable resources.

For consumers, the production tax credit disproportionately benefits ratepayers in States with renewable energy mandates by distributing the high cost of wind to taxpayers at large. And since the subsidy is uniform across the country it's highly inefficient, supporting poorly sited projects as well as projects that would have been built regardless of the credit. This is certainly true in Texas where wind exceeds transmission capacity and New England where utilities routinely sign long-term power contracts at prices significantly above market.

The production tax credit turns twenty years old next year. It's time for Congress to act on the wishes of the House Ways and Means Committee and assess the effectiveness of the subsidy. AWEA's myopic, superficial justification for extending the PTC is not supported by the facts. Rather, the credit serves little purpose today other than to line the pockets of project owners and tax-advantaged investors, distort the market by artificially masking the true cost of wind power, and encourage the development of poorly sited renewable projects that are far from load and deliver inimical to demand cycles.

Special thanks Mr. William P. Short III for co-authoring our editorial this week. Mr. Short is an independent consultant with a practice that specializes in renewable energy in the New England states.

1. House Bill (H.R. 3307) has been filed that extends the PTC for another four years.

2. The PTC expired three times in the period between 1999 and 2003 and each time it was extended retroactively. At the same time, oil and gas prices were less stable before rising steadily after 2004.

3. The Department of Energy reported in 2003 that of the fifteen States with renewable programs on the books, 86 percent of new renewable energy capacity was a result of mandates, and the majority (93 percent) of the new capacity consisted of wind power installations.

4. Includes the period from 2008 to 2011. Despite meteoric growth, wind still represents under 3% of U.S. generation.

Earlier this year, windaction.org wrote how turbines sited within fifty miles of U.S. radar installations are now disrupting our navigation aids and impairing U.S. national security.

FAA and military radar experts in the field are well aware of the compromises to radar resolution caused by poorly sited turbines. But with the debate surrounding energy policy dominated by politics and money, they've bowed to the pressure.

The U.S. federal appeals court found that the FAA failed to adequately analyze whether Cape Wind, the controversial proposal to erect 130 utility-scale turbines offshore in Nantucket Sound, would pose a hazard to air navigation.

The project's proponent vigorously defended the agency's review claiming that for over eight years the FAA repeatedly found the project would pose no hazard. But the record clearly shows otherwise.

In May 2010, the FAA issued identical Determinations of No Hazard for each of the Cape Wind turbines. These determinations were conditioned on implementing a tiered mitigation plan that incrementally upgraded nearby radar systems to correct for any interference the turbines would produce. While the upgrades would limit the impact of the spinning blades, the FAA acknowledged that the 'fixes' would reduce the resolution of the radar, and might not work. Like Travis Air Force Base which we previously wrote about, aircraft flying in the area would go undetected or false objects could appear. If, after the turbines go online, the interference was found to be a safety risk, the FAA recommended revising airspace procedures to restrict air traffic to transponder only - also like Travis.

Travis AFB Midair Collision Avoidance Pamphlet

Transponder-only airspace is an unacceptable mitigation option since it relies on pilots complying with the rules. Not all aircraft are adequately equipped and not all pilots may want to be seen. We remind readers that the first thing the 9/11 hijackers did after seizing control of our passenger planes was to turn off the transponders.

Remarkably, this is not the first time the FAA's No Hazard determinations on wind turbines were overturned by the Courts. In 2008, a near identical finding to the Cape Wind case was reached by the Federal Appeals Court. In that case, Clark County, NV challenged the FAA over turbines proposed to be built several miles from the County's planned airport.

Windaction.org has interviewed radar specialists familiar with the mitigations implemented at Travis AFB and those proposed near Nantucket Sound and elsewhere. They are very clear that the reduction in radar resolution poses a serious risk to air safety and should not be permitted.

Our national security and air safety have been compromised by wind turbines and U.S. taxpayers are unknowingly funding the degradation of our radar through federal renewable programs. The larger question is why? Why are our agencies and military services allowing these compromises and why are the courts -- and not the agencies themselves -- being called upon to correct their actions? Indeed, political pressure is playing a role in these compromises along with a general disinterest by many in Washington to consider both the good and bad of renewable energy. Public safety should never take a back seat when siting projects.

Herkimer County, New York is the latest location to register wind turbine noise complaints. The source? Iberdrola's Hardscrabble wind facility (37 turbines) that went online earlier this year. Studies are underway to determine if the project is operating outside legal sound limits, but the larger question is 'Why?'. Why, with over 1,300 megawatts of wind installed in New York today and an extensive body of evidence showing turbine noise is causing deleterious impacts on people living near the towers, was Herkimer County fooled into thinking it would be spared?

Yes, we could use softer words to explain the situation. But given what sound experts already know about turbine noise, the time for niceties has past.

Prior to erecting a wind facility, project owners usually engage acoustic engineers to prepare models that predict sound level increases a community can expect from an operating project at certain reference points. These engineers rely on the CADNA/A[1] software tool for their models. CADNA/A is based on ISO 9613-2, the international standard developed for sound prediction.

The CADNA/A tool generates predicted sound levels at various distances from the turbines. Developers present the sound levels as contour lines overlaid around the turbine sites. Each contour shows a sound level in decibels with the lines closest to the turbines having higher decibel levels.

The sound predictions developed for Hardscrabble showed that during periods of low wind conditions, non-participating residents closest to the turbines could expect to experience noise increases of less than 6 dBA over the presumed existing level of 35 dBA. During high wind conditions, modeled data showed property owners would experience slightly higher levels but most increases would still be under 6 dBA[2].

Prior to construction, Iberdrola insisted the facility would meet the New York state noise guidelines for most situations and would be in full compliance with local regulations that limited noise to 50 dBA.

Acousticians hired by the wind industry insist the ISO standard is an appropriate method for modeling wind turbine sound provided the correct input parameters are used. But what they do not admit is that the ISO 9613-2 standard, on which CADNA/A is based, was never validated for wind turbine noise. In fact, the standard is mainly applicable to situations concerning road or rail traffic, industrial noise sources, construction activities, and many ground-based noise sources. It does not apply to sound from aircraft in flight, to blast waves from mining, military, or other similar operations. And it was not designed to predict turbine noise.

The ISO Standard limits use of its methods to noise sources that are close to the ground (approximately 30 meter difference between the source and receiver height) and within 1 kilometer of the receiving location. A wind turbine with a hub height of 80+ meters exceeds the ISO height limit by 50 meters. Meteorological conditions are also limited to wind speeds of approximately 1 meter/second and 5 meters/second when measured at a height of 3 meters to 11 meters above the ground.

Only when all of these constraints are met by the situation being modeled can the predicted noise levels be assumed to be accurate within a +/- 3 dB range.

The constraints placed on the ISO standard having to do with wind speed, direction and weather conditions indicate just how limited the models are for anything other than simple weather conditions -- NOT the types of conditions that wind turbines need to operate.

The way sound spreads outdoors can be affected by temperature differences in different layers of the wind that cause sound waves to bend up or down at the boundaries just like water bends light. If a noise source is above a boundary then sound that would have gone down to the ground surface might bend up and dissipate. If the noise source is below a boundary layer then sound that might have dissipated upwards is bent down and added to the sounds that would normally be directed downwards. The current science of meteorology does not have precise ways to know what is happening right near any particular turbine.

Heinrich A. Metzen of DataKustik GmbH[3], maker of CADNA/A confirmed this fact in an e-mail where he stated:

Since there are no accepted algorithms to predict these refractions, sound propagation models cannot evaluate conditions that have vertical or horizontal turbulence even though we know they can add significant sound at the receiving location when present. As a result, predicted sound levels are understated.

Countries in the European Union are developing their own models for predicting turbine noise propagation because of their concerns with limitations of the ISO standard. Unlike the ISO 9613-2 standard, these newer models have been validated for turbine noise by peer-reviewed independent studies.

The first post-construction sound study in Herkimer revealed noise levels reaching 60 to 65 decibels, nearly 20 decibels above what was predicted for homes in the area. Iberdrola's Paul Copleman told the press the excessive noise levels were largely due to the wind rustling leaves and cannot be "attributable to the wind farm."

Seriously? Any guesses on the number of complaints filed over noisy leaves before the turbines were sited?

Use of a model that understates real-world operational sound levels is very likely the root cause of the problem at the Hardscrabble facility.

Acoustic experts who work for the wind industry, including Iberdrola, are well aware of the limitations of the ISO modeling. They are well aware that the standard is intended for ground-based sound sources and has never been validated for predicting wind turbine noise. They also know that literature on turbine noise dating back nearly a decade has shown that these models underestimate wind turbine noise levels. But here in the U.S., wind industry acousticians still use the CADNA/A tool without qualification.

Herkimer County residents are now suffering the consequences. And as stated above, the explanation is simple. Herkimer County residents were lied to.

[1] The CADNA/A software tool is written and sold by DataKustik GmbH of Munich, Germany.

[2] The 6 dBA figure comes from New York's published guidance which states "In non-industrial settings the [Sound Pressure Level] should probably not exceed ambient noise by more than 6 dB(A) at the receptor. An increase of 6 dB(A) may cause complaints."

[3] Email from H. Metzen, DataKustik GmbH, manufacturer of CADNA/A software, Nov. 16, 2006.

U.S. air space has been made less safe by turbines and our national security compromised because of a reckless policy of siting wind towers within 50-miles of radar installations. Military radar experts in the field know the damage that’s been done. But with the debate surrounding energy policy dominated by politics and money, the military has bowed to the pressure.

Military leaders are under pressure to not disrupt White House green energy policies even while green energy technology is disrupting our navigation aids and impairing U.S. national security.

Washington has a track record of muzzling military testimony to protect its pet policies and political friends. Last week, Air Force Gen. William Shelton admitted he was pressured by the administration to change his testimony regarding LightSquared’s network and its adverse impact on military space-based navigation systems. We applaud Shelton for not backing down.

But the military has not been honest about the effect wind turbine technology has on our national radar systems.

The fact is that our air space has been made less safe by turbines and our national security compromised because of a reckless policy of siting wind towers within 50-miles of radar installations. Military radar experts in the field know the damage that’s been done. But with the debate surrounding energy policy dominated by politics and money, the military has bowed to the pressure.

The military services and federal agencies have conducted numerous studies on the radar question, as have multiple international military and private interests. Not all studies agree on levels of severity and potential mitigations, but all agree that large scale industrial wind turbines have the potential to negatively affect military installations, radar, and navigation aids.

Since radar technology is designed to detect moving objects, spinning turbine blades create interference which degrades the signal. Wind towers carry a signal strength greater than a Boeing 747, so when the radar repeatedly sees the large return it cannot detect actual aircraft in the same area.

Large expenditures of time and funds have been allocated in pursuit of technical mitigations but so far the results are controversial. According to Raytheon lead radar engineer, Peter Drake, radar mitigation technology does not yet exist. “…These things [turbines] inside of 20 miles, look like a 747 on final approach,” Drake said. The trick, he adds, “…is to somehow make them disappear, while still being able to see a real 747…we have not figured that out yet.”

By 2008, nearly 40% of our long-range radar systems were compromised by wind turbines. Today, more than twice the wind capacity is installed and the problem of radar interference persists.

Proper siting of turbines, while politically cumbersome, is the only tried and true form of mitigation. But this means denying wind developers access to land areas covered by radar.

The problem of radar interference first cropped up in the United States in early 2007 near Travis Air Force base in California. Two wind proposals were before the Solano County Planning Commission that would erect over one-hundred new turbines in the area. The spinning blades resulted in smaller planes appearing to drop off the radar while others appeared when they weren’t actually there.

Both Travis and the Solano County Airport Land Use Commission urged a delay in approving the projects, citing air safety and the need for more time to study the effects the towers had on navigation.

In his letter to the County, Colonel Steven Arquiette, commander of the 60th Air Mobility Wing at Travis warned the turbines would create significant interference with the base's radar and could lead to potentially serious flight safety hazards.

The county heeded their concerns and agreed to the delay. Commissioner John Moore was particularly firm when he said "...Nothing happens unless the Air Force's problem gets fixed."

Travis held firm on its objections until a year later when enXco, one of the project proponents gifted $1 million to the base for technical mitigations.

Col. Arquiette was told by his superiors to accept the money and withdraw his complaints despite the fact that the mitigation offered little more than a ''detuning" of the radar signal to lessen the impact of the towers.

The Travis AFB Midair Collision Avoidance (MACA) pamphlet was updated this year with a warning that states the wind farms southeast of the base interfere with radar. Unless an aircraft is 'squawking' it can't be seen. See image on right or click here to access the MACA .

Squawking refers to turning the aircraft’s transponder on to allow communication between the aircraft and the secondary radar system installed at air traffic control facilities.

The strategy of requiring areas to be transponder-only airspace could work but relies on pilots complying with the warning. Recreational pilots may not remember to comply or their aircraft might not be adequately equipped. And worse, drug runners or — in this post-9/11 world — terrorists, might prefer they not be seen. The first thing the 9/11 hijackers did after seizing control of our passenger planes was to turn off the transponders.

Remarkably, participants at the radar forum at AWEA’s Annual Conference last May touted the Travis solution as the gold standard for mitigating turbine interference. You be the judge.

The radar problem at Travis involves airport surveillance radar. This type of radar is used by air traffic control and has a range of about 60 miles. Long range radar monitors in-route air traffic control used for homeland defense and NORAD. The mile distance for long range radar is distance of 250 miles.

A year ago, the unmanned Air Force radar facility located in Fossil, Oregon became the source of significant controversy when the Pentagon objected to the proposed $2 billion Shepherds Flat¹ wind energy facility. The project's 338 GE turbines totaling 845 megawatts would be built in the line of site of the radar sweep .

Fossil's radar monitors the U.S. border along the Pacific northwest including the territory north, over the Canadian border, and south into California.

Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley were outraged and tried pressuring the military into silence. They joined nine other senators in writing to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting a resolution of the conflict and insisting the Department failed to search hard enough for practical solutions.

Sen. Wyden also lobbied for $8 million in the 2011 appropriations to cover the cost technical mitigations akin to what was implemented at Travis.

Windaction.org interviewed long-range radar specialists familiar with the mitigation proposed for the Fossil radar. The technology known as "Scan Step" involves installing a digital processor that, with software, will work to lessen the effect of turbine clutter. The process results in targets becoming invisible. In fact, aircraft the size of the space shuttle could fly through the radar swept area undetected.

The processor underwent its first test in the field last spring. Word back was that it failed all tests. None of the FAA or DOD engineers we've spoken to believe Scan Step technology will work in the way people have been led to believe. No one doubts there will be a loss in radar resolution. Critical questions still pending are: 1) What level of radar reduction will be deemed acceptable? 2) Who will decide the level of reduction that will be permitted? and 3) Will the public be informed as to the extent Shepherds Flat has compromised our national security?

When Windaction.org asked a staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee what would happen if Step Scan didn't work, his response was an abrupt: "It has to"

The cases at Travis AFB and Fossil should raise red flags. But unlike the LightSquared example, the military is comfortable whitewashing the turbine issue and hiding behind technical mitigations that don’t work. Our national security and air safety have been compromised by wind turbines and U.S. taxpayers are unknowingly funding the degradation of our radar through federal renewable programs. It’s time the military had the courage to step up and speak the truth to the American people.

1. The Shepherds Flat wind facility was the subject of the White House memo that complained the project received $1.2 billion in governmental subsidies covering 65% of the cost and risk for the project while its equity sponsors incurred only about 11% and an estimated return on equity of 30% -- a hefty return for a project where the American public is absorbing the bulk of the investment risk.

Last month, the LA Times examined how the push to build more wind and solar installations was raising safety concerns for workers and the general public. As if on cue, local newspapers around the U.S. also ran stories on five separate catastrophic events involving turbines: a shattered blade in Ohio, fires in Texas and Michigan, the death of a technician in Iowa and another hospitalized in Kansas. None of these stories made national news so most people have no idea the frequency of such events.

Large-scale wind turbines operating in the U.S. are typically located in remote areas away from where people gather. Should a turbine fail the risk of bodily harm is low. But as more communities respond to government incentives and work to erect their own towers on town-owned land we're finding a dangerous pattern of authorities approving proposals with little consideration, or apparent understanding, of the safety risks.

The story of mounting safety concerns is not new. A report from 2007 found that as wind turbines multiplied around the globe, the number of dangerous accidents was also climbing. The authors cited problems ranging from defects in design and manufacturing processes to construction errors and harsh operating environments. Thousands of insurance claims filed in 2006 alone led some to question whether wind turbines were as reliable or as safe as developers purported.

According to Warren Diogo of Ascot Underwriting, the onshore wind sector is undergoing "rapid evolution". Turbine components are being modified and scaled-up quickly to meet changing market demands and challenging site conditions. The period between research and market launch is greatly reduced leaving little time for testing prototypes before they're placed in the field.

The industry insists that even if a failure does occur, safety setbacks lessen the likelihood of anyone being harmed. That's true, but there's no consensus regarding setback standards. Each time a project is proposed, the same arguments are raised over how close is too close.

Advancing the notion that these massive spinning structures can be safely erected a few hundred feet from property lines, public areas and rights-of-way sends a dangerous message to the public. Blade failures, fire, and turbine collapse are more common than many have been led to believe. Communities should not be lulled into a false sense of safety. And when turbine failures are reported, they should take notice and not assume any failure is a singular event that won't repeat in their town.

Safety cannot take a back seat to statistical probabilities but that's what's happening especially in densely populated communities where land is scarce.

The latest example, and perhaps one of the most egregious we've looked at, involves a proposal to erect a General Electric 1.5 megawatt turbine in Salem, Massachusetts. The city's mayor is recommending a 382-foot tower be sited at a public park on Winter Island, adjacent to several historic buildings, the harbor master's office, and 300-feet from abutting property lines.

The Salem proposal exposes how ambiguous the question of turbine safety has become.

Salem's mayor appears to be accepting everything the industry claims in order to sell the wind turbine project. Unfortunately, safeguards don't work as well as advertised. Footage on the web clearly shows turbines spinning with ice caked on the blades. Also, hidden damage to turbine components can lead to failures long after the events which caused them. Turbines may appear to be in good operating order and then fail unexpectedly. Three separate collapses occurred in the northeast since 2008 and none involved category 5 hurricanes.

It's not clear whether G.E. will even agree to erect one of its turbines on Winter Island.

Recall last year when Falmouth and Charlestown in Massachusetts approached the company about supplying turbines. G.E. refused citing inadequate setbacks for mitigating the risk of ice shed. To meet the same standard, the Salem project would need to be setback 775+ feet from occupied structures, roads, property lines and public access areas. The city would be wise not to ignore this setback.

Salem has been poorly served by the experts it consulted. We recommend the project, as defined, be cancelled immediately and call on the industry to bring more clarity to the setback debate. Erecting this enormous wind turbine in a public park so close to a neighborhood is nothing more than a recipe for disaster.

(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 -- which would be much larger -- are not considered.)

This morning we woke to news from California that at least six golden eagles were slaughtered at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's Pine Tree Wind Project in the Tehachapi Mountains. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is investigating, but so far, no wind energy company has been prosecuted by federal wildlife authorities in connection with the death of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

As long as the Department of the Interior permits the wind industry to continue its charade that these bird deaths, like others in California and elsewhere, are an anomaly and that the turbines are otherwise safe for wildlife, the impacts will continue unabated. It's time for the public to stand up and demand that wind developers, who cloak themselves in "green", take responsibility for the destruction left in their wake.

The below message from the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is something we should all be willing to support. Please take a moment today and send your comments to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

This month, Reuters reported that the Obama administration is working on a plan that will permit wind developers to kill endangered whooping cranes who fly in the path of the turbine blades.

The formal language of the Administration is less pointed but the impact the same.

If approved, wind developers will be permitted to 'take' an unspecified number of endangered species including the whooping crane. 'Take' under the Endangered Species Act, is defined as the injuring or killing of endangered species.

Whooping cranes are rare birds that occur only in North America. The July 2010 total wild population was estimated at 383 with only one self-sustaining flock, the Aransas-Wood Buffalo National Park population, numbering just 283 individuals. Twice yearly, whooping cranes undertake their 5000-mile migration journey between their breeding ground in northwest Canada to their wintering area on the Texas coast. The bird's 200-mile wide flyover area is well defined crossing through Alberta, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. Ninety-four percent of all observations of whooping cranes occur in this area.

Wind farms have the potential to directly kill whooping cranes either from the turbines themselves or associated construction of power lines. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that as many as 40,000 turbines could be built in the 200-mile wide corridor. Current estimates put the turbine count in the path at 2,705 turbines (40 operational wind plants). A single death of a whooping crane by a turbine blade will impact the entire population. Whooping cranes that do not perish from direct collisions with the blades could suffer potentially irreparable harm through the loss of hundreds of square miles of vital migration stopover habitat.

According to a 2009 government report, a rise in mortality rate of just three percent annually would doom the species. As it is, loss of genetic diversity will continue unless the wild population is able to grow to approximately 1,000 individuals, a goal that is likely improbable given current rates of land development in critical habitat areas.

The majority of wind farms proposed and built in the U.S. do not require federal permits so there's no nexus for wind developers to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to siting projects. Still, wind energy facilities must lawfully abide by the Endangered Species Act, despite their favored status under the Obama administration.

We encourage readers to see Judge Roger Titus' landmark opinion involving the Beech Ridge wind energy project (December 2009) where he recounts some of the legal history of the Act including the 1978 Supreme Court decision that halted construction of the Tellico Dam [1] in Tennessee. Titus cites this from the 1978 decision: “examination of the language, history, and structure of the legislation under review here indicates beyond doubt that Congress intended endangered species to be afforded the highest of priorities,” (id. at 174) and that Congress’ purpose “was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost,” (id. at 184). The value of endangered species was found to be "incalculable."

Few developers bother to file for incidental take permits even in cases where the potential of injuring or killing endangered species is high. And why bother? Despite known cases of endangered and threatened species killed at wind plants, we know of no cases where penalties have been imposed. In fact, the threat of enforcement was hardly even noticed until the Beech Ridge decision. In 1978 it was the Department of the Interior who filed the Tellico Dam case. Today, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, sides with the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) in proclaiming that wind power is compatible with existing federal laws protecting wildlife and their habitat.

The fact is we have federal laws and decades of legal precedence directed at protecting endangered species that now create uncomfortable obstacles to nebulous energy goals (20% wind power by 2030) and shifting tax policy that promote job creation and renewable energy.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is acting at the request of the Wind Energy Whooping Crane Action Group, a collection of 19 of the largest wind energy developers [2].

The incidental take permit sought by the Group, if granted, will sweep away decades of environmental policies meant to protect whooping cranes and their limited habitat. Under the new plan, wildlife impacts that would be deemed unacceptable in the context of different kinds of projects will be excused. Other birds included in the plan are the lesser prairie chicken, Sprague’s pipit, the mountain plover, piping plover and interior least tern. In exchange, applicants must agree to develop and abide by a habitat conservation plan aimed at minimizing impacts.

For nearly a decade, the wind industry has downplayed the impact of turbines on birds by pointing to house cats and buildings as the real danger but wind farms are not as benign as claimed. The Beech Ridge decision was a wake-up call for both developers and the Department of the Interior. Hiding violations from the public will be harder moving forward and as more turbines are erected.

Offering safe harbor to developers is inherently wrong. Especially when the proposed habitat conservation plan will be developed by the wind industry and overseen by an administration that has consistently advocated for wind. Instead, Fish and Wildlife Service scientists and field offices should be allowed to do their jobs and enforce the laws we have.

The next step in the process is for the Fish and Wildlife Service to receive public comment on the plan. The Service published a notice in the Federal Register on July 14, 2011 initiating a 90-day comment period. For information on how and where to submit comments, visit the Service’s web site to download a copy of the notice.

The Endangered Species Act is one of the few defenses whooping cranes have against irreversible decline and extinction. Please consider making your voice heard on this critical matter.

[1] The Tellico Dam was later completed after Congress exempted the project from the Endangered Species Act.

[2] The Group includes Acciona North America; Allete; Alternity; BP Renewables; Clipper Wind Energy; CPV Renewable Energy Company, LLC; EnXco; Duke Wind Energy; Horizon Wind Energy; Iberdrola Renewables; Infinity; MAP Royalty; NextEra Energy Resources; Renewable Energy Systems Americas; Terra-Gen; Trade Wind Energy; Element Power; Own Energy; and Wind Capital Group.

Editor's note: A separate and developing story involving Bald Eagles and the Goodhue Wind project approved in Minnesota provides important perspective.

Energy subsidies have proven fertile ground in the debt-ceiling debate now raging before Congress.

Congressional lawmakers arguing over how best to rein in spending, have set their sights on eliminating ethanol subsidies and oil and gas tax breaks. Renewable energy subsidies are also under pressure. Earlier this year, the Department of Energy's Section 1705 loan guarantee was cut. The popular Section 1603 cash grant program created under ARRA is expected to expire later this year. And some industry insiders indicate the federal production tax credit, in effect since passage of the Energy Act of 1992, will be allowed to sunset at the end of 2012.

Our recommendation to Congress: Eliminate all of the energy subsidies. Let the economics of a freer market prevail.

Doing so will create winners and losers, for sure, but the public is far better served when industries compete for market share and profits rather than fight for political favoritism and handouts.

If you doubt this economic truism applies to the energy industry, consider the US wind market, which has relied on public funding since its inception over 30 years ago.

The history of governmental handouts to the wind industry dates back over 30 years to the Carter Administration. Billions in public dollars have poured into the wind industry since that time and more is obligated every year for the next decade. Yet for all the promises made, we have little to show for the money spent.

Promise #1: Meeting US Electricity Needs. A 1976 study by the Department of Energy estimated that wind power could supply nearly 20% of all U.S. electricity by 1995. By the end of 1995, wind represented only one-tenth of 1% of the US market. Today, wind delivers about 2% of the US electricity market. DOE now claims we will reach 20% wind power by 2030. Moving the goal post does not address the logistical and cost barriers to reaching the 20% goal. These barriers are significant and it's time DOE considers the realities of what a 20% wind world would look like. It's unlikely the scenario will ever be realized.

Promise #2: Reducing Cost. In the mid-1980's wind power sold at around 25 cents per kilowatt hour. By 1995 prices dropped dramatically but were still double the cost of gas-fired generation, even after allowing for the production tax credit (1.5 cents per kwh in 1995). Today, wind pricing is even higher relative to natural gas, despite continued federal support (figure 22, 2010 Annual Wind Market Report). Promises of technology improvements that could drive down costs have not translated into energy price improvements.

Wind's intermittency still means that high upfront capital costs are spread over fewer hours of operation which places upward pressure on the price of the energy sold. Cost pressures are also tied to policies on renewables. Aggressive renewable policies have placed developers in strong negotiating positions relative to energy buyers. They know full well that state regulators will approve their pricing demands and pass through the higher costs to ratepayers (footnote 50, 2010 Annual Wind Market Report). And with power purchase agreements now a requirement in order to attract investor financing, above-market energy prices are locked in for extended terms ranging between 10-20 years.

Promise #3: Improved Performance. In 1994, ninety percent of the US wind energy capacity was located in the State of California and operated at a 24% annual average capacity factor. In 2010, the capacity-weighted average capacity factor for Californian projects in 2010 was only 27.2%. In most regions of the US, wind operated at under 30% capacity factor. New York State wind performed at 22.7% last year. While newer technology has resulted in modest production improvements, US wind has failed to meet the promised 35% capacity factor

Promise #4: Jobs creation. Over eighty-percent of the nearly $6 billion in Section 1603 grants paid out in 2009 and 2010 went to wind energy projects. Yet by the end of 2010, the American Wind Energy Association reported jobs declined from 85,000 to 75,000. When installations dropped in 2010, it was no surprise that jobs dropped as well. And since growing the manufacturing base is predicated on installing more wind turbines it's hard to see where job growth is sustainable.

Fourteen years ago, energy expert Robert Bradley wrote "Wind power has proven itself to be a perpetual 'infant industry' with its competitive viability always somewhere on the horizon."

This week GE's ecomagination VP Mark Vachon said this: "Without clean-energy mandates or tax subsidies, wind struggles to compete with cheap natural gas. And there's uncertainty about those subsidies, particularly in the U.S. where Congress is looking to manage budget deficits."

The American Wind Energy Association insists wind is now a mainstream energy resource but blames the 50 percent drop in US installations between 2009 and 2010 on a lack of long-term, predictable federal policies. After 30 years of paying the way for this infant industry, apparently the public has still not done enough to create a market for its product.

Call Congress. Remind your representatives that wind energy has yet to deliver on any of its promises. And history has shown we have no reason to believe things will change.

Eliminate all wind energy subsidies as part of the debt ceiling compromise. Let's finally move on to energy solutions that can deliver on their promises.

Last week, the New England Energy Alliance in Boston, released the results of its annual survey of New England energy consumers. Paul Afonso, executive director of the Alliance and a former Massachusetts utility regulator, summed the results up this way: "Overall, the main concern of New Englanders continues to be the economy and pocketbook issues. If voters think any policy - private or public - will bring down the cost of energy, they will support it."

If that's the case, than the survey's findings reflect a sentiment that's entirely contrary to New England's current energy policies.

The six New England states have aggressively pushed for renewable energy development in the Northeast, with particular emphasis on wind power. Five of the states, Vermont excluded, have adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) mandating that a percentage of the electricity sold retail into the region come from renewables.

RPS obligations for 2010 were about 14% of demand -- an amount satisfied through a combination of existing, qualified resources in New England and renewable energy imported from neighboring New York and Canada. However, these percentages are slated to reach over 20% by 2020 with most of the energy coming from projects not yet built. Meeting the growing renewable obligation with new generation will be substantially more difficult. Critical adjustments in RPS policies are needed now or skyrocketing energy costs will severely cripple New England's economy.

New England currently claims 48 wind energy projects totaling 318 megawatts. Maine has the most wind installed at 266 megawatts; Connecticut the least at 0.1 megawatts. Assuming a generous 30% annual capacity factor, wind in New England produced around 836,000 megawatts hours (MWh) in 2010, substantially below other fuel options including natural gas which produced over 50 million MWh (half the region's demand).

New England would need to add 23 million MWhs of new renewable energy in order to satisfy state mandates by 2020. Since wind energy is the primary resource proposed to be built in the region, and the resource most favored by New England's 'ruling class', future RPS obligations will likely be met by in-region wind power.

Meeting 2020 obligations dictated by state laws will require a 28-fold increase (9000 megawatts) in wind energy over the amount installed today. Measured in actual turbines, nearly 3000 3-megawatt turbines would be needed by 2020 or 300 new turbines erected every year for the next 9-10 years.

Nearly every wind project proposed in New England has encountered substantial opposition. Historically, opponents argue local siting concerns including the impact of the turbines on the natural environment and properties in proximity to the towers. Local opposition will certainly intensify. But wind development on the scale necessary to meet RPS mandates will also trigger region-wide fights with complaints expanding to cost and the impact on New England's economy.

In December 2010, the ISO-New England [1] released the findings of its New England Wind Integration Study (NEWIS). The study, conducted by General Electric, assessed the operational effects of integrating large amounts of intermittent wind power into the ISO's control area. The NEWIS study concluded that significant wind resources could be added to New England's power grid but for a price.

Existing Power Plants. Despite adding thousands of megawatts of new wind to the grid, the NEWIS study assumed the existing fleet of New England's power plants would remain with no significant plant retirements relative to capacity resources. The study also assumed that new capacity resources proposed to be built would be brought online and the grid's regulation capacity requirement would grow to 313 MW, nearly 4-times the current level.

Twenty-percent wind in New England would not result in the decommissioning of existing capacity nor would it negate the need to build new generation. While wind might displace fossil fuel, primarily natural gas, it cannot replace it.

Transmission. Since many favorable sites for wind development are remote from New England's load centers, development of these distant sites would require significant transmission development. According to NEWIS, 20% wind in New England would require 4,095 miles of new lines at an estimated cost of between $11 and $15 billion dollars. [2]

This cost would be in addition to the $5 billion already approved in New England to address existing reliability requirements. None of the wind-related transmission has been proposed to date nor has any public discussion been initiated on who would pick up the tab. The survey cited above found that New Englanders disliked high-voltage transmission lines even more than wind turbines.

Energy Costs. The NEWIS report is mainly silent on the effect of large-scale wind integration on energy prices, but it does acknowledge two important points.

1) A wind plant's revenue may be below its annual total cost which could require the plant owner to secure higher than market value power purchase agreement(s);

2) By displacing conventional generation, primarily natural-gas-fired resources, revenues for displaced plants would decrease and their economic viability put at risk. Increases in capacity market payments may be necessary to ensure these plants do not shut down.

Adding large amounts of wind to the region may reduce marginal electricity prices since wind has no fuel cost, but the costs passed on to ratepayers are derived from power purchase agreements negotiated between utilities and wind plant owners. Onshore wind currently demands between 9-11 cents per KWh, more than twice the wholesale price of natural gas. Offshore wind is even more expensive at over 18 cents a KWh. More wind in the fuel mix will cause upward pressure on energy prices for the life of the power purchase agreements. As these agreements expire in 15-20 years, prices may drop but by that time the turbines will be coming to the end of their operating life.

Other significant integration costs will also be imposed on the region to accommodate wind's intermittency, including billions in new transmission.

Measuring Benefit. According to the NEWIS study, 20% penetration of wind in New England will reduce yearly CO2 emissions by 12 million tons per year, a 25% decline. This percentage is significant but placing a value on the savings paints a very different picture.

Currently, RGGI carbon allowances are trading at the reserve price of $1.89, which would place the value of the benefit at $22.7 million per year -- a fraction of the transmission costs alone, even if paid out every year for 20 years, the life of the wind plants. In fact, just to break even on the $15 billion in new transmission costs, the price of carbon would need to be over $60/ton. Clearly, there are less costly, more appropriate methods of reducing carbon emissions.

We do not object to the findings of the NEWIS report that large quantities of wind can be injected into the region. As an academic analysis, the report is reasonable. However, the requirements necessary to meet a 20% wind scenario in New England are wholly unrealistic. Each state can try and overrule local opposition to individual wind projects and fast-track approvals under the pretext of 'public benefit', but the effect of above-market power purchase agreements, high-priced transmission construction, and other related integration costs will crush the region's economy.

Unless changes are made to current RPS policies, New England is headed for an energy crisis of its own making. But who will press for change? Those making energy policy decisions are driven by ideology and appear unaware of the pending costs. And those likely to benefit financially from the policies, including big utilities wanting to build big transmission, are happy to play along. Unfortunately for New England's energy consumers, no one is watching out for their interests.

[1] The ISO-NE is a non-profit entity tasked with managing the New England grid system and ensuring the day-to-day reliable operation of the region's bulk power generation and transmission.

Laura Israel's award-winning documentary, WINDFALL, is catching the attention of film reviewers around the world. WINDFALL tells the story of how residents in a small community in upstate New York responded upon learning a utility-scale wind energy facility might be situated in their town.

The response to WINDFALL by film reviews and bloggers around the world has been overwhelmingly positive even though the film's message has unsettled a few as this film festival director wrote:

"I'd expected (I think reasonably) to see a film about
the planet-changing, grid-decarbonising potential
of tall, green, serene wind turbines. What I got
was a film that challenged my views to the core."
-- John Long, festival director, UK Green Film Festival

In the last year, Israel's WINDFALL played a powerful role in encouraging viewers to consider the human side of the wind energy debate. It's easy to recite the perceived benefits of wind power, but more people are now asking hard questions about the risks. Those hoping to do right by the planet by using renewables can't help but understand that their intentions, while honorable, may impose unbearable costs on others.

WINDFALL invites much needed dialogue on this topic but not everyone is willing to join in. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), a wind industry trade and lobby group, made clear that WINDFALL was little more than an anti-wind attack piece. Last fall the group released a rebuttal document in an attempt to defuse WINDFALL's message. But AWEA's rebuttal comments were poorly researched and omitted key facts that we thought deserved a response.

On wind's popularity, AWEA cites a poll conducted in Lewis County, New York that found residents in the county viewed the Maple Ridge wind energy facility as having a 'positive effect' on the county. But the poll was conducted in 2008 and much has changed. While people may generally support wind power, opposition and litigation have become a fact of life in communities targeted for development. In Cohocton, New York, one landowner who leased his land to a developer and now has two turbines on his property called it "the biggest mistake of my life." The turbines produce noise that he and his wife find unbearable. He now advises other towns to, "Keep fighting. Don't let them come in."

AWEA insists wind farms are typically chosen with public input and that developers work at cultivating public support for their projects. This has not been the case in New York or in most states. When New York's Governor Cuomo was attorney general, he organized the Wind Energy Task Force amid allegations of unsavory backroom deals involving elected leaders and wind developers seeking to influence official actions relating to wind farm development. Those asking questions about project impacts weren't concerned citizens but "'anti-'s". In his op-ed which appeared in North American Windpower, Ben Kelahan warned developers to "attack as if you were a local politician running for office, which means identifying, recruiting and organizing." "Above all," he said, "you need to demonstrate public support equal to or greater than that of your opponents." The goal is more about neutralizing the enemy than cultivating public support.

On building more wind in the United States, AWEA states the industry is on track to meet the Department of Energy's goal of 20% wind by 2030. The total nameplate installed in the U.S. at the end of 2010 was 40,181 megawatts. But getting to DOE's goal (305,000 MW installed including 54,000 MW offshore) will require over 13,000 MW of new wind online every year for the next 20 years -- more than in any year thus far. Billions in public dollars would be needed to subsidize the capital costs of the projects and to construct new transmission lines to deliver the energy from remote regions. Under DOE's plan, the entire wind fleet would need to operate at an annual average capacity factor of 43.4% -- well above what we're seeing for operating projects today. NY's fleet of wind projects operated around 22% average capacity factor in 2010.

AWEA insists that by increasing wind power and other renewables we will experience a lowering of energy costs. The fact is that onshore wind is often two times more expensive than conventional sources of generation. Offshore wind is higher still. Power purchase agreements signed between wind generators and utilities are negotiated after a project has taken full advantage of available federal and state incentives so the costs of the incentives are not factored into the energy price. Other costs not accounted for include the build-out of wind-related transmission, system improvements to accommodate wind's intermittency and costs to cover capacity resources required during low/high wind conditions. These costs are ultimately imposed on rate and/or taxpayers outside the actual cost of the energy. In an apples-to-apples comparison, wind energy is very expensive.

Wind energy is not a capacity resource. It's not dispatchable. And in most parts of the country it delivers at the time of day and year when we least need the energy. Wind is inherently a lower value resource and in a more fair power market it should be priced below more reliable generation. But that's not what's happening.

There is much more we can say about the other factors raised in AWEA's rebuttal document but the one important take-away point is that the discussion about wind is complex. There are no simple responses and AWEA's comments do little to advance the facts about wind. As Gordon Yancey, who appears in WINDFALL, reminds all of us -- "Do your homework."

The United Kingdom has long been regarded as having the best wind resource in Europe.

A 2005 analysis of hourly wind speeds collected from sixty-six locations across the UK, identified three characteristics of the wind resource that proponents rely on to justify an expansive build-out of wind energy facilities.

The study concluded that over a 35-year period from 1970 to 2005, there was never a time when the entire country was without wind, the wind always blew enough to generate electricity somewhere in Britain and that the resource tended to blow more strongly when demand was highest, during the day and winter months. The analysis found that wind would operate at an annual average capacity factor of 27% -- above levels found in Germany and Denmark -- and low wind speeds affecting most of the country (90%) would only occur for one hour every five years.

The United Kingdom's leading wild land conservation charity, the John Muir Trust, released a report that examined wind power's actual contribution to the UK's energy supply. The findings, based on real-time energy production, were sobering. Wind generated at substantially below the 27% capacity factor and low wind events (defined as output falling below 10% of capacity) occurred over one third of the time, or almost nine months in aggregate.

The report created a firestorm for those tracking wind development. Legislators and energy policy experts immediately questioned whether the same reality existed in their area. Since preconstruction forecasts for wind power performance are based on wind speed data, what if the modeling overstated actual generation?

In 2005, the New York State Energy Research And Development Authority (NYSERDA) worked with General Electric to release a study aimed at assessing the impact of large-scale wind generation on the reliability of the State's bulk power system and to understand the operational and economic effects of deploying 3,300 megawatts of wind (10% of New York's peak load).

The study concluded that New York could support a 10% penetration of wind into its grid system with turbines reliably operating at 30% average capacity factor or better. To its credit, NYSERDA acknowledged that most of the high wind output would occur during nighttime hours with some overlap occurring "late in the day when the wind output is picking up before the loads have fully dropped off."

Several years of wind generation data are now available and we took a look at how well NYSERDA and GE predicted output levels. We were particularly interested in project performance after developers had a year or more to address start-up issues.

By the end of 2010, New York State claimed fifteen wind energy facilities totaling an installed capacity of 1,275 megawatts. The projects are geographically distributed in the northern and western regions of the State but typically away from denser population centers including New York City with the highest demand for electricity.

Twelve of the fifteen projects comprise the bulk of the nameplate capacity (1225 megawatts). These facilities went into service in the years between 2006 and February 2009. Less than 50 megawatts of wind was installed prior to 2006. Since early 2009, wind development in the State has been largely stagnant with only one wind project built in the last two years. Iberdrola's 74 megawatt Hardscrabble project went online in February 2011.

The lull in construction has provided a valuable opportunity to evaluate two full years of wind generation and to assess whether the promises of New York wind have been realized.

The below table, prepared using the New York ISO's Gold Book data, provides an important glimpse at wind performance in New York in the years 2008-2010.

No wind project in New York achieved a 30% capacity factor and most are operating at well below this figure including Maple Ridge 1 and 2 touted by wind proponents as a premier wind site. Maple Ridge was forecasted to have a capacity factor of 34% prior to construction but has consistently operated around 25% -- a significant performance reduction.

Noble Environmental's projects produced at even lower levels. When the company sought community acceptance of its projects in upstate New York, John Quirke, an officer and founder of Noble, insisted their projects would operate at 30-35% of their nameplate capacity. In the tax agreement signed with Clinton County, New York, Noble went so far as to sweetened the deal by offering to pay a bonus of $1000/MW every time the annual capacity factor of any of their projects exceeded 35%. Clinton County officials had no way to verify the sincerity of Noble's offer since preconstruction wind data was confidential, but Noble certainly knew the truth. Noble's upstate projects operated with a 20% to 22% capacity factor in 2010.

When determining whether a wind energy project is worth the financial risk, a credit analysis is prepared based on conservative wind production. This production amount, known as the annual energy yield prediction, represents the average wind speed forecast for a project with a 90% confidence (P90). In other words, the wind production level that the project is expected to operate at 90% of the time.

The P90 figure needs to be within 12% to 15% of the average production figures in order to catch a bank's attention. If the difference between the average capacity factor (P50) and P90 is off by 20% or better, a project would be considered 'unfinanceable'. We can't know the P90 figures presented to investors for most of New York's wind projects, but our guess is that most of these projects would have been considered unworthy had actual production numbers been available. We'd be interested in knowing whether those who fronted the money for the projects would bother again.

NY ratepayers who are subsidizing wind development in the State are also receiving considerably less than promised. Square miles of New York's most rural areas have been transformed into industrial power plants, communities and families are split over project opposition, and homeowners have been driven from their homes due to turbine noise, shadow flicker and other nuisances. If tax revenue agreements with communities were negotiated based on inflated capacity factors, actual payments will be lower.

State and local officials have long encouraged wind as an economic development tool for rural areas, but at some point the public needs to know whether the projects are delivering on the primary plan i.e. to see more renewable energy on the grid. At capacity factors in the low- to mid- 20% range, many more wind turbines and related infrastructure (transmission) will be needed to meet State mandates which will increase costs and impacts.

Our review only looked at average annual capacity factors and did not consider the hourly and daily variability of the resource and whether the wind helped meet peak demand needs. But looking at average performance alone is enough to suggest New York's wind is not worth all the fuss.

Several years back, we wrote how the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), a quasi-public agency tasked with encouraging renewable energy technologies in the State of Massachusetts, gambled $5.28 million in public funds to purchase two new (at the time) Vestes V82 – 1.65 megawatt wind turbines. MTC hoped to jumpstart local public renewable projects by making the Vestas turbines available for sale.

The Town of Orleans was one of the first candidates for the towers but sensitive watershed areas compromised the plan. The agency then moved aggressively to place them in Mattapoisett, MA and neighboring Fairhaven, MA, but public opposition to the giant turbines too close to residential areas stymied the effort. MTC took delivery of the V82 turbines in September, 2006 and warehoused them in Houston, TX at storage fees as high as $3,000 a month. They eventually found a 'home' -- in Falmouth, MA.

WIND 1 went online in early 2010 at Falmouth’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. WIND 2, currently under construction, will be located only 1000 feet (less than five rotor widths) away.

With homes a short 1,350 feet from WIND 1, as soon as it started spinning complaints about noise and shadow flicker hit the media.

While WIND 1 was community funded through a combination of general bonds, grants and advanced payments on renewable energy credits sold under the State's Renewable Portfolio Standard program, the second is being funded entirely through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) .

Recall, ARRA Section 1605 asserts a "buy America" provision and MTC's Vestas V82 (vintage 2005-06) turbines were not American-made. Falmouth needed a waiver to get its hands on the stimulus money or change out MTC's turbine in-hand for a domestic-made equivalent.

Apparently, the Town solicited General Electric as a potential turbine supplier, but GE's siting standards required a safety setback of 1.5 times the hub height plus rotor diameter be maintained in the event of icing. The setback distance would be measured from occupied structures, roads, property lines and public access areas.

This must have been a relief for Falmouth and MTC. Why hassle with another vendor, especially one so particular about safety, when the Vestas turbine was already in hand and, better yet, Vestas, the company, didn't suffer the same safety hang-ups. The town would solve the problem by requesting a waiver from the Buy America provision in the law.

GE's safety setback applied to the Vestas V82 would be 797 feet [1]. WIND 2 will exceed the standard to the property line (552 feet), the nearest public road (646 feet) and come within 350 feet of the nearest residential structure.

In siting documents prepared for the Falmouth site, risks of ice throw were dismissed this way:

The federal government, in this case the EPA, determined that no domestic manufactured wind turbines were available that could meet WIND 2's project design and performance specifications. The waiver was granted.

The notice of waiver that appeared in the Federal Register on April 27, 2010 included this text:

So, let's be clear here. GE, which has more of its turbines installed in the United States than any other manufacturer, and arguably the most experience with operating turbines in the varied climates within the US -- certainly more experience than EPA and the Town of Falmouth -- raised public safety concerns over the risks of ice throw, and Falmouth looked the other way. EPA, in turn, agreed that applying GE safety standards to the site would be "inconsistent with the public interest". Is it any wonder Falmouth is the latest poster child for poor turbine siting?

If anyone doubts that ice builds up on turbines in the Massachusetts area, it's worth watching this short video clip from Newburyport, MA where a smaller 600-kw turbine standing just under 300-feet was erected. Or watch this clip from Wisconsin involving turbines similar in size to the V82.

Two months prior to Falmouth receiving its waiver, EPA supported a waiver request by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (“MWRA”) to acquire a turbine built by Chinese turbine maker, Sinovel. The turbine is expected to power the DeLauri Pump Station in Charlestown, Massachusetts where GE found the setback distances insufficient to protect the public from ice throw. Lucky for the MWRA, Sinovel was more than happy to take the money.

We would have expected public safety to trump other interests, but apparently not. At some point, the turbines in Falmouth and Charlestown will throw ice and the risk is real that people/property will be on the receiving end. But with EPA, MTC, the US Treasury and other public entities all willing to waive the risk on behalf of the public, who will be held accountable?

[1] The hub height for the Vestas V82 is 262 feet; the rotor diameter is 269 feet. The safety setback calculation is 1.5 x (262 + 269) or 796.5 feet.

The American Wind Energy Association's (AWEA) newly released Annual Market Report for 2010 can be summed up in one word -- Spin!

We've tracked the wind industry's progress closely in the last six years and mapping our observations to AWEA's declarations is always a challenge. Their reports are packed with assertions but rarely include the data and assumptions on which claims are based. This year's report was no different. To illustrate the point, we thought it useful to examine some of the claims touted by AWEA.

With natural gas selling at record lows and supplies expected to be abundant through this decade, wind developers are under pressure from investors to secure power purchase agreements (PPAs) with utilities. Most PPAs for onshore wind we've reviewed lock in purchases for 15+ years at roughly twice the wholesale price of fossil and nuclear resources within their respective regions. In some cases the prices are fixed regardless the time of day the energy is delivered or number of years into the contract; others apply adjustments for on- and off-peak energy and may include annual escalators. In states where renewable portfolio standards have been adopted, utilities likely have no choice but to accept above market rates which are passed through to the rate base.

AWEA asserts that average power purchase agreements for wind generation in 2010 were priced around 6 cents per kilowatt-hour which it insists is the same wholesale price for combined cycle natural gas plants, and about 2 cents cheaper than coal-fired electricity. It might be true that PPA prices, on average, are around 6 cents per kwh but comparisons to natural gas and coal are not appropriate.

Within New England, wholesale pricing for onshore wind is between 9 and 11 cents per kwh. In the Midwest, contracts are around 6-7 cents and in regions with better wind regimes, gentler terrains and/or limited or no permit requirements the costs could run slightly lower.

But wind agreements are negotiated after a project has taken full advantage of available federal and state incentives so the costs of the incentives are not factored into the energy price. Other costs not accounted for include the build-out of wind-related transmission, system improvements to accommodate wind's intermittency and costs to cover capacity resources required during low wind conditions. These costs are ultimately imposed on rate and/or taxpayers outside the PPA.

The claim that PPAs are priced lower than coal-fired electricity makes no sense unless AWEA is comparing wind pricing to new coal plants and completely ignoring prices offered by existing generators. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) tracks wholesale power prices for six major electricity trading hubs around the U.S. and these data show prices ranging between 3 and 6 cents per kwh with New England on the high end and Ohio and Texas at the lower range. Clearly wind is more expensive than available energy resources even after applying governmental incentives.

If we were to concede AWEA's claim that wind is priced on par with natural gas and cheaper then coal, what's our value proposition. Wind is not a capacity resource. It's not dispatchable. And in most parts of the country it delivers at the time of day and year when we least need the energy. Wind is inherently a lower value resource and in a more fair power market it should be priced below more reliable generation. But that's not what's happening.

AWEA insists the industry is on track to meet the Department of Energy's goal of 20% wind by 2030. Last year, we took a baby step by adding 5,116 megawatts of new wind bringing the total nameplate installed in the U.S. to 40,181 megawatts. But getting to DOE's goal (305,000 MW installed including 54,000 MW offshore) will require over 13,000 MW of new wind online every year for the next 20 years. And the entire wind fleet would need to operate at an annual average capacity factor of 43.4%. AWEA boasts that 2010 expanded the number of states with industrial scale turbines by 2 -- Delaware and Maryland -- but Delaware's contribution amounted to a single 2 megawatt turbine. You simply can't get 'there' from 'here'.

Delaware's one turbine triggered a lawsuit by residents living nearby over noise and legal nuisance claims. Opposition to wind energy proposals in general has intensified in the last few years and wind developers are feeling the effects of a growing backlash. Those who raise concerns about property values, health effects, the adverse environmental impacts etc. are more educated on the costs/risks of wind and are inclined to reject the degradation these enormous sprawling industrial complexes impose on communities and open lands. Building the next 40,000 MW of wind and related infrastructure will be much harder.

No offshore turbines exist in the U.S. nor is it clear any will go online soon. We've written extensively on the high-cost of the Cape Wind and Deepwater Wind proposals whose PPAs are under appeal. Last week, a Maryland Senate committee killed a bill backed by Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley to implement offshore wind citing price as a factor.

Despite Interior Secretary Salazar's intention to fast-track offshore wind, the upward pressure these projects will impose on utility rates will prove a significant limiting factor.

AWEA's report highlighted the industry's $10 billion investment in 2010 to install 5,000 MW. If we back out the nearly $3.4 billion in federal Section 1603 grants, the industry's contribution was closer to $6.6 billion. Our tax dollars picked up the tab for a third of the cost. Yet, what value did we get in return?

What about the environmental payback? AWEA insists the U.S. wind power fleet will avoid an estimated 65 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. This assumes a megawatt hour of wind will back out a megawatt hour of fossil -- an overly simplistic concept that ignores the realities of energy dispatch. Nonetheless, if we assume AWEA's metric applies at all times, carbon allowances under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) are trading at the floor price of $1.89/short ton. And since the CO2 cap under RGGI is already satisfied, the price is unlikely to go up this decade. Reducing CO2 emissions by 65 million tons should only cost $135 million -- a fraction the public dollars spent on wind development for 2010 alone. Clearly, there are far less costly, and more appropriate methods for reducing carbon then building massive wind towers everywhere we look.

Perhaps wind's value lies in job creation, but we're not so sure. Most jobs created by the industry are tied to construction and are temporary in nature lasting six months to two years.

In 2007, AWEA touted that the industry represented 50,000 direct and indirect jobs in the U.S., a figure that jumped to 85,000 in 2008 and held steady in 2009. In 2010, jobs dropped to 75,000 with roughly 20,000 in the manufacturing sector.

AWEA's annual report lists pages of facilities it claims are "US Wind Industry Manufacturing Facilities". Of the 450+ facilities listed (in some cases listing multiple facilities per company), a small fraction represents plants dedicated to building turbine parts (blades, towers, nacelles) including Vestas and Gamesa plants in Colorado and Pennsylvania respectively. The rest build components for industrial uses. Many have been in business for decades and their sole business is not wind-specific. AWEA omits any details showing the percentage of each company's gross revenues tied to the wind industry so verifying job counts is not possible. Apparently we're to take AWEA's assertions on face value. The problem is that these job numbers are repeatedly reported in the press and in government documents with the only substantiation being attribution to AWEA.

Wind construction jobs are not permanent so the industry would need to reach peak levels of development year after year just to maintain current job levels. When installations dropped in 2010, it was no surprise that jobs dropped as well. And since growing the manufacturing base is predicated on installing more wind turbines it's hard to see where job growth is sustainable.

[Note: job growth in the wind industry must be examined in terms of net growth for the overall economy. Studies have shown that shifting to alternative energies has resulted in either no net growth in jobs or a net reduction due to job transfers and higher energy prices.]

Despite billions in public funds pouring into the market in just the last few years, the wind industry is struggling in the face of lower energy demand and the corresponding drop in prices. AWEA never misses an opportunity to remind Congress that long-term renewable policies are needed to ensure wind's growth. But before our legislators ram through another round of incentives or extend existing policies, it's time they look past the distorted reality presented by the wind industry and understand the real costs of wind energy now borne by the American rate- and taxpayers.

[Editor's note: Windaction's executive director, Lisa Linowes, attended the March 19 DC premier of Laura Israel's Windfall.]

"Windfall" made its premier showing in Washington DC last month at the Environmental Film Festival. This was the festival's 19th year and the theme -- exploring the critical relationship between energy and the environment -- was a perfect fit for Laura Israel's documentary.

I've had the pleasure of accompanying Laura to several screenings of "Windfall" over the past ten months. The format for each event is similar and always interesting. Prior to the lights dimming, Laura is introduced along with others who helped make "Windfall". Following the film's credits, the audience is invited to stay and participate in a 15-20 minute question and answer period. When I'm available, Laura and I field questions together. I thoroughly enjoy working with Laura and we understand how to complement each other on stage. I know to stay clear of questions having to do with the making of "Windfall" and she and I trade off on questions relating to energy policy, wind development, and community impacts.

We arrived at the theatre about thirty minutes before the 5:00pm showing and a line was already forming at the entrance. This had to have been an exciting moment for Laura to see her posters advertising "Windfall" along the walls and watching people streaming into the theater's lobby. That day's edition of the Washington Post carried Ann Hornaday's critique of "Windfall" which was a big plus. The review was better than we could have imagined! Ms. Hornaday likened "Windfall" to Gasland's 'grass-roots tour' and envisioned "Windfall" experiencing similar success.

For me, the Washington venue stood out for two additional reasons. It was the first time I had a chance to watch "Windfall" in a large theatre setting, the historic AFI Silver Theatre. What a treat! The sounds and visuals were more vibrant and the characters in the film seemed more alive. I fully appreciated what Laura saw in her mind's eye when she set out to create her film. Washington was also my first opportunity to experience "Windfall" in an urban setting. This would not be a "preach to the choir" moment. Most of the 250+ who attended that night never faced the prospect of industrial wind development in their community. And many were hearing a side of wind they had never heard before. I wasn't sure what reaction to expect.

Before the film, several people approached us in the lobby wanting to thank Laura for making "Windfall". Another asked if I was available to speak at his church the next morning. A colleague of mine came by, held up a flier he was handed at the door, and mentioned that "Windfall" was agitating a few people. Turns out, AWEA's vice president for public affairs, Peter Kelley, was outside overseeing his unpaid (we asked) volunteers as they distributed a rehashed press piece purporting to "set the record straight on a few issues that the movie raises." It wasn't the first time AWEA showed up at a "Windfall" screening, and likely won't be the last. Still, it was interesting to witness such insecurity coming from the wind industry.

Several folks wondered why the United States could not recreate the success of wind energy touted in Denmark (Denmark's wind "success" is not as many have been led to believe. Denmark's energy needs are a fraction of what's needed by the U.S. and the amount of wind generated in the country poorly matches that actually consumed. The heavily subsidized generation typically comes during low load conditions and is dumped on other countries at low rates.)

One gentleman expressed surprise at how little he knew of the issues with wind and asked whether the mainstream media was reporting on the story. (While the New York Times and Associated Press have carried stories, in most cases the debate is treated as a local issue and covered by small town media.)

Laura was asked why the wind developer looking to build in Meredith, NY did not appear in the film. (Representatives for the company tended to work quietly behind the scenes. They did not attend public meetings or participate in open forums. If they had, Laura would have captured them on film. )

Clearly, "Windfall" triggered strong emotions in the audience. The questions continued for another forty-five minutes in the lobby of the theatre. Several people approached us about wind energy in general. They understood from "Windfall" that large-scale centrally planned wind projects might pose problems but wanted some assurance that personal turbines or smaller, community options could still work. Their sense of disappointment in our energy choices was evident -- and who could blame them? Laura is always careful to tell people that "Windfall" is not meant to answer all questions about wind or to even take a side. Her message is to encourage communities to seek out as much information as possible and to reach informed decisions. I agree, and would add that the energy debate in the U.S. has not been well grounded in fact particularly as it applies to green energy. The more the public understands the realities of our energy choices, only then can we get on with encouraging solutions that meet our environmental and economic goals.

If you have an opportunity to see "Windfall" in a theatre near you, I would encourage you to do so, regardless your view of wind energy. The visuals are mesmerizing and the story will inspire and inform. I've seen "Windfall" at least ten times, and the experience is new and different each time. Visit the "Windfall" website for the latest news on screenings.

Late last week, the House of Representatives passed HR-1, the Continuing Resolution legislation needed to fund federal government operations through to September 30, the end of the 2011 fiscal year.

The bill includes the largest single discretionary spending cut in U.S. history eliminating $100 billion in spending from what the Obama administration asked for last year. It also initiates spending reductions that will occur throughout the next year. Unless there is another temporary measure, the final continuing resolution must be passed by the Senate and signed by the President by March 4 in order to avoid a government shutdown.

The full text of HR-1 as introduced in the House (prior to any amendments) can be found at this link. The members filed 162 amendments of which sixty-eight were rejected or withdrawn. The majority were accepted.

Windaction.org advocated for an amendment to the bill that would eliminate $5 billion from the budget by prohibiting the use of funds to support the Section 1603 Cash Grant program. This program enables wind developers to secure direct monetary outlays from the Federal government to cover 30% of a project's qualifying cost, no questions asked.

Unfortunately, we were unable to get the amendment in place, but there will be other opportunities this year to make our case known.

However, HR-1 did take an important step toward weakening the Guarantee Loan Authority program administered by the Department of Energy. Section 3001 of the bill rescinds all balances allocated under the stimulus bill for the 1705 loan guarantee program.

Under the program the Department of Energy pays the credit subsidy costs of loan guarantees and provides a guarantee for up to 80 percent of a loan for qualifying renewable energy systems, electric power transmission systems or leading edge biofuels projects. Thus, a significant portion of the risk is shifted to the American public rather than where it belongs, with investors and their shareholders.

The impact of this action is likely to be significant on whether investment funding will be available for renewable energy projects, but for now the wind industry is declaring this part of the law dead on arrival.

But maybe not. Recall the October 2010 memo to the White House by Carol Browner, Ron Klain and Larry Summers which raised concerns over the "relatively small private equity (as low as 10%) developers put into projects" thanks to the loan guarantee.

With the Continuing Resolution now behind them, our House Representatives are home this week meeting with their constituents. This is an opportunity to meet with your representative and make your concerns known.

If you contacted your representative last week about cutting Section 1603 from the Continuing Resolution ask why no such amendment was offered. If not, take the time to discuss this important budget and policy issue with him/her. Our representatives need to understand that there are cheaper, much more effective opportunities for achieving clean energy goals. Instead, with Section 1603 funding we've succeeded in adopting an energy policy that drives up construction and energy costs while eliminating any incentive to build projects that meet the highest performance standards.

Tell Congress to cut the Section 1603 Cash Grant renewable energy bailout program!

The Section 1603 Cash Grant program disproportionately benefits wind energy development by shifting substantial debt to U.S. taxpayers. Cutting this program is a quick and painless way to eliminate $5 billion in Federal waste.

As you may know, the Section 1603 cash grant program was extended for one year as part of the tax bill passed in December 2010. This program enables wind developers to secure direct monetary outlays from the Federal government to cover 30% of a project's qualifying cost, no questions asked.

There are cheaper, much more effective opportunities for achieving clean energy goals. Instead, we have succeeded in adopting a policy that drives up construction and energy costs while eliminating any incentive to build projects that meet the highest performance standards. In fact, the more expensive, less efficient a project is to build and operate the greater the benefit for owners, vendors and contractors while the public assumes the debt.

This program is not equivalent to the Production Tax Credit ('PTC'). Please see our analysis on how cash grants differ from the PTC here.

The Appropriations Committee is preparing the 2011 budget ('Continuing Resolution') for a vote on the House Floor as early as Wednesday, February 16.

Please Call, Email and Fax your Congressional House delegation TODAY.

Ask them to defund the Section 1603 program in the budget. A sample letter is provided here for your convenience.

To find your representative click here: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

In addition to your representative, the Republican members below need to hear from you:

House Leadership:
Speaker John Boehner, OH - http://www.speaker.gov/Contact/
Majority Leader Eric Cantor, VA - http://majorityleader.house.gov/Contact/

Appropriations Committee Republican Members:
Harold Rogers, KY
Jerry Lewis, CA
C.W. Bill Young, FL
Frank R. Wolf, VA
Jack Kingston, GA
Rodney Frelinghuysen, NJ
Tom Latham, IA
Robert B. Aderholt, AL
Jo Ann Emerson, MO
Kay Granger, TX
Michael K. Simpson, ID
John Abney Culberson, TX
Ander Crenshaw, FL
Denny Rehberg, MT
John R. Carter, TX
Rodney Alexander, LA
Ken Calvert, CA
Jo Bonner, AL
Steve Latourette, OH
Tom Cole, OK
Jeff Flake, AZ
Mario Diaz-Balart, FL
Charles Dent, PA
Steve Austria, OH
Cynthia Lummis, WY
Tom Graves, GA
Kevin Yoder, KS
Steve Womack, AR
Alan Nunnelee, MS

This is an important and unique opportunity we cannot afford to miss. OUR WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY IS NOW!

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Representative _________________,

Cutting federal spending is one of the highest priorities facing Congress today. The Section 1603 Cash Grant Program is a good place to start. This program provides direct monetary outlays to wind energy developers for 30% of a project’s qualifying cost without setting performance standards on construction costs or energy generation.

Unlike the Production Tax Credit, the upfront cash grants provide minimal incentive for developers to negotiate lower prices with suppliers and no financial obligation to meet claimed capacity factors. In fact, the more expensive, less efficient a project is to build and operate the greater the benefit for owners, vendors and contractors while the public assumes the debt.

If Congress is serious about cutting government waste in the discretionary budget, green energy subsidies deserve another look, beginning with the Section 1603 program.

Respectfully,

In the waning hours of the tax bill debate last December, the Obama Administration and GOP leaders released the terms for continuing the Bush-era tax cuts. The framework negotiated between the parties initially omitted any reference to extending the renewable energy programs introduced under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which were scheduled to sunset last December.

The response from the renewables industry was fierce. A media blitz hit overnight, and wind and solar lobbyists huddled with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Repeated warnings of job loss and the immediate harm to green energy businesses worked. Lawmakers relented and sanctioned a 1-year extension. The windfall? A check from the U.S. Treasury for 30 percent of a project's qualifying cost.

With the fuss now behind us, we decided to examine one of the more popular renewable subsidy programs to be extended, the Section 1603 cash grants. Our analysis revealed a pattern of rewarding inflated project costs and decreased energy production, while shifting a substantial portion of the development risks to American taxpayers.

Following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, tax-based policy incentives lost much of their effectiveness as the number of tax equity investors declined. Provisions under ARRA were designed to fill the void by reducing, and essentially eliminating, the need for tax advantaged investors. The Section 1603 cash grant program enabled developers to secure direct monetary outlays from the Federal government to cover 30 percent of a project’s qualifying cost. (Greenwire October 14). The criteria for receiving the grant were not onerous and the Treasury Department was prohibited by law from ranking the projects before distributing the funds.

Spanish energy giant Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., which received nearly a billion dollars in cash grants alone, argued the money was crucial to promote jobs and economic opportunity (as if the money spent elsewhere would not have done the same….).

But a preliminary evaluation of the grant outlays published last year found that 61% of the grant money distributed through to March 2010 “likely would have deployed under the PTC [production tax credit] if the grant did not exist.” In many cases, money went to projects that were already under construction, and in some cases already producing electricity.

In an interview with Greenwire, an executive for a foreign subsidiary whose projects received Section 1603 money complained that it was unfair to criticize them for taking the funds because those projects otherwise would have received the production tax credit. He insisted, “The cost to the U.S. government is not materially different.”

The executive is not alone in his thinking. Others in the renewables industry have made the same claim which helps explain why support existed for extending the grant program for another year.

But cash in hand is worth more than discounted subsidies paid out over the course of ten years[1]. And the obvious intrinsic value of cash versus a tax credit in today’s financial circumstances cannot be ignored. But we were prompted to look further into the numbers themselves to test the claim of equivalence. Our analysis revealed that the cash grant program offers significant monetary assistance over the production tax credit while reducing benefit back to the public.

To evaluate the claim of equivalence, we looked at two operating geothermal facilities, five operating onshore wind energy facilities and five approved, but not built wind projects including two offshore applications proposed for New England coastal waters.

Of the twelve projects, the total cash grants that were (or will be) distributed exceeded anticipated production tax credit amounts by over one-half billion dollars. In particular, those projects with greater development costs and/or lower net capacity factors received substantially higher benefits from the cash grant than the current PTC.

To keep the table simple, we did not apply a 7.5% discount rate to the production tax credit. If we had, the monetary differences of the two programs would have been more stark since the cash grant is received at the start of the operational life of a renewable energy project.

Around the time ARRA was passed, researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory provided an academic comparison between the production tax credit and the ITC/cash grant from the perspective of a project developer/owner. The authors claim that the programs are — at least in theory — equivalent but offer a quantitative financial analysis to determine which program might provide the better financial option based on project characteristics. The study looked at total installed project costs ($/kilowatt) and net capacity factor and calculated the difference between the two subsidies.

Tables 2 and 5 from the report show the net value of the ITC/cash grant for wind and geothermal respectively. For wind, the report concluded that “under most capacity factor assumptions, projects that cost $1,500/kW or less are likely to receive more value from the PTC, while projects that cost more than $2,500/kW are likely to be better off with the ITC [cash grants].” For geothermal the report found “the PTC provides more value in nearly all cost and capacity factor combinations examined.”

While we do not doubt the arithmetic used, the range of project costs considered do not reflect the market and leave the reader with a sense that the PTC is an equal or better benefit than the cash grant. For example, wind project costs were assumed to range between $1500/kW and $2500/kW, yet most onshore wind projects built since 2009 are at least $2200/kW and many cost more than $2500/kW. Offshore projects are double at $5000/kW. The authors placed geothermal project costs at under $6000/kW, but typical project costs now start at $6000/kW. Net capacity factors for wind ranged from 25% to 45%, representing generation levels much higher than actual and forecasted for the projects we reviewed, including offshore wind.

There are other qualitative benefits under the cash program which shift the rewards to wind and geothermal developers while laying project debt and risks at the feet of American taxpayers. For example, the production tax credit is dependent on project performance; the cash grant is not. This has the effect of eliminating performance risks for the developer. If a project’s net capacity factor is marginal the public still grants the cash and projects that would normally not meet financial threshold requirements are apt to get built anyway. The Section 1603 program substitutes government payments for private investments after which the government just walks away.

Upfront cash grants have only served to grow the industry’s dependency on federal subsidies and in return, developers have minimal incentive to negotiate lower prices with suppliers and no financial obligation to meet claimed capacity factors. The speed at which the industry became reliant on this new stimulus should not surprise anyone.

However, there are cheaper, much more effective opportunities for achieving clean energy goals. Instead, we have succeeded in adopting a policy that drives up construction and energy costs while at the same time eliminating any incentive to build projects that can meet the highest performance standards. In fact, the more expensive a project is to construct the better for vendors, contractors and developers.

It doesn’t stop there. For intermittent resources, higher construction and operational costs also push up energy prices since there are fewer hours of operation to spread the inflated costs over. Power purchase agreements for onshore wind are at least two times higher than traditional sources of generation. Offshore wind agreements are priced at four times energy market rates.

If Congressional leaders are serious about cutting government waste in the discretionary budget, green energy subsidies deserve another look, beginning with the Section 1603 program. The incentives in place today go in the wrong direction by rewarding higher construction costs, higher energy pricing, and marginal to poor performance.

We wish to thank Mr. William Short for co-authoring our editorial this week. Mr. Short is an independent consultant with a practice that specializes in renewable energy in the New England states.

--------------------
_{[1] The federal production tax credit (PTC) was authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and amended over time. The subsidy provides a 10-year, inflation-adjusted production tax credit for power generated by certain types of renewable energy projects, including wind, biomass, geothermal, and other renewable fuels excluding solar. The inflation-adjusted credit is currently at $21/MWh. To qualify for the PTC, the power must be sold to an unrelated party. The cash grant program under ARRA creates a new subsidy, administered by the Treasury. The program provides grants covering up to 30% of the cost basis of qualified renewable energy projects that are placed in service in 2009-11, or that commence construction during 2009-11 and are placed in service prior to 2013 for wind, 2017 for solar, and 2014 for other qualified technologies. The Treasury is required to make payments within 60 days after an application is received or the project is placed in service, whichever is later.}

California has one of the most aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standards ('RPS') in the country requiring 33% of the electricity sold in the state come from renewables by the year 2020. A ruling this month upped the ante on utilities by mandating that 75% of the energy come from projects located in the State[1]. Despite the enormous pressure on utilities to meet the RPS standards, the State has demonstrated that not every project should be built.

Last year, California utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company ('PG&E') submitted an application to the State's Public Utility Commission seeking approval to acquire, develop, and construct the Manzana Wind Energy facility, a 246 megawatt wind plant proposed in the Tehachapi region of Kern County, CA. A year earlier, Iberdrola Renewables had negotiated to sell the to-be-built project to PG&E for $911 million after years of delays due to transmission issues and the economic downturn. Although PG&E's application requested approval to build the facility on 7,000 acres of land, Iberdrola had obtained local development permits and land leases sufficient for just 189 megawatts. The final project could ultimately be less than that requested, but still represented one of the largest wind projects proposed in the State.

PG&E's application sought State approve to pass on all costs of building the project to ratepayers, as well as any cost overruns due to project delays, regardless the reason, thus leaving PG&E shareholders and Iberdrola free of any financial culpability.

The California Division of Ratepayer Advocates ('DRA') objected to the application from the outset. In testimony filed with the PUC, the Division rightfully complained that "PG&E's ratemaking proposal does not provide any protections for ratepayers in the event the project is delayed or commercial operations are stopped for reasons relating to an actual or protential violation of the federal or California Endangered Species Acts." The project has already experienced construction delays and given existing problems of transmission and serious concerns voiced by federal and state agencies over impacts to the California condor, it was prudent for the DRA to assume costs would rise.

These findings stand in direct contrast to what we've witnessed in orders issued by States in the eastern region of the U.S. most notably the Cape Wind and Deepwater Wind offshore proposals reviewed by Massachusetts and Rhode Island respectively.

This statement in ALJ Ebke's decision provides insight into how projects should be measured:

"In short, although the project would contribute to the California renewable generation goals, given the availability of other lower-priced renewable projects in the competitive market that could impose far less risks on ratepayers, PG&E has failed to demonstrate a need for this project."

We are also encouraged by Ebke's acknowledgement of risk to the federal and state endangered California condor.

The final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared on behalf of Iberdrola insisted that "as turbines are in an area with high visibility, condors could be expected to be able to avoid collisions with wind turbines at the project site" and that "no suitable foraging or nesting habitat were identified at the project as a result of more than 5,000 hours of biological surveys conducted at the site."

ALJ Ebke addresses the seriousness of condor mortality in her decision, but limits the discussion to the risk to ratepayers in the event of project shutdowns or other operational adjustments should there be a loss. We may argue about her emphasis, but the point is clear: the risk to endangered species is very real and the costs/risks of mortality must be borne by the project owner, not the public. The same position is warranted in states across the U.S. where endangered species are at risk from wind development.

Iberdrola has canceled its plans to sell the project and PG&E withdrew its application.

With green energy policies now promoted as economic opportunity and jobs programs, governmental incentives have shifted the bulk of project risks onto rate- and taxpayers. Sixty-five percent or more of a project's monetary costs and risks are presently met through governmental subsidies, including cash grants, DOE loan guarantees, and premiums on energy prices. Whether intended or not, the American public has become the largest buyer/developer/investor of renewable energy while the profits remain privatized. This has created an environment where the likes of PG&E, Iberdrola, turbine suppliers and all other parties involved in a project's construction and O&M are free to inflate prices but share limited, or even no responsibility for meeting performance standards. This is exactly what we can expect for the Cape Wind, Deepwater Wind, and other renewable projects across the country. We can't blame PG&E or Iberdrola for taking advantage of the current system, but let's hope our legislators and regulators look to California for lessons learned.

[1] There are 1,008 in-state power plants (69,709 megawatts installed) now operating in California; renewables represent 13.9% of the mix including 2.4% from wind energy.

But there's one thing we can always count on -- AWEA tantrums, which are getting to be regular occurrences.

Last month we were treated to a week of whining by the American Wind Energy Association after the Obama Administration and GOP leaders released the terms for extending the Bush-era tax cuts. The outburst was triggered after learning the tax agreement negotiated with the White House omitted any reference to extending the Section 1603 tax grant program (ITC), a program introduced in 2009 under ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) and due to sunset end of 2010. The costly stimulus program provides direct cash grants to wind developers in lieu of the production tax credit for up to 30% of their capital costs, no questions asked. Like a recording stuck on replay, AWEA's Denise Bode's shrill warnings about job loss and immediate harm to the industry repeated non-stop until lawmakers relented and sanctioned a 1-year extension.

Last week, AWEA was in a huff again. This time the target was the new governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker.

For more than five years, communities throughout Wisconsin worked within State law to establish local regulations that would protect homeowners and families from improperly sited wind energy projects. Projects under 100 megawatts were subject to these local standards which stood as models for other communities worldwide[1].

The wind industry complained bitterly to then governor Jim Doyle and the State legislature about the new local regulations. With setbacks ranging from 1800 feet to 1 mile, the industry insisted the laws were nothing more than "de facto moratoria" and should be overturned.

In September 2009 the State complied. Senate Bill 185 was signed into law placing all wind energy oversight in the hands of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission ("PSC"). Last year, the Commission voted on siting rules recommended by the advisory Wind Siting Council. The PSC's new siting standards became law on January 1.

Thousands of man-hours invested by communities in research, public hearings, and expert testimony were erased and replaced with some of the weakest standards Windaction.org has reviewed, especially for a State with a long history of turbine complaints filed by its residents. The most egregious of the rules involved setback distances (1250 feet as measured from to the outside wall of a residence or community building), noise limits (50 dBA during daytime hours and 45 dBA during nighttime hours) and shadow flicker (30 hours per year).

Last week, Wisconsin's new governor, Scott Walker entered the debate and like clockwork, AWEA had a fit.

In his proposed regulatory bill, Walker included a provision that increased turbine setbacks to 1800 feet from the property line.

And there's no question the pitch will rise and the rhetoric will become even more extreme in the days ahead. We've seen it before from AWEA -- wild and unsubstantiated claims played over and over until the government blinks. And since the group has had some success with tantrums it's no surprise it doesn't bother to change tactics.

But Ms. Bode may want to check her facts on wind regulations. Setbacks of 1,800 feet are hardly the largest in the United States or worldwide. If projects in Wisconsin are unable to meet this limited standard then it could be the population density in the State is too high for safe wind development. But expecting AWEA to respond in a realistic and professional manner is probably asking too much.

Governor Walker has taken an important first step towards recognizing that the residents of Wisconsin deserve consideration. In an e-mail statement to media outlets in Wisconsin, Walker's spokesman Cullen Werwie said the proposal is aimed at "addressing concerns on wind energy policy that impact homeowners" and that "the proposed legislation, if enacted, will protect private property owners' rights."

Perhaps AWEA's members should remove their wind hats for a moment and at least try to imagine what it means to live in the shadows of the massive towers they're erecting. They might see that eighteen-hundred feet is still much too close.

[1] Larger projects, those greater than 100 megawatts, fell under the jurisdiction of the State's Public Service Commission.

... Installations of wind energy by the end of 3rd quarter 2010 stood at 1,634 megawatts, down 72 percent from 2009, and the lowest level since 2006.

As we all welcomed the new year, wind proponents were quietly looking back and wondering how the breathtaking momentum coming into 2010 could turn to a mere whimper twelve months later.

You may recall that 2009 saw the largest increase in installed wind energy in the United States -- 10,000 megawatts -- bringing the total installed to just under 35,000 megawatts. Wind led the pack for three years straight as the fastest growing source of new electricity generating capacity. The 'green revolution' was underway, green jobs were all the rage, and renewable energy advocates felt their view of an America run on wind and renewables was more real than fantasy. The rapid expansion came about despite a stubborn global recession and some believed wind development might be immune to debt pressures other industries were reeling from. With the Obama administration committed to national polices that would spur further wind development, 2010 was expected to bring even greater expansion.

In December 2009 American Wind Energy Association's CEO, Denise Bode, was spilling over with confidence when she boasted "We're shovel ready, ready to rock and roll, and we can get to 20 percent [of US energy generation] easy, clearly by 2030."

As lead cheerleader for the wind industry, Ms. Bode's enthusiasm is understandable, but there comes a point when reality quiets even the most enthusiastic voices.

By June 2010, the industry was reporting that only 539 megawatts of new wind was installed, one-fifth the capacity added in the same period of 2009 (2,800 MW). By the end of 3rd quarter, total installations of wind energy stood at 1,634 megawatts, down 72 percent from 2009, and the lowest level since 2006 [1].

AWEA's latest press release omitted these number altogether and only proffered simplistic reasons for the decline ranging from Congress' failure to adopt long-term energy policies to coordinated anti-wind campaigns funded by the fossil fuel industry and led by the Wall Street Journal editorial page. But the factors contributing to wind's spectacular fall are much more complex as we address below.

With the Kyoto Protocol set to expire in 2012, the wind industry looked to the Copenhagen Climate Conference (December 2009) for a strong agreement that would commit the U.S. and the rest of the world to shifting away from fossil fuels and establishing a clear mandate for renewable energy. But the Conference was tainted by e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit that raised doubts as to the veracity of existing global warming data. Little was achieved in Copenhagen beyond assurances that participating countries would meet again. By the time the Cancun meetings convened in December 2010, expectations were purposely set low. World leaders again delayed the task of extending the Kyoto pact which created uncertainty in the global carbon markets and frightened investors about the future of renewables. This was one of the reasons for China's Huaneng Renewables Corp. yanking its $1.28 billion initial public offering.

AWEA attributed the explosive growth in 2009 to the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) and the Section 1603 investment tax credit (ITC). Under this new subsidy, developers could recover up to 30 percent of their capital costs from the government as direct cash outlays.

Projects that otherwise made no economic sense became viable with Section 1603 grant money. In other cases, applications were pushed up in order to take advantage of the grants before the program expire at the end of 2010. While the new subsidy helped move wind projects already in the 2008/2009 development pipeline, the drop in new wind capacity in 2010 proved how limited the benefit was.

What really stopped wind in its tracks were low power prices brought on by a contacting economy and surplus natural gas supplies.

With natural gas selling at record lows and supplies expected to be abundant through this decade, developers were under pressure from investors to secure power purchase agreements with utilities. Most power-purchase agreements we've reviewed lock in the purchase price of wind for 15+ years at 2-3 times more than the wholesale price of traditional sources of generation. While above-market purchase agreements may have a stabilizing effect on energy prices for wind, they do so at an excessive price to ratepayers. Utilities were resistant to contract for higher-priced renewables unless required, or incented, by State law.

Come 2010, states were also unwilling to burden consumers with higher rates particularly during difficult economic times. Last June, Kentucky's Public Service Commission disapproved a power purchase agreement signed between Kentucky Power Company and FPL Illinois Wind, LLC involving a 20-year agreement to acquire 100 megawatts produced by FPL's Lee-DeKalb Wind Energy. The Commission cited two reasons for denying approval: 1) Cost - the 4.3 cent per kilowatt hour price was too expensive and 2) Supply - the state already had a sufficient supply of electric generation. Kentucky does not have a renewable energy standard thus no renewables obligation to satisfy. If Kentucky had such a mandate, the Commission may have had little choice but to approve agreement and the price would likely have been at/near double the 4.3 cents.

It's no surprise why the wind industry is anxious for the federal government to adopt a national renewable standard. Such a policy would create a set-aside power market that pays a premium for wind energy regardless of need and eliminates competition from lower-cost, more reliable fuel options.

Looking to offshore wind development will not ease the cost question. In 2010 we learned the true cost of offshore wind development thanks to deliberations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island involving the power purchase agreements for Cape Wind and Deepwater Wind respectively. Both agreements were approved representing the most expensive electricity in the country at 18.7 cents per kilowatt hour (Cape Wind) and 24.4 cents a kilowatt hour (Deepwater Wind). As expected, both approvals were immediately appealed.

Generous state and federal subsidies are skewing the power market such that on-shore wind energy facilities can afford to be located in remote areas despite locational price penalties meant to discourage remote siting. As a result, rather than working to keep deployment of transmission to a minimum, renewable energy facilities are fueling the race to build thousands of miles of new transmission capacity where none was needed before. Wind-related power line construction is now proposed nationwide with costs forecasted well into the tens of billions of dollars. Texas, alone, has approved five-billion dollars to finance transmission to deliver West Texas wind to eastern parts of the state. New England is forecasting between $10 and $25 billion (depending on the plan) to deliver in-region wind to population centers around Boston and Southern Connecticut.

Wind development has already bumped into significant transmission constraints in Texas, the Pacific Northwest and New York. And the battles over siting and cost allocations are already raging in every region of the country including New England, California, Maryland, Texas and Montana.

The cumulative cost and scale of transmission development is far from understood by most regulators especially in areas of the country that have yet to deal with actual applications before them. Commissioner Jeff Davis of the Missouri Public Service Commission -- a state that is facing extensive transmission build out for wind -- published a piece in Transmission and Distribution Magazine that should be required reading for anyone looking at transmission in their State.

Opposition to wind energy proposals intensified in the last few years. By 2010 wind developers who approached communities felt the effects of the growing backlash. People who raised concerns about property values, health effects, the adverse impacts to wildlife etc. were 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 communities and the natural environment was more frequently seen as a false choice borne out of a pie-in-the-sky belief that wind (and solar) could reliably power a substantial segment of this country.

The degradation these enormous sprawling industrial complexes brought to our cultural and visual resources was better understood in 2010 than even two years before as more turbines were pushed through the approval process. Our colleagues in Texas describe West Texas as an alien landscape where one can drive for miles and miles (and miles) and see nothing but wind turbines. The nighttime experience is even more surreal with the blinking red lights.

Many of our readers know about the turbine noise problems in Maine (Mars Hill, Vinalhaven), Illinois (DeKalb County), Wisconsin (Fond du Lac County) and so many other communities across the U.S., Canada, and worldwide. In Oregon, Caithness Energy is not so quietly buying out landowners who worry their homes will become uninhabitable once the giant Shepherd's Flat project goes online. Despite efforts by the industry to discount and discredit Drs. Nina Pierpont and Michael Nissenbaum, their research has been found credible by many.

The impact of turbines on wildlife is also taking a toll on wind development even as the industry resists acknowledging a problem. Last summer, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) suspended indefinitely the issuing of wind permits on public land over concerns the turbines would slaughter protected golden eagles.

In a civil suit filed in the District Court of Maryland, the judge found that the Beech Ridge wind energy facility (West Virginia) was in violation of the Endangered Species Act involving the listed Indiana Bat and ordered the developer cease construction on additional turbines until an incidental take permit could be issued. Direct testimony by the developer's own expert predicted more than 135,000 bats would be killed by the turbines, through a combination of direct impacts with the turbine blades and barotrauma. The settlement agreement filed with the court included a condition that the developer permanently abandon thirty-one turbines nearest the Indiana bat hibernacula (about 25% of the overall project). A second civil law suit raising similar issues was just filed against another project in neighboring Maryland.

Aesthetics and cultural concerns also pose an issue for wind. In December, a federal judge granted the request of the Quechan Indian tribe for a temporary restraining order halting construction on the first massive desert solar project authorized on public lands. If built, the project would be one of the largest solar power facilities in the world. The Court ruled that the BLM failed to adequately consult with the tribe regarding 459 cultural resources in the area. This order will have a chilling impact of other renewable energy proposals including wind development.

There are other stories we are tracking that cover conflicts between turbine development and military readiness and air navigation that will likely place more pressure on the industry in the next year.

Six years ago, wind energy development was a boutique industry and the impacts of its development isolated. As a percentage of overall generation -- about 1.5% -- wind is still a boutique industry. Surprisingly, it took just 36,700 megawatts of installed wind capacity to hit up against significant barriers to entry. And grand, yet untested, goals of supplying up to 20% of the U.S. power market will continue to raise concerns around cost and impacts.

The "hurry up and get it done" mentality behind the renewables push in the United States coupled with the billions in taxpayer money made available to anyone who showed up has left no time for communities, businesses, or governments to consider the conflicts and consequences of their actions. And the wind industry has not helped its image by wrapping itself in the green cloak while doing little to address the harm the turbines cause.

In an editorial from a few years ago, we asked how many towers needed to be erected, how many view sheds and natural/cultural resources marred, how many dollars squandered and how many lives tainted by poor decisions before the process slowed to a point where we could evaluate the consequences.

Perhaps 2010 is a signal that we've reached that point -- or at least we hope so.

The headlines were abuzz last month following Energy Secretary Steven Chu's talk at the National Press Club where he dubbed the global race for clean energy our new "Sputnik Moment" and warned that the U.S. risked falling behind other countries. In this imaginary race, our competition is no longer the Soviet Union, but China, which now leads in the manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels.

The Sputnik analogy is inappropriately applied for obvious reasons. The U.S. space program of the mid-twentieth century was an outgrowth of our military at a time when the United States and Soviet Russia were researching long-range ballistic missiles. The program was a high-cost, high-risk venture that never achieved economies of scale, nor was it intended to. There's no question the race advanced us technologically and the productization of its research benefited generations of Americans. But, contrary to Chu's message, it was not a jobs program, its objectives were not imposed on private industry, and its work did not interfere with the lives of everyday Americans.

In the case of energy, we already have a competent and competitive energy market run by the private sector. Its role in not to innovate, but to keep this country reliably powered at a reasonable price so that others can.

Chu's problem is with the fuels used to power the U.S. and that's what he wants to change.

He doesn't hide his agenda to boost wind energy in the United States and he will do what's necessary to shift the economics in wind's favor, including sponsoring policies meant to drive up the price of fossil fuels and mandate renewables. By teaming up with Interior secretary Ken Salazar, Chu expects to fast-track building hundreds of thousands of megawatts of wind nationwide including the shallow waters just off our eastern seaboard.

The problem for the rest of us is that Chu is an ideologue who, like the department he rules, refuses to publicly acknowledge the cost of his ideas or engage on whether his vision is even realistic.

While Chu delivered his sermon in Washington, ratepayers in the State of Massachusetts experienced a glimpse of his vision in action when the state's Department of Public Utilities (DPU) approved the power purchase agreement between National Grid and Cape Wind at 18.7[1] cents a kilowatt hour -- a price that's three times the cost of in-region natural gas and at least double the cost of other renewable options.

Last week, TransCanada and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts filed separate appeals of the DPU's approval hoping to see the decision overturned.

After nine years of debate, the reality of Cape Wind's high cost is what caught people's attention. And this project represents just a fraction the megawatts Secretaries Chu and Salazar expect to see built. Imagine 115 Cape Wind equivalents -- 15,000 turbines -- located offshore within 10 miles of our east coast, consuming 3,000 square miles of open water. The eastern seaboard from Florida to Maine is only 1,342 miles. The environmental and societal impacts are not even modeled, but Massachusetts offers us some idea of the economic impact.

