logo
Document

Whistling Ridge Final Adjudicative Order

October 1, 2011
WashingtonGeneral

The Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (WA EFSEC) recently recommended approval, with conditions, of 35 turbines as part of the Whistling Ridge wind energy project. Fifty turbines were defined in the original plan submitted to the State. The final adjudicative order can be downloaded through the links at the bottom of the page. Of particular interest, readers are encouraged to reference the concurring opinion filed by the Council's chairman, James Luce, and included in the order. An excerpt of his letter is provided below.


An excerpt of Chairman James Luce's concurring opinion is provided below.

For reasons explained below, I concur with the Council's recommendations.

This case is a microcosm of how well-intentioned, incremental developed, Federal and State law can have significant, unintended consequences for both our existing energy system and our environment.

Because these are important subjects with far reaching consequences beyond this case, I take judicial liberty to comment on actions that I believe could better serve to protect this system and the environment. My comments are drawn from a lifetime of public service in the energy area, first as senior counsel for the Bonneville Power Administration and for the past ten years as Council Chair. And they bear directly upon our Council's future, and the region's need to better plan for a renewable resource future.

What is needed is a new commitment; a commitment that will allow us to thoughtfully plan where renewable resource should be developer, and where they should not, and to provide expeditious siting with clear and uniform standards across all political subdivisions.

At the outset, all will agree that we seek low cost, abundant, and clean energy. It is good for our economy and for our environment. Our goal should be to protect what we have, and to get more of it.

Energy efficiency is low cost, abundant , and clean, and  testimony confirms that eighty five percent of our needs can be met with energy efficiency. Certainly that is consistent with our goal. And we are also in a "surplus" condition. Nothing could be lower cost than having "a surplus." But energy efficiency is finite, and surplus does not last forever.

We are now in a time of transition; transitioning to a future of renewable resources, in this case wind power. And transition presents both opportunities and challenges.

Wind power has much to commend it. There are no fuel costs, and no air emissions. And it furthers our state's energy policy, with which the Council is committed to act. Wind projects, nevertheless, present challenges. They can cause avian mortality, impact wildlife habitat, leave a long lasting footprint on the landscape, in this case the Columbia River Gorge, and complicate the operation of our most valuable, and already existing renewable resource, the Federal Columbia River Hydro System.

Turning to the instant case, the Council is challenged by the fact that it has no rules for siting renewable resources. This fact, coupled with our requirement to provide an adjudicatory hearing, has, in my opinion, contributed to an unnecessarily lengthy and costly proceeding where a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement might well have sufficed.

For guidance, we look to our previous decisions, organic statutes and regulations developed primarily for thermal projects. And we use our best judgment to "balance" competing considerations. Our laws and regulations presuppose a compelling need for energy resources, tempered by a requirement that the resource enhance the esthetic and recreational opportunities available to the public while providing abundant power at  reasonable cost. All of this is to be done "in the public interest." And yet what is "the public interest?" Absent rules, the Council proceeds on a case-by case basis and our decisions inevitable leave room for questioning whether the correct result was reached.

Whistling Ridge is just such a case. The Council recommends approval of 35 wind turbines just outside the boundaries of the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Act (NSA). The NSA is one of only two such "National Scenic Areas" authorized by Congress; its relevance to this case speaking primarily t the fact that the Gorge is recognized as an environmental wonder. The applicant is a well-respected steward of the land, seeking to diversify its business and provide employment to the community. Skamania County will benefit from increased tax revenue, as much as $700,000 yearly. These are legitimate and reasonable aspirations.

On the other hand, tens of thousands visit the Gorge yearly to recreate and enjoy the beauty of a natural landscape, a landscape also treasured by many who live in the area and oppose the project. Wind turbines are not part of the natural landscape. That landscape will now be altered during the day by 430 foot towers and by night with warning lights required by the Federal Aviation Administration. How many visitors will be dissuaded from coming if this project is build, or how many may now be attracted by it, is unknown. Some local residents may chose to relocate, while others may welcome positive economic benefits. But there is no question that there  will be a significant impact in this environmentally sensitive area, especially to its unparalleled viewscapes and possibly to its avian and other wildlife populations.

As concern the Council's "balancing directive," I cannot say that this project "enhance [s}... esthetic and recreational opportunities...." It is, as modified by the Council's order, at best arguably neutral in this regard. And, as earlier noted, the legislature's directive to the Council to assure "abundant power at reasonable cost" seems somewhat less forceful when the region has an existing surplus. However, the economics of a particular project are not an appropriate subject for Council inquiry and, for reasons explained below, the "esthetics" issue is not determinative.

Nor is it the Council's role to say to the developer "find a different site" or "start an energy efficiency business." We are a siting Council, charged by law with the responsibility to act on the application before us.

So considered, the Council's recommendation reduces or eliminates viewscape impact from the vast majority of important viewing areas within the NSA. It is consistent with and in some respects exceeds the Council for the Environment's recommendations. Moreover, there is no assurance that these protections would occur if the project were sited locally, and Skamania County has asked the Governor, acting through the Council, to make the decision.  Finally, the project furthers our state's strong policy and legal commitment to renewable resources, which in turn reduces our carbon footprint. These factors, for me, support a recommendation of approval.

As for the future, and as noted above, there are critical issues regarding the Council's role and the region's ability to effectively plan for continued renewable resource development.

~~~

In summary, renewable resource development is likely to continue its robust growth. The Whistling Ridge project, as modified, should be approved. The Council's siting role and the need for the adjudication process deserves discussion. And to provide a regional structure which could assist Council's such as ours in future cases, I look to those with authority to consider a "site banking" plan to designate appropriate renewable resource sites, and adoption of "protected areas" to discourage development of those not so designated. Absent such a plan, admittedly not easy and not without controversy, economic consideration will be paramount and the broader public interest in protecting the environment could finish second. This is no one's interest, least of all renewable resource developers.

Attachments

Wr Adj Order 868 10 7 2011

March 13, 2013

Whistling Ridge Luce Opinion

March 13, 2013


Source:http://www.efsec.wa.gov/whist…

Share this post
Follow Us
RSS:XMLAtomJSON
Donate
Donate
Stay Updated

We respect your privacy and never share your contact information. | LEGAL NOTICES

Contact Us

WindAction.org
Lisa Linowes, Executive Director
phone: 603.838.6588

Email contact

General Copyright Statement: Most of the sourced material posted to WindAction.org is posted according to the Fair Use doctrine of copyright law for non-commercial news reporting, education and discussion purposes. Some articles we only show excerpts, and provide links to the original published material. Any article will be removed by request from copyright owner, please send takedown requests to: info@windaction.org

© 2024 INDUSTRIAL WIND ACTION GROUP CORP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
WEBSITE GENEROUSLY DONATED BY PARKERHILL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION