In the area of fossil fuel emissions, emotions seem to have obliterated logic. Pollution control laws have brought about necessary changes, much like that of sewage control laws. Virginia and California are the only two states that must buy electricity from other states at the present time. Therefore, when the crunch of limited supply comes, as it will, these two states will be the first to suffer. The experts looking into alternate energy sources are coming up with dismal solutions.

The current political wind is in favor of the developers and industrial wind energy interests, thereby significantly influencing the pressure on our natural environment. If the trend continues, how much of our national, state and private forests will remain when our fast expanding population will likely be desperate for a little breathing room in the future - 25, 50 and 100 years from today? I am well aware of the issues of global warming and the nation's energy requirements and am totally convinced that industrial wind energy projects on the ridge tops of the mountains in the Eastern United States is not the solution and unworthy of the billions of dollars that we are bestowing upon this industry. A major reason for the increasing opposition to the development of large industrial wind projects in the mountains is loss of visual amenity, the effects of highly visible vertical man-made structures with rotating blades located in predominantly horizontal, static natural hillscapes. The loss of beautiful scenery, favorite views and inspiring landscapes are objections dismissed by large corporate developers as emotional and subjective. ...In conclusion, the negative issues, problems and drawbacks of siting industrial wind turbines on the pristine mountains is not the answer our nation's need for energy sources. Why are we allowing them to infiltrate our ecologically fragile landscapes and cause huge negative impacts?

A company has applied to the Federal Aviation Administration for permission to build 131 wind turbines along 18 miles of ridge line between Virginia and West Virginia. The 440-foot turbines would tower above national forest land in Shenandoah, Rockingham and Hardy counties. If approved, work on the project could start as early as 2010. That, of course, is a pretty big if. As attractive as the concept is - letting wind generate electricity instead of air-polluting coal or expensive Middle Eastern oil - the wind farm proposal will almost certainly trigger a battle royal between corporate interests and valley residents.

Thus, under the guise of environmental values, public policy in Virginia is promoting renewable energy. But under a different set of environmental values, we'll find that many of those projects are undesirable. To my way of thinking, energy conservation is the most pristine environmental policy of all -- avoid consuming the electricity in the first place. Of course, our current regulatory apparatus encourages Dominion and other electric utilities to pursue renewable energy sources, whatever the cost, because they can pass on the cost to rate payers. By contrast, power companies in Virginia only undercut their market when they invest in conservation measures. We're getting what we wished for, and we may not like it.

On Jan. 31, The Recorder newspaper printed an interview that Judge Theodore "Ted" V. Morrison Jr. gave to Anne Adams, staff writer for the paper. He was one of three commissioners on Virginia's State Corporation Commission, which recently approved Virginia's first industrial wind project in Highland County over well-organized protests from residents and landowners. Morrison has been on the SCC for 19 years ...Morrison stressed the federal production tax credits are what make commercial wind facilities attractive, but the reality is the renewable electricity utilities will never substantially change the country's need for larger power plants.

We've said before that it's important that Highland do this soul-searching together as a community before charting its course. The initial signal has been that the development is worth the cost. But we do worry that the big picture can get lost in what's essentially a locally focused debate. ...Wind power might seem a hopelessly inadequate measure, compared with our energy needs and it's only a drop in the bucket. But it's time we get busy trying to figure out how to fill that new bucket, because the old one has a hole in it.

Once again, the wind energy industry wants to avoid reasonable regulations to protect wildlife. (RTD 1/19/08) On their behalf, Senator Wagner, ( R Va Beach), has submitted a bill which would exclude wind factories with less than 50 megawatt capacity from any state regulations. For six years, I have watched this fledgling Virginia industry at every avenue, seek to avoid the issue of wildlife protection. ...We taxpayers have a right to demand that these developers be responsible, and especially that our subsidies to the wind industry not be used to the detriment of our wildlife.

Those looking for a sense of closure on the topic of wind energy in Highland County aren't going to get it anytime soon. The State Corporation Commission's approval two weeks ago for the Virginia's first wind energy utility was another big step toward getting 400-foot turbines erected on our ridge lines, but most involved agree Highlanders are unlikely to see blades spinning this year. ...Overall, Virginians should feel pretty good about how thoroughly the SCC examined HNWD's application for the facility. Protecting the environment - not McBride's bottom line - was clearly important to commissioners and other state agencies weighing in on the decision. The conditions attached to the permit indicate HNWD will be held accountable for environmental damage across the board if the utility adversely impacts in the pristine Appalachian area where it would be built. State agencies, including the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, will have virtually unfettered access on a daily basis to study the facility and watch for problems - something other states and utilities have rarely provided.

Partly because of this experience, I am a strong advocate of wind power. But the letter from Richard White ("Windmills won't destroy mountaintops," Nov. 30) advocating 40,000 wind turbines along the Appalachian Mountains is so absurd that it has caused me to write in response to the nonsense proposed by local fans (pun intended) of wind power.

Alexander Skirpan, the hearing examiner, made several recommendations most will appreciate, including requiring mitigation and monitoring throughout the life of the project as needed. ...But most still retain hope the project will never come to fruition. Hurdles remain. Investors will be wary of HNWD's decision to ignore strong advice about getting a habitat conservation plan and incidental take permit for endangered species. There are still lawyers waiting in the wings for the first time one of those raptors is found dead at the foot of a wind tower. Without taking the best steps to mitigate its own financial outlook, HNWD may not be able to get backing it needs.

Bats serve important ecological functions that keep natural systems in balance, especially insect control. Their diminishment could impact humans in ways ranging from decreased crop yields and increased use of pesticides to greater incidence of insect-borne diseases. There is a risk that the public will accept wind energy as an easy solution to global warming without understanding the necessity of monitoring and mitigation requirements. It is important for the public to recognize that while the proposed development could produce up to 39 megawatts of power under ideal conditions, eastern turbines average less than a third of that amount over the course a year, and much less than a third during the summer when electricity demand is highest.

All the talk about monitoring and, "moving forward with mitigation risk," as The Native Conservancy puts it, is farcical. What kind of conservancy is that? A meaningful monitoring system would require it to be a robust scientifically designed plan with continuous on-site day and night monitoring for the life of the project. The rub is, who would be the monitor? ...The only type of monitoring that makes sense is to do it prior to construction of the towers. To do so after construction is a meaningless scam.

The evidence is clear. At this juncture in the debate on whether to build industrial wind utilities in the Allegheny Mountains, there is one point on which nearly all experts agree: No one knows enough about the effects these 400-foot towers could have on our unique and sensitive environment and we should do everything possible to find out more before any more are erected.

If past experience is suggestive of the future, it’s very likely the State Corporation Commission will support Highland New Wind Development’s proposal to open Highland County up to the business and consequences of industrial wind power. SCC commissioners will be acting under the cover of the recommendation of their hearing officer based on the narrowest examination of the law and the facts. It would be premature, however, to lose hope that justice will not yet prevail. Commissioners are acutely aware of the importance of this decision as the first wind utility proposed in Virginia. They must also be aware that local governments in other mountainous areas of the state where wind plants have been proposed are balking at the prospect. They will not want to be seen as acting like a rubber stamp. And if they do, there remains the Virginia Supreme Court as a hedge against what will prove a terrible mistake in years to come. Those justices will be hard pressed to ignore the manner in which Highland’s supervisors circumvented the county’s planning process in order to impose their will over the objections of the great majority of their constituents.

Will we increasingly rely upon new energy efficiency measures, conservation and renewable energy sources? Yes. All of those important objectives are addressed in the legislation. But will those efforts by themselves suffice? No. That is why financial incentives have been included in the new legislation to ensure the availability of capital dollars crucial to building the state's 21st-century infrastructure, including major environmental programs that will benefit Virginia residents. Never has Virginia's potential economic growth been greater. But growth, in itself, poses its own set of challenges. Thanks to last week's overwhelming votes by the General Assembly, Virginia will soon have a framework in place to fulfill its potential. Dominion will be able to attract investors and acquire the capital it needs to construct major energy projects. In short, we will keep the lights burning today, tomorrow and long into the future.

If there could ever be a bill custom-tailored to boost Highland New Wind Development’s plans for a wind energy utility in Highland County, this one is it. Sen. Frank Wagner introduced legislation in this session of the General Assembly that not only flies in the face of proper land use procedures, but is designed specifically to help HNWD get its project up and running. His bill would change the law regarding utility plan reviews by local governing bodies. The way HNWD’s project has been handled here is precisely what residents and landowners are challenging in an appeals process now slated for a full hearing before Virginia’s Supreme Court. Wagner may argue his bill would help companies statewide who hope to develop renewable energy, but it’s a thinly veiled attempt to help this particular company industrialize Allegheny Mountain, and it needs to be resoundly defeated by the House this week.

"Homes served" should never be used in connection with wind or solar energy. The concept "homes served" probably can be defended, but only if the generating unit being described is a reliable or "dispatchable" unit (one that will produce electricity whenever needed) and the calculations of "homes served" are done honestly. Use of "homes served" is not defensible when referring to generating units that are available only intermittently, such as those powered by wind and solar energy, because the electricity can't be counted on when it is needed by customers. No "homes" are really served by intermittent wind or solar energy unless the people in those homes have expensive battery storage systems or they are willing to have electricity only when the wind blows or the sun shines.

Any way you cut it, the State Corporation Commission staff’s decision to recommend approval of Mac McBride’s wind project on Allegheny Mountain was a pre-determined cop out. Because Highland County’s supervisors long ago dismissed the concerns of the great majority of their constituents about the negative effects of industrial scale wind power on tourism and viewsheds, the SCC staff was also able to sidestep the heart of the matter in its purely technical support of HNWD’s bid for a state permit to begin construction. All the heartfelt testimony of those who would be directly affected by the project related to the county’s beauty, history, cultural heritage and future opportunity based on these factors was simply ignored. SCC personnel said those things had already been considered by HighSland County supervisors when they reviewed the company’s application for a local conditional use permit. Most Highland residents believe their elected officials failed in this process, and the majority of other appointed leaders who got involved agreed they could not support HNWD’s plans. The examination of HNWD’s application by county supervisors did not begin to sufficiently assess the profound impacts this project could have. Two of the three on our board chose to lean on biased information and a subjective review of the county’s land use plan, and ignore the pleas of their constituents who came to them armed with an army of research showing these leaders they didn’t begin to have all the facts.

Few people now doubt the reality of global warming and the necessity of reducing fossil fuels. But it does not follow that wind power is a good alternative source when compared with solar with its greater reliability, efficiency and lesser adverse effect on the bio-ecosystem. Would it not be better to use an energy source that does not destroy what it attempts to save? You and your fellow commissioners have an opportunity to save one of the last great places from what would be tantamount to a rape of Nature, and by so doing you could set an example of reasonableness for others who make decisions concerning the energy crisis. Let your legacies you leave to your children, grandchildren and to children as yet unborn be that they shall not be deprived of a place where they can experience Nature in all her beauty and complexity.

The problem of carbon emissions and global warming is finally and rightly emerging as a major public concern. However, it remains to be seen whether public policy will move beyond wishful thinking and symbolic gesture to meaningful responses. Although the proposed Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) legislation may seem like a step in the right direction, closer examination reveals that what little it may achieve in terms of benefit will be obtained at a disproportionately high cost. Simply stated, the proposed RPS legislation will not seriously reduce demand for electricity generation by traditional sources, and it will drive industrial-scale wind energy development in some of our most highly valued, scenic, and ecologically sensitive areas — including our mountain ridges and the Chesapeake Bay.