Dr. Chu told his audience in Washington that his department would continue to "develop and nurture the technologies to help industry go in the right direction." Frankly, his definition of the "right direction" is highly suspect. And his apparent blind embrace of high-price wind schemes suggests he lacks even a fundamental understanding of how his vision will impact state and regional economies -- or maybe he doesn't care. With the Cape Wind experience in mind, perhaps the best thing the Department of Energy can do right now is emulate NASA by focusing on research, not implementation, and letting competition and private enterprise drive the energy market. Only then will the public have some hope of seeing the best product delivered at a realistic price.
________________________________________
[1] The approved 18.7 cent cost does not include 4% paid National Grid as prescribed by state law for agreeing to be a party to the contract or the 3.5% yearly escalator. See our editorial on the cost.

The pressure is on to finalize the proposed tax bill before Congress that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans. Last minute amendments are expected in order to garner support among lawmakers who oppose the initial agreement forged between the White House and key Republicans. The worry now is whether the bill will become a vehicle for piling on more spending as the lame duck session finishes up.

AWEA and the wind industry are in a huff over the possibility that a subsidy first introduced as part of the stimulus plan (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) will be allowed to expired on December 31.

They're asking that the 1603 tax grant money (ITC), due to sunset this year, receive a one-year extension. If extended, this will add $3 billion to the deficit in 2011 alone, according to congressional tax estimators, on top of the billions already pledged in the form of production tax credits granted operating wind facilities.

Earlier this week, AWEA complained that 15,000 wind-related jobs were at risk if the ITC expired but by today upped the ante to 25% of U.S. wind-related jobs, about 20,000 jobs. As is typical, the wind lobby offered no substantiation for its figures but we know that most are temporary construction positions.

Before Congress caves to these complaints, legislators should revisit the articles from this fall that discussed how billions in grant money were squandered on projects that would likely have been built without federal funding. A preliminary evaluation of the ITC grant outlays found that 61% of the grant money distributed through to March 2010 "likely would have deployed under the PTC [production tax credit] if the grant did not exist." In many cases, money went to projects that were already under construction and, in others the wind facilities were already producing electricity.

Spanish energy giant Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., alone, received nearly a billion in cash grants.

After decades of federal subsidies flowing into big wind's coffers, the industry's appetite has grown to a point where it cannot be sustained. The upfront cash grants have only served to grow that dependency and in return, developers have no incentive to negotiate lower prices with suppliers and no financial obligation to meet claimed capacity factors.

The speed at which the industry became reliant on this new stimulus stands out and should raise a red flag for all of us -- especially our legislators.

If you agree, please take the time today to e-mail or fax members of your Congressional delegation and ask that they let the 1603 grant program expire. There are cheaper, much more effective opportunities for achieving clean energy goals without coddling the wind industry -- an industry that peddles a low-value electricity product and which, after decades of public handouts, has yet to show it can survive on its own.

Last month, the State of Massachusetts approved the most expensive power purchase agreement in the country -- a 15-year contract negotiated between Cape Wind and National Grid to sell one-half the project's 468 megawatts at 18.7 cents per kilowatt hour.

National Grid understood from the outset that the sticker shock of selling Cape Wind's energy on monthly electric bills would be enough to send some customers, particularly large industrial and commercial users, shopping for alternative, low-cost energy suppliers. To buffer the impact, the State approved allocating the entire cost of the project to the delivery side of the electricity bill. By spreading the cost to as many customers as possible the price shock to any one customer would be less, or at least that was the thinking.

The population of Massachusetts is approximately 6.5 million people; National Grid's customers number in the millions. There is plenty of opportunity to spread the pain. But what if a similar proposal were presented to a State like Vermont with a tenth the population?

The State of Vermont is served by roughly twenty-one utilities the largest two being Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS) and Green Mountain Power (GMP) which together represent 250,000 customers or 70 percent of the customer base. Most of the 5 million megawatt-hours of electricity sold by CVPS and GMP is purchased through low-cost long-term agreements with Vermont Yankee, an in-state nuclear facility, and Canada's Hydro Quebec whose contract was just renewed. Vermont is ranked as having one of the lowest consumptions of electricity, its electric sector produces the lowest carbon emissions in the country, and the State currently boasts the lowest electricity rates in New England.

Vermont Yankee's operating license is set to expire in 2012. Public opposition to nuclear power coupled with a recent vote by Vermont's legislature to not support the plant's relicensing has created uncertainty about the plant's future. CVPS and GMP have each signaled privately that they are looking for replacement power, including renewables and wind.

In October, the utilities each signed separate 20-year power purchase agreements to acquire a total of 85% of the energy produced by Noble Environmental's 99 megawatt wind facility to be built in neighboring New Hampshire. While no prices were disclosed publicly, the president of Noble told regulators this spring that he was looking at a wholesale price of 9-11 cents per kwh. This price represents 6+ cents higher than Vermont Yankee's contracted rates, 4-5+ cents above in-region natural gas rates, and 3+ cents higher than the recently renewed contract with Hydro Quebec.

Vermont's Public Service Board (PSB) approved three wind energy projects to be built in the State since 2007: Sheffield Wind at 40 MW, Deerfield Wind at 30 MW, and Georgia Mountain Community Wind at 12 MW. A fourth project now under review will add another 63 MW bringing the total to about 230 MW -- about the same number of megawatts under contract between Cape Wind and National Grid!

For each of the in-state wind projects, Vermont's PSB included wording similar to the below which was incorporated into the Deerfield Wind order:

So let's be clear: With onshore wind selling at 9-11 cents per kwh in New England, the State is forcing the high cost of wind on its ratepayers and calling it an economic benefit? It may be a benefit, but the ratepayers are not the ones benefiting. For them, it's more like an energy tax.

In the Cape Wind case, National Grid argued, and Massachusetts agreed, that in order to reduce the price shock of the project's 230 megawatts on its customers, the cost needed to be spread to as many ratepayers as possible.

For Vermont, spreading 230 megawatts of wind across a much smaller customer base -- even at half the price per kwh of Cape Wind -- will be a shock to State's economy. Since none of the 230 megawatts has been built yet, the public has not felt the impact, but that will change in the next 3-4 years when the projects come online. Still, larger businesses in Vermont are paying attention now. Vermont opted not to adopt deregulation, so larger users cannot shop for competitive energy suppliers. Their only choice is to pay the higher electric rates or leave the State.

David O'Brien, Commissioner of Vermont's Department of Public Service, is well aware of the economic impacts of above market electricity prices on the State. Earlier this year, his department published the results of a study to evaluate the consequences of adding just 50 megawatts of renewable energy at prices that were higher than market based alternatives. The report concluded that "above-market energy costs due to higher electricity prices would have the deleterious effects of "reshuffling consumer spending and increasing the cost of production for Vermont businesses" and that "increased costs for households and employers would reduce the positive employment impacts of renewable energy capital investment and the annual repair and maintenance activities".

Remarkably, the State's legislature, which has enacted aggressive policies promoting wind energy, appears to lack even a fundamental understanding of how its policies will impact Vermont's economy. The same holds for the State's PSB which has responsibility for approving energy projects and rate cases. With project approvals conditioned on the energy being sold to in-state utilities, can the State change its mind once the higher costs are realized? Unlikely.

It's time for Vermonters to stand up now and demand a realistic accounting of pending energy costs and benefits.

Windaction is closely tracking several important stories involving wind energy development that we will be reporting on in more depth in the coming weeks. Highlights of two of these stories are detailed below.

This week, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) approved the power purchase agreement (PPA) negotiated between Cape Wind and utility giant National Grid. The agreement has Grid purchasing half the energy generated by the project for 18.7 cents a kilowatt hour -- a price that's three times the cost of natural gas in the region and at/or nearly double the cost of other renewable options. But the numbers are far worse than the press is reporting. The approved 18.7 cent cost does not include the 4% paid National Grid for agreeing to buy renewable energy per the Massachusetts Green Communities Act. Added in, the price comes to 19.4 cents per kilowatt hour. The agreement also includes a 3.5% yearly escalator. After the first year of operation, the cost will rise to 20.1 cents per kilowatt; each year thereafter the cost increases 3.5% until it reaches 31.4 cents per kilowatt in 2027, the last year of the 15-year contract. If any anticipated federal subsidies expire or decrease, the price goes even higher.

The DPU acknowledged that the project will cost ratepayers with a National Grid meter between $420 million and $695 million above market prices over 15 years -- a figure that we believe to be grossly understated.

The power purchase agreement approved by the DPU allocates the entire cost of the project to the delivery side of the electricity bill, and NOT the energy side where it belongs.

Since Massachusetts is a deregulated state, most large industrial and commercial users purchase their energy from competitive suppliers while still paying their utility any delivery charges to cover use of the transmission lines. By applying the project's energy cost as a delivery charge, all consumers in Grid's service territory will be hit with the bill regardless of their energy supplier. This cost allocation flies in the face of electricity deregulation which was adopted to encourage competition. It's no wonder Walmart and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) objected to the contract, and why this approval will be appealed.

National Grid took this unusual action for one reason: to spread the cost to as many ratepayers as possible. According to National Grid general counsel Ron Gerwatowski, if the cost only applied to ratepayers who purchase their energy from Grid, "everybody would leave the standard offer and we'd have nobody to recover the costs." In other words, the price shock would be enough for residents and businesses to either leave Grid's service area or find an energy supplier that didn't include costly wind in its energy portfolio.

Walmart will likely not leave Massachusetts, but it may have no choice but to reduce its staff and/or raise prices to cover Cape Wind's price tag. The same goes for members of AIM. Nothing in the DPU's public comments suggests the State considered the impact this agreement would have on the State's economy and jobs outlook.

Data supporting the American Wind Energy Association's employment claims are spongy at best.

In 2007, AWEA touted that the industry represented 50,000 employees in the U.S., a figure that jumped to 85,000 in 2008. Twenty thousand of these jobs were in manufacturing but according to AWEA CEO, Denise Bode, this dropped by 1500-2000 jobs in 2009 due to recession-related plant closings and layoffs. However, the total 85,000 figure did not change owing to a corresponding increase in construction and maintenance activity.

But the 20,000 person number appears suspect. According to the 2010 US Trade Commission report on turbine manufacturing trends (table, page 8) there are 17 existing manufacturing facilities for blades, nacelles, and other turbine components in the United States. Assuming 500 employees on average for each of these 17 plants, there are 8,500 people employed in the manufacturing of turbine components. [1]

Even if we allow AWEA 18,500 jobs in manufacturing (assumes 1500 jobs lost in 2009) and using Duke Energy's number of 0.1 jobs per megawatt to operate a wind energy facility, total U.S. jobs dedicated to the manufacturing and operation come to only 22,100 (18,500 manufacturing jobs plus 3,600 operation jobs on 36,000 megawatts of installed wind). This means that over 60,000 of the jobs cited by AWEA are involved in construction and transport.

Since construction jobs are not permanent the industry would need to meet peak levels of development year after year just to maintain the 85,000 jobs it now touts. This is clearly not sustainable. We will be looking closely at the jobs numbers for 2010 and reconciling this figure with the amount in stimulus monies lavished on projects. Given recent forecasts that show a significant drop in megawatts installed this year, we expect to see a drop in the jobs count.

[1] Average employment figure per plant may be much lower based on table 5, page 17 of this report which cites 2797 employed for 8 plants or 350 employees on average per plant.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) is on a mission to keep its members fat and happy as they bloat up at the public trough. The goals are simple:

1) Create a set-aside power market that pays a premium for wind energy and eliminates competition from lower-cost, more reliable fuel options;

2) Encourage policies that pave the way for wind-related transmission development at the expense of rate- and taxpayers; and

3) Make permanent the free-flow of public subsidies for renewables and shield the funding spigot from changing political and economic tides.

In the last two years, AWEA's had some success. On the power market front, more than half the States have RPS programs mandating that a percentage of their electricity needs be met with renewable energy. Senator Bingham (D-NM) introduced a bill seeking the same non-compete set-aside for the entire country that he hopes will be acted on during the lame-duck session. On transmission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that considers amending transmission planning and cost allocation processes to facilitate broader public policy goals -- i.e. a national grid system to deliver wind power. This deviates from current rules that look mainly at grid reliability. And Obama's $787 billion stimulus passed in February 2009 authorized billions be spent on renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives which kept the wind industry from collapsing when the big investment banks needed bailing out.

The debates surrounding a national RPS policy and FERC's transmission priorities are not settled and will likely come down to cost. But the stimulus programs that spent lavishly on pet wind projects -- while a success for AWEA members -- are proving to be a waste for the public.

Under the stimulus, we saw the investment tax credit (ITC), which was popular back in the 1980's, brought back again. The ITC enables developers to obtain direct cash outlays from the government for up to 30 percent of their costs. Any company or person who qualifies and applies for the money can get a grant. (Greenwire October 14), The qualification criteria are not onerous, the grant amounts are unlimited, and the Treasury Department which doles out the cash is prohibited by law from ranking the projects.

Between direct cash payouts, federal loan guarantees, existing state tax credits and State RPS policies that assure premiums for renewable energy, wind developers can't fail.

Spanish energy giant Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., who received nearly a billion in cash grants alone, argues the money helped create more development which led to jobs and economic opportunity but according to Gilbert Metcalf, a Tufts University professor who teaches energy economics and tax policy: "Any time you use subsidies to encourage new investment, you're always going to end up giving money to people who would have done the project anyway." (Greenwire October 14) And that appears to be exactly what happened.

A preliminary evaluation of the ITC grant outlays published earlier this year by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that 61% of the grant money distributed through to March 2010 "likely would have deployed under the PTC [production tax credit] if the grant did not exist." In many cases, money went to projects that were already under construction and, in others the wind facilities were already producing electricity.

So what did the public receive in return for all the money spent? High risk and overpriced carbon reduction benefits.

That's according to an October 25 White House memo penned by chief economic aide Larry Summers and senior policy aides Carol Browner and Ron Klain. The memo uses the 845-megawatt Shepherds Flat wind energy facility in Oregon to illustrate the problem. Shepherds Flat will be the largest wind plant in the country consisting of 338 GE wind turbines. According to Summers, the $1.2 billion in governmental subsidies covered 65% of the cost and risk for the project while its equity sponsors incurred only about 11% with an estimated return on equity of 30%. That's a hefty return for a project where the American public is absorbing the bulk of the risk.

Summers makes clear in the memo that the project would likely have "moved without the loan guarantee" since the "economics are favorable for wind investment given the tax credits and state renewable energy standards". Examining the carbon reduction benefits, the memo concludes that the reductions "would have to be valued at nearly $130 per ton CO2 for the climate benefits to equal the subsidies (more than 6 times the primary estimate used by the government in evaluating rules)".

The Wall Street Journal published an informative editorial on the memo that's well-worth reading.

The White House memo enumerates several options for reining in the free spending and shifting risk back to developers, but frankly, tweaks made at this level are misguided.

It's time for Capitol Hill to take a hard look at the renewables feeding frenzy underway and adopt policies that better suit the public's needs. For starters, let the funding programs set to expire this year do just that -- expire! Remaining programs (i.e. PTC) should be adjusted to reward projects that can deliver energy according to time of day or seasonal demand requirements and that are built close to load centers.

There are cheaper, much more effective opportunities for achieving clean energy goals without coddling the wind industry -- an industry that peddles a low-value electricity product and which, after decades of public handouts, has yet to show it can survive on its own.

This week, we were treated to the Department of Energy's latest advocacy on wind energy: the release of a new report proclaiming the benefits and feasibility of developing wind power along the coastal waters of the United States. The report adds little to the claims touted in DOE's "20% Wind Power by 2030" published in 2008 but this time the focus is on 54,000 megawatts of wind off our eastern seaboard, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. Water depths on the Pacific Coast, according to the DOE, still pose a "technology challenge". [1]

Currently, there are no operating offshore wind plants anywhere in the country. The controversial Cape Wind (130 turbines) project proposed nearly ten years ago is still under fire. Wealthy property owners on Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard were joined by Wal-Mart, the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, and wind developer TransCanada among others in protesting the no-compete, high-priced power purchase agreement under review by the State of Massachusetts. In Rhode Island, approval of Deepwater Wind's pilot project is under appeal by the state's Attorney General and others over alleged illegalities by the legislature in pushing the project through. Delaware's Bluewater Wind project is in limbo due to poor economics and growing public opposition to expensive renewable energy. A fight sparked in Michigan over a 1000 megawatt wind facility in Lake Michigan packed hearing rooms with angry protests. And the same response came from communities along northern New York after NYPA sought bids to build turbines in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie.

None of these projects, in total, match the scale and cost of what DOE claims can be built. And frankly, we question the reality of 54,000 megawatts of offshore wind. This would mean 115 projects equivalent in size to Cape Wind's 468 MW -- 15,000 turbines -- located within 10 miles of our coastlines and spanning 3,000 square miles of open water. The eastern seaboard from Florida to Maine is only 1,342 miles.

Obvious environmental and visual impacts are only a part of the issue. Problems with the technology and the economics of offshore wind are very real.

In 2005, all eighty of the Vestas V90 turbines at Denmark's offshore Horns Rev facility had to be removed and repaired owing to the effect of salty water and air on the generators and gearboxes. The problem appeared after only two years of operation. A similar repair was reported on thirty Vestas turbines off the UK coast requiring a change of rotor bearings.

Turbine failures offshore are harder to repair and are often addressed on an aggregated basis. It's not unusual to wait as long as three months before turbines are fixed, leading to lower equipment availability. While wind conditions, in theory, are better for energy generation, one report claims the tough environment could mean turbines are only able to transfer power for 160 days of the year.

Earlier this year, another issue was reported having to do with the underwater foundations holding the turbines in place. Hundreds of European offshore wind turbines were found to have a design fault that caused the towers to slide on their bases. The problem was universal and not specific to any one project or turbine manufacturer.

The Cape Wind project is expected to cost $2.5 billion for 468 megawatts -- an enormous expense for any individual power plant, especially one expected to deliver only 39% of the time with no guarantees the generation will arrive when most needed. With high upfront costs and fewer hours to spread the cost over, offshore wind is not economically viable without significant public support, higher electricity rates, and severe constraints imposed on more reliable sources of generation.

The DOE admits its analyses are preliminary but it's the assumptions that worry us. The report includes this paragraph:

The authors insist that such an undertaking will revitalize our manufacturing sector and create more than 43,000 permanent, well-paid technical jobs, but DOE ignores the negative economic effects.

Earlier this year, Vermont's Department of Public Service published a report on the economic consequences of setting mandatory prices for only 50 MW of renewable energy technologies.

While the State's analysis found the feed in tariff program would increase Vermont capital investment and create jobs, it also found that other sectors would suffer long term net job losses. In essence jobs would be created in one sector of the Vermont economy at the expense others.

The model also showed that above-market energy costs due to higher electricity prices would have the deleterious effects of "reshuffling consumer spending and increasing the cost of production for Vermont businesses" and that "increased costs for households and employers would reduce the positive employment impacts of renewable energy capital investment and the annual repair and maintenance activities". This issue was also highlighted in testimony submitted on the Cape Wind and Deepwater Wind projects.

The DOE report does not bother to model the impact of higher energy costs on the overall economy.

As for obstacles to development cited in DOE's report, the authors demonstrate how little they've discussed their ideas with real people in this country.

On visual effects, the authors acknowledge that coastal dwellers might object to the turbines and recommend added study to understand coastal communities and their ability to accept changes to the seascape. Regarding property values, DOE relies on the poorly defined Hoen/Wiser study to claim no impact but admit more work is needed for offshore properties. On tourism, they concede that evidence is ambiguous but still claim, "actual effects appear to be minimal". And finally, on marine safety they admit collisions may pose a potentially significant risk to the marine environment or to human safety but offer cold comfort that no incidents have occurred to date.

There have been recent cries for a national energy policy in the United States, but public policy requires credible analysis with an objective eye on reality. If the best DOE has to offer is an advocacy report steeped in wishful thinking, then perhaps for now our better approach would be no policy at all.

[1] About 950 wind turbines are now sited off the coasts of Europe and China. Half of these turbines were erected in 2009 and 2010.

This week, utility giant National Grid teamed up with Nantucket High School in Massachusetts to erect a 100 kilowatt wind turbine on school property. The 158-foot turbine [1] is located immediately adjacent to the school's football and baseball fields and by the road that runs behind the school.

According to the Nantucket Independent, the high school originally proposed locating the tower immediately west of the Newtown Cemetery to provide for an adequate "fall zone" but the plan changed after concerns were raised about the visual impact of the tower on the historic burial ground. The turbine was moved to its present location.

This aerial image of the school sports fields shows a circle with a radius of approximately 50 feet to denote the location of the turbine.

Apparently, the school reconsidered the need for a safety zone which would have to be at least four times that size.

Perhaps they were unaware of the three turbine collapses in the Northeast alone since September 2008.

In one of these instances, the turbine detached at its base and fell full-length in a field. In another, the turbine malfunctioned and went into over speed. When a spinning blade hit the tower the turbine exploded and fell to the ground. Firefighters were called out to extinguish flames caused by the collapse.

Catastrophic failures are more common than the public has been led to believe. In 2009, three small-scale turbines at the Perkins High School in Ohio sent blades flying after a wind gust apparently caused a blade to flex and hit the support pole. Earlier this year, two turbines sited on Cape Cod in Massachusetts blew apart in high wind conditions. Many more incidences of fire, blade throw, and collapse have been documented.

GE Energy explains that we do not have a good understanding of what happens to turbines when operating in extreme wind conditions. If GE is recommending caution it would be prudent to understand the risks other manufacturers are citing. The coastal areas of New England are well known for severe wind and weather conditions.

Ice shedding is a separate but real issue. According to GE Energy's Wind Application Engineering Group, wind energy siting in cold climates, at a minimum, should be based on the following formula for calculating a safe distance: 1.5 * (hub height + rotor diameter). Using this formula, the Nantucket high turbine could fling ice nearly 300-feet away, well into areas where students play and gather. This e-mail characterizing ice-shed at the Searsburg, Vermont wind facility provides some insight into the problem. (Note: the turbines at Searsburg are 198-feet tall).

It's hard to imagine the parents whose teenagers attend Nantucket High School were aware of the risks of siting a turbine so close to populated areas. And the question of safety must have been just a fleeting thought for school officials since they agreed to the present location. Unfortunately, the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust (now part of Massachusetts Clean Energy Center), who partially funded the project, is silent on the safety question.

When Windaction.org asked about setbacks in reference to the Newburyport, MA turbine, also funded by the Trust and sited close to homes, we were informed by e-mail that: "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."

There is 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. It surprises us that the insurance industry has not responded to the heightened risks. Hopefully, we will not see persons injured, or worse, before those making the decisions start taking the risks seriously.

[1] The NHS turbine has a hub height of 134 feet and a blade length of 24 feet, which totals 158 feet to the top of the blade when in a vertical position.

Senate Jeff Bingaman, chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, signaled he's determined to see a national renewable portfolio standard ("RPS") passed in the Senate before the members recess for the fall campaign season. Joined by majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and twenty other co-sponsors including three Republicans: Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Susan Collins of Maine and John Ensign of Nevada, Bingaman introduced new RPS legislation that will require retail suppliers of electricity to secure a percentage of their generation from renewable energy resources.

Bingaman's apparent explanation for pushing the bill now, according to a press announcement this week, is hardly convincing: "I think that the votes are present in the Senate to pass a renewable electricity standard. I think that they are present in the House. I think that we need to get on with figuring out what we can pass and move forward."

Is that the best he can muster to justify a mandate for purchasing renewable energy and setting aside 15% of the electricity market solely for wind, solar, and other preferred forms of generation?

Perhaps he's relying on AWEA's Denise Bode to make his case with her boast that a national RPS "is the single most important thing we can do to grow jobs here in the United States and keep 85,000 American wind energy workers on the job." Denise must have missed the latest press on green jobs that explained, again, how the hype surrounding green projects is not matching reality. What's missing entirely in the discussion is how much a 15% RPS will cost the American ratepayers and how many jobs in every other sector in the country will be lost due to higher energy rates.

More than half of the U.S. States has already adopted RPS legislation in the last decade and a number of these programs are up for review to determine whether their promises of job growth and low impact on electricity rates have been realized. Wouldn't it be prudent to understand the costs and benefits of these programs before launching into new, farther reaching mandates?

According to a March 2007 study released by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, adoption of State RPS policies hinged on state-sponsored studies that projected the costs and benefits of programs. However, 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.

*The bulk of the renewable generation is expected to be satisfied by wind according to the report.

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."

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."

There are other practical considerations of a national RPS that suggest a 15% mandate will have serious negative consequences.

A national RPS is a bad idea for three reasons. First, "renewable" and "low greenhouse gas emissions" are not synonyms; there are several other practical and often less expensive ways to generate electricity with low CO2 emissions. Second, renewable sources such as wind, geothermal, and solar are located far from where most people live. This means that huge numbers of unpopular and expensive transmission lines would have to be built to get the power to where it could be used. Third, since we doubt that all the needed transmission lines would be built, a national RPS without sufficient transmission would force a city such as Atlanta to buy renewable credits, essentially bribing rural states such as North Dakota to use their wind power locally. However, the abundant renewable resources and low population in these areas mean that supply could exceed local demand. Although the grid can handle 20% of its power coming from an intermittent source such as wind, it is well beyond the state of the art to handle 50% or more in one area. At that percentage, supply disruptions become much more likely, and the highly interconnected electricity grid is subject to cascading blackouts when there is a disturbance, even in a remote area.

Renewable energy sources are a key part of the nation's future, but wishful thinking does not provide an adequate foundation for public policy. The national RPS ...would be expensive and difficult to attain; it could cause a backlash that might doom renewable energy even in the areas where it is abundant and economical.

As it stands, subsidies for wind dwarf most fuel types at $23.37 MWh not including state and local tax breaks and subsidies for project owners, tax- and ratepayer funded transmission costs, and other public perks thrown at the industry. It's time to step back and consider what's best for us as a Country and demand that Congress stop picking favorites and stand behind a free energy market where companies succeed by building cheaper, better products than competitors. Saying NO to a national RPS would be an important first step.

Last November, the island community of Vinalhaven Maine celebrated the commissioning of the Fox Islands community wind energy facility, a 3-turbine project with an installed capacity of 4.5 megawatts. The $14.5 million project was overwhelmingly supported by residents on the island. But before the celebratory speeches concluded, those living within a mile of the facility made it clear the pulsating noise reverberating in- and outside their homes was unbearable.

A formal evaluation of noise levels was initiated and this week the Maine Department of Environmental Protection received a report from its third-party noise consultant, Warren Brown of EnRad. The conclusions and recommendations of Brown's e-mail to the Department are pasted below. (emphasis added) The full report and accompanying documents can be accessed here.

The families impacted by the noise issued this press release explaining their efforts in getting to this point.

Windaction.org is hopeful the State of Maine will act swiftly in requiring Vinalhaven's project operate within the limits of State law. Maine's nighttime noise limit for quiet zones is 45 dBA. However, the 45 dBA is still too high according to the World Health Organization (WHO). In its revised Night Noise Guidelines released last fall, the WHO stated:

For communities facing proposed wind projects in their area, we recommend their residents and decision makers heed the solemn advice of Sally Wylie of Vinalhaven who wrote:

Last week, Windaction.org looked at some of the adverse effects of wind energy development on traditional farming in the State of Illinois. In this second essay we explore the relationship between wind developers and farmers and test the concept that wind "farming" is helping farmers stay in business.

It's important to know that Illinois' landowners and the farmers who work the land are not always the same. Illinois is second only to Connecticut for the highest number of absentee landowners (58.6%) representing 64.48% of the acres. While farmers own some land, most need to cash rent or share crop additional land to make their operations viable.

Absentee landownership in Illinois, in large part, is the reason for the prevalence of wind energy development in the state. Most properties leased for wind development are owned by out-of-area landowners who have become disconnected from the land.

A farmer in Illinois explained it to us this way: Imagine you are the child or grandchild of a deceased farmer. After college, you moved to the city to enjoy a prosperous career but still owned a large tract of family farm ground located hundreds, or perhaps thousands of miles from where you now live. Chances are you continued the relationship your father had with his share-cropping tenant or family of tenants but with years having passed and the tenant farmer retired, your attorney or farm manager now advises that you change to a high cash rental agreement.

Share-crop tenant farmers seek out and enjoy longer term relationships with their landowners. In these arrangements, landowners share in the operating decisions of the farm and hold a vested interest in the long-term productivity of the land since their income is derived from a share of the farm's gross earnings. Any activity that would hinder the long-term productivity and environmental sustainability of the land could cause a decline in the resource's asset value.

Cash renters, on the other hand, offer fixed payments to the landowner for use of the land, buildings and other facilities. These arrangements are less risk for the landowner, the bookkeeping is much easier, and the only expenses incurred are limited to property tax and liability insurance. Occasionally the owner may need to improve the soil by adding lime but only if specified in the rental agreement. A good landlord would pay to keep the drainage system functioning but not always.

It's not unusual for cash renters to come from outside the area and to have limited experience with the soil types. They may be farming thousands of acres and barely know the condition of their crops until they return in late summer and fall for the harvest. Farmers tell Windaction.org that there's a striking visual difference between farms managed by local tenant farmers and those worked by cash renters.

Tenant farmers have no rights when a wind lease is negotiated. If they complain about having to farm around the turbines, damaged drainage tiles or low crop yields due to soil compaction they risk losing their farms altogether. Competition for rentable farmland is fierce, and absentee landowners may view their tenant farmers as more trouble than they're worth, so tenants learn to be silent.

While absentee landowners may view cash rents and wind leases as equal revenue opportunities, farming communities built around the productivity of the land are feeling the adverse effect of this shortsighted approach to farmland management. Farmers Supporting Independent Agriculture (FSIA) argues that productive farmland is a key natural resource in the State and any policy decisions that threaten its productivity also jeopardize Illinois' agriculture communities.

The idea that "wind farming" is helping farmers to keep and maintain their farms is not representative of what's happening in Illinois. Yes, some operators may have overextended their borrowing at local banks which helps explain why lenders are supportive of the wind projects. However, those who have leveraged their operations conservatively tell Windaction.org that they're not interested in the "wind fall". One Illinois farmer wrote us: "The lease payments are not sufficient compensation for the rights we are asked to forfeit."

