Eric Rosenbloom's comments on a report written by Eleanor Tillinghast on the poor performance of Vermont's Searsburg wind project. An environmental advocate in southwest Massachusetts, Ms. Tillinghast's report was published in The Caledonian-Record of St. Johnsbury (Vt) on December 17, 2003 but, unfortunately, is not available on line.

Energy Policy General Vermont

This report illustrates how a typical ISO might assess the capacity value of energy sources within an energy portfolio and the negligible capacity value accorded industrial wind. An excerot of the report discussing the limitations of wind is provided below. The full report can be accessed by clicking the links on the page.

Energy Policy California

...the NYSRC stated that the design of a Renewable Portfolio Standard ("RPS") may have significant impact on the reliability of the New York State bulk power system.....

Energy Policy New York

Energy Policy USA

Several detailed technical investigations of grid ancillary service impacts of wind power plants in the United States have recently been performed. These studies were applied to Xcel Energy (in Minnesota) and PacifiCorp and the Bonneville Power Administration (both in the northwestern United States). Although the approaches vary, three utility time frames appear to be most at issue: regulation, load following, and unit commitment. This paper describes and compares the analytic frameworks from recent analysis and discusses the implications and cost estimates of wind integration. The findings of these studies indicate that relatively large-scale wind generation will have an impact on power system operation and costs, but these impacts and costs are relatively low at penetration rates that are expected over the next several years.

Energy Policy USA

"In a number of European nations, offshore wind farms are well established. However, in the United States, the concept is relatively new and an established approval process for offshore wind farm permitting does not yet exist. This document identifies the approval process one would need to take in order to site an offshore wind farm in coastal waters of the U.S., particularly North Carolina." Editor's Note: The U.S. Minerals Management Service, a branch of the Interior Department, has review responsibility for offshore projects per the 2005 Energy Policy Act passed in May 2005.

Energy Policy USA North Carolina

"In a number of European nations, offshore wind farms are well established. However, in the United States, the concept is relatively new and an established approval process for offshore wind farm permitting does not yet exist. This document identifies the approval process one would need to take in order to site an offshore wind farm in coastal waters of the U.S., particularly North Carolina." Editor's Note: The U.S. Minerals Management Service, a branch of the Interior Department, has review responsibility for offshore projects per the 2005 Energy Policy Act passed in May 2005.

Energy Policy North Carolina USA

Unfortunately, there is a major flaw in all this current "fixative" thinking. Simply put, no matter how strong any Senate mandate, the technology needed to stabilize global atmospheric levels of CO2 does not exist. This crucial fact, noted in science journals, is woefully ignored.

Pollution Energy Policy USA

Many people accept the well-publicized claim that windmills will be able to supply a significant share of our country’s growing requirements for electricity. They also believe that wind energy is environmentally benign and a way to avoid emissions from other sources of energy for electric generation. Political leaders in windy states have even been persuaded that “wind farms” will provide economic benefits, principally through rental payments to landowners. As proposals to build “wind farms” have proliferated, however, the adverse impacts of wind energy are becoming clear to a growing number of citizens, consumers and taxpayers. They are learning that “wind energy” has adverse environmental, ecological, scenic and property value impacts. They are learning that many of the claimed benefits of wind energy are misleading or false, and that the true costs of wind energy are higher than advertised -- with those higher costs falling on taxpayers and electric customers.

Taxes & Subsidies Energy Policy General USA

Michigan mostly has wind resources of class 3 or lower, making wind power production costs high and non cost-competitive vs. conventional fossil power sources.

Energy Policy General Michigan

It's time to jump off the Production Tax Credit treadmill and work toward a more open, transparent support mechanism such as the Electricity Feed Law.

Taxes & Subsidies Energy Policy USA

Energy Policy General Maryland

Energy Policy New York

The story reveals that Radnor officials were misled and don’t understand that commercial wind energy is not an environmentally benign source of electricity. The officials are probably not aware of certain facts such as the following:

Energy Policy General Pennsylvania

The purpose of this report is to identify and characterize the range of options available to municipalities for purchasing green power and improving the efficiency with which electricity is consumed. Municipalities have several viable options for purchasing electricity in a fashion that is consistent with the energy, cost, and environmental goals of the community. Municipalities are in a better position to achieve certain policy goals than are individual customers through their collective buying power. A municipality’s advantage lies in the size of its electricity load, in the potential for more sophisticated decision-making than individual customers can apply, and in the potential for reflecting more of the public interest in the decision-making process.

Energy Policy General Massachusetts

Comments to FERC by the New England Conference of Public Utility Commissions and the Vermont Department of Public Service

Energy Policy Connecticut Massachusetts Maine New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

Comments to FERC by the New England Conference of Public Utility Commissions and the Vermont Department of Public Service

Energy Policy Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

Comments to FERC by the New England Conference of Public Utility Commissions and the Vermont Department of Public Service

Energy Policy Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

Comments to FERC by the New England Conference of Public Utility Commissions and the Vermont Department of Public Service

Energy Policy Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

Comments to FERC by the New England Conference of Public Utility Commissions and the Vermont Department of Public Service

Energy Policy Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont