Documents from Maryland
The testimony of Robert Scott that is accessible from this page describes the possible visual impacts of the Skipjack offshore wind energy facility proposed for off the coast of Maryland. The developers of the Skipjack facility are proposing to use the Haliade-X1 twelve-megawatt turbines. According to Mr. Sullivan, the Haliade-X turbines are 70% larger than the turbines that were originally proposed for the site and for which a permit was granted. The turbines will be visible to the unaided eye at distances greater than 36 statute miles, with turbine blade movement visible up to 29 statute miles, and often visible at 24 statute miles. Mr. Sullivan's testimony was provided to the Maryland PSC on behalf of Ocean City, MD. Mr. Sullivan's full testimony can be downloaded by clicking on the document links on this page.
In a letter from the Mayor of Ocean City, Rick Meehan, to the Maryland Public Service Commission the Mayor highlights the objections to wind turbines built off the coast of the Ocean City and the visual impacts of the turbines. The letter states that "The Town of Ocean City while in support for clean energy in Maryland, has opposed the size and location of the wind turbines. As the size of the turbines has increased, so has our concern for the visual impact they will have on our community and our property values.” In response to the size of the windmills now being proposed, the letter further said, “In order to avoid the destruction of our natural view forever and the negative impact on our community, the Town of Ocean City is insisting these turbines be moved at least 33 miles from shore.” The Mayor's letter can be accessed by clicking the document links on this page.
On January 14, 2016, Dan's Mountain Wind Force LLC filed an application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) with the Maryland PSC to construct a 59.9 megawatt wind energy facility in Allegany County Maryland. The application to the PSC came after the company could not obtain a permit though the County's permitting process and after they asked for and received an exemption from the state for a CPCN back in 2008. Dan's Mountain returned to the PSC in an effort to go around the County's denials. Following an adjudicative hearing, this order was issued by the PSC denying the project. The Findings and Conclusions by Terry J. Romine, the Chief Public Utility Law Judge for the Maryland PSC, can be found below. The full order can be accessed by clicking the document icon on this page.
Public Utility Law Judge Dennis H. Sober of the Maryland Public Service Commission, has denied a permit for Apex Clean Energy, Inc to construct the Mills Branch Solar project proposed for Kent County Maryland. The project was expected to have a nameplate capacity of 60 MW spread across 330 acres of Maryland farmland. The project was opposed by the Kent County board of Commissioners and residents in the area. Apex previously tried to site a wind energy facility in the same area on 5,000 acres but opposition to the turbines forced the company to change from wind to solar. A portion of Judge Sober's decision is provided below. The full decision can be accessed by clicking the document icon on this page.
This research examines the impact of offshore wind power projects on beach recreation on the East Coast of the United States. Data was collected from a 2015 online survey of 2,051 randomly drawn residents over 20 states on the east coast. The data were stratified to oversample beachgoers, but included non-beachgoers as well. Respondents were shown visual simulations of offshore wind power projects as they would have appeared on a beach they recently visited and were asked how their presence would have affected their beach trips. A summary of the findings is provided below. The full report can be accessed by selecting the document links on this page.
This letter, sent to the Kent County, Maryland County Commissioners, captures the position of the Queen Anne's County Commissioners regarding APEX's Mills Branch wind energy proposal. The letter is provided below in full. It can also be accessed by clicking the links on this page.
Pioneer Green Energy has been promoting a 25-turbine wind energy facility (599-feet tall each) to be sited in Somerset County, Maryland, across the Chesapeake Bay from the Pax River naval base in an area surrounded by dozens of active bald eagle nests. Significant objections to the project were raised by the Navy and local residents. The Maryland State Senate and Assembly voted overwhelmingly to delay the project until more information could be determined about the impacts on military radar. Objections were also raised by members of Maryland's Congressional delegation. On March 20, 2015, Pioneer Green notified the Somerset County Commissioners that the project was being placed on indefinite suspension. The letter is provided below and can be accessed by clicking the links on this page.
The Deputy Secretary of Defense has filed an official objection to the Great Bay Wind Energy Center project proposed by Pioneer Green Energy to be located in Somerset County, Maryland, and in the vicinity of Naval Air Station Patuxent River (NAS Patuxent River) and the Atlantic Test Range (ATR). This notification follows a detailed study of methods to mitigate for impacts of spinning turbines on the naval base mission. The objections raised and conclusion of the DOD report are provided below. The full report can be accessed by clicking the links on this page.
This letter, signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work, concludes that the turbines proposed for Somerset County in Maryland would "significantly impair or degrade the capability of the Department of Defense to conduct research, development, testing and evaluation, and operations, or to maintain military readiness." Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-5), praised the action by the Defense department and stated that the turbines posed "a significant threat to the mission and world-class stealth radar system at Patuxent River Naval Air Station."
The U.S. Navy officially objects to the proposed Great Bay Energy wind facility due to unacceptable impacts to military radar at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station. The text of the letter is provided below. The full letter can be downloaded from the links on this page.
Save Western Maryland, the Maryland Conservation Council, Ajax Eastman, and L. Daniel Boone filed a formal complaint in US District Court claiming Constellation Energy violated the endangered species act for failing to seek and obtain an incidental take permit in reference to the Constallation wind project located on Backbone Mountain in Garrett County, Maryland. The full complaint can be accessed by clicking on the link at the bottom of this page.
Notice of intent to sue was filed in reference to Constellation Green Energy LLC's installation and long-term operation of wind turbines in Garrett County, Maryland. The project will consist of 28 industrial scale wind towers along 8 miles of the ridge of Backbone Mountain. Available evidence demonstrates that the Constellation wind project will almost certainly result in unauthorized takes of Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats.
Jon Boone, an intervenor on the Clipper Wind proposal before the Maryland PSC presented these comments to the PSC in regard to Case No: 8938 Criterion Wind. The Criterion Wind project is the same project as the Clipper Wind proposal only reduced down to 70MW to qualify for fast-track review.
The Citizens For A Responsible Energy Future sent this letter to all landowners in Garrett County, MD. The full letter can be downloaded by clicking on the link below.
This important peer-reviewed paper written by bat expert Dr. Thomas H. Kunz et al identifies the significant risk wind turbines pose for migratory and local bat populations in the mid-Atlantic Highlands region of the United States. The projected number of annual fatalities of bats at wind energy facilities in the Highlands in the year 2020 can reach up to 111,000 bats.
This document includes studies in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia.
Rube Goldberg would admire the utter purity of the pretensions of wind technology in pursuit of a safer modern world, claiming to be saving the environment while wreaking havoc upon it. But even he might be astonished by the spin of wind industry spokesmen. Consider the comments made by the American Wind Industry Association.s Christina Real de Azua in the wake of the virtual nonperformance of California.s more than 13,000 wind turbines in mitigating the electricity crisis precipitated by last July.s .heat storm.. .You really don.t count on wind energy as capacity,. she said. .It is different from other technologies because it can.t be dispatched.. (84) The press reported her comments solemnly without question, without even a risible chortle. Because they perceive time to be running out on fossil fuels, and the lure of non-polluting wind power is so seductive, otherwise sensible people are promoting it at any cost, without investigating potential negative consequences-- and with no apparent knowledge of even recent environmental history or grid operations. Eventually, the pedal of wishful thinking and political demagoguery will meet the renitent metal of reality in the form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (85) and public resistance, as it has in Denmark and Germany. Ironically, support for industrial wind energy because of a desire for reductions in fossil-fueled power and their polluting emissions leads ineluctably to nuclear power, particularly under pressure of relentlessly increasing demand for reliable electricity. Environmentalists who demand dependable power generation at minimum environmental risk should take care about what they wish for, more aware that, with Rube Goldberg machines, the desired outcome is unlikely to be achieved. Subsidies given to industrial wind technology divert resources that could otherwise support effective measures, while uninformed rhetoric on its behalf distracts from the discourse.and political action-- necessary for achieving more enlightened policy.
The attached two documents include the MD Public Service Commision's (PSC) proposed Siting Guidelines for wind energy facilities in MD, and a detailed critique of this draft by Dan Boone, a conservation biologist with nearly 30 years of professional experience involving wildlife biology, forest ecology, and biodiversity protection.
In a paper recently published on line on September 28,2005 in "Contemporary Aesthetics", Jon Boone responds to Yuriko Saito's "Machines in the Ocean: The Aesthetics of Wind Farms" by arguing that Saito's search for the right aesthetic justification for windplants sited in the ocean (as well as on shore) is predicated on a false assumption, i.e. that industrial wind power is both benign and effective.
Jon Boone's responses to Maryland's Dept. of Natural Resources' request for data regarding his opposition to the proposed Roth Rock wind plant. Jon Boone's responses to Synergics's requests for data are available in the NWW library as are his direct testimony before the Maryland Public Service Commission and the 'brief' he submitted to the PSC.