Windaction.org wishes to thank the Illinois farmers and other agriculture professionals who took the time to contribute to this piece.

We're frequently reminded that wind energy and agriculture are compatible land uses. Farmers who lease sections of their crop land for wind development can continue working the soil right up to the towers and earn extra revenue for farming expenses. A win-win business opportunity, right? Not so fast. In this two-part series (part 2 here), Windaction.org examines the wind-farming relationship in the State of Illinois and tests the claim that the two are a good fit. As with so many topics involving wind energy, there is another story behind the story.

Back in 2007, Windaction.org posted a document entitled "What have I done?" The piece, written by Don Bangart of Chilton, Wisconsin, was based on a two- hour interview he conducted with a farmer in Northeast Fond du Lac County who agreed to lease a portion of his land for wind development. In the interview, the landowner makes several observations including this about how his land was managed:

Illinois has some of the best farming soil in the world with McLean County, Illinois rated #1 for the darkest, blackest most productive soil in the world.

But after extensive land moving and excavation needed to build roads and erect the turbines, farmers tell Windaction.org that the ground is never the same afterward. The fertile soil around the towers is mixed with subsurface clay and compacted resulting in lower crop yields. Depending on the lease terms, developers may compensate landowners for crop reductions but payments are often not passed on to tenant farmers who suffer the actual losses.

Since compaction is assumed to be a construction-related impact, crop-loss payments are often time-limited up to five years. However, every time turbines require maintenance, the massive crane is brought back to the site making compaction an ongoing concern throughout the life of the project. And it's not limited to existing roads or turbine pads. Turbine maintenance crews prefer to crawl across fields -- flattening crops and ground -- for quicker access to turbines needing service.

If drainage tiles are cut or damaged during construction, you're apt to see farmers working around ponds that were previously nonexistent. Or worse, adjacent fields not under lease can flood. With competition for rentable farmland so fierce, local tenant farmers risk losing their farms if they complain.

Soil compaction and drainage issues are serious concerns, but some might argue their effects are localized, and thus manageable. But that cannot be said about the impact of wind turbines on aerial spraying -- a subject that gets very little exposure.

The ability to secure aerial spraying services is limited in areas where turbines are standing.

As more and more towers go up, less and less fields can be sprayed. Experienced pilots can feel the wake effect of the towers from several miles away. Such turbulence is dangerous to fly through.

Helicopters may be recommended because they travel at slower speeds and can work in more confined spaces but they can't carry the same loads meaning more trips at higher costs. There are far fewer helicopters in the State (under 10 in total) so timely availability is a critical issue.

Some farmers try ground applicators but aircraft can cover crops faster and more efficiently than any ground rig. In cases of Asian soybean rust, farmers could experience an 80-100% yield loss if not treated within a week. Aphids or spiders mites can destroy a field within days. If infestations occur during wet years ground equipment on wet soil will cause compaction or ruts that lead to erosion.

Illinois County Boards tasked with approving new wind development appear willing to accept that aerial applications are still possible but with more difficulty and at a higher cost (most spray policies charge premiums up to 50% above standard costs on fields within a mile of the towers, whether a participating landowner or not). What they do not seem to realize is that as more wind farms are permitted, the cumulative effect will lead to fewer and fewer fields that can be sprayed, making total crop loss a real possibility.

Since crop insurance will not cover the farmer in cases of insects or plant disease where damage is "due to insufficient or improper application of pest control measures or disease control measures", crop loss could lead to significant financial losses for farmers.

Illinois has nearly 1900 megawatts of wind turbines installed across thousands of acres of farm land and thousands more slated for development. Absentee landowners may be gaining financially from the development, but the idea that "wind farming" is a compatible agriculture use is more myth than reality in Illinois.

Special thanks to Rick Reed, president of IAAA, who provided valuable information on aerial spraying.

This week, Wisconsin's Wind Siting Council submitted its final recommendations for the proper siting of wind energy facilities to the Public Service Commission. The standards promoted by the Council are some of the weakest Windaction.org has reviewed, especially for a State with a history of turbine complaints reported by its residents.

For more than five years now, communities throughout Wisconsin worked within State law to establish local regulations that would protect their residents from improperly sited wind energy projects. Different study committees statewide collected volumes of evidence on the effects of smaller[1] renewable energy projects. New local laws were passed that established larger setbacks and more comprehensive sound-level limits. Wisconsin's local laws stood as models for other communities worldwide.

But Wisconsin State legislators viewed these efforts as nothing more than delay tactics and moved to nullify local jurisdiction on any size projects. In September 2009[2], the legislature passed Senate Bill 185 placing all wind energy oversight in the hands of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission ("PSC"), thus negating the local regulations. Thousands of man-hours invested by communities were potentially erased, but for one opportunity: The bill required that an advisory panel of wind developers, local government officials, environmentalists and landowners be formed to guide and advise the Commission on proper siting standards. Commission spokesman Tim LeMonds insisted in the press that the standards would be based on science.

Since March, the Council heard and debated evidence submitted on the impacts of existing turbine facilities on people and their animals. Expert testimony provided by Epidemiologist Carl V. Phillips concluded "There is ample scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbines cause serious health problems for some people living nearby. ...The reports that claim that there is no evidence of health effects are based on a very simplistic understanding of epidemiology and self-serving definitions of what does not count as evidence. Though those reports probably seem convincing prima facie, they do not represent proper scientific reasoning, and in some cases the conclusions of those reports do not even match their own analysis."

Acoustics and noise control expert Richard D. Horonjeff, explained how and why turbine noise differs from other types of noises within a community and Dr. Herbert S. Coussons, a physician, laid out the medical reasons why the Council should be conservative in determining setback distances from where people live, work, and attend school.

The final recommendations of the Council were released this week, and it's not good.

The recommended guidelines deviated little from the conditions placed on the Glacial Hills wind project approved by the PSC earlier this year. Setback distances from property lines were recommended to be 1.1x the total height of the tower measured from any property line, residence, or occupied community building, noise limits were set at 50 db(a) during the day and 45 db(a) at night, shadow flicker permitted up to a whopping 40 hours in the year and no property value protection plan.

Only minimum standards on sound and shadow flicker were deemed needed based on the Council's finding "that the scientific evidence does not support a conclusion that wind turbines cause adverse health outcomes."

On property value impacts, the report found "there is not sufficient evidence to warrant requiring a property value protection plan for properties neighboring wind turbines." However, they conceded some risk to adjacent property owners and offered "developers should, as a standard practice, offer non-participating landowners a financial stake - a wind easement - in a project."

But this should not surprise anyone. Those observing the Council throughout this process informed Windaction.org that the fix was in even before the Council's first meeting.

Its membership[3] was dominated by individuals who either worked for companies involved in wind energy development or were vocal proponents of the industry. To be blunt, the majority had some financial interest in the outcome of the rules. It was a clear case of the wind industry drafting its own regulatory guidelines.

The defining moment came during the Council's June 9th meeting when the Chairman, Dan Ebert of WPPI Energy, a utility in the State, presented his "straw proposal" for what he thought the siting standards should be. A transcript of Ebert's speech that day suggests a leader trying to move the process forward. But the details of his proposal prove his real intent -- his relaxed standards were a gift to the industry.

After that, Ebert had no interest in working toward consensus. Why should he? With the Council now focused on his minimum standards, he needed only to act as gatekeeper deciding which changes warranted inclusion and those that could be ignored. It was an easy task since ten others at the table supported his position. And, as anticipated, Ebert's standards ultimately defined the final report. Mission accomplished.

It's clear now that the only reason for forming the Council was to create an air of legitimacy around industry-favored recommendations. From this point forward, the Council's report will serve as the hammer to silence the public, and bind the Commissioners' hands for years to come.

It's difficult to anticipate what's next for Wisconsin communities trying to protect their residents from their own State. But there is one shining light in this story.

The four members of the Council who did not agree with Ebert and his ilk prepared a minority report where they highlighted their concerns, including the industry bias in the Council's membership. The minority report, which appears at the end of the final document, deserves careful consideration by readers trying to evaluate the veracity of the majority's view.

[1] Smaller projects are those under 100 megawatts in size. Projects that were 100 megawatts or larger fell under the jurisdiction of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

[2] Senate Bill 185 was a second attempt by the legislature to remove local authority. The first bill, rushed in early 2008, did not have enough votes to pass.

[3] The following people were appointed to serve on Wisconsin’s Wind Siting Council:

Dan Ebert, WPPI Energy
David Gilles, Godfrey & Kahn (former WI PSC general counsel)
Tom Green, Wind Capital Group
Jennifer Heinzen, Lakeshore Technical College (President of RENEW WI)
Andy Hesselbach, We Energies
George Krause Jr., Choice Residential LLC
Lloyd Lueschow, Green County
Jevon McFadden, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health
Tom Meyer, Restaino & Associates
Bill Rakocy, Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, LLC
Dwight Sattler, Landowner (3,700 feet from a turbine)
Ryan Schryver, Clean Wisconsin
Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
Larry Wunsch, Landowner (1,100 feet from a turbine)
Doug Zweizig, Union Township

Acciona Energy's Waubra wind farm, located in western Victoria, Australia is the largest operating wind facility in the southern hemisphere. The site's 128 turbines (192 megawatts installed) started generating electricity in Spring 2009 and were fully energized by that July.

Within weeks of the towers first being turned on, Noel Dean began suffering adverse health effects. Australian newspapers quoted Dean this way: "I was waking up two days in a row with headaches, I'd have to take Panadol but they'd be gone by dinner time. When the wind is blowing north I got a thumping headache, like someone belted me over the head with a plank of wood and I didn't know whether to go to the hospital or what to do. You couldn't really work." Other symptoms he and his wife experienced included general malaise, nausea, sleeplessness and general uneasiness.

Around the same time, an investigation of wind farm noise complaints was underway in New Zealand. Residents living near the towers in New Zealand were filing complaints of sleep disturbance, annoyance, anxiety and nausea. As more people in both Australia and New Zealand became comfortable in talking about their health concerns a picture began to emerge that researchers found unusual. There were compelling similarities between experiences in two totally different countries, totally different environments and totally different turbines.

Audible wind farm sound and consequential sleep disturbance, annoyance and anxiety responses were similar for people in both countries. These effects were also experienced even under situations of near inaudible wind turbine sound.

The concerns of the Deans and others living within 3500 meters of operational wind farms triggered more than twelve months of intensive study by a group of 4 qualified researchers.

The result is The Dean Report, a detailed peer-reviewed analysis of the sound levels near the Dean's properties and the potential adverse effects of wind farm activity on human health.

Dr. Robert Thorne PhD[1], who authored the report, based his findings and conclusions on extensive field work, personal investigations, case studies and the development of sound analysis methodologies. He told Windaction.org that "the Dean Report, in its various forms, has been placed in evidence subject to cross-examination before a Board of Inquiry and formal wind farm hearings for the purposes of peer-review and critique. A hypothesis as to cause and effect for adverse health effects from wind farm activity is presented."

In news reports today, wind farm operator, Acciona Energy, insisted "there is already enough existing credible evidence proving there are no health effects from wind farm noise."

We respectfully disagree. The Dean Report makes clear we are only just beginning to understand problem.

[1] Dr. Thorne is a principal of Noise Measurement Services Pty Ltd in Australia. He holds a PhD in Health Science from Massey University, New Zealand. His professional background is the measurement of low background sound levels and the assessment of noise as it affects people.

Windaction.org wishes to express its thanks to Dr. Thorne and Mr. Dean for sharing the Dean Report with us and permitting us to provide its content to our readers.

Against a backdrop of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama administration stepped up its campaign to pass national climate change legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV announced last week that he plans to bring a comprehensive energy and climate bill to the Senate floor by the end of the July. The bill, still to be written, is expected to include a cap on carbon emissions produced by the nation's electricity providers.

But before the U.S. embraces such a program, Congress - and the public - would be wise to examine the early performance of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the nation's first mandatory greenhouse gas cap and trade system.

Bottom line, the program has raised electricity prices, created a slush fund for each of the member states, and has had virtually no impact on emissions or on global climate change.

The federal government has been debating national climate legislation since 1992. Over one-hundred heads of state attended the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, where it was assumed that man-made global warming was a problem and deserved public-policy action.

The Kyoto Conference followed in 1997. The conference resulted in the proposed Kyoto Protocol, a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ("GHG") through either a cap-and-trade or a carbon tax program in developed nations, and through carbon emission subsidies for underdeveloped nations.

The Protocol established the concepts of Joint Implementation ("JI") and Clean Development Mechanism ("CDM") as means to fund GHG reductions in the developing world. With Kyoto, "carbon finance" was born.

Major compromises in Kyoto included setting 1990 as the baseline to get Eastern European buy-in and exempting the underdeveloped world. The 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which passed the U.S. Senate by 95-0 ensured the U.S. would not sign onto Kyoto. It was the sense of the Senate, as cited in the resolution, that the protocol would "result in serious harm to the economy of the United States."

Ten years later, in 2008, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ("RGGI") was launched. RGGI was the first mandatory system in the country aimed at capping and reducing CO2 emissions over time. The region consists of ten Northeastern states: New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and the six New England states.

Member states agreed to an initial emissions cap of approximately 188 million tons of CO2, representing the total amount of CO2 that power plants in the ten states were expected to emit in 2009, the first year RGGI went into effect. This cap is to remain in place until 2015 and then drop by 2.5% per year from 2015 to 2019 - a total drop of 10% by 2019. At the time the RGGI caps were set, stakeholders assumed that business-as-usual emissions from electric generation would grow roughly 1% each year.

Over two-hundred generators are subject to RGGI within the ten states, including all fossil fuel-fired power plants (coal, oil, and gas) with a capacity of at least 25 megawatts.

Each state is allocated a quantity of CO2 allowances according to previous emission history. New York State, for example, received 64 million allowances while Maryland received 38 million etc. up to the 188 million tons.

One allowance is equivalent to one ton of CO2. Generators within the respective states are required to purchase, through auction or directly from the state entity managing the program, a single allowance (permit to emit CO2) for every ton of CO2[1] they emit. RGGI requires that at least 25% of the allowances be auctioned by the states with the proceeds to be spent for consumer benefit and strategic energy projects.

A minimum price for RGGI allowances, known as the "reserve price," was set at $1.86 per ton. This floor price prohibits allowance prices from dropping to zero when emission limits are met, thus ensuring minimum revenues for state supported energy programs.

Quarterly, online auctions are conducted by World Energy Solutions which returns the proceeds to the member states. The initial RGGI auction, held September 2008, raised $39 million for the member states. Total proceeds raised to date, including the most recent RGGI auction (June 9, 2010), stand at $662.8 million.

Auction participation is not limited to power generators. Allowance trading can also occur within a secondary market that is expected to lower transaction costs and provide power plants an opportunity to acquire allowances at any time rather than through the quarterly auctions. Unsold allowances are made available for sale in future.

In its annual report on RGGI (October 2009) member State New Hampshire described the program in only positive light:

But a closer look at the program should give the public and federal legislators pause.

Superficially, the good news is that RGGI's initial year saw emissions from participant power plants fall 34% to just above 120 million tons of CO2. This figure is well below the 188 million ton cap and even below the program's 2019 goal of 10% reductions from 2005 levels[2]. However, most objective observers do not credit RGGI for the precipitous drop in overall emissions. Mild weather, the current economic downturn and lower natural gas prices caused a significant drop in electricity consumption.

The distribution of RGGI revenues did little to raise public confidence. In New Hampshire, columnist Fergus Cullen wrote that too many of the twenty-one projects funded so far with RGGI proceeds were tainted by what he called "cronyism and corporate welfare."

Clean Air Cool Planet , the global warming alarmist group whose aggressive political lobbying is credited with the state joining RGGI, received over $1.2 million through two grants, including $813,402 to be shared with the University of New Hampshire to create the Carbon Challenge website. The state's descriptions of the two grants ("to provide residents and communities with the information, tools and support necessary for households to make substantial reductions in their energy consumption and thus greenhouse gas emissions") are vague and the money unlikely to translate into measurable results.

A $470,000 grant was funneled to Fraser paper mill in Gorham, NH, to help reduce the mill's oil consumption. The company declared bankruptcy in 2009, and this month it is expected to divest of all its assets, raising doubt that the money spent will have any long-term public benefit.

New Hampshire is not alone. Maine allocated ten-million dollars in RGGI revenues to form Efficiency Maine Trust, a public entity whose purpose is to help residents save on electricity and use less heating oil. Each of the 10 member states describe their allocations of the money in similarly vague terms.

Actions this year by four member states demonstrate that RGGI is little more than an energy tax to be spent as politicians see fit. In Maryland, legislators voted to take 50% of the RGGI revenues and distribute the money to lower income residents to help pay their power bills. New York's Governor David Patterson will use $90 million of revenue to address state budget deficits. New Jersey followed suit and grabbed $65 million to cover a shortfall in last year's budget. New Hampshire closed its budget gap by diverting $3.1 million from RGGI funds.

Under RGGI, the cap was purposely set low and compliance has already been met through 2019 and beyond due to fortuitous circumstances. While the cost per allowance is also low (now selling at the floor price of $1.86 per unit) participant states have managed to amass over half a billion dollars in proceeds since September 2008.

Yet it is very doubtful whether projects receiving RGGI grants have achieved anything except for superficial "feel-good" results. With the decline in the economy, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and New Hampshire redirected the money to cover budget shortfalls - thus cementing the view of skeptics that cap-and-trade is nothing more than another government program aimed at taxing energy.

Senate negotiators are currently considering an initial carbon price of around $20 dollars a ton, rising as high as $50 per ton by 2050. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that a national cap and trade system could generate between $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion during fiscal years 2012 and 2019.

Regional disparities in fuel uses, if not addressed in the law, will unfairly burden residents in coal-powered states like Kentucky, while favoring others in New England (natural gas, nuclear) and the Pacific Northwest (hydro). Although there is some indication from the White House that money would go toward a tax cut for the "middle class," RGGI proves there will likely be substantial wiggle-room to use the money to promote more government growth.

RGGI is Exhibit A against a national cap-tax-and-spend program. Americans should understand this program and run in the other direction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] In the New England region, 1 CO2 allowance equates to 2 megawatt hours of generation from a combined-cycle natural gas plant and 1 megawatt hour of coal-fired generation.

[2] Barring changes in the cap, CO2 allowances are valued at the $1.86 floor price and will likely remain in surplus through to 2019.

Dr. Carl V. Phillips, an expert in epidemiology and related health sciences, submitted this important testimony to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission in reference to the Commission's effort to establish siting standards for large-scale wind turbines.

His testimony is significant in light of the report released by the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations that asserted that "the number and uncontrolled nature of existing case reports of adverse health effects alleged to be associated with wind turbines are insufficient to advocate for funding further studies."

Following Dr. Phillips' detailed review of existing literature, he arrived at a very different conclusion:

Dr. Phillips' full written testimony can be accessed at this link. The information he provided orally to the Commission can be viewed here.

Wind energy development in the United States and worldwide has been touted over the last few years as a key economic engine necessary to move us out of recession and back into a growing market. While energy policy has become a priority at all levels of governance, the focus has shifted away from meeting demand needs in favor of job growth. Governors around the country are pledging millions in public dollars to attract project development, including the chance to become a manufacturing center for wind turbine components.

But as with many of the benefits attributed to wind energy development, the details tell a different story.

Earlier this year, the Vermont Department of Public Service published a report entitled The Economic Impacts of Vermont Feed in Tariffs. The Department evaluated the economic consequences of The Vermont Energy Act of 2009 (Act 45) passed last year. Act 45 established mandatory cost based prices for 50 MW of renewable energy technologies. The statute set energy prices for this energy at "generally higher, and in many cases significantly higher, than current estimates of prices for market based alternatives".

According to the report, the analysis found the Feed in Tariff program would increase Vermont capital investment and create jobs during its 26 year life cycle, however, the net gain in employment was found to be far less than conventionally thought. Following an initial increase in temporary construction-related jobs, long term employment would average thirteen full time jobs per year, including both direct and indirect employment in the energy sector as well as the job and income related effects of increased electricity costs. But other sectors, predominately service sectors, would suffer long term net job losses. In essence jobs would be created in one sector of the Vermont economy at the expense others.

But job transfers were not the only finding reported by the Department. The model also showed that above-market energy costs due to higher electricity prices would have the deleterious effects of "reshuffling consumer spending and increasing the cost of production for Vermont businesses" and that "increased costs for households and employers would reduce the positive employment impacts of renewable energy capital investment and the annual repair and maintenance activities".

The findings of this report are significant in light of contentious debates underway in Vermont's neighboring Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Each State is under pressure to approve power purchase agreements for the proposed Cape Wind and Deepwater Wind offshore wind projects. Electricity prices cited in both contracts are significantly above market rates.

We applaud Vermont's effort to consider objective economic principles that test the claimed benefits of renewable energy development. Unfortunately, our experience has shown many regulators are content to accept that wind development will produce a cleaner environment and healthier economy without substantiation.

The Northumberland County Council (UK) is preparing to grant planning permission for the development of a self-contained eco-holiday complex to be located in a rural region of the county. The high-profile park and equestrian center is expected to attract high-spending tourists, create numerous direct and indirect jobs, and provide a vital revenue stream for the area. The complex will be sited on sixteen acres of fields surrounding the original Waterfalls farmhouse with open countryside visible in all directions.

Earlier this year, Wind Prospect Developments formerly objected to the proposed eco-friendly holiday center. The energy company, which recently received approval to erect eighteen turbines at Green Rigg Fell, claimed the holiday center application failed to properly assess the impact of the tourist site on its proposed 36 megawatt wind farm. The nearest turbine will be located approximately 2500 feet (780 meters) from the existing farmhouse.

This map shows the area surrounding the Waterfalls farmhouse and the proximity of the turbines to the building and adjacent fields slated for development.

Last week, attorneys for Wind Prospect Developments filed a letter with the Northumberland County Council Planning Department. In it they state:

The developer then makes the remarkable admission that an operating wind facility -- even if in compliance with existing noise standards -- is likely to trigger problems for people nearby, particularly those not restricted to a dwelling specially insulated from turbine noise.

They concede that visitors to the holiday center should be "reasonably expected to sit outside to enjoy the relative peace and quiet of the countryside" but any accommodation (i.e. mitigation) for turbine noise will have no effect on outdoor noise levels.

Turbine noise complaints are not new to Wind Prospect Developments. Wind Prospect is the same developer who erected the eight turbines (16 megawatts) at Deeping St Nicholas Lincolnshire in the United Kingdom. Turbines at this project are sited within 3200 feet of Jane and Julian Davis's farm. The Davis' abandoned their home due to turbine noise and recently filed a civil complaint with the United Kingdom judicial court.

[1] Editor's note: The proposed holiday center is built on the same parcels that comprise the Waterfalls farm ( see: property plans )

Earlier this year, the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (PUC) disapproved the terms of the a power purchase agreement negotiated between utility giant National Grid and Deepwater Wind LLC. Deepwater proposed to construct a pilot wind project in shallow water off Block Island consisting of 6-8 turbines and a nameplate capacity of up to 30 megawatts.

The agreement contained an initial bundled energy price (energy, capacity, renewable credits) of $244 per megawatt hour (24.4 cents a KWh) with a 3.5% escalation factor each year. According to testimony submitted to the PUC (RI PUC Docket 4111), long-term prices for renewables located elsewhere in the region were significantly cheaper at $80 and $120 per MWh. The RI PUC ultimately found the agreement was not commercially reasonable and withheld its approval.

Absent a signed agreement, Deepwater could not secure investors and the project stalled.

Outraged by the decision, Rhode Island's Governor Carcieri backed a hastily drafted bill introduced by State Senator V. Susan Sosnowski that would pave the way for the power purchase agreement to go into effect without approval of the PUC. Backers of the bill (S2819) argued the PUC misinterpreted the standard for determining what was commercially reasonable; the new legislation removed the Commission from the regulatory process.

The bill was an obvious attempt to circumvent established process allowing the Governor to ram through his pet renewable on the backs of Rhode Island ratepayers. Even supporters of the wind project found this legislative action untenable.

By mid-May the bill was held up by the Senate Environment and Agriculture Committee. Chairwoman Sosnowski announced she was awaiting amendments to the bill that would give Carcieri what he wanted and still placate objectors.

Yesterday (Jun 7), with just three days left in the legislative session, the Committee released an entirely revamped S2819. The new text, tailor-made for Deepwater, reintroduces the PUC back into the process but with legal constraints that all but force the Commissioners to approve the purchase agreement.

Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch issued a statement where he correctly stated the new bill would make the PUC "Deepwater's rubber stamp for a pre-rigged outcome that will be disastrous for Rhode Island ratepayers and businesses, costing them nearly $400 million above the market price of electricity over the next two decades."

The message is clear and corrupting: renewable generators need only apply and Rhode Island will approve, no matter the cost, benefit, or impact of your project.

This action by the Governor and the legislature should be widely denounced by the public, ratepayer advocates, other energy providers, and in particular by those who still believe governmental process has purpose beyond satisfying the narrow wants of those in power.

They have names: Ann and Jason Wirtz, Gerry Meyer, Wendy and Perrin Todd, Barbara Ashbee-Lormand, Jane and Julian Davis, Rene Taylor, Carol Cowperthwaite, Phil Bloomstein, Sally and David Wylie, Cherly and Art Lindgren, Peggy Lowrey, Tom Shea, Gail Mair, Noel Dean, Jessica, Hal Graham, Tim Yancey, Daniel & Carolyn d'Entremont, Colette McLean, Charlie Porter, Todd Hutzell and hundreds more.

Many wish to remain anonymous; others have no idea how to get their stories heard. They live in different countries and different geographies including the United States, Italy, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand ... but all live directly in the shadows of an industrial wind energy facility.

Many supported the projects proposed in their communities and trusted their leaders when told they'd be part of the green movement sweeping the countryside with no harm to them. Most had no idea their lives would be changed for the worse after the towering generators moved in next door.

In 2005, the aggressive American Wind Energy Association published its Wind Power Myths vs. Facts fact sheet where it set the record straight on the impacts of wind.

The list goes on covering effects on the natural environment, TV reception, tourism and viewsheds. And the industry's responses have not changed since 2005 despite the fact that more megawatts of wind are now installed within 1500-feet of residential dwellings than ever before and the number of people cited as being harmed by the turbines having rapidly increased in that time.

Last year, North American Windpower published a piece by Ben Kelahan titled "Prevailing against anti-wind sentiment" where Kelahan claims opposition groups "have borrowed the highest-priced tactics from corporate public relations and masterfully used the Web to circulate misinformation about the impacts of wind farms." He warns prospective developers that "all it takes is an emotional trigger on a critical local issue to start the flames of opposition" -- emotional triggers like health and safety.

At no point in AWEA's literature nor Kelahan's essay do the authors hint that those raising concerns may actually have a legitimate complaint.

Windaction.org recently learned of another family now living with the pain of wind turbines near their home. Their message, excerpted below, is simple, direct, and painfully familiar.

We encourage our readers to visit their blog and understand what this family is living with. The experience of many of those listed in our first paragraph above can also be found under Windaction.org stories.

None of these writings are the work of propagandists or pricy public relation tacticians. Rather, these are the honest voices of people damaged by the wind industry and who feel compelled to speak out. Their goal is modest: to find help for themselves, their families and neighbors and to save others from the horror they now live with.

Last summer, the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee (NHSEC) voted unanimously to permit construction of the highly controversial Granite Reliable Wind Energy facility, a $275 million, 99-megawatt project proposed by Noble Environmental Power. The project is to be sited along three peaks in the State's northern-most Coos County.

Windaction.org, a party to the proceedings, argued that the erection of thirty-three industrial-scale turbines and construction of over thirty miles of road with 50-foot ledge-cuts and the destruction of 13-acres of wetlands would have an unreasonable and permanent impact on New England's unique and increasingly rare High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest habitat.

New Hampshire's Department of Fish and Game (NHF&G), the Counsel for the Public appointed by the NH Attorney General, New Hampshire Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency all filed documents with the NHSEC asserting that the project, as proposed, would cause permanent and lasting harm to the environment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also filed technical letters with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommending a full Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") be done in accordance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

According to testimony submitted to the NHSEC, the project bisected the remaining parcels of high elevation habitat in New Hampshire. These forested ridges supported several species of conservation concern in the State and region including the American Marten (state threatened), the Bicknell's Thrush (state special concern) and the Three-toed Woodpecker (state threatened). Turbine placement at elevations above 2700 feet would cause direct habitat loss as well as additional habitat degradation for these species. Regarding Bicknell's Thrush, New Hampshire Audubon argued that the high-elevation spruce-fir forests of northeastern North America provided the only breeding habitat available to this forest-interior species.

Bicknell's Thrush have the smallest breeding range of any North American bird with forty-five percent of the potential habitat located in New Hampshire. NHF&G informed the State that the proposed level of impact on Bicknell's Thrush habitat was incompatible with the long-term health and viability of the species and that given the extremely limited global distribution of this bird, the State could not afford to take any chances with this extremely rare bird species.

During its public deliberations on environmental impacts, one Committee member admitted "Clearly, what we have is a void here. None of us know what the impacts [on the natural environment] are going to be, except for the direct impact of losing forest." Despite this 'void' the NHSEC found the project would not have an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment and voted to approve it.

Windaction.org appealed the Committee's order to the State's Supreme Court citing numerous questions of law, including the above. The Court declined our appeal with no reasons cited.

State insiders tell Windaction.org that the approval of Noble's application makes one fact clear: when it comes to wind energy in New Hampshire, no adverse impact will reach the level of being 'unreasonable'.

This week, Vermont utility regulators approved wind power contracts for the state's two largest electric utilities to purchase energy from Noble's wind project. In so doing, the stain of this project will now spread to Vermont ratepayers.

Kevin Kawula distributed his letter below to environmental organizations throughout Wisconsin in hopes of raising awareness about the shockingly high bat mortality discovered at operating wind energy facilities in the State. Windaction.org shares Mr. Kawula's concerns and thought it appropriate to feature his letter in this week's Wind Alert!

Things are going badly for our wildlife populations in and around the operating industrial scale wind projects in Wisconsin.

Anecdotal reports from people living in Wisconsin wind projects report an absence of normal wildlife, i.e. no turkey, no deer, fewer or no songbirds, and no bats. Relatives and friends outside the wind facility report greater numbers of deer and turkey.

The birds and deer are leaving the area, but the bats are as likely to be dying, as leaving.

A recent post-construction bird and bat mortality report, conducted by We Energies (WEPCO) CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD as part of receiving approval for its Blue Sky Green Field project, shows that the bird deaths were 11 to 12 bird deaths/per turbine/per year. This is four times higher than the national average of 3 bird kills/per turbine/per year.

Even more alarming are the bat kill rates of 40.54 to 41/per turbine/per year This is more than ten times the reported national average of less than 4 per turbine per year.

Wisconsin's turbine related bat deaths are among the highest in North America, and equal to the bat mortality numbers from Pennsylvania/Appalachia area which stunned conservationists across the nation.

The total number of bats killed by the 88 turbine Blue Sky Green Field project is estimated to be between 3,500 to 3,600 per year.

Two additional post construction reports show the same bat kill rates at the Cedar Ridge project, and slightly higher kill rates at Invenergy Forward Energy project near the Horicon Marsh.

These three projects alone have resulted in an estimated 8,000 bat deaths per year.

That's 16,000 dead bats for the two years these projects have been in operation.

Predictions for number of bat kills for the pending Glacier Hills wind project are expected to be equally as high, adding at least another 3500 turbine related bat deaths per year.

Can Wisconsin bat populations sustain this kind of impact?

Bats are not being struck by the blades (135 feet long with tip speeds of 180mph), but are suffering catastrophic damage to their lungs as they fly into the low-pressure zone that is created behind the rotating blades.

This drop in pressure causes their lungs to expand rapidly, burst, fill with fluid and blood, and they drown. It is called barotrauma - deep-sea divers get a version of it called the bends, when raised too quickly from the depths.
Birds have different lung structures, so they are not as readily affected, but bats are mammals and have lungs much more similar to ours, so take a deep breath, and imagine you can't stop inhaling until your lungs burst.

Bats live up to thirty years, reproduce slowly, maybe one pup a year, and because they maintain tight family groups, the loss of a single bat can have a significant impact.

Bats are a vital link in the natural balance of Wisconsin's wild and not so wild areas.

I cannot think of a time in human history that bats have not been flying over Wisconsin, but the loss of our bat population could happen in our lifetimes.

White nose syndrome, a nasal/respiratory fungus, is threatening cave roosting/hibernating species of bats, in the eastern United States into extinction, but has not yet reached Wisconsin.

Industrial wind turbines kill all species of bats, even the tree roosting/migrating species we hoped might be spared from the white nose blight.

If the state continues to follow its plan to add 200 to 300 new industrial turbines each year until 2025, turbine related bat deaths could be as high as 131,200 to 192,700 bats per year.

This total annual mortality number is unlikely, because the remaining bat populations would likely crash from mounting annual losses before then.

I am asking that we, as conservationists, help stop this needless slaughter.

Contact the Department of Natural Resources and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin with your concerns.

Shari Koslowsky, Conservation Biologist with the DNR, has been very helpful in explaining the post construction mortality numbers. She can be reached at shari.koslowsky@wisconsin.gov , (608) 261- 4382.

My main concern is that there is no representative of any organization with expertise in wildlife and natural habitat protection on the Wind Siting Council. The Wind Siting Council is a 15 member organization currently working on creating guidelines for siting wind turbines in our state.

I am asking that the DNR require the PSC to stop the operation of industrial scale wind turbine facilities at night (curtailment) when electrical demand is low and easily met by existing base load generation which cannot be shut off.

The period from dusk until dawn must be reserved for migrating and feeding wildlife as an equitable distribution of a state ("free wind") natural resource, for the greater good of the whole rural community, human and animal. Night time curtailment would ensure safe passage for bats and night migrating birds, and provide a reliable period of quiet for the undisturbed sleep that is vital to any being's health.

CLICK HERE to leave a comment on the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin's Wind Siting Council's docket.

Energy independence will eventually mean grid independence, but until then the decision makers need to face the facts and take responsibility for the harm caused by their decisions, and remedy the problem.

Mr. Kawula is a board member of the Rock County Conservationists, TPE Member, Spring Valley Planning and Zoning board member, Owner and operator of Lone Rock Prairie Nursery, and Rock County Parks Volunteer.
lonerockprairienursery@gmail.com

Several stories in the press this week caught our attention which we felt deserved responses.

Windaction.org's editorial last week examined the above market cost of the Cape Wind project that would be passed on to ratepayers in the State of Massachusetts. National Grid and Cape Wind Associates have now released some of the terms of their agreement -- none of which changed our position. We plan to write further on this topic but thought it important to highlight a few of the facts omitted in press accounts covering the agreement:

1) Monthly electric bills. National Grid announced that the project will increase monthly electric bills by $1.59 for residential customers using 500 kilowatts hours of electricity. However, the average residential customer for Grid consumes 700 kilowatts hours monthly bringing the cost closer to $2.26. Still, none of the news stories considered a comparison of Cape Wind's costs to other renewable options in the region.

2) The 4 percent markup. The Massachusetts Green Communities Act of 2008 assures National Grid an annual remuneration equal to 4 percent of the annual payments under the contract to compensate Grid "for accepting the financial obligation of the long-term contract". The 4 percent markup increases the $207 per megawatt hour (20.7 cents per kilowatt hour) accepted by Cape Wind to $215 a MWh. Surprisingly, the State policy incents National Grid to negotiate higher contract prices.

3) REC prices. According to press accounts, Cape Wind secured a price for the renewable energy credits at $67 a megawatt hour (6.7 cents a kilowatt hour). Yet, Massachusetts' REC prices today are trading at around $18/MWh and future prices are not expected to rise above $25/MWh. There is no justification for locking in a REC price that is 3-4 times the future market value. Bear in mind, the REC price agreed to in the contract is also subject to the yearly 3.5% escalator.

Windaction.org has written about the Wirtz family in Wisconsin who abandoned their home due to noise and vibrations emanating from nearby wind turbines. Their home, which was appraised for $320,000 in 2007 sold in a sheriff's sale this week for $106,740. But don't expect this event to be included in studies examining the effect of turbines on home values. Michael McCann, of McCann Appraisal, LLC in Chicago provided Windaction.org this perspective:

Last December, a GE 1.5 megawatt turbine at the Fenner wind facility in Fenner, New York collapsed. An official report explaining the root cause of the collapse is still pending but news this week shed light on the situation. According to the article, "concrete core samples from the foundations preliminarily showed inconsistent aging and degradation".

Hank Sennott, director of corporate affairs and communications for Enel North America told the Madison County Courier "I don't know of any turbine foundation failures, but we were the first, so there is nothing to go back and research. This project was the largest built east of the Mississippi when we constructed it 10 years ago. There's no history for us to look at."

Foundation failure has been reported in the national media before, suggesting the industry is well aware of the problem. A Business Week article from August 2007 entitled "The Dangers of Wind Power" included this:

After nine years of debate and millions of public and private dollars, the decision to permit America's first offshore wind project fell on the shoulders of one man, U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar. Hindsight notwithstanding, there was no chance Salazar could disapprove the Cape Wind application. Does anyone doubt the Obama administration would dare to ignore the tsunami of political favoritism already bestowed on the project, no matter how unjustified? And given the administration's stated goal to nurse the U.S. economy back to health through the green movement, a denial of the permit would have unleashed a public firestorm virtually impossible to contain.

Let's face it, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound had an uphill battle in the message war from the beginning. As early as 2003, even before Windaction.org was organized, everyone knew about the wealthy 'NIMBYs' ("Not in my backyard") on the Cape waging war against the one opportunity in the region to see renewables built in a substantial way. At the time, New England had less than ten megawatts of wind installed and most people were convinced Cape Wind represented an environmentally safe, low cost, economically beneficial development that could lead the nation in eliminating our reliance on fossil fuel. The NIMBYs, even those with the Kennedy name, were discredited in the press as little more than self-serving hypocrites unwilling to take one in the view for the betterment of the whole. This attitude still prevails today in some quarters but the realities of wind energy's flaws are beginning to take hold and we believe the Alliance and its supporters will ultimately be vindicated.

The announcement of Salazar's decision opened an emotional relief valve and pressure built-up over nine years was volcanically released. Stories about Cape Wind's approval flooded the web with words like 'Finally!' splashed across the screen. The public was informed in no uncertain terms, that Cape Wind would be built, offshore wind in the U.S. was on the upswing, and the country had officially established itself as a player in the offshore arena.

From our perspective, Salazar's action was significant, but not for the reasons stated above. Rather, from this point forward, politics and public opinion will no longer drive the discourse. The Cape Wind decision and the public record on which it's based will be challenged on the facts to determine whether the project is commercially reasonable and whether it will operate in compliance with existing laws. To be frank, there is no assurance Cape Wind will survive the scrutiny.

There are several issues still pending that require resolution before the project can proceed as follows:

RADAR SAFETY. The FAA has assigned the 130 wind turbine structures (heights of 440 feet) a 'presumed hazard determination' given their proximity to airports and radar stations in the Northeast. The military has already stepped up its concerns involving the moving blades interfering with radar for surveillance and weather tracking;

IMPACT ON WAMPANOAG TRIBES. The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) contend that the project will destroy the archaeological evidence of their history throughout Nantucket Sound, including Horseshoe Shoal. Further they argue that the eastern horizon over Nantucket Sound must remain unaltered in order to perform their spiritual rituals and ceremonies;

FEDERAL LAW VIOLATIONS. Various stakeholders including the Alliance and Windaction.org have filed the requisite 60-day notice of intent to sue for violations of the Endangered Species Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and other laws. Regarding the Endangered Species Act, the parties will show that Salazar's approval ignored the Fish and Wildlife Service's original recommendations to minimize and/or avoid impacts, a clear violation of the law.

COST. All of the above are legitimate and serious concerns, but Cape Wind's true Achilles heel lies in the cost of the project. Few in the State of Massachusetts, including the ratepayers, fully understand what Cape Wind will do to electricity rates and whether the cost can be sufficiently offset by the project's expected benefits. We develop the data on this issue in more detail below.

With no offshore wind built in the U.S., there is limited information on record to determine the economics of such a project. However, lessons learned during the recent proceedings before the Rhode Island PUC (RI PUC Docket 4111) are useful. In Rhode Island, the State reviewed the unsigned long-term power purchase agreement negotiated between Deepwater Wind Block Island, LLC and National Grid (also referred to as Narragansett Electric Company). With the backing of RI's governor and legislature, Deepwater proposed to construct a pilot wind project in shallow water off Block Island consisting of 6-8 turbines and a nameplate capacity of up to 30 megawatts. The purchase agreement contained an initial bundled energy price (energy, capacity, renewable credits) of $244 per megawatt hour (MWh) with a 3.5% escalation factor each year. According to pre-filed testimony submitted to the PUC, the cost was compared to long-term prices of $80 and $120 per MWh established for renewables located elsewhere in the region. The RI PUC ultimately determined the agreement was not commercially reasonable and withheld its approval.

During this same time, Cape Wind and National Grid initiated negotiations on a long term power contract. Under the Massachusetts Green Communities Act signed into law in 2008, Massachusetts utilities are required to enter into long-term contracts with renewable energy projects located within state boundaries, including state and adjacent federal waters.

Any power purchase agreement between Cape Wind and National Grid would have to be approved by the State. In February, MA Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles cautioned the two parties this way: "Let me be clear. Our expectation is that the Cape Wind project must produce electricity at a substantial discount to the Rhode Island offshore wind project."

The problem for Cape Wind is its upfront capital costs. According to the latest figures from Europe, the cost to build offshore wind is approximately $5,000 per kilowatt. At 468 MW, Cape Wind will come in at a cool $2.3 billion (Most press accounts grossly understate the cost of the project).

That's a hefty expense for single power project, especially one expected to deliver only 39% of the time with no guarantee its generation will arrive when most needed. With high upfront costs and fewer hours to spread the cost over, power purchase agreements that lock in the energy and renewable credit prices are now a requirement in order to attract investor financing.

As noted above, renewable resources within the New England region carry a bundled energy price between $80 and $120 per MWh. If we assume Cape Wind can discount its costs to $200 a MWh, $44 off Deepwater's higher price, the above-market cost passed on to Massachusetts ratepayers will range between $128 million and $192 million per year. That's as much as $81 per year per household above any other renewables.

A provision in the Green Communities Act tilts the scale in favor of projects like Cape Wind by requiring MA utilities to enter into long-term contracts with renewable energy projects located in the state, including state and adjacent federal waters. This requirement openly discriminates against renewable generation located elsewhere including lower cost options that import from Canada or New York. This provision in the law is designed to restrict competition and place increased emphasis on the development of in-state renewable energy even if such resources are more expensive and/or more environmentally harmful. If Cape Wind were made to compete with outside resources, we suspect the project would have substantial difficulty proving its worth. But that may be what eventually happens.

TransCanada Power Marketing Ltd just filed a suit challenging several provisions of the Green Communities Act including the section that mandates contacts be entered with generators located in Massachusetts.

Earlier this year, Cape Wind Associates released a report authored by the Charles River Associates ('CRM') that analyzed the impact of Cape Wind on New England energy prices. The brief nine-page report concluded that "Cape Wind would lead to a reduction in the wholesale cost of power averaging $185 million annually over the 2013-2037 time period, resulting in an aggregate savings of $4.6 billion over 25 years." Interestingly, CMR's stated annual cost savings is in line with what we would expect Cape Wind to cost the ratepayers in above-market rates.

Aside from being thin on data, the Charles River analysis is highly speculative, at best, and fails to fully articulate the interaction between the real-time and day-ahead energy markets.

The New England ISO (ISO-NE) typically operates using a day-ahead auction where generators are required to offer firm levels of production for each hour of the next power day. The energy price, in turn, is determined based on those bidding into the system; all generators receive the same price per megawatt hour of production. Significant penalties are applied if a generator is unable to meet his commitment.

Because of its intermittency, a wind generator wishing to operate in the day-ahead market would need to contract with other dispatchable resources, most likely inefficient gas peakers, in order to "firm" their capacity commitments and avoid penalties.

A more likely scenario would be for a project like Cape Wind to operate exclusively in the real-time market i.e. a pure spot market carrying no penalties for non-performance and where prices are generally less than the prices paid for the day-ahead energy market. Those selling into the real-time market are normally paid at the clearing price of the real-time market. However, any long-term power purchase agreement will assure Cape Wind receives steady revenue at contracted price. When National Grid sells the wind energy to the grid, the energy will be sold at the lower cost spot energy market price, Cape Wind will be paid the above-market contract price, and the ratepayer will cover the difference.

The day-ahead market for the New England region represents roughly 90% of the available generation with the real-time market holding less than a 10% share. Since the price paid for ninety-percent of the generation is established twenty-four hours in advance of the power day, any participation from wind will have only a marginal impact on prices limited to those resources operating within the real-time market. Generators that bid in day-ahead who can back down are likely to do so to the greatest extent possible in order to save fuel and other costs. For New England this would be efficient co-generation natural gas, biomass, and large hydro. Since generators in the day-ahead market are still guaranteed payment, any price suppression from wind would be limited to the spot market. Thus, any downward pressure on pricing will impact inefficient single-cycle gas plants, pump storage, must-take landfill gas, small hydro, and other intermittent resources.

Assuming the New England region maintains its current policies for scheduling and dispatch of energy on the grid, ratepayers and regulators in Massachusetts would be wise to demand tangible proof of Cape Wind's economic benefit. At the very minimum, the State's consumer advocates should lose the rose-colored glasses and evaluate Cape Wind against other renewable projects in the region that can deliver reliable low/no carbon generation at a price commensurate with market value. Spending enormous sums on Cape Wind only benefits Cape Wind at the expense of the ratepayer or any potential developer who can build a better, more commercially reasonable project.

In August 2007, First Wind, LLC received approval from the Vermont Public Service Board to erect sixteen 2.5 megawatt wind turbines in Sheffield, Vermont. Residents of Sheffield, neighboring Sutton, and others in the region fought the project from the beginning. And when First Wind was issued a NPDES storm water permit in 2009 from the State, the permit was appealed . The appellants argued that First Wind failed to identify the full extent of the area of disturbance, impacts to streams and stream biota, and violated the VT Water Quality Standards.

In advance of the Environmental Court proceedings, First Wind approached the appellants and others who opposed the project seeking settlement discussions.

A draft agreement was prepared by Kurt Adams¹, executive vice president at the company. It allowed for a $500,000 settlement to be paid over 20 years and allocated according to proximity to the project. The expectation was that those living closest to the project would receive more money; those further away would receive less.

Adams explained that the payment represented the "financial component" for sound easements only and that no consideration would be given for other negative effects caused by the turbines. In fact, a clause in the agreement specifically released the company from any and all actions, claims, or suits that might arise due to impacts of the project except those attributable to negligence of First Wind or its affiliates.

The parties overwhelming opted not to settle. Aside from problems with the agreement itself, the parties refused to be placed in the position of approving the destruction of Sheffield's mountain tops and felt that by agreeing to the terms they would pave the way for industrial wind development throughout Vermont. It was also important to them that they preserve future options. "None in the group could tolerate the thought of signing the non-disclosure, non-disparagement clause in the proposed agreement, nor did they believe First Wind would be around for 20 years to make good on the payments," one resident told Windaction.org.

Windaction.org has learned that upon hearing no deal, Kurt Adams upped the offer to $2 million. Still no agreement.

The trial proceeded as scheduled, and good that it did. Expert testimony revealed that the area of disturbance impacted by the project would be 40% greater than First Wind claimed. Is this the reason Adams tried to settle now?

[1] Recent press accounts show that Kurt Adams accepted his job with First Wind prior to leaving his position as Chairman of the Maine Public Utilities Commission. First Wind is the largest developer of wind in the State of Maine with 124 megawatts installed and more proposed. A law suit filed by residents living near First Wind's Mars Hill wind energy facility is still pending.

This week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service transmitted its final set of recommendations on how to minimize the impacts of land-based wind farms on wildlife and its habitat to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. In the press release that accompanied the document, the Service claimed the recommendations represented the consensus of "22 diverse members of the Wind Turbine Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee".

'Diverse' is not a term we'd use. In fact, the Committee's membership from the outset was grossly skewed in favor of industry representatives and ignored leading experts on critical wildlife impacts, a direct violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

Windaction.org and others raised this objection with the Secretary of the Interior on at least two separate occasions.

In a letter submitted on January 17, 2008, we called on then-Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to revamp the membership of the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee after finding that:

1) No committee members possessed research expertise or publication record regarding bats, nor direct knowledge or experience involving bat interactions with wind turbines. This was a glaring omission in light of ongoing reports of massive bat mortality at wind energy facilities;

2) The committee lacked the requisite expertise regarding bird impacts, especially with respect to effects on migratory birds using the Appalachian mountain ridges in the eastern U.S., despite the fact that dozens of planned wind projects are slated for this part of the country;

3) No committee members had significant research, scientific, or regulatory experience with wind energy development and associated wildlife impacts resulting from onshore wind projects in the eastern U.S.

These scientific and technical omissions were especially troubling in light of the many individuals on the committee who either expressly represented or were clearly aligned with the interests of the wind industry.

Only after that letter was sent, and only after some of the original members declined to serve, did the Secretary agree to add two people to the Committee with any experience in bat biology.

A second letter sent May 11, 2009 reiterated our concern with the Committee membership and informed Secretary Ken Salazar that after more than one and one-half years since the Committee's formation, the draft recommendations read more as an unabashed endorsement of wind power than a rigorous effort to address the harmful - and ever growing - effects on wildlife of poorly sited and constructed wind power projects.

Despite its charter to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior regarding effective measures to avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and their habitats related to land-based wind energy facilities, the Committee's draft recommendations did little more than offer justifications for not developing rigorous, enforceable criteria to address the escalating wildlife impacts.

The final set of recommendations just released provides a laundry list of basic suggestions that we would expect from individuals and local town boards just learning about wind energy development and its possible impacts. The report creates an illusion of concern, but offers nothing more than what a wind developer might recommend if asked. If this is the best the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can produce, then the entire exercise was a waste of time and public dollars.

Significant bat mortality at wind energy facilities first became widely known in the United States in 2003 when research scientists observed alarming numbers of bats killed at FPL Energy's Mountaineer wind energy plant in West Virginia. The forty-four turbine site located along the forested Backbone mountaintop was found to be slaughtering bats at annual rates of over 50 bats per turbine with some estimates placing the count at close to 100 bats. High mortality was also observed that year at the Meyersdale wind farm in Pennsylvania, another FPL project.

Researchers from Texas-based Bat Conservation International ("BCI") were invited to investigate the cause for the high mortality with the intent of trying to minimize and/or avoid the impact. FPL (now Next Era) initially agreed to cooperate, but in 2004 abruptly changed course and banned further visits by scientists to the sites. To our knowledge, bat kills are continuing unabated and Windaction.org has no independent information to suggest anyone is even monitoring the problem.

In 2007, renown bat expert Dr. Thomas H. Kunz and others published "Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses", which detailed the significant risk that industrial-scale wind turbines posed for migratory and local bat populations in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The authors projected that by 2020, annual bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in this area alone could reach 111,000 bats.

The authors also made clear that their preliminary projections of cumulative bat fatalities were likely unrealistically low.

And developers' own consultants agree. During court proceedings before the U.S. District Court involving the Beech Ridge wind energy facility proposed for West Virginia, experts predicted that more than 135,000 bats would be killed by the turbines through a combination of direct collision with the turbine blades and barotrama. The Beech Ridge project is close geographically to the Mountaineer facility.

Dr. Kunz elaborated on his concerns in written testimony submitted to the court as follows:

Vermont's Agency for Natural Resources is taking bat mortality very seriously. In recommendations to the Vermont Public Service Board involving a 5-turbine project along Vermont's Georgia Mountain, the agency proffered maximum allowed mortality thresholds:

But wind developers building in agriculture areas or areas away from forests essentially ignored the bat problem believing it only applied to a few projects along ridgelines in eastern States.

In proceedings before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission on the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center (88 turbines), developer We Energies dismissed recommendations by the State's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that pre- and post- construction studies be conducted to understand the effect on resident and migratory bats. Their witness testified that the "project's bat mortality rate is reasonably likely to compare with the published mortality rates at wind farms located in similar agriculturally-dominated landscapes."

Still, the Commission required the project conduct post-construction studies and the results were staggering. Bat mortality was found to be over 40 bats per turbine per year with counts nearly split between migratory and resident species. In an expected 20-year project life, over 70,000 bats will be decimated by this single project.

Scientists at the DNR made it clear to the Commission that there were too few scientific studies completed nationwide for anyone to understand the estimated potential for impacts for a particular wind farm simply by performing a literature review and extrapolating the results from wind farms located in similar environments. And they were right!

The State of Wisconsin now has a decision to make on what to do about bat mortality. Windaction.org hopes Wisconsin and We Energies will act more responsibly than NextEra and the State of West Virginia. An important step is to first acknowledge that the problem exists.

Energy policy in the United States calls for the aggressive deployment of renewable generation within this decade. This policy has led to an explosion of renewable resources that operate largely off-peak, off-season and intermittently, and are located in rural areas with limited transmission. Conversely, there has been only limited development of renewable generation which operates largely on-peak, on-season, reliably or near load centers.

By the end of 2009, 35,000 megawatts of on-shore wind was installed in the United States, double that which was installed just two years ago. Barring systemic barriers imposed on renewables development, including transmission constraints, this trend is likely to continue. Based on the interconnection queues of each grid region, industrial wind is the dominant renewable resource representing more than 90% of the proposed generating capacity of all renewable energy projects in the United States.

Last January, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Notice of Inquiry (Docket No. RM10-11-000 ) seeking public comment on whether to reform any of its rules or procedures to better accomodate variable energy resources (VERs) such as wind, solar or non-storage hydro generating plants.

Windaction.org worked with energy expert, William P. Short III, to submit comments.

We state that the true impact of our current national renewable vision is the massive public cost needed to transform the U.S. power grid to accommodate variable energy resources, despite the fact that these resources are not guaranteed to deliver energy at the very time of day and year when we need it the most.

Current policies that encourage renewable generation at the State and Federal levels reward all renewables equally for placing a megawatt-hour of energy on the grid. There is no adjustment to the federal or state subsidies based on time of day or seasonal demand requirements nor is there a meaningful adjustment for location of the power facility. These policies have created artificial and unsustainable market pressures; thus, compelling system planners to respond with more transmission and the fast-tracking of renewable projects that may be not only not needed but actually of poor quality from a grid reliability perspective.

If renewable subsidies were to discriminate in favor of those renewables that produce close to load and during the time of day and year when the energy is most needed (i.e. capacity rather than energy), we would expect the response in the market to 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. The market would decide which renewable solutions best met the goal. Rather than seeing 125 megawatts of unpredictable wind built we might get 25 megawatts of baseload biomass; rather than remote-sited solar generation in the Mojave desert requiring 100 to 200 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 the emerging renewables market, it is time these policies were amended to better suit the public's needs. We recommend abandoning ill-defined plans to reinvent our existing electric system so it can better accommodate variable energy renewable sources, and focus on consumer-centric, market-based policies that will move us towards real world, reliable solutions for our renewable generation.

Alexandra Weit has followed the wind energy industry in the San Gorgonio Pass, California since its beginnings. In 2008, she obtained nine years of production records directly from Southern California Edison that showed both the amount of energy generated by the site's wind turbines and the period in the day when it was produced.

Using this data and other research, Ms. Weit authored an essay titled "OK..., but what happens when the wind doesn't blow?" and submitted it to the Desert Sun newspaper, where it was promptly rejected. The editor wrote "I found that your premise is just too flawed," and shared with her the basis of his claim -- feedback he received from the CEO of a California-based wind energy provider whose e-mail is posted below.

A) Nuclear power is a baseload resource in every region of the country. How can it now be defined as intermittent given plants in the U.S. operate at 90-92% capacity factors? Your contention that nuclear power is on par with low-value wind generation and less reliable than hydro is simply wrong.

B) You argue that wind is more dependable than conventional generating resources, including nuclear, based on a concept that enough turbines erected will assure at least some energy will flow -- this, of course, provided the wind is blowing. But how much, and will that energy flow when we need it? Can you assure us there will be sufficient power to run an economy, or even a small hospital?

C) The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports $23 per megawatt hour subsidy for wind. We encourage you to look at Table ES5 of this recent report. [See editor's note below]

D) Ms. Weit's figures came directly from Southern California Edison. Do you have different, real numbers we might compare? Since the production figures you quoted (1,800,000,000 kilowatt hours from 685 megawatts installed capacity) represent a flat 30% average annual capacity factor, we're assuming you opted for an off-the-cuff industry number just to make a point.

E) Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but few people who see these images (photo1 and photo2) would share your perspective.

F) And finally, regarding your "word on birds" we would be interested in any details substantiating your claim that "studies predicting wholesale slaughter of birds in Northern California have been debunked." The wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) have caused annual fatalities of thousands of raptors and other birds. And, despite an Avian Protection Program requiring mitigation measures and eventual repowering to modern wind turbines APWRA-wide fatality rates increased significantly for multiple bird species, including 85% for all raptors and 51% for all birds.

Windaction.org is well aware from talks we've given around the country that Wind Speak as highlighted above is very common. And it doesn't surprise us when a newspaper editor falls prey to it. But there is NO excuse for Mr. CEO's blatant misrepresentations. If his product were as effective as he believes, wouldn't the truth suffice?

Editor's note: The link to the EIA report included in our weekly Wind Alert! was incorrect. It has been corrected here. Our apologies for any inconvenience.

Windaction.org joined other environmental interest groups and individuals in submitting a sixty-day notice of federal law violations to the Department of Interior in connection with the proposed Cape Wind offshore wind energy facility. Laws cited include the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

The notice and supporting appendices were prepared by attorneys Jessica Almy and Eric R. Glitzenstein of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, the Washington D.C. public interest law firm representing the groups.

We've all heard the pitch about how wind is free and that once a wind facility is constructed the cost of generation is appropriately set low thanks to no fuel expense. We're also often reminded that no fuel cost means wind will help insulate consumers from wildly fluctuating energy prices.

The concept is easy to grasp and rural communities considering whether to host a wind facility are likely to conclude that the project will produce local and regional benefits in the form of lower electricity bills.

The fact is, the price of electricity within a grid region is set at a single price known as the "market-clearing price" or MCP. In most organized electricity markets, electricity generators are encouraged to participate in a daily or day-ahead auction process whereby a uniform market price, the MCP, is established. The MCP is the offer price of the highest-priced generation within the market.

The New England ISO (ISO-NE) and New York ISO (NYISO) typically operate using a day-ahead auction where generators are required to offer firm levels of production for each hour of the next power day. The energy price, in turn, is determined based on those bidding into the system; all generators receive the same price per megawatt hour of generation. Significant penalties are applied if a generator is unable to meet his commitment.

Since wind is an unreliable, intermittent energy source, power pools such as the ISO-NE and NYISO cannot rely on wind generation to be there at critical times. This is particularly true during the afternoon summer hours when peak loads are the highest. Since the production from a wind resource cannot be reliably forecasted, the ISOs do not require wind to schedule any of its production in the day-ahead energy market. Instead, wind resources are permitted to operate exclusively in the real-time market i.e. a pure spot market carrying no penalties for non-performance and where prices are generally less than the prices paid for the day-ahead energy market. Those selling into the real-time market are paid at the clearing price of the real-time market.

The day-ahead market for both the ISO-NE and NYISO represents roughly 90% of the available generation with the real-time market holding only a 10% share.

Since the price paid for ninety-percent of the generation is established twenty-four hours in advance of the power day, any low-cost participation from wind will have only a marginal impact on prices limited to those resources operating within the real-time market.

To illustrate the point further, we looked at the press release from the NYISO from February 2009 titled "NYISO Marks Wind Power Milestone". The release discusses how during the 6pm hour on February 19 "the combined total output of all wind plants in New York reached 1,000 megawatts (MW)" representing "nearly 5% of the roughly 21,000 MW of total system demand." While touted as a milestone for the State the benefit to the consumer was far more elusive.

According to the NYISO a wind storm came through the area causing wind generation to spike up to the 1000 megawatt level at three instantaneous moments in that hour. Although the generation was not sustained there was likely temporary downward pressure on energy prices within the spot market, however, the 90% of reliable generation that bid in day-ahead was still guaranteed the market clearing price.

Perhaps you're now thinking, "Can't we just change the rules?" But before you change the pricing rules for electricity to enable wind storms to have a greater opportunity for reducing energy prices it's important to understand where the wind market is headed.

Wind is reliant on state and federal subsidies to compensate, in part, for any losses due to its fluctuating, intermittent nature. And more and more developers are under pressure from investors to secure power purchase agreements with utilities that will ensure long-term guarantees that their power will be purchased at a fixed price. Even with these purchase agreements in place, wind will still sell into the real-time market (absent better wind forecasting methods). But the agreements assure the developers, and their investors, that they will be paid a stable price for each megawatt hour of generation.

Most power-purchase agreements Windaction.org has reviewed lock in the purchase price of wind for 20-years at 2-3 times more than the wholesale price of other, more traditional sources of generation. In New England, these purchase prices are based on the anticipated future pricing of natural gas.

While above-market, long-term power purchase agreements may have a stabilizing effect on energy prices for wind, they do so at an excessive price to the ratepayers. When the utility sells the wind energy to the grid, the energy will be sold at the lower cost spot energy market price, but the wind developer will be paid the above-market price. Guess what price the utility will base your electric rates on?

Before you accept at face value that wind is a low-cost option for electricity, Windaction.org advises you to understand how electricity is priced in your region. When a wind project comes to town, ask the wind developer and your electric utility: What is the long-term price the utility is committed to purchasing the wind power? and, What is the wholesale price of electricity in your region?

According to the report, the New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE) and the ISO initiated the study in early 2009 following receipt of a letter from Maine's Governor John Baldacci requesting the ISO's support in advancing a "...regional vision for developing renewable energy." Shortly after, the NESCOE submitted a letter to the ISO on behalf of the governors, asking that the economic study be done. The assumptions used in the study were developed by the States with technical input from the ISO.

All of the New England states, except Vermont, have adopted aggressive renewable portfolio standards (RPS) representing about 11% of demand in 2009 but growing to as much as 23% by the year 2020.

Utilities are under pressure to acquire renewable energy (or credits) from owners of operating renewables facilities in order to comply with the RPS programs. For each missing megawatt hour of renewable energy where the mandated percentages are not met, nearly every RPS in New England imposes a sizable fee[2] that is typically collected by each State's Public Utility Commission (PUC). The cost for either the renewable energy credit, or the compliance fee, is passed on to the ratepayers in the form of higher electricity bills.

In order to develop the RPS sources needed to satisfy legislative mandates, most transmission operators intend to build numerous transmission projects either to rural areas in New England or to out-of-region sites, generally into Canada. Several of these projects have already been proposed with more to come. And the state legislatures and PUC's have, thus far, responded favorably to having these costs socialized and paid for by the ratepayers in the region -- not by the renewable generators. Since most of this generation will be intermittent (wind) and largely operate off-peak and off-season, the ISO-NE will also have to procure quick start generation or arrange for sizable storage projects to balance the system. These costs are likely to be socialized as well, and not paid for by the renewable generators.

In a part of the country where only 160 megawatts (MW) of wind is currently installed, all of it onshore, the ISO's report identified a potential for up to 12,000 megawatts -- a 75-fold increase from current wind capacity -- with 7,500 MWs on land and the remaining 4,500 MWs offshore. Most of the onshore development would be sited in rural and remote areas of Maine (4,500 MWs), New Hampshire (1,200 MWs), Massachusetts (1,000 MWs) and Vermont (650 MWs), hundreds of miles from urban areas.

Offshore wind would be distributed in 1500 MW increments off the coasts of Massachusetts, Maine, and Rhode Island. We note that no offshore towers are installed anywhere in the United States at this time, and that Cape Wind, a proposal to erect 130 towers in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts represents one of the fiercest wind battles worldwide!

Despite only limited wind generation experience in the region, and no offshore experience, the document assumes an average capacity factor for offshore wind of 40.7% and inland wind factors of 29.3% in Maine and a whopping 35.4% for the rest of New England!

But what caught our attention were the costs and scale for new transmission development outlined by the ISO -- information that should be required reading by every electricity consumer in New England, and every politician.

In order to meet the 12,000 megawatts of wind potential identified in the report, the ISO anticipates 4,320 new miles of transmission with midrange "order of magnitude" costs between $19 and $25 billion (500 kv or 765 kv lines). Even the more modest scenario of 4000 megawatts of on- and offshore wind was estimated to need 3,615 miles of new transmission ranging in cost from $11 to $14 billion.

The ISO states that its intent was to conduct a "what if" analysis that would inform the states of the economic and environmental impacts of various scenarios. "Although this analysis presents a variety of economic results for comparison," it wrote, "[the analysis] was not a least‐cost plan or multi‐year, present‐worth analysis, and it did not include a "feedback loop" that accounted for how consumers or investors would react to the different sets of circumstances presented."

Given the way New Englanders have responded negatively to wind development thus far, it is impossible to imagine a situation where ratepayers would embrace the environmental, economic, and social costs of industrializing their rural areas with turbines and transmission. It's regrettable that the ISO did not take this opportunity to speak frankly to the governors of New England rather than bolster Baldacci's (et.al.) pie-in-the-sky "vision" when it concluded that "New England has significant potential for developing renewable sources of energy ...primarily from inland and offshore wind resources."

In his memo to the ISO last December, Mr. William Short, an energy analyst with decades of experience in renewable energy deployment, warned that "promoters of renewable energy projects are getting their poorly conceived ideas made into statutes and regulations. Those statutes and regulations are leading to higher costs to end users than if sound economic renewable energy policies were implemented." He goes on to recommend an alternative policy approach and then challenges the ISO to "get over the idea that it should only respond when asked by state legislatures or public service commission's" and, instead, become the independent energy policy expert for New England.

[1] The ISO-NE is a non-profit entity tasked with managing the New England grid system and ensuring the day-to-day reliable operation of the region's bulk power generation and transmission system.

[2] The 2009 compliance fee for the region is $60.92 per megawatt hour. Renewable energy credits are trading at around $30 per megawatt hour.

This week, Angus King, former Maine Governor turned wind developer, set out to correct the record on what he termed 'myths' about wind power now circulating. His opinion piece, while devoid of any substantive proof other than his say so and a link to his project's web site, in fact, was teeming with his own myths and half-truths that deserve clarification.

King first takes issue with Jonathan Carter of Forest Ecology Network and Carter's description of mountaintop wind operations resulting in "the building of thousands of miles of additional power lines and roads [and]...the clear cutting of more than 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forestlands. Literally the tops of the mountains are blown-up in order to establish a bedrock base for the massive concrete pads needed to support 400-to-500-foot turbines."

King quibbles over the petty claiming dirt and rock on the mountain top are not actually removed from the mountain but merely "moved from one place to another in building the gravel access road and foundations." Perhaps the Governor missed the photos taken at the TransCanada wind site atop Kibby Mountain in Maine, where 50-60 foot ledge cuts into the side the of the mountain were required to construct roads stable enough to handle the weight and width of the turbine components. Or the more infamous photo of the Mars Hill wind site, also in Maine, showing just how much the mountaintop was blown off to make way for the towers. We believe that most people would agree with Jonathan Carter.

The next 'myth' King takes on is that of noise. He claims "our" law, presumably Maine's law, is "pretty restrictive" but that "several of the early wind projects in Maine got waivers from the noise limits and there are neighbors who are hearing them and are pretty upset." King would do well to check his facts. Only one wind project, Mars Hill Wind, was granted a variance that would permit the project to operate at 50 db(A) as opposed to the required 45 db(A). Nonetheless, his statement is not relevant to the project sites in Vinalhaven and Freedom, Maine -- both of which are experiencing severe noise issues. Nor does it apply to the Stetson wind facility, approved by Maine's Land Use Regulatory Commission, which follows different standards altogether for noise.

He goes on to say that "our" experience shows that setback distances of around half a mile are adequate for addressing noise problems. Since King has never operated a wind facility we're not sure whose experience he's relying on, but he may wish to speak with Ethan Hall of Vinalhaven. Hall, who lives 3,500 feet from three industrial towers, recently explained that the noise penetrates his home where he is unable to read, work, or get good rest.

King's third myth argues that Maine's wind power law was not pushed through the legislature by wind proponents as claimed by some. What he doesn't bother to tell his readers is that the "Expedited Permit" wind law was declared an emergency bill from the governor and it passed through the legislature in 15 days with very little scrutiny. And that State Representative Jon Hinck, co-chairman of Maine's utilities and energy committee, who was responsible for giving the bill the emergency designation, is married to Juliet Browne, an attorney who represents wind interests in the State and who sat on the Governor's Wind Task Force. This week, Hinck asked the Maine Ethics Commission for an advisory opinion on whether he has a conflict of interest when considering wind legislation. A little late, but at least he's asking.

Finally, King scoffs at the idea that wind turbines can make you sick. He makes vague reference to "independent analyses" including Maine's own Dr. Dora Mills and the Maine Center for Disease Control in claiming turbines can annoy people but nothing more.

In December, Windaction.org reported on the Industry's misuse of the term 'annoyance' in claiming that noise impacts are of no consequence.

Equally significant is the e-mail paper trail -- one that King is well aware of -- which begins February 10, 2009 after Dr. Albert Aniel of Rumford, Maine forwarded an open letter from the Rumford Hospital Medical staff, together with links to articles, to Dr. Mills asking for her support for a moratorium on new permits for wind turbine projects until further research could be done on possible health effects of wind turbines.

As detailed in the e-mails, Dr. Mills looked to Maine's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner David Littell, and others at DEP involved in reviewing wind turbine projects, for assistance in refuting the health concerns of Dr. Aniel.

In a subsection of his essay entitled "A Dangerous Dependence" he claims that Maine is "dangerously dependent upon fossil fuels " citing 55 percent of its electricity coming from oil and gas with 100 percent imported "often from people who don't like us." But what he doesn't tell you is that Maine's net electricity generation is among the lowest in the United States with a large percentage of its energy exported to other states in the region. As with most of New England, natural gas -- imported mostly from friendly Canada --accounts for around 40 percent of generation. And renewable sources, mainly wood and hydroelectric, account for almost half of Maine's net electricity generation. In fact, nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources make up a larger share of net electricity generation in Maine than in any other State.

Governor King is certainly welcome to respond to statements by those in his State who are raising concerns about wind, and of course he is entitled to his own opinion. But apparently, he also believes he's entitled to his own facts.

Last month, Judge Stephen Yelenosky of the Texas District Court of Travis County dropped a bombshell when he reversed the order of the Public Utility Commission of Texas ('PUCT') that awarded responsibility for constructing, operating, and maintaining transmission facilities necessary to deliver renewable (wind) energy to the population centers of the State.

In 2005, the Texas Legislature adopted Senate Bill 20 which directed the PUCT to select the most productive wind zones in the State and devise a transmission plan to deliver wind energy from these remote areas to the State's urban centers. Five Competitive Renewable Energy Zones ('CREZ') were identified in West Texas and the Panhandle for the construction of new wind energy generation. In 2008, the PUCT ordered the construction of new transmission to support up to 18,456 megawatts of wind energy capacity at an estimated cost of $4.93 billion, or approximately $4.00 per month per residential customer once construction was completed. The costs were to be reflected as rate increases. In its order of March 2009, the PUCT named thirteen transmission service providers (TSPs) to build the new power lines.

The City of Garland promptly sued the PUCT charging the Commission failed to consider the interests of electric customers and the advantages of municipally-owned utilities when awarding the contracts, including lower costs to electric customers. The City also argued that the PUCT did not make any "fact-specific findings" that substantiated why the thirteen entities were selected over those that were not. Judge Yelenosky agreed and on January 15 ordered the PUCT decision reversed and remanded back.

Judge Yelenosky's order had the effect of stopping the transmission projects authorized under the CREZ process.

The attorney for the City of Garland, Brad Neighbor, issued a press release on the Judge's ruling calling it "a big win for Texas ratepayers". This earned him a public rebuking by the PUCT Commissioners who appeared more concerned about their reputations than the court's order. But the fact is, Neighbor was right.

In a letter explaining his ruling, Judge Yelenosky found that the PUCT did not explicitly considered what’s most cost-effective for electric customers. He further detailed several areas where the PUCT relied on factors that were either legally irrelevant or lacked substantial evidence in the record to justify its decision.

Case in point: the PUCT partially supported its decision to not select the City of Garland or other municipally owned utilities because such entities were not required to pay property taxes and that payment-in-lieu-of-taxes might be infeasible. The Judge found the PUCT offered no explanation to connect this finding with the need to provide beneficial and cost-effective transmission capacity to electric customers. Rather, the record showed mere speculation "that taxing entities and others would be angered by transmission lines that did not come with tax payments." The Judge also found the PUCT's claim that "municipally-owned utilities did not possess the current and expected capabilities" was not based on any relevant factors or evidence in the record.

The PUCT appears to have acted on opinion and/or its own bias in deciding who would share in the $5 billion public pie.

In a little noticed hearing of the PUCT last fall, regulators sided with the companies building Texas' renewable-energy transmission network in deciding against seeking federal stimulus funding that could have saved money for the State's electric consumers. The Commissioners concluded that stimulus funds came with strings that would slow construction or negate any financial savings including:

b) federal rules requiring workers be paid "prevailing wages" i.e. wages in line with what laborers earn in similar jobs in the region; and

We note that transmission developers making the case against the stimulus funds have a vested financial interest in keeping their costs elevated; lower costs generally reduce the profit that regulated utilities can earn.

At the very least, the PUCT should have required the companies to prove the federal funding wasn't worth it, but we know from this recent court ruling that the Commissioners do not seem to know the difference between opinion and factual evidence. The ratepayers of Texas can only hope the Commissioners will respond constructively to the court ruling and remember who it is they serve.

The American Wind Energy Association ('AWEA') released its latest proclamation this week highlighting 2009 as another banner year for the wind industry. Nearly 10,000 megawatts of new capacity was installed in the United States, up from 8,300 megawatts constructed in 2008, the previous record year. Total installed capacity of wind in the US now stands at just over 35,000 megawatts.

While this is impressive considering the amount of wind energy available a few short years ago, it's important we put these numbers in their proper perspective.

The New York Times reported that the country is "close to the point where 2 percent of its electricity will come from wind turbines." Not quite. According to the Department of Energy, the latest technology projects installed in 2007 but operational in 2008 carried an average capacity factor of just 35%. If we generously apply this factor to the entire fleet of installed wind turbines, wind represents just 1.2% of the total summer generating capacity in the US. In order to achieve 2%, existing projects would have to be operating at 58% capacity factor on average!

In the same New York Times article, energy consultant Tim Stephure, said that "by 2020, wind's installed capacity could be five times higher than it is today, reaching about 180,000 megawatts."

Apparently, in his enthusiasm to promote industrial wind power, Mr. Stephure failed to accurately characterize the scale of such development, the technology challenges and staggering financial costs, and the fundamental changes to electricity infrastructure needed to achieve such levels of production. Given the current installed capacity for wind, up to 14,500 megawatts of new wind turbines would need to be installed year after year through to 2020 - an amount that's 150% greater than wind's best year on record. To achieve this goal, critical challenges facing project development would need to be overcome, including,

a) acceptance of wind turbines sited on publicly-owned lands including national forests and wilderness areas;

b) sustained and substantial taxpayer-funded subsidies to ensure project viability,

d) the vigorous and growing public opposition to industrial wind development due to noise, view-shed, and other impacts.

Nonetheless, we can expect to hear more from AWEA as it grades each of the States on their respective contribution to the megawatt bottom line. But these numbers should not distract us from our true responsibility i.e. to service load with the most reliable, environmentally sensitive and least-cost generation. Wind energy is the least qualified of our renewable options in helping us meet this responsibility.

Canadian Hydro Developers, Inc.¹ ('CHD') and Ontario have a problem, or at least they should.

Prior to CHD's 67.5 MW Melancthon I Wind Plant coming online in March 2006, concerns about turbine noise and property value impacts were raised by residents in Melancthon Township two-hours northwest of Toronto. CHD assured officials the concerns were unfounded but almost immediately after the project went online complaints were filed. Nonetheless, CHD was back before both Melancthon Township and neighboring Amaranth that same month with a proposal for its Melancthon II project to include an additional 132 MW, 88 turbines.

With complaints coming in on Melancthon I, CHD conceded in July 2006 that it would delay Phase II for up to 12 months to accommodate community requests for a higher-level scrutiny of the proposal. Toronto Sun's environmental reporter Tyler Hamilton bemoaned CHD's decision citing NIMBY and arguing: "Given the dramatic environmental benefits of wind when compared to fossil fuel or nuclear plants, it seems unreasonable to submit these projects to the same level of scrutiny".

The Melancthon II project was ultimately approved and online by November 2008, but the proceedings were contentious particularly on the subject of noise.

Paul Thompson's front porch is located just 360 meters from the Melancthon transformer substation that services both projects. Prior to the second transformer being constructed for Phase II, Thompson complained the constant hum emanating from the substation was audible both outside and inside his dwelling even with the windows closed. He made it clear at public hearings on Melancthon II that the noise was intolerable. With both transformers in place, Mr. Thompson told Windaction.org the noise has required he move out of his house at night and rent other accommodations.

CHD responded insisting that "...all noise level measurements taken near the transformer and on neighbouring properties have been compliant with noise guidelines issued by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment" and that if there are damages from the transformer, which it denied, those damages are the result of Thompson's 'abnormal sensitivity'.

Thompson approached the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ('MPAC') to request a reduction in his property assessment. His home was assessed at $255,000, a figure he would not have disputed but for the substation noise. The MPAC acknowledged his property was negatively affected but made no adjustment to his home's value. In fact, MPAC testified that "the noise was loud enough to cause significant interference with a telephone conversation he [their representative] had with Mr. Thompson".

Thompson appealed to the Assessment Review Board ('ARB') and in September 2008 the ARB ordered his property valuation be reduced to $127,000, 50% below market value. The decision was not released until the end of 2009. In their deliberations, the ARB stated "There is evidence that noise contamination exists without any apparent cure."

Tyler Hamilton weighed in on the ARB decision, as well. This time he chastised Canadian Hydro Developers for not doing a better job siting the substation and warned all other developers they "can't afford to make mistakes". It's doubtful Hamilton will ever consider the concerns raised by residents as anything more than NIMBY cries. But one fact cannot be denied. When Ontario passed its Green Energy Act in 2009, the Provincial Government sided with Hamilton and others that higher-level scrutiny of wind siting was unreasonable -- the fallout from that Act has only just begun.

The appeal challenged the permit on a number of important issues including MEDEP's reliance, in part, on claims made by Maine's Center for Disease Control that there is "no evidence in peer-reviewed medical and public health literature of adverse health effects from noise generated from wind turbines other than occasional reports of annoyances."

The near identical conclusion was published in the industry-funded report released earlier this month which stated that while noise and vibrations emitted by industrial wind turbines may be annoying the towers posed no risk to human health and any allegations of adverse health effects were as yet unproven.

We were particularly struck by how both sources characterized turbine noise as merely 'annoying' prompting us to investigate further.

According to Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, the word 'annoyance' has been "misinterpreted by the wind industry and the Maine CEC to mean an inconsequential disturbance" thus failing to comprehend the health significance or severity of the 'annoyance' in medical terms.

"Substitute 'disturbance' for the word 'annoyance'", he said, "and things look different."

Dr. Alice Suter, the distinguished acoustician in the area of hearing conservation and noise control appears to support Dr. Nissenbaum's position. In her 1991 paper entitled "Noise and Its Effects" she wrote:

We asked acoustics expert George Kamperman[1], who has over 50 years of experience in the area of community noise, to help us understand what Dr. Suter meant by her statement that other descriptors "would make comparisons to previous research difficult."

Mr. Kamperman added: "Dr. Nissenbaum has suggested wind turbine noise generates sleep 'disturbance' and not simply sleep 'annoyance.' I find this to be a very accurate distinction. The CanWEA report has sidestepped the obvious difference between noise annoyance and the noise disturbance associated with wind turbine noise immission."

According to Mr. Kamperman, Dr. Suter, Dr. Nissenbaum, and the WHO, the word 'annoyance' is an important technical term whose meaning should not be taken lightly. It would seem both MECDC and the wind industry are missing this point entirely.

Nonetheless, using the nomenclature offered by Mr. Kamperman, most would agree the individuals cited in this story are '100% HA'.

[1] Mr. Kamperman is a Bd. Cert. Member Institute of Noise Control Engineers, Fellow Member Acoustical Society of America, and Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants.

On November 17, the island community of Vinalhaven Maine celebrated the dedication of its 3-turbine community wind facility. The $14.5 million project, which was overwhelmingly supported by members of the local electric cooperative, was touted as a grand success. But before the celebratory speeches concluded and the glee of singing children faded, residents living within a half-mile of the facility made it clear the pulsating noise reverberating in- and outside their homes was unbearable.

George Baker CEO of Fox Island Wind LLC, the man credited as the 'creative force' behind the project, admitted in press accounts that "a small - but not insignificant - number of neighbors are concerned about the sound".

Listen to excerpts from the interview

Vinalhaven resident Ethan Hall, who lives half a mile from the towers, described how there is no place on his property where he can get away from the noise, day or night. According to Mr. Hall, Baker reassured him last spring that at 1000-feet from the turbines the noise would be no louder than a "quiet conversation in a living room".

Unlikely, considering that Fox Island Wind hired Resource Systems Engineering to evaluate the risks at the site -- the same firm that modeled the sound levels for the General Electric 1.5 megawatt turbines erected in Mars Hill, Maine and who conducted four seasons of post-construction sound surveys after the eighteen families near the project complained of oppressive turbine noise. The Fox Island wind farm uses the same GE turbines.

Fox Island Wind, in collaboration with GE and Maine's Department of Environmental Protection ("ME-DEP"), is now conducting surveys at the affected properties. While we hope Baker will make every effort to mitigate the problem, his only obligation is to determine whether the project is operating in compliance with its State permit. We know that after ME-DEP declared the Mars Hill facility in compliance, the agency dropped all involvement and the families had no choice but to seek relief in the courts.

In their radio interview, the Vinalhaven residents expressed their sincere wish that other communities would learn from their situation and work to avoid the same problem. Windaction.org has the same wish -- and their message is not a minute too soon.

Communities worldwide are working on relaxing their ordinances to allow for turbines, including a number of coastal communities in Maine's neighboring States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. It's time to listen to the voices of experience -- those not monetarily vested in the turbines -- before millions in public and private dollars are spent and the lives of many more people are permanently disrupted.

Over the weekend, the UK papers broke the story that government officials suppressed the findings of a 2006 study on wind turbine noise and its effects on nearby residents.

The study, prepared by acoustics noise and vibration consultants Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP), was used to support the position that existing Government wind farm noise guidelines from 1996 were adequate and that turbine noise posed no health risks for neighboring dwellings. However, draft versions of the document obtained by Mr. Mike Hulme of the Den Brook Judicial Review Group revealed that the final published report removed earlier recommendations that stated:

1. night time wind turbine noise limits should be reduced from 43dB to 38dB, and,
2. in the event that the turbine noise has a discernible beating character, the limit should be further reduced to 33dB.

These newly revealed recommendations are consistent with the World Health Organization's ("WHO") guidelines for nighttime noise levels published in October which state:

We note that wind developers typically advocate for noise limits at project sites ranging between 45 and 55 dB as measured at night at the outside wall of nearby homes -- well above WHO guidelines.

Despite these recommendations, a new report funded by the Canadian (CANwea) and American Wind Energy Associations (AWEA) has concluded that noise and vibrations emitted by industrial wind turbines may be annoying but pose no risk to human health. It further states that "allegations of adverse health effects from wind turbines are as yet unproven." The expert panel that compiled the report also agreed that "the number and uncontrolled nature of existing case reports of adverse health effects alleged to be associated with wind turbines are insufficient to advocate for funding further studies."

It may be that adverse health effects due to proximity to wind turbines is not yet proven but to turn a blind eye to testimonials now pouring in from across the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe and Asia is unimaginable. We are reminded of the assertions made by the cigarette industry in the 1950's when reports surfaced that smoking could lead to lung cancer, including the quote used in the title of the article, "We believe the products we make are not injurious to health."

Interestingly, David M. Lipscomb PhD, one of the experts who contributed to the CANwea and AWEA report held a very different view of noise induced annoyance in June 2000 in his testimony before the State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council on a proposed electric generating facility.

When asked at what sound levels he would expect to see reactions of effects of noise he stated:

The question of noise is front and center in the minds of most who are being asked to consider a wind plant in their community. And the wind industry's insistence on dismissing the issue is proving a losing strategy. This most recent report, coming on the heels of the WHO's guidelines and revelations of suppressed documents in the UK, is further proof that the industry prefers to manipulate public impression than act responsibly. As with the cigarette industry, the preponderance of evidence will become undeniable.

[1] dB refers to Lnight,outside, the night-time noise indicator (Lnight): the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in ISO 1996-2:1987, determined over all the night periods of a year.

Only a few years ago, electric energy policy was all about servicing the power needs of the region with the most reliable, least cost generation. Nowadays, power plant development equals economic development, or at least, that's the pitch.

Energy pricing for over a decade dissuaded generators from building their plants long distances from load centers, thereby reducing the pressure to build costly and environmentally harmful transmission. And projects able to meet our peak demand requirements assured we were not building redundant, backup energy sources beyond what was necessary to cover reserve requirements. This coupled with the U.S. clean air and water acts and other environmental rules led to our energy resources becoming progressively cleaner, safer, more efficient and with a smaller footprint.

In just a few short years, there's been a dramatic shift in thinking in energy policy as regulators and the public raised concern about the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Many states adopted renewable energy legislation with the intent of lowering our greenhouse emission levels.

Renewable Portfolio Standards ("RPS") that set arbitrary goals for megawatts of renewables installed were predicated on the assumption that increased renewable generation in the state would reduce fossil fuel use, and consequently reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Other recent objectives include creating 'green' jobs, producing tax revenue opportunities for rural and remote communities, and supplementing income for farmers.

In the rush to shift the country's energy supply to renewables and wind, basic planning concepts have been brushed aside. Policy makers chartered with regulation and siting decisions are caught up in a renewables fever and we find ourselves in a place where the driving factor is to find a way to get projects approved, even if it means ignoring key tenets of electric generation siting and environmental sensitivities. “Renewables at any cost” is the modern mantra.

For many states, the review of renewable project applications has been streamlined and/or fast tracked -- often at the expense of thorough environmental reviews and the public's right to participate.

Last year, when T. Boone Pickens caught the public's attention with his pitch to transform the U.S. energy industry into one reliant on wind and natural gas, few noticed the trillions in public investments he was advocating to cover the capital costs of rural wind farms and the transmission lines needed to connect them to urban centers.

The Obama administration promises "green" jobs but we rarely hear mention of the public cost to create these jobs, how many are just temporary, and the number of jobs that will be lost in the migration to more expensive wind energy. Nonetheless, the race is on to erect thousands of turbines at a panic rate.

Rural communities, which always managed to get by, are now quick to advocate projects in their area for the money -- usually with little care or consideration of the environmental, health and social impacts. And farmers, often without the benefit of legal advice, are signing away their land rights to wind developers for 30-50 years for a fraction of the value.

Policies, rules, regulations -- and reactions -- are in effect which, if left unchallenged, will result in the massive and costly industrialization of our rural and wilderness areas all in the name of renewable energy.

In his comments to Congress regarding a national RPS, Dr. Jay Apt of Carnegie Melon University argued,

We agree with Dr. Apt. We must get back to focusing on the primary goal: Servicing the power needs of the region with the most reliable, least cost generation -- and low emission. By establishing energy policies that focus on the goal and not picking preferred technologies like wind and solar, we will see a wealth of new energy options and ideas that are now blocked due to biases in existing legislation.

Wind energy proponents insist industrial scale wind turbines have no diminishing effect on nearby residential property values. They point to several analyses prepared in the last six years (including REPP¹, Hoen², and Hoen/Wiser³) as evidence of their claims.

These reports conclude that there is no significant relationship between distance from, or visibility of the windfarm on the sale prices of houses. However, as we've reported before, there is good reason not to place substantial weight on the findings.

The REPP report has been widely discredited due to key flaws in the methodology including the fact that sixty-six percent of the homes sampled did not see the wind facility at all and the analysis made no distinction between homes near the turbines and those five miles away thus assuming the effect of the turbines was equal on all properties regardless of proximity.

The Hoen 2006 master's thesis, while more legitimate, made clear its analysis only applied to homes near a windfarm in Fenner New York and communities similar to Fenner. Any general conclusion drawn about property impacts based on Hoen's 2006 report would be inaccurate.

And now here comes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) which has undertaken yet another study to show, once and for all, that utility-scale wind turbines do not harm property values.

In 2007, Ben Hoen teamed up with Dr. Ryan Wiser of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, to expand Hoen's master's work nationwide. By June of 2007, with no report in hand, Hoen broadcast his preliminary conclusions of their study at the American Wind Energy Association's (AWEA) annual meeting. Bottom line: "No negative effects found" on property values. In November 2007, DOE touted the same preliminary conclusions at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners' annual meeting and again, Hoen appeared at the 2008 AWEA meeting where he reaffirmed his conclusions.

The Hoen/Wiser report has yet to be released, but that hasn't stopped Hoen from distributing his findings whenever and wherever possible. And since 2007, wind developers have been submitting Hoen's unpublished conclusions to State and local boards as definitive proof that properties are unharmed by the towers.

This September, Windaction.org was one of about twenty reviewers to submit comments on Hoen's work. Our full report can be viewed here. After all the hype, what we found was sobering. Windaction.org's report to Wiser and Hoen identified serious flaws in their methodology, rendering the results of their study meaningless. The independent real estate appraisal experts we consulted quickly recognized that any qualified appraiser with any experience in the regression techniques utilized -- and who was not predisposed to a preferred outcome -- would easily discredit the report.

For one, the study failed to meet a basic assumption of a regression analysis i.e. that the database of sales transactions compared was reasonably homogeneous.

The "hedonic regression method" used by Hoen argues that one can determine the marginal contribution of specific independent variables -- i.e. view of the turbines -- to the sale price. However, when variables are omitted from the model, such as number of bedrooms, or improperly weighted in assessing contribution to house price it is not possible to understand the single effect of turbine view.

Homogeneous means that the houses included in any transactions were similar in market characteristics such as approximate size, age, quality, available amenities (schools, shopping, security, access to work and recreation, etc) and were examined in a similar economic setting (employment, availability and cost of financing, market growth or decline and the like), among other factors. Homogeneity of the marketplace is fundamental to the type of regression analysis Hoen used. It is well documented that these techniques are difficult to utilize on data sets that vary substantially due to differing characteristics.

In Hoen's study, the data set spanned nine different states across the United States and included 4,895 sales of which a subset of property characteristics were identified and then averaged to produce a composite home of 47 years in age with 1,628 square feet of finished living area above ground, 1.75 bathrooms situated on 1.09 acres and having an average condition. The data showed home sale prices ranging from as low as $10,492 to as high as $647,500.

The variation in house price alone indicated a failure to meet the requirement of homogeniality. But the problem in Hoen's study was more pervasive. When we looked at the 'age' characteristic for the homes in the report, the average age of the home at the time of the sale was 47 years with a standard deviation of 36. In other words, within one standard deviation, 68.2% of the homes in the data set ranged in age from 11 years to 83 years. We have no way of knowing how age influenced sale prices within the study's data set or whether age affected house price more or less than view of the turbines. The same can be said for other property characteristics like square footage of the home, number of baths, etc. Remarkably, Hoen did not even track the number of bedrooms per house transaction or whether the houses sold had garages.

In addition, since the data set was drawn from diverse locations across the country, applying the same weight to property characteristics was inappropriate. For example, fireplaces or finished basements in Texas may be perceived as less valuable than central air conditioning and the reverse may be true for the same characteristics found in homes in upstate New York. Nonetheless, Hoen did exactly that.

Appraisers are highly critical of hedonic analysis and have warned that causal conclusions drawn about a data set when utilizing this technique are often times unsupportable. This criticism applies in cases where those conducting the analysis make every effort to obtain a homogeneous data set and include important basic property characteristics. In Hoen's case, it is clear he had no interest in conducting a legitimate study to determine the impact of wind towers on property values. On the contrary, it appears the outcome was already predetermined back in 2007 when he raced to AWEA to promote his premature conclusions. With his "mission accomplished", unfortunately, he now has little incentive to release the final report.

Eighteen months ago, Windaction.org reported that First Wind's Stetson wind facility (57-megawatts) in Maine would add no new renewable energy to the New England grid due to transmission constraints.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since 2003, with the discovery of significant bat kills at the Mountaineer wind energy facility sited on a forested ridgeline in West Virginia, the wind industry has been battling the issue of how best to predict and site wind facilities to avoid, or minimize the problem. High bat mortality has since been reported at project sites worldwide, particularly involving migratory species, prompting concerns of cumulative effects on bat populations.

World renown bat expert, Dr. Thomas H. Kunz, and others, in their peer-reviewed paper entitled "Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats", detailed the significant risk that industrial-scale wind turbines pose for migratory and local bat populations in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands region of the United States. The authors projected that by 2020, annual bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in this region alone could reach 111,000 bats. They also state that their preliminary projections of cumulative bat fatalities are "likely to be unrealistically low, especially as larger and increasing numbers of wind turbines are installed."

High bat mortality is not limited to the eastern region of the U.S. Drs. Kunz and Merlin Tuttle raised the red flag in Texas where limited or no studies are underway and researchers in Canada, where barotrauma was first identified, are also trying to quantify the problem. When the devastating bat-killing disease white-nose syndrome - which has now spread to much of the East Coast - is factored into the equation, it's easy to understand why leading bat experts are predicting truly dire consequences unless drastic changes are made in the way that wind power projects are sited and regulated.

With that background, we introduce the law suit filed by Animal Welfare Institute, Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, and others against Beech Ridge LLC.

At issue is whether the massive Beech Ridge project - consisting of over 120 industrial wind turbines spread out over 23 miles on multiple Appalachian ridges in Greenbrier County, West Virginia - will likely kill, wound, harm, harass, or otherwise "take" any federally endangered Indiana bats during the two decades that the turbines will operate. Discovery taken to date by the plaintiffs' attorneys reveals the scale of risk to bats as follows:

• that Defendants' own consultant - BHE Environmental ("BHE") - has predicted that more than 135,000 bats would be killed by the turbines, through a combination of direct impacts with the turbine blades and barotrauma;

• that such deaths will likely include other "myotis" species - the taxonomic group that includes Indiana bats - including such species that have been captured on the Beech Ridge site and that resemble the Indiana bat and share similar ecological characteristics;

• that other wind power projects built on Appalachian ridges - including the "Mountaineer" facility in West Virginia, which is close geographically to the Beech Ridge project - have had far higher rates of bat mortality than wind power projects located in other parts of the country, and that the available data reflect that Appalachian projects have killed higher percentages of myotis species than elsewhere in the country;

• that hundreds of Indiana bats presently hibernate in caves within ten miles of the project site - including some that are less than seven miles from turbine locations - and that there are no currently operating wind power projects closer to known Indiana bat hibernacula;

• that Indiana bats can and do migrate between summer roosting and foraging habitat much further than the distance between the hibernacula and the project site;

• that there is in fact "suitable" Indiana bat habitat on the project site itself, as confirmed by the parties' site inspection;

• that the 23 miles of Beech Ridge turbines will be physically located between known Indiana bat hibernacula to the south and east of the project and known Indiana summer foraging and roosting habitat to the west and north of the project;

• that Defendants performed no surveys whatsoever regarding Indiana bat - or, for that matter, any other bat - use of the site during the crucial Fall migration period although both the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") and WV DNR sent BHE letters urging that such surveys be performed.

Despite these facts, the developer asserted that Indiana bats were unlikely to be killed, injured, or otherwise taken because Indiana bats have never been detected on the project site itself.

But, in fact, pre-trial investigations uncovered that several such surveys were completed in July 2005. The developer now admits a subcontractor collected "ultrasound" data and the acoustic data sat in a file cabinet unanalyzed. Two experts for the Plaintiffs, Drs. Lynn Robbins and Michael Gannon have analyzed these long-hidden files and have determined that Indiana bats were almost certainly present on the site during the survey.

The trial start date is set for Oct 21; Windaction.org will be watching these proceedings closely. This single project, if permitted to proceed, will pose an alarming risk to bats, including Indiana bats. But what sobers us most is that data involving the Indiana bat was never publicly revealed until a civil suit was filed and the right document requests made. There is no excuse for this cover-up by Beech Ridge LLC and its environmental consultant, BHE Environmental Inc., and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

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

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's comments are more ranting than reasoned. How could a tower erected to gather yearly wind data for the benefit of a for-profit, private entity be deemed a public health emergency? In fact, Deepwater did not install the tower until August. And his claim that high electricity costs and shrinking profit margins were creating stress, and thus a medical emergency for the town is laughable. We note that no economic analysis of Deepwater's proposal was available to him at the time the vote was taken.

In fact, the true cost-benefit to island ratepayers is still under review. Case in point: Rhode Island's legislature voted this year to require island electricity customers to shoulder more of the wind farm's $20-million underwater cable cost because, according to members of the General Assembly, the island would be the primary beneficiary.

More information about Block Island's wind farm will be made available in the coming year. Windaction.org encourages the residents of Block Island to get the facts on the project and watch the Town Council's actions closely. Wishful thinking and fantasy on the part of the Council are no excuse for corrupting the plain reading of town laws or for substituting blind faith for facts.

This week, USA Today explored the renewables debate as it applied to public lands. In the article, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the man responsible for protecting and providing access to our nation's natural and cultural heritage, declared his Department the "real department of energy". In fact, staff at the Interior Department, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are working at his direction to fast-track the release of millions of acres of public land for a massive deployment of renewable energy projects. Developers from around the world are lined up waiting to take advantage of the Obama administration's ‘hurry-up and get it done' renewables policy.

Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington DC argued in the Wall Street Journal this month that the push for more renewable-energy projects was necessary to curb the country's dependence on foreign oil and its greenhouse-gas emissions. Statements like Mr. Grumet's fly around with such regularity that, at this point, no one, including the Journal, bothers to question their accuracy.

In fact, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that just 2% of the U.S. electric industry is powered by oil. The bulk of our electricity is sourced from coal, nuclear power, and natural gas. And anyone who caught a T. Boone Pickens' ad on television in the last year would know that eighty-percent of the natural gas consumed in the U.S is produced domestically with virtually all of the remaining 20% imported from Canada. As for carbon emissions, we encourage readers to reference energy expert Tom Hewson's report published this summer entitled "Calculating wind power's environmental benefits."

As the debate intensifies, Windaction.org is witnessing a growing backlash against alternative energy coming from most areas of the country. People who have raised concerns about property values, health effects, the adverse impacts to wildlife etc. are responding to years of being marginalized and dismissed as NIMBY ("not in my backyard"). The clash over whether to produce ‘nonpolluting domestic energy' or protect our natural environment is seen as a false choice borne out of a pie-in-the-sky belief that wind and solar can reliably power a substantial segment of this country.

The degradation these enormous sprawling industrial complexes bring to our cultural and visual resources is least understood. Our colleagues in Texas describe West Texas today as an alien landscape where one can drive for miles and miles and miles (and miles) and see nothing but wind turbines. The nighttime experience is even more surreal with the blinking red lights.

New Mexico artist and engineer Bill Dolson described his resistance to the appearance of "wind farms" as simply the fact that they are large, man-made structures imposed on an otherwise unmolested natural landscape.

His objection, he says, "is really more anthropological than aesthetic. Perhaps because of my training I have couched my objections in aesthetic terms, but really it is something else. What distresses me is a sense of the violation of the natural landscape by the works of man. It seems absolute to me, that no matter whether one likes or dislikes the visual appearance of wind facilities, that they are inherently and irrevocably artificial works of man and not elements of the natural landscape. Whether their presence hinders or improves the appearance of that landscape is really immaterial, because that landscape has forever been altered from its virgin condition. And that is my concern and my objection."

Washington's "hurry up and get it done" renewable energy policies coupled with the billions in taxpayer money available to anyone who shows up leaves no time for communities, businesses, or governments to consider the consequences of our actions. A policy director at a large U.S. utility told Windaction.org "we either get on the train or get run over by it." The renewables train has certainly left the station. The question is how many towers need to be erected, how many view sheds and cultural resources marred, how many dollars squandered and how many lives tainted by poor decisions before the train slows to a controllable rate.

Last month, New Hampshire's Gov. John Lynch announced that 25-percent of the electricity powering the state's government buildings will now come from wind power.

Following a competitive bidding process the state signed a $4.4 million load-service contract with ConEdison Solutions , to supply electricity from both renewable and traditional fuel suppliers in the period from July 1, 2009 to May 31, 2010.

Lynch touted the agreement as "...another step in our efforts to protect our economy and our natural resources by ensuring 25 percent of the electricity used by state government comes from clean, renewable wind power."

The specifics of the contract are straightforward. The state locked-in its purchase of 47,352,000 kilowatt hours (kwh) at a fixed price of 9.2 cents per kwh. The price was all-inclusive and did not distinguish between electricity acquired from wind versus that from other fuel sources. Any added charges associated with transmission or distribution of the energy were excluded from the price and will be billed separately by the local utility.

The state's Energy Manager, Karen Rantamaki, told Windaction.org that New Hampshire had been purchasing its electricity from Unitil Corporation. When asked what the State would have paid in electricity costs had it stayed with Unitil she directed us to Unitil's website.

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?

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?

Given these facts, we wonder if Governor Lynch is even aware of the misrepresentations in his claim above.

1. Electricity produced by turbines in Texas stays in Texas. The ConEdison agreement will have no effect on the state's consumption of fossil fuel.

2. GREEN-E certified RECS sold to New Hampshire could well have been "created" entirely in the year leading up the contract being signed, demonstrating the irrelevancy of the ConEdison agreement relating to wind.

3. There is no way to show how paying higher electricity prices will protect the state's economy or its natural resources. In fact, the higher price per kwh locked-in with ConEdison will result in costs far exceeding the market value of the contracted RECs.

At a time when the state is struggling to meet its budget, the pricey ConEdison contract does nothing more than raise electricity prices, line the corporate pockets of REC brokers ConEdison Solutions and Community Energy, and provide Lynch the PR opportunity to flaunt his "greenness" before an un-informed public -- Greenwashing at its best!

[1] According to the ISO-New England's August 7, 2009 presentation (Slide 54), wholesale electricity prices in the region are closely tied to natural gas prices.

There are several news stories we've been following that we thought important to highlight this week given the similarities to other cases our readers are involved with.

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.

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.

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.

This week, our contact reported that "atmospheric conditions were just right last night. At 6 to 7 miles away the turbines could be heard. Loudest so far."

On March 27, 2009, residents of Mars Hill living within 3600 feet of First Wind's wind facility filed a civil complaint in Maine's Superior Court seeking relief from the "significant harm" caused by First Wind and others by the construction and operation of the site. Medical professionals recognize the health problems related to the turbines at Mars Hill are valid.

The past two and one-half years have been a trying and difficult time for the families of Mars Hill and their decision to file the suit was not an easy one. But it is also clear to Windaction.org that the State of Maine has washed its hands of Mars Hill, placing its pursuit of wind energy development ahead of the health, welfare, and safety of its residents. And the State's continuing down this path in Roxbury, Maine.

Here's the history: Shortly before the Mars Hill wind project went online in March 2007, problems of intrusive sound levels were reported despite repeated assurances by developer, First Wind, and town officials that there would be no noise. Andrew Fisk of the Bureau of Land & Water Quality at the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME-DEP), the agency which approved the facility, responded by requiring First Wind to conduct sound surveys during four seasons of operation to determine whether the project was in compliance with its permit. The permit allows the project to produce nighttime noise levels of 50 decibels at sensitive receptors near the homes. Resource Systems Engineering (RSE), who designed and conducted the pre-construction noise modeling study for First Wind was also engaged to conduct the subsequent monitoring studies.

When RES delivered its first sound survey report in June 2007, the residents, and others, raised questions related to the protocols used. ME-DEP hired Warren Brown of EnRad Consulting to peer-review and validate the survey work. Mr. Brown identified problems with the methodology employed by RSE but determined the findings to date were still substantially in compliance with the permit conditions.

RSE implemented some adjustments and the last two surveys were conducted in winter and spring 2008. It was not until December 5, 2008 that Warren Brown issued his final report to the State; the families received their copy of Brown's report on December 17, 2008 one day prior to a face-to-face meeting scheduled between the Mars Hill residents, First Wind representatives and Andrew Fisk to discuss Brown's findings. Other attendees at the meeting included Richard James of E-Coustic Solutions , an acoustics engineer engaged by the families to help sort through the noise issues, and Lisa Linowes of Windaction.org.

Despite having only one day to review Brown's findings, the families were well aware that doubts about the project's compliance remained. Even in his vaguely worded report, it was apparent Brown still had concerns:

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.

And it's quite possible so does Mr. Brown. Meeting minutes taken during a March 5, 2009 conference call with Maine's Public Health Director Dr. Dora Mills, Andrew Fisk, Warren Brown and others reveals a very different situation. Here, Mr. Brown highlights concerns with existing studies and states "Wind turbine noise needs more investigation!" (exclamation included).

What's more intriguing from the meeting minutes are the statements by Dr. Mills who appears to be quarreling with Brown over whether turbine noise has any adverse health effects. While Mr. Brown is steadfast in raising his concerns, it is disconcerting to see how Dr. Mills carefully scripted her June 21 public comments after knowing what she was told just three months before.

Today we learned that the Record Hill wind energy facility in Roxbury Maine received conditional approval by the Maine DEP to proceed. Based on the brief glimpse afforded us by the meeting minutes, we can only guess what the internal debates were like within ME-DEP prior to ‘green-lighting' this project. What is obvious, however, is that Maine has picked its sides, and we can expect Roxbury to be a repeat of Mars Hill.

The divide between wind energy proponents and those seeking to protect the health and welfare of individuals from the ill-effects of the towers is increasing.

News accounts are published almost daily from around the world highlighting the serious problems of turbine noise and related adverse health effects, yet wind proponents like Ryan Schryver of Clean Wisconsin insist such reports are the work of a small, but vocal minority of people hell-bent on keeping turbines out of their viewshed. In an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio's Joy Cardin, Schryver dismissed health and safety concerns as exaggerated and argued that the focus on the issue was merely a tactic by wind power opponents in Wisconsin to encumber future proposals.

Perhaps Mr. Schryver is unaware that the health problems reported are not limited to Wisconsin. Or worse, he may believe there is a worldwide underground effort to coordinate the voices of those harmed by the turbines. We hate to disappoint, but there is no grand conspiracy in the works. The fact is there are legitimate problems with turbines sited too close to where people live. And the failure of governmental permitting agencies to acknowledge and address the issues will not silence those seeking to protect their families and communities.

The public push for renewable energy solutions has quickly filtered into the business and personal market and more and more communities are finding themselves confronted with some of the same land use issues we see with utility-scale turbines. Establishing appropriate siting standards to address minimum lot size, maximum tower heights, property line setbacks, and noise levels are essential in ensuring adjacent properties are not harmed and the health and safety of the public are maintained.

In a few instances, communities made the conscious decision to move slowly, enacting moratoria until reasonable regulatory protections are developed. But this is not the norm. Rather, we are finding communities racing to adopt land use laws aimed at inviting the turbines but with little regard for the impacts. In an extreme example, the State of New Hampshire applied the heavy-hand of "governance" and imposed standards on its communities that prohibited "unreasonable limits" on turbine installations related to tower height, setbacks, and noise. In every case where regulations were pushed through to accommodate turbine use, including in New Hampshire, Windaction.org found little justification for the standards adopted.

This reckless approach to permitting small wind systems was certain to lead to a court case, and that's exactly what happened in Libertyville, Illinois.

The residents of Libertyville, IL have been struggling since April with the decision made by Libertyville officials to permit Aldridge Electric to erect a 50 kilowatt Entegrity wind turbine to help power the business. The 120-foot structure is located as close as 250-feet¹ to a residential property. Despite assertions by Aldridge Electric and officials of Libertyville that the turbine would be quiet and blade/shadow flicker would not be a problem, in fact, the noise and other nuisances have proven unbearable to the neighbors.

In May, Chicago Attorney Richard Porter filed this motion on behalf of the residents seeking a temporary and permanent shut down of the turbine. He argues in the filing that procedural errors made by Libertyville officials in approving the special permit violated his clients' rights of due process and that the operating turbine has, and continues to endanger the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the public.

Lake County Judge Mitchell Hoffmann, in his initial ruling last June, granted the injunction to turn the turbine off. Last week Judge Hoffmann issued his final compromise ruling where he confirmed the turbine was negatively affecting the neighbors and ordered that turbine operation be restricted to weekdays only during the hours of 9am to 3pm.

It remains to be seen whether the Illinois courts would consider similar action if the case involved an industrial wind facility and the opportunity for millions in county revenues at stake. We may find out soon enough.

A group of Illinois residents is suing Dekalb County over its recent decision to permit NextEra (formerly FPL Energy) to construct and operate a massive industrial-scale wind energy facility adjacent to their homes. Although the Dekalb County residents are not living with the impacts of the towers yet, they, like their counterparts in Libertyville, have fully documented procedural irregularities that paved the way for the project's approval.

¹ A resident of Libertyville supplied Windaction.org with the corrected distance of 250-feet.

This 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".

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.

Scientists have written to USFWS expressing concern with the draft guidelines including Dr. Shawn Smallwood, a prominent biologist in the area of impacts of wind turbines on avian life. Those familiar with the history of the Committee and the 'agendas' of its individual members have little faith that its work product will serve any value in protecting vulnerable wildlife resources - a job we would have thought to be the highest priority for the USFWS.

Windaction.org encourages greater Congressional oversight by the House Natural Resources Committee. Some States are being more proactive than the Feds. For instance, Mr. McCarty and other bird enthusiasts may wish to look to New York State for its guidance released in January 2009.

A year ago the US Department of Energy released "20% wind power by 2030", a study that envisioned the US satisfying 20% of its electricity needs through wind power. This February, the Joint Coordinated System Plan 2008 (JCSP'08) proffered a conceptual regional transmission and generation system plan to meet 20% of the Eastern region of the United States' energy needs with wind.

DOE's report called for the deployment of 305,000 MW of wind by the year 2030. The JCSP assumed 229,000 MW of new wind capacity built by 2024. In either scenario, the proposals included the need to build thousands of miles of new transmission lines towering 200-feet tall to deliver the energy from the Midwestern region of the country to points East (and West).

Windaction.org has had several opportunities to publicly debate these scenarios with ranking US energy officials (not politicians) and what we learned, frankly, surprised us:

It is clear that most had not read the DOE report. Many dismissed it as "academic" and unrealistic. Others openly call the JCSP study nothing more than a wind advocacy plan. Both the ISO New England and New York ISO withdrew from the publication of the JCSP report and Ian Bowles, secretary of energy and environmental affairs for Massachusetts, published an editorial in the New York Times where he discouraged a "national grid system" for renewable energy, arguing for a better, lower cost option.

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.

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%.

The true impact of a national renewable vision based on wind, whether DOE's or the JCSP, is in the public cost, both in dollars and in the impacts wrought by transforming our open spaces into massive industrial power plants with associated transmission and other infrastructure.

Too many people are acting as though the discussion is over and all we need to do is build. In fact, it has barely just begun. While we may need to diversity our nation's energy portfolio with viable alternatives to fossil fuel, we hope it's not too late to step back and establish realistic goals based on validated costs and benefits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The trend at all levels of governance is clear: Deployment of wind energy facilities will be expedited and no location deemed to be suitable by the industry will be denied.

Laws are being written and adopted that legally ban public participation from the decision process. In the remaining venues where communities can intervene, the enormous financial burden of "fighting city hall" is often prohibitive. Even when objections are recognized and validated by the decision makers, projects still get approved.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Beware the wolf in green clothing. State and Provincial governments in the U.S. and Canada have been aggressively promoting legislation aimed at fast-tracking wind energy development and silencing the voices of those concerned about massive towers spanning the landscape. Windaction.org cites three examples of pending legislation below including commentary on the status of each.

Montana: House Bill 483 passed the State legislature with substantial bipartisan support and was sent to the Governor for signing. This is the second time the bill made it to the Governor's office; in the first go-around, the Governor vetoed it with minor technical amendments. Columnist George Ochenski recently described the bill as "the most egregious of the environmental destruction bills". In essence, HB 483 "masquerades as an effort to 'streamline' environmental permitting for energy facility projects" at the expense of the public's right to participate in the process.

In the face of a weaker economy and continuing job losses, HB 483 places power plant siting first, ahead of environmental and public concerns. Further, the governor appears to be putting the needs of Nevadans ahead of his state's own citizens, as more than half of the energy that Montana produces is exported to surrounding states.

Environmentalists and wilderness advocates who have spent a lifetime fighting to protect Montana from the harms of energy development are bracing to see their efforts trashed with the stroke of a pen.

Ontario, Canada: Late last February, the Ontario provincial government released its Green Energy Act (Bill 150). The intent of the Act, as advertised, is to accelerate the deployment of green energy projects within the province and to spur record "green" job creation. Premier Dalton McGuinty made it clear in public remarks that his government will prohibit communities from opposing wind energy facilities. In a moment of pure arrogance, he informed Ontario residents that NIMBYism will no longer prevail.

Apparently, Mr. McGuinty doesn't believe that those raising concern about wind energy facilities being built close to where they live and gather have valid reasons for their objections beyond a self-serving dislike of how the towers look. "Noise?" Prove it... "Property value diminution?" Sorry, don't believe it... "Shadow flicker?" For 10 minutes a day? - deal with it... "Public Safety?" Sorry, 400-meters is a more than adequate buffer from your home. And the list goes on.

If only energy and related land use concerns were that simplistic; and the meeting of carbon reduction goals and government sponsored job creation so easily achieved.

The quality of life and health of Ontario's communities and residents are under threat by the very people charged with protecting their interests. But when the Premier sees his fellow residents as part of the problem, something is very wrong.

Following considerable public and media outcry, the Premier recently showed signs he might soften his approach. Maybe so, but Windaction.org encourages the people of Ontario to continue informing the debate. Those seeking change (McGuinty) own the burden of proof - not the other way around. The bill is still before the Ontario legislature.

Wisconsin: In the past two years, a host of Wisconsin townships and counties adopted local ordinances governing the siting of wind energy facilities under 100 megawatts. These newly adopted local laws were more restrictive than the State's model ordinance as it pertains to setback distances and noise limits. The work of so many in Wisconsin to enact justifiable ordinances within the bounds of their authority has helped educate other communities across the United States and worldwide.

Wisconsin State legislators, intolerant of these efforts, moved quickly in early 2008 to pass a bill aimed at abolishing local authority and placing all wind siting control in the hands of the State's Public Service Commission. That bill failed, but Wisconsin citizens have been bracing for similar legislation to be offered, and this week it was. Senate Bill 185 was announced in a joint press release put out by its sponsors. In the release, Senator Plale bemoans those wind projects that are "victims of delay tactics and other obstructions". While not as abrasive as Ontario's McGuinty, his message, and that of his colleagues is clear: "Stay out of our way".

This is the second time in the last year that Wisconsin residents are forced to do battle against legislation that promises to industrialize their communities purely at the will and desire of developers. And, as in Montana and Ontario, the Wisconsin legislators are holding out the promise of jobs and economic opportunities with no substantiation for their claims.

Unfortunately, these examples of aggressive legislation are not unique, but representative of what's happening worldwide. Our civil liberties are at risk, and quickly being eroded in the name of green energy.

New Hampshire's Site Evaluation Committee is deliberating on Noble Environmental's proposal to erect a 99-megawatt wind energy facility in northern Coos County.

The project has caught the attention of several high profile environmental groups in the State including New Hampshire Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, and Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) - all of whom issued strong letters, and in the case of AMC, testimony, detailing the significant impacts to sensitive wildlife habitat should the project proceed. Biologists at New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHF&G) submitted equally strong testimony arguing the project will produce an unreasonable adverse effect on the natural environment.

The 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.

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:

It remains to be seen whether the State of New Hampshire will endorse the agreement signed by NHF&G, AMC, and Noble Environmental. Windaction.org would hope the Committee will hold a higher standard for the State than what NHF&G and AMC have demonstrated. The lesson learned in this case is that we cannot assume those negotiating mitigation settlement agreements have the knowledge, experience, or commitment to protect the natural resources at stake, even when that's their job.

Earlier this month, Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, a radiologist at the Northern Maine Medical Center, conducted interviews with fifteen people living near the industrial wind energy facility in Mars Hill, Maine. The purpose of the interviews was to investigate and record the health effects on those living within 3500-feet of industrial-scale turbines.

On March 25, 2009, Dr. Nissenbaum presented his preliminary findings before the Maine Medical Association. The data, which he characterized as alarming, suggest the residents are experiencing serious health problems related to shadow flicker and noise emissions from the turbines near their homes. The onset of symptoms including sleep disturbance, headaches, dizziness, weight changes, possible increases in blood pressure, as well as increased prescription medication use, all appear to coincide with the time when the turbines were first turned on (December 2006).

Every individual interviewed by Dr. Nissenbaum reported that his or her quality of life had been negatively affected by the turbines. The residents all expressed new or increased feelings of stress, anger, irritability, depression, anxiety, and hopelessness. Quotes cited in the presentation included "Nobody will help us", "No one cares", and "It's very hard watching my child suffer".

While some deficiencies exist in the study as Dr. Nissenbaum details in his presentation, aspects of his findings stand out as being immediately significant. In an interview with Windaction.org, Dr. Nissenbaum asserted "The results for sleep disturbance, headaches, anger, feelings of hopelessness, and incidence of depression symptomatology in this group are so high that despite the small number, and the lack of a control and tests of statistical significance, they jump out at physicians as obviously being significant. The statistical significance tests would just be confirmatory in this case - gilding the lily, if you will".

He added "I did not even get into the issue of the sixteen children who live there. The WHO (World Health Organization) has identified children, along with the elderly, as being particularly susceptible. This would require a fair amount of time, and special expertise, as children manifest in many ways besides, or instead of, simple sleep disturbance including disturbed learning, acting out, etc."

The Medical Staff of Northern Maine Medical Center released a statement in March 2009 calling for the careful siting of wind turbines. Dr. Nissenbaum included an excerpt from that statement in his presentation as follows: "The State of Maine has a vast, unpopulated hinterland. There is little need to site industrial wind developments in proximity to residential communities if there is a risk of negative health effects. Quality of life, quality of place, and a healthful environment should be the right of all residents of Maine, including those of the rural north".

On December 18, 2008, Andrew Fisk of Maine's Department of Environmental Protection informed the residents the State had sent a letter to First Wind stating the wind facility was “currently in compliance with the Control of Noise rules". The State of Maine has washed its hands of the problems of Mars Hill, leaving the families to suffer.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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"!

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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.

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:

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.

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).

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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):

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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."

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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):

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.

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.

The windaction.org database contains over 35,500 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 ).

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.

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.

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 )

Coal	$.44 per MWh
Nat. Gas	$.25 per MWh
Nuclear	$1.59 per MWh
Biomass	$.89 per MWh
Geothermal	$.92 MWh
Hydro	$.67 per MWh
Solar	$24.34 per MWh
Landfill gas	$1.37 per MWh
Wind	$23.37 per MWh